Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do you think nurses will get their payrise?

Options
1…145146148150151…154

Comments

  • Options
    #4412
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,647 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Options
    #4413
    Miike
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4414
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4415
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #4416
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4417
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,647 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #4418
    Alrigghtythen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #4419
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4420
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4421
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,647 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4422
    Miike
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #4423
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,647 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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!


  • Options
    #4424
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4425
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,647 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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. :confused::confused:

    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.


  • Options
    #4426
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #4427
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #4428
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4429
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,647 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #4430
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #4431
    Miike
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭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!)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4432
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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. :confused::confused:

    And they work overtime.

    And they work a free shift once every 4 weeks.

    Better?


  • Options
    #4433
    Alrigghtythen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭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. :confused::confused:

    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.


  • Options
    #4434
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,647 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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!


  • Options
    #4435
    mad muffin
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭mad muffin


    I doubt the nurses will accept this deal.


  • Options
    #4436
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4437
    Alrigghtythen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #4438
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,647 ✭ [Deleted User]


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

    #agenda


  • Options
    #4439
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4440
    Alrigghtythen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4441
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,647 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


Advertisement