Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[Evanivitch]

ucb said:

Evanivitch said:

paulrockliffe said:

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?

It's okay, JJLyn22 is bow back tracking on what was stated previously because he was clearly wrong. NHS contracts do not require doctors to take indemnity policies.

Maybe not the NHS, but the GMC require it of doctors:
http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/information_for_doct...

Which supports my earlier point that Doctors only require it if they are moonlighting or contracting.

So, simply the NHS does not require Doctors to take out their own insurance.

The GMC require doctors to have cover, but this can be provided by their employer (I.e. the NHS).

[valiant]

FGB said:

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?

Edited by glazbagun on Friday 2nd September 11:43

I suggest they go fk themselves.

Their appointed negotiators agreed a deal.

the Junior doctors then decided they didn't like the negotiated deal.

Point of order;

The negotiators do not agree a deal on behalf of their members. They negotiate an offer they feel they can present to their members to resolve the dispute.

It is up to the membership to accept or refuse the offer by way of a referendum. In this case the JDs decided the offer was not acceptable in its current form.

This is normal practice in most unions.

[barryrs]

"With a turnout of 68 per cent – around 37,000 junior doctors and medical students – 42 per cent voted in favour of the contract, while 58 per cent voted against"

Why is the turnout of industrial action so piss poor?

Last time I asked in connection to the tube strikes it was suggested the ballot papers get mixed up with junk mail (seriously); do JD's also received excessive amounts of junk mail too?

[Rude-boy]

Dixy said:

Being legally absent from work means what goes on in your absence is not your fault, so it will be the fault of the trust if a patient dies due to lack of care, the fact the trust can not get a clinician is the fault of Hunt.

In the legal profession we have a name for people who are able to rely on legally correct but morally bankrupt positions. It's sort of similar to Hunts.

With your last comment what you are basically saying is that because we can legally strike (because we do not wish to accept something that we know has to happen, that a considerable number of our members and most of our co workers agree with and that we have been advised to accept by our leader) you can't blame us if people die as a result of our actions, even though it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence?

Sounds like a statement that is legally correct but morally bankrupt to me.

[ThunderGuts]

Rude-boy said:

Dixy said:

Being legally absent from work means what goes on in your absence is not your fault, so it will be the fault of the trust if a patient dies due to lack of care, the fact the trust can not get a clinician is the fault of Hunt.

In the legal profession we have a name for people who are able to rely on legally correct but morally bankrupt positions. It's sort of similar to Hunts.

With your last comment what you are basically saying is that because we can legally strike (because we do not wish to accept something that we know has to happen, that a considerable number of our members and most of our co workers agree with and that we have been advised to accept by our leader) you can't blame us if people die as a result of our actions, even though it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence?

Sounds like a statement that is legally correct but morally bankrupt to me.

I agree RB.

Interesting all the hoo-ha over tax avoidance.

Legally acceptable at the time, morally, well now......

See a parallel?

[turbobloke]

Dixy said:

Being legally absent from work means what goes on in your absence is not your fault, so it will be the fault of the trust if a patient dies due to lack of care, the fact the trust can not get a clinician is the fault of Hunt.

Thanks for the Crystal Ball Mk2 update.

The Mk1 prediction must have been troubling

[Rude-boy]

ThunderGuts said:

Interesting all the hoo-ha over tax avoidance.

Legally acceptable at the time, morally, well now......

See a parallel?

1. Tax avoidance has only just started to become a morality point for the majority of people. Until recently many people were more than happy to arrange for jobs about their homes to be done "For a 20% discount, no paperwork" even though that was evasion and so illegal. It is only because they have started to find that they need the compliance certificates for those works that they have stopped being able to do that and now are much more tuned into the fact that there are others who are avoiding tax. People don't like this so think that the others should not be able to avoid tax if they can't. Add to this that there have been some fairly special deals done with mega corps by HMRC that really pushes people's buttons - because big business is bad business, or so they have been fed.

2. It is difficult to see a direct correlation between the failure of a person to pay all the tax they could possibly have been assessed for and the prolonged suffering and even death of a person.

Don't get me wrong i am not without some sympathy for JDs and their cause but when they start going on 5 day strikes, when most thought it was done with anyway, and after having previously had a number of other strikes, their cause starts to lose its traction.

As someone said to a JD friend the other day "So this has nothing to do with trying to screw the maximum amount of money out of the NHS, it's all about protecting the patients, and the best way to protect patients is to refuse to work for three weeks leading up to Christmas. Can you just run that one by me one more time?"

[ThunderGuts]

I think we're both agreeing

My point is that it's all fun to live by the letter of the law when it suits.

[Rude-boy]

ThunderGuts said:

I think we're both agreeing

My point is that it's all fun to live by the letter of the law when it suits.

I think that we are in agreement, just making it clear to others that read these posts that there is a bit of a difference between using the letter of the law to defend your moral position when your position has a direct correlation with the actual physical pain and suffering of others, compared to when your position is depriving HMRC of some of the potential tax take.

[Dixy]

turbobloke said:

Thanks for the Crystal Ball Mk2 update.

The Mk1 prediction must have been troubling

Mk1 and 2 say the same thing, the fact that the SOS has backed the doctors in to a corner with only one remedy means Hunt must shoulder all the blame.
Again the only thing Hunt has to do to stop the strike is withdraw his insistence on imposing the contract, no other condition.
The fact that the junior doctors are willing to even consider such action should make him at least review.
As I said before he is playing brinkmanship.

[Jockman]

Rude-boy said:

As someone said to a JD friend the other day "So this has nothing to do with trying to screw the maximum amount of money out of the NHS, it's all about protecting the patients, and the best way to protect patients is to refuse to work for three weeks leading up to Christmas. Can you just run that one by me one more time?"

Pretty much agree but couple of points.

I notice the JDs will not strike at weekends. Is this because they would lose more money striking then?

Secondly, it was noted in The Times today that JDs still undertaking postgraduate training are referred to the GMC if they miss more than 14 days of training (strikes will obviously take them to 20 days). This could potentially see them retraining for a further year, with the associated costs this would entail?

[sidicks]

Dixy said:

Mk1 and 2 say the same thing, the fact that the SOS has backed the doctors in to a corner with only one remedy means Hunt must shoulder all the blame.
Again the only thing Hunt has to do to stop the strike is withdraw his insistence on imposing the contract, no other condition.
The fact that the junior doctors are willing to even consider such action should make him at least review.
As I said before he is playing brinkmanship.

Is it true that only 40% of junior doctors voted in favour of striking?

[Rude-boy]

Dixy said:

Mk1 and 2 say the same thing, the fact that the SOS has backed the doctors in to a corner with only one remedy means Hunt must shoulder all the blame.
Again the only thing Hunt has to do to stop the strike is withdraw his insistence on imposing the contract, no other condition.
The fact that the junior doctors are willing to even consider such action should make him at least review.
As I said before he is playing brinkmanship.

Backed into a corner - Because they would not engage in the first instance.

All the JDs have to do to stop the strike is listen to those who voted not to strike and those who were obviously so distressed at the new contracts that they didn't even bother to vote in the ballot.

If Hunt did agree to not impose the new contract what would the JDs like the next draft to say? The existing contract is no longer fit for purpose.

The fact that JDs are even willing to entertain the notion of strike action over something like this is deeply troubling. They risk becoming (and have become in the eyes of quite a few i know) the new firefighters. 15 years ago I knew many who would back firefighters to the hilt and would be more than happy to devote their time and energy to helping them out. Now? Very little support for them.

[Rude-boy]

Jockman said:

Rude-boy said:

As someone said to a JD friend the other day "So this has nothing to do with trying to screw the maximum amount of money out of the NHS, it's all about protecting the patients, and the best way to protect patients is to refuse to work for three weeks leading up to Christmas. Can you just run that one by me one more time?"

Pretty much agree but couple of points.

I notice the JDs will not strike at weekends. Is this because they would lose more money striking then?

Secondly, it was noted in The Times today that JDs still undertaking postgraduate training are referred to the GMC if they miss more than 14 days of training (strikes will obviously take them to 20 days). This could potentially see them retraining for a further year, with the associated costs this would entail?

Point one - not even i am quite that cynical.

Point two - I am cynical enough to expect that if any such case were brought before them they would find that there were exceptional circumstances and not hold them back. Although if they also had a bit of a sketchy record before the strikes took them over they might well can them.

[Dixy]

barryrs said:

Between 2006 and 2014 a total of 2200 British doctors took a job in Aus.

Thats 244 per year and im sure many will have returned since.

On the flip side the NHS has recruited 3000 doctors from overseas in a single year as reported in the guardian last year.

But that is just Aus, 4741 left in 2014, so a net loss of over 1700.

Source http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/home/finance-and-pract...

I have no idea how reliable.

[valiant]

sidicks said:

Is it true that only 40% of junior doctors voted in favour of striking?

68% turnout. Of that 58% voted no to the new contracts.

[Jockman]

valiant said:

sidicks said:

Is it true that only 40% of junior doctors voted in favour of striking?

68% turnout. Of that 58% voted no to the new contracts.

Aren't they 2 different issues / votes?

[Sylvaforever]

Dixy said:

Being legally absent from work means what goes on in your absence is not your fault, so it will be the fault of the trust
if a patient dies due to lack of care, the fact the trust can not get a clinician is the fault of Hunt.

I'm afraid 99.9% of uk citizens will see that EXACTLY for what it is.

[Rude-boy]

Jockman said:

valiant said:

sidicks said:

Is it true that only 40% of junior doctors voted in favour of striking?

68% turnout. Of that 58% voted no to the new contracts.

Aren't they 2 different issues / votes?

don't think so.

The way i understand it is that of those eligible to vote 32% didn't think that they needed to vote (which in my eyes is an "I don't care, I'll just get on with life either way" vote) and of the 68% that did vote 42% didn't have a problem accepting the new contract.

But at the end of the day it was a close run thing in the Scottish vote and the Brexit vote so one has to accept that the result is the result, even if it was not the clear intention of the majority of those eligible to vote.

[Jockman]

valiant said:

sidicks said:

Is it true that only 40% of junior doctors voted in favour of striking?

68% turnout. Of that 58% voted no to the new contracts.

“The BMA’s figures show that only 40% of those eligible actually voted against this contract, and a third of BMA members didn’t vote at all.”

As for the strike.....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/706613/Doctor-ref...

(apologies for the express link)