I'd go against Andrew's thinking a bit.
One reason to oppose this contract is the evening and night time work. The
terms and conditions specify that 'non emergency work... can only be
scheduled by mutual agreement'. Initially I'd though to interpret this as
'If I get called in, it's an emergency; if I'm scheduled to be there, how do
they know there's going to be an emergency, so it's non emergency work'.
Thinking about it again, however, the fact that they say 'non emergency
work... can only be scheduled' implies that emergency work can be scheduled
(otherwise why put the words 'non emergency'). My worry about this is that
out of hours GPs cost £100 an hour and up according to some calculations
(certainly in the more expensive parts of England); consultants scheduled to
be in nights, evenings and weekends providing out of hours GP cover cost
about £50 an hour.
BTW, one point if this work is voluntary: what happens if a department
boosts its consultants to 8 to 15 (some doing the lower end of this, I don't
know any at the upper end) to provide 12/7 to 24/ 7 on site cover, and some
at their first job plan review decide to drop evenings. nights and weekends?
Sounds like the sort of thing Andrew might be keyed up on if anyone is
(intellectual interest- not too relevant to my own department at present)
Andrew's arguments seem to centre on the idea that if we reject this
contract it will be enforced on us anyway. I'd argue that this makes a case
for rejecting it: If contract gets in with a 95% majority, risk that
managers will think it's too good and play hard ball when negotiating job
plans. If contract gets rejected by 95%, it makes it look more as though
consultants don't like it and to push at all with job plans will get a
serious reaction. From a philosophical viewpoint I'd be inclined to argue
that if you think the new contract will be enforced in any case, you might
do better to vote NO even if you wanted it.
> If the majority vote no the alternatives are a national program of
> sustained industrial action or locally negotiated contracts.
> I do not believe that there is a critical mass of consultants (i.e. 60%
> plus of all consultants not just 60% of those voting in a ballot)
> willing to take industrial action of a type that will
> actually hurt the
> government for the 3 to 6 months that I believe that the
> government will
> hold out for.
Easier than industrial action: look at job plans carefully. Follow the BMA
or BAEM guidance on job plans (certainly when looking into whether you want
to take up a post)- max 5 fixed sessions for most A and E consultants; out
of hours at double/ triple time etc. Push for job plan review, cut hours to
35 a week. Advantage is that even if the government holds out indefinitely,
we still make the case for more staff and get paid more money.
Matt Dunn
Warwick
This email has been scanned for viruses by NAI AVD however we are unable to
accept responsibility for any damage caused by the contents.
The opinions expressed in this email represent the views of the sender, not
South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust unless explicitly stated.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender.
|