Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jpi6v wrote

Reply to comment by JesusSandals73 in Talks continue as approximately 9,000 nurses threaten to strike at 4 NYC hospitals by DrogDrill

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