Union Wins Decertification Election at Scripps, CNA Stays

fergus51 · Jul 29, 2005

Well, hopefully this will at least result in a temporary acceptance by union opponents so that everyone can focus on getting a good contract. I don't expect they'll be very happy about it though.

music · Jul 30, 2005

Nurses at Scripps Encinitas voted this week to keep the California Nurses Association as their union representative. The opponents had tried to launch a decertification effort to eliminate CNA but, according to the hospital's anti-union website, CNA won the vote.
http://www.notinourhouse.org/ (See posting on the message board)
So much for all of the predictions that union decertifications will be sweeping the state of California.
While the vote was close, it's not surprizing that a majority of RN's ultimately felt they'd still do better with the union, despite all the controversy with no contract, strikes, etc.
IMHO, I think the hospital made a mistake by enlisting doctors, non-nurses and anti-union nurses from other hospitals to campaign against the union. You risk offending RN's when people who don't do the job, or people who don't even work there, to try to tell you how to vote on your particular job situation. In my opinion, it probably cost the hospital the election.
Anyway ... just thought everybody would like to know the latest news since decertification has been a hot topic in this forum.

Sorry Liz but the CNA has been using these same tactics for years.

Many of their organizers are not nurses. Their Executive Director is NOT a nurse. They call in nurses from other union hospitals all the time to help in their strikes, informational pickets, press conferences etc.

So don't even go there talking about others who don't do the same job offending RN's. The CNA has spent the last few years offending many of the Professional nurses in this state by their divisive actions and use of non nurses.

Not a good argument.............sorry. And it may be a good idea for you to read the letters written by the doctors on the site you mentioned. The hospital didn't make a mistake by enlisting the doctors. The CNA made a mistake in taking on the doctors and they rightfully came to the aid of the professional nurses who have the same goals as they do ................Quality patient care with no interference from an outside party.

OC_An Khe · Jul 30, 2005

Outside party? Unions are not outside parties. The members of the Local are all employed by the instiitution, they are inside parties.

PMHNP10 · Jul 30, 2005

Sorry Liz but the CNA has been using these same tactics for years.
Many of their organizers are not nurses. Their Executive Director is NOT a nurse. They call in nurses from other union hospitals all the time to help in their strikes, informational pickets, press conferences etc.
So don't even go there talking about others who don't do the same job offending RN's. The CNA has spent the last few years offending many of the Professional nurses in this state by their divisive actions and use of non nurses.
Not a good argument.............sorry. And it may be a good idea for you to read the letters written by the doctors on the site you mentioned. The hospital didn't make a mistake by enlisting the doctors. The CNA made a mistake in taking on the doctors and they rightfully came to the aid of the professional nurses who have the same goals as they do ................Quality patient care with no interference from an outside party.

I'm curious. If you think the tactics the nonunion folks used to attempt to expunge the union isn't the reason for the loss, then what is the reason? Do you feel the nonunion folks lost because their stance lacked substance and really offered little more than idle promises of utopia? Was the promise land of working union free not enough; or the thought that a few more people might view them as professionals without union representation? I mean the majority voted against decertification even though dues were being raised and threatening letters were being sent out by the CNA. They voted against making positive changes in their work environment (or preventing stupid changes from occurring) without having to pay dues. Perhaps the reasoning of the majority was that returning to the days of working in the horrible conditions (which pushed them into unionization in the first place) without a union to back them was professional suicide?

Sheri257 · Jul 30, 2005

So don't even go there talking about others who don't do the same job offending RN's. The CNA has spent the last few years offending many of the Professional nurses in this state by their divisive actions and use of non nurses.
Not a good argument.............sorry. And it may be a good idea for you to read the letters written by the doctors on the site you mentioned. The hospital didn't make a mistake by enlisting the doctors. The CNA made a mistake in taking on the doctors and they rightfully came to the aid of the professional nurses who have the same goals as they do ................Quality patient care with no interference from an outside party.

The bottom line is ...

THE HOSPITAL LOST. CNA WON.

And your still trying to argue that the hospital didn't make a mistake ... the union did ???

Uh ... ok. :lol2:

I certainly don't need doctors coming to my "aid." And I don't want doctors telling me how I need to negotiate my own employment contract and working conditions.

I don't tell doctors how they should negotiate their own salaries and working conditions. If I did, they would undoubtedly take offense. And, quite frankly, I wouldn't blame them.

Call me crazy, but maybe some RN's took offense to MD's telling them how they should negotiate and represent themselves ... Afterall, a majority of RN's did NOT take the doctors' advice and voted FOR the union.

:coollook:

Sheri257 · Jul 31, 2005

BTW ... here's an article on the election:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050730-9999-1b30nurses.html#

" The hospital and the union opposition group said the hospital did not play a role."

While the notinourhouse.org website doesn't disclose this fact on the website, the site is run by the Scripps marketing department. It sure looks like the hospital was playing a role to me.

BTW ... according to the article, the union won by 28, not 14 votes as reported by the notinourhouse website.

:coollook:

Sherwood · Aug 1, 2005

The bottom line is ...
THE HOSPITAL LOST. CNA WON.
Actually it is not just a loss for the Hospital. It is a loss for nursing and a loss for the patients. It is a loss.
I do not know who to credit for this. We learn, and we keep moving forward.
"I would rather attempt something great and fail than to attempt to do nothing and succeed"

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Aug 1, 2005

I do not know who to credit for this. We learn, and we keep moving forward.

I would give some of the credit for this to "AHHHHRRRNOLLLD".

He is his own worst enemy and the CNA's best friend.

And it is definitely a step forward.

PMHNP10 · Aug 1, 2005

The bottom line is ...
THE HOSPITAL LOST. CNA WON.
Actually it is not just a loss for the Hospital. It is a loss for nursing and a loss for the patients. It is a loss.
I do not know who to credit for this. We learn, and we keep moving forward.
"I would rather attempt something great and fail than to attempt to do nothing and succeed"
Taking away the only legally allowed ally the abused nurses have to fight for them would have been a loss for nursing. Now the fact that nurses aren't able to unite (which will never happen btw) is unfortunate, but as I've mentioned before, not surprising; so as long as this is true, there will always be environments where unions are a necessary evil. While one might disagree, not one person who has posted on here has been able to refute the assertion that unfortunately, sometimes workers require a union.

Sheri257 · Aug 1, 2005

It is a loss for nursing and a loss for the patients.

I don't know why it would be a loss for patients. Before the ratios, every RN I know was juggling at least 8 or more patients per shift. Since the risk of mortality increases 7 percent with each patient assignment, CNA has reduced patient loads, and mortality risk, by at least 21 percent.

As far as nurses are concerned ... by your own account Sherwood, CNA negotiated a better pay raise at your hospital than you could get on your own. So, I don't know why that's bad for nurses either, unless the nurse works in management.

Since union RN's nationwide make, on average, $7,000 a year more than non-union RN's a hospital like Scripps, for example, could end up paying $1.7 million more a year to RN's than they pay now. Obviously, that's a loss for management but, it isn't a loss for nurses.

:clown:

fergus51 · Aug 1, 2005

Are we really going to have this debate again? The bottom line is the staff nurses spoke and the majority want CNA representation. End of story. Hopefully union supporters and union opponents can now put their differences aside and move on to try to create the best workplace possible.