More from a London colleague, in response to Steph Nash's recent post:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin O'Kane"
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: CONSULTANT CONTRACT
>
> I fully agree with each of these points.
>
> It is in the Government's interest to make us a satisfactory settlement
> before the next general election - ie well within two years. The
> proposed new contract offers no extra money, a deterioration in our
> working conditions and a total resignation of professional autonomy. If
> we reject this contract, new negotiations will start very rapidly.
> Millburn can't risk consultants taking industrial action. At a recent
> meeting at BMA House almost all the 140 consultants present said that
> they would be prepared to start working to College Guidelines if so
> recommended by the BMA.
>
> No consultants = No NHS targets.
>
> Our priority must be to reject the contract, force the resignation of
> the negotiating committee and persuade the BMA to hold elections to a
> new negotiating committee from within the body of the BMA membership -
> rather than selected time-served worthies - each candidate offering a
> 'negotiating manifesto' up front so that we can control the membership
> of the committee and the likely content of the next proposal.
>
> I would recommend anyone with lingering doubts about the need to
> totally reject this contract to visit http://www.hcsa.com where they
> will find an alternative 'work sensitive contract' which would reward
> NHS work, respect doctors' private lives and maintain professional
> autonomy.
>
> Kevin O'Kane
>
> Consultant Physician
> Emergency Unit
> Hammersmith Hospital
|