"right, just checked with my pal next to me, his girlfriend is a junior doctor.
among other things; [b]They're planning to remove the restriction on how many hours doctors can be asked required to work[/b]."
This is complete nonsense and reflects the fact the BMA have obfuscated the actual proposals in order to increase public support / leverage on NHS employers.
The National Doctors and Dentists Review body have made it very clear that the maximum number of hours in any one week (including overtime and being on call) will be reduced from 90 to 72 - it's here in black and white:
In addition to the legal safeguards the working time regulations (WTR) provide, NHS
Employers proposed:
— an absolute limit on weekly hours of 72
— no shift to exceed 13 hours
— no more than five consecutive long days or four consecutive night shifts
— no doctor to be on duty for more than seven consecutive on call periods
The analysis by NHS Employers (amongst other things the NHS Employers negotiating team includes Doctors) is here:
The latest update from the NHS Employers negotiating team says:
"We are incredibly disappointed that [the BMA] continue to stand by their decision to walk away from the talks. We firmly believed that by working together we could have ensured safer working hours for doctors in training, as well as provided them with the stability of pay and agreed work schedules that took account of their educational commitments and needs."
The BMA aren't willing to even talk to NHS Employers and are just using us / the public to negotiate by social media.
I love the fact you cite the employers and then accuse other of bias
Have you read the way they answer questions- its like reading PR speech from a spokesperson.
for example
[b]Will individual doctors get a pay cut?[/b]
While average earnings will stay the same, redistributing pay from an unfair system to a fairer one does mean that some people who are disadvantaged by the current rules will see their overall earnings go up, while some who are currently advantaged will see their earnings go down
the answer is yes some will get a pay cut. The rest is the type of BS obfuscation you would be moaning about were it not for the fact it suits your agenda
Oh the irony.
just5minutes - MemberThis is complete nonsense ... it's here in black and white:
as isn't the rest of what i wrote.
restrictions will still in place, but the penalties for breaking them are being removed.
ie. the restrictions can be flouted without repercussion.
it's hardly a leap to suggest that they will be flouted - it will almost be necessary.
[url= http://m.bma.org.uk/working-for-change/junior-and-consultant-contract/ddrb-recommendations-analysis-for-juniors ]The BMA's position of the Working Time Regulation[/url]:
DDRB Recommendation 17: "The wording on contractual safeguards in Schedule 3 of the draft contract should be strengthened to a mandatory requirement to comply with the requirements of Working Time Regulations or any successor legislation"What this means:
The end of banding safeguards, without an alternative to prevent unsafe hours or ensure you are paid when shifts overrun.
The banding system provides an effective penalty for employers against fatiguing and unsafe working patterns by giving them a financial interest in planning rotas and staffing wards properly. The Working Time Regulations provide broadly weaker protections than existing banding thresholds, with shorter and less frequent rest, and without an enforcement mechanism that has an immediate impact for juniors. They exist in addition to, not instead of, your contractual entitlements.The BMA was willing to negotiate on a system of pay based on hours, rather than according to pay bands – but only so long as it provided sufficient protections and still meant pay for hours actually worked, not just pay for scheduled hours.
The work review process proposed by the DDRB provides no payment for overtime, no financial incentive for employers to prevent your duties from overrunning, and no reassurance that it can work robustly to protect juniors from unsafe working conditions. The DDRB’s alternative to banding safeguards is to more clearly oblige employers to follow the law on the Working Time Regulations, which provide weaker protections than banding currently does. This is important, but not a sufficient protection on its own.
TL;DR; ? They want to remove the financially enforced restrictions and replace them with non-financial restrictions that won't be checked as carefully and allow for fewer breaks.
just5minutes - Member
This is complete nonsense ... it's here in black and white:
And here's another version. In black and white.
I had no idea just how dishonest and deceitful people in the medical professions were until I read just5minutes's posts.
I don't think I'll ever trust what a doctor tells me again.
What I don't understand though, is why junior doctors aren't welcoming with open arms this great new deal offered to them by Jeremy Hunt which promises them more money for less work?
Still, I'm sure that just5minutes has a very logical explanation for this puzzling state of affairs.
a very logical explanation
Given just5min's claim that the objections represent "complete nonsense", I am also puzzled by his silence.
So earlier this evening there was a debate in the Commons about the Junior Doctor contract.
Jeremy Hunt didn't think it was worth his time staying to the end...
There he goes.
[img] 
[/img]
Cheers DrDeath for the pic.
oh my the medics at work will be unimpressed at this one!
So, the night after he walks out of the debate, presumably because being at work after 6pm is unsociable, the next morning at 7:15 on BBC News he gets doctors hours wrong and apologises...
Sorry, this is quite complex for early in the morning
🙄
Bless him
[url= http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4596/rr-52 ]Results of the Hunt effect surveys in response to “Increased mortality associated with weekend hospital admission: a case for expanded seven day services?”[/url]
What a complete Jeremy he is.
(obviously statistical caveats apply)
The BMA aren't willing to even talk to NHS Employers and are just using us / the public to negotiate by social media.
The government released the details of its new proposals to the media without bothering to consult with the doctors. Let's not pretend that they're negotiating in good faith.
The government released the details of its new proposals to the media without bothering to consult with the doctors. Let's not pretend that they're negotiating in good faith.
The BMA have refused to meet NHS Employers (the negotiating body) since June. They are still refusing to meet them.
So how exactly is a "negotiation" supposed to happen?
The BMA have refused to meet NHS Employers (the negotiating body) since June. They are still refusing to meet them.
On points which they consider central to the profession they were told that there was no negotiation.
So how exactly is a "negotiation" supposed to happen?
The leader in the Times today (see below) would seem to be a reasonably balanced appraisal of the current stand off... a lot of people seem to think Jeremy Hunt is actually the negotiator. He isn't - it's NHS Employers and the DH.
Not that anyone appears to be terribly interested in the underlying drivers for the new contract (not least the Junior Doctors themselves) but for those who are they are set out in considerable detail here:
From The Times today:
Barring an unlikely climbdown by the government or the British Medical Association (BMA), England’s hospitals are heading for some form of doctors’ strike. Queues at A&E departments will lengthen. Promises of better care will be broken. Taxpayers who have helped to fund the NHS throughout their working lives may die avoidably.This is an inexcusable prospect in an advanced 21st-century economy and no one emerges with much credit from the mess that has led to it. Jeremy Hunt is a diligent health secretary with an unenviable task (and an impeccable bedside manner) but he has allowed trust between his department and the BMA to evaporate on his watch.
For its own part the association has been unremittingly shrill in its rhetoric and unreasonable in its tactics. As the 50,000 junior doctors in its membership consider a proposal for strike action over the next two weeks they should bear in mind a few home truths. The seven-day NHS, towards which Mr Hunt is working, is not a luxury but the least patients deserve and the government has a mandate to make it a reality.
An overhaul of junior doctors’ complex and costly weekend overtime rules is one of many reforms that Mr Hunt cannot afford to sidestep. Throwing money at the problem is not a solution. Health spending is already ringfenced with a guarantee of an extra £8 billion a year by the end of this parliament, despite abundant evidence of waste. In these circumstances taxpayers will quickly lose patience with a doctors’ union that appears to prioritise its members’ pay and conditions over their Hippocratic Oath.
The new contract outlined yesterday by Mr Hunt would, he claims, give most junior doctors an 11 per cent rise in base pay. The increase would be paid for with a 25 per cent overall cut in hours classed as unsociable and therefore paying overtime. As a pre-emptive concession to the BMA the point at which overtime begins at a weekend would be brought forward three hours, compared with Mr Hunt’s initial proposals, from 10pm on Saturdays to 7pm.
Young doctors heeding the BMA’s exhortations took to the streets yesterday to accuse Mr Hunt of megaphone diplomacy. Indulging in the very same thing, one called the proposed contract “terrifying”. It is nothing of the sort. It replaces one complicated slab of smallprint with another, but it simplifies base pay and rewards proven progress rather than merely seniority. This is progress. The Department of Health maintains that the contract would deliver a modest overall pay rise for most junior doctors, although as things stand many of the pay safeguards offered would expire in 2019.
In defence of junior doctors it must be said that they already work longer weekend hours than consultants, and it is a shortage of specialists and support staff that is mostly responsible for poor care in hospitals at weekends. Junior doctors’ long weekend shifts are, however, a factor behind this pattern, and the new contract addresses it.
Mr Hunt has allowed a showdown with junior doctors to develop where none was necessary and he should have been clearer, sooner, on the details of the new contract. Yet his errors pale beside the association’s gratuitous yearning for confrontation. It demands negotiations without preconditions while holding patients’ health to ransom with a strike threat. Enough already. It is past time for the BMA to sit down with Mr Hunt and strike a deal.
Allister Heath talks sense in the Torygraph today, not least the words that cannot be spoken - the NHS is broken beyond repair, with the crisis being both structural and inevitable.
Hunt is merely the latest politician shuffling the proverbial deckchairs...
We need to stop deluding ourselves, and begin to debate [b]openly[/b]what a world class health system fir for the 21C would look like
Well put!
From the Guardian today:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/04/jeremy-hunt-pay-rise-offer-to-junior-doctors-is-nothing-of-the-sort
would seem to be a reasonably balanced appraisal of the current stand off.
run that by me again?
the NHS is broken beyond repair
In what way? It's good value and has excellent outcomes.
What a complete Jeremy he is.
Oi !!
[quote=just5minutes spake unto the masses, saying]The leader in the Times today
Another good reason (if one were actually needed) to not read The Times.
Or indeed j5m !!
It's good value and has excellent outcomes.
Good outcomes apart from the 25% of people who are dead with cancer within 6 months of diagnosis due to the fact the diagnosis was too late. We've got some of the worst cancer outcomes in Europe and we're not much better on Chronic Disease or mental health.
Yes, we've covered that UK cancer survival rates are lower (though steadily improving).
Are you going to ignore all the things we are good at?
The BMA have refused to meet NHS Employers (the negotiating body) since June. They are still refusing to meet them.So how exactly is a "negotiation" supposed to happen?
It won't because a) the government has consistently said that it won't back down and b) when it made a revised offer, it didn't bother telling the BMA.
Good outcomes apart from the 25% of people who are dead with cancer within 6 months of diagnosis due to the fact the diagnosis was too late. We've got some of the worst cancer outcomes in Europe and we're not much better on Chronic Disease or mental health.
Overall, the NHS is consistently rated better than most other European countries.
So better facts than The Times
[img] 
?1[/img]
Why Jeremy Hunt's 'pay rise' is not what it seems:My basic pay as a junior doctor is £10.85/hour.
I get an extra £5.42/hour for frequently working nights and weekends.
Per month I earn £1886 from my basic salary and an extra £943 in supplements for working antisocial hours.
This totals £2829/month.
With Jeremy's 11% pay rise my basic pay will increase to £12.04/hour.
But I will no longer receive extra payments for working antisocial hours.
My new monthly wage would be £2092.
I would lose £737/month.
Jeremy is trying to sell it to the public as a generous pay rise, conveniently 1% higher than the 10% rise our selfless politicians decided to award themselves earlier this year.
He still continues to refuse to acknowledge or listen to our genuine concerns about the new contract with regards to safe working hours and patient safety.
I do not want to strike but Jezza isn't leaving us with many other options.
If only he would stop spending his time trying to create spin and press headlines which paint us in a bad light and make true efforts to re-engage with the BMA and restart negotiations.
****UPDATE******
Since writing the post I’ve received an email from Health Education England with a 4 page letter from Jeremy Hunt attached. It provides further information on his newest proposal.
With regards to antisocial hours pay I would still receive my supplement of 50%. However the hours considered as antisocial would be greatly reduced. The 11% pay rise is supposed to offset this to ensure my wage stays the same.
I’ve crunched the numbers and under this system my pay would be £280/month less - not quite so drastic, but still a pay cut and not the tidy rise Jeremy would like the public to believe.
Making conditions worse for employees will not improve the NHS, if you think things are bad now J5M it'll get worse by Dr's leaving or less applying.
The OECD assessment was not exactly a ringing endorsement!
now where's the iceberg?
My basic pay as a junior doctor is £10.85/hour.I get an extra £5.42/hour for frequently working nights and weekends.
Per month I earn £1886 from my basic salary and an extra £943 in supplements for working antisocial hours.
This totals £2829/month.
So that's (1886/10.85=) 174 hours of basic pay. And (943/5.42=)174 hours of supplement.
Does that mean they're [i]only[/i] working weekends and nights?
Or is the £943 the basic rate plus the 5.42 per hour enhancement? In which case that's an [i]extra[/i] ~60 hours per month?
Or is the £943 the basic rate plus the 5.42 per hour enhancement? In which case that's an extra ~60 hours per month?
Presumably. Or do you think junior doctors make less than minimum wage to work weekends and nights? Even Jeremy *unt wouldn't suggest that.
Or maybe he would ... 🙁
Does that mean they're only working weekends and nights?
their banding supplement is paid in proportion to the amount of anti social hours they do but is paid on the whole of the salary. That doctor's in a 1A banded job so they'll be doing a lot of anti social hours.
Anyone who describes Jeremy Hunt as being 'diligent' clearly is a troll of the lowest calibre.
So that's (1886/10.85=) 174 hours of basic pay. And (943/5.42=)174 hours of supplement.
Does that mean they're only working weekends and nights?
I've added an image that explains it a bit better.
Presumably. Or do you think junior doctors make less than minimum wage to work weekends and nights? Even Jeremy *unt wouldn't suggest that.Or maybe he would ...
thats not how minimum wage works though. you could still be paid £5.42 at the weekends and you would still be over the minimum wage for your hours so don't put it past him ha ha ha ha
[quote=lemonysam opined] would seem to be a reasonably balanced appraisal of the current stand off.
run that by me again?
just5minutes means woefully biased in favour of Tory spin to the point of being lies and propaganda- ie like his posts
Two people in need of urgent medical attention died last month after they did not go to hospital at a weekend because they wrongly believed there would be too few doctors on duty and that they would be at risk of dying, research claims. Almost a third (32%) of the 40 patients studied, who all held off seeking NHS treatment for that reason, suffered “long-term, irreversible morbidity” (an increased chance of dying) as a direct result of their delay, their doctors say.In addition, more than four out of five (82%) of the patients had a worse outcome than if they had sought help the day their health deteriorated, while the delay could have proved life-threatening in 90% of them, the study found.
Despite all his propaganda about there not being any doctors at weekends, Mr Hunt says in his latest letter to junior doctors:
[b]I know you already work across 7 days and perform the lion’s share of weekend work[/b], but the purpose of these proposals is to enable hospitals to roster more staff at weekends, as there is currently around three times less medical cover at weekends as during the week. We are not suggesting we need exactly the same levels, because there will always be elective work that is not done at weekends. But we must make sure that we can always promise the right level of medical..
That seems a completely different story from the one he has been selling in the media!
The whole letter is interesting though. His new tactic seems to be to offer junior doctors a Prisoner's Dilemma. If they agree to the changes then he'll promise that their pay won't be cut and only the doctors that follow them will suffer.
UK cancer outcomes are poor compared to some European countries, biggest factor is late diagnosis, we need better screening programmes,better awareness of symptoms, etc but all that costs money and we spend less as a percentage of our GDP on healthcare than all those countries
We also have big problems with lack ofexercise and obesity in this country compared to Europe, and many people don't appreciate that obesity can be a huge multiplier of cancer risk.
Paying doctors less money to work more hours will only reverse the huge improvement UK cancer survival rates have seen in the last few decades
biggest factor is late diagnosis, we need better screening programmes
thats not a doctors job though. poor rates of diagnoise can be down to poor screening like not doing the bowel cancer test but it's also down to crap doctors and people that don't go to their GP as well.
biggest factor is late diagnosis, we need better screening programmes
Whose job is health education? Politicians?
*Engage Propaganda Mode*
[img] 
[/img]
That's right folks - it's an "11% pay offer" and the greedy docs want more from the "gravy train".
Media misrepresentation at its best/worst.
😐
https://1000revolutions.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/the-doctor-is-out/
Sun 100% correct as usual.
We "dictate" the amount of "overtime" we work?!?!
GrahamS - Member*Engage Propaganda Mode*
With propaganda machines from both sides going into full spin mode the question is ...
[b]
Who is telling the truth?[/b] If both sides claim the truth you see what I mean?
🙄
Oh, and you're most likely to die in hospital on a Wednesday, not at the weekend.
[quote=DrJ opined]Sun 100% correct as usual.
Not until Jamby has said he agrees with what they said can it be considered to have reached this level of accuracy
