I agree; bad work practices, lack of labour mobility and resistance to change and modernisation by people working in the Public Healthcare sector wastes more money and human resources and therefore kills more people than their one day strike.The issue of strikes exacerbating mortality is minimal in the context of the existing issues.
The denial that there is any impact at all is ruining this debate.The rush to overstate and exaggerate the impact is destroying this debate.
That's the sort of virtue signalling nonsense that drives ordinary people nuts. They are going on strike for more money. They are saying that they want a bigger slice of the pie and they don't care what the consequences are. They are perfectly entitled to do that but it's not in any way a moral stance. They want more money. This begins and ends with money.So the very people that are standing up for better patient care and taking action are being demonised.
But it's not a one day delay, unless all of the employees involved in the process are volunteering to work an extra day to catch up. If they see an extra 2% of patients each day to catch up then it will take 10 weeks. If they can catch up by working a bit harder and/or longer then why ae there waiting lists at all?A 4 week delay in treatment can lead to a 10% increase in mortality for cancer patients is wholly different to allegations of 1-day postponement of non-cancer , non-diagnosed, non-life threatening, non-urgent ailments that "will" lead to people dying and attempts to then attribute shame on these workers.
The denial that there is any impact at all is ruining this debate.
That's the sort of virtue signalling nonsense that drives ordinary people nuts.
You keep saying that nobody will die as a result of the strike. That means you are saying that there will be no impact on cancer survival rates.Can you point to any comments by any poster that denies there is any impact at all in taking the industrial action?
Does in include a suggestion that there will be no resources redirected to pay increases while service levels are not adequate?You would do well for yourself to read the Irish Cancer Society pre-budget submission.
Do you not think a 3 month delay in diagnosis would result in a delay in treatment? The Cancer Society release explicitly states delays in testing are a factor, remember, aggressive cancers can progress stages in a matter of weeks.Probably because a 4week delay in cancer treatment (for people with cancer, that is) can lead to increase in mortality by 10% ???
This will be news to my wife and her colleagues, there are zero references to improved services in their union's demands. The government are looking to attach productivity increases as a condition of any increase but the unions are resisting that.So the very people that are standing up for better patient care and taking action are being demonised.
No at all, I thought your point was quite reasonable, teachers are well paid. That is undoubtedly true. Although in total even taking holidays into account (they work 11 weeks per year less than others) they are still less well paid than lawyers, doctors, accountants or engineers.Tu Quoque (Appeal to Hypocrisy): Instead of addressing the merits of an argument (such as working conditions, pay, or school schedules), the speaker attacks the critic's personal career path or choices. It assumes that because you didn't choose the profession yourself, you have no right to comment on it.
That's all very informative on why we have increments, but it doesn't address why these increments, which are pay rises, are not included in the pay talks.Its not an unreasonable question.
So they are attracted because it is well paid and has superb holidays and terms and conditions. I agree. That and most also have an interest in education and helping young people.The caliber of people attracted into the teaching profession is the major reason for this.
That seems to contradict your first point. If the sector is not well paid in the UK then surely those who go into it are doing so despite the lower income and because they are interested in education and helping young people.In Britain people go into teaching because they cant find anything better, here many do it because they are interested in education and helping young people.
That's hardly surprising from a Labour Party Minister. I did like Brendan though. I thought he was a reasonably reasonable person.Obviously the Government and the Unions are of the same mind , I do remember a Government Minister, Brendan Howlin perhaps, stating back in the day that increments were not pay rises .
That's all very informative on why we have increments, but it doesn't address why these increments, which are pay rises, are not included in the pay talks.
This will be news to my wife and her colleagues, there are zero references to improved services in their union's demands.
More staff and better facilities don't equate to better services.as far as I can see the Unions are constantly on about wanting improved services. More staff, better facilities, better equipment (everything in the cancer society's report). That investment can come at any time, we don't need pay talks to get investment in services.
I was specifically referring to the public sector strike that is the subject of this thread. The documented demands issued to union members only call for additional money to be paid to existing staff so that they continue to operate to the current service agreements.I think that is disingenuous. Notwithstanding the fact that it is the responsibility of the executive running the organisations, as far as I can see the Unions are constantly on about wanting improved services. More staff, better facilities, better equipment (everything in the cancer society's report). That investment can come at any time, we don't need pay talks to get investment in services.