Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
968 said:
crankedup said:
Yes, good to get the professional perspective on my personal example. The Doctors did share concern regarding my ailment judging from their tone, clearly I was not in immeadiate urgent need. Thankfully the Doctors 'call' regarding my condition was the correct action. My example is not intended to be a negative criticism of the Doctors, but I do wonder why it is we have hugely expensive equipment idle when it could or maybe should be in use.
The equipment probably wasn't idle it was probably in use by other teams dealing with emergencies.I wonder if all the right wingers on here defending Hunt to the hilt will be quite so forthcoming in the future if this appears to be the huge balls up the medical profession are forecasting it will be?
As I've said before umpteen times on this thread, there is no doubt there is colossal waste and inefficiency in the NHS. And the fact savings need to be made is blindingly obvious.
However, why on earth is Hunt going after frontline staff before exhausting all the other possibilities for savings of which there seem to be an endless amount (bloated tiers of management, huge procurement inefficiences, colossal IT waste, etc, etc)?
Unless there is some ulterior motive it just seems baffling to go after junior doctors.
As I've said before umpteen times on this thread, there is no doubt there is colossal waste and inefficiency in the NHS. And the fact savings need to be made is blindingly obvious.
However, why on earth is Hunt going after frontline staff before exhausting all the other possibilities for savings of which there seem to be an endless amount (bloated tiers of management, huge procurement inefficiences, colossal IT waste, etc, etc)?
Unless there is some ulterior motive it just seems baffling to go after junior doctors.
BigMon said:
I wonder if all the right wingers on here defending Hunt to the hilt will be quite so forthcoming in the future if this appears to be the huge balls up the medical profession are forecasting it will be?
As I've said before umpteen times on this thread, there is no doubt there is colossal waste and inefficiency in the NHS. And the fact savings need to be made is blindingly obvious.
However, why on earth is Hunt going after frontline staff before exhausting all the other possibilities for savings of which there seem to be an endless amount (bloated tiers of management, huge procurement inefficiences, colossal IT waste, etc, etc)?
Unless there is some ulterior motive it just seems baffling to go after junior doctors.
I think it pays to bear in mind when discussing anything to do with Mr Hunt and the NHS that Mr Hunt has authored a policy booklet (Direct Democracy: An Agenda For A New Model Party) which calls for increased private provision of NHS services. As I've said before umpteen times on this thread, there is no doubt there is colossal waste and inefficiency in the NHS. And the fact savings need to be made is blindingly obvious.
However, why on earth is Hunt going after frontline staff before exhausting all the other possibilities for savings of which there seem to be an endless amount (bloated tiers of management, huge procurement inefficiences, colossal IT waste, etc, etc)?
Unless there is some ulterior motive it just seems baffling to go after junior doctors.
Noam Chumsky: That's the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don't work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.
ucb said:
I think it pays to bear in mind when discussing anything to do with Mr Hunt and the NHS that Mr Hunt has authored a policy booklet (Direct Democracy: An Agenda For A New Model Party) which calls for increased private provision of NHS services.
Noam Chumsky: That's the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don't work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.
But 'defund' doesn't equate to increased spending...Noam Chumsky: That's the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don't work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.
crankedup said:
My example is not intended to be a negative criticism of the Doctors, but I do wonder why it is we have hugely expensive equipment idle when it could or maybe should be in use.
It makes sense to run expensive equipment for as many hours during the week as possible. I have no problem with the concept that we fully utilise our investment in this way. The problem is that to run equipment for more hours costs more money.Take your imaging example. Most trusts would love to run their CT's and MRI's at full capacity 24/7. There's not enough of them and new ones cost a s
t load of cash. Unfortunately you need radiographers to run them, doctors to interpret the scans and back up staff to mend them and QA them when they go wrong. Porters to move patients. The list goes on. There's simply not enough money. There's also the problem that most people don't want a scan appointment at 2am on a Saturday. Those that absolutely have to have one, because they're in serious danger, get one from the on-call staff.Most of the 'inefficiencies' in the NHS come from ridiculous budget structuring. An example is agency staff. I don't know how it works everywhere but in radiotherapy there's not enough money to hire enough radiographers to cover the standard work load. But the agency staff get paid out of a different pot. So lots of agency staff get hired at double the cost just to cover routine shifts.
OK, not sure I know the answer to this so anybody want to jump in?
On LBC thrismoring was a woman talking about her husband who is a 30 something junior doctor.
she claimed that under the new contract he would lose £10K a year.
now, taking that at face value, from what I understand, the gov wants saturday treated as normal working hours not unsociable up to 5PM but keep sunday as 100% unsociable hours.
so, if you say 8 hours of Saturday is now normal not unsociable, and she is claiming he will loose £10K a year, that's some £200 a Saturday.
so the difference for 8 hours normal pay and 8 hours unsociable is £200, iw, £25/hour?
exactly what does that make normal pay rates?
and this is before we consider the government is pushing for an 11% across the board rise to start with?
Am I missing something here or is this £10K figure just wrong?
On LBC thrismoring was a woman talking about her husband who is a 30 something junior doctor.
she claimed that under the new contract he would lose £10K a year.
now, taking that at face value, from what I understand, the gov wants saturday treated as normal working hours not unsociable up to 5PM but keep sunday as 100% unsociable hours.
so, if you say 8 hours of Saturday is now normal not unsociable, and she is claiming he will loose £10K a year, that's some £200 a Saturday.
so the difference for 8 hours normal pay and 8 hours unsociable is £200, iw, £25/hour?
exactly what does that make normal pay rates?
and this is before we consider the government is pushing for an 11% across the board rise to start with?
Am I missing something here or is this £10K figure just wrong?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The other thing that came to my mind which was interesting given your comment was that my trust went through 'turnaround' process 18 months ago, as our trust was £23million in the red. They hired, at great expense, a very reputable firm of management consultants who are very clever and were tasked with doing as you say, cutting waste, cutting spending, increase efficiency etc. The head MC was paid approximately £3-400k (the figure was not clear) and went about his business with fervour, eviscerating the administration department and various others. After this 18 months, the administration department has collapsed and is now so utterly useless I have to micromanage my own clinics to ensure patients who need to be seen urgently are seen. The trust is now around £35million in debt and has been placed in special measures, along with all the other trusts in our region of England. So, the solution would not appear quite as simple as it seems, even for a management consultant from the private sector. The whole process cost the trust a million at least paid to the firm.Scuffers said:
OK, not sure I know the answer to this so anybody want to jump in?
On LBC thrismoring was a woman talking about her husband who is a 30 something junior doctor.
she claimed that under the new contract he would lose £10K a year.
now, taking that at face value, from what I understand, the gov wants saturday treated as normal working hours not unsociable up to 5PM but keep sunday as 100% unsociable hours.
so, if you say 8 hours of Saturday is now normal not unsociable, and she is claiming he will loose £10K a year, that's some £200 a Saturday.
so the difference for 8 hours normal pay and 8 hours unsociable is £200, iw, £25/hour?
exactly what does that make normal pay rates?
and this is before we consider the government is pushing for an 11% across the board rise to start with?
Am I missing something here or is this £10K figure just wrong?
It depends on what band he is on. The 10k won't be lost from working saturdays alone but working antisocial hours during the week too where the government wants to redefine a normal working day upto 10pm, so on Thursday evening for example, he will not get additional payment for working until after 10pm. It also depends what speciality he works in to an extent as GP trainees (who work in the hospital on the same rota, doing the same job) will be paid significantly less on this new contract. I might be wrong as the conditions have changed since the negotiations happened and I haven't looked at the 'imposed' deal.On LBC thrismoring was a woman talking about her husband who is a 30 something junior doctor.
she claimed that under the new contract he would lose £10K a year.
now, taking that at face value, from what I understand, the gov wants saturday treated as normal working hours not unsociable up to 5PM but keep sunday as 100% unsociable hours.
so, if you say 8 hours of Saturday is now normal not unsociable, and she is claiming he will loose £10K a year, that's some £200 a Saturday.
so the difference for 8 hours normal pay and 8 hours unsociable is £200, iw, £25/hour?
exactly what does that make normal pay rates?
and this is before we consider the government is pushing for an 11% across the board rise to start with?
Am I missing something here or is this £10K figure just wrong?
BigMon said:
I wonder if all the right wingers on here defending Hunt to the hilt will be quite so forthcoming in the future if this appears to be the huge balls up the medical profession are forecasting it will be?
As I've said before umpteen times on this thread, there is no doubt there is colossal waste and inefficiency in the NHS. And the fact savings need to be made is blindingly obvious.
However, why on earth is Hunt going after frontline staff before exhausting all the other possibilities for savings of which there seem to be an endless amount (bloated tiers of management, huge procurement inefficiences, colossal IT waste, etc, etc)?
Unless there is some ulterior motive it just seems baffling to go after junior doctors.
There are no 'bloated tiers of management' - that is just a tired cliche.As I've said before umpteen times on this thread, there is no doubt there is colossal waste and inefficiency in the NHS. And the fact savings need to be made is blindingly obvious.
However, why on earth is Hunt going after frontline staff before exhausting all the other possibilities for savings of which there seem to be an endless amount (bloated tiers of management, huge procurement inefficiences, colossal IT waste, etc, etc)?
Unless there is some ulterior motive it just seems baffling to go after junior doctors.
The data is easily found by a simple google search. Management staff make up 3.7% of the NHS workforce. Hardly a 'bloated' management structure.
vonuber said:
I think this is all part of the Conservatives plan to basically run it enough into the ground that they can then part - or fully - privatise it, whilst subsequently handily ending up on the boards of most of the companies who are suddenly running the contracts.
The same is going to happen with Network Rail.
It is partly privatised already. Keep up at the back. The same is going to happen with Network Rail.
Good use of cliche though - top marks for that.
968 said:
It depends on what band he is on. The 10k won't be lost from working saturdays alone but working antisocial hours during the week too where the government wants to redefine a normal working day upto 10pm, so on Thursday evening for example, he will not get additional payment for working until after 10pm. It also depends what speciality he works in to an extent as GP trainees (who work in the hospital on the same rota, doing the same job) will be paid significantly less on this new contract. I might be wrong as the conditions have changed since the negotiations happened and I haven't looked at the 'imposed' deal.
so, do you think the £10K is a credible figure?and if it is, what kind of total package would somebody likely be on?
johnfm said:
vonuber said:
I think this is all part of the Conservatives plan to basically run it enough into the ground that they can then part - or fully - privatise it, whilst subsequently handily ending up on the boards of most of the companies who are suddenly running the contracts.
The same is going to happen with Network Rail.
It is partly privatised already. Keep up at the back. The same is going to happen with Network Rail.
Good use of cliche though - top marks for that.
968 said:
Rovinghawk said:
Although I accept that the man in charge carries the can, are you really telling me that the huge inefficiency you admitted exists is purely down to him?
A large amount of the problems are down to his predecessor when they insisted on a costly and pointless reorganisation rather than ensuring adequate funding.968 said:
Rovinghawk said:
How good or bad they are is irrelevant. Don't use their failings to excuse yours.
Clearly you're determined to be confrontational though are totally and wildly inaccurate with your accusations. 968 said:
rovinghawk said:
I don't know how you define "reduced funding" but my understanding is that more is spent every year. I'm no financial giant but I thought that this would be called "increased funding".
Your understanding is wrong. The level of funding has dropped in real terms in by a huge amount over a short period of time despite increasing demands.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff