I'll admit it. I'm not a nurse. I did want to be a nurse at one time, but now Im going the RT route. I researched nursing for a long time before making the decision NOT to become one. Considering the fact that most of you complain (on here at least) of not getting fair treatment, of getting cursed out by doctors/patients, of being overstressed, overworked and not getting they pay you feel you deserve, why oh why won't you join a union? Why do you come here to vent about administration or policies when it doesn't have to be that way? I want to know what makes you feel that you don't deserve to be heard.
Iron workers have a union, boiler-makers have a union, auto workers have a union. Not to sound holier-than-thou-, but most RN have more education than those that I've previously mentioned. So, why is it that you refuse to unite, and stand against a system that seems to disrespect you? I have to know.
Diver, what I don't understand is why you have such scorn for those of us who believe that collective bargaining is in our best interests. I understand that you don't agree for yourself and that's fine by me. Why can it not be equally fine by you if some of us choose a different path?
If you're about to respond and say that it is fine then why can't you lose the scorn and just respectfully disagree?
Stevie said it pretty well. I have nothing against those who want to join unions. It's a personal decision and discussion here does nothing other put facts disguised as mildly substantiated opinions on display.
I've respectfully disagreed with you and HN2viking because you present your views persuasively. However, nobody's mind will be changed here, if nothing else, comments like Stanley's further cements my thinking. The logical end to Stanley's post is that I'm ignorant for not joining a union based on the points he made. In my view, his post is the epitome of union mentality at large and his points fallacious at best.
I don't scorn anyone for their views, though I draw the line at the inference in his post.
Stevie said it pretty well. I have nothing against those who want to join unions. It's a personal decision and discussion here does nothing other put facts disguised as mildly substantiated opinions on display.
I've respectfully disagreed with you and HN2viking because you present your views persuasively. However, nobody's mind will be changed here, if nothing else, comments like Stanley's further cements my thinking. The logical end to Stanley's post is that I'm ignorant for not joining a union based on the points he made. In my view, his post is the epitome of union mentality at large and his points fallacious at best.
I don't scorn anyone for their views, though I draw the line at the inference in his post.
Yep, you're right that nobody's mind will be changed. Shall we talk presidential politics? :no:
Of course, if you take his post at face value (which is a little difficult for me for reasons that you well understand) then he didn't really make an explicit comment about y'all on the other side of the collective bargaining debate.
If you're referring to the "tool" comment, I put it in the same context that Stanley inferred in his post. Did I aim it personally? Absolutely.
The good news is that there are non-union hospitals for folks like you to work in while at the same time there are union hospitals for folks like me. The nurses at each hospital can decide for themselves if they want to have representation.
Exactly, and posting one's side or the other here is nothing but a mental workout. As I mentioned in another post, it's highly unlikely that anybody will be persuaded one way or the other.
If you're referring to the "tool" comment, I put it in the same context that Stanley inferred in his post. Did I aim it personally? Absolutely.
Exactly, and posting one's side or the other here is nothing but a mental workout. As I mentioned in another post, it's highly unlikely that anybody will be persuaded one way or the other.
People aim attacks personally because they really have no valid argument. I find it funny that joining a union is so 'personal.' It's not a religion folks. Collective bargaining has always made conditions better for employees AND the industry it is employed in. That is not an opinion. Do your research. Ignoring blatant truths does make you ignorant, and the tool.
Stevie said it pretty well. I have nothing against those who want to join unions. It's a personal decision and discussion here does nothing other put facts disguised as mildly substantiated opinions on display.
our ignceoran
What? It's almost like a religion it's so personal lol.
I've respectfully disagreed with you and HN2viking because you present your views persuasively. However, nobody's mind will be changed here, if nothing else, comments like Stanley's further cements my thinking. The logical end to Stanley's post is that I'm ignorant for not joining a union based on the points he made. In my view, host is the epitome of union mentality at large and his points fallacious at best.
While I may not be a great 'debater' and quick to point out your ignorance, it doesn't change the fact the union shops almost always exceed non-union in quality, money and every other category. Are there bad union shops? Sure. Hell, there are pedophile priests, but does that make ALL religion bad? Hardly.
While my original post may be insulting it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. Of course someone had to respond anyways. So I will respond in kind. Tool? Grow up, do your research. Unions made this country better. Deal with it....
perhaps, but that's a very generalized statement to make considering that joining a union is a uniquely personal decision. and i don't know anyone who would join a nurses union just because they tend to deliver better care.
oh, and i'll put my hospital's numbers up against any union shop.
i think that the relationship between organized workplaces and quality relates to consistent staffing and organizational history. consistent meetings between union members tend to identify hospital wide areas of concern for discussion at meet and confers with management.
as i wrote earlier nurses and teachers tend to bargain collectively not only for the economic gains that are usually realized but also to gain a voice in improving the quality of delivered services in their workplace. see mcelroy at http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_teacher/mayjune08/at_may_june08.pdf#page=2 . the funny thing about collective bargaining is it does tend to lead to collective action for the purpose of reshaping society at large. one of the points that mr. mcelroy makes is the role that aft has taken in advocating for affordable health care for children from low income families not because members benefit from improved insurance coverage but because poor health is a barrier to student achievement. aft supported increasing the minimum wage not because it necessarily benefits their members directly but rather from a simple desire to improve the lot of other workers. in the big picture these actions tend to reduce barriers to learning for students which helps teachers help students to learn.
aft and the various nursing unions share similar goals for their respective professions:
decreased class size and safe staffing laws.
new teacher training and new graduate orientation.
professional development activities.
each of these areas of effort have been shown through research to improve the quality of outcomes.
mr. mcelroy eloquently states : "collective bargaining provides a safe framework for innovation." collective bargaining drives a process for consultation between management and their employees that fosters improved organizational performance. undoubtredly there are nonunion hospitals that perform well from a quality standpoint. in the very big picture the organized hospitals tend to deliver better care overall.
see:
according to professor harley shaiken of the university of california-berkeley,[color=#333399][1] unions are associated with higher productivity, lower employee turnover, improved workplace communication, and a better-trained workforce.
prof. shaiken is not alone. there is a substantial amount of academic literature on the following benefits of unions and unionization to employers and the economy:
productivity
competitiveness
product or service delivery and quality
training
turnover
solvency of the firm
workplace health and safety
economic development
productivity
according to a recent survey of 73 independent studies on unions and productivity: “the available evidence points to a positive and statistically significant association between unions and productivity in the u.s. manufacturing and education sectors, of around 10 and 7 percent, respectively.”[color=#333399][2]
some scholars have found an even larger positive relationship between unions and productivity. according to brown and medoff, “unionized establishments are about 22 percent more productive than those that are not.”[color=#333399][3]
product/ service delivery and quality
according to professors michael ash and jean ann seago,[color=#333399][4]heart attack recovery rates are higher in hospitals where nurses are unionized than in non-union hospitals.
[color=#333399][2] christos doucouliagos and patrice laroche, “the impact of u.s. unions on producivity: a bootstrap meta-analysis,” proceedings of the industrial relations research association, 2004. see also, by the same authors, “what do unions do to productivity: a meta-analysis,” industrial relations, [color=#333399]volume 42 issue 4 october 2003:
[color=#333399][3] charles brown and james l. medoff, “trade unions in the production process.” journal of political
economy, vol. 86, no. 3 (june 1978): 355–378.
[color=#333399][4] michael ash and jean ann seago, “the effect of registered nurses' unions on heart-attack mortality,” industrial and labor relations review, vol. 57, no. 3 (apr. 2004), pp. 422-442.
[color=#333399][5] saul a. rubinstein, “the impact of co-management on quality performance: the case of the saturn corporation.” industrial and labor relations review, vol. 53, no. 197 (january 2000).
[color=#333399][6] harley j. frazis, diane e. herz and michael w. horrigan, “employer-provided training: results from a new survey.” monthly labor review (may 1995): 3–17.
[color=#333399][7] harley shaiken, cited earlier, quoting richard freeman and james medoff, what do unions do? new york, basic books, 1984.
[color=#333399][8] richard b. freeman and morris m. kleiner, “do unions make enterprises insolvent?” industrial and labor relations review, vol. 52, no. 4 (july 1999): 510–527.
[color=#333399][9] john e. baugher and j. timmons roberts, “workplace hazards, unions and coping styles.” labor
studies journal, vol. 29, no. 2 (summer 2004).
[color=#333399][10] annette bernhardt, laura dresser, and joel rogers, “taking the high road in milwaukee: the wisconsin regional training partnership.” working usa, vol. 5, issue 3 (january 31, 2002).
Some 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could, based on research conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in December 2006. But when workers try to gain a voice on the job by forming a union, employers routinely respond with intimidation, harassment and retaliation.
During union election campaigns, management routinely coerces employees to convince them not to choose union representation. According to a survey of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election campaigns in 1998 and 1999 by Cornell University scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner, private-sector employers illegally fire employees for union activity in at least 25 percent of all efforts to join a union.
Union dues yield at least a 10:1 payout (if your dues are 500/year) through improved wages, benefits and pensions. Nurses as skilled professionals tend to receive an even greater benefit from membership.
See also:
Fast facts on unions and professionals:
The union movement is now 51 percent white collar.
In the professional and related occupations, 17.7 percent of workers are union members, a higher proportion than the workforce in general.
Employment in the professional and related occupations is growing faster and adding more workers than any other major occupational category. While total U.S. employment is projected to grow 13 percent between 2004 and 2014, the growth for professional and technical workers is projected to be 21.2 percent, or 6 million jobs.
Three-tenths of the growth in professional and related occupations is expected to take place in the health care and social assistance section, one-fifth in government, and one-seventh in professional, scientific, and technical services.
Some 24 percent of all jobs in 2004 required a bachelor's degree or higher. Over the projected period of 2004-2014, 36 percent of the 18.9 million new jobs are expected to be filled by those with a bachelor's degree or higher.
Don't you think that it's more than just a little biased in quoting union sources to demonstrate a "pro union" stance?
Of COURSE the AFLCIO, AFT, and a liberal think tank like American Progress (now THAT name is an oxymoron) are going to come out with studies favorable to unions.
Don't you think that it's more than just a little biased in quoting union sources to demonstrate a "pro union" stance?
Of COURSE the AFLCIO, AFT, and a liberal think tank like American Progress (now THAT name is an oxymoron) are going to come out with studies favorable to unions.
Well certainly their source should warrant some skepticism but an open mind also shouldn't reject them out-of-hand solely because of their source.
Personally I think the debate boils down to the experience and philosophy of each individual. It certainly does for me. No data one way or the other is going to sway my view based on what I've seen with my own two eyes. I expect that's the same for you diveRN.
Don't you think that it's more than just a little biased in quoting union sources to demonstrate a "pro union" stance?
Of COURSE the AFLCIO, AFT, and a liberal think tank like American Progress (now THAT name is an oxymoron) are going to come out with studies favorable to unions.
Studying the impact of collective bargaining on the lives of workers is appropriate and is actually the subject of entire fields of academic inquiry within economics and other social sciences. There is a premium value achieved for members of labor unions through the collective bargaining process which has been demonstrated across domains.
Admittedly the sources were derived from union websites but there were direct links to academic research from which readers can look back in order to make there own decisions as to whether or not they agree to the points made. There is a definite correlation between the deliberate weakening of the collective bargaining process and flattened wages with decreasing economic mobility.
Attacking sources with allegations of bias doesn't obscure the obtained results of the studies.
The statement that there is no national nurses union is incorrect. Check out CNA/NNOC, California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee. They have members in many states, and are working diligently to see single payer health care come to this country. The union "bosses" of CNA/NNOC are the Board of Directors, who are elected from the membership, and must be working bedside nurses. CNA/NNOC is helping to lead a social movement for "everybody in....nobody out" health care for all people in this country.
I would definitely join a union. You can thank labor unions for your 40 hr work wk (as opposed to 140 hrs!). And also thank them for having a weekend, before labor unions people worked EVERY day of the week for up to 16 hours a day. No vacation, no sick pay, no maternity leave, etc, etc.
I feel that unions are maligned a lot of the time, BUT in the end, power comes in numbers, individuals rarely make sweeping changes happen.
I know of a lot of nursing unions. I guess I just don't know of a national nursing union. Which is too bad, because there are waaaay more nurses than there are doctors and the AMA (not techinically a union) has thwarted the health of this nation for a hundred years. If nurses came together under then same united banner that doctors have for so long as a political lobbying force, we would have had universal health care by now.
:no:
diveRN
135 Posts
Stevie said it pretty well. I have nothing against those who want to join unions. It's a personal decision and discussion here does nothing other put facts disguised as mildly substantiated opinions on display.
I've respectfully disagreed with you and HN2viking because you present your views persuasively. However, nobody's mind will be changed here, if nothing else, comments like Stanley's further cements my thinking. The logical end to Stanley's post is that I'm ignorant for not joining a union based on the points he made. In my view, his post is the epitome of union mentality at large and his points fallacious at best.
I don't scorn anyone for their views, though I draw the line at the inference in his post.