What is wrong with unionizing?

[Peeps Mcarthur]

All,

It would seem that a union,with its power of cohesiveness to the issues,would be the only thing that a corporation would HAVE to listen to. The contract would HAVE to be honored.

Forming commities and filling complaints is NEVER going to have the impact that a national union would. The idea of having a national walk-out will only serve to get your license taken away and have you out of a job for the rest of your life BUT if there was a union sanction behind it with guidelines to be followed it would be in a signed document called a contract and you would have just cause for failure of performance of that contract.

Without a legal document, why should they treat us well. They have it just the way they want it. Any action that's not in a legal document THAT HAS POWER is just a smokescreen to keep it the way they want.

It just seems so logical to me.

I have no experience of having been in a union so maybe if someone could tell me...........

WHY NOT.

[tiger]

hey peeps, sorry i'm not informed enough on the union to give an answer to your question. i've always paid my dues and have only recently become involved with the actual workings of the union. shame on me. maybe someone else could answer the question?????? i'm interested too. maybe they are trying to look out for lpns and cnas???don't know!

[-jt]

They are trying to represent ALL their members. The RN-only unions position is that the word "nurse" in the law should mean "RN". SEIU position is that it should mean ANY licensed nurse - LPN included - thereby safeguarding jobs for those members. Its looking out for the interests of LPNs while at the same time trying to address staffing ratios for the RNs. Since they are in "partnership" with the hospital, they have to walk a fine line to give the members a little & give the employer a little & not get either side too mad at them. Difficult to do when what you want to obtain for one group of members might be negatively impacting on another group of members. It looks like in this case, the union is choosing to appease its larger group of members - and thats not the RNs. An SEIU rep made a presentation on their staffing ratio proposals last week at the United American Nurses convention in Philadelphia a few days before the ANA convention. I went to the mike & asked her to clarify the ratios in her handout:

"So youre saying that the proposed staffing ratios you have here allow for no more than 5 pts for 1 NURSE & '1 NURSE' can be an RN or LPN?"

"Yes"

"So if theres 2 NURSES & 10 pts, the RN is assigned 5 & the LPN is assigned 5?"

"Yes"

"But the RN still has responsibility for the care of all 10 pts?"

"Yes"

"well thats what we RNs have now & thats been unacceptable"

-no answer-

(in fact, she turned her head towards the other side of the room to take the next question which was along the same lines)

again, not much of an answer.......

but the roomful of unionized state assoc staff RN delegates was buzzing - not too happily either. You might get more info from the RN-only unions in the states where SEIU has hospital "partnerships" - try anyplace with a Kaiser Hospital System.

[Peeps Mcarthur]

"So if theres 2 NURSES & 10 pts, the RN is assigned 5 & the LPN is assigned 5?"

So how does the RN end up with an acceptable load in this scenario?

3-patients of thier own and assign 7 to the LPN?

4:6?

Give LPN's more responsibility and leave the assignment the way it is?

What's the proposal?

[-jt]

She doesnt. The SEIU proposal makes no distinction between LPN & RN. They propose 6 pts to each NURSE on a med surg floor. Theoretically, there could be 18 pts on the floor with 1 RN & 2 LPNs & they each get 6 pts - BUT the lone RN would still be responsible for ALL 18. What an improvement, huh?

[Peeps Mcarthur]

yes but how does the CNA plan get around that problem?

I already had a "feeling" about the SEIU's plan and we KNOW what the hospital plan for staffing is

[-jt]

When it supported the original bill, California Nurses Assoc intended that the ratios they were discussing were for RNs. And did not include LPNs in the mix. CNA said max at 6 med surg pts to 1 RN. So if there were 18 pts on the floor, there would have to be 3 RNs. SEIU teamed up with Kaiser & jumped on the bandwagon to lobby for it to mean 6 pts to 1 NURSE - including the LPN. Since that leaves the RN with responsibility for the care & well-being of her own PLUS the LPNs pts, that plan is no different from what many RNs already have to deal with now.

I think that the actual law that ended up passing reads NURSE - not RN & thats where the problem is. This could mean that a hospital could have 1 RN on the floor & staff with all LPNs to save money.

Too many pts for 1 RN.

[Peeps Mcarthur]

But if that was the case in the 18 patient scenario, then either there would be no LPN's or there would be 3 RN's taking less than 6 patients of thier own but being responsible for RN only procedure on 6.

Seems what you have there is either only RN's or an "overstaffed" floor.

I'm sure this mess is not that simple though.:stone

It would have to do with the needs of each patient.

[adrienurse, LPN]

Being a little bit of a fence-sitter, I have to say that I would rather work at a facility that is unionized -- as I enjoy getting such things as insurance, pension, rights, vacation etc.

ON the other hand, from the employer's standpoint, their rights to run a facility with quality staff are sometimes impeeded by unionism. By this I mean being able to disclipline employees for VALID reasons without having to abide by the sometimes rediculas demands of that person's union.

If you've ever worked with staff who feel they can do whatever the hell they please because they're unionized and have been there for 15 years and can't be fired, you know what I mean. Of course there are two sides to every story, and everything is good until it is allowed to go too far.

[adrienurse, LPN]

And another thing............I love to editorialize, in case you haven't caught on.

I repeat, unionism is a good thing. Is essential for maintaining employee rights and safety.

Unions can, however, be a pain in the a$$! I'm sure all of you are sensible, intelligent, well informed, independant-minded individials and that is good. Your union that you are involved in probably benefits a lot from this.

However, not all people are. For some people, belonging to a union is the only source of power they have. These people tend to be stubborn, millitant and resistant to any way of thinking than the kind that they're used to. Although charismatic and often quite outpoken and eloquent speakers, and very good at drumming up support for their cause, these people can be quite problematic to the cause. This trait is directly related to the amount of education this person has, as well as their rationality and critical thinking abilities. That being not quite as developped as their need to enforce their point of views.

Unions are FULL of these types of people! Are these the sort of people you want bargaining for your rights?

[donmurray]

But a solely Nurses union, will by definition, not contain any such uneducated people!

[adrienurse, LPN]

My answer is this:

Being educated in nursing functions is not the same thing as being educated in social policies and labour issues.

[-jt]

In the CNA plan, LPNs would NOT be assigned pts of their own. The RNs would be assigned the 6 pts each & the LPN would assist the RNs with pt care. This issue is spelled out in detail on that organizations website. The articles there may help make things clearer.