98% 0f 75% vote to strike
Comments
-
Just because change is needed doesn't mean that any proposed change is the right one. If the government manage to make working conditions so unbearable that they can't recruit enough doctors, that has to go down as a f**k-up to rival what they've done with the education system. Public services don't function properly unless you have enough staff to do the work to a decent standard.0
-
Watched an item on Sky News this morning. A doc from Sandwell explained how he works 1 weekend in 4 at the moment. Some docs do more some less. He tried to say that he would be too tired because of the extra hours he would need to work.
When another doc pointed out that he would be having days off midweek, he claimed that continuity with patients would be lost. It was pointed out that this would already be happening on a Friday anyway. His reply was,"Yes, but they are a different sort of patient".
As I said much earlier in this thread, don't get sick at weekends.
We have a situation at the moment that you can buy/do just about anything 24/7 except get ill. That can't be right.0 -
FTFYResurrecting an old thread.
Not my words, but a contributor elsewhere but it sums up my view of the debacle.
We as a nation with a health care system which, under current funding methods, we cannot afford. We throw our toys out of the pram at any attempt to alter the funding in any way. Meanwhile demand rockets, capital equipment costs rise, drugs cost more etc.
Jeremy Hunt is the latest poor fool to discover that change is a dirty word in the NHS and will probably have to fall on his sword.
We do not have the best health service in the world, we have moved on over many decades since its inception and it's about time the great British public realised that the machine is broke and is in need of drastic surgery.
From what the junior doctors say they could all be made redundant since no emergencies are at risk as some of them are not there. Both sides in this shambles are a jokeThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Watched an item on Sky News this morning. A doc from Sandwell explained how he works 1 weekend in 4 at the moment. Some docs do more some less. He tried to say that he would be too tired because of the extra hours he would need to work.
When another doc pointed out that he would be having days off midweek, he claimed that continuity with patients would be lost. It was pointed out that this would already be happening on a Friday anyway. His reply was,"Yes, but they are a different sort of patient".
As I said much earlier in this thread, don't get sick at weekends.
We have a situation at the moment that you can buy/do just about anything 24/7 except get ill. That can't be right.
there are plenty of Dr's working w/e's just as there are consultants, porters, nurses, radiologists etc etc it's just that there isnt enough of them, having extra Junior dr's wont mean you ll get the same treatment at w/e's as they (Dr's) dont work in isolation, no good a Dr sending you for treatment at dept X when that dept is shut.
Maybe if we charged for drink related AE visits, the huge amount of resource spent on AE over w/e's could be more wisely spent? when i did a call out at a Hospital on a friday night, i had to be escorted by security, i saw a Dr being punched and nurse grabbed by her hair... all apparently normally for a w/e, the place was full of drunk chavs.
there are only so many people working in the nhs and if you want 7 day full treatment, then you ll need to employ a lot more staff across all departments and we as a nation wont pay for that and if we p1ss off Doctors, they'll go and move abroad and then what? Global market isnt it?
that is, after all an argument used time and time again against increasing taxes on the very wealthy.0 -
@ Looky
You are right about the drunks at the weekends, they are a disgrace.
You are also right about the funding issue. We, as a nation have to decide whether we want a modern fully funded health service or a health service that is based on an outdated unsustainable model. We then have to decide how it is to be funded.0 -
There is evidence that leading figures in the BMA may be driving confrontation with the government due to their political affiliations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12083717/Junior-doctors-strike-Leading-BMA-figure-likened-Tory-policies-to-Nazi-propaganda.html"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The idea that we can get more for less by eliminating waste -Jeremy Hunt's approach - is childish and stupid. It didn't work for the civil service, and it won't work anywhere else. The Government needs to grasp the nettle that the NHS needs to be properly funded. I doubt any Government -ever- will get away with charging at the point of delivery (although a nominal charge here would go a long way to stopping the abuse of the service) so the cold, hard truth is that more money needs to be raised through taxation. Either that, or accept that we won't fund the NHS properly and that only those with private health insurance will have access to proper care.
The discussion about relative pay levels is irrelevant - I suspect most of those striking do so with heavy hearts but are committed to providing a service, and are fed up with political meddling in something rather more important than, well, anything else.0 -
There is evidence that leading figures in the BMA may be driving confrontation with the government due to their political affiliations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12083717/Junior-doctors-strike-Leading-BMA-figure-likened-Tory-policies-to-Nazi-propaganda.html
And in other news those in the police tend to prefer conservative governments.
Who knew.0 -
How is that relevant to the possible political motivation for this strike?There is evidence that leading figures in the BMA may be driving confrontation with the government due to their political affiliations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12083717/Junior-doctors-strike-Leading-BMA-figure-likened-Tory-policies-to-Nazi-propaganda.html
And in other news those in the police tend to prefer conservative governments.
Who knew."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So we shouldn't try to reduce waste? How ridiculous. One of the issues that the NHS get more funding every year yet these issues persist. Waste is one of the main reasons, as is a lack of incentive to become more efficient or reform - according to a couple of mates who are NHS doctors.The idea that we can get more for less by eliminating waste -Jeremy Hunt's approach - is childish and stupid. It didn't work for the civil service, and it won't work anywhere else. The Government needs to grasp the nettle that the NHS needs to be properly funded. I doubt any Government -ever- will get away with charging at the point of delivery (although a nominal charge here would go a long way to stopping the abuse of the service) so the cold, hard truth is that more money needs to be raised through taxation. Either that, or accept that we won't fund the NHS properly and that only those with private health insurance will have access to proper care.
The discussion about relative pay levels is irrelevant - I suspect most of those striking do so with heavy hearts but are committed to providing a service, and are fed up with political meddling in something rather more important than, well, anything else.
Although I agree that a small charge at the point of use might help reduce the 'free bar' problems. A bit like the 5p charge for carrier bags."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It must be true, it's in the torygraph.There is evidence that leading figures in the BMA may be driving confrontation with the government due to their political affiliations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12083717/Junior-doctors-strike-Leading-BMA-figure-likened-Tory-policies-to-Nazi-propaganda.html
Even if it is, I don't think 98% of 75% of intelligent people would allow themselves to be lead up the garden path.
It is a big mandate, bigger than any politician has ever had and will never get.
This strike is 100% legitimate.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Tory manifesto in 2010 - no top down reorganisation of the NHS - and now they wonder why the BMA simply don't trust a word they say.0
-
No doubt about the vote, although who knows how much they were swayed by the BMA eaders - after all as they are also intelligent people they will be very plausible. It is the motives of those in charge I am questioning: in the end they are no more than well educated trade union barons.
It must be true, it's in the torygraph.There is evidence that leading figures in the BMA may be driving confrontation with the government due to their political affiliations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12083717/Junior-doctors-strike-Leading-BMA-figure-likened-Tory-policies-to-Nazi-propaganda.html
Even if it is, I don't think 98% of 75% of intelligent people would allow themselves to be lead up the garden path.
It is a big mandate, bigger than any politician has ever had and will never get.
This strike is 100% legitimate."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Didn't say it wasn't legit Frank. Just that the NHS is anti change and is mired in the past.0
-
So are the junior doctors. And nursing students.It is the motives of those in charge I am questioning:
Piss off the future employees and then wonder why there are shortages. Inevitable on this course.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Although I agree that a small charge at the point of use might help reduce the 'free bar' problems. A bit like the 5p charge for carrier bags.
Although it's an idea that isn't necessarily bad in principle, it might dissuade people from going to see the doctor at the earliest opportunity, something which can be utterly vital in cases of serious illnesses. My Nan was given an extra 3 years of life when she went to the doctor for a slight cough that had been bothering her and it turned out to be the early stages of lung cancer (that's what she got for being a lifelong non-smoker :x ). Maybe if there'd been a (say) £5 charge, she would have waited another month and then it would have been too late.
The simple fact is that we spend quite a lot less on health than most other comparable nations. If that doesn't change, we'll continue to have fewer doctors, people being denied necessary medicines, etc.0 -
We might spend a lot less on "health" than other countries (I don't know either way if we do or not) but you do get the feeling that a lot of what is spent is not going towards patient care and medicine, more management, admin etc How many times do you hear arguments on Question Time or wherever begining "I work for the NHS..." ? And how many of them are front line medical staff? Last time I had to go to a hospital I was sat in one of the many different reception areas for seemingly hours & so had a front row seat to witness the two "receptionists" there doing basically nothing but directing people to a different reception area upstairs because "you're in the wrong department love". Honestly, about a dozen people come shuffling in looking for a reception desk for some dept or other having followed what signage there is, only be told its somewhere else. They did get directed to the right place, but then the two desk dollies spent the next 5 minutes tutting & moaning to each other about these people being in the wrong place. Then every 30 mins one of them goes "for my break" and wanders off somewhere for 15 minutes or so, coming back with a coffee ready for the next 15 minutes of gossip.
Brilliant use of resources no? maybe put a simple sign up & make things more efiicient & patients lives a bit easier? And these two will be lifer dead wood in it for the pension no doubt.
I have absolutely no qualm with the junior doctor's position, but as said above, the NHS is an outdated behemoth that seems to fear/loathe change, but it seems clear that a re-think of priorities, efficiency and funding across the board is needed pronto.
And with that....back to the Song Title thread *ducks back below parapet*CS7
Surrey Hills
What's a Zwift?0 -
I have absolutely no qualm with the junior doctor's position, but as said above, the NHS is an outdated behemoth that seems to fear/loathe change, but it seems clear that a re-think of priorities, efficiency and funding across the board is needed pronto.
We all want a better more efficient NHS but for the life of me, i cannot see how altering junior Doctors working hours, peeing them off under pretence of 7 day nhs, is reforming anything.
Hospitals would need every level of staff also working w/e's to ensure we would get the same level of care.
Clever manipulative union leaders might well be able to get a hands up strike at Leyland but highly intelligent Doctors and todays access to news and media mmmm rather insulting to the doctors.
To me, this is an engineered strike, bring it to its knees and then run in saying "we need to privatise to save our nhs" sort of thing, having said that, i also think we should look at an insurance based contribution too.
As Bally and looky said, we need a national debate on how we fund and reform the NHS, inc pay and conditions and charges for AE, GP services - at the moment, we are just fire fighting and the situation is just getting worse.0 -
To all those who hate Government provision of services (the NHS MUST be wasteful, right, it's not private) and think the private sector is the answer, take a look at US health provision. Now there you'll find astonishing waste. No-one is suggesting things can never improve in the NHS, but the idea that there are big improvements to be made by reducing waste (gosh, no-one ever thought of that before) is ridiculous. (Here's a word for Stevo 666 to look up -perspective).
By any measure available the NHS provides the best value health service in the world, and by most measures the best health service. To see it damaged through political malfeasance is wearying - since 1979 it seems some of you haven't learned a thing.0 -
Love how management is considered flabby when the lean mean private sector spends a fortune on management.0
-
An article in the Mail, yes the Mail by a Consultant who was elected a Fellow of the BMA.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3396676/Former-BMA-chief-Militant-doctors-union-disgrace.html
He writes about a raft of issues,including but not only
But, contrary to what the BMA claims, junior doctors are not under attack because of these changes. Quite the opposite is true. The maximum number of hours to be worked by junior doctors is actually to be reduced from 91 a week to 72, thereby improving patient safety, while basic earnings are to rise by 11 per cent, far beyond the rate of inflation.
If correct, I for one didn't realise that the proposed deal would reduce doctors hours.
And for those insisting that there is no issue with weekend care, an article about the treatment Hopkins suffered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10516595/Warning-over-NHS-weekend-care-by-consultant-left-disabled-by-failings.html0 -
Is Thursday and Friday now considered to be the weekend?And for those insisting that there is no issue with weekend care, an article about the treatment Hopkins suffered.
His operation was on a Thursday.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
Is there a conclusive study that shows that higher mortality rate at the weekend is due to staffing?0
-
Is Thursday and Friday now considered to be the weekend?And for those insisting that there is no issue with weekend care, an article about the treatment Hopkins suffered.
His operation was on a Thursday.
also, his lack of care was due to a shortage of consultants, junior Docs are tomo's consultants, so lets pee them off so there are even less senior doc's in this country.
the gov have now said they ll impose the new contract, whether we like it or not, these docs can work anywhere in the world and they will.0 -
Firstly, when crusty old consultants give their opinion you have to remember that "things were much worse in my day". Which is true: look up my post a few pages back on Mrs Bomp's first "day" at work if you can be bothered. Working hours have improved for junior doctors, and as a consequence worse for consultants, who frequently used to get whole weekends where all they had to do was answer one or two phone calls. It's not a disinterested opinion.An article in the Mail, yes the Mail by a Consultant who was elected a Fellow of the BMA.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3396676/Former-BMA-chief-Militant-doctors-union-disgrace.html
He writes about a raft of issues,including but not only
But, contrary to what the BMA claims, junior doctors are not under attack because of these changes. Quite the opposite is true. The maximum number of hours to be worked by junior doctors is actually to be reduced from 91 a week to 72, thereby improving patient safety, while basic earnings are to rise by 11 per cent, far beyond the rate of inflation.
If correct, I for one didn't realise that the proposed deal would reduce doctors hours.
And for those insisting that there is no issue with weekend care, an article about the treatment Hopkins suffered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10516595/Warning-over-NHS-weekend-care-by-consultant-left-disabled-by-failings.html
Secondly, the quote you give is classic selective information. Junior doctors work shifts - yes, 24/7 already - and so they almost invariably have differing hours in different weeks: 91 hours refers to the classic "week of nights" - 7 consecutive 13 hour nightshifts, usually followed by a much easier week. For years now, average weekly hours have been restricted to a maximum of 56.
The government's proposal to reduce the limit may genuinely be linked to care about patient safety, but I suspect that it, and other parts of the new contract, have been put in specifically to add a spurious air of "look, we're actually being nice to them!". Which a lot of people, clearly, are falling for.
So thirdly - the infamous (and entirely fictitious) "11% pay rise". Well, for a start, that would put a starting doctor on about 60% of what a graduate starter at Aldi gets (minus the fully expensed Audi A4 of course), but the fact is that no junior doctor gets the basic salary. Because they all work evening, night and weekend shifts.
And the maths is simple: give with one hand and take away with the other.
Here's a bit of maths for you:
1. The overall wage bill is due to stay the same.
2. The government claim that 75% of doctors will get paid more, and only 1% less.
FFS, how much less must those 1% be getting to balance the books?
Even if overall pay remains the same, the financial logic of NHS management means that it will be necessary, and easy, to reorganise rotas so that rather more than 1% wind up in the losing out category over the course of the next few years.
As for the second article:
1. The only possible argument this can be making is that you need more senior doctors on at weekends. Except that, since time immemorial, there have always been consultants on call 24/7. The problems arise when procedures are not followed correctly: every junior doctor can tell you of times when consultants refused to come in because, essentially, they couldn't be bothered.
2. It's classic argument from anecdote: one person fell ill at the weekend, and the whole thing is extrapolated from that. The research that purports to show increased risks at the weekend has been pretty comprehensively debunked.
Bally, you should know that I agree with you quite a lot on political issues - I am a big advocate of free markets, as you would appear to be.
But this is not a government acting to promote free markets - it is a government abusing its position as monopoly employer to force unfavourable change on its employees.
Except that it is not a complete monopoly employer, as I suspect it will find out over the next few years if it "wins". Expect to see even more doctors emigrating, and an even higher proportion of NHS doctors supplied by stripping them from the developing countries who desperately need them.
Bomp Jr is going to uni next year and was keen to study medicine. Maybe I'll just advise him to go for Aldi instead.0 -
The Aldi example though is what management is about, getting the right people means the organisation runs well, in this case combining high pay with low prices and reasonable profits.
Now lets propose getting some decent managers into the NHS, and see what the response is to paying for managers who can make a difference.0 -
The Aldi example though is what management is about, getting the right people means the organisation runs well, in this case combining high pay with low prices and reasonable profits.
Now lets propose getting some decent managers into the NHS, and see what the response is to paying for managers who can make a difference.
Fwiw Aldi are not a good poster boy for how they threat their employees...0 -
The salaries look fine to me.The Aldi example though is what management is about, getting the right people means the organisation runs well, in this case combining high pay with low prices and reasonable profits.
Now lets propose getting some decent managers into the NHS, and see what the response is to paying for managers who can make a difference.
I am more surprised by the amount of levels and middle management.
http://www.hospitaldr.co.uk/blogs/guidance/nurses-and-nhs-managers-pay-scales-for-20122013The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Expect to see even more doctors emigrating, and an even higher proportion of NHS doctors supplied by stripping them from the developing countries who desperately need them.
The first part of your sentence is probably true. The second part is also probably true for the time being, but for how long can we assume that the rest of the world will provide a constant and adequate supply of well-trained anglophone doctors?0
