Nurses and Midwives on Strike

Well here is the report. It was commissioned by the Department of Health.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nd_-_Exploring_the_Data_-_SUMMARY._2__pdf.pdf

It does have caveats, as it is a very difficult area to quantify. In fact, there will be plenty for you to get your teeth into Moose, as you be going on to disagree with it, Moose.

 

Hmmm - I appreciate there have been changes in public sector pensions recently, but it would be absurd to suggest that they are not still far superior to private sector ones.

 

Refusing to work because your boss won't agree to a payrise is a tantrum.

 

I dunno. Neither do you. What are parliamentarians doing when they're not in parliament? Dealing with constituents' issues, manning select committees, meeting colleagues, disccussing policy, some general office work ... a host of other stuff ...

 

I will just interject and point put that's because alongside the armed forces and prison officers it is illegal for the police to strike. Certainly the prison officers would if they could and I believe some in the police would too.

 

That is why I asked the question. All these highly paid and expensively trained GP's seem to be everywhere but carrying out General Practice on patients.

 

I really don't want to say 'I repeat' again. But what is to stop all of those missing union members voting against strike action if they so wish? It's just as easy for them to vote as it is for those in favour. I'm done. I'm not really interested in these circuitous arguments. It remains my case that your interpretation of your data is biased in favour of the argument you're trying to make. Others can decide whose argument's in the ascendancy here ...

 

Nothing, but as you said "they can't be arsed" as they don't feel strongly enough about it (a fiver a week).

 

Correct.

 

No. They can't be arsed to vote No. So they're not really part of the equation are they?

 

I don't disagree with the principle at all and neither it seems does the Labour Party.

 

Of course they are. They work there, and want to continue to work there. Are you saying that their lack of interest in striking does not count? Oh dear!

 

They sometimes have other stuff to do as part of their job description? And ... maybe they're out on call?

 

I'm saying their disinterest in NOT taking strike action is what counts. So they're absent abstainers. As you've been so keen to say above - there are really only two choices here ...

 

"Out on call"

Now that is a quaint little concept from the old days, like being allowed to fall ill outside office hours.

 

Your cynicism is boundless ...

 

No, I said "Whereas, a strike vote is a straight forward choice between yes and no. And, most significantly, there is a status quo option (just stay at work)." The latter two of them just mean the same thing.

 

No they don't. Option three wasn't on the ballot paper - a point you're consistently keen on making when it comes to a general election ...

 

Kelso - you are failing to grasp ZZ's point about the status quo being "go to work for my employer". You are spinning this like a union baron!

 

That option is part of 'no I don't want to strike'. Just put the cross in the box ...

 

How many options were there on the ballot paper? Two or three?

 

Not that it particularly matters. There could be a million options on the ballot paper but if you don't cross one ... well ...

 

You are just being illogical.

2 options on the ballot box. A person's default position is that they are going to work for their employer and earn a wage. Suddenly, Union rattles the sabre and proposes strike action. If you can't be bothered to fill out the form you have to assume that on the balance of probabilities the person in question probably doesn't want to strike. Not in every case I agree - some may just be happy to go with the flow. But the vast majority who can't be bothered to fill out a form aren't sufficiently convinced by the Union's proposal.

 

"not paying them enough to live - but ultimately that is an evil, there is no other way to describe it."

Absurd hyperbole of the day. If you don't pay the public sector what they demand it is EVIL.

 

I am slightly sceptical of this though it's nice to find one class of people in NHS Managers who can unite us all in hatred. NHS Managers are often former clinicians, or doing niche roles, such as property management, IT, finance or procurement, which let's face it you'll find anywhere and you wouldn't want to train a Nurse for years to do. A behemoth like a hospital or a Health Trust takes a **** of a lot of managing.

I'm not an NHS Manager btw, pays not good enough.

 

Are there any reliable stats on the number of managers in the NHS? I've read alarmist articles in places like the Mail that suggest there are more of them than nurses or beds or something ridiculous, but I figured at the time that the Mail was just telling porkies. I assume this is hard to quantify as some managers will also have clinical roles.

 

You must be lucky then. I get the same as ZZ.

Don't even get me started on what the mental health care system is like.

 

I find it unlikely that the silent majority who didn't vote in a strike ballot would all have voted no. Anyone voting no generally has strong convictions as to why they don't want to strike (e.g. commitment to public service). That would almost certainly drive them to actually vote in the ballot.

The percentage of those who took part may be a minority percentage of the whole, but they're all still statistically significant numbers and likely reflect a result close to what would happen if the entire workforce was forced to vote.

Regarding the IVF discussion: I don't think the NHS should be spending on this sort of thing. I strongly believe healthcare should give people what they need, not what they want. You NEED cancer treatment. You WANT to have a baby. You NEED anti-retrovirals for fighting HIV. You WANT a nose job. It's very sad when someone wants a baby and can't have one, but it's not life threatening nor unhealthy. There is no driving need for that particular couple to have kids. Society is simply not that desperate for new citizens.

That sort of elective treatment should be private or, even better, adopt. There are so many children who need homes that spending tens of thousands on IVF seems a huge waste of cash.

 

I don't begrudge them a 1% rise. But the fact remains that the NHS is suffering financial shortfalls at the moment, so calling a pay freeze evil is somewhat over the top. If you can fund it from elsewhere then happy days but the NHS is running out of cash despite having it's funding ring fenced. Either it's poor financial management, wasteful restructures or too many "customers". Either way, this state of affairs needs to be addressed if we want to give the staff pay rises.