Do you have a union? Should nurses strike?

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 24, 2006

Expecting nurses to be powerless is what got us into this predictment in the first place. If hospital don't want a strike, they can bargain fairly with the nursing staff. Years ago, the post office was a poorly paid branch of the governent workers. After years of negotiation, and being "Mr. Nice Guy", the post office went on strike all over this country. It took three days for the government to give in to the postal workers, and agree to a contract that gave them better wages, and benefits. My point- the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Nurses are entitled to some of that. The HMOs, and insurance companies are making billions, and they can afford to pay nurses better and improve staffing. Nurses truly have their best intersts at heart when the strike for better staffing, and wages as well. Fighting the individuals who are trying to make things better, hurts no one but the nurses in this country. JMHO, and $0.02.
Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN
Spokane, Washington

Well, it seems that unions have big bucks and powerful law firms to file frivilous lawsuits in areas they want to move into. So, seems like the hospitals and unions are well balanced against each other. And the average nurse is no better off.

I get called a 'martyr mary' because I believe that crying 'oh they won't empower us' is the very thing that is disempowering? Wow.

I could quote you here: Fighting the individuals who are trying to make things better, hurts no one but the nurses in this country. I don't find the 'blue-collarization' of nurses to BE in the best interests of nurses in this country. I find that advocating that our 'empowerment' comes from begging for it is DISEMPOWERING.

I find that nurses voting with their feet IS in the best interests of nurses in this country. To a large degree, unions UNDERMINE this by requiring a senority rules 'embedding' into the VERY administrations we are begging to 'empower' us.

I'd much rather they wring their hands and ponder - in meeting after meeting - how to recruit us back. THAT is empowering - in its own right and without 'borrowing' it.

I don't need to sell my soul to a union that won't respect me until I log 10 yrs experience. I think mobility is our BIGGEST asset - and that asset is directly traded for unionization.

When it takes 76 THOUSAND dollars to recruit and replace a specialty nurse - it doesn't take unionization to get the point across. Our salaries and benefits are going up nationwide - in union areas AND NOT - BECAUSE of the power of the individual nurse, 76 THOUSAND DOLLARS at a time.

~faith,

Timothy.

JMBM · Jun 24, 2006

Unions are /management is bad - Unions aren't good or bad. They are simply reactions to economic disparity. Management will always seek to minimize costs and maximize revenue. Employees will seek to increase compensation and improve their conditions. In many businesses, these potentially conflicting interests can be made to work together, and no union is required. Fine, I'm happy for those folks. No union dues or boring committee meetings. In many other businesses, employees will need to band together to increase their bargaining power to protect their interests. Sometimes, that is necessary.

Unions are "blue collar". - Plenty of unions are made up of doctors, university professors, engineers and million-dollar ball players. It is true that most unions are in blue collar jobs, because those folks tend to have the least individual power.

Unions are in it for the money. - Of course, they are. So are you. If hospitals stopped paying nurses, how long do you think most would show up? Unions are formed by workers in order to improve their conditions, including sometimes compensation.

I'm no fan of union dues or meetings. Our union is fairly quiet and our hospital treats us fairly well. However, it was not always so. Ten years ago, a cost-cutting campaign resulting in the slashing of nursing positions and spiraling nurse/patient ratios. Yes, we even wound up carrying picket signs for a few days. Management backed off a bit, and the sides settled down and now things go along fairly well. Should we quit the union? No, times will come around again. Some efficiency expert right out of school will decide that a new doctors' lounge is worth more than some nursing positions, and then we'll be glad we put up with the dues and the meetings.

cardiacRN2006, ADN, RN · Jun 24, 2006

Well, since the "martyr marys" of nursing have spoken, what, exactly, are nurses supposed to so, when they are confronted with unsafe staffing, or, in other cases, when their pay and benefits are inadequate? What method are they supposed to use? Hire mafia hit men to fight their battles?
Do you realize that hospitals use high priced ($$$$$$), powerful, lawfirms, to bust union activity at their facilities? Nurses up against the "big guns" of society", with only their worthless state nursing assiations to back them up?
Nurses are now, and have always been, kept powerless, "barefoot, and pregnant" by hospitals. And that is how the hospitals want it. If nurses had organized years ago, when they were finally allowed to unionize, there would be a very different picture today.
It is the hospitals responsibility to staff their facility, not the nursing staff. If they don't want the nurses to strike, than they can listen to their nursing staff, pay good wages, and benefits, and provide for reasonable "grievance procedures" when their is a dispute. In other words, the ball is in THEIR court. Nothing will ever change until nurses stick up for themselves, and demand better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Nice guys finish last.
Expecting nurses to be powerless is what got us into this predictment in the first place. If hospital don't want a strike, they can bargain fairly with the nursing staff. Years ago, the post office was a poorly paid branch of the governent workers. After years of negotiation, and being "Mr. Nice Guy", the post office went on strike all over this country. It took three days for the government to give in to the postal workers, and agree to a contract that gave them better wages, and benefits. My point- the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Nurses are entitled to some of that. The HMOs, and insurance companies are making billions, and they can afford to pay nurses better and improve staffing. Nurses truly have their best intersts at heart when the strike for better staffing, and wages as well. Fighting the individuals who are trying to make things better, hurts no one but the nurses in this country. JMHO, and $0.02.
Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN
Spokane, Washington

Wow! I'm sold! :balloons:

1940Nurse · Jun 24, 2006

Because UoC knew that the RN's would strike eventually and, at $9 million a day it would cost them a fortune, they gave the RN's a lot of what they wanted ... namely guaranteed retirement benefits (which UoC was trying to cut), pay raises, etc. in the new contract.
However, if the union doesn't have much support where a lot of their members do cross the picket line ... then it's a completely different story.
At Scripps Encinitas in San Diego, for example, they also did a one day strike but, several RN's crossed the line so ... ultimately, they did not get as good of a contract as the UoC RN's did.
:typing

Again all about $$$$ where are the "patient safety" issues in this?

One problem with unions is that they can't sell it to every one.

1940Nurse · Jun 24, 2006

I don't understand why you believe that having travellers is a bad sign.
I also don't understand why the number of travellers compared to the number of people in California is particularly relevant. Of course a state with around 30 million people like California is going to have a different demographic than Kansas or Wyoming.
Ratios HAVE made nurses appear in the form of travellers and nurses who move here as staff (I was one) and nurses who re-enter nursing. The BON has clear stats on the increase in registrations since the ratios were mandated. Mandates don't solve everything and they can't completely fill all our staff positions, but in the meantime they make managers get serious about filling them and that's a good thing IMO whether it's with regular staff or travellers.

I never said traveler were a bad sign. I said the unions didn't get staff and they have to rely on travelers. Who usually cost more.

Unions tout themselves as a panacea and they are not. I said per capita. That is different than saying Cali needs more travelers than Kanasas.

Please don't twist my words.

Hellllllo Nurse, BSN, RN · Jun 24, 2006

Again all about $$$$ where are the "patient safety" issues in this?
One problem with unions is that they can't sell it to every one.

Don't you think that the hard-won California ratios will have marked impact on pt safety?

Haven't you read the landmark Akin study?

I once told a manager that I would take a 30% pay cut in order to have 30% fewer pts. Of course, she was clueless and thought I was nuts.

Sheri257 · Jun 24, 2006

Again all about $$$$ where are the "patient safety" issues in this?

That particular strike was mostly about UoC wanting to cut retirement benefits. So ... are nurses not supposed to receive decent retirement benefits? I know hospital administrators think so but nurses don't.

If there's no retirement benefits or decent pay nurses are going to "vote with their feet" and leave. We have hundreds of thousands of nurses who aren't working now. This will only increase that number. Where will the patients be then?

Unions tout themselves as a panacea and they are not.

I don't think unions are a panacea. They are sometimes needed when management won't budge on pay or benefit issues. And California nurses only have ratios because of unions ... which does benefit patients.

:typing

1940Nurse · Jun 24, 2006

[quote=lindarn

Nothing will ever change until nurses stick up for themselves, and demand better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Nice guys finish last.

Expecting nurses to be powerless is what got us into this predictment in the first place. If hospital don't want a strike, they can bargain fairly with the nursing staff. Years ago, the post office was a poorly paid branch of the governent workers. After years of negotiation, and being "Mr. Nice Guy", the post office went on strike all over this country.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

#1 You are correct and shoving a union down our throats doesn't make some of us warm and fuzzy. Now instead of paying $500,000 for a CEO we would have to pay another $500,000 for the union.

#2 Is that why UPS was formed? The US Postal Service has some of the worst customer service of any costomer based entity. And we keep paying more and more for less and less service. I hardly ever buy a stamp any more. I do all my paying of bills on the internet, I send birthday cards, get well cards etc via e-mail. So again the union has priced it's worker slowly and insidiously ( sp) out of jobs.

# 3 BTW the Air Traffic Controllers went on strike too.. What happened to them. And what about the big Airlines. They are slowly but surely pricing themselves out of the market again. Care to discuss the Michigan nurses strike.

Don't for one minute think it won't happen to nursing too. It already is with UAP's etc. In 1996 I went to a meeting of Med/Surg nurses and they showed a viedo on "virtual nurses" .. Stay at home nurses directing care of patients via the internet. Directing that care to UAP's and machines. Duke has a system in place now to monitor vital signs and record them into a computer sans the nurse.

fergus51 · Jun 24, 2006

I never said traveler were a bad sign. I said the unions didn't get staff and they have to rely on travelers. Who usually cost more.
Unions tout themselves as a panacea and they are not. I said per capita. That is different than saying Cali needs more travelers than Kanasas.
Please don't twist my words.

I am not twisting your words, I was just pointing out that California has a different demographic (I specifically compared to the number of people in my post didn't I? That means per capita). Per capita alone isn't always the most relevant comparison because it ignores things like the age distribution in the state, the use of health care resources, the number of illegal immigrants, etc. Those issues (and many others) play a big role in determining the need for nurses.

I really fail to see the relevance of travel nurses per capita here when this is a union discussion though, since the majority of nurses here are not unionized (and that's if you think the number of travel nurses is important). I would think it would be more important to know the percentage of travellers at unionized facilities compared to non-unionized facilities and look at things like vacancy rates, pay, benefits, etc. to determine if the union is a good thing for its nurses or not.

Unions aren't in charge of hiring, they aren't in charge of advocating for nursing instructors or compact lisences, etc.. They aren't a panacea. I don't know anyone who thinks they are.

1940Nurse · Jun 24, 2006

I am not twisting your words, I was just pointing out that California has a different demographic (I specifically compared to the number of people in my post didn't I? That means per capita). Per capita alone isn't always the most relevant comparison because it ignores things like the age distribution in the state, the use of health care resources, the number of illegal immigrants, etc. Those issues (and many others) play a big role in determining the need for nurses.
I really fail to see the relevance of travel nurses per capita here when this is a union discussion though, since the majority of nurses here are not unionized (and that's if you think the number of travel nurses is important). I would think it would be more important to know the percentage of travellers at unionized facilities compared to non-unionized facilities and look at things like vacancy rates, pay, benefits, etc. to determine if the union is a good thing for its nurses or not.
Unions aren't in charge of hiring, they aren't in charge of advocating for nursing instructors or compact lisences, etc.. They aren't a panacea. I don't know anyone who thinks they are.

I never said unions wer in charge of hiring. But they do tell their rank and file that they will get better staffing. Isn't what strikes are for.

Per capita was just the tip of the iceberg. And if we were to compare unionized facilties and non-unionized ones I bet Cali would not fare well in either category. As far as travelers, staff retention etc goes. When a nurse is 60 she's probably not staying on much longer. So the union can tout retention all it wants. It just really needs to take into consideration that mother nature will over rule it EVERY TIME.

banditrn · Jun 24, 2006

The last hospital I worked for was union, and altho there was never a strike in the 15 years I worked there, there was one just before I started. And it came really close a few times while I was there.

What would happen was that in the couple of weeks before the contract was due, if the administration knew there might be a chance, the hospital would take measures to decrease the census - ie: no elective surgeries scheduled during that time.

I would never strike 'just for money' and I never heard anyone else complain about that, either. It all had to do with the nurses having a voice in what went on.

The last contract got a committee of nurses, not management, who would overlook staffing issues. Before that, it was disipline for docs who enjoyed treating nurses like crap - now, if there's a complaint against any doc for that, they can be sanctioned.

glenwood · Jun 24, 2006

Dear CardiacRN,

Give your mother my best wishes for a speedy union victory. No one wants to have to strike but sometimes there is no other way.

The hospital can transfere the patients out or let the managers do patient care. The work loads the hospitals are giving nurses most places is hurting pathient care.

I spent a week in the hospital in September 2005 and my day shift nurses had 10 patients each. It was scary. Nurses who stand up for their union rights are fighting not just for themselves but for everyone who might need to use the healthcare system.