Union

music · Apr 20, 2005

study results published in the journal of nursing administration (jona) march 2002:

"patients with heart trouble would be wise to seek care at a hospital with a nurses union according to a recent study of the impact of nurses unions and the mortality rate for patients with acute

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."

if the above quote is true, then what happened at king drew medical center in los angeles?????? they have a union (seiu) and the front page of the la times has been full of articles for months about the poor nursing care and nurse management plus many other problems. i have not seen one article or letter to the editor in defense of the nurses there. i'm sure every nurse there is not a bad nurse. but hey...they have a union so what's up with that? so much for that theory..............

need i say more? i suggest that jean ann seago, phd, rn and michael ash, phd better do a bit more research before they put it in print that hospitals with unions provide better care!

Sheri257 · Apr 20, 2005

the decline in unions is not because of sympathetic labor laws, it is because of the slow rollback of those laws and a shift in how they are interperted.

This is my point exactly. The "sympathetic" labor laws haven't, for all practical purposes, done unions much good.

I wasn't suggesting that business give up their opposition to unions. That would be absurd. I'm just not aware of business proposing what you're proposing: eliminating the elections and mandatory union dues. I was speculating that maybe business hasn't made such a proposal because, it might suit their purposes to keep the system as it is.

:coollook:

bluesky, BSN, RN · Apr 20, 2005

A man's liberties are none the less aggressed upon because those who coerce him do so in the belief that he will be benefited. - Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), Social Statics, 1850

Watershed moment... a quote by someone other than Thomas Jefferson!

:) (Just a little tease...)

Sheri257 · Apr 20, 2005

study results published in the journal of nursing administration (jona) march 2002:
"patients with heart trouble would be wise to seek care at a hospital with a nurses union according to a recent study of the impact of nurses unions and the mortality rate for patients with acute
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."
if the above quote is true, then what happened at king drew medical center in los angeles?????? they have a union (seiu) and the front page of the la times has been full of articles for months about the poor nursing care and nurse management plus many other problems. i have not seen one article or letter to the editor in defense of the nurses there. i'm sure every nurse there is not a bad nurse. but hey...they have a union so what's up with that? so much for that theory..............
need i say more? i suggest that jean ann seago, phd, rn and michael ash, phd better do a bit more research before they put it in print that hospitals with unions provide better care!

sorry but ....

i think the problems at king drew go far beyond unions ... :rolleyes:

i don't think you can take that one hospital and draw conclusions about the status of nursing care at all unionized hospitals in california.

interesting quote though. too bad the article isn't readily available online.

:coollook:

music · Apr 20, 2005

Sorry but ....
I think the problems at King Drew go far beyond unions ...
I don't think you can take that one hospital and draw conclusions about the status of nursing care at all unionized hospitals in California.
Interesting quote though. Too bad the article isn't readily available online.

Liz,

The point I was making is that the union has not appeared to speak up publicly at all on behalf of the nurses they supposedly represent. I feel badly for the nurses working there as they have been so maligned in the press. Surely there are many good nurses working there. I would like to see the union speak up and come to their aid, speak out against the horrible working conditions, the poor management.........whatever. ..........or are they just satisfied with taking the dues from their paychecks and that's it.

Just a thought for others to consider when approached with the supposed benefits of being in a union. WHERE has the union been with all of this going on for so long. I know there are other problems at King Drew but that shouldn't keep the nurses from advocating for the best patient care and for themselves. I thought that was one of the main things a union was supposed to help nurses do............ :nurse: Although I myself do not choose to be represented by a union, I feel that since these nurses are in a union, they should be publicly supported as this is such a public problem at present. This must be a nightmare for them. I care about ALL nurses and this is a pretty important point if you ask me. If the unions are so great at standing up for nursing, I think this union is falling down on the job BIG TIME.

menetopali · Apr 20, 2005

This is my point exactly. The "sympathetic" labor laws haven't, for all practical purposes, done unions much good.
I wasn't suggesting that business give up their opposition to unions. That would be absurd. I'm just not aware of business proposing what you're proposing: eliminating the elections and mandatory union dues. I was speculating that maybe business hasn't made such a proposal because, it might suit their purposes to keep the system as it is.

the sympathetic labor laws did alot for unions before the pendulum started its swing back again. without these laws unions would not exist as recognized bargaining entities. while it ic true that the last quarter century has not been as pro-union as the previous two quarter centuries, that is not to say that these laws have not helped unions in very practical ways. without those sympathetic laws, CNA would not be able to organize against any facility or politician without each and every one of its members being subject to disiplanary action by their employer or being subject to arrest for conspiracy to obstruct trade. those are pretty practical purposes.

as for my suggestions. i did not suggest ending elections or dues. i am suggesting that these things not be compulsatory as a condition of employment. there are many businesses that suggest either ending or not permitting unions in the first place, Wal-Mart for example. that is not what i have suggested though.

i believe that businesses don't offer up my suggestion for two reasons. first, it would require steppinbg away from the all or nothing approach that has charectorized both sides. second, it would be a disaster for any business to announce that it would hire non-union workers in a union shop and not have them pay dues. they risk the unmitigated wrath of the union membership, open themselves up to legal and civil charges of unfair labor practices, and a PR disaster. why do that when they gain little from it if it works and lose alot if it doesn't. in the current system, they buy off the unions until they can relocate facilities overseas as in manufacturing, the upper management takes golden parchutes and lets the company die from a union stranglehold putting everyone out of work as has happened to a number of airlines, or they eventually build it into their business model and just write off the union cost as part of doing business and pass the cost to the consumer as happens in many service industries. in each of these scenarios the guy who gets the short end of the stick is the average joe consumer and those who stand up for themselves against both sides.

businesses don't deal with unions because they want to; they do it because its cheaper for them to pay off the union than fight it once the union takes hold. they don't accept unions because its a good idea for them; they accept them because its better business to accept the entrenched union than to deal with the headaches of removing them. it is a purely monetary decision. they fight to keep unions out, but once they take hold they adjust to live with it until they can up a move. sort of like living near a nuclear plant; you fight to keep the plant from coming in...when you lose and the plant goes in anyway, you learn to live with it...until you have the opportunity to move away from it or it has a meltdown and destroys your house...either way once its there, odds of getting rid of it are so small and the damage that has already occurred to the site so permanent thatfighting it becomes futile and your only option is to leave and take your economic contribution to the area with you to a place that doesn't have nuclear power plants. (admittedly not the clearest analogy but i was in a hurry)

bluesky, just for you :cheers:

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. - Thomas Jefferson

i don't want to break form to often :wink2:

mmeow · Apr 21, 2005

all I know is this, i haven't worked in a traditional hospital setting where unions don't exist, although there are career opportunities without unions for RN's where I live if they want to be entrepeneurs but regardless our contract is up.

Because of provincial health care cut backs the philosophy of medicare is becoming increasingly harder to realize and the employer wants to take away from the nurses wages and benefits to compensate, they also have increased surgical beds without increasing nursing positions so less nurses are taking care of more patients which is a recipe for disaster.

In my opinion this all makes working conditions unrealistic because the employer also wants to decrease the number of permenent postions increasing casuals, making RNs float between facilities instead of having a job on one ward alone, and not dealing with patient nurse ratios! along with a while slew of other stuff.

Going to my :) unions web site i feel better knowing that i am not the only RN who thinks this is ridiculous! And I feel secure knowing that their are other people out there who will protest these important issues with me

as alone I would not know how to even

take management on and really in fact

couldnlt by myself.

labour laws do not protect me from these issues but the organization that represents me....my nurses union who are my fellow co-workers are tying to protect me! That is very comforting indeed!

Sheri257 · Apr 21, 2005

Liz,
The point I was making is that the union has not appeared to speak up publicly at all on behalf of the nurses they supposedly represent. I feel badly for the nurses working there as they have been so maligned in the press. Surely there are many good nurses working there. I would like to see the union speak up and come to their aid, speak out against the horrible working conditions, the poor management.........whatever. ..........or are they just satisfied with taking the dues from their paychecks and that's it.
Just a thought for others to consider when approached with the supposed benefits of being in a union. WHERE has the union been with all of this going on for so long. I know there are other problems at King Drew but that shouldn't keep the nurses from advocating for the best patient care and for themselves. I thought that was one of the main things a union was supposed to help nurses do............ Although I myself do not choose to be represented by a union, I feel that since these nurses are in a union, they should be publicly supported as this is such a public problem at present. This must be a nightmare for them. I care about ALL nurses and this is a pretty important point if you ask me. If the unions are so great at standing up for nursing, I think this union is falling down on the job BIG TIME.

I can't argue with you there. I'm not much of a fan of SEIU or other unions that have other interests and aren't primarily run by nurses. I think CNA does a much better job and, if they were representing those nurses, would probably be doing more for them.

:coollook:

menetopali · Apr 21, 2005

all I know is this, i haven't worked in a traditional hospital setting where unions don't exist, although there are career opportunities without unions for RN's where I live if they want to be entrepeneurs but regardless our contract is up.
Because of provincial health care cut backs the philosophy of medicare is becoming increasingly harder to realize and the employer wants to take away from the nurses wages and benefits to compensate, they also have increased surgical beds without increasing nursing positions so less nurses are taking care of more patients which is a recipe for disaster.
In my opinion this all makes working conditions unrealistic because the employer also wants to decrease the number of permenent postions increasing casuals, making RNs float between facilities instead of having a job on one ward alone, and not dealing with patient nurse ratios! along with a while slew of other stuff.
Going to my :) unions web site i feel better knowing that i am not the only RN who thinks this is ridiculous! And I feel secure knowing that their are other people out there who will protest these important issues with me
as alone I would not know how to even
take management on and really in fact
couldnlt by myself.
labour laws do not protect me from these issues but the organization that represents me....my nurses union who are my fellow co-workers are tying to protect me! That is very comforting indeed!

that's wonderful for you. i think you should have every right to join with your fellow nurses to address concerns that you have, if that is what you choose. i just ask that my choice not to join a union be given equal standing.

frankly my knowledge of Canadian government is shoddy at best and my Canadian history, outside its relationship to the United States, is equally poor (a discussion of failed U.S. public education is another topic all together) so I can't address the Canadian labor law issue coherently. there was a time in U.S. history that no labor laws existed, no anti-trust laws existed, there was very little regulation on industry or interstate commerce and no federal regulation on intrastate commerce. that time included some huge technological advances and some poor working conditions. now is a time with far to much labor law. hiring and being hired is no longer a simple contract between individuals. now in some states, my ability to be permitted to work is tied to my willingness to pay a union off. my ability to negotiate with an employer is severely hampered by federal, state, and local regulation, and by industry trade associations and labor union constraints.

all i ask is to be left alone to make my own way without having people take from me 'for my own good' (as in government social programs) or tell me that i must pay some third party to be allowed to work (as in union dues/fees). the former i work on every election day and many days in between. the latter has forced me to relocate to a right-to-work state. let me work for whom i choose, and when i'm in a position to hire, let hire whom i believe is the most qualified. (JMHO)

Sherwood · May 6, 2005

The NLRB recently ruled that the California Nurses Associations Neutrality agreement with ALL Tenet hospitals was illegal.

The Administration at Whittier Hospital in California has announced that they will no longer recognize the CNA as the bargaining agent for the Nurses there.

I was wondering if anyone else working for a Tenet hospital has heard of this and if they are represented by the CNA what if any action has the union or the hospital administration taken?

I understand that this ruling also affects SEIU represented Tenet employees also.

The Memo by Whittier Hospital is available as a PDF file on http://www.stopunions.com and a thread on the forum has been started at http://www.stopunions.com/phpbb/index.php.