Mrs Mental and I were having a conversation over our salmon surprise.
We were talking about the current strike action by the postmen. Moving on to the recent action by Yorkshire firemen.
Before we go any further I have to state that I know virtually nothing about either of these things, but Mrs Mental and I both agreed that this was a very bad time for any kind of industrial action.
We then considered what would make a nurse go on actual strike.
Pay concerns seem to be enough to make nurses think about some kind of action. Internationally nurses have threatened or gone on strike over all kinds of reasons. Poor staffing, fear of catching snout, over pay.
I felt I would only consider strike action if the risks incurred by my taking part in strike action were less than those by me not.
This counts for intelligent debate in the Mental household. We both nodded sagely and returned to our fine fish dinner.
I would love to see what people think would be a justifiable reason for going on strike.
We moved on to the many complaints nurses have about working conditions. Under staffing, poor conditions, lack of training, poor morale, lack of management support, lack of supervision for those that want it, contradictory policies etc etc.
Our feeling was that if a combination of these factors led to a significant failing of nursing care it would still be the individual nurse on the sharp end getting it in the neck. Some poor staff nurse getting dragged u before the NMC to get skinned alive as a bad apple in a good barrel.
We wondered what it would take to get management (those with nursing registrations) dragged up before the NMC. If their failings led to a failure of care.
We were stumped.
In my experience, the problem with working in the public sector is that ‘just about coping’ is considered the same as ‘doing well’, and temporary measures have a tendency to become permanent. (Actually, that could apply to mental health, too… look, ma, I’m on-topic!)
There’s sort of this conflict between the desire to do your job well, for your own sense of professional pride and for the service users you’ve got to know and even quite like in some cases, and the knowledge that if you do, the management will assume nothing’s wrong. It’s the whole ‘get good at digging ditches, you get given a bigger shovel’ thing. You don’t want to compromise the service. But unless you put your foot down, you’re going to keep heading towards disaster with fewer staff and fewer resources and bigger targets and the management say “well, if you coped for a month without X staff member, clearly you don’t need them at all”.
I’m aware of the moral arguments against stopping vital services, but really, what else is going to get attention? Given the general management air of “well, they’re complaining, but stuff’s still getting done, so it can’t be that bad”.
The normal stopping protest doesn’t work because you chose to be nurses because you care to help make people healthy, which will be compromised if you quit work. But you need to make a big statement. It’s kind of a catch-22, but only if your tactic is going on strike. My idea is to get weird. Everyone can wear scrub with giant sad faces on the backs. Or black hats like you are in mourning, possibly for the patients that unnecessarily die due to the poor staffing and all. Or you could maybe pick a bureaucratic rule that doesn’t make a big impact on patient care, and you could all flout it together. Like, maybe there is a rule about using only black pen in official paperwork; you could all use red pen.
Or you could just punch your managers in the face every time you see them.
“Or you could just punch your managers in the face every time you see them.”
Hmmmm.
Yes, that’s the one I like the sound of!
Morning. Sorry I’m late – overslept.
I’ve just gone on strike. Well – a portion of my service has been down graded to Consult & Liaison only – because there is no clinical service.
The short of it – we do not have access to a Child Psychiatrist to support, guide and oversee the work of the CAMHS worker that I manage. I’ve raised this as a concern with my management who’ve said “get on with it”. So I have – i’ve got on with closing the service down.
As Mental points out – the risks exceed the benefits and not only are the clients compromised by poor service – but my CAMHS clinician is the [default] senior clinician for CAMHS – well, I am the accountable person but it’s purely academic in that regard.
So I’m on strike. I’ve cancelled all open case management and instructed CAMHS to provide C&L only to the local GPs. No referrals accepted other than via the GP who accepts clinical liability.
It’s not quite fully on strike – but it’s close.
Where’s breakfast?
I am so envious that you can get salmon fish fingers. Salmon is so expensive here!
Well, in order to make as a manager (to a manager?) you have to learn the dark arts of making things other peoples fault.
Typicaly what I hear from above is structured in such a way that later on, if something goes awry, they can distance themselves.
“I would love to see what people think would be a justifiable reason for going on strike.”
It’s similar to the question, “when is civil disobedience (or revolution) justified. We all have an implicit (social) contract with the state. We enjoy the benefits of living in a civil society and in return we hand over some of our civil liberties to the state and agree to be governed by an elected parliament of our peers. But what happens when that contract is broken? Can any one of us legitimately withdraw our consent from a state that we no longer thinks represents our views when our fellow citizens continue to abide by the rule of law?
As with the overthrow of governments I suspect that what would be considered a justification for going on strike depends less on the issue but more on how widely supported strike action is. If enough people support the action then a critical mass is reached and the action is deemed justified. Right is on the side of the victor.
“We all have an implicit (social) contract with the state.”
More metaphorical than implicit, surely!
“But what happens when that contract is broken?”
I never agreed to anything in the first place!
“I suspect that what would be considered a justification for going on strike depends less on the issue but more on how widely supported strike action is.”
So whatever most people think is moral is moral. Lord help us all!
The issue is, for me, an applied case of the more general question of when is it morally right to break a legal contract (NB: a real contract, not an imaginary one). It seems clear that people who hold the value of (real) contracts highly can legitimately disagree on this matter.
Issues which do not get much attention – eg, violence employed by trade unions, how a free market would ensure procedures for breaches of contract, etc – are really quite relevant here too.
Ted.
“violence employed by trade unions” Ted can you expand on this as I would hate to think of my monthly RCN subscriptions helping to fund a shady team of rogue nurses.
“implicit” implied, rather than expressly stated: implicit agreement.
arranman.
Violence has been an important tool employed by trade unions for a very long time and in a variety of ways. Google will help you to find out more.
Ted, I searched as you suggested and unearthed this wee gem.
“The labor movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress. Out of its bold struggles, economic and social reform gave birth to unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, government relief for the destitute and, above all, new wage levels that meant not mere survival but a tolerable life. The captains of industry did not lead this transformation; they resisted it until they were overcome. When in the thirties the wave of union organization crested over the nation, it carried to secure shores not only itself but the whole society.” Martin Luther King Jr.
—Speech to the state convention of the Illinois AFL-CIO, Oct. 7, 1965
Sorry mate but if it’s a sraight choice between Ted and MLK I’m afraid I’ll have to go with the latter.
Regards, arranman
Ted – who is responsible for determining what a legal contract is and how can we ensure that all parties concerned adhere to any contract? E is quite right, we enter into a social contract with the state who, on our behalf, determines laws regarding contract. You clearly explicitly agree to this because you are acknowledging the existence of legal contracts, and further, you give value to same.
Most workers have the right to withdraw their labour unless specifically there is a law, determined by the state, which expressly forbids this. Morals are really subjective cultural values which are usually reflected in the laws made by different countries. If there was a free-market in the sense that you are suggesting, violence would indeed reign and, as Hobbes suggests, life would be nasty, brutish and short.
jbarber,
Yet again you read like a government-issued history book. Critical thinking and the ability to even comprehend anything other than the status quo is quite clearly lacking. The state is the monopoly provider of justice – I have no choice but to go along with them. I know that most workers have the right the withdraw their labour – what point are you trying to make? Your claim about a nasty brutish and short life is entirely unqualified and so can be dismissed at once.