To say the government is right to impose minimum service levels on nurses

[Stackss]

So today the nursing unions have announced they will be withdrawing from A&Es, intensive care units, chemotherapy and other key services. Now, I am not a conservative voter by any means and I do think nurses should get a fair pay rise (although I don’t think 10% is affordable).

However, I don’t think it is acceptable for unions to be putting lives at risk by refusing to provide life-saving care. The armed forces and prison officers are not allowed to strike- I would now support minimum service levels being extended to nurses to prevent the unions doing this.

I suspect I am not the only one and the unions need to be careful not to shoot themselves in the foot.

Anyone who is concerned about staffing levels should take this straight to the government!
Challenge them on their annual pay raise, letting energy companies rake in huge profits and blaming everything on the war in Ukraine/ Brexit.

What else can nurses do to get heard??

They are yes, I have a similar opinion to those too - but they aren’t risking lives

In the interests of facts. a 10% pay rise for nurses is affordable.

@Workinghardeveryday

Neither are nurses

🤷

I think we might have a wind up artiste on our hands.

Thank you for all the hard work you and your colleagues put in day in day out to keep us all as healthy as possible.

Yes I totally agree with minimum services levels.

I actually can't fathom being in a caring profession and joining a strike knowing that people might die as a direct result of my actions.

The Scottish govt have offered a pay rise of between 19 and 5% over 2 years depending on band plus a 1 off payment and an agreement to review AFC.

So it obviously is affordable

But I was under the impression they were? Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick..

How can they not be?

@Icedlatteplease

Oh good.

Can you agree to them every other day then?

That would be great thanks

@Workinghardeveryday

Well either they are so thick and lazy it doesn't make any difference if they are there or not

Or

The govt is to blame and lives are at risk every day anyway

I have to say I agree with this.

They are losing support now.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my argument. I've tried to dumb it down as much as possible so I'm not sure how much more I can help.

I'll try again using shorter sentences.
Are nurses essential? Yes
Are supermarket workers essential? Yes
Are bin men essential? Yes
Should all essential jobs be paid as much as they want and higher than more skilled jobs which require advanced degrees? No

It's really not hard to understand. I mean I can try it again by using crayon and upload a picture if that helps?

Depends which industries in particular you’re referring to but on the whole there aren’t many providing support for life or employed by the government.

We might see a load of insurance workers strike one day but I doubt it given their employers would either already be paying a comparable market rate/providing benefits or moving their companies if the workforce here became too expensive. These aren’t options for government employed infrastructure.

If we’re truly at a point no agreement can be reached (who knows until the government actually begun talks) then what happens? We can’t force people to be nurses or paramedics and I don’t think we have enough nuns to get back to pre-NHS methods of ministering to the sick.

Negotiations have to take place, until they have there’s no existence about the rights and wrongs of striking just a lot of ignoring.

Exactly this. You do realise that nurses are mostly striking about safe staffing levels, don't you?

I don’t think we have enough nuns to get back to pre-NHS methods of ministering to the sick.

Lmfao we need people with rosaries doing outreach on every corner.

I totally understand its massively skilled, I work in the NHS but not as a hcp. I see how people treat the staff and what they expect of them and it's unbelievable, they just can't win and no one respects them, they act as though they are their personal property. It's schroedingers nurse apparently, not skilled enough or hard enough for a decent wage and working conditions and yet also so too important not to work or people will die. Which one is it.
Ban striking and they will just quit, this is the last resort before leaving and I can't believe they have stuck it out this long

@Autumndays123

Maybe you could use your crayons to draw a strawman?

Or even just a pretty picture.

It would be nicer to look at than incoherent irrelevant waffle

@Skinnydogz

'It's schroedingers nurse apparently, not skilled enough or hard enough for a decent wage and working conditions and yet also so too important not to work or people will die. Which one is it.'

Exactly.

Utter nonsense. Would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic

@Discovereads

“So, how can there be “haemorrhaging” of staff if we are gaining 18,000 nurses per year? And wouldn’t an extra 18,000 nurses per year mean that the government is working to fix staffing levels?”

So many nursing students are using the nursing degree to progress to alternative careers. Because nursing gets a bursary it attracts people who just want a first degree before they can go for a post grad in an entirely different subject.Minimal debt.

That plus the large numbers of qualified nurses going into the aesthetics industry.

Who can blame them ?

"Going into the COVID-19 pandemic, in January 2020, 73% of nursing staff surveyed by the RCN said staffing levels on their last shift weren’t sufficient to meet the needs of patients safely and effectively. More than half (57%) felt patient care was compromised.

Nursing staffing levels weren’t acceptable to staff or patients then and this won’t have improved given that demand has continued to build, the report finds."

www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/uk-nursing-workforce-in-crisis-even-before-pandemic-070222

There was a 40,000 shortfall of nurses before the pandemic.

I guess we must also have been short of 40,000 supermaket workers and 40,000 bin men.

Yet again the argument is that nurses are so vital they should not be able to strike - but not so essential that their recruitment and retention is considered vital.

Urm yes. Good argument.

You're trying to turn my posts into something they are not. I've said several times that they should receive a pay rise, just not anywhere near what they are demanding. You seem to equate need with salary and that is not how society works, otherwise who would do any other jobs? Seriously, if we take supermarket staff as an example, they are of course essential and without them, society would crash. Should they be paid 50/60/70+k a year? I don't think so and I don't think you do either.

My argument from the start is that in my experience of hospitals, nurses are very rarely rushed off their feet. Service is generally poor (although I have met the odd excellent nurse) and the nurses, who are probably desensitized to pain and suffering often treat people like a bed number rather than a human being. It's not a role that requires advanced skill, intelligence or education but I agree it can be a physically demanding role.

So to summarise, yes nurses should receive pay rises, no I don't agree with allowing adults and children to die painfully so they can have exactly how much money they want. That's not how life works unfortunately. I think I'm nore saddened that the nurses in this thread actually minimise the impact the strikes are having on the health of innocent people (note, objectification as above) and would rather watch a small child bleed to death in A&E that accept a pay rise closer in line with the rest of the country.

This is already a thing for healthcare staff - no one is just going to fuck off and leave patients unattended in their beds 🙄We just ask for volunteers who are prepared to take one for the team and not strike even if they support the industrial action and provide minimum safe levels of service. For ITU I would imagine this would mean not having beds available for risky elective surgery that would require a critical care bed afterwards (so the surgery gets cancelled), having pre-arranged agreements for willing staff to come in if there are unexpected trauma/medical admissions. There are agency staff, staff who choose not to strike and other members of the MDT who will cover (e.g consultants will cover when the junior doctors strike). Patients lives are at risk daily due to chronic understaffing leading to sickness and burnout - part of the reason healthcare professionals are striking.

"I think I'm nore saddened that the nurses in this thread actually minimise the impact the strikes are having on the health of innocent people (note, objectification as above) and would rather watch a small child bleed to death in A&E that accept a pay rise closer in line with the rest of the country."

And I think we have a Government that would rather its citizens suffer harm (all of the time) than meet with the RCN.

Pat Cullen has made it clear she wants to negotiate. The Government won't.

@Autumndays123

And again, I'll say strawman

Nurses (band 5s) aren't asking for 50/60/70 k. They are asking for their wages to be kept in line with inflation

I actually would support massive pay rises for supermarket workers and any other lower paid essential service workers. I support linked wages. I dont think anyone should be earning millions (regardless of how clever they think they are) while those on the bottom are so lowly paid they need govt support.

And again, I will ask you to explain how you think a low skilled, lacking in intellegence and education nurse can do anything about an imaginary child bleeding to death in an ED?

(plus I'm not sure the English govt have offered any pay rise for anyone to accept, so I take it that scenario is as imaginary as the child)