Nurses can't fight for their pay and patients at the same time
An all-out strike would only hurt an already vulnerable public, writes Florence Horsman-Hogan
THE '24/7 Frontline Service Alliance' represents more than 100,000 workers in the public services, and is the amalgamation of the trade unions representing us 'frontline' staff: nurses, midwives, gardai, paramedics, prison officers and others who work 24/7.
Our jobs involve us working days or nights any day of the week -- nurses work a 37.5 hour week, the other categories work 40 hours.
As public sector workers, the general perception amongst the memberships is that we're already being hit by taxes and levies that are crippling many families and this is a cause of great resentment. That's fair enough and perfectly understandable.
We're already taking very high risks in our work with what, at times, can be a very abusive and irrational 'Joe Public' and, so far, we're already paying back more than our fair share into the public purse.
This is why our unions are encouraging us to mandate them to fight on our behalf for protection against further pay cuts and this mandating will allow them to threaten any industrial action up to and including an all-out strike. I have a big problem with this.
Do any of you remember the nurses' strike back in 1999? I do -- in fact, I think as a young nurse I was so traumatised by the experience I won't ever forget it.
At the time it was seen to reflect an international shift towards industrial action in a profession which had previously viewed such action as the antithesis of professional behaviour. It had certain vital issues such as pay and conditions that our unions were trying to iron out for us. Just as now, the general perception was that nurses were being walked over due to the nature of our work, and strike action was seen as a last resort, all other methods and varying degrees of industrial action having failed.
However, the difference between now and then is that now we nurses know what the reality of taking any industrial action involves. We've already been through it. Also, the year after the strike, the nurses own governing body An Bord Altranais stated in its guidelines issued to the nurses that they carry the legal and professional responsibility for their own practices in the event of strike action.
How many nurses realise this could mean they could face being held responsible should anything go wrong because industrial strike action has curtailed their abilities to 'nurse' safely?
Back in 1999, never having been involved in strike action before, we really were clueless. Our unions assured us that no patients would be put at risk, as we'd provide emergency cover where needed.
The reality of the situation was, to my mind, horrific. All patients remotely well enough were sent home. A skeleton nursing staff remained to look after those too ill to discharge. I, for one, was sick with fear when working the 'emergency cover' hours. My ward had seriously ill young babies with half the number of staff needed to care for them. It put us closer to the edge of safe practice than I ever want to be again in my life. This went on for an agonising nine days.
Paediatric, general hospital and care of the elderly facilities were all stretched beyond human endurance to try to provide safe care.
Because the doctors took on some of our work, overall recovery was effected. My conscience will never let me go back to doing that again, and still call myself a nurse, unless by not doing so would have a greater adverse affect on any patient/resident I'm caring for.
Fighting for public sector pay protection is not an individualised nursing, nor emergency services issue, and in my opinion does not justify threats to withdraw services should our 'demands' not be met. It might be very well argued that economically they can't possibly be met at present.
If public protest is deemed to be unavoidable, why must the '24/7' threaten industrial action and and/or withdrawal of services? The issue of contention ranges right across the public services. Why put health and lives at risk for issues that can also be taken up by so many other people with less vital roles?
When I covered this issue in this paper a few weeks ago, stating I felt it was wrong at this time for us frontline services to threaten industrial action in the present economic situation, I expected a barrage of righteous indignation from co-workers. Instead, I was contacted by many who felt just as I did. None had the stomach to repeat what we and our patients/residents went through exactly 10 years ago.
What concerns me now is that nowhere in any press releases or media sources have I seen an action plan should we 'emergency services' take industrial action. How, having already gone through this experience, can I be expected to blindly hand over my vote to mandate the unions to do as they feel necessary when I see no safeguards for my patients/residents? I do not feel it's justified for us to be threatening an already vulnerable and wounded public in these crisis days of worldwide recession
fhorsmanhogan@eircom.net
- Florence Horsman-Hogan
Originally published in
