Junior Doctors Prepare For First Full Walk-Out

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

If we want the NHS to be open 24/7 then we will have to employ not just junior doctors but everyone else with specialist skills.Doctors need lab technicians,radiographers,nurses and all the other myriad professions that keep the NHS working Monday to Friday..plus the missing extra doctors and nurses/midwives the NHS currently has shortages of.

However that costs and trying to provide on a shoestring won't cut it..

I agree with your sentiments but I disagree that we are running the nhs on a shoestring. I think that we are chucking a vast amount of cash at it already

---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

The policy of a 7 day NHS came along LONG BEFORE that report. It was cited simply because it was recent.



Still higher death rates based on that report.

And that's before you consider that many doctors and nurses are deeply, deeply ***** when it come so diagnosis and care.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Any that are getting a decrease, are because they are the ones overdoing the overtime. Silly question, but what have the BMA suggested be done about it?

No they aren't, what was it the shadow health secretary said no one with a gcse in maths can believe no junior doctor working within the legal limits will not lose money because the sums don't add up iirc

---------- Post added at 01:06 ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I agree with your sentiments but I disagree that we are running the nhs on a shoestring. I think that we are chucking a vast amount of cash at it already.

Iirc we spend less of our GDP on health than any other developed nation or G7 nation, one of the two

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No they aren't, what was it the shadow health secretary said no one with a gcse in maths can believe no junior doctor working within the legal limits will not lose money because the sums don't add up iirc
---------- Post added at 01:06 ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 ----------
Iirc we spend less of our GDP on health than any other developed nation or G7 nation, one of the two

It has never been claimed that nobody will lose out. That was said on 28th October and there have been improvements in pay since then.

SO WHAT. That has nothing to do with this. Even Germany has problems recruiting doctors.

Speaking to the BBC the next day, Hunt admitted that some junior doctors would see a pay cut.
“There’s a very small minority of doctors who will be working more than an average of 56 hours, and at the moment they get paid what’s called colloquially in the NHS ‘danger money,’” he said.
“We think that’s wrong. Actually, we shouldn’t be allowing that to happen. It’s not safe for patients, and, frankly, I’m not sure it’s safe for doctors either. But what we are saying is that for the vast majority of doctors who are working within the legal limit there will be no pay cut. We’ll make sure that happens.”

So the ones that might see a pay cut are the ones working unsafe hours, which is something the junior doctors are bleating about. Anyway as they are NOT working within the limits, the statement doesn't apply to them in the first place.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It has never been claimed that nobody will lose out. That was said on 28th October and there have been improvements in pay since then.
[

There would've had to have been considering I remember hearing a lot of them would have had pay cuts of up to 40% back then, that was when hunt was still saying they were getting a rise and yet this is the man whose word you still want to take as gospel

SO WHAT. That has nothing to do with this. Even Germany has problems recruiting doctors.

I was actually replying to ramie but seeing as you're saying so what I actually think we should be keeping our doctors, we give them subsidised education on the understanding that they work for the nhs for a while and if they're not prepared to do that they should be asked to pay back some of the cash, not that hunt has bothered to deal with that issue instead he seems to want to make the exodus worse, what was it the shadow health secretary called him the greatest recruiting sargent Australian medicine ever had

So the ones that might see a pay cut are the ones working unsafe hours, which is something the junior doctors are bleating about. Anyway as they are NOT working within the limits, the statement doesn't apply to them in the first place.

Or the ones that work only unsocial hours because of the job requirements

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No they aren't, what was it the shadow health secretary said no one with a gcse in maths can believe no junior doctor working within the legal limits will not lose money because the sums don't add up iirc

---------- Post added at 01:06 ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 ----------



Iirc we spend less of our GDP on health than any other developed nation or G7 nation, one of the two

But no one ever mentions that most of the other G7 countries fund their Health Services with a mixture of State Funding and personal Health Insurance.

France - http://about-france.com/health-care.htm

The French health care system is funded in part by obligatory health contributions levied on all salaries, and paid by employers, employees and the self employed; in part by central government funding; and in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.

Germany - http://www.germanyhis.com/

The German Health Care System has some important points to consider. First, it is obligatory to be insured when living, working or studying in Germany – except from some work or population groups. Second, the German system is a so called dual system containing a compulsory insurance and a private insurance.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But no one ever mentions that most of the other G7 countries fund their Health Services with a mixture of State Funding and personal Health Insurance.
France - http://about-france.com/health-care.htm

Germany - http://www.germanyhis.com/

Is that what's called an inconvenient truth?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

There would've had to have been considering I remember hearing a lot of them would have had pay cuts of up to 40% back then, that was when hunt was still saying they were getting a rise and yet this is the man whose word you still want to take as gospel

I was actually replying to ramie but seeing as you're saying so what I actually think we should be keeping our doctors, we give them subsidised education on the understanding that they work for the nhs for a while and if they're not prepared to do that they should be asked to pay back some of the cash, not that hunt has bothered to deal with that issue instead he seems to want to make the exodus worse, what was it the shadow health secretary called him the greatest recruiting sargent Australian medicine ever had

Or the ones that work only unsocial hours because of the job requirements

Well the junior doctors are going on about unsafe hours and the dangers of being tired, when in TRUTH their hours are being reduced and working patterns that have been AGREED with the BMA. And the evidence that they will all get 40% pay cuts is...................nowhere to be found. They would be constantly screaming it out if there was any evidence. Let's suppose that if you look at a particular OCCASIONAL shift pattern of full weekend working. That PEAK earning week might go down, but with the 13.5% increase for all the other days, the average won't change. Apparently the BMA only want a basic increase of 4-7% and not the 13.5% offered. Sounds like the BMA ALSO agreed to whatever pay cuts there turns out to be. The NHS has the doctors working hours data and can carry out "what if" scenarios and other modelling to check the impact. They are better placed to identify the true level of impact. The November offer has "time off in lieu for additional work", whereas the current offer pays the appropriate rate until the hours limits are hit, and then it is time and a half.

Channel 4 factcheck from Nov 2015

Mr Hunt says about three quarters of junior doctors will get a net raise, while about 500 (roughly one per cent) will lose out because they are currently working illegally long hours and that practice will end with the new contract.
...
Any number of newspaper stories allege that Britain is haemhorraging junior doctors – who are apparently heading to Australia in droves thanks to the government’s attempt at changing working hours.
But we can’t find any database that actually proves whether doctors are actually physically leaving the UK in greater numbers than at any other time.
Similarly, claims that junior doctors are going to suffer a real-terms pay cut are hard to stand up.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I was actually in A& E one night. And there was NO DOCTOR on duty. They had to call in an agency Locum

I ask members of this forum, IF you were a Doctor, Nurse. Would you work in the NHS

Answers please

Well, since the NHS employs* 150,273 doctors and 377,191 qualified nursing staff, out of a total of 1,161,884 employees, which is 1 in 32 of the U.K. working-age population, some probably do...

*figures from January 2016

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Hugh.,

Anyone who works for the NHS, has my upmost respect

[ianch99]

Maybe we should just be paying more for this service, i.e. as much as some of our peers in Europe:

UK health spending as a share of GDP

Although it has made some gains, over this entire time period the UK has consistently spent less of a share of its GDP on health than either the EU average or the OECD average.

List of countries by total health expenditure per capita

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Well the junior doctors are going on about unsafe hours and the dangers of being tired, when in TRUTH their hours are being reduced and working patterns that have been AGREED with the BMA. And the evidence that they will all get 40% pay cuts is...................nowhere to be found. They would be constantly screaming it out if there was any evidence. Let's suppose that if you look at a particular OCCASIONAL shift pattern of full weekend working. That PEAK earning week might go down, but with the 13.5% increase for all the other days, the average won't change. Apparently the BMA only want a basic increase of 4-7% and not the 13.5% offered. Sounds like the BMA ALSO agreed to whatever pay cuts there turns out to be. The NHS has the doctors working hours data and can carry out "what if" scenarios and other modelling to check the impact. They are better placed to identify the true level of impact. The November offer has "time off in lieu for additional work", whereas the current offer pays the appropriate rate until the hours limits are hit, and then it is time and a half.

Channel 4 factcheck from Nov 2015

Perhaps I should've tried shouting you might have realised I was describing the early negotiations that way, I thought I was being quite clear using words like back then etc and here's a link going back then to, wasn't that hard to find either

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ay-40-per-cent

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Perhaps I should've tried shouting you might have realised I was describing the early negotiations that way, I thought I was being quite clear using words like back then etc and here's a link going back then to, wasn't that hard to find either

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ay-40-per-cent

which they fear will cut their pay by up to 40%,

So still no evidence.

One junior doctor said the move would mean that his pay goes down significantly, from about £31,000 – his basic salary of almost £23,000 plus 40% more for working one evening until 9pm and one weekend in four – to close to his basic earnings. “None of us feel we need to be paid more. We already work far longer than our allotted hours for free as patients’ care requires it.

With the 13.5% the basic goes up to 26,105. Difficult to be sure what day of the week he is referring for the evening work(until 9pm). Under the current contract, only Mon-Fri 7-9pm and weekends attract any extra. Under the new contract the 5-9pm on Saturday and all day Sunday attracts an extra 33% on top of the 13.5% basic. That gives 51% extra for just those hours. Any basic rate(at the extra 13.5%) Saturday 7am-5pm, should possibly more than be made up with the extra 13.5% for the Mon-Fri. As for the working for free, the proposal is to pay at the "prevailing rate" for those extra hours, and if it puts them over the 48hr average or 72hr weekly limits they get time and a half. The main impact to him seems to be the basic(ie+13.5%) for the one Saturday in 4, but just think of all the other Mon-Fri work days with 13.5% raise. Just 3 days of that cover the 40% gap and the other Mon-Fri work days in that 28day period will add even more. An average of 4.5hrs/week, affected on the new basic(+13.5%). Unless those are pretty much the only hours he works, sounds like he will be in for a pay rise rather than a pay cut.

The only real differences to the BMA proposals seem to be the 2 hours 7-8am and 8-9pm Mon-Fri and 7am-5pm Saturday. But at the same time they are only looking for a 4-7% basic raise and not the 13.5% offered.

Does that sound like anything to get worked up about and go on strike for?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Maybe we should just be paying more for this service, i.e. as much as some of our peers in Europe:

UK health spending as a share of GDP

Maybe we should start funding healthcare the same way the rest of the developed world does rather than in a manner emulated only by communist states.

Much of the rest of the first world may have a point with funding through a combination of single payer and private insurance.

As Hugh identified we spend about as much taxpayer money on healthcare as many of our peers but lack the private sector funding that compliments it elsewhere.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So still no evidence.
With the 13.5% the basic goes up to 26,105. Difficult to be sure what day of the week he is referring for the evening work(until 9pm). Under the current contract, only Mon-Fri 7-9pm and weekends attract any extra. Under the new contract the 5-9pm on Saturday and all day Sunday attracts an extra 33% on top of the 13.5% basic. That gives 51% extra for just those hours. Any basic rate(at the extra 13.5%) Saturday 7am-5pm, should possibly more than be made up with the extra 13.5% for the Mon-Fri. As for the working for free, the proposal is to pay at the "prevailing rate" for those extra hours, and if it puts them over the 48hr average or 72hr weekly limits they get time and a half. The main impact to him seems to be the basic(ie+13.5%) for the one Saturday in 4, but just think of all the other Mon-Fri work days with 13.5% raise. Just 3 days of that cover the 40% gap and the other Mon-Fri work days in that 28day period will add even more. An average of 4.5hrs/week, affected on the new basic(+13.5%). Unless those are pretty much the only hours he works, sounds like he will be in for a pay rise rather than a pay cut.

The only real differences to the BMA proposals seem to be the 2 hours 7-8am and 8-9pm Mon-Fri and 7am-5pm Saturday. But at the same time they are only looking for a 4-7% basic raise and not the 13.5% offered.

Does that sound like anything to get worked up about and go on strike for?

I thought we'd already established Hunt was lying when he said the strike was all about money