SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Zarjazz]

i have absolutely no idea what anyone is talking about on here.

Sometimes that's probably for the best ...

 

[Trem]

Junior doctors are massively important and should be paid accordingly, likewise nurses. Politicians not so much.

 

[Scouse]

Junior doctors are massively important and should be paid accordingly, likewise nurses. Politicians not so much.

Shouldn't be an "importance" based argument really. Everyone should get paid well for their job. Everyone should be able to live a reasonable lifestyle - from the cleaners upwards.

The problem is too high a concentration of wealth at the top.

 

[Gwadien]

Junior doctors are massively important and should be paid accordingly, likewise nurses. Politicians not so much.

There was a very standard argument about Doctors on Question Time the other night, a junior doctor was going on about how she's going on strike because it's pretty dire, and that if it fails she'll most likely leave the country, a bloke chirped up that it's disgusting that we pay for them to become Doctors and then they leave the country.

I think that's half the problem really; people feel entitled to have a doctor so therefore they're not going to be treated right.

Funnily enough (It's weird how many things are popping up of late which are relevant today) I'm doing a piece of work on Doctors views on the formation of the NHS, and they said that Doctors will get annoyed and leave the country because they'll be made to be civil servants as opposed to highly trained medical professionals, and I think that is what has happened now.

 

[Trem]

@Scouse it is important to have them, if it isn't I will perform your sex change op for you.

I think you know what I meant you were just being a pedant again because it was a post from me.

I'm going to get Gwad to post my stuff for me to avoid the nano criticisms

 

[Scouse]

It wasn't a criticism of your position @Trem - it is important to have them. However, I was making a point about the wider argument about striking.

 

[Scouse]

Looks like half our jerbs are safe

 

[Raven]

With some of the spacker graduates and school leavers I have to deal with it happened years ago.

 

[Tom]

I wonder if kids today can conceive of a time when there was no such thing as the internet. Most of us here grew up without any of that stuff.

 

[Gwadien]

That's pretty interesting; the use of technology is damaging people's use of technology, haha.

 

[CorNokZ]

Shouldn't be an "importance" based argument really. Everyone should get paid well for their job. Everyone should be able to live a reasonable lifestyle - from the cleaners upwards.

The problem is too high a concentration of wealth at the top.

Fucking commie

 

[Trem]

It wasn't a criticism of your position @Trem - it is important to have them. However, I was making a point about the wider argument about striking.

If you said it to me then yeah, typed things are shit. I hate you

Actually why are bin men paid really quite well and cleaners aren't?

Hate @Scouse

 

[Tilda]

Its not actually about money. At NO point in negotiations have doctors asked or demanded a pay rise.

It IS about patient safety. They are removing safeguards which would take the hours I work in a week from 60 to 90.
This is frankly madness and takes us back to the bad days of 1970s-1980s and 90 hour weeks, patients dieing from avoidable mistakes and doctors crashing their cars on the way home.
You wouldn't get on a plane where the pilot was flying 90 hours in a week. We wouldn't get HGV drivers drive a 90 hour week.
Me being a doctor and making a tiny calculation error kills a patient even easier.

It is about fairness, if doctors take time out to work in africa, do cancer research, have children or do a PhD or further study, it is right that their pay progression should continue - they have gained valuable skills that helps their normal job. The new contract penalises them and freezes their pay unless they are doing full time clinical work. This will reduce research into drugs, reduce doctors helping in africa etc.

It is also about not having a pay CUT. The headlines say 11% payrise. That is in our base pay, after loosing our 30% (average) antisocal hours work. Anybody can tell that 100 less 30, plus 11 is a reduction not a pay rise.

Further, the governments assertion that hospitals are unsafe at weekends is bollocks. It is literally mis quoting research and flexing the figures. Every statistician can see this easily. The 7 day NHS is already a reality, there already is 7 day care from consultants to the most junior F1's for emergency care. What there is not is a 7 day constant service, because you need staff increases to that.
If you increase the number of people on at weekends, without increasing staff - surprise, you have fewer on in the week. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I'm happy to answer questions if people have them or want a closer understanding.

 

[Tom]

What's to stop you saying "no, I'm not working 90 hours, I'm paid for 60 and that's all I'm doing"?

I've never had a full time job, I've always been self-employed, so I don't know how it works.

 

[Tilda]

There was a very standard argument about Doctors on Question Time the other night, a junior doctor was going on about how she's going on strike because it's pretty dire, and that if it fails she'll most likely leave the country, a bloke chirped up that it's disgusting that we pay for them to become Doctors and then they leave the country.

I think that's half the problem really; people feel entitled to have a doctor so therefore they're not going to be treated right.

Funnily enough (It's weird how many things are popping up of late which are relevant today) I'm doing a piece of work on Doctors views on the formation of the NHS, and they said that Doctors will get annoyed and leave the country because they'll be made to be civil servants as opposed to highly trained medical professionals, and I think that is what has happened now.

What's really galling is that JH insinuates we're greedy, or liars, or unprofessional or don't care.
I care every day. Sometimes to the point it impacts my personal life.
I've missed weddings, birthdays, christmases to care for patients.
We train for years and take a vow.
Doctors are (imho) one of the most professional professions.

Coming from a guy who did PPE, claimed expenses, voted for an 11% pay rise for himself, was central to the BSkyB scandal when he was culture secretary, has a second home and believes in the validity of homeopathy.
Why can't we do what Canada did and have people with experience and relevant knowledge in charge of Government Departments.

 

[Trem]

All I know is that after 8 hours I'm done and the thought of any more hours would be dangerous for the fuser I'm working on, way less important than a human .

 

[Tilda]

What's to stop you saying "no, I'm not working 90 hours, I'm paid for 60 and that's all I'm doing"?

I've never had a full time job, I've always been self-employed, so I don't know how it works.

Its probably our sense of caring.

Take yesterday, I had done 95% of my work by my scheduled finish time of 5:30, then a patient develops a new problem as a complication of something we did earlier in the day. Its not something that can just be sat on till the morning it needs things doing *now* so I stayed, as did my colleagues until we had got the scans, the bloods and she went to theatres.
This happens every day, across the country. Doctors give thousands of hours a year in unpaid labour. I think its probably the sense of duty and care towards our patients that stops us saying "well I finished at 5 so you'll have to wait for the oncall doctor to come and sort your heart attack".

The 90 vs 60 the thing is that if you're in a yearly contract like most juniors we'll have to sign a new contract next september, and get a rota that could well go up to 90 hours. So then you are being paid for those hours, because thats what your contract and rota say. If we said no, then patients would suffer as nobody would be there to care for them.

 

[Tilda]

All I know is that after 8 hours I'm done and the thought of any more hours would be dangerous for the fuser I'm working on, way less important than a human .

I can promise you I'm the same. After 5 lots of 13 hour night shifts (and these are constant work, perhaps 30 mins for a coffee, no time to sleep) working pretty much non stop I can assure you I take longer to make decisions and make more mistakes.

 

[Scouse]

If we said no, then patients would suffer as nobody would be there to care for them.

Until doctors do that then government will shit on them. :\

 

[Trem]

Moral high ground but actually justified.

 

[Gwadien]

Imagine if the doctors and nurses grouped together.

Chaos.

Don't get me wrong @Tilda Doctors do most of the thinking, but aren't nurses in a similar boat of working over hours and stuff?

 

[Tom]

Its probably our sense of caring.

Take yesterday, I had done 95% of my work by my scheduled finish time of 5:30, then a patient develops a new problem as a complication of something we did earlier in the day. Its not something that can just be sat on till the morning it needs things doing *now* so I stayed, as did my colleagues until we had got the scans, the bloods and she went to theatres.
This happens every day, across the country. Doctors give thousands of hours a year in unpaid labour. I think its probably the sense of duty and care towards our patients that stops us saying "well I finished at 5 so you'll have to wait for the oncall doctor to come and sort your heart attack".

The 90 vs 60 the thing is that if you're in a yearly contract like most juniors we'll have to sign a new contract next september, and get a rota that could well go up to 90 hours. So then you are being paid for those hours, because thats what your contract and rota say. If we said no, then patients would suffer as nobody would be there to care for them.

So rather than going on strike, why not just work to rule? That's what I'd do. I don't work for free. And as for scheduling someone for 90 hours, well the working time directive applies to you so as long as you're not doing more than 48 hours a week on average over IIRC 17 weeks, then you're fine. Any more than that and your employer is breaking the law.

This is what I don't understand tbh. Teachers do the same thing. If you're not being paid then go home. If people start dying then it won't be your fault, it'll be the government's, and I doubt they'd ever find a scapegoat for that.

 

[Gwadien]

So rather than going on strike, why not just work to rule? That's what I'd do. I don't work for free. And as for scheduling someone for 90 hours, well the working time directive applies to you so as long as you're not doing more than 48 hours a week on average over IIRC 17 weeks, then you're fine. Any more than that and your employer is breaking the law.

This is what I don't understand tbh. Teachers do the same thing. If you're not being paid then go home. If people start dying then it won't be your fault, it'll be the government's, and I doubt they'd ever find a scapegoat for that.

Teachers usually have like 2-3 hours free a week not including lunch breaks, how do they get coursework etc marked in that time? Ultimately they get sacked

 

[Tom]

If I was a teacher I wouldn't be working in my lunch break and I wouldn't be working at home either, not unless I was paid for it.

Sorry but a contract that expects me to work for no money can fuck right off.

 

[Scouse]

working time directive applies to you

Doesn't apply to doctors IIRC.

 

[Tilda]

So rather than going on strike, why not just work to rule? That's what I'd do. I don't work for free. And as for scheduling someone for 90 hours, well the working time directive applies to you so as long as you're not doing more than 48 hours a week on average over IIRC 17 weeks, then you're fine. Any more than that and your employer is breaking the law.

This is what I don't understand tbh. Teachers do the same thing. If you're not being paid then go home. If people start dying then it won't be your fault, it'll be the government's, and I doubt they'd ever find a scapegoat for that.

Most of us are "forced" to opt out of EWTD when we sign out contracts sadly.

The problem is, working to rule is very very hard in hospital. If I don't update my list before I go, its a mess the next day and it all has a knock on effect. Worse is in an acute emergency like above, no doctor is going to be mid emergency or cardiac arrest and say "well I finish now, off I go".
There was a local strike a few years ago when doctors tried to strike by being in hospital but only doing "emergency work" but practically its impossible to draw the division easily and in an easily communicable way and patients got cross because they could see doctors on the ward, but they weren't working.
Its much easier like this with a full strike and doctors on a picket outside the hospital, there's no confusion and you can't be asked to "Just write up some pain relief for this patient".

 

[Scouse]

If I was a teacher I wouldn't be working in my lunch break and I wouldn't be working at home either, not unless I was paid for it.

Sorry but a contract that expects me to work for no money can fuck right off.

Yep. Too many humans will do that.

It's one of the reasons I contract. I get paid, or gtfo. The problem is that principled people with balls get undermined by timid slimy little wankers who'll cow-tow to work. The sort of people that say "you should be thankful you have a job".

Thankful you have a job? Fuck that. Everyone deserves one. If we can't run an economy that doesn't support our species without fucking people right royally over then it's not an economy worth running.

 

[Tom]

Doesn't apply to doctors IIRC.

http://bma.org.uk/support-at-work/ewtd/ewtd-juniors

 

[Tom]

Most of us are "forced" to opt out of EWTD when we sign out contracts sadly.

From your use of quotes I'm guessing that you're pressured into working longer hours than is legal.

I still think you should be working only the hours you're paid. If that means that your paperwork is a mess, if that causes problems, then it would be up to your manager to ensure that you're given the time to do whatever it is you need to do. So long as you perform your duties while you're paid then nobody could criticise you. And frankly, if people start dying because doctors and nurses start clocking off when they should, then so be it. The NHS makes decisions all the time on which drugs it shall and shall not buy, few people criticise it for not having an unlimited pot of cash.

Nobody anywhere should ever be expected to provide work for free. This is what unions are for, if yours is happy with the current situation then I can only say they're shit.

 

[Gwadien]

If I was a teacher I wouldn't be working in my lunch break and I wouldn't be working at home either, not unless I was paid for it.

Sorry but a contract that expects me to work for no money can fuck right off.

That isn't how it works though is it.

The reality is that these kind of jobs are the jobs that should be paid way more, but because of the bad reputation they have for being public sector means that it'll never happen.