Save the NHS!

You clearly don't understand the current situation then as my wife is a practice nurse.

The NHS pays the surgery for each procedure they carry out, some things pay more than others so this is where the emphasis is. The doctors are shareholders in LocalSurgery.Ltd and get paid dividends like any other private company director in order to keep their tax liability down. They get to pay into the national NHS pension plan but otherwise it is run like a private business providing services to the NHS.

Just because your local GP surgery is called Ye Olde Surgery, doesn't mean it can't be run by Virgin http://www.virgincare.co.uk/service-hub/gps-practice/ or Tesco
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/tesco-begins-work-on-new-gp-910357.

So what's utter nonsense is your understanding of how the NHS actually works as more patents see their 'privatised' GP than their government employed hospital junior doctor.

This isn't how primary care is funded in the slightest. If it was it would be an awful lot nicer to work in. The doctors are not share holders they are a partnership structure. They aren't allowed a ltd liability structure at all as you aren't allowed to hold a GMS or PMS practice as a ltd company. There is a different structure for private companies providing GP services which are normally significantly financially favourable but 5-10 years at a time. As a more normal contract holder you can't switch to this without the whole contract going out to tender. If you lose the expensive tendering process you are out of a job, but also as mentioned you can't structure as ltd company so you are liable for all redundancies. Essentially nobody can switch as the risk is too high.

We aren't paid on an item of service contract either. We are paid on a ridiculous provide everything for 73.50 per patient per year all you can eat buffet arrangement with some further complex arrangements providing extra care for certain conditions. For this reason as the workload goes up with more elderly complex patients GPs continually either take large pay cuts by having to employ more staff on the same income, or their waiting times increase as they struggle to do the work with the same staff. Most try find a happy medium with not letting their income drop too much but try and maintain the service as best they can.

The system is very much broken and absolutely cannot be considered like any other private business. Each practice for instance has no negotiating powers on their contract and has a contract imposed each year after some form of negotiation by something called the GPC. Every year the goal posts are moved which leads to countless hours of extra managerial load
 
I love my job deeply. I've been a doctor 8 years and a paediatrician for 6. 2 years to go until I'm a consultant. I will stay and fight for as long as necessary but my job involves a huge amount of risk (both to myself and my patients) and a lot of time away from my family - if the government wants to take the **** I will leave rather than roll over.

I also love the NHS and everything it stands for, you have a preterm baby that needs 3 months of ITU care and another 3 months in hospital costing hundreds of thousands of pounds and the care is there, 24 hours a day, not a penny charged to you. Seeing it piecemeal taken apart and my profession relegated to undervalued shift workers hurts.

You are preaching to the converted with me.

I spent a morning with some junior doctors and a consultant, they were not talking about money.
 
So it maybe the case that the contract can't be imposed as some hospitals can choose not to adopt it.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/12/hospitals-jeremy-hunt-junior-doctors-contract

The Guardian has established that none of the 152 foundation trust hospitals in England will be obliged to force their junior doctors to accept the deal and can instead offer them better terms.

The disclosure of an opt-out for top hospitals threatens to derail the health secretary’s controversial push to impose new terms and conditions on all 45,000 junior doctors that has sparked their bitter and long-running dispute.
 
So it maybe the case that the contract can't be imposed as some hospitals can choose not to adopt it.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/12/hospitals-jeremy-hunt-junior-doctors-contract

Some hospitals having an opt out (that isn't new, foundation hospitals have always had the freedom to create their own contract terms as an alternative to the national ones) doesn't stop the process. Just means that the foundation hospitals could choose to keep their staff on current terms.

Whether they will or not is, however, not covered at all in the article, only that they could, and some people would like them to. The problem is, if they choose not to do it, then any attempt to change terms at that hospital would have to be negotiated direct with the bma, which is the reason none of them have used the freedom in the past...
 
The worry is that it is potentially all three of the above. Safeguards to protect against excessive hours are being undermined. Trusts will not be as heavily penalised for overworking doctors and therefore more likely to exploit their staff. As pay on Saturday for the majority will no longer attract the banding payment for unsocialable hours it'll be more likely that we'll be doing more weekends with an overall paycut.

Initially it'll be the same pay for established doctors because of pay protection (I thought this wasn't a pay cut mr hunt? Why does pay protection exist then?). Less for newly qualified doctors but weekend working may go up - but the governments own contract actually discourages weekend working which is the opposite of what they told us they were doing this for.

Then pay protection runs out and some will be around the same, some a little better off and many will lose pay (especially if you do your on calls from home).

In the mean time the government will push all other healthcare staff to work Saturday's for plain time, which has been the real goal of this entire process.

The relatively robust system to punish trusts for overworking doctors will be removed. Which is shameful.

There has also been an attack on doing extra work:

- external Locum agency pay has been severely capped
- internal Locum pay will be limited even lower
- you will be contractually obliged to offer your free time to your trust before working for any other hospital (this was often used to get experience at bigger hospitals)

The sad bit about the attack on locums was that they were used as a sticking plaster for rota gaps and low recruitment levels. Rather than fixing recruitment the government is trying to force its existing staff into an aggressively controlled and price fixed labour market.

Could you kindly explain how the trusts will be less heavily penalised? I'm referring to the bits I've highlighted in bold. Is this something other than doctors working certain hours being paid less? Because that's not the same as forcing doctors to work MORE hours..... Or is it? I don't know, enlighten me.

As I think I previously mentioned in the thread (I think?) I'm 100% for doctors being against cuts to their pay, just this whole "we will have to work more hours which makes them dangerous hours" is feeling a bit bogus.
 
Currently we are monitored regularly on our working hours (actual not rota'd) and there are heavy fines for trusts that breach it. Also if you're found to be working beyond your contracted hours the trust must reband you and back pay you.

The new "guardian system" is ill defined, doctors are not back paid if breaching contracted hours and the fines are diverted to an "education fund". This system seems largely toothless.

In terms of hours - doctors can't be rota'd on average more than 48hrs a week provided they don't opt out of the EWTD. The new contract doesn't change this. The main concerns are:

- more of those hours will be antisocial
- the system of protecting trusts from breaching the average 48hrs is weakened and largely toothless
- pressure to opt out of the EWTD will be increased

There is also this amazing clause I mentioned above that if you choose to opt out of the EWTD then you are obliged to offer your services to your trust before you work as a locum for an agency.
 
Last edited:
Currently we are monitored regularly on our working hours (actual not rota'd) and there are heavy fines for trusts that breach it. Also if you're found to be working beyond your contracted hours the trust must reband you and back pay you.

The new "guardian system" is ill defined, doctors are not back paid if breaching contracted hours and the fines are diverted to an "education fund". This system seems largely toothless.

In terms of hours - doctors can't be rota'd on average more than 48hrs a week provided they don't opt out of the EWTD. The new contract doesn't change this. The main concerns are:

- more of those hours will be antisocial
- the system of protecting trusts from breaching the average 48hrs is weakened and largely toothless
- pressure to opt out of the EWTD will be increased

There is also this amazing clause I mentioned above that if you choose to opt out of the EWTD then you are obliged to offer your services to your trust before you work as a locum for an agency.

I'm still not confident I understand what the change is that will force the doctors to work more antisocial hours. The current system - is there a limit on the amount of antisocial hours that are imposed?
 
If we're so vital and us walking out is going to kill people maybe perhaps treating us a little better is a good idea.

What do you mean by this? Treat us well or we will let people die? That attitude will do nothing for your case.

Doctors are a constrained resource but operate in a market which is not free. Unfortunately this leads to just one solution to the perceived problem which is the direction the government are taking.

Strikes build public resentment and are not usually efficient at delivering their objective.
 
Currently we are monitored regularly on our working hours (actual not rota'd) and there are heavy fines for trusts that breach it. Also if you're found to be working beyond your contracted hours the trust must reband you and back pay you.

The new "guardian system" is ill defined, doctors are not back paid if breaching contracted hours and the fines are diverted to an "education fund". This system seems largely toothless.

In terms of hours - doctors can't be rota'd on average more than 48hrs a week provided they don't opt out of the EWTD. The new contract doesn't change this. The main concerns are:

- more of those hours will be antisocial
- the system of protecting trusts from breaching the average 48hrs is weakened and largely toothless
- pressure to opt out of the EWTD will be increased

There is also this amazing clause I mentioned above that if you choose to opt out of the EWTD then you are obliged to offer your services to your trust before you work as a locum for an agency.

It's probably worth referring direct to the bma website for their demand for this, just so it is crystal clear where their priorities lie.

http://www.bma.org.uk/working-for-c...ome/ddrb-recommendations-analysis-for-juniors

What the DDRB recommended:

"Recommendation 4: Work reviews should be evidence-based, accountable and timely".

"Recommendation 5: We should be provided in the future with annual data on the outcome of employee-triggered work reviews on a UK-wide basis"

"Recommendation 17: The wording on contractual safeguards in Schedule 3 of the draft contract should be strengthened to a mandatory requirement to comply with the requirements of Working Time Regulations or any successor legislation"
What this means:

The end of banding safeguards, without an alternative to prevent unsafe hours or ensure you are paid when shifts overrun.
The banding system provides an effective penalty for employers against fatiguing and unsafe working patterns by giving them a financial interest in planning rotas and staffing wards properly. The Working Time Regulations provide broadly weaker protections than existing banding thresholds, with shorter and less frequent rest, and without an enforcement mechanism that has an immediate impact for juniors. They exist in addition to, not instead of, your contractual entitlements.

The BMA was willing to negotiate on a system of pay based on hours, rather than according to pay bands - but only so long as it provided sufficient protections and still meant pay for hours actually worked, not just pay for scheduled hours.

The work review process proposed by the DDRB provides no payment for overtime, no financial incentive for employers to prevent your duties from overrunning, and no reassurance that it can work robustly to protect juniors from unsafe working conditions. The DDRB's alternative to banding safeguards is to more clearly oblige employers to follow the law on the Working Time Regulations, which provide weaker protections than banding currently does. This is important, but not a sufficient protection on its own.

Notice the complaint and solution is more money for doctors.
 
Also, let's be honest, are there any junior doctors that haven't opted out of the time directive anyway?

Edit - as in, is this actually a bona fide point of contention?
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by this? Treat us well or we will let people die? That attitude will do nothing for your case.

The argument against Doctors striking is people will die if we don't turn up to work. If that's the case then perhaps the government should treat them with a little respect rather than trying to back them into a corner with cut after cut in the hope they won't strike?

Healthcare strikes but precedence suggests they're effective.
 
Last edited:
I'm still not confident I understand what the change is that will force the doctors to work more antisocial hours. The current system - is there a limit on the amount of antisocial hours that are imposed?

Currently the bigger proportion of antisocial hours you work the higher your banding.

The new system removes most of the banding system for a higher basic pay, so there is less penalty for working a higher proportion of antisocial hours. The hours that are considered antisocial are reduced too.
 
Currently the bigger proportion of antisocial hours you work the higher your banding.

The new system removes most of the banding system for a higher basic pay, so there is less penalty for working a higher proportion of antisocial hours. The hours that are considered antisocial are reduced too.

OK thanks.

I suppose I'm just drilling on the point because people are willing to work longer hours if they are remunerated for them.... I don't think the hours are becoming "less safe" because people are being paid less money from them. Not that you have been championing that idea, but for that reason I find the common placards regarding 'unsafe hours' are disingenuous.
 
There is a risk of extra hours with the reduced safe guards and leaving the EU if it happens would also be a major concern. However it's not the key issue here.
 
It's probably worth referring direct to the bma website for their demand for this, just so it is crystal clear where their priorities lie.

http://www.bma.org.uk/working-for-c...ome/ddrb-recommendations-analysis-for-juniors



Notice the complaint and solution is more money for doctors.

You are being disingenuous there, negotiating pay does not necessarily mean you want more money.

Everyone knows you have an axe to grind with the NHS,

Simple question does this new contract improve things for patients?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom