Blog Archives

Here we go again, the C.N.A. has spent their members’ hard earned money that they take in as dues to produce (CNA Flyer1) a high-gloss hit piece on yours truly. My oh my how I must frighten the C.N.A., this handicapped, little old lady from Pasadena.

So when I saw the piece that they’re passing out at Huntington Memorial Hospital I felt compelled to respond – since as so many nurses have come to learn from past experience, many members of the C.N.A. like to play fast and loose with not just the rules, but with the truth as well.

First – IStandWithHuntington (ISWH) are the Huntington Memorial Hospital nurses that feel that they don’t need the C.N.A. to represent them. The IStandWithHuntington blog is an alternative voice to the C.N.A. message/propaganda. Nurses whose opinions differ from those backed by the C.N.A. have the right to speak their mind and get their message out and they have chosen to do so – even though it means fending often scurrilous attacks from the C.N.A. “war machine”. They express their opinions, viewpoints and so forth on their blog.

Second – Did I help the ISWH nurses – darn tooting. I contributed to their cause by securing the IStandWithHuntington domain name and offered it to them for their use. They run and have full control over their blog. This isn’t illegal, the ISWH nurses have the right to freedom of speech, just as the C.N.A. members have and for the record Huntington Memorial Hospital hasn’t spent a dime in securing, purchasing or hosting this blog.

Third – The C.N.A. really does need to go back to school if they think I’m a professional union buster. Professional is defined as – a person engaged in a specified activity as one’s main paid occupation rather than as a pastime. I’m not paid to help nurses who want to get their union-free message out. Nurses call, write and email me when they want advice on how to get their message out, on how they can even the playing field and what not. I listen to them and if I think I can help I do what I can do, there’s a whole network of us who believe that nurses can effectively advocate for themselves, without union representation.

Fourth – They’re great about listing my administrative positions that I’ve held over the years, but conveniently leave out that I’m a RN and that I’ve spent more years at the beside as first a Pediatric nurse and then a PICU/NICU nurse than I have in administration. But then again if they did that they might actually provide folks with the impression that I’m a nurse and not some boogey man “union buster”, because nurse = good and union buster = evil, don’t you know.

Fifth – It’s no secret that I don’t support the RN-to-patient ratio, because I support the far superior patient acuity system. Title 22 and Joint Commission mandates an acuity-based system because nurses aren’t workers on an assembly line and patients aren’t widgets. I believe that nurses give the best care when patients are assessed based on the complexity of their illness, care needs and so forth and then matched to the nurse that has the skills, education and training to best meet those care needs – after all that’s why I became a nurse. And I think that’s why most of you became nurses, as well.

Ask yourselves this why does the C.N.A. feel the need to play so fast and loose with the truth, why do they resort to innuendoes, and cast aspersions? This is the union that says they want to represent you and yet they appear to show utter contempt of your fellow co-workers who chose to exercise their to freedom of speech and simply put their message out as well. The ISWH nurses have spent their hard earned money on their effort and whether you agree or not about joining or not joining a union the ISWH nurses are deserving of some modicum of respect. I think their blog has strived to keep their tone civil and information fact based. So just to be clear I’m not about union busting, as the C.N.A. likes to suggest, but I’m am about making sure that these nurses who want to have their message heard get the opportunity to be heard.

The C.N.A. loves the scorched earth technique in dealing with those who disagree with or oppose their viewpoint; do you? Do you want to be associated with a group that feels entitled to denigrate others in our profession because we don’t chose to follow their rhetoric? As nurses we are charged with advocating for our patients, so how can we be expected to advocate for our patients if we can’t even advocate for ourselves? I’m proud to be a RN. You’re welcome to call, write or email me.

The AFL-CIO just released an announcement that heralds the following: “Catholic Bishops, Health Providers, Unions cooperate to support workers’ rights”. The headline and the subsequent list can easily leave the reader believing that employer, workers and union organizers have agreed to a set of very good and positive principals. However, you’d be wrong because according to the AFL-CIO blog post that details this accord “the new guidelines cover seven principals for employers when workers seek a union”, the operative word here is employers. In short, the guidelines only apply to employers, not to the employee in favor or opposed to unions, or the union organizers themselves. And though this is not quite as egregious of an agreement as the odious Tenet/C.N.A. (an affiliate of the AFL-CIO) neutrality agreement, which handed over the personal information of registered nurses (without the knowledge of those same RNs) at C.N.A.-targeted hospitals it’s still nonetheless a one-sided accord.

The seven principals for employers when workers seek a union:


Access to information;

Truthful communication;

Pressure-free environment;

Expeditious process;

Honoring employee decisions; and

Meaningful enforcement of these principals

How can I tell? because of the term employers in the sentence, and not phrases such as all parties, everyone, all concerned and so forth. So once again unions have found a way to stack the deck. What’s truly sad is that the guidelines suggested above are well meaning, but without them being applied to all, and I mean all parties (that would include employee both in opposition to and in favor of union representation and the union organizers) this then leaves the door open for union and their supporters to engage in bad behavior without fear of repercussions (this would also go for the employees who are in opposition to union representation).

Additionally several of the phrases are subjective rather than objective. For example, how are we defining truthful communication, pressure-free environment and meaningful enforcement? I ask this since one person’s pressure could be another person directly asked question. Truthful communication? What does that mean? For example in a recent flyer put out by the C.N.A., an AFL-CIO affiliate, numerous duplicate signatures, unidentified employee signatures, terminated employee signatures, and signatures of people in favor of decertification were found on a “petition” to encourage Cy-Fair nurses to vote against decertification. When a C.N.A. representative was asked why such a flyer was even being distributed the response was oh well it was a printing error; but to many individuals including myself this flyer was less than truthful, but apparently to the C.N.A. there was nothing “untruthful” about it.

So though the accord that seems to have been reached, I think it’s once step above an Election Procedures Agreement (EPA). If unions and employers were all about supporting the workers then these guidelines should’ve used more objective language and should’ve been written to include ALL parties. All too often unions accuse non-union nurses as being surrogates for management thus putting into question the motives of these nurses; and pro-nursing union nurses are often found exhibiting less then positive adult like behavior. The union gets the option of pointing the finger of blame to the first and ignoring the bad acts of the later; while employers do the same in reverse – meanwhile it’s the nurses themselves that suffer in the end. Or you have experiences such as the nurses in Houston and Philadelphia where hospital management was so cowed by the EPA that they decided to not respond to any questions that nurse had that remotely referenced the union, and barred any message by pro-union messages going so far as to give the union a glass covered bulletin board, but no such favor to the “No to the union” nurses. Is this fair? Does it fall in line with the above AFL-CIO guidelines?

You may wonder why I even decided to address the AFL-CIO accord with the Catholic Bishops et al; simple the link was sent to be by someone identifying himself or herself as:


Submitted on 2009/07/09 at 3:24am

I’d like to know your thoughts on this:

I found the query trapped in my spam folder since both the name and email appeared suspicious to my spamblocker. I did a quick whois search and found that it had been sent from the servers at the California Nurses Association (see copy of search here). I wonder what ulterior motive the C.N.A. had in sending me this link to their affiliated organization? Are they contemplating adopting a similar, somewhat more restrained approach to their well know aggressive organizing? Well who’s to know the real reason, but respond I have with my opinion.

Imagine finding flyers posted all over a hospital sounding the “alert that a professional union buster was on site”, and that flyer used to identify a nearly 70 year old great grandmother who has to use an electric scooter to get around. What power this person must have to send the California Nurses Association (C.N.A.) in paroxysm’s of fear and panic and to engage in their usually tactics of lies and misinformation. I was met with just such exhibitions fear-mongering and hysteria by C.N.A. recruiters, representatives and supporters when I made a recent visit at the invitation of a fellow nurse from Cy-Fair Hospital in Houston.

Their flyer identified me as a professional union buster, which I guess is a recognition of how much they fear my presence; but truth be told I’m not a professional union buster, and in particular I’m not a nursing union buster. The C.N.A. and many other pro-union people love to use the word union-buster since it tends to invoke images of a Simon LeGreed character replete with requisite black hat and clock and evil laugh.

I have nothing against unions for the blue-collar worker, but I’m far from convinced that professionals such as registered nurses need unions to represent them.   So when nurses contact me for my opinion and advise about how to speak for themselves I am always happy to help my fellow RN in advocating for our profession and for themselves. I’m happy to help in the effort of showing nurses they can and do have a strong voice as both an individuals and as a group without paying a nursing union dues of upwards to $80.00 a month for the favor.

In the case of two recent nursing union attempts, one nursing staffs attempt to stay free from the C.N.A. and one nursing staff attempt to decertify from the C.N.A. As fate would have it, I was in a position where I could help both in spirit and in person so I did. At the first hospital my fellow nurse and I found C.N.A. representatives playing shenanigans with hospital elevators so that the floor where a “No to the C.N.A.” nurse had been given a meeting room was locked out. This malfunction only affected the one floor that we had to reach on both days, what a coincidence. You may wonder why I think C.N.A. representatives capable of such underhanded techniques. Simple, I still haven’t forgotten a C.N.A. strike in the San Fernando Valley where pro-C.N.A. nurse locked out much need medical equipment, hiding/destroying manuals, etc., so that the relief nurses were hard pressed to provided nursing care to patients many of whom were in intensive care; and the C.N.A. strike was suppose to be all about their concern for patient safety — go figure! And at the second hospital I got treated to the experience of being stalked by not one, not two, but upwards to three C.NA. representatives at a time. The situation became of such concern that hospital HR and security had to become involved; but I guess I should feel honored that the C.N.A. felt the need to have so many people watching my every move.

Whether or not nurses chose a union to represent them or not should be up to the nurses themselves but this seems to rarely be the case these days. As in the case of the Tenet Healthcare/C.N.A. neutrality agreement Houston nurses that had opposing views to the C.N.A. material, propaganda or message had no one to turn to; at least that’s what the C.N.A. representatives thought, except they overlooked a grassroots network of informed RNs that were available for these nurses to reach out to; which they did and we responded. One would think that the C.N.A. representatives would be excited to learn that nurses were empowering one another, oh that’s right it only counts if the nursing unions are doing the empowering.   So sorry, we didn’t get that memo. One would also think that the C.N.A. would invite and encourage an open and lively discussion about the benefits of a nursing union, but they couldn’t be bothered to even accept the invitation extended by one group of nurses to present their viewpoint in an open debate. Instead they skulked about passing out flyers full of misstatements and lies since it so much easier to insult the intelligence of nurses rather than respect them.

In the case of the flyer (CYFair_NNOC_Alert1) they suggested that the nurses ask me a set of questions, and I responded with an open letter (OpenLetter1). One pro-C.N.A. nurse chose to mark up my open letter with graffiti instead of addressing me nurse to nurse. But then again it’s become common practice for pro-nursing union nurses to engage in such childish behavior. It’s a sad day when our honorable profession is marred by such immature behavior. However, I see these as indicators of how much the organizational structure of the C.N.A. fears nurses who chose to take back or carry on with their own voice. In the past several years their membership has been declining (their last official report in 2008 has their membership at just over 72,000 almost a full 8,000 or 13,000 drop depending on which C.N.A. official report you read). I think it’s this drop that has them scrambling for new members in the other 49 states.

But in some parts of our country nurses don’t want anything to do with them, and even when Tenet handed the C.N.A. the proverbial keys to the kingdom providing C.N.A. organizers unfettered and unprecedented access to RNs on the floor, scheduling information and even home addresses and telephone numbers; the C.N.A. has found resistance to their siren song. They couldn’t even gather enough cards at Park Plaza and Northwest Hospitals in Houston to even call an election and they slunk out of Houston so quietly that few even knew they had abandoned their organizational efforts. They accused one, that’s right ONE, nurse of trying to take away the union at Cy-Fair Hospital. What power this one nurse must have, I guess the well over 30% of eligible nurses that signed decertification cards meant nothing, it was all that one nurse’s fault. And this morning we learned that Hahnemann Hospital (another victim of the nefarious Tenet/C.N.A. neutrality agreement) had rejected the union. The C.N.A. had such access to the RNs at Hahnemann that nurses that opposed the C.N.A. had to get the NLRB to intervene just so they could get a meeting room in the bowels of the hospital and finally a table in the cafeteria (shortly before election day) and the union spokespeople whined that this was unfair.

So if our network of nurses, and me, in particular can help our fellow nurses when confronted with such behavior and that makes us professional nursing union busters in the eyes of the union then I guess that’s a cross we’ll just have to bear. I see it as the desperate actions of an organization that knows that people have begun to look behind the curtain that is the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee and they don’t like what they see. The more they howl about RNs empowering each other the more I know that I’m their bête noire and that’s a role I think I shall relish.

The nurse’s of Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia just got the news — they won in their election fight against the California Nurses Association (C.N.A.)! The vote count was 309 RNs against to 267 RNs in favor of unionization.

I wonder how the C.N.A. and their supporters will spin this election loss. No doubt they’ll issue a press release touting the narrow loss and I’m sure the press will parrot this statement. Just like when the C.N.A. won the vote at Cy-Fair in Houston by a margin of 8 (now that was a slim victory), but the C.N.A. touted the vote as though it was a resounding victory for nurses across Texas. So if we use their own reasoning then we can only conclude that if an 8-vote margin is a resounding win; then a 42-vote margin is one major whooping on behalf of the nurses in their rejection of the C.N.A. Maybe the Pennsylvania nurses might’ve been more receptive to the idea a nursing union if it had been a local nursing union that was courting their vote and not the carpet bagging C.N.A. and their well-known bullying tactics that was courting them?

To put things into perspective for folks, the nurses that weren’t keen on a nursing union had a very hard row to hoe. Like in Houston they found that their hospital and nursing management were in essence prohibited from offering them assistance thanks to a so-called neutrality agreement (for more one this agreement see “Like Thieves in the Night”) that had been signed between Tenet and the C.N.A. The agreement gave all the cards to the C.N.A. and their representatives to spread their message, but withheld equal support for the nurses that wanted to get their counter-message out. Things were so blatantly unfair that the NLRB actually intervened on behalf of the No to the C.N.A. nurses and granted these nurses a couple concessions: such as a meeting room that was somewhere in the “bowels” of the hospital so that only the most stalwart of nurses could find the meeting room and of course finally a table in the cafeteria. Throughout the process nurses, such as Nurse Hummel were stalked, photographed, and pilloried by the C.N.A. representatives. The C.N.A. pulled out all the stops even going so far as to paying for a pro-C.N.A. nurse from Cy-Fair hospital to come out and make the rounds through the hospital and producing a flyer depicting Hahnemann nurses attending a big pro-union rally in DC organized by the C.N.A. The only problem with the flyer was that the nurses pictured from Hahnemann Hospital never attended that event and had been plucked out of another photograph and pasted into this C.N.A. propaganda material. Nurse Hummel even made sure to invite the C.N.A. to attend a debate so that interested nurses could have an open discussion, but the C.N.A. was a no-show, which seems to be par for the course when it comes to dealing with the C.N.A.

I think that the C.N.A. finally met their match when RNs from several other states came out to offer their support, expertise and knowledge with those who simply wanted to be able to have their side of the story heard. I know that several nurses came out on their own dime and time; and as one of those nurses, I found the time I spent at Hahnemann enlightening and enjoyable. I was both pleased and honored to have met with not only Nurse Hummel (after so many telephone conversations) and the countless other RNs that came to our table or met us in the hallways and meeting rooms to share their story and to give me an opportunity to answer their questions.

So hats off to all the nurses (both anti & pro nursing union) of Hahnemann who turned out to vote (from what I’ve been told about 592 eligible nurses voted) that means nearly 60% of the eligible nurses voted in this election. I can only hope that the media fairly reports the outcome of the election and assuming that they even chose to report the vote outcome. For more information I invite you to visit the Hahnemann nurses website at:

Like thieves in the night . . .

They came like thieves in the night, their goal simple: to “steal” their way into one or more of the Tenet-run Houston hospitals. Their arrival wasn’t completely unexpected, it’s just that the Registered Nurses at CyFair, Northwest and Park Plaza, weren’t the ones that had invited them. Instead, the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (C.N.A./N.N.O.C.) came under a rather notorious arragement known as a “neutrality agreement” and as the only union option. There would be those that might argue that a neutrality agreement isn’t such a bad thing, and it wouldn’t be if such an agreement were actually neutral. Most reasonable people would understand the term “neutral” to mean having no personal preference/bias or not supporting or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest; but the agreement that the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. came in under, with the consent of Tenet management was far from neutral.

When I first learned of the neutrality agreement I asked for a copy and it wasn’t long before a copy appeared in my mail, and after reading the lengthy document it was clear that Tenet and the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. had entered into an agreement that benefited not the nurses but the union leadership of C.N.A./N.N.O.C. One could easily blame the leadership of C.N.A./N.N.O.C. for crafting such a one-sided contract, but the fault for agreeing to the overly restrictive terms lay firmly in the lap of Tenet management. As any good contract negotiator will tell you, its not uncommon for one party or the other to present a tough or one-sided agreement, they do this to see what kind of or how much push back they will get from the other party; and it’s assumed that the other party will present a counter offer – hence the term contract negotiation. But if Tenet offered any counter offer to the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. agreement then I can only conclude it was a half hearted one, because the contract heavily favored C.N.A./N.N.O.C., to the point of disadvantaging Tenet’s very own nurses themselves.

For example the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. representatives were given access to the employee list, including personal contact information, of all the RNs at the three hospitals (CyFair, Northwest, and Park Plaza). Keep in mind that prior to this all three hospitals were non-union shops, thus the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. were not yet recognized as a bargaining unit for any of the RNs at these hospitals; so these strangers were given free access to this personal information and RNs discovered this only after they started receiving calls, visits and mail from C.N.A./N.N.O.C. Tenet also sold the rights of the RNs to any non-approved C.N.A./N.N.O.C. messages or information, because they agreed to a clause that required C.N.A./N.N.O.C’s. approval of any flyer that the hospital management would post regarding the unionizing efforts with their hospitals (keep in mind C.N.A./N.N.O.C. were not yet a recognized bargaining unit at any of these hospitals). C.N.A./N.N.O.C. representatives were given meeting space and permission to have information booths in employee areas; but when a group of Tenet nurses (many of whom were already members of the state’s professional nurses association, the Texas Nurses’ Association) requested the same privilege they were denied by hospital administration. So instead the nurses were expected to, and did run their own information campaign on their own dime and time. These nurses organized a truth-a-thon to provide interested nurses with another side of the “union/non-union” story; C.N.A./N.N.O.C. were so fearful that these nurses had decided to provide an alternate voice that C.N.A./N.N.O.C. representatives took photographs of the “no to” C.N.A./N.N.O.C. nurses and those nurses that requested information at the truth-a-thon.   Which is why I’m always skeptical at unions that whine about the harsh tactics of management when they often engage in the very same or even worse tactics that they accuse management.

In the end with a very small margin CyFair nurses voted to accept the union but of course C.N.A./N.N.O.C. declared an outright victory and that a new day was dawning for the nurses of Texas, because soon C.N.A./N.N.O.C. would release all RNs in Texas from the shackles of “servitude” and “oppression”. But wait; there was still Northwest and Park Plaza.   What happened to the union vote at these two institutions? Well, just as C.N.A./N.N.O.C. came into Houston like thieves in the night on April 14th they formally withdrew their petition and they slunk out of Park Plaza and Northwest, once they realized that the RNs at Northwest and Park Plaza with help from CyFair nurses were not about to abdicate their professional voices without full disclosure. These nurses launched, again on their own time and dime, an information campaign and as luck would have it they got to observe how C.N.A./N.N.O.C. representatives acted during the CyFair union organization drive and for every pro-union button that was being worn, two no thanks C.N.A. buttons were being worn as well. The Park Plaza nurses mounted such excellent information campaign that C.N.A./N.N.O.C. representatives demanded additional time to campaign and of course their request was granted – but even the additional time couldn’t turn the tide for C.N.A./N.N.O.C. Ironically C.N.A./N.N.O.C. accused the two Tenet Hospitals with colluding with the NRTW Foundation as to why their organizing efforts failed. Let me get this straight Tenet gives C.N.A./N.N.O.C., complete access to employee personnel records, unfettered access to nurses while at work, in the units, break rooms and wherever else nurses gathered in the hospital and denied nurses who opposed the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. message even the opportunity to provide their side of the story, except when those nurses did all the work themselves on their own dime and outside hospital premises and C.N.A./N.N.O.C. whines, stomps their feet and cries “FOUL”? This is just one more reason that I oppose unions for nurses, because this is not the kind of behavior I want to see exhibited by the nurse professional.

Where is the Texas media to report the withdrawal? All the while C.N.A./N.N.O.C. was actively organizing the newspapers could barely contain themselves and happily reported on the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. progress; but now that C.N.A./N.N.O.C. has withdrawn there has been nary a peep.

Of course, I know why C.N.A./N.N.O.C. and their supporters in the media doesn’t want it known that the nurses of Northwest and Park Plaza rejected their overtures; because God forbid should nurses be lead to believe that they can speak for themselves since the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. campaign is based heavily on “nurses are so weak, disenfranchised and oppressed” that only a union can adequately represent them. So when nurses reject the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. either by voting them down as recently happened in Fresno, or decertify as in the San Diego area, or stand-up and don’t even let them get their foot in the door as in Houston then the mythos created by C.N.A./N.N.O.C. is damaged and thus makes their propaganda much less affective.

With little fanfare this past week, nurses from Centerpoint Hospital of Independence, MO held a decertification vote. The results 226 to 78 with 24 opting not to vote at all, and the Nurses United Local 5126 (part of the American Federation of Teachers) were ousted as representatives for the RNs at the hospital. The vote took place over two days (April 23 and 24) last week, and the results were a celebrated outcome to a small core group of professional nurses that had coalesced to further professionalism versus unionism for nurses.

I learned about the nurses of Just Let Us Vote, JLUV –, and emailed the contact for JLUV, Jerilyn McDermed. She responded to my email with her telephone number and I called her and we chatted. She gave the “quick and dirty” version of the history of the unionization of Centerpoint and why she chose to launch a decertification effort. Their path to decertification wasn’t an easy one, they were targeted by members of Nurses United Local 5126, labeled the “misinformed minority”, demeaned by some of the more vociferous pro-union nurses on staff, and found little support in the local media to get their side of the story out. Yet, they persevered and after many months of foot-dragging from the union they got the green light for a decertification vote. Of course the union machine spun the story as if they had been the ones instrumental in allowing the nurses the opportunity to have the vote; and in a way that was true since the union had filed numerous complaints with the NLRB that caused the vote delay. So when the union removed their objections the vote was green lighted, but then again if the union hadn’t initially objected the vote would have taken place much, much sooner.

It’s behavior such as this that makes me suspect the true motivations behind the union’s push for the “Employee Free Choice Act”, better known as EFCA. They extol the virtues of having a majority of employees signing cards to bring in union representation, but when the tables are turned and people sign cards to end union representation then the union fights it tooth and nail. So, it’s apparent to folks like me that the union likes to make full use of the process when it serves them, but they don’t want their opponents to have the same opportunities. Maybe this simple fact is why polls show that up to 80% of union members themselves oppose the passage of EFCA. But, back to Centerpoint.

So, when I came across an article in the Independence Examiner about the upcoming vote I wrote a letter to the editor and it was published on March 31st and distributed throughout the hospital by nurses. Jerilyn shared with me that a pro-union nurse had defaced one of the letters that had been posted, and her response was to place a post-it note by the defaced flyer that asked folks not to write on her flyers, since no one wrote or defaced their flyers. Of course, she wasn’t shocked by such churlish behavior since all too often pro-union nurses will engage in such behavior with the full support of their union local – another reason why professional nurse often eschew unionization.

As the date of the vote approached the Kansas City Star did a write up and its lean was so pro-union that was more of a advertisement then a news story, so I was compelled to write a letter to the editor and contact the Reader’s Representative. He was very nice and said he would have the reporter call me, which I’m sure he did but as of the writing of this post the reporter has yet to call me. I had also left a message in his voice mail myself. Additionally, the letter to the editor reader had still not read my letter nearly three days after submission. In the end, the professional nurses of Centerpoint were able to overcome a pro-union local media and a well funded union local from the AFT to get their message out and the nurses responded with an overwhelming vote of 226 to leave the AFT with only 78 voting to remain with the AFT. Stories covering the recent decertification vote can be found at the Kansas City Star here ( and the Independence Examiner her (

One more victory in a growing movement by professional nurses to decertify from union representation and retake their voice and right to self-representation.