So will you tell them what we feel about the "deal" and how we seem to want a
vote and how a lot of us would vote NO......? 

>>> Andrew Hobart 08/27/03 04:40pm >>>
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
>