SEARCH
Delegates to New RN Super Union Set for Convention
A new National Nurses United union is holding its founding convention Dec. 7-8 in Phoenix. The new union is a joint effort by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC), the United American Nurses (UAN) and the Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA).
The 150,000 RN super union was proposed earlier this year by the trio of nurses’ unions. The 23,000-member MNA approved the creation of the NNU in October. The 86,000-strong CNA/NNOC voted to join the super union in September.
Says UAN Secretary-Treasurer Jean Ross, RN:
It is long overdue for all staff nurses to join together nationally to tackle health care reform that works for everyone, safe nurse staffing levels and giving every unorganized nurse in this country who wants a union the chance to join one. None of these goals will be met without the cooperative work of staff nurses, and we can’t wait to get to work building on the good work UAN nurses have begun over the past decade.
MNA President Donna Kelly-Williams puts it this way:
With the formation of National Nurses United, we have a historic opportunity to create the largest union and most influential collective voice of registered nurses at a time when that voice is sorely needed. The MNA is proud to be a founding member of this new national movement of direct care RNs. We understand that this is a unique moment for nurses, a once in a lifetime opportunity to dramatically improve the lives of all nurses and patients and to transform the face of health care.
“This is truly a historic moment and I hope it sends chills down the backs of those employers who would want to keep us down,” says CNA/NNOC Co-President Deborah Burger, RN.
Among the new union’s goals are strengthening the ability of direct-care RNs to protect and improve patient care conditions and RN standards from coast to coast. It also will fight for federal legislation, including S. 1031—the National Nursing Shortage Reform and Patient Advocacy Act—modeled after the successful California law that established nurse-to-patient safety ratios.
 |
Become a Fan on Facebook |  |
Follow Us on Twitter |  |
Subscribe to YouTube |  |
Subscribe to Blog RSS | ||||
6 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Just to be clear, the Massachusetts Nurses Associations October ‘vote’ to affiliate with the CNA/NNOC was decided by only 390 members out of a 23,000 member association.. through the unashamed disenfranchisement of the membership.
Democracy was clearly not in play in Massachusetts.
Michael Savoy RN BSN
Dartmouth, Ma
Loyal MNA Member since 1997
The town-hall meeting open to every member in good standing, with voice and vote, is the most democratic means of governance in our small state. That the opponents of a strong national voice for RNs and MNA’s joining of the AFL-CIO could only mobilize 114 members to turn out for this historic vote is indicative of the strong, state-wide support for solidarity and engagement, and a firm rejection of isolationism and elitism.
You forget Sandy, we’re both on the same team, my view is simply different than yours. Does that make me the enemy, an isolationist or an elitist? As a loyal member of the MNA, should I just shut my mouth and “get on board?” My position stems from the view that the vote to affiliate was markedly undemocratic.
To many with my point of view, the efforts by the MNA leadership to get-out-the-vote and how this election was conducted, were unacceptable. Some examples: having a vote of this magnitude during the annual business meeting instead of a special election, its remote location, being held on a Thursday in the middle of the day, a “must be present to vote” election and the restrictive use of Roberts Rules of Order, all contributed to this position. Not to mention the restrictive dues increase mail in ballot to fund this affiliation (the results of which the MNA has yet to release).
As my colleagues and I have said many times; a dues increase, large sums of Association money going out of state, a ‘seat at the table,’ national healthcare for all, and safe staffing legislation are all legitimate topics for debate, but they are NOT why members like me are unhappy. The absence of a true democratic process in discussing these issues and deciding the affiliation are the reasons.
Only 515 of nearly 23,000 MNA members could actually be present at this affiliation vote, less than 2% of the entire voting body. No absentee or remote site voting was allowed and only limited absentee balloting on the dues increase issue.
“Opponents of a strong national voice for RNs and MNA’s joining of the AFL-CIO could only mobilize 114 members” What are you talking about? There is no organized opposition, it was the MNA that was responsible for mobilizing the membership! There are 23,000 members, only 515 actually showed up!
Don’t forget Sandy, only 390 members voted to affiliate with the national union and their agenda was made very clear at the meeting. Those with opposing views were mostly relegated to a separate room 300 yards away viewable only on a television screen, whose microphones were periodically shut off, or called ‘Out of Order’ when the topic of discussion strayed from the accepted program. Those who voted against the national made up nearly 1/3 of the total present voting members. Having an “open” town hall meeting like this regarding such an important issue simply looks like intentionally disenfranchising the membership.
BTW, Sandy Eaton in a member of the Board of Directors at the Massachusetts Nurses Association and I would say, one of the biggest supporters of the affiliation on the board. A fact he fails to point out.
you all are doing it right! your collective political strength should make those ” on the fence ” politicians sit up and take notice. best of luck and best wishes for a successful convention!
The Massachusetts Nurses Association Board of Directors spent well over 150,000 dollars to mobilize 390 votes in the affirmative for the NNU affiliation. The opposition, zilch, nothing and 116 showed up. The Association paid for four mailings at close to 25000 each to all 23000 members promoting the affiliation. The opposition got one article in one publication of the MNA. The Board used Association paid labor staff and outsiders to walk around area union hospitals recruiting mail in ballots from members to vote yes on the dues question to support the affiliation and were faxing them in on the last date to obtain mail in ballots. Not all members were recruited, just yes votes. The opposition recieved no association resources to mobilize member votes on the dues questions and they had no resources to promote their agenda. The Board as of December 9th had not released a ballot count. An announcement of a majority vote for the dues was announced. How close was the vote on the question, did it reflect an “overwhelming majority” or was it a squeaker? I suspect that the failure to release the ballot count reflects a very close vote that reveals the support for the affiliation to be closely divided between pro and con voters.
My problem with the process used in Massachusetts is simple. In 2001 we held a special meeting on a Saturday to allow greater member participation in the crucial decision on leaving the American Nurses Association because, and I’m quoting Karen Higgins, the new NNU co President in the Boston Globe article by Ann Barnard “it is impossible for staff nurses to take time off from work during the week to come to the business meeting. It puts them at a disadvantage versus administrators and educators supporting the ANA.” Apparently this thinking did not guide the Massachusetts Nurses Association’s Board in 2009 arranging for the affiliation vote in Brewster Massachusetts on Cape Cod during the middle of the work week despite being petioned to do so by union members. Just who was put at a disadvantage? Those same nurses who were able to vote in 2001 on leaving the ANA! Greater union democracy requires that the MNA Board change our practices by supporting changes in our union process to hold Saturday business meetings and supplemental secret mail ballots following the business meeting on all questions decided upon by the membership at the business meeting. Only in this way will the true voice of the Association membership be known on crucial questions facing the Massachusetts Nurses Association. In addition all members should be able to read balanced information leading up to votes in Massachusetts Nurses association publication versus MNA Board propaganda alone as was the case in the months leading up to the vote on affiliation with the NNU in Brewster. An informed membership requires balanced information and not just the political agenda of the MNA Board in MNA publications.
The NNU holds a promise of potential benifits which are ambitious and speculative in nature. They are laudable and if I am wrong in my assessment of their abilitry to accomplish these goals I will admit that I am wrong. If in two years time however, and after 5.4 million dollars of MNA member dues money going to the NNU. if all we have is photo ops with National political leaders and we have not increased union density in New England, passed safe staffing here or nationally, then we as a membership will need to re-evaluate our affiliation with the NNU. All the MNA Board has to do to heal the bitter divisions in this membership is to embrace democratic reforms to allow for a greater, wider voice of this membership in association decisions. I have come to this position with difficulty but I see these reforms as essential for the continued progress and vitality of the Masschusetts Nurses Association going forward. What is worse there is a movement afoot to cloak all MNA Board business in confidentialty requirements that will hamper member’s ability to obtain union information about the conduction of union busieness. It is a chilling development in what I have considered to be a formerly exemplarly democratic union and association. I am shamed by the move to autocratic rule by the MNA Board.