AB 1201 remains in "suspense" -- and this is a good thing!

Question: What can one person or a small group accomplish? Answer: A lot, if they are committed, determined and perseverant.

Defeat of AB 1201 - Related to Collective Bargaining, is or should I say was a bill in the California Legislature (you can find text of the amended bill here:
http://www.nrnpa.org/legislation). Today, May 31, 2007 at 16:26, I learned that AB 1201 was left held in the Suspense File, which means that it is for all intents and purposes inactive for the remainder of this legislative session. This is welcomed news since the bill, in my opinion, characterized nurses as so weak as to require legislative intervention in order to perform their responsibilities. I know several nurses that shared my concerns and that I encouraged them to contact AB 1201's author (Assemblyman Leno) and their Assemblyperson. I know that Suzanne Geimer, RN, not only wrote to Assemblyman Leno but that she also took the time to contact her elected Assemblyman and meet with one of his field representatives to share with him her opinion and experiences (I joined her in this meeting as per her invitation). To all those who took the time to contact their elected representatives I want to say THANK YOU. The NRNPA is all about getting information both professional and legislative that affects and effects our chosen profession and then encouraging them to inform and educate their elected officials about how they feel this will impact them.

You can read a copy of my letter of opposition that I emailed to Assemblyman Leno, and my elected representatives at the end of this post. The attachment that is referred to in the letter can be emailed upon request (it is in PDF and easily attached to this blog entry). In the meantime, until AB 1201 is withdrawn, not passed or vetoed it can be resurrected in the next or future legislative session so it will be important to be vigilant.

May 29, 2007

The Honorable Mark Leno
13th Assembly District
State of California
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0013

Re: Opposition to AB 1201

Dear Assemblyman Leno:

I have long been an outspoken advocate on issues that affect and effect nursing and a nurse's ability to deliver quality of care. It is this concern that has spurred me to make my opposition to AB 1201 clear. AB 1201 is not a bill that enhances a nurse's ability to deliver quality of care to their patients, contrary to the statements of its sponsor even though I believe they think it does. The language used in AB 1201 denigrates nurses and our profession; its chauvinistic language makes nurses out to be so weak as to be unable to stand up for their rights let alone the rights of their patients. In truth if a nurse is this weak I would not want this person caring for me or a loved one.

Below are some of the key points made in AB 1201 that I believe are erroneous and incorrect assumptions made by the bill's sponsor:

1) Only nurses in unions can effectively advocate for safe patient care -- NOT:

a) In your testimony before the Assembly Labor and Employment committee you testified that California is facing a critical nursing shortage. However you must ask AB 1201's sponsor why then did their representatives when interviewed by the Pasadena Star News editorial board on April 5, 2004 say that there is not a shortage? They asserted that the nursing shortage was manufactured and was now no longer a major issue. (See attached). Also, the bill's sponsor testified at this same committee meeting that if the nurses' at the Tenet run hospital in Redding had only been unionized that somehow the scandal involving unnecessary cardiac surgery would not have occurred. However more recently at two Southland hospitals there have been transplant scandals where no nurse came forward to blow the whistle, and yet the sponsors of AB 1201 represent both of these hospital's nurses.

2) The card check protects the nurse -- NOT:

a) AB 1201 also attempts to establish a card-check or petition system over the secret balloting system now in place. I find this very concerning since during unionization or decertification attempts "feelings" from both sides can be very volatile and a secret balloting system permits the individual at least the security of being the only one who knows how they chose to vote. I would like to share with you several examples of what can only be described as efforts to intimidate that I personally know of having occurred.

i) After a failed attempt by the C.N.A. to organize at a local southland hospital, a particularly outspoken anti-union nurse had all their employment records, including time cards, as well as all the patients' records (of patients that the nurse had cared for) subpoenaed. The C.N.A. only relented after that nurse engaged a private attorney to fight the release of the records.

ii) A nurse had her picture prominently displayed on a flyer, along with a picture of her husband who was running for elective office. The flyer tried to characterize her husband as being less than honest. One wonders what his campaign had to do with the union's attempt to unionize a hospital, especially since the candidate was not at all involved in healthcare except for being married to a nurse.

iii) Two other nurses received numerous telephone calls that threatened the two dogs that the one owned and the daughters of the other. The threats though vague (we know where you and your daughters live) were worded in such a way that a reasonable person could interpret them as being of a threatening nature.

b) All the examples provided above can be found in the public records. These are clear examples that unions can at times be found to play fast and loose with the rules. I think you must ask yourself this, if hospitals were the ones pushing for the legislation of a card check/petition system rather than the secret balloting system would you be as quick to support them in this legislative endeavor.

3) The NLRB was wrong -- NOT:

a) Lastly, the sponsor of AB 1201 argues that the recent NLRB decision somehow diminishes the charge nurses ability to effectively advocate for nurses and patients. Personally, as an RN with over thirty years at both the bedside and in nursing management I believe that the NLRB decision was a sound decision based on good management principles. One of the main complaint nurses cite for their dissatisfaction and for leaving the profession is often poor nursing management. If we are ever going to address this issue our profession must develop strong and competent pathways into nursing management and the charge nurse is the entry level into this pathway. The NLRB decision made it clear that its ruling applied only to the full time charge nurse and not the rotating charge nurse position, and thus making it clear that the rotating charge nurse is not in a position of management. It is important to remember that in California the highest nursing position in a hospital, often referred to as the Chief Nursing Officer, is required by law to hold an active California RN license. The reason for this is to make it clear that even at the highest level of nursing management the individual is still a nurse first and therefore bound by our nursing rules, regulations and oath and remains first and foremost a patient advocate. It is my personal and professional belief that AB 1201 undermines this since its language clearly defines the nurse as being incapable of fulfilling this requirement without legislative intervention. In my 30 years I have never felt that my ability to properly advocate for my patients has ever been prevented by "administration".

I hold licenses in three states and the District of Columbia and I have practiced as a nurse (either as a LVN or RN) in Kansas, Texas, Georgia, South Dakota and of course California - so you can see my experience is vast. Perhaps my success is in knowing and understanding the nursing regulations as well as I do, which is one of the reasons that I share my skills and talents with the almost 200,000 RNs in Southern California and Arizona who read my monthly column, "From the Floor".

In closing I ask that you place my letter and name in firm opposition to AB 1201 in the official record.

Respectfully submitted,
Geneviève M. Clavreul, RN, Ph.D.

Cc: State Senator J. Scott
Assemblyman A. Portantino

For a copy of the attachment referenced in the letter email me at clavreul@nrnpa.org