A message from the new executive director
By Julie B. Pinkham, RN
It is with great enthusiasm that I take this opportunity to express my thoughts for the first time in my new role as executive director of Massachusetts Nurses Association. In light of the direction set forth by the MNA Board of Directors at its meeting of Dec. 1, which includes a commitment to continue efforts to pursue disaffiliation from the ANA, I thought I would use this space to make the case for this decision by reprinting an earlier column I wrote for the Fall 2000 issue of the Advocate. The ideas set forth in this column seem to hold even greater relevance as we move forward from our business meeting of Nov. 9 to a second vote on this important issue.

This is gearing up to be a historic beginning to the 21st century for nurses. The movement to disaffiliate from ANA, and I do mean movement, has struck a cord with nurses throughout the state whether they are unionized or not. The issue of disaffiliation is primarily based on ANA’s performance, or lack thereof. After the many years we have been a member of ANA and where this profession is today under their national leadership is a key factor, but a number of other factors beyond this are lending to the debate. Among them, at this year’s ANA House of Delegates and the first meeting of the UAN (United American Nurses ANA’s new collective bargaining structure) the members decided to pursue UAN membership as mandatory for all collective bargaining states. The UAN intends to bring this bylaw change forward at the next ANA House of Delegates. The UAN’s decision was tied to their AFL-CIO affiliation discussions. 

Specifically, the current voluntary membership of the UAN was one of the conditions deemed undesirable by the AFL-CIO for granting a charter membership for the UAN. States such as Massachusetts, who unanimously rejected membership to the UAN in large part due to the lack of appropriate insulation necessary to function as a union, would be forced to become members of the UAN. Mandatory membership would make us subject to UAN involvement, dues assessment and potential per caps to the AFL-CIO through an organization (UAN) that we do not believe meets the criteria to function appropriately as a union. As one member said in regard to the mandatory membership proposed by the UAN, “we’re voting to leave ANA; it appears by this criteria they are voting to kick us out…”

Regardless of these external factors, namely, whether the UAN forces mandatory membership or the ANA Board is promoting a dues increase, continued membership in the ANA under the guise of “national leadership” is misguided at best. These external issues of mandatory membership and a potential for increased dues only support the expanding reasons for the MNA membership to move on from ANA to new paths that better address the fundamental concerns facing nursing today.

An important concern raised in taking this step of disaffiliation within MNA is whether or not we will disfranchise nurses whose roles are those other than staff nurses covered by collective bargaining. In other words, that this is a labor issue and that MNA will only be a labor organization addressing labor concerns. While this a topic that could engender a rather long response, I will just stick to the basics. First, labor issues are professional issues, they are not separate. Labor issues for nurses are those issues that are relevant to their license as a nurse. So license related issues such as professional standards, competency and ethics, to name a few, are certainly relevant to nurses - union and non-union alike.

While many of the leadership positions have grown out of the labor program that does not translate into a non-interest in professional activities outside of the negotiation table. Certainly, nurses who are indeed “labor” members were adamant that nurses committed to education should have their efforts supported. This support translated into members voting to assure a standing education committee at the MNA Convention when MNA 2000 restructuring was being proved which would have otherwise eliminated this member group. This was also true of the ethics committees tireless work on the ANA’s attempt to rewrite the nurses’ code for ethics in a manner that was ill informed. Nurses from labor worked to support the ethics committee’s work here in Massachusetts as well as in their role as delegates to the ANA.

Its important not to pigeon hole people - there is no doubt that leaving the ANA will present challenges on how best to communicate with and work with groups to assure the expertise and input of the valued members of MNA are fostered. This challenge is best met by the help of those who asked for labors help previously and certainly together we can address the needs of the membership through alternative and potentially more advantageous means. The bottom line is that nurses at the bedside are struggling to assure the survival of their profession. They need the resources and avenues to work on this. They are quite certain that continued involvement in ANA will only foster their demise. And so as others have asked for labor’s help within the organization, nurses – many of whom are in labor – are reaching out and asking that you support and work with them because the status quo will not do. For the educators, you are vital to the profession. Nurses have been trying though negotiations to see your return to assure adequate education. To the researchers, your work is pivotal in lending validity to the experience at the bedside and finding new ways to foster the profession’s growth. To nurses not covered by collective bargaining, work with us to bring about a better future. 

For years when staff nurses may not have felt that MNA was all it should be they easily could have become disgruntled and left for another representative. But they didn’t, they stayed and worked to see that the MNA reflects their needs and have not lost sight of the need to address the many types of members that MNA has. Why, because MNA is a democratic organization that can engender change. This is not true of ANA. Therefore to stay and attempt to change the ANA when the infrastructure for democratic change is not available at ANA, we would be sending over 18,000 practicing nurses to certain demise. So, join us in making history, lest we become history.

While we chart a new course for the future, it is enlightening that a number of nurses from around the country have called or emailed me interested in what progressive nurses in Massachusetts are doing. They are enthusiastic about the new possibilities that we will create. When asked why they to are not pursuing an agenda that reflects their own views, most responded that they are waiting to see what we do. Hence the title of this article, “Be willing to lead”. Clearly, nurses around the country and here at home are waiting for something new and different to arise given that the status quo is untenable. Yet they have become so burdened in the familiarity of dysfunction that stepping out on a new path seems too much to handle. Thus they will chose to wait for change while others will create change. Is there a risk ? Absolutely. When has any meaningful progress come without risk? On the other hand, is the risk of non-action/status quo far greater and more certain – I think it is. Hopefully nurses around the country will realize they are the leadership for nursing and they, like you, are more than capable of stepping up to the plate and creating a new beginning. There is no question that you all have been willing to take those steps and people around the country are indeed watching – so lead the way.