Imagine scabbing against striking nurses and also sleeping at night or having an appetite for food.
I really wonder how many (of the scabs) are aware of what they were doing. Traveling Nurses is a whole big HUGE thing that's just become normal. I can easily see Ascension not volunteering that information.
Also seems crazy for management to push on nurses when most places are fucking desperate for RNs.
Imagine scabbing against striking nurses and also sleeping at night or having an appetite for food.
I really wonder how many (of the scabs) are aware of what they were doing. Traveling Nurses is a whole big HUGE thing that's just become normal. I can easily see Ascension not volunteering that information.
Also seems crazy for management to push on nurses when most places are fucking desperate for RNs.
Gotta maintain that iron grip of capitalist control over the peons.
Haven't we had nurses post in this thread that hospitals ar normally informer ahead of time, so they can hire on temp nurses for the strike, because the alternative is people dying because the hospital is closed, and nurses care about that.
Like, I'd assume the nurses know, and maybe the whole "scabbing nurses" is a little.... well, it it didn't really seem there's be the animosity you'd find towards them that you'd find around say teamsters.
Yeah, you probably can't just hire them for one day. Why was it a one day strike?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah, you probably can't just hire them for one day. Why was it a one day strike?
At least in the UK, you absolutely can. They're specifically for covering gaps, filling in for holidays or sudden spikes in demand over the short term. Short term contract would be cheaper though.
That's why they are so much more expensive, around +50% in wages plus expenses and agencies fees at least. They can often end up 3-5x or even 10x more expensive than having a staff nurse.
Haven't we had nurses post in this thread that hospitals ar normally informer ahead of time, so they can hire on temp nurses for the strike, because the alternative is people dying because the hospital is closed, and nurses care about that.
Like, I'd assume the nurses know, and maybe the whole "scabbing nurses" is a little.... well, it it didn't really seem there's be the animosity you'd find towards them that you'd find around say teamsters.
Yeah, I'm one of them.
So, there's no animosity between travel nurses who take strike gigs. Patients have to be cared for. You can't let someone die because you went on strike.
In fact, that's the kind of feeling that hospital management does to scare nurses from striking in the beginning. 'You don't want to strike, think of your patients!'
This is how the dance goes.
Nursing leadership informs hospital management of a strike date. Sometimes this is a set period of time, or maybe it's indefinite. This gives time to the hospital system to hire replacements so, again, no patients are harmed.
These traveling nurses make a shit ton more than staff nurses. Most of them are very talented, but they're not experienced in the hospital system, this has a few immediate implications. First, the hospital system is now paying more for travelers than staff, this is good! The longer the strike goes, the more money the hospital loses. Second, procedural volumes go down. This is also good, because now the hospital system is not bringing in as much revenue.
Patient satisfaction also drops like a stone because most people love nurses and travelers, across the board, don't provide the same personal care in a system cause they're not a part of it.
The goal here is to keep bleeding through system from both sides until you break them.
No staff nurses have any issues with travelers over strike coverage. Now, the fact that hospitals hire travelers to paper over staff shortages instead of increasing staff wages is a more complex topic.
Yeah, you probably can't just hire them for one day. Why was it a one day strike?
Because a one day strike is an example of what could happen, but management will call that a threat.
What it's really saying is "we're uniquely qualified for this job, quit screwing us over." And then management hires scabs and quality of care drops like a brick, but the for profit health care system doesn't feel the burn because inelastic demand.
To be clear, my "piece of shits" comments was at the hospital, not the traveling nurses -- and I recognize that maybe calling them scabs isn't 100% accurate in this kind of situation.
Yeah, you probably can't just hire them for one day. Why was it a one day strike?
Because a one day strike is an example of what could happen, but management will call that a threat.
What it's really saying is "we're uniquely qualified for this job, quit screwing us over." And then management hires scabs and quality of care drops like a brick, but the for profit health care system doesn't feel the burn because inelastic demand.
Yeah but that month's profits take a nose dive when staffing costs jump 5X. Then the increase that the nurses are asking for doesn't seem as bad.
Yeah, you probably can't just hire them for one day. Why was it a one day strike?
Because a one day strike is an example of what could happen, but management will call that a threat.
What it's really saying is "we're uniquely qualified for this job, quit screwing us over." And then management hires scabs and quality of care drops like a brick, but the for profit health care system doesn't feel the burn because inelastic demand.
Yeah but that month's profits take a nose dive when staffing costs jump 5X. Then the increase that the nurses are asking for doesn't seem as bad.
The big hit is what Megaman mentioned - procedures completed drop 50%. The boost in pay stings but most health systems plan for as close to 100% utilization as possible. A day or week long strike means empty procedure rooms, empty beds because people aren't recovering, less people getting rehab, etc. And possibly patients going to neighboring health systems for those procedures, patients that are really hard to get back once they move.
Meanwhile the costs don't really change because building and IT and other costs all still need to be paid. Extra nursing costs sting a bit but it's all the other things that hurt.
That's exactly right. What a lot of people don't know is 'caring for the sick ' doesn't actually generate any revenue. Procedures and associated recovery does.
That's exactly right. What a lot of people don't know is 'caring for the sick ' doesn't actually generate any revenue. Procedures and associated recovery does.
I have always kinda known this, but spelling it out has really made it click. It absolutely explains the difference in treatment I have received as a chronic care patient vs the elective surgery I got last week. Very much a "How do we get you out of here 5 minutes ago," vs "Princess for a few days," level of care.
+17
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
That's exactly right. What a lot of people don't know is 'caring for the sick ' doesn't actually generate any revenue. Procedures and associated recovery does.
I have always kinda known this, but spelling it out has really made it click. It absolutely explains the difference in treatment I have received as a chronic care patient vs the elective surgery I got last week. Very much a "How do we get you out of here 5 minutes ago," vs "Princess for a few days," level of care.
Also fundamentally insurance dictates level of care as well.
2 members of my family went to the ER for unknown things, one with really great insurance and one without insurance who was never going to pay them back. And the level of care difference was stark. Essentially the great insurance was seen daily (for a week) by 2 specialists a generalist, a team of nurses, daily PT. And the non insured family member was stablized by a generalist given an IV of fluid and then discharged when they were not going to die out the door.
Now it was for different things in different states. But even the amount of time a person was in the room.
Posts
Plenty of crappy healthcare professionals.
Fuck, that's actually a really good point. Goddammit their industry is rife with hucksters.
I really wonder how many (of the scabs) are aware of what they were doing. Traveling Nurses is a whole big HUGE thing that's just become normal. I can easily see Ascension not volunteering that information.
Also seems crazy for management to push on nurses when most places are fucking desperate for RNs.
Gotta maintain that iron grip of capitalist control over the peons.
Like, I'd assume the nurses know, and maybe the whole "scabbing nurses" is a little.... well, it it didn't really seem there's be the animosity you'd find towards them that you'd find around say teamsters.
Yeah, you probably can't just hire them for one day. Why was it a one day strike?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
At least in the UK, you absolutely can. They're specifically for covering gaps, filling in for holidays or sudden spikes in demand over the short term. Short term contract would be cheaper though.
That's why they are so much more expensive, around +50% in wages plus expenses and agencies fees at least. They can often end up 3-5x or even 10x more expensive than having a staff nurse.
Yeah, I'm one of them.
So, there's no animosity between travel nurses who take strike gigs. Patients have to be cared for. You can't let someone die because you went on strike.
In fact, that's the kind of feeling that hospital management does to scare nurses from striking in the beginning. 'You don't want to strike, think of your patients!'
This is how the dance goes.
Nursing leadership informs hospital management of a strike date. Sometimes this is a set period of time, or maybe it's indefinite. This gives time to the hospital system to hire replacements so, again, no patients are harmed.
These traveling nurses make a shit ton more than staff nurses. Most of them are very talented, but they're not experienced in the hospital system, this has a few immediate implications. First, the hospital system is now paying more for travelers than staff, this is good! The longer the strike goes, the more money the hospital loses. Second, procedural volumes go down. This is also good, because now the hospital system is not bringing in as much revenue.
Patient satisfaction also drops like a stone because most people love nurses and travelers, across the board, don't provide the same personal care in a system cause they're not a part of it.
The goal here is to keep bleeding through system from both sides until you break them.
No staff nurses have any issues with travelers over strike coverage. Now, the fact that hospitals hire travelers to paper over staff shortages instead of increasing staff wages is a more complex topic.
Because a one day strike is an example of what could happen, but management will call that a threat.
What it's really saying is "we're uniquely qualified for this job, quit screwing us over." And then management hires scabs and quality of care drops like a brick, but the for profit health care system doesn't feel the burn because inelastic demand.
Yeah but that month's profits take a nose dive when staffing costs jump 5X. Then the increase that the nurses are asking for doesn't seem as bad.
The big hit is what Megaman mentioned - procedures completed drop 50%. The boost in pay stings but most health systems plan for as close to 100% utilization as possible. A day or week long strike means empty procedure rooms, empty beds because people aren't recovering, less people getting rehab, etc. And possibly patients going to neighboring health systems for those procedures, patients that are really hard to get back once they move.
Meanwhile the costs don't really change because building and IT and other costs all still need to be paid. Extra nursing costs sting a bit but it's all the other things that hurt.
I have always kinda known this, but spelling it out has really made it click. It absolutely explains the difference in treatment I have received as a chronic care patient vs the elective surgery I got last week. Very much a "How do we get you out of here 5 minutes ago," vs "Princess for a few days," level of care.
2 members of my family went to the ER for unknown things, one with really great insurance and one without insurance who was never going to pay them back. And the level of care difference was stark. Essentially the great insurance was seen daily (for a week) by 2 specialists a generalist, a team of nurses, daily PT. And the non insured family member was stablized by a generalist given an IV of fluid and then discharged when they were not going to die out the door.
Now it was for different things in different states. But even the amount of time a person was in the room.