Nurses Strike?

tinner777

Salary Scales Applicable from 1st June 2006
(Following application of 2.5% cost of living increase as provided for under Sustaining Progress)


Student Nurse III
22901
Student Nurse(Degree Student 12 month rostered placement)
23102
Student Nurse Mental Handicap (Degree student 12 month rostered placement)
23102
Post Registered Student Nurse
24771 26248
Student Midwife
28878
Student Paediatric Nurse
28878
Staff Nurse (including...Registered Midwife Registered Sick Children's Nurse Registered Mental Handicap Nurse)
28878 30323 31772 33218 34659 35904 37152 38395 39639 40861
LSI after 3 years on max 42165
Senior Staff Nurse/Midwife
44275
Dual Qualified Nurse(Registered in any 2 of the 5 disciplines)
32664 34830 35986 36875 37855 39159 40429 42299
LSI after 3 years on max 43605
Senior Dual Qualified Nurse
45785
Clinical Nurse/Midwife Manager 1
41663 42458 43579 44719 45841 46971 48230 49404
Clinical Nurse/Midwife Manager 2/ Clinical Nurse/Midwife Specialist
45386 46166 46825 47903 49093 50262 51430 52746 53969
(plus allowance of e764 pa payable on a red-circle basis to Theatre/Night Sisters who were in posts on 5/11/'99)

thems the wages, k55 my arse:mad: :mad: :mad:

Dr.Bunson

I still think if they are unhappy with the wage they receive they should change career - I was unhappy with my wage, so I changed career, got a better salary, but guess what I am still un-happy, why?, because the nurses/teachers/gardai/etc get a set wage, their wage goes up incrementally each year, regardless of performance.

I have to fight, deliver, reach targets, just to stay in my job, let alone get a pay rise.

The nurses don't know how lucky they have it - they should try work in the private sector for a while....

Wurly

Wow, that does make for interesting reading alright. I must inform my friend - she is getting seriously ripped off in that case. Thanks for that.:)

Crea

So straight out of college they get €22k. A manager can get from €41.5 to 49.5K and the highest wage is around €54K. In any career that's crap.
Remember the consultants just rejected the offer of €200K a year because it wasn't enough.
I had a procedure done on Good Friday. Everything was working fine. In fact it was the nurses who were put out by the work to rule as they couldn't ring other depts for info and had to go themselves.

Hobbes

Crea wrote:

So straight out of college they get €22k. A manager can get from €41.5 to 49.5K and the highest wage is around €54K

Don't know what managers you know but all the managers I know are on a lot more then €41-€50k.

22K straight out of college in a field that you studied/qualified for is a bit low.

As for the 56K figure I do recall them not disputing the figure but pointed out that the point spread is skewed. I'd like to see a breakdown of nurse population vs actual wages rather then just an average.

hmmm

Tri wrote:

What people seem to forget is - nurses at present are just not answering phones and doing admin work - that was never part of their job description in the first place but they took this additional role on anyway.

Nurses keeping a straight face while talking about it just being a work to rule are trying to make out the public are fools. I've nothing in my contract about using computers, answering phones or writing using pens that don't contain invisible ink, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of my job.

The real reason I think nurses are on the "work to rule" is because if they went on strike, they wouldn't get paid, whereas they do during a work to rule. Really it's a cowardly way to strike while making sure that it's only the patients and their families who get to suffer.

Glenbhoy

tinner777 wrote:

Salary Scales Applicable from 1st June 2006
(Following application of 2.5% cost of living increase as provided for under Sustaining Progress)


thems the wages, k55 my arse:mad: :mad: :mad:

Hmmm, nice selective post there tinner, perhaps you'd like to post the full story:
http://www.ino.ie/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?TabID=35&ItemID=3625&mid=6977
and pertinitely for details of location and qualification allowances, shift allowances, other allowances:
http://www.ino.ie/DesktopModules/articles/Documents/salary_scales_June%2006.pdf

As you can see these new info raises virtually every salary quoted above substantially. That aside, if the nurses really are so underpaid, why does the union not publish their version of the average and (probably more relevant) median salaries for each grade (including all applicable allowances). I must admit, that I reckon over 50K will not be far off the mark.

K-9

Glenbhoy wrote:

Hmmm, nice selective post there tinner, perhaps you'd like to post the full story:
http://www.ino.ie/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?TabID=35&ItemID=3625&mid=6977
and pertinitely for details of location and qualification allowances, shift allowances, other allowances:
http://www.ino.ie/DesktopModules/articles/Documents/salary_scales_June%2006.pdf

As you can see these new info raises virtually every salary quoted above substantially. That aside, if the nurses really are so underpaid, why does the union not publish their version of the average and (probably more relevant) median salaries for each grade (including all applicable allowances). I must admit, that I reckon over 50K will not be far off the mark.

The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle.

In the Business Post it was saying the majority of Nurses have part-time, flexi-time and family friendly rosters so in fact the majority don't work 39 hours.

Probably explains why Nurses are saying their wages are lower than HSE figures. Most don't work 39 hours.

thebitterpill

Couple of things, as already pointed out the actual salary figures are higher than the ones quoted by tinner.

The second thing is a misconception. Now the definitions above aren't clear on this, but as far as I'm aware, a STUDENT NURSE, is one who is yet to complete her degree. They were a YELLOW uniform and are attached as part of their training. Kinda like STUDENT DOCTORS.

The thing is medical students don't get paid anything for their clinical attachments, but that analogy is slightly unfair because they aren't required to do rostered hours etc. Again AFAIK these are nurses that are not yet fully qualified (if we are talking about student nurses).

Fully qualified ones make around 31K as has been pointed out a few times before (and wear the blue uniform), which after a 4 year degree is the same as what an Intern makes (after a 6 year degree).

I believe the 56k figure is a mathematical average as some senior nurses get paid very high wages from 100-150k. (i'll have to try and find the link to that, can't remember where I saw it) So the HSE probably just added it up and divided by the number of nurses on their books.

They may also have inlcuded AGENCY nurses. These are nurses who work PRIVATELY but are hired by public hospitals whenever there is a shortage and they get paid silly rates(much higher than most nurses).

But the fact remains that the INO has NOT disputed (as far as I've seen) the HSE's figures for an average salary. But it is a mathematical average I'm sure.

El Stuntman

anyone know what Liam Doran gets paid?

he's a terrible advocate for the nurses so I would hope it's very little...

Raskolnikov

thebitterpill wrote:

I believe the 56k figure is a mathematical average as some senior nurses get paid very high wages from 100-150k. (i'll have to try and find the link to that, can't remember where I saw it) So the HSE probably just added it up and divided by the number of nurses on their books.

They may also have inlcuded AGENCY nurses. These are nurses who work PRIVATELY but are hired by public hospitals whenever there is a shortage and they get paid silly rates(much higher than most nurses).

But the fact remains that the INO has NOT disputed (as far as I've seen) the HSE's figures for an average salary. But it is a mathematical average I'm sure.

They took the total nurse wage bill and divided it by the number of nurses currently being employed by the HSE.

Glenbhoy

They took the total nurse wage bill and divided it by the number of nurses currently being employed by the HSE.

We know, the fact remains however that the number of high earners is substantially lower than the number of low earners, thus it may well be that the wages of student nurses actually drag down the average. Think of it thus, 5,000 student nurses on 23K, and 500 nursing directors on 90K (figures are illustrative only to make the point) and 35,000 average nursing grades on 40K, thus the average wage would appear to be 38K - however the large number of lower paid non-qualified nurses have a much greater impact than the lower number of high paid workers. What we actually need is the median wage for the various classes of nurses. Why neither side will provide that, I don't know.

mickthemod

My sympathy goes to you. However I would expect the nurses to be good to him. They are professionals.

This statement made earlier, allthough somwhat complimentary perhaps shows us the way the public percieve the nursing proffesion. It is not a vocation, it is a proffesional career. Despite being at the poo end of the stick as far as the health service is concerned, they still continue to provide a proffesional and caring service to a public who no doubt appreciate them in times of great need as described previously.
It would seem to me unfair to demand more from Nurses, and expect them to correct the woes of the health service just because they want to be treated fairly. The HSE have gainfully employed people to do just that, but what are the results ?
The Goverment made a monumental fcuk up by granting care workers a pay rise that demeened the nursing proffesion 6 years ago, let them face up to there mistake and correct the situation.
I fully agree with the nurses and good luck to them.

PS. No i am not a nurse, i work in the private sector.

hmmm

mickthemod wrote:

The Goverment made a monumental fcuk up by granting care workers a pay rise that demeened the nursing proffesion 6 years ago, let them face up to there mistake and correct the situation.
I fully agree with the nurses and good luck to them.

Only in the public sector could a payrise for one group lead to accusations of "demeaning" another group. How about we cut the wages and increase the working hours of those other groups that nurses are jealous of, will everyone be happy then? As a private sector worker I'd love a 45 hour week, let along a 35 hour week, particularly as it would give me more time to listen to this claptrap from nurses.

K-9

mickthemod wrote:

My sympathy goes to you. However I would expect the nurses to be good to him. They are professionals.

This statement made earlier, allthough somwhat complimentary perhaps shows us the way the public percieve the nursing proffesion. It is not a vocation, it is a proffesional career. Despite being at the poo end of the stick as far as the health service is concerned, they still continue to provide a proffesional and caring service to a public who no doubt appreciate them in times of great need as described previously.

The Goverment made a monumental fcuk up by granting care workers a pay rise that demeened the nursing proffesion 6 years ago, let them face up to there mistake and correct the situation.
I fully agree with the nurses and good luck to them.

That was me who said that. It was more in response to some nurses who had posted how it is a vocation in earlier posts.

Of course it's a professional career however there is a vocational element to it too. There is an argument, I know it might sound stupid but, if you paid nurses say on average €60/70,000 on average there would be more people joining for the money part and not the vocational aspect. Of course that doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid a decent wage.

With the public sector pay bill being so high, both Govt. and unions fault, there needs to be serious thought given before pay rises of 20/25% (as the nurses are looking for in total) could be given out.

Marney Harney made the point when she was interviewed that she has had no proposals that would self finance the nurses pay rise. I presume she means extra productivity measures and the likes. She said if that was forthcoming the Govt. could reconsider their stance.

We've already had benchmarking 1 which IMO doesn't seem to have improved our public services. Lets not make the same mistake again.

Giving wage increases just for the sake of them and increasing nurse numbers hasn't improved our health service to now and I don't think its going to do it this time either.

K-9

hmmm wrote:

Only in the public sector could a payrise for one group lead to accusations of "demeaning" another group. How about we cut the wages and increase the working hours of those other groups that nurses are jealous of, will everyone be happy then?

God forbid we would have wage cuts or job losses in the health service.

You make a good point. I'm sure the care workers/social workers had their legitimate reasons for the wage increases. Fair enough. They got them. Now the Nurses feel undervalued and underpaid in comparison. So we give them the increase. The social workers etc. are back to where they where. They and God knows how many else then feel undervalued and underpaid because they are now paid less in comparison to Nurses. Cue, more wage demands. So they get them, then Nurses feel .............

The viscious circle, which is why public sector are paid 43% more than private sector workers.

Thats the problem about the Public service, its not about the service element, its the public pay element. Feelings count more than job performance.

metrovelvet

I havent read the whole thread so excuse me if this has already been mentioned.

Does anyone know the average nurse to patient ratio as it stands? And how it has shifted over the past five years?

mickthemod

I totally agree, the care workers/social workers had their legitimate reasons for the wage increases and rightly they got them.
However, as Nurse Baz stated earlier, this allowed a situation where the Nurses are paid average 3k less Basic than the staff they are responsible for. Excluding the benifits from overtime etc. i don't think any body private or public sector would be contented being paid less than the people under there responsibility.
I dont believe Care workers would be agreived if the nurses got there demands, they have already recieved theirs and had the benifit for many years.

El Stuntman

Seanies32 wrote:

Thats the problem about the Public service, its not about the service element, its the public pay element. Feelings count more than job performance.

excellent paragraph

sovtek

Seanies32 wrote:

The viscious circle, which is why public sector are paid 43% more than private sector workers.

Thats the problem about the Public service,

Maybe that's a problem with the private sector.

Wishbone Ash

metrovelvet wrote:

Does anyone know the average nurse to patient ratio as it stands? And how it has shifted over the past five years?

It would vary enormously among the different disciplines and the type of patient. In the psychiatric/intellectual disability sector, many patients are "specialed", that is, nursed on a one to one basis or two (nurses) to one basis in extremely demanding situations. It's usually done where patients pose a great danger to themselves or others. It also varies from day to day as a very difficult patient may require three or four nurses to provide an escort if leaving the hospital for other essential treatment.

In general nursing, I presume the ratio would be much greater in intensive care than in outpatients clinics.

I suppose a comparison could be made using overall averages if available but they wouldn't be a fair comparison as the general trend towards community care in the psychiatric/ID services naturally requires more nursing staff.

El Stuntman

sovtek wrote:

Maybe that's a problem with the private sector.

lol, how so?

consider this

situation A:
private sector worker having 'end of year' conversation with boss

worker - "what'll you do for me this year?"
boss - "well your area performed well, profits are up 40%. I'll give you a 10% increase and a decent bonus"
worker - "can't say fairer than that. Thanks. I'm now incentivised to work hard next year and make even more money for the company and by extension, myself"
boss - "yes. Capitalism rocks that way. See you next year"

situation B:
public sector worker having conversation with union rep (why talk directly to management?)

worker - "I feel underpaid and undervalued"
union rep - "there's an election coming up. Let's go on strike for more money and better conditions"
worker - "bit opportunistic isn't it?"
union rep - "well, duh"
worker - "how do we present our case for this massive increase? Do we have to demonstrate any improvement in performance or anything?"
union rep - "lol"
worker - "lol"

sovtek

El Stuntman wrote:

lol, how so?

consider this

situation A:
private sector worker having 'end of year' conversation with boss

worker - "what'll you do for me this year?"
boss - "well your area performed well, profits are up 40%. I'll give you a 10% increase and a decent bonus"
worker - "can't say fairer than that. Thanks. I'm now incentivised to work hard next year and make even more money for the company and by extension, myself"
boss - "yes. Capitalism rocks that way. See you next year"

Then ya woke up?

Here's another private sector scenario:

CEO: "We aren't making enough profit. I hear those Indians'll work for peanuts"
Board member "That's brilliant"
Union rep: "eh guys we've increased production by several times over the past 5 years"
CEO: "oh yeah...good job guys...that's why you are going to be paid to train the Indians and then you'll get the government alloted severance. SEE YA!!!!"
Board member (to CEO) " HIGH FIVE...on the backside...brother isn't capitalism great"
CEO: "Amen brother"

situation B:
public sector worker having conversation with union rep (why talk directly to management?)

worker - "I feel underpaid and undervalued"
union rep - "there's an election coming up. Let's go on strike for more money and better conditions"
worker - "bit opportunistic isn't it?"
union rep - "well, duh"
worker - "how do we present our case for this massive increase? Do we have to demonstrate any improvement in performance or anything?"
union rep - "lol"
worker - "lol"

Here's another public sector scenario:

Bertie: " eh eh eh eh me brother-in-law's company needs to increase profits this year"
Harney: "ah yeah sure we'll give'm the contract for the new payroll system, how much eh want.....€100 mill....€200 mill...hell we'll throw in some land deal if he wants it"

gazzer

situation B:
public sector worker having conversation with union rep (why talk directly to management?)

The public sector worker HAS to talk to mangement concering work performance.

At the start of the year you have to discuss your Role Profile for the year. About 5 months after that you have your mid year review. At the end of the year you have your End of year reivews. Along with this you have regular meetings with management to discuss your progress.

All of these reviews are extremely detailed. You have to agree on what is expected of you for the year, how you are going to reach your goals, any issues that managment have with you are discusses and hopefully rectified.

If you do not perform well in your job you will be diciplined. You wont get any wage increase due to you, you could lose other work entitlements (flexi time etc).

If you feel agreived you can disuss it with your managers manager. If they feel the same way you have to accept it or leave.. The union cant intefer with that process as they agreed to it as part of Benchmarking. People are let go from the public service now if they do not perform to an acceptable standard. People in my department have and continue to be sacked.

Also that public sector v private sector wage difference of 43% is a load of bo**ix in my opinion. I am almost 16 years in the civil service with 3 promotions and I am only a few grand over the average industrial wage.

If anybody had seen the adds in the paper for new recruits in the Civil Service they would have seen that the starting salary is only 400 euro a week (before tax)

El Stuntman

sovtek wrote:

CEO: "We aren't making enough profit. I hear those Indians'll work for peanuts"
Board member "That's brilliant"
Union rep: "eh guys we've increased production by several times over the past 5 years"
CEO: "oh yeah...good job guys...that's why you are going to be paid to train the Indians and then you'll get the government alloted severance. SEE YA!!!!"
Board member (to CEO) " HIGH FIVE...on the backside...brother isn't capitalism great"
CEO: "Amen brother"

that's hilarious on so many levels .

I must try out the ol' jive-talk at my next management meeting, I'll probably get shipped off to wig city but it'll be worth it...

K-9

sovtek wrote:

Maybe that's a problem with the private sector.

I see you didn't put in the full quote. Anyway the truth is probably in the middle somewhere. Wages increases of 50/60% for the public sector in the last 5 years haven't helped.

=mickthemod wrote:

I dont believe Care workers would be agreived if the nurses got there demands, they have already recieved theirs and had the benifit for many years.

Tne Govt. would need to get a cast iron guarantee on care/social worker pay demands.

gazzer wrote:

Also that public sector v private sector wage difference of 43% is a load of bo**ix in my opinion. I am almost 16 years in the civil service with 3 promotions and I am only a few grand over the average industrial wage.

If anybody had seen the adds in the paper for new recruits in the Civil Service they would have seen that the starting salary is only 400 euro a week (before tax)

Of course there are exceptions but that is the exception. If the nurses get their demands there will be less money for underpaid areas.Anyway here is the link

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006397.shtml

omega man

I do believe the nurses have a tough job and from my experience are dedicated and professional but in this case i can not support their actions. Didn't benchmarking give them and all public sector jobs a 15% pay rise not so long ago? I work for an ex semi state company and we never saw the likes of that kind of increase and i won't hold my breath for it in the future either! Am i just misinformed or do nurses want to work less hours under the new working time directive and get payed more? Myself and my work colleagues have big changes due to the eu directive but we will not be compensated. If the governement give in it will cause chaos in the public and the private sector with pay claims everywhere. I aslo here the teachers have come out in support of the nurses, no suprise there!

El Stuntman

on a more serious note; where is this dispute headed?

the government are sticking to their line of "benchmarking is the only show in town, we'll consider talks on the 35 hour week but first need to do a cost analysis" pretty well. I give Bertie and Mary some credit for this.

the unions are starting to sound a bit desperate imo. A lot of talk yesterday about how they are ready for 'meaningful talks'.

the public have largely tuned out seeing as no-one has died or been seriously inconvenienced (despite some silly newspaper sensationalism). They are also neither greatly favouring one side over the other.

anyone got any strong opinions on how this is going to play out? what's the endgame??

K-9

El Stuntman wrote:

anyone got any strong opinions on how this is going to play out? what's the endgame??

Hopefully go back to talks and the nurses can their demands but only after cost analysis and some self financing measures i.e. improved work practices etc.

I think the Govt. know that yes of course the nurses have public sympathy but if the strike goes on that will lessen.

Even better, the new consultants contracts of 160/210,000 are coming in next week despite consultant opposition. I'd say Harney is dying for the consultants to go on a work to rule to highlight their cause.

gazzer

Didn't benchmarking give them and all public sector jobs a 15% pay rise not so long ago?

Not sure what % increase the nurses got.. We got 9% which was divided up into smaller parts i.e 1.5%, then 2% etc.. This was divided up over a 3 year period..