Submitted by CasinoMagic t3_10q0jfk in nyc
Floppafan420 t1_j6ne040 wrote
There's no evidence the baby died as a result of the strike. And even if it did it's on the hospital for not paying the nurses properly and hiring enough.
PinkKitty48 t1_j6niioy wrote
The article literally says that it was unstaffed and the baby was sick but no one experienced was around to escalate
Wukong1986 t1_j6nq0r0 wrote
That's on management to ... manage.
Razgriz_ t1_j6o4pvq wrote
Administrators administrate. Bring in traveling nurses, reroute patients if you have to, shut down or reduce services. It’s painful and it sucks but that’s why they get paid the big bucks. They should be responsible and accountable for their staffing decisions.
These people can’t have their cake and eat it too.
jenryalee t1_j6ojcdx wrote
All administrators act like they get paid 6 figures to spin in their chair. NOPE, they are paid to deal with administrative issues like staffing during a strike. They had ample time, they just didn't do their job (shocker).
Wukong1986 t1_j6odc8u wrote
^ this
PinkKitty48 t1_j6nqeds wrote
I mean with what staff?
koreamax t1_j6o32y3 wrote
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. It seems like even mentioning the fact that theyre short staffed is perceived at criticism towards the nurses on this sub.
The fact of the matter is that striking is meant to disrupt the normal operations flow. It did, and a baby died from it. I'm sorry, but it's absurd to say "well, management should have hired nurses then!". Staffing issues aren't that simple. Yes, the strike was likely the cause of this babies death, but that doesn't mean it's the nurses fault. It's their right to strike, and in an industry like Healthcare, it should be very clear that it likely results in unnecessary deaths.
binghamtonswag t1_j6o3mfi wrote
Then it was on management in the weeks leading up to the strike to ensure their most vulnerable patients were sent to properly staffed facilities and not accept additional ones. The disruption to normal flow of operations should have been Mount Sinai caring for fewer patients and receiving less in fees, not having patients die.
koreamax t1_j6o586d wrote
Like the entire maternity ward? If you try hard enough, you can blame anything on management, since theyre...you know...managing.
binghamtonswag t1_j6o7lv9 wrote
I mean it seems extreme but so is the death of an infant. Yes, management absolutely needed to make arrangements so their vulnerable patients were cared for in the event of a known strike date. Maybe they could have kept a small amount of the maternity ward with their limited staff. This isn't a reach, this is managements responsibilities. Tough place to be but that was it.
koreamax t1_j6o9yub wrote
It is a tough place to be in. I agree. I just don't know if the maternity ward is the top priority in terms of vulnerable patients. Had the cancer center been understaffed and someone died, people blaming management would say they should have reallocated staff there, then the maternity ward would be understaffed. I'm having trouble understanding why the concept of limited resources is so difficult to grasp for people in this thread.
binghamtonswag t1_j6ocrba wrote
Then they would need to relieve both wards. I don't understand why the concept of responsible management for people literally in charge of life and death is so hard to understand.
koreamax t1_j6od0cj wrote
Seriously. Do you read my comments, or do you just wait for a response so you can say the same thing again?
binghamtonswag t1_j6oe2oj wrote
I read your comments just fine. I disagree with your conclusions for the reasons stated. You haven't exactly added much to the discussion your last 3 posts.
koreamax t1_j6oi9wo wrote
Sounds like you're unwilling to entertain the idea that this issue might be more complex than "management bad and greedy." I provided several reasons why this goes beyond management not having the foresight to hire temporary nurses in anticipation for the strike. You just chose to immediately downvote and disregard what I said. If someone provides an argument against your points and all you can say is I'm wrong, you clearly aren't very confident in what you're saying.
binghamtonswag t1_j6okhxv wrote
I provided several solutions to the problems you posited. You are the one who comes off extremely inflexible and unwilling to consider other viewpoints in this discussion. I didn’t even downvote you, are you aware there’s more than 1 other user on Reddit? I get that being downvoted can sometimes feel unpleasant and put you on the defensive but these last two posts of yours are just a really bad look, not going to sugar coat it.
Wukong1986 t1_j6o87nk wrote
Management knew months in advance about a strike. They didn't prepare a good enough contingency plan. I don't see how that's on the workers. Thats the whole point of Management. Nurses don't manage.
koreamax t1_j6o9k52 wrote
I don't think you read what I wrote, and you repeated what was said before. The argument you're making essentially says that there is an unlimited amount of nurses ready to work, and the hospital has the budget to hire at a premium. I'm assuming the follow up argument will be that the hospital should stop paying administration so much, but that isn't what we are talking about.
Should there be fundamental changes in the pay structure in these hospitals? Probably. Is that relevant? No. Management doesn't just manage its staff, it manages its budget and is working with its limited funds to find replacement staffing. They don't have the power to just pay temporary staff whatever they want. If it goes over budget, that's an issue that is blamed on management. What exactly are they supposed to do if they are unable to staff departments with the budget they have allocated for them. And no, the answer isn't "change the budget." That falls on the board who set the relatively inflexible budget for the year.
Wukong1986 t1_j6ocsw4 wrote
I didnt say there'd be unlimited budget or nurses. There are Other avenues like limiting or shutting down services.
If some McD workers quit but the manager says business as usual, and you got hungry angry customers, you gonna look to the Manager to fix or the ex-workers to fix?
You can give management all the slack you want, but no way are workers to blame. Even then, Management proposes the budget, in charge of swaying the board, lining up financing, figuring out budget, etc. They knew months in advance. Dont forget in most of the time, Management is close with the board; its not as adversarial /grilling the CEO as its supposed to be in an ideal governance scenario.
It literally comes down to who is in charge of making decisions and who made what decisions - and did those decisions work out for them (Management, Management, and no). Then Management fixes it.
koreamax t1_j6ojtku wrote
I didn't blame the workers. Them not being there likely contributed to the death of the newborn, but they are striking and that's completely not their fault. You're making sweeping generalizations about what a management team is given the power to do and oversimplifying the process of reallocation of staff and funds. Especially when we're talking about highly specialized departments
Wukong1986 t1_j6on4ga wrote
They lose a maternity ward - they hire specialized nurses. You mean a group of MDs in Management can't figure out who to hire? Get adequately staffed or reduce service. Can't have it both ways.
What is missing from Management's toolset? Spell it out for me. You make it sound like the CEO or anyone below him don't have the power to make tough calls, like reduce service to reflect inadequate staffing, or raise financing, or just overall powerless to watch this unfold. Will all avenues perfectly work out? No, then Management balances all the info. It was predictable there'd be gaps, so how did Management address the immediate issues?
At the end of the day, nurses were striking over inadequate staffing ratios (i.e., too many patients vs nurses), among other things, that Management was unwilling to fix. So it seems like someone/several people in Management need to wake up.
Saying inadequate workers to contributed to the death is literally the tip of the iceberg and not reflective of the root cause(s). Go down a couple levels of why and those are your root causes. And Management's task is to figure out how to solve that. Not the workers, not the board, Management's.
BeMoreChill t1_j6ntr14 wrote
“Ok we need 7 nurses tmrw”
“Uhhh they’re all outside holding signs”
mowotlarx t1_j6o0p7i wrote
The hospitals aren't empty of staff during strikes. Hospitals bring on traveling nurses (and pay them handsomely).
BeMoreChill t1_j6o2kob wrote
Apparently they didn’t get any good ones for some reason
Wukong1986 t1_j6o6cxe wrote
Damn, you telling me management only got 24 hours notice about the strike?
E: added "got".
Floppafan420 t1_j6np0pq wrote
And how do you know that even with staff there the baby wouldn't have died? It's not like nurses can monitor every single baby every second.
PinkKitty48 t1_j6npa8m wrote
Im literally quoting the article. There was no one around for a while to escalate the baby's condition. It should've been but it was not because no one was present. Did you read the article?
mowotlarx t1_j6o0jha wrote
Traveling nurses have experience. If Mt. Sinai didn't bother to bring on contract nurses who know what they're doing, that's 100% on the hospital.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments