Junior doctors strike was all about money.....

[drew]

I had always backed the doctors claims for better pay but when Blair gave them a huge increase and provided them with a five day week I was not happy top find out of hours patients were dealing with doctors who were not good at understanding english but whose qualifications were doutbful, there are many who have to work outside the five day week but are not compensated with a £100,000 salary.

What 5 day week are you talking about? Presumbaly GPs. From my own experience of contacting out of hours service, I have never had trouble speaking with the relevant doctor on call. That said, the NHS for many years has attracted doctors from overseas and quite a few from outside the EU.

 

[drew]

Sorry chap but....

Tough life having to give up some weekends and evenings for what £35-50k a year after training, with the expectation of much more to come, like £104k minimum for being a GP with no weekends or evenings, or very good public sector money as a consultant for 3 days a week and private fees on top. I do not critcise their right to strike, but they hoodwinked the public that it was on their behalf, saving the NHS and all that bullsxxt. Bunch of wxxkers, as I have said since the start of their dispute.

You talk a load of vitriolic drivel. My guess is that for some reason you have an almighty chip on your shoulder!!

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

What 5 day week are you talking about? Presumbaly GPs. From my own experience of contacting out of hours service, I have never had trouble speaking with the relevant doctor on call. That said, the NHS for many years has attracted doctors from overseas and quite a few from outside the EU.

I'd go further, the NHS has always been somewhere between "heavily reliant" and "propped up by" foreign doctors.

 

[drew]

The new agreement involves no extra money, so why are they wankers?

I think there are few on this thread that can't grasp the concept of cost neutral!

 

[Quinney]

What 5 day week are you talking about? Presumbaly GPs. From my own experience of contacting out of hours service, I have never had trouble speaking with the relevant doctor on call. That said, the NHS for many years has attracted doctors from overseas and quite a few from outside the EU.

It's all very well speaking to an out of hours GP on the phone. The trouble is he or she is covering a vast area and huge number of people. They rarely leave to do home visits as in the time that takes they could have spoken to numerous patients over the phone. People ring out of hours GP as normally want a home visit, when this isn't forth coming they make their way to A&E (or by ambulance) and clog up the hospitals.

 

[wellquickwoody]

The new agreement involves no extra money, so why are they wankers?

Because they wanted us to believe they were doing it for us, the NHS, the country, the future of mankind. Heaven forbid anyone accuse them of doing it for themselves.

 

[El Presidente]

Because they wanted us to believe they were doing it for us, the NHS, the country, the future of mankind. Heaven forbid anyone accuse them of doing it for themselves.

Given that there is no money on the table, why do you think the dispute has been resolved?

Do you think that JD's working 24 hour shifts is in the best interests of patients and the NHS?

 

[wellquickwoody]

You talk a load of vitriolic drivel. My guess is that for some reason you have an almighty chip on your shoulder!!

Drivel? So what was innaccurate in what I posted?

 

[wellquickwoody]

Given that there is no money on the table, why do you think the dispute has been resolved?

Do you think that JD's working 24 hour shifts is in the best interests of patients and the NHS?

Resolved? Because of realisation that the public were starting to turn.

24 hour shifts? Not good, but will be very few and far between. In the longer term it will be the start of bringing the cossetted public sector into the more flexible working practices of the private sector.

 

[El Presidente]

Resolved? Because of realisation that the public were starting to turn.

24 hour shifts? Not good, but will be very few and far between. In the longer term it will be the start of bringing the cossetted public sector into the more flexible working practices of the private sector.

JD's already work weekends and have a maximum number of 72 hours a week.

The more flexible practices you are proposing are surely just a race to the bottom.

As for the sneering about public sector workers such as doctors, it's an insult to them. They don't knock off a shift in the middle of an operation because their hours are up, they save lives, they have to tell parents that their kids have just died, if they make an error they have to live with horrific consequences.

But according to you they're wankers. Harsh, very harsh.

 

[wellquickwoody]

JD's already work weekends and have a maximum number of 72 hours a week.

The more flexible practices you are proposing are surely just a race to the bottom.

As for the sneering about public sector workers such as doctors, it's an insult to them. They don't knock off a shift in the middle of an operation because their hours are up, they save lives, they have to tell parents that their kids have just died, if they make an error they have to live with horrific consequences.

But according to you they're wankers. Harsh, very harsh.

So, no increase in total hours worked.

I have never said they have an easy job, just a well paid tough job that they have chosen to take on.

Insulted them? No more than they have insulted me by claiming to strike on my behalf. Not harsh, just not afriad of being honest.

 

[El Presidente]

So, no increase in total hours worked.

There was never a proposal to increase hours beyond the existing 71 a week, so the dispute had nothing to do with that. I'm not sure what point you're making here.

Insulted them?

You called them wankers, it's not a compliment is it?

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

JD's already work weekends and have a maximum number of 72 hours a week.

The more flexible practices you are proposing are surely just a race to the bottom.

As for the sneering about public sector workers such as doctors, it's an insult to them. They don't knock off a shift in the middle of an operation because their hours are up, they save lives, they have to tell parents that their kids have just died, if they make an error they have to live with horrific consequences.

But according to you they're wankers. Harsh, very harsh.

Cheers for the support. Current max is actually 91 hours in a week. New contract proposes 72 hour max.

 

[El Presidente]

Cheers for the support. Current max is actually 91 hours in a week. New contract proposes 72 hour max.

Wanker

 

[wellquickwoody]

Wanker

Exactly

My annoyance was the pretence that it was all about 'saving the NHS'. It wasn't, it was about protecting the interests of the junior doctors. Nothing wrong with that, but don't try to galvanise public support by lieing to them.

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

Exactly [emoji38]

My annoyance was the pretence that it was all about 'saving the NHS'. It wasn't, it was about protecting the interests of the junior doctors. Nothing wrong with that, but don't try to galvanise public support by lieing to them.

Not a pretence. The bma are a representative trade union whose sole purpose is to get the best deal for their members.

Many doctors have long felt the bma did not represent them or help them particularly (i am not a member for this reason), but a 98% vote for IA was a strong mandate in how bad the proposed contract was.

JDs felt concerned about working conditions being eroded which would be bad for patients directly and because of poor morale and an exodus of doctors. This is on the background of a deep mistrust of the government motivation when their representative is a man who wrote a book on how to dismantle the NHS.

There was a genuine groundswell from all working in healthcare that this was the first step in a prolonged attack on healthcare workers to make the situation better for private firms to take over.

 

[BLOCK F]

If you think that the 98% of the voters were so stupid that they couldn't understand the terms of the contract and were therefore behaving like sheep in following the BMA leadership then you're insulting their intelligence.

There is no extra money offered in the new deal that's been agreed, so how can it be 'all about money'.?

For Pete's sake; I presume you have read the 'leaked reports'.
You paint the doctors and their leaders as whiter than white and the Government negotiators as the Devil Incarnate.
You don't like this myth to be exposed ,do you.
I really cannot be bothered to argue any more. As I said, I am glad that the dispute is over, especially for the sake of the patients who have been hugely inconvenienced by the disproportionate response of the doctors and their disingenuous leaders at the BMA.
Next time the the medical profession wish to gain public support for a cause or perceived grievance, they may find this support rather harder to come by........especially with Johann Malawana in the spotlight.
Ha, the irony of it is that he was more political than the politicians.

 

[Surf's Up]

The medical profession, far from being paragons of virtue and the holders of the hippocratic flame, has a history of exerting its not inconsiderable industrial muscle to get their way on matters relating to remuneration since the beginning of the NHS when they had to be bribed to participate in the NHS (it was said at the time that Bevan had "stuffed their mouths with gold" to ensure their involvement). The medical profession is not particularly well remunerated when compared to other similar professional groups and this is always an argument advanced by the medical profession in support of their claims. BUT the majority of qualified doctors have the ability to earn significantly more money privately and this ability was the principle Bevan conceded way back in 1948. Private earnings, depending on the specialty, can make their NHS earnings look like pin money. This element is seldom brought into the argument when discussing doctor's pay but it is actually built into their contract so should always form an integral part of any consideration of their earnings.

 

[drew]

The medical profession, far from being paragons of virtue and the holders of the hippocratic flame, has a history of exerting its not inconsiderable industrial muscle to get their way on matters relating to remuneration since the beginning of the NHS when they had to be bribed to participate in the NHS (it was said at the time that Bevan had "stuffed their mouths with gold" to ensure their involvement). The medical profession is not particularly well remunerated when compared to other similar professional groups and this is always an argument advanced by the medical profession in support of their claims. BUT the majority of qualified doctors have the ability to earn significantly more money privately and this ability was the principle Bevan conceded way back in 1948. Private earnings, depending on the specialty, can make their NHS earnings look like pin money. This element is seldom brought into the argument when discussing doctor's pay but it is actually built into their contract so should always form an integral part of any consideration of their earnings.

Are there any statistics to show how much JDs earn privately as a proportion of their pay? I suspect very little as it is the Consultants that have the rich pickings.

 

[El Presidente]

The medical profession, far from being paragons of virtue and the holders of the hippocratic flame, has a history of exerting its not inconsiderable industrial muscle to get their way on matters relating to remuneration since the beginning of the NHS when they had to be bribed to participate in the NHS (it was said at the time that Bevan had "stuffed their mouths with gold" to ensure their involvement). The medical profession is not particularly well remunerated when compared to other similar professional groups and this is always an argument advanced by the medical profession in support of their claims. BUT the majority of qualified doctors have the ability to earn significantly more money privately and this ability was the principle Bevan conceded way back in 1948. Private earnings, depending on the specialty, can make their NHS earnings look like pin money. This element is seldom brought into the argument when discussing doctor's pay but it is actually built into their contract so should always form an integral part of any consideration of their earnings.

So when not doing a 91 hour week the JD's are earning a fortune moonlighting?