It is particularly troubling that President John Sweeney has only now issued a statement about the growing tension between CNA and SEIU. While Sweeney is quick to accuse the SEIU of wrongdoing at the recent Labor Notes conference, where was his public statement condemning the grotesque behavior of CNA in Ohio?
Unlike the Labor Notes gathering where the facts remain highly disputed, CNA actions in Ohio are without disagreement or debate. There is no question that their union-busting actions prevented as many of 8,000 nurses and other healthcare workers from getting a voice on job! That remains the true injustice and has yet to prompt a public condemnation from President Sweeney and the AFL-CIO. It is ridiculous to suggest that the CNA leadership and their gangs are the victims in this battle. If an apology is due, it must come from Rose Ann DeMoro and the CNA to the thousands of workers that have been silenced by these repulsive union-busting campaigns.
-Norma Amsterdam, RN and Labor Leader, SEIU member
Re: Labor Notes- 19 eyewitness accounts say different! The police arrived AFTER Diane Feeley was injured by SEIU staff and members so they obviosly missed the scuffle (unfortunately, I did not).
Re: Raiding - Afscme doesn't have any RN bargaining units in Houston. Only RN union in Texas is NNOC!
RN's have the right to choose to be a part of whatever organization they choose! They should not have only one choice because they live in a certain area or the employer chose the union!
Interesting. I had no idea that conference was being held in Dearborn,Michigan which is not far from me.
Anyhow, on a side note, if I am going to be represented by a union, I would at least like to be represented by one that is for RNs only and has no affiliation with my employer.
Re: Labor Notes- 19 eyewitness accounts say different! The police arrived AFTER Diane Feeley was injured by SEIU staff and members so they obviosly missed the scuffle (unfortunately, I did not).
Re: Raiding - Afscme doesn't have any RN bargaining units in Houston. Only RN union in Texas is NNOC!
RN's have the right to choose to be a part of whatever organization they choose! They should not have only one choice because they live in a certain area or the employer chose the union!
3,000 Ohio RN's, along with over 5,000 non-union CHP employees, were DEPRIVED of that choice because of CNA's actions. CNA could have been on that ballot if they had submitted ONE SIGNED CARD--they didn't do that. This was a free and fair election process that was disrupted by CNA's union-busting agenda. It worked out EXACTLY as CNA planned.
The argument that SEIU is a 'company union' is another case of CNA's 'no holds barred' rhetoric. SEIU has worked for 10 years to organize CHP, a blatantly anti-union organization. That CHP 'hand picked' SEIU in light of SEIU's long-fought campaign is a ridiculous and inflammatory comment.
CNA's rhetoric did not hold up under the scrutiny of the California Supreme Court, as evidenced by yesterday's decision.
3,000 ohio rn's, along with over 5,000 non-union chp employees, were deprived of that choice because of cna's actions. cna could have been on that ballot if they had submitted one signed card--they didn't do that. this was a free and fair election process that was disrupted by cna's union-busting agenda. it worked out exactly as cna planned.i have seen in a number of sites ,this argument being used by cna supporters , asking why seiu after its 10 years of attempting to organize had no cards signed , so it is interesting that you would throw out this accusation .
the argument that seiu is a 'company union' is another case of cna's 'no holds barred' rhetoric. seiu has worked for 10 years to organize chp, a blatantly anti-union organization. that chp 'hand picked' seiu in light of seiu's long-fought campaign is a ridiculous and inflammatory comment.. i find it incomprehensible that if union has the degree of support it needs to apply for a representation vote , it would partner with management and allow management to file for the vote , why did not the seiu not simply ask the employer to accept a neutrality agreement where management would not interfere with a vote , then file for the vote itself .in the uk (where i came from) ,any union worth its salt , would not have to rely on the employer to file for it and if it did it would be laughed out of court by those it would wish to represent . if the union was so weak it had to rely on management for this ( filing for vote), how would they be able to represent me effectively .cna's rhetoric did not hold up under the scrutiny of the california supreme court, as evidenced by yesterday's decision.
getting away from the rights and wrongs of who did what to whom and when , fundamentally i am asking the question , would i want to be represented by an organization that has to rely on somebody else , to take a basic action for itself . i know what my answer is .
whilst you( those who want the seiu ) may have much invested in the seiu and the orgizational drive prior to the disrupted vote ( accepting your view ,for this argument ) . surely if you believe that you have the support of the employee's , you should file for the vote , allow the cna to be on the ballot and blow them out of the water . that would be the best answer you could possibly have to the cna's disruption of your vote . remember it is your vote , not management , not cna's , your vote !.
if the seiu cannot organize a vote without the aid of management ,it is awfully hard to see it as anything other than a management union ,without enough support to be able to act independently
Specializes in Health Policy, Cardiac Intensive Care.
There's still more legal action against CNA pending, including an anti-SLAPP (which stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion claiming that CNA sought the restraining order to silence free speech.
Specializes in Health Policy, Cardiac Intensive Care.
Re: Raiding - Afscme doesn't have any RN bargaining units in Houston. Only RN union in Texas is NNOC!
Not according to the Houston Chronicle, "Union is wary of its new rival on the scene / An area leader says California Nurses group is `raiding' her local".
i find it incomprehensible that if union has the degree of support it needs to apply for a representation vote , it would partner with management and allow management to file for the vote , why did not the seiu not simply ask the employer to accept a neutrality agreement where management would not interfere with a vote , then file for the vote itself
the reason seiu did not file for the vote is that they felt they had enough support to demand that chp recognize them as the bargaining agent for their employees and chp would not do that. so, chp petitioned for the vote, hoping that seiu would lose. this just another means to get unionization---it does not at all mean that seiu was in collusion with chp. on the contrary, it's been an historically contentious relationship for years.
that this was a back door deal is just one of the lies cna has been spreading---that it's a distortion of facts is irrelevant to them. so, you see, it was not a matter of 'allowing' management to file for the vote-- chp was hoping to win rather than to just recognize the seiu as the representative of its employees. this is a method used by many other unions to organize a bargaining unit. cna just put this very distorted spin on the process.
chp has not co-operated with seiu in anyway through this process--having lived through an organization drive as a chp employee, i know that to be ludicrous assumption.
as i said in reply 16 of this thread "surely if you believe that you have the support of the employee's , you should file for the vote , allow the cna to be on the ballot and blow them out of the water . that would be the best answer you could possibly have to the cna's disruption of your vote . remember it is your vote , not management , not cna's , your vote !."
i am not trying to be provocative or argumentative , by repeating my comment above, but having read from both sides of this dispute and firmly believing in the benefits of representation , surely the seiu has nothing to loose and much to gain by filing for a vote rather than accepting the withdrawal of the vote .it does leave the impression that the seiu doubts the outcome of a vote .
Not according to the Houston Chronicle, "Union is wary of its new rival on the scene / An area leader says California Nurses group is `raiding' her local".
Obviously some one did not read the article:
"They're claiming a territory, but there's no bargaining unit there," said Ed Bruno, organizing coordinator for the union's National Nurses Organizing Committee in Tampa, Fla. Besides, he said, the registered nurses should be in their own organization rather than joining a union that represents a variety of health care workers. Bruno chalks up the dispute to bruised egos.
How is it a raid if they don't have a bargaining unit? Just because they have an office there doesn't mean they have territorial ownership!
Joining a union is about individual choice. RN's should have a right to choose whatever organization they like, the one that represents their professional interests, not just the one that's been around the longest.
as i said in reply 16 of this thread "surely if you believe that you have the support of the employee's , you should file for the vote , allow the cna to be on the ballot and blow them out of the water . that would be the best answer you could possibly have to the cna's disruption of your vote . remember it is your vote , not management , not cna's , your vote !."
i am not trying to be provocative or argumentative , by repeating my comment above, but having read from both sides of this dispute and firmly believing in the benefits of representation , surely the seiu has nothing to loose and much to gain by filing for a vote rather than accepting the withdrawal of the vote .it does leave the impression that the seiu doubts the outcome of a vote .
that's a very valid point and would be true, had it not been for the confusion caused by the disruption of the process by a third party---cna.
3,000 ohio rn's, along with over 5,000 non-union chp employees, were deprived of that choice because of cna's actions. cna could have been on that ballot if they had submitted one signed card--they didn't do that. this was a free and fair election process that was disrupted by cna's union-busting agenda. it worked out exactly as cna planned.i have seen in a number of sites ,this argument being used by cna supporters , asking why seiu after its 10 years of attempting to organize had no cards signed , so it is interesting that you would throw out this accusation .
the argument that seiu is a 'company union' is another case of cna's 'no holds barred' rhetoric. seiu has worked for 10 years to organize chp, a blatantly anti-union organization. that chp 'hand picked' seiu in light of seiu's long-fought campaign is a ridiculous and inflammatory comment.. i find it incomprehensible that if union has the degree of support it needs to apply for a representation vote , it would partner with management and allow management to file for the vote , why did not the seiu not simply ask the employer to accept a neutrality agreement where management would not interfere with a vote , then file for the vote itself .in the uk (where i came from) ,any union worth its salt , would not have to rely on the employer to file for it and if it did it would be laughed out of court by those it would wish to represent . if the union was so weak it had to rely on management for this ( filing for vote), how would they be able to represent me effectively .cna's rhetoric did not hold up under the scrutiny of the california supreme court, as evidenced by yesterday's decision.
getting away from the rights and wrongs of who did what to whom and when , fundamentally i am asking the question , would i want to be represented by an organization that has to rely on somebody else , to take a basic action for itself . i know what my answer is .
whilst you( those who want the seiu ) may have much invested in the seiu and the orgizational drive prior to the disrupted vote ( accepting your view ,for this argument ) . surely if you believe that you have the support of the employee's , you should file for the vote , allow the cna to be on the ballot and blow them out of the water . that would be the best answer you could possibly have to the cna's disruption of your vote . remember it is your vote , not management , not cna's , your vote !.
if the seiu cannot organize a vote without the aid of management ,it is awfully hard to see it as anything other than a management union ,without enough support to be able to act independently
i had answered all these arguments, but it got lost while loading, so i'll try this again--
signing cards is not the only way to a union vote--and it's a lengthy, emotional and stressful process. seiu believes it has the support of chp employees to demand that chp recognize seiu as the bargaining agent for all their employees. rather than go along with that, chp requested the vote from the nlrb, in the hopes that seiu would lose. that's hardly an endorsement by management! there was no 'partnering' there--that's the unfounded propaganda from cna. cna could have been included on that ballot themselves had they done the legwork. all they needed was one signed card. they didn't have it. so, now the fundamental question is, 'would i want to be represented by a so-called 'union' that disrupts a legal organizing process by smearing another union with lies 3 days before an election?' i'd say 'absolutely not!!'
cna wasn't trying to construct a union---they were trying to destroy a union.
when we were organizing under seiu, we had the support of all the other unions in the area--steelworkers, electrical workers, clerical workers....we wouldn't have been successful without the support of our union brothers and sisters. cna is an elitist group of rn's who showed no concern for the non-rn chp employees. they make no bones about it. historically, organized labor is supportive of other labor groups and respectful of their organizing efforts. cna/nnoc has demonstrated behavior contrary to that sentiment.
seiu represents our group of rn's well and diligently addresses healthcare issues that are of concern to not only rn's, but the community at large. they've researched and educated us and the general public in 'not for profit' hospitals--that was part of the campaign to organize all of chp. they are politically active and are working toward safe staffing ratios, universal healthcare, and so on...they are qualified and capable of representing rn's--and as an rn and a chp employee, i know that we have much more bargaining leverage when all eligible chp employees are represented by seiu. that's why i am angry and resentful at the actions of cna/nnoc--they have hindered our efforts at organizing our fellow employees. what they did is inexcusable--period.
RN Power Ohio
285 Posts
Re: Labor Notes- 19 eyewitness accounts say different! The police arrived AFTER Diane Feeley was injured by SEIU staff and members so they obviosly missed the scuffle (unfortunately, I did not).
Re: Raiding - Afscme doesn't have any RN bargaining units in Houston. Only RN union in Texas is NNOC!
RN's have the right to choose to be a part of whatever organization they choose! They should not have only one choice because they live in a certain area or the employer chose the union!