What’s going on at Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital?
It would appear that the California Nurses Association (C.N.A.) has set its “sights” on Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital. Now by setting their “sights” on Henry Mayo Newhall, I don’t mean that they’re planning to try and unionize the hospital, because the C.N.A. already represents the RNs at Henry Mayo Newhall. What I mean is that I think they’re laying the groundwork for some serious arm-twisting in advance of the next contract negations. What? Pray tell would lead me to think such a thing. Simply put, an article that I believe the C.N.A. had planted in The Signal, the area’s local paper this past March.
The article was entitled “Nurses challenge staffing” laid out for all to read that the C.N.A.-represented nurses were accusing the hospital for failing to meet our state mandate nurse-patient ratio and this action as reported in the paper “poses a danger to patients”. Oh my! I find it interesting that nursing unions always seem to be quick to cry “poses a danger to patients” whenever they want to get in the paper or on TV and this cry makes sense because everyone’s ears perks up when they hear that something or someone “poses a danger to patients”.
As I read the paper I began to suspect a more choreographed press release rather than an article for several reasons.
- The first being that the reporter incorrectly reported that RN’s receive a college degree in Registered Nursing, and when I reported this error to the paper’s editor there appeared no attempt to correct the error, didn’t publish my letter to the editor dealing with the error and the reporter (for whom I left several messages) never responded to my phone call.
- The second, and perhaps most interesting, was the statement that the RNs came to The Signal to discuss what they “saw as the dangers of team nursing” on the condition on anonymity but brought along their C.N.A. representative to vouch for their credentials. Why did they need the C.N.A. representative to vouch for their credentials, since all they needed to produce was their valid California RN license and their Henry Mayo Newhall identification, and if necessary proof they were C.N.A. members. I think that the C.N.A. representative was there to ensure that the nurses stuck to the script, and The Signal fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
All in all, the article painted a grim picture of brave and overworked nurses struggling to do their job and provide appropriate care for their patients. However as a nurse with almost four decades of experience under my belt I found it hard to buy some of their “poor me” stories. Such as the one “Helen” tells of “I don’t know any of the meds my patient got today. Because all the thousands of medications we give to patients each day.” Really? Thousands of medications each day – how many patients does she have each day? 100? I’m a NICU/PCIU nurse and in some cases I’ve had to deliver complicated medication regimes and in my entire career I’ve never had to administer thousands of medications to my patients every day – come on! And even if a nurse did have to deliver thousands of medications to their patients every day no one would expect them to remember, but they would be expected to be able to report from the patient’s medical records what had been administered during their shift. This is why we record our actions in the patient’s medical chart, and in some of the more technologically up to date hospitals we simply scan the medication barcode and the patient’s id barcode and the computer updates the record.
In all likelihood there are underlying nursing management issues at Henry Mayo Newhall, especially when I learned that Mr. Larry Kidd, RN was the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) and Vice-President for Patient Care Services. He was brought in by the Camden Group as their CNO in their failed attempt to help the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services to turn around and save King/Drew Medical Center (KDMC) – and we all know how that story ended. So I wouldn’t be surprised if competent and experienced nurses had issues with his management of the nursing department. Even I had issues with his management of the nursing department during the failed turn-around of KDMC, so no surprise there. I can also empathize with their dislike of team nursing, because I’ve never been a fan of team nursing. I’ve always found that team-nursing without clear lines of communication and strong management often devolved into chaos with no nurse stepping up to take leadership responsibility and everyone pointing to the other with the explanation that I thought it was their job?
You can find a copy of The Signal article and my response LTE TS Henry Mayo
The Myth of the Employee Free Choice Act
As the New Year dawn’s unions and their supporters, many of whom are legislators that owe their elections to the vast sums of money unions donated to their campaign, are gearing up to tackle the “Employee Free Choice Act”, also known as the “Card Check Bill”. As with so much legislation the words that were chosen to describe the bill don’t necessarily provide an accurate picture of the intent of the bill. Oh sure -- free choice – everyone is in favor of free choice. Unfortunately this bill isn’t so much about free choice as it is about weighing the fight to unionize in favor of one group over the other.
Unions contend that employers impede their ability to unionize under the current system and thus are pushing for what they describe as a more streamline approach, which is the card check. Simply put if a union can gather a majority or set number of employees to sign cards indicating that they want union representation then voila the union “wins”, and if the employer drags their feet then the employer can face sanctions and fines. Now to some this may seem a simplified and fuss free approach to what can often be a long drawn out procedure to union recognition for employees who want such representation.
However, I wonder if those who support this approach would be willing to allow for the same approach to decertification? As it stands now decertify is an onerous and tedious task, and for good reason. Just as one should not approach unionizing without thought, full disclosure and discussion one should not decertify without full and complete discussion for all involved. Both the act of unionizing and decertifying can and often has far reaching implications, not only for the employees who are seeking this action but also for the employer and community at large.
Here is a link to information about the Employee Free Choice Act -- http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employee_Free_Choice_Act. However, I propose to my fellow pro-union and “Employee Free Choice Act” supporters, allow the same rules that the Employee Free Choice Act will invoke to those wish to decertify, because those who want to ride themselves of a union should have the same “free choice” as those who wish to bring in a union, n’est pas?
Of course they may argue that the Free Choice Act may subject employees who wish to decertify to undue influence and intimidation and therefore a secret ballot is called for, but the same can be said for those who wish to unionize. A secret ballot protects all individuals and organizations from undue influence, intimidation and tampering. And yes unions are equally culpable of the same bad behavior they often accuse employers of perpetrating. Don’t just take my word for it, you need only look up the hearing transcripts of the NLRB hearing that involved Cedars-Sinai and the C.N.A. where non-union supporters (nurses) were threatened by C.N.A. representatives: Threats such as we know where your children go to school, and where you walk your little doggies (authors emphasis added).
So before you give the Employee Free Choice Act a pass, remember that if the same rules cannot be applied to those who wish to remove a union then the bill/law is flawed and is not deserving of support.