Thursday, October 19, 2006
How to Stop Unionization 101
Though the decision by the Bush Administration was apparently first reported in early July, I just heard about this early this week and felt a need to express my feelings on the subject.
Just to be clear before I go off on my rant. I am not the most pro-union person in the world. I feel that unions, in many cases, are more interested in protecting themselves rather than their members. I was employed for a year not that long ago at a union grocery store, during that year I paid my union dues regularly, but got nothing for it. I also saw the union take hours away from union members because of 'minor' issues. I really found the whole situation very frustrating.
All that having been said, I became aware earlier this week of the following. The Bush Administration has changed the definition for what constitutes a nursing supervisor when it comes to unionizing. The problem I have with this is that the new definition is so broad, it neatly prevents the nurses from unionizing. The way the new definition appears to be written, and I would like to add here I am still looking for additional information on this subject, any nurse who has functioned as a Charge Nurse is now defined as a nurse supervisor. My wife has worked at a number of medical facilities as a nurse. She worked for over 5 years at one of the 'T0p Three Hospitals' in the country. Any nurse who was on a floor for more than 6 months would take a turn as a charge nurse. They were not given a choice, they would be designated as a charge nurse. Now the facility in question is not unionized, though several of the hospitals in the 'hospital system' are unionized. They run the poor nurses in to the ground and now they don't have any legal redress to fight the situation if they so wished to.
I have a problem with this. Again, not because I think that a union is the be-all and end-all of labor situations, but the working people should have the option to decide if they wish to be unionized, and not shut out by a bad definition.
Just to be clear before I go off on my rant. I am not the most pro-union person in the world. I feel that unions, in many cases, are more interested in protecting themselves rather than their members. I was employed for a year not that long ago at a union grocery store, during that year I paid my union dues regularly, but got nothing for it. I also saw the union take hours away from union members because of 'minor' issues. I really found the whole situation very frustrating.
All that having been said, I became aware earlier this week of the following. The Bush Administration has changed the definition for what constitutes a nursing supervisor when it comes to unionizing. The problem I have with this is that the new definition is so broad, it neatly prevents the nurses from unionizing. The way the new definition appears to be written, and I would like to add here I am still looking for additional information on this subject, any nurse who has functioned as a Charge Nurse is now defined as a nurse supervisor. My wife has worked at a number of medical facilities as a nurse. She worked for over 5 years at one of the 'T0p Three Hospitals' in the country. Any nurse who was on a floor for more than 6 months would take a turn as a charge nurse. They were not given a choice, they would be designated as a charge nurse. Now the facility in question is not unionized, though several of the hospitals in the 'hospital system' are unionized. They run the poor nurses in to the ground and now they don't have any legal redress to fight the situation if they so wished to.
I have a problem with this. Again, not because I think that a union is the be-all and end-all of labor situations, but the working people should have the option to decide if they wish to be unionized, and not shut out by a bad definition.
Labels: President W
// posted by Little Wolf @ Thursday, October 19, 2006 
