What would a good national professional organization look like?

llg, PhD, RN · Jul 13, 2006

Question: How can an organization be an advocate for nurses without taking a stand on any issues?

Politics is the process through which power is exercised and people (individuals or groups) express their opinions and influence outcomes. If we want to be effective in our attempts to promote nursing, we are going to have to be involved in the political process -- because that is the arena in which decisions are made and actions are taken.

You might not agree with all of the positions taken by a particular group, such as ANA .... but if a group never takes a stand and never becomes involved in the process of decision-making, it can not be effective in accomplishing anything.

It's like being a nurse ... you're not going to be any good at it if you aren't willing to get your hands dirty once in a while.

llg

pickledpepperRN · Jul 13, 2006

I think it would be great to have an organisation for ALL licensed nurses and certified nursing assistants.

It should encourage membership in other organisations and associations even if they take positions it doesn't agree with.

It should be democratic. Each member should have a vote. I'm not anywhere near ready to propose a structure.

I also can't envision any useful action without political work.

Nurses need protection from retaliation with legislation that assumes a nurse who blew the whistle on unsafe conditions or indiviual care providers is innocent until guilty of a true reason for discipline. Sorry but hos can we improve healthcare without a way to expose unsafe conditions?

Plagueis · Jul 13, 2006

I do think that a national nursing organization should include ALL nurses, not just RNs. The ANA is a nursing organization, but it only represents RNs, not LPNs. LPNs should always be included in any nursing organization. It should also include not just concern itself with hospital care concerns, but in other areas, as well, such as nursing homes. Also, a nursing organization should take positions on any issue that is important to its members that would improve the working conditions of nurses, such as better staffing ratios, or not using mandatory overtime to fill in staffing gaps. I don't know if it would be possible for a nursing organization to not take a political position, since taking any position on an issue, even staffing ratios, could be considered political. In order to make changes in laws that would help nurses, a national organization would have to support a political party, or candidate, which would make some feel that the organization is taking a position in favor of that party or candidate's political beliefs.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jul 13, 2006

I didn't say an organization shouldn't be INVOLVED in politics. But, there is a difference between political action and political support.

You can lobby for nursing issues without 'choosing sides' in politics.

You don't need to support Hilary for President in order to take the concept of nurse/patient ratios throughout Capitol Hill. You don't.

See, this is the problem with the ANA, et. al. It's divisive, in so many ways. Our power lies in our numbers. But, when you take positions more designed to salve your particular political viewpoint than to advance nursing generally, you do so at the cost of those numbers.

I'm not saying break no eggs. I'm saying that a collective voice is MORE important than ensuring Hilary gets elected. At least for a nursing organization.

IF WE ARE TO HAVE DISAGREEMENTS, let them be over NURSING ISSUES, not political ideology.

I'm a member of Amer Assoc of Critical-Care Nurses. They take several stands over which I disagree. But. They are nursing stands. I can advocate within the organization for my views on family presence in codes or open visitation.

I don't think its naive to support a concept of being politically active WITHOUT being politically biased. In fact, I believe it naive to think otherwise. Without overwhelming political support over an issue, neither 'party' has the numbers to support to passage any but a few key issues. Nursing's priorities will always fall through those cracks unless we can find a bi-partisan following. And there is no reason why we shouldn't - EXCEPT taking sides creates as many political 'enemies' as it does 'friends'.

We need friends WITHOUT making an equal number of enemies. Within our own ranks. AND ON CAPITOL HILL.

~faith,

Timothy.

ukstudent · Jul 13, 2006

I didn't say an organization shouldn't be INVOLVED in politics. But, there is a difference between political action and political support.
You can lobby for nursing issues without 'choosing sides' in politics.
You don't need to support Hilary for President in order to take the concept of nurse/patient ratios throughout Capitol Hill. You don't.
See, this is the problem with the ANA, et. al. It's divisive, in so many ways. Our power lies in our numbers. But, when you take positions more designed to salve your particular political viewpoint than to advance nursing generally, you do so at the cost of those numbers.
I'm not saying break no eggs. I'm saying that a collective voice is MORE important than ensuring Hilary gets elected. At least for a nursing organization.
IF WE ARE TO HAVE DISAGREEMENTS, let them be over NURSING ISSUES, not political ideology.
I'm a member of Amer Assoc of Critical-Care Nurses. They take several stands over which I disagree. But. They are nursing stands. I can advocate within the organization for my views on family presence in codes or open visitation.
I don't think its naive to support a concept of being politically active WITHOUT being politically biased. In fact, I believe it naive to think otherwise. Without overwhelming political support over an issue, neither 'party' has the numbers to support to passage any but a few key issues. Nursing's priorities will always fall through those cracks unless we can find a bi-partisan following. And there is no reason why we shouldn't - EXCEPT taking sides creates as many political 'enemies' as it does 'friends'.
We need friends WITHOUT making an equal number of enemies. Within our own ranks. AND ON CAPITOL HILL.
~faith,
Timothy.

:yeahthat:

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Jul 13, 2006

I'm with you, Timothy.:yeahthat:

Nurses need to have a voice that TRANSCENDS partisan politics......after all, our issues are humanity's issues, and I think we can reach an agreement on many of these. I mean, aren't we ALL in favor of quality patient care? Don't we ALL want safe staffing levels so we can provide that care?

Personally, I don't think endorsing candidates or pushing a certain political agenda is the business of a nursing organization..........but, that's just me.

pickledpepperRN · Jul 13, 2006

I'm with you, Timothy.:yeahthat:
Nurses need to have a voice that TRANSCENDS partisan politics......after all, our issues are humanity's issues, and I think we can reach an agreement on many of these. I mean, aren't we ALL in favor of quality patient care? Don't we ALL want safe staffing levels so we can provide that care?
Personally, I don't think endorsing candidates or pushing a certain political agenda is the business of a nursing organization..........but, that's just me.

RIGHT!

Safe staffing, competency, infection control, and many issues are political. Nursing needs an organization in which to work out our position and take a stand.

Not to support a political party.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jul 13, 2006

Let's dissect CNA's much vaunted patient ratios in California. I'm not knocking it. I can be proud of the result while at the same time questioning the methods on a national basis. And that is the key question: how to give such issues national momentum.

The California Legislature is fairly liberal. An alignment of factors, including that more liberal legislature and a Democrat Gov got those ratios passed as a political nod to 'political friends'.

And even now, CNA doesn't seem to understand how shifting allegiences can undermine political graft. Is Arnie an enemy to nurses, or to the political alliances that nurses have chosen sides?

Sure, sure, you can say that 'big business' is in Arnie, et. al's back pocket. But, a unified collection of nursing voices that cross political lines can simply out-compete almost every voice on the healthcare playing field.

Or more to the point: could Arnie afford to be a political enemy to nurses? Many nurses in Calif would point out that indeed, he COULDN'T. CNA does have a claim to united voices in Calif, if in a less 'polarized' environment for its support.

How much more could we get done if our voices were united nationally?

Take this concept national. How did ratios get passed in Calif: both the legislature and the executive being on CNA's chosen 'side'. Does this mean that, since the Rep party controls both the legislature and exec nationally, that we should 'take sides' with Pres. Bush? I would think that is EXACTLY THE LESSON FROM CALIF.

Except.

Nationally, politics seem to have a generational shift. Taking sides with Republicans NOW risks the effects of such a stand when Democrats swing back into power a few yrs from now. Taking sides w/ Democrats NOW in order to be in a position a few yrs from now undermines nursing issues a few yrs after that.

National politics are simply too close and too polarized to survive their buffeted winds by choosing which way the wind blows. We should choose to make the wind itself our ally, not its direction.

You can advocate without falling prey to those winds. In fact, in order for nurses to 'carry the day' on Capitol Hill, our issues must have broader appeal. We have to be able to enter doors that aren't long closed SIMPLY because of our non-nursing ideologies.

I would say that the only candidates specifically endorsed by a nursing organization should be NURSES running for office, regardless of party affiliation. We DO have a vested interest in more nurses in the halls of power. But, such support should be as bi-partisan as it is specific to nursing.

But this is the take home message: if ratios are so good for California, why haven't they caught on nationally? Answer: there are voices aligned against it and, for the time being, OUR voices aren't united enough to shout them down.

~faith,

Timothy.

pickledpepperRN · Jul 13, 2006

The legislature and governor being for ratios was not an accident.

The first time it was introduced it didn't get out of committee. The second time it was vetoed.

The registered nurses elected by their peers to the government relations commission (volunteer lobbyists) following instructions of the vote of the elected House of Delegates asked candidates for the state legislature,

"Will you vote for this bill?"

Candidates for governor,

"Will you sign this bill"

Then those who promised to support safe staffing ratios had nurses CNA, members of other unions, and non union volunteering for their campaigns.

That is the short version of how we got it passed and signed.

http://www.calnurses.org/assets/pdf/ratios/ratios_12year_fight_0104.pdf

llg, PhD, RN · Jul 14, 2006

I agree that we should be working with BOTH major political parties to achieve our goals -- but we do need to be willing to take a stand and support 1 candidate over another if that candidate will further our agenda. If your organization can't deliver actual votes (and or money) to help a candidate win election, the candidate is unlikely to put your concerns on his/her priority list.

Similarly, we need to be involved in helping the political parties set their agendas on a broad scale -- planks in their platform. That means working with them on a party-wide basis and not just on an individual-race basis. It's trickier there to work with both parties that way as the parties seek to differentiate themselves from one another. The parties don't want to be seen as working together to reach consensus because that doesn't generate donations and/or win elections. The divisiveness motivates people to get involved because they don't want to see "the other side" win. If everyone is seen as getting along, then the motivation for the average citizen to get involved wanes.

Thus, the political parties don't want to be seen as getting along and coming to agreement. Their survival depends upon being seen as the "defender of the faith" -- whatever side of the ailse dictates that faith. With no "enemy party," there is no reason for a party to exist.

That's how the system works.

llg