Nurses and Midwives on Strike

The vast majority of world have some kind of religious bent, but that doesn't make them right.

 

Okay - I can agree with that. Evil is probably too strong a word still, but if the NHS management/government are frittering money away then denying front line staff 1% doesn't sounds fair.

 

Primary care is much better than Mental Health or Elderly Care. Mental Health care is a total Cinderella service, structurally underfunded to a massive degree. It also needs to be more user led.

Elderly care is chaotic. There are loads of them needing lots of attention. Nobody wants to talk about what good elderly care would cost or why so few younger British people will do it.

 

I don't agree at all. Some childless people will go completely dotty without children. It's not a frivolous desire like a nose job and the primary cause is medical.

The cost of IVF is tumbling in any case. It costs a fortune now because private clinics are able to charge that. But it's not massive high tech.

 

Probably a reasonable assumption Jumbolina but was I illogical? I don't think so Capt. Kirk. How do you resolve it with a majority (those against and those not turning up) not voting for our government? Are they necessarily happy with the status quo, might they be numpties, might they be actively disengaged, or might they be closet anarchists? Who knows? They didn't vote. Fair enough, you've made the point that two wrongs don't make a right. However, my point remains. In one situation ZZT (and maybe you) want to regard abstentions as a NO and in another as abstensions..

In addition, we seem to be politically engaged on here from a number of perspectives, which is enjoyable. So how do you deal with an NHS employee who can't put an x in a box and put it in the internal mail? I mean, how difficult is that? How much credence should be given to their guessed viewpoint or lack of it?

 

Neither I nor Jumbo is suggesting that if they (those that did not vote) were forced to vote they would tick the "no" box. We are just saying that they did not think it was worth striking over - they were not persuaded by the pro-strike arguments.

That is all.

So, by simple arithmetic, only around 10% to 20% were persuaded - yet it was they that ruled the roost, as they still went on strike.

Why can you not simply admit what is proven by simple arithmetic? Then we can all get on with less obvious discussion points.

 

So adopt. Bingo, instant child, low-to-no cost, no risks (examples: links to preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, premature delivery, fetal growth restriction, risks of increased susceptibility of child to higher blood pressure/glucose levels/adiposity and vascular abnormality).

Furthermore, if someone "goes dotty" because they find out they're infertile, I'd suggest the better solution is to treat that mental instability rather than throw money at a risky treatment that might not even work and can have long term health risks.

As for "frivolous" nose jobs, there are people who "go dotty" through self-loathing of their own body image. If our only criteria for whether or not a procedure is covered is "can it make someone sad?" we'd end up covering virtually everything.

The cost of something in the future doesn't make it a sensible policy now. It's expensive at this point in time and that's what is important. The NHS budget is finite and there are far better things to spend the money on when there are so many abandoned/orphaned children who need good homes.

Should the cost suddenly come crashing down in the future then there is even more reason for it to be a self-funded fix for those who want to get the treatment.

 

Agreed. Mental health is hopelessly underfunded.

 

I agree.

Contrary to what Moose says, I believe that the NHS funding of IVF actually puts up prices. If everyone had to pay for it, it would naturally bring prices down, and I think that has already started to happen in areas where NHS are taking tougher decisions and refusing.

 

Ok I agree that some nose jobs are not frivolous. I meant ones for aesthetic reasons, unlikely to be funded by the NHS.

I never understand why people are so down on IVF. There are plenty of non-life threatening issues that medicine addresses. But I note the moralising tone that always seems to come with it.

 

Jesus Christ! That's exactly what you're arguing. That a no show should be treated as a tacit NO in this instance. Why? Where else does that happen? All your original data set shows is: 1. Only a minority (and sometimes a very small one) actually voted in the union ballots and 2. The vast majority of those that did vote, voted in favour. You then exptrapolate from that that only a small minority actually voted for the strike. Correct. So what? Unless you apply that consideration across the board?

Your earlier point that there are more options in a general election is valid. But again so what? The government still takes power on the say so of a minority of the electorate. It's really quite simple and I make no apologies for being repetitive here, because you consistently avoid addressing one point by making another. It's an old trick but I see through it.

You use your data selectively to back up the result you want to achieve while attempting, amateurishly, to deny its validity when it delivers a result you don't like.

 

I'm not down on IVF so much as being against spending on expensive treatment when the problem can be solved through other means. IVF is far from the only example, it's just the one that was brought up.

In an ideal world the NHS would be so well funded it could deliver every treatment needed with absolute precision, no risk and no waste. Sadly we're not in that world yet. Given that the NHS is (in my opinion) underfunded, it's simply a case of prioritising where the available budget is spent. With non-medical solutions to childlessness available it seems prudent to emphasise those rather than engage in potentially risky and (currently) expensive treatment that often offers a relatively small chances of success.

I'm also very loathe to risk causing long term health problems for IVF babies simply because we wanted to make mum/dad/both happy. I have a close friend who had an IVF baby and there have been implications both before, during and after pregnancy for both mother and child. Given those problems they decided to adopt their second child.

 

Outsourcing is another cause of bureaucratic growth. If you want to outsource your functions you may gain on cheaper prices, but you'll spend lots of hours monitoring and backside kicking (I mean 'developing' underperforming) contractors. There is lots of this from cleaning, to laundry, to meals, to surgical equipment. Because it's health you can't let and forget. But some chump will be along to tell us this is all a zipless **** in the private sector and should barely cost a bean more.

 

I’m so on the fence in this one, as I work for the NHS but am mostly against strikes, and in particular unions (I also think there should be a 50% threshold). I do find it funny how Ed screwed his older (and far more vote-able) brother out of the Labour leadership by using the very unions he wants to remove from party politics for being undemocratic, but I guess that’s an argument for another day. Here are a few unstructured points that I have in my head at this current moment (I may come back and organise it better later).

We are working for a company that doesn’t set its wages through supply vs demand. We do need a way of conveying our disappointment with what is occurring in the NHS, and a couple of hours of covered leave is not an outrage. Far less so than the tube strikes, for what I would say is a vastly overinflated salary compared to many in the NHS.

Many are not public about being part of trade unions because of the stigma and feel guilty about voting, and many other just believe that the government is never going to spend in times of austerity, so see the strikes as pointless anyway. This does not mean that they are in any way against the strikes going ahead, they just think that they will be a waste of valuable time which they do not have.

They do have some reasons to complain. Yes, those who are about to retire are going to get very nice pensions, but those just starting on the ladder like myself are paying money into rapidly depleting pot with an ever-aging population. The government are, on top of that, relatively decreasing our wages, whilst expecting us to take on far too much work. Having worked in the private sector, I miss how you seem to get out what you put in, when in the public sector, you seem to put more and more in for less and less in return.

I know our pay hasn’t gone up, but we do still get a certain number of guaranteed annual increments for each pay band, and (at least in my trust) there are opportunities to move up to the next pay band at the point the pay overlaps (about two thirds of the way along the band or about every 5 years), as long as they value you. I can only speak for my building, but those at the top of their bands (and thus getting no further increments) are the higher bands, such as senior managers, rather than those at the bottom. I personally feel that this system invites complacency, and that a more efficient way would be to allow you to reach a few points at a higher increment, if you have over performed, rather than just a way of rewarding loyalty. They also just moved the basic salary for an administrator up to 11.50 an hour from 9.50, so there is room for movement when people start to be lost to the private sector.

People saying that we should just move over to the private sector forget that the NHS has a massive monopoly on health jobs, so it is incredibly difficult to get a job in the private sector.

I have not forgotten that we escaped relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, unlike private workers who were fired and had no right to protest, and actually our wages were probably far more stable and reliable than those in other sectors. But despite job security being a burden off our minds, the workload for the public sector is astronomical (many in my team have a mental health caseload of over 100) and many in the team are becoming fatigued and increasingly unwell. Mistakes are starting to increase, which increases tension due to the ever increasing occurrences of self-harm and suicide attempts. If you are mentally in a poor state and you have a massive caseload, it is rather difficult to do your work with any real meaning, meaning the patients are being lost and becoming more of a burden on society.

The NHS is in the top 5 employers in the world, which is staggeringly large, and 1% is a significant amount of money that will make very little difference per person.

There are many structural problems: Labour’s sell off NHS buildings to lease them back from private companies, the use of agents countering any cost cutting. Incentives are also incredibly poor: any money left in the team budget each year gets lost to the trust, and so teams splash out on luxury items like computer software and toys they never use, just so they keep the money in the team.

I completely understand how private sector methods therefore could make parts of the non-emergency NHS more efficient. In my team, incentives and bonus systems would help, including a proportion of profits made being distributed to the team, if targets (with a focus on the patient experience) are met – this would at least bring managers spending under control.

The public need to be made aware through an independent report of exactly how feasible the future of the NHS is in its current state, and how much money needs to be put in to it to carry on. I suspect, the NHS as it is today, is entirely unsaveable.

 

Yes, people should take what they are given and be grateful for it. People shouldn't expect outrageous handouts like cost-of-living wage increases, or any wage increases at all at that.

The only people who deserve the wage increases are the wealth creating managing directors, because they are the ones who really struggle. Anyone who hasn't climbed the ladder to the top is completely undeserving of any sort of reasonable compensation for their work, they should have tried harder.

Its this sort of ridiculous socialism that brings this country to its knees.

 

I think you are on your own with that little lot!

 

No he's not!

 

Great first two paras. although I might have to agree with ZZT and Jumbo that the majority of no shows are more likely to be against the strike action. But again, so what? If you can't be bothered to cast your opinion then you've really lost the strength of having one in retrospect.

Re: IVF. It was just an example. I've nothing against it in particular. But I certainly think **** extensions shouldn't be granted on the NHS (not that I'm saying they are) despite the minimal contribution that might make to the IVF budget.

 

Great idea. How would you administer it? A tenner up-front at your next appointment? I've seen some frightening stats. around this in Edinburgh and if those missing appointments had to pay the real cost of their next one they'd be staggered.

 

Quite.

 

If we can get reductions on the NHS I'm told I should be first in the queue. It can be such a burden.

 

What you and others are trying to do here is arbitrarily create an artificial threshold of a majority of the electorate being required to vote something through, rather than a simple majority of those that vote. In fact, it's not arbitrary, you're picking those issues that you don't want to see a YES vote on and trying to manipulate the outcome of the vote for your own ends. And you're demanding a threshold that you know won't be crossed. How arrogant!

Back in 1979 the Scottish referendum election set an arbitrary threshold of 40% of the electorate voting YES to secure a positive vote. So despite just over 50% (your new threshold) voting YES it wasn't carried. How appalling. It was a redundant argument then. It should be defunct now.

 

An excellent post somewhat lost behind in the testosterone fuelled argument that has followed. Yes, all sectors of the public sector and much of the private sector do this to avoid exactly those costs that you have highlighted in ZZT's post. Sometimes it's justified but often it isn't and is a destructive, short-termist policy and grossly unfair on those that work under those conditions for any length of time. The agencies' 'cut' is generally at least as much again as they are paying their workers and often much more than that.

 

Considering that there are women who have received boob jobs on the NHS, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that ***** extensions happen.

Not that I think either should be covered, of course.

EDIT: I am quite amused that peni* is censored while **** is not.

 

I think the censor probably needs some sort of NHS funded lobotomy too ...

 

But the private sector is always more efficient.

 

Hold on a minute!

50.1% isn't arbitrary, nor is it random, nor is it artificial. It is the one point where it becomes the majority. Any other figure you would like to come up with (ranging from 1% to 100%) is arbitrary, random and artificial.

I just believe that in a straight choice a majority of the electorate should be the minimum before the status quo should be changed. If the case one way or another is strong enough, it will be achieved. I resent being called arrogant on this matter.

Just imagine if the tables were turned somewhat. Had the rules been different and a strike could have been called by the Union if a 1% awarded wasn't forthcoming (the status quo) unless they voted against it.

So the ballot question would be.

"A strike will be held on 13th October, vote "yes" to agree that it goes ahead as planned or "no" to disagree to stop it.

Out of 3000 members 2 voted against it, and 1 voted for it to go ahead as planned.

Wouldn't you be a bit peeved that 2998 members were happy that the strike went ahead, but it was stopped by only two voting against?

And I would have thought that the result would have been a travesty of democracy, even if I did use extreme figures to illustrate it.

 

I take your point regarding arbitrariness. Your 50% and a bit isn't atbitrary. But it's still redundant when it's applied to the electorate as a whole. It then becomes a recipe for no change in anything ever because, given the inertia and disengagement of Joe Public in general, your threshold would NEVER be crossed.

With regard to your latter arithmetical analysis. Well that sounds like a majority to me! 2998 didn't agree with the strike. Only one did. 2997 couldn't give a toss.

 

I would rather they stopped treatment for self inflicted diseases for obese people or smokers than those who are desperate for a child.

 

But an industrial dispute at the NHS is not involving Mr Joe Public, it concerns each and every one of them DIRECTLY, in their pay packet. If they thought a fiver a week was a significant increase and worth striking for, they would have voted as such.

 

Same thing. They need to pick up their pen, choose their box and make their mark if they want their view to be heard. I know it's a hardship ......

 

When I had my tonsils out a nurse asked if I wanted pain relief and I said yes and she said OK, then she shoved a thing the size of a courgette up my bum without further discussion so I think they shouldn't get the rise.