Democracy Steamrollered by HMOs & ANA
Corporate healthcare got a double reprieve last week in Massachusetts.
The corporate campaign against Question 5 raised and spent $5 million, mostly
from 'not-for-profit' HMOs Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Harvard/Pilgrim, Tufts and
Fallon, outspending 100 to 1 the progressive coalition made up of the
Massachusetts Nurses Association, the League of Women Voters, the Ad Hoc
Committee to Defend Health Care, SEIU Local 509, Physicians for a National
Health Program, the National Association of Social Workers, the Consortium
for Psychotherapy, the Springfield NAACP and many, many other grassroots
groups and individuals. Nevertheless, the initiative for fundamental health
care reform garnered 48% of the vote on November 7th, despite over a month of
intense TV and radio advertising, full of lies and fear-mongering, with a
recount scheduled for the City of Boston. Also on Tuesday, a public policy
question advocating single-payer universal health care placed on the ballot
in one state senatorial and two state representative districts by the
Massachusetts Labor Party passed two to one. The pressure for fundamental
change will continue.
On Thursday, the nurse activists' campaign to create a strong, independent,
well-funded Massachusetts Nurses Association fell short of the two-thirds
vote needed to delete the moribund ANA from MNA bylaws. Events leading up to
this unfolded in the following sequence:
May, 1997: Call from New York State Nurses Association Executive
Director Martha Orr to create an SNA Labor Coalition within ANA, to forge a
national labor agenda within ANA, leading toward a national labor entity and
possible affiliation with the AFL-CIO for raid prevention. MNA plays a strong
role within this labor coalition.
June, 1999: ANA House of Delegates creates the United American Nurses
with inadequate insulation against management influence or proper funding.
Delegates from Massachusetts, supported by delegates from Maine, are
unsuccessful in amending the bylaw proposal creating this entity. There had
been reports of threats by the bloc of Southern states to secede from ANA if
a strong union for nurses is created. MNA tables its proposal to call for the
election of delegates to the ANA House of Delegates by proportional
representation of nurses in collective bargaining on the promise of other
Labor Coalition states to amend their respective bylaws to create
proportional representation of collective bargaining members in their
delegations to ANA. ANA Executive Director appoints UAN director over
unanimous objection by UAN's Executive Council. Negotiations with AFL-CIO for
a national charter ongoing.
October, 1999: MNA Labor Program members gathered at their annual
business meeting unanimously vote not to join the UAN, on advice of labor
counsel. MNA amends its bylaws to assure proportional representation of
collective bargaining members in its ANA delegation, in accordance with the
pledge it made to the other major labor states, even though it had achieved
the same result through strong internal insulation which continuously
empowered staff nurses.
March, 2000: MNA Cabinet for Labor Relations and Congress on Health &
Safety propose bylaw language to effect disaffiliation of MNA from the ANA
federation. The Board of Directors of MNA District 2 votes to endorse this
initiative. Several prominent non-collective bargaining MNA members 'predict'
that 90% of the 3,000 non-collective bargaining members will leave MNA if it
leaves ANA.
June, 2000: MNA Board of Directors voted 9-2 "that open meetings on
the issue of MNA disaffiliation from ANA be limited to MNA members and
staff." Rationale: "It is MNA that is the constituent member of ANA. This
issue is a matter of internal MNA discussion and decision-making."
September 15, 2000: MNA Board of Directors voted 7-5 to "support the bylaw
change put forth by the Cabinet for Labor Relations, Congress on Health and
Safety and the District 2 Board of Directors to disaffiliate from the ANA."
Rationale: " to clarify the position of elected leadership to the membership."
September 21, 2000: 1200 Washington Hospital Center RNs, members of DCNA,
strike against mandatory overtime. Strike support and sympathetic media
coverage stagnate for a month until the Reverend Graylan Hagler and the
Plymouth Congregational Church organize a candlelight vigil that highlights
the righteousness of the strikers' cause. Graylan, an articulate exponent of
Liberation Theology, had served for a number of years in Boston as pastor of
the Church of the United Community.
October, 2000: The Massachusetts Nurse lead story presents BOD
endorsement of disaffiliation from the ANA federation, with a story featuring
statements from each Board member on this issue. Nine of fourteen members
write in support of a strong, independent, well-funded MNA.
October 12, 2000: ANA hosts a 'hospitality suite' down the hall from
the MNA town meeting on disaffiliation at the Holiday Inn in Worcester. An
incident occurs involving an elected MNA leader and the Executive Director of
the ANA. Witnesses are present. Assault & battery charges are subsequently
filed by the MNA member against the ANA Executive Director through the
Worcester Police Department.
October 14, 2000: A delegation of twenty four from Massachusetts
attends the annual business meeting of the Maine State Nurses Association in
Bangor to observe and to show solidarity with those in Maine striving for a
strong, independent MSNA in a hostile environment. The climax of the
contentious meeting, marked by repeated irregularities in parliamentary
procedure, is the vote on disaffiliation from ANA. After hours of delay, in
which a bevy of ANA staff in the foyer frantically work cell phones to call
in every nurse manager they can reach, the vote is tallied at 139 yes to 138
no, failing to reach the required two thirds to effect the desired bylaw
change. In typical fashion for this chaotic meeting, a member of the MSNA
Board leaps to her feet after the vote is tallied, insisting that she had not
yet voted and that her vote should be counted, leading to the 'official'
version of a tie vote.
October 20, 2000: After several weeks of personal phone calls from ANA
President Mary Foley, telemarketing from Virginia and Missouri from those
purporting to be "calling on behalf of the Massachusetts Nurses," and
repeated barrages of junk mail from DC to MNA members, MNA Board of Directors
resolves (7-3-1) "that the Board and staff of ANA be notified immediately
that the Board of MNA directs them to refrain from all contacts with MNA
membership from today through November 9, 2000." Rationale: "protecting the
integrity of the democratic process within MNA and the safety and security of
our members." That language is subsequently clarified by consensus to include
"all other interested parties" and "regarding disaffiliation."
October 23, 2000: ANA meeting at Children's Inn in Boston called to
present ANA's case for "unity first" is picketed by members of the MNA Board
of Directors, Cabinet for Labor Relations, local unit leaders and other nurse
activists including Barry Adams. Several Board members enter the meeting to
confront ANA President Mary Foley and UAN operative Valerie Tate with the MNA
Board's resolution. Their overture is sneeringly rejected, with the assertion
that ANA will do whatever it wants in Massachusetts, no matter what the MNA
Board may resolve. Junk mail and intrusive telemarketing continue until the
eve of the vote.
October 26, 2000: The New York State Nurses Association annual
convention held in Niagara Falls rejects a proposed bylaw change that would
have required that 50% of the delegates to the ANA House of Delegates be
members of NYSNA collective bargaining units. Of a total of 400 votes cast on
this proposed change, 247 vote yes, 153 vote no, falling 19 votes short of
the necessary two thirds.
November 3, 2000: The end-game begins for the protracted strike of 1200 RNs
at Washington Hospital Center in DC as five strikers launch a hunger strike,
and civil disobedience leads to celebrity arrests. AFL-CIO President John
Sweeney, American Federation of Teachers President Sandra Feldman, American
Nurses Association President Mary Foley, metropolitan AFL-CIO president
Josyln N. Williams and UAN chair Cheryl Johnson are detained briefly for
traffic violations and released shortly after paying $50 fines. By the end of
the weekend, a tentative agreement is worked out, subsequently ratified by
the members on November 8th.
(We congratulate the brave DC staff nurses, who would have reaped the fruits
of their sacrifices weeks earlier if they had received the attention and
support they deserved right from the beginning. We deeply resent DCNA leaders
butting into our MNA internal affairs by lending their voices to the
nefarious telemarketing campaign by the morally bankrupt ANA. And it must be
stated that John Sweeney loves nurses, but loves the revenue organized
nursing would bring in far more. John Sweeney had signed a sweetheart
agreement with the giant national HMO Kaiser-Permanente in 1998. The next
morning 7800 RNs, members of the California Nurses Association, proudly
standing outside this 'partnership,' struck Kaiser. John Sweeney signed an
extension of that deal this year, which includes a de facto gag clause which
prevents nurses and other health care workers from speaking out on unsafe
conditions for their patients and themselves. When it comes to what's going
on with the corporatization of health care right now, John Sweeney just
doesn't get it.)
November 9, 2000: At their annual business meeting, MNA Labor Program
members reaffirm their resolve to have nothing to do with the UAN
abomination. At the MNA annual business meeting, at the moment that
attendance is deemed to have peaked, the question on the proposed bylaw
amendment to delete all references to ANA is called. 648 members vote in the
affirmative, while 397 the negative. Two thirds in not reached, so the motion
fails. The proposal for a $40 annual dues increase is handily rejected. The
proposal to raise the annual dues of the non-collective bargaining members by
$52 in order to restore parity is approved. Non-collective bargaining unit
members had not had an MNA dues increase since 1987, while the balance of
forces within MNA in 1994 required that only collective bargaining unit
members be subject to that year's dues increase to fund the Statewide
Campaign for Safe Care and intense organizing. At 7:14 PM balloting begins on
the reconsidered disaffiliation motion. Again, two thirds is not achieved,
with 414 voting yes and 255 voting no. We now face the incredibly unstable
situation of an MNA in which the bulk of the membership and the bulk of its
elected leadership want absolutely nothing to do with ANA, but are blocked by
Robert's Rules.
Three Pro-MNA Speeches
Madame President,
My name is Joe-Ann Fergus. I am a nurse at the VNA Boston and I wish to
address the concerns of those individuals who are unclear about the agenda of
the Pro-disaffiliation coalition. Let me start by saying that those of us who
support the cause of disaffiliation are not simply extremists seeking to
forward a pro-labor agenda. We are nurses at the bedside, nurse
practitioners, nursing educators, theorists and leaders who are dissatisfied
with the status quo and are striving to maintain and strengthen our
association, the MNA, with the goal of forwarding a pro-nursing agenda.
For too long nurses have been persuaded to compromise and moderate our voices
in order to accommodate the very systems that subjugate and silence us. We,
the sentinels of healthcare have been encouraged to empower our patients
while surrendering our own power. The ANA as our national association has
consistently chosen compromise rather than confrontation. Sadly many of these
compromises have been made to the detriment of our profession. While gaining
my Masters in Conflict Resolution I learned that there are times when you
must draw a line in the sand and stand with the courage of your convictions.
Time after time members of the pro-ANA coalition have informed me that the
ANA is the professional association and the voice for nurses in this country.
However these same individuals also state that the ANA cannot be blamed for
the state of nursing today. I submit to you that the leader must take
responsibility for the results of its leadership. Our profession is in crisis
and ANA has been unable to articulate a clear plan for leading us out of this
crisis. Yet we are encouraged once again to trust in the present system to
take care of us.
The nurses of Massachusetts do not want to be taken care of. We are shedding
the victim role and taking control of our destiny. We have drawn our line in
the sand and we stand ready to defend our profession. We are tired of feeling
helpless; we are tired of accommodating our abusers. We have demonstrated
that we can lead and lead well. We have taken the lead in fighting to reform
the Board of Registration in Nursing; we have taken the lead in forming
coalitions with other groups across the country in fighting for nursing
reform in the form for federal legislation regulating staffing levels; we
have taken the lead in advancing the fight to create social change in the
form of healthcare reform here in Massachusetts.
We continue to hear about the ANA's willingness to change. Again I submit to
you that change without purpose is an exercise in futility and an invitation
to chaos. The ANA's leadership lacks a clear purpose and has resulted in
chaos for our profession.
Our purpose and our vision are to empower all nurses to be the advocates that
our nursing mission calls us to be. We wish to redirect our 1.2 million
dollars towards organizing the unorganized nurses of this state, towards
continuing education and other measures to improve the clinical and critical
thinking skills of our members, to assist our researchers and theorists in
advancing the critical dialogs and research needed to promote SOUND NURSING,
OUR PROFESSION and OUR CREDIBILITY with the public rather than supporting the
agenda of industry. Disaffiliation will allow us to build on our past success
with greater power and flexibility to move forward our pro-nursing agenda.
* * *
Madame President,
My name is Barry Adams and I am a member of District 5. I have worked closely
with both MNA and ANA in promoting nursing's voice.
Although ANA is based in the nation's capital, and receives $1.2 million
dollars a year from MNA members alone, the nursing profession is not known as
a powerful national voice in healthcare. However, nursing is known as "a
national crisis."
Research done in the last ten years found an almost TOTAL absence of nursing
voice in the national media on healthcare issues.
Public Radio's Madge Kaplan's observations on the pervasive invisibility of
nursing in healthcare and public policy were alarming. She found healthcare
reporters of national publications did not know who nursing's leaders are.
She specifically noted the lack of nursing's influence on healthcare debates
at the national level. Observations such as these coming from a media
influence like Madge Kaplan are dumbfounding.
Ninety-three percent (93%) of the nation's registered nurses do not belong to
ANA, yet ANA claims to be the voice of the entire nursing profession. Last
month Dr. Peter Bierhaus, a nurse researcher at Vanderbilt University
commented in the press that IN FACT, "nursing has not been adequately
represented in Washington."
Nursing's national voice has often come through the voices of MNA members who
have been covered by the national media because of the work of MNA's David
Schildmeier. IN FACT: David recently told me that while working on national
nursing stories with major media such as the Chicago Tribune, Readers Digest,
and Fox News that reporters have told him ANA is difficult to work with and
slow to respond to requests for information on nursing issues. And he said
this has been the reaction of national media for many years.
I personally worked with ANA on editing my Newsweek article which highlighted
the need for whistle blower protection. ANA edited out the references to the
patient's death. Newsweek questioned why I did not include the most
compelling part of my story when it was the truth. They suggested I rewrite
it and include it which I did. The following edition of Newsweek contained a
letter from the president of ANA which referred to my story as "extreme." All
of us here today well know from the Institute of Medicine's report and the
recent Chicago Tribune report of accidental patient deaths that my story was
in no way extreme. It was the unmodified truth and that is why it resonated
with nurses across the country.
I believe MNA can better serve our membership by retaining our annual $1.2
million dollars in dues and offering an unencumbered voice for our nurses.
Copyright © 2000 by Barry Adams
All Rights Reserved
Reprinted with permission.
* * *
Madame Chair,
I'm Sandy Eaton, a staff nurse at Quincy Medical Center, a member of the MNA
Board, a member of the District 5 Board. Nursing as a caring profession is
doomed unless we succeed in fundamentally changing the current market-driven,
industrial-model health-care non-system. We nurses of Massachusetts have
responded as forcefully as our circumstances allowed. Through our Statewide
Campaign for Safe Care, we've won the RN-pin bill, passed whistle-blower
protection, needle-stick legislation and more. Through militant collective
action, through the courageous struggle of the Saint Vincent nurses in
Worcester, we won landmark language on mandatory overtime and set the tone
for the nurses' fightback nationally. The MNA played a pivotal role in
developing and nearly passing basic health care reform for Massachusetts. The
dynamic behind the movement to pass Question 5 was driven by MNA. The vote
was close on Tuesday, very close. We were outspent 100 to 1. Nevertheless
it's clear. The people of Massachusetts are ready to move. If we had won on
Tuesday, we'd be on a whole new level in our efforts to make health care a
right, not a privilege, a commodity, or a job benefit. When the Coalition for
Health Care came to MNA on March 21st looking for serious money to take on
the expected HMO/insurance company onslaught, we had nothing much to offer in
that department, heading for the third year of a deficit budget. We've been
unable to do more because we've been hindered by ANA's drag. Over one million
dollars leaves Massachusetts each year. We cannot afford such imprudent
stewardship of our resources. Once we've thrown off the ANA albatross, we'll
be able to carry out our mission as material leaders, as well as moral
leaders. As we step into the future, vote yes for a strong, independent,
well-funded MNA. We'll be the industry's worst nightmare. We'll be our
patients' most powerful advocate. Thank you! (Editor's Note: The time arrived
to call the question before these last remarks were uttered in public. - SE)
-----------------------------------
Some Reflections on the Vote
Denise: My love, honor and respect to you all.
Joe-Ann: Today there are over six hundred nurses who woke up with a greater
understanding of their power and wiser about the power structure of the
nursing environment. I am proud to welcome them all to the ranks of the
revolutionaries. We now have over six hundred passionate crusaders who are
prepared to stand up for a very worthy cause. Maybe just maybe the army is
waking up.
Mary: I have the Chumbawumba song in my head (parent of a teenager - can't
help it) that repeats the phrase, "I get knocked down, but I get up again -
YOU'RE NEVER GONNA KEEP ME DOWN!" It's a great mantra for the day.
Pat: The fight has just begun. I will always be proud to say I am a member
of the MNA and will NEVER consider myself part of the ANA.
Karen: The revolution is just beginning. They will not stop us. We are the
staff nurses of Massachusetts and can take on anyone who gets in our way.
Some just take longer to knock down.
Teana: I stand tall and proud in an army of nursing giants. We will go
forward. We will prevail.
Barry: I think I am actually speechless for once in my life!
Mike: Bruised but still standing. KAREN HIGGINS FOR THE (ANA) MARY ELLEN
PATTON LABOR RELATIONS AWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eileen: I believe we need to stress that the people that ANA dragged to the
meeting are not the true members of MNA. They are not the nurses who have
fought hard over the past several years to make the changes in our state and
to show the leadership at ANA convention. The true members were the 62% who
voted to disaffiliate. We will win in the end, we just lost the first battle
but many nurses now realize what many of us had tried to explain to them. In
unity we will win the war.
Patty: As far as I'm concerned, we gave the bastards a run for their money
and they ain't seen nothing yet!! I'm just getting warmed up!
Sandy: The marriage is over. The divorce lawyers just haven't figured out the
settlement yet.
* * *
HOW DO YOU LIVE YOUR DASH?
I read of a man who stood to speak
At the funeral of a friend
He referred to the dates on her tombstone
From the beginning ... to the end.
He noted that first came her date of birth
And spoke the following date with tears,
But he said what mattered most of all
Was the dash between those years. (1934 -1998)
For that dash represents all the time
That she spent alive on earth ...
And now only those who loved her
Know what that little line is worth.
For it matters not, how much we own;
The cars ... the house ... the cash,
What matters is how we live and love
And how we spend our dash.
So think about this long and hard ...
Are there things you'd like to change?
For you never know how much time is left,
That can still be rearranged.
If we could just slow down enough
To consider what's true and real,
And always try to understand
The way other people feel.
And be less quick to anger,
And show appreciation more
And love the people in our lives
Like we've never loved before.
If we treat each other with respect,
And more often wear a smile ...
Remembering that this special dash
Might only last a little while.
So, when your eulogy's being read
With your life's actions to rehash ...
Would you be proud of the things they say
About how you spent your dash?
Author Unknown
------------------------------------
Maine nurses OK status quo
by Anne Barnard, Boston Globe
October 17, 2000
Intensifying the battle for the loyalties of the nation's 2.6 million nurses,
the Maine State Nurses Association last weekend rejected a proposal to split
off from its national parent, the American Nurses Association, which some
have called too moderate for a time of crisis in health care.
The much larger Massachusetts Nurses Association, whose 18,000 (sic) nurses
make up one-10th of the national group's membership, will hold a vote on the
same issue Nov. 9 at the World Trade Center in Boston.
In Bangor on Saturday, the Maine group was divided down the middle, with 139
(sic) nurses against the split and 139 in favor - far from the two-thirds
majority needed to sever ties with the national group.
''I don't think anyone expects here that [the Maine vote] would sway our
members,'' Massachusetts Nurses Association president Karen Daley said
yesterday. ''But what it does is send a message in terms of another state
nurses association whose membership feels strongly about the importance of
staying with an established national organization.''
Joe-Ann Fergus, a staff nurse at the Boston Visiting Nurses Association, who
favors the split, said her allies in Maine were ''outmaneuvered'' in
parliamentary procedure. She predicted that they would do better in
Massachusetts because nurses there have been more politicized by managed care.
In a close vote, 9-7 (sic) , the Massachusetts group's board of directors
endorsed the split last month.
The Massachusetts Nurses Association is seen as a leader in advocating for
nurses and patients; it has pushed the national group to take stronger
positions and scored victories such as the strike last spring at St.
Vincent's Hospital in Worcester, which won limits on mandatory overtime. Both
sides have cast the upcoming vote as a referendum on how best to continue
that work.
Those who want to stay with the American Nurses Association point to its
national reach and stable of lobbyists. Those who want to secede hope to form
a new national group allied with the California Nurses Association, which
split off in 1995. They say the American Nurses Association is dominated by
nurse managers who do not represent the interests of staff nurses.
Sharon Fields, a staff nurse at Eastern Maine Medical Center who opposed the
split, said she believed that, at the Maine meeting, representatives from the
national group heard the concerns of staff nurses, and would address them.
A central concern is that the American Nurses Association's union, United
American Nurses, is not as insulated from management control as is the state
union run by the Massachusetts group. That could be changed no earlier than
at next summer's meeting of the national group.
''We're told those are the issues, but it's hard to tell what the
subterranean goals are,'' said American Nurses Association president Mary
Foley, adding that both groups support universal health care and an end to
mandatory overtime. Opponents of those causes, she said, would be cheered by
the ''internecine warfare.''
At stake are the $1 million in dues paid by Massachusetts members and the
chance to set the agenda for the state's nurses.
''We're emboldened and empowered and ready to make change,'' Fergus of the
Boston Visiting Nurses Association said.
Fields of Eastern Maine Medical said the victory in Maine was
''bittersweet,'' because her opponents were passionate about the cause.
''We're all colleagues working together.''
This story ran on page F3 of the Boston Globe on 10/17/2000.
© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
-----------------------------------------
Massachusetts Voters Reject Universal Health Plan
by Karen Pallarito
November 9, 2000
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Massachusetts voters on Tuesday narrowly defeated
a proposal to guarantee healthcare coverage for everyone in the state by July
2002.
The mandate for universal healthcare coverage was part of a sweeping
healthcare ballot initiative known as Question 5. If approved, it would have
made Massachusetts the only state in the nation to ensure that every resident
has access to affordable healthcare coverage.
Voters rejected the question by a margin--at last count--of 52 to 48 percent.
Andre Guillemin, campaign director for the ``Yes on 5'' campaign, suggested
that proponents of the ballot question did quite well in spite of significant
spending by HMO and employer opponents to defeat the question. ``You have to
remember, we ran a $50,000 campaign head-to-head with a $5 million campaign
opposing us,'' he told Reuters Health.
The fact that a mere 2-point swing would have evened the score suggests, he
said, that the people of Massachusetts see a need for the healthcare reforms
posed by Question 5.
Opponents of Question 5 argued that the measure was ``poorly written, costly
and damaging.'' Included in that group were some early proponents of the
ballot question who switched sides after the state approved a broad managed
care reform bill in July.
``It would have potentially raised premiums in the state 43% while adding
millions of dollars in untold costs to the state healthcare system ... right
to the tax bills of the citizens of the Commonwealth,'' said Larry Raske, a
spokesman for the ``No on 5'' coalition.
``It's a victory in the fact that we stopped the system from being blown up
unnecessarily,'' he told Reuters Health, ``but we also recognize that there's
also a lot of work to be done to improving healthcare in the state.''
In addition to requiring state lawmakers to enact universal healthcare
coverage, Question 5 would have guaranteed certain patient rights, mandated
that 90% of every healthcare dollar be spent on patient care and prevented
for-profit takeovers of nonprofit healthcare institutions.
The Massachusetts Medical Society opposed Question 5, but for different
reasons than many other opponents.
``We totally share the aims for the group that put the proposal in place,''
explained Dr. Virginia T. Latham, president of the society. It chose not to
support the effort ``because of our concern about it totally undermining
something that's already been passed ... potentially delaying effective
reform.''
The state's managed care reform law addresses the objectives of patient
protection and universal access in a very specific way, she said. For
example, it calls for the creation of an advisory committee to evaluate a
universal healthcare system, increases the attorney general's authority to
review for-profit conversion of nonprofit hospitals and HMOs, and increases
state oversight of health plans.
Vowing to ``pick up the pieces'' and move forward, the group of doctors and
nurses who launched Question 5 are now committed to ensuring that the state's
patient protection law is fully implemented, Guillemin said.
Copyright © 2000 Yahoo! Inc., and Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
---------------------------------------------
Nurses reject split with parent group
by Anne Barnard, Boston Globe
November 10, 2000
Choosing unity and compromise at a time of crisis in nursing, the
Massachusetts Nurses Association yesterday narrowly rejected a bid to secede
from its national parent group, the American Nurses Association.
Advocates of the split had called the national group too complacent to fight
for a profession under siege, while opponents countered that now, more than
ever, the nation's 2.6 million nurses need a unified voice.
Perhaps inspired by an Election Day that proved every vote counts, more than
1,000 nurses - three times the usual attendance - packed the Massachusetts
Nurses Association's annual convention at the World Trade Center in South
Boston.
When the group's president, Karen Daley, asked the crowd who wanted to
secede, a majority of nurses rose to their feet. But when they counted off
the votes - 648 yes, 397 no - they fell 79 votes short of the two-thirds
majority required for the split.
''I am absolutely thrilled,'' said Linda Watson, a staff nurse at UMass
Memorial Hospital in Worcester. She said the vote ''keeps our power base that
we need ... and I hope we can now work to expand that base.''
Karen Higgins, head of the group's labor union, called the results
''upsetting'' and said they did not reflect the views of most union members.
She said staff nurses had more trouble getting time off to come to the
meeting than managers, educators, and retirees; the ANA says that its polls
showed union members opposed the split.
The vote had national significance because the Massachusetts Nurses
Association's 18,000 (sic) nurses have often been leaders within the national
group, and make up one-tenth of its membership. And it could not have come at
a more crucial time for nursing. Pressure to care for more patients with more
acute illnesses has caused a crisis in morale, prompting a national nursing
shortage, emergency-room overcrowding, and increased union activism.
Clashing opinions on how best to deal with the current problems in health
care - by working within the more moderate national group or by jettisoning
it - has caused a painful rift within the Massachusetts Nurses Association,
one not likely to be settled by the vote.
''Whatever it takes, we're getting out of ANA,'' said Peggy O'Malley, who is
on disability leave from Brigham and Women's Hospital and campaigned for the
split.
''The mood is tense,'' Annie Lewis O'Connor, a staff nurse (sic) at Caritas
Norwood Hospital who opposed the split, said before the vote. ''It feels like
the lines are clearly drawn. Very few of us are talking to them, and very few
of them are talking to us.''
In September, the MNA's board of directors took the unusual step - in a 9-7
vote (sic) - of endorsing the secession. The leaders of the group's labor
branch, which runs the state's largest nursing union, campaigned
enthusiastically for the split. But the group's president, Daley, opposed it.
Proponents had hoped the Maine State Nurses Association would approve a
similar bid for secession. But after contentious debate at the Bangor
convention last month, the measure failed, with 139 nurses voting for and 139
(sic) against.
Joe Niemczura, president of the Maine State Nurses Association, watched the
vote by video from an adjacent room and said he was so happy he had to wipe
the tears from his eyes. ''The people in Massachusetts are national
leaders,'' he said. ''We count on working with them.''
American Nurses Association officials have promised some changes in response
to the concerns highlighted in the Massachusetts independence drive.
For example, the MNA's lawyer said the ANA's union, United American Nurses,
is not properly insulated from management control, a problem that could
invalidate labor contracts. The issue of management's influence could be
addressed at next summer's meeting, said Susan Bianchi-Sands, director of the
national union.
The whole idea of having a union is new to the ANA and it is still evolving,
she said. The MNA has been organizing nurses since the 1960s; however, the
group is a professional association that includes managers and staff nurses
who don't belong to the union.
Both the Massachusetts and national groups say they want to strengthen nurses
unions, increase access to health care, and maintain staffing levels so that
nurses don't have to work mandatory overtime.
But the ANA was slower to take those positions, prompting the California
Nurses Association to secede in 1995. The ANA adopted a resolution against
mandatory overtime only in June - after the St. Vincent strike in Worcester,
led by the Massachusetts union, made national headlines.
The question is how the Massachusetts Nurses Association will go forward. ''I
hope we can agree to disagree and move on,'' O'Connor of Caritas Norwood said.
This story ran on page B7 of the Boston Globe on 11/10/2000.
© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
---------------------------------------------
Web Directory:
Sandy's Links <