Nursing and unionization...

Nurses Activism

Published

Recently, we were gathered in a meeting held by human resources regarding attempts by a national labor organization to unionize nurses in our area. Now, if anyone can use good union representation, it's nurses. Provided, of course, the union is more interested in serving the needs of the nurses and their patients rather than lining the pockets of union leadership.

And it seems to be the latter in this case. The union is using both grass-roots organizing and what are called "corporate campaigns". The former is well and good as the potential union member has a say in the matter through a vote for unionization. The latter, however, does nothing but honk me off. Corporate campaigns, as they are called seem to be aimed at pressuring management into signing 'neutrality' and 'card check' agreement, either of which will prevent the employees at a given facility from being able to vote on unionization. Any union victory achieved by this means would be Phyrric, at best. The new, and involuntary, union members would be bitter and resentful at not having any say in the matter, and management would be disinclined to negotiate in any constructive way with the union. The ultimate result would seem, at least to me, to be a decline in patient care as nurses disgusted by the process left the profession, leaving those remaining to carry an even heavier burden, leading to more nurses leaving the profession...a vicious cycle.

The unions president has gone so far as to say to health care organizations, " We will unionize your workers or we will destroy your reputation." This would seem to indicate a less than whole-hearted support of nurses, and more about securing his own power and prestige. I have contacted the union in question, both by e-mail and snail-mail regarding this issue and have, thus far received no response. Apparently, they lack the courage of their convictions. If they want to unionize, put it before the nurses. If they can secure better working conditions, pay and benefits for the employees...If the union can constructively engage management to raise everybody's boat and help us provide the best possible patient care, there will be a union. But if they want to engage in the skulduggery and reputation assassination that these 'corporate campaigns' seem to imply, they can fold it five ways and stuff it where the sun never shines.

Any thoughts?

Specializes in Leadership, Psych, HomeCare, Amb. Care.

In Chicago there aren't too many unionized caregivers. Stroger Cook County Hospital & University of Chicago are the only ones I know of offhand.

Most Chicago hospitals work hard to keep their employees happy enough so that unionization is not a serious consideration.

Unions can be necessary in some environments, but may not be acting in the best interests of health-care professionals.

I support teamwork, up-down, and laterally. I really don't want to hear, "it's not my job."

Coincidentally, in the same week that Circuit City axed its clerks, an analysis of Internal Revenue Service data from 2005 that became available showed that the bottom 90 percent of Americans made less money that year than they had in 2004. According to a study by economists Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, total reported income in the United States increased by 9 percent in 2005 over its level in 2004. All of that increase, however, came from the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, and the wealthiest 1 percent experienced an increase of 14 percent. Among the remaining 90 percent, income actually decreased by 0.6 percent.

...

What all this amounts to is a triumph of corporate and financial power, and of the conservative economics that shores it up. Once upon a time, American prosperity actually benefited Americans. From 1947 through 1973, productivity in the United States rose by 104 percent, and median family income rose by an identical 104 percent. Those were also the only years of real union power in the United States, years in which one-quarter of the workforce, and in some years one-third, was unionized. Apparently, this level of worker power and mass prosperity proved intolerable to our financial elite and their political flunkies. Since the '70s, American business has generally done its damnedest to keep its workers down. Employers routinely opted to pay the negligible penalties for violating the National Labor Relations Act rather than permit its employees to join unions. In 1969, according the National Labor Relations Board, the number of employees who'd suffered illegal retaliation for exercising their right to join or maintain a union was just over 6,000; by 2005, that number had risen to 31,358. According to a study out this January from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, fully one in five activists on unionization campaigns are illegally fired. And as worker power declines, so do living standards. Secure retirement pensions are history; employer-provided health benefits are going fast.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=for_me_not_for_thee

Specializes in Psych, Informatics, Biostatistics.

Love your postings, HM2Viking. I am very surprised that our anti unionists have not responded to them.

I was talking to an instructor recently about my employment options and mentioned that I was crossing one hospital I liked off my list because they weren't union. And she told me that it wasn't important to join the union and pay dues because everyone benefited from what the union was doing in California. So it didn't matter. That seemed vaguely irresponsible to me.

I was offered a job at an open hospital last week and I am definitely joining!

I was talking to an instructor recently about my employment options and mentioned that I was crossing one hospital I liked off my list because they weren't union. And she told me that it wasn't important to join the union and pay dues because everyone benefited from what the union was doing in California. So it didn't matter. That seemed vaguely irresponsible to me.

I was offered a job at an open hospital last week and I am definitely joining!

Labor markets are like real estate. LOCATION,LOCATION,LOCATION. A strong labor presence in a city or state tends to describe the effect she is alluding to. But that does not always apply to other cities or states. THe union difference does make a difference in quality of life issues for employees and their clients. I applaud your desire to choose a union hospital over a non union hospital for employment.

I was talking to an instructor recently about my employment options and mentioned that I was crossing one hospital I liked off my list because they weren't union. And she told me that it wasn't important to join the union and pay dues because everyone benefited from what the union was doing in California. So it didn't matter. That seemed vaguely irresponsible to me.

Someone should ask your instructor to explain the difference between working with a contract and working without one. The non-union hospital might pay the same wages as the union hospital in order to be competitive. But without that contract, you have no guaranteed that your pay and benefits will continue, you have no idea when or whether they'll go up or down, and you are an employee at will -- you can be fired for no reason.

I know that's obvious to pro-union people. What I don't understand is why people like your instructor don't think contract protection is important. I can only conclude that she's never benefitted from it.

I'm with you: I plan on looking for jobs at organized hospitals.

Meanwhile, equalizing union access to unorganized workers at the workplace during organizing campaigns is another priority. According to a recent study by the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois, 91 percent of employers force employees to attend anti-union meetings one-on-one with supervisors. Unions, on the other hand, have no access to unorganized workers on the job.

Numerous states are currently contemplating a state-level solution to this problem, known as the Worker Freedom Act (WFA), which forbids employers from using "mandatory meetings " to force their personal beliefs on workers. WFA was introduced into 8 state legislatures in 2007. It also was passed by the Colorado legislature in 2006, before being vetoed by the Governor. One question to ask Democratic presidential candidates: Will they support addressing this problem at the federal level?

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=beyond_card_check

Specializes in Policy, Emergency OR, Peds OR, CVOR.

i'm only a lowly student. i live in north carolina.

with that said, i don't understand the union stuff. my father is a member of the uaw union at this moment. when i was younger, he was not. i do remember that when he tried to go to work-(-to pay the bills and keep his family from finally crashing over the cliff of poverty that we always teetered on-)-during a strike, the people blocking the entrance vandalized his vehicle and threatened him with physical violence. hearing that when you are a small child is quite traumatizing and may skew my current view of unions. granted, my father is very pro-union now.

i can't say that all unions support violence and strong arming, but while reading through the arguments on here, it doesn't seem to be out of the question. i know that the corporations are evil and out for the all-mighty dollar and that they will do whatever it takes to improve their bottom line. i do not see either side as the good guy in this. i think it comes down to the lesser of two evils.

i don't want to argue with anyone. i am not personally attacking anyone or anyone's point of view.

we are all adults.

it is ridiculous that i should have to preface with this statement. i plan on moving after i complete my msn program and would like to know real information about nursing and unions.

studies and stats are whatever you make them out to be.

i don't want someone to tell me about how the union states pay more than the right to work states without including the disclaimer that most right to work states have a much lower col than the union states.

i don't want someone to tell me that they do not want to be forced into paying dues for something or they'll be fired. if the union is serving its intended purpose, you are receiving benefits. think of your income taxes, you have no choice, you have to pay them because our governing body has determined that you owe ____ amount for the services you receive from our government. granted, you are not shipped out of the country if you don't pay, but you are punished.

i hear the arguments for both sides, i just think that it is getting as nasty as a religious war. no one in the middle responds or asks questions because the fundamentalists of both sides attack them. not everyone is as vehement as the handful of people that bicker back and forth on this forum spewing statistics. i can't speak for anyone else, but the statistics are not impressive coming from either side. i just wish i could hear from more people that think there are good and bad things about both sides without being insulted or barraged with charts and stats.

i'm all about middle of the road, i am a very conservative democrat, married to a very liberal republican, what does that tell you?!

sorry it's so long.

i will not respond to personal attacks or insults. please.

I thought Nursing Against the Odds by Suzanne Gordon provided some pretty convincing pro-union arguments. You might want to check it out.

I thought Nursing Against the Odds by Suzanne Gordon provided some pretty convincing pro-union arguments. You might want to check it out.

Very good book. All of you should read it, but be aware that it may make you angry. It had that affect on me. There are a lot of stories about abuse of one kind or another against nurses.

Specializes in ICU, med/surg.

My first thought was whether it was your human resource department that was telling you this information about the union. If so, watch out! Their interest is in stopping you from using a union at all cost. If a union is in place, the hospital will most likely end up paying you more money, pay for improvements to working conditions, and having to pay out more benefits (not sure how this could possibly be a bad thing for nurses). If you found the info yourself, awesome research!!!

Here's the deal though, if the nurses in your hopsital became unionized, it would be the nurses in your hospital running the union. It is a democratic system, and everything must be voted on. It is the nurses from your hospital that will decide what they need, and what they will fight for. It is NOT a dictatorship where an outside union starts telling you what to do.

I have been a member of a few unions (before becoming a nurse and including as a nurse). I have no bad experiences at all. The unions have always been there to protect me. They have always been on my side. My union jobs have always had the best wage, working conditions, and benefits.

I don't see why so many people panic about the idea. It's really nice to have someone out there fighting for YOU. To have someone out there seeking to improve working conditions is priceless.

Sure, the union is looking for profit. It is a business like any other. However, I find that the services they provide are well worth the money you pay.

(Side note...it's a problem that unions are trying to line their pockets...but not a problem that the hospital you work for is trying to do the same thing? Why is one business ok, but the other is bad in your mind?)

Wouldn't it be nice if nurses would stand up and use the power they hold? Then we wouldn't need unions. For now, we need them.

Specializes in Med-Surg/Tele, ER.
Very good book. All of you should read it, but be aware that it may make you angry. It had that affect on me. There are a lot of stories about abuse of one kind or another against nurses.

True. I read it while in nursing school and kept thinking "what the hell did I get myself into?!". :lol2:

At the same time, the information in Nursing Against the Odds has informed just about every decision I make on the job. I didn't agree with everything Gordon said. I felt she was often hyper-critical of nurses, which I felt was highly ironic coming from a nursing advocate.

At the same time, I love that book (see username). I want a sequel and a supplemental text and a workbook to accompany it. :lol2: Heh.

With regards to Gordon's arguments for unionizing nurses, I felt she made a good case. Personally, I would like to see my institution unionize. In the short time I've been employed there, they already aren't holding-up their end of the deal (i.e. bald-faced lied during recruitment process, typical). Institutions lack accountability to their employees, particularly in areas where we're forced to simply "vote with our feet".

+ Add a Comment