mv
Member of DD Central
Posts: 156 
Likes: 45
|
Post by mv on Apr 22, 2016 12:59:44 GMT
The problem with the current rostered system is that many doctors refuse to work what they term unsocial hours. The new approach is to ensure that the rostered system applies to all doctors. As that bastion of left wing views, the BBC, reported, the dispute is fuelled by the fact that some doctors will no longer qualify for the "anti social" hours payments, but the majority of doctors will be paid considerably more. What are "anti social" hours?Ask the tradesmen and professionals who work at nights and weekends to keep the lights on, keep food on the shelves, get you safely to and from home etc etc. The list goes on and on. These people don't have a choice of working "anti social" hours. It's in their contract. If they don't like it, they move on. Doctors see themselves as a special case. They are not. They are a pampered profession working in a "closed shop" run by the BMA. You have a simple choice. If you don't like it leave. If we need to bring in more TCN's to cover the shortfall until our own talent is available so be it. James, this is not true. Junior doctors have absolutely no say in the hours they work. The job you do has a rota. The rota is fixed. You can't decline to work anti-social hours. As a hospital doctor you take pride in covering the anti-social shifts when it is your turn and doing a good job. This is exactly the same as the other essential workers that work anti-social shifts. This has never been about avoiding anti-social hours which do, of course need to be covered (safely by an unexhausted work-force).
|
|
mv
Member of DD Central
Posts: 156
Likes: 45
|
Post by mv on Apr 22, 2016 13:02:20 GMT
The BMA has failed to put forward a clear, coherent argument for opposing the contract in its current form and this has been an enormous source of frustration for junior doctors. As you say Andy, we already work frequent weekends. Making us work more weekends when there is no evidence that it will help and there is no funding for allied staff is pointless. If there is no intention for us to work more weekends then this is simply an excuse to cut pay. You are not being asked to work more weekends. The intention is to spread the the workload evenly so that all doctors participate in weekend working. James, with respect, I am more familiar with both current practice and the details of the new contract. Let me emphasise this point--all junior doctors participate in weekend working already.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Apr 22, 2016 13:31:45 GMT
A lot of it is about pay I do not feel qualified to answer to that, as with all jobs, some doctors will be overpaid for what they do and others will be underpaid not every doctor will have same workload.
Everybody wants more money but when budgets are being cut left right and centre and plenty of people are being made unemployed perhaps now is not the best time.
As someone that comes from a different country I must admit I like the NHS and it is probably one of the best things that the UK has, unfortunately in its current form it can not possible survive and this strike will just be one of the first nails in its coffin.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Apr 22, 2016 16:52:22 GMT
Why is privatisation a dirty word? Because the unions and politicians use it to mislead the gullible into believing that they will have to pay for using the NHS. That is a red line and a no no as far as I am concerned, it should be free to everyone, no argument. However, I believe that the NHS could be better managed by being run privately rather than continuing as a state monolith, after all, most nationalised industries cost the tax payer dearly and never turned a profit. And then of course there is the increasing pressure put on the NHS through a rising population caused by, dare I say it, immigration?  I worked in a private hospital for three years whilst studying for my Phd. They are far less efficient than the NHS. So many wasted consultations and investigations simply to generate more profit for the hospital. The reason they make money is simply because they charge more money to the patients, insurers or embassies that are paying than it costs to provide the service. Contrast this with the NHS where they are contractually obliged to provide services that run at a loss including emergency care and can't pick and choose which patients to take on. I am fully aware that there are other countries that run a good health service with a public-private provider system however there appears to be no desire to move in this direction. Rather a trend towards the disastrously unfair, inefficient American system. I agree it is difficult to reconcile a comprehensive health care system, free at the point of use with an open door immigration policy I agree with most of that, however, as a taxpayer I want value for money from all sections of the public sector and fail to see why, if other countries can run a good health service with a public-private provider system, this country cannot do the same. IMO the blame lies fairly and squarely with the unions, who are opposed to change of any description and simply politicise the NHS and use scare tactics about privatisation.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Apr 22, 2016 16:54:36 GMT
A close relative, who holds fairly “liberal” views, used to work for the BMA and considered it to be a dinosaur like the trade union movement as a whole. Before I became self employed, I worked for a firm that was cutting jobs and in order to protect my own interests I joined a union that supposedly represented the interests of professionals and managers. Big mistake, they were happy to accept my membership fees but when the chips were down and I needed their advice they were nowhere to be seen which summed up the view I have held for 40 plus years, unions are useless in looking after the interests of employees. Consequently I cancelled my membership and was allowed to “honourably resign” When trade unions were originally founded, there was a need for them to protect employees but today and indeed for many decades they have done nothing for their members and are nothing more than a self interested Neanderthal branch of the Labour party engaged in guerrilla warfare against the majority of people in the UK. As a young apprentice civil engineer in 1966, I was told by my prospective employer, a county council, that if I didn't join the union within 3 weeks of starting employment, I would be sacked. I obviously joined but resented it. Trade unions in the 60's, 70's and 80's were the root cause of the demise of our heavy industries. They lost sight of their true function and became political animals. That says everything about the unions.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Apr 22, 2016 17:08:16 GMT
The counter to that is that if governments were not idealistically committed to the privatisation or destruction of a particular industry, they wouldn't need to kick back so hard. Why is privatisation a dirty word? Because the unions and politicians use it to mislead the gullible into believing that they will have to pay for using the NHS. That is a red line and a no no as far as I am concerned, it should be free to everyone, no argument. However, I believe that the NHS could be better managed by being run privately rather than continuing as a state monolith, after all, most nationalised industries cost the tax payer dearly and never turned a profit. And then of course there is the increasing pressure put on the NHS through a rising population caused by, dare I say it, immigration? Just to clarify the statement, “it should be free to everyone, no argument” That means free to everyone who has contributed to the system.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Apr 22, 2016 18:53:14 GMT
Why is privatisation a dirty word? Because the unions and politicians use it to mislead the gullible into believing that they will have to pay for using the NHS. That is a red line and a no no as far as I am concerned, it should be free to everyone, no argument. However, I believe that the NHS could be better managed by being run privately rather than continuing as a state monolith, after all, most nationalised industries cost the tax payer dearly and never turned a profit. And then of course there is the increasing pressure put on the NHS through a rising population caused by, dare I say it, immigration? Just to clarify the statement, “it should be free to everyone, no argument” That means free to everyone who has contributed to the system. A lot that use it do not contribute and a lot of people especially abroad see it as a free service to come and try to use that is partly the government fault as promoting it as a free service when it is not as someone has to use it. It is only free at point of service
|
|
|
|
Post by xyon100 on Apr 26, 2016 14:49:51 GMT
Just to clarify the statement, “it should be free to everyone, no argument” That means free to everyone who has contributed to the system. A lot that use it do not contribute and a lot of people especially abroad see it as a free service to come and try to use that is partly the government fault as promoting it as a free service when it is not as someone has to use it. It is only free at point of service I know a guy who moved to the Bahamas in around 1985. The only time he has since been back to the UK was to get a massive heart operation that would have cost, if I remember rightly, more that $100,000 had he stayed and had the operation in the Bahamas. What I do remember was that his after care was appalling. So while the fact it's free at point of care is praised, there is a massive downside to this that is rarely talked about. Like expats popping back for $100,000 operations.
After two health issues here in Belgium, one being a rare nerve disorder that effected both my hands and arms and another which I believe they now call "burn out", I have nothing but praise for the system over here. One thing that some might not consider a big issue but I do, is over here you are not treated as if it is them doing you a favour and acting like you should be grateful even when your treatment is  . My encounter with the NHS always left me with the impression that I should be doffing my cap and never complaining, since it's all free!
And that is what bugs me about a lot of these arguments going on, the absolutely unshakable belief that the NHS is the best health care system in the world and nothing, but nothing must change because hey, it could not be better. It's not the best in the world and it most certainly could be better. It costs me 24 Euro to see the doctor here and even though most of that comes back from the insurance, that little fee is enough to keep many time wasters with nothing better to do away from doctors surgeries.
I see a doctor same day, I spend at LEAST 20 minutes with him if not more, and we get to know each other. That's important. Compare that to my last UK doctors visit. 3 day wait for an appointment and out of the surgery in 5 minutes flat. If I have not seen my GP in Belgium for a while, he always insists on taking all the time on the world to make sure I'm fine, mentally as well as physically and he will usually take blood while he's at it. A TOTAL contrast to the five minutes with the UK doctor I waited several days to see.
I had a visitor to Belgium once, a lady well aware of how the NHS operates as she had several health issues in the past that had her in and out of hospital. The silly moo managed to trip and break her leg. To this day (this was 6 years back) she is still telling people about her wonderful treatment. How she shared a double room rather than a huge ward, how the room felt more like a hotel that a hospital, how wonderful the food was etc etc....
Free is not always best, really it's not. Nothing special about the NHS other than it's free at point of care, which carries a whole load of other issues with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Apr 26, 2016 18:41:46 GMT
I am also Belgian resident and my experience is similar to xyon100's. The doctors are excellent,except if your the second person to arrive in the waiting room and didn't bring a book. However you have to fork out 1400 Euros a year for the pleasure of being alive, even if you have no doctor visit or treatment at all. Belgian taxes are already in the You're kidding! Seriously? realm of ridiculous, and the health charge is on top of that.
As far as this strike is concerned, the BMA does the world's worst job of explaining what is wrong with the new contract. The interviewees I have heard reach immediately for old left accusations of "stealth privatisation" etc which they base on no evidence at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by gaspilot on Apr 26, 2016 19:20:14 GMT
Do you think that 2 married doctors in their thirties should not have a penny left at the end of the month after they have paid their mortgage? I've been in full time professional employment for 12 years and am quite sensible with my money. I've never asked for more money, nor complained that I am not earning enough. The problem is staff being spread thinner in an already over stretched system. My heart bleeds. Yes, it literally could. If there are insufficient staff to get to your potential emergency in time because they are already busy with other patients who are equally deserving. When I was a junior doctor I worked over 120 hours some weeks - working an average of over 80 hours per week. That meant at times I worked from 8am on Friday morning to 6pm on Monday evening catching whatever sleep I could get - usually about three hours per night. That is after working 'normal' hours plus two other nights in the previous week and the following week. It was dangerous. If you don't believe me then I'll happily shadow you for a week doing these hours and ask you simple maths questions at the same time. You will find it difficult to answer these questions, never mind making split second life or death decisions. Why did we work these hours? Obviously because that was what we were rota'd to do, but the real answer is that we were cheap! any pay after 40 hours was a third time - not time and a third- a third!!! So it was cheaper to employ fewer people rather than pay more people. That is the crux of the dispute. Yes, say it's about pay if you like but that is way over-simplifying the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Apr 26, 2016 19:24:52 GMT
FWIW. My minor input to the thread comes from my wife's experience in care, she worked for some years in palliative care, both in a private care home and a charity cancer hospice. She has nothing but praise for the NHS doctors that she had dealings with over the years, and has an awful lot of sympathy with their position now, and it got me thinking, "Is it really about money".... I wonder how many people maybe find themselves in the position i now find myself in, IE. "Is the money worth the hassle". ( i run my own business)
There have been comments on this thread about the amount doctors earn and comments stating that the strike is about pay. But i am not so sure, in a high pressure position, where lives are dependent on your decisions, is any amount of money worth a wrong decision? are any amount of working hours worth the pay? no matter how high the pay.
Pressure of work has a debilitating effect on ones private life, and high pay does not bring relief.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Apr 26, 2016 19:34:55 GMT
The bottom line is that it is about pay. Doctors working 100 hours etc is not safe in any job. But to work 100 hours a week you must volunteer for it they can not force you to unless they declare some state of emergency. If there is not enough staff to cover so that doctors do not need to do a 100 hours a week is a different matter. That is not what they are striking over, they are striking over terms and conditions so it is about pay.
As with every job I have seen some fantastic doctors and some doctors that might as well be replaced by a text book, but on the whole do I think doctors should be paid more probably but I am sure there should be more of them so they do not need to do 100 hours a week
|
|
|
|
Post by gaspilot on Apr 26, 2016 19:38:32 GMT
The bottom line is that it is about pay. Doctors working 100 hours etc is not safe in any job. But to work 100 hours a week you must volunteer for it they can not force you to unless they declare some state of emergency. If there is not enough staff to cover so that doctors do not need to do a 100 hours a week is a different matter. That is not what they are striking over, they are striking over terms and conditions so it is about pay.
Completely 100% wrong!! I would never volunteer for those hours - yet I was forced to for years. Yes it's so unbelievable you can't believe it! But it's true. We do not want to go back to those times!
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Apr 26, 2016 19:45:04 GMT
Going back a couple of posts to mine. My wife has just informed me she worked on average 8 hrs per week with NO pay... I think its called... DEDICATION.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Apr 26, 2016 19:46:35 GMT
maybe once upon a time but surely with the working time directive you have to opt out of the directive to do a 100 hours a week
|
|
. My encounter with the NHS always left me with the impression that I should be doffing my cap and never complaining, since it's all free!
