999tigger Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 A reduction of the maximum working week by 20 hours seems like a good idea. It makes no difference if you were never working those hours or it could be adverse if it means a significant cut in salary. Its down to the individual Drs to decide if it's a good deal for them. Clearly a lot of them dont think so. ---------- Post added 11-02-2016 at 09:34 ---------- Allowing the employee to dictate the terms of their employment is a worse idea. The changes in hours looks to be designed to reduce the total number of hours they are allowed to work, which isn't a bad idea. The government have compromised through the negotiations, the doctors appear to be uncompromising. They arent dictating, they are negotiating. They can withdraw their labour or alternatively leave the profession (which many of them are) and that will mean recruiting more Dr's from abroad to make up the shortgap. Imposing the contract is a high risk stragey seeking confrontation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 A reduction of the maximum working week by 20 hours seems like a good idea. Come Eric, don't be disingenuous, we've been through this before. Do we have to rehash this? What are details behind the headline? Like the removal of the mechanism where the hospitals were fined if their junior doctors worked longer than they should. The BMA's argument, taken from here: http://www.bma.org.uk/working-for-change/junior-and-consultant-contract-home/ddrb-recommendations-analysis-for-juniors/removal-of-vital-safeguards There are limits to prevent employers overworking their doctors, and there are rules about how much rest and how many breaks doctors should receive. Equally important, the rules are not just written on paper – the contract contains a mechanism to ensure that they are enforced. Employers who don’t stick to the limits are financially penalised. Because employers don’t want to pay out large sums of money for breaking the rules, they try to stay within the limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 They arent dictating, they are negotiating. Could you point us to the concessions that the doctors union has made? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Explain to me how the 11% pay rise fits in with their overall earnings then? It makes most better off, a minority will be worse off because they won't be allowed to work over 72 hours in 7 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Allowing the employee to dictate the terms of their employment is a worse idea. The changes in hours looks to be designed to reduce the total number of hours they are allowed to work, which isn't a bad idea. The government have compromised through the negotiations, the doctors appear to be uncompromising. Hang on a second. The doctors are trying to maintain the terms of the contact that they were employed on. Maintain their rates of pay and maintain the mechanisms that currently enforce the hours that they're allowed to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 It makes no difference if you were never working those hours or it could be adverse if it means a significant cut in salary. Its down to the individual Drs to decide if it's a good deal for them. Clearly a lot of them dont think so. ---------- Post added 11-02-2016 at 09:34 ---------- They arent dictating, they are negotiating. They can withdraw their labour or alternatively leave the profession (which many of them are) and that will mean recruiting more Dr's from abroad to make up the shortgap. Imposing the contract is a high risk stragey seeking confrontation. Give us what we want or we will strike is a demand not a negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 It makes most better off, a minority will be worse off because they won't be allowed to work over 72 hours in 7 days. You haven't explained anything. Here's the BMA's argument for people to read and make up their own minds::http://www.bma.org.uk/working-for-change/junior-and-consultant-contract-home/ddrb-recommendations-analysis-for-juniors/premium-time Under the current contract, standard time is set out as 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday. Junior doctors routinely work outside of ‘standard time’ in order to provide patients with high quality care around the clock. When doctors work outside of this standard time they receive a pay premium (as part of their banding supplement). This is to reflect the impact that working evenings, nights, Saturdays and Sundays has on personal and family life. The government no longer wants to recognise the impact of working evenings and Saturdays, and so plans to extend standard time to 7am to 10pm Monday to Saturday. Only nights and Sundays would be paid at a higher rate, with Sundays being less valued than nights. The government wants doctors to continue to work evenings and Saturdays, but just reduce the rate of pay for them. This means that 30 hours currently paid at a premium would move into standard time, and working a Saturday would be the same as working a Tuesday. The removal of the pay premium will mean that the junior doctors will be worse off, even with the 11% proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Hang on a second. The doctors are trying to maintain the terms of the contact that they were employed on. Maintain their rates of pay and maintain the mechanisms that currently enforce the hours that they're allowed to work. Do the terms of their existing contract state that the contract is for life and can't be changed, their rates of pay will be increased and a new mechanism will reduce the maximum hours they can work, which must be good for patient safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Do the terms of their existing contract state that the contract is for life and can't be changed, their rates of pay will be increased and a new mechanism will reduce the maximum hours they can work, which must be good for patient safety. Rubbish. You either do not understand the proposals or you are being disingenuous. Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 This is a very balanced look at the whole issue: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34475955 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now