Tenet/CNA Election Procedures Agreement

[PICUPNP]

federal labor official to prosecute scheme to force nurses under union boss control

decision challenges backroom deal between company and union officials that undermines the rights of independent employees

washington, dc (february 16, 2009) - after a protracted legal battle, the national labor relations board (nlrb) general counsel has sustained part of an appeal filed by national right to work foundation attorneys challenging a backroom unionization deal between tenet healthcare corporation and the california nurses association (cna) union.

as part of their efforts to forcibly unionize hospital employees across the country, cna officials and tenet corporation agreed to a series of measures designed to impose union monopoly bargaining on unwilling nurses. this so-called election procedures agreement (epa) gave union organizers preferential access to tenet facilities and gagged nurses who opposed unionization.

the agreement between tenet and the cna also subverted the nlrb's oversight role during workplace elections. under the cna union's scheme, the nlrb's only role is to count ballots and rubber-stamp the union's monopoly bargaining privileges, effectively gutting the already limited rights of employees who wish to resist unionization.

with free legal assistance from the national right to work foundation, nurses in houston and philadelphia have repeatedly challenged the legality of this arrangement. in earlier proceedings, tenet was forced to give nurses who opposed forced unionism equal access to hospital facilities.

a recent appeal filed by foundation attorneys challenging the epa was partly sustained by the nlrb's general counsel. the general counsel agreed with foundation attorneys that a provision of the epa committing tenet to binding arbitration if union officials and the company are unable to agree on a first contract constitutes illegal pre-recognition bargaining between the union and the company, allowing union officials to negotiate substantive terms of employment for workers they don't even represent. the legality of this provision will now be litigated before an administrative law judge and ultimately the federal courts.

"cna bosses shouldn't be empowered to negotiate on behalf of workers they don't even represent," said patrick semmens, legal information director of the national right to work foundation. "tenet corporation and cna operatives have stacked the deck in favor of union organizers, stifling independent-minded employees in an attempt to push houston and philadelphia nurses under union boss control, like it or not."

[nicurn001]

picupnp your zealotry is getting boring .

publishing or making statements such as " this so-called election procedures agreement (epa)"

that is exactly what epa means , so why the " this so called " being so dramatic and bellicose even about a fact , is simply off putting and ruins any credibility you may have had .carry on the good work .

i think most people prefer reasoned debate to zealous statements .

( sorry couldn't work out how to change font , not meant to be shouting)

[Chico David, BSN, RN]

"National Right to Work Foundation" is of course an organization run by the ultra-rich owners of big corporations who certainly have no interest in the rights of workers and do all they can to make sure that their workers have no rights whatsoever. They invest money in attacking unions because they fear what unions can do for workers. The absurdly loaded language and multiple distortions of their press release is typical of their kind of black is white, up is down, freedom through slavery kind of thinking.

[Valerie Salva, BSN, RN]

Not exactly an unbiased opinion. The publisher of this article is the "National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund." As shown on their site, their motto is:

"Defending America's workers from the abuses of compulsory unionism since 1968."

[Valerie Salva, BSN, RN]

"National Right to Work Foundation" is of course an organization run by the ultra-rich owners of big corporations who certainly have no interest in the rights of workers and do all they can to make sure that their workers have no rights whatsoever. They invest money in attacking unions because they fear what unions can do for workers. The absurdly loaded language and multiple distortions of their press release is typical of their kind of black is white, up is down, freedom through slavery kind of thinking.

Exactly!

[PICUPNP]

My postings of information from anti union sources is no different than the pro unionists posting from their sources. It's amazing how when the anti union camp posts something its zealotry and when the pro unionist post something its like the word of god.

The epa as you call it is nothing more than the unions attempt to squelch any of the nurses in an institution from trying to educate each other about the evils of the union trying to organize them. Its sad that unions have to use tactics such as these in order to take away nurses voices in hospitals.

As far as my credibility is concerned, I don't care. Statements like that are hollow and meaningless.

[nicurn001]

my postings of information from anti union sources is no different than the pro unionists posting from their sources. it's amazing how when the anti union camp posts something its zealotry and when the pro unionist post something its like the word of god. it becomes zealotry when a fact is portrayed as something other than a fact .

the epa as you call it i simply call it epa because it is the abbreviation of elections procedure agreement , the legal term for an agreement between tenet and cna , while you may not like the epa , by refering to it as " so called " rather than just epa you debase your argument .if you can't talk of a fact accurately , a reader will question other things you say . is nothing more than the unions attempt to squelch any of the nurses in an institution from trying to educate each other about the evils of the union trying to organize them. its sad that unions have to use tactics such as these in order to take away nurses voices in hospitals.

as far as my credibility is concerned, i don't care. statements like that are hollow and meaningless.

i don't mind you educating others on the evils of unions , but you and all other anti unionist i have come across offer no real alternative to how to change a bad management. it is either the individual can stand up to management ( as i have done[ talking of themselves ] ), well if that was seen to have worked don't you think others would do the same ? , or the alternate , if you can't change management change your job , great ! the problem goes unresolved for others to face and what if there is no alternate employer . so while you are educating others as to the evils of unions why not educate them as to a viable , proven tactic to change a bad managements actions !.you know that bad management that even you accept exists .

[PICUPNP]

There is bad management at every hospital, and this is a fact that I don't contend but unions aren't the answer. I cannot fathom having to pay dues in order to have employment nor would I EVER strike and walk out on patients. So why in the world would I encourage others to do what I feel is an unacceptable alternative?? The interesting thing about me is that I grew up with a stepfather who was/is extremely pro-union! Of course at that point in my life, I could have cared less(age). Now I do because i have educated myself in the recent year about unions.

[tewdles, RN]

So if individual professionals are not able to exact meaningful and needed change with the management of their hospitals and fear losing their jobs should they persist, what alternatives do you suggest?

If the answer is to quit and find other employment, okay...but the "other employment" option is also available to nurses who do not want to work in a unionized setting...so that is really a wash.

I am genuinely curious as to what other alternatives individuals or groups have (in your view) if the management is not responsive to their concerns and requests.

[nicurn001]

PICUPNP we know your feelings upon unions . We are interested in what nurses can do in the circumstances regarding changing poor managements actions .

The usual responses of anti unionist are as has already been noted individual action which usually only suceeds in minor changes and the nurse who instigated that change being a marked person , or nurses quiting and the problem continuing unabbated . So while you may not like unions , if you do not come up with a viable alternative nurses in distress will seek out union representation .

[PICUPNP]

Doubtful in Texas.......

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

Doubtful in Texas.......

What is doubtful in Texas?

Nurses are working together to improve healthcare at their facilities.