In article <[log in to unmask]>, Adrian
Midgley <[log in to unmask]> writes
>[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>>If I were locuming now I could work at least at 100pc if I so chose -
>>ok, so I have the work ethic - but is this as reason to increase pay for
>>those who don't?
>
>It is short sighted of any professional group, doctor of one sort
>versus another, or indeed midwife vs GP to suggest a downward pressure
>on prices; values or worth.
As your original post suggests, there are 2 edges to this sword though.
>
>The BMA suggestions for the locum fees (which derive to a considerable
>extent still from the version I was involved in negotiating - which
>corrected some of the defects of the previous one) are effectively a
>controlled market of the same sort which GPs operate in - net intended
>remuneration etc.
>
>The net intended is supposed to be achieved by a nominal mixture of
>parts of work and fees for those parts which included a large element
>of nights (gone now) and weekends (also gone).
Not 'ere they aint.
>
>THe basis has changed, therefore the fees need drastically changing in
>order to achieve the declared aim.
Agree with what you say - aim should be for similar rewards for similar
work, stress, admin, nights, responibility etc
I did much better with less stress when I was a locum - but I did put
some hours in.
>
>Nobody on this list will wish to suggest that having achieved
>improvements in the working conditions of one group of GPs - Principals
>in post - related to out of hours, that those principals would wish to
>deny an improvement in conditions to other members of the profession
>and craft. Oh no, no lifeboat-jackism here.
You are right as far as I am concerned :)
Cheers :)
--
Jelly Bean [log in to unmask]
When you get fed up surfing....
....go find some waves.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|