If one were to believe the C.N.A. (based on the quote from their official spokesperson) that was written up in the August 12^th issue of the Houston Chronicle (read the story here — http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/5940099.html) an eight vote difference is a “majority” and thus an overwhelming endorsement for union representation and anyone that questions this vote is undemocratic. Contrary to the C.N.A. allegations, what the National Right to Work Foundation has (www.nrtw.org) done is file an unfair labor practice allegation against both the C.N.A. and Tenet (you can read the press release here – www.nrtw.org/print/3156). They allege is that the neutrality agreement that was signed between Tenet and the C.N.A. was the first “wrong” action in the C.N.A. attempt to gain a foothold in Texas. In addition, the nurses have alleged that this neutrality agreement was so one-sided it provided the Houston-area Tenet nurses no choice in which union the nurses could join, so in essence the C.N.A. was foisted on them. To make matters worse the so-called neutrality agreement also gagged the managers from speaking or answering questions raised by the nurses, leaving the nurses very little access to information that wasn’t either provided by the C.N.A. or vetted and approved by the C.N.A. – talk about a raw deal. Not to mention the agreement gave the C.N.A. access to the private home addresses and telephone numbers of the nurses without the nurses’ knowledge or permission. It’s also my understanding that a neutrality agreement is generally not introduced or signed until the prospective union can demonstrate that there’s an interest expressed by the nurses to be represented by that union, which I understand never happened in this case.

Something tells me that if the roles were reversed the C.N.A. would have been screaming “bloody murder” and Congressman Henry “I’ve never met a congressional hearing I didn’t like” Waxman would have been chairing hearings on such outlandish behavior. So the nurses have had to rely on themselves and a network of management/union-savvy nurses from around the country to get answers and information to then share among themselves. But then again we are talking about the world according to the union, so we shouldn’t expect things to appear logical. I feel confident in making such a bold statement because a couple of months back a Fresno-area hospital rejected the C.N.A. for the second time by a 125 vote margin, and guess what the C.N.A. has contested the outcome. How come the C.N.A. cries undemocratic to question a neutrality agreement that results in an eight-vote margin win for the union, but when another hospital’s nurses vote to stay union-free this is worthy of being contested by the C.N.A., which that claims that all it wants to do is let the nurses have a voice?

I guess it just another example of a union talking the talk but not walking the walk – why am I not surprised.