Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:53:10.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Nursing Associations and Collective Bargaining: A Conflict of Interest?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

Mark Cwiek
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The American Nurses’ Association (ANA) and its affiliate state nurses’ associations (SNAs) claim to represent the interests of all registered nurses in this country.’ In reality, an uneasy schism of professional ideology has developed within these organizations. The ANA believes that the state and district nurses’ associations are qualified to act and should act as the exclusive agents of their respective memberships in the important fields of economic security and collective bargaining. In fact, in 1977, 100,000 registered nurses, then somewhat less than 10 percent of all working RNs, were under union contract through an SNA. Yet the leadership in the ANA and SNAs is dominated by nurses who are either supervisors or educators in their daily professional roles. The ANA has identified the director of nursing in any given hospital as the legitimate leader of that nursing staff: “Nursing administration has the responsibility and authority for the quality of nursing practice within the health care organization.” Yet the collective bargaining process itself often pits nursing staff against nursing leadership within a given facility.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 9 , Issue 5 , September 1981 , pp. 13 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Nurses' Association, Bylaws, as Amended, June 1974, Art. 1, p. 5.Google Scholar
American Nurses' Association, Major Official Policies Relating to the Economic Security Program, Revised (ANA, New York) (1965) at 1.Google Scholar
American Nurses' Association, Commission on Nursing Services, Standards for Nursing Services (ANA, Kansas City, Mo.) (1973).Google Scholar
Rotkovitch, R., Do Labor Union Activities Decrease Professionalism? Supervisor Nurse, pp. 16–18 (September 1980).Google Scholar
Jacox, A., Collective Action: The Basis for Professionalism, Supervisor Nurse, pp. 22–24 (September 1980).Google Scholar
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C.A. §153 (1970), as amended (Supp. V. 1975).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C.A. §§151–68 (1970), as amended (Supp. V. 1975); S. Rep. No. 93-776, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1974): H.R. Rep. No. 1951, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1974).Google Scholar
Gideon, J., The American Nurses' Association: A Professional Model for Collective Bargaining, Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration 2(1):13–27 (August 1979).Google ScholarPubMed
Jacox, , supra note 5, at 23.Google Scholar
Health Labor Law Update, p. 5 (July 1980).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
S. Rep. No. 93-766, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1974).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C.A. §159(b)(1) (1976).Google Scholar
NLRB v. St. Francis Hosp. of Lynwood, 601 F.2d 404 (9th Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
Gideon, J., supra note 9, at 15.Google Scholar
Banner Yarn Dyeing Corp., 139 N.L.R.B. 1018 (1962) (employer permitting supervisor to belong to union does not violate NLRA).Google Scholar
Zimmerman, A., SNA Experience with Collective Bargaining, in Issues in Nursing, Bullough, B., ed. (Springer, New York) (1966) at 191.Google Scholar
29 U.S.C.A. §152(5).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C.A. §158(a)(2).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Oak Ridge Hosp. of the United Methodist Church, 220 N.L.R.B. 49 (1975); Anne Arundel Gen. Hosp., 217 N.L.R.B. 848 (1975); SierraVista Hosp., Inc., 225 N.L.R.B. 1086 (1976); St. Patrick Hosp. (Sisters of Charity of Providence, St. Ignatius Province), 225 N.L.R.B. 799 (1976).Google Scholar
SierraVista Hosp., supra note 22, at 1087.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
N.L.R.B. v. Annapolis Emergency Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., d/b/a Anne Arundel Gen. Hosp., 561 F.2d 524 (4th Cir. 1977) [hereinafter Anne Arundel).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C.A. §158(a)(2).Google Scholar
Arundel, Anne, supra note 25, at 537.Google Scholar
Id. at 538.Google Scholar
Id. at 539.Google Scholar
SierraVista Hosp., Inc., 241 N.L.R.B. 631 (1979).Google Scholar
Id. at 633.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
SierraVista Hosp., Inc., 249 N.L.R.B. 602 (1980).Google Scholar
American Nurses' Association Convention '78, American Journal of Nursing (July 1978) at 1246.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., Must We Downgrade Nurses to Upgrade Nursing? RN Magazine 43(5):90 (May 1980).Google ScholarPubMed
Gideon, J., supra note 9, at 14, 17.Google Scholar
Levi, M., Functional Redundancy and the Process of Professionalization: The Case of Registered Nurses in the United States, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 5(2):333–53, at 339 (Summer 1980). Proposal 1985 would in effect downgrade degrees earned by nurses who graduated from associate degree programs, relegating the status of such graduates to one which is “lower” than that of present RNs. This also would either close existing diploma programs or bring them under control of university programs.Google ScholarPubMed
Nursing News, RN Magazine 43(5) (May 1980) (cover).Google Scholar
Boston Nurses Group, The False Promise: Professionalism in Nursing, Science for the People 10(3);20–34 (May/June 1978) at 31.Google Scholar
Lederer, P.C., Management's Right to Loyalty of Supervisors, Labor Law Journal 32(2):83–104 (February 1981).Google ScholarPubMed
Id. at 104.Google Scholar
Metzger, N., Hospital Labor Scene Marked by Union Issues, Hospitals 54(7): 105 (April 1, 1980).Google ScholarPubMed