Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
Barry the bit you don't know to question is the "on average", that is averaged over a year, so they rota people to work 7 consecutive 13 hour shifts and then give them 5 days off, shear incompetence.
Turbo you are Violet Elizabeth Bott and your facts are facts and if we don't like them you will scream and scream until you make yourself sick. But you have now proved that you have no base to your "facts" just prejudice.
Turbo you are Violet Elizabeth Bott and your facts are facts and if we don't like them you will scream and scream until you make yourself sick. But you have now proved that you have no base to your "facts" just prejudice.
barryrs said:
Countdown said:
Which makes it even more impressive that they're prepared to do 72-hour working weeks....
They wont be working for 72 hours straight though.Just in case you missed it.
bma said:
New Deal contracted hours
The New Deal or junior doctors contract specifies the maximum number of duty hours
for all junior doctors’ posts as:
• 72 hours a week on on-call rotas on average
• 64 hours a week on partial shifts on average
• 56 hours a week on full shifts on average.
However, as explained above, the EWTD definition of working time means that in
effect, doctors can work no more than 48 hours on average at the hospital per week.
The New Deal or junior doctors contract specifies the maximum number of duty hours
for all junior doctors’ posts as:
• 72 hours a week on on-call rotas on average
• 64 hours a week on partial shifts on average
• 56 hours a week on full shifts on average.
However, as explained above, the EWTD definition of working time means that in
effect, doctors can work no more than 48 hours on average at the hospital per week.
IanA2 said:
968 said:
turbobloke said:
And you're here to tell me otherwise, why, thank you! Impartial 
feedback from neutral parties is always appreciated rejected 
I'm a senior doctor and have juniors who will be directly affected by this and know precisely how badly they will be affected as the restriction on their workings will be eliminated and their working day will be absurdly long. If that makes my opinion invalid (in your opinion) so be it. feedback from neutral parties is always turbobloke said:
You were here not long ago claiming that doctors weren't protesting about moolah, as you know a single counter-example disproves a theory so you obviously haven't taken kindly to having yours blown out of the water.
I know you're very pleased with yourself to post a couple of photos from people marching, who themselves have a political agenda but before you start masturbating onto your keyboard, you might like to consider that these few photos may not represent every single one of the 98% of juniors (and majority of senior doctors) who oppose the imposition of this incredibly unfair and draconian contract that will do nothing but put patients in danger. The health secretary himself is pretending this is not about money as he wants to ensure that no one loses out, which of course is b
ks, but why should the juniors accept having to work much longer hours for less pay? turbobloke said:
Another nerve touched, another neurologocal appointment needed
Keep up the personal attention, I'm lovin' it (because it reveals the total lack of anything remotely evidential).
Yes you love the personal attention because you're a narcissist who thinks he's always right even when he has no clue about the subject he talks about and thinks that if he talks enough inflammatory, misinformed bKeep up the personal attention, I'm lovin' it (because it reveals the total lack of anything remotely evidential).
ks then a few of his sycophants will appear to support him. By the way its neurological not neurologocal, given that you're so smug and correct, you might have the courtesy to find out how to spell the word you are so happy to quote.
Turbo and I have had many a debate over the years, really Turbo, I don't rant about the bankers nowadays, it gets a little tiresome and spoils threads. (hint)
Dixy said:
Turbo, My Daughter is a junior doctor, She played polo for her med school and I got to meet a lot of her fellow students. Her F1 year she was at our local hospital and we hosted parties for her and lots of the Junior doctors, a few had what you would call socialist leanings but were far too busy being doctors to give it any real thought. These are the opinions I base my assertions on.
My Daughter is somewhere to the right of Mussolini.
You seem to have got all of your facts from sky TV and Hunt, perhaps you would like to name some of the Junior doctors you have discussed this with.
I may be completely off quilter here, wouldn't be for the first time! Perhaps because the Medical profession calls for people who have an inward sense (calling may be to strong) of helping fellow citizens, it is this that endears some to the Political Left leaning. After all its long established that the Tories are financially influenced first and foremost whilst Labour are Socially minded. Very broad brush of course.My Daughter is somewhere to the right of Mussolini.
You seem to have got all of your facts from sky TV and Hunt, perhaps you would like to name some of the Junior doctors you have discussed this with.
turbobloke said:
It's the season of goodwill so your comedy of errors can pass for now, not least as what you mean is that I quote research you would rather I ignored or kept quiet about. There's no likelihood of me reading a research paper of that or pretty much any other type and not understanding the methodology and what can (or cannot) be concluded. I'm aware of the need for weasel words to get past reviewers, perhaps you are not or choose to forget.
After popping out of the home office I must return to the biggest hoot of the day so far from the small PH coterie of vested interests in Pro-Doc Inc.
If I got information by text updates from a Government minister then presumably the wholly impartial
information I received would be accepted by the vested interests.
If I got information from the BMA via a Junior Doctor offspring then presumably the wholly impartial information I received would be more than acceptable to the vested interests.
As it is, in gaining information from news released by both sides, broadcast via ITV or Sky, information from the ACAS talks, viewing online images of protests (that really took place, with real JDs with all too many real politicised banners) it appears that this information - the same type as received by tens of millions of other people with no dog in the fight - is somehow inferior to BMA propaganda and Government spin.
And I'm the one being told I don't know anything and that I'm embarrassed, by the same vested interests who in all probability get their information mostly from the same routes. Or, they swallow BMA propaganda or (less likely) Government spin in preference.
Priceless!
So, nothing on pictures, and nothing of substance. And still no answers. 'Unions, lefties, propaganda'. 'Tens of millions of other people have access to the same information', they just, luckily, don't have the 'zomg it's political' blinkers on. You still go on with 'too many' political banners, which, once again, you made up, as can be seen by anyone. You can repeat that, but it will not make it true. The links provided were from the news sources. Unfortunately nothing from Fox News.After popping out of the home office I must return to the biggest hoot of the day so far from the small PH coterie of vested interests in Pro-Doc Inc.
If I got information by text updates from a Government minister then presumably the wholly impartial
information I received would be accepted by the vested interests.If I got information from the BMA via a Junior Doctor offspring then presumably the wholly impartial
information I received would be more than acceptable to the vested interests.As it is, in gaining information from news released by both sides, broadcast via ITV or Sky, information from the ACAS talks, viewing online images of protests (that really took place, with real JDs with all too many real politicised banners) it appears that this information - the same type as received by tens of millions of other people with no dog in the fight - is somehow inferior to BMA propaganda and Government spin.
And I'm the one being told I don't know anything and that I'm embarrassed, by the same vested interests who in all probability get their information mostly from the same routes. Or, they swallow BMA propaganda or (less likely) Government spin in preference.
Priceless!
It's still fun to see pavlovian reflex when 'public sector' is mentioned. Must be a vested interest. And damned lefties and Labour stooges.
Priceless indeed.
Lucas CAV said:
Ffs..... Don't start him off about the "totally biased" bbc
Oh no! Not more metoo posts focusing juvenile rhetoric on a PHer rather than offering anything remotely relevant to the topic. Countdown said:
You forgot the CryptoLeftyBeeb
What to do when faced with such devastatingly vacuous offerings...
Keep it up.
turbobloke said:
Lucas CAV said:
Ffs..... Don't start him off about the "totally biased" bbc
Oh no! Not more metoo posts focusing juvenile rhetoric on a PHer rather than offering anything remotely relevant to the topic. Countdown said:
You forgot the CryptoLeftyBeeb
What to do when faced with such devastatingly vacuous offerings...
Keep it up.
You post some of the most juvenile language on PH --- windymills, nulabia etc etc
If I didn't know better then I'd think this internet persona was some weird fantasy and that TB didn't exist in real life!
turbobloke said:
metoo posts focusing juvenile rhetoric on a PHer rather than offering anything remotely relevant to the topic.
Physician heal thyself.We've had numerous members of the medical profession state their evidence on here why they believe the changes to the junior doctors contracts are a bad idea.
Firstly we had the pensions smokescreen which, thankfully, has been diverted onto another thread.
But, as a constant, we've had you with your 'leftist conspiracy' nonsense and, possibly your best one yet, 'I understand as much as health professionals as I've read the papers'.
You come across as an incredibly arrogant individual. Remind us again of your extensive, medical employment background which enables you to fully comprehend the issues here and dismiss the views of those who do the job on a day to day basis.
BigMon said:
turbobloke said:
metoo posts focusing juvenile rhetoric on a PHer rather than offering anything remotely relevant to the topic.
Physician heal thyself.Looking at the BMA senior echelon to see what Hunt is up against it looks very much as though junior doctors have a winning team behind them, with a track record including one-off pay rise successes at around and above 100% in a single grab. The only flies in the ointment are that the BMA bigwigs negotiated with themselves, awarded each other pay rises of e.g. 94%, 99% and 137%, then kept the outcomes of their negotiations with each other secret. Some might describe this as typical underhand secretive Union dinosauring involving first-rate troughing off the backs of 'poorly paid' junior doctors, but I prefer the BMA's own excuse that the generous pay rises recognise "the pinnacle of a doctor’s medico-political career" especially with an appropriate emphasis on political.
Doctor union awards secret pay hikes to senior members
Cool.
BigMon said:
Remind us again of your extensive, medical employment background which enables you to fully comprehend the issues here and dismiss the views of those who do the job on a day to day basis.
A fair point - perhaps you can remind the medical 'professionals' of that advice on the pensions thread...!
turbobloke said:
Parrot squawk away.
Looking at the BMA senior echelon to see what Hunt is up against it looks very much as though junior doctors have a winning team behind them, with a track record including one-off pay rise successes at around and above 100% in a single grab. The only flies in the ointment are that the BMA bigwigs negotiated with themselves, awarded each other pay rises of e.g. 94%, 99% and 137%, then kept the outcomes of their negotiations with each other secret. Some might describe this as typical underhand secretive Union dinosauring involving first-rate troughing off the backs of 'poorly paid' junior doctors, but I prefer the BMA's own excuse that the generous pay rises recognise "the pinnacle of a doctor’s medico-political career" especially with an appropriate emphasis on political.
Doctor union awards secret pay hikes to senior members
Cool.
Idiot. You really are desperate to sling some mud in any direction to justify your bullsLooking at the BMA senior echelon to see what Hunt is up against it looks very much as though junior doctors have a winning team behind them, with a track record including one-off pay rise successes at around and above 100% in a single grab. The only flies in the ointment are that the BMA bigwigs negotiated with themselves, awarded each other pay rises of e.g. 94%, 99% and 137%, then kept the outcomes of their negotiations with each other secret. Some might describe this as typical underhand secretive Union dinosauring involving first-rate troughing off the backs of 'poorly paid' junior doctors, but I prefer the BMA's own excuse that the generous pay rises recognise "the pinnacle of a doctor’s medico-political career" especially with an appropriate emphasis on political.
Doctor union awards secret pay hikes to senior members
Cool.
t. Firstly this article does not relate to the junior doctors committee, and those negotiating the junior doctors contracts so is irrelevant to these discussions. Secondly the increase in pay to these people is funded by the subscriptions of bma members. Many doctors do not hold that organisation in high regard but they're the only representatives the govt will talk to so we are stuck with them.
Thirdly this has nothing to do with the contract negotiations recently and if you believe that Hunt has engaged in any form of discussions over the last few months, you're stupider than I thought. He's made no attempt to negotiate because he arrogantly believed that he could simply impose a grossly unfair contract and the juniors would just accept it and he would whip up the media to portray doctors as leftie miners and militants, which seems to have worked on the gullible like yourself. It distracts from the facts that he has not negotiated and presides over the worst period of the NHS history as the worst health secretary there has ever been.
968 said:
turbobloke said:
Parrot squawk away.
Looking at the BMA senior echelon to see what Hunt is up against it looks very much as though junior doctors have a winning team behind them, with a track record including one-off pay rise successes at around and above 100% in a single grab. The only flies in the ointment are that the BMA bigwigs negotiated with themselves, awarded each other pay rises of e.g. 94%, 99% and 137%, then kept the outcomes of their negotiations with each other secret. Some might describe this as typical underhand secretive Union dinosauring involving first-rate troughing off the backs of 'poorly paid' junior doctors, but I prefer the BMA's own excuse that the generous pay rises recognise "the pinnacle of a doctor’s medico-political career" especially with an appropriate emphasis on political.
Doctor union awards secret pay hikes to senior members
Cool.
Idiot. You really are desperate to sling some mud in any direction to justify your bullsLooking at the BMA senior echelon to see what Hunt is up against it looks very much as though junior doctors have a winning team behind them, with a track record including one-off pay rise successes at around and above 100% in a single grab. The only flies in the ointment are that the BMA bigwigs negotiated with themselves, awarded each other pay rises of e.g. 94%, 99% and 137%, then kept the outcomes of their negotiations with each other secret. Some might describe this as typical underhand secretive Union dinosauring involving first-rate troughing off the backs of 'poorly paid' junior doctors, but I prefer the BMA's own excuse that the generous pay rises recognise "the pinnacle of a doctor’s medico-political career" especially with an appropriate emphasis on political.
Doctor union awards secret pay hikes to senior members
Cool.
t.
968 said:
Firstly this article does not relate to the junior doctors committee, and those negotiating the junior doctors contracts so is irrelevant to these discussions.
I didn't claim that it did. You have successfully stood up a strawman and knocked it down, well done senior doctor!What I said was 'BMA senior echelon' and that's correct. I didn't make any claims about whatever committee you want to cite. I then went on to discuss their own negotiating skills, purely as a means of gaining a sense of where the BMA negotiators will be getting their inspiration from. Do BMA leaders not lead? These are the top dogs, their achievements in awarding themselves large secret pay awards sets a cute backdrop for the junior doctor negotiations. As I also said earlier, I wouldn't describe this as dinosaur troughing, preferring the concept of reward for people at the pinnacle of a medico-political career, noting the political.
968 said:
Secondly the increase in pay to these people is funded by the subscriptions of bma members.
NSS. That's what I already said! To remind you look at the post you replied to and spot "off the backs of 'poorly paid' junior doctors" so your point was already made and you missed it; eye test booked yet?968 said:
Many doctors do not hold that organisation in high regard but they're the only representatives the govt will talk to so we are stuck with them.
Nobody is stuck with them. Get your facts right, or somebody might call you an idiot. It shouldn't be necessary to point out to a senior doctor that the BMA represents ~150,000 of the UK’s ~230,000 registered working doctors, so around 80,000 (using those round numbers demonstrante that medics aren't stuck at all.968 said:
Thirdly this has nothing to do with the contract negotiations recently and if you believe that Hunt has engaged in any form of discussions over the last few months, you're stupider than I thought.
Another strawman, expressed weasly as a question. Nowhere have I been touting for Hunt, I've said repeatedly that emissions from both sides cannot be trusted.Weak stuff; apart from getting your facts sorted, try for a better and more original insult with an element of humour next time.
Countdown said:
barryrs said:
Countdown said:
Which makes it even more impressive that they're prepared to do 72-hour working weeks....
They wont be working for 72 hours straight though.Just in case you missed it.
bma said:
New Deal contracted hours
The New Deal or junior doctors contract specifies the maximum number of duty hours
for all junior doctors’ posts as:
• 72 hours a week on on-call rotas on average
• 64 hours a week on partial shifts on average
• 56 hours a week on full shifts on average.
However, as explained above, the EWTD definition of working time means that in
effect, doctors can work no more than 48 hours on average at the hospital per week.
The New Deal or junior doctors contract specifies the maximum number of duty hours
for all junior doctors’ posts as:
• 72 hours a week on on-call rotas on average
• 64 hours a week on partial shifts on average
• 56 hours a week on full shifts on average.
However, as explained above, the EWTD definition of working time means that in
effect, doctors can work no more than 48 hours on average at the hospital per week.
The BMA and the EWTD put limits on working hours, is the reality that JD's ignore this and carry on regardless?
turbobloke said:
BigMon said:
turbobloke said:
metoo posts focusing juvenile rhetoric on a PHer rather than offering anything remotely relevant to the topic.
Physician heal thyself.BigMon said:
But, as a constant, we've had you with your 'leftist conspiracy' nonsense and, possibly your best one yet, 'I understand as much as health professionals as I've read the papers'.
You come across as an incredibly arrogant individual. Remind us again of your extensive, medical employment background which enables you to fully comprehend the issues here and dismiss the views of those who do the job on a day to day basis.
Feel free to elaborate on the above. Thanks.You come across as an incredibly arrogant individual. Remind us again of your extensive, medical employment background which enables you to fully comprehend the issues here and dismiss the views of those who do the job on a day to day basis.
BigMon said:
sidicks said:
A fair point - perhaps you can remind the medical 'professionals' of that advice on the pensions thread...!
You have no argument from me about the problems with affordability and sustainability of public sector pensions!g3org3y said:
turbobloke said:
BigMon said:
turbobloke said:
metoo posts focusing juvenile rhetoric on a PHer rather than offering anything remotely relevant to the topic.
Physician heal thyself.BigMon said:
But, as a constant, we've had you with your 'leftist conspiracy' nonsense and, possibly your best one yet, 'I understand as much as health professionals as I've read the papers'.
You come across as an incredibly arrogant individual. Remind us again of your extensive, medical employment background which enables you to fully comprehend the issues here and dismiss the views of those who do the job on a day to day basis.
Feel free to elaborate on the above. Thanks.You come across as an incredibly arrogant individual. Remind us again of your extensive, medical employment background which enables you to fully comprehend the issues here and dismiss the views of those who do the job on a day to day basis.
A medical training and employment background is needed for informed comment on medical decisions. BigMon cutely and tactically (but wrongly) conflates this with views and understandings of pay negotiations and the politicisation of member action by union bigwigs, for which no medical experience is neccessary. Being a metoo on this topic, you play along and run with it. Slow down
My background does include significant experience of managing pay, including expectations and tone setting. It allows me to note that more than one junior doctor with a placard about pay implies that this dispute about pay and conditions includes pay. All I did earlier was point this out when pay was omitted from considerations as though it wasn't a factor and the vested interests didn't like it. Nor did they approve when two or three images of strongly politicised anti-Tory junior doctor campaign slogans were pictured (I posted a sample from many) and again the vested interests worked overtime to attack the messenger while ignoring the message.
I've already mentioned that imo the salaries of the BMA top echelon are in keeping with professionals at the "pinnacle" of a "medico-political career" to borrow the BMA phraseology. The relevance to this thread is that people at the top set the tone and expectations for the organisation. The attitude to pay and pay rise 'negotiations' of the people at the top of the BMA will set the tone and expectations for the organisation. That fact didn't go down well either, with teddy right out of the pram once again when mentioned.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff