| MNA
Members and Massachusetts Nurses Respond to ANA Smear Campaign
Against MNA & its Intended Disaffiliation
(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 pro-ANA 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.)
January 12, 2001
Ms. Theresa A. Downey, Ph.D., RN, C.I.C.
President, District 5, MNA
57 Providence Highway
Norwood, MA 02062
Dear Ms. Downey and members of the District 5 Board of Directors:
As chairperson of the MNA Committee at the Brigham and Women's Hospital,
I represent the 2000 nurses covered under our collective bargaining agreement. I
write this letter on their behalf, and represent the views of a majority of
those nurses.
We were upset and outraged over your December 18, 2000 letter to the
members of District 5. The actions taken at the December meeting of the
MNA board of directors were legal and appropriate. There has been no derailment
of our professional organization. The new leaders who assumed office
on December 1, 2000, did so following the voluntary resignation of their
predecessors. Furthermore, the MNA bylaws were strictly followed
with regard to filling vacant seats for officers and board members.
As one of the members of the Board of Directors who voted to continue
efforts to disaffiliate from the American Nurses Association, I did so
at the request of my constituents.
You, the officers and board members of District 5, have the responsibility
to respond to the directives of the constituents of District 5. It is my
belief that a majority of those members, including those at the Brigham
and Women's Hospital, are in support of the continued effort to disaffiliate
from the American Nurses Association.
Therefore, on behalf of the nurses at BWH, I respectfully request that
the District 5 Board of Directors work cooperatively with the MNA leadership
in support of efforts to disaffiliate. We have been continually disappointed
in ANA's failure to respond to the needs of staff nurses in this time of
health care turmoil. Furthermore, we believe that continuing our affiliation
with the ANA will threaten our collective bargaining rights, and create
a situation where bargaining units may face a desertification challenge.
The nurses within the BWH bargaining unit are in support of a special
meeting to reconsider the disaffiliation bylaw amendments, and believe
that monies spent by MNA toward that effort are appropriate and warranted.
The letters from District 5, containing harsh words and attacks aimed
at the MNA leadership, are not in keeping with the views and wishes of
most District 5 members. These attacks must cease. Furthermore, the leaders
of District 5 must stop using District funds to work against the wishes
of the membership. The vast majority of nurses within the district
- nurses in bargaining units - support an independent MNA. The District
5 leaders who represent those nurses must also support an independent MNA.
Sincerely,
Barbara Norton, RN
Chairperson, MNA Bargaining Unit
Brigham & Women's Hospital
TAKING BACK OUR PROFESSION
by Deb Rigiero, RN
cochair, Saint Vincent Hospital Bargaining Unit
vicepresident, MNA District 2
It is time we take back our profession! The historic date we do this
will be March 24, 2001, when the MNA votes to disaffiliate from the ANA.
When I say take back it implies that something was lost. I have been
a registered nurse for almost 19 years and I say we have lost important
pieces of our profession. Not only have we lost them but they have been
given away. Important parts of our profession have been given away
by an ANA that is projecting itself as the national voice of nurses. The
ANA is not the voice of the bedside nurse. They are a management-dominated
organization who's own President is a nurse administrator of a San Francisco
Hospital. How can the ANA be the voice for both the bedside nurse and the
healthcare corporation? They can not. We are paying 1.2 million dollars
a year to an organization that is the voice of corporate healthcare packaged
under the guise of a national nurse's voice.
If you read the latest edition of The American Nurse there was an article
discussing how to solve the nursing shortage. This article advocates to
the shifting of work away from the registered nurse and giving more training
and authority to unlicensed personnel. This would further remove the RN
from the bedside.
The bedside nurse is accountable for a work environment in which they
have little control. It is time for us to take control, to say NO to unsafe
staffing, dangerous work environments, and a lower standard of patient
care. It is time we leave the moderate path of the ANA and take the
path of action! The moderate path has given away our work and settled
for a lower standard of patient care. Now is the time to break free from
the ball and chain of the ANA! Now is the time when we need to unite with
nurses with the same standards and professional beliefs! Now is the time
to take control of our profession!
At the last MNA convention in November, an over whelming majority of
62% voted to disaffiliate with the ANA. We needed 66%. We were 4% shy of
freeing ourselves from the ANA's talons and gaining the true voice of nursing.
Every vote does count! We need you there so the minority does not dictate
to the majority.
Join us at Mechanics Hall in Worcester at 1:00 PM, March 24, 2001 to
take back our profession by voting to disaffiliate from the ANA.
February 24, 2000
TO: The American Nurse
As an ANA/MNA member I would like to respond to both the recent ANA
survey and the most recent edition of The American Nurse. The results
of the ANA survey on nurses working conditions are no surprise to any nurse
who has provided direct patient care in the last 15 years. Much of
the findings of that survey actually echo what nurses have said for the
last 100 years.
The survey found that thousands of nurses feel "discouraged" and "saddened" by
their inability to deliver safe, quality care due to inadequate staffing
and supply of RN's. My first question is, why the findings did not
reflect outrage? Outrage that patients are not receiving basic care
in American hospitals? Outrage that patients are not only being denied
compassion and human dignity in our hospitals and nursing homes, but that
they are dying and being injured unnecessarily? Outrage that ANA proposed
staffing legislation turns out to be another moderate proposal and dressed
up position statement which considers industry needs? Outrage that
nursing leaders have stayed silent and polite for so long?
Nurses also reported that they felt "powerless to effect change necessary
for safe, quality care." Isn't this what nurses claim we, as a profession,
do? This is particularly sad when the findings are reported in a
survey conducted by the American Nurses Association. Why are member
nurses feeling "powerless" when they are paying ANA millions of dollars
a year to be their voice in the nation's capital?
Does ANA believe that nurses will feel more empowered when they realize
that ANA has launched a smear campaign against one of it's constituent
members? The American Nurse has just sent almost an entire edition
across the country which attempts to smear Massachusetts nurses by painting
us as maniacal and "abhorrent"...pictures of Karen Daley included.
Did The American Nurse attempt to speak with the MNA Board of Directors,
Executive Director, or President? Of course not. The goal is
not to seek truth, but to manipulate MNA/ANA nurses with emotional hysteria.
No wonder nurses feel "powerless."
In addition to an expensive and well orchestrated campaign of fear and
intimidation against a member state, ANA is sending a message to all constituent
members that, should they differ with a future ANA or UAN policy or philosophy,
they too will be the subject of such an attack. Unfortunately, after
June they will not be able to choose independence.
Sandy Ellis RN
MNA District 2
February 11, 2001
The American Nurse
taneditor@ana.org
Dear Editor,
After reading The American Nurse, I am left feeling embarrassed that
such patronizing and inflammatory "reporting" can be found in any nursing
publication. The American Nurse sounds as if its target audience is elementary
school children, not a population of mostly 40 something women. Nursing
has always suffered from the misogynist's view that we are all undereducated,
emotional, hormone driven, ‘caring' females who cannot actually think.
The American Nurse columns discussing the situation in Massachusetts could
be used to support that notion.
Apparently The American Nurse is churning out tabloid "journalism" to
their readers to reinforce ANA's transparent agenda, which appears to clearly
be to marginalize nurses who do not agree with ANA, and generate contempt
toward them. ANA president Mary Foley states that Massachusetts nurses
have joined California nurses who "have been sowing the seeds of ‘disunity'
among nurses across the country and leaving their own members adrift ..."
It is always wise to review a little history before making such statements.
Over TWENTY ONE years ago Bea Coleman, a New York State RN, sowed some
"disunity seeds" too when she wrote in a major nursing journal;
"... nurses are disenchanted with the American Nurse's Association.
If it was doing a good job ... which it isn't ... nurses would not be turning
to other ‘unions' for representation."
Clearly disenchantment with the American Nurses Association has spanned
decades and involves more than California and Massachusetts nurses. How
many RN's belong to ANA? Well, out of 2.6 million RN's - approximately
2.4 million do not!
References to the MNA board decisions on December 1st were called "unbecoming
to nurses." Mary Foley recently wrote to all Massachusetts nurses reminding
us, "this is not how nurses conduct themselves across the country." This
sounds as if we are being ordered back to our roots in Victorian nursing
when only white "ladies" were accepted into the profession, and into the
ANA. Would Mary Foley consider the actions of visionaries like Susan
B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, Gloria Steinham, Betty Friedan, and Rosa
Parks unbecoming and unlady like "conduct" too?
Peg Barry's hysterical and breathless ranting about hundreds of helpless
adults not being "allowed" to hear from ANA; being "told we should not
meet or speak directly with ANA"; and being "blocked" from access to ANA
(combined with the bespectacled, grand motherly photo added by The American
Nurse) leaves an indelible image of victimization of the elderly. Over
1000 nurses were present on November 9th who could truthfully say this
is pure bunk.
As much as it pains me to say this, I was appalled too at Karen Daley's
column. It was a stilted, and rather pious, column previously printed in
an MNA district newsletter which also displayed Karen's photo. However
this time in The American Nurse, a very subtle change was added to the
column.
Reference to Karen's needle stick injury had been added.
As an I.V. infusion nurse who works with HIV infected individuals the
Boston community, I know all too well the tragedy that AIDS is. All of
my patients have contracted HIV via various routes. All are tragic stories
which also evoke fear and compassion. Karen's very personal story of contracting
HIV in her work as a nurse has torn at my heart, and the hearts of every
nurse in this country who empathize with her since she went public. However,
Karen's loyal support of ANA and the issues in Massachusetts do not involve
her HIV status. Nor should they.
This very subtle alteration in The American Nurse version of the column,
appears a gratuitous attempt by ANA to exploit Karen's very personal tragedy
and shamelessly garner sympathy from your readers to support ANA's position.
It is difficult for me to believe otherwise, as The American Nurse reaches
a much larger audience than an MNA district newsletter. And it is
precisely the garnered sympathy for Karen which helped move the needle
stick legislation into law. No doubt it can be strategically used again
as a cunning means to influence the emotions of nurses across the nation
in order to meet ANA's goal to prevent another state disaffiliation.
For any individual or professional healthcare organization to exploit
and capitalize on a personal tragic story to advance its own political
self interest defies decency. As registered nurses, and as a profession
of healthcare providers, I feel we are all diminished by your publication.
Staff Nurse
Somerville, Massachusetts
Smearing Nurses
"We are living in a time and a society where language is used
to cover up more than it is to reveal."- Professor David Gil, Brandeis
University.
Smear campaigns. Fear campaigns. They are an ugly reflection of contemporary
American culture. Often they are used in political power struggles where
the battle cannot be won with the truth. The goal is to confuse people
and distract them from the factual information or rational debate which
would threaten those whose goal is to win at all costs. So the smear campaign
is launched; its mission is to evoke outrage, anger, indignation, and fear
in those uninformed on the real issues at hand. It is a well known tactic
among those vying for power. Smear/fear campaigns are ugly, and are designed
to evoke such visceral emotional responses (e.g., sympathy) so that people
find it more difficult to engage their ability to reason.
Nurses, like most people, are vulnerable to the tactics of a misinformation
campaign. Clinical nursing is exhausting and nurses often admit it
is impossible to keep up with the political issues which impact their profession.
And nursing's written history is a history of labor exploitation and domination.
Yet, registered nurses have remained the backbone of the multibillion dollar
American healthcare industry for over 100 years. Richard U. Miller, Ph.D.
may have said it best when he summarized this observation of nursing:
"Social beliefs that women should be submissive, supportive, and
obedient are intertwined with the norms of the profession, which emphasize
selfless devotion to duty, first priority to patients, and rejection of
economic gain over professional commitment." - Richard U. Miller, Ph.D.
That submissiveness, supportiveness and obedience are still viewed
as the "norms of the profession" of nursing are painfully evident even
today. Hospital executive and ANA president Mary Foley, and UAN chair
Cheryl Johnson, recently crafted a letter which attacked the MNA Board
of Directors stating: "this is not the way nurses conduct themselves across
the country." One can hardly imagine such an admonishment being sent
out to members of the medical, engineering, or legal professions. If it
were not a commonly held belief that the majority of working nurses are
so uninformed and unable to employ critical thinking and reasoning, Mary
Foley would never have stooped so low. Appealing to the soft and
gooey heart of nurses to manipulate them is successful ... and hospital
executives know that.
Employing smoke screen tactics and fear mongering, Mary Foley refers
to the MNA board saying, "this is a threat from within. A small but vocal
minority wants to break apart the nursing community and sow discord and
division ..." Has she not read the numerous valid reasons MNA has clearly
articulated at eleven town meetings and which have been published in the
Mass Nurse, the Advocate, on the MNA web site, as well as the Boston Globe?
Can any reasonable person entertain the idea that the MNA board of directors
(all of whom are over 40 years old) and the 670+ nurses who voted to leave
ANA have nothing better to do with our lives than sit around and plot the
destruction of nursing? They go on, "If some had their way, we would have
battle after battle within the state nurses associations and within ANA."
If who had their way? I for one, certainly do not have the desire or the
energy for "battle after battle" in nursing. Enough already!
That letter was only one of the many vile, vicious and blatantly untrue
creations manufactured and published recently by the ANA, and
a group of ANA supporters, in an attempt to demonize the issue and distract
from the intense national scrutiny ANA is now under for an embarrassing
and humiliating track record. And to lead uninformed nurses to believe
something sinister is afoot.
When nurses find themselves unable to think rationally, when they are
paralyzed by anger, outrage, or sympathy after reading sensationalized
propaganda filled with emotionally loaded language, it would be wise to
start looking for what or whom is threatened. When the issue at hand
calls for a critical examination of the issues, but you're only reading
vicious attacks and hearing sentimental pleas for unquestioning "unity"
(submissive obedience) and "professionalism" (supportiveness) it's time
to start asking questions and seeking answers.
Did the ANA board of directors not also just replace their executive
director, David Hennage? Why is ANA now attacking the MNA board of
directors for exercising their legally authorized judgment to do the same?
Why are frivolous law suites being generated against the current MNA board
of directors rather than the Pro-ANA board members who resigned and walked
out of MNA abandoning their responsibility, and violating their legal obligation
to the MNA members who voted them into office? Why all the emotionally
loaded propaganda? ANA has assured a place for any MNA member who wants
to stay with ANA. Why does ANA not simply honor their state member and
allow us to leave peacefully, or just publish a list of what they have
accomplished for nurses across America? Why does ANA not simply inform
MNA members what they have received from ANA for the $12 million paid out
over the last decade while healthcare and nursing crashed around our ankles?
Why? Because this is a smear campaign directed at Massachusetts -
who has a record as one of the most successful state nursing organizations
in the country. One that will be recorded in nursing history. Tragically,
it is a smear campaign launched by the management dominated American Nurses
Association because we will not be "submissive," "supportive," and "obedient" to
their direction. Launched because MNA nurses are choosing autonomy and the
desire to free ourselves from paternal oversight in determining our
future.
Because if Massachusetts leaves (and joins the other 2 million RN's
who do
not belong to the American Nurses Association) ANA will lose a precious
$1.2
million annually. But greater yet, we will prove once again, like California,
that nurses can indeed be autonomous professionals. And, unfortunately, "This
is not the way nurses conduct themselves.
Back to Disaffiliation page
|
