Earlier this year the government passed a motion awarding UK nurses a pay increase of 3%. They had initially announced a 1% increase but were widely derided for it.
Since 2010 nurses in the UK have faced a real terms pay cut of 32% under the tories. In that time we’ve lost our bursary to study nursing, so also face university debt to go into a caring profession that has a fairly low wage ceiling in comparison to other graduate careers.
Essentially this has culminated in the RCN (Royal College of Nursing) asking members whether they want to accept the pay rise. It was widely rejected, and the next step was the union asking us whether we would be willing to strike.
23.2% of eligible members took part in the vote, and said the following: 89% said they are willing to take action short of strike. 54% said they are willing to withdraw their labour completely in strike action. 96% said that they would support colleagues to take industrial action. I’m not sure if this is enough to reflect a majority decision, but its a big step. I don’t think UK nurses have ever seriously considered strike action before.
More frontline nurses in the UK died from COVID than British soldiers died in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. And they have the gall to throw us a 1% pay increase which is in actual fact a pay cut, and we’re expected to suck it up and get on with it, like we always have. Not anymore. If all the nurses withheld labour tomorrow we could name our price.
A recent post by u/dshhshh on r/transgenderUK reminded me that, in the past, I 'd taken similar action, to provide feedback on shonky advice given by the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in their advice leaflet 'Fair care for trans patients- An RCN guide for nursing and health professionals', and got nowhere.
https://www.rcn.org.uk/professional-development/publications/pub-005575
That leaflet was published in June 2016, On reading it later that year, I emailed and made suggestions about errors within it. I expected them to revise the content on the review date June 2018, and thought no more about it.
I've just been on the RCN website and there it is, the June 2016 version with a claim they've revised it. They haven't.
Now, remember, this is the professional body for the UK's nurses. It's only a leaflet so it's not going to be in depth. Nevertheless, nurses may utilise this in their practice and to maintain CPD.
So, here are some of the surpriisng contents:
They claim that the prostate may be removed in GRS, so only some trans-women need to be aware of prostate cancer risks...
Here's their take on transgender women ( tldr; they're not as feminine as when they were born, and can be described as 'this' ??):
"Male-to-female (MtF, M2F, MTF): describes individuals assigned male at birth who are changing or who have changed their body and/or gender role from birth-assigned male to a more feminine body or role. A common term to describe this is trans woman."
On "Bone protection – hormone replacement therapy for trans women can, in some instances, increase the risk of osteoporosis. Nurses and health care support workers should remind trans women to consider their bone protection options." ( Why not 'insufficient HRT may increase the risk of osteoporosis')
and the' twin bit of advice " trans women are at increased risk of veno-thrombolic events as a result of hormone therapy" ( Shouldn't that be 'some' transwomen' , dependent on the HRT regime?).
"Hormonal treatment is essential in the treatment of trans people. It can produce permanent changes in the way the body looks. " ( Essential, eh??)
"Breast development generally occurs over the first two years of initial hormone therapy and treatment. Continuing hormone therapy beyond this timeframe is unlikely to produce further breast development." ( You only have to look at related posts to realis
... keep reading on reddit ➡
