It's a rollover tonight.
Probably more chance that way.
Jeremy Harrison
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Hobart" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: UK Consultant Contract
> I did not say it was wonderful. Just the best we will get. In my
> opinion.
> But there may be others who know how we could get better and doubtless
> they will be voting no and then standing for election to represent us
> all.
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andres I. Martin
> Sent: 27 August 2003 08:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: UK Consultant Contract
>
> Well said, Adrian
>
> Andrew, the tweaks in the new contract framework are an improvement but
> far from enough, and I am surprise you are going to go for it. Could
> you explain what is so wonderful about the new proposals? At the moment
> I still voting NO
>
> The threat of local negotiation if we said NO to the contract has been
> tried before and it failed, because the consultant group worked together
> for once. Anyway, if this is the best that the BMA can get us , perhaps
> local negotiation is not as bad as it sound.
>
> Also, I have this feeling of "deja vue" everytime I read/hear anybody
> saying "this is the best deal possible". Where did I hear that before?
>
> Andres I.Martin
>
> A&E Consultant
>
> > from: Adrian Fogarty <[log in to unmask]>
> > date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:56:43
> > to: [log in to unmask]
> > subject: Re: UK Consultant Contract
> >
> > There remain many problems, Andrew, although most of these have little
> impact on my own personal circumstances. Nevertheless, I will voice some
> of these concerns here:
> >
> > There remains great discontent about private practice. In a contract
> framework where every session is closely monitored and accounted for, it
> seems anachronistic that managers should be concerned about what a
> consultant "gets up to" beyond his 40 hours of NHS duties. This aspect
> of the contract is seriously flawed, both from a logical viewpoint and
> from an equity viewpoint. And while it may not be relevant to most A&E
> consultants, I can assure you it's relevant to most other consultants.
> >
> > The idea that an "average" of 7.5 sessions is somehow better than a
> "minimum" of 7 sessions is pure sophistry, and I quote: "a change in the
> wording from 'minimum' to 'average' will reduce its impact". I fail to
> see the logic of this argument; perhaps you might explain?
> >
> > The out-of-hours boost to pay appears reasonable (time-and-a-third),
> although many might quibble over the precise timing (from 7pm). I doubt,
> though, that such hair-splitting, per se, will lead to rejection of this
> contract.
> >
> > The reward for out-of-hours cover from home remains insultingly low
> (1% to 8%). The "weighting" makes it very difficult to earn more than a
> few percent for this type of duty, as if you're called frequently back
> to site, management will then try to "re-engineer" your contract towards
> resident duties. Although being on call from home could not be described
> as arduous, it is incredibly restrictive. Even if you're rarely called,
> you're still providing a service to the NHS and many are shackled to
> their bleeps for 20 or 30 years; there must be some reward for this type
> of service. Furthermore the definition of intensity here is very poorly
> refined. Banding is based on frequency of on-call, and on the typical
> response to a call, i.e. immediate return to site or not. There appears
> to be no provision for the frequency of calls, which seems crazy to me.
> So, for example, you may be a specialist who is only called once per
> year, but if that call typically means you have to return to site, then
> you will receive the higher banding. Conversely if you're the type of
> consultant who gets disturbed nightly for advice by telephone, but you
> rarely have to return to site, then you will stay on the lower banding.
> This is patently illogical and unfair.
> >
> > The idea of a formal commitment by 30th September 2003 is ridiculous.
> Although only worth an extra three months of pay increment, this will
> place many consultants under unacceptable pressure to rush to agree a
> deal that will determine their conditions for the rest of their career.
> However, for many there will be no pay boost at all, sometimes for many
> years, so perhaps this last point is academic!
> >
> > At the end of the day, I work in a unit where I work four days per
> week, with resident duties until midnight on one of those days, and one
> resident weekend per month. During the four days I work 5 clinical
> sessions, and at the weekend I work 4 clinical sessions. I have closely
> scrutinised the new contract, and can barely manage to scrape above 7
> clinical sessions per week. If I am having difficulty reaching the
> magical 7.5 sessions, then how are my colleagues going to manage, i.e.
> those many consultants who work 4 days per week or less, but with no
> nights or weekends?
> >
> > Finally, it concerns many that the Welsh consultants seem to have
> secured a contract with fewer sessions per week, more favourable
> overtime conditions and with no penalties for private practice. How is
> this supposed to encourage consultants in England to accept such an
> inferior contract in a supposedly national public service? I will
> probably vote NO again, as I have little to fear from a local contract.
> >
> > Adrian Fogarty
> >
> >
> > ----- Original message -----
> > From: Andrew Hobart
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 6:56 PM
> > Subject: UK Consultant Contract
> >
> >
> > I hope the list members who do not work as Consultants or Specialist
> Registrars in England will forgive me using this as an opportunity of
> canvas views on the latest Consultant contract proposals.
> >
> > I am due to attend the meeting of the BMAs Consultants committee
> (representing the A&E sub-committee) on Thursday which will decide
> whether to put the proposals to a ballot of Consultants and SpRegs. They
> will have the option of throwing the whole thing out or going to a
> ballot with or without a recommendation to accept.
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be very helpful to me to have the views of A&E colleagues
> on whether you would want to have the opportunity to vote on the
> proposals and whether you would be likely to vote YES if given the
> chance.
> >
> >
> >
> > For what it is worth I think that the latest proposals are the best
> we are going to be offered. If they are rejected my judgement is that it
> will be local contracts for all.
> >
> > If I get a chance I will vote yes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew Hobart
> >
> > A&E Consultant
> >
> > East London
> >
|