No real problem with that however if you want to call CNA's actions
unionbusting how do you differentiate what CNA did from what management
does when it attempts to prevent ANY union EVER from being formed rather
than when one union attempts to prevent what it feels is a bad deal for
workers with the hopes that it can in the future craft a better one?
Unless you truly believe CNA wants to stop not just this particular
union deal but prevent ANY union deal from ever being formed? Since
those two goals differ it only makes sense to assign them different
labels in my opinion.
>
>> So my point stands. Just because CNA once made a crappy backroom deal is
>> not an excuse for SEIU to do the same.
>> That is why contrary to what you write below my analogy is not a poor one.
>> Unless you blindly believe CNA wishes to stop the SEIU while never
>> coming forth with an alternate plan. That is rather paranoid thinking in
>> my opinion.
>>
>
> But this is not my point -- it's not a crappy backroom deal. It's a
> deal that will let them improve standards for Tenet RNs in TX, help
> improve patient care for patients at THC hostitals in TX, and
> hopefully provide a beachhead for organizing other RNs in TX. See the
> story link below. The pathetic thing is that CNA can't express the
> same thing about SEIU's campaign in OH.
>
> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-NurseUnion_23bus.ART.State.Edition1.46643fc.html
>
We'll have to agree to disagree here as well. I think the SEIU deal
isn't very good and I think had SEIU wanted to it could have crafted a
better deal.
CNA has crafted better deals as has, to the best of my knowledge, SEIU.
>
>> You only think it's telling when it fits your preconceived notion. When
>> the converse is true it feel it is irrelevant.
>>
>
> Come on!
>
You can certainly disagree since this isn't a proved fact but is rather my opinion. I'm open minded enough to change my opinion if the evidence warrants it. I doubt there is one person on this planet who hasn't been guilty of this type of thinking occasionally and I certainly don't exempt myself. Not that I'm claiming any particular insight but it's the type of viewpoint one seldom notices without outside assistance.
>
>> When I disagree with other union members I don't try to crash their
>> meeting and shout them down.
>> I am not interested in making unionizing attempts look bad in public eyes.
>> Apparently SEIU has no problem doing this in this example.
>>
>
> What CNA did in OH was the exact opposite of a "unionizing attempt."
>
SEIU's attempt to crash Labor Notes meeting is not relevant to whether they felt CNA was attempting unionizing activities or not. It was about silencing CNA regardless of whether they label CNA's actions "unionbusting', 'raiding', or anything els.
As far as CNA's attempt to engage in unionizing that depends on your viewpoint. Once the SEIU deal was made CNA will effectively have no chance to offer a better deal to those nurses. Stopping the SEIU deal buys them time to craft a better deal. Again unless you believe CNA's goal is, like most of managements, to simply prevent ANY unionizing of those nurses. I doubt you believe that is the goal of an organization like CNA. If it is perhaps you can explain all the past work of CNA?
I'm not certain why a person can't question the tactics and timing of the CNA in this instance all the while assuming they still have the nurses best interests as their ultimate goal while simultaneously condemning the thuggish approach of SEIU in attempting to subvert the democratic process by violently (however low keyed one wishes to label the violence was) attempting to disrupt a pro-labor meeting by Labor Notes where CNA was not the major participant in that meeting. Is reasonableness to be tossed in the ashcan for the sake of some sort of ideological purity?
John Thornton