Nurses strike could be averted

Nurses and midwives want to see a degree of future-proofing in regard to issues like safe staffing levels, and comments from the DHBs are encouraging.

Pay negotiations involving the New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO) and the country’s 20 district health boards are at the delicate stage where the 27,000 nurses and midwives the union represents risk being seen as greedy for forcefully making their point.

As much as the general public appreciates these committed and essential healthcare professionals, there is a growing feeling that the pay and conditions offer from the DHBs the union ‘‘strongly rejected’’ on Monday was reasonable.

Certainly many private sector workers – granted, perhaps not with the skills of nurses and midwives – would look enviously at the numbers being talked about.

The rejected offer, including three 3 per cent increases over a period of 15 months, a $2000 lump sum – in lieu of back pay – and the creation of two new pay steps for nurses, followed the recommendations of an independent panel. That was set up to head off a massively disruptive strike in the heart of flu season. In terms of overall cost, the $500 million package was worth close to double the first offer made by the DHBs.

Given that NZNO members had previously voted in favour of two 24-hour strikes, on July 5 and 12, Monday’s rejection brought that concerning possibility closer. But in announcing the decision, union industrial services manager Cee Payne said it was seeking urgent mediation to stave off the possibility of strikes.

Indeed, it’s difficult to detect in her comments at a press conference any genuine desire on the part of nurses and midwives to strike, something the sector has not done since 1989. Chief executive Memo Musa stressed it was a last resort.

It is crystal clear from Payne’s comments, though, that what nurses want goes beyond a decent pay increase. ‘‘The immediate staffing crisis as a result of the past decade of underfunding of DHBs has taken a heavy toll on nurses and their ability to provide safe patient care.’’ They did not ‘‘trust that their work environment or patient care will improve in the short term’’, she said.

Which seems to be the rub. How many nurses and midwives left the sector during the decade in question? Those in the current dispute include the ones who stuck it out, on whom that toll was wrought. But its resolution also concerns those considering joining their ranks, who are key to addressing the sector’s staffing shortages.

Health Minister David Clark was quick to point out that ‘‘it takes time to fix neglect’’. He’s right, and right to stress the Government must ‘‘balance competing priorities’’, including teachers who renegotiate their collective agreement later this year.

However, it may not be about fixing all that ails the sector at one fell swoop. Payne’s comments suggest nurses and midwives want to see a degree of future-proofing in regard to issues like safe staffing levels, and comments from the DHBs are encouraging. Spokeswoman Helen Mason said they would do ‘‘everything we can to reach settlement’’, working to ensure nurses felt ‘‘really confident’’ DHBs were putting more on the table.

That suggests mediation can take place in good faith, allowing nurses to push for that futureproofing without adding to the settlement’s immediate cost. But they’ll need to take care not to exhaust the public’s patience.