Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k1hix wrote

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

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