Striking Paramedics

[MrsKitty]

Paramedics are not allowed to walk off the job in a strike because they perform an essential service. Unlike teachers or bus drives, they must continue to work while striking. Work to rule is when you only do what is in your job description and nothing beyond, and you do not work any overtime. This is one of the only options available to people performing essential services who wish to strike.

For the past while residents of Vancouver have seen signs on the side of ambulances that say "On Strike". I saw this little blurb in a free paper on the skytain and ripped it out and put it in my sling because I thought it might make an interesting discussion. I just found it now. So here goes..

I am witting in to express my upset at the defacing of government ambulances with "on strike" decals by striking paramedics. Traumatic accident scenes, where patients are often fighting for the lives and loved ones are sick with worry, are no place for paramedics to be abusing their position of power by arriving in ambulances defaced with "on strike" messages plastered all over them.

So holy run on sentence.. but beyond that... what are your thoughts?

People performing essential services do not have many options to them. They can not walk off the job, they must continue working. When unions strike here (I assume elsewhere but I don't know how people strike elsewhere?) they often use that time to be out in the street picketing and raising awareness.

Im wondering if paramedics are "abusing a position of power" by having decals on their ambulances. It seems to me they have very little power of they wish to strike, and this is one of the only ways they can bring awareness to the problem.

Thoughts?

[pawprint]

I don't have a problem with the on-strike symbol and I think the complaint is a little asinine.

[Justicedog]

I agree with Paw

[JudyJudyJudy]

First, in light of recent threads, I had no idea what the thread was about before I opened it. :P Striking? Good-looking? Striking? Hitting?

On topic, though, I have to agree with the sentiments of the article. I don't think it's a good idea to have "on strike" written on the vehicle in which the paramedics who are supposed to be helping someone arrive. I'd be quite upset to see such a sign if they were supposed to be helping my loved one; I'd be afraid that the one in need wouldn't get the proper help.

[noaimhere2]

I would also worry about the care my loved one might receive initially. My thoughts are that they must truly love their calling to continue it even on strike - couldn't they actually quit? Surely one's dissatisfaction w/ their job wouldn't allow them to let someone die...

[MrsKitty]

They could quit, but they can't strike and not work. They have to continue it while on strike, or face legal repercussions. People who perform essential services (police, firefighters, paramedics, nurses, doctors) can't strike the way other unions do. They don't have many options.

[dramamine]

I think getting that very information out would be a vast help to the EMS teams. That way, people know that their loved ones ARE getting the help they need, but that their employers are doing something terrible enough for them to have to endure these conditions.

[JudyJudyJudy]

At the scene is NOT the time.

[MrsKitty]

At the scene is NOT the time.


When is it?

[irisheyes81]

Our local rescue squads (ambulances) are mainly voluntary workers, so we would not really have this issue. I do agree with Judy, though. I would be worried about the care they are giving if I saw the strike sign.

As for when they should strike, I do not know. I really cannot see their strikes being very productive, though, since they will really not be able to get their point across too well...since they cannot stop working.

[JudyJudyJudy]

When is it?
I agree with what Irish said. I don't live in an area where there are such unions. While I do support unions, I think this goes too far.

[pawprint]

They don't have a choice, that's all they can do.

I have two very close friends (a married couple) who are Paramedics. They wouldn't abandon their duties for anything. Not a strike, not a nuclear war. Perhaps I'm biased because of them. Strike to me is about fair labor. Not about performance.

[EvilAmy]

I have friends and family that are/were EMT's (I know, not the same as paramedics) but if I saw "On strike" I would get it but that's because I know these people and their character. However, when someone is in panic mode, which is usually the case when you need an ambulance, and they see that I can imagine their brains thinking "OKay so they're here because they can't strike, but does that mean they are going to put in the minimal effort to help my loved one?"


okay now that I created my own long assed run-on sentence. I can see on both sides of the fence.

[Justicedog]

If "they" don't like it, then they can help them win the issues they're striking about. So long as their behavior isn't affecting patient care and because of their striking limitations, they should be allowed to freely express this.

(And I'm not even a union person.)

[TheLorax]

Malpractice is malpractice, strike or not, and I don't know any one of my co workers that would risk their license in the interest of a strike. That said, as someone in the medical fielf, I might give it passing notice, but I would feel utterly confident that my loved ones would get the care they needed.

Even if I weren't in the medical field, I have to say, if the situation were that dire, a sign saying strike probably wouldn't even get my attention. I'd be more concerned about my loved one.

[Iconoclast]

I wouldn't care about the sign, it's a petty complaint on behalf of the letter writer.

I also think paraprofessionals (paramedicas, nurses, etc) ought to be able to strike. We are not entitled to their skills or labor. Access to that kind of serbice is a privilige. Don't like the fact that your community suddenly has no health care providers? Tough shit. Treat them fairly and you won't have anything to bitch about. Forcing them to work "on strike" is abusive.

[irisheyes81]

I agree with Iconoclast here. I would be nervous about seeing the sign, but they should be able strike. Really strike, though, not this working strike that they are only allowed to do. I understand they are providing an essential service, but they should still be able to protest for better benefits, pay, or what ever else they feel the need to change. And I think by really striking, and no longer providing their services, the community would be more willing to rally behind them.

[Justicedog]

I disagree that they should be allowed to "really" strike. That could cause too much crisis and could be abused way too much. I'm in a union. As far as I remember, we're not allowed to "really" strike, and if we were, our lawyers who are representing people in court or other matters, wouldn't be able to just not show up to court and courts don't typically allow attorneys to back out of cases for any reason or when backing out would harm the clients.

I think that for certain professions, this is the case. Really striking would cause too much social damage and it shouldn't be allowed. This is something that is known going into the profession, so it's not unreasonably unfair.