Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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