Do you think nurses will get their payrise?

Varta

Varta wrote: »

Many diplomas in the 70's would far exceed a lot of today's degrees.

I severely doubt that especially if you wanted to be an ANP..

Miike

Varta wrote: »

Many diplomas in the 70's would far exceed a lot of today's degrees.

I think you're missing the point in what he's saying. Nursing has changed from what it used to be and is scientific degree subject now. Without a decent grasp of the sciences you'd not have a hope in today's nursing degree.

In the interest of clarity - I'm not putting down nursing diplomas. But even thing's like xray, radioactivity and diagnostic radiology which are part of the new nursing education are incredibly complicated topics.

Twenty Grand

Varta wrote: »

Many diplomas in the 70's would far exceed a lot of today's degrees.

I really doubt that.

I always wondered what studying would have been like pre internet.
Suppose if you couldn't find an answer in the library, then you had to start phoning people.

Alrigghtythen

When you factor in the extra 8 days holidays. Hard working nurses work 9 hours less a month than the 39 hour 20 day holiday people. (if the nurse get 4 days over statutory , that nurse works 5 hours less per month than a 39 hour worker with statutory holidays)

Twenty Grand

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

When you factor in the extra 8 days holidays. Hard working nurses work 9 hours less a month than the 39 hour 20 day holiday people. (if the nurse get 4 days over statutory , that nurse works 5 hours less per month than a 39 hour worker with statutory holidays)

Regular workers don't deal with sickness and death on a daily basis.

Alrigghtythen

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Regular workers don't deal with sickness and death on a daily basis.

Right so you agree they work less hours than other professions?

Twenty Grand

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Right so you agree they work less hours than other professions?

I honestly don't give a f*ck how many hours anyone works.

Varta

Miike wrote: »

I think you're missing the point in what he's saying. Nursing has changed from what it used to be and is scientific degree subject now. Without a decent grasp of the sciences you'd not have a hope in today's nursing degree.

In the interest of clarity - I'm not putting down nursing diplomas. But even thing's like xray, radioactivity and diagnostic radiology which are part of the new nursing education are incredibly complicated topics.

To get into nursing in the 80's you required two science subjects in the LC. You then attended nursing school (college) at various time throughout your training. Plus, there isn't a single nurse who qualified with a diploma and then stood still. Training is ongoing. Many nurses who qualified in the 70's/80's have multiple specialities today.

Bitches Be Trypsin

Miike wrote: »

I think you're missing the point in what he's saying. Nursing has changed from what it used to be and is scientific degree subject now. Without a decent grasp of the sciences you'd not have a hope in today's nursing degree.

In the interest of clarity - I'm not putting down nursing diplomas. But even thing's like xray, radioactivity and diagnostic radiology which are part of the new nursing education are incredibly complicated topics.

That said though, nursing is really basic in terms of science content-, I studied medical science, and lived with some nursing students, and the difference in content was quite stark- nursing was definitely an "easier" degree.

Alrigghtythen

Twenty Grand wrote: »

I honestly don't give a f*ck how many hours anyone works.

Ok

Twenty Grand wrote: »

13 x 13 is 169. You're not counting the half hour changeover at the start and end of shift.

So they work 2 hours more.

And they work overtime.

And they work a free shift once every 4 weeks.

Varta

Varta wrote: »

To get into nursing in the 80's you required two science subjects in the LC. You then attended nursing school (college) at various time throughout your training. Plus, there isn't a single nurse who qualified with a diploma and then stood still. Training is ongoing. Many nurses who qualified in the 70's/80's have multiple specialities today.

I feel that no nurses stood still doesn't ring true. There are pharmacists who qualify today who stand still once they qualify

Miike

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

That said though, nursing is really basic in terms of science content-, I studied medical science, and lived with some nursing students, and the difference in content was quite stark- nursing was definitely an "easier" degree.

A lot was changed in the new nursing curriculum starting this year. As far as I'm aware subjects such as pathology, xray, radioactivity and diagnostic radiology are fresh in the program.

Varta

Twenty Grand wrote: »

I really doubt that.

I always wondered what studying would have been like pre internet.
Suppose if you couldn't find an answer in the library, then you had to start phoning people.

You looked in a different library or you asked somebody who did know. The Internet can be a curse in university. Plagiarism is rife. Lecturers have to scan students work with a programme to check that work is genuine. Unfortunately, it is much easier to get a third level qualification today than in previous years and degrees are ten a penny.

Twenty Grand

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Ok

Meh, it was an easy one to prove wrong.
You're on some mission to nowhere trying to relate working hours to something, like OMG a nurse works 6 less hours a year to some "average" 39 hour worker.

What are you trying to prove?

Varta

Miike wrote: »

A lot was changed in the new nursing curriculum starting this year. As far as I'm aware subjects such as pathology, xray, radioactivity and diagnostic radiology are fresh in the program.

It is fairly basic science compared with true science subjects. It doesn't need to be detailed and nurses pick up an awful lot more in their first few years working.

Bitches Be Trypsin

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

That said though, nursing is really basic in terms of science content-, I studied medical science, and lived with some nursing students, and the difference in content was quite stark- nursing was definitely an "easier" degree.

To be fair, you would be more specialised. I wouldn't say they have a basic education in the sciences. They are thought more in the application of sciences to health. Also, nurses tend to spend a lot more time on placement than most university students. Certainly more than I did as a pharmacy student.

Alrigghtythen

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Meh, it was an easy one to prove wrong.
You're on some mission to nowhere trying to relate working hours to something, like OMG a nurse works 6 less hours a year to some "average" 39 hour worker.

What are you trying to prove?

I was worried when you posted they work for free. But that's not true is it?

Varta

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel that no nurses stood still doesn't ring true. There are pharmacists who qualify today who stand still once they qualify

That's true if you consider all nursing roles - nursing homes for example - but I was thinking about the hospital nurse when I made my comment.

Twenty Grand

Varta wrote: »

You looked in a different library or you asked somebody who did know. The Internet can be a curse in university. Plagiarism is rife. Lecturers have to scan students work with a programme to check that work is genuine. Unfortunately, it is much easier to get a third level qualification today than in previous years and degrees are ten a penny.

Plagiarism aside, Ive always wondered about the volume of information someone today takes in compared to someone in the pre-internet days.
It's possible to become an expert in someone over night, just by watching YouTube videos and reading forums.

I don't think it's a problem that qualifications are "easy" to get and common. I'd say they amount of information you're required to know is greater, but your capacity to know it is greater too.

Anyways, don't want to detail the thread.

Varta

Varta wrote: »

That's true if you consider all nursing roles - nursing homes for example - but I was thinking about the hospital nurse when I made my comment.

I only speak for my own profession but pharmacists that work in community do great work. Literally last line of defence for medication errors and they do this without access to medical notes/ blood results.

I would never disparage them.

Miike

Varta wrote: »

It is fairly basic science compared with true science subjects. It doesn't need to be detailed and nurses pick up an awful lot more in their first few years working.

Fairly basic in that it's a shared lecture with other medical sciences and some of the biosciences?

Twenty Grand

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Plagiarism aside, Ive always wondered about the volume of information someone today takes in compared to someone in the pre-internet days.
It's possible to become an expert in someone over night, just by watching YouTube videos and reading forums.

I don't think it's a problem that qualifications are "easy" to get and common. I'd say they amount of information you're required to know is greater, but your capacity to know it is greater too.

Anyways, don't want to detail the thread.

I don't think you could learn to be an occupational therapist after watching a few YouTube videos. You might think you could be but you wouldn't!

Twenty Grand

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

I was worried when you posted they work for free. But that's not true is it?

It was posted somewhere on this thread.
I'm not going to find it.

Nurses work plenty of hours for free.

Twenty Grand

Twenty Grand wrote: »

13 x 13 is 169. You're not counting the half hour changeover at the start and end of shift.

So they work 2 hours more.

And they work overtime.

And they work a free shift once every 4 weeks.

To requote, a free shift every four weeks? You said it. Either find the quote or retract your statement.

Twenty Grand

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think you could learn to be an occupational therapist after watching a few YouTube videos. You might think you could be but you wouldn't!

This is an aside to what you're all talking about, I'm not taking sides.
I know from my own degree that say if I didn't understand a lecture, I can find videos online that explain it from a different point of view.
Like imagine you're learning to code. Sure you can attend lectures and take notes, but I'd say most people learn far more through stack overflow and other sites on a given day.
What did programmers in the early 90's do when they had problems?

Twenty Grand

Deleted User wrote: »

To requote, a free shift every four weeks? You said it.

Again, so?

If I misremember I apologise. I'm sorry I offended so many people:rolleyes:

Varta

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Plagiarism aside, Ive always wondered about the volume of information someone today takes in compared to someone in the pre-internet days.
It's possible to become an expert in someone over night, just by watching YouTube videos and reading forums.

I don't think it's a problem that qualifications are "easy" to get and common. I'd say they amount of information you're required to know is greater, but your capacity to know it is greater too.

Anyways, don't want to detail the thread.

I'm sorry, but none of that is true. The human capacity to learn has not developed in any measurable sense over a few decades. Being exposed to more information, paradoxically, cam mean retaining less.

Twenty Grand

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Again, so?

If I misremember I apologise. I'm sorry I offended so many people:rolleyes:

Well. It just makes your argument rather flimsy. It's not been offended, just trying to have a reasonable debate.

Twenty Grand

Varta wrote: »

I'm sorry, but none of that is true. The human capacity to learn has not developed in any measurable sense over a few decades. Being exposed to more information, paradoxically, cam mean retaining less.

So you're saying that someone with access to a computer with the collective experience and information of humanity, will learn less in a given day that someone who has a access to a library with a limited supply of books.

Are you saying that if I take two students, and take away internet access from one, then he'll do better than the one who has internet access?

Miike

Deleted User wrote: »

Well. It just makes your argument rather flimsy. It's not been offended, just trying to have a reasonable debate.

gz on 6k posts! (:pac:)

This thread has certainly run it's course for me. See ye for the next strike (maybe rejection of proposed deal!)

Twenty Grand

Deleted User wrote: »

Well. It just makes your argument rather flimsy. It's not been offended, just trying to have a reasonable debate.

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Newstalk reported that 13 days / month is the standard work days for nurses.

That averages, over the year, as 156 hours /month


A standard 39 hour working week averages at 167 hours / month

The hard working nurses are working a 11 hours less per month than the non-hardworking people

13 x 13 is 169. You're not counting the half hour changeover at the start and end of shift.

So they work 2 hours more.

And they work overtime.

And they work a free shift once every 4 weeks.

Better?

Alrigghtythen

Twenty Grand wrote: »

13 x 13 is 169. You're not counting the half hour changeover at the start and end of shift.

So they work 2 hours more.

And they work overtime.

And they work a free shift once every 4 weeks.

Better?

This calculation below, I posted after the above, takes in to account 13 hour shifts.

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

When you factor in the extra 8 days holidays. Hard working nurses work 9 hours less a month than the 39 hour 20 day holiday people. (if the nurse get 4 days over statutory , that nurse works 5 hours less per month than a 39 hour worker with statutory holidays)

So no, not 2 hours more when you factor in the extra holidays. 5 hours less per month if you've 24 days holidays and 9 hours less per month if you've 28.

Miike

Miike wrote: »

gz on 6k posts! (:pac:)

This thread has certainly run it's course for me. See ye for the next strike (maybe rejection of proposed deal!)

I'm sure the nurses will reject it. The government is there for the taking!

mad muffin

I doubt the nurses will accept this deal.

Twenty Grand

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

This calculation below, I posted after the above, takes in to account 13 hour shifts.




So no, not 2 hours more when you factor in the extra holidays. 5 hours less per month if you've 24 days holidays and 9 hours less per month if you've 28.

But, what's your point?

A nurse works 9 hours less a month than..what? A average working week?

mad muffin wrote: »

I doubt the nurses will accept this deal.

I agree. 7% for a two day strike. They'll get 12% if they go out again.

Alrigghtythen

Twenty Grand wrote: »

But, what's your point?

A nurse works 9 hours less a month than..what? A average working week?



I agree. 7% for a two day strike. They'll get 12% if they go out again.

Well there was a myth of free working weeks and extra 2 hours. What is the point of that?

Alrigghtythen

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Well there was a myth of free working weeks and extra 2 hours. What is the point of that?

#agenda

Twenty Grand

Twenty Grand wrote: »

But, what's your point?

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Well there was a myth of free working weeks and extra 2 hours. What is the point of that?

Answer a question with a question?

If I'm wrong I'll happily admit I'm wrong. I'm not a nurse, just I have nothing to prove.

Alrigghtythen

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Answer a question with a question?

If I'm wrong I'll happily admit I'm wrong. I have nothing to prove.

My first sentence wasn't a question. It was a sentence.

I was under the impression the public sector where big in to benchmarking, but maybe not if the bench mark is a full working week with statutory minimum holidays.

Twenty Grand

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Answer a question with a question?

If I'm wrong I'll happily admit I'm wrong. I'm not a nurse, just I have nothing to prove.

You are the one who made the statement. Admit you are wrong or prove otherwise.

Also, I checked my contract. I actually only have 26 days annual leave.

feckthisgenie

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also, I checked my contract. I actually only have 26 days annual leave.

You must of arrived late into the HSE. I have 29 I think must double check. Some of my colleagues have 30 or 31 on the older contacts at senior grade

Twenty Grand

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

My first sentence wasn't a question. It was a sentence.

I was under the impression the public sector where big in to benchmarking, but maybe not if the bench mark is a full working week with statutory minimum holidays.

None of that makes sense?

Why would you benchmark against a minimum?
Sure why not benchmark everyones wages against the minimum wage while we're at it

daithi7

A lottery win for every nurse on retirement..... Sure of course we can afford it Ted!?

.... Oh f**k!!

Twenty Grand

daithi7 wrote: »

A lottery win for every nurse on retirement..... Sure of course we can afford it Ted!?

.... Oh f**k!!

They're hiring if you want to get some of that action!

Alrigghtythen

Twenty Grand wrote: »

None of that makes sense?

Why would you benchmark against a minimum?
Sure why not benchmark everyones wages against the minimum wage while we're at it

What would you bench mark it off? The max. Time off given.. Benchmark them against someone unemployed?

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 lays out workers entitlements. The gov. Wrote it, they should use it in their negogations.


When nurses are saying they get paid x, the should really be saying we get x, and z additional days extra holidays as a benefit.


When they talk about how hard the work they should add, we get extra holidays as a benefit.


The benefits are never recognised


I would not benchmark the pay against minimum wage, as this is the minimum wage for unskilled labour.

daithi7

Twenty Grand wrote: »

They're hiring if you want to get some of that action!

Sorry, I got more than 2 honours in my leaving, so as a reward, I just have to pay for this ****eology

Twenty Grand

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

What would you bench mark it off? The max. Time off given.. Benchmark them against someone unemployed?

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 lays out workers entitlements. The gov. Wrote it, they should use it in their negogations.

I'm sure they tried and the INMO told them where to go.

alloywheel wrote: »

I am too old to be joining, and if I was that age again everyone would say I had far too good a Leaving cert to be throwing my life away being a nurse. In addition, I would get frustrated only working less than half the days in the year, chatting and bitching about patients over long tea breaks etc
Besides,not everyone in the country can get a pension pot worth over a million euro from the government.

Must be tough throwing your life away for an easy job and a million euro pension.
it's a wonder why more people aren't sacrificing themselves on that altar.

feckthisgenie

alloywheel wrote: »

I am too old to be joining, and if I was that age again everyone would say I had far too good a Leaving cert to be throwing my life away being a nurse. In addition, I would get frustrated only working less than half the days in the year, chatting and bitching about patients over long tea breaks etc
Besides,not everyone in the country can get a pension pot worth over a million euro from the government.

If work was in the bed you would lie on the ground. I bet you spent most of your life on the dole

hawkelady

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

What would you bench mark it off? The max. Time off given.. Benchmark them against someone unemployed?

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 lays out workers entitlements. The gov. Wrote it, they should use it in their negogations.


When nurses are saying they get paid x, the should really be saying we get x, and z additional days extra holidays as a benefit.


When they talk about how hard the work they should add, we get extra holidays as a benefit.


The benefits are never recognised


I would not benchmark the pay against minimum wage, as this is the minimum wage for unskilled labour.

So, if you apply for a job in the private sector , you might get vhi included , company car , shares etc. little perks .. nothing secretive about it