[Closed] doctors on strike

They are duty bound to report concerns but are not protected against harsh treatment when they do.

And yet under the new contract the government expect junior doctors to report working hours violations. 😕

Indeed. I can only imagine that could be career suicide for many of us.

[img] [/img]

As I understand it, the Government are going to announce changes to the Consultant contract over the Easter period.

Will they announce more funding to enable full 7 Day consultant cover??

Things will get really interesting at that point....

Will they announce more funding to enable full 7 Day consultant cover??

Doubt it. They seemed happy enough to increase the workload on the juniors and cut their pay at the same time. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar thing happen to consultants. And similar lies to cover it.

They've already been spinning the [i]"closing a loophole which lets consultants opt-out of weekends"[/i] lie.

I still haven't seen a decent answer to the question "if things are so bad why is medical school so massively oversubscribed ?"

There is a fundamental problem with a monopoly supplier (of A&E) being able to go on strike. Rifht to strike is fine if there is mire than one supplier

I still haven't seen a decent answer to the question "if things are so bad why is medical school so massively oversubscribed ?"

You mean not one you want to hear.

Are those junior doctors still striking? FFS! 🙄

Are they still being encouraged to strike by the lefties? Crikey ... 🙄

JY! , flip your argument around, what about the ethics of a monopoly employer dictating employment terms unilaterally?

As regards medical students, that's a total logic fail, you are talking about choices made at 17 or 18 by kids who don't know what they are in for. It is 7-10 years down the road they learn the truth, by which time they are disillusioned, underpaid and in debt. You might want to look at the early retention rate, or for that matter why all my GP and Consultant friends are heading for the retirement door as fast as we can.

Very, very few of the doctors I know, OK actually none, are what most rational people would call "lefties".

All are genuinely concerned for the safety of patients. None are taking strike action lightly.

I wonder whether those who accuse them of this or being influenced by "lefties" have actually bothered to find out the arguments involved beyond what they read in the right wing press

You mean not one you want to hear.

Over a career its very well paid with generous pension. Ability to progress to consulant and mix state and lucrative private work. Almost unrivalled job security. Ability to take a carear break or work part time. Ability to work anywhere in the world including in private sector. Well repsected in society, sense of social responsibility.

jimw - Member
Very, very few of the doctors I know, OK actually none, are what most rational people would call "lefties".

All are genuinely concerned for the safety of patients. None are taking strike action lightly.

I wonder whether those who accuse them of this or being influenced by "lefties" have actually bothered to find out the arguments involved beyond what they read in the right wing press

hhhhmmm ... I don't know mannnnn ... something is not right about the strike.

I used to share a canteen with all the doctors, from junior to senior to consultant to whatever in the North East ... ya right ... ya ... If you are siting on the same desk eating your food and listening to some of their conversation you will realise that they are no saints.

Take the money out of the equation see how many will practice as doctor ... 🙄

Take money out of the equation and see how many would be bankers, footballers, solicitors, accountants etc.etc.

Fallacious argument. Most people work to make money, most of the people I know who work in the medical profession do so to earn money but it is not their prime motivation. One or two I can think of do, but they are by far in the minority and I am sure you could find the same in any place of work

jimw - Member
Take money out of the equation and see how many would be bankers, footballers, solicitors, accountants etc.etc.

Fallacious argument.

You agree money is the motivation then? 😯

Apropos of nothing... I'm just in from a multi-schools event with I think about 500 kids. Most popular question of the night:

"I was looking at medicine, but now I'm thinking of something relating to medicine but not becoming a doctor, what is there?"

Not a question you heard often last year, apparently, but now it's a staple. Good news for us, we don't do medicine but we've got a good pharmaceuticals option 😆

Northwind - Member

Apropos of nothing... I'm just in from a multi-schools event with I think about 500 kids. Most popular question of the night:

"I was looking at medicine, but now I'm thinking of something relating to medicine but not becoming a doctor, what is there?"

Not a question you heard often last year, apparently, but now it's a staple. Good news for us, we don't do medicine but we've got a good pharmaceuticals option

Or you can see it as less competition for you (demand and supply). As a result you can hold others to ransom coz you can now monopolise the "service" and charge at will ... 😛

jimw - Member

Very, very few of the doctors I know, OK actually none, are what most rational people would call "lefties".

But the radicalisation has started.

Last Saturday I attended a meeting of the Croydon Assembly, a body formed under the auspices of Croydon Trades Union Council to fight cuts and privatization.

And there in a hall sitting among the usual assortment of lefties were a handful of junior doctors. It was a remarkable sight and one which I had never seen before in Croydon's Trade Union HQ. Furthermore one of the principle speakers on the platform was from the BMA.

They were there primarily of course because they are in dispute with the government. But their presence at the meeting meant they became aware and informed of the wider struggle against cuts and privatization, as they listened attentively to speakers both on the platform and from the floor.

What the medical professions are facing today is an onslaught from a government more right-wing than any government in the 1980's, and which is committed to dismantling existing healthcare provisions in England and replacing them with a market oriented system much closer to the US model. That's what the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was all about.

Junior doctors are being driven into the arms of the left by this present right-wing government.

We're not saints or people who live in a vacuum without money. What I want you to understand is this is about making us work MORE weekends, nights and longer hours for LESS money and the government is using statistics that no-one, and I really mean no-one in the medical world believes concerning increased deaths for patient's admitted on the weekend, which is incredibly complicated and literally **** all to do with staffing.

The beauty of it is the government knows it can exploit enough people's ignorance about what the strike is really about to impose their plan, which is really about cheapening the NHS whilst making everyone work harder for less.

I'm not going to say anything more than there is a planned mass exodus to other countries to escape this Tory-inspired nonsense. Those who would vote for these very dangerous people will be laughing on the other side of their face when they can't see doctors in A&E when they need them as there may well not be many left.

These are such grave topics and people like the posters above band about nonsense opinions as if they truly understand the way healthcare works in the UK. You may well get what you want and if you do it is what will be coming to you.

You agree money is the motivation then?

pondo - Member

You agree money is the motivation then?

At the risk of repetition, you'll know that the core of the strike is not money, right? I mean, while we're talking about it, you have to accept that, given the shortage of doctors, the money is not sufficient to attract appropriately-skilled people and therefore it could be argued that they're underpaid according to the market, but the overriding issue is, and has been from day one, patient safety.

I give up.

You lot just have to sort it out amongst yourselves.

😮

[b]chewkh[b]. There are times when your carefully fostered stance of uncaring ignorance is just trolling.

The changes are described as a pay rise, yet are cost neutral.... Some Drs who don't do as much frontline 24 hr acute care will get paid more... So those that deliver the 24 hr care Hunt bangs on about, despite the fact that the Drs and Nurses are the only people who are already there 24 hrs, will get paid.... Come on, you can work it out..!

You're wasting your time speedstar and stoats.

Over a career its very well paid with generous pension. Ability to progress to consulant and mix state and lucrative private work. Almost unrivalled job security. Ability to take a carear break or work part time. Ability to work anywhere in the world including in private sector. Well repsected in society, sense of social responsibility.

It's up to you to find the post not me. Yeah you're missing the point of that strike too.

Yes medicine is still very competitive at undergraduate level but applications have fallen for the last few years. When you consider that those applying to medicine will often have started working towards it from the time they took their GCSEs then the effect of the current issues may not be felt for another couple of years, however that's not really the issue anyway, as stated above a medical degree will always be attractive.
What is no longer so attractive is working in the NHS for your whole career.
I've been a GP trainer for more than 10 years and what I have seen in the last few years is that newly qualified GPs leave our shores for Australia much more readily than the used to. Some work for a year then go, some go straight away, some come back, some never do. When asked why it's never just about money. It's about quality of life, about wanting to work in a system that might not be being dismantled. Its often about being sick of being demonised by the right wing press as being lazy fat cats on £250k for a four day week.
Incidentally our earnings will be public knowledge in 8 days time and I expect the daily heil headline writers are going to be disappointed.
If these were bankers leaving to work elsewhere the government would be crossing their greasy palms with gold to keep them. Isn't that right Jamba?
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/education/medical-school-applications-decrease-as-negative-publicity-takes-toll/20030395.fullarticle

about wanting to work in a system that might not being dismantled.

While the NHS remains as it is, it will always be a political football. Bin it for a European system and while there would be grumping initially in the long term the system would work better and lead to happier staff. (Although I've always suspected that like soldiers, you should only worry about Dr's and nurses when they aren't moaning.)

Dragon, agreed. Which politician will have the balls to admit that that is what they are doing rather than pretending that the NHS is adequately funded, but it's just the lazy doctors and nurses that are the problem?
It's also worth noting that those wonderful European systems are funded better as a proportion of GDP

http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/uk-health-spending-share-gdp

Stoatsbrother - Member
[b]chewkh[b]. There are times when your carefully fostered stance of uncaring ignorance is just trolling.

The system is bureaucratic and is fighting back ... 😯

One side must give in. Any other result is merely prolonging the inevitable.

The changes are described as a pay rise, yet are cost neutral.... Some Drs who don't do as much frontline 24 hr acute care will get paid more... So those that deliver the 24 hr care Hunt bangs on about, despite the fact that the Drs and Nurses are the only people who are already there 24 hrs, will get paid.... Come on, you can work it out..!

I am sure the govt is advised by someone in the medical field/NHS/related etc and would not be so stooopid to mess with NHS without their own experts advice.

[URL= http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d183/KnightMare21/lolcopter.gi f" target="_blank">http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d183/KnightMare21/lolcopter.gi f"/> [/IMG][/URL]

I am sure the govt is advised by someone in the medical field/NHS/related etc and would not be so stooopid to mess with NHS without their own experts advice.

For someone who so often posts about the misguided ZombieMaggot bureaucrat politicians that is uncharacteristically optimistic and a little naive.

I'm getting more and more convinced Chewkw is a chatbot.

legolam - Member

GrahamS - Member
or someone who so often posts about the misguided ZombieMaggot bureaucrat politicians that is uncharacteristically optimistic and a little naive.

Are both of you saying Hunt's got his advice from his accountants then decides to cut cost hence the restructuring/re-engineering of NHS?

Or

Are you saying that Hunt woke up one day and suddenly decided that it's a good day to cut NHS cost because he can?

Or

Are you saying that Hunt got bored of his political profile he suddenly decides that cutting NHS cost is his best way to improve his political profile and popularity?

😆

Drac - Moderator
I'm getting more and more convinced Chewkw is a chatbot.

Me skiving ... I deserve to skive!
Was working non-stop for 7 days a week for the past one month ..

And with that I'm convinced.

Drac - Moderator

Me skiving ... I deserve to skive!
Was working non-stop for 7 days a week for the past one month..

And with that I'm convinced.

Are both of you saying Hunt's got his advice from his accountants then decides to cut cost hence the restructuring/re-engineering of NHS?

Or

Are you saying that Hunt woke up one day and suddenly decided that it's a good day to cut NHS cost because he can?

Or

Are you saying that Hunt got bored of his political profile he suddenly decides that cutting NHS cost is his best way to improve his political profile and popularity?

All 3.

I think Jeremy Hunt has been told to cut the cost of the NHS, and the wage bill is the biggest cost that the NHS has. His plan would have been to start with the group who traditionally don't get very politically involved (the junior doctors) as they are worried about messing up their chances of getting a consultant post and, once they had agreed to a pay cut (for more hours), it would be much easier to get the consultants, then Agenda for Change (nurses, porters, physios etc) to follow suit. Voila, a hugely decreased wage bill.

I think Jeremy Hunt has designs on the Conservative leadership and see this fight as a springboard for his personal political ambitions.

I think Cameron and Osborne have been conspicuous by their absence in all of this. I suspect that they have told Jeremy that it's all down to him - if he wins, he gets the glory (and probably the leadership once DC steps down), if he loses then he will fall on his sword quietly and everyone will say how it was all Jeremy's idea...

I'm getting more and more convinced Chewkw is a chatbot.

He'd definitely fail a Turing test. 😆

@Northwind- tell them about how much money they can make as a surgeon or a consultant, when I was yacht racing actively a big portion of the other owners where surgeons and consultants. Alternatively Dentistry.

A Junior NHS doctor is exactly that, a Junior. I fully appreciate other professions you'd be earning a lot more at 28-32 than a Junior Doctor but they knew that when they signed up. The contract changes are primarily about the fact they don't want to have to work on Saturdays and Sundays without significant extra money

JY! , flip your argument around, what about the ethics of a monopoly employer dictating employment terms unilaterally?

The contract changes are primarily about the fact they don't want to have to work on Saturdays and Sundays without significant extra money

Try again.

legolam - Member

I think Jeremy Hunt [b][u]has been told[/u][/b] to cut the cost of the NHS,...

I think Cameron and Osborne have been conspicuous by their absence in all of this. I suspect that [b][u]they have told Jeremy[/u][/b] that it's all down to him - if he wins, he gets the glory (and probably the leadership once DC steps down), if he loses then he will fall on his sword quietly and everyone will say how it was all Jeremy's idea ...

Errmmm ... not his idea then? 🙄

Hunt is just a bot? 😯

GrahamS - Member

I'm getting more and more convinced Chewkw is a chatbot.

He'd definitely fail a Turing test.

AI will one day decide on your life ... 😆

A Junior NHS doctor is exactly that, a Junior.

My wife is 40 and still a "Junior". It is a different meaning to most professions.

The contract changes are primarily about the fact they don't want to have to work on Saturdays and Sundays without significant extra money

The (old) contract had extra pay for those working a lot of weekends and nights. As you said [i]"they knew that when they signed up"[/i].

At no point in this dispute have the junior doctors asked for [i]more[/i] money. Only that they don't lose what what they signed up for.

The dispute is categorically NOT about pay for weekend working. It's barely about pay at all.

In no particular order, here are some of the things that I disagree with on the imposed contract:

1) No financial penalties for Trusts that allow their doctors to work unsafe hours
2) More weekend working with the same number of doctors means less cover during the week, when most of the day to day work is done (due to everyone else doing elective work M-F)
3) Thin end of the wedge with regards to other doctors and allied health professionals having their pay cut
4) "Creative" rotas that have doctors working random shifts with absolute minimum length of breaks, meaning tired and disorientated doctors looking after patients that have no continuity of care
5) Widening of the gender pay gap due to:
a) no pay progression whilst on maternity leave,
b) no provision for how less than full time training (LTFT) will work in the new contract
c) a pay structure that could mean that 2 female junior doctors on 60% contracts (ie doing a total of 120% of a full time job) could together earn less than the equivalent male doing 100% of a full time job
d) no pay progression for the final 5 years (full time) of training, which could mean that female doctors in their 30s could work for 10 years (gaining experience and skills) without any hope of a pay rise
6) Disincentives for doctors to do academic research, further diminishing our status in the worldwide scientific community
7) No pay progression in the final 5 years of training, which is where the biggest gains are made in terms of experience and skills.

Junior doctor rotas are already at breaking point. My own place of work has 7.6 people working a rota meant for 12. Next weekend, we don't have any doctors covering the day shifts on Saturday and Sunday. Imposition of this ridiculous contract will mean that the exodus of doctors from the NHS will accelerate and I suspect we are in for a very hard decade or so in the NHS (if the NHS survives at all).

It all very much sounds like it is about pay.

Many other professions no longer have 'pay progression'. Where I currently work you'll be lucky to get anything let alone inflation. Only way of earning more is on promotion to a different more senior role.

other employers also change terms of contract during employment. For example, reducing pension benefit or reducing redundancy, it happens all the time. Especially when the economy is not doing well and belt tightening is needed.

should a few decide to leave and become bankers, fair enough, but I think most realise even with some slightly less generous terms they are still on to a very good thing.

For a dispute "not about pay", a lot of the points of contention seem to mention pay.

It all very much sounds like it is about pay.

Only if you ignore all the other concerns.

Many other professions no longer have 'pay progression'. Where I currently work you'll be lucky to get anything let alone inflation. Only way of earning more is on promotion to a different more senior role.

other employers also change terms of contract during employment. For example, reducing pension benefit or reducing redundancy, it happens all the time. Especially when the economy is not doing well and belt tightening is needed.

There are no winners for the race to the bottom.

1) I don't get how you think financial penalties will change behavior or help the trusts.

2) simply a planning issue, not insurmountable

4) You have to ask why managers are using 'creative' rotas. This seems to be a public sector issue and I've never understood why, but someone might know.

5a) All pay increases should be linked to performance.

t all very much sounds like it is about pay.

I dont think anybody is denying pay is a factor - we dont want to be paid less for doing more work - hardly ridiculous. However dont forget that we didn't start this, the government did. Tell me honestly when you have heard a junior Doctor complaining that we want a pay rise, we simply want to retain the terms that we have - given that the overriding driver behind this is political ideology of the Conservatives and not patient care.

1) I don't get how you think financial penalties will change behavior or help the trusts.

It's simple really. If they get penalised they're reluctant to do it unless there is very little choice. Without they can please themselves without having to worry about it. Not difficult to work out.

The only way you'd struggle to work it out is if you thought the same amount of staff could work more days and shifts without compromise, see your reply to 2.

4 is not worth answering as its another one of you hate the public sector posts.

Drac - Moderator
4 is not worth answering as its another one of you hate the public sector posts.

😆 C'mon be a sport explain yourself ! 😆

➡ Milking the system come to mind ? 😛

other employers also change terms of contract during employment. For example, reducing pension benefit or reducing redundancy, it happens all the time. Especially when the economy is not doing well and belt tightening is needed.

How many other employers get to do that by publicly slagging off their employees, denying that they work the hours that they do, and then claiming that the pay cut is a pay rise?

I don't get how you think financial penalties will change behavior or help the trusts.

Because the "financial penalty" is that the current (admittedly very confusing) contract means doctors get a pay adjustment based on how many hours they work and how regularly they are rota'd to work weekends, nights or on-calls.

So Trusts are careful to avoid putting the same doctor on too many hours like that because they would [i]automatically[/i] have to pay them more. Which helps to ensure doctors work reasonable hours and has helped the profession move away from the bad old days of juniors regularly doing 100+ hour weeks.

As I understand it, under the new contract the hours would be audited and it would be up to the doctor to make a (career-limiting) complaint.

The dispute is completely about patient safety, there is no issue about pay whatsoever. The only way to resolve the patient safety issue is to pay to the doctors more.

The only way to resolve the patient safety issue is to pay to the doctors more.

[b]THEY. DON'T. WANT. TO. BE. PAID. MORE![/b]

Apparently it really cannot be said enough. At no point in this dispute have the junior doctors asked for more money.

Apparently it really cannot be said enough. At no point in this dispute have the junior doctors asked for more money.

I didn't say they did and I was heartened that so many of the issues in dispute about patient safety were resolved when the standard hours payment increase was raised from 11% to 13%.

so many of the issues in dispute about patient safety were resolved when the standard hours payment increase was raised from 11% to 13%.

Errr.. except they weren't.

Have you not noticed that despite promises that current pay would be frozen so that they wouldn't feel the cuts AND promises to increase the standard pay level, the Junior Doctors continued striking and are STILL STRIKING and have now escalated to a full walk out.

Mefty you're naughty.

Graham, a quick scan of BMA website and it does seem that "pay" cannot be said enough, in fact rather often - among other core issues admittedly.

Agreed. You could pay me a million pounds and I'd still have massive issues with the contract as above.

Just wanted to make the point that pay progression isn't automatic. Every junior doctor in training has an annual review at which you have to prove that you've hit all the competencies and skills targets that were set that year via an eportfolio. If you fail the review - no progression. The only times this doesn't happen is during maternity/paternity leave and during breaks for research, to reduce the disincentives to having women/parents and academics in the profession (rightly so, I believe, although I should disclose that I'm a female academic junior doctor...)

Pay and safety are linked though - if all the doctors leave, it's not very safe. And you can't just make the remaining ones work harder to cover - that's not safe either.

Quite possibly and FWIW I think JDs are underpaid. But claiming that pay is not/has never been part of the dispute is disingenuous at best.

I said it wasn't about pay for weekend working, which was what Ben Gummer (Jeremy wanted a lie in this morning) was claiming in parliament this morning.

Maybe a better way of wording it is to say that the dispute is not about [i]how much[/i] we are paid, rather the way that pay is structured and the obvious lack of independent safeguards in the system for patients.

Graham, a quick scan of BMA website and it does seem that "pay" cannot be said enough, in fact rather often - among other core issues admittedly.

Pay [i]is[/i] an issue in the dispute - a key one - but the objections are to the pay cuts and the the government changing the pay structure in ways that people see as grossly unfair and opening the door to dangerous hours and poorer working conditions.

At no point have the doctors asked for [i]more[/i] pay and it annoys me that the government have successfully convinced people that they have.

One of our friends had people shouting [i]"Get back to work you greedy bitch"[/i] at her when she was on the last strike.

Race to the bottom? No I would just like people to have some perspective. The few doctors I know seem very unaware of how the world of employment works outside of their profession. Some thing they'll find out about soon if you believe all the angst and they all leave in droves for other jobs.

Like I said employers regularly change terms, you have to suck it up or move true they don't normally insult you whilst doing it. They just tell you via an intranet message. So your choice is to accept or leave. Often though, because market forces are at work you tend to find yourself in a similar boat with a competitor unless you can move to a more senior post.

If all the talk about pay was removed from the conversation I'd be less cynical that they are really worried about patients. Maybe the existing docs would vote for a pay cut so the NHS could keep the same overall wage bill and fund more doctors, this would reduce the concerns about being overworked, stressed and dangerous for patients?

I absolutely agree no one likes their terms being made worse or taking pay cuts. But it happens all the time. Have some perspective.

Pay is an issue in the dispute

Glad we are passed that issue then.

Sorry to hear about friend.

[b]DT78[/b] but this is basically abuse by a monopoly employer of a bunch of people who, unlike my generation, are saddled with 5-6 years of student debt.

If they had a way they could walk away and choose to do something else, or work for someone else, it might be a bit fairer...

... and actually that's why so many are going overseas or dropping out of medicine completely... They are clever people with marketable intelligence.

So the question is what kind of NHS do [i]you [/i]want?

Perhaps you [i]do [/i]want one where it is impossible to adequately staff the service thanks to capricious evidence-ignoring decisions by JH which are actually cost-neutral?!

If lots and lots of doctors leave, and aren't replaced with equally intelligent people wanting to do their jobs from other places then the market will correct and they will have to offer better terms and conditions. I don't believe it will happen, because even though it is worse it is still a hell of a lot better than other jobs outside. You don't just walk into a senior job in business you'll need significant investment in terms of time and money, not dissimilar to that of a junior doctor. Take a look at what lawyers have to payout and the hours they work as juniors other professions are similar if you want to earn the salaries docs earn.

Sorry things are getting worse for you, but it really isn't that bad....

That is [i]exactly [/i]what happened in 2002-4 with the GPs with a recruitment and workforce crisis - and they had to radically alter T&Cs.

It was good for a few years - but now in RPI terms we are worse off than in 2004, working much harder... and there is another workforce crisis coming in the next 12 months... But I'm not complaining, I'm planning my retirement in 4-5 years when I always thought I'd go on for another 7-8...

The trouble is it takes 10 years from Medical Student admission or 5 years from initial qualification to get to the places in the system where the workforce problems happen - so there is a lag phase which means alienating a huge cohort of Drs is risky if you want to keep your service sustainable. There will be no one to replace them, for 5 to 10 years...

And a medical qualification - it turns out - is a pretty good starter degree. I know ex Drs in various fields. So don't think people won't walk. They are doing so already.

50% of the most junior doctors stepped away from training last year to do something else, up from 30% 4 years ago. And those figures are from before the dispute really got going. They should have been consultants in around 2020-2022.

Maybe the existing docs would vote for a pay cut so the NHS could keep the same overall wage bill and fund more doctors, this would reduce the concerns about being overworked, stressed and dangerous for patients?

And if there weren't more doctors available to employ (which there aren't - most posts are understaffed) then the NHS could use those extra funds to work the existing doctors even harder for the money they used to be on?

That's not that far from the existing situation where they are reducing pay and using the funds to implement an ill-conceived "seven day NHS" which they don't have the staff for.

I absolutely agree no one likes their terms being made worse or taking pay cuts. But it happens all the time. Have some perspective.

To be honest, I think if it the government had played a straight hand and just said: [i]"The NHS is struggling, in the current climate we need reduce doctors pay a bit"[/i] then it would have met with much less opposition and many would have grudgingly agreed to it straight away.

As you say, that kind of thing happens in other jobs all the time.

But the lies and spin have played a major part in angering the doctors and put them on the defensive.

And for those who are saying "you knew what you were getting into" - I'm right in the middle of the 54,000 junior doctors caught up in this mess, and I decided to go to medical school in 1999, when I was 16. I had no idea that this is what it would be like, but thankfully our medical students now are much better informed.

Do any of you Tories seriously think Jeremy Hunt is doing a good job?

No crossing your fingers when you answer now.

To be honest, I think if it the government had played a straight hand and just said: "The NHS is struggling, in the current climate we need reduce doctors pay a bit" then it would have met with much less opposition and many would have grudgingly agreed to it straight away.

As you say, that kind of thing happens in other jobs all the time.

But the lies and spin have played a major part in angering the doctors and put them on the defensive.

When was the last time we had "straight" debate about our favourite sacred cow. Both sides in this dispute have distorted the issues to suit their needs, (which in the end will most likely test the public's patience.)

It's not news that we have a problem funding unlimited demands with limited resources, is it? Someone has to bite the bullet and tackle the elephant - in some form or another we will have to pay for our medical services in the future. Let's get on with designing a sensible way for this to happen.

When was the last time we had "straight" debate about our favourite sacred cow.

True, but regarding DT78's point that contracts change in other jobs too - there can't be many contract negotiations that start with the employer claiming the employees lacked a "sense of vocation and professionalism" and that the "9 till 5 culture" was killing 6,000 people a year.

I suppose that's what you get when politicians negotiate. I was tuped once. I received a letter telling me that if I turned up to work I would be deemed to have accepted the terms. If I didn't I would be treated as if I'd resigned. No redundancy, no negotiating. Just tough.

So far both sides of this argument are making themselves look bad in the eyes of the general public

Race to the bottom? No I would just like people to have some perspective

They do. That doesn't mean they should sit back and let it happen to them. Even the Dr's that are your best friends. 😆

Perhaps you do want one where it is impossible to adequately staff the service thanks to capricious evidence-ignoring decisions

Its not about pay, so the outcome of the strike won't affect recruitment. Unless Health Trusts having to pay compensation will attract people to the career in their droves.

Its not about pay, so the outcome of the strike won't affect recruitment.

You don't think hours, working conditions or how your employer treats you has any impact on recruitment??

I was tuped once. I received a letter telling me that if I turned up to work I would be deemed to have accepted the terms. If I didn't I would be treated as if I'd resigned. No redundancy, no negotiating.

I had similar, it sucks. Thats one reason I think the reduction in T&Cs (especially Saturday working pay reduction) is the strongest part of their case.

Since they don't mind that bit of the deal they should wind their necks in, and suck the rest up. Refusing to provide emergency cover because whistle blowing is going to be less easy? FFS, even if they win how many years will it take to make up the deaths that will be caused in two days of emergencies?

FFS, even if they win how many years will it take to make up the deaths that will be caused in two days of emergencies?

Ok I'll bite. How many have there been so far?

You don't think hours, working conditions or how your employer treats you has any impact on recruitment??

Maybe I've missed something but AIUI hours aren't changing, just the hours that qualify for additional cash. Have I got that wrong?

Ok I'll bite. How many have there been so far?

Have they already done a strike that includes emergency cover? I thought not, in which case presumably no deaths due to withdrawal of emergency cover so far.

Have you bothered to look what will be involved with them striking for 2 days cover wise. I bet no.

Maybe I've missed something buy AIUI hours aren't changing

Must be true. Jeremy said so and we can trust Jeremy:

Jeremy Hunt: "[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/junior-doctors-contracts-jeremy-hunts-full-speech-on-imposing-new-contracts-a6867271.html ]Tired doctors risk patient safety, so in the new contract ... [b]no doctor will ever be rostered on consecutive weekends[/b][/url]"

Example New Contract rota supplied by NHS Employers:

[img] :large[/img]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/junior-doctors-furious-after-new-example-rotas-show-them-working-three-weekends-in-a-row-a6882541.html

Ermmm! That rota looks pretty good to me.