 |
 |
Yes, that's fascinating Paul; as doctors we are trained to empathise with our patients, and to conciliate with our colleagues, but this approach is fatal in a negotiation situation such as this. I fear the BMA have begun to see everything from the Government's perspective and have lost sight of the problems facing grass-roots consultants. Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howarth, Paul - RCHT" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 9:40 AM Subject: Re: Contract suggestions > Dr Hawker told us a majority was 50% +1. > > A flaw in Adrians argument is that Dr Hawker et al agreed to sell it to us > in the first place. My impression from him was that he really believes in it > as does everyone else I have spoken to on the negotiating committee. > My theory is that they have spent too much time with the DOH and have (as > our victorian forebearers would say) 'gone native'. > Alternatively The DOH have Paul McKenna (TV Hypnotist) on their team. > paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Fogarty [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 00:29 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Contract suggestions > > > I have this idea (naive perhaps) that deep down Hawker (& Co) knows that the > new contract is a load of crap, but he's under pressure to sell it to the > consultant body, and more importantly he's got to be seen to sell it to the > consultant body, on the Government's insistence. However this way, if the > contract's emphatically rejected, the Government can't turn round to the > CCSC and say "you didn't really sell it properly; let's try harder". Maybe > I'm being too kind and we may never know the truth on this one 'til Hawker > writes his memoirs in 15 years' time! What still amazes me however is that > we remain in the dark with respect to the voting constitution. Will a simple > majority suffice, or is a two-thirds majority required? Surely this must be > decided before the voting begins, not afterwards. > > Adrian Fogarty