Do you think nurses will get their payrise?

hawkelady

Graces7 wrote: »

Absolutely. Perfect solution. Thank you.

Haha. Uneducated comment to make ! Just as well no one will listen to you so ! Shouldn’t you be out looking at a mountain ?

Graces7

"We were told urgent cancer surgeries would not be cancelled. That was a lie. I'm sick with upset."

David was due to have urgent cancer surgery this morning at St Vincent's University Hospital in Dublin.

Yesterday, he was told it was cancelled. It is the third time this surgery has been cancelled since January.

He's upset but stoic, perhaps because he's been here before. Since 2008, David has been diagnosed three times with cancer.

Even as he waits for his third cancer surgery, a new tumour has appeared on his leg.

David has a type of soft tissue sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, which is in his abdomen.

He said: "Last July, I was very unwell and ended up in A&E. A radiographer spotted it. Originally, they thought it might be on my pancreas because these tumours are so rare they are often mistaken for other things."

The tumour below his stomach is a source of ongoing pain. "It's the size of a tennis ball," he says.

"I had radiotherapy in October and November not to reduce the tumour, but to loosen it for surgery. I'm in constant discomfort."

"I physically feel it (the tumour), something that's not meant to be there.

"These (cancellations) can't continue because this tumour continues to grow inside me and it'll kill me.

"You make arrangements, get time off work. I had family coming to stay with me.

"My doctors all say I have a good attitude. But when everyone keeps stressing how serious this is, how big an operation this is, you get into the right mental state.

"Then it's cancelled a first time, then a second, and now a third, it's terribly upsetting."


"There are dozens like me who will have had their cancer surgery cancelled. "

Thephantomsmask

Goldengirl wrote: »

Only some nurses have those opportunities , a limited number of already well qualified people. We have already mentioned that no matter how many extra qualifications you have you will only get paid extra for one..

You didn't answer my question though, are nurses going to give up that allowance, and others, and start funding those qualifications themselves in lieu of higher base pay? The INMO claim they want pay parity with AHPs, that works both ways and I doubt that the HSE are going to give AHPs the same allowances or final year paid practical placements in college to ensure parity. Nurses "only get paid extra for one" better than getting paid nothing extra at all for a post grad after you have paid thousands to receive it.

That doesn't even touch on the multiple managerial grades over the clinical staff and specialisation grades which earn far more than top level AHPs. AHP base pay is higher because they have nowhere near the earning and career opportunities available to them over the course of their career that nursing staff do. I guess that doesn't matter though because every nurse isn't a DON.

Funnily enough, the same managerial grades (who are most certainly going to be on the old, higher payscale) want their 12% too, instead of advocating for the front line nurses and, most importantly, the new recruits to be paid appropriately. These are the new recruits that the INMO voted to give a lower salary to in the first place. Why do managerial grades need a 12% pay rise to supposedly improve conditions and retention when they aren't the ones on the wards?

The INMO claim *we can't retain newly qualified staff because money is too low* well, that's what happens when they are punished by pulling the ladder up from them to protect existing members... If this was about ending two tier pay for new recruits, I would support that 100%. Instead it is sticking the hand out for all grades, breaching PSSA agreements, while still burdening the new recruits with lower pay.

Miike

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

What the fresh hell is this?

Id have to check my company ethics rules but I'd be on fairly dicey ground at work if I accepted fees or went to events from suppliers. Like seriously dodgy.

And we're a manufacturing company.

That isn't even the tip of the iceberg, genuinely.

nice_guy80

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

You didn't answer my question though, are nurses going to give up that allowance, and others, and start funding those qualifications themselves in lieu of higher base pay? The INMO claim they want pay parity with AHPs, that works both ways and I doubt that the HSE are going to give AHPs the same allowances or final year paid practical placements in college to ensure parity. Nurses "only get paid extra for one" better than getting paid nothing extra at all for a post grad after you have paid thousands to receive it.

That doesn't even touch on the multiple managerial grades over the clinical staff and specialisation grades which earn far more than top level AHPs. AHP base pay is higher because they have nowhere near the earning and career opportunities available to them over the course of their career that nursing staff do. I guess that doesn't matter though because every nurse isn't a DON.

Funnily enough, the same managerial grades (who are most certainly going to be on the old, higher payscale) want their 12% too, instead of advocating for the front line nurses and, most importantly, the new recruits to be paid appropriately. These are the new recruits that the INMO voted to give a lower salary to in the first place. Why do managerial grades need a 12% pay rise to supposedly improve conditions and retention when they aren't the ones on the wards?

The INMO claim *we can't retain newly qualified staff because money is too low* well, that's what happens when they are punished by pulling the ladder up from them to protect existing members... If this was about ending two tier pay for new recruits, I would support that 100%. Instead it is sticking the hand out for all grades, breaching PSSA agreements, while still burdening the new recruits with lower pay.

INTO did the same for newly qualified teachers
looked after those closest to the pension

hooms

They should , but they won't

Graces7

and wildfire spreads

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0205/1027782-fergal-bowers-doctors/

iamwhoiam

Graces7 wrote: »

and wildfire spreads

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0205/1027782-fergal-bowers-doctors/

The GP's are well capable of lighting their own fires .They have been demanding this for years before now

pjohnson

Why are people still pretending this is anything to do with conditions?

Mr.H

hooms wrote:

They should , but they won't

They shouldnt but the likely will

Nothing to do with safety health or conditions. This is about money. We give them a raise next we are talking to the fire brigade. This is because we talked to the gardai. Our economy is not healthy enough to give everyone a raise.

As for that idiot outside st james who claims supermarket workers get paid them same.............. yea i know loads of supermarket workers starting on 25k. Not to mention everyone else who gets paid while they are still a student.

hawkelady

I will be shocked if the government allow the 3 days in a row strike that’s coming next week ... it will be chaos if it happens

STB.

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I think Leo should try and import foreign nurses to cross the picket lines and see how long they continue strike...

Union's are actual scum, they agreed a pay deal a few years ago...needed to make themselves relevant, and justify their union fee's. It's utter greed and I hope nobody dies while they are on strike(trying to grease their paws)

Yes, lets dive to the bottom, get nurses with sketchy english and even sketchier qualifications.

Meanwhile we can export all our well trained nurses to countries that actually pay adequate wages.

Oh wait. That has already happened.

They are healthcare professionals, not fúcking shop workers.

We already have a series of this going on around the country with doctors also where people employed were straight out of "Catch me if you can"

Just in case some of you need hand holding. Transport, Health, Housing, general insfrastructure. All run down to nothing by this shower of FG incompetents. But hey lets blame somebody else. The overpaid PR gurus employed by the government will tell us what to think.

We certainly wont be thinking that the new hospital mis-management and overspend by the HSE and Minister for Health could have paid these pay increases several time over, and certainly wont be calling for him to own up to his responsibility.

Mr.H wrote: »

Nothing to do with safety health or conditions.

Its both. Not enough staff, poor conditions, super stress and poor pay.

Twenty Grand

pjohnson wrote: »

Why are people still pretending this is anything to do with conditions?

Because the conditions are terrible.
They have been for years. The government has done nothing. The union is constantly in talks with the government. There's a bed crisis, a recruiting crisis, an overcrowding crisis, an MRSA crisis and so many hospitals are so old theyre not fit for purpose.

What do you expect?

Twenty Grand

STB. wrote: »

Yes, lets dive to the bottom, get nurses with sketchy english and even sketchier qualifications.

Also, foreign nurses are in huge demand everywhere.
There's 50 thousand nursing positions open in the UK.

Why come to Ireland when other countries give you a better offer?

pjohnson

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Because the conditions are terrible.
They have been for years. The government has done nothing. The union is constantly in talks with the government. There's a bed crisis, a recruiting crisis, an overcrowding crisis, an MRSA crisis and so many hospitals are so old theyre not fit for purpose.

What do you expect?

Thats all true re conditions. I dont think anyone will disagree the conditions are awful. The problem is that the Unions dont want any of this changed. They just want more money. They refused to talk about improving conditions alone. They will happily return to these same conditions once they get their money. These days off have fcuk all to do with improving conditions.

STB.

pjohnson wrote: »

Thats all true re conditions. I dont think anyone will disagree the conditions are awful. The problem is that the Unions dont want any of this changed. They just want more money. They refused to talk about improving conditions alone. They will happily return to these same conditions once they get their money. These days off have fcuk all to do with improving conditions.

Please, brush up on the topic, if you are going to contribute.

Nothing to do with Unions. Nurses in Ireland do a 4 year degree. Many countries including the US do 2 and don't meet the qualifications criteria required to even meet the standards of recruitment set by An Bord Altranis, not the Unions. 1% of the target was met in the last few year in terms of recruitment promises.

THAT is why the nurses have shít conditions. They are understaffed, under appreciated and under paid. That they have become bet down that these conditions are possibly never going to improve, is not reason to demand better pay conditions.

It's not rocket science and shouldn't need to be spelt out to you.

I couldn't do the job.

alloywheel

If there was not 100,000 days a month lost to absenteeism it would help a lot. The slighest bit of a cold or a hangover or an ache and they are off. Even nurses themselves admit that.

STB.

alloywheel wrote: »

If there was not 100,000 days a month lost to absenteeism it would help a lot. The slighest bit of a cold or a hangover or an ache and they are off. Even nurses themselves admit that.

SOURCE.

alloywheel

Graces7 wrote: »

"We were told urgent cancer surgeries would not be cancelled. That was a lie. I'm sick with upset."

David was due to have urgent cancer surgery this morning at St Vincent's University Hospital in Dublin.

Yesterday, he was told it was cancelled. It is the third time this surgery has been cancelled since January.

He's upset but stoic, perhaps because he's been here before. Since 2008, David has been diagnosed three times with cancer.

Even as he waits for his third cancer surgery, a new tumour has appeared on his leg.

David has a type of soft tissue sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, which is in his abdomen.

He said: "Last July, I was very unwell and ended up in A&E. A radiographer spotted it. Originally, they thought it might be on my pancreas because these tumours are so rare they are often mistaken for other things."

The tumour below his stomach is a source of ongoing pain. "It's the size of a tennis ball," he says.

"I had radiotherapy in October and November not to reduce the tumour, but to loosen it for surgery. I'm in constant discomfort."

"I physically feel it (the tumour), something that's not meant to be there.

"These (cancellations) can't continue because this tumour continues to grow inside me and it'll kill me.

"You make arrangements, get time off work. I had family coming to stay with me.

"My doctors all say I have a good attitude. But when everyone keeps stressing how serious this is, how big an operation this is, you get into the right mental state.

"Then it's cancelled a first time, then a second, and now a third, it's terribly upsetting."


"There are dozens like me who will have had their cancer surgery cancelled. "

And the greedy nurses are surprised why virtually nobody (except themselves and their immediate families) support them? Most workers in Ireland would love to have an average of 58,000 a year, unsackable job security, golden pension, plenty of sickies engrained in the work culture etc.

1641

Goldengirl wrote: »

You keep repeating this incorrect article even though you have been informed that the OECD itself admits this is based on incorrect data.

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Is this the same grossly flawed report that admits that it's grossly flawed?

You both constantly dismiss any indepenent analysis. The OECD admit that international comparison is difficult because of the multitudes of allowances, etc., and how they are applied in different jurisdictions. So ,no, it is probably not 100% accurate. Nevertheless, it is the best there is, unless any of you can link to any independent data -


“While other countries provide data on a different basis, the 2017 figure of US$ PPP 63,464 remains an accurate estimate of what an average nurse earns in Ireland. While international comparisons are difficult, due to differences in how the figures are compiled, the OECD is the best source of data and the actual salary figures reported by the OECD do not suggest that nurses are low paid.”

alloywheel

STB. wrote: »

SOURCE.

Google is your friend.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/more-staff-absences-in-health-than-any-other-sector-1.3466166?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fmore-staff-absences-in-health-than-any-other-sector-1.3466166

alloywheel

1641 wrote: »

You both constantly dismiss any indepenent analysis. The OECD admit that international comparison is difficult because of the multitudes of allowances, etc., and how they are applied in different jurisdictions. So ,no, it is probably not 100% accurate.

Close enough. The Irish Times said is was close to €58,000 per year, on average, after examining all the figures. The Sun newspaper says different, maybe it is appealing to some nurses who buy the paper, I certainly do not, but here is the quote and link: "the HSE has provided contrasting figures showing the average pay — including allowances and other extras for unsociable hours — comes to €57,000. "
https://www.thesun.ie/news/3715917/irish-nurses-salaries-comparison-teachers-gardai-strike/

Either way, it is among the highest nurses pay in the world, and much higher than the average industrial wage here.

ELM327

Sack them all and replace with agency staff. Send out a hard line message that previous agreed pay increment deals are to be respected.

If leo and co had any balls they would do this, but of course they will postulate for a while and cave.

mattser

[QUOTE=alloywheel;109347175]And the greedy nurses are surprised why virtually nobody (except themselves and their immediate families) support them? Most workers in Ireland would love to have an average of 58,000 a year, unsackable job security, golden pension, plenty of sickies engrained in the work culture etc.[/QUOTE]

BS.

eagle eye

pjohnson wrote:

Why are people still pretending this is anything to do with conditions?

They said it had to do with conditions, they are not politicians, and I believe them.

alloywheel

ELM327 wrote: »

Sack them all and replace with agency staff. Send out a hard line message that previous agreed pay increment deals are to be respected.

Correct.

ELM327 wrote: »

If leo and co had any balls they would do this, but of course they will postulate for a while and cave.

I do not think they will cave in this time, because if they do all the other public sector unions will be blackmailing the government and taxpayer again. With Brexit and a probable recession coming down the line ( look at Trump/ China retations, housing now dropping in Oz after many many years of boom etc ) Leo and Co cannot risk giving the unions even more than they have already agreed to.

eagle eye

ELM327 wrote:

Sack them all and replace with agency staff. Send out a hard line message that previous agreed pay increment deals are to be respected.

You do realise that agency nurses cost more?

alloywheel

eagle eye wrote: »

You do realise that agency nurses cost more?

Not in the medium or long term. They may not have to in the short run either.

Quote, in the UK, "the NHS paid £18.41 for each agency hour last year, "
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/13/nurseshortages-cost-nhs-24-billion-last-year/

Nurses here cost the government and taxpayer a lot more than £18.41 per hour.

iamwhoiam

ELM327 wrote: »

Sack them all and replace with agency staff. Send out a hard line message that previous agreed pay increment deals are to be respected.

If leo and co had any balls they would do this, but of course they will postulate for a while and cave.

You wouldn't have many agency staff then as most agency hours in many large hospital are covered by the permanent staff . They work extra hours when short staffed and get paid via agency . Many agency staff also work in care homes and home care so wouldn't be willing or able to step up to ward care .

Wheeliebin30

Sinn Fein getting hammered after each council was sent a memo from HQ to table a motion of support for the nurses.

Purely a political stunt.

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

You do realise that agency nurses cost more?

Even if they did, it's not about that, it's about sending a message that striking against a deal that they agreed to themselves is not acceptable.


There is no regulation or legal issue with firing people for striking. The only caveat is that they all must be fired if one is fired, and they all must be rehired if one is rehired.

alloywheel wrote: »

Not in the medium or long term. They may not have to in the short run either.

Quote, in the UK, "the NHS paid £18.41 for each agency hour last year, "
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/13/nurseshortages-cost-nhs-24-billion-last-year/

Nurses here cost the government and taxpayer a lot more than £18.41 per hour.

+1

FTA69

alloywheel wrote: »

Google is your friend.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/more-staff-absences-in-health-than-any-other-sector-1.3466166?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fmore-staff-absences-in-health-than-any-other-sector-1.3466166

Hang on a second, you said any cold or hangover and nurses are calling in sick; where’s your proof for that? Because it sounds to me you’re looking to thrown any and all sh*t at nurses that you can.

Workers in understaffed, highly-stressful jobs working in proximity to sick people and doing shifts are more likely to become ill in work. It isn’t some conspiracy of laziness like.

Tomtom364

iamwhoiam wrote: »

You wouldn't have many agency staff then as most agency hours in many large hospital are covered by the permanent staff . They work extra hours when short staffed and get paid via agency . Many agency staff also work in care homes and home care so wouldn't be willing or able to step up to ward care .

So what your saying is that the nurses are worked too hard and thus deserve better pay/conditions.

But in their time off they go in to do even more hours for an agency?

Old diesel

alloywheel wrote: »

Not in the medium or long term. They may not have to in the short run either.

Quote, in the UK, "the NHS paid £18.41 for each agency hour last year, "
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/13/nurseshortages-cost-nhs-24-billion-last-year/

Nurses here cost the government and taxpayer a lot more than £18.41 per hour.

But your using the money that many say we dont have for a payrise to pay agency rates

daithi7

Our spend per person in health is in the highest decile (10%) in the OECD, with the worst outcomes (lowest decile). And this is with a relatively young population.

I.e. Ireland's health system is officially the worst value for money in the world.

Source: OECD

daithi7

75% of our vastly inflated health budget is consumed by salaries and pensions. So we overpay our Hse employees significantly already.

ELM327

Old diesel wrote: »

But your using the money that many say we dont have for a payrise to pay agency rates

And firing the existing nurses which claim to not get that much whereas we know from the data that they do.


At worst it's cost neutral.

Ush1

eagle eye wrote: »

You do realise that if a nurse is working as a single income earner for a family with three kids that she'd be as well off sitting at home not working? Why work for that money when you'd have the same income thanks to how well the state looks after unemployed people.

Lower social welfare? I like your thinking.

ELM327

Ush1 wrote: »

Lower social welfare? I like your thinking.

Lower social welfare (Job Seekers Allowance, the non contributory one, only) and use this to fund the payrise.


Everyone wins.

iamwhoiam

Tomtom364 wrote: »

So what your saying is that the nurses are worked too hard and thus deserve better pay/conditions.

But in their time off they go in to do even more hours for an agency?

I didnt say anything except what the facts are
Many nurses work part time in a hospital and then do home care hours when they can .

Goldengirl

Goldengirl wrote: »

But at € 33 per hour , on double time ...

Pharmacists don't get overtime in the HSE.

alloywheel

Given that nurses here cost the government at least €35.62 per hour on average, and they are seeking even more, why not bring in agency nurses? There are plane loads of them in the far east only waiting to come as speak.

For those who wonder where the figure of €35.62 comes from, it is easily found by dividing the annual pay of a nurse here ( €57,000 according to the HSE themselves, link given earlier about 2 hours ago) by the average number of hours worked, excluding holidays and sick days.


Do not forget, in the UK, agency nurses only cost the UK government £18.42 an hour, on average.
source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/13/nurseshortages-cost-nhs-24-billion-last-year/

By employing agency nurses, the government here would not have to give defined benefit pensions to them either, which is costing the government billions and which virtually no private sector employer can afford to give nowadays.

Twenty Grand

alloywheel wrote: »

Given that nurses here cost the government at least €35.62 per hour on average, and they are seeking even more, why not bring in agency nurses? There are plane loads of them in the far east only waiting to come as speak.

Really? Fuelled up and on the runway?
With all the correct qualifications, credentials, experience and paperwork? Willing to come to Ireland you say?

Where did you find this fantastical treasure trove of asian nurses, considering every other country in the western world can't recruit enough?

eagle eye

ELM327 wrote:

Even if they did, it's not about that, it's about sending a message that striking against a deal that they agreed to themselves is not acceptable.

Well I'd imagine that the majority of agency nurses are looking for full time work so scabbing wouldn't be a good thing for them because if they do eventually get a full time job they'll be treated with contempt by their union colleagues.
Also I doubt there is anything even close to enough agency nurses to get the health service up and running on their own. And I've noticed many times where agency nurses are brought in and the regular nurses guide them. They might not be able to do the job without the assistance of the full time nurses. you

ELM327 wrote:

There is no regulation or legal issue with firing people for striking. The only caveat is that they all must be fired if one is fired, and they all must be rehired if one is rehired.

This will never happen because of politicians. They want to be re-elected and a government who fire union workers because they go on strike are going to lose a lot of seats.

BACfiar

i dont think tey will but they shud

alloywheel

The going rate in the UK for them is £18.42, and the government there has had no problem recruiting a hell of a lot of them.

Why is the taxpayer here being ripped off so much time and time again, paying €35.62, and getting a worse service and longer waiting lists etc than the NHS?

eagle eye

alloywheel wrote:

Why is the taxpayer here being ripped off so much time and time again, paying €35.62, and getting a worse service and longer waiting lists etc than the NHS?

Mismanagement, not the nurses fault. It's all down to people earning much more than nurses up to and including the many people who've had the position of Minister for Health.

facehugger99

eagle eye wrote: »

Mismanagement, not the nurses fault. It's all down to people earning much more than nurses up to and including the many people who've had the position of Minister for Health.

The nurses and their unions aren't interested in addressing the inefficient working practices or structures.

All they care about is screwing the taxpayer for extra money.

alloywheel

alloywheel wrote: »

Given that nurses here cost the government at least €35.62 per hour on average, and they are seeking even more, why not bring in agency nurses? There are plane loads of them in the far east only waiting to come as speak.

For those who wonder where the figure of €35.62 comes from, it is easily found by dividing the annual pay of a nurse here ( €57,000 according to the HSE themselves, link given earlier about 2 hours ago) by the average number of hours worked, excluding holidays and sick days.


Do not forget, in the UK, agency nurses only cost the UK government £18.42 an hour, on average.
source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/13/nurseshortages-cost-nhs-24-billion-last-year/

By employing agency nurses, the government here would not have to give defined benefit pensions to them either, which is costing the government billions and which virtually no private sector employer can afford to give nowadays.

Didn't realise we have standard number of sick days to take in the HSE. Must find out how many I've left.

Varta

alloywheel wrote: »

Given that nurses here cost the government at least €35.62 per hour on average, and they are seeking even more, why not bring in agency nurses? There are plane loads of them in the far east only waiting to come as speak.

For those who wonder where the figure of €35.62 comes from, it is easily found by dividing the annual pay of a nurse here ( €57,000 according to the HSE themselves, link given earlier about 2 hours ago) by the average number of hours worked, excluding holidays and sick days.

Do not forget, in the UK, agency nurses only cost the UK government £18.42 an hour, on average.
source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/13/nurseshortages-cost-nhs-24-billion-last-year/

By employing agency nurses, the government here would not have to give defined benefit pensions to them either, which is costing the government billions and which virtually no private sector employer can afford to give nowadays.

This is either a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts or a stupid comment. So, which is it?