A spot to discuss issues related to the MNA affiliation to the NNU
Interesting article: New nurse union sets aggressive agenda
Update: Another interesting piece of information: Hawaii Nurses Association Prevails Against NNU Challenge
Massachusetts Nurses Association Facebook: “This group was initially created to promote awareness surrounding the Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA) merger with the California Nurses Association (CNA) and the nascent National Nurses United (NNU). Our current focus has become the promotion of union democracy within the MNA, something that has been markedly suppressed by union leadership over the past year.”
Nostrikefornurses's Blog 
Posted by nostrikefornurses on June 29, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Reposted from Nurses who care:
Here is the article on the Delegate vote to change to NNU. Again, this was to be a MNA membership vote according to established bylaws. Does anyone see issues with MNA voting policies where you are not given an opportunity to vote with a significant change in affliations and voting on strike some nurses expressed they felt intimated to vote “yes.” either directly or indirectly. It also would be interesting to hear why a large group of nurses didn’t vote at all to strike July 6th since the results have a large inpact on their lives.
http://www.startribune.com/jobs/healthcare/83804167.html?elr=KArks+c4iURc4iU_vDE7aL3EyD_0EyDDyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Posted by nostrikefornurses on June 29, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Posted by Nurses Who Care on June 29, 2010 at 9:30 am edit
I spoke with ANA representative regarding the split with their affilation. It seems MNA and ANA were moving in different directions at that time. In addition, there was an issue with late payments involved to ANA. ANA did contest the vote, but as we can see the results were MNA is now affliated with NNU. I think someone would need to speak with MNA to see why, what and how they moved to NNU.
This is disheartening to see since MNA membership was not given a vote to move to NNU. Also, to find their monthly dues paid to MNA, which part should have been directed to ANA, were not be paid to as required by MNA-ANA bylaws. I think the lesson learned here is to pay more attention to what MNA is doing not only during negotiating times, but all the time. I believe some nurse here who not are not happy how MNA has performed in recent months would also need to become more involved with MNA to see if change was possible in the future.
I have been reading the messages on StarTribune which shows little support for nurses in the possible upcoming strike, including physicians. This could tarnish our professional image for years to come.
Posted by nostrikefornurses on June 29, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Posted by Nurses Who Care on June 29, 2010 at 12:44 pm edit
Here is the article on the Delegate vote to change to NNU. Again, this was to be a MNA membership vote according to established bylaws. Does anyone see issues with MNA voting policies where you are not given an opportunity to vote with a significant change in affliations and voting on strike some nurses expressed they felt intimated to vote “yes.” either directly or indirectly. It also would be interesting to hear why a large group of nurses didn’t vote at all to strike July 6th since the results have a large inpact on their lives.
http://www.startribune.com/jobs/healthcare/83804167.html?elr=KArks+c4iURc4iU_vDE7aL3EyD_0EyDDyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Posted by nostrikefornurses on June 29, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Posted by Nurses Who Care on June 29, 2010 at 10:53 am edit
No, I agree and it is more then a concidence the move from NNU with a Fairview nurse being a co-president. I believe on the Mass. Facebook (Mass Nursing Association Nurses) there is talk also about the similar coincidence with Mass Nursing Association members now at the helm of NNU positions.
I wonder if the membership see this as an issue since NNU is really steering the group down a road to strike just like the Fairview nurses did in 2001.
Looking back in 2001, the Fairview system nurses were the only nurses who did go out on strike. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) the bargaining unit did come back with a contract where most Twin Cities nurses chose to ratify and Fairview nurses did not (can’t remember if it was an overwhelming vote to go out on strike). Did Fairview nurses end up with a better contract in comparison to the other Twin Cities hospital nurses?
Also, I still question why ANA didn’t make more of an issue for their membership at the time to vote to removed them. Losing membership in these numbers is not a positive and NNU continues to grow today.
Posted by nostrikefornurses on June 29, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Posted by Tom on June 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm edit
Here’s an interesting article and an even more interesting exchange between a couple of readers in the comment section –> http://www.medcitynews.com/2010/06/high-on-ambition-low-on-cash-twin-cities-hospitals-face-choices/comment-page-1/#comment-83125
Posted by nostrikefornurses on June 29, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Posted by Tom on June 29, 2010 at 10:33 am edit
The Fairview connection is very, very significant in MNA’s current stance. Remember, Jean Berg — one of the co-presidents of NNU — is a former Fairview nurse.
I don’t think that’s a coincidence!
Posted by Tom on June 29, 2010 at 11:17 am edit
I meant to say Jean ROSS! She was also formerly secretary of American Nurses United — an AFL-CIO affiliate union representing nurses.
The 2001 Fairview nurses strike has to have influenced her (to this day, Fairview nurses feel that they were left twisting in the wind by the MNA when they stayed out for five weeks). And the union mentality of the AFL-CIO (versus the “association” mentality of the ANA) has certainly affected her behind-the-scenes work in attracting the MNA over to the NNU camp.
I think this explains an awful lot about the MNA fervor over staffing ratios and just how dug in its position is at this point.
Posted by integritynurse on June 29, 2010 at 5:25 pm
This just in from the strib:
Keith Ellison is supporting striking nurses.
“So nurses, thank you. Thank you for caring about us. Thank you for having the dignity to care about yourselves. And thank you very much for laying it all on the line for the dignity of working people all over this world.”
Why am I not surprised?
Posted by Lori on June 29, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I have decided to resign from the MNA today…I no longer can support people who are so close minded as to not to support fellow nurses who need to or want to cross the picket line. My heart is heavy with this decision, but I must do what is right for me and my family because at the end of the day they are what matter to me
Posted by drichmn on June 29, 2010 at 7:34 pm
I’m sorry you have been put in such a stressful and distressing situation. We’re here to help however we can. Everybody has to make their own decision, like you did, based on family and personal considerations. As you say, family is what matters at the end of the day.
Good luck.
Posted by Lori on June 29, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Thank you, what a relief to hear that response. Let me know anyway I can help or be supportive to anyone in need on this site. Thanks again.
Posted by drichmn on June 29, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Thanks so much. You may have coworkers that need your support as well.
Posted by Anonymous on June 29, 2010 at 8:08 pm
I am so sorry that it has come to this. Who ever you are I support you in your decision. This has torn all of us up and is ripping out the very heart of who we are. Maybe I this strike were meaningful it wouldn’t I could be sleeping at night, but it is not, and I am not. I wish you well in your future.
Posted by Anonymous on June 30, 2010 at 7:24 am
Come Tuesday it will be interesting to see if the hearts of those who choose to strike are truly as loving as those who choose to cross…
My MIND says not and it angers me beyond description as I know there will be nasty thoughtless immature behavior to follow that lack of heart…
I have a job to do and people to take care of so step aside.
If they think it is sooo much better somewhere else then GO! Let us practice in peace~
I have happily resigned my MNA membership! They have not, do not and will not ever represent my views whether it be at the bedside or in the White House.
Step confidently foward Tuesday when you cross the line for you are stepping to the right side! I know I am and trust that our hospital administrators are doing everything feasible to protect and support us in today’s world.
Posted by nostrikefornurses on June 30, 2010 at 8:28 am
Good for you anonymous! I too am proud of what we are doing…especially in light of the negotiatios….I cannot support what MNA is doing.
Posted by concernedrn on June 30, 2010 at 8:37 am
I had read at one point that there were 19,000 contract positions but only 12,000 voting members, can anyone verify?
Posted by nostrikefornurses on June 30, 2010 at 8:54 am
There are only 12,000 whose contracts are up at this time….others are up at different times. I think they mean 12,000 voting at this time.
Posted by concernedrn on June 30, 2010 at 9:12 am
Thanks for the clarification! I am a nurse with a foot in four worlds – I’m not management, but I’m not staff; I work for a system in both a contract and a non-contract hospital. I am very sad and, to be honest, angry about the full-steam-ahead approach toward a strike via MNA/NNU.
The MNA’s statement that an overwhelming majority of nurses voted for the strike is particularly misleading. Of 12,000 voting members, my understanding is that only 5,000 voted in the last session. That’s 42% of the nurses who could have voted. Of that 5,000, there was an 85% (depending on whose statistic you look at) strike vote. That’s 4,250 nurses who voted to strike. So… in reality, only 35% of the voting members actually voted to strike. To me, that’s underwhelming.
Stay strong, nurses who feel that to be at the bedside is the SAFEST for our patients – that’s where I’ll be!
Posted by nostrikefornurses on June 30, 2010 at 9:15 am
concernedrn, when using statistics one can make them look however you like…..but I am glad we are able to see the light.