Isn't the solution simple? Pay nurses like 80%-100% of what traveling nurses make, instead of 50% or less.
I don't run a hospital, but know folks who have worked in one. My guess is that paying someone 2x (or many someones) for a short period of time is easier on the long term budget than raising the wages of permanent employees. Feels similar to how every company seems to want senior developer talent, but few will pay for training new senior talent.
In my previous job, a lonnnnnnnnnnnnng list of items were pending, because they didn't have enough people to work on them. The mobile app hadn't been updated in 3 years, not even the bugs were fixed. And still the company was one of the most boring places I've worked, with meeting after meeting after meeting...
How hard can it be to have individual conversations with employees once a quarter or something, pay them decent, and at least try to help them do their jobs better? All of which will result in more revenue for the company, no?
I had a chat with a recruiter who argued that remote workers should be paid less. Shouldn't they be paid more (or at least the same as in-office workers for the same work) because the company is saving money on office space, electricity, internet and even stupid coffee and toilet paper? If the recruiter opens the conversation that remote workers are worth less, then how do they expect the candidates to take them seriously? This is just one example.
I just don't get it. Maybe I am not management material/