Miraculously, despite predictions of rain today, the sun was shining, sky clear, and most important, it did not cloud over as the moon rose. So we had a clear night for the eclipse.

Here it is, over Seattle.

Pretty darn cool, if you ask me.

A lovely autumn day in Seattle. I abandoned my computer and went outside. Yes, contrary to popular belief, it is not always raining in Seattle, or drizzling, or shrouded under gloomy gray skies.

It wasn’t until the mid-1970s that nurses were permitted to go on strike. Hospitals, I’m sure, were now beside themselves that nurses could legally stand up for the right to be paid a living wage and have decent working conditions. But as strikes usually arise from union activity, and as only 12% of nurses in this nation are unionized, nurses strikes are relatively rare, despite the press that they often receive.

Many nurses, influenced by the call to martyrdom, don’t “believe” in going on strike. Like good little worker bees and being the celestial angels that they are, they somehow think that it is harmful to the patient if they strike. They are the nurses that hospitals adore, the ones who they can convince to sacrifice their health, well being and common sense in the name of “serving the patient.”

Strikes are not called haphazardly. They are the last resort, after negotiations have broken down and the facility refuses to budge. The hospital is then warned far in advance of a strike, and it is up to them to stop admitting patients, stop performing elective surgeries, and to move patients out. Most hospitals ignore this call, and instead, hire contract scabs to come in and work, usually at an extravagant price. And of course, there are always the martyrs who will work because it is for the good of the patient.

Everyone has the right to make a decision about striking. I don’t believe that a nurse should be forced to go on strike by her union. But here is the question that I once posed to an angel martyr, who insisted that striking was wrong, and that her first allegiance was to her patient.

“So,” I told her, “You refused the pay raise and health benefits.”

She looked at me blinking. “What do you mean?”

“Well, the nurses at XX Hospital, where you used to work, got a pay raise and changes in their health benefits. Plus changes in the pay scale and the on-call policy. This was accomplished by going on strike. You turned them down, of course. I mean, you think striking is immoral, so naturally, you won’t accept anything that was obtained by immoral means.”

She hemmed and hawed, but never answered. Of course not. She preferred others to do her dirty work, and then she could sit back and reap the benefits without messing up her angelic profile. So my question is; if you don’t believe in going out on strike, and won’t go on strike, then should you accept the benefits which are obtained because of the strike? If you won’t strike, then isn’t it morally wrong to take the money, so to speak?