✊✊✊
Note that this strike has technically been deemed unlawful by the Industrial Relations Commission. In particular, note paragraph 8, which basically says:
by threatening to strike you have demonstrated that you are frustrated with the government holding out on your demands, and have thus accomplished the goal of strike action
and thus continuing with the strike “cannot…be justified”.
This is being done at the behest of the so-called Labor Party. The party that ostensibly represents the common worker. If their inability to negotiate in good faith originally wasn’t enough to make it clear that they are not what they profess to be, this undermining of the right to strike surely must.
What arrogance. How about “screw you, we will decide when we have accomplished our goals”.
So, I actually read a bit more from lawyers on musing on this subject. It may have not been the IRC’s fault quite so much.
Apparently, the union didn’t hire proper lawyers, choosing instead to represent themselves. And apparently their representation basically didn’t challenge any of the government’s arguments. The government said it would be bad for public health. The union didn’t present a single doctor in court to say “no actually, it’s not a problem for public safety”.
The full text of a particularly interesting comment I read on the subject:
I don’t practice in industrial law, so maybe the criticism is invalid.
The notifier was to provide any witness statements upon which it would rely by 5pm on 31 March 2025 and the respondent any statements on which it would rely by 10am today.
so ASMOF couldn’t get any doctors together between 5pm and 10am to give evidence about the public health effects of the strike
There was no objection to any of the statements and the witnesses were not required for cross-examination. The respondent did not call any evidence in reply.
The impact on patients of such industrial action, including the potential for delays in admission or discharge of patients, delays in elective procedures to permit emergency treatment of otherwise more urgent patients, the possibility of junior doctors or less specialised doctors in a particular field having to treat patients they would not otherwise treat, increased waiting times in the emergency department, longer transfer of care times between ambulance and emergency departments and delayed consultation of patients in wards.
ETA: there is apparently public holiday staffing. I would have made the point that either public holiday staffing is adequate to mitigate risks, or NSW health is lying.
It is unnecessary to go further because the respondent confirms that industrial action is planned. Mr Lisser submitted that the respondent was aware of the risks industrial action may bring within the health system and intended to give notice to the various health entities of the action to be taken in their areas of responsibility on 2 April 2025.
The quote is important in several respects. First, it demonstrates clearly the respondent has a direct role in organising and coordinating the industrial action. Second, it demonstrates an awareness that minimum staffing may not be met without the respondent’s intervention to direct people to work. Third, it demonstrates that it is discouraging members from advising local management of the scope of industrial action to be taken in their areas.
The union’s executive officer accepted that there were risks.
The respondent accepts those propositions. Indeed, it accepts that orders will be made. The respondent argues, however, that the extent of those orders should be reduced. I have understood that to mean that the reference to “members” should be removed from the orders sought. The difficulty with that proposition is, as Mr Lisser submitted, the members are the union. He also submits that the life of the orders should be reduced to one week in lieu of three months.
It basically caved to the orders.
Unless this was a deliberate strategy to say ‘look at us, we’re so tough, we won’t give in to the IRC’s orders’, I can’t imagine why you would run a case like this.
The government has urged the union to call off the strike, saying patient safety would be adversely affected.
So the state would rather endanger patients than give pay parity with other states?
fyi it’s largely not about pay. It’s about working conditions. From my sister (a 4th year(?) doctor in NSW)
I do a double shift at least once a week, often on a weekend in addition to working 5 days during the week. It’s not about money it’s about staffing and adequate leave/rest
Not to mention Vic and Qld get 5 weeks annual leave where we get 4 and also 5 weeks study leave to begin with where we have to accrue it over years
I’m sure the pay is part of it. It nearly always is. But it’s not the primary issue.
As for endangering patients…the truth is that that argument is just a lie. The strike action is working to a public holiday schedule. So emergency medicine is not being affected. Only elective procedures. If the 5 public holidays in the next two and a half weeks aren’t endangering patients, then neither is this strike.
