Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
speedyman said:
Jockman said:
spaximus said:
It is hard for many to get facts as the PR fight is one sided in favour of Hunt, if the facts were easily and accurately portrayed then support would grow further for the JD's.
Do you feel the media has failed the JDs?Do you believe that being 'majority right wing' is the same as being pro Govt?
speedyman said:
Jockman said:
spaximus said:
It is hard for many to get facts as the PR fight is one sided in favour of Hunt, if the facts were easily and accurately portrayed then support would grow further for the JD's.
Do you feel the media has failed the JDs?Then there's the left-wing bias in the BBC.
Regarding possible comments on inclusion of The Independent, yes ho ho ho, it's independent, are you...
Jockman said:
spaximus said:
It is hard for many to get facts as the PR fight is one sided in favour of Hunt, if the facts were easily and accurately portrayed then support would grow further for the JD's.
Do you feel the media has failed the JDs?They sent little or no instructions on what should be on the posters at pickets. So you see one "overthrow the government" poster and some see that as proof this is political. Allowing socialist workers posters again would suggest to some this was about a bigger issue.
I think in many ways modern journalists are lazy, if they are given a full set of briefing from one side and a list of websites to visit from the other they will take the easy option.
Hunt has done a very good job of diverting the subject to where it appears it is just about pay, which it is not. The experience of getting the right message out by the DOh has worked, but not well enough.
spaximus said:
They sent little or no instructions on what should be on the posters at pickets. So you see one "overthrow the government" poster and some see that as proof this is political.
If only it was only one placard or one t-shirt, and none have been quite as direct as that extreme non-example. The anti-Tory sentiment remains clear though, so yes of course there's a political element. You're dismissing a larger body of evidence there, presumably because it's inconvenient to your position.
Well this is inconvenient for Jeremy isn't it. A new study (http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/national-study-casts-doubt-on-higher-weekend-death-rate-and-proposals-for-seven-day-hospital-services/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=SocialPR) demonstrates what doctors and healthcare professionals have been telling the government all along, that the weekend effect is caused by patients admitted to hospital at the weekend being on average more sick than those admitted during the week. And what do NHS england do when confronted with this, state that this shows why 'more senior doctors are needed in hospitals at the weekend'........which has precisely f
k all to do with the junior doctors contract.
Jeremy Hunt has stated numerous times the aim of this contract change is to reduce the weekend effect. He has no evidence it will do so, (and there is now some evidence that it won't), says it is cost neutral - so he's not saving any money by doing it, and in doing so is alienating a whole generation of doctors.
So why do it.......
k all to do with the junior doctors contract.Jeremy Hunt has stated numerous times the aim of this contract change is to reduce the weekend effect. He has no evidence it will do so, (and there is now some evidence that it won't), says it is cost neutral - so he's not saving any money by doing it, and in doing so is alienating a whole generation of doctors.
So why do it.......
spaximus said:
Perhaps, but more importantly the BMA have failed to use the media as well as they should have. Some of the JD's put forward for interview were genuine people who were not schooled in speaking to the media. Those from the DOH were and as such were polished and stuck to the path, whereas some of the JD spokespersons were diverted. This sometimes made them appear young and whingey.
They sent little or no instructions on what should be on the posters at pickets. So you see one "overthrow the government" poster and some see that as proof this is political. Allowing socialist workers posters again would suggest to some this was about a bigger issue.
I think in many ways modern journalists are lazy, if they are given a full set of briefing from one side and a list of websites to visit from the other they will take the easy option.
Hunt has done a very good job of diverting the subject to where it appears it is just about pay, which it is not. The experience of getting the right message out by the DOh has worked, but not well enough.
The only person I know who is a junior doctor is definitely treating this as political, as are her family, who allege to be socialist and therefore very anti Jeremy Hunt on political grounds. She made the same statement as you about the strike not being about pay, and then went on to say about how she would be even on pay if the BMA proposal was adopted but worse off under the new contract. If it is not about pay why did this even need to be raised? If it really isn't about pay the BMA need to take that off the table and accept the pay rates being offered. They haven't so it is definitely about pay.They sent little or no instructions on what should be on the posters at pickets. So you see one "overthrow the government" poster and some see that as proof this is political. Allowing socialist workers posters again would suggest to some this was about a bigger issue.
I think in many ways modern journalists are lazy, if they are given a full set of briefing from one side and a list of websites to visit from the other they will take the easy option.
Hunt has done a very good job of diverting the subject to where it appears it is just about pay, which it is not. The experience of getting the right message out by the DOh has worked, but not well enough.
andyps said:
The only person I know who is a junior doctor is definitely treating this as political, as are her family, who allege to be socialist and therefore very anti Jeremy Hunt on political grounds. She made the same statement as you about the strike not being about pay, and then went on to say about how she would be even on pay if the BMA proposal was adopted but worse off under the new contract. If it is not about pay why did this even need to be raised? If it really isn't about pay the BMA need to take that off the table and accept the pay rates being offered. They haven't so it is definitely about pay.
So one out of how many? I know eight through my daughter and none of them voted Labour or see this as an opportunity to bring down the government. In any group of people there will be people who vote differently but the aim of the dispute is not to bring down the government it is to protect patients and the JD.Now of course pay is an element, no one should be asked to take a 20-30% pay cut, but that is one element but it is the one element that Hunt has banged home and people believe. I will never convince some on here, but those I know fear the aims of this promised 7 day a week 24 hour service is not achievable or wanted. Would Doris want her bunions done a 2.00am on a Sunday morning? Of course not and that is the absurdity of what he has promised.
They struggle to cover the hours they work now and there are no more Doctors in training, no more places intended so how could he do this unless he forces Doctors working week to become even longer for less.
I hope they can sort it but there is genuine fear in all the staff working in the NHS frontline that this is just the opening salvo and every single person will see their terms ripped up and reduced.
sidicks said:
On what basis - my understanding is that pay is-protected?
It is complicated, there is pay protection for two years for those not moving. So a JD who is almost ready to become a consultant has this but for the vast majority it does not really work.An F1 or F2 works in blocks. Each year they do 4 blocks and are employed by up to 4 different employers as the Deanery allocates them to hospitals. So technically they have 4 new contracts, but they all run together.
So in my daughters case, she moves in August to Anaesthetics to work to become fully qualified in that speciality. As this work involves a lot of nights and week end the banding was 50%.
She would get a pay rise in August and that banding. Now she will get a 13% increase with no banding. The overtime is now time and a third, but as the normal working day has been extended this will mean a cut.
It is so complicated and difficult to quantify everything it is only when you sit down with old rotas, new rotas, old contract and new that each person can see how it affects them.
I hope that those who really understand it get around a table and are allowed to reach a settlement without Hunt vetoing everything.
Interesting today that the education minister has cancelled the plans to force all schools to become academies as she has seen that it is not workable. This is no different but Hunt has painted himself into a corner.
spaximus said:
It is complicated, there is pay protection for two years for those not moving. So a JD who is almost ready to become a consultant has this but for the vast majority it does not really work.
An F1 or F2 works in blocks. Each year they do 4 blocks and are employed by up to 4 different employers as the Deanery allocates them to hospitals. So technically they have 4 new contracts, but they all run together.
So in my daughters case, she moves in August to Anaesthetics to work to become fully qualified in that speciality. As this work involves a lot of nights and week end the banding was 50%.
She would get a pay rise in August and that banding. Now she will get a 13% increase with no banding. The overtime is now time and a third, but as the normal working day has been extended this will mean a cut.
It is so complicated and difficult to quantify everything it is only when you sit down with old rotas, new rotas, old contract and new that each person can see how it affects them.
I hope that those who really understand it get around a table and are allowed to reach a settlement without Hunt vetoing everything.
Interesting today that the education minister has cancelled the plans to force all schools to become academies as she has seen that it is not workable. This is no different but Hunt has painted himself into a corner.
Thanks for your explanation.An F1 or F2 works in blocks. Each year they do 4 blocks and are employed by up to 4 different employers as the Deanery allocates them to hospitals. So technically they have 4 new contracts, but they all run together.
So in my daughters case, she moves in August to Anaesthetics to work to become fully qualified in that speciality. As this work involves a lot of nights and week end the banding was 50%.
She would get a pay rise in August and that banding. Now she will get a 13% increase with no banding. The overtime is now time and a third, but as the normal working day has been extended this will mean a cut.
It is so complicated and difficult to quantify everything it is only when you sit down with old rotas, new rotas, old contract and new that each person can see how it affects them.
I hope that those who really understand it get around a table and are allowed to reach a settlement without Hunt vetoing everything.
Interesting today that the education minister has cancelled the plans to force all schools to become academies as she has seen that it is not workable. This is no different but Hunt has painted himself into a corner.
Jockman said:
sidicks said:
spaximus said:
Now of course pay is an element, no one should be asked to take a 20-30% pay cut,
On what basis - my understanding is that pay is-protected?spaximus said:
andyps said:
The only person I know who is a junior doctor is definitely treating this as political, as are her family, who allege to be socialist and therefore very anti Jeremy Hunt on political grounds. She made the same statement as you about the strike not being about pay, and then went on to say about how she would be even on pay if the BMA proposal was adopted but worse off under the new contract. If it is not about pay why did this even need to be raised? If it really isn't about pay the BMA need to take that off the table and accept the pay rates being offered. They haven't so it is definitely about pay.
So one out of how many? I know eight through my daughter and none of them voted Labour or see this as an opportunity to bring down the government. In any group of people there will be people who vote differently but the aim of the dispute is not to bring down the government it is to protect patients and the JD.spaximus said:
sidicks said:
On what basis - my understanding is that pay is-protected?
It is complicated, there is pay protection for two years for those not moving. So a JD who is almost ready to become a consultant has this but for the vast majority it does not really work.An F1 or F2 works in blocks. Each year they do 4 blocks and are employed by up to 4 different employers as the Deanery allocates them to hospitals. So technically they have 4 new contracts, but they all run together.
So in my daughters case, she moves in August to Anaesthetics to work to become fully qualified in that speciality. As this work involves a lot of nights and week end the banding was 50%.
She would get a pay rise in August and that banding. Now she will get a 13% increase with no banding. The overtime is now time and a third, but as the normal working day has been extended this will mean a cut.
It is so complicated and difficult to quantify everything it is only when you sit down with old rotas, new rotas, old contract and new that each person can see how it affects them.
I hope that those who really understand it get around a table and are allowed to reach a settlement without Hunt vetoing everything.
That is a lot of information you have given about an element of the strike which apparently the strike is not about
Jockman said:
The BMA proposal itself is for a 20% pay cut during certain segments of the week.
But a simple calculation, taking the general increase in the public sector as 1% and the request from the BMA for a blanket increase in pay to cover moving regular hours from 7am to 7pm means that the BMA are valuing that at a 25% increase in pay for working 7pm-8pm rather than 7am to 7pm - a shift which effectively happens each year when BST starts. That is a large increase for very little in my view.loafer123 said:
Jockman said:
sidicks said:
spaximus said:
Now of course pay is an element, no one should be asked to take a 20-30% pay cut,
On what basis - my understanding is that pay is-protected?The current system allows a 20% to 100% uplift for unsociable hours. The Govt wants to cap this at max of 50% on top of the 13.5% basic rise = about 70%.
turbobloke said:
speedyman said:
Jockman said:
spaximus said:
It is hard for many to get facts as the PR fight is one sided in favour of Hunt, if the facts were easily and accurately portrayed then support would grow further for the JD's.
Do you feel the media has failed the JDs?Then there's the left-wing bias in the BBC.
Regarding possible comments on inclusion of The Independent, yes ho ho ho, it's independent, are you...
Jockman said:
No, the BMA basic rate rise is advocated at 4 to 7%. The Govt offer includes the 13.5% basic increase. I'm setting out the figures as they are, not interpreting them.
The current system allows a 20% to 100% uplift for unsociable hours. The Govt wants to cap this at max of 50% on top of the 13.5% basic rise = about 70%.
Maximum banding is 50% at present for those areas like A&E. The new system has no banding at all, instead they have said a 13.5% increase then any hours that are worked in what is classed as the new unsocial hours is paid at time and a third. The current system allows a 20% to 100% uplift for unsociable hours. The Govt wants to cap this at max of 50% on top of the 13.5% basic rise = about 70%.
As I said very complicated and there are a lot of misunderstanding. I don't know how many Doctors have to say they do not get overtime before people believe them. And here we all are talking about the pay which is not what it is all about, the new rotas have less rest days and when they say Doctors will work no more than 72 hours, it seems some have taken that to mean they should work 72 hours when preparing rotas.
spaximus said:
Maximum banding is 50% at present for those areas like A&E. The new system has no banding at all, instead they have said a 13.5% increase then any hours that are worked in what is classed as the new unsocial hours is paid at time and a third.
As I said very complicated and there are a lot of misunderstanding. I don't know how many Doctors have to say they do not get overtime before people believe them. And here we all are talking about the pay which is not what it is all about, the new rotas have less rest days and when they say Doctors will work no more than 72 hours, it seems some have taken that to mean they should work 72 hours when preparing rotas.
Is the chart on this thread incorrect then? It clearly states a Govt proposal of 33% (as you say) for certain hours then 50% for other hours.As I said very complicated and there are a lot of misunderstanding. I don't know how many Doctors have to say they do not get overtime before people believe them. And here we all are talking about the pay which is not what it is all about, the new rotas have less rest days and when they say Doctors will work no more than 72 hours, it seems some have taken that to mean they should work 72 hours when preparing rotas.
speedyman said:
turbobloke said:
speedyman said:
Jockman said:
spaximus said:
It is hard for many to get facts as the PR fight is one sided in favour of Hunt, if the facts were easily and accurately portrayed then support would grow further for the JD's.
Do you feel the media has failed the JDs?Then there's the left-wing bias in the BBC.
Regarding possible comments on inclusion of The Independent, yes ho ho ho, it's independent, are you...
Jockman said:
spaximus said:
Maximum banding is 50% at present for those areas like A&E. The new system has no banding at all, instead they have said a 13.5% increase then any hours that are worked in what is classed as the new unsocial hours is paid at time and a third.
As I said very complicated and there are a lot of misunderstanding. I don't know how many Doctors have to say they do not get overtime before people believe them. And here we all are talking about the pay which is not what it is all about, the new rotas have less rest days and when they say Doctors will work no more than 72 hours, it seems some have taken that to mean they should work 72 hours when preparing rotas.
Is the chart on this thread incorrect then? It clearly states a Govt proposal of 33% (as you say) for certain hours then 50% for other hours.As I said very complicated and there are a lot of misunderstanding. I don't know how many Doctors have to say they do not get overtime before people believe them. And here we all are talking about the pay which is not what it is all about, the new rotas have less rest days and when they say Doctors will work no more than 72 hours, it seems some have taken that to mean they should work 72 hours when preparing rotas.
Is the complicated part the everyone opposed to the pay deal talks about the fact that the banding means that some of these hours which will be paid at 33% or 50% extra are currently paid at 20% and therefore it is complicated to explain how they are claiming a pay cut when it is an increase? Just idle speculation because that is a question nothing I have seen has answered.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff