Million Nurse March Information

-jt · Mar 8, 2001

in this did i ever once see of feel the need to go begging to anyone for help for a problem that we as a profession can take care of on our on????
not in so many words but you do suggest getting all together & demanding improvements. Demanding it of whom?
Your administrators? And when they say "yeah, right,ha!" , what then?

-jt · Mar 8, 2001

in this did i ever once see of feel the need to go begging to anyone for help for a problem that we as a profession can take care of on our on????
not in so many words but you do suggest getting all together & demanding improvements. Demanding it of whom?
Your administrators? And when they say "yeah, right,ha!" , what then?

rncountry · Mar 8, 2001

Do not for a minute think that if what you are proposing came to pass that the only thing that would occur is for corporates to decide to take people off the streets and give them some task oriented quickie training and pay them crap wages then replace nurses with them. Why do I think that? Because it is already happening that is why. It is precisely for this reasonthat one of the proposels of the MNM is to make it illegal for someone without a license to perform nursing tasks. In many areas of the country there are unlicensed people passing medications, inserting foleys, and NG tubes, taking care of patient TF and the list goes on. It is done as a cost saving measure without regard for either the patients safety or for the license of the nurse that is responsible ultimately for the care that patient receives, appropriate or not. And all we have to do is to come out and tell the public that this whole thing is about money and you will turn them off totally and lose the public support that we need badly. While I do not believe that nursing wages reflect what we do and the responsiblity that we hold, we do have to realize that there are many many Americans out there that make substancially less than we do. We take care of many patients that will never attain the wages that we have now. We can argue quite competantly that is for lack of education or whatever, but the fact still remains that they look at a nursing wage as pretty damn good. My own family sees no reason for me to bellyache about wages. I think that the majority of us know that wages are part of the equation but it is not the largest part of the it. If it was then the hospitals that offer those big sign on bonuses would have staff, because for many people even after taking off the top what Uncle Sam gets its still a nice chunk of change. Yet that type of thing is not bringing nurses to them in droves. The places that are better staffed have a work environment that allows nurses to do the job they are educated to do. They don't use mandatory staffing. In the host hospital I am working at the nurses have fled and some to the my place of employment because there is so much use of mandatory overtime. Where I work now for the last three months we do not. Trust me it is a huge selling point for staffing.

The idea of a central meeting place is one that while I like the idea of it being easier for nurses to get there, I don't see how we could meet with federal legislators. I doubt seriously that they are going to fly there to meet with us, and even if they did I am sure someone would complain about using taxpayer funds for them to do so. You can bet they certainly wouldn't do it on their nickel. And yes, I do think these issues should be addressed on a federal level. I know there are many out there that do not feel that way, but change only happens by pushing for it. I have no intention of begging for anything. I intend on giving a realistic picture of what is going to happen if things do not change. I believe the statistics are 20% unfilled RN postitions by 2015. Wonder what the vacancy for LPNs and CNAs will be. As I said before this is not an issue that is hitting just the states, it is global and is only predicted to get worse without intervention. If only spending money would fix it then this country should have excellant schools, and no welfare rolls. The money that has been more or less thrown in the direction of these two things have not resulted in either of those results. Throwing money at nursing is not going to fix what is broke either.

rncountry · Mar 8, 2001

Do not for a minute think that if what you are proposing came to pass that the only thing that would occur is for corporates to decide to take people off the streets and give them some task oriented quickie training and pay them crap wages then replace nurses with them. Why do I think that? Because it is already happening that is why. It is precisely for this reasonthat one of the proposels of the MNM is to make it illegal for someone without a license to perform nursing tasks. In many areas of the country there are unlicensed people passing medications, inserting foleys, and NG tubes, taking care of patient TF and the list goes on. It is done as a cost saving measure without regard for either the patients safety or for the license of the nurse that is responsible ultimately for the care that patient receives, appropriate or not. And all we have to do is to come out and tell the public that this whole thing is about money and you will turn them off totally and lose the public support that we need badly. While I do not believe that nursing wages reflect what we do and the responsiblity that we hold, we do have to realize that there are many many Americans out there that make substancially less than we do. We take care of many patients that will never attain the wages that we have now. We can argue quite competantly that is for lack of education or whatever, but the fact still remains that they look at a nursing wage as pretty damn good. My own family sees no reason for me to bellyache about wages. I think that the majority of us know that wages are part of the equation but it is not the largest part of the it. If it was then the hospitals that offer those big sign on bonuses would have staff, because for many people even after taking off the top what Uncle Sam gets its still a nice chunk of change. Yet that type of thing is not bringing nurses to them in droves. The places that are better staffed have a work environment that allows nurses to do the job they are educated to do. They don't use mandatory staffing. In the host hospital I am working at the nurses have fled and some to the my place of employment because there is so much use of mandatory overtime. Where I work now for the last three months we do not. Trust me it is a huge selling point for staffing.

The idea of a central meeting place is one that while I like the idea of it being easier for nurses to get there, I don't see how we could meet with federal legislators. I doubt seriously that they are going to fly there to meet with us, and even if they did I am sure someone would complain about using taxpayer funds for them to do so. You can bet they certainly wouldn't do it on their nickel. And yes, I do think these issues should be addressed on a federal level. I know there are many out there that do not feel that way, but change only happens by pushing for it. I have no intention of begging for anything. I intend on giving a realistic picture of what is going to happen if things do not change. I believe the statistics are 20% unfilled RN postitions by 2015. Wonder what the vacancy for LPNs and CNAs will be. As I said before this is not an issue that is hitting just the states, it is global and is only predicted to get worse without intervention. If only spending money would fix it then this country should have excellant schools, and no welfare rolls. The money that has been more or less thrown in the direction of these two things have not resulted in either of those results. Throwing money at nursing is not going to fix what is broke either.

-jt · Mar 8, 2001

Originally posted by wildtime88:
yes jt. the people who authorize the checks we cash. the people who make the ultimate decisions on how much money we are really worth.

if they say no to our demands then we let them continue to run the institutions 24 hours a day under a worse staffing situation than we left with. just how long do you think it would be before the physicians started crying out from working under those conditions.

lets see... last year in Nyack, NY they kept it going for 151 days, in Worcester, MA it was about 7 weeks, in Stanford, CA & Flint, Michigan about 8 weeks, & Washinton DC a little more than 7 weeks. You just described a strike. And for the record, the MDs & hospitals were not crying. They had wonderful PR & media coverage about how great everything was going & it was all business as usual even without their own staff RNs. They paid exorbitant fees to hire scabs RNs from out of state who didnt care one bit about their profession or what their fellow nurses were doing to advance themselves...they only saw $$$$$ & happily sabotaged the RNs effort for as long as it took... & were paid handsomely for it. 3 strikes occurred at the same time in different parts of the country & there were RNs on waiting lists to get a scab assignment at them. There were plenty of scabs to go around. Its true that after it was all over, the striking RNs did win increases in salary & benefits, restrictions on mandatory ot, & staffing guidelines and/or ratios put in place. It took long strikes, with public pressure on the hospitals & the involvment of elected officials pressuring the hospitals to get agreements on those issues & end the strikes. At most places, just the threat of a strike is enough to come to an agreement on these things. But my point is dont think that just because we walk out for a day that will change anything nationwide. Its impossible to get all nurses to do it, others will be ready to jump up & grab the cash to stab you in the back & reduce the effect you have, & the hospitals can very easily sustain the effort. Just ask the NY RNs at a small rural community hospital who were on strike for 6 months last year.

Are you aware that nurses all over Poland were on strike enmass & all the nurses in Ireland from coast to coast walked out last year & still that only got them a parlimentary hearing (theyre employer is the government)?

I dont see anything different with your suggestion. Its still dependent on what others will do for us.... ie: your employer being responsive. And if he isnt, you just stay out on strike & wait? Doing nothing because you dont want to ask others for help????? I'd rather take that power away from my employer & put it into the hands of myself & my legislator who is working with me to create the laws that we need to prevent my employer from abusing us.

-jt · Mar 8, 2001

Originally posted by wildtime88:
yes jt. the people who authorize the checks we cash. the people who make the ultimate decisions on how much money we are really worth.

if they say no to our demands then we let them continue to run the institutions 24 hours a day under a worse staffing situation than we left with. just how long do you think it would be before the physicians started crying out from working under those conditions.

lets see... last year in Nyack, NY they kept it going for 151 days, in Worcester, MA it was about 7 weeks, in Stanford, CA & Flint, Michigan about 8 weeks, & Washinton DC a little more than 7 weeks. You just described a strike. And for the record, the MDs & hospitals were not crying. They had wonderful PR & media coverage about how great everything was going & it was all business as usual even without their own staff RNs. They paid exorbitant fees to hire scabs RNs from out of state who didnt care one bit about their profession or what their fellow nurses were doing to advance themselves...they only saw $$$$$ & happily sabotaged the RNs effort for as long as it took... & were paid handsomely for it. 3 strikes occurred at the same time in different parts of the country & there were RNs on waiting lists to get a scab assignment at them. There were plenty of scabs to go around. Its true that after it was all over, the striking RNs did win increases in salary & benefits, restrictions on mandatory ot, & staffing guidelines and/or ratios put in place. It took long strikes, with public pressure on the hospitals & the involvment of elected officials pressuring the hospitals to get agreements on those issues & end the strikes. At most places, just the threat of a strike is enough to come to an agreement on these things. But my point is dont think that just because we walk out for a day that will change anything nationwide. Its impossible to get all nurses to do it, others will be ready to jump up & grab the cash to stab you in the back & reduce the effect you have, & the hospitals can very easily sustain the effort. Just ask the NY RNs at a small rural community hospital who were on strike for 6 months last year.

Are you aware that nurses all over Poland were on strike enmass & all the nurses in Ireland from coast to coast walked out last year & still that only got them a parlimentary hearing (theyre employer is the government)?

I dont see anything different with your suggestion. Its still dependent on what others will do for us.... ie: your employer being responsive. And if he isnt, you just stay out on strike & wait? Doing nothing because you dont want to ask others for help????? I'd rather take that power away from my employer & put it into the hands of myself & my legislator who is working with me to create the laws that we need to prevent my employer from abusing us.

rncountry · Mar 9, 2001

And that is what the Million Nurse March is all about.

rncountry · Mar 9, 2001

And that is what the Million Nurse March is all about.

rncountry · Mar 10, 2001

I wanted to post this that was written by Lavinia Dock, one of the nurses from our early history. She worked tirelessly for nursing and for womens rights. I believe I would have liked working with her.

One of the differences between NAWSA and the Woman's Party lay in the way the members of each saw themselves. NAWSA women believed in being solid,knowledgeable, highly organized and diplomatic. Woman's Party members were more inclined to see themselves as warriors. Lavinia L. Dock of Pennsylvania, 60 years old, was an often-arrested member of the Woman's Party. She was a trained nurse, and had worked at the Henry Street Settlement in New York. In all, she served forty-three days in prison for her suffrage activities. Her article, reprinted here from the Woman's Party newspaper, gives a good sense of how many Woman's Party members saw themselves.

The Young Are At The Gates

If any one says to me: "Why the picketing for Suffrage?" I should say in reply, "Why the fearless spirit of youth? Why does it exist and make itself manifest?" Is it not really that our whole social world would be likely to harden and toughen into a dreary mass of conventional negations and forbiddances--into hopeless layers of conformity and caste, did not the irrepressible energy and animation of youth, when joined to the clear-eyed sham-hating intelligence of the young, break up the dull masses and set a new pace for laggards to follow?

What is the potent spirit of youth? Is it not the spirit of revolt, of rebellion against senseless and useless and deadening things? Most of all, against injustice, which is of all stupid things the stupidest?

Such thoughts come to one in looking over the field of the Suffrage campaign and watching the pickets at the White House and at the Capitol, where sit the men who complacently enjoy the rights they deny to the women at their gates. Surely, nothing but the creeping paralysis of mental old age can account for the phenomenon of American men, law-makers, officials,administrators, and guardians of the peace, who can see nothing in the intrepid young pickets with their banners, asking for bare justice but common obstructors of traffic, nagger'-nuisances that are to be abolished by passing stupid laws forbidding and repressing to add to the old junk-heap of laws which forbid and repress? Can it be possible that any brain cells not totally crystallized could imagine that giving a stone instead of bread would answer conclusively the demand of the women who, because they are young, fearless, eager, and rebellious, are fighting and winning a cause for all women--even for those who are timid, conventional, and inert?

A fatal error--a losing fight. The old stiff minds must give way. The old selfish minds must go. Obstructive reactionaries must move on. The young are at the gates!

LAVINIA DOCK

rncountry · Mar 10, 2001

I wanted to post this that was written by Lavinia Dock, one of the nurses from our early history. She worked tirelessly for nursing and for womens rights. I believe I would have liked working with her.

One of the differences between NAWSA and the Woman's Party lay in the way the members of each saw themselves. NAWSA women believed in being solid,knowledgeable, highly organized and diplomatic. Woman's Party members were more inclined to see themselves as warriors. Lavinia L. Dock of Pennsylvania, 60 years old, was an often-arrested member of the Woman's Party. She was a trained nurse, and had worked at the Henry Street Settlement in New York. In all, she served forty-three days in prison for her suffrage activities. Her article, reprinted here from the Woman's Party newspaper, gives a good sense of how many Woman's Party members saw themselves.

The Young Are At The Gates

If any one says to me: "Why the picketing for Suffrage?" I should say in reply, "Why the fearless spirit of youth? Why does it exist and make itself manifest?" Is it not really that our whole social world would be likely to harden and toughen into a dreary mass of conventional negations and forbiddances--into hopeless layers of conformity and caste, did not the irrepressible energy and animation of youth, when joined to the clear-eyed sham-hating intelligence of the young, break up the dull masses and set a new pace for laggards to follow?

What is the potent spirit of youth? Is it not the spirit of revolt, of rebellion against senseless and useless and deadening things? Most of all, against injustice, which is of all stupid things the stupidest?

Such thoughts come to one in looking over the field of the Suffrage campaign and watching the pickets at the White House and at the Capitol, where sit the men who complacently enjoy the rights they deny to the women at their gates. Surely, nothing but the creeping paralysis of mental old age can account for the phenomenon of American men, law-makers, officials,administrators, and guardians of the peace, who can see nothing in the intrepid young pickets with their banners, asking for bare justice but common obstructors of traffic, nagger'-nuisances that are to be abolished by passing stupid laws forbidding and repressing to add to the old junk-heap of laws which forbid and repress? Can it be possible that any brain cells not totally crystallized could imagine that giving a stone instead of bread would answer conclusively the demand of the women who, because they are young, fearless, eager, and rebellious, are fighting and winning a cause for all women--even for those who are timid, conventional, and inert?

A fatal error--a losing fight. The old stiff minds must give way. The old selfish minds must go. Obstructive reactionaries must move on. The young are at the gates!

LAVINIA DOCK

rncountry · Mar 11, 2001

what questions? I have thought I have answered what you are looking for, but obviously I haven't. Tell me again, and I will attempt to answer what you want. As far as the past wildtime, I do look to the past to learn its lessons. Both good and bad.

rncountry · Mar 11, 2001

what questions? I have thought I have answered what you are looking for, but obviously I haven't. Tell me again, and I will attempt to answer what you want. As far as the past wildtime, I do look to the past to learn its lessons. Both good and bad.