Raising Their Wages......

gauge14iv, MSN, APRN, NP · Jun 17, 2006

Yes but these unions are located in areas of the country where pay scales (and costs of living) are higher ACROSS THE BOARD! It has nothing or little to do with any union!

Please - If you like your union where you live thats fine - I think many of us here in Texas (with a few exceptions) have made it pretty clear you can keep them there and we are more than happy to let you have them :)

LydiaNN · Jun 17, 2006

What the union reps choose to do with their money is entirely their own business. I base my participation on what the union does for me, which was always much more than the employer would've done for me on their own.

Sheri257 · Jun 17, 2006

Yes but these unions are located in areas of the country where pay scales (and costs of living) are higher ACROSS THE BOARD! It has nothing or little to do with any union!

Sorry, but that's simply not true. I invite you to do a survey of union versus non-union hospitals in California in areas where the cost of living is exactly the same. The pay, not to mention benefits with unions, is substantially better, even when the cost of living is the same.

For example, in my area of Southern California, new grad pay is typically $24-$26 an hour at non-union facilities. But Kaiser, which is union, offers $28 to $30 an hour for new grads at their facilities. The difference ends up being an extra $6,000-$7,000 more in annual base salary, which is exactly the same amount the RN magazine article mentions with union pay statistics nationwide.

Kaiser also has a defined benefit pension which is not available at non-union facilities. As you may know, a defined benefit pension is a hellava lot better than 401K's, which is all you can get at non-union facilities.

I'm not trying to convince you or other Texans to join a union. If you don't want to, that's fine. But let's not distort the facts about union pay or benefits, either.

:typing

gauge14iv, MSN, APRN, NP · Jun 17, 2006

And I invite you to note that this is a TEXAS nurses forum :)

LydiaNN · Jun 17, 2006

And I invite you to note that this is a TEXAS nurses forum :)

That doesn't actually change the fact that your assertion about unions have little or nothing to do with higher wages isn't true in the case of Kaiser Permanente (or numerous other employers, as it happens), though, does it?

Sheri257 · Jun 17, 2006

And I invite you to note that this is a TEXAS nurses forum :)

So I guess all those Texas nurses who post in the California forum shouldn't be allowed to post there either ...

:rolleyes:

gauge14iv, MSN, APRN, NP · Jun 17, 2006

Im not saying dont post here - just consider the manner in which those posts may be received. If I go to a CA forum and start going on about how much I think unions/John Kerry/ other things dear to the west coast's heart, stink - I would expect the same chilly response that pro-union posts get here. No big surprise :)

LydiaNN · Jun 17, 2006

Im not saying dont post here - just consider the manner in which those posts may be received. If I go to a CA forum and start going on about how much I think unions/John Kerry/ other things dear to the west coast's heart, stink - I would expect the same chilly response that pro-union posts get here. No big surprise :)

I don't know how things work in Texas, but your implication that all Californians feel the same about anything... unions, Kerry, or whatever else it is you seem to think you have a handle on our opinions about... you are sadly mistaken. Our state is very diverse, and our opinions run the gamut. Bunch of pesky free thinkers, we are. But don't worry. We'll still let you post on our board.

Sheri257 · Jun 17, 2006

Im not saying dont post here - just consider the manner in which those posts may be received. If I go to a CA forum and start going on about how much I think unions/John Kerry/ other things dear to the west coast's heart, stink - I would expect the same chilly response that pro-union posts get here. No big surprise :)

I wasn't expecting a warm response.

The claim was made that the data was biased. I was just pointing out that it's not. Afterall, I seriously doubt that data from the Bush Labor Department could be considered biased in favor of unions. The numbers are what they are.

:typing

gauge14iv, MSN, APRN, NP · Jun 17, 2006

Look - I am not trying to be difficult here - it has been pointed out repeatedly that the climate is not pro-union here in Texas in rather blunt fashion when explaining it in nicer terms was not effective. It has been said in several threads by several people. Personally *I* am tired of the "here take our union because if it's good for us it's good for everybody" mentality. Unions may work well for you where you live. We live here, and we are familiar with the political and social environment here.

By referring to Kerry and Unions and I was saying that I know how poorly anti-union or anti-Kerry comments would be received in a CA forum - im not saying the state is not diverse. But why would I go and say things like that there when I know that they likely would not be well received? What would be the point? That's all.

gauge14iv, MSN, APRN, NP · Jun 17, 2006

And you yourself say you don't know how things work in Texas.

Im done. Thanks.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 17, 2006

That doesn't actually change the fact that your assertion about unions have little or nothing to do with higher wages isn't true in the case of Kaiser Permanente (or numerous other employers, as it happens), though, does it?

But how about the case of Scripps Encinitas, that just spent 2.5 yrs negotiating TO MAKE AS MUCH AS THEIR NON-UNION COUNTERPARTS BY THE SAME COMPANY IN THE SAME COUNTY.

Makes you wonder how much they would have been making in those 2.5 yrs WITHOUT union representation. Oh wait, I guess that would have been AS MUCH AS THEIR NON-UNION COUNTERPARTS.

Anecdotal evidence runs both ways.

~faith,

Timothy.