The Union Membership of Nurses: Another Look
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425459010135253 |
| Published date | 01 January 1990 |
| Date | 01 January 1990 |
| Pages | 4-6 |
| Author | Phillip B. Beaumont,Jerome Elliott |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
4 | EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 12,1
R
esults of recent studies emphasise that
recruitment attempts and successes are
concentrated in familiar areas and
locations.
The Union
Membership
of Nurses:
Another
Look
Phillip B. Beaumont and Jerome Elliott
In a previous article in this journal we outlined two different,
although not mutually exclusive, views of the factors or
influences that could help explain why an individual nurse
chooses to be a member of the Royal College of Nursing
(RCN),
as opposed to joining a TUC-affiliated union such
as the Confederation of Health Service Employees
(COHSE) or the National Union of Public Employees
(NUPE)[1].
The limited empirical evidence presented on
that occasion provided some support for the second view
outlined, namely that nurses employed in psychiatric
hospitals had an above average probability of being
COHSE/NUPE members, while those employed in general
nursing were more likely to be members of the RCN.
This initial work was followed up by a survey of the
individual union membership status of some 380 nurses
(i.e.
a
61
per cent response rate to a postal questionnaire)
in
17
different hospitals and training schools in Scotland[2].
For present purposes the key findings to emerge from the
statistical analysis of these survey returns were (1) more
than three-quarters of the sample joined a union during
the training stage, (2) only just over a half of the sample
(i.e.
54 per cent) spoke to representatives of more than
the one union they joined, and (3) the single, most powerful
influence (in the decision to join the RCN as opposed to
COHSE/NUPE) was the nature of the nurses' training, with
the absence of any psychiatric nursing training being
positively related to RCN, as opposed to COHSE/NUPE,
membership status. These particular findings strongly
shaped the nature of the investigation reported here, which
is a qualitative examination of the nature of some of the
behavioural processes which appear to underlie the RCN
(general training) versus COHSE/NUPE (psychiatric
training) relationship. This investigation was conducted in
a number of
large
hospitals and training schools in Scotland,
and in what follows we outline the nature of the research
sites,
indicate the major findings obtained, and then attempt
to place the latter
in
the larger context of the role of supply-
side influences in shaping levels of union membership in
the national system of industrial relations.
The Research Sites
The investigation was conducted in three separate hospitals
which (for reasons of confidentiality) we list and refer to
as PSY, GEN 1, GEN 2, and two training schools (hence-
forth referred to as A and
B).
In total there are four student
nurse intakes per year, which alternate between the two
student training schools. The classes are mixed, comprising
both psychiatric and general nurses, and it is not until
halfway through the three-year training period that students
will begin to specialise in their chosen discipline or area
(i.e.
general or psychiatric nursing) [3]. Training school B
is traditionally a general nursing school (with all of its
training staff being general nurse tutors), primarily serving
hospital GEN 2. In contrast, school A was historically a
psychiatric nurse training school, although at the present
time it caters for both general and psychiatric nursing. Its
training staff currently consists of 7 psychiatric and 11
general nursing tutors (the latter figure includes 2 part-
time tutors). Ultimately,
all
psychiatric student nurses will
spend the bulk of their second 18-month training period
based at this school, with their clinical experience being
gained in the wards of hospital PSY or at some other
psychiatric institution in the area.
The basic position of the three unions across the three
hospitals concerned is summarised below.
(1) The COHSE branch (some 500 members in total)
has members in all three hospitals, but the vast
majority of members (approximately 350) are in
hospital PSY. This pattern is derivative from, and
reflected in, the fact that all eight COHSE branch
stewards are based in this hospital. There are no
COHSE stewards in either GEN 1 or GEN 2, al-
though in the latter there are two "contact people"
to service the small number of members there.
(2) The NUPE branch (of some 1,820 members) covers
a geographical area of some five miles, with the
nursing membership (some 1,100 members) being
distributed among twelve different hospitals, local
health centres, and among community nurses and
health visitors. The estimated number of members
in PSY, GEN 1 and GEN 2 is 275,300 and 300
To continue reading
Request your trial