Is there broad support for the current Public Sector strikes?

[Sister Sara]

They want the best return on their investment in labour. That’s not the same thing.

Thats not what was reported, the report literally says "The HSE has told its health regions to control spending on overtime, agency staff and recruitment." But you have decided the HSE has told its health regions something else that has not been reported on.

If that was the case then yes, I would agree with it.

It was reported "While the ICTU staff panel said it supports measures to reduce excessive agency spending", you have decided that that is not the case.

You’re at it again.

It is literally written in the HSE AI document that the AI tech allows staff to focus more on patients and supports clinical decisions. A not unreasonable outcome from that would be better healthcare for patients and outcomes, including minimising errors in readings.
But you have decided it is something else.

I can only assume that you consider the RTE report and HSE AI Automation Centre of Excellence document as misinformation or fake news?
That you have some other insight hidden from everyone else that says something completely different?

As for the topic title, there is no real way of confirming either way of the support for the Public Sector strike but my impression is that there was broad support.

I will leave it that.

 

[Purple]

Thats not what was reported, the report literally says "The HSE has told its health regions to control spending on overtime, agency staff and recruitment." But you have decided the HSE has told its health regions something else that has not been reported on.

No I haven't. I have proposed that the HSE's agenda is to maximise their return on labour and that Unions, my their very nature, have an agenda to minimise the return on labour. That is their purpose; to get the most money for the best terms and conditions and the least amount of work for their members. They have no other function.

It was reported "While the ICTU staff panel said it supports measures to reduce excessive agency spending", you have decided that that is not the case.

Of course they said that. They want State employees to pay Union Dues.

It is literally written in the HSE AI document that the AI tech allows staff to focus more on patients and supports clinical decisions. A not unreasonable outcome from that would be better healthcare for patients and outcomes, including minimising errors in readings.
But you have decided it is something else.

No, I said that despite advances in technology there will not be a corresponding change in work practices or redeployment of labour without the Unions looking for their pound of flesh because hat is their purpose; to get the most money for the best terms and conditions and the least amount of work for their members. They have no other function.

I can only assume that you consider the RTE report and HSE AI Automation Centre of Excellence document as misinformation or fake news?

I've no idea why you would assume that.

That you have some other insight hidden from everyone else that says something completely different?

No, when discussions come up in which Unions will have a say in what happens I merely take in to account that their purpose is to get the most money for the best terms and conditions and the least amount of work for their members. They have no other function.

As for the topic title, there is no real way of confirming either way of the support for the Public Sector strike but my impression is that there was broad support.

They have broad support in the Unionised sector. That includes RTE.

I will leave it that.

Fair enough.

 

[Leo]

Its hard for me to understand what local union reps were logging and checking during the strike when routine, elective and out-patient appointments were mostly postponed?

Because a number of urgent in-patient cases were processed on the dat, and in the days after, report numbers were checked to ensure they weren't performing additional work to catch up.

 

[Sister Sara]

Because a number of urgent in-patient cases were processed on the dat, and in the days after, report numbers were checked to ensure they weren't performing additional work to catch up.

This just did not happen. Urgent in-patient services were continuing to operate as per the HSE notice.

Unions do not assign work-related tasks to its members, that is the job of the employer and management. Unions do not impose limitations on urgent patient cases.

The local union rep at my picket would not have the foggiest notion what, where, how to go about measuring the work I do, nor I of him. One particular reason for this is that after the strike they are back at their own workstation performing their own tasks - not butting in on other peoples work checking on work volumes and outputs.

 

[Leo]

This just did not happen. Urgent in-patient services were continuing to operate as per the HSE notice.

Where did I say they weren't?

The local union rep at my picket would not have the foggiest notion what, where, how to go about measuring the work I do, nor I of him.

Then I'm guessing your work isn't appointment based then?

 

[Sister Sara]

Where did I say they weren't?

There was a clear inference in your previous comment that union reps were checking to see that disruptions to urgent care as a result of the strike and industrial action were not being addressed by way of additional catch up work.

and in the days after, report numbers were checked to ensure they weren't performing additional work to catch up.

Then I'm guessing your work isn't appointment based then?

I'm not sure what this has to do with apparent local union reps logging and checking report numbers to ensure additional work was not being performed to catch up?

To put this to bed, the only people engaged in logging and checking report numbers on the day of the strike were non-union members. And the only people engaged in such work in the work-to-rule action are also non-union members.

If any union member is engaged in logging and checking reports it is because it is part of their normal duties and activities ie - they are paid to do it by their employers and instructed by management to do it, not because of an instruction from a union.

A trade union that instructs its members to work-to-rule but then instructs local reps to break that rule is effectively crossing its own picket line.

 

[Leo]

There was a clear inference in your previous comment that union reps were checking to see that disruptions to urgent care as a result of the strike and industrial action were not being addressed by way of additional catch up work.

Read it again, I sad there were checks to ensure no additional appointments were carried out "in the days after".

I'm not sure what this has to do with apparent local union reps logging and checking report numbers to ensure additional work was not being performed to catch up?

If you recall, we're talking about appointments here, and the impact of the strike on appointments.

 

[Purple]

Lets do the numbers in a hypothetical scenario; an outpatient clinic works 5 days a week and deals with 50 appointments a day or 250 appointments a week. If they lose a day due to strike action then the only way to catch up is for them to deal with more than 50 appointments a day.
If they deal with 5 additional appointments a day then it will take 10 days to catch up.
If they deal with 1 additional appointments a day then it will take 50 days to catch up.

The number of appointments they deal with in any given day is decided, according to Leo, in advance with the Union. Therefore it is not possible for them to catch up if they behave within the parameters of that agreement.
If they can catch up by just working a bit harder then why are there waiting lists at all?

 

[Sister Sara]

I sad there were checks to ensure no additional appointments were carried out "in the days after".

Well you said "on the day [I'm assuming strike day], and in the days after".

I'm simply pointing out to you is that is not how unions work.

In the days after the strike the work-to-rule is still in place. So unless the management instructed one of its staff to do this logging and checking of appointment numbers then nobody was doing it.
A union to instruct one of its members to carry out non-union activities would be a breach of its own work-to-rule action, let alone the terms of employer/employee contract.

Its the employer, through its management and through the employees terms and conditions, that gives the orders in the workplace.

we're talking about appointments here, and the impact of the strike on appointments.

Thats fine, happy to narrow it down to just appointments. As mentioned, critical, urgent and time-constraining appointments were not affected as they were not part of the industrial action.

Routine, out-patient appointments for non-life threatening conditions were of course affected. To what extent the impact has had is unknown.
The industrial action was notified in advance and as mentioned earlier where I work management engaged in contingency actions to minimise the disruption to the greatest extent possible - I'm assuming the HSE tried to adopt a similar approach. Someone with a sore thumb that needed an x-ray was indeed disrupted.

 

[Purple]

Routine, out-patient appointments for non-life threatening conditions were of course affected. To what extent the impact has had is unknown.

No, the impact is knows. Both Leo and I have pointed out repeatedly that most serious diagnosis are found through routine testing and screening. Those tests and screenings were delayed and so the resulting diagnosis of serious conditions will have been delayed.

That will have a negative impact on outcomes and will cause deaths.

That is a statistical certainty.