Union

menetopali · Apr 18, 2005

the biggest counter point to unions is their frequent claim to represent members of a class,willing union members or not, and fail to account for those in the class that disagree with the union organizer's position.

for example when i was growing up in nyc my mother had to pay dues to the union to be allowed to work as a teacher. it made no difference that the union acted in ways that she disagreed with. she had no voice at all and was forced to support this political machine to be allowed to work in her school. in some places paying a third party to be allowed to work would be called extortion, but in nyc it is simply part of doing business.

i live and work in a right-to-work state and am glad of it. if it ever gets to the point where i must pay some third party off to gain their permission to work i'll be forced to leave the area or the industry. i will not pay extortion money.

to those who choose to join unions, great that is your choice and i'm glad you are able to make it. i wouldn't stand in the way of unions voluntarily formed as long as they leave me alone, don't try to extort money from me, and don't claim to represent me.

some classic examples: does the CNA represent its 60K+ members or all CA nurses?

does the AARP represent all retired persons or just its members? does the NRA represent all gun owners, or just its members? does the sierra club represent all those who love the environment, or just its members?

frequently these groups represent what the organizers feel is best without regard to the opinions of those in the class they claim to represent, and may or may not even represent the positions of their members. this is like claiming Clinton represented the views of all Americans or that Bush represents the views of all Americans. the difference is that in presedential politics everyone who wants to vote at least has the opportunity to vote. in unions and 'associations' non-members can't vote but unions still claim to represent them. the most obvious example of this is the ANA who claims to represent me (as one of the 2.7 million registered nurses) but has endorsed and given money to those whom i do not support.

JMHO though.

Sheri257 · Apr 18, 2005

the biggest counter point to unions is their frequent claim to represent members of a class,willing union members or not, and fail to account for those in the class that disagree with the union organizer's position.
some classic examples: does the CNA represent its 60K+ members or all CA nurses?

In at least some respects, CNA does represent all RN's.

Even CNA's harshest critics applaud the ratio law, which CNA has spent years lobbying for and, more recently, hiring lawyers to protect the law in the courts.

CNA represents 20 percent of the RN's in this state, yet all RN's benefit. And not just with the ratios. A recent study by the California BORN found that ratios have significantly increased salaries and benefits for all RN's. No surprize since the ratios tremendously increase the demand for RN's.

So ... is it fair that 300,000 RN's get to benefit while only 60,000 foot the bill for all of this? Fighting the hospital industry isn't cheap.

I see your point but, at the same time, what's an equitable solution? RN's do vote for union representation and, if a majority disagrees, the union doesn't represent them. And if people don't like the union, they can work elsewhere. They certainly have more job options, thanks to the ratio law.

My point is that the "unfairness" cuts both ways. People who don't like the union and don't support it still benefit in many significant ways, and that's not necessarily fair either.

:coollook:

menetopali · Apr 18, 2005

even if a union does somthing that benefits all in a class it is not right to force those who have no voice or who aren't members to pay for the union. to claim that it is ok to extort money because it is expensive to do good works is strange at best and deluded at worst. for example if i benefit from some wide open space that is owned by a private entity, because that entity ensures a view that i enjoy when hikng, should i be required to pay that entity for ensuring the view? similarly if a trade organization sponsors ads that benefit a class member should that class member be forced to pay part of the advertising cost? more concrete & personal examples: i benefit from the NRA's position on the second amendmant, should i be compelled to pay them fees? i also benefit from the sierra club's work on wilderness, do i owe them money? on a global scale: Canada and Western Europe benefitted a great deal from the United States from 1941 to 1989 (at least), should they be forced to pay for that benefit? Eastern European countries have benefitted tremendously since 1989 from U.S. actions, should they be charged?

is it fair that non-union members benefit from union actions? in a word, yes. the benefit non-union members recieve is a secondary benefit. the union or association, any union or association, has an obligation to work for its members, not me. i will fight the union on points that i strongly disagree with it on and fight with the union on things that i strongly agree with them on. that is my choice, not because i am compelled to do so. i've written to senators kyl and mcain about illegal entry, but will not send money to or join the minutemen project. i benefit from their increasing awareness about failed border control but disagree with them on other things (ie methods). using the logic: if you benefit then you should pay, everyone in America should pay money to the ACLU & IJ, NRA & Sierra Club, and PETA & ACT-UP. all these groups have done good things that benefit us all and do things that some of us disagree with and don't want to support. again JMHO

-jt · Apr 18, 2005

Chicago BSN 2005 writes:

This might help but its alot of other data to get through to find what youre looking for:

For nurses, having a union means many things, not the least of which is earning 15.6 percent more than those nurses without a union, according to 2003 data from the Current Population Survey, published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

And

The Union Difference

Data includes statistics on wages, benefits, worker's rights, and productivity,

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/joinunions/whyjoin/uniondifference/

And

study results published in the Journal of Nursing Administration (JONA) March 2002:

myocardial infarction (AMI, the medical terminology for heart attack).

The study, which was published in the March issue of JONA (Journal of Nursing Administration), studied hospitals in California and found that

hospitals with a nurse's union had a "significantly predicted lower risk-adjusted AMI mortality."

The study's authors, Jean Ann Seago, PhD, RN and Michael Ash, PhD, concluded that "this study demonstrates that there is a positive relationship between patient outcomes and RN unions."

"Thirty-five percent of hospitals in California have RN unions. The significant finding in this study is that hospitals in California with RN unions have 5.7% lower mortality rates for AMI after accounting for patient age, gender, type of MI, chronic diseases and several organizational characteristics. This result includes controls for number of beds, AMI-related discharges, cardiac services, staff hours and wages.

In discussing how unions impact the quality of patient care, the authors stated, "unions may impact the quality of care by negotiating increased staffing levels..... that improve patient outcomes. Alternatively, unions may affect the organization nursing staff or the way nursing care is delivered in a fashion that facilitates RN-MD communication. This is the 'voice' function of unions..... Yet another possible mechanism by which unions can improve care is by raising wages, thereby decreasing turnover, which may improve patient care."

The authors conclude, "perhaps having an RN union promotes stability in staff, autonomy, collaboration with MDs and practice decisions that have been described as having a positive influence on the work environment and on the patient outcomes.">>>>>>>>>

Sheri257 · Apr 18, 2005

even if a union does somthing that benefits all in a class it is not right to force those who have no voice or who aren't members to pay for the union. to claim that it is ok to extort money because it is expensive to do good works is strange at best and deluded at worst.

You seemed to miss the last part of my post and, therefore, you're taking it out of context. I wasn't suggesting that unions be able to "extort" money.

I pointed out that RN's vote for whether or not a union represents them. If the majority wants a union, then the union is in. If the majority doesn't want a union, they're out.

CNA has lost elections, as has SEIU and other unions. Obviously, that is not extortion. It's called an election, where the majority prevails.

And RN's who disagree with the majority can choose to leave the facility if they don't want to pay union dues. That's not extortion either.

:coollook:

Hellllllo Nurse, BSN, RN · Apr 18, 2005

You seemed to miss the last part of my post and, therefore, you're taking it out of context. I wasn't suggesting that unions be able to "extort" money.
I pointed out that RN's vote for whether or not a union represents them. If the majority wants a union, then the union is in. If the majority doesn't want a union, they're out.
CNA has lost elections, as has SEIU and other unions. Obviously, that is not extortion. It's called an election, where the majority prevails.
And RN's who disagree with the majority can choose to leave the facility if they don't want to pay union dues. That's not extortion either.

Excellent post.

allnurses Guide · Apr 18, 2005

the biggest counter point to unions is their frequent claim to represent members of a class,willing union members or not, and fail to account for those in the class that disagree with the union organizer's position.
for example when i was growing up in nyc my mother had to pay dues to the union to be allowed to work as a teacher. it made no difference that the union acted in ways that she disagreed with. she had no voice at all and was forced to support this political machine to be allowed to work in her school. in some places paying a third party to be allowed to work would be called extortion, but in nyc it is simply part of doing business.
i live and work in a right-to-work state and am glad of it. if it ever gets to the point where i must pay some third party off to gain their permission to work i'll be forced to leave the area or the industry. i will not pay extortion money.
to those who choose to join unions, great that is your choice and i'm glad you are able to make it. i wouldn't stand in the way of unions voluntarily formed as long as they leave me alone, don't try to extort money from me, and don't claim to represent me.
some classic examples: does the CNA represent its 60K+ members or all CA nurses?
does the AARP represent all retired persons or just its members? does the NRA represent all gun owners, or just its members? does the sierra club represent all those who love the environment, or just its members?
frequently these groups represent what the organizers feel is best without regard to the opinions of those in the class they claim to represent, and may or may not even represent the positions of their members. this is like claiming Clinton represented the views of all Americans or that Bush represents the views of all Americans. the difference is that in presedential politics everyone who wants to vote at least has the opportunity to vote. in unions and 'associations' non-members can't vote but unions still claim to represent them. the most obvious example of this is the ANA who claims to represent me (as one of the 2.7 million registered nurses) but has endorsed and given money to those whom i do not support.
JMHO though.

I think you make some very good points. As just one example, I have a good friend who is a teacher, a conservative who is prolife. She is forced to join a union, which lobbies for liberal causes, including prochoice causes. That seems to her immoral. Her money is being used to support abortion. Opting out of "joining" a union but still forced to pay money does feel like stealing to those of us who don't agree with the union stances. And most public school teachers are forced to join a teacher's union or opt-out but still pay dues, so saying they can just quit and find another job is not really an option because unless they go to a private school, they will just run into the same problem. Thank goodness nursing isn't that closed yet.

steph

mmeow · Apr 18, 2005

All these people complaining that unions don't recognize every single person's veiw is ridiculous, welcome to REAL LIFE!!!!!!

Give your heads a shake and wake up! Not everything is fair play in this world nor will it ever be, point is utilitarianism, greatist good for the greatist number. You will never please every Tom, Dick and Harry but come on give us a break and get out there get heard. Stop complaining and start acting. If you don't like what your union values as important to it's workers change it and start where ever it works. Go to local meetings, get involved, start talking to co-workers start changing their minds ect ect. remeber your co-workers are the ones to vote on union issues! And remeber what your union has done for you! Better working conditions, wages, benefits and the list goes on .....on and on and on........!

Here in Canada unions go hand in hand with the job, you need to accept being part of one if your going to become an RN, if that's tooooooo much for you to handle then look for another carrer or learn to deal with it instead of just B******G about it.

:smokin:

allnurses Guide · Apr 18, 2005

All these people complaining that unions don't recognize every single person's veiw is ridiculous, welcome to REAL LIFE!!!!!!
Give your heads a shake and wake up! Not everything is fair play in this world nor will it ever be, point is utilitarianism, greatist good for the greatist number. You will never please every Tom, Dick and Harry but come on give us a break and get out there get heard. Stop complaining and start acting. If you don't like what your union values as important to it's workers change it and start where ever it works. Go to local meetings, get involved, start talking to co-workers start changing their minds ect ect. remeber your co-workers are the ones to vote on union issues! And remeber what your union has done for you! Better working conditions, wages, benefits and the list goes on .....on and on and on........!
Here in Canada unions go hand in hand with the job, you need to accept being part of one if your going to become an RN, if that's tooooooo much for you to handle then look for another carrer or learn to deal with it instead of just B******G about it.

I have better working conditions, better wages, better benefits due to working with administration on our own without a union. We had a chance about 5 years ago to have SEIU but after a couple of weeks of wooing, we voted them down by a majority of the RN's, LVN's and CNA's. It can be possible to work things out without having to rely on someone else to represent you. This isn't black and white, either/or. Here in America, becoming a Registered Nurse does not go hand in hand with being in a union and I appreciate that freedom.

steph

menetopali · Apr 18, 2005

lizz, i'm sorry if you construed my general statement about unions as directed toward you or if you feel that i took anything out of context. in places where their is an option to vote in a union or not, and to work in a union shop or not, then i agree that it may not be extortion (you have a choice to work elsewhere). in cases where there is no choice but to pay for the union or not work, as with nyc teachers and apparently in Canada (per mmeow's post) then it is in fact extorting money because you must pay a third party to be allowed to work whether or not you support their position.

the question is whether the individual has a choice (to join or not, to pay or not, to vote for or against, etc) or is coerced to pay without a choice. if you choose to join a union, fine. if you choose to work in a union shop, fine (if it is disclosed up front that you are in a nion shop and will have to pay union dues). if you are forced to pay without a choice (vote, option to work elsewhere, etc) then its not fine.

mmeow, from the sounds of your post, failure to accept and pay the union in Canada means you can't be a nurse in Canada. that is not choosing to be a union member, it is being forced to be a union member, that's a big difference.

again JMHO

allnurses Guide · Apr 18, 2005

mmeow, from the sounds of your post, failure to accept and pay the union in Canada means you can't be a nurse in Canada. that is not choosing to be a union member, it is being forced to be a union member, that's a big difference.

again JMHO

That is the impression I get also - you have to be in a union to be a nurse. That is very anti-choice.

steph

mmeow · Apr 18, 2005

I have better working conditions, better wages, better benefits due to working with administration on our own without a union. We had a chance about 5 years ago to have SEIU but after a couple of weeks of wooing, we voted them down by a majority of the RN's, LVN's and CNA's. It can be possible to work things out without having to rely on someone else to represent you. This isn't black and white, either/or. Here in America, becoming a Registered Nurse does not go hand in hand with being in a union and I appreciate that freedom.
steph

But you have no guarantees....... that's my point, you may have won the battle with your administration but honey you haven't won the war! there is no guaratee that what they have given you cannot be just as easily taken away, that is unless you had a union!