Place for readers | A word from the nurses

We asked nurses the reasons that prompted them to reject an agreement in principle with the government on their working conditions. Here are some of their responses.

For the future of care

I voted against this convention because I fear for the future of healthcare. The government’s request to be more flexible, to agree to work in any environment (which, let’s say, can be more than 35 km from home) is an obstacle to the development of expertise of a nurse, a feeling of belonging to a team and, above all, the quality of care that the population will receive. We are not interchangeable pawns as if we worked in a factory. We work with humans, and lack of knowledge and experience can have major impacts. It is not with a few days of training and working a month in a department that we will be comfortable and confident in the care we provide. Do people really want to be treated by a nurse who doesn’t know what she’s doing? It is still your health and your life that are at stake!

Stéphanie Robitaille, Montreal

I don’t want to be moved

I could have voted yes. Yes, because the salary increase suited me. Yes, because the bonuses were good because I work in a 24/7 environment. Yes, because I’m tired of going on strike. Yes, because I am on the verge of retirement. Yes, for other benefits. However, I voted no. No, because I chose a position in a particular department, on the shift I want. Even if my experience is good for the village of Saint-Clinclin-des-Meumeux, I do not want to be displaced. No, because we offer seniority to agency nurses if they return to the public, whereas I, with a gap of a year and a half, between two public establishments, I cannot take back my 17 years of service. seniority from before. No, because part-timers are at a disadvantage compared to full-timers. But at first glance, I voted “no” in support of my work colleagues.

Melanie Bergeron, Longueuil

The dice are rolled

I am a nurse and I voted yes for the real and simple reason that the employer already uses flexibility, which has supposedly been in our agreement for years, but is only used as a last resort after other options have been studied. He simply tweaked it and adapted it to the situation. Work will go in this direction, regardless of the votes. The government is helpless, ill-prepared and the result of its mismanagement. It was inevitable and all too predictable. So why stretch the sauce and continue to believe that everything can go wrong? The dice have been rolling for around fifteen years now. So let’s focus our energies on the future of our collaboration. I vote yes.

Annie Bernard, Drummondville

Deteriorating conditions

I have been a clinical nurse for over 31 years, I voted against the agreement in principle because our working conditions are deteriorating instead of improving. The government tried to make us accept mobility, that is to say that it could at any time send us to work 25 or 35 km from our workplace, depending on our region, against our will. This is unacceptable and goes against work-family balance. Do you know of professions where professionals are tossed around like puppets? I don’t know any! In terms of salaries, the figures are misleading. That’s 17.4% less the 3.5% recognition bonus that the government is taking from us. The same people who voted for 30% increases! And also offering bonuses exclusively to full-time nurses and removing or reducing bonuses for part-time nurses is unfair. I hope I have been able to enlighten you on the reasons for the rejection of the agreement by the vast majority of nurses in the Montreal region.

Marylène Beccherini, Lachine

Forced volunteering

I am unionized with the FIQ in Nunavik. I voted against the proposed agreement despite the few negative effects applicable to the reality there compared to those affecting my colleagues in the “South”. I am absolutely disgusted that we are trying to constrain nurses despite knowing full well that we are harming the quality of care by expecting nurses to be versatile at a level that makes no sense. The current trend is towards specialization in this cutting-edge scientific field. Expecting nurses to be “capable” everywhere but excellent nowhere is dangerous, and the public does not seem to understand this subtlety directly linked to the increasing complexity of health care. That and the fact that the government LIES about the voluntary side of what it calls flexibility. It is voluntary except in the event of refusal, at which point it is no longer voluntary. Mobility cannot and must not be accepted in the form the government wants.

Olivier Roy, Gaspé