Hi Andrew,
Anecdotally I am yet to meet a consultant who thinks the modified version of
the proposed consultant contract is acceptable - indeed you are the first
person I have heard to say you will vote yes.
Looking at it, the proposals which you feel are the best we will get, are
(in my opinion) significantly worse than my current contract. My out of
hours work is currently better recognized (over double time rather than 1.3)
as are the extra hours I do over and above the minimum full time contract.
Finally, as a consultant with less than five years experience, I will not be
getting any increase in salary with the new contract, nor will I qualify for
the arrears. I can't see any reason to vote yes.
PM
>From: Adrian Fogarty <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Accident and Emergency Academic List <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: UK Consultant Contract
>Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:56:43 +0100
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile
|