California Nurses Association may be targeting University of Chicago after Cook County win
If there's a campaign map on the wall at the Oakland, Calif., headquarters of the California Nurses Association, the Chicago area must be ground zero.
Since winning away Cook County's 1,800 nurses from the Illinois Nurses Association, the independent union has linked with nurses at more than 20 Chicago-area hospitals with the goal of organizing a handful of them, union officials say.
One possible target is the University of Chicago Hospitals, where workers from the national organizing arm of the California Nurses have been talking with nurses.
They say they are only helping the 1,300 University of Chicago nurses, who belong to the Illinois Nurses Association. But they do not rule out an eventual organizing drive like the one they successfully staged at Cook County.
The situation is "reminiscent" of what happened with Cook County's nurses, confirmed Fernando Losada, head of Midwest operations for the National Nurses Organizing Committee, the national arm for the California Nurses Association.
Actually, I feel sorry for them, too, but that's not me.
That's not me either. I'm sitting on $150,000 of equity with a cheap fixed rate mortgage and no additional debt so ... I'm happy. California's expensive housing market has been very good for me.
The union opponents do make a bunch of noise but, most of the time, it's just a bunch of noise. Usually, they don't have the votes. CNA does occassionally lose elections but not very often, especially in recent years. Union opponents also tried to decertify CNA in two facilities last year but, they lost both of those elections. And, btw, the Cedars Sinai election was not overturned by a majority vote but was thrown out by the Bush appointed NLRB. Not quite the same thing as losing the RN vote itself which, they didn't.
If you were somehow counting on California RN's to vote against unionization in most cases ... well ... it just doesn't happen very often. I don't think there would be much support for becoming a right to work state either. Ratios have made CNA pretty popular. And, the fact of the matter is ... union facilities generally do have better pay and benefits. So, most RN's really don't see a reason to vote against them.
I'm not entirely opposed to union membership becoming optional but, again, the federal law would have to be changed. Regardless of Feinstein and Boxer, you do have a Republican majority in Congress so the time to change that would be now. Yet, I haven't heard of Republicans of proposing such an initiative.
:typing
A bunch of noise is what I would call those that link to the union propaganda to support...union propaganda.
As far as the NLRB, there was an appeal, and another vote, and the CNA didnt get in...big difference between be overturned by an appointee and uh...not voted for after people saw what the union was/is about.
"Meanwhile, the National Labor Relations Board last year
overturned an organizing election the association had
won at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The
board found that the 2002 election had been tainted
because two antiunion nurses had received anonymous
telephone threats against their families and pets."
as far as the republican majority...I have to call MY representives, as I am one of their constituents. I am not a constituent of one of those in teh Republican party.
I don't remember there being a second vote at Cedars Sinai. In fact, I don't remember the anti-union posters here saying that either. Regardless ...
If you're hoping that California will suddenly become a right to work state and that there will be a groundswell of anti-union activity ... well ... it's seriously doubtful that will happen. The failure of the last two decertification efforts demonstrates that it's a long shot ... at best.
I guess you're going to be pretty miserable here, since the union seems to bother you so much. But that's California ... always has been pro-union ... and probably always will be. I guess the only solution would be to move to a right to work state.
I don't remember there being a second vote at Cedars Sinai. In fact, I don't remember the anti-union posters here saying that either. Regardless ...
If you're hoping that California will suddenly become a right to work state and that there will be a groundswell of anti-union activity ... well ... it's seriously doubtful that will happen. The failure of the last two decertification efforts demonstrates that it's a long shot ... at best.
I guess you're going to be pretty miserable here, since the union seems to bother you so much. But that's California ... always has been pro-union ... and probably always will be. I guess the only solution would be to move to a right to work state.
Why I would be so miserable?
I enjoy politics and being active in them. I am sure someone told MLK that he would be pretty miserable and that the best thing for him to do would be to move back to Africa...
See, there is an ebb and flow of liberal and conservative views in politics, and when people finally debunk the myth that letting others think for them is better than thinking for themselves...we will get to where we need to be
I'm not entirely opposed to union membership becoming optional but, again, the federal law would have to be changed. Regardless of Feinstein and Boxer, you do have a Republican majority in Congress so the time to change that would be now. Yet, I haven't heard of Republicans of proposing such an initiative.
I may be incorrect about this, and I will go back and look at my old (22 years ago) class notes, but I think required union membership (union security) isn't mandatory- even in non right to work states like California. Union security is bargained as a required part of the contract. If that is correct, the union would need to offer the employer something at the bargaining table to obtain union security. Once union security was included in the contract then membership (or actually payment of dues) would be mandatory. One thing I am sure of is that employees can always opt to be dues paying nonmembers if they have an objection to membership. They are still entitled to representation and all of the benefits, they just can't vote in union matters.
I may be incorrect about this, and I will go back and look at my old (22 years ago) class notes, but I think required union membership (union security) isn't mandatory- even in non right to work states like California. Union security is bargained as a required part of the contract. If that is correct, the union would need to offer the employer something at the bargaining table to obtain union security. Once union security was included in the contract then membership (or actually payment of dues) would be mandatory. One thing I am sure of is that employees can always opt to be dues paying nonmembers if they have an objection to membership. They are still entitled to representation and all of the benefits, they just can't vote in union matters.
Interesting that you mention this. An appellate court just upheld a decision where 14 RN's refused to pay union dues. The court ordered that the RN's had to be fired for refusing to pay the dues under the security provision.
If I'm not mistaken, this was also an issue with one of the decertification efforts in San Diego during their contract negotiations. But it didn't deter a majority of RN's from voting for the union in that election.
Interesting that you mention this. An appellate court just upheld a decision where 14 RN's refused to pay union dues. The court ordered that the RN's had to be fired for refusing to pay the dues under the security provision.
If I'm not mistaken, this was also an issue with one of the decertification efforts in San Diego during their contract negotiations. But it didn't deter a majority of RN's from voting for the union in that election.
:typing
Go unions YAY!
Wow they sure are for the workers arent they..! Well, at least the ones that fill their coffers
1909 -- mna efforts result in passage of the first nursing practice act. ...union election procedures, and protects individual rights within unions. ...
for nurses, having a union means earning 15.6 percent more than those nurses without a union, according to 2003 data from the current population survey. rns covered by a collective bargaining agreement in 2003 had weekly earnings of $984, compared with $851 weekly for nurses not covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
'union' is not a dirty wordthe most frequent concern we hear from nurses asking about unionization is patient safety. that's right, patient welfare sparks nurses, ...
labor unions and nursingthe ana is loudly protesting that "only nurses should represent nurses", however, unions such as the seiu charge that the associations are much more geared ...www.freeessays.cc/db/11/bmu374.shtml
unionizing for respect
nurses turn to unions at a key moment in health-care history. the tennessean
united we stand - featured storiesbeing part of a nurses' union, she feels, is as important to her struggle to be recognized as an african american as her activism during the civil rights...
Wow they sure are for the workers arent they..! Well, at least the ones that fill their coffers
Look: if non-union shops did offer better pay and benefits, then I would tend to agree with you. But the fact of the matter is: they don't. They won't pay more unless they absolutely have to, and the union is usually the only way they will pay more.
According to the U.S. Labor Department, the average union RN makes $7,000 a year more than non-union RN's. So even if you're paying as much as $1,000 a year in union dues, that's a 600 percent rate of return on your union dues investment.
And that doesn't include retirement and other benefits which, you and I have previously discussed, are much better at union hospitals. The retirement benefits at non-union hospitals are practically non-existent. That's why a lot of RN's keep voting union.
Quite frankly, the only propaganda I've been hearing in interviews is from the non-union shops. They claim they have the best benefits and pay but, when you actually compare what they're offering versus the union hospitals it's a joke. The non-union shops don't even come close to union pay and benefits which, btw, are guaranteed by contract.
Meanwhile, some non-union shops are actually cutting their benefits packages ... both healthcare and retirement ... for current RN employees and new hires, which is kind of shocking when you consider the huge shortage in California. I guess they're hoping people won't check and compare but, when you do, the differences are too great to ignore.
Sheri257
3,905 Posts
That's not me either. I'm sitting on $150,000 of equity with a cheap fixed rate mortgage and no additional debt so ... I'm happy. California's expensive housing market has been very good for me.
:smiley_aa