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.
Not to comment on your individual situation but, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that in November, 2004, California RN's, on average, made $15,000 a year more than Texas RN's.
I'm sure this will bring up the inevitable cost of living arguments and, ideally, you'd want to compare net income between the two states. But I'm not sure there's any available data to answer that question.
Well, I don't know about STATISTICS on it, but it's been 6-7 yrs since I made as little as 69,000/yr.
AND THE COST OF LIVING FACTOR.
And the other complaints: that unions protect jobs.
Yes, I do work in a 'right to work' state and can therefore be fired for practically any reason. But then again, I can quit for any reason, also. My 36 bed CCU only has 24 beds open because we can't find the staff for the other 12. With 24 beds open, my unit alone hands out 40 or more OT shifts per week. If we could hire 10 more critical care nurses, my manager would do so without batting an eye. The FTEs are willing, the bodies just aren't there.
My boss isn't just going to let me go for no reason. They have a vested interested in MORE of my experience and ability, not less. And that is, in it's own way, job security. But more important, it's job security without the 'tenured' attitudes that some mention. And besides, it isn't quite that easy to let someone go. Employers DO have to have a rationale/paper trail. And nurses are such a commodity that the local hospitals fight for the local supply of nurses - if anything, there are nurses that SHOULDN'T be hospital nurses that are allowed to hang around, for that reason.
Besides, protected job or not, I wouldn't want to work for somebody that didn't understand my value and WANT me there. Because, whether an employer can hand you a pink slip or not, they can make your life miserable, if they so desire.
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
Sigh,
I love the emotional appeal..(THEY MAKE THIS MUCH)
These executive salaries are exhorbentent, no doubt, but they are more than in line with what corporate America executives make. They are paid for leadership, education, decision making and as a public face to the corporation.
They are also paid by the shareholders, the whole purpose of the CEO is maximize the shareholder's wealth, if they are not doing that, for whatever reason, then the Board and shareholders will remove them.
It is no accident that I have a BSBA and that I am working on an MBA with a HealthCare Administration Focus...
But, what about the non-profit hospitals where nurses are unionized, is it still evil management?
What about the 175K annually that the head of CNA makes, or the job that she gave her hubby for 100k?
With all this emotional appeal, no one has bothered to address the question about geographical location and salary. I mean it is nice to say that union nurses make 7k more a year than non union...but what about union vs non union in so cal, union in cal vs union in Indiana and so forth...you know apples to apples.
My point isn't that the salaries of the CEO are exorbitant. My point is that you said the nurses' wages and the costs of caring for undocumented immigrants were going to cause more hospitals to close. If it is just dollars we're talking about, then it is apples to apples. I'd rather be treated in a hospital without a CEO than one with nurses.
Well ... people do complain about California's cost of living, but it cuts both ways. For every loser in the marketplace, there's a winner.
For every RN who moves to California and may experience sticker shock, there's probably another RN who bought their house 20 years ago and sold it for a fortune. How do you calculate the cost of living for that RN?
People also don't take into account that there's been a huge migration into the inland areas where housing prices are much cheaper. Not everybody pays $500,000 - $1 million for a house in San Francisco.
So ... it's complicated, and I'm not sure you can accurately assess the cost of living factor. But the fact is: California is a union state, Texas is not ... and wages are significantly higher here.
So ... it's complicated, and I'm not sure you can accurately assess the cost of living factor. But the fact is: California is a union state, Texas is not ... and wages are significantly higher here.
:typing
That's just not true, though. In fact, unlike California, Texas has much more in the way of rural areas. And a small hospital in a rural locale has its own kind of monopoly and can salary down as a result.
And that might drive down the state-wide ave salary.
But you go to a metro area, (or in my case a sub-urban outlying area - 60 miles from Houston - w/ competing hospitals) and I make at least 15,000 more than my rural counterparts, for sure.
Direct wage comparison to state averages can be misleading.
And maybe equity in exorbitant housing is a kind of benefit - but only if you can get that price when it's time to sale. And that housing market is at the tail end of a bubble. So unless, you're selling now, it's kind of like owning internet stock in the late 90's.
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
Well ... people do complain about California's cost of living, but it cuts both ways. For every loser in the marketplace, there's a winner.
For every RN who moves to California and may experience sticker shock, there's probably another RN who bought their house 20 years ago and sold it for a fortune. How do you calculate the cost of living for that RN?
People also don't take into account that there's been a huge migration into the inland areas where housing prices are much cheaper. Not everybody pays $500,000 - $1 million for a house in San Francisco.
So ... it's complicated, and I'm not sure you can accurately assess the cost of living factor. But the fact is: California is a union state, Texas is not ... and wages are significantly higher here.
:typing
And some of us like living here, with no pressing need to insult Texas or the Midwest. Every place has its advantages and disadvantages, both tangible and intangible. And you're right, there are an awful lot of us who invested in the real estate market long enough ago that however far the market falls, we'll still have made a profit. You will never, ever again find the 3 bd, 2 ba ranch with the views I have on the market for anywhere near the price I paid. Then there's the fact that I love it here. There is a lot to be said for loving where you are!
And maybe equity in exorbitant housing is a kind of benefit - but only if you can get that price when it's time to sale. And that housing market is at the tail end of a bubble. So unless, you're selling now, it's kind of like owning internet stock in the late 90's.
~faith,
Timothy.
Actually, that's exactly what happened. People sold their houses for a $500,000 profit and moved further inland where they could pay $200,000 or less ... banking $300,000. It's one of the reasons for the huge inland migration within the state. And if you're an RN, there's plenty of nursing jobs in the inland areas so ... it would be a great move financially if you chose to do it.
Other people cashed out their equity with new mortgages. Sure, the mortgage payment is higher, but if you have an extra $300,000 or whatever in cash, you're not exactly hurting.
As far as Bureau of Labor Statistics being misleading well ... they are the ultimate authority on wages. And, btw, we also have plenty of one hospital towns in California with low wages. I don't buy that argument at all.
Again, the BoL stats show union RN's make more money. In fact, BoL stats show that union workers in general make more money in all industries. About $9,000 a year more, in fact. California has more union RN's and, consequently, they make more money than Texas RN's. It's that simple.
Actually, that's exactly what happened. People sold their houses for a $500,000 profit and moved further inland where they could pay $200,000 or less ... banking $300,000. It's one of the reasons for the huge inland migration within the state. And if you're an RN, there's plenty of nursing jobs in the inland areas so ... it would be a great move financially if you chose to do it.
Other people cashed out their equity with new mortgages. Sure, the mortgage payment is higher, but if you have an extra $300,000 or whatever in cash, you're not exactly hurting.
As far as Bureau of Labor Statistics being misleading well ... they are the ultimate authority on wages. And, btw, we also have plenty of one hospital towns in California with low wages. I don't buy that argument at all.
Again, the BoL stats show union RN's make more money. In fact, BoL stats show that union workers in general make more money in all industries. About $9,000 a year more, in fact. California has more union RN's and, consequently, they make more money than Texas RN's. It's that simple.
:typing
er no it is not that simple...
first of all, you are going to have to show this great difference in Union and non union salaries in California
and then you will have to compare the non union salaries of cali with the non union salaries of any state USA. IF you have been in Cali for long enough to have gotten in a mome some 15-20 years ago, there is another thing that is going to help your salary..
experience, and most likely education, those two things have a huge impact
Another thing with the CNA inparticular...
Did they, have they ...tried to minimalize the role of lvns in the state with practice limitations... then cite the linability of LVNs to operate at a capacity that actually assists the RN...?
I KNOW for a fact that they sued the BVNPT to keep LVNs from hanging IV meds for dialysis patients, in a controlled enviroment of the clinic.
I mean LVNs here can not even hang IVPB meds... gee, wonder what kind of impact that had on RN salaries here in Cali?
OK, so trying to navigate the polar(ized) ice here..For those of you who take the absolute, respective positions that unions are absolutely the best thing for nurses in California but they're not relevant or desired in Texas or other locations, is there a scenario that you can think of that would make you beleive something different. I am trying to understand the depth/bredth of convictions and why.
Is there a scenario that you can think of that would make you beleive something different. I am trying to understand the depth/bredth of convictions and why.
If non-union hospitals offered the same pay and benefits that union hospitals do then ... sure ... I wouldn't need a union. I probably wouldn't support unions either because, at that point, union dues would be a ripoff. But, so far, I haven't found any non-union hospitals that offer the same pay and benefits. In fact, non-union hospitals are cutting benefits in my area ... which seems absurd with the shortage ... but that's what's happening.
LydiaNN
2,756 Posts