J Hunt and S Hawking - how do we know...
Discussion
968 said:
It isn't irrelevant where patients lives are concerned. The fact is we work way above our contracted hours to a point where it is unsafe. The most analogous profession would be a pilot in that regard. Pilots also have strictly contracted hours of work in order to be safe. Where this goes awry it's a major problem.
I agree. I can't help but think you've misread the intent of my previous posts. I know next to nothing about the NHS other than my Uni contemporaries are paid peanuts for their ability, years of training, absurd work schedules and (IMO misplaced) loyalty. Reading this thread, in particular your posts, it occurred to me that you've (that is the medical profession) been cornered into presenting a valid case but to a skeptical public that's been told the NHS is on the brink of collapse for as long as I can remember. You're over worked and under paid because you're highly qualified and you work stupid hours for not much money, not because you're in band 3 doing a band 4's job and contracted to work 12 but work 15 or whatever. Even if the latter is factually correct it just makes peoples eyes glaze over and allows others (and government wage negotiators) to tie you up in knots on pointless minutia. I don't know what the answer is but I'd start with better association representatives.fblm said:
I agree. I can't help but think you've misread the intent of my previous posts. I know next to nothing about the NHS other than my Uni contemporaries are paid peanuts for their ability, years of training, absurd work schedules and (IMO misplaced) loyalty. Reading this thread, in particular your posts, it occurred to me that you've (that is the medical profession) been cornered into presenting a valid case but to a skeptical public that's been told the NHS is on the brink of collapse for as long as I can remember. You're over worked and under paid because you're highly qualified and you work stupid hours for not much money, not because you're in band 3 doing a band 4's job and contracted to work 12 but work 15 or whatever. Even if the latter is factually correct it just makes peoples eyes glaze over and allows others (and government wage negotiators) to tie you up in knots on pointless minutia. I don't know what the answer is but I'd start with better association representatives.
I did appreciate your sentiment, but the answer is given above by watchfuleye in an excellent summary. The only bit he missed is that consultants in specialities without much private practice embraced the 2003 contract happily with all it's pitiful squabbling over each hour worked, the others mainly surgical specialities found it a huge disadvantage as it forced consultants to work within the NHS for a fixed number of sessions making private practice difficult to do as there's no time to do it. WatchfulEye said:
...sliced up into pieces for each individual type of work: clinical care, admin, education, professional development, managerial responsibilities, etc. and they would be held to that job plan, and paid according to it....
Thanks for the reply. Lawyers have to do exactly the same thing. I assumed Reid must have been a lawyer, turns out he was a student communist and staunch trade unionist; which might explain his disdain for the upper echelons of the profession.fblm said:
Thanks for the reply. Lawyers have to do exactly the same thing. I assumed Reid must have been a lawyer, turns out he was a student communist and staunch trade unionist; which might explain his disdain for the upper echelons of the profession.
I apologise for the ninja edit, but I think it was Milburn who oversaw most of the negotiations. Although as you suggest, I think Reid would probably have been quite happy with the changes.I love these NHS threads.
Cretinous kipper in £56B/y legal bills. 'My sis told me so!'. She is as bright as you are.
sidick in yet another 'but what about pensions' shocker, when asked to clarify his position flounces off. Probably hoping that one of his girlfriends will be around shortly to explain what he actually meant.
Assorted random 'NHS bad cause public sector, and DM (or order-order) told me what to think'.
Still funny.
Cretinous kipper in £56B/y legal bills. 'My sis told me so!'. She is as bright as you are.
sidick in yet another 'but what about pensions' shocker, when asked to clarify his position flounces off. Probably hoping that one of his girlfriends will be around shortly to explain what he actually meant.
Assorted random 'NHS bad cause public sector, and DM (or order-order) told me what to think'.
Still funny.
jjlynn27 said:
I love these NHS threads.
Cretinous kipper in £56B/y legal bills. 'My sis told me so!'. She is as bright as you are.
sidick in yet another 'but what about pensions' shocker, when asked to clarify his position flounces off. Probably hoping that one of his girlfriends will be around shortly to explain what he actually meant.
Assorted random 'NHS bad cause public sector, and DM (or order-order) told me what to think'.
Still funny.
1. It's almost as if DB pensions cost a lot of money and limit the amount that can actually be spent on providing NHS services...Cretinous kipper in £56B/y legal bills. 'My sis told me so!'. She is as bright as you are.
sidick in yet another 'but what about pensions' shocker, when asked to clarify his position flounces off. Probably hoping that one of his girlfriends will be around shortly to explain what he actually meant.
Assorted random 'NHS bad cause public sector, and DM (or order-order) told me what to think'.
Still funny.
2. No flouncing, just ignoring the troll. HTH
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
I love these NHS threads.
Cretinous kipper in £56B/y legal bills. 'My sis told me so!'. She is as bright as you are.
sidick in yet another 'but what about pensions' shocker, when asked to clarify his position flounces off. Probably hoping that one of his girlfriends will be around shortly to explain what he actually meant.
Assorted random 'NHS bad cause public sector, and DM (or order-order) told me what to think'.
Still funny.
1. It's almost as if DB pensions cost a lot of money and limit the amount that can actually be spent on providing NHS services...Cretinous kipper in £56B/y legal bills. 'My sis told me so!'. She is as bright as you are.
sidick in yet another 'but what about pensions' shocker, when asked to clarify his position flounces off. Probably hoping that one of his girlfriends will be around shortly to explain what he actually meant.
Assorted random 'NHS bad cause public sector, and DM (or order-order) told me what to think'.
Still funny.
2. No flouncing, just ignoring the troll. HTH
2) Ok, flounce.
jjlynn27 said:
Yes, them public sector scroungers maybe we should get them to work for min wage. Just imagine the amount of money that could be saved.
Straw man nonsense.jjlynn27 said:
It's totally sound logic; you have a profession where you have significant shortages and the solution is to make it less appealing. Absolute genius.
Yes, because the only people that work in the NHS are doctors and nurses...Regardless, because you don't appear to understand economics and finance, I wouldn't expect you to understand. However, the key idea of employee benefits is to provide something to which the employees ascribe a greater value than the actual cost incurred. DB Pensions currently work the opposite way around, so are a poor use of funds.
jjlynn27 said:
2) Ok, flounce.
TROLL..Edited by sidicks on Saturday 2nd September 19:31
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Yes, them public sector scroungers maybe we should get them to work for min wage. Just imagine the amount of money that could be saved.
Straw man nonsense.jjlynn27 said:
It's totally sound logic; you have a profession where you have significant shortages and the solution is to make it less appealing. Absolute genius.
Yes, because the only people that work in the NHS are doctors and nurses...Regardless, because you don't appear to understand economics and finance, I wouldn't expect you to understand. However, the key idea of employee benefits is to provide something to which the employees ascribe a greater value than the actual cost incurred. DB Pensions currently work the opposite way around, so are a poor use of funds.
jjlynn27 said:
2) Ok, flounce.
TROLL..Edited by sidicks on Saturday 2nd September 19:31
I know, I know, I should get economic and finance info from order-order, like you do, right?
This was not the thread about pensions, and neither was jd one. Yet you are desperate to talk about it in every single one.
But flouncing is entertaining. Almost as order-order idiocy.
jjlynn27 said:
There was no trolling at all. It's your rather embarrassing attempt to avoid answering a very simple question.
I know, I know, I should get economic and finance info from order-order, like you do, right?
This was not the thread about pensions, and neither was jd one. Yet you are desperate to talk about it in every single one.
But flouncing is entertaining. Almost as order-order idiocy.
TROLLI know, I know, I should get economic and finance info from order-order, like you do, right?
This was not the thread about pensions, and neither was jd one. Yet you are desperate to talk about it in every single one.
But flouncing is entertaining. Almost as order-order idiocy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff