Scripps Encinitas first decertification campaign last summer was unsuccessful on the surface. Perseverance paid off as the nurses in favor of decertification continued their campaign. The CNA in their attempt to head off this growing wave of discontent for unionization only stumbled, angering and alienating what few supporters they had left.
Seeing that they might lose a decertification for the first time in many, many years the CNA decided to accept Scripps managements first offer, the offer that they proposed to the nurses before the initial vote to unionize. The CNA negotiated nothing for the Scripps nurses. All the hard feelings, all the lost friendships all that anger for nothing.
It must be noted that in the CNA managed election last week, the ballots had two choices:
1. Yes, accept the contract.
2. No, do not accept the contract and strike
So, the nurses decided by 75% not to strike. The CNA did not give them a choice not to accept the contract and NOT strike.
Why not that third choice?
In the end the the professional nurses of Scripps Encinitas won big and the CNA must count this as a dismal failure on their part. Scripps Encinitas is an open shop. No union security clause! The nurses do not have to become union members and they do not have to pay dues. There is a no strike clause for two years. The decertification drive continues.
Congratulations Scripps Encinitas!
This is deserving of it's own thread. For further review check out this thread
Seeing that they might lose a decertification for the first time in years, the CNA decided to accept Scripps managements first offer, the offer that they proposed to the nurses before the initial vote to unionize. The CNA negotiated nothing for the Scripps nurses. All the hard feelings, all the lost friendships all that anger for nothing.
Sherwood
So basically the nurses would have gotten the same exact thing from day one, all on their own, without all the upheaval? Why did those nurses even try to unionize in the first place if most of them didnt want it? What was gained by the effort? Its practically a guaranteed failure if they arent united. And without that unity, they have no leverage with administration. Disunity defeats the whole purpose of unionizing. There must be alot of hard feelings between both the nurses - pros vs cons. Thats a sad situation all the way around. Probably takes a long time to heal.
It must be noted that in the CNA managed election last week, the ballots had two choices.......The CNA did not give them a choice not to accept the contract and NOT strike. Why not that third choice? Sherwood
That might work if you are not a union, because administration can just do whatever it wants to non-union employees anyway with or without your agreement & they could just then implement anything they wanted even if the nurses didnt accept it. But its different if you are a union. The choice to not accept but do nothing really is not plausible then because as a union, you have the right to having a share of control & agreement in determining the terms & conditions of your employment. (but it sounds like those nurses were already doing that anyway & ended up with the same thing, so I dont understand why they started a unionizing campaign in the first place).
Anyway, when the hospital says to a bargaining unit "this is our final offer-take it or leave it-we arent negotiating anymore", either you argee to it, or you dont & take a stand. If you dont accept the final offer, you do so knowing that, as a union, you have to do something to bring them back to the table in order to iron out a contract that you had a hand in, agree to & can live with.
If the bargaining unit was strongly united & determined to stand together, the strike vote could be voted on right there & then with the refusal to accept the final offer. If the nurses arent so strong about that, they might have the choice to either accept the final offer or reject it..... with the understanding that if they reject it, a strike vote may have to come later on down the road, if all else fails. Its always a last resort but as a union theres really only 2 choices when it comes to a final offer: Take it or take a stand.
Where I live, nurses working the public city hospitals are ruled by the Taylor Law - as essential city workers, it is illegal for them to strike. They didnt accept the citys final offer either & worked without a contract for a couple of years. But in all that time, they took other stands: radio announcements, TV spots, billboard ads in Times Square, posters on subways, etc. They were 7000 RNs & very united. They couldnt strike, but they turned up the pressure & forced the city back to the table & hammered out a much better contract then that "final offer". So there are ways around it without having a strike.
If the hospital isnt going to negotiate further and you dont accept their contract but dont take some kind of a stand together, basically your union is dissolved. The hospitals final contract gets forcibly implemented on you anyway, without your agreement or control, & then you pretty much are really no longer a union because youve relinquished your right to detemine your terms of employment. But thats not a problem if nobody wants to be a union anyway, which sounds like was the case at Scripps.
In my experience, our union reps can only give us recommendations. It is we nurses who direct the union to call for a strike vote. And they dont call for the vote until we give them the order to. And there has to be 2/3 majority of the entire bargaining unit in order for the vote to pass. Not just 2/3 of those who show up to vote --- 2/3 of the whole group of union nurses at that facility.
I dont know if the Scripps nurses union works the same way. Not being involved in their union or situation, I cant answer as to why the strike vote was called for at that particular time.
Do you know what their union's explanation was for calling for a strike vote in such a divided group?
Fine ... then negotiate your own deal without the union. I have no problem with that.
But it's still totally unfair for people who don't pay union dues to benefit from a union contract, just because they work in the same unit.
Nancy is right. The law should be changed. Let the people who don't pay dues negotiate their own deal. But don't let those same people benefit from the union contract when they haven't paid for it.
It's only fair.
:typing
Why doesn't the union make this fair in their negotiations? All they have to say is that they are negotiating for the union nurses only. The hospital can then pay union wages (after deducting union dues) to the union members and non-union wages to the other employees. Now if they hospital chooses to pay the non-union nurses the same wage, a higher or lower wage, that's their choice but they certainly are not contracted to do so. Of course, this would only apply in an open shop.
If you and other non-union RN's can get a better deal without the union that's fine by me. But I don't think you should automatically get union pay, benefits, job protection etc ... all of the things that come with a union contract ... if you don't pay union dues. :typing
You know, you unions guys are always the first to decry that management will ALWAYS screw over employees and unions if given the chance, and yet, you don't seem to understand what you are saying here.
The open shop rule that non-union members can't negotiate independently, and therefore, must receive the same benefit as the union is there to protect THE UNION.
Given the chance to negotiate independently w/ non-members, any reasonable management would go out of their way to negotiate a BETTER deal w/ the non-union members.
Why? To get more people to opt out of the union, OF COURSE. End result: CERTAIN DECERTIFICATION.
You are complaining about a rule that PROTECTS unions in open shops.
In fact, open shops force unions to compete for each individual member instead of using majority rules to bully the rest. If the union wants its dues in an open shop: they must provide a real benefit to EVERYONE; not just a bullying majority.
Quote: Given the chance to negotiate independently w/ non-members, any reasonable management would go out of their way to negotiate a BETTER deal w/ the non-union members."
Which, in fact, is what this management did. All the other nurses in the system (several other hosp in this corporation) got their raise MONTHS before Scripps-Encinitas.
Of course management will always butter you up if it means getting rid of the union. Then when the union is gone...
Ah, but we voted down a union and have not had any problems - well, except for our Blue Cross coverage and that is just because we are a small rural hospital so it is hard to get a good deal. And that is the insurance company's problem.
Our main problems are lack of timely reimbursement from the gosh darn government (Medicare, medi-cal). And the regulations from the powers that be who decided that ALL California hospitals needed to update to a one-size-fits-all earthquake proof buildings. So, somehow up here in way Northern Ca, where there are rare and small earthquakes we have to build an entire new hospital - and are scrambling for funds. The funny thing is it is okey dokey for the LTC folks to stay in the old hospital. This regulation is just for acute care.
I think the hospital would always think about the chance that their employees would unionize.
Also, not all hospitals are big mean bullies out to gouge their employees. I hate that attitude. Our management team work well with the nursing staff to come up with solutions. I haven't found a knife in my back in the whole 8 years I've been a nurse.
Ah, but we voted down a union and have not had any problems - steph
That's because you never needed a union in the first place. That obviously wasn't the case in that hospital if the nurses voted them in. I have always maintained that unions are a response to BAD management, not that they are necessary everywhere.
Why doesn't the union make this fair in their negotiations? All they have to say is that they are negotiating for the union nurses only. The hospital can then pay union wages (after deducting union dues) to the union members and non-union wages to the other employees. Now if they hospital chooses to pay the non-union nurses the same wage, a higher or lower wage, that's their choice but they certainly are not contracted to do so. Of course, this would only apply in an open shop.
Because the law is clear under the National Labor Relations Act. What you are talking about is illegal for both the union and the employer. You can find the National Labor relations Act document on the website http://www.nlrb.gov
The union must represent ALL parties in the bargaining unit equally regardless of membership. It is illegal for the employer to negotiate with anyone else as long as the bargaining unit has elected representation. So if you belong to the union or not, if your job description falls into one of those classified in the bargaining unit...you and your employer are bound by the contract whether or not you are a union member. I lived through this and had to learn it the hard way. I worked in a "closed shop" hospital and was a "dues paying non-member"
I had to pay the dues to keep my job, but I was not a memeber of the union.
This allowed me to not be punished or fined by the union for trying to decertify them.
It is a good idea to be educated about all these matters so that we can make good decisions about our work lives. Take the emotion out of it and look at the facts!
Thank you Nancy2. I've only had one experience with unions when I was in high school and worked for a union grocery store in a right to work state. I was forced to take my break with everyone else which meant interrupting what I was doing so I could sit in a small room with smokers. Also, about once a month the shop steward would catch up with me to see why I hadn't joined up. That's all. Have a great discussion.
Specializes in med/surg/tele/neuro/rehab/corrections.
Due we work less hard? Are we more or less dedicated to our patients then you? Would you be ok with it if the non-union, non dues paying RN's banded together and were able to get a better deal then the union RN's?
But wait! If non union people banded together to get better pay............... wouldn't that be......... Gasp! ........ A union?
-jt
2,709 Posts
So basically the nurses would have gotten the same exact thing from day one, all on their own, without all the upheaval? Why did those nurses even try to unionize in the first place if most of them didnt want it? What was gained by the effort? Its practically a guaranteed failure if they arent united. And without that unity, they have no leverage with administration. Disunity defeats the whole purpose of unionizing. There must be alot of hard feelings between both the nurses - pros vs cons. Thats a sad situation all the way around. Probably takes a long time to heal.