How to bring in a nurses union in a non union state?

dnnc52 · Nov 16, 2011

Wow! Right to work, Right to be fired without any reason. So can you be fired for Union activity. The fact is they can't say you are being fired for the union activity. But yes you can be fired, and most likely you will be. Another question to add is who looks out for the safety of the nurse in NC? The board will be the first to tell you, they are there to protect the public from poor nursing. But make no stand of nurse/pt ratios. Where as a Union would be an advocate for both the nurse safety, and would be a soapbox for nurse situations that the management, or higher ups turn a deaf ear to. Any nurse who really thinks that their employer is covering their liability is a fool. ALWAYS cover yourself with your own mal-practice insurance. When it comes to your job/career and the companie's PR. YOU LOSE! Why no unions in NC?. Right to work state is all for the employer's benefit...I know of contrated healthcare provider corps that will only work in the Right to work states. Not all but many nurse have been drinking the cool-aid, of "You don't need an outsider to do you speaking"(Unions). True you can talk, present and complain and they will listen to you. Then do nothing!!!!! Good luck........

dnnc52 · Nov 16, 2011

The only message they get is that nurses are a dime a dozen , you think most nurses will be honest as to their reasons for leaving their poorly managed facility , nope most do not want to burn their bridges , the new place could be worse!.
I love how those who are against unions usuallyadvise that as an individual , if you see things you should approach management to try to get things changed ( if it is something management is particularly unhappy to hear about , change will occur , you will lose your job !).Then if you haven't been fired roll the dice and move onto another job ( only possible if there is another employer available )which may or may not be better .
Heaven forbid that you would turn to them commie , pinko unions ,you know those anticapitalists who brought about safe staffing ratios , hold the employer to the laws , their own policies and a contract .Who poison the (prior to the unions arrival )wonderful staff / management relationships at a facility etc..

, nope most do not want to burn their bridges , the new place could be worse!.

Or like here in NC we have a few major health care system buying and bullying the other smaller hospitals. So if you burn a bridge or two, your career may me stranded.

nicurn001 · Nov 16, 2011

How to bring in a nurses union in a non union state?

Ask the nurses at Palmetto general hospital , Southern Florida they just voted by about 85% ( 271 -45 I believe )to have union representation (( NNU/NNOC ).

8mpg · Nov 17, 2011

As one of the people involved in forming the NNU, I can say for certain that your statement could not possibly be more false. Our union is absolutely not anti-capitalist, or anti-American, or anti-constitution. What we do believe is that the laws should apply equally to all - rich and poor alike - that a banker who steals a billion dollars by manipulating stock trading should be punished at least as harshly as a poor man who steals $100 with a gun. What we do believe is that workers have a right to a safe work place, that patients have a right to safe care, that workers are entitled to a decent wage and a certain amount of job security. And we do believe that the rich should pay a more fair share of the taxes collected in this country.
When I was a kid, back in the 50s, none of those were controversial ideas. Many politicians of both parties supported them. Republican presidents like Eisenhower and even Nixon would have agreed with all of those statements. Back then the top marginal tax rate was 90% on the very highest incomes, and somehow the economy manged to do pretty well. And back then, unions were able to support politicians of both parties, because both parties had politicians who were pro-worker. But in the last 50 years the American political spectrum has moved so far right that people - ignorant people, I must say - can claim with a straight face that ideas like that are communist.

Now what on earth does a union have a belief that rich people should pay more than their fair share? Not only is is absurd that rich should pay more, but why does a union even have anything to do with that? Unions have NO place in politics. Unions should work for the workers at their entity and remain there.

The problems with unions today is the nonsense like rich should pay more. They try and turn a capitalistic society into a socialist system. It ****** me off to think that you believe rich should pay more. Maybe they should just stop working once they hit the number before the tax bracket and furlow everyone that works for them. That will teach those rich people :uhoh3:

nicurn001 · Nov 17, 2011

Now what on earth does a union have a belief that rich people should pay more than their fair share? Not only is is absurd that rich should pay more, but why does a union even have anything to do with that? Unions have NO place in politics. Unions should work for the workers at their entity and remain there.
The problems with unions today is the nonsense like rich should pay more. They try and turn a capitalistic society into a socialist system. It ****** me off to think that you believe rich should pay more. Maybe they should just stop working once they hit the number before the tax bracket and furlow everyone that works for them. That will teach those rich people

What is anyones fair share ?, Money has been spent and will continue to be spent by governments we elect . None of us will like all that the government spends upon , but is it not better to be able to vote for a system of government we like ,rather than live in a dictatiorship .

As to why should anyone pay more than their fair share our governments have obligations that must be met for both past and future expenditures , these expenses are meet by the revenue they take in ( taxes for the most part ) . If you reduce the amount one group pays you shift that burden to another group . The reality is that when you reduce the taxation on the rich , that shortfall is made up by increasing the taxation on the middle class ( before you say it ,you can't get it from the poor as it would be like trying to get blood out of a stone[ by definition ,if they are poor they aint got adequate income to take more taxes from ]). I don't get it are you saying we should increase our ( middle class )tax burden to ensure the rich become even richer ?.

My guess is your answer will be we should shrink the government , but that will simply lead to a transfer of power from elected legislatures to the unelected corporations . Small government would lead to less regulation of commerce , fine you might say . But has deregulation led to better results for us ? look at air travel , is the service better , we are now charged for everything except for going to the bath room ( some airlines have toyed with that idea)and some have even looked into not having seats .I don't think from the results in the financial industry have shown lack of regulation there is a good thing , or am I just dreaming we had a financial meltdown recently .

Ah now entitlements now thats another area we can cut , but what a misnomer . Social Security and Medicare are insurance plans we pay into and when we have fulfilled our obligation and meet the requirments to make a claim , we do so ( ie. reach retirement age ).But I guess you would much rather ensure that the rich get richer while the elderly do as they did in the past get poorer and die in poverty / squalor , the sooner the better so they are not such a burden on the rest of us .

The tax burden upon the rich is histoically speaking relatively low , so why is it that we continue to worry about the rich feeling a little of the pinch we are feeling , by returning their level of taxation to more of a historical norm ?.

8mpg · Nov 17, 2011

What is anyones fair share ?, Money has been spent and will continue to be spent by governments we elect . None of us will like all that the government spends upon , but is it not better to be able to vote for a system of government we like ,rather than live in a dictatiorship .
As to why should anyone pay more than their fair share our governments have obligations that must be met for both past and future expenditures , these expenses are meet by the revenue they take in ( taxes for the most part ) . If you reduce the amount one group pays you shift that burden to another group . The reality is that when you reduce the taxation on the rich , that shortfall is made up by increasing the taxation on the middle class ( before you say it ,you can't get it from the poor as it would be like trying to get blood out of a stone[ by definition ,if they are poor they aint got adequate income to take more taxes from ]). I don't get it are you saying we should increase our ( middle class )tax burden to ensure the rich become even richer ?.
My guess is your answer will be we should shrink the government , but that will simply lead to a transfer of power from elected legislatures to the unelected corporations . Small government would lead to less regulation of commerce , fine you might say . But has deregulation led to better results for us ? look at air travel , is the service better , we are now charged for everything except for going to the bath room ( some airlines have toyed with that idea)and some have even looked into not having seats .I don't think from the results in the financial industry have shown lack of regulation there is a good thing , or am I just dreaming we had a financial meltdown recently .
Ah now entitlements now thats another area we can cut , but what a misnomer . Social Security and Medicare are insurance plans we pay into and when we have fulfilled our obligation and meet the requirments to make a claim , we do so ( ie. reach retirement age ).But I guess you would much rather ensure that the rich get richer while the elderly do as they did in the past get poorer and die in poverty / squalor , the sooner the better so they are not such a burden on the rest of us .
The tax burden upon the rich is histoically speaking relatively low , so why is it that we continue to worry about the rich feeling a little of the pinch we are feeling , by returning their level of taxation to more of a historical norm ?.

Im all about cutting the ridiculous spending done by our government. Seriously though, think of it as a "rich" person. Take my parents for example. They work 50 hours a week each at their small bakery to provide product for people. They make right at $200k a year. Now what incentive do they have to work more if they are going to be taxed more? If their taxes go up, I guarantee you they will cut their labor. They will let go of one of their workers to compensate. They didnt struggle financially all their lives to build a business where they will work for $.50-.60 of the dollar. They will close 1 day a week (currently open 7 days a week). They havent had a vacation in 8 years. They work their butts off for their money and it is well deserved. To tax them more and make them pay "more than their fair share" will only lead to another person unemployed. Until you realize that business is not going to take a loss for people at the top to be philanthropists.

Why do companies send their labor to India, China, etc? They want their profits and are willing to sacrifice American jobs to make sure they stay in business. Go ahead and tax them more...see what happens.

Oh, and as for your airline example... Look at Southwest Airlines. While other companies are charging for baggage fees and all sorts of stuff, Southwest does not and is prospering. Its called a free market. Let the business sort out how it wants to conduct itself and see if they can stay profitable.

nicurn001 · Nov 17, 2011

8mpg your parents like us are not rich and your parents deserve their income . But the government deserves its income it provides a regulated market place ( us )into which businesses can sell their products . Wheras if we lived in other countries of the world you would be directed as to what products you could produce / sell or the economy would be so poor that you could not make a reasonable living .

" Why do companies send their labor to India, China, etc? They want their profits and are willing to sacrifice American jobs to make sure they stay in business. Go ahead and tax them more...see what happens. " The corporate officers of these companies don't care about their employees and are only interested in profit to the extent that it effects their paychecks , for whatever reason their profits contract they will take the first opportunity they can to outsource those jobs .If they run their corporation into the ground they will jump ship to the next source of their paycheck .

nicurn001 · Nov 17, 2011

we are probably digressing too far from the topic of this thread .I will not go any further with this line of discussion as it is unrelated to the question posed by the OP

nursingisok · Feb 14, 2012

OP I am with you. I am also from up in the Northeast, now living in the South. We need one here too. It is amazing how many people are too afraid to stand up for themselves. There are no rights for employees where I work. Just finished a 16 hour shift for which I will only be paid 15 hours. They deduct for breaks that we can't take. I had to sneak into the bathroom to eat a bananna today.

I am curious about the people in texas who are so against unions. Have they been in one and have had a bad experience? I live in texas but feel that we need unions. I don't think we get respect here and that by having unions then maybe our voices would be heard. My relatives in the tri state area love their jobs and have unions to protect them. What are the cons about unions that everyone in texas is so against?

jhanes · Feb 14, 2012

Perhaps your relatives in the Tristate area have realized that the leadership of the Healthcare Unions are really corrupt, and many of them are Socialists and Communists. Healthcare and Nursing - A Conservative R.N.

nicurn001 · Feb 15, 2012

It seems when you have no real arguement , the opposition are communists / socialist . I got over the bogeyman as a kid please give reasoned arguement (or at least some arguement ) , rather than throw out those tired cliches .

Are the corporate hacks in Texas more or less corrupt ?, I know that the corporation I work for based in Texas has been found to be corrupt many times over .

jhanes · Feb 15, 2012

They ARE real people, Communists and Socialists, not bogeymen or bogeywomen. Their membership and participation in the CPUSA or a related Communist group, the Committees on Correspondence, is documented. Communism is a political philosophy based on control and slavery who's leaders (Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot) are responsible for the deaths of untold millions of human beings ditto for the Socialists (Hitler was a Socialist).

Do you think it is OK to impose an unconstitutional political/economic system on others by force? That's what Communists believe and some so-called Nursing Leaders, who are Communists & Socialists apparently do/did, too:

Marilyn Albert, RN SEIU local 1199 founder; Sandy Eaton, RN Mass. Nurses Assn, NNU & SEIU; Jan Gilbrecht, CNA/NNU; Charles Idelson, CNA/NNU; Dee Banks-Nyles, RN, SEIU; all of them have documented participation in CPUSA or socialist groups and are or have held leadership positions within their organizations. And there are a lot more of them in almost every state Nursing organization or health care related labor union.

Do YOU support Communism? If not, then why support a union run/led by Communists?? Nurses need to think through their membership in unions, especially the CNA, NNU, MNA, SEIU. If already a member, do whatever you can to rid your union of these red officials. They do NOT have Nursing, Our Nation or your best interests at heart.