How will you vote on the change for the covid-19 law?
- Yes
- Don’t know
- No
0 voters
How will you vote on the nursing initiative?
- Yes
- Don’t know
- No
0 voters
How will you vote on the justice initiative?
- Yes
- Don’t know
- No
0 voters
3 Likes
Covid: Yes
Nursing: No
Justice: No
3 Likes
I’ll vote yes for the nursing initiative.
The current situation of the employment market clearly shows that employers are not willing or able to make offers that are in line with the market.
This is a huge problem as with less qualified personel, the working conditions detoriate even more and worsen the quality of care. Nobody wants to wait in their shit for hours or get the wrong medication because care workers are overworked.
The current planned economy in care work employment needs to end and care services need to be compensated at fair rates to give employers the resources make offers that are in line with the market.
A no to the nursing initiave is a no to good care and a yes to continuing the status que of planned economy.
6 Likes
The salary isn’t the problem, it’s the working conditions. People quit the job soon because of it, not because the pay sucks.
I voted no despite my mother working in this field.
2 Likes
I don’t know what an offer that is in line with the market would be. I want the market to figure that one out.
We clearly have too few nurses, so current offers are below that.
Median Salary for somone that works in care with a tertiary education is somewhere in the 80’000 per year.
Median salary for someone with a tertiary eduction exculuding university is around 100’000 chf per year.
So the salary is well below the median for work that is in very high demand and where you are constantly exposed to moral injury (beeing forced to not give adequate care) This does not happen in a functioning market.
In addition, working 80% is really comon for nurses because a 100% pensum is not really feasable for a prolonged time for most people.
Yes, this is true. Salary is just part of any job offer.
The most important part of the initiative is, that care services need to be compensated fairly.
This gives the employer the resources to hire enough nurses(at market rates) so that nurses can do their job without constantly violating their internal ethical standards.
There is no “the problem” it is a combination of multiple factors.
A no just keeps the current planed economy in place. We need to allow market forces to work in order to get enough nurses so that adequate care can be provided.
It is not an easy job that everyone who wants can do. There is no numerus clausus for nurses. You can only attract talent if the employment conditions are attractive enough and in line with the market.
If we fail to do that then the quality of care will deteriorate further and cause suffering and additional costs because of complications.
Care services provide value. This value needs to be compensated.
How much is it worth to you to get the right medication or not having your O2 running out?
1 Like
To meet the demand in 2029 on nurses with a tertiary education, we need or would have needed to educate around 4’300 nurses per year since 2019. Currently only 3’000 get a degree. There is already a deficit of more than 5’000 nurses with a tertiary education.
Employment conditions attractive enough so that young people want to become nurses.
In any functioning market you would pay 6 figures to someone that enters a field that is in such high demand.
Some practical experience is needed to start, yes. This is common practice in nearly every tertiary education that is not gymnasium → university. This practical experience can also be an apprenticeship in a related field.
Improving the access to education is certainly a good idea and should be done, but it is not nearly enough to manage the current crisis.
Just a small point. Forcing franchises to be lower would lower the total costs of our health care system. People that don’t go to the doctor when they should, cost a lot later.
Similarly enough qualified nurses in old age homes or spitex can prevent unnecessary hospitalizations. The cost reduction potential is roughly 1.5 billion chf per year.
It may be that the higher salaries and higher staffing requirements may cost more than the cost reductions, but we get higher quality care for it.
If we want high quality care, then quality needs to have a price. Currently it doesn’t and quality is only a cost. It should be clear what that means in a market economy.
I’m going to vote NO for the nursing initiative, because I’m liberal or even libertarian.
I’m a paramedic but I don’t think that the involving of our Conferderation in a liberal market is a good option. It has never been. But the contre-projet of this initiative is relevant, focused on the improvement of studies (and no, university degrees are not a solution, who needs a Phd nurse in our hospital ? when you are between life and death nobody expect an expert of nursing science and ontology) sorry a little bit sarcastic 
2 Likes
I’m pretty unsure on the nursing and justice initiative.
If the nursing initiative is rejected, the government is going to spend 1 billion on education in the field in the coming years. Which seems like quite a lot (but I don’t know if it really is). And the gov. setting prices is usually not a great idea in the long-run. A surplus in people in the field could follow and lead to a highly undesirable Pork cycle - Wikipedia. But maybe there are some market inefficiencies there? I don’t quite get why the salaries aren’t higher, if they’re lacking employees. Or on the other hand: why the current salaries don’t incentivise more people joining the field.
The justice initiative seems like a good idea. The current way judges are elected seems problematic. But nobody seems to have any idea, whether the current system actually leads to bad outcomes or if the new system would lead to better outcomes. (All papers I find on the topic are from the last couple of years. Would be interested in additional resources.)
Can you explain more about this? what is preventing employers raising salaries today that the proposal would fix?
I am not trying to be funny at all, I am not in the details of the topic, but intuitively the federation getting involved sounds like going in the opposite direction (I am currently “Don’t know” in the poll above)
1 Like
Also interested about that. There is a shortage of workers in a very important field. Why is the market failing to automatically rise the salaries given those “textbook” circumstances?
1 Like
Currently, a hospital doesn’t really profit if it offers quality care. Even if good care has value to everyone.
From the view of a hospital, care services are only a cost, there is no incentive to keep patients longer than absolutely necessary even if the patient may not be ready and an early release could leads to a unnecessary hospitalization a week later.
Thats what I mean when I say that if we want quality care, quality needs to have a price.
Quality care saves costs, the potential is around 2 billion CHF per year. Quality care may cost more, but the higher quality care means that you are less likely to die due to errors (around 243 people die each year due to mistakes in hospitals) and are more likely to receive a dignified death.
Also it is really fucked up that we train nurses how to care and then constantly force them to not do it right.
That is what this article about moral injuries is about:
I think we are in the same boat Patron, similar opinions on those votations … don’t thing that the covid law, decided on March, is a good path for ALL of us. Vaccinated or not.
1 Like
Did you see some data on that aspect? Doesn’t it also plays a key role to guarantee a standard of care that is not subpar compared to what people trained in Swiss schools are providing? If it’s only painful paperwork I have to agree with you. On the other hand, if it acts as a quality control tool we cannot dismiss it right away. I’m not familiar at all with the situation. Are people with non-EU diploma offered additional training?