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.
New grad, graduated Friday night. Second career. I am 54. I was a union iron worker for 28 years.
Most think it would be great to get all the union backing for a monthly dues of $25-$30. Do you think that is all you pay? Who do you think pays for their offices in your local town, but also the district office, and don't forget about the big office in Washington, plus those expensive apartements in the big cities. There are assessments on your wages. Just a few cents they will tell you, but add about 10 different things at just a few cents. My husband is iron worker. I will start orientation at $19.06. He is making $27.75 and hour and I will be bringing more money home than he is. Who pays for the cadilacs, now big SUV to drive from job to job. Oh, then they have to look good, what about the clothing allowance.
So, never think it will cost just a monthly fee.
Not only that. The unions have lost a lot of power. Oh, and don't forget the union stewards that are chosen by the union that get hooked up with these companies. I could go on and on and on. I hope there will not be any more unions for me.
Not always true. In my former union MAPE. (mape.org) Candidates from both political parties were invited to seek endorsement by the Union. Republican candidates were endorsed on occasion for individual state legislative districts.
In any event Republican candidates tend to endorse proposals that are harmful to the interests of working families. (OT eligibility restiction, Kentucky River, restrictions on the right to collectively bargain to improve conditions.) Work for changes within the Republican Party that make it more palatable to the union.
As I said before if you don't like a particular candidate that is endorsed by your union there is no obligation to vote for that candidate. For that matter make the case to your union membership to endorse your candidate of choice.
In any event the purpose of the union is for members to collectively bargain for improved wages and working conditions. That does occasionally call for the union to actively protect the laws that protect those hard fought battles through political activism.
I have noticed one thing about your post, You ASSUME that the ppl that respond to you are not active in their profession and politics. This could not be further from the truth. Being in a union is not the only way to support your profession or become active in the political process. I would also disagree that the Republican candidates support proposals that hurt the working class. Both Democratic candidates running for office have said one of the first thing they will do is repeal the tax cut put in place by the current administration and they will both raise taxes. Their ideas on healthcare reform have no chance of solving the problem, and will hurt small business owners and the middle class. As I said before, an organization with such a diverse population of members should not endorse one political candidate over another. There are so many different opinions just on this website about the issues and I am sure that is true of unions as well. If you want to support the union and whatever benefits you feel you receive from being a member than more power to you, but do not patronize those that disagree with it. After all, isn't that the cornerstone of everything this country stands for.
Well by bringing the presidential campaign into this you're going way off topic but your false assertion demands a reply... the Bush tax cuts that they're hoping to repeal (or let expire in the case of the second set) ARE primarily to the benefit of the extremely wealthy, not for the (shrinking) middle class.[/quote']
Now your true colors are showing, and perhaps a bit of ignorance.
The house and senate have recently voted to let Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010. That means capital gains will go back up. That affects more than just the "rich."
Also, the democrats are considering their own budget for the next fiscal year. They're going to submit a package that would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.
It'll get vetoed this year ... but if a democrat gets elected in November, you can bet that that your taxes WILL go up.
Well by bringing the presidential campaign into this you're going way off topic but your false assertion demands a reply... the Bush tax cuts that they're hoping to repeal (or let expire in the case of the second set) ARE primarily to the benefit of the extremely wealthy, not for the (shrinking) middle class.[/quote']
That is not true . . but I see DiveRN has beat me to it.
steph (who owns a small business with her dh and whose inlaws are farmers - and NOT wealthy)
I'll join a union in a slick heartbeat. I'm a firm believer in and supporter of unions. I won't cross a picket line even if it is another union. Anyone that opposes unions has just been spoiled by all the benefits that unions worked to get. I know a bunch of people will have a bunch of reasons why I am wrong in saying this. To this I say, "Whatever".
Unions are communisim. everyone is equal. that means the poor performer with more seniority gets to outbid you. that means holidays are for the senior RNs. that means you are not professional enough to see yourself as actually being able to speak for your self. At one time yes they were useful when the agenda was for the rights of the nurses and our salaries were poor. We are well paid, and we have come a long way. And for those of you that like to refer to the police and firemen, they dont strike. How dare we walk away from the vey essence of our professionalism, and that is PATIENT CARE.
all work that makes a contribution to the community has dignity and is not degrading. but, unfortunately, many jobs are degraded.
a degraded job is one that pays too little — one-quarter of all jobs in the united states pay wages so low that a full-time worker earns too little to lift a family of four above poverty.
a degraded job is one that is potentially unsafe. each year some 5,000 workers are killed on the job and about 5 million are injured or become sick due to their job.
a degraded job is one in which the worker is treated unfairly or illegally. according to the u.s. department of labor, essentially all poultry processing plants and
60 percent of nursing homes fail to properly pay workers for overtime hours worked, pay less than the legally-required minimum wage, and/or violate child labor laws.
a degraded job is one where the employer discriminates in hiring or promotions. these abuses occur in firms large and small, in local businesses and within fortune 500 companies.
a degraded job is one in which a worker has too little autonomy or control over her work, resulting in high levels of stress and even physical illness.
unfortunately, u.s. labor law provides few protections against many of these abuses. existing laws are often poorly enforced and penalties typically are small and ineffective.
workers need jobs, even bad jobs, if those are the only ones available. but how can they improve their workplaces and gain dignity on the job, especially the three-quarters of all workers who don't have a college degree and have little bargaining power with their employers?
one important way workers can address workplace injustice is by joining and participating in a labor union.
all of us are indebted to the union struggles of the past for many of the workplace benefits we take for granted.
yahweh gave us the sabbath but unions brought us the weekend, the 8-hour day, paid vacations, holidays, health insurance, and pensions.
what struck me most about this article was the idea that without a strong labor movement there can be no middle class. unless we as professionals speak up for the interests of the 30% of workers whose jobs put them at below 200% of the poverty line we put our own benefits and pensions at risk.
the labor movement speaks for all workers not just those fortunate enough to have the protections of a collective bargaining agreement.
the bush taxcuts offered virtually no help to the middle class. (and when you factor in cuts to middle class programs such as college financial aid a case can be made that in fact his policies have harmed the middle class.)
the president’s tax policies, however, have widened the differences in take-home pay between high- and low- and middle-income households, according to tax policy center estimates. when the tax cuts are fully in effect, households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts equivalent to an increase of 7.5 percent in their after-tax income. households in the middle of the income spectrum will receive tax cuts equal to only 2.3 percent of their income. and households in the bottom quintile will gain by less than one percent.
put another way, households with incomes over $1 million will hold a larger fraction of total u.s. after-tax income than they would have received without the tax cuts, while households in the middle and bottom quintiles will hold a smaller share. the tax cuts thus have widened, rather than narrowed, income gaps, making them regressive. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-11-08tax.htm)
while comparisons of percent changes in after-tax earnings measure the tax cuts’ effect on the distribution of income, the dollar values of the tax cuts received by different income groups are also relevant to evaluating these tax cuts’ overall fairness. for example, over the next ten years (assuming the tax cuts are extended), more than $800 billion will be spent on tax cuts for the 0.3 percent of households with incomes above $1 million, with these tax cuts averaging over $150,000 per-household annually. at issue is whether this represents an appropriate use of scarce public resources. (http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-08tax.htm)
the skewed distribution of the tax cuts is of particular concern given that, since 2001, gaps in before-tax income have widened. as of 2006, the highest-income 1 percent of households held a larger share of total pre-tax income that in any year since 1928. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-27-08tax2.htm).
when given the choice between abolition of the amt (which would benefit the middle class) and tax cuts for the top 1% and above the republican congress chose the latter.
professionalism is not incompatible with union membership. (see ama, aba etc. for examples of professional unions.)
quote]
those are associations, not unions..
a union by any other name is still a union. a group of people who voluntarily associate to improve their economic/professional conditions through advocacy is a union by another name. sinclair lewis famously made this point in babbitt when babbit snorted about unions as he was thinking about his membership in his local chamber of commerce.
other "associations" that could be viewed as unions include:
national association of professional engineers
the reserve officers association
air force association
navy league
anyone who is eligible to join these organizations is exercising their right to freedom of association as guaranteed by the first amendment for the purpose of advancing their interests as a group.
employers have no right to deny or interfere with their employees the right to associate for the purpose of collective bargaining.
Very interesting reading these posts. I worked in a nonunion hospital for 10 years and am currently working in homecare with a union. I'll take the union any day. The thing that both places have in common is the whining about working conditions but few people willing to stand up for themselves. Myself and one other coworker were pretty much the only ones to speak up. There were multiple issues. We were thanked for our opinions and management made an attempt to work with us. The problem was the lack of interest by most of our coworkers. Very frustrating. Nothing changed. Benefits continued to decrease, raises were minimal and staffing usually poor. Even when they were hiring no one was applying. There was always money to remodel and they even built a new hospital. I never understood how they could find that money but not for staffing.
When I found myself in homecare I just took the union for granted. After working there for 4 years I found myself union secretary. I volunteered. More apathy from my coworkers except to complain. Seeing how my union works has been a real eye opener. I participated in contract negotiations. I represent my coworkers who I wish took more interest. Money was not an issue. Salaries are fair for everyone. Seniority does not determine who gets the job. The nursing shortage takes care of that. We're just glad nurses apply. The union protects you from being fired unfairly but it does not protect you from being fired if you merit such a course of action. The union gives me a voice. Management listens. There are always issues. When examining those issues the financial impact on the company is important. We don't want to put them out of business. Some issues include weekend assignments. The policy is we work till all the work is completed. This can mean 12+ hours. During the week being given an assignment that will exceed an 8 hour work day. You aren't asked just given the assignment. We are expected to meet productivity and can be disciplined if we don't. These are just some of the issues. At labor management meetings both sides present their issues and we all give input and work towards mutual solutions. Everything is a compromise. My personal goal has been to bring a coworker to each meeting so they can see what is happening and hopefully take an interest. I think if everyone took an interest in improving their working conditions we would all have an increased feeling of professional satisfaction. Do I need a union to do that ? I think so.
Doogie
2 Posts
New grad, graduated Friday night. Second career. I am 54. I was a union iron worker for 28 years.
Most think it would be great to get all the union backing for a monthly dues of $25-$30. Do you think that is all you pay? Who do you think pays for their offices in your local town, but also the district office, and don't forget about the big office in Washington, plus those expensive apartements in the big cities. There are assessments on your wages. Just a few cents they will tell you, but add about 10 different things at just a few cents. My husband is iron worker. I will start orientation at $19.06. He is making $27.75 and hour and I will be bringing more money home than he is. Who pays for the cadilacs, now big SUV to drive from job to job. Oh, then they have to look good, what about the clothing allowance.
So, never think it will cost just a monthly fee.
Not only that. The unions have lost a lot of power. Oh, and don't forget the union stewards that are chosen by the union that get hooked up with these companies. I could go on and on and on. I hope there will not be any more unions for me.