For Immediate Release
February 26, 2001
ANA Files Another Baseless Lawsuit To Stop Vote On Disaffiliation
The ANA smear campaign to stop MNA efforts to disaffiliate from the national
organization has resulted in yet another lawsuit, this one seeking to force
the MNA to violate its own bylaws by holding a secret mail ballot, even
though MNA bylaws explicitly prohibit such a ballot. The MNA Board of
Directors, with the support of nearly every leadership group in the
organization, is seeking to disaffiliate from the American Nurses Association.
In strict compliance with MNA bylaws, specifically Article XXII, any changes
in MNA bylaw must take place at the MNA Business meeting or a special
business meeting where members have the opportunity to debate and/or amend
the bylaw prior to taking the vote which is a one person, one vote system.
For a bylaw change to occur, the vote must reach an affirmative two thirds
super majority. This method of holding votes on bylaws and other policies and
positions of the MNA has been in practice for years. Such a system is common
for bylaw changes where the membership has the right to alter the bylaw
before a vote is called as well as the right to reconsider the question prior
to adoption. This is why mail ballots are not done for contemplated bylaw
changes.
MNA has had numerous bylaw changes over the course of its long history,
including contentious 1999 bylaw changes which altered the entire structure
of the MNA. All were handled in this manner. There has not been a mail ballot
on such an issue in recent memory, again, in adherence to the organization’s
bylaws.
"This is a totally baseless lawsuit that actually asks the MNA Board of
Directors to violate its own bylaws," said Julie Pinkham, MNA executive
director. "This is just another in a string of legal maneuvers by the ANA in
an effort to stifle the will of the MNA membership to make a lawful decision
to leave the ANA. In fact, it is really about the $1.2 million in dues money
the ANA stands to lose by MNA making such a bylaw change.
"It seems the ANA believes attempting to force the MNA to violating its own
bylaws is the solution to their inept leadership. I do not expect the court
to look favorably on such an effort."
The ANA has filed no less than three different lawsuits against the MNA to
stop the disaffiliation vote, and in every case, the court has dismissed the
ANA’s request to enjoin the MNA. In response the outlandish rhetoric by the
ANA, the MNA has filed a countersuit against the ANA and a small group of MNA
members supporting affiliation -- charging them with a conspiracy to defame
and harm the organization by means of baseless legal and knowingly misleading
public relations efforts.
David Schildmeier
Director of Public Communications
Massachusetts Nurses Association
800-882-2056 x717 (Within Mass. only)
781-830-5717
781-821-4445 (fax)
781-249-0430 (cell phone)
508-426-1655 (pager)
----------------------------
(Editor’s Note: MNA is divided into five geographic regions called districts.
District 5, encompassing Greater Boston and much of Eastern Massachusetts, is
the most populous. Its Board of Directors constitutes the focal point of
prone sentiment within Massachusetts. Following the changes effected at the
December 1st MNA Board meeting, it issued venomous and untrue letters to the
membership of District 5 and to the MNA Board of Directors, and expanded on
those false accusations in the January issue of District 5’s quarterly
newsletter Contact. These attacks formed part of the reason for the MNA’s
eventual decision to countersue, and they generated vigorous rebuttals,
primarily from leaders and members of the various collective bargaining units
within District 5, a sampling of which will be shared with readers of
Seachange Bulletin.)
January 20, 2000
MNA District 5 - Board of Directors
57 Providence Highway
Norwood, MA 02062-2645
Dear President Downey, Karen Daley, and Members of the Board,
In a 1980 article in the journal of AORN discussing the issue of collective
bargaining in nursing, J. Gideon wrote:
"If collective bargaining did destroy ‘professionalism,' it would be a
blessing. This concept is a false god, a silver cross held up to ward off the
evil spirits of fair play, decent conditions, and your rights under the law."
I believe nursing is a true profession by definition. However, well
documented nursing history shows that the majority of the members of the
profession (nurses who care for patients) have never been recognized,
compensated, or given the respect afforded to those in other professions. We
have been exploited as the revenue producing work horses of the American
healthcare system for over 100 years. We have literally had to fight for
nickel and dime raises. We have been held accountable with little to no vo
ice in the system or "the profession." And today we must now endure
watching our patients being put at risk of death, injury, and greater future
health problems and costs while other "professionals" make the very decisions
which helped create many of the problems we are all facing. All of this
despite registered nurses having received a "professional" education.
Nurses in the U.S. have never been more educated than they are today. Despite
myriad professional degrees within nursing (BSN, PhD, MSN, DSN, JD,
etc...etc...) and a physical presence in Washington, D.C., the
"profession" has, until very recently, remained silent, powerless and
ineffective. Is this because the "profession" provides the bulk of revenue
producing workers for a multi-billion dollar industry? As we read the
statistics related to the impending critical nursing shortage in the next
decade, we are forced to realize that "the profession" is not able to retain
or attract members.
And yet more interesting "blue collar" professions, which are not comprised
of many members with advanced degrees, have much greater professional unity
and solidarity and therefore exert more impact on public policy and politics,
as well as their own working conditions. Firemen and local and state law
enforcement officers are an example. Although their numbers are no where
near the number of registered nurses, when they speak - they are heard.
Although I also consider nursing a true profession, after reading your letter
of December 18th and the January edition of District 5's CONTACT, I could not
agree more with J. Gideon's observations on "professionalism" ... as it
exists in nursing. The vast majority of the membership who attended the MNA
business meeting and voted chose to disaffiliate from ANA. Your letter
implies something other than that fact.
The decision of the Board of Directors of District 5 to send out that letter
shows that the current leadership of District 5 is not respectful of the
thousands of members of District 5 (again, the vast majority) who choose to
participate in their legal right to collective bargaining. Few would try to
argue that democracy and individual rights, while assured in the
constitution, do not apply in the work place even in America, particularly in
the "profession" of nursing. Regardless of personal opinions on the issue,
collective bargaining has proven an effective tool to assure a voice for
nurses to address many issues in their work place, the least of which is to
do what we are mandated to do- speak to a patient's best interests. Many
professionals choose collective bargaining in today's corporate business
climate to ensure even their most basic rights in the "professional" work
place, including the right to free speech. Federal law provides the right to
collective bargaining to American workers, including "professionals."
The District 5 Board's position to continue with the ineffective and
expensive ANA affiliation in the name of professionalism only adds to the
divisiveness and polarity you claim is the creation of those with whom you do
not agree. And it poses a very real risk to the majority of MNA members. I
would like to know how many of the members of District 5 Board of Directors
are practicing clinical nursing and if you are members of collective
bargaining?
You chastise the current Board of Directors of MNA for a discriminatory
philosophy and "lack of inclusivity." Yet the District 5 Board of Directors
holds its Board meetings excluding all District 5 dues paying members?
Further, you bar our elected District 5 representative, Barry Adams, from
attending as well. If the mission of District 5 is "to foster the continued
development of ALL professional nurses and to support nurses efforts to act
on behalf of the profession and their patients," then the Board of Directors
should stop the discriminatory practice of closed, secret meetings. I also
notice you clearly delineate between "professional nurses" and other
"nurses." This is not language which supports a philosophy of "inclusivity."
And again, it would support the comments by Gideon and others who believe
professionalism in nursing includes hands on patient care.
My recollection of the polls and focus groups which show that the public
trusts "nurses" and views the image of a nurse as trustworthy were based on
their experiences of the nurses who have provided direct care for them or
their loved ones. I have not read any information which reflects the public
view of trusting "the profession as a group of unified advocates on their
behalf." If there are data which reveal the public's trust in nurse
executives or nurses in business, management, academia, or any role other
than patient care, I would appreciate a copy. If not, it is inaccurate to
allege that the current MNA Board of Directors has "destroyed" the public's
view of the nursing profession as a group.
My recommendation for getting MNA back on track would be to have leaders of
District 5 acknowledge and thank those on the MNA Board of Directors who
support nurses who practice clinical nursing. And to thank those who do
research which supports our work and promotes the image of nursing and
quality patient care. I hope that those who continue to spend their time and
our resources devising ways to "conquer" us, will stop ... and support the
progressive agenda outlined by the current leadership of the Association. It
is an agenda which reflects the interests of staff nurses and patients, and t
herefore ALL nurses. It is leadership which reaches far above and beyond the
current two tiered, top down system in nursing.
In addition to the information requested above, I would like to request a
copy of the District 5 bylaws. Please send them to the following address.
Sincerely,
John Bogrett RN - Brigham & Women’s Hospital - District 5
cc: Denise Garlick- President
MNA Board of Directors
MNA Cabinet on Labor
Julie Pinkham- Executive Director
------------------------
Why Should We Disaffiliate from ANA?
ANA Affiliation Threatens the Future of the MNA Union & Your MNA Contract
In June, the ANA will make it mandatory that MNA join the United American
Nurses, the ANA's national union. If MNA is forced to do so, every MNA union
contract and any future effort to organize nurses in our state will be placed
at risk and open to legal challenges - costing the organization thousands of
dollars to combat.
Here are the facts:
* In 1999, the ANA created the United American Nurses (UAN), the ANA's
national union. In opposition to recommendations put forth by MNA, the ANA
purposefully adopted a structure that left union nurses without funding for
the UAN and placed the UAN under the direction of the ANA Board of Directors,
which includes managers and supervisors.
* According to Alan McDonald, our trusted labor attorney, the UAN is
"subject to attack on grounds that a supervisory laden Board of ANA could
influence its Executive Director's oversight of UAN activities through
supervision of staff or allocation of financial resources. It is the
potential for such mischief, rather than the fact of its occurrence, which
leaves the MNA subject to legal attack."
* Our concern about management control of the UAN was validated by the
recent mailing to our members from the UAN. The first signature on the
letter was from Mary Foley, ANA President. Foley is on leave from her
position as Chief Nurse Executive of Saint Francis Hospital in San Francisco.
The head of the ANA's nurses union has sat on the other side of the table
from organized staff nurses at contract negotiations and she has mandated
nurses to work overtime.
* The current Chairperson of the UAN, Cheryl Johnson, could not even win
election to her local bargaining unit in Michigan. The current Executive
Director of the UAN, Susan Bianci Sands, obtained her labor background as a
flight attendant. She was also voted out of office by her former union
membership. Sands was hired by the ANA Executive Director, who rejected the
nominee unanimously chosen by the UAN Executive Committee. The is yet another
example of the management domination feared by the MNA.
* Because the UAN structure poses such a threat to the integrity of our
collective bargaining program, MNA union members voted, unanimously, at the
1999 and 2000 MNA Conventions, NOT to join the UAN. The Hawaii Nurses
Association and the Maine Nurses Association have also voted to stay out of
the UAN.
* Right now, the ANA/UAN is negotiating membership in the AFL-CIO with no
guarantee of ANA/UAN jurisdiction over RNs. The UAN may end up merged with a
large international industrial union, which could take over all labor
functions of the UAN. The MNA believes nurses should represent nurses.
Vote Yes to Disaffiliation to Save Your MNA Contract on March 24th
Say No to a National Union Run by Managers and Supervisors
Say Yes to an Independent MNA - A Real Nurses' Union
-----------------------------
Web Directory:
Sandy's Links
<