Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3hs8cd wrote

Good. Pay them correctly.

116

BroadwayBully t1_j3i8nnq wrote

Nurses get paid pretty damn well, right? I was under the impression this is mostly about patient to nurse ratios, they want more hires.

35

Softestsquishy t1_j3idab4 wrote

They staff hospitals bare bones so as a nurse you get patient to nurse ratios that could endanger your license (or worse - precedence recently for criminal charges can be pressed for mistakes). Nurses are in charge of crucial aspects of care that could cause serious health consequences or death.

More than pay I pray for ratio legislation.

Positions for temp nurses are being offered for 500/hour to pay to cover the hospital for the strike (mt Sinai) but they’re too cheap to hire more full time nurses. Some desperate nurses from lower paying states travel here to take those rates. There’s an entire field of nursing for those kinds of contracts.

80

BroadwayBully t1_j3idua6 wrote

Yeah that makes no sense whatsoever, monte has contract nurses coming in for like $5k a week. It’s crazy.

21

Softestsquishy t1_j3iec6q wrote

Crazy.

Everything and anything to save the big guys a buck.

Who can blame travelers though for crossing the picket lines?!.

14

BroadwayBully t1_j3ijaog wrote

Does this even save money? If the strike lasts a month and they pay these inflated wages it must even out eventually.

8

uguu777 t1_j3jcyag wrote

real answer is probably no in the long term, due to the inevitable failures leading to costly remedies or outright legislative changes (introduction of UHC for example) but corporate governance rarely look past the immediate quarter outcomes

this is why you don't privatize certain industries, private industry is fine in most sectors but health care requires a national plan and scale to operate smoothly (even public systems struggle, but the private version is just warped incentives and broken systems)

9

[deleted] t1_j3io21n wrote

[deleted]

4

BroadwayBully t1_j3iooyx wrote

I do t think it’s 30% they’re looking for, they want more nurses hired and they would need to be paid of course. I’m saying, at some point, it would even out. Are they going to pay travelers for 6 months, a year? No, it will be a week so the cost is minimal. A year of paying travelers is like 4 years of paying additional staff. Some are getting 500 an hour, that’s almost 10x rn salary.

5

_mursenary t1_j3ipchb wrote

As a travel nurse at Mount Sinai, I can absolutely confirm that no travel RN is making $500/hour. The money is good, yes, but certainly nowhere near $500/hour. And yes, they want a 30% raise over 3 years. 10%/year. It will save money in the long run because it won’t last that long. But theoretically, yes, if it did last a long time, which it won’t, it would become more expensive at a certain point. But I do not see that ever happening.

9

_mursenary t1_j3ipnei wrote

I can also tell you that some travelers at some agencies are being offered only $5-10/hour in addition to their current rate to work the strike. While other travelers have been offered an additional $55/hr, and that is the highest number I have heard.

3

BroadwayBully t1_j3iqein wrote

You should look elsewhere.. travelers at monte are getting triple what you mentioned.

2

JustHereForPka t1_j3jevj3 wrote

Desperate? If I could travel out of state for my work and get $500, you bet your ass I’d be there as long as possible working my ass off

−3

FlamboyantPirhanna t1_j3j4m2u wrote

Yeah, my mom is a retired nurse, and she was making 6 figures before she retired. She also mentioned her hospital director was making $800k a year, so it’s pretty clear where a lot of the money they’re “saving” by not hiring more nurses is going.

29

BroadwayBully t1_j3jff7m wrote

Ya the execs salaries are public, the nurses are certainly aware.

9

akmalhot t1_j3jtfzy wrote

These executives run Very large hospital systems. 800k to run a hospital systems is not much.

The CEOs of the ones in question here make 4-5 mil

−12

jxf t1_j3jf6e5 wrote

Traveling nurses get competitive wages. Hospital staff often don't, and aren't rewarded for their loyalty.

8

orchid_9 t1_j3kkqou wrote

I’ve always been curious with the traveling nurses vs staffed nurses. Since travel nurses get paid way more why do they have them for momentarily when you can save money by hiring a full time nurse?

2

jxf t1_j3lhyrb wrote

The article covered this. In short, hospitals refuse to raise wages for nurses. That's why they're striking.

2

MysteriousExpert t1_j3lx36g wrote

That is also my understanding. Which is a fairly ridiculous thing to demand by having a strike. There are not large numbers of unemployed nurses around.

0

BroadwayBully t1_j3mz0oj wrote

Strikes are extreme, but effective. They have agency nurses to fill in, and strike nurses waiting in hotels. I doubt this strike will last long.

1

PARK_1755 t1_j3iy326 wrote

It’s even worse in Germany… lived there for a few years, their medical workers get treated so terribly by both the state and patients. It’s really sad…

3

Key-Supermarket-7524 t1_j3j8b6r wrote

Now imagine third world countries

At $4 an hour 5 days a week

1

PARK_1755 t1_j3j94jg wrote

One of my best friends moved to the US from Nigeria and told me some stories about it… it’s tragic.

2

TetraCubane t1_j3k9ncq wrote

My wife was making 30k rupees a month in Pakistan as a pharmacist which was about $300 a month back in 2013 while I was making $8k a month for the same job here in the US. (Except she doesn’t have student loans and I have 400k student loans.)

0

Caribbean_Ed718 t1_j3kjvg5 wrote

Wow! Is going to take you a while to pay off that loan.

1

TetraCubane t1_j3kp9ae wrote

Nah, should be done in 10 years with PSLF, just had it consolidated.

1

[deleted] t1_j3is821 wrote

[deleted]

−2

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3isksc wrote

75k a year isn’t a good salary anymore….

13

[deleted] t1_j3isz9j wrote

[deleted]

−4

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3iuavt wrote

Read the title. It’s not livable in NYC.

2

mahler9 t1_j3ivctp wrote

Have you ever considered that you could just google the median income in nyc’s neighborhoods and boroughs before saying ridiculous things like that?

−1

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3ivnp8 wrote

Median income and livable proper wages are different. Renting your whole life isn’t livable. Sure you can do it. But are you comfortable knowing that you can lose your home at any point?

I feel bad for folks who are in that position. I’m in that position for now.

Pay people correctly. Not a wage that gets them to and from work.

5

Amarger86 t1_j3j1m1d wrote

If people didn't blow all their extra disposable income on a new phone every 6 months, 10+ different monthly subscription services, eating out or getting delivery 4-5 nights a week or buying a coffee everyday, etc and saved a good chunk of that money, you'd realize most people actually make plenty of money. But they waste it on stupid stuff instead of saving that money up and buying a home. The average American makes around 40k a year. I make 36k, pay 1200 in rent for my 1 bedroom by myself and still have plenty of money. If someone making nearly twice that isnt considered "livable", then idk what is. If they just saved that difference (30-40k), in 10 years they would be free and clear paid off on a starter home (300-400k).

−2

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3jahx2 wrote

Lol yeah it’s all the new phones and delivery that keep the middle class broke. SMH

More than 1/3rd of your money goes to something you don’t own. The other 3rd to taxes. You’re living paycheck to paycheck and mad at people for using seamless. Wake up.

6

Amarger86 t1_j3jgice wrote

What "keeps the middle class broke" as you call this is people's inability to properly manage their own finances, unable to live within their means. My examples were just some small items that most people take for granted yet if you actually extrapolate them out over a year and then add up all these tiny luxury expenses, you easily start seeing it adds up to a decent chunk of their yearly income.

A simple example is someone who has to get a coffee at a coffee stand every workday. Let's say you spend $4 a day on this, thats $20 a week or $1000 a year... for coffee. Delivery food, thats another $4 plus tipping thats another $4. So $3000 a year just for those 3 simple things. Now obviously thats just rough numbers assuming someone does that everyday but its meant to drive home a point, people waste their money without realizing it.

People need to take accountability for their own spending habits first before blaming lack of pay. I don't care where in the US you live, if you are making over 50k a year and having trouble getting by, then you need to look at yourself and your decisions first. Debt, kids, any other reasons people use, all are based off decisions you made in the past which you should have thought through the consequences more. If one lives within their means, you never have this issue and you can eventually better your situation through hardwork and sacrifice (ie saving up money instead of taking that trip to the Bahamas for 3k). But all I hear now adays is entitlement and blaming everyone but themselves.

−3

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3jh4wo wrote

When was the last time you went on a vacation? 36k isn’t enough to own a house or put money away to retire. Yet you blame people. 2 people in this country have more money than 25% of the population and you blame me for ordering seamless.

Not everyone wants to sit at home watching anime my man.

2

Amarger86 t1_j3jlogr wrote

I have over 100k in my 401k and I'm in my mid 30s so retirement is totally fine and well on pace, got 20k in my bank account, bought my car new a couple years back outright so don't have to buy another for over 20 years... all on my 36k a year living by myself since I was 21 (actually less as most of the time I was making 25-30k before COL increases and raises) and its not like I don't spend money, I just am more thoughtful like I rarely eat out and would rather make the same thing at home for half the price. If I was making 50k, I'd easily have enough to own a house within 10 years (with a mortgage obviously which I would pay off early).

Thats great other people value taking vacations that cost chunks of money, thats is THEIR CHOICE how to spend their money but they also had the choice to not go and save it if they really wanted a house. Sometimes in life you can't have both options and whatever choice you make you have to live with. You picked your profession, picked where you live, what you buy, what hobbies you have, whether to have kids or not, everything involving what you make and how you live is all your choice so stop blaming the outcomes of all these on others and start looking at what you can control.

0

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3jqedo wrote

Making the same wage for more than a decade and your yelling about success. You don’t have a family so you’re able to do all those things. That’s not a fair example of what other people expect out of life. Sitting inside watching cartoons isn’t what folks expect to do or get out of life. You’re an outlier in the data. You’re not the norm. You can’t expect everyone to stay inside in order to live their lives. I’m sorry but it’s not an acceptable example. Good on you for financial independence but most folks can’t live on that. Also not getting a raise in 10-15 years. Wtf?

If you wanted kids and had a stay at home SO who worked part time. 36k wouldn’t cut it. So smugly saying “I don’t use seamless. I stay inside and save my money” is a shit example.

1

Amarger86 t1_j3juxzr wrote

Now I know you aren't actually reading what I'm writing but just picking and choosing what you want to see as I clearly said that I was making less before col AND RAISES (and youre assuming I've worked at the same place the whole time). You dont even understand basic math and finances as 25k to 36k is a 50% increase in pay yet you think I'm making the same exact money (sometimes you only get like a 25-50 cent raise in a year which only equals $500-1000 a year, welcome to the life of a front line worker, the people which people like you look down on yet act like you are the champion for). Good luck with yourself as I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over and you completely ignoring what I've said. I already addressed everything you just posted and can go back and read for my reply.

Make better choices or live with the consequences.

0

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3k17e2 wrote

Lol man. Idk what to tell you. You can’t have a family on 36k. That’s the point. That’s what you’re missing. If you wanna have a life where you’re worried all the time and 1/3rd of your money goes to a landlord so be it. Other folks don’t want that. The majority of the country doesn’t want that. They wanna have a family. You can’t have a family in NYC for 36k and not be cutting corners everywhere.

You missed my point. You projected.

2

Amarger86 t1_j3kh2tp wrote

Thats what I am talking about, I never said anyone could or should afford a family on 36k yet you're assuming I'm saying that, you just keep strawmaning everything I say. Ive just been saying the world owes you nothing and you got to live within your means and make sacrifices in some areas if you want success in others. You portray this idea of a family life you seem entitled to and the world owes it to you but thats not how the world works. You want a home, stay at home SO, kids, then it is on YOU to go EARN a job to support that lifestyle. And if you can't get that job with enough income, then you are going to have to cut corners and sacrifice or change your plans, whether you like it or not. Hence why I brought up the coffee example, if you're lifestyle (whatever it may be) is not meeting your income (strapped for cash) your lifestyle is the problem, especially since we were originally talking about people making 60-70k which I don't care where youre at, a small family could easily live off of that and not live pay check to pay check. And for some odd reason you need more cash, we'll I guess the SO will need to make a sacrifice and get a job too.

−1

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3lz14p wrote

Dude I make enough to have the life I want. I worked hard to get it. Im beyond just barley 6 figures.

I’m advocating that people be paid more. 75k is not enough for a family of 4 to live in NYC and own anything. Go on a vacation once a year and eventually leave the city. It’s a miserable lifestyle that leaves you at the whims of too many problems. You say “that’s life suck it up” I say “people should be paid more so they’re not living hand to mouth.”

I feel bad about the way you look at humanity. But you sit at home watching cartoons thinking everyone else spends too much on their phones. I forget….you don’t live in the real world. You live in propagandatown. Everyone’s broke because of seamless and not wealth inequality. Right.

Anyway. Enjoy being pigeonholed by your own fantasies.

I used to make what you made. I made that wage for year and years. I know that life. No going away with friends. No ability to randomly purchase a gift for an SO cause you don’t have the money. One medical bill and you’re fucked. I was there. Now it’s my yearly bonus. I know both worlds and one causes you stress and death in early age. I don’t want that for my fellow citizens. One day when you may too. It involves getting involved with society though and not letting it pass you by while yelling at others for enjoying literally the bare enjoyments their wage allows.

2

[deleted] t1_j3kloxo wrote

[deleted]

1

Amarger86 t1_j3kn22k wrote

Go search Zillow, they're there. I never said anything about it being an amazing house, youll have to fix it up or have a longer commute or not the best area.

1

No-Equipment2607 t1_j3iuh5b wrote

That's odd how am I living then with zero debt 🤔

−2

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3iutja wrote

You leave the country ever? Travel? Own your apartment/house? Kids college paid for? Got 50k in savings in case you have a medical emergency and can’t work for a year? At the very least a Rainy day fund of 3 months salary? Retirement saved for? Able to enjoy yourself?

5

[deleted] t1_j3iv61g wrote

[deleted]

−1

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3iv9jt wrote

50k in savings doesn’t make you elite?

2

slickrick4232 t1_j3ix9kz wrote

Median savings is around $6k for all ages. You’re acting elite right now

−2

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3jcb4j wrote

I can’t believe the pushback I’m getting for folks to be paid more. Not everyone wants to sit at home with no kids and do nothing.

1

slickrick4232 t1_j3jfizt wrote

I don’t understand how those two things relate

1

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3jhgzk wrote

Paying people a wage where they’re not living hand to mouth and can actually own property wasnt a crazy idea 30 years ago. Now it is. You claim that’s being elite. I claim that as being normal. Feel bad for you a bit.

1

CrumpledForeskin t1_j3ivsn9 wrote

Also. No kids being the large factor. If you wanted kids you couldn’t do that on 75k a year. You’re not taking them on vacations multiple times of the year. Can’t force that on others.

I also doubt you own a home with zero help. If you do good for you. But you can get a home in NYC on 75k a year.

1

AtlantaGangBangGuys t1_j3iw9xq wrote

Not in NYC. Net $50k. So $4k a month? My brothers rent for a 1 bedroom is $4k in Brooklyn

−1

Key-Supermarket-7524 t1_j3j83es wrote

Travel nurses make bank, specialist also take how alot, plus 4 days off? That's some high level priveledge, let also talk about certain social benefits

2

akmalhot t1_j3jt547 wrote

Didn't they offer them 18% pay increases, increases staffing, and fully funded lifetime healthcare ?

−2

thrwy18383747 t1_j3jr0ky wrote

Nurses make a lot of money so do you have any proof that they arent

−7

An-Angel_Sent-By-God t1_j3iik73 wrote

Meanwhile hospitals are literally shuffling sick babies around to try and outlast the nurses: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2023/01/mount-sinai-starts-transferring-babies-out-of-its-intensive-care-units-ahead-of-a-looming-nurses-strike-00076808?source=email edit:

25

mahler9 t1_j3iuzbe wrote

Sounds like they should agree to the striking nurses demands and provide a better work life balance for those nurses. That would improve the care of all patients.

31

IBesto t1_j3j335x wrote

My gf doesn't get a break in 12 hr shifts or food or water

24

[deleted] t1_j3jvgtn wrote

[deleted]

14

IBesto t1_j3jvx7l wrote

Here the mayor came to the strike last year and took selfies and got back in his car and left. No mention or intentions to assist or help anyone but himself

2

[deleted] t1_j3jem3m wrote

[deleted]

−2

catladyrach t1_j3jh4f9 wrote

Believe it. My partner is an ICU nurse and has worked in at least 4 nyc hospitals over the past decade. He frequently does not get to eat his packed lunch and has days where he didn't get to use the bathroom until the end of his shift. Also that 12.5 hr shift can go over depending on patient demands/timing. The lack of breaks seems consistent across the hospital systems in NYC.

4

[deleted] t1_j3ji4vz wrote

[deleted]

−2

IBesto t1_j3jjhyf wrote

You have no idea. Mine has panic attacks and cries everytime she has to go in. She's been doing it for 3 years. I wrap her in a gf burrito or let her shower cry.

4

[deleted] t1_j3jlbmh wrote

[deleted]

−3

Turbulent_Link1738 t1_j3jnzg7 wrote

Why are you replying to him if you don’t care?

4

[deleted] t1_j3job0q wrote

[deleted]

2

Turbulent_Link1738 t1_j3jq0vl wrote

Maybe he’s telling you things you don’t care about because he can as well

2

[deleted] t1_j3jq4fy wrote

[deleted]

1

Turbulent_Link1738 t1_j3jq7w2 wrote

But you still asked him

1

[deleted] t1_j3jqf0w wrote

[deleted]

1

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jrwzp wrote

Why ask, then say you don't care about the answer? Unless you wanted to make a big show about how you don't care, in which case it was performative, and actually quite embarrassing for you as a person.

I think the better question is why does anyone care that you don't care?

3

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jk8gn wrote

"It's just too bad you have inhumane work conditions"

Yeah you gonna say that when an overworked, overstressed nurse makes a mistake in your healthcare and you suffer? Loser.

4

IBesto t1_j3jj8le wrote

Its reality and that's in California where they have ratio ( Means every nurse can't have more than X patients) they get put out of ratio all the time putting their license in danger and the life of patient also. The only one making money because of keeping minimum nurses is the shit FOR PROFIT HOSPITAL. AND THEY ARE BULLIED TO NOT TALK ABOUT IT. HCA is a terrible chain company of hospital look at their stocks and revenue and how many nurses get shit on but can't defend themselves. It's even unionized and the union tells the nurses if you don't like it get a different job.

2

[deleted] t1_j3jlhah wrote

[deleted]

1

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jo788 wrote

" do something about it"

And what exactly do you think a strike is Einstein?

"Not my problem."

Yeah I guess it's not. Until you need healthcare I mean.

5

IBesto t1_j3k2dhd wrote

he said not my problem?! Omfg please

1

[deleted] t1_j3jop9e wrote

[deleted]

0

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jp3g9 wrote

Stating facts isn't getting worked up is it lad?

You wanted them to "do something about it", you must have missed the part about "going on strike" (It's okay, I know reading can be hard for your type sometimes)

​

And you stated it's not your problem, I was just reminding you that at some point in your life you will need healthcare, and then having a decent nurse will very much be your problem. Not worked up at all, just helping a fellow redditor to understand the things they're missing. You're welcome.

5

[deleted] t1_j3jpxyj wrote

[deleted]

2

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jrnkg wrote

So what do you think a strike is? Notice you avoided that question twice.

5

[deleted] t1_j3jsmar wrote

[deleted]

0

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jsu6g wrote

So you know what a strike is, yet still commented "Do something about it"

So do you know what a strike is?

2

[deleted] t1_j3jt2l0 wrote

Yes, I know what a strike is but I don’t have to prove it by telling you. Why would I provide a statistic about striking if I didn’t know what a strike was?

−2

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jtrgo wrote

Posting a statistic isn't telling me what a strike is, first of all. If someone asked what basketball was and you said "50% of the time they score over 75" you didn't actually answer the question.

Now, and I know this is gonna be hard for you, so I need you to really focus here, you stated earlier that the nurses should "Do something about it" and you also claim (Though the jury is still out on this one) that you know what a strike is.

So..... and follow me close here, what do you think the strike is, in relation to the statement "Do something about it"

Also, lets all have a big, collective laugh at the senior on college who's never had a job saying that he "finds is hard to believe" that nurses work 12 hour shifts, and then saying he doesn't care about them.

Maybe when you graduate and get an actual job, perhaps at the end of your first day you'll go "Huh, maybe I should care about workers rights"

As it stands you simply don't have the life experience to really have an informed view on the subject, so perhaps you should step back to your online class and let the adults talk.

2

[deleted] t1_j3jtu1q wrote

Yeah I’m not reading that wall of text.

−2

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jtw53 wrote

Do something about it.

2

[deleted] t1_j3ju3si wrote

[deleted]

1

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jurth wrote

Because children should listen to adults, be a good little boy now.

So what do you think a strike is, if not "doing something about it"?

1

[deleted] t1_j3juudv wrote

[deleted]

1

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jv7n5 wrote

So what do you think a strike is, if not "doing something about it"?

Also, why is an unemployed person who's never had a job, who's literally so out of touch with the reality of work that he "Can't believe nurses work 12 hours" (Like wtf, how sheltered has your life been that you've never heard of a 12 hour shift?) giving their opinion on working matters? It doesn't apply to you kid, it applies to the adults.

3

[deleted] t1_j3jvhu6 wrote

[deleted]

0

Royal-Palpitation-72 t1_j3jvl9u wrote

So what do you think a strike is, if not "doing something about it"?

Also, why is an unemployed person who's never had a job, who's literally so out of touch with the reality of work that he "Can't believe nurses work 12 hours" (Like wtf, how sheltered has your life been that you've never heard of a 12 hour shift?) giving their opinion on working matters? It doesn't apply to you kid, it applies to the adults.

EDIT: "Blocked because I don't have an answer"

EDIT2: Dude reported me to the reddits suicide hotline. But he blocked me first. So the dude literally had to log out, log in to an alt account, report me, then log back into his main. Imagine getting this mad over some internet comments.

3

RChickenMan t1_j3ivpip wrote

Channel this anger you're feeling towards hospital administrators and write them a letter or something demanding that they put an end to the strike by negotiating in good faith with the nurses. You're absolutely right: It's disgusting that hospital administration would put people's health at risk like this.

8

Jackontana t1_j3jkk16 wrote

Jesus that's fucked.

With how much money hospitals make - how the hell are THEY the sort to be so miserly with staffing.

7

waxy_cucumber t1_j3lag9y wrote

The hospitals don’t care about these defenseless babies when the nurses are covering more patients than is safe without breaks, but they used their PR team to push these stories out to the media to make the nurses look bad.

6

No_Mall7480 t1_j3ixl6a wrote

This will be like railroad union work or go to jail.

7

SolitaryMarmot t1_j3ka90e wrote

No. That's not how the law works. Railroads are under the Railway Labor Act. Hospitals are under the National labor relations Act.

11

hipsterdefender t1_j3k0jgr wrote

FYI y’all the strike is over. Agreement was met today.

1

TheDoct0rx t1_j3k4x2o wrote

got a news article for me?

3

hipsterdefender t1_j3k6xvg wrote

Mountsinainyc Instagram of all places

Edit: seems the linked article has this info up top

1

SolitaryMarmot t1_j3k9tbn wrote

Those are the two small Sinai hospitals. The main Sinai hospital and Montefiore in the Bronx aren't included.

12

valoremz t1_j3kvrhu wrote

Did they get the ratios they wanted?

2

jfio93 t1_j3l5jle wrote

No we ( Mount Sinai main hospital) are on strike effective in two hours

7

valoremz t1_j3lprc9 wrote

I’m confused? There was an announcement that the hospital and union reached an agreement. Is that not correct?

2

jfio93 t1_j3lrez4 wrote

Mount sinai west and Morningside are under different contracts

4

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3nwtb1 wrote

To answer your question if the choice is no nurse because they are on strike or a nurse that hasnt slept in 3 days, which is hyperbole, than ill take the nurse that hasnt slept in 3 days. Also there is no way theyre making starvation wages. Like nursing is well known for paying well, even if it is a hectic job. Being hyperbolic in service to your point doesnt help your point.

Again please tell me what you prefer. A strike can cause understaffed ERs and potentially deaths. Are those deaths ok to you? Can you live with those? If they are than own it.

1

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jwnh3 wrote

Im trying not to play the blame game here. Im not blaming nurses perse, I am saying that as a consequence of them not showing up people will die. Blaming the suits doesnt change this fact, it might just make you feel better about it.

−8

booksareadrug t1_j3k0ufi wrote

As people have said in other threads, people die either way. Denying nurses the right to strike is repressive and antithetical to a safe working environment for them.

9

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k1hix wrote

Please pick one option

  1. Nurses cant strike and must negotiate through other means to get what they want resulting in fewer deaths.

  2. Nurses go on strike, potentially getting what they want, but people die in the process.

Please reply with a 1 or 2.

−6

KatsKolorBox t1_j3k52q7 wrote

  1. Nurses go on strike after safely transferring their patients and charts out of their care. Some patients may die due to the transfer, but many more will die of mistakes or complications if nurses continue to work under these conditions.
10

booksareadrug t1_j3k3k6s wrote

I think you've been incredibly stubborn and disingenuous, but 2. Because, even in your comment, there's deaths in both options. AS I SAID.

edit: also, I'm pretty sure me saying that denying nurses the right to strike is a bad thing means I'm against "nurses can't strike".

4

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k6t61 wrote

Ive been stubborn because this is a life and death sxenario and people have been down playing that to a point that is really fustrating. Like there are still multple air born viruses going around, a general shortage as it is and over crowding. And the question is a matter of a degree in deaths as a result of a labor dispute, the 2nd option being the potentially deadlier considering that unknowns of the length of the stike and current health hazards in the city. I feel like people in this thread have a very narrow perspective here that will potentially lead to significant deaths and if they are going to be pro labor here than they should acknowledge the reality of a strike. I typically pro labor but not at the point of people dying.

−3

booksareadrug t1_j3k742x wrote

I. Don't. Care. That. People. Die. As. Long. As. The. Nurses. Keep. Their. Right. To. Strike. As. People. Will. Die. Either. Way.

Is that clear enough for you? Did your little misspelled rant finally get the response you wanted?

1

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k8alm wrote

Its kind of clear but its the same problem I have with everyone else here who keeps saying either way will kill people. Like I feel like youre trying to both sides this in a way because youre to afraid to deal with the scary results of a strike.

Frankly Im curious has there been a dramatic uptick in deaths as a result of nurses current conditions? Like can you point me to an article that supports this cause THAT is a claim that I think needs to be backed up by data.

2

booksareadrug t1_j3k8ulc wrote

I unfortunately do not have access to that data and have no interest in googling it for you.

But I will point out that, even in YOUR comment with the stupid options, you said both result in some deaths. It's just that one option results in improved working conditions for hideously overworked nurses, while the other lets the status quo stand. Obviously the pro-nurse side will want the nurses to get relief. It's not both sidesing it to acknowledge that deaths will happen while stating that it's still the better outcome. Isn't that what you want? That acknowledgment?

1

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3kbq8r wrote

Lets be honest here my two options, which are not stupid because it is the same dynamic that led to the adoption of the taylor law in ny, was a question of the degree of deaths, which you know. And tbh, I am saying it to be diplomatic cause I know nurses are stressed, I know hospitals are understaffed and I know there are real problems but Im less certain about the effect its currently having on lives. Regardless I am talking about degree, option 2 I think would lead to too much death than I am willing to endorse and like fire fighters and cops I think their jobs are too important to allow for striking. By youre logic we should let cities burn down if fire fighters decide their contracts are unfair and Im not for that. I am pro-people not getting fucked out of necessary emergemcy services because labor disputes.

I want you to acknowledge the point while also accepting what I think is a reasonable thing to point out which is that option 2 will lead to more deaths than option 1 but I feel like that is too much too ask for this crowd. I mean by your own admission you dont even have data to prove that the current situation is resulting in more deaths and I dont think it takes a lot of brain work to see that fewer nurses= less care. Cant help but you and the last guy are being dishonest because you dont want to acknowledge that your support would cause significant harm.

0

booksareadrug t1_j3kbzgr wrote

FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE STRIKE WILL RESULT IN DEATH. I KNOW THIS. I ACCEPT THIS. THE STRIKE MUST HAPPEN ANYWAY.

Is that clear enough for you?

2

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3kc93r wrote

Yes. Also please stay as far away from NYC as humanly possible. Like try guam. Or a desert Island.

−2

lucidpivot t1_j3kn7l9 wrote

Are you aware that "the suits" have been notified of these strikes for weeks?

Are you aware that the nurses have been in negotiation with management about these concerns for months?

Your options are premised on the idea that this wasn't completely avoidable. The 3rd option would be for Mt Sinai to make reasonable concessions to avoid the strike, thereby maintaining continuity of patient care. Placing any of the blame on workers is disingenuous.

4

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3kye4v wrote

First: that isnt a 3rd option. Its strike or dont strike, thats it. Youre third option is labor gets what they want an dispute over, which would be great but its not what were looking at here.

Second I am not placing blame, im saying if there was a strike, people would die cause there will be fewer nurses to man the ER and help with surgeries and whatevee else. You can blame the nurses, you can blame the suits either way I dont care people are dying.

Third would you support fire fighters going on strike if it meant that a city block will burn down?

−2

astoriaboundagain t1_j3lcxqm wrote

There is one public fire department.

There are many hospitals under many different contacts, both public and private. As of last night, only a few private facilities were ready to strike.

Why are you arguing something you know so little about?

3

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3ln6rx wrote

Tell that to the neighborhood that is about to lose their ER or the overtaxed hospital thats about to become more over taxed because of a strike.

−2

astoriaboundagain t1_j3lpgnx wrote

I showed up at one this morning at 6am like I have for over the past 15 years. I'll pass along your concern.

2

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3lq346 wrote

Thank you for service.

Can I ask what the game plan is if theres a strike and the ER is under staffed? Like what are nurses and the unions thinking of that? What will hospitals do? I mean educate me here since youre on the ground?

1

astoriaboundagain t1_j3luq2d wrote

It's multifaceted.

Months ago when contract negotiations started, contingency plans began. Non-union staff (physicians, PAs, nursing management) were trained up to step in to provide direct patient care as needed. Supplemental agency and travel nursing staff positions were posted at crazy high rates. That supplemental staffing process is smoother than ever since Covid. Also, not all nurses went out on strike this morning. They had a choice, because those that did walk immediately lost all pay and benefits. There's a command center at all facilities that balances staff based on real-time patient needs.

A couple weeks ago, patient transfers began to other non-striking facilities. Capacity is tight, but to my knowledge, everyone that needed to be moved, was. EMS and intra-system transfer centers are aware of facility capacities in both private and public systems and will admit accordingly.

The Greater New York Hospital Association is very organized, both in their political lobbying and operations information sharing. C-Suite members from all systems and facilities speak frequently, during a strike, Covid, or other emergencies, about patient loads and facility needs.

The expectation was that NYSNA would hold firm and strike at all bargaining facilities. Only a few walking out is better than everyone expected.

2

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3mzhck wrote

Ok.... thats a little more comforting but it boils down to getting people with other responsibilities to cover, bringing in people who may not know the hospital and moving people around to other places, which cuts into the time that cpuld be spent on them recieving care. Knock on wood the other hospitals didnt go on strike. Still seems like a bad disruption imo. And to an extent we've so far gotten lucky.

Do you believe patient loads can be accomodated city wide if other hospitals go on strike?

1

astoriaboundagain t1_j3n28nd wrote

This should be it for the private sector. I was a little nervous that the staff at Presby was going to vote down the tentative agreement, but it passed.

So far the load balancing is going well. My personal opinion? I don't think the strike will last very long, but Sinai does have deep pockets so we'll see. NYSNA can't afford to lose this fight now that it's got nationwide attention.

Next round is the public sector nurses. That contract expires in March and I'm very interested to see how the city reacts to the private fight. Bloomberg just delayed signing for years when he had his turn. But who knows with this administration.

1

HangerSteak1 t1_j3vrola wrote

Hopefully they leave the picket like and go to work, no patient should suffer over money.

1

astoriaboundagain t1_j3k0ps8 wrote

The facilities have been in negotiations for months and has more than adequate notice of the strike to prepare. "Patients might die" is a corporate narrative.

3

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k1clf wrote

Maybe it is a corporate narative but it doesnt mean it isnt true.... ny has the taylow law to prevent cops and fire fighters from striking to make sure labor conflicts dont disrupt emergency services.

0

astoriaboundagain t1_j3k4y6l wrote

The Taylor Law says it's illegal for public workers to strike (these nurses are at private facilities, the law doesn't impact them). But regardlesss, speeding is also illegal. You can do it, but there's consequences. There's also work actions, like the recent NYPD slowdowns and the DOC sickouts.

1

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k7d1c wrote

Im not having a convo about rights. Nurses have the right to stike. Suits have the right to underpay and overwork their employees. Its irrelevant to the fact that people will die on the strike. And I condemn those slowdowns and sickouts.

0

astoriaboundagain t1_j3k8xvq wrote

Underpaying and overworking in healthcare leads to deaths. Strikes are planned in advance. Facilities have notice and contingency plans. Any deaths fall on management. The nurses are fighting for better patient care

1

A_Dancing_Coder t1_j3k0o63 wrote

Unfortunately it seems like people dying or not getting care is the only way to get the suits to listen. You got a better way?

0

[deleted] t1_j3j55c1 wrote

[deleted]

−13

keeute t1_j3jagdd wrote

Omg, a flat earther with a bad opinion. Go figure.

9

bangbangthreehunna t1_j3jy8md wrote

So the term ‘they knew what they were signing up for’ only applies to cops, and not nurses. Got it.

−14

astoriaboundagain t1_j3k0t8y wrote

They're fighting for safer patient care. Do you want a three day wait next time you go to the ER?

9

Uiluj t1_j3k9peq wrote

Nurses signed up for unions for contract negotiations and the right to strike.

3

bangbangthreehunna t1_j3ka8fx wrote

Okay and this sub complains when police become hands off against crime. But then not staffing ER is fine.

1

Uiluj t1_j3kgarm wrote

I have a feeling that the people who complain about cops being hands off against crime are the same people who are against the nurse strike.

And also the same people who brings up crime in posts that have nothing to do with crime.

1

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jn0h7 wrote

I might get down voted for this but this seems like one of those industries that shouldnt be allowed to strike..... like I'm sorry but goddamn you cant run a hospital without nurses and a strike could easily lead to the death of hundreds of sickly patients. I hope they get their demands met, especially if the demand is better balance between staff and patients but if you stand in solidarity with this than please ackniwldge and accept the very real and potentially deadly consequences that can come from this

Edit: just a few points. Ive argued this enough if people care to go though it.

  1. I am not having a conversation over blame. Im not blaming nurses anymore than I am blaming executives here. I am making a point over the consequences of striking. For what its worth I am generally pro labor and believe in decomodifying healthcare.

  2. My arguement boils down to these two point, I choose 1:

1-Nurses cant strike and must negotiate through other means to get what they want resulting in fewer deaths.

2-Nurses go on strike, potentially getting what they want, but people die in the process.

  1. Please just be honest with yourselves.
−30

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jo9wh wrote

You only take responsibility if you sign on and take over patients. If you never clock in, they were never yours to begin with. If you can't run a hospital without nurses, then maybe you should treat them like essential parts of your workforce. Nurses have been begging for this for years as they have been given way too many patients with in turn could cause an accident causing them to be sued and loosing their license. But no, let's blame the nurses for all this. Let's see you willingly sign up to be put in a dangerous situation like this.

24

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jpi6v wrote

Do you accept that the right for nurses to strink is more important than loss of life and damage to patients that would occur due to wide spread worker shortage? That is the central question that needs to be answered here. Would you accept the death of you loves one in a health emergency because nurses were on strike?

−13

Live_Zookeepergame97 t1_j3jq7yj wrote

The nurses did not cause the emergency of your “loved ones” and like every job they deserve fair compensation. I am curious as to what you do for a living and willing work long hours to the point of exhaustion that negatively affect your physical and mental health.

12

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jqdha wrote

If this is the only way to protect yourself and your family, wouldn't you do it? Pal, you really don't get it. Any death would not be on any one of the strikers at all. if they clock in and assume responsibility then yes, they are responsible and it would be a crime called patient endangerment. But if you dont clock in, and you don't get assigned patients, they are not your problem. Hospitals are running themselves in a very dangerous manner and if something were to happen it would fall on the nurses hands. They could lose their license, get sued, or be charged with a crime. Don't blame the victims because corporate suits are trying to save a few bucks. Nurses desperately tried everything and now it has come to the last resort. It's the hospital to blame for this crisis not the nurses.

7

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jrkhc wrote

I mean dude i get the legal arguement but youre using that as a sheild to avoid wrestling with the actual problem. Sure they will be legally sheilded but that doesnt change the fact that hospitals will be understaffed at a point when they otherwise wouldnt be. I understand its an unfair situation, I am not saying their issues shouldnt be addressed but I dont think that people who perform an essential fumction like being a nurse should be allowed to strike because the utilitarian calculus shows that them striking will lead to more deaths. Ny has the taylor law that prevents government workers in the state from protesting and iasues still get addressed.

So to reframe my question so there is no ambiguity,do you think that the lives lost and harm done to patients as a result of nurses who, within their legal rights, strike is worth less than maintaiming the right to strike

−5

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jtyhi wrote

See your missing the point. You are focusing on one aspect of this issue. This isn't about blaming deaths on anyone. If they don't threaten strike, then they will continue to put nurses AND patients in danger due to the horrible staffing ratios. The real question should be answered by you, should we keep putting more lives in danger by keeping things the way they are? Or force the greedy suits to make things safer? Your so focused on the patients who would be in danger when they are already in danger. Nurses for years have done everything within their power, including still working in these conditions and they have been ignored for years. There literally is nothing else to do but strike. And if the strike goes through, the hospital corporate suits all will have to pay the reprocussions of any damage. Stop trying to put blame on those being forced into this and put blame on the people who could easily change this.

3

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jvqyi wrote

YOU'RE the one playing the blame game. NOT ONCE HAVE I BLAMED THOSE DEATHS ON THE NURSES WHERE YOU HAVE CLEARLY BLAMED THEM ON THE SUITS. I dont think the blame game is really helpful. Sure nurses can strike, leading to staffing shortages and deaths. Sure fat cats can pocket money, put nurses in dangerous situations, cause them to stike and then deaths. EITHER WAY THERE ARE DEATHS AND I AM AGAINST DEATHS.

If you want to branch this convo in a different direction than I am happy too once you display thr courage to acknowledge the consequences of a strike. Ive asked multiple times and youre clearly unwilling to answer a hard question.

−1

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jwu9x wrote

I already answered your question. If you are against deaths, you should be pro nurses here. People will die in both situations, so let's pick the situation that will actual fix the issue then ask a pointless question which takes away the real issue. That's all I told you before. Everyone will tell you deaths are bad. Didn't realize I had to point it out to you.

3

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jy45j wrote

Please pick one option

  1. Nurses cant strike and must negotiate through other means to get what they want resulting in fewer deaths.

  2. Nurses go on strike, potentially getting what they want, but people die in the process.

Please reply with a 1 or 2. Upon doing so you will have answered the question directly and we can move on.

1

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jysfb wrote

Option one won't work because they already did. For over a year now they have been ignored. I've already told you this. You think one is still an option when its not. This is way more than a black and white issue. But you won't listen to me because you want me to answer wour question I already pointed out isn't the right question to ask. Now I answered it and you still asked me the same thing.

4

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k01mq wrote

This is the central conflict in our arguement here. It is the arguement that I have been making since I first posted and that you felt the need to reply to. It clearly is the relavant arguement because A. Youre too scared to answer it because if you pick 2 youre condoning those deaths and B. Ny state passed the taylor law so other emergency responders cant let labor disputes intervene during crisis situations where we need emergency responders. These options I am giving you is what this whole thing boils down to and I want to know where you stand so pretty please with sugar on top:

Please pick one option SO WE CAN FREAKING MOVE ON.

  1. Nurses cant strike and must negotiate through other means to get what they want resulting in fewer deaths.

  2. Nurses go on strike, potentially getting what they want, but people die in the process.

Please reply with a 1 or 2. Upon doing so you will have answered the question directly and we can move on.

0

JesusSandals73 t1_j3k2oxa wrote

You have successfully made this argument redundant because you have ignored every point I gave to keep asking the same question, which I already answered, then you changed some words around to try to make me change my answer to the one you want. I also addressed the whole death issue too, and I have gave you some counterpoints which could have furthered this discussion, but you are so insistent about ignoring all of them to make me answer it again. I'm obviously pro nurses, pro strike if it means making the hospital safer rather than prolong the dangerous conditions we have right now. PEOPLE WILL PUT IN DEADLY SITUATIONS IN BOTH OPTIONS. How many times have I told you that, since both situations are deadly, and if I had to pick, I would pick the deadly situation that will in return make the dangers go away rather than prolong them. But now you asked me the same question AGAIN and added that option one will cause fewer deaths which is wrong and thrown in there to make me pick the option YOU want me to pick. I told you that, ignored me, then asked it again calling me a coward. Your question is flawed and unfair to the real issues, but all you can do is keep repeating it until I answer again. This will be my last post in this thread UNLESS you give me an actual response that isn't you pointlessly asking me to answer the same question and proving me to me you aren't actually uneducated in the matter.

3

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k5gkw wrote

No I think Ive more or less made my point. I keep repeating myself because I only want to talk about the right to strike and you seem intent on ignoring my narrow focus for one and reframing my arguement in a way that I dont see as properly engaging with the central conflict. I dont care about blame, which you seem to think is the most 8mportant factor in this scenario. You can make arguements on both sides about blame and frankly it distracts from the central issue in the news of a strike that people my die. I can only describe you as delusional if you believe that a nurses strike wont cause more deaths than not stiking. I get the conditions are bad and my heart goes out but it is relatively straight forward math: 1 to 8 is better than 0 to 8. Like I pray you dont live in NYC because there is literally an overflow of patients in ERs and there are three deadly viruses floating around. Strikes are not necessarily one week affairs, they can last months and in the meantime that is an ER that is either understaffed or just completely inoperable. That means people are dead, and for myself I cant accept that.

−2

notvaleria t1_j3k7usa wrote

Option 2. I got news for you buddy, ppl are already dying cuz there arent enough nurses to to adequately staff pts. And with the way hospital administration runs healthcare like a business, there will soon be no nurses left in the hospital to care for the patients because we are getting tired and are looking for other jobs outside of the hospital. So stop trying to make it sound like nurses are the ones causing problems when it’s really the administration.

Also, you’re being overly dramatic when you say patients are going to die. Strike notice is given and elective surgeries and procedures are stopped. Patients can be transferred to other hospitals and then strike nurses are hired to take care of the patients in the hospital. It is not an ideal situation but the nurses are ultimately striking for better patient care.

I don’t expect you to understand, but if you have no idea what has been going on in the hospitals then don’t be so quick to judge.

3

EarthVSFlyingSaucers t1_j3jr40i wrote

“You can’t run a hospital without nurses”

This statement is EXACTLY why hospitals shouldn’t be privatized. Nurses/hospital staff deserve fair treatment as with any other profession, doubly so because the work they do is so integral to society.

I have three different friends who are nurses, all of them in different parts of the country. They all have the same complaint: “I’m working 14 hour shifts, multiple days in a row because our hospital refuses to hire more.” Yet these same hospitals are grossly overpaying their top staff and hoarding all the money for themselves.

Let them strike. It sucks for the patients who need care for sure but the blame isn’t on the nurses, it’s the disgusting rich elite who run the hospitals. You can love and take pride in your job, doesn’t mean you should be literally forced to do it 14 hours a day.

11

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jtmd6 wrote

Thanks for actually dealing with the issue. And public medicine is absolutely a more appropriate than privatized companies and might perhaps lead to a better conditions and compensation for nurses. No idea how health and hospitals treats their medical staff so I can only say so much.

Im trying to avoid the blame game because I dont think its productive and avoids the central issue that people will die. I for one cant support that, I really cant. I sympathize with the nurses but that is a job that, like the fire department if just too important to let labor disputes get in the way of the job.

−2

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jum7i wrote

People will die right now as a tired, weary nurse takes on 8+ critical patients. Only difference is the nurse who is forced into this will be the one to take the fall.

5

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jw87s wrote

Please have the courage to answer the question Ive asked 3 times before you comment elsewhere.

Is the right for nurses to strike more important than the deaths and the negative potential health outcomes of patients because of a staffing ahortage caused by strikes?

−3

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jwjqf wrote

Your question is pointless and has an obvious answer. Answer deaths will be inexcusable. Both situations will put people in danger and may cause deaths. Happy? Deaths are bad. All I'm telling you is that that question takes away the real issue.

3

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jxfuy wrote

Dude no Im not happy you still didnt answer the damn question. Here I will do it this way. What do you think is preferable

  1. Nurses cant strike and have to negotiate through other means for what they need but fewer people die.

  2. Nurses can strike and get better conditions but in the process people die because nurses did not show up to work.

Just reply with a 1 or 2.

−2

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jzfd6 wrote

I can't believe you asked me this same question in two threads when I already told you option one doesn't exist anymore. I pointed out to you many times the question is the wrong question to ask but yet you are desperate for an answer. Fewer people don't die in option one. You force more people to be put in danger with option one. You have no proof to prove option one causes less deaths. It's a stupid question and that statement is by far the most uneducated thing you have said yet. And I already said if a strike forces better conditions, then the sooner we get to having a safer hospital conditions. Why put more people in danger longer?

1

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k0y39 wrote

Option 1 is absolutely an option, police and fire fighters still negotiate despite not being aloud to strike. This has worked for decades in ny.

I dont need a study to tell you that more people will die in option 2 than 1. It is the difference between no nurses and 1 over worked nurse. Like gtfo dude, what reality do you fucking live in?

Please pick one option

  1. Nurses cant strike and must negotiate through other means to get what they want resulting in fewer deaths.

  2. Nurses go on strike, potentially getting what they want, but people die in the process.

Please reply with a 1 or 2. Upon doing so you will have answered the question directly and we can move on.

2

JesusSandals73 t1_j3k3ehz wrote

Police and Fire fighters aren't privatized, almost all hospitals are. You say you don't need to study to know that option 1 causes fewer deaths when you offer no evidence and are going with the "trust me bro". Both options are equally deadly. I will now copy and paste from the other thread where you are doing this twice. I may also add you have been down voted and disagreed with numerous times so I know I'm not the only one here.

"You have successfully made this argument redundant because you have ignored every point I gave to keep asking the same question, which I already answered, then you changed some words around to try to make me change my answer to the one you want. I also addressed the whole death issue too, and I have gave you some counterpoints which could have furthered this discussion, but you are so insistent about ignoring all of them to make me answer it again. I'm obviously pro nurses, pro strike if it means making the hospital safer rather than prolong the dangerous conditions we have right now. PEOPLE WILL PUT IN DEADLY SITUATIONS IN BOTH OPTIONS. How many times have I told you that, since both situations are deadly, and if I had to pick, I would pick the deadly situation that will in return make the dangers go away rather than prolong them. But now you asked me the same question AGAIN and added that option one will cause fewer deaths which is wrong and thrown in there to make me pick the option YOU want me to pick. I told you that, ignored me, then asked it again calling me a coward. Your question is flawed and unfair to the real issues, but all you can do is keep repeating it until I answer again. This will be my last post in this thread UNLESS you give me an actual response that isn't you pointlessly asking me to answer the same question and proving to me you aren't actually uneducated in the matter."

1

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k5ssz wrote

I literally dont care Im getting down voted, I saw it coming. Look i bring up the taylor law only to point oht that the conflixt Im raising is a relavant question. No more.

0

EarthVSFlyingSaucers t1_j3jxazd wrote

Fire departments aren’t privatized and because of that, run on a VERY strict schedule of when/who/how many hours you can work at any given time to ensure every firefighter can perform at 100%.

This just further proves both of our points that healthcare should not be privatized because a company can, and absolutely will drill it down into the last dollar to maximize a profit.

1

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jykm3 wrote

Unlike what I think some people here might think I am not a shill for privatized healthcare lol. Governments have their own issues but yes I think the lack of a profit motive would lead to better working conditions and potentially fewer labor conflicts.

1

cat_a_pult t1_j3jq285 wrote

No industry should be barred from striking. This would allows these workers (such as nurses and doctors) to be taken scrupulously advantaged of because of your "bleeding heart" argument. Instead, the nurses and doctors give adequate warning in advance of their strikes so that hospitals can prepare accordingly.

6

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3js7hq wrote

Well thats a productive response. And I disagree. Some jobs I think people need to take with the ex0ectation that they cant strike. Its for the greater good of society. It would be incredibly detrimental to the broader public if a massive fire broke out and all the fire fighters werent there to respond. And even with appropriate time to prepare, if there arent enough people there to replace strikers than people are stil SOL.

1

Bleach-Bones_Jones t1_j3jppau wrote

hospital CEO takes a 1.3 million dollar salary, they can afford to pay the nurses more, and avoid this entire thing. They need to be paid a living wage to survive. So you think a nurse is to blame should prioritize patient health over having a roof over their children's heads and food in their stomach. Oh yes let's blame those nurses and not the disgusting millionaire hospital administration that can afford to pay these nurses at least 4x the wage they're getting. You'll get down voted because you're pointing the finger at the wrong people.

5

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jqfyb wrote

I am strictly talking about the right to strike. Do you think that the right to strike out ways the consequences that would come because of it? Are you willing to accept the deaths of people while nurses are out protesting?

0

Omphalos- t1_j3jvweo wrote

I feel like the point you are missing, is that it is the suits willing to let people die because they won't pay for more nurses.

5

Bleach-Bones_Jones t1_j3nuk72 wrote

You're missing the point I'm making here.

The nurses are making a starving wage. The nurses do not want to strike. They want to be able to feed their family and pay their rent. Correct? The CEO'S of the hospitals can decide to pay their nurses enough and this will be avoided. They HAVE the money to pay these nurses but they don't want to. THEYRE the ones that are killing people. Full stop. Even before the strike they would schedule the shifts so badly that patients were suffering that there weren't enough nurses. This has been happening for years through the pandemic, the strike that's happening right now is because the nurses are exhausted from holding up the weight of the healthcare system. The strike is happening because of the injustice that these nurses are being forced to work insane overtime and at horrible wages. If you were in the hospital for a heart attack would you want to be treated by a staff that hasn't slept in 3 days? Seriously, answer that question. These nurses aren't sleeping. And now these nurses who are literally giving up their entire life and going hungry are being harassed and bullied by people online who share your viewpoint. ITS THE CEOS FAULT FOR NOT STAFFING ENOUGH AND NOT PAYING THEIR WORKERS A LIVING WAGE. FULL STOP. YOU ARE POINTING THE FINGER AT THE WRONG PEOPLE.

Edited to add: striking is the nurses only bargaining chip. Otherwise the ceo's will keep cutting staff, increasing hours, and as the price of living increases, the wages will not increase. The ceo's have fucked the healcare system over greed and it's at the breaking point. Striking is the only option these nurses have.

1

beestingers t1_j3jr3r6 wrote

If they took that CEO bonus and spread it among the striking nurses, they would have gotten a $155 bonus each. I think they're asking for more money than that.

−3

Bleach-Bones_Jones t1_j3nw5hh wrote

Where did i talk about a bonus or splitting the bonus? I'm talking about hospital ceo's taking more money and bleeding hospitals dry for greed. You're being purposefully obtuse

1

beestingers t1_j3ohf67 wrote

The math doesn't math but maybe you confuse simple division for being purposefully obtuse.

1

SolitaryMarmot t1_j3k9zeb wrote

The right to strike is part of US law. If its private sector and under the National Labor Relations Act, you have the right to strike. It doesn't matter what you think. That's what the law is.

3