Sorry Rocky, maybe it did sound a bit holier than
thou. I was referring to your opening sentence....
> --- Rocky <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > > Well, Mike, I'm planning to vote yes. The basic
> > > reason is that I'm 55 and I plan to retire at
> 60.
> > > So I have to put up with whatever the new
> contract
> > > brings for five years but I should then have a
> > > significantly better pension fund than under the
> old
> > > contract.
clearly younger consultants will, rightly or wrongly,
feel that anyone voting yes for that reason is acting
purely out of self interest.
the bit about 'phasing in' to limit costs was in
hospital doctor last week I think. And as the pension
issue is not yet finalised in the proposed contract,
how can it be a good reason for voting for it?
I don't think the proposed new contract will stop
consultants working long hours, for a myriad of
reasons - eg improtant meeting for your dept scheduled
for morning prior to your late shift, or lieu day for
your weekend shift, need to prepare teaching or other
work and not enough time in the day to do it.
I don't feel trampled on by management at all at
present but fear that I would be if this contract went
ahead!
Cheers
Steve
--- Rocky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Exactly what am I doing or saying that is
> unprincipled? I don't remember
> having any say in any new contracts for junior
> doctors, for example - and
> they certainly had an impact on consultants
> workload. Can you tell me why I
> shouldn't be interested in something that may well
> have a big impact on my
> pension? And, of course, it should have an impact
> on everyone else's
> pension, assuming the government doesn't try to
> change things. That would
> be an indication for industrial action, which I
> would be perfectly prepared
> to support. There's no evidence that what you say
> about phasing things in
> is true - and if someone else gets it before me, I'm
> quite prepared to take
> action about that, too. As for your last question,
> all it takes is for
> Emergency Physicians collectively, in areas, to say
> that they will work
> exactly to the terms of the new contract. After
> all, at least part of the
> reason for why we're treated so badly by our
> employers presently is because
> some consultants agreed to take on ridiculous
> amounts of work for no
> remuneration - and many paid for it with their
> health - but it still put all
> of us under pressure to work in the same manner. Of
> course the new contract
> won't work any better that the old one if we all
> continue to be martyrs and
> let management trample all over us.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rocky.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Meek" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 9:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Consultant Contract
>
>
> > Brave man Rocky for sticking your head above the
> > parapet. I don't agree with you though. Apart from
> the
> > argument that your younger colleagues won't
> wistfully
> > remember you as a man of principle, I am worried
> that
> > you are misguided, too, I reckon, as you may not
> get
> > the salary increase you're expecting for five
> years
> > anyway - I understand there is an annual quota for
> > putting consultants on the new contract, if it
> were
> > agreed.
> > The contract appears to be undergoing a
> renegotiation
> > right now anyway and I have no doubt that
> > comprehensive rejection by ballot, if one ever
> takes
> > place, will lead to swiftly improved terms by HMG.
> >
> > At least the new contract will allow us to
> > > time-limit our workload. Far too many of us are
> > > currently working far, far too many hours
> because we
> > > feel it is something we must do for the good of
> our
> > > departments, hospitals, nurses and patients.
> Its
> > > time we had the guts to stand up and say to
> > > management, "No, I'm not going to do that any
> more".
> > > I think this new contract would give us the
> > > opportunity and the right to do just that.
> > So how exactly does the proposed contract help you
> to
> > do this?
> > Steve Meek
> >
> > --- Rocky <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > > Well, Mike, I'm planning to vote yes. The basic
> > > reason is that I'm 55 and I plan to retire at
> 60.
> > > So I have to put up with whatever the new
> contract
> > > brings for five years but I should then have a
> > > significantly better pension fund than under the
> old
> > > contract. I'm sure the new contract virtually
> > > guarantees that most of us will be doing evening
> > > sessions (but I suspect that will happen
> anyway). I
> > > 'm not happy about getting 8 per cent for
> emergency
> > > call but I'm getting nothing now. I have no
> fear of
> > > reappraisal and I don't believe any
> administrator
> > > can find a reason to hold back my salary
> increments.
> > > I currently work more hours than I should
> under
> > > the European Working Time Directive and I would
> have
> > > every intention, if the new contract comes in,
> of
> > > making sure that I get some sort of remuneration
> for
> > > all the work that I do. I don't do private
> > > practice and I believe that a lot of the
> sometimes
> > > hysterical opposition to the new contract is
> from
> > > in-house specialists who do a lot of it. I
> don't
> > > think much of this new contract but I'm sure, ir
> it
> > > is rejected (as I suppose it will be), that
> there
> > > will not be a renegotiation until well after the
> > > next general election. That will be too late
> for
> > > me. It seems to me that a lot of the vocal
> > > opposition to the new contract is based on fear
> of
> > > the government, fear of management and a
> stunning
> > > lack of confidence in our own ability to stand
> up to
> > > them. At least the new contract will allow us
> to
> > > time-limit our workload. Far too many of us are
> > > currently working far, far too many hours
> because we
> > > feel it is something we must do for the good of
> our
> > > departments, hospitals, nurses and patients.
> Its
> > > time we had the guts to stand up and say to
> > > management, "No, I'm not going to do that any
> more".
> > > I think this new contract would give us the
> > > opportunity and the right to do just that.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Rocky
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Adrian Fogarty
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 1:16 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Consultant Contract
> > >
> > >
> > > I note the stony silence Mike. It's
> remarkable,
> > > but on the few occasions that I've seen a letter
> > > supportive of the contract, I was then bemused
> and a
> > > little disappointed to discover that the author
> was
> > > either a member of, or linked closely to, the
> > > negotiating committee, perhaps vainly hoping he
> > > might be mistaken for an ordinary voting
> "punter".
> > > It's all very suggestive of mass hysteria.
> > >
> > > Adrian Fogarty
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Michael Dudley
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 6:01 PM
> > > Subject: Consultant Contract
> > >
> > >
> > > Out of interest, is there anyone lurking out
> > > there (and is brave enough to
> > > put their head above the parapet!) who is
> > > planning to vote yes, and thinks
> > > the proposed new consultant contract is
> actually
> > > a good thing?
> > >
> > > Mike Dudley
> > > Airedale
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
|