Union

[ER Tigger Girl]

I am interested in hearing how unions work. I have heard many different opinions about them and would like to know the pro's and cons. Also how did your union get started? There has been a lot of talk down south about starting a union but everyone is afraid of the backlash from the upper management and also most nurses don't know what a union can do for them and what the pro's and cons are. Would any of you work/not work in a union if you had to choose. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

[menetopali]

mmeow, its not a war to be won or lost. the us vs. them or 'war' mentality is often part of the problem in any negotiation process.

if working through a union you are able to reach a satisfactory position, great. if i or any other individual can reach a satifactory position without a union, great. neither offers real guarantees for any period beyond the negotiated contract period.

[Sheri257]

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

I'm glad we have some points of agreement. I thought we were talking about U.S. nursing unions, like CNA, where there is a choice. I wasn't addressing the issue of teachers or Canadian nurses.

Just floating an idea here but, perhaps the ideal scenario, be it teacher, nursing, U.S. or Canadian unions .... would be that those who want to join a union could opt to do so ... and those who don't can opt out.

Maybe the concept of "union shop" is flawed ... and maybe only those who support the union should be represented. By the same token, if the union negotiates benefits and salaries that are more favorable for their members, non-union workers shouldn't benefit from that.

And, perhaps a union like CNA, who loses the majority an election but gets 45 percent of the RN's voting for them, could still go in and represent those people. If the union delivers, and non-union people want the same benefits, they could also opt-into union membership down the line they wanted to.

I would support something along those lines but, I'm not sure it would be practical. For one thing, it probably be more chaotic to have two different sets of work rules, salaries and benefits for the non-union group of RN's versus the union group.

I don't know much about the history of U.S. labor law but, I assume that's why elections are held instead. It just seems more practical to have an election with the majority deciding one way or the other. And, of course, the law would have to be changed since, elections are what the law requires now.

[menetopali]

lizz, a well stated post and a great idea. in some industries and some places that is exactly how it works. unfortunately other places and other industries it works way i described for teachers and how mmeow described for Canadaian nurses.

i agree that separate rules for union and non-union workers is complicated but that is the only fair way to operate. benefits derived by unions should be primarily for the union membership. as for representing the minority after a lost election, great. the union should represent its members whether they win a particular election or not. they should not however claim to represent members of a class that are not members of the union.

for example, if the union negotiates a pay rate of X for their members it should not preclude me, as a non-union member from negotiating a higher wage than X, nor should it preclude management from offerring a lower wage than X for non-union members. the negotiated arrangement between union and management should not bind non-union individuals and non-union individuals should not be required to fund uninos.

[mmeow]

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

Counter check.... your forgeting a big part of the pic. that unions are made up of the members at large ... not "they" or "them" but fellow co-workers people you can place a face to. In essence Imake up my union and I like being apart of a fellowship that shares my same views and frustrations and together we can take action as a whole! if people have a problem with union philosphy them they should (as per my previous post) get a new career or voice up to take another route of action. and further more, each province in canada has it's own unique nurses union formed by nurses and run by nurses, and there's a reason why..... UNIONS SIMPLY WORK!

[JBudd, MSN]

[quote=

And by the way, I have spent the last year listening to many nurses as to why they feel the need for a union. Some of them have very good reasons.

But, I point out to them that the union isn't going to come in and solve the problems they point out........Change comes from within and it is up to us to do that in each individual hospital............ourselves. . . TOGETHER

So shine a little light on those thoughts and thank you for sharing.

The TOGETHER part is what our union is, we started off in the 70's, just the nurses in the one hospital. As things grew and changed in the corporate world, so did we, and we eventually affiliated with a national union.

What did our union do for us? Stopped double back scheduling (work 3-11, turn around and return at 7A, etc.), stopped a unilateral wiping out of most of our health insurance, mandated pt:nurse ratios, and when we have too high of ratios, (or a sick call isn't covered) the remaining nurses get time and half to compensate for doing your job and someone else's. These are a few examples. WE changed things, through a union. No, a union won't come in and solve things, but we are our own union: outside help just helps us know directions and solutions we can take. One issue was taken all the way to the National Labor Board, and decided in our favor on every level. The hospital would have saved millions by playing fair in the first place, but didn't.

That's my bit of light! :)

[mmeow]

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.

Provincial unions are formed by nurses, run by nurses and have nurses as members! There's a reason why all provinces in Canada have followed suit...... UNIONS WORK....

[mmeow]

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

Provincial unions are formed by nurses, run by nurses and have nurses as members! There's a reason why all provinces in Canada have followed suit...... UNIONS WORK.... the nurses unions in Canada are comprised of NURSES, who work for each other sharing each others struggles, values and wants AS A WHOLE.. Individual differences will arise but the majority of issues are agreed upon.

Being a nurse in canada means being organized and that also menas that our union dues are spent towards bettering my profession. How can that be a negative thing? Sure it could be done other ways but currently it's done through unions and collective agreements that have legal ramifications if both parties do not adhere to it.

If management Tells you to take on two other patients in an ICU unit, or demands that you stay 1/2 an hour for overtime or cutbacks on wages due to deficits or cuts back on staff........................... you can protest your little heart out honey but that doesn't change the fact that you just may have to comply for job safety (meaning you'll lose favor with the boss if you don't and hence lose browny points and then your job).

With collective agreements management cannot do those things against the agreement without legal ramifications. Meaning worker job safety!!!!!!

Both you and your pateints are safe!

I cannot comprehend how any individual would want to engage in discussions concerning the betterment of the urseing profession without having the majority of nurses backing you up, which is union philosophy.

[menetopali]

are you seriously saying that if i disagree with unions then i shouldn't be a nurse? does my wish to respect the autonomy of others and to expect others to respect my autonomy disqualify me from being a nurse? last time i checked respecting the autonomy of others was a hallmark of nursing, or are you saying that's only case if you agree with the union. choosing to be a member of a union is a political decision, not a vocational one.

[mmeow]

are you seriously saying that if i disagree with unions then i shouldn't be a nurse? does my wish to respect the autonomy of others and to expect others to respect my autonomy disqualify me from being a nurse? last time i checked respecting the autonomy of others was a hallmark of nursing, or are you saying that's only case if you agree with the union. choosing to be a member of a union is a political decision, not a vocational one.

it's all in my previous posts so i'm not going to reapeat myself!

Utilitarianism ROCKS!!!!

[menetopali]

i just wanted to make sure i wasn't taking your position out of context or misrepresenting it. if the autonomy of those with whom you disagree matters so little to you, perhaps a caring profession that deals with a broad spectrum of people isn't quite right for you. perhaps a career where you only deal with like-minded individuals would be more appropriate. JMHO

[Sheri257]

Speaking of autonomy ...

I do understand the problem of "forcing" individuals to do anything, and that could include union membership, even when the majority of your peers have voted for the union. However, when you think about it, we do this all the time. If you vote for a certain candidate and the opposition candidate wins, that doesn't mean you can't pay taxes anymore because you don't want to be represented by the winning candidate.

I just wish that RN's could somehow unite, be it through a union or some other organization, because I do think they're stronger together than apart. Otherwise, management always wins with divide and conquer strategies.

CNA may be flawed but, thanks to that union membership base, they were able to finance and protect the first ratio law in this country. Without it, RN's (at least in California) would be nowhere.

Union shops and union elections may be flawed as well, but at least some progress was made. I haven't seen any progress in other non-union states where RN's have more "autonomy."

[menetopali]

in the case of government individuals enter into a social contract to accept the outcome of the election and, in free societies, are permitted leave the juristiction of that government and seek a life elsewhere if they choose and another country will take them. in the case of the federated representative republic with separation of powers, as in the United States, the actions of the government are subject to independent review by the judiciary. the judicial, executive, and legislative branchs are limited in their respective power, which has the effect of diffusing power away from any one individual. if i disagree with the action that government takes, i have recourse through the judiciary, contacting, my legislators, and to a significantly lesser extent contacting the executive branch. as a union is a private entity, not a governmental one subject to oversight, it should not be given governmental powers or standing. IMHO