Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k6t61 wrote
Reply to comment by booksareadrug in Talks continue as approximately 9,000 nurses threaten to strike at 4 NYC hospitals by DrogDrill
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3kc93r wrote
Yes. Also please stay as far away from NYC as humanly possible. Like try guam. Or a desert Island.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments