Good nurses and midwives need the union, too


, ,

I was contacted last week by a former colleague, close to midnight. Juan* had a disciplinary meeting in the morning, and didn’t know what his rights were – could he take someone with him? Could he lose his job? Would this affect his future employment?

Juan wasn’t a member of the union, which put me in a difficult position; I like him, I feel some obligation to him, but the rules are very clear – as a union delegate I can only advise and represent members. Once upon a time nurses and midwives could join up after an incident and, provided they paid a year’s worth of membership fees, they could be represented. But that wasn’t fair to those members who supported the union – if people only joined when they needed our services, we’d have a fraction of the resources and representative power we need. And so, many years ago, the decision was made – with very, very rare exceptions (which have to be approved by Branch Council), nurses and midwives of the Victorian branch of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation can only be represented if they were members at the time of an incident.

But I felt sorry for Juan – a strong clinician who hadn’t slept in several days, whose relationship with his manager and his employer was affected, and who was asking for information that’s readily available to all employees, if they know where to find it. So I told him that yes, he was able to take a support person with him – a friend, relative or colleague, whose job wasn’t to advocate for him but to pay attention to information that he, being distressed, might miss.

And I asked him what had happened.

A patient had accused my former colleague of sexually inappropriate behaviour, a devastating charge for someone who has no sexual intent, who prides themselves on their professionalism, and who didn’t see a problem coming until he was told by the nurse in charge of the shift that the patient had made this accusation.

Juan was distressed on many fronts – by this attack on his professionalism; by his manager reporting it to her manager, who reported it to the Director of Nursing; by the involvement of Victoria police; by his fear of consequences to his employment and his registration; and by what he perceived as the irrational accusation of a patient he had gone out of his way to help, by getting sandwiches after hours (to reduce the likelihood of nausea from a non-steroidal analgesic), and sitting with the patient, comforting them as they cried, even though he was very busy.

I explained to Juan that, though it felt as though his management weren’t supporting him, they have a legal obligation to escalate this kind of accusation – it’s not the kind of thing that his manager can handle on her own. I explained that they have an obligation to protect the patient, to the public, and to the profession from inappropriate behaviour – though he may have been wholly innocent and well-intentioned, there are predators out there. And I explained that the union is the same – they represent members, but when someone’s done something wrong, the union’s aim is fairness, not to get an unsafe nurse or midwife off.

I also explained about the disciplinary process – the escalation of warnings that, except for wholly egregious behaviour, preceded termination of employment or reporting to the Board (examples of those exceptions are primarily criminal activities like assault or theft), and I explained that the hospital needs to reassure the patient that their complaint was taken seriously, and that there are consequences to prevent this happening again.

None of which, I finished, meant that management necessarily believed Juan had done anything inappropriate – he would need to wait until his morning meeting for that – but clearly the patient perceived inappropriate behaviour, and that’s not what we want.

Juan had, in fact, handled this patient less well than he could have. When the patient arrived on the ward, he greeted them with something he thought was cheery and light, but which had the potential to be misinterpreted, particularly (as in this case) by someone who was being admitted with something significant.

The patient reported nausea and pain – Juan palpated the patient’s upper abdomen, but didn’t explain why, or ask for permission. That arms across the shoulder and back rubbing that Juan meant to be comforting was interpreted as sexual, and because Juan wasn’t thinking about the patient’s discomfort, he didn’t pay attention to any signs the patient may have given.

Finally, Juan added to his notes after being informed of the patient’s report – his addition was defensive, referenced and denied the complaint, and recommended the patient be seen by psychiatry, a referral that was appropriate for this patient for other reasons, but which read as though it was related to a false accusation. His note should have been patient-centred, documenting the pain and distress the patient had, the measures he took to resolve them, and not have included Juan’s own concerns.

Juan told me he felt much more comfortable after our discussion, and was able to sleep for a couple of hours before his meeting.

He was fortunate that his manager, and her manager, saw this as a cultural and communication issue, heightened by the additional layer of difficulty many men in nursing have when acting in a care-delivery role – a topic I’d like to address at another time, because it’s important.

Juan was issued a verbal caution, which will go in his file for a year, then vanish if there are no further issues. He was already scheduled for a fortnight’s leave, and has been encouraged to do something he enjoys, that’s unrelated to work. When he returns he’ll be booked into a communications workshop his hospital runs, that includes role play and these kinds of scenarios, and he was reassured that his management team see him as an asset.

Juan was fortunate to have a supportive, understanding and experienced management team who value his work, and who saw the situation from a number of perspectives, not just the patient’s, and not just from a PR perspective.

But he had several days where he was far more distressed than he needed to be. Had he been a member, he could have rung the union the morning he was told of the accusation, and been given all the information I gave him. He would have had someone go with him to the preliminary meeting the next day, either a job rep like me, or an organiser from the union, who would have explained the process to him, and been able to reassure him that his managers were being fair and even-handed.

Juan joined the union between our conversation and his meeting. When we spoke about it afterwards he said that the nurses’ union where he did his undergraduate training, overseas, didn’t do very much, so joining seemed like a waste of money, especially as he was a good nurse, a strong clinician.

He said that this experience made it clear to him that anyone can need representation – that false accusations or misunderstandings are less common when you’re a good person and a good nurse, but that alone is not protection.

This is something I hear more often than I’d like.

Last year a colleague contacted me about an accusation from a nurse on another ward that she’d accessed a patient’s notes. Like Juan, Wai-Li* was hurt and outraged that her management team didn’t know that she wouldn’t do something like that. Like Juan, she called me the night before a disciplinary hearing; unlike Juan, she was a member of the union, and I was able to advise her.
Wai-Li had been asked by a friend to find out what was happening with her friend’s father, a patient on a ward she had previously worked on. The family spoke English as second and third languages, and they were concerned that they may have missed valuable information.
Rather than suggesting the family ask for a family meeting, or speaking to the Nurse Unit Manager, Wai-Li approached the nurse caring for the patient, and asked about her. The nurse, appropriately, said she couldn’t disclose information about the patient to a third-party, and left the nurses’ station.
When she saw my colleague still there on her return, several minutes later, on the staff side of the desk (where the patient histories were), she believed Wai-Li had accessed the notes, and reported this to her manager.
Patient confidentiality is taken very seriously – nurses and midwives have been fired, and sanctioned by state boards, here and overseas, for inappropriately accessing information of patients whose care they’re not involved in. Wai-Li was told she could be reported to the regulating authority if this accusation was found to be true.
I asked Wai-Li what she’d said to the family, and she replied that she’d said the nurse wasn’t prepared to disclose any information, so they should probably ask to speak to the treating doctors, perhaps with an interpreter.

I explained to Wai-Li, as I did to Juan, that there’s a process managers have to follow – it’s not personal, it’s professional, and feeling hurt and defensive gets in the way of hearing what the problem is. In this case, Wai-Li did act inappropriately, in that she shouldn’t have approached the nurse; the other nurse, a graduate, is to be commended for maintaining her patient’s confidentiality, and for reporting what she thought was a breach.

I was unable to attend the meeting with Wai-Li the next day, and it was too late in the evening to contact ANMF. I recommended Wai-Li write a statutory declaration, which has the same weight and consequences as testimony, explaining what had happened, including the reason why she was behind the nurses’ station (she called down to her ward to let them know she was going to be late back from her break, as she visited her friend’s mother while she was up there). I also recommended she contact her friend and ask him if he’d write a stat dec too – in his native language, if his English wasn’t sufficiently fluent. If he agreed, she could tell her managers at the meeting, and if the investigation went to the next step, that could be professionally interpreted, as supporting evidence that she hadn’t accessed information.

Fortunately Wai-Li’s own statement, and the willingness of her friend to provide supporting information, was sufficient for her managers, and the matter rested there.

In both these cases well-intentioned nurses were accused of significant charges that could have effected their employment and their registration. Both Wai-Li and Juan left seeking help until the last minute, instead of at the time they became aware of the process starting, causing unnecessary angst and distress. And in both cases they had management teams who were fair, impartial and reasonable.

I am well aware that there are other outcomes – nurses as innocent of actual wrong-doing as Juan and Wai-Li who have been accused of contributing to a patient’s death by giving extra narcotics; of stealing drugs for their own use; and of giving medications without an order. Last week, prompted by Juan’s case, I asked on social media for examples – these are just three, and one of them is only a fortnight old.

Nurses and midwives are very concerned about the legal ramifications of errors, particularly of Coroner’s cases. But a survey of Victorian branch members, looking at what topics and areas members would like more information about as part of ANMF Victoria’s e-learning portal, didn’t contain a single request about disciplinary proceedings, even though they are not only vastly more common, but also more likely to result in career consequences.

There are bad nurses and midwives out there – people who assault patients, who are drug-dependent, who are driven by motives other than altruism and professionalism. The public and the professions have to be protected from them, which is why we have laws, regulating agencies, policies, reporting processes, and alert, responsive managements.

There are also poor managers, unpopular but skilled nurses, malicious patients, and false accusations.

Anyone can make a mistake – I know that I still feel nauseated when I think of the handful of potentially life-threatening drug errors I’ve made. Anyone can be involved in a communication conflict – we know that from the rest of our lives, our relationships, and certainly from social media. Anyone can be thoughtless, let their attention drift at a pivotal moment, regardless of how responsible and essential their role is. Anyone can be the victim of a false accusation, whether genuine misunderstanding or motivated by malevolent intent.

Anyone can need representation. Even good nurses and midwives.

*identifying information, including names and specific details, has been changed

Fear or reason? We have a choice


, , , , ,

Federal police escorted a Melbourne man off a Tiger flight yesterday, not because he was armed, not because he triggered a security concern, not because he had some affiliation with a known suspect organisation, not because he’d been under surveillance, but because his doodles included words about terrorism.
This is what fearmongery is turning us in to.
On Thursday, 800 police raided 25 homes in Sydney and Brisbane (that’s 24 officers per building) – fortunately there was a lot of spectacle and movement, including helicopters, search lights and shouting, for the omnipresent media, who did their part with a lot of largely uncritical coverage.
The impetus for the raid was apparently a tapped phone conversation that has been construed as an intention to behead a random victim in a public place, and in no way coordinated with Prime Minister Abbott’s photo op sending Australian armed forces back to the Middle East, or a bill to extend the ‘sunset’ clause of Howard-era anti-terrorism legislation due to apply next year, used last week for the first time in nine years. Nope, just coincidental timing.
It’s unfortunate, then, that while a number of people were detained and released without charge, so far only two men have been charged, and one of those with illegal possession of ammunition. Of course, Dr Mohamed Haneef was also charged…
It may well be that some or all of these men were indeed going to behead someone, to fan an atmosphere of terror.
After all, the definition of terrorism is

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


And what does it mean to terrorize?

1. to coerce or control by violence, fear, threats, etc
2. to inspire with dread; terrify


Terrorism is a real thing – it’s been used for millennia to cow populations. One of the most infamous examples is The Troubles, the three decades of sectarian violence in and about Northern Ireland that included a series of IRA terrorist attacks in London during the early 1970’s – a time I don’t remember, but when my parents and I lived there. My father’s office was in the city, and he quickly got used to bomb warnings. He tells me that, after the first alarm (not an experience a boy from Brisbane was used to) they worked around it, often not even downing tools.
My father’s response is not atypical of those in the UK, – after the July 7 bombings on 2005, there was a determined attitude of unity and perseverance with everyday life; in terms of attitude and behavioural change, the effect on everyday Londoners not directly affected by the bombs (which was almost all of them) lasted less than a fortnight.
America’s response to the biggest terrorist attack in their history was more in line with the perpetrators’ intent, in that coverage blanketed the news for weeks and, over a decade on, it’s still an emotive, divisive, distressing topic for many. But it didn’t see a de-escalation in US intervention in the Middle East, or a change in Western behaviour.
What’s my point?
While there have been plots for terrorism on Australian soil (including the Sydney Five, the Benbrika group, and the Holsworthy Barracks plotters), the last act of terrorism here was by Peter James Knight in 2001. What we’re doing works.
And yet, from the media and the attitude of our politicians, you could be forgiven for thinking that terrorists lurk around every corner, that our lives and liberty under constant threat.
People who are afraid lash out, and Australia’s been subject to the better part of a decade of orchestrated, ramping fear that plays on underlying xenophobia. We’ve seen it with every wave of immigration – from China during the Gold Rush, from Greece and Italy after the Second World War, from Vietnam in the 1970’s . And the concerns are always around difference, lack of assimilation, and changing our culture, as though what Australia is, is static.
Every other group of migrants has made us richer – cuisine, in the first instance, but also music, literature, perspective, diversity, culture, fashion, talent. Why do we think this will be different, instead of learning from the blind, misplaced prejudice of our past?
Resist the hysteria, focus on facts, reason, what’s actually happening.
Look back up at those definitions of terrorism.
And ask yourselves – in whose interest is an atmosphere of anxiety, fear and dissent? Who benefits from our focus being on defence, war, and restriction of expression and rights?
Here’s a hint – it’s not the man or woman in the street.

Why am I an active unionist?


, , , , ,

It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me, follows me on Twitter, or has read any of these posts, that I’m an activist for progressive change and equity, nor that I’m an active unionist.

Today I was sent a link to this campaign, calling on the Greek government to review a decision acquiting farmers who shot 28 Bangladeshi farm hands who had the temerity to ask for six months of unpaid backpay.
After signing the petition I posted and tweeted the link, and had this conversation with @FakeTonyAbbott1, a parody account of Australia’s Liberal* Prime Minister

* for non-Australians: confusingly, the Liberal party is increasingly neo-conservative, not a Left organisation

* for non-Australians: confusingly, the Liberal party is increasingly neo-conservative, not a Left organisation

These kinds of conversations are part of what I love about social media, but it also prompted me to explain why I’m a unionist – and by that I mean not just a member, but an active, engaged part of not just my own union but the wider movement.
I joined the Victorian branch or the Australian Nursing (and Midwifery) Federation when I first registered, in September 1992, and I became a job representative at the same time. Like many members my joining was less out of strong union motivation (though I’ve been a Lefty since I was a teen, first marching for nuclear disarmament when I was fourteen or fifteen), but I was involved in every industrial campaign, and the 90’s in Victoria were a time of industrial threat and savage cuts. I wrote the then-Secretary if ANF (Vic) a fan letter when she lead us to win the world’s first nurse:patient ratios in 2000, and I closed beds in every campaign after that, as we fought to keep them.

In the early days of my union involvement we had a monthly meeting – reps, our organiser, and hospital management, including the Director of Nursing and the head of HR. It was quickly clear that members didn’t need to do anything wrong to need representation, and that I wouldn’t want every member caring for my family; I understood that the role of the union is to represent and advocate for members, but also for the profession, which means that representation doesn’t mean returning unsafe nurses to the bedside. And, from those very early days, my very clearest impression was of integrity.

I know that’s not the dominant narrative about unions, but it’s true nonetheless – and while I know it’s sadly not universal, I’ve yet to meet a union official who didn’t strike me as being committed to their members, their industry, and the common good.

I don’t come from a union family. To this day my father is virulently anti-union. And in fairness to him, I think he was a good employer – but he never seemed to understand my position, that not all employers are. My sense of social justice doesn’t come from him, and it’s not new.

The most recent Victorian nursing and midwifery EBA gave me an opportunity to be more involved than had been the case previously, in no small part because of the sheer length of the campaign, but also the integration of social media, and that it substantively kicked off when I had time off work. And the more involved I became, the clearer it became that we face common concerns – and that’s not just nurses and midwives, across wards and units, hospitals, states and territories, and nations.

At a statewide members meeting, Victorian ANMF Secretary Lisa Fitzpatrick told us about a campaign National Union of Workers members were running at Sigma in Rowville, and a group of us went to support them. It was my first experience of standing in front of a truck, of an organised and long-standing picket line, of police officers who (though not forceful) were considerably less friendly than they are with nurses, and I was struck by how similar our issues were – a fight not for new, improved conditions, but to keep those they already had – safe staffing, penalty rates, recognition of the toll shift work takes. And, as with our campaign, they were successful!

Some months later I was given the honour of participating in a program for union members co-run by Victorian Trades Hall and affiliated unions – my fortnight with the Anna Stewart Memorial Project  ASMP made it clear that this was the case for all the industries represented. I was shocked to learn just how endemic insecure work is, and just how many teachers, particularly graduates, are on contracts. And I attended the inaugural Fluro Fightback at Southern Cross station.

Spell-bound by Billy Bragg, I didn't get to take a crowd shot until after he left, but the crowd? Quite something

Spell-bound by Billy Bragg, I didn’t get to take a crowd shot until after he left, but the crowd? Quite something

A year later I was in London for a conference and saw a tweet about the London Fire Brigade Employee’s Union was campaigning against the closure of fire stations. I was free, so I went along to support them, and got to sit in on a London COuncil meeting, and once again realise that – despite geographic, polical and industrial differences – far more unites than separates us.
I’ve stood for Victorian fire fighters, too. And teachers, paramedics (I’m not just a nurse, I play one on YouTube), asylum seekers, workers and unions across the globe – online, if not in the flesh – and campaigned for marriage equality. Because inequality hurts us all.

All of which is preamble to this:
I’m an activist because injustice makes me sad, indignant, protective, outraged and filled with righteous anger – and those feel better if I act.

I’m an activist because I believe I have a duty to leave the world, even a tiny corner of it, better than I found it.

I’m a unionist because we share principles – fairness, representation, a voice for the voiceless, and a belief that what improves those who have least lifts all of us, while inequity hurts all of us.

I’m an active unionist because I believe it honours those who fought before me, were imprisoned and threatened, beaten, fined, and in some cases killed, for entitlements too many people seem to think were the result of natural justice, or kind employees, if they think about them at all; rights that they think are inviolable.

I’m an active unionist because I know that if they’re not defended, what was won can be lost; because it’s easier to keep them than to regain them.
And I’m a passionate, active unionist because there’s more need for people prepared to stand up than there’s been for decades. Workers across the world, including here, are under attack – and unions are the only organisations that will stop a movement that appears hell-bent of rolling us back to the pre-Industrial age.

Think that’s an exaggeration? Our very own government wants employees to be able to trade off entitlements, work for less than minimum wage, will actually compel unemployed youth to work for under minimum wage (and lose legal protections).

It angers, frustrates and bewilders me that more employees don’t realise the value of unions – and that so many members are apathetic and inactive. One person can make a difference, and if we’re united, there’s no stopping us:

Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. ― Margaret Mead

The problem isn’t social media


, , ,

Today The Age published an article by
Henrietta Cook and Farrah Tomazin about inappropriate communications by members of the Liberal party – in this case by the treasurer, vice-president and other members of the University of Melbourne chapter of the Young Liberals.

In a series of screenshots of Facebook messages leaked to Fairfax Media, the Melbourne University Liberal Club members attack feminist and alumni Germaine Greer, take aim at homosexuality, and repeatedly demean women.
Club treasurer Stefan Eracleous describes Ms Greer as a ”lying f—ing c-m guzzling slut … and a union member”.
‘She doesn’t believe in God. No kids not married … what do you [e]xpect from a melb uni educated former socialist c—,” he wrote.

Before proceeding I do feel the need to note that ‘union member’ is clearly intended to be as much of an insult and indication of character as the rest of it, an attitude I’ve seen from the Right on Twitter, too.
As Cook and Tomazin note, this is only the latest in a series of comments that indicate sexist, homophobic and racist attitudes which have already reulted in political deaths for a number of current and aspirant Liberal politicians.
The problem for the Liberal party isn’t that

Social media is a very, very tricky game for people who haven’t been trained in media and communications

or that they haven’t been reined in.
The problem is that Young Libs say in public what their elders say behind closed doors, and that (as we’ve seen from the recent withdrawal of two Liberal candidates becasue of embarrassing, racist and sexist electronic communications) these attitudes are endemic through the party.
There are members who are reasonable, who respect diversity, who are interested in politics because they want to make the world a better place, and – even though we differ on how best to do that – I know, and respect, some of them.
But the members who achieve positions of power, both in Young Libs and in the party proper are, all too often, these kinds of immature, ultra-Right Wing, xenophobic, homophobic mysogynists.
I am progressive, and I find many of the policies of the Labor party more conservative than I’m comfortable with, let alone the neo-conservative positions being taken by today’s Liberal party and their companions in the UK, the US, Canada and Europe. I do not, however, want to see the Liberal party destroyed – we need balance, social justice tempered by fiscal reality, humane capitalism rther than an unsustainable sociality utopia.
Traditional Liberal values that place the privileged, wealthy, privately educated white male in a state of primacy are going to have to change if this party wants to have any relevance, Or retain any degree of power. And that attitude change has to come from the top.

March to Save Medicare


, , , , , , , , , ,

The Abbott government was elected on a raft of lies and broken promises, all of which have the potential to have devastating consequences for many people, predominantly pretty much exclusively those with least to begin with. Not that it’s always easy to tell precisely what the effects are going to be, as even Mr Abbott’s Cabinet seem to be unsure, as evidenced by yesterday’s quick about-face on pursuing HECS debt after death (and The Conversation‘s retraction of how long HECS will take to pay off now course costs and interest will rise, but the payment threshold will drop).

I’ll write about some of the other ‘reforms’ being introduced next week, particularly the targeting of people on Disability Support Pensions. Like my topic for today, that tactic’s come straight from the UK Tory playbook.

In the UK the Conservative government slowly starved the NHS of funds, then turned around and said “see? It doesn’t work!” as an insidious privatising began.

Australia leaped ahead a little there – we’ve started selling off aged care facilities already, with barely a whisper of consultation, let alone publicity (and that, too, I’ll address next week). But today I want to talk about co-payments for GP visits (and allied health consultations, and radiology, and other investigations).

This government has launched a concerted attack on universal health care. It started with a rubbery statistic – that annually, we make an average of eleven GP visits a year. That sounds like a lot to most people, and when uttered hand-in-hand with insinuations and outright claims that ‘some people’ (predominantly over-anxious mums, and the isolated elderly) are going ‘too often’ makes it seem reasonable for a tokenistic disincentive to ease the strain on our struggling public system.

Only none of it was actually true. On average, Australians see a health care practitioner who bulk-bills all or a portion of the visit eleven times a year, true – GP’s comprise about half of that, with the remaining visits going to physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dieticians, speech pathologists, diabetes educators, clinical nurse practitioners, and the like.

There are undoubtedly some GP visits that are unnecessary – after the fact, because often it’s not possible to tell if the issue’s significant or not; laypeople aren’t doctors. And even if you know that what you’ve got doesn’t require medical attention, many visits are for mandatory medical certificates for time off work or school.

But, says Mr Abbott, we don’t value what we get for free – a small impost, the cost of a cup of coffee, a sandwich, a couple of middies, is enough to make malingerers stop, think, appreciate what they’re getting.

Only here’s the thing – we already pay for Medicare. There’s a specific levy for it. And while it’s true that the levy’s 1.5% (plus an additional 1% if, like me, when you earn over the threshold you choose to support universal health care instead of private insurers), and Medicare costs 9% of GDP, that’s been the case since 1997.

Oh, but Medicare’s unsustainable, and so we have to pay more toward it.

Except that (despite cutting CSIRO funding to the bone, including the agencies that take research from the lab to the market, where we can make money – an area where Australia lags sadly behind most countries) we need the money to fund an enormous medical research centre. Not now, but in the future, when the funding comes in. Because that means we won’t need to spend so much on health care…

Our health care system is robust, cost-effective, and it delivers. It’s not perfect, but its imperfections are predominantly in under-servicing rural and remote areas, under-funding aged care and mental health, inadequate preventative interventions, and too much emphasis on sexy, expensive, acute care.

Amazing NSW nurse Kerry Rodgers on QandA

Amazing NSW nurse Kerry Rodgers on QandA

Here’s the reality – if you want to cut health care costs, general practitioners are not the place to look. They are one of the most cost-effective parts of our system. Good GP’s save money, and lives – prompt action means that many acute issues can be treated before they worsen, and chronic conditions are managed before they become life-threatening.

We don’t have figures on how much a hospital bed costs per day, before medications and interventions (though we do for aged care),so I can’t say how much an outpatient treatment of cellulitis through a course of oral antibiotics compares to inpatient admission for five to seven days, with intravenous antibiotics. I can tell you that it’s easily a hundred times more, based on the cost of the drugs and administration alone.

I can tell you with certainty that giving pneumovax or Fluvax to someone at risk costs a fraction of treating them for pneumonia or the ‘flu – and that, having had both, you’re looking at weeks of time off work as well as direct health care costs. That’s bad from a productivity perspective, disastrous if you’re one of the 40% of our work force on casual or contract work.

Poorly controlled diabetes causes multiple irreversible complications that mean anything from admissions for amputation, to dialysis – we know that the best, and least expensive, way to avoid that is regular education, supervision and support, including annual eye exams, bi-annual podiatry, lab bloods, and consultations with a specialist team of endocrinologists, dieticians and diabetes educators working with the client, family and GP.

That’s just three conditions, off the top of my head. As a nation, GPs are cost-effective. For those who are already struggling to make ends meet, Mr Abbott’s ‘small impost’, Ms Bishop’s sandwich, Mr Hockey’s middies or a third of a packet of smokes is the worst kind of disincentive.

These are people who’ve never had to decide between utilities and rent; between school shoes or dinner; who’ve never wept at a parking fine or rent increase. If you’ve never felt your heart leap at the discovery of $5, if a bought sandwich is an everyday occurrence and not a rare treat, you don’t get to decide that $7 isn’t much.

We know what will happen as a result of this move: those who most need early intervention will delay seeing a doctor, and present at emergency departments far sicker than they need to be, which means more cost for the system, and a lot more pain, suffering, risk, and potential economic consequences for them and their families.

Those who are on disability or aged pensions and have multiple medications will reduce their doses to eke out their drugs; fewer infants and children will be immunised; Pap smear and prostate exams will fall; annual wellness checks will be skipped.

And in the short term there won’t be an effect. But it won’t take long – and I mean months – before we start seeing the real damage, in human and fiscal costs.

We know this is a government that creates policies of myopia, that is incapable of long-term or big picture thinking. And we know that it’s a lot harder to reinstate a service or good than it is to retain it in the first place.

The time to act is now. Let your MP know that you don’t support co-payments. Write to the media, ring call back radio, tweet and post and shout it.

And if you’re in Melbourne, and you’re reading this today, join thousands of health care professionals and concerned citizens as we march for Medicare!

Save Medicare

192 days, and we must invest in graduate programs


, , , , , ,

In every developed country, the nursing workforce is aging – in Australia, over half of all nurses are aged 45 or older, and there’s a predicted critical shortfall less than a decade away.

Although this is well known, our government is not addressing the issue – though more students are being accepted into nursing degree programs (including Masters-level courses for applicants with an undergraduate degree in another discipline), funding for an intern-like graduate year has been slashed. This is a national problem, but Victoria has the highest number of placement shortfalls – last year over 800 graduates were left without a program placement (something I’ve touched on previously).

Like all degrees, nursing and midwifery are subsidised by the government – student fees only pay part of the course delivery cost. Yet, after investing tens of thousands of dollars in each graduate, the governments in every state are funding fewer graduate positions for nurses and midwives. Though not mandatory, without a graduate year it becomes increasingly difficult for inexperienced nurses to find even casual work, and it’s even harder for new midwives.

Instead of investing in local graduates, we’re filling shortfalls with 457 visa holders.

In the short-term, graduate year programs are expensive – newly-qualified nurses need supervision, including supernumerary time with a more experienced nurse, and have paid study days. Importing nurses who don’t need that investment looks economically advantageous.

And, though employment conditions are the same regardless of origin, nurses on 457 visas are less likely to know their rights and entitlements, or to take action if those rights and entitlements are curtailed – in all industries there are cases of 457 visa holders being under-paid, assigned longer hours, heavier work loads, and less leave time than they’re entitled to. There’s valid concern that any kind of protest, or even query, will see their visa revoked.

Failing to invest in our own graduates harms our profession, and our public. We cannot staff our hospitals solely with experienced local nurses supplemented by overseas-trained nurses – there aren’t enough, for a start. There will be decreasing incentive for students to study nursing or midwifery in Australia if they know that the odds of them then being able to work are lower every year. And without the equivalent of three months of full-time work, they’re ineligible to re-register, meaning every year Australia is losing hundreds of the next generation of nurses and dozens of midwives – nurses and midwives whose education we’ve already paid for.


We all benefit from the experience and perspectives of nurses and midwives from overseas, and many Australian nurses spend a few years overseas, particularly in the UK; reciprocity’s fair.

457 visas are appropriate when there’s no local skill; when it comes to nursing, midwifery, and many other industries, we have the people – we just don’t have a government prepared to invest in them.

195 days and your vote counts

This weekend thousands of volunteers door-knocked the seat of Frankston, won for the Liberal party by 489 votes in 2010.
Not only have they not implemented recommendations from the Black Saturday commission, this government cut $66M from fire fighters, mostly from the CFA, despite longer, fiercer bush fire seasons.
They promised 800 hospital beds, but after three and a half years have only opened 43.
In response to poorer ambulance response times, costing lives, Dr Napthine doubled the target for the most uregently categorised patients from the international standard of 8 minutes to 15 minutes – then allowed Ambulance Victoria to stop reporting statistics.
198,000 Victorians have lost their jobs since the Bailliey/Napthine government won office in 2010 – that’s 41 men and women, renters and mortgage holders, parents, tax payers, put out of work every single day.
And they cut $1.2 billion from TAFE, even though we know that vocational education is the cheapest, fastest, most effective way to break the cycle of poverty, crime, under-education and long-term unemployment.
Victoria’s government holds power by one seat, and won six seats by a tiny minority. On November 29th your vote counts more than ever before.
Talk with your neighbours, friends, family, work mates – tell them about the Victorian Liberal government’s track record, then ask them: has this government served Victoria? Have our Members of Parliament, our government, served the people thye were elected to represent?

202 days, and Victorians are still dying


, , , , , , , , ,

I’ve written about Victoria’s ambulance crisis before; sadly, and spectacularly, things are getting worse. Today’s Age reports that seven Victorians have died in the last three days from cardiac arrest, with delays of between 12 and 27 minutes before paramedics arrived on scene.

The response of the Napthine government to these deaths, like those of over fifty Victorians before them, has not been to take responsibility, to take action, or even to express concern – it’s been to blame the “hard-line, left-wing” Ambulance Employee’s Association, who represents 98.5% of Victorian paramedics. If I were a paramedic, I’d be hard-line, too – because, as was the case in our EBA, they see what’s happening on the ground, and they know what the results of wavering will be. Unions are their members, and they go in the direction the members vote for.

Blaming paramedics, and the union that represents them, is one thing. Tragically, it appears the families of those who died are being blamed, too:

Ambulance Victoria General Manager of Regional Services Tony Walker said the facts of each death were yet to be established, but a preliminary review suggested that several people were “clearly deceased” with no resuscitation started before triple-0 was called.

As anyone whose heart has stopped is ‘clearly deceased’ (as opposed to being beyond resuscitation), the first part of Mr Walker’s statement is meaningless; the second part implies that someone should have commenced resuscitation before calling triple-0. Let’s have a look at that.

When someone’s heart stops, the blood in their system is oxyenated – for the next few minutes their heart and brain are in no danger of long-term damage from anoxia (or oxygen depletion). As a first responder you have a little time – to move the patient into a position where they (and you) are out of danger, where you can safely access them (eg out of a chair and on to the floor), to call for help and unlock the front door.

I started my nursing career twenty-five years ago next month. I stopped counting resuscitations when I hit 200. Every year, as part of my mandatory requirements at work, I have education and assessment on basic adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation. After avoiding danger and checking for a response, when faced with an emergency you cannot resolve unaided, the first thing you do is call for help. 

In a hospital that’s easy – there are emergency buzzers and qualified staff close by. In your home, at work, on the street? Not so much. And if you’re alone, if you don’t have a mobile phone on you or a land line close to hand, you have to leave the patient to find one – with adrenaline coursing through your system, making it harder to think, prioritise, and identify objects.

Mr Walker says Ambulance Victoria has an almost 50% success rate with shockable arrests (where the heart stops but still has electrical activity). That’s true, but it’s a success rate based on the previous response time. The longer the delay before a shock is delivered, the lower the likelihood of a response.

Even with defibrillation, CPR isn’t always effective – unlike TV, in real life we’re only successful around half the time, and that’s in hospitals, with fully-trained staff, equipment and drugs. The community rate is far lower. No doubt some of the over fifty people who’ve been victims of Victoria’s ambulance crisis would have been unable to be revived even if they’d arrested in a tertiary level hospital.

But that’s precisely why we need rapid response times – because every minute counts. Because having equipment that allows the circulating blood to carry more oxygen reduces the risk of brain and heart muscle damage. Because defibrillation can reverse a fatal heart rhythm, before there’s so much damage that there’s no electrical activity to shock. Because adrenaline makes the heart more receptive to restarting, and thus makes CPR more likely to succeed. Because the sooner the patient is attended by qualified experts the better their chances of survival.

Victoria’s category 1 response target used to be 8 minutes, in line with the international standard. And our paramedics had the best track record in Australia for survival of heart attack patients.

When response times started to lengthen, this government almost doubled Victoria’s target to 15 minutes. Delays because of unaddressed ramping – an issue flagged in both the nurses and midwives EBA and the still unresolved paramedics EBA – mean that target is still being surpassed. We don’t have statistics on just what the average response time for a category 1 call is, because Ambulance Victoria has stopped releasing them. All we have is reports from the paramedics whose hands are tied by a government unwilling to take responsibility, or action.

Emergency services don’t discriminate -it matters not a whit how much power or money you have, their response depends on proximity and availability. Any single one of us could need the expertise of the best-trained paramedics in the country, today. This really is an issue that affects every one of us.

I’m rarely a vengeful person, and I don’t wish ill-will on a third party, but I would dearly like Dr Napthine and/or Dr Davis (a vet and a chiropractor, respectively) to be faced with the situation hundreds of Victorians face every year – the sudden arrest of someone they care about, without support, waiting for an ambulance that (even if it arrives in the first five minutes) feels like it’s never going to come. Followed by a lifetime wondering – if I’d done something different, if the paramedics had been quicker, would the outcome have changed?

Over fifty Victorian families are asking themselves that. And our government, whose job is to safeguard the best interests of their electorates, is doing nothing.

Why I’ll be marching on May Day


Today is May Day, the international day of recognising the work and accomplishments of unions. In many countries, particularly the UK, there are marches on the day; in Australia we celebrate on the first Sunday or May instead – evidence, if any were needed, that unions aren’t (despite Conservative attempts to indicate otherwise) disruptive whenever they can be.
Although I’ve been a member of my union since the month I was registered, now 22 years ago, I attended my first May Day march in 2012, in the aftermath of Victoria’s epic nurses’ and midwives’ campaign to keep safe care ratios, an all nurse/midwife workforce in public acute care, and prevent the ludicrous and antiquated re-introduction of split shifts and ad hoc movement of specialist staff between wards and across campuses. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank then-Premier Baillieu for radicalising me, because though I was always active in campaigns, and attended my first activist march at a teenager, it wasn’t until our 2011/12 EBA campaign that I became passionate about the union movement and the need to take action in the face of injustice.
That year, in recognition of our success, Victorian Trades Hall Council asked ANMF (Vic.) to lead the march, and dozens of red-clad nurses and midwives tried, once again, not to walk at a nursing pace that would leave the other participants trailing behind us!
I’d had the opportunity to speak with members of other unions during our campaign (special thanks to former ANMF (Vic) Secretary Belinda Morieson, former Assistant Secretary Hannah Sellers, CFMEU member Benjamin Gettler, and the Ambulance Employees, Australia officials who leant their support at my hospital, and the members and officials of every other union that supported nurses at their hospitals during our walk outs). This, however, was the beginning of what I hope will be a long and happy relationship with the wider union movement.
And here’s what I’ve learned – whatever our industry, and whatever country we’re in, our issues are broadly the same: for the rights of workers to be safe, treated fairly, appropriately compensated for their work, and to have ongoing improvement in conditions.
May Day is a family event – there are rides for children, sausage sizzles and entertainment – because union values are family values. Without unions there would be no notion of work/life balance – Victoria’s unions are responsible for the first 5.5 day week (thanks to the Builders’ Union), and Victoria’s stone masons achieved the first 8 hour day in the industrialised world.
In fact, every workplace entitlement we have, from even having annual and sick leave (let alone paid leave) to occupational health and safety, is thanks to the work of those who went before us. They risked their careers, and in some cases their lives, standing up and fighting for rights and conditions many of us take for granted today.
So on Sunday I will march to honour those who went before us – the men and women who worked for a better life for all of us, not just a hundred and twenty-odd years ago but the nurses and midwives who struck in 1986 to protect our professions, the teachers who walked last year to protect our future, the CFMEU members who took action because of unsafe workplaces, the paramedics who are now two years into a fight the Victorian government continues to ignore, as deaths surpass fifty thanks to an ambulance crisis they refuse to acknowledge.
037AEU Sept 5 - via Jenny Mikakos
I will march on behalf of those colleagues who have to work, but are as dedicated to the cause as I am. For my colleagues who don’t appreciate what unions have done for them, but would be lost without them. I will march for the patients and students and members of the public who are better off because of unions, for the small business owners who don’t realise that fair pay for all means more discretionary income, and more profit for them.
And I will march to show our Federal government that Australia’s union movement is strong, united, and prepared to act if there is even a thought that “dead, buried, cremated” WorkChoices pay be resurrected. Because I may have been present at the anti-WorkChoices rallies but I wasn’t involved – and this time I will be.
If you believe your life, your families’ lives, the lives of your children, your community and your country are better off because of unions; if you want to let a Federal government that that has already broken multiple election promises know that the Australian public won’t take attacks against the average person lying down; if you believe in the principles of work/life balance, equality, a fair go, workplace safety, everyone having a voice and representation, big picture thinking, and a better Australia for us all, not just those already best off, join me.
I’ll be marching from Victoria Trades Hall – 1PM, Sunday, May 4th. Check out for marches in your area – and if you can’t be there in person, send a shout out through social media.

261 days, and Victoria’s unions are ready to fight

This evening saw the launch of Victorian Trades Hall’s campaign for the state election, We Are Union. It was a wonderful, well executed evening that saw pledges of action, fund raising, and a number of speeches.
The highlight of these was Billy Bragg, who I’ll come to shortly, but the hundreds-strong audience also heard from workers – two Māori workers from Super A-Mart, who haven’t had a wage increase in four years and offered to perform the Haka for Billy; from a fire fighter; from paramedic Morgyn; and first up from me.

With thanks to @Jansant

With thanks to @Jansant

I could talk for half an hour, under water, about why Victoria cannot afford a second term of this government, but I only have a few minutes, so I’ll keep it brief.
Victoria’s nurses and midwives know that this government stands for broken promises.
The 800 inpatient beds they promised have translated into 1000 beds fewer than we had under Labor, and Minister Wooldridge claims to have created hundreds of mental health beds, without mentioning that she closed the majority of them two and a half years ago.
Despite the increase in both frequency and intensity of attacks, and an inquiry, nurses and midwives have been punched, knifed, partially scalped and worse waiting for legislation promised but undelivered.
I don’t remember anything about privatising health before the election, but aged care facilities have already been sold – without community consultation, and with scant notification to staff, families and residents, In the last week we can add a recently refurbished psycho-geriatric facility to the list.
And of course, this is the government that promised to maintain nurse: patient ratios – a promise only kept after an unprecedented nine month campaign that included our first withdrawal of labour in a quarter of a century.
This is the government that taught Victoria’s nurses and midwives to engage the public, to speak up, to door knock. We already knew how to be united – not we know how to fight!
Victoria’s nurses and midwives know we can’t afford another term of this government.
Our branch is almost 70,000 members strong. Know this – Victoria’s nurses and midwives stand with our brothers and sisters across the breadth of the trade union movement, and we’re ready to fight again.
It’s 261 days until we vote – let’s make this Victoria’s first one-term government in over fifty years!

The last to speak was the inimitable Billy Bragg. Thanks to @carbiewarbie, you may have missed him, but you need not miss his message.

“These are,” he said, “difficult time for the union movement… My message to you, the reason why I’m here tonight, is keep the faith.”

For more on Victorian Trades Hall’s We Are Union campaign, watch this, then visit the website, and help make this election a victory for the people.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers