To answer your question if the choice is no nurse because they are on strike or a nurse that hasnt slept in 3 days, which is hyperbole, than ill take the nurse that hasnt slept in 3 days. Also there is no way theyre making starvation wages. Like nursing is well known for paying well, even if it is a hectic job. Being hyperbolic in service to your point doesnt help your point.

Again please tell me what you prefer. A strike can cause understaffed ERs and potentially deaths. Are those deaths ok to you? Can you live with those? If they are than own it.

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?

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?

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.

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?

Clearly you did otherwise you wouldnt have commented.

Yes. Also please stay as far away from NYC as humanly possible. Like try guam. Or a desert Island.

I mean....ok? Do you think I am making a legal arguement? Sure they can, i just dont think they should.

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.

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.

Im not having a convo about rights. Nurses have the right to stike. Suits have the right to underpay and overwork their employees. Its irrelevant to the fact that people will die on the strike. And I condemn those slowdowns and sickouts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe it is a corporate narative but it doesnt mean it isnt true.... ny has the taylow law to prevent cops and fire fighters from striking to make sure labor conflicts dont disrupt emergency services.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Im trying not to play the blame game here. Im not blaming nurses perse, I am saying that as a consequence of them not showing up people will die. Blaming the suits doesnt change this fact, it might just make you feel better about it.

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?

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.

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.