Crosswords1 min ago
Doctors' Contract Set To Be Imposed
http://
This is ludicrous !
Does dave really think that he is doing us any favours here ! What happens if the Doctors refuse to accept this new contract ? Will he sack 10,000's of Doctors ?
He should step back from the brink, sack Hunt and appoint someone else.
This is ludicrous !
Does dave really think that he is doing us any favours here ! What happens if the Doctors refuse to accept this new contract ? Will he sack 10,000's of Doctors ?
He should step back from the brink, sack Hunt and appoint someone else.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What's ludicrous is Doctors arguing they don't want to work a larger proportion of their hours at weekends on the grounds that 'patient safety will be compromised'. No-one's asking them to work more hours - just different hours over the 168 that occur in each and every week.
There's spin going on on both sides here, and actually I don't agree with Mr C that running more hospital services through weekends is a value-for-money solution.
The answers to mikey's questions: -
Q: What happens if the Doctors refuse to accept this new contract ?
A: Answer - it will be imposed.
Q: Will he sack 10,000's of Doctors ?
A: No, rosters will be set up with new working hours. It will end up in courts, so more work for lawyers, because a few doctors will resign and claim constructive dismissal. Others may decline the contracts by not turning up for work - they may result in individual dismissal, and more cases of unfair dismissal.
There's spin going on on both sides here, and actually I don't agree with Mr C that running more hospital services through weekends is a value-for-money solution.
The answers to mikey's questions: -
Q: What happens if the Doctors refuse to accept this new contract ?
A: Answer - it will be imposed.
Q: Will he sack 10,000's of Doctors ?
A: No, rosters will be set up with new working hours. It will end up in courts, so more work for lawyers, because a few doctors will resign and claim constructive dismissal. Others may decline the contracts by not turning up for work - they may result in individual dismissal, and more cases of unfair dismissal.
\\\\Will he sack 10,000's of Doctors ? \\\
Yes......and quite right too....these JUNIOR doctors have got kids and mortgages to support and some of them may even have wives and the firsat sign of "sackings" the boys will go back to work.
Labour would say....."give them what they want"
Conservatives would say...." give them what they want, but not at all costs."
mikey...putting all the blame on Jeremy Hunt on almost every thread on the NHS is naive......we have got your point.
Yes......and quite right too....these JUNIOR doctors have got kids and mortgages to support and some of them may even have wives and the firsat sign of "sackings" the boys will go back to work.
Labour would say....."give them what they want"
Conservatives would say...." give them what they want, but not at all costs."
mikey...putting all the blame on Jeremy Hunt on almost every thread on the NHS is naive......we have got your point.
Jeremy Hunt is using Big Boss tactics to force through work contracts on a 'Like it or Lump it basis'. He may well have the power to do so, but I do think he lacks the ability. If he successfully forces this through I suspect he will eventually go for a basic hourly rate with no unsocial hours enhancement.
The eventual outcome in my opinion will be the more successful medical staff will be lured away from the NHS into the private sector or abroad.
http://
http://
The eventual outcome in my opinion will be the more successful medical staff will be lured away from the NHS into the private sector or abroad.
http://
http://
Sqad...morning !
But is Hunt helping at all here ? He has made an awful dogs dinner of this whole affair, and I still think its come to a pretty pass when a Tory Government has managed to pee-off a workforce of intelligent, and highly-educated and motivated people like Doctors.
Its not the 1970's and these people aren't hairy-*** Dockers or British Leyland workers.
But is Hunt helping at all here ? He has made an awful dogs dinner of this whole affair, and I still think its come to a pretty pass when a Tory Government has managed to pee-off a workforce of intelligent, and highly-educated and motivated people like Doctors.
Its not the 1970's and these people aren't hairy-*** Dockers or British Leyland workers.
Morning mikey....we both know that we are at different ends of the spectrum here.
As I have said many times on AB, the Department of Health has been the "killing fields" of almost all ministers of both persuasions.
The BMA is strong, has public support (for now) and all it needs to do is threaten to bring down the NHS and the government gives in.
As I have said many times on AB, the Department of Health has been the "killing fields" of almost all ministers of both persuasions.
The BMA is strong, has public support (for now) and all it needs to do is threaten to bring down the NHS and the government gives in.
Yes Sqad....we may never agree !
But it seems to me that a change at the top may be all it needs for a solution to be found. Every time I see Hunt on the TV, he is looking increasingly more smug. And you may be right...any Government who takes on the BMA is on a hiding to nothing, so you wonder why the Tories have spent that last 5+ years doing so.
Hunt probably has private medical insurance....the vast majority of the rest of us don't...some more empathy from him and ilk is sorely needed.
But it seems to me that a change at the top may be all it needs for a solution to be found. Every time I see Hunt on the TV, he is looking increasingly more smug. And you may be right...any Government who takes on the BMA is on a hiding to nothing, so you wonder why the Tories have spent that last 5+ years doing so.
Hunt probably has private medical insurance....the vast majority of the rest of us don't...some more empathy from him and ilk is sorely needed.
Perhaps there ought to be a campaign to persuade the population of the UK to stop expecting the same spread of service cover when they become inconveniently ill at weekends....or in the evenings/early mornings? - as has been the 'norm' for service level since the start of the NHS.
People just put up with it in the past, instead of whingeing down to A&E and overloading it.
State cannot afford this.
People just put up with it in the past, instead of whingeing down to A&E and overloading it.
State cannot afford this.
In the past people had more and quicker access to their own GP. In recent years the level of cover provided by GPs has substantially reduced and if people have been unwell for several days and still can't get to see a GP, of course they are going to go where they can dealt with.....and unfortunately, that's usually A&E.
I'm not saying that it is right, but it is understandable.
I'm not saying that it is right, but it is understandable.
Can I remind people that we are only talking about England here.
We here in Wales have our own problems with the NHS, god knows, but our Junior Doctors are not out on strike, as their contracts are not proving to be a problem.
Perhaps Hunt should get the train to Cardiff and seek some advice there ?
We here in Wales have our own problems with the NHS, god knows, but our Junior Doctors are not out on strike, as their contracts are not proving to be a problem.
Perhaps Hunt should get the train to Cardiff and seek some advice there ?
There is zero reason for the NHS to deliver anything less than that equal to the best provided elsewhere; accepting that it is a social/moral responsibility choice to cover the whole population not just wealthy citizens. And since it seems to be done elsewhere then there is no reason it can not be funded properly here: and the NHS/government needs to examine what health related issues it is funding that other countries do not, and which makes the budget inadequate.
As for this particular dispute, I'm unsure what the core problem is. There has been mention of not being given money to cover for more weekend stuff, but that seems to be a minor/side gripe. There has been mention that it is the even more excessive hours being asked, and I can sympathise with that. Full time employment should be between, say, 35 and 45 hours a week. Any more and ability to do the job well is reduced, and the ability to have a decent social life outside of working hours more difficult. In which case there was a clear issue prior to any proposed changes. But it isn;t clear whether the changes make things worse. (Discussions on whether it gets cushier in later career is a separate issue, and does not really have an affect on this dispute.)
Whatever the real gripe is, escalating the situation by threatening to impose the contracts, seems unwise to me. In fact I think employers ought not be able to simply tear up past contracts and impose new ones. It makes the contract not worth the paper it is written on, at least for the employee. A one way legal binding. And there is rarely an imminent need to change overnight anyway. It's a case of management wanting to show on their CV that they made a changewhilst in the position; and beggar the poor *** who were adversely and sometimes unfairly affected.
But it is the way of the UK these days. Years of right wing chipping away at the right of the working classes to have a say in how they are treated; the many hoops one has to jump through in order to be even able to strike, one one real action they can take. The junior doctors should think themselves lucky they are able to protest, let alone strike. Those in high positions seem to think the workers should just do as they are told, as they are unimportant.
But as it stands the only way to fight this is mass sackings from refusing to comply and further strikes, or mass resignations; and the problem is that most would not have the courage to stand up for themselves that way, so those that do suffer as the rest comply and simply moan. Management know this and use it.
But I'd still like to know what is agreed to be the core issue change that's being complained about.
As for this particular dispute, I'm unsure what the core problem is. There has been mention of not being given money to cover for more weekend stuff, but that seems to be a minor/side gripe. There has been mention that it is the even more excessive hours being asked, and I can sympathise with that. Full time employment should be between, say, 35 and 45 hours a week. Any more and ability to do the job well is reduced, and the ability to have a decent social life outside of working hours more difficult. In which case there was a clear issue prior to any proposed changes. But it isn;t clear whether the changes make things worse. (Discussions on whether it gets cushier in later career is a separate issue, and does not really have an affect on this dispute.)
Whatever the real gripe is, escalating the situation by threatening to impose the contracts, seems unwise to me. In fact I think employers ought not be able to simply tear up past contracts and impose new ones. It makes the contract not worth the paper it is written on, at least for the employee. A one way legal binding. And there is rarely an imminent need to change overnight anyway. It's a case of management wanting to show on their CV that they made a changewhilst in the position; and beggar the poor *** who were adversely and sometimes unfairly affected.
But it is the way of the UK these days. Years of right wing chipping away at the right of the working classes to have a say in how they are treated; the many hoops one has to jump through in order to be even able to strike, one one real action they can take. The junior doctors should think themselves lucky they are able to protest, let alone strike. Those in high positions seem to think the workers should just do as they are told, as they are unimportant.
But as it stands the only way to fight this is mass sackings from refusing to comply and further strikes, or mass resignations; and the problem is that most would not have the courage to stand up for themselves that way, so those that do suffer as the rest comply and simply moan. Management know this and use it.
But I'd still like to know what is agreed to be the core issue change that's being complained about.
The junior doctors have a case to pursue. What are their normal working hours supposed to be ? When I retired from my job in 1990 my normal working week was 35 hours. Instead of this government drastically cutting everything they can lay their hands on they should be concentrating on looking after the people they are supposed to represent, the British public. If they wish for a 24 hour NHS coverage then they should employ many more NHS staff & stop sending so much cash abroad. Charity begins at home.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.