I’ve seen nurses in action and I know their issues are real. A friend, who shall remain nameless, is a nurse and she has confirmed the issues to be real for her, too. She also told me that she is unable to take her vacation leave because of the heavy workload she faces. Still, she wants to stay in SK because she loves this part of the world.
The nursing profession has been sold short for much too long. I am happy to see the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses standing up not only for their rights, but also for patients’ rights in the province.
The body they’re negotiating with, however, leaves a lot to be desired. The President and CEO Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations (SAHO), Susan Antosh, is playing aggressive and dirty politics through the media, suggesting that SUN’s requests at the bargaining table are all about money. From SAHO’s latest news release:
The total wage increase from the 2007 rates is the equivalent of a 34.9% increase for general duty nurses or 37.6% increase for nurses with 20 years or more experience.
The complete proposal package by SAHO continues to support the spirit of the Government/SUN Partnership Agreement and SAHO’s participation at the Partnershp meetings. SAHO has addressed key recruitment and retention initiatives raised by SUN and has removed many of the initial management proposals. The remaining management proposals are directly related to the employers’ ability to provide quality patient care and to respond to the health needs of Saskatchewan residents.
SUN’s response?
SUNBurst sent to members May 26, p.m.
Update from the Negotiations Committee at 1715 May 26, 2008.…
SUN’s Negotiations Committee sent the following message to SAHO through the conciliation officer:
SUN’s last position, tabled on May 26, 2008 at 0300 is SUN’s firm position for a new collective agreement that supports the SUN/Government Partnership, retention and recruitment of RNs/RPNs and a workplace environment that SUN members desperately need repaired.
SAHO’s proposals would permit Regional Health Authorities to abolish vacancies – in violation of the SUN/Government Partnership.
SAHO’s proposals would permit Regional Health Authorities to replace RNs/RPNs with other providers – in violation of the SUN/Government Partnership.
SAHO’s proposal on professional standards does not protect patient safety or provide professional practice environments essential for retention and recruitment.
SAHO’s proposals on monetary items is far short of the mandate and will not make Saskatchewan competitive with Alberta.
Our committee will not accept a four year agreement under these terms and we will not recommend acceptance of an agreement that does not meet our urgent priorities.
So, someone’s not telling the entire truth here. Seems to me that since it’s SAHO that has taken this to the public sphere, they’d be the culprits. And, given that SUN ends their news release with
Remember – do not believe anything unless you hear it from the Union.
it appears that SUN believes Antosh is playing dirty politics, too.
All I know is that I would trust a nurse with my life long, long before I’d trust the CEO of an organization who tries to portray nurses as money-grabbers!
the regina mom 
Ogre
/ May 29, 2008“Remember – do not believe anything unless you hear it from the Union”
And hence why the Regina Mom has zero credibility… Wow, what an imbecile.
the regina mom
/ May 29, 2008Goodness, your argument is certainly weak, almost as weak as your capacity to think. But nice try, Ogre.
Were one to actually *think* about that statement, instead of racing off into additional spin, one would logically come to the conclusion that, since this statement is written to SUN’s members, that it is a reminder to the members to not trust the information they receive about the bargaining process from the media or others regarding the issues. And, as I pointed out, Antosh was attempting to spin this as a done deal when, in fact, several issues continue to be unresolved.
Orgre
/ May 30, 2008I’m weak? Have you read your blog lately?
You have no ability to put forth a coherent argument.
You have severe personal issues that manifest themselves in your writings that would best be treated by a therapist, not by expressing yourself on a blog, not to mention your constant misanthropy.
If you really loved your kids, you’d stop being an embarassment.
Get a stable life first, then get a blog.
the regina mom
/ May 30, 2008Misanthropy? Good grief! Because I support women and write from a feminist perspective I hate humanity?
Get a life, Orgre or Ogre or whatever you are, get a grip on reality, and get over your misogyny! Stop stomping on women and try finding some compassion for women’s issues.
The welfare of our children is fundamentally tied to women’s issues; Saskatchewan’s child poverty rate is the highest in the country. That says something, if you *think* about it.
Orgre
/ May 30, 2008With the NDP in power in SK, 48 years out of the last 64, did you expect child poverty to be any different? What did they do to improve the conditions on the poor.
In 2001 when the NDP gave royalty breaks to big oil and gas companies and cut personal income tax, why didn’t they keep taxes the way they were (or increase them) and increase the basic supplement to families on social assistance? Explain that.
As for child poverty being tied to women’s issues, it says two things. Maybe women shouldn’t be having children they can’t afford, or they need to abort more. Isn’t that what you’re all about?
Isn’t abortion and a woman’s right to choose something you like to celebrate? Kill more fetuses, less poverty…
Beijing York
/ May 30, 2008Isn’t abortion and a woman’s right to choose something you like to celebrate? Kill more fetuses, less poverty…
What next, suggesting a policy of eugenics or forced sterilization? Make sure poor people don’t procreate? You are a piece of work Ogre.
The right to control reproductive choice is very different from societal obligation to ensure that women earn a decent living to be able to raise the children they have.
Ogre
/ May 30, 2008Regina Mom’s the one complaining about poverty. Conveniently, neither she nor you spoke about the failed NDP policies in the 1990’s that exasperated the situation.
The fact is abortion is celebrated on this blog. I will not use the watered down language of so-called progressives. You are either pro-life, or pro-abortion.
Society has no obligation to women that continue to have children that cant afford them, or cannot raise them in a stable environment. If there is a societal obligation, it is to take those children out of those homes. If they can’t afford them, they should abort as all you feminists think that is a women’s right. My right is not having to pay for their sexual shenanigans.
BDT
/ May 31, 2008“What next, suggesting a policy of eugenics or forced sterilization? Make sure poor people don’t procreate? You are a piece of work Ogre.”
Those are actually the suggestions of the “Greatest Canadian” Mr.Tommy sterilize them all Douglas. The master os sowing the poverty seeds here in Saskatchewan in the first place. 20th Street in Saskatoon has been under the NDP watch for years and is the biggest dump in Saskatchewan, but yet they keep electing socialists. They either like living that way or just cant help but swallow the NDP line every election, maybe both.
Just look at the facts they are all there.
feminazi
/ June 1, 2008Pro-life or pro-abortion? What an absolute crock of shit. It’s called pro-choice, you ignorant shmuck. That means, it’s the choice of each woman whether or not, or when, to have children. It’s not anyone else’s business, it’s her choice. Abortion is but one choice. Those of us who aren’t in favour of the government or church controlling our bodies respect all choices in the eyes of the law, though we may personally disagree with some of them.
Run along now. You’re “exasperating” (um, hon, you meant “exacerbating”). Talk about being an imbecile with no credibility.
Ogre
/ June 2, 2008feminazi,
Check out the second definition – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exasperating
It’s not pro-choice; it’s pro-abortion. You can’t even come to terms with the real definition. Why? Are you embarassed of what you promote? As I mentioned, I don’t abide by your cleansing politically correct terms.
It’s legal to kill children under abortion laws in Canada. I know that. And I think it’s wrong. Very wrong.
To water it down as a “choice” issue is horseshit.
This isn’t about government or the church. This is about morality of whether someone believes that fetuses can be disposed of, at will, up and until the 9th month. You cannot tell me that passage through a vagina is the only determinent of whether a child is human or not. Why should that be the singular event that determines humanity? What about a heartbeat?
Since your name is feminazi, the Nazis thought Jews were not human either. So they killed them. Do you agree with them as well?
There is something wrong with our society when it celebrates “choice (read abortion)” over “life”.
As I’ve said before, it’s a good thing that Regina Mom’s kids came when they were convenient for her, otherwise there would be no “Because I Love My Kids”
feminazi
/ June 3, 2008Blah blah blah, same story for the last, oh, how many years? Why don’t you go take a nap, your argument is tired. And it is pro-choice, no matter what intellectual dishonesty you insist on.
If women want, or need, to terminate a pregnancy (kill their unborn children in your dictionary), that’s none of your business. Just because you think it’s wrong, very wrong doesn’t make it wrong. And it is VERY MUCH about the government and church making decisions about personal lives and bodies. That’s ALL it is about.
Your statement that some believe fetuses can be “disposed of” until the 9th month is dishonest, misinformed, and insulting to women. Not that you have a problem insulting women, that much is crystal clear. Come back and talk to us after, heaven forbid, you actually know some women who have been through the late term procedure to save their lives. Or would you rather they died? Probably, eh? And find me one woman (legitimately, not an anti-abortion plant) who at 9 months decides she wants an abortion for the hell of it. Just one. And I’m not talking about rumours on websites, BS stories made up to convince people that women are thoughless, hysterical murderers who want to kill their late term babies. It’s a myth. And you’ve bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Yanno, if Regina Mom’s, or anyone’s kids had been aborted and didn’t exist? SO WHAT? All it means is that they wouldn’t exist. What if Hitler’s mom had an abortion? Idi Amin? Stalin? Mussolini? Wouldn’t the world be a better place? Hey, you were the one using that argument.
Run along back home to your anti-abortion uterine fascist websites and commiserate about the mean, evul feminists who won’t listen to you. You’re not going to change any minds here. All you’re doing is harassing a blogger and cluttering up the comments because they don’t agree with you.
Wonder
/ June 26, 2008“if Regina Mom’s, or anyone’s kids had been aborted and didn’t exist? SO WHAT?”
You’re all heart… What an idiot!