What unions?

Sheri257 · Aug 12, 2004

news flash.........................important update. the washington board of the nlrb has overturned the december 2002 vote at cedars-sinai medical center. those of us who believe in speaking for ourselves are very pleased. we will have a second vote.
we respect the wishes of the pro union nurses to effect change and hope for the chance to do it with them together in a union free hospital.
for more on the issues......go to http://www.onevoice-ourvoice.com

this is an interesting case. while the actual nlrb decision is not posted on this website (at least that i can see), here's the board decision:

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/342/342-58.pdf

if you actually read this document, you'll find that the website is a bit misleading on some of the facts of the case. a few observations:

bush just appointed a new republican majority to the nlrb, and many pro-union decisions were expected to be overturned. apparently this is was one of them.

the issue revolves around anonymous phone calls and other alleged threats that cna supposedly made during the election. as far as i can tell, the only evidence directly implicating cna came from one witness who pressed *69 after receiving an anonymous threatening phone call, and claimed they then heard someone answer the phone on behalf of "california nurses."

however, after subpoenaing cna's phone records, the company apparently could not prove the call came from cna or their representatives. also, when the the witness called cna to complain about the call, cna denied any involvement, and invited the witness to meet with them to alleviate any concerns that they were behind it.

even this decision points out that "it's is not clear from the record whether the petitioner's agents (cna) made these threats." for all we know, the threats could have come from overzealous pro-union employees, but not necessarily cna itself.

actually, despite what the website says, cna was not "found guilty." the decision doesn't turn on whether cna acted improperly, because there's no evidence for that. the decision actually turns on whether the threatening phone calls influenced the election, since cna won by a small margin ... 68 votes out of 1322 votes cast.

the three people who received the alleged threatening calls told 30 or more people about it. the company argued that even though only three people received the calls, it still could have intimidated several others into voting for the union since these people told many others about the alleged calls.

the judge disagreed, since the phone calls stopped two weeks before the election. the judge also cited previous case law where similar situations involving overzealous co-workers is not uncommon in heated union elections. the judge said alleged co-worker threats don't meet the burden of proof for throwing out an election unless it can be proven that the union itself intimidated voters.

the bush appointed nlrb disagrees, mostly on this interpretation of the law, and that's why they've ordered a new election.

:coollook:

music · Aug 13, 2004

Nice try to attempt to show it in a different light but the fact remains.You can't threaten, harrass or try to intimidate professional nurses and expect to be looked at as a group one would want to be a part of.

The link to the report gives many examples of this unprofessional and disrespectful behavior. This is not about nurse-patient ratios. This is about professional behavior and expectations of others. Thank you for putting it up so others can read about some of the behavior exhibited during this period.

Forget the comments about the Bush appointed NLRB. It doesn't matter who appointed these judges. It was a unanimous decision and the decision was right based on obvious reasons. Any nurse who is a true caring and compassionate professional would not agree that this type of behavior is anything that would inspire him/her to join a union and if it is.....we are all in trouble. Threatening to kill someone's beloved pets.... or worse, threatening someone's two young daughters even if by insinuation.........is totally without merit and not acceptable in any way to most intelligent people and certainly not professional people whose job it is to care for others.

Also, almost a year before the CNA came calling, we had nurses from the SEIU calling us at home, coming by our homes to try to sign us up and telling us that THEY were sponsoring the nurse-patient ratios.

No one will disagree that lower nurse-patient ratios is a good idea and nurses are talking about it all over the country. That doesn't mean we have to pay dues to stand up for what is right. That doesn't mean that this particular law, as written in California, is perfect and always workable. We should all be calling for this as professional nurses, using our collective voice to spread the message that this is best for all. We all need to talk about it and share our experience with the realistic implimentation of it....at all times

Who said the CNA is the last word on what is best for nursing? We all have that right and responsibility. We recognize that many nurses do believe in unions and respect them as colleagues. We prefer to use our own voice with out paying dues :nurse: http://www.onevoice-ourvoice.com

Sheri257 · Aug 13, 2004

No one will disagree that lower nurse-patient ratios is a good idea and nurses are talking about it all over the country. That doesn't mean we have to pay dues to stand up for what is right.
We prefer to use our own voice with out paying dues.

Yeah, well, that's a nice try also. You won't be the first person on the planet to benefit from a major reform like this, but not want to contribute or pay for it. How convenient. Reap all the benefits and rewards, never give anything back. How typical.

People are so cheap, it always disappoints me. CNA members paid dues and spent years funding and lobbying for that law ... They spent who knows how much money paying lawyers to defend it ... Just so you could benefit.

And you won't pay, what, a measily $50 a month typically? $80 tops?

As far as I'm concerned, they're worth a lot more than that. I'd glady pay a lot more for what they've done.

Funny ... you really think the ratio law could have happened without CNA? Well, it hasn't happened anywhere else. Why do all of these nurses from other states constantly complain about working conditions and yet, years later, "with their own voice" they have no ratio law, and nothing to show for it except mandatory overtime, tons of patients, lousy pay and lousy working conditions.

Gotta love freeloaders ... No matter what you do for them, or how much you do for them ... they just take and take ... complain and complain ... whine and whine ... and never, ever give anything back.

It's pathetic.

WyomingRN · Aug 13, 2004

If this is true, why did the California Nurses Association pass the first nurse-patient ratio law in this country? Would you rather juggle up to a dozen or more patients with no limits or, only six, which is what the ratio law requires. Thanks to CNA, the patient ratio goes down to five next year.
Do you somehow believe that the ratio law is a bad thing? If so, that would be the first time I've heard anyone say that on this board.

From my reading of the news, it was the Calif. legislature that passed the law; not the union. Nurses, just like anyone else can start or join a PAC. Banning together as a PAC to push such legislation as nurse-patient ratio law is a viable option. Disagreeing with the union and its high handed methods does not mean one disagrees with a particular piece of legislation. As stated above, there are other ways to accomplish the same objectives.

I would be willing to support a nurse PAC that takes a serious and meaningful stance on such issues. But then a PAC cannot FORCE me to give any of my hard earned $$. All contributions are voluntary and anyone who supports nurses could donate - even the general public

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Aug 13, 2004

from my reading of the news, it was the calif. legislature that passed the law; not the union. nurses, just like anyone else can start or join a pac. banning together as a pac to push such legislation as nurse-patient ratio law is a viable option. disagreeing with the union and its high handed methods does not mean one disagrees with a particular piece of legislation. as stated above, there are other ways to accomplish the same objectives.

i would be willing to support a nurse pac that takes a serious and meaningful stance on such issues. but then a pac cannot force me to give any of my hard earned $$. all contributions are voluntary and anyone who supports nurses could donate - even the general public

here is info on one nursing pac:

what is ana-pac?

the american nurses association political action committee, ana-pac, was established to promote the improvement of the health care system in the united states by raising funds from cma (constituent member associations) members and contributing them to support worthy candidates for federal office who have demonstrated their belief in the legislative and regulatory agenda of the american nurses association.

does ana-pac endorse both democrats and republicans?

yes. ana-pac is bi-partisan and works directly with both national parities to recruit and support candidates.

who can contribute to ana-pac?

pursuant to federal election law, ana-pac can only solicit funds from cma members, their families, and employees of ana.

how are contributions to ana-pac used?

contributions to ana-pac are used to support candidates for federal office. under federal election law, the amounts that may be contributed are limited and steps must be taken to ensure that contributions to ana-pac are strictly voluntary and without coercion. ana-pac board of trustee members in partnership with a cma's leadership, decide which federal candidates merit consideration for endorsement.

------------

i didn't realize that federal laws prohibited anyone other than members of an organization + their families could contribute ---guess that is done to prevent "targeted million dollar" donations.

finness · Aug 13, 2004

A lot of hospitals in iowa are unionized. I dunno much more since I'm not working yet!!

music · Aug 14, 2004

OK....I rest my case.

If you will read the professional and thoughtful response and observations of Wyoming and then read the other response that ends with accusing anyone who does not want to be part of a union a "freeloader" "complainer" "whiner" and "pathetic" I think it will be obvious why many nurses choose to speak for themselves and not join this union.

When nurses learn to speak with one another in a professional and collegial manner it is quite possible that they will realize the awesome power they have all by themselves.

It is not a good idea to make all encompasing statements about people you know nothing about! To state that those of us not wanting to be part of a union never give anything back is just wrong. There are many many nurses all across this country who give back in ways you could not comprehend and they do it quietly and lovingly without seeking recognition or acclaim for it.

Sadly, you have proven my point.

fergus51 · Aug 14, 2004

Music, joining a union doesn't mean you stop speaking for yourself, it means you speak for yourself and work together as a group to pursue shared goals. A union isn't a mouthpiece for someone, its members are the ones making the decisions! I get tired of people making assumptions about union members too:)

music · Aug 14, 2004

Thanks Fergus. I hear what you say and please know that I have the greatest respect for all nurses. When you present your case in a professional manner it allows others to hear your point of view.

I think that we all have to understand there are two very different sides

to this and we all have to work together in spite of all that.

Patients need all of us whether we are in a union or not. :nurse:

debbiemig · Aug 14, 2004

:angryfire Unfortunatly, I am in a union. I voted against it! I didn't realize that once a union was voted in, that if you refuse to join, you have to leave your job. I never had a problem with the place I work, been there for 30 years! However, I have a big mouth and am able to get what I want, or a reasonable explaination of why I can't have it!

What I have noticed though is an increase in" writing people up". You know, the " paper trail"! The rep from the union is a miserable person who is obviously a street character by the way she speaks to people. The union is corrupt! My union dues are too high! I don't get ANYTHING I didn't have before!The aides and union nurses are no happier than they were before! I don't see any improvement! The medical insurance is inferior. I didn't like the tactics they used while trying to get the union into the facility! They intimidated the residents and family members, the held rallies on the driveway of the facility and stopped cars going in to hand them fliers. It made residents and their families very unsettled during that period.They're bullies! I could never strike my facility! What would those residents do?

My theory is, " if you're unhappy with the job, go somewhere else" I don't believe in unions in this day and age. We have laws to protect employees without paying dues. I may be in the minority, but this is how I feel.

Those of you that are union members, where are you?
I keep seeing posts of nurses having difficulties with management and, inevitably, one of the first suggestions is "take it to the union"
I cant be the only person shaking my head and saying "yeah, WHAT UNION?"
It seems some nurses think they are everywhere, so I'm curious as to how common they really are (and how much they really help).
So - union members
1 - is it hospital based, for your workplace only, or does it represent all nurses in the state?
2 - are all nursing personnel represented by the same union or are does it only represent RN/LPN or RN only?
3 - what does your union do for you (if anything)?
4 - what do you wish your union would do for you that it does not (if anything)?
5 - is there anything else about the setup that you would change to make it more effective and a better advocacy for nurses?
6 - is there any type of coverage for those who are not full-time/part-time employees (i.e. perdiem/agency/travelers)? If not, how are they treated differently?
Thanks for any replies!

debbiemig · Aug 14, 2004

I agee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

As I've said before, unions care about two things - and only two things; money and control. They can care less about nurses or nursing - or for that matter, anyone else.
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2004/04/26/story3.html?page=1

fergus51 · Aug 14, 2004

Debbiemig, if you don't like the union and work in a closed shop, you have three options to improve your situation: work to change things through the union, try to vote the union out or change jobs. In my experience, the people who dislike the union will seldom do any of these things, but they can. It's the beauty of living in a free country.

Music, I agree all nurses need to work to improve working conditions and patient care. In my opinion unions are only voted in as a response to bad hospital management. If nurses were happy, they would never vote in a union. I have worked in both union and non-union jobs in the past and have seen enough to have come to the conclusion that I prefer union. But, there are plenty of non-union places out there for those who feel differently. I think the biggest friction comes during and right after the union vote. People feel strongly one way or the other and always think the other side wasn't playing fairly or that things didn't change fast enough after the vote or whatever. The place I'm in now voted in a union a little over a year ago, but other than that my union jobs have always been at places where it had been established much longer and I didn't see this problem.