How many testimonials does a person have to hear before they believe that there is a problem. The corporations have millions, they have high priced attorneys and PR firms to spin their lies and hide their intimidation tactics but the people like Sara Steffens have no reason to lie and they speak from their heart. We need to awaken and demand our rights in the work place and stop the abuse of our right to organize if we choose.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
The vote for workers rights; Employee Free Choice Act
The Employee Free Choice Act is now in Congress and being debated. I have been watching the news and reading the blogs to get a sense of what people are thinking, hearing and feeling as the debate unfolds. So far I have heard many truths but just as many lies and I feel I need to put my two cents worth out there.
Business would have you believe that they are the defenders of the democracy and the protector of the secret ballot. They are claiming first of all that EFCA would strip employees of their right to secret ballot which is false. The legislation states that the workers would have the right to decide on using signed cards alone or having a secret ballot election. The decision would no longer be in the hands of the employer.
They also are making the claim that due to the financial problems our nation is facing that this is just a bad idea and will hurt business and their ability to expand and provide new jobs. This is garbage they don't provide jobs because they are interested in the well being of a community or the American people. They provide jobs because there is money to be made. Employee and employer is a relationship that is not about friendship or family but about a mutual need for income. It is a business relationship and for to long it has been one sided with all the growth going to the business. As the economy rebounds the jobs will return and the profits will come back and I believe that it is time we as the producers of that income begin to get our fair and just share of prosperity.
EFCA is a step towards correcting the imbalance that exist in the relationship between worker and employer. I hope that you will read the legislation and keep in mind that if the employees at any given business do not want a union then they won't have one but if they do desire to organize then they should be able to due it without threats of firing or intimidation from their employer.
If they treat their employees well, pay a fair and just living wage and provide the benefits that they enjoy then they will have nothing to fear.
Visit http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.560: to view the Senate bill and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111IPg9ar:: to view the house bill.
Business would have you believe that they are the defenders of the democracy and the protector of the secret ballot. They are claiming first of all that EFCA would strip employees of their right to secret ballot which is false. The legislation states that the workers would have the right to decide on using signed cards alone or having a secret ballot election. The decision would no longer be in the hands of the employer.
They also are making the claim that due to the financial problems our nation is facing that this is just a bad idea and will hurt business and their ability to expand and provide new jobs. This is garbage they don't provide jobs because they are interested in the well being of a community or the American people. They provide jobs because there is money to be made. Employee and employer is a relationship that is not about friendship or family but about a mutual need for income. It is a business relationship and for to long it has been one sided with all the growth going to the business. As the economy rebounds the jobs will return and the profits will come back and I believe that it is time we as the producers of that income begin to get our fair and just share of prosperity.
EFCA is a step towards correcting the imbalance that exist in the relationship between worker and employer. I hope that you will read the legislation and keep in mind that if the employees at any given business do not want a union then they won't have one but if they do desire to organize then they should be able to due it without threats of firing or intimidation from their employer.
If they treat their employees well, pay a fair and just living wage and provide the benefits that they enjoy then they will have nothing to fear.
Visit http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.560: to view the Senate bill and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111IPg9ar:: to view the house bill.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Safe limits on Nurses Overtime
I am seeking legislation in the state of Tennessee to limit voluntary overtime and make mandatory overtime illegal except in circumstances of declared emergency. I appreciate an input you would like to offer.
The studies are conclusive that nurses who work greater than 12 hour shifts or do not have at least a 10-12 hour break for rest between shifts are three times more likely to commit an error that reaches a patient. The studies have also agreed that the hours a nurse works in a week should generaly be no more than 60 and that should be rare.
As a nurse I and every nurse I know want to avoid errors and provide safe care for our patients. Nurses are frequently pressured to work overtime through large monetary incentives, pressure from managment to be " a team player", the fact that you do or do not take overtime has even been part of some evaluations I have had in the past. With this said, nurses often agree to overtime when they otherwise might not. Most do not however see the potential risk to their license or the patient in their care that they are taking.
Just like the limits for truckers on how long they may drive and pilots on how long they may fly, we need legislation that puts some safe and sound limits on how long we as nurses may work.
The studies are conclusive that nurses who work greater than 12 hour shifts or do not have at least a 10-12 hour break for rest between shifts are three times more likely to commit an error that reaches a patient. The studies have also agreed that the hours a nurse works in a week should generaly be no more than 60 and that should be rare.
As a nurse I and every nurse I know want to avoid errors and provide safe care for our patients. Nurses are frequently pressured to work overtime through large monetary incentives, pressure from managment to be " a team player", the fact that you do or do not take overtime has even been part of some evaluations I have had in the past. With this said, nurses often agree to overtime when they otherwise might not. Most do not however see the potential risk to their license or the patient in their care that they are taking.
Just like the limits for truckers on how long they may drive and pilots on how long they may fly, we need legislation that puts some safe and sound limits on how long we as nurses may work.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Sen. Durbin at the Employee Free Choice Act Rally
Listen to what is said. It is not unions that are or have destroyed America and its ability to compete. It is the corporate greed and bloated paychecks and bonuses of the CEO's that have and are currently damaging our system.
We must pass the Employee Free Choice Act and restore fairness to the work place and ensure that the right to organize is protected. The corporate abuse must stop and this legislation will go along way to achieve fairness in the work place. Don't believe the hype on fox news or the antiunion campaigns by corporate big wigs who stand to lose if the workers are able to get the contracts that ensure a fair and living wage.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Born Again American
A great message to all Americans to get involved. I am not a religious in any way but agree with the moral message of this song and encourage all those moved by its message to get involved.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
HCA: Profit and Greed on the backs of their workforce.
This is a bulletin I recently received from the CNA showing how HCA is once again stiffing the worker while lining their own pockets and getting richer off the backs of their dedicated workforce. It is very enlightening but not surprising.
HCA Execs Getting Wealthier
Many HCA RNs are reeling from the loss of retirement security resulting from the company’s decision to eliminate their pension and transfer their earnings to a 401(k) which has seen losses of up to 40%. For some this means putting off their retirement – for others it spells financial doom. Some HCA hospitals are laying off ancillary workers, trimming the hours of part-timers and reducing use of more-expensive temporary nurses hired through agencies. Recently we told you that, in Tennessee, HCA is cutting 110 jobs and closing most functions at its Portland hospital, laying off roughly 100 headquarters staffers, and at Centennial Hospital eliminating RN raises, the night shift differential and decreasing RN holiday pay.
So what are the top administrators of HCA doing to shoulder their share of the burden? HCA tells us these cuts –and the ones to come – are absolutely necessary. But a simple review of HCA’s SEC filings reveals that a number of recent, large transactions have boosted the networth of a cadre of upper echelon HCA executives.
Leading off the movement to exercise stock options was:
Joseph N Steakley, Senior VP of Internal Audit Services who cashed in some stock options this week, walking away with $170,088 in cash. He still holds 17,027 more shares so expect to see him add a healthy chunck of change to his net worth soon.
Western Group President Samuel Hazen last month gave up 14,151 shares leaving him with a paper gain of $432,000.
Next up the line was Senior Vice President Vic Campbell who excercised 55,215 shares generating more than $800,000.
CFO Milton Johnson excercised his option to buy 87,180 shares. His net worth gain: $1.4 million.
And truly leading the pack was General Counsel Robert Waterman who acquired 1.78 million worth of shares for a paper profit of $2.2 million.
All told the group boosted its networth by roughly 4.9 million dollars.
Anyone still buying the line that we all need to sacrifice during these tough economic times? It’s very clear that those of us who are paying the price are doing so to the benefit of others.
Read the full story. This link will take you to the Nashville news paper article where the information above was sourced from.
HCA Execs Getting Wealthier
Many HCA RNs are reeling from the loss of retirement security resulting from the company’s decision to eliminate their pension and transfer their earnings to a 401(k) which has seen losses of up to 40%. For some this means putting off their retirement – for others it spells financial doom. Some HCA hospitals are laying off ancillary workers, trimming the hours of part-timers and reducing use of more-expensive temporary nurses hired through agencies. Recently we told you that, in Tennessee, HCA is cutting 110 jobs and closing most functions at its Portland hospital, laying off roughly 100 headquarters staffers, and at Centennial Hospital eliminating RN raises, the night shift differential and decreasing RN holiday pay.
So what are the top administrators of HCA doing to shoulder their share of the burden? HCA tells us these cuts –and the ones to come – are absolutely necessary. But a simple review of HCA’s SEC filings reveals that a number of recent, large transactions have boosted the networth of a cadre of upper echelon HCA executives.
Leading off the movement to exercise stock options was:
Joseph N Steakley, Senior VP of Internal Audit Services who cashed in some stock options this week, walking away with $170,088 in cash. He still holds 17,027 more shares so expect to see him add a healthy chunck of change to his net worth soon.
Western Group President Samuel Hazen last month gave up 14,151 shares leaving him with a paper gain of $432,000.
Next up the line was Senior Vice President Vic Campbell who excercised 55,215 shares generating more than $800,000.
CFO Milton Johnson excercised his option to buy 87,180 shares. His net worth gain: $1.4 million.
And truly leading the pack was General Counsel Robert Waterman who acquired 1.78 million worth of shares for a paper profit of $2.2 million.
All told the group boosted its networth by roughly 4.9 million dollars.
Anyone still buying the line that we all need to sacrifice during these tough economic times? It’s very clear that those of us who are paying the price are doing so to the benefit of others.
Read the full story. This link will take you to the Nashville news paper article where the information above was sourced from.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Why union check cards are the answer.
The article below is taken from the National Workrights Institute website at http://www.workrights.org/issue_organize.html. The article is the best arguement that I have read for changing the current election system to that of union check cards. Please read and post your comments and concerns.
REPRESENTATION ELECTIONS UNDER THE NLRACAN THE SYSTEM BE FIXED?
It has been well known for years that the union representation election process under the National Labor Relations Act is seriously flawed and fails to reflect the desires of a majority of workers. Many scholars and activists have made proposals for reforming the NLRA election system. Others believe that the system is inherently unworkable and cannot be fixed. These individuals believe that the solution is to eliminate elections and substitute the card check system.
The first step in resolving this crucial issue is recognizing that it cannot be answered in the abstract. The controlling principle is that the decision regarding whether or not a group of workers is represented by a union is that the decision should represent the will of the majority. Whether to hold elections or use card check is not a matter of principle, but a pragmatic issue. The method used to make this decision (card check or election) should be the method which best implements the wishes of the workers.
The most serious problem with the current election system is that one side has a near monopoly of access to the voters (workers). The employer can hold unlimited meetings to put forth its arguments against the union. The union is not allowed to speak at these meetings. Neither are workers who support the union. Nor are workers allowed to stay away. Under the Act, employers are permitted to make attending these anti-union meetings a condition of employment. The union, in contrast, is not even allowed into the facility to talk to the workers.
Clearly, this is unfair. The results of a political election would never be recognized as legitimate under these circumstances. If an election based system is to be maintained, the problem of unequal access must be solved.
The captive audience problem can be solved. The NLRA could be amended to require that the union be given equal time, either at the same meeting at which the employer makes its presentation, or at a separate meeting. The rules could be changed so that the conditions of attendance (voluntary or mandatory) were the same for both. Employers would vigorously oppose such a change in the law, and it would be difficult to accomplish politically, but there is no principled reason why this change cannot be made.
This alone, however, does not solve the equal access problem. Employers do not confine their communication to formal meetings. During an organizing campaign, management communicates its message constantly. Even the most casual conversation between management and workers frequently contains a statement or question regarding the upcoming election. For the election process to be fair, the union would have to be given the opportunity for the same type of communication. This would mean giving representatives of the union unrestricted and unsupervised access to the workplace. Such a system, however, is completely unworkable. Having outsiders wandering around the facility talking to anyone they want to whenever they want would completely disrupt production. It could even be a safety hazard. Imagine outsiders, who do not know the facility, walking around a steel mill or refinery without supervision.
This represents a fatal defect in the election model. The election is not fair unless both sides have comparable access to the voters. But giving the union such access is impossible.
The other critical problem with elections is employer coercion. Literally thousands of workers are fired every year for trying to organize. This not only denies the rights of these workers, but intimidates other workers as well. Firing a handful of workers is often enough to stop an organizing campaign in its tracks. A solution to this problem must be found if the election model is to be retained.
On paper, the problem can be solved. Any behavior which is motivated by a rational expectation of gain can be deterred if the penalty is sufficiently severe and the probability of being caught is high enough. In practice, however, it may be insoluble. The economic gains to an employer by keeping its workforce non-union are substantial. Unionized workers make at least 20% more than non-union workers in comparable jobs. A large employer can save literally millions of dollars by violating the NLRA. In addition, employers have deep personal resistance to sharing power with workers. The penalty required to overcome the combined resistance of these two factors would be huge, possibly large enough to threaten the financial health of the company (and the continued existence of the workers’ jobs). Criminal penalties against offending managers would have adequate deterrent effect, but it is questionable at best that our country is prepared to take this step.
The severity of both these problems would be greatly reduced under card check. Under card check, the decision-making period would no longer be approximately seven weeks. Instead, it would be months, or even years. With essentially unlimited time to get its message across, the union’s inferior access to the workers would be far less of a problem.
An unlimited decision making period would also diminish the impact of coercion. The time and effort required of management to keep the pressure on during an organizing drive is substantial. As a practical matter, an employer simply cannot keep holding frequent captive audience meetings forever, nor can it turn every discussion with a worker into an anti-union sales pitch forever. Over time, the focus must return to producing and selling the product.
It is often claimed that card check is a one sided process in which the union “sells” workers on organizing while the employer, unaware of the campaign, is silent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing in the card check system prevents an employer from explaining its views about unions to workers as part of its regular employee communications program. Sophisticated employers do this already.
Moreover, an employer will still be able to amplify their message during an organizing campaign under card check. In virtually every company, there are some employees who are opposed to joining a union. When these employees become aware that a union is collecting cards, they will tell management. This will allow management to step up their communications during critical periods.
Even under card check, the employer continues to have the upper hand. It has easy access to the workers daily, while the union has to struggle to locate workers away from the facility. Even with a list of the workers’ home addresses (which the employer is required to provide under the Excelsior decision), communicating with workers away from the company is difficult and inefficient.
The employer also continues to have far more ability to coerce those it has not persuaded. In the absence of a union, workers are employees at will. They can be fired for any reason, fair or unfair, or for no reason at all. The employer also controls promotions, pay raises, vacation scheduling and many other decisions that seriously affect a worker and his or her family. Even if gross retaliation (such as firing the leaders of an organizing effort) can be effectively prevented, an employer retains the ability to do great harm to a worker whom it views as a negative influence. This power vastly surpasses any ability employees favoring the union may have to arm twist a few “voters” in a closely divided company.
Overall, card check is a better method to determine whether workers will be represented by a union. The employer has unfair advantages under the election model that cannot be eliminated. Under card check, however, the effect of these advantages is greatly reduced so that the ultimate decision more often reflects the desire of the workers.
REPRESENTATION ELECTIONS UNDER THE NLRACAN THE SYSTEM BE FIXED?
It has been well known for years that the union representation election process under the National Labor Relations Act is seriously flawed and fails to reflect the desires of a majority of workers. Many scholars and activists have made proposals for reforming the NLRA election system. Others believe that the system is inherently unworkable and cannot be fixed. These individuals believe that the solution is to eliminate elections and substitute the card check system.
The first step in resolving this crucial issue is recognizing that it cannot be answered in the abstract. The controlling principle is that the decision regarding whether or not a group of workers is represented by a union is that the decision should represent the will of the majority. Whether to hold elections or use card check is not a matter of principle, but a pragmatic issue. The method used to make this decision (card check or election) should be the method which best implements the wishes of the workers.
The most serious problem with the current election system is that one side has a near monopoly of access to the voters (workers). The employer can hold unlimited meetings to put forth its arguments against the union. The union is not allowed to speak at these meetings. Neither are workers who support the union. Nor are workers allowed to stay away. Under the Act, employers are permitted to make attending these anti-union meetings a condition of employment. The union, in contrast, is not even allowed into the facility to talk to the workers.
Clearly, this is unfair. The results of a political election would never be recognized as legitimate under these circumstances. If an election based system is to be maintained, the problem of unequal access must be solved.
The captive audience problem can be solved. The NLRA could be amended to require that the union be given equal time, either at the same meeting at which the employer makes its presentation, or at a separate meeting. The rules could be changed so that the conditions of attendance (voluntary or mandatory) were the same for both. Employers would vigorously oppose such a change in the law, and it would be difficult to accomplish politically, but there is no principled reason why this change cannot be made.
This alone, however, does not solve the equal access problem. Employers do not confine their communication to formal meetings. During an organizing campaign, management communicates its message constantly. Even the most casual conversation between management and workers frequently contains a statement or question regarding the upcoming election. For the election process to be fair, the union would have to be given the opportunity for the same type of communication. This would mean giving representatives of the union unrestricted and unsupervised access to the workplace. Such a system, however, is completely unworkable. Having outsiders wandering around the facility talking to anyone they want to whenever they want would completely disrupt production. It could even be a safety hazard. Imagine outsiders, who do not know the facility, walking around a steel mill or refinery without supervision.
This represents a fatal defect in the election model. The election is not fair unless both sides have comparable access to the voters. But giving the union such access is impossible.
The other critical problem with elections is employer coercion. Literally thousands of workers are fired every year for trying to organize. This not only denies the rights of these workers, but intimidates other workers as well. Firing a handful of workers is often enough to stop an organizing campaign in its tracks. A solution to this problem must be found if the election model is to be retained.
On paper, the problem can be solved. Any behavior which is motivated by a rational expectation of gain can be deterred if the penalty is sufficiently severe and the probability of being caught is high enough. In practice, however, it may be insoluble. The economic gains to an employer by keeping its workforce non-union are substantial. Unionized workers make at least 20% more than non-union workers in comparable jobs. A large employer can save literally millions of dollars by violating the NLRA. In addition, employers have deep personal resistance to sharing power with workers. The penalty required to overcome the combined resistance of these two factors would be huge, possibly large enough to threaten the financial health of the company (and the continued existence of the workers’ jobs). Criminal penalties against offending managers would have adequate deterrent effect, but it is questionable at best that our country is prepared to take this step.
The severity of both these problems would be greatly reduced under card check. Under card check, the decision-making period would no longer be approximately seven weeks. Instead, it would be months, or even years. With essentially unlimited time to get its message across, the union’s inferior access to the workers would be far less of a problem.
An unlimited decision making period would also diminish the impact of coercion. The time and effort required of management to keep the pressure on during an organizing drive is substantial. As a practical matter, an employer simply cannot keep holding frequent captive audience meetings forever, nor can it turn every discussion with a worker into an anti-union sales pitch forever. Over time, the focus must return to producing and selling the product.
It is often claimed that card check is a one sided process in which the union “sells” workers on organizing while the employer, unaware of the campaign, is silent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing in the card check system prevents an employer from explaining its views about unions to workers as part of its regular employee communications program. Sophisticated employers do this already.
Moreover, an employer will still be able to amplify their message during an organizing campaign under card check. In virtually every company, there are some employees who are opposed to joining a union. When these employees become aware that a union is collecting cards, they will tell management. This will allow management to step up their communications during critical periods.
Even under card check, the employer continues to have the upper hand. It has easy access to the workers daily, while the union has to struggle to locate workers away from the facility. Even with a list of the workers’ home addresses (which the employer is required to provide under the Excelsior decision), communicating with workers away from the company is difficult and inefficient.
The employer also continues to have far more ability to coerce those it has not persuaded. In the absence of a union, workers are employees at will. They can be fired for any reason, fair or unfair, or for no reason at all. The employer also controls promotions, pay raises, vacation scheduling and many other decisions that seriously affect a worker and his or her family. Even if gross retaliation (such as firing the leaders of an organizing effort) can be effectively prevented, an employer retains the ability to do great harm to a worker whom it views as a negative influence. This power vastly surpasses any ability employees favoring the union may have to arm twist a few “voters” in a closely divided company.
Overall, card check is a better method to determine whether workers will be represented by a union. The employer has unfair advantages under the election model that cannot be eliminated. Under card check, however, the effect of these advantages is greatly reduced so that the ultimate decision more often reflects the desire of the workers.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Hope for the future of our healthcare system.
Hope and Reform
There is finally real potential for health care reform. With the election of Barack Obama and now his appointment of former Senator Tom Daschle to head Health and Human Services and today’s announcement of Hilda Solis to head the Labor Dept, real reform may be on the way. I say may because I have been let down by politicians before but these three have all expressed a need for change for a long time and I have real hope for the first time that positive reform will happen.
Tom Daschle wrote a book a couple of years ago titled “Critical- what we can do about healthcare”, this book offers real solutions to many of the problems that make our current healthcare system inefficient and unfair to those under and uninsured in our country. The following link will take you to a description of the book and reviews by other prominent politicians and public officials. http://zedc3test.techprogress.org/issues/2008/02/critical.html
Hilda Solis named today as the nominee to head the US Labor Dept is a victory for workers, labor and the healthcare system. She is a strong advocate for organized labor and will be very effective in giving strength to the right to organize and pursue a voice for change and justice in the work place.
See her bio at the following links : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_Solis , http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1208/121808cdpm1.htm?rss=getoday .
I believe that strong healthcare workers and specifically nurses that have protection of unions will be able to advocate for their patients safety. The current system and the weakness of the NLRB (National Labor relations board), allows for hospital corporations both private, public, for profit and not for profit to silence their nurses and providers from speaking out about unsafe staffing, unsafe practices and policies or lack of concern for issues related to safety. In today’s system if you blow the whistle or demand that safety issues are addressed you are labeled a troublemaker and terminated or forced out. A strong, pro employee labor dept and a health secretary interested in reform will strengthen the protections afforded healthcare workers and in my opinion make the system safer for us all.
Unions are not all about the wages and benefits. Like in California and Massachusetts, unions have pushed for real legislative reform and have succeeded in making their systems better. I am not implying that they are without flaw in those states but they through the pressures of the unions and their nurse members have achieved real legislative reforms, like staffing ratios, limits on work hours and mandatory overtime. These issues have been proven to have a real influence on outcomes and the safety of patients in the acute care system.
We have a long way to go but I am very optimistic that the team that will assume power on January 20th will serve the American people well and finally put our healthcare and labor system back on the right track to fairness, justice and safety.
There is finally real potential for health care reform. With the election of Barack Obama and now his appointment of former Senator Tom Daschle to head Health and Human Services and today’s announcement of Hilda Solis to head the Labor Dept, real reform may be on the way. I say may because I have been let down by politicians before but these three have all expressed a need for change for a long time and I have real hope for the first time that positive reform will happen.
Tom Daschle wrote a book a couple of years ago titled “Critical- what we can do about healthcare”, this book offers real solutions to many of the problems that make our current healthcare system inefficient and unfair to those under and uninsured in our country. The following link will take you to a description of the book and reviews by other prominent politicians and public officials. http://zedc3test.techprogress.org/issues/2008/02/critical.html
Hilda Solis named today as the nominee to head the US Labor Dept is a victory for workers, labor and the healthcare system. She is a strong advocate for organized labor and will be very effective in giving strength to the right to organize and pursue a voice for change and justice in the work place.
See her bio at the following links : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_Solis , http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1208/121808cdpm1.htm?rss=getoday .
I believe that strong healthcare workers and specifically nurses that have protection of unions will be able to advocate for their patients safety. The current system and the weakness of the NLRB (National Labor relations board), allows for hospital corporations both private, public, for profit and not for profit to silence their nurses and providers from speaking out about unsafe staffing, unsafe practices and policies or lack of concern for issues related to safety. In today’s system if you blow the whistle or demand that safety issues are addressed you are labeled a troublemaker and terminated or forced out. A strong, pro employee labor dept and a health secretary interested in reform will strengthen the protections afforded healthcare workers and in my opinion make the system safer for us all.
Unions are not all about the wages and benefits. Like in California and Massachusetts, unions have pushed for real legislative reform and have succeeded in making their systems better. I am not implying that they are without flaw in those states but they through the pressures of the unions and their nurse members have achieved real legislative reforms, like staffing ratios, limits on work hours and mandatory overtime. These issues have been proven to have a real influence on outcomes and the safety of patients in the acute care system.
We have a long way to go but I am very optimistic that the team that will assume power on January 20th will serve the American people well and finally put our healthcare and labor system back on the right track to fairness, justice and safety.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Obama supports the Employee Free Choice Act
Lets hold him to his statements. Support the Employee Free Choice Act.
Employee Free Choice Act
This video says it all. It gives a good over view of why the employee free choice act is needed. I hope you will watch and comment. Please support the act by signing petitions at the SEIU, AFL-CIO or the CNA website.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Now that the election is over and we have a President who supports labor and the working men and women of this country we need to move forward and pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
For those not familiar with the act or its intentions, you may want to read an over view from Wikipedia that does a good job of explaining the act and opinions both for and against the act by our congress and our new President elect Barack Obama. This link will take you to the Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act
I support the act and believe it is needed in order to give employees a chance to freely associate and organize without the intimidation from the employer. I feel that the current system of secret ballots at the place of employment allows for the employer to target the people they see as supporters of organizing and harass them and threaten their jobs if the pursue a campaign for unionization. Union check cards are the only way I see that allows for employees to freely look at the advantages and disadvantages of organizing without the threats and intimidation of the empoyer.
Please take some time and evaluate the issue closely. Ask a union friend about unionizing and what the advantages are. Ask that person what the relationship is between the employer and employee at their place of work. Take the propaganda that most employers use and check with the union employees you know or call a local union and ask them about the process. You will find that the anti union crowd have much to loose if their employees gain a voice. This is about justice and fairness in the work place. Don't act upon emotion but use the skills of rational observation and critical thinking to make your conclusions. Then show your support by contacting your congressperson and senator to let them know how you feel. You can use the link at the bottom of this blog to find you represenatives.
Also join the AFL-CIO in their campaign to pass the Employee Free Choice Act at the following website. http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/whatis.cfm
For those not familiar with the act or its intentions, you may want to read an over view from Wikipedia that does a good job of explaining the act and opinions both for and against the act by our congress and our new President elect Barack Obama. This link will take you to the Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act
I support the act and believe it is needed in order to give employees a chance to freely associate and organize without the intimidation from the employer. I feel that the current system of secret ballots at the place of employment allows for the employer to target the people they see as supporters of organizing and harass them and threaten their jobs if the pursue a campaign for unionization. Union check cards are the only way I see that allows for employees to freely look at the advantages and disadvantages of organizing without the threats and intimidation of the empoyer.
Please take some time and evaluate the issue closely. Ask a union friend about unionizing and what the advantages are. Ask that person what the relationship is between the employer and employee at their place of work. Take the propaganda that most employers use and check with the union employees you know or call a local union and ask them about the process. You will find that the anti union crowd have much to loose if their employees gain a voice. This is about justice and fairness in the work place. Don't act upon emotion but use the skills of rational observation and critical thinking to make your conclusions. Then show your support by contacting your congressperson and senator to let them know how you feel. You can use the link at the bottom of this blog to find you represenatives.
Also join the AFL-CIO in their campaign to pass the Employee Free Choice Act at the following website. http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/whatis.cfm
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Naomi Wolf:
An opinion on the path that our country is on. I believe that this is at very least a video that will get you to think about the supression that we have faced in the last eight years. The destruction of lablr and the surrendering of our rights for the sake of a feelinf of false security. Please get the book get the video and make your vote this year count. Tell your legislator that we want more our democracy back.
Nursing shortage presentation on NOW from PBS
PBS and their program NOW recently aired a story about the nursing shortage that I thought was very well made and a must see for all nurses interested in the future of our profession and quality of patient care. I wish the presentation would have focused more on the impact that the shortage is having on patient safety and our ability or inability to meet the needs of our patients due to our decreasing numbers. However with that said the presentation is one of the best I have seen in a while and would like all interested to see.
You can view the video at http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/442/index.html
You can view the video at http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/442/index.html
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Employee free choice act and the Presidential election.
We have twelve days left until the Presidential election and possibly a new path for America. One issue that is sure to pass or fail depending on the results of the election is the Employee Free Choice act that just recently passed in the Congress but will be blocked in the Senate and get the veto by President Bush.
Barrack Obama will support our right to organize and has pledged to support the act if elected. view the video link below entitled "Obama support the employee free choice act".
The employee free choice act will give fairness and balance to the right of employees to join an union so that they may collectively bargain with their employer for the rights that they feel they are entitled. I would encourage all who read this to examine the issue of employee rights and remember that all the rights that we currently take for granted like the 40 hour work week, overtime, lunch breaks and vacation time are all a direct or indirect result of the labor movement.
The employee free choice act would level the playing field and allow for employees to get to the point where they can meet and bargain with their employer. Currently the environment is scewed to favor the employer and allows for them to intimidate and suppress our right to associate with a union.
Their are great discussions taking place on the subject at Allnurses.com and can be read at this link. http://allnurses.com/forums/f100/employee-free-choice-act-passes-house-210327.html
I would encourage you to get involved. You can get information on what the employee free choice act says on this site in the right hand margin of the blog and you can find your senator and congressman link at the bottom of this site to assist you in contacting them to show your support.
Barrack Obama will support our right to organize and has pledged to support the act if elected. view the video link below entitled "Obama support the employee free choice act".
The employee free choice act will give fairness and balance to the right of employees to join an union so that they may collectively bargain with their employer for the rights that they feel they are entitled. I would encourage all who read this to examine the issue of employee rights and remember that all the rights that we currently take for granted like the 40 hour work week, overtime, lunch breaks and vacation time are all a direct or indirect result of the labor movement.
The employee free choice act would level the playing field and allow for employees to get to the point where they can meet and bargain with their employer. Currently the environment is scewed to favor the employer and allows for them to intimidate and suppress our right to associate with a union.
Their are great discussions taking place on the subject at Allnurses.com and can be read at this link. http://allnurses.com/forums/f100/employee-free-choice-act-passes-house-210327.html
I would encourage you to get involved. You can get information on what the employee free choice act says on this site in the right hand margin of the blog and you can find your senator and congressman link at the bottom of this site to assist you in contacting them to show your support.
Friday, October 10, 2008
ANA position statement on staffing assignments.
The ANA is asking for opinions related to proposed changes to the current position on nurses rights to refuse an unsafe assignment. The language is in my opinion more vague than the existing statement. I support changing the position only if it is stronger and should contain language that condemns hospitals and administrators that intimidate nurses into accepting unsafe assignments or floats. I have written the ANA and stated this and am writing this post to ask you to do the same. the email to the ANA contact is listed below. I have also provided a link to the original position of the ANA related to the nurses right to refuse an unsafe assignment, so that you may compare.
Public Comment: Patient Safety: Rights of Registered Nurses When Considering
a Patient Assignment
10/01/08The ANA Congress on Nursing Practice and
Economics (CNPE) is seeking comments on the ANA position statement, Patient
Safety: Rights of Registered Nurses When Considering a Patient Assignment.
which states: "The American Nurses Association (ANA) upholds that registered
nurses – based on their professional and ethical responsibilities – have the
professional right to accept, reject or object in writing to any patient
assignment that puts patients or themselves at serious and immediate risk for
harm. Registered nurses have the professional obligation to raise concerns
regarding any patient assignment that puts patients or themselves at risk for
harm. The professional obligations of the registered nurse to safeguard patients
are grounded in the Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (ANA,
2001b), Nursing: Scope and Standards of Practice (ANA, 2004), and state laws,
and rules and regulations governing nursing practice."
Download the position
statment below and send comments to Cheryl.Peterson@ANA.org.
If you are interested in participating in this review, please provide your
comments to the ANA staff member listed above by 5:00pm EST on November 30,
2008.
CNPE appreciates your assistance with reviewing this Position
Statement.
Original position of ANA on right of nurse to refuse unsafe assignment is available at this link: ANA right to reject assignment 1995.pdf
Please let the ANA know that they represent us and not the corporate interest of the hospital and that it is time to let the administrators know that we demand safe assignments and floating practices and demand the right to refuse unsafe assignments without retribution.
Friday, October 3, 2008
P.O.V. | Critical Condition | Joe's Story | PBS
This is an sample of the documentary critical condition that was presented on PBS on 9/30/08. I hope that you will take the time to watch the entire presentation and see that we are all one major illness or injury away from being at the mercy of a system that is failing us all. Please visit http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2008/criticalcondition/fullfilm.html to view the presentation. Vote Obama and lets fix the system.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
NNOC testimony to TBON
Can I get a witness?
The text below is only one small part of the testimony that six RNs with the NNOC presented before the TN Board of Nursing on the morning of September 25, 2008. Issue topics were unsafe floating, short staffing, nurses fired for refusing to sign anti-organizing agreements, and institutional pressures on employees to not join pro-union associations. We received a cordial reception which later turned lukewarm. We were told that the proper way to do it was to file for an "Advisory Ruling". Perhaps we'll do that next...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TESTIMONY
BOARD OF NURSING OPEN FORUM
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
BOARD OF NURSING OPEN FORUM
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
Hello,
My name is Mark. I work as a staff RN at Tennessee hospital. I'm concerned that patient safety is being put at risk because of inadequate staffing levels. Nurses are being put in the position of either refusing a patient assignment and risk losing their jobs, or accepting more patients than they can safely handle. When a nurse has six, seven, or more patients on a medical-surgical floor, it's quite likely that some aspect of patient care will be missed. Charge nurses are frequently assigned a full patient load, rendering them unavailable to be a resource to the nurses under them. A patient has fallen on the floor after a bed alarm was not answered fast enough, another aspirated some food because no one was assisting with feeding, decubitus ulcers got worse when an incontinent patient was not cleaned up often enough, MRSA isolation procedures were incompletely followed in an attempt to save time, and a PCA continuous morphine dose was not turned off before the patient was stuporous. These are only few specific examples. While they may have turned out to be less than sentinel events, they are still very serious.
In addition to direct adverse events to patients, under-staffing has other consequences affecting delivery of safe care. Many experienced nurses have gotten fed up with the workload, and left hospital nursing. New nurses come in to fill vacancies, but many of these don't stay long because of the stressful conditions. We end up with a high percentage of relatively inexperienced nurses doing their best to care for too many patients. It's a recurring situation, one that management is aware of and has said they will address, but so far, nothing much has changed. It's not unique to my hospital; according to reports I've heard, under-staffing may be even worse at other facilities. As a possible solution to the problem, in the interest of patient safety, the retention of experienced professional nurses, and the recruitment of future nurses, would the Board of Nursing be willing support legislation as proposed by the CNA/NNOC for safe nurse to patient ratios?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was not part of the testimony to TBON:
Below is an excerpt from a discussion board posting, written by the nursing instructor of an RN-BSN course I'm taking, Professional Role Development. It may reflect a typical managerial point of view.
"3) Unions-I am not a union fan in hospitals (note my husband is a union member outside of healthcare). As a CNO, I work every day to provide the best ratios, pay, benefits and work environment for my staff that our facility can afford. I don't see how a union would do any thing in our organization other than complicate things. I have to agree with Jennifer [last name withheld] posting that ultimately if you are not happy with your environment and feel that it is not safe than perhaps it is time to look elsewhere."
So, if conditions aren't safe for patients where I work, I should get a job somewhere else, right? Where should the patients go?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Diagnosis: NOW!
Please take a few minute and watch this important video and support the cause of bringing equality and fairness to healthcare for all Americans. You can get involved by visiting http://healthcareforamericanow.org
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Your Money or Your Life
Linked below are two must see videos that put a human story to the injustice of the American medical system. I hope that you will watch these videos and reflect on how all of us are at risk. I believe in personal accountability but I also believe in compassion of my fellow man and that without your health you are without options. I hope that these stories lead you to see that people are often without the needed resources to even provide for the basics of life and that we as a society should and can do better.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=amdo1fp3d8
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=amdo1fp3d9
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=amdo1fp3d8
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=amdo1fp3d9
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
our banner
Copy this code to your website to display this banner!