To Unionize or Not To Unionize: Questions that every nurse should ask themselves

pickledpepperRN · Jan 22, 2008

Per my seniority is measured by years of acute care experience as a registered nurse. Because I was an LVN here for several years before earning my RN nurses who were hired after me have more seniority.

I was able to move up the clinical ladder to a higher paying classification, I believe due to my experience and familiarity with the hospital.

At 25 years of service nurses get an additional 1 time increase.

If I decide to go to day shift and others also want the slot it will be our managers decision. She always goes by who asked (in writing) first so long as the nurse has been on nights at least a year. Our contract does not mention such transfers because it was not as important to us as patient care provisions and a lift team.

jeolsz · Jan 22, 2008

What you are describing is urine poor management. Good managers monitor these issues and hold employees accountable for their behaviors. Good managers also help their employees find ways to succeed. I just don't buy the idea that a professional would be demotivated by not having first choice in shift. A good manager would encourage employee A to apply for promotion in order to get a better shift. Employee B may have valid reasons for use of sick leave. Is that a reason to deny a shift change? What if Employee B has a sick child or spouse with a chronic illness? I think the complaint raised is shallow absent the whole picture for both employees.
Seniority is one of those issues that can cause heartburn for everyone involved. I can defend seniority clauses as they are a tool that rewards loyalty to the organization as well as assuring that employees are treated consistently and fairly. Internally driven people hold themselves accountable and seek improvement for the reasons that it is simply the right thing to do.

First off, if you have good management, why do you need a union? I differ on being demotivated by a shift change.. People often need to work a certain shift, either due to health reasons, family or social reasons. And I don't mean to be insensative to other's needs, but if you can't be there to work for whatever reason, it's not fair to others who are there. Bottom line is the job should go to who is most deserving. And as far as loyality goes, ask loyal employees, who gave a good portion of their lives to an organization, only to get laid off, how they feel about that issue. I would be less than honest if I did not admit that I , as are most people,am driven and motivated by what is good for myself, my significant others and of course my children, not what is good for the rest of the nursing staff. Sorry if that sounds selfish, but my children's needs come before anyone else's at work.

K98 · Jan 22, 2008

I have been a union worker for my entire working life (30 years). I am also a gun-owning, Life NRA, right wing, pro-life republican. Unions can be a nuisance, but I see them as a good thing in nursing. The one thing I noticed when I became a nurse was the lack of any type of unity among nurses. Divide and conquer. That is how hospitals keep wages low and workloads high. The union at our facility negotiated staffing ratios and a no mandation policy. We may be the only facility in an area saturated with hospitals that have these agreements in place to protect RNs. There is a reason why it doesn't happen at the others.

pickledpepperRN · Jan 22, 2008

To me it is important for my children and family for nurses to work for us all to do better.

For safe staffing, the right as well as the responsibility to advocate for the best interests of our patients. The right to choose whether to work overtime.

And the ability to remain a loyal nurse for my community by reporting my hospital if they make decisions that harm patients.

I believe my kids benefitted from a mother who did not have to comprimise ethics and morals in order to earn a living.

During the first many years before my hospital was sold there was no need for a union. When the for profit corporation laid off 30% of the RNs (replacing them with unlicened and uncertified people who never chose patient care) and laid off 50% of our pharmacists WE knew we had to act.

THEY decided to begin writing up nurses for giving meds late and WE began meeting with each other for a voice and respect for nursing work.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jan 23, 2008

America since Reagan is the land of opportunity only if you won the uterine lottery. See:

12-14-07inc.-f1.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/12-14-07inc.htm

The point is that union workers earn an average of 20% more than nonunion workers. I think the record speaks for itself as to the failures of economic policy since Reagan.

Uptoherern, RN · Jan 30, 2008

question please! I was told today, by fellow nurses that since AZ is a "right to work" state that unions here have no "teeth". We can be fired for "no reason". I was also told that a certain hospital "chain" told it's nurses in no uncertain terms that they would be fired for "talking to union members, talking about unions, distributing info about unions" "at the drop of a hat". Isn't this illegal? Even in a right to work state? I guess they can make up some sort of excuse to fire a nurse, but isn't it illegal to fire a nurse related to union organizing activities? One nurse opioned that the reason this chain is so big in AZ is because we ARE a "right to work" state, and therefore a very weak union state.

opinions please!!!!

pickledpepperRN · Jan 30, 2008

The Arizona law prohibits denying a person the right to work if the individual does not belong to a labor union.

http://www.nrtw.org/c/azrtwlaw.htm

The Federal National Labor Relations act states it is illegal to interfere with an employees right to join or assist a labor union:

...Sec. 7. [ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Sec. 8. [ 158.] (a) [unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];
(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 [section 156 of this title], an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization ...
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/legal/manuals/rules/act.pdf

It can be tricky because union activity must not interfere with work.

And an employer may not be honest about why the person was disciplined.

I do not think it is any different organizing with a union in Arizona than it is in California except that joining the union cannot be mandatory.

Simplepleasures · Jan 30, 2008

There are two terms that I repeatedly hear misused, one is "right to work state" and the other is "at will state". I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, that a "right to work" state is merely a state in which , IF there is a union present in your workplace, you cannot be fired for refusing to join. Now the other term, "at will state" is a state in which one can be fired for any reason, having nothing what so ever to do with unions.

http://phoenix.about.com/cs/empl/a/righttowork.htm

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/WP&sdn=jobsearchtech&cdn=careers&tm=26&f=20&su=p554.2.150.ip_p560.3.150.ip_&tt=3&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/AAD74992-4C86-44DA-8102A340BCEC520A/catID/D348BE73-C552-4D58-B00586C0C0909EFA/104/150/269/ART/

Jeffthenurse · Feb 25, 2008

If you really want to see a couple of great unions that helped their constituients considerably, then take a look at the National Football League Players Association or the Major League (Baseball) Players Association. Those unions took salaries from an average of $40,000/year to over $1 Million/year, threw out the reserve clause in baseball, started free-agency in both leagues, gave the substitutes (bench-warmers) over $300,000/yr in salaries, initiated starting salaries of over $200,000/year ---, anything short of the aggressiveness and arrogance of the players in those unions will result in salaries of less than $100,000/yr, lousy working conditions, and the opportunity to be criminally charged if anything goes wrong with any of the patients in our care. If we don't do something aggressive, then we'll have to live with what we have now.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Feb 25, 2008

If you really want to see a couple of great unions that helped their constituients considerably, then take a look at the National Football League Players Association or the Major League (Baseball) Players Association. Those unions took salaries from an average of $40,000/year to over $1 Million/year, threw out the reserve clause in baseball, started free-agency in both leagues, gave the substitutes (bench-warmers) over $300,000/yr in salaries, initiated starting salaries of over $200,000/year ---, anything short of the aggressiveness and arrogance of the players in those unions will result in salaries of less than $100,000/yr, lousy working conditions, and the opportunity to be criminally charged if anything goes wrong with any of the patients in our care. If we don't do something aggressive, then we'll have to live with what we have now.

No comparison to average unions. Neither the NFL nor MLB has competition; they are monopolies, one, a Congressionally protected monopoly.

In addition, taxpayers generally heavily subsidize their playing venues, leaving the owners free to invest in 'talent'.

Add in TV and franchise selling rights that make the owners millions - but only if they bring to bear 'million dollar talent', and you have a perfect storm for talent.

Indeed, just like movie stars, the fact that players are paid so much is part of the allure, part of the attraction. To the owners, paying for talent is a cost of doing business, not a function of unionization. besides, with a protected market and massive gov't subsidies, paying for players is much easier to do.

I would suggest that pro sports is not a very accurate analogy for everyday workplaces. Just as I would suggest that unions have very little to do with those salaries (except for the NFL - and then the unions have participated in LIMITING salaries with approval of a salary cap.)

~faith,

Timothy.

Jeffthenurse · Feb 26, 2008

You have some good points but what I wanted everyone to look at was what those players did-----they risked their careers for the opportunity to band together to make it better for everyone. I remember Curt Flood, centerfielder for the St Louis Cardinals, who really got the whole thing started when he filed a lawsuit against the baseball owners in order to get rid of the reserve clause, which he considered a form of slavery. He gave up a part of his career for that. Years before that, the organizers of the AFL-CIO risked getting beaten up in order to unionize and make it better for every working person. Remember the dangerous "sweatshops" in the garment industry where workers were at risk for dying in unsafe buildings? OSHA, building codes, L&I all came about because people came together to raise their voices and do something to change their condition. Sometimes it takes drastic action.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 27, 2008

Although it is true that only about 20 percent of American workers are in unions, that 20 percent sets the standards across the board in salaries, benefits and working conditions. If you are making a decent salary in a non-union company, you owe that to the unions. One thing that corporations do not do is give out money out of the goodness of their hearts. Molly Ivins