The CNA had called on 16,000 of its nurses across California to a 24-hour strike, ostensibly over issues related to patient and nurse safety in light of the H1N1 flu pandemic. Hospital officials said the strike is not about safety – it’s about money.

The President and CEO of the California Hospital Association, Duane Dauner, is calling the H1N1 walkout a smokescreen to pursue a much larger union-organizing agenda.

Jan Emerson, spokeswoman for the California Hospital Association, commented, “The union is making completely irresponsible claims that it’s all about the flu.” The CNA has been negotiating new contracts at the hospitals represented by the nurses. Tellingly, the only hospitals the union planned to strike against are hospitals that are in these negotiations.

“The union shouldn’t be taking nurses out on strike when hospitals are being flooded with patients who need care,” Emerson said. “It’s reprehensible…. No accusations have been made against any hospitals that are not in contract negotiations.”

In the end, the strike was called off and a federal mediator was called into the negotiation process.

When the Massachusetts Nurses Association voted in October to join with the CNA and the United American Nurses in a new super union, it was touted that the nurses “overwhelmingly approved a measure to join a massive nationwide union.”

However, in the undemocratic fashion typical of how unions conduct business that impacts the union (and not necessarily the people it represents), only 2% of the members of the MNA participated in the election.

You read that correctly!  Only 390 of the approximately 23,000 members were able to be present at the annual meeting at which the vote took place (and 124 of those who did vote objected to the merger).  With the meeting scheduled for a weekday and held in an out-of-the-way location on Cape Cod, many of the members requested the union’s leadership to allow absentee ballots by mail. The leadership refused to accommodate its membership, and critics of the move say this gave the MNA leadership a way to railroad the national affiliation through. One group of nurses has filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.

To add insult to injury, the membership will now have to vote on a dues increase in order to afford the costs of affiliation with the new super union. In a small twist of irony, the bylaws already allow absentee ballots for dues changes, so the membership-at-large may be able to effectively register their protest after all.

As the looming inaugural convention of the new National Nurses United super-union approaches, members of the Massachusetts Nurses Association are complaining that their union officials are trying to railroad them into joining with the CNA-NNOC and the United American Nurses against their wishes.

“Our nurses are telling us they do not want this merger to go through,” said Barbara Norton, a regional director of the Massachusetts Nurses Association and chair of Brigham & Women’s Hospital’s MNA bargaining unit. “That is the position we are going to take.”  Norton said other nurses throughout Massachusetts are also “concerned about the merger.”

The new entity created by the merger of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, the Maryland-based United American Nurses, and the Massachusetts Nurses Association, will soon go by the name of National Nurses United.

The group has announced that the new organization will become an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, and that the heads of the three former unions will likely create a 3-person governing body for the union.  The inaugural convention of the super union is being planned for early December.

Sutter Healthcare spent over 10 years in planning a new replacement hospital to comply with California regulations bringing all hospitals up to seismic safety standards by 2013.  The new Sutter Medical Center would replace the Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley.  An environmental impact report was duly filed, and approved by the Alameda County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as well as Castro Valley’s Municipal Advisory Council.

But that didn’t stop the CNA from meddling once again.  They filed a lawsuit to halt construction, claiming the EIR was flawed.

“That the nurses’ union would sue to stop us from building our new hospital after a decade of planning is extremely frustrating to all who have worked hard for this,” Eden CEO George Bischalaney said in a statement.

“This political action hurts everyone, puts thousands of jobs in jeopardy, threatens the future of the hospital and could cause irreparable harm to the community… this lawsuit could mean we will not be able to meet the deadline to replace the hospital. Not meeting the deadline could result in closure of the current hospital before the new hospital is completed and certified for occupancy.”

At the Hahnemann University Hospital, nurses voted to prevent unionization despite being hamstrung by a neutrality agreement, preventing the hospital administration from taking part in the conversation.  The CNA, and the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals, weren’t happy with the results, and are contesting the election.

You’ve probably heard about the CNA’s disregard for the wishes of the nurses of Fremont-Rideout Health Group in California.  The nurses have put together a great site to tell their story.  The site has some great, revealing information on the CNA, including:

•    The High Cost of CNA
•    CNA’s Cash Surplus
•    CNA’s Political Agenda
•    CNA Strikes
•    Nurses Say No To CNA

Look over the documents for yourself!

The more power a union attains (by virtue of growing membership, and thus financial base), the more often a union will pursue its own agenda, regardless of the issues or needs of its members.  The CNA agenda is often unconnected to the practical and economic decisions that impact the delivery of medical care to communities.

Before you ever consider turning over self-determination (and opening your pocketbook) to such an organization, you had better be sure you agree with its larger political and activist agenda, because you will be funding it, whether it comes back to bite you or not!

It is always telling when those who have labored under a unionized environment finally ask the question, “Why do we need this?  What benefit do we get out of it?”

The nurses at Shasta Regional Medical Center in Redding, CA, recently came to the conclusion that they didn’t need the union, and decertified the United Public Employees of California after 12 years as their bargaining representative.

“We said, ‘You know what? Why bother?’ ” said Sue Washburn, the SRMC nurse who led the decertification effort.

For two years the battle between nurses at Fremont-Rideout Health Group (FRHG) in California and the CNA have been raging.  The CNA has used every “legal” maneuver to block decertification, and used the courts to force FRHG to the bargaining table, even as nurses have secured signatures on petitions to invoke a decertification election.  The real issue for the CNA is has nothing to do with “representation” or “patient safety,” but rather is strictly economic.  According to Terri Hamilton, CEO of FRHG,

“Why has CNA continually refused to agree to a contract with an ‘open shop,’ allowing nurses to decide whether or not to pay dues? And why has CNA gone to extraordinary lengths to re-impose the union on nurses who don’t want to join? The answer is that CNA could take approximately $600,000 a year in dues from the paychecks of nurses at Fremont-Rideout hospitals. Over the course of a three-year contract, that represents nearly $2 million in income for the union.

For our nurses, CNA dues would be an added burden during these difficult times when every dollar counts. Most nurses would pay between $800 to $1,200 a year. It simply is not right to force this burden on nurses when the majority clearly expressed their desire to be free of CNA.”