Do you have a union? Should nurses strike?

I'm union, always have been. I haven't been involved in a strike and I don't know if I would actually walk a line, but I wouldn't cross it. At my last facility, if it hadn't been for being union I would have been fired unjustly over something I didn't do; I later found out that HR had placed a termination letter in my file because they thought the invrstigation would not be in my favor, and they forgot to remove it.

I'll say this much-strikes could be SOooooo much more effective, and therefore less used, if nurses would respect each other and not cross picket lines.

There's no excuse for it except the almighty dollar.

If they never crossed, then the strike would either end, or never even have to happen.

I'll say this much-strikes could be SOooooo much more effective, and therefore less used, if nurses would respect each other and not cross picket lines.

There's no excuse for it except the almighty dollar.

If they never crossed, then the strike would either end, or never even have to happen.

Who would take care of the patients the union is so focused (sic) on?

I've worked where management has had to come in.. That's downright dangerous for patients. Many in management had no clue how to hang TPN, do fingersticks, computerized charting, or even how to use an IV pump.

SCAREY for those patients the striking nurses say they care so much about.

I believe it is the almighty dollar. To the unionized nurses. That is.

If there were no one to care for the patients, then the strike would be over, because the hospitals need to have those nurses back.

But.....there will always be someone in there to fill the gap, won't there?

I believe it is the almighty dollar. To the unionized nurses. That is.

And now that I have re-read your post, I have to comment on this generalization. My mother is working nights tonight, and when her shift is up in the morning, her union is going on strike. Is has nothing to so with money. In fact, they are getting a 21% raise. The strike has to do with safe patient ratios.

To boot, she doesn't get paid when she is on strike. I'd say that it takes a lot of courage to strike for God knows how long without pay in order to make a safer environment for the staff and patients.

But, as I said before-someone will come in and make dirty money by undermining her cause.

I've always been union at my staff jobs. I'm also a traveller now and obviously that isn't a union position though I am currently in a unionized hospital. I have never been on strike. Apparently the nurses at my last job did have a walk out a few years before I got there. It resulted in a much better unit (better ratios pre-Cali ratio laws were passed, better pay, better rewards for seniority, better retention, etc).

I've always been union at my staff jobs. I'm also a traveller now and obviously that isn't a union position though I am currently in a unionized hospital. I have never been on strike. Apparently the nurses at my last job did have a walk out a few years before I got there. It resulted in a much better unit (better ratios pre-Cali ratio laws were passed, better pay, better rewards for seniority, better retention, etc).

Then why did they need a traveler?

And now that I have re-read your post, I have to comment on this generalization. My mother is working nights tonight, and when her shift is up in the morning, her union is going on strike. Is has nothing to so with money. In fact, they are getting a 21% raise. The strike has to do with safe patient ratios.

To boot, she doesn't get paid when she is on strike. I'd say that it takes a lot of courage to strike for God knows how long without pay in order to make a safer environment for the staff and patients.

But, as I said before-someone will come in and make dirty money by undermining her cause.

I'm confused. It's not about money but they are getting a 21% raise. Are they giving that raise to someone else or charity??

I thought the union paid them when they were on strike. So they pay dues for what? To go on strike and starve?

How is letting unqualified workers take care of sick patients in their best interest and how does that "make a safer environment for the staff and patients".

If a nurse truely has her patients well being in mind she doesn't let them be taken care of by unqualified workers. She is glad that qualified "scabs"

take care of her/his ( have to be pc here) patients in her/his absence.

JMHO.

Then why did they need a traveler?

I didn't work at that job as a traveller, I was staff and still am (part time).

But, most hospitals in this area use travellers because there are not enough staff nurses for hospitals to meet those (largely union won) nurse to patient ratios. The only big unit I know in the area that doesn't use travellers in my specialty right now is unionized though (UCLA). I've never had a problem working with travellers in my staff job where I am a union member and I've never had a problem with unionized staff at my travel assignments where I am not a union member.

I didn't work at that job as a traveller, I was staff and still am (part time).

But, most hospitals in this area use travellers because there are not enough staff nurses for hospitals to meet those (largely union won) nurse to patient ratios. The only big unit I know in the area that doesn't use travellers in my specialty right now is unionized though (UCLA). I've never had a problem working with travellers in my staff job where I am a union member and I've never had a problem with unionized staff at my travel assignments where I am not a union member.

Neither have I.

But union would have us think that they are increasing staff by getting better ratios. If, indeed, that were true then those hospitals wouldn't need travelers would they.

The nursing shortage is many times said to be because of poor staffing ratios and yet the state with the best ratios probably has the largest % of travel nursing positions per capita. I find that interesting.

Many say nurses leave the profession and that we really don't have a shortage of nurses just a shortage of nurses who will work shortstaffed. But what if those nurses came back then they wouldn't have to work short staffed would they.

Many professions lose workers. Many poeple start professions only to find out that the profession they've chosen isn't a good fit for them . Many would have us believe that that concept only happens in nursing. One only needs to read about people coming from other professions into nursing. Losing workers isn't exclusive to nursing.

One thing nursing and hospital workers need to remember is that hospitals don't "make" anything that people want to purchase over and over again. There are limited finanacial resources available to hospitals. Ford started by making cars by hand, probably not making much money initially but then he made more and more cars, the union came in, demanded more money and benefits and now Ford is looking at it's decline. Even though they make something that people purchase again and again there is just so much money and no more.

.

But union would have us think that they are increasing staff by getting better ratios. If, indeed, that were true then those hospitals wouldn't need travelers would they.

.

That's false logic. Unions are increasing the number of staff members with higher pay and better ratios, but that doesn't mean they can completely eliminate the need for travellers altogether. Success isn't all or nothing. Say you have 10 open staff positions being filled by travellers. The union comes, things improve and they are able to find and retain 9 more staff nurses. Now, that still means they'll need one traveller, but I'd call that pretty successful nonetheless.

My old hospital has obviously increased the number of staff. They have expanded the unit, yet use fewer travellers than before (they just eliminated all their day shift travel postions when they've had at least a half dozen travellers on days since I started there). Frankly, I don't really care if someone is staff or traveller because as long as we have enough of both we aren't working short staffed. I don't think the elimination of travellers needs to be a union priority at all. Their focus is on their members. It's hospital management that has the task of decreasing the use of travellers if they feel it's important.

That's false logic. Unions are increasing the number of staff members with higher pay and better ratios, but that doesn't mean they can completely eliminate the need for travellers altogether. Success isn't all or nothing. Say you have 10 open staff positions being filled by travellers. The union comes, things improve and they are able to find and retain 9 more staff nurses. Now, that still means they'll need one traveller, but I'd call that pretty successful nonetheless.

My old hospital has obviously increased the number of staff. They have expanded the unit, yet use fewer travellers than before (they just eliminated all their day shift travel postions when they've had at least a half dozen travellers on days since I started there). Frankly, I don't really care if someone is staff or traveller because as long as we have enough of both we aren't working short staffed. I don't think the elimination of travellers needs to be a union priority at all. Their focus is on their members. It's hospital management that has the task of decreasing the use of travellers if they feel it's important.

Your two paragraphs contradict each other.

One the one hand you say union increase the number of staff with higher pay and better ratios.

In the next paragraph you say it's hospital managements task to decrease travelers. And the only way to decrease travelers is to get the union to bring in more staff. Isn't it?

What would happen to the union if hospitals were adeqautely staffed?

BTW I never said elimination of travelers is a union priority. I said if unions were living up to there promises of better staffing in hospitals Cali wouldn't need to depend so heavily on travelers.

There is more than one hospital in Cali isn't there?

Why is it that non union states don't have as great a % of travel nurses per capita.