Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[barryrs]

TankRizzo said:

What does it say that 9000 of 37000 balloted didn't even bother returning the paper?

Probably the same excuse given on the tube strike thread.

Apparently people get so much junk mail these days its easy for the ballot paper to get mixed up

[Rovinghawk]

IroningMan said:

He - Spaximus - said 'Of those 37700 were eligible to vote. 98% of those voted to strike.'

The 'semantics' of assertions like this are critical to the soundbite-lead public perception of the issues.

It's not 'semantics', it's incorrect and misleading figures in support of a position.

[spaximus]

Rovinghawk said:

IroningMan said:

He - Spaximus - said 'Of those 37700 were eligible to vote. 98% of those voted to strike.'

The 'semantics' of assertions like this are critical to the soundbite-lead public perception of the issues.

It's not 'semantics', it's incorrect and misleading figures in support of a position.

My apologies, you are correct that of those who were balloted, 76% responded and of those that did 98% were in favour of the strike. Of those who did not respond there is going to be a mix of reasons, some were down to the wrong email addresses being used, however no one can assume which way they would have voted

Which ever way you look at it, how many other votes that have taken place in a dispute has had such a response and support for the action to be taken.

I support the action being taken by the Doctors against an out of touch SOS that has singlehandedly destroyed the morale of the NHS staff. Even he recognises the problem hence setting up another quango to look at the issue. I would suggest all he needs is a mirror

[Rovinghawk]

spaximus said:

98% were in favour of the strike.

37700 is not 98% of 40000. It will not become 98% no matter how often you repeat the figure.

When I said don't use incorrect figures I meant don't use figures that are incorrect. I'm not sure how to phrase it such that you will understand.

IT IS NOT 98%
Please stop saying that it is.

[spaximus]

Rovinghawk said:

spaximus said:

98% were in favour of the strike.

37700 is not 98% of 40000. It will not become 98% no matter how often you repeat the figure.

When I said don't use incorrect figures I meant don't use figures that are incorrect. I'm not sure how to phrase it such that you will understand.

IT IS NOT 98%
Please stop saying that it is.

I clearly do not understand which bit you are missing. 37700 were balloted. 76% of those responded to that ballot. of those 98% were in favour of the strike.

I have confirmed that I made an error earlier, but the salient point remains. They had a response of which 98% backed the action. You can keep on adding in the other bits, however at the hospital my daughter works at, the only junior Doctors working, were those which was agreed before. Just because some are not members of any union does not mean they were not supportive. Even Hunt in his statement only claimed 42% were in work on the day of the strike of which were the aforementioned agreed cover, but even from that it is likely well over 50% were in favour which is a huge number, in a profession such as this.

Now which ever way you look at it, how many other disputes have had such a mandate?

I suspect it is pointless to go on with this argument as we will never agree on the substantive issue for me, which is how utterly appalling to treat any workers, let alone such as Doctors. The UK will pay the price for this for years to come.

[Rovinghawk]

spaximus said:

I clearly do not understand which bit you are missing. 37700 were balloted. 76% of those responded to that ballot. of those 98% were in favour of the strike.

Let me walk you through it. This is what you wrote earlier:

spaximus said:

almost 40000 are members. Of those that were balloted, 37700, 98% voted for the strike.

37700 is not 98% of 40000, however much you might wish that to be the case.

If (as you later said) 76% responded and 98% of those were in favour that makes 28080 not the 37700 implied by your statements.

At best you make ambiguous statements which are disproved. At worst you are attempting deceit.

spaximus said:

They had a response of which 98% backed the action.

This is plain deceit- by your own statement only 75% of those balloted backed the strike.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 17th February 21:34

[968]

Rovinghawk said:

This is plain deceit- by your own statement only 75% of those balloted backed the strike.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 17th February 21:34

Which is still a clear majority. So your bluster is utterly irrelevant. ALL consultants in my trust (including myself) signed a letter of support to our junior colleagues.

Of more relevance is what will happen next. Hospital trusts may refuse to implement this contract as they recognise it to be grossly unfair, unhelpful and frankly exploitative. They are being sent coded threats by various government stooges and DoH managers to prevent them from doing so.

[Halb]

It is a pretty massively overwhelming vote to strike.

I am still fuzzy on the reasons/details.

If Hunt forces what he wants through, will JDs leave the UK?

[968]

Halb said:

It is a pretty massively overwhelming vote to strike.

I am still fuzzy on the reasons/details.

If Hunt forces what he wants through, will JDs leave the UK?

More accurately, will they leave England? Yes probably. Some may go to Wales/Scotland, some go to Oz/NZ others may just quit. My ST2 doctor received an email from the deanery which confirms he will lose £10k in pay for doing a significant increase in hours. He's got another 5-7 years of training left, why would he stay in England to get kicked in the bks by the DoH?

[spaximus]

Rovinghawk said:

spaximus said:

I clearly do not understand which bit you are missing. 37700 were balloted. 76% of those responded to that ballot. of those 98% were in favour of the strike.

Let me walk you through it. This is what you wrote earlier:

spaximus said:

almost 40000 are members. Of those that were balloted, 37700, 98% voted for the strike.

37700 is not 98% of 40000, however much you might wish that to be the case.

If (as you later said) 76% responded and 98% of those were in favour that makes 28080 not the 37700 implied by your statements.

At best you make ambiguous statements which are disproved. At worst you are attempting deceit.

spaximus said:

They had a response of which 98% backed the action.

This is plain deceit- by your own statement only 75% of those balloted backed the strike.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 17th February 21:34

I need no help to understand. You can try to twist the outcome. I clearly stated how many were balloted. How many of those responded and of those who responded 98% were in favour of the strike.

Now I am not in any way trying to deceive you, but the facts are that 98% of those who responded were in favour of the strike. It is a clear majority, chip away as much as you want it is still a majority.

What will happen next? Well as you can see a hard working Junior Doctor who works with 968 has been given a factual statement that he will be £10k worse off. No doubt you will try to dispute that and try to prove that it is actually a lot less from what you read, but would you take a £10k hit when there are real alternatives on the same island?

There are many in the same boat. The BMA is contacting their members to see what they want to do, give in or escalate this unfair imposition. Time will tell, but when the consultants are against it, many foundation trusts are saying they will not impose it and the public are against it how will it work?

We are in for a long protracted dispute and the long term consequences are dire, Hunt thinks that they will accept the changes and see it as somehow good for them, I doubt that very much.

[The original Nick the Greek]

spaximus said:

I need no help to understand. You can try to twist the outcome. I clearly stated how many were balloted. How many of those responded and of those who responded 98% were in favour of the strike.

Now I am not in any way trying to deceive you, but the facts are that 98% of those who responded were in favour of the strike. It is a clear majority, chip away as much as you want it is still a majority.

What will happen next? Well as you can see a hard working Junior Doctor who works with 968 has been given a factual statement that he will be £10k worse off. No doubt you will try to dispute that and try to prove that it is actually a lot less from what you read, but would you take a £10k hit when there are real alternatives on the same island?

There are many in the same boat. The BMA is contacting their members to see what they want to do, give in or escalate this unfair imposition. Time will tell, but when the consultants are against it, many foundation trusts are saying they will not impose it and the public are against it how will it work?

We are in for a long protracted dispute and the long term consequences are dire, Hunt thinks that they will accept the changes and see it as somehow good for them, I doubt that very much.

How much will you lose?

[spaximus]

The original Nick the Greek said:

spaximus said:

I need no help to understand. You can try to twist the outcome. I clearly stated how many were balloted. How many of those responded and of those who responded 98% were in favour of the strike.

Now I am not in any way trying to deceive you, but the facts are that 98% of those who responded were in favour of the strike. It is a clear majority, chip away as much as you want it is still a majority.

What will happen next? Well as you can see a hard working Junior Doctor who works with 968 has been given a factual statement that he will be £10k worse off. No doubt you will try to dispute that and try to prove that it is actually a lot less from what you read, but would you take a £10k hit when there are real alternatives on the same island?

There are many in the same boat. The BMA is contacting their members to see what they want to do, give in or escalate this unfair imposition. Time will tell, but when the consultants are against it, many foundation trusts are saying they will not impose it and the public are against it how will it work?

We are in for a long protracted dispute and the long term consequences are dire, Hunt thinks that they will accept the changes and see it as somehow good for them, I doubt that very much.

How much will you lose?

I am not a Doctor, it is my daughter who is. At present she cannot say as it depends on if she gets the speciality she has applied for and if so what the rota will be. At present the one she has chosen has a 50% banding so it is odds on she will take a backward step.
When all the facts for her individual case is clear we will know. There also seems to be some confusion as Hunt has said that there will be protection so no one will be worse off for three years, yet the case 968 quotes is clear he has been told he will get a pay cut for significantly increased hours, by his deanery. Is this another Hunt lie to the JD's?

[crankedup]

spaximus said:

Rovinghawk said:

spaximus said:

98% were in favour of the strike.

37700 is not 98% of 40000. It will not become 98% no matter how often you repeat the figure.

When I said don't use incorrect figures I meant don't use figures that are incorrect. I'm not sure how to phrase it such that you will understand.

IT IS NOT 98%
Please stop saying that it is.

I clearly do not understand which bit you are missing. 37700 were balloted. 76% of those responded to that ballot. of those 98% were in favour of the strike.

I have confirmed that I made an error earlier, but the salient point remains. They had a response of which 98% backed the action. You can keep on adding in the other bits, however at the hospital my daughter works at, the only junior Doctors working, were those which was agreed before. Just because some are not members of any union does not mean they were not supportive. Even Hunt in his statement only claimed 42% were in work on the day of the strike of which were the aforementioned agreed cover, but even from that it is likely well over 50% were in favour which is a huge number, in a profession such as this.

Now which ever way you look at it, how many other disputes have had such a mandate?

I suspect it is pointless to go on with this argument as we will never agree on the substantive issue for me, which is how utterly appalling to treat any workers, let alone such as Doctors. The UK will pay the price for this for years to come.

Public support for the JD appears to be strong, despite the best efforts of Hunt to paint the Doctors as a group of people who 'do not understand'.

[0000]

968 said:

More accurately, will they leave England? Yes probably. Some may go to Wales/Scotland, some go to Oz/NZ others may just quit. My ST2 doctor received an email from the deanery which confirms he will lose £10k in pay for doing a significant increase in hours. He's got another 5-7 years of training left, why would he stay in England to get kicked in the bks by the DoH?

£10k a year or over 5-7 years? What's he currently getting paid?

[e21Mark]

There's no point forcing doctors to work weekends when the supporting services (porters, X-ray etc) are not there. I used to be a hospital porter (before becoming a Nurse) and there was a weekend team of 6, as opposed to 17 from Monday to Friday. The hospital was a relative ghost town on the weekends.

This is all about bringing elective, non urgent surgery into the weekend schedule though. Then, when the NHS is sold off into private hands (as per Wilshire Children's Services, Sittingbourne and the whole of Devon have all been sold off to Virgin) they can concentrate on neat packages of planned, elective care which will be hugely profitable. It's hardly well publicised that thanks to the 2012 Health & Care Act, the Government were devolved of responsibility of the NHS anyway. Why is that not more of a focus in our media, as opposed to attempting to portray junior doctors are being greedy and simply holding out for more money?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/21/ow-...

Edited by e21Mark on Thursday 18th February 09:51

[JagLover]

e21Mark said:

There's no point forcing doctors to work weekends when the supporting services (porters, X-ray etc) are not there. I used to be a hospital porter (before becoming a Nurse) and there was a weekend team of 6, as opposed to 17 from Monday to Friday. The hospital was a relative ghost town on the weekends.

This is all about bringing elective, non urgent surgery into the weekend schedule though. Then, when the NHS is sold off into private hands (as per Wilshire Children's Services, Sittingbourne and the whole of Devon have all been sold off to Virgin) they can concentrate on neat packages of planned, elective care which will be hugely profitable. It's hardly well publicised that thanks to the 2012 Health & Care Act, the Government were devolved of responsibility of the NHS anyway. Why is that not more of a focus in our media, as opposed to attempting to portray junior doctors are being greedy and simply holding out for more money?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/21/ow-...

Edited by e21Mark on Thursday 18th February 09:51

Perhaps one reason this thread is so lengthy is that people are conflating a number of different issues.

Firstly should there be a seven day NHS-yes there should have been one decades ago, and certainly from the early 2000s when Labour started pouring money into it.

Secondly should junior doctors be paid a decent salary for an important and skilled job. Again yes, but I am very cynical about claims the changes would lead to significant reductions in salaries. Upon the creation of the NHS the BMA initially said they would not join until Bevan "stuffed their mouths with gold" and it seems that every reorganisation is an opportunity to be stuffed with more gold.

and all of this is unconnected with whether we should see greater private provision in the NHS.

Edited by JagLover on Thursday 18th February 10:39

[Halb]

e21Mark said:

There's no point forcing doctors to work weekends when the supporting services (porters, X-ray etc) are not there. I used to be a hospital porter (before becoming a Nurse) and there was a weekend team of 6, as opposed to 17 from Monday to Friday. The hospital was a relative ghost town on the weekends.

This is all about bringing elective, non urgent surgery into the weekend schedule though. Then, when the NHS is sold off into private hands (as per Wilshire Children's Services, Sittingbourne and the whole of Devon have all been sold off to Virgin) they can concentrate on neat packages of planned, elective care which will be hugely profitable. It's hardly well publicised that thanks to the 2012 Health & Care Act, the Government were devolved of responsibility of the NHS anyway. Why is that not more of a focus in our media, as opposed to attempting to portray junior doctors are being greedy and simply holding out for more money?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/21/ow-...

Edited by e21Mark on Thursday 18th February 09:51

Nice barrel of rotten.

[mph1977]

e21Mark said:

There's no point forcing doctors to work weekends when the supporting services (porters, X-ray etc) are not there. I used to be a hospital porter (before becoming a Nurse) and there was a weekend team of 6, as opposed to 17 from Monday to Friday. The hospital was a relative ghost town on the weekends.

<snip>]

a lot ofthe changes in support services have been made, but in the case of some ofthe support services it;s chicken and egg, what's the point in running certain investigations if nothing will be done aobut it until Tuesday ...

even the point on portering is a chicken and egg scenario ...

[968]

mph1977 said:

a lot ofthe changes in support services have been made, but in the case of some ofthe support services it;s chicken and egg, what's the point in running certain investigations if nothing will be done aobut it until Tuesday ...

even the point on portering is a chicken and egg scenario ...

No they haven't. Why? Because there no money to run the service over 5 days let alone 7. There is a medical presence in the hospital 24 hours a day and if investigations required intervention they would be acted upon.

I'm not quite sure you intentionally mislead people who are reading the thread. You know full well that support services are drastically reduced on weekends because there's no money to pay them and not enough staff to man the service safely for another 2 days, hence why this bullst manifesto pledge cannot be met.

As has been said above this whole dispute is nothing to do with patient care, the SoS couldn't give a flying fk about the patients. His motivation is to increase elective services over the weekend. You might want to consider the reasons why. It will not improve patient safety one iota.

[NoddyonNitrous]

JagLover said:

Upon the creation of the NHS the BMA initially said they would not join until Bevan "stuffed their mouths with gold" and it seems that every reorganisation is an opportunity to be stuffed with more gold.

i did some research on this before. Had Consultants salaries been uplifted to maintain their level against inflation, the current equivalent consultant salary would be in excess of £300k (currently a bit over £100k). A series of governments in the intervening decades have ensured that such largess was clawed back. It gives an insight into how keen Bevan was to make the NHS work; maybe Hunt and Cameron are finding out what they might have to do if they wanted it to continue to exist. Market forces are on the loose, whether incompetence, malice to the NHS or to satisfy a hidden agenda.