# Threatened nurses strike



## Purple

Nurses are threatening industrial action if they do not get a 10.5% pay increase while reducing their working week to 35 hours. What justification are they offering for this? They have enjoyed substantial pay increases in recent years and the standard working week in this country is 39 hours. I do not think that they will have much public support for their actions. 
It also shows their claim that their primary concern is the care of their patients is false and exposes the true motivation for the A&E protests last year as being primarily motivated by self interest.


----------



## ajapale

Purple said:


> motivated by _*serf*_ interest.


----------



## ashambles

The INO have being harping on about the 35 hr week for decades. Strange how they're always calling for more staff (or in INO speak "beds") yet seem to think what effectively would be a 10% reduction in staff will be beneficial. 

Interesting program running on BBC2 at the moment "Can Gerry Robinson Fix the NHS". Superficially at least the Irish health system has a similar structure, ineffective hospital management - check, primadonna consultants - check, disaffected nurses - check.


----------



## Diziet

ashambles said:


> The INO have being harping on about the 35 hr week for decades.


 
Healthcare professionals other than nurses are on a 35 hour week. Nurses are on 39. Are they supposed to be happy about it?


----------



## Purple

Diziet said:


> Healthcare professionals other than nurses are on a 35 hour week. Nurses are on 39. Are they supposed to be happy about it?


What other healthcare professionals working in wards and outpatient departments are on a 35 hour week?


----------



## redstar

> Nurses are threatening industrial action




... Wot, again ??

... new year, new strike threat, deja vu


----------



## beattie

One would think there was an election on the way......


----------



## Purple

beattie said:


> One would think there was an election on the way......


They are quite up front about making this an election issue.

The INO are a trade union for nurses and are mandated to lobby for them. They are not mandated to lobby for patients, or anyone else. Everything they say and do should be taken in that context. 
Just remember this the next time you hear anyone on the radio or TV bleating on about patient rights and conditions in hospitals. What they are really looking for is more money.


----------



## beattie

Purple said:


> Just remember this the next time you hear anyone on the radio or TV bleating on about patient rights and conditions in hospitals. What they are really looking for is more money.


 
The health budget has drastically increased in the past few years and it is still an embarrassment IMO. Just throwing more money at this problem will be just be wasting more money without associated reform. Having said that there are too many vested interests in the health service and I include the INO. Even though I wouldn't vote for the PD's I think Harney is the only one in the gov who can tackle the VI's. Martin was clearly out of his depth.


----------



## delgirl

ashambles said:


> Interesting program running on BBC2 at the moment "Can Gerry Robinson Fix the NHS". Superficially at least the Irish health system has a similar structure, ineffective hospital management - check, primadonna consultants - check, disaffected nurses - check.


I also saw this programme and the waste and poor management was frightening.  I've no doubt that the same goes on in our hospitals.


----------



## Gordanus

Purple said:


> The INO are a trade union for nurses and are mandated to lobby for them. They are not mandated to lobby for patients, or anyone else. Everything they say and do should be taken in that context.
> Just remember this the next time you hear anyone on the radio or TV bleating on about patient rights and conditions in hospitals. What they are really looking for is more money.



i take it that by 'anyone' you mean anyone from the INO.................I hope...........


----------



## DrMoriarty

If nurses are threatened, then they probably should strike.


----------



## Purple

DrMoriarty said:


> If nurses are threatened, then they probably should strike.


It's not just the threatened ones that are threateneing the unthreatened ones are threatening as well!


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> The INO are a trade union for nurses and are mandated to lobby for them. They are not mandated to lobby for patients, or anyone else. Everything they say and do should be taken in that context.
> Just remember this the next time you hear anyone on the radio or TV bleating on about patient rights and conditions in hospitals. What they are really looking for is more money.



I presume we should take any bleating from the HSEA or IBEC or SFA in the same context?

I don't know much about the nurses issue. I did work for a medical supplies company some years back that used to take good nurses off the wards into sales jobs. Give them a company car and 9-5 M-F hours, pay them pocket money and the nurses were like pigs in the proverbial. 

If we want a decent health services, we need to keep good nurses on the wards.


----------



## RainyDay

Yorky said:


> nly serve to divert money from where it is needed.


such as?


----------



## oopsbuddy

Yorky said:


> This same union is always banging on about patient rights and dignity etc which really is a case of crocodile tears as their wage/hours demands only serve to divert money from where it is needed.


 
I don't think you quite get it Yorky. Adequate nurses' pay is required to keep nurses in their chosen career. Without adequate pay, they quit and go work elsewhere (why shouldn't they!) Without adequate staffing levels, not enough wards can be kept open and not enough beds can be properly managed. More and more patients continue to queue up for treatment regardless, leading to backlogs, overcrowding, delays, etc. In the midst of this, those nurses that are left have to cope with ever increasing workloads, longer hours, stress, inadequate pay etc. Do you follow the trend here? The nurses are the most vocal advocates of patient rights cos they are the ones who see first hand what is required, andthis includes paying nurses enough money to keep nurses at work. Try working a few hours in their shoes and see if your view is the same. And no, I'm not a nurse, I don't work in medicine at all, but I know a lot who do and I wouldn't do what they do, nor put up with their lot for ten times the money. They even have to pay for their own Christmas party!


----------



## Purple

oopsbuddy said:


> I don't think you quite get it Yorky. Adequate nurses' pay is required to keep nurses in their chosen career. Without adequate pay, they quit and go work elsewhere (why shouldn't they!) Without adequate staffing levels, not enough wards can be kept open and not enough beds can be properly managed.


 The same can be said for any career. I have seen no evidence that their are any major staffing shortages in nursing. Agency and non national nurses seem to be filling the gaps.


oopsbuddy said:


> More and more patients continue to queue up for treatment regardless, leading to backlogs, overcrowding, delays, etc.


 and the INO opposed a HSE directive last year that would have allowed faster admission to wards when A&E was overcrowded. The problem of overcrowding is caused by structural inefficiencies. All attempts to remedy this situation have been obstructed by the INO as they use any proposed change as an excuse to press for a pay increase.



oopsbuddy said:


> In the midst of this, those nurses that are left have to cope with ever increasing workloads, longer hours, stress, inadequate pay etc.


 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?


oopsbuddy said:


> Do you follow the trend here? The nurses are the most vocal advocates of patient rights cos they are the ones who see first hand what is required, and this includes paying nurses enough money to keep nurses at work.


 What I take from this is that you agree that nurses are not the selfless vocational workers that they portray themselves to be but are just like the rest of us and are motivated, to a large extent, by money. What I see is that every time they have a choice between lobbying government to spend very large but still limited resources on patient care of nurses pay they lobby for nurses pay.
I do not see how patient care will be improved by reducing the number of hours of nursing care offered by 10%.
I do not accept that nurses in general are badly paid. 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.

My main gripe is not that they are looking for a pay increase, it's the dishonest way in which they present their case.


----------



## oopsbuddy

Purple, what I take from your last message is that you seem to have some serious issues with nurses! 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? I think they must be selfless and vocationed to do what they do in the first place, and YES, they should also be motivated by money - why shouldn't they be? They have to pay rent or a mortgage, raise a family, etc. just like everyone else, and 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. You hardly think they should all live in a nurses' home and be happy to have the opportunity to work in a hospital on shiftwork, nights, weekends, long days, and all for modest wages, just for the pleasure of the job? Your last point about what should be the going-rate wage for a matron is closer to the mark, but why just at that level? The level of responsibility carried by all health professionals is enormous, and these are highly qualified and experienced professionals, and they can't just clock off at 5.00 every day and pick up where they left off the next morning. Talk to some nurses and gather their views.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> I have seen no evidence that their are any major staffing shortages in nursing. Agency and non national nurses seem to be filling the gaps.


Isn't the huge proportion (between 30% & 60% from what I've seen) of non-national nurses evidence of a staffing shortage in itself?


----------



## ClubMan

How so? What has the nationality of *foreign *national workers got to do with it? Who's to say that c. 100% of the demand is not satisfied in which case the nationality of the individuals in question is not really relevant?


----------



## Guest127

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.


----------



## sherib

> 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.


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?


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.


----------



## Purple

> 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?


 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.


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.


----------



## oopsbuddy

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.


----------



## Gordanus

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?


----------



## Purple

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?


 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?


 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?


 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?


 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.


----------



## Gordanus

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'! 

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.


----------



## Purple

Gordanus said:


> And none of the phlebotoists are nurses...........[broken link removed]


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.


 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


 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?


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> Nurses should be proposing reforms and supporting the HSE and minister for health, not resisting change.



This pre-supposes that the nurses believe that the reforms being proposed by the HSE & Minister are the right ones!


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> This pre-supposes that the nurses believe that the reforms being proposed by the HSE & Minister are the right ones!


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.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> True, but I don't see them proposing anything other than "decrease my hours and increase my pay".


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;


[*]Abuse and Violence Against Nursing Personnel

[*]  Nurses' Role in Providing Care to Dying Patients and their Families

[*]  Nursing Care of the Older Person

[*]  Nurses and Disaster Preparedness

[*]  Health Services for Migrants, Refugees and Displaced Persons

[*]  Occupational Health and Safety for Nurses


----------



## Gordanus

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.


----------



## Purple

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?


----------



## oopsbuddy

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?


 

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!


----------



## Purple

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!



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.


----------



## olddog

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?



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)


----------



## Gordanus

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.


----------



## Purple

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?


 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)


 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.


 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.


 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?


----------



## oopsbuddy

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?


----------



## Gordanus

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.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> Nurses are threatening industrial action if they do not get a 10.5% pay increase while reducing their working week to 35 hours. What justification are they offering for this? They have enjoyed substantial pay increases in recent years and the standard working week in this country is 39 hours. I do not think that they will have much public support for their actions.
> It also shows their claim that their primary concern is the care of their patients is false and exposes the true motivation for the A&E protests last year as being primarily motivated by self interest.



Just curious Purple - Any views on the consultants reluctance to accept new contracts which expect them to see public patients in public hospitals when the public is paying their salary?


----------



## DrMoriarty

oopsbuddy said:


> 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?


More to the point, a significant proportion of that increase is accounted for by administrative/managerial appointments, as opposed to medical — how do [broken link removed] compare with nurses', and by how much have they risen over the same period?


----------



## Guest127

bluseter and shout as the   INO does its pretty clear who has the better union representing them. no noise, no feathers ruffled, no public to panic, no td's to ruffle. my hat off to these guys for a job well done. the union guys that is.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Just curious Purple - Any views on the consultants reluctance to accept new contracts which expect them to see public patients in public hospitals when the public is paying their salary?


 I think it's disgraceful. I heard two of them on the radio this morning (RTE1 and Newstalk) suggesting that they all worked long hours and the public supported them. I have three small children and have been no stranger to hospitals over the last few years. On three occasions we have had a child ready for discharge on Saturday morning but have had to wait 'till Monday afternoon for the consultants ward round to be discharged. This is common practice, according to friends who are hospital doctors. It is also a monumental waste of time and money. 
Why are they not rostered so that there is on site 24 hour cover? Why do they not work weekends? Why is it OK to drag their public hospital team in for 6.30am or 6.45am to do a ward round (and wake up sick patients) just so they can beat the traffic and get to the Blackrock for 9.30?  Why are all junior doctors terrified to phone the consultant on call at night (and therefore almost never do)?
It is all about money for the consultants and for them to suggest otherwise is rubbish. I have yet to hear any of them explain why the tax payer is paying for a secretary and rooms in a public hospital that they use for private patients. I have yet to hear any of them explain how there is no conflict of interest when they have private and public patients on the same ward, the private ones generate an income but the public ones don't, and yet the consultants say they make all decisions based only on clinical need. What purification ritual do they go through that removes the temptations that the rest of us have?


----------



## polaris

Gordanus said:


> Purple:
> 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.


 
€28k is an excellent salary for someone straight out of university; plenty of graduates have starting salaries well below that


----------



## Purple

Gordanus said:


> 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.


 So who covers the breaks?



Gordanus said:


> 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.


 Primary school teachers start on €19’641 (see [broken link removed] for details)


----------



## sherib

> Originally Posted by *Purple*
> Why are they not rostered so that there is on site 24 hour cover


An interesting observation in relation to hospital consultants. 

One of the efficiences suggested on the Gerry Robinson programme (about the NHS in the UK) was that the operational hours for the use of operation theatres, XRay departments, laboratories etc. should not be restricted to an 8 hour day, Monday to Friday. In addition to consultants, this would require co-operation and extended working hours for nurses, porters, radiographers, laboratory and administration staff. In fact it would require changed work practices for most if not all hospital personnel. This makes sense since it would more fully utilise high cost personnel and equipment in hospitals and would undoubtedly reduce waiting lists. 

But what would the representative unions have to say about such a recommendation and what would it cost?


----------



## Purple

sherib said:


> But what would the representative unions have to say about such a recommendation and what would it cost?


 If it doubled or tripled throughput within the same capital infrastructure I don't see why substantial pay increases would not be given for those staff that work the antisocial hours. 
At the moment billions of Euro worth of facilities and machinery idle 50% - 66% of the time. Given that a huge proportion of health service staff are clerical and most of these could remain on standard hours, as could outpatient services, I don’t see why there would be a huge increase in wage cost.


----------



## sherib

> Originally Posted by *Purple *
> _I don't see why substantial pay increases would not be given for those staff that work the antisocial hours._


_



I don’t see why there would be a huge increase in wage cost. 

Click to expand...

 _Isn't that a contradiction? 

AFAIK one of the reasons for the proposed increase of 1,500 in consultant numbers (apart from the obvious benefits re decision making and experience) is to reduce the enormous costs of paying overtime to the non-consultant hospital doctors who are reported as having to work anything from 80-100+ hours per week which increases their salaries by up to an extra €100,000 p.a. 

Since NCHDs basic salary isn't enormous, I can't see the multiplicity of other professionals being satisfied with less than pro rata what has been paid in overtime to the NCHDs. There are no cheap fixes when it comes to paying professionals in the health service.


----------



## Gordanus

Purple said:


> So who covers the breaks?



Dear heavens, the nurses don't go on breaks all at the same time! They do it in shifts! They go alone!  If two staff nurses are on duty  and two nurses aides with them, the two staff nurses don't go on breaks together!   If only one staff nurse on duty, she gets to take her break on the ward, in the office! If necessary she'll call another ward where they'll have a spare staff nurse to get her to cover!  I think you are being deliberately obtuse here.   Why do you dislike nurses so much?


----------



## Gordanus

Purple said:


> Primary school teachers start on €19’641 (see [broken link removed] for details)



The reference you gave is from 16 April 2003 and doesn't give pay scales.


Primary school teachers:  Salary scale starts at 29,400 from 2006; 25 points to 57K

http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/cl0109_2006_scales.doc


----------



## Purple

Gordanus said:


> The reference you gave is from 16 April 2003 and doesn't give pay scales.
> 
> 
> Primary school teachers:  Salary scale starts at 29,400 from 2006; 25 points to 57K
> 
> http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/cl0109_2006_scales.doc



I stand corrected.


----------



## pinkyBear

Hi all,
I left nursing about 10 years ago to study programming, after collage I worked in a large hospital. What I was most amzed at were all new management roles for nursing and how there were more managers wanering corridors than there were nurses in wards. 

I also observed within that time that the quality of care had not increased..

Do I think my former colleagues deserve a pay rise ??? When thing improve the do - until then no.. IMHO


----------



## CGorman

Increase in pay for a decrease in hours? Sheer madness! They should get 0% change in pay for a 0% change in hours.

I've justt spent a hour discussing this with a fellow who's parents are both nurses (one a strong trade unionist) and i've formed the following opinion...

If I were in charge, this is what i'd counter offer the nurses...

*Package*

A 20% pay rise over 4 years (in addition to what they've already got)
A once off change of work practices payment averaging €10,000 each
Double Paternity leave
Ability to keep working till older ages
Performance linked bonuses/pay rises
*In Return for..*

Retirement age of Psychiatric Nurses increased to 60 and General Nurses to 67 with a health check at those ages and (if passed) the option to keep working for another 3 years
Maintain 39hr working week
Reduce mileage/travel expenses to be in line with private sector (currently between 2 and 3 times greater)
New discipline system (including fines) for repeated breaches of hygine guidelines (MRSA should not exist)
A new system where nurses must scan in (by fingerprint) at start and end of shift
Pension to reflect the exact lenght of service based on hours (including overtime) rather than years
Punishment for repeated punctuality issues
If you exceed X number of days off, leave, sick days etc. over a three year period, you should be placed on a "monitoring list" - no punishment - just a way to monitor for abuses of the system
Lenght of service salery increases subject to rejection for misconduct, poor work ethic etc. - make it policy to reject a handful of increases regularly so that rather than expect regular increase, nurses must actively earn them by good performance - only lazy nurses or ones wishing to hide can object to this!
Extend Care Assistants/Assistant Nurses to cover *ALL the work done by nurses that does'nt utilise their qualification* - why do we pay well qualified expensive nurses to sweep floors? 100% of a nurses time should be spent on the things that their specifically trained to do. In private industry, do Accountants hover their own offices and get paid for it?!
A massive slowdown on hiring to reflect the reduced need for nurses brought about by cutting their work areas. A large increase in hiring less skilled lower cost workers for tasks such as sweeping floors, making beds etc.

In addition to the above i'd like to shake up all staff issues in the health board (particularly massive cuts in the clerical end of the board), open operating theatres from 6am till midnight seven days a week (why fret about paying a couple hundred grand a year to run a theatre that cost millions to build?) and to systemise and automate things like appointment reminders wherever possible. As was said on the late late by Gerry Robinson - we need professional managers to run this very complex system at the top end and to run it with the efficency of a business. I'd be happy to pay a salery of €4m a year to attract a top manager if he/she was given full government backing to complete reconfigure the system.


----------



## Purple

Excellent post CGorman.


----------



## CGorman

Thanks Purple... althought I must admit I'm sitting here waiting to be completely savaged by some nurses union rep!


----------



## Purple

CGorman said:


> Thanks Purple... althought I must admit I'm sitting here waiting to be completely savaged by some nurses union rep!



They are on their lunch


----------



## sherib

I am astounded by the diatribe posted recently by CGorman - it would be hard to consider many of the points raised as anything more than a KGB type rant. Where does one begin? Of course I should remember this is a _letting of steam_ forum and perhaps should be disregarded.

Why only reduce mileage/expenses for nurses? Why not for the whole of the public and civil service? Similarily for extended retirement age.
Why double only _paternity_ leave - why not double _maternity_ leave until such time as men start having babies
Has anyone ever seen a qualified nurse sweep hospital floors?
There is no dispute about the need to employ first rate suitably qualified managers (and not those who have come up through the administrative system as currently obtains) - but there's nothing original in that suggestion. 





> Originally Posted by *CGorman*
> _If I were in charge,....._


 
Thank goodness we live in a democracy and not a dictatorship 
PS  If I were picky I would draw attention to the frequent mis-spellings; I choose not to do this out of sympathy and knowing that my command of the english language is above average.

FYI, I'm neither a nurse nor a trade union employee.


----------



## CGorman

sherib said:


> [*]Why only reduce mileage/expenses for nurses? Why not for the whole of the public and civil service? Similarily for extended retirement age.



The discussion pertains to nurses, therfore in the above I dealt with nurses only - for the record I believe large parts of the public/civil service need similer changes.



sherib said:


> [*]Why double only _paternity_ leave - why not double _maternity_ leave until such time as men start have babies



Paternity Leave is only 3 days. Maternity leave is 154 days (+). Obviously Woman should physically be entititled to substantially more, but 3 days for new fathers is a bit stingy, a proper week would be better... amazing that anyone would argue against this! (Oh, and if you want to be really picky, "Men start have babies" is embarassingly poor english... and thats speaking as a Dyslexic!)



sherib said:


> [*]Has anyone ever seen a qualified nurse sweep hospital floors?



Actually my friends mother* does it all the time*, as do many nursing staff. BTW: When I say sweep the floor I extend this to activities like making beds, and very simple tasks like opening curtains, which could easily be done by other staff at a lower cost.



sherib said:


> ...raised as anything more than a KGB type rant.



What a foolish comparision to draw! I suggest work practice reforms adopted from efficent private sector capitalist methods and you compare me to an a member of the secret police who worked for one of the most powerful communist nations in history! At very least you could have likened my attitude to a true capitalist like O'Leary!

Sherib, perhaps you enjoy taking the other side in debates purely for the thrill of a good arguement - but on this surely you can agree: the Irish Health Care System is overcomplicated, highly inefficent, consquentally overstaffed in many areas and failing miserably to fulfill its objectives. This is primarely due to inertia, entrenched aged work practices, poor implementation of reforms, poor management, failure to adopt modern IT systems and complete and utter failure to utilise existing resources (huge areas of NEW hospital wings have been unused for as much as the past decade).

It needs change NOW.

Might I add* 3 of my grandparents were nurses* and fully *13 of my aunts and uncles are nurses!*


----------



## polaris

CGorman said:


> Paternity Leave is only 3 days. Maternity leave is 154 days (+). Obviously Woman should physically be entititled to substantially more, but 3 days for new fathers is a bit stingy, a proper week would be better... amazing that anyone would argue against this!


 
Agree fully with this. A month after birth, maternity/paternity leave should be combined into _parental_ leave and the mother and father should be free to allocate the remaining time off between themselves.


----------



## nelly

As a matter of interest how many of your family are working full time in nursing now? 

Re: retirement age being raised:I don't believe this to be useful - nurses have to conduct manual work, lifting patients etc as part of their nursing duties, I would not want my mother, a former nurse having to do this at 67. 


CGorman said:


> [*]A new system where nurses must scan in (by fingerprint) at start and end of shift
> [*]Pension to reflect the exact lenght of service based on hours (including overtime) rather than years
> [*]If you exceed X number of days off, leave, sick days etc. over a three year period, you should be placed on a "monitoring list" - no punishment - just a way to monitor for abuses of the system
> [*]Lenght of service salery increases subject to rejection for misconduct, poor work ethic etc. - make it policy to reject a handful of increases regularly so that rather than expect regular increase, nurses must actively earn them by good performance - only lazy nurses or ones wishing to hide can object to this![/LIST]



Also i don't think any nurse would object to clocking in etc or pensions based on time worked because most nurses must stay back and give reports to those coming on in their own time i.e - they get paid till 8pm but must handover to night shift who start at 8pm.... so if they got paid for the time they are on the job then there would be no problem!

Real nurses are leaving the profession and alienating them further will only shush them out the door. They are not at fault for wanting the same perks as other health care professionals seem to get and not wanting to stay the walkover profession they have been in the past. 
No, i am not a nurse but have lived with them, live with them coming home drained or maybe crying due to "getting too personal" - it turned me right off but my sisters and friends love the work and hate the red tape crap which has crept into it.Its a case of I wouldn't do their job, but i would want one of them minding me (as opposed to a temp who is not interested in getting to know the ward or patients or someone whose english I cannot understand) if i was in hospital - so as a result i support what they want up to a point, anything to keep the really good nurses there.


----------



## CGorman

nelly said:


> As a matter of interest how many of your family are working full time in nursing now?



Of the 13 I mentioned, 11 are still nurses and indeed one of my cousins has put nursing in DCU as her top CAO choice this year. Additionally one of my aunts has worked all her life in the clerical end of the health board and also my own mother spent a number of years in the catering end of a local hospital.


----------



## nelly

so i suppose the next question is do they think they have a good deal now working in the system as it is? somehow I doubt it,


----------



## Purple

nelly said:


> so i suppose the next question is do they think they have a good deal now working in the system as it is? somehow I doubt it,


Why are you personalising this nelly?


----------



## nelly

It was not a conscious decision or attack I just noted that the previous poster stated his family's involvement in the sector in an attempt (as I read it) to imply how his views are based on information & opinion from "the inside" and  to add weight to his arguments. 

my question was only part of a longer answer which was ignored.  

My apologies if i have delved too deep.


----------



## CGorman

nelly said:


> the previous poster stated his family's involvement in the sector in an attempt (as I read it) to imply how his views are based on information & opinion from "the inside"



Actually my family would probably completely disagree with me, my views are more "despite" strong family tradition rather than because!


----------



## Purple

It looks like the nurses are at it again in Cork. They say it's all about patient care and staffing levels... but for three thousand Euro it will all go away.


----------



## nelly

probably needs a new thread but i suspect they have found something to beat Mary H with, the promised staff were not recruited for the opening last saturday seems fair enough -  but i find the project management of the closure of 3 hospitals and opening of the new main one all at 12 noon as bizarre, are the machines all moved over? sure the staff are still only getting inductions into the new workplace this week what would they have done if it was open for business? seems mad to me.

I know some of the staff are pee'd off by the parking charges (and its limited at best) and being offered park and ride facilities at the new hospital. welcome to the reality of rubbish planning.


----------



## Purple

Why would it take more than 12 months?
We moved a staff of 85 and millions of Euro worth of specialised equipment that had to be installed on special foundations last year. The whole move took one weekend.
I know hospitals are bigger and things move more slowly in the public sector but how would it take more than a year to move to the new hospital?
The parking issue seems reasonable, while no one has a right to parking if they had free parking in the old hospitals they should continue to get it.

The read issue, as usual, is money. The labour court said they should get a one off extra day annual leave for the move. The HSE and the government agreed to this but the INO want between three and five thousand euro for the disruption of moving to a brand new state of the art hospital. They say it’s about staffing levels and patient care but, as usual, this is a misrepresentation of their true position since they well move if Mary Harney stuffs a few thousand euro into their pockets.
Once again nurses are too dishonest to just come out with the facts; they see an opportunity to screw a few bob out of the state and they are going for it.


----------



## nelly

Purple said:


> The read issue, as usual, is money. The labour court said they should get a one off extra day annual leave for the move. The HSE and the government agreed to this but the INO want between three and five thousand euro for the disruption of moving to a brand new state of the art hospital.
> Once again nurses are too dishonest to just come out with the facts; they see an opportunity to screw a few bob out of the state and they are going for it.



if what you say is true then i agree it does seem like plain greed to me. 

Looking at it i thought it was not unreasonable to have the 3 hospitals move over in a staggered manner, which was not what seems to have heppened.


----------



## Purple

nelly said:


> Looking at it i thought it was not unreasonable to have the 3 hospitals move over in a staggered manner, which was not what seems to have happened.


 If they are all moving on the same day/week then I agree but I would assume that it will take some time to get fully operational after this official opening date.
Don't get me wrong, the Nurses are entitled to look for any money they want. It's the way they misrepresent their motives that gets to me.


----------



## RainyDay

Hi Purple - Can you confirm your source or the basis for your claim that it is all about money? I recall a newspaper article from a couple of weeks ago (Irish Times?) which outlined serious concerns in the difference in staffing levels - it did seem like a huge drop compared to the original staffing level of the 3 hospitals.


----------



## sherib

> Originally Posted by *RainyDay*
> _I recall a newspaper article from a couple of weeks ago (Irish Times?) which outlined serious concerns in the difference in staffing levels - it did seem like a huge drop compared to the original staffing level of the 3 hospitals_.


If there is a reduction (I don't know), perhaps it's an E_conomy of scale? _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale


----------



## RainyDay

sherib said:


> If there is a reduction (I don't know), perhaps it's an E_conomy of scale? _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale



Perhaps, or perhaps not - they are making babies, not widgets. Perhaps you can make specific suggestions about how economies of scale would apply to midwifery?


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Hi Purple - Can you confirm your source or the basis for your claim that it is all about money? I recall a newspaper article from a couple of weeks ago (Irish Times?) which outlined serious concerns in the difference in staffing levels - it did seem like a huge drop compared to the original staffing level of the 3 hospitals.


I came to that conclusion when the INO said they would not go on strike if they were paid off.


----------



## Superman

I spoke to a Cork based nurse who would be affected by the move - and she also stated that it was a question of money.
Her reason was 
"Gees - there are some people working in the same place for ten, fifteen years and they have to get something for moving".


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> I came to that conclusion when the INO said they would not go on strike if they were paid off.



Seriously, where and when did the INO say this? Your statements are fairly contraditory to their public statements, e.g. 

From 


> "They did not deliver on their commitment to the Labour Court; they did not deliver on their commitment to the midwives and nurses that they would have, on the day of opening, 375 midwives. It's as simple as that."
> 
> "If it was about money, this would have been solved a long time ago," she said.


From 



> The INO yesterday dismissed suggestions that delays in opening the new CUMH were due to a demand for more money.
> 
> Despite admitting it looked for a €1,000 payment for midwives and nurses to make the move to the new facility more attractive, the INO maintained that safe staffing levels were a priority.



From 


> “The HSE went to the Labour Court and said they have 375 staff. On Friday they admitted they only had 315 staff, and that was the sole reason why our members rejected it.”


The Irish Times today reported that the HSE had plans to build up from 315 to 375 over time, but as midwifery is a demand-led service, the good ladies of Cork are still going to be arriving with babies ready to be delivered.


----------



## sherib

Widgets and babies - not comparable I do agree. Perhaps the opening of a new "state of the art" maternity hospital is being seen as an opportunity for economy, in view of the comment below which was made by Minister Harney last January; she generally get her facts right even if they're not welcome. The nation _is_ calling for better value for taxpayers' money is it not?


> Posted 18.01.2007
> 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._


Is it not likely that the amaglamation of three old hospitals and their replacement by a newly designed modern one could be expected to yield efficiencies at all staffing levels? 

There are many areas of the health services crying out for additional services for _sick people_ and where saved funding could be directed. After all, the majority of patients in maternity hospitals are not sick _per se_ or in need of intensive nursing care. Indeed, a significant number of Midwives state that most babies should be born at home, saying "childbirth is a natural process". I take a different view but Nurses and Midwives can't have it both ways. 



> ....nursing staff rejected offers to reduce the number of patients to 128, just four more than current facilities at Erinville, St Finbarr's and Bons Secours hospitals.


----------



## ashambles

One of the basic problems of the health service is more and more staff deal with less and less patients. 

Most of the reasons for this are understandable - more complex treatments, a single big ward is easily visually monitored by a couple nurses whereas several smaller ones won't be etc.. 

Obviously (anyone hear of nurse redunancies?) all the health staff are being moved from the other hospitals and also new ones are being added so there is no drop in staffing levels. What the nurses want is to deal with less patients per nurse than they do now (partially due to the new smaller ward layout). 

I believe the HSE made a clumsy mistake in revealing the money element to what the nurses want - then the nurses were forced to focus on the much harder to resolve elements rather than appear greedy. It's easier to pay a couple million for relocation than to try hire nurses that don't exist. 

I didn't think the relocation expense claim was rediculous, being asked to work in the other side of Cork city could add an hour per day commute time, or require a car to be bought. Nurses are in high demand - a private sector worker in similar demand if asked to do the same move might well ask for some compensation.


----------



## nelly

Is this feasible though? surely there is less work involved? 

Just an asside - did the clerical, non nursing/medical staff get any extra to move to the new site? 
the transport issue is a non-starter in my opinion.


----------



## Gordanus

From yesterday's Irish Times Health Supplement article on "man"power shortages at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda:

 "the midwife to deliveries ratio in Drogheda is about 1:58 compared to 1:35 in some of the Dublin hospitals.  It would be even less in Cork and there seems to be no explanation for this inequality"
"An Bord Altrainais reported that in the 2 months prior to its visit (to OLOL Hospital) last October, 29 fulltime and parttime nurses and midwives had left the materit and paediatric services in the hospital.  "Many have cited deficits in staffing levels and staff skills as reasons for leaving." "

There are generally no redundancies in nursing......they just leave to find better hospitals.


----------



## polaris

ashambles said:


> I didn't think the relocation expense claim was rediculous, being asked to work in the other side of Cork city could add an hour per day commute time, or require a car to be bought.


 
Or might reduce travelling times in many instances. 

The new maternity hospital is in the western suburbs and is serviced by a regular bus route. It is also much closer to the South Ring Rd than two of the maternity hospitals it is replacing and will be easier/faster to access by car.


----------



## nelly

polaris said:


> Or might reduce travelling times in many instances.
> 
> The new maternity hospital is in the western suburbs and is serviced by a regular bus route. It is also much closer to the South Link Rd than two of the maternity hospitals it is replacing and will be easier/faster to access by car.



i agree, the other 3 hospitals don't have enough parking (free or otherwise) as it is and they are all located in the city at present and I can only imagine that it is a nightmare for some at the moment to get to work.


----------



## Purple

I don't recall the figures but minister Harney said on the radio yesterday that the patient to midwife ratio would be better in the new hospital than in the combined old hospitals, even at the current lower level. She also made the point that the existing ratio was better than any of the other maternity hospitals in the country.
The HSE is not blameless in this and the adversarial environment between management and staff (unions) in the health service is a disgrace which reflects badly on all involved.


----------



## RainyDay

Gordanus said:


> There are generally no redundancies in nursing......they just leave to find better hospitals.


Or to find nice, clean 9-5 jobs as sales reps with pharmaceutical companies.



sherib said:


> Widgets and babies - not comparable I do agree. Perhaps the opening of a new "state of the art" maternity hospital is being seen as an opportunity for economy, in view of the comment below which was made by Minister Harney last January; she generally get her facts right even if they're not welcome. The nation _is_ calling for better value for taxpayers' money is it not?
> 
> _Posted 18.01.2007
> 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.
> _


I'd be cautious about drawing conclusions from statistics like these in isolation. You'd need to compare the number of beds, the number of GP's, the number of physios and speech therapists, the investment in preventative medicine and many other figures to draw any sensible conclusions.



sherib said:


> Is it not likely that the amaglamation of three old hospitals and their replacement by a newly designed modern one could be expected to yield efficiencies at all staffing levels?


Like I said last time, "Perhaps you can make specific suggestions about how economies of scale would apply to midwifery?". I can see how there would be economies of scale on administration and support services like radiography & lab services, but I don't see how ecomonies of scale apply to midwifery. It's a pretty hands-on business. So perhaps before you rush to judgement, you might throw some light on how these efficiencies would be found in midwifery.


----------



## MOB

"I can see how there would be economies of scale on administration and support services like radiography & lab services, but I don't see how ecomonies of scale apply to midwifery. It's a pretty hands-on business. "

I think I would disagree.  A mother might come in to hospital anything from 4-48 hours before the actual 'hands on' element of the birth.  Even with a quick birth, free of complications, there is a large element of waiting around, with midwives popping in every now and again to keep an eye on progress.   One midwife might not comfortably manage 4 births on her own, because of the danger that she will be urgently needed in two places at once (I am plucking this figure from the air, for illustrative purposes only).  Keeping with the same proportions, two midwives would be far more comfortable managing 8 births between them.  Three midwives would be more comfortable again managing twelve births between them.  

I think there are almost definitely economies of scale.  Perhaps this is not the exact right term to use - but with more staff, in a bigger hospital, and with more births, there is less volatility in the workload for each individual midwife, and less chance of a crisis due to sudden overload of work.


----------



## Purple

Rainyday, do you support the nurses stance?


----------



## RainyDay

MOB said:


> I think I would disagree.  A mother might come in to hospital anything from 4-48 hours before the actual 'hands on' element of the birth.  Even with a quick birth, free of complications, there is a large element of waiting around, with midwives popping in every now and again to keep an eye on progress.   One midwife might not comfortably manage 4 births on her own, because of the danger that she will be urgently needed in two places at once (I am plucking this figure from the air, for illustrative purposes only).  Keeping with the same proportions, two midwives would be far more comfortable managing 8 births between them.  Three midwives would be more comfortable again managing twelve births between them.


I never suggested that each mother required a dedicated midwife for the duration of her labour. I agree that each midwife can probably handle more than one birth simultaenously, but this doesn't nothing to explain how economies of scale can be derived from merging 3 hospitals into one. If anyone can throw any light on this, I'd be delighted to hear it.


Purple said:


> Rainyday, do you support the nurses stance?


I really don't know enough about the matter to come out either way. Interestingly, this limitation doesn't seem to stop most posters on this thread from jumping to conclusions which are not supported by the facts.

Now it's my turn - Are you going to enlighten us as to where/when "the INO said they would not go on strike if they were paid off" as you claimed earlier?


----------



## Gordanus

MOB said:


> A mother might come in to hospital anything from 4-48 hours before the actual 'hands on' element of the birth.  Even with a quick birth, free of complications, there is a large element of waiting around, with midwives popping in every now and again to keep an eye on progress.   One midwife might not comfortably manage 4 births on her own, because of the danger that she will be urgently needed in two places at once (I am plucking this figure from the air, for illustrative purposes only).  Keeping with the same proportions, two midwives would be far more comfortable managing 8 births between them.  Three midwives would be more comfortable again managing twelve births between them.



Holy god!  MOB must be male!   There SHOULD be continuous attendance in labour..... prior to the birth, maybe one midwife for 4 women, but we never know just how fast or slowly a birth will progress.  And if a woman is there for 48 hours before the baby is expelled, she's having problems. It's Murphy's Law that anything that can go wrong will go wrong - it's always when there is short-staffing that things go wrong due to inadequate monitoring.   Would anyone risk his wife's/baby's health/life?   (I was in labour  on my first birth for 2 and a half days - my baby went into distress and I was seriously depleted - beginning to break down muscle mass for energy - by the time it was born.)


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Now it's my turn - Are you going to enlighten us as to where/when "the INO said they would not go on strike if they were paid off" as you claimed earlier?


Liam Doran said that he asked for €1000 as a sweetener to get the Nurses to move. This seems to have been dropped over the last day or so and according to Mr Doran on the radio last night it is all to do with staffing at this stage. The issue at this stage, as I understand it, is that the hospital well cater for 175 beds when at full staffing levels but the HSE want to open it with 124 beds, which is the existing number of beds that are covered by the existing three hospitals. The INO say that the staffing level will only be able to handle 116 beds. So basically the HSE are saying that the same staff in one new hospital will be able to cater for the same capacity as they catered for in 3 smaller old hospitals. The INO disagrees. 
The INO may well be legitimate concerns but I don't think 8 beds is a good enough reason to hold up the whole show. Of course if the management of the HSE were any good it would never have come to this.
Whatever about the details my problem is the holier than thou image the INO seek to project. They are a union, and a good one, that represents the interests of their members. It would take a lot to convince me that this would not be happening now if the nurses had been offered five grand to move...


----------



## MOB

"I agree that each midwife can probably handle more than one birth simultaenously, but this doesn't nothing to explain how economies of scale can be derived from merging 3 hospitals into one."

I think you may have missed my point.  I don't know how many births (on average) one midwife can handle simultaneously - the point is that with a larger number of midwives in one place, the total is greater than the sum of its individual parts.  Using wholly illustrative numbers,  my point is that it is going to be a lot easier for 10 midwives to manage an average of 40 births a day than it is for 2 midwives to manage 8 births a day.  At some point, the returns from scale may diminish, but with a larger unit, you can surely have better quality of service (or reduced manpower, or a bit of both).  Is this not an economy of scale?


----------



## Purple

I think the HSE agrees with you MOB. That's why they think the capacity can increase by 6-7% in the new hospital.


----------



## terrysgirl33

I think part of the problem is that the new wards are smaller (a problem for the nurses, not the patients of course).  Whereas two nurses could manage two eight bed wards before, they need more nurses to cover four 4 bed wards (or words to that effect, I may have the numbers wrong).


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> Liam Doran said that he asked for €1000 as a sweetener to get the Nurses to move. This seems to have been dropped over the last day or so and according to Mr Doran on the radio last night it is all to do with staffing at this stage. The issue at this stage, as I understand it, is that the hospital well cater for 175 beds when at full staffing levels but the HSE want to open it with 124 beds, which is the existing number of beds that are covered by the existing three hospitals. The INO say that the staffing level will only be able to handle 116 beds. So basically the HSE are saying that the same staff in one new hospital will be able to cater for the same capacity as they catered for in 3 smaller old hospitals. The INO disagrees.
> The INO may well be legitimate concerns but I don't think 8 beds is a good enough reason to hold up the whole show. Of course if the management of the HSE were any good it would never have come to this.
> Whatever about the details my problem is the holier than thou image the INO seek to project. They are a union, and a good one, that represents the interests of their members. It would take a lot to convince me that this would not be happening now if the nurses had been offered five grand to move...


That's fair enought, but it still doesn't stand up your earlier claim that "the INO said they would not go on strike if they were paid off". If you are unable to stand over this claim, it is only fair that you withdraw it.



MOB said:


> "I agree that each midwife can probably handle more than one birth simultaenously, but this doesn't nothing to explain how economies of scale can be derived from merging 3 hospitals into one."
> 
> I think you may have missed my point.  I don't know how many births (on average) one midwife can handle simultaneously - the point is that with a larger number of midwives in one place, the total is greater than the sum of its individual parts.  Using wholly illustrative numbers,  my point is that it is going to be a lot easier for 10 midwives to manage an average of 40 births a day than it is for 2 midwives to manage 8 births a day.  At some point, the returns from scale may diminish, but with a larger unit, you can surely have better quality of service (or reduced manpower, or a bit of both).  Is this not an economy of scale?


I had missed your point, but I get it now. But your point is based on the assumption that the midwives are not fully utilised in their existing hospitals. They may well have already achieved the maximum 'economy of scale' in their current hospitals, none of which are small clinics. Now I can't say for sure that there is no economy of scale involved in the move, but I'm pretty certain that none of the posters on this thread can say for certain that there is an economy of scale. Perhaps we shouldn't rush to judgement in the absence of the facts....


----------



## ashambles

http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_...&id=64804&SUBCAT=Tribune/News&SUBCATNAME=News

"Sadly for the INO ... it emerged on Saturday morning that it had indicated to Harney that if a compensation of 1,000 was paid to each member, the midwives would work.."

Seems to collaborate Purple's post, anyway their concerns of patient "safety" seem to have been allayed. So now the INO can concentrate on their 10% more for 10% less claim - probably also in the interest of patient safety.


----------



## RainyDay

ashambles said:


> http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_...&id=64804&SUBCAT=Tribune/News&SUBCATNAME=News
> 
> "Sadly for the INO ... it emerged on Saturday morning that it had indicated to Harney that if a compensation of 1,000 was paid to each member, the midwives would work.."
> 
> Seems to collaborate Purple's post


No it doesn't, given that Purple's post pre-dates the Saturday morning mentioned in the article. I look forward to Purple's clarification.


----------



## ashambles

Oh I see - fair enough then, when was that post by the way? The thread restarted on Mon 26 March, the Saturday referred to in the article is fairly clearly Sat 24 March.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> No it doesn't, given that Purple's post pre-dates the Saturday morning mentioned in the article. I look forward to Purple's clarification.


ashambles is correct. The information in the Tribume was on the radio all week.


----------



## rabbit

Purple said:


> Nurses are threatening industrial action if they do not get a 10.5% pay increase while reducing their working week to 35 hours. What justification are they offering for this? They have enjoyed substantial pay increases in recent years and the standard working week in this country is 39 hours. I do not think that they will have much public support for their actions.


 
Like most of the public service they are overpaid as it is. Mary Harney tonight was on the TV saying last year the average nurse earned 54,000 euro last year. This is much more than the average industrial wage, yet they enjoy security of employment and other perks. The country is gone mad.


----------



## MOB

I am not sure whether I think an average of 54k per annum is high or not - I would probably need to have a think about it.  However, I am fairly sure that the average industrial wage is not an appropriate comparator.   Nurses these days are educated to degree level: whatever the appropriate benchmark is, it is not the average industrial wage.  I do think that - in common with many other public sector workers - the nurses probably take for granted many of the standard benefits which apply in the public sector and which - if fully costed out - would be demonstrably unattainable in the private sector (pensions being one item in particular); but this is not a dig at nurses in particular.


----------



## nelly

personally i think their union got the timing wrong again. If they had looked for this when the celtic tiger was in full swing and the country was awash with money then they might have gotten it. Now I don't think they have a prayer because for the private sector workers its looking increasingly bleak - lots of companies leaving, companies like Amgen postponing their setting up for 2 years etc etc and then we have to look at people who have the "job for life" kicking up because they were not hired at the same rate as the person beside them - this happens in the private sector all the time, its down to supply and demand. 
BTW i think nurses pensions are not all that but then my own is not great - It doesn't exist  
Why can i ask, is the demand to get into nursing courses still as high as ever if it is such an unfairly paid job?, the nursing board as rigid as ever in not recognising other EU member training courses (to encourage nurses into the group)?, and  the unions so bad a managing their timing? 

They will get nothing from Mary Harney i suspect and as a private sector worker i can't say i am sorry, I just hope the government will ignore all other pay demands (blue flu springs to mind) when the humer takes the unions to go demanding as I honestly think its gone to the silly end of the spectrum. 

watchin last night and hearing all the "deals" done outsite beanchmarking annoyed me so much. It should be scrapped and public sector workers be invited into the real working world. 

and thats my rant for today.


----------



## dam099

rabbit said:


> Like most of the public service they are overpaid as it is. Mary Harney tonight was on the TV saying last year the average nurse earned 54,000 euro last year. This is much more than the average industrial wage, yet they enjoy security of employment and other perks. The country is gone mad.


 
How is that figure arrived at? The pay scale for staff nurses (who I would have thought account for the bulk of nurses) tops out at about €42K with maybe another €2-5K allowances available if they work in specialist areas.


----------



## pinkyBear

> How is that figure arrived at? The pay scale for staff nurses (who I would have thought account for the bulk of nurses) tops out at about €42K


I think you'll find that a nurse is quite well paid, being an ex nurse - I actually find the current behaviour discusting.
And this from a union that walked out of benchmarking!

[broken link removed]

With the 35 hour week you will also find that the "Allied Health" staff are on call during their lunch break where as a staff nurse is not.


----------



## Sunny

Just on a kinda unrelated point. Was watching the news last night when Mary Harney was speaking in the Dail about this developing crisis. I would have assumed all our esteemed public representatives would be rushing to hear what she had to say on the matter but the chamber was empty.

The nurses are looking for a 35 hour week and a 10% rise. The Dail sits on average 93 days a year (and on last nights evidence, I don't know why it bothers!). TD's wages have increased by more than 120% since January 1997 and now earn 11% more than their MP conterparts in the English Parliment. Do they work harder? I think it just shows what a scam benchmarking was.

I don't think the nurses should get the 35 hour week and while they may have a good argument over some pay inequalities, they would be better off concentrating on that rather than looking for a package that most private sector employees would find ridiculous.


----------



## Pique318

How many nurses work 39 hours a week? Very few I'd wager.
How many will be working 35 if/when this comes in ? Probably none.

So the reality is that nurses work probably 45-50 hours a week and get 6-11 hours overtime atm and want 4 more hours OT as none will be walking out the door after a 7 hour day !

By the way, how many people get paid OT in the (private, skilled, non manual labour) workforce ? Just curious....


----------



## RainyDay

rabbit said:


> Like most of the public service they are overpaid as it is. Mary Harney tonight was on the TV saying last year the average nurse earned 54,000 euro last year. This is much more than the average industrial wage, yet they enjoy security of employment and other perks. The country is gone mad.



Don't let Mary pull the wool over your eyes? Did she include the Matron's salary in her 'average' calculation (while of course the directors salaries are not included in the 'average industrial' calculation). How much of her 'average' earnings relates to shift allowances, compared to the 'average industrial'? Isn't it entirely reasonable to pay nurses a premium for shift work?

If you think nurses are overpaid, you might wonder why they are leaving in their droves for sales jobs and nursing overseas? You might wonder why 1/3 of the nurses in Dublin hospitals are non-Irish nationals? Just wait till one of your relatives is lying on a trolley waiting for nurse and you'll change your views quick enough.



pinkyBear said:


> And this from a union that walked out of benchmarking!


 Which union(s) walked out of benchmarking, Pinky?


----------



## sherib

It is very difficult if not impossible to get accurate facts about Nurses' salaries based on sound bites. No one knows the true story except those on the inside. However, from the Government side it does appear true that if the Nurses' pay claim were to be conceded it would lead to similar claims throughout the public service with resultant mayhem. If anyone knows how this scenario could be avoided, it would be interesting to hear of any possible mechanism. It has been claimed that the entitlement to a 35 hour week could be processed through Benchmarking; either this is true or false. This seems to be a reasonable claim _if the 35 hour week applies throughout the public service. _

Among the nurses' claims, the most reasonable one is the claim that Care workers, _who are less qualified and not registered_ and who report to Nurses, are paid more than Nurses. I'm almost certain that I heard in recent days that _this anomaly only concerns about 40+ nurses_. If this is correct, then that should be easily enough rectified and should not be a reason for industrial action. On the subject of having to be registered, also stated in support of Nurses' claims; to the best of my knowledge there is no register for many workers in the health care system, i.e., Radiographers, Physiotherapists, Occupational therapists, Speech therapists, Care workers or Psychologists. 
With regard to the number of Nurses leaving the profession, that is easily enough explained. It is an excellent qualification which is acceptable in most of the western world (unlike many others). It provides an opportunity to travel and to obtain better paid employment such as representatives with Pharmacutical companies, Occupational nursing with large companies, GP practice nursing and not forgetting complimentary "medicine" fields as well as Counselling after training courses of short duration that can be pursued part-time. They definitely do not go to the UK where Nurses' salaries are very much lower.

It remains to be seen whether or not it was a strategically beneficial move to embark on industrial action on the eve of a General Election. I can't see any future government conceding all the Nurses claims. The cost to the public purse due to the knock-on effect would be enormous; it wouldn't be a problem if the electorate were willing to accept a substantial hike in their tax rates to pay for this claim. That is the nub of the question.

IMO it was not a clever move to include the Children's hospital in Crumlin in this action. Whatever about adults, people will not view with sympathy actions that lead to Children's Out-Patients appointments and surgical operations having to be cancelled as was reported today - _if this is true. _


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Don't let Mary pull the wool over your eyes? Did she include the Matron's salary in her 'average' calculation (while of course the directors salaries are not included in the 'average industrial' calculation). How much of her 'average' earnings relates to shift allowances, compared to the 'average industrial'? Isn't it entirely reasonable to pay nurses a premium for shift work?


 It’s a fair point and I would also like to see a detailed breakdown of nursing pay scales. But it should be noted that nurses have made it clear that they are professionals and as such it is entirely proper to include all salary levels in calculating their average pay.



RainyDay said:


> If you think nurses are overpaid, you might wonder why they are leaving in their droves for sales jobs and nursing overseas?


 Many nurses leave to travel for a year or two and then come back. Many, like any other sector, change jobs because they realise that they would prefer to do something else. 



RainyDay said:


> You might wonder why 1/3 of the nurses in Dublin hospitals are non-Irish nationals?


 I don’t see your point here as it could also be concluded that they are very well paid and this attracts nurses from overseas to compete for the jobs. 



RainyDay said:


> Just wait till one of your relatives is lying on a trolley waiting for nurse and you'll change your views quick enough.


 So if one of my relatives is lying on a trolley waiting for a consultant I should then conclude that consultants are not overpaid? I don’t see the relevance. What I might conclude is that the hospitals are badly run and the nurses are part of the problem, but that would hardly be news.


----------



## ashambles

The average nurses earnings come from taking the total paid to nurses and dividing by the number of nurses. Neither wool pulling nor rocket science. 

Directors of nursing/matrons are included in that average figure - but they are also represented by the INO and are also involved in the pay claim. So the INO can hardly claim it's unfair they're included in the average figure.

The figure is signifigantly higher than the simple salary per grade, due to allowances and overtime. Not that unfair they're included either - the pay rise will also affect them.  

On the INO site where they've been diligently updating their trolley watch webpage  - it's notable since the (in)action started they've not produced any figures.


----------



## Megan

I know a student nurse who during the week dye a patient's hair. This student is on placement as part of her training. I was surprised to hear this as I am sure that does not fall into the job description of a nurse. 
I only hope that down the road when she is a fully trained nurse that she will still feel that she will be able to do something like that for a patient but I suppose the INO will have got to her by then.


----------



## Gordanus

sherib said:


> It is very difficult if not impossible to get accurate facts about Nurses' salaries based on sound bites. No one knows the true story except those on the inside. <



Nurses salaries are easy to get hold of - SIPTU & IMPACT publish the scales on their websites.   These are basic pay; nurses working shifts will get shift allowance on top for working nights and Sundays.  Public Health Nurses, nursses working in out-patient depts, all community nurses work 9-5 and do not get shift allowances.



sherib said:


> >However, from the Government side it does appear true that if the Nurses' pay claim were to be conceded it would lead to similar claims throughout the public service with resultant mayhem. If anyone knows how this scenario could be avoided, it would be interesting to hear of any possible mechanism. It has been claimed that the entitlement to a 35 hour week could be processed through Benchmarking; either this is true or false. This seems to be a reasonable claim _if the 35 hour week applies throughout the public service. _<



This has been addressed in previous posts.  A nurse working 9-5 is paid for 8 hours as she is on call during lunch, rather than being paid for 7 hours.  If she does work during her lunchbreak, she cannot claim back time.




sherib said:


> >On the subject of having to be registered, also stated in support of Nurses' claims; to the best of my knowledge there is no register for many workers in the health care system, i.e., Radiographers, Physiotherapists, Occupational therapists, Speech therapists, Care workers or Psychologists.<



Registration for all para medical professions is coming in.  The Health & Social Care Professionals Council has representatives from all paramed professions (Clinical Biiochemists, Dieticians, Medical Scientists, OTs, Orthoptists, physios, podiatrists, psychologists, radiographers, social workers, social care workers, speech & language therapists)  and is in talks with the DoHC to register all these professions.  Registration is to protect the public as nobody who is not registered can call themselves members of the profession.




sherib said:


> >With regard to the number of Nurses leaving the profession, that is easily enough explained. It is an excellent qualification which is acceptable in most of the western world (unlike many others). It provides an opportunity to travel and to obtain better paid employment such as representatives with Pharmacutical companies, Occupational nursing with large companies, GP practice nursing and not forgetting complimentary "medicine" fields as well as Counselling after training courses of short duration that can be pursued part-time. They definitely do not go to the UK where Nurses' salaries are very much lower.<



OH nurses, Practice nurses etc are still nurses and need to continue their registration, which will in future require a committment to CPD.  if they leave, maybe they also found that they got burned out as people tend to go into these professions to 'help others'; they then find that drive frustrated at every turn due to lack of resources.  Nursing is also a very physical job - lots of lifting of patients - and many nurses get back injuries and leave.  Many find the job too tough as they get older, and shift working may not suit all.  The fact that nurses leave a profession that they entered at age 18 should surprise nobody - doesn't this happen in other jobs?




sherib said:


> >It remains to be seen whether or not it was a strategically beneficial move to embark on industrial action on the eve of a General Election. I can't see any future government conceding all the Nurses claims. The cost to the public purse due to the knock-on effect would be enormous; it wouldn't be a problem if the electorate were willing to accept a substantial hike in their tax rates to pay for this claim. That is the nub of the question.<



I agree; it's bad timing.  But the issue of hours should have been addressed a long time ago.  It is the frustration of nurses that is spilling out now, and it is unfortunate.



sherib said:


> >IMO it was not a clever move to include the Children's hospital in Crumlin in this action. Whatever about adults, people will not view with sympathy actions that lead to Children's Out-Patients appointments and surgical operations having to be cancelled as was reported today - _if this is true. _



It's impossible to make exceptions.  I heard someone calling that Cancer patients be left out.  Why not then Cardiac, or Dialysis, or whatever?


----------



## MOB

"The average nurses earnings come from taking the total paid to nurses and dividing by the number of nurses. Neither wool pulling nor rocket science....."

Certainly, this is one form of averaging, and it produces the figure properly referred to as the mean average. 

This is the most commonly held view on how to arrive at an 'average' figure, but the issue is a little more complex.   Most reputable statisticians would regard the median (which is also an average) as a more informative figure when discussing average earnings.  A simple example would illustrate:  if Bill Gates moved into your street, then the average income for your street (calculated as a mean average) would become meaningless, while the median average would hardly move at all.   There are other ways of calculating an average too; I think there are three mainstream methods, of which the above are two.

I have no idea what sort of 'average' Mary Harney used in arriving at her figure;  however, I am always frankly dubious of statistics when quoted by politicians.  Mind you, the trade unions are no slouches either when it comes to quoting statistics in a way designed to mislead rather than inform.


----------



## sherib

> Originally Posted by *MOB*
> _I am always frankly dubious of statistics when quoted by politicians. Mind you, the trade unions are no slouches either when it comes to quoting statistics in a way designed to mislead rather than inform._





> _Lies, damn lies and statistics_





> Originally Posted by *Gordanus*
> _Nurses salaries are easy to get hold of - SIPTU & IMPACT publish the scales on their websites_


 Not so - you have to be a member to access these sites or so I found. Anyhow what I meant was that one would need to know point on pay scale, other qualifications, overtime, allowances etc which, I presume, must cause significant variations in median/average salary.
_



This has been addressed in previous posts. A nurse working 9-5 is paid for 8 hours as she is on call during lunch, rather than being paid for 7 hours. If she does work during her lunchbreak, she cannot claim back time.

Click to expand...

 _This does not answer the point I made which was: what mechanism would prevent all workers in the public service from seeking the same increase which Nurses are claiming?


> _Nursing is also a very physical job - lots of lifting of patients - and many nurses get back injuries and leave. Many find the job too tough as they get older, and shift working may not suit all._


I have sympathy with this and believe it might be better for both patients and Nurses that they move on if they find the work too onerous or less satisfying as the years pass. In fact I would support a claim for retirement at 60 rather than 65 years which, I understand, applies to Psychiatric Nurses. Anyone who has experienced less than tender care from a Nurse would agree I feel sure. If people with families (men and women) find it difficult to juggle 9-5 jobs with home responsibilites, it must be even more stressful and difficult for Nurses, in which case something/someone has to suffer. In the past, when Nursing was regarded as a vocation, most if not all were unmarried. This is not the case any more I imagine. It's a tough job and when discontent sets in, as it likely does with some due to age and circumstances, I'm not convinced money will be enough to relieve that.

PS No one has refuted the statement that the pay differential between Care Workers and Nurses only applies to ~ 40 Nurses - as reported during the week so presumably that was correct?


----------



## RainyDay

ashambles said:


> The average nurses earnings come from taking the total paid to nurses and dividing by the number of nurses. Neither wool pulling nor rocket science.
> 
> Directors of nursing/matrons are included in that average figure - but they are also represented by the INO and are also involved in the pay claim. So the INO can hardly claim it's unfair they're included in the average figure.
> 
> The figure is signifigantly higher than the simple salary per grade, due to allowances and overtime. Not that unfair they're included either - the pay rise will also affect them.


The wool pulling relates to the comparison of the figure calculated in this way to the 'average industrial wage' figure which does not include shift allowances and does not include salaries paid to management/directors. This is comparing apples with water-melons, and being surprised when they are different in size.


----------



## Gordanus

see my post 24.01.07 for Staff Nurse pay, a few pages back.  (Staff Nurses is what most nurses are - it's the basic grade. Some will be promoted to Managers/Ward Sisters, some will leave, others will go into other branches of nursinig eg Public Health Nursing - but the bulk of nurses are Staff Nurses)


----------



## jmayo

I will admit I would rather give the nurses a pay rise than the useless crowd of gob***** that populate the HSE (Health Boards by another name) or the overpaid pampered consultants. 
Recently had to use health service in NZ and apart from being injured it would have been an absolute joy.  No cr** with long queues, waiting lists, lazy inefficient staff and beuracry like experienced from our so called health service.

A question I have is if Bertie and co meet the nurses demands who will be next out of the traps looking for pay increases and decreases in working hours.


----------



## Sunny

jmayo said:


> A question I have is if Bertie and co meet the nurses demands who will be next out of the traps looking for pay increases and decreases in working hours.


 
Teachers by the looks of it. Followed by guards. Followed by the rest of the public sector. And finally followed by a very pi**ed off private sector.


----------



## Purple

The INTO have already taken the first place in the queue.

The teachers are now saying that inflation is too high so they want more money. How can any group spend years negotiating a long term pay deal and then just walk out when inflation gets high for a few month? If inflation had been lower than predicted would they have accepted the government giving them lower than agreed pay rises? Coming from the private sector I genuinely do not understand the mind set of the public sector in this country where unions want pay to be set at what they think they need or deserve, not at what they are worth. 
Public sector pay went up by an average of 59% from 2001 to 2006 while the average industrial wage went up by about 21%. Pension costs went up by a staggering 81% over the same period. See here for details. How is this sustainable?


----------



## joe sod

I think the nurses have got it badly wrong looking for these demands. The last time in 1999 they got full support and sympathy from the public, also the celtic tiger was young and healthy. The nurses want to be compared with other workers in the public service, however it is workers in the private sector that are comparing themselves to nurses and are actually envious of the package the nurses have. This is a debate the nurses are reluctant to get into and speak as if private sector workers were on a different planet to them. It will be the equivalent of ireland's miners strike because I don't think the government can give in on this.


----------



## edo

Purple said:


> The INTO have already taken the first place in the queue.
> 
> The teachers are now saying that inflation is too high so they want more money. How can any group spend years negotiating a long term pay deal and then just walk out when inflation gets high for a few month? If inflation had been lower than predicted would they have accepted the government giving them lower than agreed pay rises? Coming from the private sector I genuinely do not understand the mind set of the public sector in this country where unions want pay to be set at what they think they need or deserve, not at what they are worth.
> Public sector pay went up by an average of 59% from 2001 to 2006 while the average industrial wage went up by about 21%. Pension costs went up by a staggering 81% over the same period. See here for details. How is this sustainable?


 
Well said Purple - as regards inflation I don't think the public sector understand the meaning of the word - ironic considering its their inefficiency and wastefulness and then jacking up the charges to try and hide this that is causing most of the inflation here in the first place.

As regards are they worth it? - Well everybody I talked to in the public sector are under the opinion that they would be multimillionaire stock brokers and Mighty CEOs if they hadn't offered it all up to work selflessly for the poor, destitute and the starving (ie the entire private sector in a couple of years if the start of this one is anything to go by!) by supplying us with the wonderful public services we have at the moment - parallel universes I think the phenomenon is called.



> I think the nurses have got it badly wrong looking for these demands. The last time in 1999 they got full support and sympathy from the public, also the celtic tiger was young and healthy. The nurses want to be compared with other workers in the public service, however it is workers in the private sector that are comparing themselves to nurses and are actually envious of the package the nurses have. This is a debate the nurses are reluctant to get into and speak as if private sector workers were on a different planet to them. It will be the equivalent of ireland's miners strike because I don't think the government can give in on this.Today 02:42 PM


No way the Gov is going to give in now that the teachers have put their cards on the table - and rest of the public service unions are watching on with great interest. The longer the dispute goes on , the more public sympathy will erode away - The Gov know that and they just have to hang on until the election is called - all the opposition parties are staying very quiet as they know that they will have to face the same nonsense if they get elected in place of FF/PD's - I Think the Unions are being extremely stupid about this dispute and should know that Bertie has been their best friend - this brinkmanship will have no winners - Joe Sod - I think you are dead right - This is Ireland's miner's strike - who runs the country? - the elected government or sectional vested interests? - if they win this the Celtic Tiger is finally dead and its back to the bad old days


----------



## oopsbuddy

There's a serious anti-public service (no matter what section) sentiment running through this debate, and as a life-long private sector worker, with close links to many nurses, I can see both sides. 

However, in respect of the nurses, Their demands have been in the public arena for a very, very long time, and frustration has reached boiling point. Who else has had to wait 27 years for a recommendation on working hours to be implemented. That's more than half a working life time...and still waiting! Who else is expected to have supervisory control and management responsibility for employees who receive more money for less hours and are less qualified...and be happy about it? Why is the holy grail of 'bench-marking' expected to keep workers happy when it perpetuates the perceived pay inequalities between different public sector employees which they seek to have remedied? Any public sector job will be looked at enviously by those who do not have the same benefits (the grass is always greener...) but a 50% pension for a full 40 years service isn't that hectic, and there are no bonuses, no other benefits, weekend shifts, 12 hour days, night shifts etc, and they even have to pay (in full) for their own Christmas party! But that's only one part of this issue. One of the most important issues is the stressful working conditions which are endured. These people deal with life and death situations daily, and if you are the type of person who is compassionate enough to want to work in an area that provides care and help for people who are ill and at their most vulnerable, you don't necessarily become immune to it, you just have to cope with more and more of it. And when you get really angry and fed up that there are not enough staff to help you cope with the increasing workload, and you are forced to decide to either stay on and persevere (and hopefully get rewarded adequately for your efforts), or quit, and you are criticised by those who have never worked in similar circumstances....what would you do? Try working for one day in their shoes and then feel free to criticise them for their easy lifestyle and "greed" for more pay. Alternatively, let them throw in the towel completely and see what's left afterwards. I, for one, would not (COULD not) do what they do, and I think they deserve everything they are demanding. But that's just my opinion!


----------



## Purple

oopsbuddy said:


> However, in respect of the nurses, Their demands have been in the public arena for a very, very long time, and frustration has reached boiling point. Who else has had to wait 27 years for a recommendation on working hours to be implemented. That's more than half a working life time...and still waiting!


Just because somebody asks for something for 27 years it does not follow that they should get it.



oopsbuddy said:


> Who else is expected to have supervisory control and management responsibility for employees who receive more money for less hours and are less qualified...and be happy about it?


 Can you give examples?



oopsbuddy said:


> Why is the holy grail of 'bench-marking' expected to keep workers happy when it perpetuates the perceived pay inequalities between different public sector employees which they seek to have remedied? Any public sector job will be looked at enviously by those who do not have the same benefits (the grass is always greener...) but a 50% pension for a full 40 years service isn't that hectic, and there are no bonuses, no other benefits, weekend shifts, 12 hour days, night shifts etc,


Nurses get shift and weekend allowances in line with Gardaí, prison officers and fire brigade personnel. The allowances are also pensionable. There are other perks like career breaks, paid sick days, a short working week (39 hours) by private sector standards, job security etc. As for a 50% pension, no public sector pension scheme is self funding therefore nurses pay is effectively topped up by X amount in the form of a pension payment. Benchmarking is expected to keep workers happy because they signed up to it and should have the integrity to honour their own agreements.  



oopsbuddy said:


> But that's only one part of this issue. One of the most important issues is the stressful working conditions which are endured.


 More stressful than the Gardaí, who are expected to put themselves in harms way or the fire service who are expected to enter burning buildings?


oopsbuddy said:


> These people deal with life and death situations daily,


 No they don’t. Nurses are neither qualified or expected to make any life and death decisions. Ever. They may have to assist the doctor who is dealing with the situation but that’s not the same thing.


oopsbuddy said:


> if you are the type of person who is compassionate enough to want to work in an area that provides care and help for people who are ill and at their most vulnerable, you don't necessarily become immune to it, you just have to cope with more and more of it.


 I agree but that’s the nature of the job and they knew that when they took it on.


oopsbuddy said:


> And when you get really angry and fed up that there are not enough staff to help you cope with the increasing workload, and you are forced to decide to either stay on and persevere (and hopefully get rewarded adequately for your efforts), or quit, and you are criticised by those who have never worked in similar circumstances....what would you do?


  How about asking for more staff at the existing wages (some of the highest in Europe) instead of a 25% hourly pay rise.


oopsbuddy said:


> Try working for one day in their shoes and then feel free to criticise them for their easy lifestyle and "greed" for more pay. Alternatively, let them throw in the towel completely and see what's left afterwards. I, for one, would not (COULD not) do what they do, and I think they deserve everything they are demanding. But that's just my opinion!


 I never said they had an easy lifestyle. I simply suggested that they have had pay increases far above the average for the last 10 years and a 25% hourly rate increase is unreasonable and would be economically suicidal for this country as there would be a knock on through the whole public sector.


----------



## Gordanus

Purple said:


> Just because somebody asks for something for 27 years it does not follow that they should get it.



It was recommended that they get it 27 years ago!



Purple said:


> How about asking for more staff at the existing wages (some of the highest in Europe) instead of a 25% hourly pay rise.



I believe that Irish nurses pay is 5th highest in Europe (of nurses pay) when the calculation is made using what you can buy with your Euro.  (Don't know the actual source for this, but it was given on Morning Ireland during the week.)


----------



## nelly

Gordanus said:


> It was recommended that they get it 27 years ago!



does anyone have a copy of what the labour court actually ruled on this?


----------



## Megan

Just heard a nurse speaking on Liveline and the general feeling seems to be that patients are being look after better now then before the strike. Maybe we should just continue with the ban on nurses using phones and they will get to do the work they are meant to be doing that is looking after patients. Could clerical staff do the paper work envolved on a ward.


----------



## oopsbuddy

Again, I apologise for not "multi-quoting, so I will try and answer Purple's points as clearly as possible:



Purple said:


> Just because somebody asks for something for 27 years it does not follow that they should get it..





It was recommended by the Labour Court in 1981 that nurses should be the first to benefit from a 35-hour week. 



Purple said:


> "Can you give examples?.



 I asked for the examples of where else such a situation would be tolerated! I refer you to care assistants mentioned in an earlier post, a point which was reiterated by Liam Doran. 



Purple said:


> Benchmarking is expected to keep workers happy because they signed up to it and should have the integrity to honour their own agreements. .



So are you now suggesting that nurses are dishonest as well as greedy, and that they have no grounds for feeling disgruntled with the way their demands have been treated in the past?




Purple said:


> More stressful than the Gardaí, who are expected to put themselves in harms way or the fire service who are expected to enter burning buildings?.



...every day? I did not bring these categories into the argument, I'm only referring to nurses. But as you mention the Gardai, how on earth did they get away with that shambolic and despicably dishonest "blue flu" day - answer - because they have a far stronger and more influential lobbying position. 




Purple said:


> No they don’t. Nurses are neither qualified or expected to make any life and death decisions. Ever. They may have to assist the doctor who is dealing with the situation but that’s not the same thing..



Again, read my post Purple! There is a difference between working in life and death situations and having to make life and death decisions. Not all deaths take place in the presence of a doctor either, with nurses standing by waiting for the doctor's 'decisions'. Consider hospice and community cases, less high profile, but nurses dealing with patients who are dying, and their grieving relatives, sometimes slow and painful deaths.



Purple said:


> I agree but that’s the nature of the job and they knew that when they took it on..



So the only options you would afford them is put up with it or get out! Many are getting out! Where does that leave your next point?



Purple said:


> How about asking for more staff at the existing wages (some of the highest in Europe) instead of a 25% hourly pay rise..



Where are these extra nurses to come from? There have been demands for years to provide more nurses, but allied to that is the need to pay more to nurses to attract more people to the profession.




Purple said:


> I never said they had an easy lifestyle. I simply suggested that they have had pay increases far above the average for the last 10 years and a 25% hourly rate increase is unreasonable and would be economically suicidal for this country as there would be a knock on through the whole public sector.



I did not say YOU presonally alleged that they had an easy lifestyle, although your position certainly suggests that you cannot understand why they are not perfectly content with it.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> Nurses get shift and weekend allowances in line with Gardaí, prison officers and fire brigade personnel. The allowances are also pensionable.


Are you certain about the pensionability issue? I was speaking to another healthcare worker recently (not a nurse) whose main gripe was that her shift allowances (which make up 30%-40% of her take home pay) were not pensionable.


----------



## joe sod

Well 27 years ago was 1980, 3 years after the 1977 give away budget. They thought in 1980 fianna fail would give in after they gave so much away in 1977. Its the same reason that they have ressurected this again after 27 years because they think the government will cave in. I don't think it was too high on their agenda in 1999 because they knew well that they would not get it and that it would damage their other claims. It is the worsening economic backround that has really tied the governments hands this time. Fianna Fail has come under heavy criticism for years about its waste of public money and fear of public service unions.


----------



## ashambles

> The wool pulling relates to the comparison of the figure calculated in this way to the 'average industrial wage'


Are you certain about this - the comparison is between earnings not wages on both sides so it's a fair comparison - 54k earnings for the nurses 32k earnings for the industrial workers.

The CSO define  

Gross Earnings:
This is defined as the gross amount paid to employees before deduction of income tax, PRSI, etc.  including overtime, service pay, shift and other allowances, commissions, production and regular bonuses, etc. Irregular bonuses, back-pay and redundancy payments are excluded.

[broken link removed]

In 2005 the average male industrial earnings was 32k according to the CSO, including overtime which quickly dries up in a slowdown. The average nurse earnings was 54k including overtime which will not easily dry up - especially when they get a 35 hr week.


----------



## RainyDay

ashambles said:


> Are you certain about this - the comparison is between earnings not wages on both sides so it's a fair comparison - 54k earnings for the nurses 32k earnings for the industrial workers.


The unfairness relates to the selection of individuals to be included in the calculation. On the nurses side, they included Directors of Nursing and other senior staff. On the industry side, I strongly suspect that they did NOT include production directors and operation managers etc.


----------



## Delboy

Was it Marc Brehony of the Irish Times on The Last Word yesterday who said that according to the OECD figures, Ireland has 13 nurses per 1000 population. France,1 of the countries we aspire to match in terms of a health service, has a rate of 7 per 1000!!!!
To me the fact that we have 40,000 nurses in such a small country is crazy....are we all really that 'ill' as a nation.
Matt Cooper said, and I agree with him, is that there are so many nurses coming here from abroad and they are obviously happy with the hours and wages. And a lot of the Irish nurses dont work full weeks anyway as reduced weeks better suits those with families etc.

The 35 hour week is crippling France and it's economy. The new president is going to have to tackle this when elected if France is to regain competitiveness. And what is happening in Ireland right now.....certain areas of the public service are on 35 hours and the rest are scrambling to join them. And them all in their secure jobs with fantastic pensions!!!

To finish I'll mention an article that Constatin Gurdgiev had in the Sunday Tribune on 27th March about our inefficient public service, and in particular the Health Service:
"Effectively, these numbers mean that if public services, like health, were delivered with the same efficiency as the average productivity attained in private sector, Ireland could have had the same quality of health services for approximately 57% less in public expenditure"

The study was conducted by the University of Groningen with support from the EU.


----------



## Amygdala

Delboy said:


> Ireland has 13 nurses per 1000 population. France,1 of the countries we aspire to match in terms of a health service, has a rate of 7 per 1000!!!!


 
Here there are no nursing assistants where in france I believe there are 2:1 nursing assistants:nurses.
It is always important to put quoted figures in the proper context for a well informed debate.
It would also be useful if someone could clarify the fact that the average industrial wage does include all those with third level degress and all levels of management!!!!!!!!!


----------



## oopsbuddy

Delboy said:


> The 35 hour week is crippling France and it's economy. The new president is going to have to tackle this when elected if France is to regain competitiveness. And what is happening in Ireland right now.....certain areas of the public service are on 35 hours and the rest are scrambling to join them. And them all in their secure jobs with fantastic pensions!!!
> 
> 
> Here's a suggestion then - get all those who are on 35 hours now to go back to 39 (like the nurses). I'm sure they'll all agree easily enough! Otherwise, don't give the nurses a hard time for wanting the same working hours as their OT, speech therapist, physio colleagues, etc. They're all degree educated after all, and don't tell me that their responsibilities are less important than their counterparts mentioned above (no disrespect to them whatsoever).


----------



## RainyDay

Delboy said:


> Was it Marc Brehony of the Irish Times .....article that Constatin Gurdgiev had in the Sunday Tribune on 27th March about our inefficient public service,


Let's not expect to get balanced views from Mark Coleman or Constantin Gurdgiev both of whom earn their living by taking fairly extreme right-wing positions on all matters.


----------



## rabbit

RainyDay said:


> Let's not expect to get balanced views from Mark Coleman or Constantin Gurdgiev both of whom earn their living by taking fairly extreme right-wing positions on all matters.


 

I would not describe them as taking fairly extreme right-wing positions on all matters.   I quote from above :

"Effectively, these numbers mean that if public services, like health, were delivered with the same efficiency as the average productivity attained in private sector, Ireland could have had the same quality of health services for approximately 57% less in public expenditure"

The study was conducted by the University of Groningen with support from the EU.


----------



## RainyDay

rabbit said:


> I would not describe them as taking fairly extreme right-wing positions on all matters.   I quote from above :
> 
> "Effectively, these numbers mean that if public services, like health, were delivered with the same efficiency as the average productivity attained in private sector, Ireland could have had the same quality of health services for approximately 57% less in public expenditure"
> 
> The study was conducted by the University of Groningen with support from the EU.



I rest my case.


----------



## dodo

My slant on the nurses, first thing they are not the best nurses in the world, I am sure the French, German, Swedish nurses would have something to say about that, we here in Ireland always say we have best consultants, doctors, teachers etc which is quite annoying , first thing they knew what they where getting themselves in for when they became nurses, they want a reduction of working hours and 10% raise which including the drop in hours works out not far of 20% increase when you take all into account. They do have a tough job but so does the bin man. It is Doctors who save lives in most cases that is why they are on such good money not enough in my view.The current  nurses would have to do overtime to fill gap the hours they want reduced, so they would end up getting paid OT rate on the hours they want to reduce sounds a bit mad Ted I'm thinking.Someone has to fill the reduced hours and they are not going to hired nurses to do that.


----------



## soy

oopsbuddy said:


> Here's a suggestion then - get all those who are on 35 hours now to go back to 39 (like the nurses).



Exactly - No wonder the nurses are feel hard done by when they have to do 39 hours yet the rest of the health service is on 35 hours. I have no objection to the nurses getting their pay rise but do not support the reduction in hours.

The government should set about getting all the others back onto 39 hours.


----------



## joe sod

I think it would be a good idea to allow nurses with 3 or 4 years experience to train as doctors. I think they should be able to do this without going through the points system. I think it would be good to have good nurses given the option to become doctors. I think the medical council's strangle hold on the training of doctors should end.


----------



## KalEl

I support the nurses completely.
It's ridiculous to have highly educated professionals earning less and working longer hours than their subordinates. Nurses are victims of their own innate goodness and the government/HSE have taken advantage of this for years. Many good nurses are leaving to work as medical reps purely for financial reasons. The improved pay and conditions would stem this brain drain and benefit patients.


----------



## Megan

soy said:


> Exactly - No wonder the nurses are feel hard done by when they have to do 39 hours yet the rest of the health service is on 35 hours. I have no objection to the nurses getting their pay rise but do ot support the reduction in hours.
> 
> The government should set about getting all the others back onto 39 hours.



Did I not hear on the news today that the nurses union said its not helpfull that other health service workers are also looking for a 35 hour week. If thats the case - they must not be on a 35 hour week at present.


----------



## KalEl

Megan said:


> Did I not hear on the news today that the nurses union said its not helpfull that other health service workers are also looking for a 35 hour week. If thats the case - they must not be on a 35 hour week at present.


 
I think it's cleaning and catering staff...and some maintenence people.
The nurses are looking for the same treatment comparable employees receive.


----------



## Sunster

joe sod said:


> I think it would be a good idea to allow nurses with 3 or 4 years experience to train as doctors. I think they should be able to do this without going through the points system. I think it would be good to have good nurses given the option to become doctors. I think the medical council's strangle hold on the training of doctors should end.



If they don't want to work 39 hours, what maks you think they might want to spend another 5 years a a student only to start working 70+ hours!


----------



## Sunster

As far as the strike action is concerned, they have my backing. I feel they are underpaid.


----------



## nelly

oopsbuddy said:


> [ They're all degree educated after all



I suspect that not even half the overall number of nurses working in Ireland today have a degree which only came in circa '96. Its an inaccuracy used again and again by INO. The silly thing is that when the degree came in Diploma qualified nurses with years of experience were told to go back to college if they wanted a degree (very difficult to do if you are full time and maybe a parent etc so not too many did that), their union was deafeningly silent when nurses suggested that they have their qualification of diploma upgraded to degree at that time. So its a bit rich to tell us now that all the nurses have a degree. I am open to correction.


----------



## KalEl

nelly said:


> I suspect that not even half the overall number of nurses working in Ireland today have a degree which only came in circa '96. Its an inaccuracy used again and again by INO. The silly thing is that when the degree came in Diploma qualified nurses with years of experience were told to go back to college if they wanted a degree (very difficult to do if you are full time and maybe a parent etc so not too many did that), their union was deafeningly silent when nurses suggested that they have their qualification of diploma upgraded to degree at that time. So its a bit rich to tell us now that all the nurses have a degree. I am open to correction.


 
I think this is nit-picking...obviously some older nurses do not have a degree but it's the situation now which is relevant.


----------



## oopsbuddy

nelly said:


> I suspect that not even half the overall number of nurses working in Ireland today have a degree which only came in circa '96. Its an inaccuracy used again and again by INO. The silly thing is that when the degree came in Diploma qualified nurses with years of experience were told to go back to college if they wanted a degree (very difficult to do if you are full time and maybe a parent etc so not too many did that), their union was deafeningly silent when nurses suggested that they have their qualification of diploma upgraded to degree at that time. So its a bit rich to tell us now that all the nurses have a degree. I am open to correction.



Fair enough, I meant and therefore clarify that NEW graduate nurses are degree educated now. Many already qualified nurses have also chosen the option to go back and get their degree, in order to be on a comparable scale as their new colleagues when it comes to being eligible for higher grade positions. But you are right Nelly, it doesn't suit many others whose personal and family circumstances do not easily accommodate a return to study, and their years of experience do not often count when they are compared to those with degrees. So in my view, most qualified nurses DO now have a degree education, or if they are long enough qualified via diplomas and many years of experience, it may be a bit rich to suggest that they do not have the equivalent of a degree education. 

After all, the nurse with a degree and little or no patient experience is not necessarily a better nurse than one who qualified years earlier (to the required examination standard at that time) and who has the practical nursing experience but not the degree. But this is really not the point.


----------



## nelly

KalEl said:


> I think this is nit-picking...obviously some older nurses do not have a degree but it's the situation now which is relevant.



It is inaccurate information stated again and again by the nurses union. They have a valid case for what they are demanding already without stating blatent untruths. All physio's, OH's etc to which nurses are comparing themselves to do have degrees.


----------



## oopsbuddy

I have clarified my point above, and it was careless of me to state that "all" nurses are degree qualified, but I stand over my subsequent comments so you know what I meant. However, I doubt Liam Doran or the INO would be as careless with such declarations, although I am open to correction! When did the INO say that all nurses have degrees, instead of all new nurses now have degrees?


----------



## KalEl

nelly said:


> It is inaccurate information stated again and again by the nurses union. They have a valid case for what they are demanding already without stating blatent untruths. All physio's, OH's etc to which nurses are comparing themselves to do have degrees.


 
We are now in the realm of semantics...to enter the profession a degree is required. That is what's relevant. Maybe there's a 75 year old physio somewhere who doesn't have a degree? Does that mean all physio's should not be paid at a level commensurate with their study/level of qualification? No it does not.


----------



## oopsbuddy

More eloquently stated than I could manage! Thanks Kalel.


----------



## nelly

i am just stating how this misinformation is being placed into the discussion by the INO. to enter the profession a degree is required but INO is stating that people are leaving and that is their worry.  The people who INO want to retain in the workforce are not all degree holders (because they don't need to be or want to go back to school), hense should the nurses be sucessful in their claim the taxpayer will foot the bill for people who do not and will not ever hold a degree. My point is what else are they stating which is untrue?


----------



## KalEl

Young highly qualified nurses are leaving the profession and going to work as sales reps for medical companies. This is a loss to patients. A reduction to a 35 hour week and the 10.6% pay rise would stem this brain drain and benefit the health service. I'm the first to say this country is gone mad when it comes to salaries...everyone seems to think they should be earning 50K per annum.
But the nurses are a special case...like firefighters and other sectors who won't go the whole hog and risk lives by striking, their innate goodness has been abused by society. They deserve remuneration and conditions appropriate to their qualifications and responsibilities.
And sadly they are not receiving this at the moment.


----------



## Howitzer

I feel some sectors of the health service are over paid for the service they provide. Is there any means for ME to strike in order to have their wages brought down, and their working hours brought up to a level where a moderate level of service could be achieved?


----------



## nelly

KalEl said:


> Young highly qualified nurses are leaving the profession


 I have to say that young highly qualified graduates are often without work of any kind related to their studies due to companies folding here and not being replaced. 
Is it possible that nurses are leaving nursing in the public sector because their qualification offers choice and a variety of jobs which are equally well paid? Reps pay their own pensions, but may get company cars for their own use that they pay BIK so it aint all green on this side. 


KalEl said:


> This is a loss to patients.


 Are the nurses coming to fill the places from Asia not passing muster? Patients will get cared for just not by Irish nurses but there are lots of nurses who would come here if their qualification was recognised by ABA. 


KalEl said:


> A reduction to a 35 hour week and the 10.6% pay rise would stem this brain drain and benefit the health service. I'm the first to say this country is gone mad when it comes to salaries...everyone seems to think they should be earning 50K per annum.


So would requiring all newly qualified nurses to work for say 3 years as a RGN before pursuing further training before starting them on revised (upards) pay scale keeping the 39 hour week - would the unions enter those types of talks now? i would doubt it! 


KalEl said:


> But the nurses are a special case...like firefighters and other sectors who won't go the whole hog and risk lives by striking, their innate goodness has been abused by society. They deserve remuneration and conditions appropriate to their qualifications and responsibilities.


 I don't agree that nurses are a special case and deserve "special" treatment. There are nurses in my family who would support the strike (sure don't we all want a few more bob) but recognise that they are happy in the public sector as to enter the "real world" of the private sector does not appeal to them at all  - I might guess why!


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Are you certain about the pensionability issue? I was speaking to another healthcare worker recently (not a nurse) whose main gripe was that her shift allowances (which make up 30%-40% of her take home pay) were not pensionable.


 Yep, from a nurse and the internet (I can't find the link).



RainyDay said:


> I rest my case.


 So the EU is a rightwing body!?



Sunster said:


> If they don't want to work 39 hours, what maks you think they might want to spend another 5 years a a student only to start working 70+ hours!


 good point.



KalEl said:


> Young highly qualified nurses are leaving the profession and going to work as sales reps for medical companies. This is a loss to patients. A reduction to a 35 hour week and the 10.6% pay rise would stem this brain drain and benefit the health service. I'm the first to say this country is gone mad when it comes to salaries...everyone seems to think they should be earning 50K per annum.
> But the nurses are a special case...like firefighters and other sectors who won't go the whole hog and risk lives by striking, their innate goodness has been abused by society. They deserve remuneration and conditions appropriate to their qualifications and responsibilities.
> And sadly they are not receiving this at the moment.


 So what if nurses continue to leave for other jobs? Does their pay continue to go up? There are loads of special cases. The question is can the country afford to pay for them all. As for innate goodness they are happy enough to go on strike whenever it suits them. Their tactic is simply to minimise the loss of public support. 



Howitzer said:


> I feel some sectors of the health service are over paid for the service they provide. Is there any means for ME to strike in order to have their wages brought down, and their working hours brought up to a level where a moderate level of service could be achieved?


 I agree, consultants turning down €205k a year is hard to stomach. That said there aren't 40'000 consultants.

On the degree issue I think the whole think is a red herring. Nurses pushed for years to have their course changed to a degree from a diploma. There were no needs driven imperative. Now they are using the fact that they got what they wanted as grounds for a pay increase. Given that everyone’s job changes and develops and everyone has to learn new skills as they go through life can it be said that diploma qualified nurses are any less able to do their jobs than degree qualified nurses?


----------



## nelly

Purple said:


> can it be said that diploma qualified nurses are any less able to do their jobs than degree qualified nurses?



Unfortunately it can be said that those diploma nurses are less able to travel up the ladder than degree qualified nurses (check out the job sections their years of experience must also weigh them down) and thus will be required to answer to a degree nurse with less experience (possibly less competent as the older soldier) but the only reason these Dip nurses would possibly leave is because of pay issues? Hmmm.


----------



## KalEl

Howitzer said:


> I feel some sectors of the health service are over paid for the service they provide. Is there any means for ME to strike in order to have their wages brought down, and their working hours brought up to a level where a moderate level of service could be achieved?


 
As this is a thread discussing nurses your post is a little bizarre. Whatever your opinion on the validity of the nurses pay claims I have never heard their "service" questioned or a suggestion that they're overpaid.
They are not to blame for the problems in the health service, and to suggest otherwise is not fair.


----------



## shanegl

I haven't seen anyone in this thread mention the fact that the INO ignored the Labour Court's decision to refer them to the benchmarking process late last year. I have to say I have little sympathy for unions/employers when they ignore the mechanisms that are already in place to settle these disputes. Benchmarking seems good enough for the other nursing unions to pursue their claims, why not the INO?


----------



## KalEl

shanegl said:


> I haven't seen anyone in this thread mention the fact that the INO ignored the Labour Court's decision to refer them to the benchmarking process late last year. I have to say I have little sympathy for unions/employers when they ignore the mechanisms that are already in place to settle these disputes. Benchmarking seems good enough for the other nursing unions to pursue their claims, why not the INO?


 
It's the 35 hour week that's the bigger issue, not the 10.6% pay rise (or the allowance for Dublin nurses which rarely gets mentioned!)
If nurses were granted the 35 hour week or at least given a fair timescale set in stone for its implementation this dispute would be over and they would let benchmarking resolve the pay issue. The problem is with the embargo on hiring staff the HSE cannot and will not sanction the 35 hour week...there simply aren't the bodies to cover the hours. Hence their vague and wooly references to exploring and discussing the issue. The nurses want a firm commitment to act in the short term.


----------



## shanegl

But why are SIPTU and IMPACT still going through benchmarking? Are they not claiming a 35 hour week? Can benchmarking only accomodate salary issues? You would think with the title _benchmarking_ that they should be able to benchmark the working week too!


----------



## KalEl

shanegl said:


> But why are SIPTU and IMPACT still going through benchmarking? Are they not claiming a 35 hour week? Can benchmarking only accomodate salary issues? You would think with the title _benchmarking_ that they should be able to benchmark the working week too!


 
Benchmarking is purely pay related.


----------



## Pique318

KalEl said:


> I support the nurses completely.
> 
> It's ridiculous to have highly educated professionals earning less and working longer hours than their subordinates.


 
Ahem....Let me put a lot of people straight on this.

In the real world (ie, the non-benchmarked private sector), it's quite common for Team Leaders/Supervisors earning less (sometimes substantially less) than their subordinates. This is down to the skills that each individual has, and the contract deal that they struck on gaining employment with their employer. 
It's unfair because at times you can see the overpaid person not able to match the underling. On the other hand, regular performance related reviews are in place to rectify this....not a blanket payrise for all the 'underpaid' as that is insane.

You do your job, if you're good, you keep it and get a modest cost of living rise (if lucky): if you're great, you get a payrise/promotion and if you're crap, you're demoted/warned/fired.

Why is it anathema to mention this in regard to the nurses ???? Surely they are in a profession where they should be under more scrutiny than an IT monkey !!?


----------



## oopsbuddy

Maybe its late, but I have no idea what point you are trying to make! The nurses' example under discussion here refers to care assistants who have basically a school leaver's qualification, and little if any specialist experience, reporting to qualified nurses (we've been over the degree bit!) ...but the care assistants earn more. What has that to do with your example of "IT monkeys in the real-world of the private sector"? I cannot understand your final paragraph either! Sorry.


----------



## Howitzer

So ..... why ......... don't ....... the ...... care ....... assistants ........just ....... get ........paid ........ less?!


----------



## KalEl

Howitzer said:


> So ..... why ......... don't ....... the ...... care ....... assistants ........just ....... get ........paid ........ less?!


 
Hmmm, constructive I think not!

I agree with Oops, even if subordinates earning more than their bosses is quite common (which I don't believe!) does that make it right? No, it's ridiculous.


----------



## nelly

how many care assistants actually get paid more than a nurse? If it was so widespread ( and Mary Harney stated that it was something like 50 odd cases) then why has no nurse applied for this post - reduced responsibility for more money - money for jam?Crazy notion??? 

Fact is more like,  this care assistants getting paid more is not at all widespread and is simply another "woe is me" spin story.


----------



## RainyDay

shanegl said:


> I haven't seen anyone in this thread mention the fact that the INO ignored the Labour Court's decision to refer them to the benchmarking process late last year. I have to say I have little sympathy for unions/employers when they ignore the mechanisms that are already in place to settle these disputes. Benchmarking seems good enough for the other nursing unions to pursue their claims, why not the INO?



Possibly because the HSE have led by example in ignoring a whole series of Labour Court decisions - They can't cherrypick and then be surprised when the nurses do the same.


----------



## shanegl

KalEl said:


> Benchmarking is purely pay related.


 
This can't be true, since SIPTU are putting a claim in for a 35 hour week along with pay claims to the benchmarking body.

SIPTU members are happy to do their job while they refer their claims to independant arbitration. I have to ask why the INO can't do this?


----------



## Sunny

nelly said:


> how many care assistants actually get paid more than a nurse? If it was so widespread ( and Mary Harney stated that it was something like 50 odd cases) then why has no nurse applied for this post - reduced responsibility for more money - money for jam?Crazy notion???
> 
> Fact is more like, this care assistants getting paid more is not at all widespread and is simply another "woe is me" spin story.


 
To be fair and I am still think the nurses argument is flawed, I personally know two people who recently got nursing degrees but aren't using them because they can earn more as care staff. I think it just shows what a flawed concept 'benchmarking' was. The whole system is a joke.


----------



## KalEl

shanegl said:


> This can't be true, since SIPTU are putting a claim in for a 35 hour week along with pay claims to the benchmarking body.
> 
> SIPTU members are happy to do their job while they refer their claims to independant arbitration. I have to ask why the INO can't do this?


 
http://www.finance.gov.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=31&m=c

Because nurses have been listening to promises about a 35 hour week for 27 years. Nobody is saying do it right now...but the HSE need to give a concrete timescale for its implementation, not vague or wooly "we'll look at it stuff". Do that and the industrial action would cease and the nurses would return to benchmarking over the 10.6% pay rise and the allowance for Dublin nurses (which I don't agree with)


----------



## shanegl

So why have SIPTU, according to their Nurses Officer, put a claim for 35 hours to the benchmarking body. Why have those nurses mandated their union to put such a claim in while they continue to work, avoiding any industrial action?


----------



## KalEl

shanegl said:


> So why have SIPTU, according to their Nurses Officer, put a claim for 35 hours to the benchmarking body. Why have those nurses mandated their union to put such a claim in while they continue to work, avoiding any industrial action?


 
I asked a nurse friend of mine about this...the consensus is that if the INO were run solely by women this industrial action wouldn't be happening. It's militant men that are driving it, specifically the psychiatric nurses (of which Liam Doran was/is one) She has no problem with this


----------



## shanegl

Interesting point. I guess we will just have to wait and see. I don't think they have the support of the public like they did in the late 90s though.


----------



## Gordanus

Purple said:


> More stressful than the Gardaí, who are expected to put themselves in harms way or the fire service who are expected to enter burning buildings?
> No they don’t. Nurses are neither qualified or expected to make any life and death decisions. Ever. They may have to assist the doctor who is dealing with the situation but that’s not the same thing.



Life and death decisions are generally team decisions, not the province of one person - even if they are a doctor.  Whether to continue with treatment, or to continue with resusitation, are *team* decisions.

If I may enter a quote regarding what is called the "emotional labour" of nurses:

"An oncology ward is a battlefield, and there are definite hierarchies of command.  The patients, they're the ones doing the tour of duty.  the doctors breeze in and out like conquering heroes, but they need to read your child's chart to remember where they've left off from the previous visit.  It is the nurses who are the seasoned sergeants - the ones who are there when your baby is shaking with such a heigh fever she needs to be bathed in ice, the ones who can teach you how to flush a central venous catheter, or suggest which patient floor kitchens might still have Popsicles left to be stolen, or tell you which dry cleaners know how to remove the stains of blood and chemotherapies from clothing.  The nurses know the name of your daughter's stuffed walrus and show her how to make tissue paper flowers to twine around her IV stand.  The doctors may be mapping out the war games, but it is the nurses who make the conflict bearable."

Jodi Picoult, My Sister's Keeper,Hodder, p227


----------



## pinkyBear

To be honest, the INO have very little to gain out of this, since there is no way that the nursing staff gan get a payrise outside of benchmarking. 

I think what could be going on here is that Liam Doran is trying to make some noise, remember the INO are effectively redundant since walking out on bench marking. 

Mr. Doran needs to be seen to be fighting for something... And pre election is the "right" time. Why now, why not a year ago have this dispute if as the staff stricking claim as it apparently has been an issue for "27 year" - this is news to me (an ex nurse)...


----------



## nelly

Gordanus - lovely but you are painting the picture of a Florence Nightiefinder helpful vocation holder, and these days some nurses could shoot you for that discription! preferring their correct title of Clinical Nurse Specialist Grade 1-100. 

To the nurses out there - who is the person who is tasked with getting lab results? and are they actually doing this now that the nurses are not?


----------



## Gordanus

nelly said:


> preferring their correct title of Clinical Nurse Specialist Grade 1-100.



There's only ONE grade of CNS.
Nurses have been looking for ward clerks for years.
I couldn't believe that nurses work 39 hours here as it was 35 in the UK since donkey's years.........at least since 1988 when I started nursing in the UK.  (I'm an ex-nurse which is why I still retain an interest)


----------



## ClubMan

Our _Public Health Nurse _dropped by yesterday checking on our nipper. She was saying that as an _INO _member she was not allowed to take calls. So the doorman/receptionist at the health centre would take the messages, pass them on and then she would call the parents back on her mobile (wasn't sure if she meant work or private one). She said that she could not really ignore such calls and had to do her job. So (a) the action obviously is designed to impact patients/clients and (b) at least some nurses are circumventing the union directives. She was very dubious about the action yielding anything for them and seemed a bit iffy about the whole thing anyway although we didn't have time to chat about it.


----------



## Purple

KalEl said:


> As this is a thread discussing nurses your post is a little bizarre. Whatever your opinion on the validity of the nurses pay claims I have never heard their "service" questioned or a suggestion that they're overpaid.
> They are not to blame for the problems in the health service, and to suggest otherwise is not fair.


Why are the people who work in the health service in no way to blame for the flaws in that service? Why is it not OK to criticise nurses? I have three children, all of whom have been sick from time to time. Their illnesses have varied from life threatening to relatively minor so their hospital stays have varied. My experience of nurses in wards and outpatient clinics has varied from extremely professional, friendly and efficient to obnoxious, incompetent and lazy. I have had to listen to a nurse use obscene language as she went on a fifteen minute diatribe about an Indian consultant (who in our experience was excellent) because she insisted that the nurse washed her hands before she gloved up to remove a cannula from our child. 
I have listened as three nurses had a long and animated discussion about oral sex at the desk in a children’s ward in Tallaght hospital. This went on for ten minutes while I waited for help to fix a dressing on my post-op eighteen-month-old son. I was waiting because they were too busy to help him. By far the most compassionate nurses I have met are non-nationals so I have no problem with them filling as many posts as they like in our health system.
That said, most of the nurses I have met have been competent but rarely have they stood out as being compassionate or ultra efficient. I have found an undercurrent of cynicism and a culture of making sure that they don’t do any more than the minimum that they can get away with. 



Gordanus said:


> Life and death decisions are generally team decisions, not the province of one person - even if they are a doctor.  Whether to continue with treatment, or to continue with resusitation, are *team* decisions.
> 
> If I may enter a quote regarding what is called the "emotional labour" of nurses:
> 
> "An oncology ward is a battlefield, and there are definite hierarchies of command.  The patients, they're the ones doing the tour of duty.  the doctors breeze in and out like conquering heroes, but they need to read your child's chart to remember where they've left off from the previous visit.  It is the nurses who are the seasoned sergeants - the ones who are there when your baby is shaking with such a heigh fever she needs to be bathed in ice, the ones who can teach you how to flush a central venous catheter, or suggest which patient floor kitchens might still have Popsicles left to be stolen, or tell you which dry cleaners know how to remove the stains of blood and chemotherapies from clothing.  The nurses know the name of your daughter's stuffed walrus and show her how to make tissue paper flowers to twine around her IV stand.  The doctors may be mapping out the war games, but it is the nurses who make the conflict bearable."
> 
> Jodi Picoult, My Sister's Keeper,Hodder, p227



The scribblings of a woman with no qualifications beyond creative writing who produces supermarket novels is hardly a solid reference. The bottom line is that doctors make the life and death decisions, all of them. Nurses don’t. You are factually wrong. The nurses may give out about the doctor later as they have a cuppa at the nurse’s station and she continues on her 60+ hour week but that’s about the extent of their input.
I am not saying that there is no emotional impact on nurses, I fully accept that there is and that they carry the majority of that burden. To watch children dying a slow death and see the hope drain out of their parents eyes or see old people loosing their dignity before dying must be harrowing and is a huge burden to bare but it is factually incorrect to say that nurses are part of the clinical decision making process in life and death situations. That’s why doctors study harder and longer and get paid more.


----------



## oopsbuddy

> it is factually incorrect to say that nurses are part of the clinical decision making process in life and death situations. That’s why doctors study harder and longer and get paid more.




I may have asked you before Purple what you had against nurses, and I think I'm starting to see that it's not really their pay claim that is exercising you, you really do have issues about your past experiences and current attitude which you need to resolve. Have you tried counselling?

Regarding your statement above, although I am not a nurse, I do have more than a passing understanding of their role in the workplace, and I think it is generally accepted that doctors rely heavily on nurses and other medical team players for their experience and input, as well as detailed knowledge of the patients and their background, which contribute to an overall assessment of many patient care situations. Palliative care, community care, acute ward situations spring to mind. Doctors do not work in isolation, and just because they "study harder and longer and get paid more" does not detract from the role of others in support. 

For one who once said he hated "people who generalise", take a good long objective look at how you have portrayed nurses in all your previous posts!


----------



## nelly

Oops baby, I don't think your sarcasm adds much to the discussion. Personal experiences always colour our way of thinking - Purple just stated his.

Sure in theory nurses help the doctor come to a decision by relaying how the patient is doing but really if nurses had any real influence in the clinical decision would the  Neary case have happened or if it did  to the extent?. he operated directing his team at the time. Nurses know better than to question doctors decisions and certainly phoning a consultant in when he is oncall (on golf course perhaps) can be hazardous to health - students learn early on in the career, they are less scared than the junior doc though - from what I hear.


----------



## Purple

oopsbuddy said:


> I may have asked you before Purple what you had against nurses, and I think I'm starting to see that it's not really their pay claim that is exercising you, you really do have issues about your past experiences and current attitude which you need to resolve. Have you tried counselling?


 I have nothing against nurses. I do not like the disingenuous way in which the INO represent their case. Thanks for your concern but nurses and their pay are not something that I loose sleep over. My issue is their pay claim. I don't accept that anyone deserves a 25% hourly pay rise, which is what they are looking for. Other than that I think that they do an adequate job. Some of them are excellent and some of them are poor. Some have a very hard, stressful and emotionally draining job and some have a very easy job. They may be, and in many cases are, asked to do things that many people, including me, would not do, but they knew that before they took the job. For that are well paid, they have total job security and they have a very good, heavily subsidised pension. They do not have the worry that many in the private sector have which is, “will I have a job next month/ year?” It is right and proper that risk is rewarded so this has to be taken into account when pay is calculated.



oopsbuddy said:


> Regarding your statement above, although I am not a nurse, I do have more than a passing understanding of their role in the workplace, and I think it is generally accepted that doctors rely heavily on nurses and other medical team players for their experience and input, as well as detailed knowledge of the patients and their background, which contribute to an overall assessment of many patient care situations. Palliative care, community care, acute ward situations spring to mind. Doctors do not work in isolation, and just because they "study harder and longer and get paid more" does not detract from the role of others in support.


 I also have a passing understanding of their role in the workplace and I agree with you but the book stops with the doctor. He, or in most cases now days she, gathers data from others and along with their own examinations they make a decision. I have been, and continue to be, very critical of consultants and the general lack of real accountability for doctors in general so don't take my comments as meaning that they are holding the whole thing together.  



oopsbuddy said:


> For one who once said he hated "people who generalise", take a good long objective look at how you have portrayed nurses in all your previous posts!


 I have said that some are excellent, some are poor and most are adequate. They work in a bureaucratic, heavily unionised system that is badly run. This does not create a culture of dynamism or innovation. It is hard to remain motivated in such a system. Any group of 40’000 people in this environment would be the same. Do you disagree?


----------



## KalEl

Purple said:


> I have listened as three nurses had a long and animated discussion about oral sex at the desk in a children’s ward in Tallaght hospital. This went on for ten minutes


 
You didn't catch their names or phone numbers by any chance?

Seriously though, you can't tarnish the whole profession because you had a bad experience. Plus you said you'd encountered some very good nurses. I don't see how anecdotes about nurses having a bawdy conversation or venting frustration at a colleague are relevant to the present dispute?


----------



## Purple

KalEl said:


> You didn't catch their names or phone numbers by any chance?
> 
> Seriously though, you can't tarnish the whole profession because you had a bad experience. Plus you said you'd encountered some very good nurses. I don't see how anecdotes about nurses having a bawdy conversation or venting frustration at a colleague are relevant to the present dispute?



I was merely pointing out that they are no more or less professional or dedicated than any other group of workers in a large public sector body. Some posters are justifying the 25% increased hourly pay claim on the basis that nurses are a special case. I was just noting that in my experience this was not the case.


----------



## oopsbuddy

nelly said:


> Oops baby, I don't think your sarcasm adds much to the discussion. ...



Who's being sarcastic?? 

Re:..."phoning a consultant in when he is oncall (on golf course perhaps)...", does this sarcasm assist the discussion?

Re Neary, you are absolutely right about the potential "career intimidation" surrounding questioning a consultant, but of all the examples to pick, Neary is one of those who clearly did make these decisions in his own 'omniscient' way, and look at the consequences! He was a rogue, thankfully (and/or hopefully!)


----------



## KalEl

Purple said:


> I was merely pointing out that they are no more or less professional or dedicated than any other group of workers in a large public sector body. Some posters are justifying the 25% increased hourly pay claim on the basis that nurses are a special case. I was just noting that in my experience this was not the case.


 
I would dispute that...there is a vocational aspect to nursing that other professions do not have. Let's be fair, the majority of these people are not in this for the money. The majority are girls, working in difficult conditions, often subject to attacks from drunken members of the public, they see the most horrendous things, they have degrees and are lucky to earn €40K a year.
Commit to the 35 hour week and let benchmarking give them the 10.6%


----------



## polaris

Nurses now describe themselves as healthcare professionals and claim they deserve to be treated in the same manner as any other group of healthcare professionals.

The fact that the majority of nurses are "girls" or that many people consider them akin to angels is no longer relevant. If the supporters of the nurses' claims are now using that approach in their defense, then it smacks of desperation!


----------



## Sunny

KalEl said:


> I would dispute that...there is a vocational aspect to nursing that other professions do not have. Let's be fair, the majority of these people are not in this for the money. The majority are girls, working in difficult conditions, often subject to attacks from drunken members of the public, they see the most horrendous things, they have degrees and are lucky to earn €40K a year.
> Commit to the 35 hour week and let benchmarking give them the 10.6%


 

To be honest, I know you are on the nurses side (if it is a case of sides) but I find the above patronising considering the amount of work nurses have put into to getting their qualifications professionally recognised and rightly so. The days of nursing being a vocation are long gone. Nursing is a career like any other and should be treated as such. I presume that is what the nurses want.


----------



## oopsbuddy

What is incompatible about being a dedicated and trained professional AND having a vocational approach to your chosen career? I would suggest that one needs the vocation to choose the profession. It doesn't have to be one or the other.


----------



## KalEl

Sunny said:


> To be honest, I know you are on the nurses side (if it is a case of sides) but I find the above patronising considering the amount of work nurses have put into to getting their qualifications professionally recognised and rightly so. The days of nursing being a vocation are long gone. Nursing is a career like any other and should be treated as such. I presume that is what the nurses want.


 
It is patronising...I know how much study nurses do and how hard they work. And yes, I am on their side. I just think nurses as a rule are more tolerant and caring than say me for example. They do see some pretty horrific stuff and despite the mess of trollies etc in my experience they do great work.
When I say vocation I mean it's more of a vocation than accountancy or the like!


----------



## Sunny

KalEl said:


> When I say vocation I mean it's more of a vocation than accountancy or the like!


 
I have an accountant sitting beside me. He claims he got the calling!


----------



## pinkyBear

> When I say vocation I mean it's more of a vocation


Not really KalEi - at the end of the day a job is a job - no matter what way you look at it. 
People stay in nursing for all sorts of reasons - family friendly - money is not too bad (better the programming any way) - and yes some even like it.

No mater what job you do - people have to work hard these days - the private sector are always dealing with competio
n from other coutries and comanies. Nursing staff are not alone in working hard...
But the reality of this strike is that staff in the public sector want more pay and reduced hours. The union involved have walked out on bench marking...

Forget about nurses for a moment - do AAMers honestly believe that with benchmarking currently in place should a disiplin within the public sector be rewarded outside of benchmarking.. Without offering anything to justify their demands.
P


----------



## oopsbuddy

There is a hint here that if a job is a job, why not pay everybody the same? This sounds like an outdated political philosophy that has been more or less overcome by now in most parts of the world.

There is a summary elsewhere in this thread, or a combination of several, which summarises: give the nurses a FIRM commitment as to when the 35 hour-week will be brought in (after all, (1) it was recommended "a long time ago", and (2) most other colleagues already enjoy it, so why do the nurses NOT have it?), and once that issue has been resolved as above, go to benchmarking over the pay claim.


----------



## pinkyBear

> (2) most other colleagues already enjoy it, so why do the nurses NOT have it?),


 
The thing is oopsbuddy - is that those who enjoy the 35 hour week (i.e.) a paid lunch are on call during that break and may/ may not get to take it.

When a nurse is on lunch - they are on lunch.....


----------



## oopsbuddy

As I am not a nurse I'll let other nurses respond to that...but I would say that this is not compatible with the number of times when someone very close to me gets no lunch at all..."if its busy its busy"!


----------



## pinkyBear

> but I would say that this is not compatible with the number of times when someone very close to me gets no lunch at all..."if its busy its busy"!


As with all disiplins I'm afraid - no one really escapes that...


----------



## KalEl

pinkyBear said:


> The thing is oopsbuddy - is that those who enjoy the 35 hour week (i.e.) a paid lunch are on call during that break and may/ may not get to take it.
> 
> When a nurse is on lunch - they are on lunch.....


 
This is a pretty outrageous claim...the only jobs I know where this would be the case are clock on/clock off ones of which nursing is certainly not one. Anyone else works through or foresakes lunch when required.


----------



## Sunny

With regard to the 35 hour week, would nurses be willing to give up overtime and therefore only work the 35 hours that they so desperately want and use the savings to employ more nurses to make up for lost nursing hours. Not sure if the maths add up.


----------



## nelly

nurses are covered under the working time directive the same as everyone else barring the junior doctors, defence forces and i think the gardai. Open to correction. after 4 straight hours they get 15 min and so on.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> With regard to the 35 hour week, would nurses be willing to give up overtime and therefore only work the 35 hours that they so desperately want and use the savings to employ more nurses to make up for lost nursing hours. Not sure if the maths add up.


Good idea. I can't see it fly.


----------



## nelly

I don't think there are nurses to hire unless they start recognising more qualifications from other countries or training more here. In order to get into courses here it is very difficult hense the amount training in the UK from Ireland - then we try coax them back when they qualify with their degree! .  Open up the colleges here and train more people


----------



## KalEl

nelly said:


> nurses are covered under the working time directive the same as everyone else barring the junior doctors, defence forces and i think the gardai. Open to correction. after 4 straight hours they get 15 min and so on.


 
Most people are...my point was nurses are not clock on/clock off-ers, they don't just bail for their lunch if there's a crisis.
The Organisation of Time/Work Act is all well and good but in practice common sense prevails.


----------



## pinkyBear

> When a nurse is on lunch - they are on lunchQUOTE]
> 
> This is correct KalEi - on the wards breaks are scheduled for staff. Yes there are times when staff can't get the full break, but every effort is made and this anomoly would not occur every day during every shift.
> 
> In general ward nurses do not carry a bleep/pager and thus when they walk from the ward they are uncontactable.
> 
> Nurse Specialists and Nurse Managers - they do carry a bleep - but their days would be less unpredictable and the scheduling of breaks is not an issue.


----------



## KalEl

pinkyBear said:


> When a nurse is on lunch - they are on lunchQUOTE]
> 
> This is correct KalEi - on the wards breaks are scheduled for staff. Yes there are times when staff can't get the full break, but every effort is made and this anomoly would not occur every day during every shift.
> 
> In general ward nurses do not carry a bleep/pager and thus when they walk from the ward they are uncontactable.
> 
> Nurse Specialists and Nurse Managers - they do carry a bleep - but their days would be less unpredictable and the scheduling of breaks is not an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when a staff nurse is having his/her lunch that's it...they're gone, unavailable for work, clocked off?
Click to expand...


----------



## Purple

Over a quarter of a century ago when a 35-hour week was first mooted nurses pay was much lower than it is now. Their job has changed considerably since then so why is that labour court proposal still relevant? Why should they work such a short week? If they forego overtime, etc. then fine but there have to be changes to minimise the cost to the people of Ireland.


----------



## pinkyBear

> So when a staff nurse is having his/her lunch that's it...they're gone, unavailable for work, clocked off?QUOTE]
> Yes - they are uncontactable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) most other colleagues already enjoy it, so why do the nurses NOT have it?),
> 
> 
> 
> So does this mean that because some people in public service work a 35 hour week - every one should????
Click to expand...


----------



## oopsbuddy

Purple said:


> Over a quarter of a century ago when a 35-hour week was first mooted nurses pay was much lower than it is now. Their job has changed considerably since then so why is that labour court proposal still relevant? Why should they work such a short week? If they forego overtime, etc. then fine but there have to be changes to minimise the cost to the people of Ireland.



Why is it any less relevant now than it was 27 years ago when it was first recommended, and what has their pay got to do with it? They haven't received pay increases over the intervening time IN LIEU of that recommendation. The HSE still acknowledge the recommendation but will not actually address it. Overtime is a different issue too - you appear to want to ringfence what they have now and divide it up in more imaginative ways so that there is no increase in costs, and while that is commendable, it doesn't work like that.


----------



## Purple

oopsbuddy said:


> Why is it any less relevant now than it was 27 years ago when it was first recommended, and what has their pay got to do with it? They haven't received pay increases over the intervening time IN LIEU of that recommendation. The HSE still acknowledge the recommendation but will not actually address it. Overtime is a different issue too - you appear to want to ringfence what they have now and divide it up in more imaginative ways so that there is no increase in costs, and while that is commendable, it doesn't work like that.


So lets all work a 35 hour week and see how it turns out. Screw the national interest. Someone else will pick up the tab.


----------



## edo

Purple said:


> So lets all work a 35 hour week and see how it turns out. Screw the national interest. Someone else will pick up the tab.


 
Great stuff Purple - I'll just get on the blower to the Bossman and tell him Im not going in tomorrow and I'll send him the bill for the couple of hours overtime I did this afternoon! - Im done for the week. Might aswell contact all my American and Far Eastern customers to tell them that they can only get me during winter daylight hours GMT 4 days a week - They can bloody well get up in the middle of the night if they want to buy my products and services because we're Irish and we rule!!!!

For the Love of God - I've had it up to here with the entire medical profession over the last while - newsflash to the nursing community - you are not the only ones who have to work for a living here - you are not only ones who have to work nights - you are not only ones who have to do their own secretarial duties, answer their own phones. Admittedly , my own chosen career is not as sexy - I wont have Primetime specials, Charlie Bird interviews and TV Dramas made around it (maybe a BBC comedy!) , Its isn't an emtional tearjerkrer - but I still work well in excess of the EU 48 hour rule as do most of my colleagues - paid overtime? - What the hell is that? - I run a department of 10 (which would be divided into 3 departments with 5 times the staff if it were in the public sector)which processes in excess of 100 milion euros worth of exports and , going on the commentary here , I earn roughly the same as staff nurse with 3 years less experience in the relevant career- out of which I have to pay my own contribution defined pension, my own health insurance , my own lunch (when I get 20 minutes or so - I would say the vast majority of posters here would consider themselves lucky if they got a whole lunchtime to themselves once every couple of months) etc etc. Best yet - with the state of the industry that I work in - I'm not even sure If I'll be in the same job this time next year - I give it 50/50.

Im not looking for sympathy or anything - I dont particularly enjoy my job - all things considered I'd rather be a novelist - but I get on with it and try and learn as much as I can and do the most professional job possible with the limited resources I have available to me and I'm damn proud of how the little company I work for has grown from 12 of us in a back garage to over 200 worldwide taking on the world in our chosen field in 7 years in the face of ruthless competiton which never stops coming. Yet it would not have happened if we decided to work 35 hours , not co-operate with the managment and demand excessive pay rises without comensurate gains in productivity and output - the risk is if we fail next year i will walk away with nothing more than memories.

My message to the nurses - go back to the drawing board and decide on a plan to engage with managment and get it together to give the rest of us a Health Service that we can be proud of - this is a two way thing and for the rest of us its like watching industrial relations from another century - I've have no problem paying up for a job well done - but rewards are earned - the world owes you nothing - if you dont like it and you are frustrated - well get out - nothing worse than staying and you will be surprised how easily your skills will transfer to other occupations - There is lot of bull talked about degrees these days - it is only relevant in the public sector - problem is - like everything the more there are - the less value is placed on them - Today a degree is what the leaving cert was 10-15years ago - a starting point. Employers are far more interested in your work experience and social skills unless it is extremely specialised - even then so much on the job training is available these days.

I have a degree, actually a couple of degrees and other diplpmas etc etc - I try to keep current and its good exercise for the mind - but once I finish one I dont go to my boss, slam the table and say cough up because I 've another couple of letters added to my educational title - I will use the knowledge that I've learned to good use in my job and try and improve my performance and then turn around and say "show me the money " - funny , I thought that this was the reason for further education - silly me!


----------



## RainyDay

ClubMan said:


> Our _Public Health Nurse _dropped by yesterday checking on our nipper. She was saying that as an _INO _member she was not allowed to take calls. So the doorman/receptionist at the health centre would take the messages, pass them on and then she would call the parents back on her mobile (wasn't sure if she meant work or private one). She said that she could not really ignore such calls and had to do her job. So (a) the action obviously is designed to impact patients/clients and (b) at least some nurses are circumventing the union directives. She was very dubious about the action yielding anything for them and seemed a bit iffy about the whole thing anyway although we didn't have time to chat about it.



Why is this circumventing the union directives? The directive (afaik) is simply that they shouldn't take calls. So she is not taking calls, but she is getting messages from a colleague instead.


----------



## ClubMan

I thought that they were supposed to avoid most or all "admin" duties which would presumably make her callbacks a circumvention of the union directives since they should be done by some clerical lackey?


----------



## Marion

The sooner the role, duties and responsibilites of professional nurses are properly defined the better it will be for everybody.

The nursing profession has undergone a major change in the last couple of years. They deserve the support of those who care for an improvement in the health service.

I support them in their action.


Marion


----------



## pinkyBear

here here edo - well said - very well written
P


----------



## Sunny

Marion said:


> The sooner the role, duties and responsibilites of professional nurses are properly defined the better it will be for everybody.
> 
> The nursing profession has undergone a major change in the last couple of years. They deserve the support of those who care for an improvement in the health service.
> 
> I support them in their action.
> 
> 
> Marion


 
Everyone cares about the health service and wants improvements but I think people are sick of money being thrown into the sector with no noticeable improvements and industrial action like this only worsens the situation. I think any increases in public sector pay should be self financing. For example, nurses get the 10% pay rise and 35 hour week but do not get overtime and shift allowances for working weekends etc.

Don't even get me started on consultants claiming that €205,000 was a "mickey mouse" offer and that they could earn more in America. What planet are those guys on.....


----------



## Purple

Superb post EDO, I couldn’t have said it better myself. I have said before that I am pretty sure I know the company that you work for. I am in the same sort of industry. If I am correct then you have a lot to be proud of.
I would like those in the public sector to spend a year in an SME that competes in a totally open market with companies all over the world. I have worked 55 hours so far this week. I will get on a plane this afternoon for an 8-hour flight and arrive back in Dublin airport at 7.30 on Tuesday morning. I will be in work by 8.45 and hope to finish at 6.30 that evening. It’s a business trip so I might have to stay on for a few more days. There is nothing unusual about this week for me. My wife works full time and we have three small children. A change to tax laws in the USA or a war or a currency collapse or some other upheaval might wipe my company out. I don’t just have to worry about being able to pay my mortgage; I also have a responsibility to make sure the guys who work for me can pay theirs.
I have no certainty for the future. At the moment I am very well paid, more than any nurse at any level. Next year I could be on the dole. I would love to give everyone a 25% hourly rate pay rise but you know what, we can’t afford it so it ‘aint going to happen. That’s the way things work in the real world. The nurses don’t have to live their but the people who pay their wages do and the nurses should remember that.


----------



## Purple

Marion said:


> The sooner the role, duties and responsibilites of professional nurses are properly defined the better it will be for everybody.


 Why, so that they can have a more effective work to rule next time? In the real world everyone does things that are not in their job description.



Marion said:


> The nursing profession has undergone a major change in the last couple of years. They deserve the support of those who care for an improvement in the health service.


 Most jobs change all the time, so what? They are doing all they can to scupper the changes that the HSE and minister for health are trying to implement. Their first question is “what’s in it for me?” whenever a change is mooted.


----------



## oopsbuddy

Now that you've all got that big rant off your chests, where do we go with this debate? Its travelled far since the OP, but now appears to have got itself into a very, very polarised pair of camps, anti-public service and pro-nurses. 

I am not in the public service and never have been. I am also self-employed and "carry the burden" of private sector stresses and worries. I also am responsible for my own salary, pension, health insurance and career future, so you guys do not have the monopoly on this moan. However I don't resent those in the public service either, because "most" of their jobs are necessary and have to be done. Sure, there will be many I'm sure who are there (in teh public service) because it is an easy option, but equally there are many there (and I am trying to retain the focus HERE on the nurses, because this is the original debate) who are not all that way focused. So when it comes to putting my well being in the hands of medical professionals, I would prefer that they were well educated, well trained, and happy and motivated in their jobs. I do consider them to be a special case and I don't apologise for it. I have absolutely no sympathy for the consultants whose motivation IS purely self-interest and more money.

Purple's past experiences of nurses may well have coloured his view of this debate, and while some think that this is reasonable, he is also trying very hard to use it to colour everyone else's view, which is not reasonable. While I don't suggest that his experiences are not real, and indeed unfortunate, I would argue most strongly that they are not representative of the profession as a whole, and certainly not consistent with my own experience of nurses (and I do know quite a few).

For years and years and years, nurses have been fobbed off on the 35 hour week, and its not just down to lunch breaks. It was recommended that they should be the first to get it, and if the HSE is not going to grant it, then just bloody say so, and stop the obfuscation. If not, just say so and let's see where we go from there. Focus your anger at the HSE for dragging this on for so long and pressurise them to come out one way or the other on it, and not on the nurses for trying to get them to make a declaration.

Then go to the holy grail of benchmarking for the pay claim.

And one last comment here on Nelly's (I think) point on Neary and how he clearly was not consulting his other staff re his decision making, as far as I can recollect it was ultimately a nurse/midwife who blew the whistle on him, only after being threatened with dismissal for even contemplating doing so. Draw your own conclusions.

I've said all I think I want to say now on this thread, so I'm gonna bow out for now, but will continue to read with interest.

Cheers


----------



## room305

Sunny said:


> Don't even get me started on consultants claiming that €205,000 was a "mickey mouse" offer and that they could earn more in America. What planet are those guys on.....



I absolutely loved the comment by PJ Breen with the IHCA:



> "What kind of house could you buy for €205,000?"



He's perfectly suited for his role as IHCA negotiator anyway - what kind of come back can you give to that?


----------



## KalEl

Sunny said:


> Don't even get me started on consultants claiming that €205,000 was a "mickey mouse" offer and that they could earn more in America. What planet are those guys on.....


 
It does nobody any favours using this quote as a soundbite. We often dismiss things as "not being brain surgery". Well this is brain surgery!
The dissemination of this quote by tabloid media is designed to annoy Joe Public and turn them against the consultants. The HSE and Mary Harney are being Goebbels like citing this, and with claims that nurses are endangering lives...they are not.
€205,000 is not mickey mouse money. However, for a consultant it obviously is. I don't have a problem with that. People should stop using it as some sign of the consultant's detachment from reality...it's just market forces.


----------



## Sunny

KalEl said:


> It does nobody any favours using this quote as a soundbite. We often dismiss things as "not being brain surgery". Well this is brain surgery!
> The dissemination of this quote by tabloid media is designed to annoy Joe Public and turn them against the consultants. The HSE and Mary Harney are being Goebbels like citing this, and with claims that nurses are endangering lives...they are not.
> €205,000 is not mickey mouse money. However, for a consultant it obviously is. I don't have a problem with that. People should stop using it as some sign of the consultant's detachment from reality...it's just market forces.


 
Its not market forces. They are trying to protect a cosy monopoly that they have oeprated for years. No-body is forcing these guys to sign the contracts but they are trying to block anyone from Ireland, UK, Europe who considers it to be a fair salary from applying. 
Check out the website http://www.ihca.ie/ for their reasons for telling doctors not to apply for the new jobs are see what type of world they work in. They are detached from reality and they are holding the health service to ransom


----------



## KalEl

Sunny said:


> Its not market forces. They are trying to protect a cosy monopoly that they have oeprated for years. No-body is forcing these guys to sign the contracts but they are trying to block anyone from Ireland, UK, Europe who considers it to be a fair salary from applying.
> Check out the website http://www.ihca.ie/ for their reasons for telling doctors not to apply for the new jobs are see what type of world they work in. They are detached from reality and they are holding the health service to ransom


 
"Your rate of pay will be less than that of existing consultants"

Sounds like a good enough reason to me to object. If this were overseas workers being brought in to work for less money than Irish workers in the ESB the bleeding heart agenda would be up in arms.
The fact that were talking about €200K isn't relevant...they're entitled to call it a mickey-mouse offer if that's what it is relatively.


----------



## Sunny

KalEl said:


> "Your rate of pay will be less than that of existing consultants"
> 
> Sounds like a good enough reason to me to object. If this were overseas workers being brought in to work for less money than Irish workers in the ESB the bleeding heart agenda would be up in arms.
> The fact that were talking about €200K isn't relevant...they're entitled to call it a mickey-mouse offer if that's what it is relatively.


 
You see it is attitudes like this that amaze me. It would be like me dictating to my employer who they can hire and on what terms. If the government are offering €200,000 and people decide to work for that salary, what right have exisiting consultants to interfere in the process and practically warn people not to apply. They also earn more 50% more than their UK counterparts and when asked to explain the reasoning on Morning Ireland the IHCA said it was because we wanted the best in this country. So I guess our consultants are 50% better than the ones in the UK. We are so lucky.


----------



## Guest127

nurses are stating that they are now a degree course. and they are. the 'newer' nurses that is. If teachers get extra pay for having a degree ( they do) then give the nurses with the degrees the same for this degree as a teacher. older nurses wouldn't get anything but then they are much further on the pay scale.
as for the 35 hour week. can't be done cash neutral. so maybe over a period of 3 years aim for .5 of an hour reduction each year. this would leave a 37.50 hour week in by 2010.. which I understand is pretty much the normal in the public service.
compromise all round.


----------



## Headachecity

Did anyone listen to the editor of the Star on Gerry Ryan this morning?. Major food for thought on the Nurses strike. I blame the HSE & Mary Harney. It's a tough job and the salary scale of Nurses is really crap for what they do & I certainly think they should be given their payrise. We need them at some stage of our  lives, it's inevitable. I think they press are being unfair to them. I don't agree with walking off the job though it's really bad form, if one of my family was ill in hospital and the nurse walked away I would tie her the drip!
I am not going to even start on the consultants, if I do there is a possibility I would time out the whole site!


----------



## RainyDay

ClubMan said:


> I thought that they were supposed to avoid most or all "admin" duties which would presumably make her callbacks a circumvention of the union directives since they should be done by some clerical lackey?



I thought that the work-to-rule was simply not answering phones and not using IT systems. The nurses must be still doing paperwork (patient notes, drug records), and I can't see how the many nurses in advisory roles (breastfeeding advisors, counsellors, etc) could operate at all if they weren't able to make phone calls.


Purple said:


> I would like those in the public sector to spend a year in an SME that competes in a totally open market with companies all over the world. I have worked 55 hours so far this week. I will get on a plane this afternoon for an 8-hour flight and arrive back in Dublin airport at 7.30 on Tuesday morning. I will be in work by 8.45 and hope to finish at 6.30 that evening. It’s a business trip so I might have to stay on for a few more days. There is nothing unusual about this week for me. My wife works full time and we have three small children. A change to tax laws in the USA or a war or a currency collapse or some other upheaval might wipe my company out. I don’t just have to worry about being able to pay my mortgage; I also have a responsibility to make sure the guys who work for me can pay theirs.


Give that man a medal! Just for the record, there are many busy people in the public sector. Many of them leave home early and get back late. Many of them travel on business and get back to work afterwards. Many of them have worked in the private sector, and many people switch to/from private and public sector. Yes, those of us in the public do have increased (though not absolute) job security, and many of us have paid a price (like the 30% cut in salary I took) for this security. It's not a different world out there, just a different stream in the same world.


----------



## Marion

Marion said:
			
		

> The sooner the role, duties and responsibilities of professional nurses are properly defined the better it will be for everybody.



Nurses state that benchmarking did them no favours last time.  One can only conclude that their submission to the benchmarking body regarding their role duties responsibilities and qualifications must not have been strong enough.

They are being advised to get back into benchmarking to pursue their pay claim. 

Unless they change their submission I can’t see how benchmarking round 2 can help them.

Marion


----------



## levelpar

> They even have to pay for their own Christmas party!


 
Jeez? This is shocking. I hope the nurses include this issue in their negotiations.
By the way, if nurses have been "run off their feet" for years due to shortage of staff, what will happen when they work only 35 hours?


----------



## nelly

mod's - can this thread be split as it is discussing 2+ seperate issues and its long enough already.
just a suggestion.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Give that man a medal! Just for the record, there are many busy people in the public sector. Many of them leave home early and get back late. Many of them travel on business and get back to work afterwards. Many of them have worked in the private sector, and many people switch to/from private and public sector. Yes, those of us in the public do have increased (though not absolute) job security, and many of us have paid a price (like the 30% cut in salary I took) for this security. It's not a different world out there, just a different stream in the same world.


 Thanks very much, a medal would be lovely 
I fully accept that there are those in the public sector who work just as hard as me, or harder and have just as much or more responsibility. I'm sure some of them also get paid less. I know that you have moved from the private sector to the public sector, and as you say you have taken a 30% pay cut. Are you 30% worse off or in the context of the overall package is 30% less gross pay a good deal? If so is it then fair to say that in the context of an overall package that is generally better in non-direct pay areas is it justifiable that gross pay in the public sector should be lower than gross pay in the private sector? This is not the case at present and yet many in the public sector want large pay increases. The nurses are the first, the teachers have taken their place behind them and they will not be alone. I say this because it's exactly what happened in the late 90's, just before public spending went out of control and our loss of economic competitiveness accelerated like mad.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> I know that you have moved from the private sector to the public sector, and as you say you have taken a 30% pay cut. Are you 30% worse off or in the context of the overall package is 30% less gross pay a good deal? If so is it then fair to say that in the context of an overall package that is generally better in non-direct pay areas is it justifiable that gross pay in the public sector should be lower than gross pay in the private sector?


I am certainly 30% worse off on net monthly income, and I'm probably down another 15% of gross income due to absence of bonus/stock. But I'm also working about 30% less hours, so in terms of lifestyle, I've no doubt that I'm better off! 

But that happens to be my lifestyle choice. In terms of the overall point, I think that few jobs are comparable between public and private sector. Some of the standard 'office' roles, like HR/IT/Finance may have some comparison, but for the teachers/nurses/Gardai, the public sector set the standard and the private sector follow.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> I am certainly 30% worse off on net monthly income, and I'm probably down another 15% of gross income due to absence of bonus/stock. But I'm also working about 30% less hours, so in terms of lifestyle, I've no doubt that I'm better off!


 That's my point; comparisons made solely on pay don't tell the full story. I appreciate that you had the choice and were in a position to make a lifestyle choice and that is not always the case. I don't think it's appropriate to talk about one posters circumstances in too much depth, particularly when they are a moderator, so I'll try to keep things more general. Apologies if I've asked for too much detail.



RainyDay said:


> But that happens to be my lifestyle choice. In terms of the overall point, I think that few jobs are comparable between public and private sector. Some of the standard 'office' roles, like HR/IT/Finance may have some comparison, but for the teachers/nurses/Gardai, the public sector set the standard and the private sector follow.


 I agree that there is no real equivalent in the private sector of teachers, nurses or Gardaí but I stand by my basic point that in an economy that is overheated and becoming more and more uncompetitive every day we cannot, as a country, afford to start paying large increases to tens or hundreds of thousands of public sector employees. I also stand by my point that no well represented and well organised group in this country is justified in looking for a 25% increase in their hourly rate of pay.


----------



## nelly

So Liam Doran is backing down? i thought he said that he was not going tin talks unless a date for the 35 hour week was on the table.
Hope this spells the end as i think whatever way you look at it, it is very disruptive to the country.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> we cannot, as a country, afford to start paying large increases to tens or hundreds of thousands of public sector employees. I also stand by my point that no well represented and well organised group in this country is justified in looking for a 25% increase in their hourly rate of pay.


I stand by my point that this is not a one-sided issue. There is a downside of the current situation, in terms of poor retention of experienced nurses and morale of a important workforce.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> I stand by my point that this is not a one-sided issue. There is a downside of the current situation, in terms of poor retention of experienced nurses and morale of a important workforce.


I agree but the solution proposed b the Nurses is unreasonable and will do more damage to the country.
According to RTE 1500 procedures have been cancelled due to work stoppages. The INO is attempting to use their position to bully the people of Ireland. I hope Mary Harney maintains her courageous stance and continues to do the right thing.


----------



## micamaca

How come when procedures are cancelled due to shortage of staff, shortage of beds, shortage of medical equipment etc Mary Harney and the HSE are quick to justify it.  How many times did we see Mary Harney on the news in the last year saying 'they were doing their best' and their best included hundreds of people on hospital trollies for days and they were the lucky ones. 

But when the nurses cause shortgages or upheaval on a temporary basis, the HSE and Mary Harney condemn it...

Isn't this a bit two-faced of them? 

I'm not sure who is right on this one, since I have never been a nurse nor a politician.  But we had kind and caring nurses caring for a loved one and it does make you appreciate the hard work they do...I'm sure most of us have no idea how hard it is to be patient and caring whils't dealing with difficult situations every day in it would appear for the most part under-resourced or badly managed hospitals. 

When you think of how quickly politicians give themselves a huge raise every single year, that has no reflection on the cost of living, it does make my blood boil   that the rest of the country have to put up with measly crumbs being tossed from the table.


----------



## polaris

RainyDay said:


> There is a downside of the current situation, in terms of poor retention of experienced nurses and morale of a important workforce.


 
The solution then is to give pay increases to experienced nurses at more senior grades rather than across the board payrises for all nurses. 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the starting salary for a newly graduated nurse is excellent and if the scale after that is too flat then it should be amended. This is something that should be addressed *transparently* in the next round of benchmarking.


----------



## MOB

I love the free market.  
Rainyday's comment that he took a 30% pay cut to join the public sector is illuminating:  it occurs to me that those people who join the public sector from the private sector offer a relatively objective way of measuring the differential which should exist between public and private sector pay.  

We could argue all day about the relative benefits of public and private sector, but the actual decisions made by employees moving from one to the other (and in fairness, you would have to measure it in both directions) would in theory give us the 'free market' valuation of this differential.  I am assuming that there is enough movement between the two sectors to give a statistically defensible finding.

It may be that Rainyday's choice is atypical, and that on average there is no differential, or that the average differential is much less than 30%.  But the point is, a study of these figures would be free of the sort of bias which I have absolutely no doubt permeates the so-called 'benchmarking' studies which have been used in wage claims to date.


----------



## oopsbuddy

polaris said:


> The solution then is to give pay increases to experienced nurses at more senior grades rather than across the board payrises for all nurses.
> 
> As mentioned earlier in this thread, the starting salary for a newly graduated nurse is excellent and if the scale after that is too flat then it should be amended. This is something that should be addressed *transparently* in the next round of benchmarking.



A very reasonable suggestion Polaris. I fully accept that there has to be some give and take, and this is an imaginative suggestion on how to overcome the impasse, and promote a longer term improvement. However I nearly choked laughing at Purple's commendation of Mary Harney for her "courageous" stance against the nurses, who appear to be not only the enemies of the health service, and to blame for all its woes, but who are at risk of bringing down this house of cards of an economy of ours with their unreasonable demands for decent pay and similar hours to their colleagues. The perception of them "bullying" the public is equally laughable - they are trying to exercise some industrial relations muscle in order to get what they should have had years ago, but all the time causing minimum disruption to the public. They are trying to exercise some leverage over their employers, who have had over a quarter of a century to give some real commitment to the issue of working hours. The HSEs latest threat to dock their pay by 13% if they do not call off their work-to-rule action is the most blatantly ham-fisted, heavy-handed and short sighted way of moving the issue forward. Who's the bully there? I await developments with interest, but I don't think it's going to be good.


----------



## Purple

oopsbuddy said:


> I nearly choked laughing at Purple's commendation of Mary Harney for her "courageous" stance against the nurses, who appear to be not only the enemies of the health service, and to blame for all its woes, but who are at risk of bringing down this house of cards of an economy of ours with their unreasonable demands for decent pay and similar hours to their colleagues. The perception of them "bullying" the public is equally laughable - they are trying to exercise some industrial relations muscle in order to get what they should have had years ago, but all the time causing minimum disruption to the public. They are trying to exercise some leverage over their employers, who have had over a quarter of a century to give some real commitment to the issue of working hours. The HSEs latest threat to dock their pay by 13% if they do not call off their work-to-rule action is the most blatantly ham-fisted, heavy-handed and short sighted way of moving the issue forward. Who's the bully there? I await developments with interest, but I don't think it's going to be good.


Thanks opsbuddy, the next time I need something I write interpreted I will give you a shout. I would love to live in your world where after years of pay increases well in excess of inflation a claim for a 25% hourly rate increase is reasonable and simply a demand for “reasonable pay”. Wherever you are I hope the sun keeps shining.
At no time have I defended the HSE and their role in this. They have offered weak management and have indeed been ham-fisted but they are too inept to be considered bullies. 
If you choose to ignore the knock-on effect that a huge pay increase to one section of the public sector will have on other public sector and civil service pay demands that’s your business. Please do not ask others to assess the situation with the same level of economic illiteracy. It is the government’s job to assess situations like this in the context of what is good for the country and I again commend Mary Harney for having the courage to do just that.


----------



## room305

Purple said:


> If you choose to ignore the knock-on effect that a huge pay increase to one section of the public sector will have on other public sector and civil service pay demands that’s your business.



I couldn't agree more with this. Why else have the teachers been so vocal in support of the nurse's strike? They've never seen a pay dispute they didn't like to get a piece of.

Senior nurses are undoubtedly vastly underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts but to suggest that the solution to this is across the board payrises for all nurses is simply laughable.


----------



## ajapale

room305 said:


> Senior nurses are undoubtedly vastly underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts .....



Hi room,

Im interested, do you have any evidence for the assertion that senior private sector nurses are paid vastly more than their public sector counterparts?

aj


----------



## room305

ajapale said:


> Im interested, do you have any evidence for the assertion that senior private sector nurses are paid vastly more than their public sector counterparts?



Only through conversation with a senior nurse who has recently rejoined the workforce after a long period of absence. Having looked at both private and public sector work she was shocked by the differences in what was on offer. She didn't give exact details I got the impression it was close to double. When I expressed my surprise that more seniors nurses in the public sector didn't simply leave to work in the private sector she pointed out some of the disadvantages.

She works for an agency so she is essentially working on numerous short-term contracts with no job security (although there certainly didn't appear to be a shortage of work) and none of the pension benefits etc. Working hours can be very long with lots of night-shifts and double-shifts. It also entails a lot more responsibility as the expense of senior nurses means she is often the only senior nurse working the shift with responsibility for all the aides and junior nurses.

If a lot of senior nurses are leaving for the private sector then clearly the HSE should consider improving pay or conditions to entice them to stay. However, a blanket across the board payrise of 25% seems somewhat unjustified.


----------



## nelly

room305 said:


> Only through conversation with a senior nurse who has recently rejoined the workforce after a long period of absence. Having looked at both private and public sector work she was shocked by the differences in what was on offer. She didn't give exact details I got the impression it was close to double. When I expressed my surprise that more seniors nurses in the public sector didn't simply leave to work in the private sector she pointed out some of the disadvantages.
> 
> She works for an agency so she is essentially working on numerous short-term contracts with no job security (although there certainly didn't appear to be a shortage of work) and none of the pension benefits etc. Working hours can be very long with lots of night-shifts and double-shifts. It also entails a lot more responsibility as the expense of senior nurses means she is often the only senior nurse working the shift with responsibility for all the aides and junior nurses.



From simply speaking to nurses working full time in HSE i dunno would i believe a lot of what your source states: 
If she opted out of the workforce why should be payed the same as someone who did not and has years more exprerience?
Nurses are covered by unions in private sector in order to practice AFAIK so difference should not be near double - maybe other non-monetory perks are being factored in?
long shifts -  are often premium and are what agency nurses often sign up for so whats the problem?  
Double shifts - unsafe i would have thought? - as in 12 hours in night and 12 hour shift following day?
"more" resposnsibility and supervision not from what I hear, I know nurses who will tell you that they are better off some times being understaffed than having a temp so as for having temps come in and have sole responsibility for a ward  and all the underlings seems unrealistic - although i cannot say it does not or could not happen. 

i would ask that agancy nurse is if its all that bad why not a) go for position in HSE full time or b) head into private sector for double the money? 
just seems strange to me


----------



## room305

nelly said:


> i would ask that agancy nurse is if its all that bad why not a) go for position in HSE full time or b) head into private sector for double the money?



Just to be clear, this nurse _is_ working in the private sector right now. She has no complaints beyond the usual grumbling everybody does from time-to-time. She merely pro-offered these comments as possible reasons why there has not been a mass exodus from public sector nursing to private sector nursing. I'm not sure about her union status but suspect she is in one.


----------



## nelly

All nurses have to be in a union to work as far as i know. Even in the private sector they must pay their dues to the union and then the employer must recognise their union (not necessarily agree with them i suspect).


----------



## oopsbuddy

Purple said:


> Thanks opsbuddy, the next time I need something I write interpreted I will give you a shout. I would love to live in your world where after years of pay increases well in excess of inflation a claim for a 25% hourly rate increase is reasonable and simply a demand for “reasonable pay”. Wherever you are I hope the sun keeps shining.
> At no time have I defended the HSE and their role in this. They have offered weak management and have indeed been ham-fisted but they are too inept to be considered bullies.
> If you choose to ignore the knock-on effect that a huge pay increase to one section of the public sector will have on other public sector and civil service pay demands that’s your business. Please do not ask others to assess the situation with the same level of economic illiteracy. It is the government’s job to assess situations like this in the context of what is good for the country and I again commend Mary Harney for having the courage to do just that.



Purple, as much as you may think I am 'economically illiterate' and simply out to misinterpret what you say, I am neither. Nor do you have the monopoly say on what is best for nurses, the public sector as a whole, or the economy. What I do from time to time is simply read what you say and point out that your view is not necessarily the only one. What you seem to do regularly is conveniently ignore parts of what I say. For example, I agreed with Polaris' worthy suggestion that an imaginative approach be taken to addressing the pay issue. I also agreed that a commitment to a time-frame for the implementation of a 35 hour week, followed by pay talks via benchmarking would be a good way forward. I don't know what the answer will be, and I freely admit that, but things cannot remain as they are or the whole damn thing will fall apart. I am not ignoring the FACT that there will be knock-on effects, but that is not justification for allowing things to remain as they are. 

I'll try not to be as patronising and sarcastic as you when I say this too, but by all means come and live in my world (it's quite ordinary really!) for a while where you will see some very dedicated nurses working bloody hard, and for many more hours than they are contracted, who are worn out and overstressed half the time, but who keep doing it, not for the money (which is modest enough IN MY VIEW for what they do), but because they care about their patients and about looking after their best welfare, ...and then read back on previous comments here and tell me if some response is not justified. 

I have no interest in getting into any overly personal exchanges with you over this thread, so lets both try and maintain this discipline.


----------



## Purple

oopsbuddy said:


> Purple, as much as you may think I am 'economically illiterate' and simply out to misinterpret what you say, I am neither. Nor do you have the monopoly say on what is best for nurses, the public sector as a whole, or the economy.


I know that I do not have the monopoly say on what is best for nurses, the public sector as a whole, or the economy. To be honest I don’t think that my opinion is important enough to you for you to spend time misinterpreting it. I do think that your view on this issue does not take the wider economic implications into account. 



oopsbuddy said:


> What I do from time to time is simply read what you say and point out that your view is not necessarily the only one.


 I never suggested it was.



oopsbuddy said:


> What you seem to do regularly is conveniently ignore parts of what I say. For example, I agreed with Polaris' worthy suggestion that an imaginative approach be taken to addressing the pay issue. I also agreed that a commitment to a time-frame for the implementation of a 35 hour week, followed by pay talks via benchmarking would be a good way forward. I don't know what the answer will be, and I freely admit that, but things cannot remain as they are or the whole damn thing will fall apart.


 I did not ignore what you said but I don’t have the time to go through everything point by point. I don’t see why Nurses should work a 35 hour week. Everyone on the public sector should work a 39 hour week. Other healthcare workers should have their hours increased and managers should work more hours than those they are over. That’s the way it works for most people in the private sector, in small companies a 39 hour week is a distant aspiration, just like a defined benefit pension.
I also disagree with the whole Benchmarking process. Last time it cost the people of Ireland an extra 1.1 billion Euro a year. What did we get in return? Where’s all the increases in productivity?
If it can be shown that public sector pay is even further ahead of the private sector will the public sector unions accept pay cuts in the next round of benchmarking? 



oopsbuddy said:


> I am not ignoring the FACT that there will be knock-on effects, but that is not justification for allowing things to remain as they are.


So how do we fix things without it costing even more jobs in the productive sectors of the econmy?



oopsbuddy said:


> I have no interest in getting into any overly personal exchanges with you over this thread, so lets both try and maintain this discipline.


 Agreed


----------



## Purple

MOB said:


> But the point is, a study of these figures would be free of the sort of bias which I have absolutely no doubt permeates the so-called 'benchmarking' studies which have been used in wage claims to date.


 like this one? http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=11924


----------



## oopsbuddy

Purple said:


> To be honest I don’t think that my opinion is important enough to you for you to spend time misinterpreting it. I do think that your view on this issue does not take the wider economic implications into account.



I will resist a response to your first point in the interests of our newly agreed discipline, but I am not sure where I have been misinterpreting you. A contrary view to yours is not misinterpretation.




Purple said:


> I never suggested it was.



If you say so.



Purple said:


> I did not ignore what you said but I don’t have the time to go through everything point by point.



You appear to have the time to go through the points you wish to go through.



Purple said:


> I don’t see why Nurses should work a 35 hour week. Everyone on the public sector should work a 39 hour week. Other healthcare workers should have their hours increased and managers should work more hours than those they are over. That’s the way it works for most people in the private sector, in small companies a 39 hour week is a distant aspiration, just like a defined benefit pension.



Go with that proposal, and good luck with making it fly, and to paraphrase your earlier comment "I hope the sun continues to shine there for you" too, but have you taken into account the wider economic and political implications of such a policy?



Purple said:


> I also disagree with the whole Benchmarking process. Last time it cost the people of Ireland an extra 1.1 billion Euro a year. What did we get in return? Where’s all the increases in productivity?



I agree with you! I don't have much truck with benchmarking either, but I was working on the premise that it was generally agreed that as it was "the only show in town" it should be given some role to play in resolving the process.

Enough of this!!! I'm not going to add any more comments to this thread (I know I've said this before, but will try harder this time!) but will continue to read with interest.


----------



## Purple

oopsbuddy said:


> I will resist a response to your first point in the interests of our newly agreed discipline, but I am not sure where I have been misinterpreting you. A contrary view to yours is not misinterpretation.


 I was saying that I don't think that you are misinterpreting me.


----------



## KalEl

Maybe we need a new section beyond "The Depths" called "The Absolute Pits" so you guys can vent rather than just let off steam?
This is getting a bit repetitive


----------



## dam099

nelly said:


> All nurses have to be in a union to work as far as i know. Even in the private sector they must pay their dues to the union and then the employer must recognise their union (not necessarily agree with them i suspect).


 
Membership of the unions like INO/PNA and SIPTU is optional even in the public sector.

All nurses must register with Bord Altranais but this is the regulator for their profession not the union.


----------



## Purple

KalEl said:


> Maybe we need a new section beyond "The Depths" called "The Absolute Pits" so you guys can vent rather than just let off steam?
> This is getting a bit repetitive


 Jasus, that's very hurtful


----------



## nelly

dam099 said:


> Membership of the unions like INO/PNA and SIPTU is optional even in the public sector.
> 
> All nurses must register with Bord Altranais but this is the regulator for their profession not the union.



yes that sounds more like it actually. Any nurses in the private sector that i know do have  INO/ Siptu membership though. possibly because they are suchs strong unions.


----------

