Save the NHS!

[Minstadave]

In what way am I against what the BMA have published?

You seem to think that separating the employment of doctors from the treatment of patients is possible - which is nonsense. If that is the case why not demand we all work as volunteers, save loads of money for the patients? Why don't we pay to work - it's a vocation right?

This is where your total lack of common sense is taking us. However you can't be an employer and just decide you don't give a hoot about your staff. The government tried this before with nurses and surprisingly they ended up with no nurses.

 

[Minstadave]

They are free to leave, of course they are. However, most won't because the nhs is a monopoly employer.

Striking is what people do when they can't leave and get something better and all they have left is blackmail, bullying and intimidation.

So we can't leave, we provide a vital service that no one else can, we can have a contract imposed on us, but we can't strike because we're meanies.

What utter tripe Dolph, even for you.

 

[Dolph]

In what way am I against what the BMA have published?

You seem to think that separating the employment of doctors from the treatment of patients is possible - which is nonsense. If that is the case why not demand we all work as volunteers, save loads of money for the patients? Why don't we pay to work - it's a vocation right?

This is where your total lack of common sense is taking us. However you can't be an employer and just decide you don't give a hoot about your staff. The government tried this before with nurses and surprisingly they ended up with no nurses.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/logical-fallacies-reductio-ad-absurdum/

Try again.

 

[Dolph]

So we can't leave, we provide a vital service that no one else can, we can have a contract imposed on us, but we can't strike because we're meanies.

What utter tripe Dolph, even for you.

I've never said or implied you can't leave. What I have implied is that you are unlikely to get a better deal elsewhere, certainly en masse, that is true whether it is the old or new deal.

What disgusts me more than anything is the dishonesty of pretending this is somehow about the patients. It isn't.

 

[Minstadave]

Argumentum ad absurdum.

https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/logical-fallacies-reductio-ad-absurdum/

Try again.

So how is a conclusion reached on reasonable pay and conditions for doctors or any healthcare worker? You suggest we should accept an imposed contract for the good of patients with no option of negotiating or taking industrial action. I'd say your position was just as absurd.

I've never said or implied you can't leave. What I have implied is that you are unlikely to get a better deal elsewhere, certainly en masse, that is true whether it is the old or new deal.

What disgusts me more than anything is the dishonesty of pretending this is somehow about the patients. It isn't.

You are repeatedly ignoring the point that you can't treat patients without doctors. You can't recruit doctors or retain doctors without paying them a sensible wage and providing acceptable working conditions. Who in their right mind will be looking at a career in medicine currently?

I'll keep this very simple for you. A dispute simply about doctors pay and working conditions affects patient safety whether you bury your head in the sand or not - look at the empty rotas, trusts breaking locum caps and downscaling their services already.

Throughout this thread I have not used patient safety as an argument, even without addressing that issue there are plenty of grounds to reject this contract.

 

[Cyanide]

You can't treat patients without doctors

My point re. full strikes still stands...

Whilst I agree that the new contract may not be entirely fair and that doctors may be losing out on pay to some degree I still can't see this as anything other than a pay dispute. The BMA is starting to fall in to the same category as the RMT in my opinion. As much as Jeremy Hunt is a thing which rhymes with his name I can't help but feel that the BMA isn't much better and neither side's really got patients best interests at heart - it's all just about the money.

 

[Minstadave]

The BMA's role as an organisation isn't to safeguard patient safety at all. They are to represent doctors interests, no one has ever said otherwise.

The BMA however is made up of doctors and we do have a duty to patients. Those of us out picketing have a duty to patients. The problem is that Dolph, as with many other Daily Mail readers, think that this duty prevents us from taking industrial action. On the other hand, to many of us the contract being imposed is detrimental to doctors, patients and the NHS - so we strike, not very well and with plenty of notice so it is as safe as possible. This has been met by an air of indifference by the government in the hope they can just wait it out, hence the escalation is essentially forced.

The fact that 98% of junior doctors voted for industrial action, many of which won't be affected by the new contract (myself included) and everyone one of them has a duty of care to their patients tells you pretty much all you need to know.

 

[alx]

In a rather oversimplified comment, I always quite liked Richard Branson's quote "If you look after your staff, they'll look after your customers. It's that simple."

Happy staff are productive staff, bullying them into doing something they don't really want to do rarely works out long term. Yes doctors are there for the benefit of the patients, but they are human beings and shouldn't be trampled over just because it's convinient.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Agreed. There will be less doctors in the NHS and more money spent paying agencies for the same doctors that use to treat for the NHS. Overall the NHS will pay more for less staff, while patients suffer the consequences. I dont blame doctors at all and feel most people in this country have a self entitled attitude when it comes to the subject of employment in the NHS, where they feel that doctors primary reason for working is to help people rather than earn a living.

 

[Freakbro]

Agreed. There will be less doctors in the NHS and more money spent paying agencies for the same doctors that use to treat for the NHS.

So you are saying the same Doctors will leave the NHS employment then go back to do the same job under Agency/locum rates? And it's not about money?

Overall the NHS will pay more for less staff, while patients suffer the consequences. I dont blame doctors at all and feel most people in this country have a self entitled attitude when it comes to the subject of employment in the NHS, where they feel that doctors primary reason for working is to help people rather than earn a living.

I don't think its just the public with the self entitled attitutde around here...and stop with the hyperbole about 'poor us just trying to earn a living'

While the average rate for a general medical locum remained static at around £59.20 an hour, the highest amount paid within the speciality was £133 per hour.

Even though I appreciate it must be hard scraping by on £60 / hour

 

[Freakbro]

Consultants will be covering for them, hence there will be emergency care.

So all the Junior doctors, who make up the bulk of the front facing staff, and can't cope with the level of demand as it is now, will be off on strike and the cover being provided from the odd consultant

I think we can 'safely' say there won't be much effective emergency care *shrug*

**** happens and people will probably die from it, but then again, a strike isn't very effective if you don't have any leverage is it

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Snip

I never said it was not about the money.

Here are the current rates of pay for working in the NHS as a doctor.

https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/about/careers-medicine/pay-doctors

Although rates sound extravagant, you must remember how much was spent in getting to that point already and how old the trainee doctors are, that they are likely at a point in their life where they are trying to get their own place and such. All well and food if you are a consultant or a specialist but junior doctors are being put off and we are already struggling with the already low number of staff.

They are free to protest all they want and not one of us here know whether they deserve to get more or not but taking on an attitude that they should not have the right to protest because they deal with patients is unreasonable. It is because their job is important and that they are in demand that they can protest.

 

[Dolph]

So how is a conclusion reached on reasonable pay and conditions for doctors or any healthcare worker? You suggest we should accept an imposed contract for the good of patients with no option of negotiating or taking industrial action. I'd say your position was just as absurd.

The bma has been 'negotiating' for four years now, there has been plenty of negotiation.

Reasonable pay is determined pay the market, working conditions by a combination of customer and business needs and market drivers.

Ultimately the needs of the patient have to be more important than the reluctance to change of the doctors.

You are repeatedly ignoring the point that you can't treat patients without doctors. You can't recruit doctors or retain doctors without paying them a sensible wage and providing acceptable working conditions. Who in their right mind will be looking at a career in medicine currently?

I'll keep this very simple for you. A dispute simply about doctors pay and working conditions affects patient safety whether you bury your head in the sand or not - look at the empty rotas, trusts breaking locum caps and downscaling their services already.

Throughout this thread I have not used patient safety as an argument, even without addressing that issue there are plenty of grounds to reject this contract.

Special pleading, any employee could argue theye should be capitulated to due to customer impact. Nothing the BMA is demanding fixes any of the problems you describe. Rota issues and inconsistent service provision are in part down to an archaic contract paying for Spanish practices that make it hard to schedule staff according to demand due to financial impact, that is what the recommendations that led to the new contract proposals are designed to change.

You may be not directly be using specious patient safety arguments to hide your greed, but the union acting on your behalf is.

 

[Dolph]

The BMA's role as an organisation isn't to safeguard patient safety at all. They are to represent doctors interests, no one has ever said otherwise.

The BMA however is made up of doctors and we do have a duty to patients. Those of us out picketing have a duty to patients. The problem is that Dolph, as with many other Daily Mail readers, think that this duty prevents us from taking industrial action. On the other hand, to many of us the contract being imposed is detrimental to doctors, patients and the NHS - so we strike, not very well and with plenty of notice so it is as safe as possible. This has been met by an air of indifference by the government in the hope they can just wait it out, hence the escalation is essentially forced.

The fact that 98% of junior doctors voted for industrial action, many of which won't be affected by the new contract (myself included) and everyone one of them has a duty of care to their patients tells you pretty much all you need to know.

I don't think the duty should prevent you from taking industrial action. Just that the reasons for the action should be honest.

This is a dispute purely about pay and considering the desires of doctors more important than the needs of patients. To pretend it is about patient safety, as the bma are trying to do, is just a perverse attempt to garner sympathy by faking altruistic reasons.

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

Which hospital do people go to where its about the patient. Hospitals are about money. The standard of care is dictated by how little can be spent to see a patient out the door. If I had a ton of money its a good bet I wouldn't have spent 23 years with a painful shoulder.

The fact that they are looking to save money on employees seems par for the course for the NHS. Its a great system in theory broken by miss-management and constant political point scoring.

 

[RaohNS]

You may be not directly be using specious patient safety arguments to hide your greed, but the union acting on your behalf is.

And this is where you have lost your argument.

Your allegorical statement and position is that Junior Doctors are here to get as much for themselves as they can. You and your belief is perfectly acceptable for a race to the bottom. We know already Dolph as its more than conspicuous that you are through and through a Tory ideologist and the thought of a public NHS where brilliant and talented people (much like yourself from what I remember) are not worthy of fair and reasonable pay in light of the immeasurably important service and skill they bring.

I support any persons right to strike (obvious exceptions like Army) and Minstadave, hat off to you again my friend. Most of the public are behind you even if the politicians continue their underhand tactics to demonize you as per the letter. The smarter public understand it.

 

[Dolph]

And this is where you have lost your argument.

Your allegorical statement and position is that Junior Doctors are here to get as much for themselves as they can. You and your belief is perfectly acceptable for a race to the bottom. We know already Dolph as its more than conspicuous that you are through and through a Tory ideologist and the thought of a public NHS where brilliant and talented people (much like yourself from what I remember) are not worthy of fair and reasonable pay in light of the immeasurably important service and skill they bring.

I support any persons right to strike (obvious exceptions like Army) and Minstadave, hat off to you again my friend. Most of the public are behind you even if the politicians continue their underhand tactics to demonize you as per the letter. The smarter public understand it.

Striking isn't what you do when you can take your skills elsewhere for better reward, it is a way of blackmailing an employer in the absence of the ability to take your skills elsewhere for better reward. In other words, it's what you do when the market disagrees with your personal evaluation of your worth.

This isn't even about pay. It is about premium pay, which is a different issue entirely when it comes to planning your workforce allocation, budget and rotas.

 

[RaohNS]

Striking isn't what you do when you can take your skills elsewhere for better reward, it is a way of blackmailing an employer in the absence of the ability to take your skills elsewhere for better reward. In other words, it's what you do when the market disagrees with your personal evaluation of your worth.

This isn't even about pay. It is about premium pay, which is a different issue entirely when it comes to planning your workforce allocation, budget and rotas.

Its not as easy to go elsewhere though. And also imagine if all of the thousands upon thousands of JDs did that. It isn't blackmail and you know it or are deliberately obfuscating the situation as though it is. These people are saying if you change work conditions, patients and the sector will be put at risk.

I would guess you disagreed with firefighters and local youthworkers/college staff who had to work for longer with less pay while paying more into a pension and getting a third less out of it.

One thing that once got me and this is the type of person whom you fit: A lawyer came on commenting about Tube strikers saying they are very unprofessional yada yada yada and that as a lawyer her profession and by extension her "click" were sensible about things and would not strike because they wouldn't act spoilt. Not long afterwards lawyers and barristers themselves did the very unprofessional thing of striking at changes to legal aid where they would lose out on thousands.... I laughed but still supported that corrupt and cretinous sector to strike as I understood changes can affect mot just their pay but peoples lives. You see my allegory

 

[Avenged7Fold]

It is not the market that has decided the worth of the doctors as there are many 'customers' of the NHS that fully support what the doctors are striking for. It is not about what is profitable and what is not, the NHS has been caught in the crossfire of politicians for years. You may feel that the striking is just about doctors pay premium but many non doctors are protesting changes to the NHS as well.

You disagree with the protest because you abhor the reasons the union give and you apply basic standard business ethics to the NHS as if it was any old high-street retailer. These changes will have an impact on everyone if it reduced the incentive to train as a doctor or to stay in public healthcare. The average tax payer will feel the weight of their own pockets decrease as the many professionals threatening to leave to join private healthcare need to be replaced by much more expensive agency workers. As the average person and employee gets more disgruntled by the nhs, more people will start to call for change and that could even lead to privatisation.

You call it blackmail but what they are doing is well within their right and is totally legal. Many of them dont want to see a decline in public healthcare regardless of whether they can quit and get a job in private sector or not.

Other thread discussing supermarket employee contracts having Sunday premiums removed and a change in night premiums had some people in uproar.

 

[xaldub]

And this is where you have lost your argument.

Your allegorical statement and position is that Junior Doctors are here to get as much for themselves as they can. You and your belief is perfectly acceptable for a race to the bottom. We know already Dolph as its more than conspicuous that you are through and through a Tory ideologist and the thought of a public NHS where brilliant and talented people (much like yourself from what I remember) are not worthy of fair and reasonable pay in light of the immeasurably important service and skill they bring.

I support any persons right to strike (obvious exceptions like Army) and Minstadave, hat off to you again my friend. Most of the public are behind you even if the politicians continue their underhand tactics to demonize you as per the letter. The smarter public understand it.

You've summarised very accurately my own thoughts on Dolph. He really does come across as a very bitter individual with a massive chip on his shoulder. I don't understand this "race to the bottom" mentality that he demonstrates either ...