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.
Your statement sounds so much like stereotyping that it is scary! Are you an Administrator that feels threatened by comments about sharing power?
Unions, like all organizations, are made up of people, members in this case. These members,through their hard work, achieved the social benefits that people in this country take for granted: protection against child labor, 40 hour work week, FMLA, and Social Security, to name just a few.
No I am not an Administrator. Yes there were some good things that came out of union activities early in American Labor History. However, there is much evil in unions as well- organized crime, violence, fraud, etc. I just feel passionately that people should not be forced to join a union- even if the union is in the hospital- or give "service fees" to a union. Unions are big businesses and refuse to admit it. The corruption within the AFL-CIO and Teamsters alone should make every American ashamed. Also, why not say what is REALLY the desire of unionization- MORE MONEY? If people would admit this one small FACT, then I would have less heartburn about unions, but the fact is the unions and their supporters are as two faced as most politicians. I have belonged to unions and I have worked in union and non-union shops, and I can speak for myself and don't need to pay some mobbed-up Democrat to speak for me.
No one is forced to join a union. If you don't want to be in a union, you can either work in a right to work state or at any hospital that doesn't have a union.
No one is forced to join a union. If you don't want to be in a union, you can either work in a right to work state or at any hospital that doesn't have a union.
I love this...
Why don't I turn this argument around.
If you want to work with a union, why don't you choose a hospital that already has one to work at?
Probably for the same reasons that people who do not like unions work in hospitals with unions.
1. They have been at the facility for sometime, and regardless of all the problems that apparently are so epidemic and systemic, they enjoy, at least somewhat, working there.
2. All the facilities in the area are either union (or non-union) and you really need a job. Yet, you like the area you live in, for the weather, family, cost of living...or for the simple fact that is where you spent your whole life.
I still fail to see the problem with people being allowed to not join the union, not have to pay dues, and therefore not be bound or protected by the same contract that those do join the union. IF the unions are truly about representing workers, and what workers want and need... then they should be all for this; however, that doesn't fit within their agenda. The agenda of most unions is simply to ensure that the union survives, collects as many dues as possible, and then supports the political machine that further weaves their survival into legislation.
Again, if unions stuck with collective bargaining, and veered away from the leftist, yes that is correct leftist (as in socialism and communism[you know medicare for all...]) politics that they are so often in bed with, then many folks would take less of an issue with them.
Another example of Union hypocrisy and hyperbole... The CNA has come out in favor of campaign finance reform which would limit the amount that corporations could give to canidates...(http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2006/january/page.jsp?itemID=27527730 )sounds good right? They further complain that the November special election had special interests at heart... and then go on to complain about the warchest that was spent by supporters of the propositions on that ballot.
Yet..the CNA, and others raised and spent 100 million dollars to fight him? So essentially they want to limit, and complain about donations and support that is made to campaigns... yet there is no mention to limiting their own contributions... I wonder why? Because unions are some the biggest politcal contributers that there are...
No one is forced to join a union. If you don't want to be in a union, you can either work in a right to work state or at any hospital that doesn't have a union.
So, if I am at a hospital that 51% of the nurses vote a union in, and the contract requires all nurses to either join the union or pay a service fee to the union, my choices are join the party or find another hospital? Well, why not tell the nurses that want a union to leave? Both are unacceptable in my book.
So, if I am at a hospital that 51% of the nurses vote a union in, and the contract requires all nurses to either join the union or pay a service fee to the union, my choices are join the party or find another hospital? Well, why not tell the nurses that want a union to leave?
Because they are the majority in that case. Sometimes the minority just has to suck it up and make a choice (stay or go). Life can't be perfect.
Exactly. Working conditions for nurses in California would be completely medieval if it weren't for the CNA fighting for them.
interesting you should use the word medieval. Unions originated in medieval times as guilds, to guarantee standards and look after their members.
Let me just say that I admire the contributions of labor unions to Nursing in California and beyond.
I encourage all my RN colleagues to participate in the advancement of the nursing profession.
My personal feeling is that organized labor has both good and bad sides to it. Unions have helped nurses to win higher wages, better staffing and working conditions, and to level the playing field between management and the rank and file.
Unfortunately, unions do have some flaws, and my hope is that they are working to fix them. The union mentality of x years experience= x wage is a blue collar mentality that fails to differentiate those nurses who have been high achievers within the profession from average nurses, and average nurses from mediocre nurses. Most frequently, the union environment creates a situation where you have nurses who you can't get rid of, who are not that great, and pay them exactly the same as the really great ones with the same amount of experience. We need to do some more self-policing within our unions to prevent this.
Why don't the unions negotiate higher pay for a BSN? why are there no "retention bonuses" for staying put? or a national certification ie, CCRN? How about higher pay for higher patient satisfaction or productivity? Why don't the unions advocate for RN's to Bill for their services, thus ending the conundrum of quantifying the contributions we make to health care.
I would argue that unions often create unintended consequences for the nursing profession. Its not so much the union itself, but my experience as a unionized RN was the antiquated work rules ie, shift bidding, having to hire union RNs from internal applicants first, etc. These "work rules" tie the hands of management and force them to not hire the best people and/or to tie their hands with regard to salary. they may want to hire someone, and may be willing and able to pay them a higher wage, yet cannot because of the union contract.
I want to reiterate that i think unions may be able to address these problems going forward, and starting this dialogue will offer them solutions on how to improve. After all, nurses are uniquely positioned to embrace and effect change in this tight labor market. were not a feudal society controlled by guilds and royalty- this is a market-driven economy that brings huge opportunity!
NURSING- A SIX-FIGURE JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just find it amazing that people in "right to work" states are so passionately opposed to unions but are not upset about huge patient loads, low pay, poor benefits and no job security. I left Texas for these reasons and still miss my friends there but California has been very good to me. They only thing crazier than the price of houses here is that we can afford them.
I just find it amazing that people in "right to work" states are so passionately opposed to unions but are not upset about huge patient loads, low pay, poor benefits and no job security. I left Texas for these reasons and still miss my friends there but California has been very good to me. They only thing crazier than the price of houses here is that we can afford them.
What I am opposed to, is misrepresentation of the "Right to Work" quagmire. Pay is great- compared to cost of living, and as far as job security- I don't see the mass layoffs everytime there is a change of administration/management. I just believe that I have the right to speak to whomever I want to when I want to, and don't need to get permission from BillyBob down the hall, just because he is the current shop steward.
I believe that we will never solve this debate. If you want to sell your right to be heard as an individual, then that is your right. I for one will NEVER join a union, and would actively oppose one wherever I can- including working at a striking hospital.
1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.
51% is more than half the total, so that fits with the definition of majority. Plurality in an election refers to the side that got the most votes where there are more than two options, but their total does not equal more than half of the votes cast (see #4). An example is the last Canadian election. The winning party got a little over 30% of the vote. This is also sometimes called the relative majority (whereas more than 50% is the absolute majority).
a. In a contest of more than two choices, the number of votes cast for the winning choice if this number is not more than one half of the total votes cast.
b. The number by which the vote of the winning choice in such a contest exceeds that of the closest opponent
BamaBound2bRN
202 Posts
No I am not an Administrator. Yes there were some good things that came out of union activities early in American Labor History. However, there is much evil in unions as well- organized crime, violence, fraud, etc. I just feel passionately that people should not be forced to join a union- even if the union is in the hospital- or give "service fees" to a union. Unions are big businesses and refuse to admit it. The corruption within the AFL-CIO and Teamsters alone should make every American ashamed. Also, why not say what is REALLY the desire of unionization- MORE MONEY? If people would admit this one small FACT, then I would have less heartburn about unions, but the fact is the unions and their supporters are as two faced as most politicians. I have belonged to unions and I have worked in union and non-union shops, and I can speak for myself and don't need to pay some mobbed-up Democrat to speak for me.