VBAC

[Mary Murphy]

.    A midwife can 
support your sister to 'rent the space' in the hospital, do things her way, and 
optimise her chances of having the birth experience she seeks.  
I wish this were true here.  If a woman wants a VBAC and a midwife is 
willing to support her, if hospital is the only option, then it would be fine if 
we could "rent a space".  Unfortunately, the hospital environment is not 
conducive to privacy, one on one care, continuity of care, freedom of movement, 
freedom to use the bath (if there is a suitable one) freedom from continuous 
fetal monitoring.  Because of the restrictions, the woman's chance of a 
VBAC is reduced.  Access to the Birthing Centre would improve things 
enormously.  This is definitely not going to be available in the near 
future. So, what other option do women have? MM

Re: Albury/Wodonga Friend Question

[Jo Slamen]

Thank you to everyone for your useful suggestions...

I spoke to my friend's mother on Friday night, and the external version was
a success! (like watching a lumpy pillow being reorganised - according to
the baby's father), so hopefully an uncomplicated vaginal delivery will
follow in the next fortnight or so.

Thanks again for taking the time to assist.

Jo

--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Fw: agency work

[Jayne]

 
There are always rip off merchants out there Macha 
:-(  and I'm sorry about your husband's experience.  I think on the 
whole, agencies provide a good service.  In years past when I've used 
agencies to work temp or to go on to permanent positions, they have negotiated 
very good terms and wages that I wouldn't have gotten by myself.
 
 
 
About using a cleaner to interview a prospective 
employer - I WISH it were so easy  I would gladly give it to anyone 
that could do it with good results.  Unfortunately in my case I don't find 
it easy at all and I'm sorry to say it but a lot of lies and deceit come forth 
in these interviews.
 
Jayne
 
 
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Macha McDonald 
  To: ozmidwifery 
  Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 10:54 
  PM
  Subject: RE: agency work
  
  
  In the case of my husband, he worked through the one agency for a 
  little over 2 years...we'll say 2 years.  In that time, he earned about 
  $90,000, which is about $860 a week, about $170 a day, and about $21 per 
  hour...all before tax.  It was revealed that the agency were charging the 
  company $50 per hour for his services.  So, the agency were getting 
  $1160 per week, or $60,320 per year.  The only contact my husband had 
  with the agency was about one phone call per 6 months, a pay slip each week, 2 
  group certificates and one interview.  For that, they made $120,000 
  over 2 years  I don't know about anyone else, but that seems 
  ridiculous to me!!!  If the hospital can't find someone to interview a 
  prospective employee (even the cleaner could do it), and save themselves that 
  much money, there has got to be something wrong with the system!!!  I am 
  all for hospitals having their own nurse banks, no change to the employee's 
  wages.
  
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of 
JayneSent: Saturday, 23 February 2002 11:48 AMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: re: agency 
work
 Agencies also take care of the Workcover 
and superannuation so you can take that out of the Agency's cut.  They 
also do the interviewing and numerous other things to ascertain whether a 
person is suitable for a position so of course that cost is taken care of 
and doesn't fall back on the hospital. 
 
Agencies are also a business and it costs them 
money to provide their services.  And we all need to earn $$$ at the 
end of the day!!!
 
I think the hospitals will revert to employing agency 
staff because it is easier and as in many industries that use agency staff, 
it can often be cheaper for them!
 
 
Jayne
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Macha McDonald 
  To: ozmidwifery 
  Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:21 
  PM
  Subject: agency work
  
  I am a bit divided on this issue.  My mum is 
  an agency nurse, and her workload is already small, and about to be made 
  smaller.  So, I can understand how you, and my mum feel.  
  However, My husband has worked through agencies (not nursing) and it seems 
  these agencies cost the hospitals, and ultimately the public, an arm and a 
  leg (terrible pun!!!).  While your pay is better than that of 
  permanent staff, the agency can get up to double what you get an 
  hour.  It cost my husband's work more than $50 an hour to employ 
  him.  Of that, he got a little over $19 per hour.  I don't think 
  our 'public' health system should be charged through the nose, because it 
  is running short of funds as it  is.  My mum spoke something of 
  the hospitals setting up their own nurse banks.  Anyone know any more 
  about this?  I think if that were the case, and the money was staying 
  in the hospitals and not going to a wealthy private firm, I'd be glad to 
  have my tax money pay temp nurses more than a permanent.  
  
  
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jenny 
BalnavesSent: Friday, 22 February 2002 12:23 AMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 

To all OzMidwives working out there..this is in reference to the 
directive from the Victorian Government regarding agency 
nurses/midwives.
I am a practising midwife, having worked in this field for 
26+years. Due to a change in my work situation, I began working with an 
agency late last year and have found the experience of working at 
different hospitals as a midwife, both in the city of Melbourne, and in 
rural areas very refreshing. Unfortunately because of escalating 
costs the government has decided to reduce the usage of 
agency nurses/midwives unless absolutely necessary (agency staff 
are only to be used to replace sick staff and are NOT to be utilised for 
   

RE: agency work

[Jenny Balnaves]

The context of my email the other day was to highlight the problems of midwives and nurses who are willing to work in an agency capacity and are faced with a reduction in their workload because of "hospital cutbacks". The agency I work for provides me with much contact...numerous phone calls to me throughout the week, a cafe where I can obtain food and drink at no cost (this gives me the opportunity to catch up with fellow midwives and nurses I have worked with in the past who are also employed by this same agency), and  a uniform that is appropriate for the work that I do also at no cost to me. They are also available from 5:30am till approx. 2230hrs. per day for any advice and support I require.They also provide me with a weekly income, study days and any information I wish to access to further my career. 
They are a central service that provides staff to a large number of hospitals seven days a week and as far as I am concerned like all businesses entitled to a degree of remuneration for their availability. Given that they have requests from hospitals for 100's of shifts per week I would say their need is much warranted. Jenny

>From: "Macha McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "ozmidwifery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: agency work 
>Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:54:53 +1100 
> 
>In the case of my husband, he worked through the one agency for a little 
>over 2 years...we'll say 2 years. In that time, he earned about $90,000, 
>which is about $860 a week, about $170 a day, and about $21 per hour...all 
>before tax. It was revealed that the agency were charging the company $50 
>per hour for his services. So, the agency were getting $1160 per week, or 
>$60,320 per year. The only contact my husband had with the agency was about 
>one phone call per 6 months, a pay slip each week, 2 group certificates and 
>one interview. For that, they made $120,000 over 2 years I don't know 
>about anyone else, but that seems ridiculous to me!!! If the hospital can't 
>find someone to interview a prospective employee (even the cleaner could do 
>it), and save themselves that much money, there has got to be something 
>wrong with the system!!! I am all for hospitals having their own nurse 
>banks, no change to the employee's wages. 
> -Original Message- 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jayne 
> Sent: Saturday, 23 February 2002 11:48 AM 
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Subject: re: agency work 
> 
> 
> Agencies also take care of the Workcover and superannuation so you can 
>take that out of the Agency's cut. They also do the interviewing and 
>numerous other things to ascertain whether a person is suitable for a 
>position so of course that cost is taken care of and doesn't fall back on 
>the hospital. 
> 
> Agencies are also a business and it costs them money to provide their 
>services. And we all need to earn $$$ at the end of the day!!! 
> 
> I think the hospitals will revert to employing agency staff because it is 
>easier and as in many industries that use agency staff, it can often be 
>cheaper for them! 
> 
> 
> Jayne 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: Macha McDonald 
> To: ozmidwifery 
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:21 PM 
> Subject: agency work 
> 
> 
> I am a bit divided on this issue. My mum is an agency nurse, and her 
>workload is already small, and about to be made smaller. So, I can 
>understand how you, and my mum feel. However, My husband has worked through 
>agencies (not nursing) and it seems these agencies cost the hospitals, and 
>ultimately the public, an arm and a leg (terrible pun!!!). While your pay 
>is better than that of permanent staff, the agency can get up to double what 
>you get an hour. It cost my husband's work more than $50 an hour to employ 
>him. Of that, he got a little over $19 per hour. I don't think our 
>'public' health system should be charged through the nose, because it is 
>running short of funds as it is. My mum spoke something of the hospitals 
>setting up their own nurse banks. Anyone know any more about this? I think 
>if that were the case, and the money was staying in the hospitals and not 
>going to a wealthy private firm, I'd be glad to have my tax money pay temp 
>nurses more than a permanent. 
> -Original Message- 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jenny Balnaves 
> Sent: Friday, 22 February 2002 12:23 AM 
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Subject: 
> 
> 
> To all OzMidwives working out there..this is in reference to the 
>directive from the Victorian Government regarding agency nurses/midwives. 
> I am a practising midwife, having worked in this field for 26+years. 
>Due to a change in my work situation, I began working with an agency late 
>last year and have found the experience of working at different hospitals as 
>a midwife, both in the city of Melbourne, and in rural areas very 
>refreshing. Unfortunately because of escalating costs the government has 
>decided to reduc

RE: agency work

[Macha McDonald]

In the case of my husband, he worked through the one agency for a little 
over 2 years...we'll say 2 years.  In that time, he earned about $90,000, 
which is about $860 a week, about $170 a day, and about $21 per hour...all 
before tax.  It was revealed that the agency were charging the 
company $50 per hour for his services.  So, the agency were getting 
$1160 per week, or $60,320 per year.  The only contact my husband had with 
the agency was about one phone call per 6 months, a pay slip each week, 2 group 
certificates and one interview.  For that, they made $120,000 over 2 
years  I don't know about anyone else, but that seems ridiculous to 
me!!!  If the hospital can't find someone to interview a prospective 
employee (even the cleaner could do it), and save themselves that much money, 
there has got to be something wrong with the system!!!  I am all for 
hospitals having their own nurse banks, no change to the employee's 
wages.

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of 
  JayneSent: Saturday, 23 February 2002 11:48 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: re: agency 
  work
   Agencies also take care of the Workcover 
  and superannuation so you can take that out of the Agency's cut.  They 
  also do the interviewing and numerous other things to ascertain whether a 
  person is suitable for a position so of course that cost is taken care of and 
  doesn't fall back on the hospital. 
   
  Agencies are also a business and it costs them 
  money to provide their services.  And we all need to earn $$$ at the end 
  of the day!!!
   
  I think the hospitals will revert to employing agency 
  staff because it is easier and as in many industries that use agency staff, it 
  can often be cheaper for them!
   
   
  Jayne
   
  - Original Message - 
  
From: 
Macha McDonald 
To: ozmidwifery 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:21 
PM
Subject: agency work

I am a bit divided on this issue.  My mum is 
an agency nurse, and her workload is already small, and about to be made 
smaller.  So, I can understand how you, and my mum feel.  However, 
My husband has worked through agencies (not nursing) and it seems these 
agencies cost the hospitals, and ultimately the public, an arm and a leg 
(terrible pun!!!).  While your pay is better than that of permanent 
staff, the agency can get up to double what you get an hour.  It cost 
my husband's work more than $50 an hour to employ him.  Of that, he got 
a little over $19 per hour.  I don't think our 'public' health system 
should be charged through the nose, because it is running short of funds as 
it  is.  My mum spoke something of the hospitals setting up their 
own nurse banks.  Anyone know any more about this?  I think if 
that were the case, and the money was staying in the hospitals and not going 
to a wealthy private firm, I'd be glad to have my tax money pay temp nurses 
more than a permanent.  

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jenny 
  BalnavesSent: Friday, 22 February 2002 12:23 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  
  To all OzMidwives working out there..this is in reference to the 
  directive from the Victorian Government regarding agency 
  nurses/midwives.
  I am a practising midwife, having worked in this field for 26+years. 
  Due to a change in my work situation, I began working with an agency late 
  last year and have found the experience of working at different hospitals 
  as a midwife, both in the city of Melbourne, and in rural areas very 
  refreshing. Unfortunately because of escalating costs the government 
  has decided to reduce the usage of agency nurses/midwives unless 
  absolutely necessary (agency staff are only to be used to replace sick 
  staff and are NOT to be utilised for staffing numbers). As a result my 
  workload is to be reduced. My question is this...why should we be 
  penalised if we are prepared to travel to different hospitals to "help 
  out" when there are staff shortages and the like? There is a definite need 
  for agency nurses/midwives and I feel it is sad that those in power assume 
  we are receiving too much money for our practice. To me..it looks like we 
  are taking a large step backwards. 
  If I am prepared to travel in all directions for my work, at the last 
  minute, and assimilate in an unfamiliar environment as well as 
  occasionally be met with a degree of hostility because I am an Ägency 
  Midwife", should I not be encouraged? At the going rate of pay these days 
  for permanent staff...which when you think about it is still not very good 
  for the work that we do, those of us that do work agency should be 
  encouraged and given what dollars we earn in return

VBAC

[Joanna Davis]

To Bronni with the sister in NZ with 
a previous section,
 
There are certainly midwives in NZ 
who will support someone 100% who is planning a VBAC.  If you let me know 
the area she lives in, I can probably recommend someone.  
 
However, I very much doubt whether 
they would be willing to support her in a homebirth.  Basically, the 
evidence doesn't support this.   While I've had a homebirth myself and 
absolutely agree that it's a beautiful way to bring a life into this world, in 
some cases the homebirth needs to be more about approach and support, 
intentions, etc  and not about place of birth.    A midwife 
can support your sister to 'rent the space' in the hospital, do things her way, 
and optimise her chances of having the birth experience she seeks.  

 
As you probably know, NZ has a 
brilliant system, 100% government funded, whereby women can have the midwife of 
their choice follow them through from early pregnancy to 6 weeks 
post-partum.  If you choose the right midwife, I believe this is the best 
support you'll ever get for a VBAC, or natural birth in any case.
 
Am happy to come up with names if 
required, or to direct to someone who can.   
good luck to your 
sister,
Jo