Do you belong to a nursing association?

Nurses General Nursing

Published

  1. Do you belong to a nurses association?

    • 79
      Yes
    • 36
      National
    • 20
      State
    • 52
      One specific to department (CC, ICU, OR, ER, Peds)
    • 126
      More than one of the above
    • 163
      None

476 members have participated

Do you belong to a Nurses Association? Do you feel it's worth it? I'm deciding on my options. Thanks -Andrea

Specializes in Medical.

I belong to, and am a representative of, the Australian Nursing Federation, which is Australia's nursing union. I know union membership is a hot-button issue with you guys in the US, and there's certainly a political aspect to the ANF, but I've never felt that it didn't represent all nurses.

For a while I belonged to the Royal College of Nursing, Australia, which is more concerned with academic achievement and research than bedside and industrial issues. It did concern me that my membership certificate was more ornate than my grad dip was :uhoh21: I found that it didn't really meet my needs.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I belong to, and am a representative of, the Australian Nursing Federation, which is Australia's nursing union. I know union membership is a hot-button issue with you guys in the US, and there's certainly a politican aspect to the ANF, but I've never felt that it didn't represent all nurses.

For a while I belonged to the Roayl College of Nursing, Australia, which is more concerned with academic achievement and research than bedside and industrial issues. It did concern me that my membership certificate was more ornate than my grad dip was :uhoh21: I found that it didn't really meet my needs.

I agree with you on that the union's do not represent all nursing areas. We are in the Operating Room and the union never fights for us. Even though we can not take a nurse from the floor to float in to the O.R. we are still not considered a specialty. The union pays per years of your experience as a nurse and on a clinical ladder, that is the only thing good as a RN because if you don't kiss your leader's tail you still get your raise when it is due. Our union does not care about your diploma either just on your years experience as a nurse. Take Care, Bobbie RNFA

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I belong to AACN - Amer Assoc of Critical Care Nurses. I joined to get my CCRN certification and I've been to the last two national conventions and they were really really great.

I don't belong to ANA and wouldn't - for 2 reasons.

1. They are political. They don't push for better nursing; they push for candidates. I'm not a John Kerry fan and I didn't think it was a good expenditure of my money to support an organization that spends its money contrary to my beliefs. Likewise, I'm not a H. Clinton fan, and when ANA jumps on her bandwagon in 2 yrs, it won't be with my support.

2. ANA advocates BSN Entry, which is the same thing to me as saying "We are an organization for all nurses - but not really, if you're only an ADN" - If my professional organizations wants to scoff at me, fine, just don't expect me to support it. -- This is why I say that this (yes, I know, tired old) debate is costly to nursing. Because heaven knows we could use a strong professional organization. I only brought it up because it's relevant to why I don't belong to ANA.

~faith,

Timothy.

I feel the same! i was a member of ana for yrs, until i finally got fed up with their political bias, i have and will always remain a member of my specialty org.AWHONN

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I belong to Sigma Theta Tau International. It is an international organization for nurses. I haven't had the chance to look into additional nursing organizations, but this thread is helping a lot.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Medical.
I agree with you on that the union's do not represent all nursing areas.

Actually, what I said was "but I've never felt that it didn't represent all nurses." Using a double negative may have made this unclear - I've found our union does represent all nurses. However, as I posted earlier, I know that this doesn't seem to be the case in the US.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Oncology/Hematology Office Nursing.

This has been interesting thread, I belong to Oncology Nursing Society and ANA for several yes. ANA gives me a voice in the legislature and ONS gives the ground to futher my knowledge and give me standards I can use in cancer care.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

Did you know that there are 2.9 million RNs in the U.S. but only 150,000 members of the ANA?

What kind of professional organization chooses to represent only 5% of its constituent members? Oh, it IS a choice. By limiting their scope to BSN and ANP and higher nurses, the ANA limits it membership. That doesn't stop them from CLAIMING to represent all nurses.

They just don't represent the voices of all RNs.

Or any LPNs/LVNs.

Or students, for that matter.

The ANA disenfranchises the majority of nurses while contradictorily claims to represent all nurses. That's their choice. And THAT's why the ANA isn't a professional organization that can take nursing into the future.

We need a new professional organization: one that actually represents nurses.

By contrast, there are 700,000 Doctors in the U.S. and 650,000 of them are members of the AMA. 92% of Doctors belong to their professional organization.

Do you think this might be because the AMA faithfully represents the issues of ALL DOCTORS?

Think about that. There are only 25% as many doctors as there are nurses in the U.S., but there are 425% more doctors actually represented in a professional organization. As a percentage of their respective professions, there are EIGHTY SEVEN PERCENT MORE doctors in their main professional organization then nurses! Now, which organization do you think has more heft?

~faith,

Timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER/Trauma.
Did you know that there are 2.9 million RNs in the U.S. but only 150,000 members of the ANA?

What kind of professional organization chooses to represent only 5% of its constituent members?

By contrast, there are 700,000 Doctors in the U.S. and 650,000 of them are members of the AMA. 92% of Doctors belong to their professional organization.

Think about that. There are only 25% as many doctors as their are nurses in the U.S., but there are 425% more doctors actually represented in a professional organization. Which organization do you think has more heft?

~faith,

Timothy.

*Ouch*
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.

only 25% of physicians are members of american medical association...

after decline, ama reports small rise in membership

the american medical association has seen a small rise in membership after a decade of decline in their ranks. this is good news in light of recent reports that the united states could be faced with a physician shortage in coming years.

the organization has reported a 2.5 percent increase in 2005 over the previous year, which translates into 3,300 more physicians. as a result, ama dues revenue increased for the first time in a decade. overall, the ama reported a $28.1 million operating profit for the year, the organization said.

nearly a quarter of all medical doctors and osteopathic physicians in the united states are ama members — and including medical students, the organization had 244,005 members in 2005.

http://www.healthimaging.com/content/view/4511/89/

back to basics; ama simplifies philosophy on membership modern ... after months of surveys, studies and focus groups, the american medical association's latest attempt to reverse a decades-long decline in membership boils...

--------

because of difference in licensure and scope of practice, one organization can not represent both levels of nursing, especially when unions are involved due to labor laws.

ana membership is open to anyone with registered nurse credential in the us. affiliate membership options start at $25.00/year

ana membership

check out ana's annual stakeholders report 2005 to see the work they are focusing on.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
only 25% of physicians are members of american medical association...

after decline, ama reports small rise in membership

the american medical association has seen a small rise in membership after a decade of decline in their ranks. this is good news in light of recent reports that the united states could be faced with a physician shortage in coming years.

the organization has reported a 2.5 percent increase in 2005 over the previous year, which translates into 3,300 more physicians. as a result, ama dues revenue increased for the first time in a decade. overall, the ama reported a $28.1 million operating profit for the year, the organization said.

nearly a quarter of all medical doctors and osteopathic physicians in the united states are ama members — and including medical students, the organization had 244,005 members in 2005.

http://www.healthimaging.com/content/view/4511/89/

i stand corrected, that'll teach me to get my info from the ama's website. although, 250,000 out of 700,000 is more like 35%.

but, still, the point is valid: 25% is 5 times (35% is 7 times) the percentage of nurses in their professional union. and, it still translates to 100,000 more doctors being involved in their organization then nursing, even though nurses have 4 times the number of practioners.

and that speaks to power.

and your point about not being able to represent all nurses due to its union affiliations is valid, and explains why a professional organization not vested in unions could be more inclusive.

the ana can adopt a more 'member-centered' approach all they want, until they cast off the 'bsn-entry' position and the overt insult that adns are 'technical' nurses - something with absolutely no historical validity, they disenfranchise as many nurses as they represent, even if you limit that pool to rns only.

if they want to move to bsn-standard over bsn-entry, and promote, maybe even mandate, a move towards bsn without disenfranchising a valid and working model that does enfranchise non-traditional students, i can buy that.

but, as long as they purposely insult me with a 'technical' slur that has no basis - and never had a basis - in reality, i turn my backs on them. the sooner they fall completely by the wayside, the better. that will be all the more quickly a professional organization can rise that truly represents all nurses.

the ana doesn't represent me and more then half of my peers. that is why their membership roll has been steadily decreasing. they've 'principled' themselves out of relevance.

~faith,

timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

For the ANA in 1965 to harken back to outdated concepts and adopt those terms -'technical' and 'professional' - was nothing more then an intentional slur, a backhand at the nurses that surpassed their expectations by BEING the professional nurses that were needed.

This isn't the old ADN/BSN debate. I can see the validity of BSN. But, I don't see the point to call me a slur in order to promote that concept. Unless, the intent is just to disenfranchise me. That, the ANA has done. I don't 'buy-in' to their agenda because I'd first have to 'buy-in' to the slur that I'm a 'technical' nurse.

Until the ANA formally retracts its unnecessary and unprofessional slur, apologizes for it, and promotes BSN on grounds other then academic elitism, I wash my hands of them.

The ANA didn't merely create controvery in 1965 and moving forward with its proposal. That deserves professional debate. No, the controversy that roared was the unprofessional and unnecessary nature of its name-calling. The result is that the ANA polarized an issue about which it was seeking consensus. And, they polarized themselves.

And that is why this is on context with this thread. It, along with the polarization involved with ANA's protracted fight with NNOC, explains why we have a crippled, polarized national organization.

And it explains its dismal and shrinking 5% membership. And I hope someone at the ANA is reading this: THAT's why your membership rolls are steadily falling. Or rather, why they haven't consistently been higher.

As it is, I resent the ANA counting 2.9 million RNs as its constituent base. Make that 900,000. They DON'T represent me - and the majority of RNs like me. And until I hear the words, "The ANA submits that all RNs ARE professional nurses. The use of the term 'technical' is outdated and outmoded to describe today's professional RN", nothing will change. And you know what? THAT can be done without losing focus on a move towards BSN. In fact, true mutual respect would enhance that ultimate goal.

~faith,

Timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU, ER, HH, NICU, now FNP.

Until the ANA formally retracts its unnecessary and unprofessional slur, apologizes for it, and promotes BSN on grounds other then academic elitism, I wash my hands of them.

And I hope someone at the ANA is reading this: THAT's why your membership rolls are steadily falling.

~faith,

Timothy.

Timothy I absolutely agree!

Until nurses can stop arguing among themselves and at least agree that we are all nurses and should use our collective numbers to influence policy rather than politics, the profession will continue to be divided.

In Texas - 76% of physicians are members of the TMA, 2% of nurses are members of the TNA. I forget what the raw numbers are - but it was like 2500 nurses vs 16,000 phycicians or something like that. Easy to see why the clout falls where it does.

After a good bit of asking around, I do agree that the time is ripe for a national organization that would represent the voice of all nurses. Although specialty organizations have their place, they tend to serve specific interests and not nursing as a whole. They also do not usually participate in lobbying to change healthcare policy on a large scale, although certain groups DO do this where a special group is affected (The American Academy of Nurse Practitioners for instance lobbies for policy changes conducive to the practice and patient's of NP's). However, there is no group out there doing large scale lobbying for nursing as a whole.

In addition to what they fail to represent, the ANA is EXPENSIVE - yet another form of elitism. Do the math - how many lobbysists could you pay with 2,000,000 x $40 a year vs 150,000 x $300 a year? And how much more weight does an organization with 2 million members carry than one with 150,000?

I also agree that a union is not the way to go on this one. While unions may have their place in some situations, they are not the answer for every situation everywhere and they are another point of contentious division in many cases. Division isn't what's needed here. Cohesion is. Unions work to influence the policy of employers, Organizations work to influence health policy - 2 entirely different goals.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment