The union will lower my pay...........

[SandraCVRN]

:typing This is what I was told by one of my fellow nurses today. I'm in Texas (YEAH Cypress nurses!!)

Afew years ago my facility had a union vote. They brought in some truckers union or something. Well, one of the things they were told by administration was that the union would even out wages, so those that are now topped out would end up with lower wages. And those with lower wages would get an increase. I don't see how that is possible. I'm just trying to learn something for next time.

Thanks for all the hard work you all are doing for nursing.

[diveRN]

I've attached one.

A decent, though dated article. It has a number of faults, which the authors detail within.

The authors of that study conclude that there is a correlation between RN unions and positive pt outcomes but they can't explain causation. This requires more study.

I'm just not yet willing to buy into a statement that unionized RNs provide better care than nonunion nurses based on one relatively older, narrowly focused study.

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

Of course nurses provide fine care at non union hospitals.

In a hospital with an RN union, such as CNA/NNOC provisions of the contract help nurses achieve many improvements in patient care.

According to the article in the "Journal of Nursing Administration" (JONA) unions may improve the quality of care by negotiating increased staffing levels.

Many other studies have shown that fewer patients assigned to each RN lowers mortality.

Also unions can improve care by raising wages and benefits, thereby decreasing turnover.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

The AFL CIO has a number of links to other studies that detail the advantages of unionization to organizational productivity and efficiency.

(As Herring said yes there are non-union hospitals that provide good care. But the negotiations process also achieves gains in patient safety. RN's in MPLS/St. Paul were able to negotiate minimum staffing language that allowed a floor to be closed for safety reasons in the event of inadequate staff numbers. MNA was able to get the MN legislature to pass a law that allowed nurses to refuse overtime for safety reasons.)

I think what often gets lost in these discussions is that the negotiations process forces non-union hospitals to adopt practices similar to the union hospitals in order to maintain competitiveness.

[Ludlow]

I started out working at a non-union hospital. The yearly raise was from 0-3%. I think the next year it raised to 4% max. My first year I was docked because I had too much overtime---I was told I had 'time management' problems (the standard line when they want you to clock out on time and THEN finish your work). The next year I went per diem. I stayed at the same rate for several years.

When I moved to a CNA hospital I ended up getting at least 6% each year. One year it was about 12%. This year it is 7.5% plus another 2% because I move up a step.

I now make more than 3 times what I made as a new grad in 1997 at that non-union hospital.

Hospital administrators try any and every line possible. If just one thing they throw out there sticks and scares you, they are content.

[SandraCVRN]

What you heard was a rumour. Please wait until you get the facts to form an opinion.:wink2:

I didn't believe it, but some that were here during the last vote did. Fact gathering is what I'm trying to do. I told my co-workers about Cypress yesterday. It's not that I'm superpro-union (as a matter of fact I grew up in Chicago during a time when most unions were very crooked) but do realize that unionization my be necessary to save the lives of our patients and the mind and body of the nurses.

So I'm just reading and learning..............

Thank you all for yoour input.

[diveRN]

I now make more than 3 times what I made as a new grad in 1997 at that non-union hospital.

See, I'm not so sure that super high wages and huge raises are the be-all, end-all here. There comes a point when high wages and the cost of labor makes it prohibitive for a company to keep going.

I've seen some pretty large companies fold up shop because labor was costing them too much. Just like any market, corrections and negative shifts will take place. I don't necessarily subscribe to it, but an argument can be made that unions actually cost jobs in the long run.

[ADVOCATE 4 PATIENTS]

See, I'm not so sure that super high wages and huge raises are the be-all, end-all here. There comes a point when high wages and the cost of labor makes it prohibitive for a company to keep going.

I've seen some pretty large companies fold up shop because labor was costing them too much. Just like any market, corrections and negative shifts will take place. I don't necessarily subscribe to it, but an argument can be made that unions actually cost jobs in the long run.

diveRN, please do not undervalue your worth and value in the marketplace...nursing is probably the only commodity where in a market scrambling for more nurses that our wages remain compressed. When gas gets tight the cost goes up...same in EVERY other area of business. Take a look at the financial reports of both public and private hospitals...they are getting richer and richer off of the sweat of our backs...heck, I know my facility has spent enough healthcare dollars fighting our unionizing attempts to have hired several nurses. Then they are going to waste another hundred thousand or so to try to gain 'Magnet' status...go figure.

[RN Power Ohio]

Here is a quote from another:

The study also finds that unionization is a successful strategy for raising nurses' wages. At the state level, hospital nurses who are union members enjoy a 13 percent wage boost compared to those who are not.

http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-pennsylvania/4079318-1.html

[RN Power Ohio]

I think this pretty much sums it up- for the visual learners!

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Here is a quote from another:

The study also finds that unionization is a successful strategy for raising nurses' wages. At the state level, hospital nurses who are union members enjoy a 13 percent wage boost compared to those who are not.

http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-pennsylvania/4079318-1.html

And that figure does not include the value of improved pensions and PTO plans for union members.....

[Ludlow]

See, I'm not so sure that super high wages and huge raises are the be-all, end-all here. There comes a point when high wages and the cost of labor makes it prohibitive for a company to keep going.

I've seen some pretty large companies fold up shop because labor was costing them too much. Just like any market, corrections and negative shifts will take place. I don't necessarily subscribe to it, but an argument can be made that unions actually cost jobs in the long run.

It is the foolish union that drives its employer out of business. Believe me, my employer is awash in funds.

This is just to say how underpaid I was in 1997 at that non-union hospital.

I don't know if you remember the early 1990s, but nurses were being laid off and taking salary cuts because the hospital industry had decided that it didn't need registered nurses. As hospitals cut back, the supply of nurses became greater than the demand. Non union hospitals were able to save millions of dollars by scaling down RN pay. It wasn't that hospitals were broke, it was that they could maximize their profits by paying their nurses less. (and then of course nurses found other ways to make money and the next thing we knew we were in a nursing shortage, courtesy of the Hospital industry.)

Unionized hospitals had contract wage protections. Here in the San Francisco Bay area nurses continued to get cost of living raises while their sisters and brothers especially in Southern California took cuts. Even the SEIU- and UNAC-represented hospitals in Southern Cal acquiesced and agreed to pay cuts, but the CNA-represented hospitals stood their ground.

Hence even though the cost of living is not that much higher in the bay area than it is in LA (what would be $1 in SF is the cost-of-living equivalent of 85 cents in LA), Bay area nurses make about 50% more than LA nurses.

Because the SF Bay area has about an 80% union density, wages and benefits have remained excellent. Nurses who work together and stick together end up better off all the way around.

And the hospitals in the Bay area? Still making millions.

[Chico David, BSN, RN]

From Ludlow:

don't know if you remember the early 1990s, but nurses were being laid off and taking salary cuts because the hospital industry had decided that it didn't need registered nurses. As hospitals cut back, the supply of nurses became greater than the demand. Non union hospitals were able to save millions of dollars by scaling down RN pay. It wasn't that hospitals were broke, it was that they could maximize their profits by paying their nurses less. (and then of course nurses found other ways to make money and the next thing we knew we were in a nursing shortage, courtesy of the Hospital industry.)

That brings back memories! I was in management at a non-union hospital in those days and I well remember the management gurus with their MBAs coming to teach seminars telling us that the downward trend in patient stay would go on forever, that unlicensed personel could do most of the work of nurses and that hospitals should all prepare to downsize.

Didn't quite work out that way, but they convinced enough people to manufacture a nursing shortage. Interestingly, it's taken medicine far longer to rebound from it than nursing. They were telling them the same thing - fewer doctors would be needed. So in the 90s many medical schools were cutting their class sizes and only in the last year or two have they realized how far wrong they were. My community has a desperate physician shortage in several specialty areas and in primary care most of all. The only bright side is it makes more work for Nurse Practitioners. Never trust a consultant or management expert.