I took the, apparently unpopular, view that the Irish Nurses' Organisation and the Psychiatric Nurses' Organisation are not justified in taking the decision to work-to-rule or to threaten work stoppages next week.

In my view, everyone is entitled to fair pay for a fair day's work and you are entitled to negotiate for that pay.

We all know the vital role that nurses play in our society. They care for us when we are at our most vulnerable.

They look after us when we are old and infirm, we rely on them immeasurably when diagnosed with a life-changing illness and they pick up the pieces when accidents result in often-horrific injuries.

What galls me is the decision by unions to use that position of power to hold the country to ransom in order to win what they see as the right to more money and a shorter working week. It infuriates me that people who are already traumatised at having been admitted to hospital now have to suffer on the head of a dispute that is not of their making.

Being in a hospital is intimidating for many people. It is traumatic, stressful and worrying for families of patients and the patients themselves.

Others are often fearful in the unfamiliarity of the hospital environment.

Now add to that the notion of nurses not answering the phone to tell you how someone is doing. Or think how it would be to be in an A&E department where the delays you will inevitably encounter are compounded by nurses refusing to use IT systems.

Even if the nurses' work-to-rule doesn't directly affect your hospital stay, surely even the knowledge that the care giver is in dispute with you, the taxpayer, is enough to make you feel an added discomfort and unease?

We have been left in no doubt this week of the power of the unions involved in this dispute. The INO has shown its militant hand and its lack of fear when it comes to taking direct action.

We have been told all week that the Labour Court decided 27 years ago that nurses were entitled to a 35-hour working week. But the unions have waited until pre-election time to back the government, and the taxpayer, into a corner over pay and conditions.

This action is taken with the assumption that it cannot fail. Despite Mary Harney standing firm on the issue, surely she is coming under immense pressure from backbenchers to bend to the will of the 40,000 nurses? It makes for plenty of votes in May. In taking a stance now, the INO has shown that it has been lying in wait for the time to be absolutely right for their action to work to best effect.

You want what technically is a 20% pay rise? Then work in the public sector and threaten a strike in the run-up to an election.

The notion of striking is alien to me.

You decide to do a job knowing what that job entails . . . both in terms of pay and the hours worked. If you don't like the look of it, you don't take it on. When you are in a job, you are of course entitled to negotiate for better pay and conditions.

If your demands aren't met, does this automatically give you the right to down tools?

Lots of people don't have the option of crying foul and going on a work-to-rule but because there are lots of them and we need them, we are told that we should automatically and fully support the nurses in this action.

Instead, I suggest we should be outraged that the very people that we rely on to take care of us are treating us in this way.

The mechanisms of wage negotiation are strong in this country. Other unions have battled their way through the machinations of the Labour Court and the benchmarking agreement without having to resort to direct action.

Given their vital role in society, is the nurses' work-to-rule a last resort or an easy option?

Claire Byrne co-presents 'The Breakfast Show' on Newstalk 106FM, weekday mornings, 6.30 to 9am