This is such important information that all MNA nurses should know that I felt I have to post this as an advisory for all to see.
A commenter found this ANA Media Statement dated 10/18/2008. The second paragraph is a shocker to me:
“The ANA House of Delegates, including delegates from Minnesota, voted in 2005 to include in the ANA Bylaws a provision that requires a 2/3 vote of the entire membership of a Constituent Member Association (CMA), such as MNA, before it is empowered to sever its ties with ANA. The 2/3 membership vote is designed to protect members’ rights to participate in making the fundamental decision of whether to end a state association’s affiliation with the ANA. MNA failed to comply with the requirements of a membership vote.”
How can MNA say it is representing its members when it failed to fulfill the requirement of having them vote on whether they wanted to sever ties with ANA?
UPDATE: Also see Nurses Move Toward a ‘Superunion’.
Article describes how MNA became affiliated with NNU states: “No union asked all members for a vote on the national union” and quotes Linda Hamilton.
Update 2: Mass. Nurses Assoc. has started a Facebook page about their dissatisfaction with NNU representation.
Update 3: Another very interesting article about NNU’s views on organizing and staffing ratios.