Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[sidicks]

IanA2 said:

So is a recent Conservative Health Minister also uninformed? Cast your eyes over this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/...

Exactly what part of this report are you referring to?

It says absolutely nothing about privatising the NHS.

IanA2 said:

And now I really am out. The level of ignorance and blindness being displayed by some on this topic is quite astounding.

The ignorance is from those (like you) claiming the government is intending to sell off the NHS to the private sector, with no evidence to support that claim.
This distracts from the important issue that the thread was (supposedly) intended to discuss.
HTH

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 18th October 12:43

[anonymous-user]

IanA2 said:

sidicks said:

g3org3y said:

From reading various NHS related threads in recent months, I'd say that jjlynn27 is one of the most knowledgeable and informed posters on these matters.

He's clearly totally uninformed when it comes to his claims about what I've previously posted on these topics and in particular on the cost of the NHS and employee benefits, which is what I comment on.

So is a recent Conservative Health Minister also uninformed? Cast your eyes over this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/...

And now I really am out. The level of ignorance and blindness being displayed by some on this topic is quite astounding.

FFS why do people keep saying they're out when they clearly don't mean it? Stop raising false hopes.

[jjlynn27]

Rovinghawk said:

abucd4- I notice you didn't answer this question when you inaccurately made the comments above.

Do you have an answer or are the facts inconvenient?

I'm not going to answer for abucd4, but I do have couple of questions for you, as you come across as sidick-lite (just my impression don't get hung-up on that too much);

- do you think that there is adequate number of jd (this is the thread about junior doctors) in NHS?
- do you think that junior doctors are adequately remunerated.
- what facts are you referring to when you ask if 'facts are inconvenient'.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

I'm not going to answer for abucd4, but I do have couple of questions for you, as you come across as sidick-lite (just my impression don't get hung-up on that too much);

- do you think that there is adequate number of jd (this is the thread about junior doctors) in NHS?
- do you think that junior doctors are adequately remunerated.
- what facts are you referring to when you ask if 'facts are inconvenient'.

The thread was initially about junior doctors. However, rather than provide information to support their beliefs on this particular topic, certain posters decided to make random and unsubstantiated claims about the NHS more widely, reflecting political opinions not supported by available evidence.

It is those claims that are being challenged.

On the actual topic of the thread, I previously said the following:

Sidicks said:

I don't know enough about the situation to make a judgement - clearly i can't support measures that require hospital doctors to work longer for less.

Of course that's all been ignored in the rush from the usual suspects to misrepresent what their 'opponents' have said.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 18th October 13:06

[Dixy]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

I'm not going to answer for abucd4, but I do have couple of questions for you, as you come across as sidick-lite (just my impression don't get hung-up on that too much);

- do you think that there is adequate number of jd (this is the thread about junior doctors) in NHS?
- do you think that junior doctors are adequately remunerated.
- what facts are you referring to when you ask if 'facts are inconvenient'.

The thread was initially about junior doctors. However, rather than provide information to support their beliefs on this particular topic, certain posters decided to make random and unsubstantiated claims about the NHS more widely, reflecting political opinions not supported by available evidence.

It is those claims that are being challenged.

An answer worthy of the finest spin doctor, you failed to answer any question and just ridiculed a different argument.

[sidicks]

Dixy said:

An answer worthy of the finest spin doctor, you failed to answer any question and just ridiculed a different argument.

No spin required.

As per my previous posts:
I don't know enough about the situation to make a judgement
I'm keen to understand the genuine issues too (and not be distracted by some ridiculous claims about the 'NHS being sold to the highest bidder etc etc).

Which is why it would be nice for those that are making the claims to support those claims rather than the nonsense diversions that they've chosen to focus on.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 18th October 13:24

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

IanA2 said:

Hunt et al are intending to carve up the health service and sell it off. That's what I meant in an earlier post when I said they want to shut they NHS down.

Everyone normal would read exactly that from your comment.

Anyone with more than an ounce of intelligence (and no in-built political prejudice) would say that those claims are not supported by the evidence available!

[Richyboy]

Its one of the biggest employer's of people in the world supported by a union, no amount of money is ever going to be enough for it. Tories don't stand a chance to contain this beast.

Why can't junior doctors just take naps in their breaks and isn't being thrown in at the deep end the way to acclimatise people in high pressure jobs?

[sidicks]

Richyboy said:

Its one of the biggest employer's of people in the world supported by a union, no amount of money is ever going to be enough for it. Tories don't stand a chance to contain this beast.

Why can't junior doctors just take naps in their breaks and isn't being thrown in at the deep end the way to acclimatise people in high pressure jobs?

Given that it's already widely known the extent of stress and workload for junior doctors it's hard to support any policy that would require them to work longer hours and / or for less money.

However, it's not clear that is what is being actually proposed and those who are against the policy seem reluctant to actually post any evidence to support their claims, seeming just to resort to anti-Tory rhetoric, so it's difficult to make an objective judgement.

[Derek Smith]

Richyboy said:

Why can't junior doctors just take naps in their breaks and isn't being thrown in at the deep end the way to acclimatise people in high pressure jobs?

Throwing them in at the deep end to see if they sink or swim is hardly the best way to ensure the best care for patients. These guys make life and death decisions. I would not be happy with a tired doctor assessing me.

The job is high pressure, as you say. I would suggest that the best way to train someone for such a post is to build up to such demands.

Taking naps is a great idea. What do they do about the adrenaline?

[bitchstewie]

Richyboy said:

Why can't junior doctors just take naps in their breaks and isn't being thrown in at the deep end the way to acclimatise people in high pressure jobs?

Are you serious?

[bitchstewie]

sidicks said:

However, it's not clear that is what is being actually proposed and those who are against the policy seem reluctant to actually post any evidence to support their claims, seeming just to resort to anti-Tory rhetoric, so it's difficult to make an objective judgement.

Quite, I'm literally struggling to understand it and every source that I can find online seems inherently biased with how they approach it.

[spaximus]

sidicks said:

Richyboy said:

Its one of the biggest employer's of people in the world supported by a union, no amount of money is ever going to be enough for it. Tories don't stand a chance to contain this beast.

Why can't junior doctors just take naps in their breaks and isn't being thrown in at the deep end the way to acclimatise people in high pressure jobs?

Given that it's already widely known the extent of stress and workload for junior doctors it's hard to support any policy that would require them to work longer hours and / or for less money.

However, it's not clear that is what is being actually proposed and those who are against the policy seem reluctant to actually post any evidence to support their claims, seeming just to resort to anti-Tory rhetoric, so it's difficult to make an objective judgement.

I think the article in The Gauradian sort of covers the subject pretty well. It is fact, as my daughter is a Junior Doctor, that what is proposed is to work longer hours for less money. They are trying to do this by taking away previously agreed terms and conditions that were brought in after it was found Junior Doctors were made to work stupid hours which put them and patients at risk.

The working time directive is trying to be bypassed by the Government to allow changes to what was agreed.
The NHS and my wife works in a senior finance position there, has to save money £30 billion and you don't do that by switching sandwich suppliers.
If the public actually knew that salaries that back office staff get, in many cases much more than Doctors, they would be outraged, but it is these very people who are asked to make savings in an organisation where the size of your department is seen as an indication of your worth.
My wifes job is to deliver savings and the resistance is not from Doctors and Nurses to work better, it is the swathes of back office.
She has inherited one area where three staff do the same work as the 8 staff at another location, exactly the same. She is pulling all of these into one location to reduce numbers and increase efficiency but the resistance is huge, why would they want to? They genuinely thought that Labour would win the last election and knock all these changes on the head, when they did not that is when the trouble started.
And for those who say the NHS is not being privatised, certain elements are already out sourced and going forward private "back office" providers will be able to compete against NHS CSU and when they take out the pension costs they will win them.
They will have to tupee some staff but that is where huge savings will come,
It will not come from a demoralised Medical staff

[Dixy]

Richyboy said:

Its one of the biggest employer's of people in the world supported by a union, no amount of money is ever going to be enough for it. Tories don't stand a chance to contain this beast.

Why can't junior doctors just take naps in their breaks and isn't being thrown in at the deep end the way to acclimatise people in high pressure jobs?

It is rare for a junior doctor to get a long enough break even for the lavatory, particularly when on a 12 hour night on call they are constantly being paged and in a new state of the art hospital like Southmead it is 15 minutes brisk walk from one end to the other. In accountancy or law they can be put under pressure and tomorrow
their supervisor can review their work and tell them where to correct, slightly more difficult when the patient is dead.

[sidicks]

spaximus said:

I think the article in The Gauradian sort of covers the subject pretty well.

I'm not sure I'd trust the Guardian to provide an accurate an unbiased summary...

spaximus said:

It is fact, as my daughter is a Junior Doctor, that what is proposed is to work longer hours for less money. They are trying to do this by taking away previously agreed terms and conditions that were brought in after it was found Junior Doctors were made to work stupid hours which put them and patients at risk.

The working time directive is trying to be bypassed by the Government to allow changes to what was agreed.

And yet in the official Government response to the petition we have the following:

We have guaranteed that a new contract will not impose longer hours.
o No junior will be contractually required to work more than an average of 48 hours a week;
o Even those who choose to opt-out of the Working Time Regulations (legally allowing them to work longer) will be limited to an average of 56 hours a week;
o The maximum number of hours in any week will be 72, less than the 91 currently possible under legislation;
o There will be limits of no more than four consecutive night shifts and no more than five consecutive long days;
o Employers will be contractually required to take action where a junior is concerned about hours as part of a new system of agreed work scheduling ‘with teeth’ that ensures juniors are not overworked. In exceptional approved circumstances doctors would be compensated for hours worked outside their work schedule.

Hmmm

spaximus said:

The NHS and my wife works in a senior finance position there, has to save money £30 billion and you don't do that by switching sandwich suppliers.
If the public actually knew that salaries that back office staff get, in many cases much more than Doctors, they would be outraged, but it is these very people who are asked to make savings in an organisation where the size of your department is seen as an indication of your worth.

My wifes job is to deliver savings and the resistance is not from Doctors and Nurses to work better, it is the swathes of back office.
She has inherited one area where three staff do the same work as the 8 staff at another location, exactly the same. She is pulling all of these into one location to reduce numbers and increase efficiency but the resistance is huge, why would they want to? They genuinely thought that Labour would win the last election and knock all these changes on the head, when they did not that is when the trouble started.

You seem to be agreeing that there is plenty of scope to improve efficiency and savings in back office functions.

spaximus said:

And for those who say the NHS is not being privatised, certain elements are already out sourced and going forward private "back office" providers will be able to compete against NHS CSU and when they take out the pension costs they will win them.
They will have to tupee some staff but that is where huge savings will come,
It will not come from a demoralised Medical staff

So you mean that in some areas it will be possible to provide the same services more efficiently? Most taxpayers would see that as a good thing...!!


No-one is saying that no part of the NHS is being outsourced to private firms - however that's still a very small proportion and most of that change happened under Labour. What some people have claimed is that the Government is trying to 'close down the NHS' and 'sell it off to the highest bidder' etc etc, which is clearly nonsense!

[Dixy]

sidicks said:

And yet in the official Government response to the petition we have the following:

We have guaranteed that a new contract will not impose longer hours.
o No junior will be contractually required to work more than an average of 48 hours a week;
o Even those who choose to opt-out of the Working Time Regulations (legally allowing them to work longer) will be limited to an average of 56 hours a week;
o The maximum number of hours in any week will be 72, less than the 91 currently possible under legislation;
o There will be limits of no more than four consecutive night shifts and no more than five consecutive long days;

The operative word in the first 2 is average, that is averaged out over a year, they will work to beyond exhaustion and then equalize it at some latter date, largely because of incompetent rotas.
Third point, notice that it says week not 7 consecutive day, so 72 hour to midnight on Sunday, then 72 hours starting at 0.01 on Monday.
This is why it is not safe for patients and why the NHS wastes £20bn a year on legal settlements.

[sidicks]

Dixy said:

sidicks said:

And yet in the official Government response to the petition we have the following:

We have guaranteed that a new contract will not impose longer hours.
o No junior will be contractually required to work more than an average of 48 hours a week;
o Even those who choose to opt-out of the Working Time Regulations (legally allowing them to work longer) will be limited to an average of 56 hours a week;
o The maximum number of hours in any week will be 72, less than the 91 currently possible under legislation;
o There will be limits of no more than four consecutive night shifts and no more than five consecutive long days;

The operative word in the first 2 is average, that is averaged out over a year, they will work to beyond exhaustion and then equalize it at some latter date, largely because of incompetent rotas.
Third point, notice that it says week not 7 consecutive day, so 72 hour to midnight on Sunday, then 72 hours starting at 0.01 on Monday.

How does that fit alongside the 4th point above?

Dixy said:

This is why it is not safe for patients and why the NHS wastes £20bn a year on legal settlements.

I'd certainly agree that £20bn could be much better used elsewhere!

[Patent]

sidicks said:

Dixy said:

sidicks said:

And yet in the official Government response to the petition we have the following:

We have guaranteed that a new contract will not impose longer hours.
o No junior will be contractually required to work more than an average of 48 hours a week;
o Even those who choose to opt-out of the Working Time Regulations (legally allowing them to work longer) will be limited to an average of 56 hours a week;
o The maximum number of hours in any week will be 72, less than the 91 currently possible under legislation;
o There will be limits of no more than four consecutive night shifts and no more than five consecutive long days;

The operative word in the first 2 is average, that is averaged out over a year, they will work to beyond exhaustion and then equalize it at some latter date, largely because of incompetent rotas.
Third point, notice that it says week not 7 consecutive day, so 72 hour to midnight on Sunday, then 72 hours starting at 0.01 on Monday.

How does that fit alongside the 4th point above?

Dixy said:

This is why it is not safe for patients and why the NHS wastes £20bn a year on legal settlements.

I'd certainly agree that £20bn could be much better used elsewhere!

The government want to increase the number of doctors working at weekends. They sat that more people die at the weekend because of the current financially punitive contract that requires a Trust to pay a doctor more to work at the weekend - currently classified as unsociable hours.

How can you get a set number of people to work more collective hours without paying them more and maintain the same service provision at other times.....

Logic dictates - you make them work more hours for less pay! Simple really. And modelling of the new contract appears to bear this out with pay cuts of upto 30% postulated.

And please don't forget - pointless increasing the number of dr if you don't increase diagnostics, nurses, physios etc etc etc
And - the teams providing emergency care during the week are no different to the teams providing the care on the weekends - the number of on call doctors is the same!

[sidicks]

Patent said:

The government want to increase the number of doctors working at weekends. They sat that more people die at the weekend because of the current financially punitive contract that requires a Trust to pay a doctor more to work at the weekend - currently classified as unsociable hours.

How can you get a set number of people to work more collective hours without paying them more and maintain the same service provision at other times.....

Logic dictates - you make them work more hours for less pay! Simple really. And modelling of the new contract appears to bear this out with pay cuts of upto 30% postulated.

And please don't forget - pointless increasing the number of dr if you don't increase diagnostics, nurses, physios etc etc etc
And - the teams providing emergency care during the week are no different to the teams providing the care on the weekends - the number of on call doctors is the same!

From the government response to the petition::

1. This is not a cost cutting exercise.
• We are categorically not seeking to save any money from the junior doctors’ pay bill.

[mph1977]

abucd4 said:

sidicks said:

And yet the stars posted earlier...



...suggest a 20% rise in NHS staff in the last 5 years!

In terms of numbers on wards though? The NHS is a big organisation and not just made up of doctors. The increasing costs of locum doctors suggest otherwise.

also the NHS is not run as a signle organisation... regardless of the assertions of the ignorant