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?
As much as I see the benefit of playing both sides, I just don't see any Nursing association ever having enough money to do the same.
My take: the partisan politics of the nursing organizations has more to do with the partisan politics of its core members than it does nursing advocacy. And, it helps maintain that core by alienating others.
Hospitals might have enough MONEY to 'play both sides' but if nurses would truly seek unity instead of disunity (such is in partisan politics), we'd have enough CLOUT to trump money.
We do have the clout, now. The people that could organize that clout, however, are sell-outs to partisan politics.
It's not that the hospitals' money 'wins'; it's that we busy ourselves by 'throwing the race'.
Man, nursing is so the Pete Rose of lobbying. So much potential for respect, willfully tossed down the drain.
Specializes in home & public health, med-surg, hospice.
See we coulda got behind Kinky for a bipartisan push. You know he's runnin' part of his platform for education with the slogan, "No Teacher Left Behind." He could've done some kind of slogan like "Dont' Mess with Nurses" if we'd gotten on board with his campaign.
Specializes in home & public health, med-surg, hospice.
Just a little side note...I have begun to notice a pattern here. Gauge14iv and ZASHAGALKA seem to get involved in these inspiring/engaging discussions right when I have finals comin' up! Remember the theory thread? That was last semester...lol
Funny thing is, I feel like what I get from you guys is every bit as beneficial (and in some cases more so) as what I'm getting through my traditional education. Maybe it's b/c y'all make me think, seeing > one side of the coin.
My take: the partisan politics of the nursing organizations has more to do with the partisan politics of its core members than it does nursing advocacy.
Not always ...
It's important to remember that CNA only represents 20 percent of nurses in California. Yet, when they got the ratio law passed, this was for the benefit of all nurses in California. 80 percent of nurses who don't belong to their organization benefit from it.
If they really weren't interested in nursing advocacy, they could have easily just negotiated ratios in their own union contracts and not bothered to pass a law that would benefit everyone ...
CNA is admittedly a partisan organization, and there are a lot of people who disagree with their politics. But I have yet to meet a single nurse that doesn't think the ratio law is a great thing (except maybe RN's in management.) Even the most hardcore Republican nurses I know, who totally disagree with CNA's politics, love the ratio law. Why? Because it's tremendously improved their working conditions.
Partisan politics and nursing advocacy doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. It may take partisan politics to get something like the ratio law passed but, as long as the organization is pushing issues like ratios ... it can benefit and, also, unify all nurses ... whether they are Republican or Democrat.
Partisan politics and nursing advocacy doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. It may take partisan politics to get something like the ratio law passed but, as long as the organization is pushing issues like ratios ... it can benefit and, also, unify all nurses ... whether they are Republican or Democrat.
It's important to remember that CNA only represents 20 percent of nurses in California. Yet, when they got the ratio law passed, this was for the benefit of all nurses in California. 80 percent of nurses who don't belong to their organization benefit from it.
If they really weren't interested in nursing advocacy, they could have easily just negotiated ratios in their own union contracts and not bothered to pass a law that would benefit everyone ...
CNA is admittedly a partisan organization, and there are a lot of people who disagree with their politics. But I have yet to meet a single nurse that doesn't think the ratio law is a great thing (except maybe RN's in management.) Even the most hardcore Republican nurses I know, who totally disagree with CNA's politics, love the ratio law. Why? Because it's tremendously improved their working conditions.
Partisan politics and nursing advocacy doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. It may take partisan politics to get something like the ratio law passed but, as long as the organization is pushing issues like ratios ... it can benefit and, also, unify all nurses ... whether they are Republican or Democrat.
:typing
But you are making my point, too. There are core nursing issues that all nurses could jump on (and be amazing advocates in support) --- but you are willing to work within an organization that enjoys only 20% support IN ORDER TO KEEP THE PARTISAN POLITICS with which you and those core members agree.
But without the partisan politics, your organization could possibly have twice its membership. How much clout and what could you get done with THAT kind of support. You speak of 20% of nurses 'taking down the governator'. Wow. That's quite a bit of clout! How much more would you have if you shirked the partisanship and had an organization that truly represented NURSES and not left wing politicians?
Partisan politics and nursing advocacy might not be necessarily mutually exclusive but partisan politics and nursing unity are ABSOLUTELY mutually exclusive. And my argument is that THAT unity would trump partisanship in actually getting things done, if only it were tried.
You can beat up on those 'evil, corporate republicans' all you want. Most politicians want to get re-elected and a unified nursing advocacy would be a two-fer, regardless of party: a large bloc of voters, and, let's face it - it's an ethically good thing to help nurses.
You might get some things done in spite of partisanship. But you are handicapping your nursing advocacy in order to use that organization in ways that alienate its ultimate value: you are using it to support YOUR politics. You don't mind that that alienates your professional peers - you have a 'take us or leave us' attitude. And that is not nursing advocacy.
CNA members always go back to the 'ratio' law. Fine. I'm glad you used liberal politics to get that passed in liberal California. But what about the advocacy to get things like that passed nationwide? And ratios are just the tip of the iceberg of the changes that nursing needs. Are you willing to bring all nurses on board to be a voice for change that can't be ignored? Or just the ones that support your non-nursing, political views?
(that's a generic 'you' meaning those that support partisan politics in nursing organizations - not specific 'you' meaning any one person.)
But without the partisan politics, your organization could possibly have twice its membership. How much clout and what could you get done with THAT kind of support.
This thread is about only 2 percent of Texas nurses joining TNA. At 20 percent, or ten times the amount of membership, CNA isn't doing too bad in comparison. Maybe they could get more members if they changed their politics but, they also might alienate their existing membership if they changed direction. Generally, about a third of the state is Republican and, I would guess that about a third of RN's in California are Republican also. But since two-thirds are also Independents or Democrats, they could also end up alienating a lot of their membership. So ... who knows how the numbers would really break down.
Partisan politics and nursing advocacy might not be necessarily mutually exclusive but partisan politics and nursing unity are ABSOLUTELY mutually exclusive. And my argument is that THAT unity would trump partisanship in actually getting things done, if only it were tried.
This may be true, but we really don't know either. There is no utopia with organizations. Whether it's Democrat, Republican or non-partisan, not everyone is going to agree with what every organization does. No organization is going to be perfect. What we do know is TNA has supported Texas Republicans and they don't have much to show for it.
You might get some things done in spite of partisanship. But you are handicapping your nursing advocacy in order to use that organization in ways that alienate its ultimate value: you are using it to support YOUR politics. You don't mind that that alienates your professional peers - you have a 'take us or leave us' attitude. And that is not nursing advocacy.
CNA is a labor union. While they are very politically involved, the main thing they do is negotiate labor contracts. When it comes to whether or not RN's support the union, it's really the bottom line i.e. money and benefits that influences their decisions more than anything else.
CNA either keeps the members happy with better raises, benefits, etc. or they don't. There's been a few decertification elections in recent months but a majority of nurses have voted to keep the union despite the opportunity to throw them out. So, presumably, most of the membership is relatively happy.
CNA is labor union - whole different animal from a nursing advocacy organization in so many ways
This is Texas - CNA is in California - sorry but none of what applies to CA applies in Texas - Democrats are just about a hunted breed according to some folks in these parts
Any organization who wants to UNIFY anything serves no purpose by participating in PARTISAN anything. end of story.
TNA hasn't supported any political figures at all that Im aware of - I could be wrong - but the impression I am getting is that they seem to be made up mostly of nursing admins and educators.
Nope - I want nothing to do with an org that sides with any political party - I want an org that sides with NURSES
Politics just needs to stay out of it
And again - Texas IS NOT and NEVER WILL BE California. (and no offense - but I personally am grateful for it)
TNA hasn't supported any political figures at all that Im aware of - I could be wrong - but the impression I am getting is that they seem to be made up mostly of nursing admins and educators.
Nope - I want nothing to do with an org that sides with any political party - I want an org that sides with NURSES
Just FYI, here's Gov. Rick Perry's list of endorsements.
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
My take: the partisan politics of the nursing organizations has more to do with the partisan politics of its core members than it does nursing advocacy. And, it helps maintain that core by alienating others.
Hospitals might have enough MONEY to 'play both sides' but if nurses would truly seek unity instead of disunity (such is in partisan politics), we'd have enough CLOUT to trump money.
We do have the clout, now. The people that could organize that clout, however, are sell-outs to partisan politics.
It's not that the hospitals' money 'wins'; it's that we busy ourselves by 'throwing the race'.
Man, nursing is so the Pete Rose of lobbying. So much potential for respect, willfully tossed down the drain.
~faith,
Timothy.