For comparisons sake, I made a couple of phone calls -
First to the Texas Nurses Association – according to them, there are about 170,000 nurses in Texas, but only 3,800 of them are members of the Texas Nurses Association. That means that about 2% of all nurses in Texas are members of the TNA.
In contrast, the Texas Medical Association has 40,683 members as of March 31, 2006 according to a phone call placed to their membership department. There are about 53,000 physicians in Texas according to the Texas board of medical examiners. 76% of physicians are members of their professional organization.
HUH???? Are we listed in Webster's under the definition for apathy?
Well, there are particular issues - try reading the thread about the group one background checks for instance.
APN's have better rep than some groups of nurses but even many of us are not as active as we could be. Yes, the RX auth for controlleds did pass - but there is a movement afoot to move all advanced providers over to the BME's control - and that movement is strong and backed by money and numbers - something we don't have.
It isn't just about advanced practice nurses. It goes far beyond that. It just seems to me that if ALL of the nursing groups would agree to get together to further and protect nursing, then maybe the sense that nurses are powerless could be changed.
Nurses already advocate for patients and they do it very well - almost every nurse I know has advocacy as a basis for practice. What we don't do very well, is advocate for ourselves.
And thanks - I'm looking forward to graduation but feeling a little lost at the same time!
I agree with you. We would be much better served by unified representation. The problem isn't just the BSN/ADN debate, though. It's also the leftist tilt to nursing politics.
Another reason I wouldn't join ANA/TNA is I don't particularly care to support Hilary w/ my dollars.
AMA and other 'professional' organizations dodge the political game and doggedly protect and represent the interests of their members.
But nursing: let's - as an organization - divide the interests of our profession and then, let's make our organization a vehicle of left wing politics. And then let's whine about how we aren't 'relevant' to those we are supposed to serve, but don't.
You know, if BRIAN at allnurses started a national organization that represented 'all nurses' without the political rhetoric: I'd join. Otherwise, I don't know anybody else with the pull to push ANA/TNA out of the way to make room for a real organization that really represents nursing.
Political neutrality is absolutely key - the focus MUST be on serving the needs of the members - NOT on being pulled into the private agendas of a few.
It isn't that nurses are not smart enough to form an org with the clout and capacity of the AMA - we are - we just can't seem to agree on anything long enough to actually get it together. AND the orgs that presently exist as you say - do not do a good job of remaining politically neutral.
Well, there are particular issues - try reading the thread about the group one background checks for instance.
APN's have better rep than some groups of nurses but even many of us are not as active as we could be. Yes, the RX auth for controlleds did pass - but there is a movement afoot to move all advanced providers over to the BME's control - and that movement is strong and backed by money and numbers - something we don't have.
It isn't just about advanced practice nurses. It goes far beyond that. It just seems to me that if ALL of the nursing groups would agree to get together to further and protect nursing, then maybe the sense that nurses are powerless could be changed.
Nurses already advocate for patients and they do it very well - almost every nurse I know has advocacy as a basis for practice. What we don't do very well, is advocate for ourselves.
And thanks - I'm looking forward to graduation but feeling a little lost at the same time!
Yeah...I am not surprised with the BME or AMA they are always trying to something to insure as much of the pt's dollars stay in the MD/DOs pocket..lol.
I am still in favor of not having an all powerful nursing organization...I like being represented by a speciality nursing organization that lobbies collectively with other nursing organizations on broader issues.
You will find many docs now belong to speciality physician organizations vs. AMA. But the AMA is still very powerful with a greater percentage of docs joining a medical organization vs. nurses. I don't think it should be a matter of what nursing organization we join, but just to join. We, as nurses, are the largest profession if we all joined a nursing organization and collectively bargained on broader issues that faced us all we would be unstoppable no matter how many speciality nursing organizations there were.
Many nurses though just join a local organization for networking which does no lobbying whatsoever. And many of the specialty organizations do no lobbying nor do they contribute to any lobbying entities.
There are so many that it just gets plain confusing, For instance - here in Texas APN's have Texas Nurse Practitioners, which doesn't lobby itself but which does contribute to CNAP which DOES lobby, then there are the local orgs which DON'T lobby but people think since they are a member of something that it counts. Some of the local orgs are backed by national orgs which DO lobby and some are not...
It's enough to make your head spin!
And that's APN's. For RN's and LVN's - there is no lobbying org in Texas that I know of outside of TNA /ANA - and as people have said - that org does not appear to be meeting the needs of most nurses as evidenced by some of the issues currently being seen in Texas and the membership numbers.
How can an organization do lobbying and stay non political?
By lobbying for nursing causes only - and not for political candidates.
If I want to lobby for say: pt ratios - then I talk w/ elected officials across the political spectrum about pt ratios.
The moment I start saying that I will financially support left wing candidates BECAUSE they support pt ratios - I lose the ability to convince the party in power.
It's standard operating procedures for lobbyists to support candidates of all parties in order to always have stakes in the fire. Except nursing, we just dumbly do the the same thing that not only alienates our own, but those that might have the influence to act on our behalf. . .
And then we wonder why TNA has so few members they can't afford to advertise to their own, much less lobby . . .
By lobbying for nursing causes only - and not for political candidates.
~faith,
Timothy.
The problem is . . .some of the solutions to "nursing causes only" are political and from all directions.
I was very surprised when I became a nurse at 40 - had NO idea of the politics of nursing. My impression, just from this bulletin board is that most nurses are left-leaning. That means pro-union. (I won't join a union). Then there is the whole debate about what educational level nurses should have. I think this is a can of political worms you open when you think we can lobby without being political or without coming from different political spectrums.
As I said - good question spacenurse.
I don't belong to a nursing organization, for alot of the reasons you mention Tim.
This is a interesting thread - and a hard subject.
By lobbying for nursing causes only - and not for political candidates.
If I want to lobby for say: pt ratios - then I talk w/ elected officials across the political spectrum about pt ratios.
The moment I start saying that I will financially support left wing candidates BECAUSE they support pt ratios - I lose the ability to convince the party in power.
I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. You really think staying neutral would get anything done? Have you actually gotten a ratio law passed? Obviously not.
This is totally naive and impractical. No one is ever going to convince a majority of Republican politicians to support ratios because they've always solidly supported the hospital industry in their opposition to ratios. Unless you have a ton of money to throw at the Republican party, good luck in getting them to do anything to improve working conditions for nurses because ... it ain't gonna happen.
Let's take a look at the circumstances that actually got the first ratio law passed in this country because the fact is: partisan politics is what actually got the job done.
If CNA had remained "neutral" and hadn't supported Democrats in the legislature and the Democratic governor at the time, they wouldn't have passed the ratio law to begin with. If CNA had again remained "neutral" and hadn't opposed Schwarzenegger when he tried to get rid of it, the California ratio law would be gone by now.
You've got to pick a side and, for better or for worse, nurses have a better shot with Democrats. California nurses have proven this with the ratio law. And, you may notice, they are the only nurses in the country that have such a law because they supported Democrats.
You've got to pick a side and, for better or for worse, nurses have a better shot with Democrats.
:yelclap:
Agreed. It's a shame we only have 2 political ideologies to choose from (with any reasonable expectation of winning an election), but it is what it is. And, as lizz points out, Democrat candidates are more likely to support legislation that supports nurses and patients. Hospitals being what they are these days (Businesses) and Republicans being what they are (Businessmen), it's easy to see where Republican support will fall. (When I use "Republican" I mean the party, not Joe Blow republican from Smallville, TX.)
Hospitals being what they are these days (Businesses) and Republicans being what they are (Businessmen), it's easy to see where Republican support will fall.
Exactly. There are situations where lobbyists give money to both sides ... particularly corporate lobbyists who can afford to do so. But this often works best with obscure issues that don't get a lot of public attention (like tax breaks) where they can get support from both sides.
But a lot of it also depends on the issue. You're not, for example, going to find too many pro-abortion lobbyists who give money to Republicans because the vast majority of the time, it's money down the drain. It would be a complete waste of time for those lobbyists to pretend to be "neutral" and support Republican candidates along with Democrats.
The same goes for ratios or any other issues that affect working conditions for nurses. These are traditionally Democratic issues. Republicans aren't going to support those issues because their platform has always supported big business. The only way this could possibly change is if you had as much money has the hospital industry to contribute to their campaigns, but I think everyone would agree that nurses will never be able to raise that kind of money.
It's enough to make your head spin!
gauge14iv, MSN, APRN, NP
1,622 Posts
Well, there are particular issues - try reading the thread about the group one background checks for instance.
APN's have better rep than some groups of nurses but even many of us are not as active as we could be. Yes, the RX auth for controlleds did pass - but there is a movement afoot to move all advanced providers over to the BME's control - and that movement is strong and backed by money and numbers - something we don't have.
It isn't just about advanced practice nurses. It goes far beyond that. It just seems to me that if ALL of the nursing groups would agree to get together to further and protect nursing, then maybe the sense that nurses are powerless could be changed.
Nurses already advocate for patients and they do it very well - almost every nurse I know has advocacy as a basis for practice. What we don't do very well, is advocate for ourselves.
And thanks - I'm looking forward to graduation but feeling a little lost at the same time!