Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
Hunt gave the BMA a deal and said take it or leave it, the BMA, under pressure from the RCs agreed to try and sell it to the members. Unfortunately for Hunt through his inflexibility this whole sorry escapade has gathered so much momentum that the members said NO.
Hunts agenda is to privatize the NHS, he even wrote a book about it, so all this plays in to his hands. Ironically if he succeeds Doctors salaries in the future will rocket, an inconvenient truth for those that say the strike is all about self interest..
Hunts agenda is to privatize the NHS, he even wrote a book about it, so all this plays in to his hands. Ironically if he succeeds Doctors salaries in the future will rocket, an inconvenient truth for those that say the strike is all about self interest..
Dixy said:
Hunt gave the BMA a deal and said take it or leave it, the BMA, under pressure from the RCs agreed to try and sell it to the members. Unfortunately for Hunt through his inflexibility this whole sorry escapade has gathered so much momentum that the members said NO.
Hunts agenda is to privatize the NHS, he even wrote a book about it, so all this plays in to his hands. Ironically if he succeeds Doctors salaries in the future will rocket, an inconvenient truth for those that say the strike is all about self interest..
Hunts agenda is to privatize the NHS, he even wrote a book about it, so all this plays in to his hands. Ironically if he succeeds Doctors salaries in the future will rocket, an inconvenient truth for those that say the strike is all about self interest..
Edited by sidicks on Friday 2nd September 09:36
Hosenbugler said:
From a personal point of view if a relative of mine died because of the deliberate withdrawal of medical care by a "Striker" (because striking is entirely voluntary and premeditated) I would expect to see them in the dock answering for their actions.
No one will die because of a striker, the trusts have a statutory duty to provide care. The strikers have a legal right to withdraw their labour. The problem is Hunts.Dixy said:
Hosenbugler said:
From a personal point of view if a relative of mine died because of the deliberate withdrawal of medical care by a "Striker" (because striking is entirely voluntary and premeditated) I would expect to see them in the dock answering for their actions.
No one will die because of a striker...Dixy said:
No one will die because of a striker, the trusts have a statutory duty to provide care. The strikers have a legal right to withdraw their labour. The problem is Hunts.
Well let's say I've an operation due in one of those weeks but it's cancelled and due to that my life threatening illness turns much worse and I die. It's not all about A&E and it's about time something was done about this. Striking is not an option.
The public have spoken in the GE.
If the issue is there isn't enough doctors then make that case as frankly it's coming over that it's all about £££ which to most Dr I'd say isn't the case but it will not take much to harm public opinion as this is what they have asked the govt to deliver.
Dixy said:
Hosenbugler said:
From a personal point of view if a relative of mine died because of the deliberate withdrawal of medical care by a "Striker" (because striking is entirely voluntary and premeditated) I would expect to see them in the dock answering for their actions.
No one will die because of a striker, the trusts have a statutory duty to provide care. The strikers have a legal right to withdraw their labour. The problem is Hunts.As already said, you seem confident that nobody will die because of the strikes,hopefully you will be proved correct. However it seems that harm to patients is a real possibility , a view held by medical health organisations, representing senior doctors. So, being as you seem to be actively encouraging strikes by JD's, you will of course be shouldering a portion of the blame should any fatalities occur because of the strike , or , maybe its a case that the responsibility is everyone else's and none of yours.
Hosenbugler said:
Strikers may have a legal right to withdraw their labour, the way I see it though, that "right" ends if it cause physical harm to others. As for Hunt, as far as I am aware he is not on strike.
As already said, you seem confident that nobody will die because of the strikes,hopefully you will be proved correct. However it seems that harm to patients is a real possibility , a view held by medical health organisations, representing senior doctors. So, being as you seem to be actively encouraging strikes by JD's, you will of course be shouldering a portion of the blame should any fatalities occur because of the strike , or , maybe its a case that the responsibility is everyone else's and none of yours.
This is the crux of it. As already said, you seem confident that nobody will die because of the strikes,hopefully you will be proved correct. However it seems that harm to patients is a real possibility , a view held by medical health organisations, representing senior doctors. So, being as you seem to be actively encouraging strikes by JD's, you will of course be shouldering a portion of the blame should any fatalities occur because of the strike , or , maybe its a case that the responsibility is everyone else's and none of yours.
Clearly no one wants anyone to die or to have added suffering due to the strike BUT if that happens just watch public opinion vanish. You cannot guarantee it no one can it's purely a fingers crossed it will not happen situation
I have mainly kept out of this debate but I have a deep and meaningful comment, I suspect the JD do not want to strike but it is the last option open to them. No doubt the Government will take this opportunity to outlaw all strikes by our critically important public service sectors.
Next industry to come under the spotlight, and it's not public sector, are the investment houses dealing with multi billions of pounds and happy to coast along as long as the investment performance is average. One of these investment houses has declared that it is stopping all future bonus payments to staff, but they are having an increase in basic salary apparently.
Next industry to come under the spotlight, and it's not public sector, are the investment houses dealing with multi billions of pounds and happy to coast along as long as the investment performance is average. One of these investment houses has declared that it is stopping all future bonus payments to staff, but they are having an increase in basic salary apparently.
crankedup said:
I have mainly kept out of this debate but I have a deep and meaningful comment, I suspect the JD do not want to strike but it is the last option open to them. No doubt the Government will take this opportunity to outlaw all strikes by our critically important public service sectors.
Next industry to come under the spotlight, and it's not public sector, are the investment houses dealing with multi billions of pounds and happy to coast along as long as the investment performance is average. One of these investment houses has declared that it is stopping all future bonus payments to staff, but they are having an increase in basic salary apparently.
The problem is the Govt have a massive mandate from the public it is the settled will of the public. If you don't like it then resign simple. Next industry to come under the spotlight, and it's not public sector, are the investment houses dealing with multi billions of pounds and happy to coast along as long as the investment performance is average. One of these investment houses has declared that it is stopping all future bonus payments to staff, but they are having an increase in basic salary apparently.
If enough actually resign then it might make things change who knows.
Hosenbugler said:
Strikers may have a legal right to withdraw their labour, the way I see it though, that "right" ends if it cause physical harm to others. As for Hunt, as far as I am aware he is not on strike.
What course of action do you suggest junior doctors take instead, having rejected the contract which is now being imposed on them? Also, why do you feel that Hunt carries no share of blame in this given that he, and by extension the government, are the root cause of the whole debacle?
Edited by glazbagun on Friday 2nd September 11:43
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
No, there is, however, evidence that you whine on and on about pensions on every single thread about dreaded 'public sector'.
The evidence from numerous threads is that many public sector workers, don't appreciate the value of the pensions they have, given the ways they try to pretend these schemes are 'in surplus' etc etc.Deny that if you wish.
jjlynn27 said:
Which one is it? Does it have to take into account that NHS pension will stay the same?
Maybe they believe that;
They can believe what they want, whether these people are a) representative and b) well-informed is what is most relevant!Maybe they believe that;
jjlynn27 said:
some pension expert said:
It's not unreasonable for the terms of future accrual to be varied to reflect economic circumstances!
2) Depending on the future economic and demographic environment, it is feasible that future accrual could reduce and yet there would still be increased value (compared to now) of the scheme.
HTH
As for 'educating' try to read some of the alpinestars posts. Yours are repetitive whine. And funny.
Actually, I'll let you argue with yourself. I'll be playing the part of amused bystander;
sidicks said:
So basically the pension is less than half as generous, and much more risky, than her current scheme (at best).
sidicks said:
When you take into account the size of taxpayer subsidy and the transfer of risks, then certainly less generous. Maybe not 50%.
sidicks said:
The discussion was about a comparison of remuneration in one country versus another. A key part of the remuneration was the pension benefit in the UK, something that I know far more than a little about.
sidicks said:
I said the pension was much less generous, I never said the overall package was less generous.
sidicks said:
And yet you are apparently oblivious to the misleading claims on the recent links made by others which show a highly misleading comparison between doctors in two different countries. Or do you not understand why the comparison is misleading?
So, what was misleading? You valued ps pensions at '25% or more'. So the pension of 12% on double the amount (no contribution) is less than half as generous, than a pension of '25% or more' where you have to actually contribute to it, from your own salary? And where that contributing pension is subject to 'economic reality'? Seriously? . The 'comparing yourself to others on anonymous forum' still makes me chuckle.
Edited by jjlynn27 on Friday 2nd September 12:10
glazbagun said:
Hosenbugler said:
Strikers may have a legal right to withdraw their labour, the way I see it though, that "right" ends if it cause physical harm to others. As for Hunt, as far as I am aware he is not on strike.
What course of action do you suggest junior doctors take instead, having rejected the contract which is now being imposed on them? Also, why do you feel that Hunt carries no share of blame in this given that he, and by extension the government, are the root cause of the whole debacle?
Edited by glazbagun on Friday 2nd September 11:43
From what I heard on the radio today , it seems only a minority of JD's are backing the current events , so seems likely the strikes coming may not hold. We will see.
glazbagun said:
What course of action do you suggest junior doctors take instead, having rejected the contract which is now being imposed on them?
Also, why do you feel that Hunt carries no share of blame in this given that he, and by extension the government, are the root cause of the whole debacle?
I suggest they go fAlso, why do you feel that Hunt carries no share of blame in this given that he, and by extension the government, are the root cause of the whole debacle?
Edited by glazbagun on Friday 2nd September 11:43
k themselves.Their appointed negotiators agreed a deal.
the Junior doctors then decided they didn't like the negotiated deal.
ninja-lewis said:
jjlynn27 said:
About insurance; it's not like for like comparison at all. JDs are required to take professional insurance when they start to work for the NHS. Moonlighting is irrelevant. Do you know any profession or company that asks professionals to pay for the insurance to be able to work for them? I don't.
Per the Medical Defence Union:"I am an NHS employed doctor. Do I need to have additional indemnity?
If you work for an NHS body (or the HSC in Northern Ireland) the organisation you work for will have NHS indemnity via a clinical negligence scheme. You may however want to consider whether you need additional indemnity for clinical work which isn't included in NHS indemnity, for example providing medico-legal reports and signing cremation certificates. MDU membership also provides access to support with many other medico-legal issues arising from clinical practice that are not covered by NHS indemnity such as attendance at an inquest, a complaint to the GMC or a professional disciplinary or criminal investigation as well as help with media enquiries."
https://www.themdu.com/my-membership/frequently-as...
BMA said:
It is of paramount importance that doctors indemnify themselves, either through defence body membership or other indemnity insurance, for all the work they undertake which does not fall strictly within their NHS contract, including, for example, ‘good samaritan’ or category 2 work (see para 3.5.4 (b) below), irrespective of the frequency of the work or the risk of litigation. Doctors must ascertain whether any of their work is not covered by the NHS indemnity scheme, and if in any doubt,check with their employing authority/trust or defence body.
3.3 All NHS employed doctors are advised to retain defence body membership or take out other indemnity insurance and to ensure that they are adequately indemnified at all times.
Their bold.3.3 All NHS employed doctors are advised to retain defence body membership or take out other indemnity insurance and to ensure that they are adequately indemnified at all times.
DoH is also 'strongly advising' doctors to take their own insurance or take membership of defence body, such as MDU.
I don't know a single doctor, conultant or jd, that doesn't have either MDU membership or own insurance through one of the few providers. Do you?
Do you have to take private indemnity insurance to do work for the company that you work for? Is there an advice from your professional body to take out such insurance?
Edited by jjlynn27 on Friday 2nd September 12:09
glazbagun said:
Hosenbugler said:
Strikers may have a legal right to withdraw their labour, the way I see it though, that "right" ends if it cause physical harm to others. As for Hunt, as far as I am aware he is not on strike.
What course of action do you suggest junior doctors take instead, having rejected the contract which is now being imposed on them? Also, why do you feel that Hunt carries no share of blame in this given that he, and by extension the Conservatives, are the root cause of the whole debacle?
jjlynn27 said:
Their bold.
DoH is also 'strongly advising' doctors to take their own insurance or take membership of defence body, such as MDU.
I don't know a single doctor, conultant or jd, that doesn't have either MDU membership or own insurance through one of the few providers. Do you?
Do you have to take private indemnity insurance to do work for the company that you work for? Is there an advice from your professional body to take out such insurance?
So it's not compulsory then. No one has to take it out. Why is it being advised rather than made mandatory if it's mandatory? DoH is also 'strongly advising' doctors to take their own insurance or take membership of defence body, such as MDU.
I don't know a single doctor, conultant or jd, that doesn't have either MDU membership or own insurance through one of the few providers. Do you?
Do you have to take private indemnity insurance to do work for the company that you work for? Is there an advice from your professional body to take out such insurance?
Edited by jjlynn27 on Friday 2nd September 12:09
paulrockliffe said:
jjlynn27 said:
Their bold.
DoH is also 'strongly advising' doctors to take their own insurance or take membership of defence body, such as MDU.
I don't know a single doctor, conultant or jd, that doesn't have either MDU membership or own insurance through one of the few providers. Do you?
Do you have to take private indemnity insurance to do work for the company that you work for? Is there an advice from your professional body to take out such insurance?
So it's not compulsory then. No one has to take it out. Why is it being advised rather than made mandatory if it's mandatory? DoH is also 'strongly advising' doctors to take their own insurance or take membership of defence body, such as MDU.
I don't know a single doctor, conultant or jd, that doesn't have either MDU membership or own insurance through one of the few providers. Do you?
Do you have to take private indemnity insurance to do work for the company that you work for? Is there an advice from your professional body to take out such insurance?
Edited by jjlynn27 on Friday 2nd September 12:09
crankedup said:
I have mainly kept out of this debate but I have a deep and meaningful comment, I suspect the JD do not want to strike but it is the last option open to them. No doubt the Government will take this opportunity to outlaw all strikes by our critically important public service sectors.
Most didn't vote to go on strike, make of that what you will....crankedup said:
Next industry to come under the spotlight, and it's not public sector, are the investment houses dealing with multi billions of pounds and happy to coast along as long as the investment performance is average. One of these investment houses has declared that it is stopping all future bonus payments to staff, but they are having an increase in basic salary apparently.
Please don't pollute the thread with your nonsense hobby horse issues...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff