How to Turn a Drama Into A Crisis, NHS Style

marchie

marchie

Full Member

Messages
4,055
This is NOT a political comment; it is one on the sheer failure to appreciate that organisational ideology and myopia will only make a potentially life-threatening situation for many people an awful lot worse

The UK Government is proposing to tackle the problem of 100,000+ medical and nursing vacancies [which is partly responsible for the 7.3 million patients awaiting hospital treatment in England] by sacking striking Nurses to 'guarantee safe minimum levels of service'

Sacked nurses will have the choice to a] sign on with an Agency, possibly working at the same hospital, at higher pay and a far higher cost to the NHS; b] leave the profession and get a job in another sector; c] emigrate to Australia, New Zealand, USA etc where nursing jobs are available at better pay rates/career prospects et al

Waiting Patients will have the choice to a] Live in Hope; b] Die in Vain

Steve
 
maingate said:
Where did you hear that story? I am genuinely interested.

It sounds like the kind of story put out by RT TV Channel (but they are now banned)
Click to expand...
It's the main story in the 'Politics Live' Blog [Andrew Sparrow] in the Guardian and there is a Link on the 'Front Page' of the Guardian website. The comments Below the Line are quite interesting, with a strong thread of 'Where is the logic in this' running

Steve
 
Why anyone is at all surprised at the fact of Nurses taking strike action. The facts speak for themselves, when Railworkers are on salaries far above (the nurses), where furlowed bye and large during the pandemic, and still believe they need to be paid more? in order to continue running a pathetic so called "service", while till having a final salary pension to look forward to. Something which most comercial enterprises had to divest years ago as being un-afordable. With salary and conditions in (say) Aus, or Canada far above those of the UK, many will vote with their feet anyway. Sacking strikers who have complied with the current balloting rules, is anyway not legal. Unlike the old (corrupt) show of hands which lost so many working days in the 50`s to 70`s. Much of the issues are still the same, union Bosses who are determined to bring down a legitimatly elected government, for their own political ends, history repeats itself. BUT, IMHO, The real crisis had been in the making for 30+years, relying on "imported" labour and closing teaching schools was so short sighted. But Governments of all colours ignored the warning signs, as they did over pensions too. Hey-Ho, what goes around comes around.

Pete
 
MPs earn more than Nurses. MPs' salaries have increased [v. inflation]; those of nurses have not. Perhaps we should lobby for MPs salaries' to be downrated to the 2010 level plus the nurse percentage payrises. And then remove the subsidised House of Commons Bars and restaurants and the allowable expenses. Should release a few £ for more merited pay awards

Steve
 
trevskoda said:
How much does a nurse get paid a week.
Click to expand...
Depends on their grade. Most are band 5 and start on £27000 rising to £32000 after several years
But they pay £120 a year to be registered & parking at the hospital is quite hefty cost. Since the bursary was scrapped, they also gain a student loan acquired during three year training.
When I was training, a friend's son started in the Police force on more than I would get when qualified. The wages are not horrendously bad imho but out of sync with other services. Plus nurses now take far more responsibility for skills & duties which were covered by doctors, saving the NHS money and allowing junior doctors to work reduced hours.

Pay scales for 2022/23

NHS terms and conditions annual, hourly and HCAS pay values scales for 2022/23
www.nhsemployers.org www.nhsemployers.org
 
Do people seriously think nurses (and doctors and ambulance folk) are striking purely for money? Don’t you think the disintegration of the NHS may have something to do with it?
 
marchie said:
This is NOT a political comment; it is one on the sheer failure to appreciate that organisational ideology and myopia will only make a potentially life-threatening situation for many people an awful lot worse

The UK Government is proposing to tackle the problem of 100,000+ medical and nursing vacancies [which is partly responsible for the 7.3 million patients awaiting hospital treatment in England] by sacking striking Nurses to 'guarantee safe minimum levels of service'

Sacked nurses will have the choice to a] sign on with an Agency, possibly working at the same hospital, at higher pay and a far higher cost to the NHS; b] leave the profession and get a job in another sector; c] emigrate to Australia, New Zealand, USA etc where nursing jobs are available at better pay rates/career prospects et al

Waiting Patients will have the choice to a] Live in Hope; b] Die in Vain

Steve
Click to expand...
Can you please point me towards any official line from the NHS or the Government confirming that nurses who strike will be simply sacked. And I don't mean unsubstantiated comments in newspapers or elsewhere. I would be genuinely interested to know.
 
Iandsm said:
Can you please point me towards any official line from the NHS or the Government confirming that nurses who strike will be simply sacked. And I don't mean unsubstantiated comments in newspapers or elsewhere. I would be genuinely interested to know.
Click to expand...
The report was in the Guardian Blog yesterday when Mr Sunak refused in a Press Conference to deny that striking Nurses could be sacked for refusing to work once the new legislation had been enacted In a sign of the times, the report continued, 'The journo was unable to press the point, because he had to move on to ask a question about Harry's memoirs ...'

Subsequent commentary in the Blog from its Host, Andrew Sparrow, included a precis of advice from a lawyer to the effect that the proposed legislation was illegal under the Internatonal Labour Organisation provisions as well as the Human Rights Act, and that once enacted the UK Government's policy would be subject to a succession of legal challenges, one of which would be how would the individual Hospital go about selecting which Nurse to sack [unless there was only one] who refused to work? How would that refusal sit when the refusal to work was based on unsafe working conditions [which the 'Critical incident' Hospital declarations provide prima facie evidence for], and not participating in a work environment where there is scientific evidence of avoidable/additional deaths arising from delayed hospital admissions/ambulance transfer delays/eventual temporary transfer to trollies in hospital corridors etc] arising from unsafe Care Practice

Mr Sunak's approach to the crisis was described by Care Professionals yesterday as 'detached from reality' which is possibly the euphemism of the week. The final irony is that the Guardian also carried a separate Report of the UK Government breaking the Code Red Convention to which it subscribes of not recruting nursing/medical staff from the Developing Countries, because of the adverse impact on the improvement aims of the Health Services in those Developing Countries, whose current [relative] poor quality Health provision allow the next round of infectious disease outbreaks to develop and gather pace, just about completing the lap of the circle

As an exercise in logistical response, it must rank as a contender for the most inept, albeit with the artificial stimulant of ideology

Steve
 
Out
nabsim said:
Do people seriously think nurses (and doctors and ambulance folk) are striking purely for money? Don’t you think the disintegration of the NHS may have something to do with it?
Click to expand...
They do keep saying that, but, if they all get what they want (and deserve IMHO) there will be less money to sort out the deeper issues, .gov does not have a bottomless pot of money, GB is seriously deep in debt, a lot of it to China, I don't see how it can be made to work, .gov has systematically starved it of money for at least 8 years
 
Pudsey Bear said:
Out

They do keep saying that, but, if they all get what they want (and deserve IMHO) there will be less money to sort out the deeper issues, .gov does not have a bottomless pot of money, GB is seriously deep in debt, a lot of it to China, I don't see how it can be made to work, .gov has systematically starved it of money for at least 8 years
Click to expand...
Both Modern Monetary Theory and centuries old UK Government financing operations explode the myth that the Government cannot afford to resolve the financial problems it faces. The element that is lacking is the Will to take action and the commitment to abandon ideology. The economic technical operations are quite straightforward

Steve
 
marchie said:
The report was in the Guardian Blog yesterday when Mr Sunak refused in a Press Conference to deny that striking Nurses could be sacked for refusing to work once the new legislation had been enacted In a sign of the times, the report continued, 'The journo was unable to press the point, because he had to move on to ask a question about Harry's memoirs ...'

Subsequent commentary in the Blog from its Host, Andrew Sparrow, included a precis of advice from a lawyer to the effect that the proposed legislation was illegal under the Internatonal Labour Organisation provisions as well as the Human Rights Act, and that once enacted the UK Government's policy would be subject to a succession of legal challenges, one of which would be how would the individual Hospital go about selecting which Nurse to sack [unless there was only one] who refused to work? How would that refusal sit when the refusal to work was based on unsafe working conditions [which the 'Critical incident' Hospital declarations provide prima facie evidence for], and not participating in a work environment where there is scientific evidence of avoidable/additional deaths arising from delayed hospital admissions/ambulance transfer delays/eventual temporary transfer to trollies in hospital corridors etc] arising from unsafe Care Practice

Mr Sunak's approach to the crisis was described by Care Professionals yesterday as 'detached from reality' which is possibly the euphemism of the week. The final irony is that the Guardian also carried a separate Report of the UK Government breaking the Code Red Convention to which it subscribes of not recruting nursing/medical staff from the Developing Countries, because of the adverse impact on the improvement aims of the Health Services in those Developing Countries, whose current [relative] poor quality Health provision allow the next round of infectious disease outbreaks to develop and gather pace, just about completing the lap of the circle

As an exercise in logistical response, it must rank as a contender for the most inept, albeit with the artificial stimulant of ideology

Steve
Click to expand...
Thank you, so what it comes to is Sunak refused to deny it could happen, but if course the legislation isn't in place yet perhaps it never will be. I do not know much about the International Labour Organisation Provisions but I do know they are a source of good employee conditions although they have no legal standing in UK law as far as I know in that they cannot make law or regulations. I do know a good deal about Our Human Rights Act and the adopted Convention rights, having studied the subject in depth, and as far as I see there is no "human right" that prevents an employer (The NHS) from attaching conditions to employee contracts, even if the employee is an existing one as opposed to a new one, Of course the imposition of conditions can be challenged by unions and affected individuals and through the Courts and cases of constructive dismissal etc but individuals do of course have the right to terminate their employment should they wish to do so.

It will be very interesting to see how this develops The police and the military cannot strike and I have to say that in public services such as the fire service and in the majority of health care related jobs where the public they serve may be put at risk by strike action there should be a minimum service standard backed up by law and that if people refuse to work when required to in order to maintain that minimum standard they should be dismissed, I do not believe they should be in that profession.

I know that there are huge issues with pay and conditions but knowingly putting other peoples lives in danger in order to further grievances over pay and working condition is, in my view, completely wrong. Having said that, I don't know the answer but I do know some give and take on both sides would help and that does not seem to be forthcoming at the moment.
 
Iandsm said:
Thank you, so what it comes to is Sunak refused to deny it could happen, but if course the legislation isn't in place yet perhaps it never will be. I do not know much about the International Labour Organisation Provisions but I do know they are a source of good employee conditions although they have no legal standing in UK law as far as I know in that they cannot make law or regulations. I do know a good deal about Our Human Rights Act and the adopted Convention rights, having studied the subject in depth, and as far as I see there is no "human right" that prevents an employer (The NHS) from attaching conditions to employee contracts, even if the employee is an existing one as opposed to a new one, Of course the imposition of conditions can be challenged by unions and affected individuals and through the Courts and cases of constructive dismissal etc but individuals do of course have the right to terminate their employment should they wish to do so.

It will be very interesting to see how this develops The police and the military cannot strike and I have to say that in public services such as the fire service and in the majority of health care related jobs where the public they serve may be put at risk by strike action there should be a minimum service standard backed up by law and that if people refuse to work when required to in order to maintain that minimum standard they should be dismissed, I do not believe they should be in that profession.

I know that there are huge issues with pay and conditions but knowingly putting other peoples lives in danger in order to further grievances over pay and working condition is, in my view, completely wrong. Having said that, I don't know the answer but I do know some give and take on both sides would help and that does not seem to be forthcoming at the moment.
Click to expand...
Mr Sunak is proposing the new law as soon as possible as he said during the run up to Xmas and details were announced at his Press Conference on 6th January 2023

Various lawyers have been commenting in the last 24 hours on the possibilities for Unions to mitigate the impact, including actions that fall short of a strike, but which would damage service provision, as well as damaging morale, and encouraging the Unions to play a game of 'cat & mouse' to make a point and/or outwit the legislation

Re the Human Rights Act potential breach; Article 11 re the Rights to form and join a Union. Other lawyers have referred to the proposed legislation breaching the Modern Slavery laws

As far as strikers 'knowingly putting people's lives in danger' is concerned, the nursing and related services had put the necessary agreements in place. Mr Sunak is posturing and seems convinced that the public will back him in his stance against the Unions. He overlooks the fact that the general populace is represented amidst the mass of strikers, so he may end up performing that rarest of deeds, yet another U Turn/climbdown

The logic of sacking striking employees during a chronic staff shortage to ensure safe levels of service is somewhat flawed

Steve
 
Last edited:
2cv said:
To several posters on this thread, perhaps time to re read the Terms and Conditions that we have all signed up to, particularly the part on political content.
Click to expand...
I quite agree, what was claimed to be non political clearly is, although I did reply since I thought it was warranted I will not make further comment. Politics is a nasty subject and there are plenty of other places to air political views. Not here.
 
marchie said:
Mr Sunak is proposing the new law as soon as possible as he said during the run up to Xmas and details were announced at his Press Conference on 6th January 2023

Various lawyers have been commenting in the last 24 hours on the possibilities for Unions to mitigate the impact, including actions that fall short of a strike, but which would damage service provision, as well as damaging morale, and encouraging the Unions to play a game of 'cat & mouse' to make a point and/or outwit the legislation

Re the Human Rights Act potential breach; Article 11 re the Rights to form and join a Union. Other lawyers have referred to the proposed legislation breaching the Modern Slavery laws

As far as strikers 'knowingly putting people's lives in danger' is concerned, the nursing and related services had put the necessary agreements in place. Mr Sunak is posturing and seems convinced that the public will back him in his stance against the Unions. He overlooks the fact that the general populace is represented amidst the mass of strikers, so he may end up performing that rarest of deeds, yet another U Turn/climbdown

The logic of sacking striking employees during a chronic staff shortage to ensure safe levels of service is somewhat flawed

Steve
Click to expand...
Not sure I want to get into that augment thanks
 
Life will go on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top