Sir, - Recent comments by various members of Government about the nursing dispute underscore how out of touch they are with the circumstances faced by nurses. From my viewpoint, as the spouse of a nurse, the unions have not yet sought enough from their employers.
What level of pay is adequate to justly compensate for the stress of compulsory night duty? Depending on location, a nurse is required to work a week of nights every four to eight weeks. Is it not quite draconian to ask someone to work seven 12-hour night shifts in a row? What damage is done to one's health as a result? Nurses are also frequently compelled to take on the huge responsibility and risk of being in charge of a unit for next to no remuneration.
In many or most families where one spouse is a nurse, that person is the main or only wage-earner. It is impossible to arrange most other full-time careers around the convoluted duty roster of a nurse. Furthermore, night, holiday and weekend duty necessitate missing holiday, family and school events. These considerations are not adequately factored into nurses' wages.
The duty rosters, in combination with a late-starting public transport system, make it a necessity for most every nurse to own a car for transport to work. Government policy makes it very expensive to own and operate what any prudent person would consider a safe car - and believe me, a safe car is what a person should be driving after working several 12-hour night shifts.
Nurses and other wage-earners inherently know that the Government talks twisted statistics when it uses the Consumer Price Index to assess inflation for wage negotiations. This is the big lie. Inflation in house prices is not included in the CPI but the price of the pint is. The Government broke the "partnership" by effectively doing nothing over the past decade as house prices rocketed upwards, enriching landed speculators and impoverishing thousands of young working families by excluding the single biggest component of inflation from annual pay adjustments.
There is no doubt that productivity within the health care system could be improved. My recommendation is to appoint someone with a medical and business background as Minister for Health, rather than a solicitor. But then maybe it is the British model of government that we should replace, as it is this which puts unqualified people in charge of departments and by its nature lends itself to creeping incrementalism, corruption, inefficiency and defence of the status quo. As to in-hospital suggestions, such as organising wards by medical condition instead of gender, I am sure nurses could come up with a long list of improvements if they were seriously considered "partners".
Now, as to employer-funded health, disability and dental plans . . . - Yours, etc., John Hardt,
Ballagh, Monasterevin, Co Kildare.