Nurses' strike

[Michael Rolls]

Steve Barclay, the Health Secretary, is asking the courts if the proposed strike action by the RCN for 30/4 to 2/5 is legal under trade union legislation. Pat Cullen, general secretary of the RCN, says 'dragging nurses through the courts shows a contempt for nursing'. For my money, the most blatant contempt in this whole sorry saga is the contempt the RCN - a body I used to respect highly - show towards patients.

[Alex]

I'm sure I heard on the radio that doctors and nurses will be on strike at the same time, is that correct  ?

[Michael Rolls]

I believe so. If the worst were to happen, I wonder if it would be possible to bring a case against the RCN and BMA for corporate manslaughter?

[Cassandra]

I believe so. If the worst were to happen, I wonder if it would be possible to bring a case against the RCN and BMA for corporate manslaughter?

Sorry Mike. 'Mens Rea' would prevent such an action ever being conceived. I think a better course of action would be to 'sequestrate' the RCN funding to compensate cancelled appointments costs et.

[Michael Rolls]

what a good idea! On my idea - couldn't reckless disregard be claimed? Although seeing how justice seems to work sometimes.....

[Cassandra]

Reckless Disregard? If I were appearing for the Union I'd claim 'vicarious liability', where the RCN would have to be proven to have had thorough knowledge of every member's intentions? A term generally expressed is not enough to claim a tort has been violated. Proving disregard is generally very difficult to establish. Especially where there would be 'joint and severally liable defendants', ie say a nurse and the RCN?

[Michael Rolls]

Ah well, just a thought triggered by the comments of that wretched RCN women - so patients will just have to grin and bear the dangers imposed upon them by this action - which I am sure will result in some premature deaths
What with the aftereffects of lockdown, and now these strikes, being seriously ill in the UK in 2023 is a pretty fraught situation

[Cassandra]

Yes its a terrible position to be putting people in. It seems to us over here that the countries gone to the dogs as never before!

[Michael Rolls]

can't agree more!     

[Cassandra]

can't agree more!     

Mike you have a "message".

[dextrous63]

I suppose that changing working conditions for the worse and in effect paying them less would hack most people off.  Add on the curveball of high inflation, high fuel bills etc, and it's no surprise that breaking point has been reached.

[Michael Rolls]

Pat Cullen of the RCN, describes taking legal advice over the legality of the proposed action 'cruel'. Putting patients' lives at risk isn't?
Oh, and the nurses - and for that matter the doctors - are by no means alone in seeing their living standards affecter by inflation, etc. For what it is worth, my income has fallen by 5% in real terms, compared to last year, and by more than that compared to pre-Covid, and I am by no means alone

[JBR]

Steve Barclay, the Health Secretary, is asking the courts if the proposed strike action by the RCN for 30/4 to 2/5 is legal under trade union legislation. Pat Cullen, general secretary of the RCN, says 'dragging nurses through the courts shows a contempt for nursing'. For my money, the most blatant contempt in this whole sorry saga is the contempt the RCN - a body I used to respect highly - show towards patients.

I feel the same.  I get the impression that most nurses don't agree with the strikes and that the vote to strike was by only a minority of the nurses.

I'd have thought that it would be a legal requirement for a majority vote to be in place before a strike can be called.

[Michael Rolls]

that is one of the things that was promised along time ago, but never seems to have happened

[dextrous63]

The law states there has to be a minimum of 50% voting turnout and 40% in favour of striking.  Not sure whether this is 40% of the total who are eligible to vote, or 40% of those who actually voted.  Either way, it's obviously not a majority that's required.