Thousands To Join First All-Out Doctors' Strike

[naomi24]

// Doctors are concerned they will be under pressure to work longer hours, risking patient safety.//

… but they don’t mind risking patient safety today when they withdraw emergency cover at A&E and intensive care units. Hypocrites!

http://news.sky.com/story/1684491/thousands-to-join-first-all-out-doctors-strike

[Old_Geezer]

It's hardly unknown Jim. I ended up leaving the world of work without compensation when my employer changed conditions. There ought to be sensible limitations on what can be imposed.

[jim360]

Thanks OG, I was going to ask about that (whether or not such a clause was unusual) but forgot.

[naomi24]

It isn’t about hours – under this contract doctors would be restricted to fewer hours. This is interesting:

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/healthcare/five-facts-that-undermine-the-junior-doctors-strike/

The government’s aim is to provide an efficient 7-day health care system which, no doubt, everyone would welcome. Does anyone know if the BMA has offered a workable alternative to their suggestions - or is it just digging its heels in?

[murraymints]

most contracts of employment throw in a " any other duties as and when necessary " clause !

[jim360]

Thanks for providing that link Naomi, although I'd already anticipated it: of the "facts" given in that link, I've already provided counterpoints to 2 (the claim that 15/16 points have been resolved is made only by the government, and not accepted by the BMA, as I've already mentioned, so at the very least it's not a fact but in dispute), and, by extension, 5, ie this claim that it is only one issue that the strike is about is false. With respect to point 1, if you again refer to my link from the BMA you'll see that they too would like maximum allowed working hours to be reduced, which is to say that neither side is happy with the previous contract's maximum allowable working hours. The counterpoint is that some doctors are also being asked to work more hours for the same (or less) pay; so while the maximum length of a working week is reduced, the minimum is being effectively increased. So of those five "facts", one (fact 2) is wrong, one (fact 5) is based on an untruth (although the BMA , and one (fact 1) is highly misleading. Fact 4 is pretty much correct, although it concludes with the non-committal question as to whether health service strikes ever worth the risk; most junior doctors have felt that it is if they want to get the government to listen to their concerns that the new contract will be even more of a risk to patient health.

It's in the interests of both sides, of course, to spin things in their favour, so it's hard to work out the truth. But those five "facts" represent a summary of the government's self-interested position.

[naomi24]

Jim, it’s not self-interest on the government’s part – but, despite having been offered an excellent rise in overall salary, it is on the part of the doctors. Has the BMA offered an alternative suggestion that will provide the 7-day health care the government is trying to achieve? If they have, I’ve not heard about it. Frankly, I don’t think anyone can knock the government for trying to improve health care, but they can knock the BMA and its members for being deliberately obstructive.

[Peter Pedant]

// The government’s aim is to provide an efficient 7-day health care system which, no doubt, everyone would welcome.//

hahaha cost neutrally - that is on a budget that runs a five day service.
And no,the BMA has no ideas on how to supply an up to date ( first in the world remember ) seven day service on money that runs a service for five days - and guess what Nigh ? they say it cant be done ...

good one nigh

and has the minister ? ( any good ideas ) - he doesnt hold the budgets ( = says where the money goes ) as he devolved them ( = gave control to someone else, the employers and commissioners ) a few years ago


as Mrs T might say - if you feed a family for five days and stretch it to seven all that happens is that the familly eats less on each day of the week ....

[jim360]

"Frankly, I don’t think anyone can knock the government for trying to improve health care..."

Depends on the way they go about it, no? The current proposals give the impression of the government only trying to look like it is improving healthcare. Again, I've made the point that the problem the government is addressing, the weekend effect, is not obviously anything to do with junior doctors at all. No research supports this. So why is the government going after junior doctors specifically? This leads in to the characterisation of the BMA as "deliberately obstructive" -- this is true, but there is good reason to believe that their obstruction is well-grounded. They accept that weekend care is inadequate, but they do not accept that this is the way to improve it. Under those circumstances of course they are going to try and obstruct proposals they feel are no better, and indeed rather a lot worse, than the present situation.

* * *

"Has the BMA offered an alternative suggestion that will provide the 7-day health care the government is trying to achieve?"

It's difficult to find out, but on a pay level the government's proposals are to increase basic hourly rate by somewhere around 11-13%, treat Satruday daytimes as basic and Sunday as "level-1 enhanced", with overnight hours as time-and-a-half. The BMA's proposed pay award is to raise basic salary by around 5% but applying only at weekdays, with all remaining hours as time-and-a-half again. I've done the calculations already and I reckon the two pay awards are roughly comparable, but the BMA's version provides a greater incentive to work on a Saturday and Sunday.

The other sticking point of approach is that the government is not providing any extra funding, and not providing any extra doctors either, so that the same amount of staff are supposed to be spread over seven days, rather than five. The BMA says, if the government wants to provide a better weekend service then it should pay for it by providing more money and, ultimately, more doctors (not just the same doctors spread over longer).

[Peter Pedant]

// Jim, it’s not self-interest on the government’s part//

O god has this thread been transferred to the Joke Section ?

yes nigh it is self interest on the govt part - they want MORE for LESS ! duuh

[fiction-factory]

But isn't that better than going without food for two days, PP?

[Svejk]

Most of the JD's leaders/spokespersons were committed to socialist/communist politics when they were at Uni. Shifty blighters.

[jim360]

The food analogy seems to break down a bit; if all that happens is that the excess weekend deaths are spread more evenly, then you have buried the problem and not addressed it.

[fiction-factory]

I think the analogy breaks down even more when you consider that the work of doctors covers critical to less serious cases. I'm not sure that deaths in midweek would increase, jim, as I'd expect the resources to be prioritised so death risk cases were dealt with before lesser issues.
But it seems odd for the government to have chosen to fight this issue when the benefit are not clear and anything done regarding the NHS is viewed with suspicion by public and suspicion/hostility by health workers

[murraymints]

I experienced the dearth of doctors at the weekend with dad..one consultant, to his credit, when told how ill dad was came in on a Sunday..but that was an isolated incident..folk are ill at weekends too and deserve the attention that is afforded mid week...

[fiction-factory]

This matter needs some sort of arbitration. I am sure a small team from AB could find a way round this impasse. (After all, we solved the Madelaine McCann case last night.)

[murraymints]

did we ??? lol

[naomi24]

Jim, //"Has the BMA offered an alternative suggestion that will provide the 7-day health care the government is trying to achieve?"

It's difficult to find out,//

For that read 'no', because if they had they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.

//why is the government going after junior doctors specifically? //

I presume because they make up the bulk of the workforce in that particular area.

//"Frankly, I don’t think anyone can knock the government for trying to improve health care..."

Depends on the way they go about it, no?//

It does, but personally I don't believe they are going about it in an unfair manner. The doctors have been offered a very substantial pay award and their overall hours will decrease. It's not such a duff deal.