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?

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".

Google CNA, SEIU, AFSCME etc. You will find links to organizers to help the process get rolling. (Try workdaymn.org )

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

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.

Union or non-union, all institutions most resopnd to the demands of the competitive open marketplace.

A non-union shop has to match salary & benefits to attract staff. It has to treat it's staff with dignity and respect to keep them there.

I've belonged to 2 unions, but none of the 3 hospitals I worked at in the past 24 years were union. Didn't need them.

I"ve never seen anyone fired for no reason. We have specific HR policies that specify disciplinary action. Shared governance and magnet status are big pluses.

Union or non-union, all institutions most resopnd to the demands of the competitive open marketplace.

A non-union shop has to match salary & benefits to attract staff. It has to treat it's staff with dignity and respect to keep them there.

I've belonged to 2 unions, but none of the 3 hospitals I worked at in the past 24 years were union. Didn't need them.

I"ve never seen anyone fired for no reason. We have specific HR policies that specify disciplinary action. Shared governance and magnet status are big pluses.

Perhaps you have "never seen anyone fired for no reason", but you only have to flip through the threads here on "allnurses", to see the what happens in non union facilities. No union protection means that you can be fired for ANYTHING.

How many nurses have been fired for reporting unsafe workplace situations. Or you nurse manager doesn't like you, or plays favorites, and you are not one of the favorites. The list goes on. What about "Group One" in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas, and the lives and careers that have been ruined?

You have no recourse. I am glad that you have never been subjected to a retaliatory discharge, but many others have, and would have been better served by having union protection. The statistics bear me out. You are being naive to think that it will never happen to you.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Wshingnton

If you don't want to make more money, then don't go union. If you want to make more money, unions do generally help.

Year after year Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows you make more money with unions. For RN's it's an extra $6K a year on average than non-union RN's. Even if you're paying $1K a year in dues you're still ahead by $5K.

Try investing $1K in the stock market and getting a 500 percent rate of return on your money or $5K a year ... not likely to happen.

It's actually a great deal.

:typing

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!

Your instructor is misinformed. Sure ... all California nurses benefitted from the ratio law, which the unions passed. But there's more benefits to unions than that.

The highest paying hospital in my area is union ... and the pay did not go up substantially until that facility went union. The non-union hospitals have raised their pay somewhat but, even then it took months for them to do so.

If you were working at a non-union hospital you were losing a lot of money just from the months long delayed pay raises alone.

But even after the non-union hospitals raised their pay ... it still didn't compare to the union hospital nurses, who are bringing home $5K a year or more, after union dues. If you work weekends the pay difference is even higher ... $7K after union dues.

And ... the union nurses will be getting another pay raise in August ... because their pay raises are guaranteed by contract. I have no doubt that the non-union hospitals will still be lagging months behind in giving raises to their nurses so the pay difference will be even greater

So ... guess where everybody wants to work? The union facility ... not so much because they like unions but they want to make more money.

:typing

Union or non-union, all institutions most resopnd to the demands of the competitive open marketplace.

A non-union shop has to match salary & benefits to attract staff. It has to treat it's staff with dignity and respect to keep them there.

I've belonged to 2 unions, but none of the 3 hospitals I worked at in the past 24 years were union. Didn't need them.

I"ve never seen anyone fired for no reason. We have specific HR policies that specify disciplinary action. Shared governance and magnet status are big pluses.

Theoretically, yes, a non-union shop has to match salary and benefits to attract staff. But does that really happen? Or do hospitals conspire to suppress wages? This lawsuit by nurses is quite interesting.

As for your experience at the three non-union hospitals you worked at, did they tell you in advance and in writing what you could expect for a pay raise? Did they guarantee your benefits in writing, or could they be taken away without warning? Your employers had all kinds of policies that applied to you. What policies applied to them?

As for those who argue that all union contracts do is guarantee job protection for the incompetent, getting rid of incompetent employees is the burden of management. I've been on both sides of the equation. If you're a good manager and you're documenting an incompetent's work, there's nothing a union contract can do to protect him or her. And if you've built a good relationship with the union, the union will do what it's required to do to protect a member -- but no more.

As for those who argue that all union contracts do is guarantee job protection for the incompetent, getting rid of incompetent employees is the burden of management. I've been on both sides of the equation. If you're a good manager and you're documenting an incompetent's work, there's nothing a union contract can do to protect him or her. And if you've built a good relationship with the union, the union will do what it's required to do to protect a member -- but no more.

First of all ... I've never understood why people are so concerned about incompetent employees. That's usually management's problem ... not yours.

If a union is getting you better pay raises ... who cares about incompetent employees? If it was up to management, they'd pay you less and hire their own incompetent employees (which, I'm sure, many of us have seen). It really makes no difference except that you're making less money.

But you're right ... what a union does is prevent is "I don't like you so I'm going to fire you" situations. But if you really screw up ... you're going to get fired. I work for state government (and belong to a government union) which a lot of people falsely believe gives you iron clad job security but that's just not the case.

We had two nurses walked off our facility just last week. The union made absolutely no difference whatsoever.

:typing

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

As for those who argue that all union contracts do is guarantee job protection for the incompetent, getting rid of incompetent employees is the burden of management.

First of all ... I've never understood why people are so concerned about incompetent employees. That's usually management's problem ... not yours.

You both have just made strong anti-union arguments:

Incompetent employees are burdens of patients, co-workers, AND management.

Imcompetents will negatively affect patient outcomes (up to & including death), create more work for others, lowers employee morale, lowers the community's perception of the quality of care, makes it harder to attract quality employees, etc.

"It's management's problem, not mine."

Whatever happened to the nurse being the patient's advocate?

If having a union creates a culture that negates professionalism, teamwork, and patient advocacy; is that a good thing?

You both have just made strong anti-union arguments:

Incompetent employees are burdens of patients, co-workers, AND management.

Imcompetents will negatively affect patient outcomes (up to & including death), create more work for others, lowers employee morale, lowers the community's perception of the quality of care, makes it harder to attract quality employees, etc.

"It's management's problem, not mine."

Whatever happened to the nurse being the patient's advocate?

If having a union creates a culture that negates professionalism, teamwork, and patient advocacy; is that a good thing?

Mr.ChicagoRN, I did not say that incompetent employees are management's problem, not mine. I said that getting rid of incompetents is the burden of management. There are some on these threads who suggest that incompetents remain on the job because they're in a union. I contend that they remain on the job because they don't have good managers who document their incompetence and get rid of them. Please don't twist my words. This forum is rife with stories of incompetent managers.

As for the argument that co-workers shouldn't care about incompetent employees -- an argument that I did not make -- I disagree. I don't want to work with incompetent people. They threaten patient safety, increase everyone else's workload and generally dampen morale.

I've experienced working in places where unions contribute to professionalism and a team atmosphere; you seem to presume that this cannot be true. It's all a reflection of the relationship between labor and management. Having a union hardly negates being an advocate for patients. On the other hand, going to work for an institution shouldn't negate rights for employees, either.

"It's management's problem, not mine."

Whatever happened to the nurse being the patient's advocate?

Well ... it IS management's problem. How many patients am I realistically supposed to advocate for? I'm already busy with the patients I'm assigned to.

What would you suggest I do ... tell management how to do their job? Been there, done that ... it's not worth the grief and I'm not doing it anymore. Sorry but, I'm just being pragmatic.

I've worked both union and non-union. I have yet to see a place that's free of incompetent people ... it's all the same. Management always picks their favorites and that includes their share of incompetents.

If you think non-union is some panacea for incompetence, you're mistaken.

:typing

I agree there will always be incompetents, but there has to be a way to deal with that, union or not. I like the idea of being protected from harrassment or firing from management for unfair reasons. And I think new employees being routinely lied to should stop along with a lot of other nasty practices by management that I often see. Surely a union will help with that some. My hospital is in the process of getting one.

Ah, the devil is in the details..

I think it is vital that your Union -- certainly the Local is BY AND FOR NURSES. that being said, healthcare is big business and you need a National /International voice -- an umbrella organization.

The strength of any Union is in it's members participation and the Internationals have different stuff to offer (education/training ect.. as well as a voice in lobbying.) Don't kid yourself we need representation in the state and national legislatures more than ever. Decisions are being made in the capitals that affect our work as nurses. Your Hospitals all belong to Hospital Associations who send lobbyists --in some fashion Nurses need lobbyists and if we join together we can afford to send people to represent NURSES.

And yes Union employees do make more money and enjoy better working conditions across the board.

What can you do? Meet with the Union leadership in your state and pick the Union you want based on your needs, the members must trust the integrity of their representatives and shop for the best fit for their group. You have more chioces now that we did 20 years ago.

And once you get a union -- PARTICIPATE...

+ Add a Comment