Should nurses be paid more?

And? The salary should still be higher.

I don’t disagree but the pay can’t be that awful if people still sign up to do it e.g. my cousin is 1st year uni in her mid-30’s literally doing a nursing degree this year.

Just because people sign up for a job doesn't mean that the pay is awful. Lots of people work awful jobs for awful pay simply because they have no other options.

But people who can attain university level education do have options.

I work in insurance, people without degrees who only want to be at entry level can earn up to £45k a year pretty easily outside of London. Less stress, much easier, 9-5 and working from home if you want.

People choose to be nurses despite the options out there and despite knowing about the pay and conditions.

Can you give an example of an entry-level insurance job that pays £45k a year outside of London and requires only a university level education?

Entry level as in lowest level of client facing, so a broker.

https://www.reed.co.uk/jobs/corporate-account-handler-insurance/49739022?source=searchResults&filter=%2fjobs%2finsurance-jobs-in-north-west-england%3fparentsector%3dgeneral-insurance%26salaryfrom%3d40000

(‘Senior’ in insurance just means a couple of years experience and is a nominal title to make people feel better)

Takes 4 years, no uni education required and doesn’t even need insurance qualifications.

Edit: another one https://www.reed.co.uk/jobs/corporate-client-adviser-trade-credit-insurance-top-global-broker-hybrid-working/49556873?source=searchResults&filter=%2fjobs%2finsurance-jobs-in-north-west-england%3fparentsector%3dgeneral-insurance%26salaryfrom%3d40000

I work with someone who is the same level as me, 10 years experience, no uni education and middle industry qualification but salary of circa £150k and bonus of circa £30k a year.

Sorry, are you calling a job which requires at least 4 years of experience "entry level"? The job also says that having a qualification in insurance is beneficial, something that will no doubt decide what the starting salary actually ends up being.

4 years is entry level if you are working in an entry level role.

Entry level is level 1 and is clearly a way of making more money over the same time frame than a nurse, with better working conditions, which is the whole point of this discussion.

You must work in recruitment if you think that 4 years of experience makes for an "entry level" job. A job that is "entry level" should not require any qualifications or experience, that's why it is called "entry level"; people start with no experience to gain experience.

So, no, you haven't shown anything. You can't say 'if nurses wanted more money they should get a job that pays better and doesn't require qualifications' and then link to a job that requires at least four years worth of experience and likely needs a qualification to get a higher salary.

Ok change entry to basic/lowest client facing role.

The qualifications are much lower. There is no uni degree required and there are 3 levels of industry qualifications, the first 2 of which are multiple choice. It’s a piece of ****.

You would need to be band 6-7, have a uni degree, undertaken qualifications during your career and have a minimum of 5 years experience to making the same amount.

You must be able to see how the career path I am talking about has better pay, better conditions and an easier route. So nurses do have a choice, which again is what we are discussing.

Right, so there are qualifications you need. It isn't just a job you can walk right into with no nothing to your name. Plus you need at least four years of worked experience and even then you could be earning as little as £30k...?

You are not demonstrating something that has an easier route to it than being a nurse. All you're demonstrating is that similar levels of qualifications, and similar levels of experience, can potentially give people a better paid and more comfortable job. Again, why is this a reason to pay nurses less? If anything this is a reason to pay nurses more, much more in fact.

Also, are you suggesting that all would-be nurses jump ship and start applying for positions in insurance? As if there is an infinite amount of insurance jobs like this going around and that the experience needed to get these jobs is also available to everyone? At least with nurses you can almost always guarantee a job somewhere.

No I’m not, literally the only thing that I am arguing is your assertion that nurses have no other choice except to be a nurse, despite a university level education.

Insurance was the example because it’s the industry I know. My wife works in food and her last two site managers have zero qualifications but a number of years experience and were both paid £60k+.

Edit: also you don’t need the qualifications in insurance, it’s an industry not a profession.

You cannot also be arguing that university level qualifications (nurses) are comparable to basic multiple choice exams to get to the second level Insurance qualification (out of 3).

But the jobs you're trying to compare nursing against are jobs that require their own levels of experience. Again, how do you propose this would work in practice? Do you think all nurses or would-be nurses could jump ship and immediately start working in insurance? If not, why not?

No I don’t and I am expecting a minute level of thinking.

You stated that nurses have no other choice, I gave an example that there is a minimum of one other choice. The safe assumption is that there are other choices.

If an individual nurse believes that the pay and conditions are so bad, then there is another option unlike your original statement.

If you don't think nurses can all jump ship and move to a different job, like insurance, then clearly they don't all have that choice do they?



How can you guarantee that that will be the case for every nurse? Some nurses may not be able to leave their job because they have too many financial commitments and not enough money saved to afford searching / training for another job. Some nurses may want to move job but have nothing available in the area that they live in.

You said that there is no other choice, I showed that there is another choice, not really much point in continuing this

Yes, those specific areas were overwhelmed and could not take more respiratory patients. Hospitals only have so much respiratory capacity that does not require 100% of staff.

There will be wards where there are long term patients in comas that require almost zero minute to minute to care. So yes, low intensity.

You obviously know that was a figure of speech, as it would have been illegal for you to attend the hospital for a little wander about.

I'm sorry but I just don't believe they were as overwhelmed as they say. The lockdowns were utter hell for me and when I saw the videos of dancing nurses it just felt like they were openly laughing in our face. It felt like a betrayal and it shattered my trust in the medical profession. Yes I realize now that the invitation to see the ward was likely a figure of speech but that's probably the only way I'd trust them is if I saw it with my own eyes. If they really were as overwhelmed as they say and I saw it with my own eyes I would be quite happy to admit I was wrong, because this isn't about being right or winning arguments. I just want to know the truth, I want to know how busy the hospitals really were, I want to know why they put me through the mental trauma of repeated lockdowns.

I'm sorry but I just don't believe they were as overwhelmed as they say. The lockdowns were utter hell for me and when I saw the videos of dancing nurses it just felt like they were openly laughing in our face. It felt like a betrayal and it shattered my trust in the medical profession. Yes I realize now that the invitation to see the ward was likely a figure of speech but that's probably the only way I'd trust them is if I saw it with my own eyes. If they really were as overwhelmed as they say and I saw it with my own eyes I would be quite happy to admit I was wrong, because this isn't about being right or winning arguments. I just want to know the truth, I want to know how busy the hospitals really were, I want to know why they put me through the mental trauma of repeated lockdowns.

Why do you think you deserve to be given a personal tour of said places just to placate your views? Leaving aside the fact that no reasonable person needs such 'proof' i imagine most people would agree that just because youve talked yourself into conspiracy theories doesn't mean others need to suffer to show you the error of your ways.