Unions vs Non Union Hospitals

I spoke to various people regarding working for union hospitals vs non-union. Some nurses have actually left union hospitals to go work in non union hospitals and even reported better work satisfaction (so they say).

Do you feel safer working in a union hospital vs non-union? How do you like collective bargaining?

I can honestly say that there are ups and downs to both but I was wondering overall what the majority nurses opinions were on the subject.

[Dranger]

Unions in my area are completely useless, COl went up 14% in Seattle last year, 13% the year before and they negotiate the same 1.5-2% cookie cutter raise each year. Literally copy and paste each new contract. Thanks for nothing...

[DrStew]

I agree. Well said.

[Grobyc82]

Thats a great point. When you work for management that is fair then the union is not really necessary and seems kind of superfluous. Ive worked in a unionized hospital for many years and it seems like with every contract renewal there is drama and nit picking on various issues including benefits and such.

[perioperative]

Defiantly NON UNION. Unions protect the lazy, take your money for political contributions to the candidates of their choice.

[Corey Narry, MSN, RN, NP]

Respectfully...the ideals of that designation in our nursing culture? hmmm...

Do I/we qualify?

Gee, I passed my boards and do my continuing education is that not good enough in my short staffed almost daily working world?

Little rant...I'm thinking 'magnet' designation needs to include things like providing sufficient staff including experienced and qualified medical staff as well as ancillary staff and sometimes providing enough of even the basic medical equipment to get the job done efficiently e.g. enough wheelchairs to help with providing basic such so-called magnet care.

That's real life~ hire more nurses, retain nurses by pay raises and providing respect for your nurses more often, both new and experienced, maybe buy some wheelchairs...

I used to try to believe in the 'magnet' then I stopped. What are the real changes? They stay in business by paying for an ideal title? The nurses and doctors all have the same license at other hospitals. Yet this 'magnet' hospital wants to act as if its superior. It's not bad to try to be good but paying for it just doesn't seem ethical.

Don't hospitals pay big bucks for this? By doing what, cutting nurses and some of the very basic necessities to get the basic job of patient care done efficiently?

If I'm wrong about buying the designation, let me know. Union vs Non-union is the question in this thread. I apologize for getting sidetracked. The magnet word just sucked me in. Let me go take off this metal armor! It's way too heavy anyhow.

Sorry, late to respond as I just saw this.

I think my statement was interpreted the wrong way somewhat. I agree that Magnet designation is never a true and reliable indicator of how good a hospital treats its nurses.

When I said that "our hospital's Magnet designation is an affirmation of how well we live the ideal in our nursing culture"...I meant that the hospital I work for have always had a "nursing culture" that respects nurses as highly skilled and independent professionals who have a voice in how they should practice even before we received our Magnet designation.

There is a true collaboration between nurses and other professional here and that's what would attract the kind of nurses who thrive and excel in their specialties. Of course, its not always perfect and we do have some rotten apples like everywhere else but for the most part and in comparison with the other places I've worked at in my 20+ years of nursing career, this place stands out for that reason in my eyes.