Threatened nurses strike

The nurses now being recruited are through university degree's and the 'older' nurses in hospitals don't always see fit to co-operate with training them. neither do staff nurses apparantly, who dont like 'trainees' on their wards. IMO however if the 'new' nurses are better trained than previously then perhaps in a few years time, with more responsibilites they will warrant the extra payment. I know that experience is vital but so is training/education and I personally know of a trainee nurse who got the cold shoulder in hospital where she was doing her 'placement' and just left the job. said if it's like that now she was not prepared to put up with another 30 years of petty mindedness. she went back to college and is now doing a completely different subject.
 
Originally Posted by Purple
I do think that senior levels are very under paid; the matron of a hospital has a staff of hundreds and a budget of millions. For that sort of responsibility they should be on 100k plus.
Click to expand...
Based on the following (5 years ago), I think they probably are close to the €100,000 by now with a further 3% in the offing. AFAIK there are extra payments added to basic salaries for qualifications and years of service. That said, I do think General Nurses should be able to retire at the age of 60 which, I understand, applies to Psychiatric nurses whose unions were always stronger.
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/Bench.pdf
Benchmarking Report 2002
Director of Nursing Band 1
Existing Salary
€52,063—€53,510—€54,961—€56,405—€57,852—€59,303—€60,748
Recommended Salary
€60,393—€62,072—€63,754—€65,430—€67,108—€68,792—€70,468
% Increase 16.0%
According to Minister Mary Harney on Q's & A's this week, we have more nurses per 100,000 population in Ireland than any country in Europe. Neither am I aware of nurses working longer hours (as claimed by one poster) than those for which they are scheduled.

Originally Posted by RainyDay
Isn't the huge proportion (between 30% & 60% from what I've seen) of non-national nurses evidence of a staffing shortage in itself?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I see the movement out of nursing by Irish nurses as a career choice for better salaries and a 5 day week as Pharmaceutical Reps etc., a choice they are perfectly entitled to make. It was Irish Nurses who initially vigorously opposed the employment of nurses from overseas. We are fortunate to have so many well trained nurses, especially from the Phillipines, staffing our hospitals. It is unrealistic for anyone working in the field of medicine or nursing to expect to work 9-5 and have a five day week; for those who do, it would be better to choose an alternative career.
 
Do I take it from what you say that nurses must be selfless vocationed individuals who should not care what they get paid cos they should be happy doing what they do?
Click to expand...
No, I do not think that this should be the case. What I do think is that nursing unions should stop trying to project the impression that this is the case.

if they don't start standing up and shouting about their pay demands, nobody is going to do it for them. The cost of living is going up for everyone, nurses too.
Click to expand...
I think they have been doing this quite well over the last few years. I would also suggest that their pay increases have been significantly over the rate of inflation for the last 10 years.
They are not an oppressed vocational minority; they are a well-organised, vocal and powerful group. They are also not the well of all evil and by and large do a good job on a micro level but as a group they are part of the problem with the health sector, they are one of the vested interest groups that resists change for the greater good because that change may not benefit them. They are completely entitled to do this and to lobby to forward their own agenda but they should stop pretending that this is not the case.
 
I apologise but I still haven't got the hang of using the quotes or multi-quotes, so please excuse any lack of clarity in my references to the last post, but in response to your perception of them as pretending to be motivated by compassion but really only wanting money, I do not see them doing this, I think you are misinterpreting their motivation. I think they are clear in their demands for a standard of pay that is appropriate to skilled professionals, and do not portray themselves the way you say. The associated issue is that if nurses are not paid enough to keep them in their current jobs, and they leave for better pay and conditions elsewhere (and again, why shouldn't they?) then it has a knock-on effect on services to patients. Let's face it, the whole health service is based on provision of health care to patients - that's what its about. No money, no nurses, poor patient services. They have to be compassionate to do this work, but they should not be taken advantage of because of it. It is a job after all.

On the point raised inanother post re the salary scale for a Director of Nursing Grade 1, this is completely misleading as these posts are relatively few and far between, and are very senior manager positions, and still fall well short of the suggested €100k p.a. for the level of responsibility for a matron. It is comparable to saying that the salary package of a Finance Director in a company is representative of what an accountant earns.

Anyway, I'm finished on this now, and I wish the nurses well in their pursuit of decent pay and working hours, so that we all can benefit in the end. Interesting debate.
 
from the Impact website:
Director of Nursing/Matron Band 1
69,341 - 71,269 - 73,200 - 75,124 - 77,051 - 78,984 - 80,909

A Band 1 Hospital is a large teaching hospital with numerous specialities eg St Vincent's Hospital Elm Park. Crumlin Children's Hospital (Our Lady's) is Band 2, and so pays a lesser salary.

Given the levels of staff and the level of responsibility, I think most equivalent positions in the private sector would pay more.

I wonder if they were mostly a male profession would Purple be so against them earning more?

Also (haven't the hang of multiquotes yet):

>Purple: They no longer take blood, or do most of the orderly type work that took up much of their time 15 or so years ago. What is the average working week for nurses now?<

Mmmm- maybe they feel they can make better use of their skills doing what are now regarded as NURSING rather than ORDERLY duties? Should they still be putting coal on the ward fire to keep the place warm?

>Purple (again!) What other healthcare professionals working in wards and outpatient departments are on a 35 hour week?<

Social workers, phlebotomists, porters, domestics, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers...................do you want me to keep going?
 
Gordanus said:
from the Impact website:
Director of Nursing/Matron Band 1
69,341 - 71,269 - 73,200 - 75,124 - 77,051 - 78,984 - 80,909

A Band 1 Hospital is a large teaching hospital with numerous specialities eg St Vincent's Hospital Elm Park. Crumlin Children's Hospital (Our Lady's) is Band 2, and so pays a lesser salary.

Given the levels of staff and the level of responsibility, I think most equivalent positions in the private sector would pay more.

I wonder if they were mostly a male profession would Purple be so against them earning more?
Click to expand...
I said that I was in favour of them earning more at high levels. I'm the one who raised that point!


Gordanus said:
>Purple: They no longer take blood, or do most of the orderly type work that took up much of their time 15 or so years ago. What is the average working week for nurses now?<

Mmmm- maybe they feel they can make better use of their skills doing what are now regarded as NURSING rather than ORDERLY duties?
Click to expand...
Maybe their managers should decide what the best use of their time is?
Gordanus said:
>Should they still be putting coal on the ward fire to keep the place warm?
Click to expand...
AFAIK there are no open fires in hospital wards anymore.
The reason I raised the issue was because I wanted to know what has them so busy since there are more of them per head of population than ever before and they had more back up staff doing non core duties (like orderly work and stoking fires). If they are spending a large part of their time on clerical duties then this should support the case for structural reform within the sector. Any and all pay claims within the health service should be tied to structural reforms that deliver greater efficiency. Nurses should be proposing reforms and supporting the HSE and minister for health, not resisting change.

Gordanus said:
>Purple (again!) What other healthcare professionals working in wards and outpatient departments are on a 35 hour week?<

Social workers, phlebotomists, porters, domestics, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers...................do you want me to keep going?
Click to expand...
Social workers do not process patients through A&E or out patients. You have to be a nurse to be a phlebotomists (unlike the NHS). Is a porter or a domestic a healthcare professional? Occupational therapists and physiotherapists do not process patients through wards.
 
Well, I've often seen SWs working in OPD clinics as well as A&E.
OTs and Physios work on wards as well as in OPDs.
And none of the phlebotoists are nurses...........[broken link removed]
What do you mean by 'processing'? Most staff tthink in terms of 'treating'! :D

Maybe as the doctors filter what used to be their work to the nurses (taking Blood Pressure USED to be a doctor's job!) nurses are doing these jobs as well as nursing, as well as still making beds etc because it is one way of getting around and talking to patients? Patients arrive in hospital sicker and are discharged earlier, so that a wardful of patients is now needier than ever in the past. Also the amount of admin has risen staggeringly. There are now many more specialities than before; 'consultant' nurses are now known as Advanced Nurse Practitioners and Clinical Nurse Specialists. (and they are cheaper than medics!) Nurses will shrtly start prescribing too.

The 35 hour staff are not paid for their lunch hour. Nurses are, because they are on call. It they work through their break hour, they get no time in lieu. So the actual shifts will not change with the change in working hours, but nurses should be guaranteed a break in the middle of the day/night/shift.
 
Last edited:
Gordanus said:
And none of the phlebotoists are nurses...........[broken link removed]
Click to expand...
A friend of mine is a qualified phlebotoists who worked in the NHS in England for 8 years. When she moved here she was hold that she has to be a nurse to work as a phlebotoists. I read your link and it is not clear if those who did the DCU course are qualified nurses or not.

Gordanus said:
Maybe as the doctors filter what used to be their work to the nurses (taking Blood Pressure USED to be a doctor's job!) nurses are doing these jobs as well as nursing, as well as still making beds etc because it is one way of getting around and talking to patients? Patients arrive in hospital sicker and are discharged earlier, so that a wardful of patients is now needier than ever in the past. Also the amount of admin has risen staggeringly. There are now many more specialities than before; 'consultant' nurses are now known as Advanced Nurse Practitioners and Clinical Nurse Specialists. (and they are cheaper than medics!) Nurses will shrtly start prescribing too.
Click to expand...
All good points but how do any of them justify a 10.5% pay increase and a 10% reduction in their working hours?

Gordanus said:
The 35 hour staff are not paid for their lunch hour. Nurses are, because they are on call. It they work through their break hour, they get no time in lieu. So the actual shifts will not change with the change in working hours, but nurses should be guaranteed a break in the middle of the day/night/shift
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that even if their working week is reduced to 35 hours nurses will still be rostered for the same hours that they are now?
 
Purple said:
Nurses should be proposing reforms and supporting the HSE and minister for health, not resisting change.
Click to expand...

This pre-supposes that the nurses believe that the reforms being proposed by the HSE & Minister are the right ones!
 
RainyDay said:
This pre-supposes that the nurses believe that the reforms being proposed by the HSE & Minister are the right ones!
Click to expand...
True, but I don't see them proposing anything other than "decrease my hours and increase my pay". That would be fine if their representatives didn't spend the rest of their time talking about a crisis in A&E (and everywhere else in the health service). Nurses are a major part of the system and so have to be part of the solution to the problem.
 
Purple said:
True, but I don't see them proposing anything other than "decrease my hours and increase my pay".
Click to expand...
That's a bit of a cheap shot. How hard have you looked at what the INO (for example) have been proposing on issues like , or any of the following interesting topics;
 
None of the phlebotomists I've come across - and I worked in hospitals here and abroad for years - are nurses. Your friend may have been misinformed, or the job s/he went for required nursing qualifications. Nurses may have extra training in phlebotomy if taking blood is required in their job eg when working as a Practice Nurse or in undertaking clinical trials.

Why would a nurse take a substantial pay cut?
From the Impact site:
Phlebotomist
28,324 - 29,920 - 31,304 - 32,708 - 34,119 - 35,566 - 36,2781
Phlebotomist, Senior
31,486 - 33,306 - 34,866 - 36,485 - 38,097 - 39,763
Staff Nurse (including registered midwife, registered sick children's nurse, registered mental handicap nurse)
28,174 - 29,584 - 30,997 - 32,408 - 33,813 - 35,028 - 36,246 - 37,459 - 38,672 - 39,864 - 41,1361
Clinical Nurse Manager 1 (aka Ward Sister)
40,647 - 41,422 - 42,516 - 43,628 - 44,723 - 45,825 - 47,054 - 48,199

Purple, if you really want to know what nurses are doing - and more of them are doing their jobs than are involved in unions or politics, why don't you look up An Bord Altranais or the NCNM www.ncnm.ie? Instead of just moaning about a job you seem to know little about.
 
Gordanus, I have nothing against nurses and I'm sure most of them do a good job within the structure that they work in. What I can't get my head around is why they think a 12.5% decrease in hours and a 10.5% increase in pay (25% increase in hourly pay) is justified. How can a better service be delivered with fewer hours worked?
 
Purple said:
Gordanus, I have nothing against nurses and I'm sure most of them do a good job within the structure that they work in. What I can't get my head around is why they think a 12.5% decrease in hours and a 10.5% increase in pay (25% increase in hourly pay) is justified. How can a better service be delivered with fewer hours worked?
Click to expand...


Purple, I was reluctant to get into this thread again, but I'm still amused by the huge chip you appear to have on your shoulder against nurses (for whatever reason!) and that you don't seem willing to acknowledge it. The above is a very begrudging acknowledgement of their role in the workforce.

"How can a better service be delivered with fewer hours worked?" Answer: Simple, make the job a better one in terms of hours and pay, then there should be more nurses attracted to (or willing to stay in) the profession, thereby increasing the staff available to manage the whole damn thing and meet patient care needs!
 
oopsbuddy said:
"How can a better service be delivered with fewer hours worked?" Answer: Simple, make the job a better one in terms of hours and pay, then there should be more nurses attracted to (or willing to stay in) the profession, thereby increasing the staff available to manage the whole damn thing and meet patient care needs!
Click to expand...

I don't like the INO as I find their public utterances very hypocritical but I have nothing against nurses. I don't see the logic in your suggestion above. The numbers in the health service have gone up by 40'000 (from 60'000 to 100'000) over the last 8 or so years and while I think the service has improved I don't think it's relative to the investment.
If you accept that nurses, along with others in the health service, for the most part do their best every day then the solution to improve the structures within the health service. Additional funding might be required as well but structural change is the key. If you accept this then just paying everyone more does not solve the problem.
 
Purple said:
Gordanus, I have nothing against nurses and I'm sure most of them do a good job within the structure that they work in. What I can't get my head around is why they think a 12.5% decrease in hours and a 10.5% increase in pay (25% increase in hourly pay) is justified. How can a better service be delivered with fewer hours worked?
Click to expand...

Purple,

Do you quote percentages rather than actual gross pay to cloud the issue ? or is it just that you dont know what nurses are paid ? ( Director of Nursing pay will not be the same as what your 'normal' nurse gets)
 
But Purple, I just said above that the reduction in hours from 39 to 35 won't make any difference - can you see a nurse sitting down to eat her sandwich refusing to go help on a crash call?

Olddog:
Staff Nurse (including registered midwife, registered sick children's nurse, registered mental handicap nurse)
28,174 - 29,584 - 30,997 - 32,408 - 33,813 - 35,028 - 36,246 - 37,459 - 38,672 - 39,864 - 41,1361 (Staff Nurse = ordinary nurse; most nurses are staff nurses)

Last point: there are constantly advances in medicine. We are constantly treating sicker people and providing ever more advanced surgery. So people now live with conditions they would have died of years ago. But they need support and nursing. The quality of life that disabled people and people affected by severe, enduring, chronic illnesses expect is greater now than in the past. And god knows they had it bad in the past. We could of course reduce the number of nurses and let them go hang.........but good heavens, there are enough people in enough dire circumstances who fall between two stools already and get very little input. Nursing is a profession that will always require a high manpower (!) input; by virtue of what nurses do, it cannot be mechanised or filled by the lowest bidder or by unskilled personnel.

Yes the structure of the health services needs to change, and the Nurses unions and professional organisations are involved in that too. The INO does not represent everyone; it represents NURSES as a trade union. Please Purple look at sites like An Bord Altranais (which is the statutory regulating body for nurses - one of the few professions to even have statutory regulation) and the National Council for Nursing and Midwifery.
'Nuff said.
 
Last edited:
Gordanus said:
But Purple, I just said above that the reduction in hours from 39 to 35 won't make any difference - can you see a nurse sitting down to eat her sandwich refusing to go help on a crash call?
Click to expand...
I still don't understand what you are saying here. Is it not the case that Nurses will be rostered for shorter hours and so more will be required for the same number of hours to be worked in each hospital?

Gordanus said:
Staff Nurse (including registered midwife, registered sick children's nurse, registered mental handicap nurse)
28,174 - 29,584 - 30,997 - 32,408 - 33,813 - 35,028 - 36,246 - 37,459 - 38,672 - 39,864 - 41,1361 (Staff Nurse = ordinary nurse; most nurses are staff nurses)
Click to expand...
That's the real problem; the scale is not steep enough. They should start lower and finish higher.
What are the financial rewards for specialisation and general up-skilling? Would it not be a better idea for the INO to push this instead of a general pay increase? This would also attract ambitious people into the profession.


Gordanus said:
Last point: there are constantly advances in medicine. We are constantly treating sicker people and providing ever more advanced surgery. So people now live with conditions they would have died of years ago. But they need support and nursing. The quality of life that disabled people and people affected by severe, enduring, chronic illnesses expect is greater now than in the past. And god knows they had it bad in the past. We could of course reduce the number of nurses and let them go hang.........but good heavens, there are enough people in enough dire circumstances who fall between two stools already and get very little input. Nursing is a profession that will always require a high manpower (!) input; by virtue of what nurses do, it cannot be mechanised or filled by the lowest bidder or by unskilled personnel.
Click to expand...
All good points but staffing levels in the health service have increased by 67% (40'000 people) in the last 10 years. Incentivising staff to work harder and smarter is the way to attract better people into the profession (see above

Gordanus said:
Yes the structure of the health services needs to change, and the Nurses unions and professional organisations are involved in that too. The INO does not represent everyone; it represents NURSES as a trade union. Please Purple look at sites like An Bord Altranais (which is the statutory regulating body for nurses - one of the few professions to even have statutory regulation) and the National Council for Nursing and Midwifery.
'Nuff said.
Click to expand...
That's the point I was making about the INO. I can't get onto the An Bord Altranais website. Can they strike off a nurse for malpractice and if so how many do they strike off every year?
 
staffing levels in the health service have increased by 67% (40'000 people) in the last 10 years.

How would that compare to the increase in the country's population over the same period?
 
Purple:
say you work 9 - 5, 5 days a week. That's a 35-hour week even though it's an 8 hour day. The reason is that you are not paid for your lunch hour, you're being paid for 7 hours of work. A nurse doing the same is doing a 40 hour week because she's paid during her break because she's on call (though the usual break in nursing is half an hour). So when the nurse get a shorter working week, they will continue to work 9 - 5 but won't be paid for their break cos they'll no longer be on call.

>That's the real problem; the scale is not steep enough. They should start lower and finish higher<

You mean earn less than 28,174 ? with a degree??? and just how long a scale would you reccommend?? Please do look up the pay scales of other professions so we can see how they compare.

Don't know why you couldn't get into the Bord Altranais site: nursingboard.ie. I'm not sure what it's relevance is to the topic but here it is: The 2004 annual report shows that 6 nurses were struck off:

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED:
Fourteenapplications carried over from 2003
Thirty two new applications considered in 2004
DECISIONS IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS: -
In eighteen cases, the committee decided to hold
an Inquiry;
In twenty one cases, the Committee decided
that an Inquiry was not warranted;
Seven cases were still under consideration at the
end of 2004.


SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE BOARD
FOLLOWING THESE INQUIRIES
In six cases a sanction of ‘Erasure’ was imposed
by the Board. Five of these cases were
subsequently confirmed by the High Court. In one
case the nurse is appealing the decision to the
High Court.
In two cases the sanction of ‘Admonishment’ was
imposed;
In four cases the sanction of ‘Censure’ was
imposed;
In two cases the sanction of ‘Censure’ together
with the sanction of ‘Conditions to Registration’
were imposed;
In two cases (where the allegations were not
proved) there was no sanction applied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top