The nurses in California have huge, like mammoth support of the people and in the state house [except the Gropenator], in California, AND the teachers, firefighters and police.

I have traveled [just last October in fact] with the group in charge of the California Nurses Association [CNA] educating and organizing nurses about their rights.

They had patient to nurse ratios in hospitals instituted BY LAW in CA to protect patients and their own licenses due to the incredible lack of safety in the working conditions in hospitals. Research has shown that for every extra patient a nurse in the hospital has to care for over 5, each extra patient adds an increase risk of dying by 7% to every patient.

This is a HUGE issue. They are a major threat to the status quo of the [hospital] corporations, the insurance companies and lobbyists of every stripe. Due to the success with staffing ratios, they are moving on to universal healthcare and ELECTION REFORM.
Powerful people are really and truly scared, as well they might be...

These are some of the smartest, most savvy most powerful women I have ever met. One of the organizers is an RN and a JD and she is something to behold.

But everyone ought to be concerned with this issue, for if the nurses' power is allowed to be gutted in this way, NO ONE, NO MATTER WHO, IS SAFE IN A HOSPITAL. I can tell you stories that would horrify you. Which is the reason i no longer work in a hospital, and would NEVER, under any circumstances, allow a loved one to stay in a hospital alone. If any of you have had or knows someone who has had a problem with something happening in the hospital, if they told you somehow it wasn't their fault, unless you absolutely know better, it was in all likelyhood a lie. The coverups are appalling. kinda like Haditha and other happenings in Iraq.

"who would Jesus bomb?"

I've been living here in Denmark for some four months now. Because I'm married to a Dane I receive most all the welfare benefits as any Dane, including the right to collective bargaining agreements. Collective agreements determine most of the terms and conditions enjoyed by Danish workers. I need to clarify the term welfare however. In Denmark, and the rest of the western world for that matter, welfare is defined as the social contract between the people and government which provides for society's "well being". In the US, the term welfare has a very negative connotation, usually referring exclusively to unemployment and/or those who “live” off government subsistence. I was certainly brought up to believe one should never go to the government for a “hand-out”, no matter how destitute. In Denmark, welfare has a very positive connotation, as its one of the main pillars of Danish society. Welfare includes of course, unemployment and disability benefits but also encompasses other little things like, hmm, universal health care and universal education. As I stated above, I receive most all benefits of the Danish welfare system. One of the conditions for entering the country was that my wife secure a bank loan of 57,000 Danish Kroner as a guarantee to the state which the state would then use should I need unemployment benefits during my first 7 years here. So, I’m not entitled to government paid unemployment but I am entitled to collective bargaining, health care, and education. Not bad, and pretty damn fair. In fact, I’ve taken advantage most all the Danish welfare system encompasses. My first job, working for a private school I enjoyed the right to collective bargaining. Yes, for a part time job. I’ve been awarded a seat to a graduate program which I won’t pay for. I’ve even enjoyed medical services which were second to none. I’ve got a national health card and all I need do is swipe it though a little machine (like a credit card machine) and that’s it for paperwork.
I think what makes the social contract here so cohesive is that it’s a universal social contract. Universal healthcare, universal education, universal collective bargaining, and yes, universal taxation!

Yes, the NLRB recognized the right of employers to ban fraternizing in the workplace. But they don't want to tell you who your friends are, unless you ignore the actual meaning of fraternizing, and friend. Anti-fraternizing policies prohibit one specific thing, sleeping with your co-workers. The reason? Sexual harassment claims. Someone sleeps with someone else, it ends badly, one person doesn't get a promotion, gets fired... and files a harassment claim. (Troll repellent: I'm not saying that sexual harassment doesn't exist - it does - just that in some cases, there was no harassment, just a relationship that ended badly)

Now, you may think it sucks that your employer can tell you that you can't sleep with your secretary, but in many states, that's the law. Did Guardsmark (the case you referenced above) have a harassment problem, or were they just seeking to avoid one? I have no idea - I do know that many companies don't have anti-fraternization policies, and if sleeping with your co-workers is that important to you, you should find one of those companies.

But while you could make an argument that the anti-fraternization policy was written in a way that it chilled conversations after work (a poor argument, IMHO - the average employee is going to say to his/her supervisor, 'does this mean that I can't go bowling with Bob?' and the supervisor is going to say, 'no, of course not - you just can't sleep with Bob.' so it isn't really an issue - and in some states, your right to go bowling with Bob is protected by statute, and in every state, your right to talk with Bob about forming a union is absolutely protected) - you can't fairly say that the NLRB is telling you who your friends can be - that's just scare tactics.

Read Guardsmark and see if I am right or wrong - or just look up fraternization or fraternize in a legal dictionary - but you really should correct your diary... you might scare some people who are already on your side, but that's about it...

link