"If you don't support the militants, you don't have a union."                                                                                                               Rafael Feliciano, President FMPR

New York Nurses United
    - a rank & file caucus of nurses working together to build a stronger, democratic, professional organization & union.
*This is not an official State Association or Union site*
Caucuses in Our Organization
Throughout its 100+ year history, our organization has seen a number of caucuses form within its membership.  In 1975, facing budget cuts and deteriorating conditions, some nurses working in New York City came together in the Nurses Action Caucus to "demand an organization led by staff nurses dedicated to better working conditions and patient care."  In 1980, on the heels of a five-day citywide wildcat strike, members employed by the City of New York formed the Nurses Communication Network.  This group of public sector nurses united with private sector nurses to form a larger caucus, NY Nurses Rank and File, with the goal of "increasing the unity and strength of rank and file nurses."  NY Nurses Rank and File recruited many members utilizing a hospitality booth at the organization's annual convention.

Many years later, in 2007, twenty-three nurses came together as Concerned Nurses of NY---, due to growing concerns that members were not receiving objective information about issues.  The caucus sought greater empowerment of rank and file members and to uphold democratic processes they felt were being violated.  Like those that came before them, most of these members were long-time volunteer activists and leaders who had fought tirelessly defending the rights of registered nurses both in their workplaces and in their union.

Campaign Developed
The caucus created the NY Nurses for Unity campaign believing that disaffiliation from the national union created by staff nurses, the UAN, was undertaken in a very hasty and undemocratic manner.  All of these concerns had been shared with every leadership body in the organization but were met with much resistance.  Requests for more democratic processes, including a survey of the membership and a forum to discuss the issues openly, were denied.  Reminiscent of the results of raising concerns in nurses’ own workplaces, utilization of the “proper channels” led to a dead end.

Not much had changed in the organization.  There was no internal dispute resolution process to handle member complaints or election protests.  Upon inquiry, members were told point blank that none existed (with the exception of the discipline process).

With a narrow window in which to share serious concerns with colleagues (several days), and being denied any internal manner in which to do so,  the group had no alternative but to seek assistance outside of the union in order to transmit information that members had the right to hear: perspectives they were being deprived of.  The goal was to delay any decision on disaffiliation until more education and deliberation could occur within the organization on this critical issue.

Retribution
In spite of being put together very quickly, the campaign was successful in that 60% of the members who responded voted to stay affiliated with the UAN.  The campaign itself, however, drew criticism from certain staff, elected leaders and members.  While some of that criticism had merit, most was based on blatant falsehoods which were vigorously circulated from the highest levels via every means known to the organization. 

A vehement campaign against the group, (labeled the NFU by critics), ensued.  Vicious attacks against the caucus dominated union meetings, drowned out any voice that was critical of the union and thwarted attempts to share information or have any real discussion about the actual issues related to disaffiliation.

The board of directors decided to disaffiliate from the UAN on December 17, 2007 absent any mandate from a majority of the membership.

The campaign attacking the NFU culminated in disciplinary charges being filed against them within the union.  Leadership sent letters encouraging members to file charges and provided instructions on how to do so.  The accused were not permitted to face their accusers or to testify before the investigating committee.

*Herman Benson of the Association of Union Democracy wrote: "Should there be an attempt to discipline (the 23 of) them on these charges, it could result, to the best of our knowledge, in the most massive effort at the repression of members rights arising out of a single series of related events since the adoption of the LMRDA in 1959. "

After legal counsel was engaged to assert the group's federal free speech rights, the board of directors conceded that the caucus' actions were protected under the law and dropped the charges.  The board, however, expressed "outrage" at the group's actions and the NFU was lambasted in letters, meetings and publications.  The union published the names of the members who had faced charges in violation of its own discipline and confidentiality policies.

Covert Discipline
Unknown to the general membership, three members of the caucus holding seats on the board were singled out for “engaging in public dissension.”  Absent any hearing, testimony, trial or right to due process, they were denied the right to participate by appointment to committees, task forces, boards and other structures of both the state and national association.  In addition, one member was removed from the Association Finance Committee and excluded from Executive Sessions of the Board of Directors.

Defending Free Speech
Because the board did not follow the association's discipline procedures, there was no appeals process for these members.  The union left them no options internally to defend themselves, forcing them to pursue outside legal redress in the form of a lawsuit (another inalienable right under Landrum-Griffin).  Read the complete lawsuit- download it here.

In February of 2009, a settlement was reached between the parties.  The association agreed to:
  • Publish an article drafted by the plaintiffs in the association's official newsletter.
  • Publish the a copy of the Department of Labor poster, “Union Members Know Your Rights.” in the association's official newsletter.
  • Hold a panel discussion/forum at the next convention addressing these topics: issues surrounding the leadership and control of the collective bargaining program, operation of the insulation doctrine, and related issues.
  • Partial payment for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees in the amount of $25,000.

The court retained jurisdiction to supervise the settlement agreement and the parties agreed there would be no retaliation against any party for participation in the lawsuit.

This successful litigation not only defends the plaintiffs' right to free speech, but upholds the rights of ALL members to speak openly, without fear.  Read the complete terms of the settlement agreement- download the court order here.

Epilogue
Many members who knew them for years never believed the vitriol that these few nurses had intentionally acted to deceive their colleagues.  They were horrified by the actions fomented by the organization's leadership, but the fierceness of the attacks made it difficult for others to show support openly or to disagree with those in power.  Those members continue to seek ways to act collectively to bring greater democracy, transparency, and member control to our organization.

Some of us have come together in 2009 to form New York Nurses United to better organize these efforts.  We have all learned much along our journey, and will no doubt continue to do so.  Together we can continue the struggle for democracy in our association and union by providing information, speaking out against repression, facilitating discussion and debate, advocating for changes that provide the members with more control and encouraging others to do the same. 

Particularly in light of the unacceptable working conditions so many of our nurses face- unreasonable productivity demands, attacks against hard-won benefits, harassment, lack of respect and an atmosphere that makes it difficult to provide quality care- we need an organization that embraces diversity of ideas, promotes debate and supports dissent.  Our collective power, both to confront management and to impact the health care delivery system in a meaningful way, derives from an educated and involved membership who believes in the association, feels a strong bond to it and “owns” it.  This is only possible when true democracy reigns.

In this way, we can build a strong professional association and union to advocate for our profession, our members, and the public we serve.

*From the website of the Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org. Email: info@uniondemocracy.org. 104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11225; USA; 718-564-1114

Related articles from the Union Democracy Review and Seachange :
              By Herman Benson                       Issue #170 September-October 2007
                                                                       Issue #171 January-February 2008
                                                                       Issue #172 March-April 2008
Why Form a Caucus?
Organizational caucuses have emerged throughout the history of this nation.  In unions the formation of an unofficial caucus or committee is a protected right under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), also known as the Landrum-Griffin Act.  Caucuses generally develop based on a common interest or concern.  When caucuses are formed within unions, the focus is usually on democracy and accountability, to ensure that the organization addresses the myriad member needs and includes members in decision-making.