In article <[log in to unmask]>, Declan Fox
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Am I the odd one out here? Has anyone else ever employed staff or even
>read a bit on employment law? Or contract law? Am I the only one to see
>massive discrepancies between GP working conditions, terms and conditions,
>income etc and those which apply to other workers?
For example:
maternity situation - staff get 14 weeks, GP 13 but has to fund
locum - allowance from HA nowhere near covers it,
working hours restrictions - of course they don't apply to us,
whoever thought they would?
health and safety - we have to comply but who cares if we are
damaged in the line of work?
no arrangements for ill health
half our income is non pensionable
rates of pay altered unilaterally
we retain responsibility for the actions and ommissions of
employed staff far beyond any other employer might
....
>Third, it might well be that 98% of the pop would kill for what they see as
>certain desirable aspects of GP work--whether many of them would be willing
>to knuckle down and work hard enough to become doctors is quite another
>thing. The current recruitment problems, particularly for GP, seems to
>suggest that a career in GP is no longer as desirable as it once was.
The student I currently have remarked last night "you work a long day".
I came home with a further 2 hours of paperwork, and was woken by a call
at 7 am. If I tell her that it will confirm her inclination that general
pratice is not for her. In fact she'd make a good GP and she enjoys the
clinical side. It is purely the working conditions putting her off.
All I can say is "it may improve".
>well the writings of Scott Adams (creator of
>Dilbert) are, let's say, educational?
Back to my small cubicle ....
--
Katie
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|