Junior doctors begin second 24-hour strike

[think about it]

Yes, I can see the problem now, very worrying and erm, nope.. I don't think I would need a routine hearing test on a Sunday at any time !!

 

and of course our esteemed SOSfH tells the public that doctors 'don't understand and are being misled' like they're all too stupid to read and understand the proposals for themselves. Better still he rolls out statistics that have been proven incorrect and yet the newspapers lap them up and convince people that doctors are work shy, greedy hypocrites.

[Guest]

..I don't think I would need a routine hearing test on a Sunday at any time !!

indeed. i dont think that sort of cover is whats in issue re '24/7' cover, more like for eg a critical decision unit consultant not being available over the weekend (until monday). but, thats not to do with junior hospital docs, as a junior doc is on call/there at the weekend.

[BazzaS]

indeed. i dont think that sort of cover is whats in issue re '24/7' cover, more like for eg a critical decision unit consultant not being available over the weekend (until monday). but, thats not to do with junior hospital docs, as a junior doc is on call/there at the weekend.

 

There is always a consultant on call.

The "consultant delivered vs. Consultant led" service discussion is a whole new kettle of fish, though.

 

I've known of consultants who have wished they'd been called earlier but hadn't been called.

This might be due to the juniors "not wishing to disturb the boss" or "not wanting to look weak for calling for help".

 

I'm sure the consultant who says "feel free to cope" and "call me anytime : if you want to ruin your reference" can exist - but I'd hope those days are long gone.

 

So: the issue isn't lazy, greedy junior doctors, nor is it lazy, greedy consultants.

 

If the public want a better out of hours service without decreasing the current "routine" 9-5 cover :

a) the rest of the service needs to be staffed (porters, imaging, support services)

b) where are the extra staff to provide this going to come from without increasing working hours?

c) how is this going to be paid for without increasing funding (or decreasing pay per hour)?

[Conniff]

So that means they ought to simply accept a pay cut?

 

They were interviews a hundred different times on different picket lines on yesterdays news programmes and every single time they said, "this is not about the money".

[unclebulgaria67]

They were interviews a hundred different times on different picket lines on yesterdays news programmes and every single time they said, "this is not about the money".

 

Pointless argument. Both the government and BMA are involved in a game of spin.

 

It is partly about pay, but also about NHS resources. The government want to reduce Doctors hours and spread them across 7 days. It has not been explained how patient safety would not be affected, when there are not enough new Doctors being employed. If Doctors hours are being reduced by about 20 hours a week, which is probably part of the reason for reduced pay, then who is going to work the hours missed. Hospitals already struggle to have enough Doctors hours at times and the worry is that Doctors will still work the same hours as before, but they won't be paid for the 20 hours extra worked.

 

Ask yourself the question as to why health ministers are refusing to answer questions from media about this. They have been asked to explain how the new Doctors contract would work in reality and they refuse to give a full explanation.

[tobyjugg2]

maybe. thing is John Q (excuse the pun ) doesnt know. well this J Q doesnt.

do for eg their terms say for eg

mon - fri 7 am to 6 pm is the std.

time to time will be required to work outside that ie weekends @ xx remuneration

req'd to work shifts outside inc weekends @ xx remun

req'd to cover illnesses

time to time rq'd to be on call @ x remun

on call re emergencies

etc,

and the govt is trying to change what? from it being mon -fri to mon - mon. or reducing the remun, or the shift pattern, or...

ps excuse the typos, managed to edit within the requisite ten mins

 

I can understand the confusion as different 'interested parties' describe different parts with different slants.

 

In simplest terms, whos' summary do you believe, Camerons' Hunt or the British Medical Association?

(Ignore the fact that its hard to believe anything that comes out of Hunts mouth)

 

In slightly more detail. who do you believe wants to end the NHS (if either) and who do you believe wants the NHS to continue?

 

 

Take the more 'deaths at weekends' statisttic?

 

Do you believe this is because there are mostly urgent issues (accidents and life threatening urgent issues) at weekends, and mostly routine operations during the week,

 

or do you believe its simply that there are simply not enough junior doctors and all the other staff like x-ray, blood analysis etc are irrelevant?

and if so where will the money come from to pay to increase 'normal' working hours from about 12 hours a day 5 days a week, to 24 hours a day 7 days a week (well over double the cost).

[Conniff]

Pointless argument. Both the government and BMA are involved in a game of spin.

 

Not pointless at all, this wasn't the BMA or the government, this was the doctors themselves.

[BazzaS]

They were interviews a hundred different times on different picket lines on yesterdays news programmes and every single time they said, "this is not about the money".

 

Yet, your initial position was:

 

Seems it's not a vocation any longer but a job for lets see how much money we can squeeze out of the NHS and sod the sick.

 

Have you changed your view?

Been persuaded by their replies?

Or, are they all victims of the BMA's 'spin' (which is what the Givernment's 'spin machine' wants ......)

 

I'm unclear as to:

a) what you actually believe, and

b) if you are playing Devil's advocate ........

[think about it]

They were interviews a hundred different times on different picket lines on yesterdays news programmes and every single time they said, "this is not about the money".

 

 

No danger of you actually answering the question then?

[Conniff]

No, they have an 11% payrise, more than you I bet.

 

They are whinging about the amount of hours they have to work, the government has said we will cut them and give you a payrise, so now they are moaning there hours are being cut and they will lose money.

 

It's all political crap by a lefty union.

[unclebulgaria67]

No, they have an 11% payrise, more than you I bet.

 

They are whinging about the amount of hours they have to work, the government has said we will cut them and give you a payrise, so now they are moaning there hours are being cut and they will lose money.

 

It's all political crap by a lefty union.

 

Should be about the facts of the case !

[Conniff]

The doctors nor the BMA will detail what the so called sticky point is they are not agreeing on.

[think about it]

No, they have an 11% payrise, more than you I bet.

 

They are whinging about the amount of hours they have to work, the government has said we will cut them and give you a payrise, so now they are moaning there hours are being cut and they will lose money.

 

It's all political crap by a lefty union.

 

So you don't understand it then. Figures - have you read how the pay works?

 

You've still not answered the question either.

[Conniff]

Yet, your initial position was:

 

 

Have you changed your view?

Been persuaded by their replies?

Or, are they all victims of the BMA's 'spin' (which is what the Givernment's 'spin machine' wants ......)

 

I'm unclear as to:

a) what you actually believe, and

b) if you are playing Devil's advocate ........

 

That's for me to know and you to put your own view.

[unclebulgaria67]

So you don't understand it then. Figures - have you read how the pay works?

 

You've still not answered the question either.

 

I think you will find this is a fruitless exercise !

 

I have read most of the info available on this dispute and back the Doctors. Think the government are trying to stitch them up saying they will work less hours, changing pay arrangements and hoping Doctors will work the extra hours they usually do for less money than they were earning previously.

[BazzaS]

The doctors nor the BMA will detail what the so called sticky point is they are not agreeing on.

 

Have you heard of Chatham House rules?

Might that be why?

[BazzaS]

No, they have an 11% payrise, more than you I bet.

 

They are whinging about the amount of hours they have to work, the government has said we will cut them and give you a payrise, so now they are moaning there hours are being cut and they will lose money.

 

It's all political crap by a lefty union.

 

Yup, the BMA is a lefty Union.

It has organised strikes with regularity, and frequency.

 

Hang on, the last doctors strike was 1975, so every 41 years isn't exactly frequent.

 

Then again, 41 years prior to 1975 is 1934 : prior to the creation of the NHS. So, it can't be described as regular, either.

 

The BMA is one of the more conservative (non-capital 'c') unions,

 

I know you like to "stir the pot", helped along with comments such as

That's for me to know and you to put your own view.

 

Sadly, though, "BMA is a lefty Union" is one of your poorer quality efforts.

[Conniff]

All unions are lefty, Corbyn puppets.

[BazzaS]

All unions are lefty, Corbyn puppets.

 

Sweeping generalisation, bordering on trolling.

Unhelpful towards a meaningful discussion of the doctors pay dispute.

[AndyOrch]

Yet again another pointless thread has run its course.....back to the discussion of why they are striking...the mechanics of the deal..otherwise it will close.

 

Those that do not understand what its actually about... would be better refraining from posting to the thread.

[tobyjugg2]

It's all political crap by a lefty union.

 

More like they want the doctors to work longer hours for less money.

The calculations show that the only doctors who would benefit are any that only work 'normal' hours - I dont think there are any of those.

 

.. and if all doctors did stop working all the extra hours, then the NHS would collapse quite quickly,

but far less quickly than 'out of normal hours' service would.

 

Which seems to me to actually be political crap from crap politicians.

Its the politicians and their spin doctors that need a pay cut here, not real doctors,

[labrat]

can we as employers of the mps impose a new contract on them?

[determindator]

People can make themselves heard in the next general election contract

[tobyjugg2]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/11/jeremy-hunt-junior-doctor-contract-_n_9212198.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

 

 

Last year, Tory MP and chairwoman of the Commons Health Select Committee Sarah Wollaston revealed that her own daughter and eight of her friends had quit the NHS in England for Australia.

 

and that was before this.

[BazzaS]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/11/jeremy-hunt-junior-doctor-contract-_n_9212198.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

 

 

Last year, Tory MP and chairwoman of the Commons Health Select Committee Sarah Wollaston revealed that her own daughter and eight of her friends had quit the NHS in England for Australia.

 

and that was before this.

 

There has always been a flow of junior doctors going to Australia and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent Canada.

 

This significantly increased when the juniors had uncertainty as to being able to get a UK training post, when the Modernising Medical Careers (aka Massacring Medical Careers) debacle was brought in : a great idea, poorly implemented (does that sound familiar?).

 

However, some of those who go abroad stay abroad, but previously many returned. If unfavourable contracts are imposed ; expect more to stay abroad as a return becomes less attractive.

 

I fear for the short term effects (not just more strikes but the uncertainty making a move abroad more attractive while this sorts itself out), and more juniors staying abroad.

 

I fear the longer term effects (juniors not returning to England at all), and the harm to the NHS in England.

 

At present this isn't an NHS wide issue. It is confined to NHS England.

It seems that (for now!) NHS Wales, NHS Scotland and HSC (Northern Ireland) have decided confrontation isn't the best tactic.