Junior Doctors row: 98% vote to strike

[alchresearch]

Its a bit old that link. Here's the latest:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/health-36137155

 

According to Hunt on BBC Breakfast this morning, the only dispute left is the rate of pay for weekend working. Doctors want more than is being offered.

[JFKvsNixon]

Thats wrong. The Majority will not be worse off and its not the reason they are striking.

 

How is the contract changing?

Basic pay is to be increased by 13.5% on average.

 

Will doctors lose pay?

To start with, no. Ministers have promised to protect the pay of existing doctors for the first three years.

A small number - about 1% - who do lots of extra hours and qualify for premium payments that are being scrapped could lose out however.

 

ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34775980

 

You've somehow forgotten to cut and past other sections of your quote:

 

• But that comes at a price: other elements of the pay package are to be curbed, including what constitutes unsociable hours.
  
• Day hours on a Saturday will be paid at a normal rate, while extra premiums that are being offered for night and the rest of the weekend are lower than what is currently paid.
  
• Guaranteed pay increases linked to time in the job are also to be scrapped and replaced with a system linked to progression through set training stages.
  

 

 

Then it must've slipped you mind to quote this:

 

• But these changes are not just about winners and losers on day one. They have partly been designed to make it cheaper to roster extra doctors on at weekends.
  
• Therefore, medics are likely to find they are working more weekends, which, under the existing contract, would have led to extra pay.
  
• What is more, some of the changes will take time to have an effect. For example, the ending of guaranteed pay rises linked to time-in-the-job will mean some doctors find their pay will go up more slowly during their time as a junior medic.
  
• And, of course, new doctors starting their career in the NHS under this contract may be worse off than they would have been if they started under the current deal.
  

 

Did you not think that I'd read your link?

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 10:13 ----------

 

Their condition won't be worse, they just won't be allowed to work them selves into the ground and put patients at risk from their tiredness, their pay will be increased to compensate for them working fewer hours leaving most better off.

 

If you've concluded that the new contract improves the junior doctors conditions, why do you believe they are striking?

[unbeliever]

It's about personal choice. Self-determination if you will.

 

Under the previous arrangements, junior doctors had essentially the freedom to take on extra shifts weekends for a better hourly rate up to a maximum 91 hours in any 7-day period.

Now their maximum hours have been reduced from 91 to 72 hours and the higher pay rate applies only to Sunday and no longer to Saturday.

It also means that they can be given shifts on Saturday without being given extra pay for it.

 

You can see that under the old arrangements doctors were encouraged to volunteer to work on Saturday and under the new arrangements they will simply be told to.

That constitutes a loss of flexibility for them.

 

As compensation, the hourly rate for working a shift between Monday and Saturday will be substantially higher (about 13%) than it was for working a shift between Monday and Friday under the old arrangements.

 

Now consider the case of a junior doctor who opted to work a lot of Saturdays and Sundays and often did the maximum number of hours (91). They're going to lose a lot of money, limited to 72 hours and not able to do as many overtime hours.

Consider also the case of a junior doctor who avoided working on Saturdays for personal reasons. Now they'll find that harder, if not impossible, to arrange.

 

Now average junior doctor pay will be largely unchanged, but their flexibility has been quite noticeably reduced. In their place I don't think I'd be happy.

However I also wouldn't be happy being seem by a doctor at the end of a 91 hour week which he/she took on because of the extra cash.

Nor would I be happy as a junior doctor been pressured to do a 91 hour week.

 

All this guff about patient safety is rather unconvincing.

But as a normal dispute between an employer and employees over their own terms and conditions, they have a legitimate case.

[neeeeeeeeeek]

i agree to some extent but this is not the way to do it, we wouldnt need so many staff if the population hadnt got so overcrowded and was treating every tom dick and harry from all over the world for free??

 

And how exactly is that the fault of the junior doctors?

 

to what extent do you agree and how would you do it then?? So you agree that they are understaffed?

[sutty27]

If you've concluded that the new contract improves the junior doctors conditions, why do you believe they are striking?

 

About 50% of junior doctors voted to strike, I believe they are striking because they want more money than they are being offered, even though what they are being offered is more than they get now.

[JFKvsNixon]

About 50% of junior doctors voted to strike, I believe they are striking because they want more money than they are being offered, even though what they are being offered is more than they get now.

 

So you believe that the junior doctors are striking for a pay rise?

[unbeliever]

So you believe that the junior doctors are striking for a pay rise?

 

Well that's perfectly clear. The dispute is entirely about pay and conditions. But there's nothing wrong with that. It would help if the BMA would just say so and then it could all be worked out.

[sutty27]

So you believe that the junior doctors are striking for a pay rise?

 

They are getting a pay rise, they just want more than they are being offered for working on Saturdays.

[Berberis]

You've somehow forgotten to cut and past other sections of your quote:

 

No, I cut and pasted the relevant parts, with a link to the full article so people can read it all. Nothing is being hidden as you insinuate.

 

The fact remains, only 1% of doctors will see a drop in salary, that's not the majority however you try to spin it.

[JFKvsNixon]

No, I cut and pasted the relevant parts, with a link to the full article so people can read it all. Nothing is being hidden as you insinuate.

 

The fact remains, only 1% of doctors will see a drop in salary, that's not the majority however you try to spin it.

 

Maybe the junior doctors have worked out that during a time when they maybe be a junior doctor for over 10 years, a three year pay protection agreement isn't of much value in the bigger picture?

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 10:29 ----------

 

No, I cut and pasted the relevant parts, with a link to the full article so people can read it all. Nothing is being hidden as you insinuate.

 

The fact remains, only 1% of doctors will see a drop in salary, that's not the majority however you try to spin it.

 

Spin? I cut and pasted information from the same article as you!!!!!!!!!

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 10:31 ----------

 

Well that's perfectly clear. The dispute is entirely about pay and conditions. But there's nothing wrong with that. It would help if the BMA would just say so and then it could all be worked out.

 

I think that the compulsion to work the extra hours do have an effect. For example, currently the junior doctor can cut the hours that they work when they have a big exam coming up so they can revise.