FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Should junior doctors beable to strike?
Should junior doctors beable to strike?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course they should, but as the strike began yesterday, tens of thousands is facing nhs cancellations and their care will be cancelled due to it. The strike will last for 6 days, it will run from 7am on 3 january to 7am on 9 january. It is said that it will be a massive disruptions and it have been described as the longest one in the nhs 75 year history. With their walk out, the safety of the patients will be compromised as the staff will be reduced, how will they mange their safety and the strike at the same time and what do you think the strike is about, is it about the wage?" 100% behind them. They deserve to be paid fairly for what they do. The lack of investment in the NHS ( by governments in Westminster, Cardiff and Edinburgh) over the last 30 years is nothing short of a national disgrace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course they should, but as the strike began yesterday, tens of thousands is facing nhs cancellations and their care will be cancelled due to it. The strike will last for 6 days, it will run from 7am on 3 january to 7am on 9 january. It is said that it will be a massive disruptions and it have been described as the longest one in the nhs 75 year history. With their walk out, the safety of the patients will be compromised as the staff will be reduced, how will they mange their safety and the strike at the same time and what do you think the strike is about, is it about the wage? 100% behind them. They deserve to be paid fairly for what they do. The lack of investment in the NHS ( by governments in Westminster, Cardiff and Edinburgh) over the last 30 years is nothing short of a national disgrace. " Absolutely!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, no one should ever be stopped from withdrawing their labour. That’s slavory Secondly, at some point people need to be paid properly. The way we talk about how them striking will hurt people kinda shows how important a job it is, yet they aren’t being paid to reflect that. Thirdly, they can and will leave. Other countries will pay better. The long term effects of paying healthcare workers poorly comes in a great little saying. “Pay peanuts, get monkey”. You can’t expect to have world class healthcare on a budget payroll. Pay them properly. " Well said. I am in full support of this strike. They are asking for fair pay and have been understanding and trying to function under constant cuts for a long long time. Tory approach is privatisation by stealth. Not sure how much of the NHS can be saved unfortunately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is more to this than meets the eye. There is a political agenda and that is to smash the idea of universal care. The NHS is already basically privatised and the only piece in the jigsaw that is left is the complete take over by a US style insurance scheme. The government is controlling the narative. The government is quite happy for these strikes to go ahead as it is like asking the patient to cut their other throats to cure a sore throat. Until we get a government that is completely committed to universal health care the future looks grim. " Exactly this. The government wants this to happen and wants to dismantle the NHS. Support for the strikes at the beginning is always there, then people start to question why the system isn't working as strikes continue. Then they go private. Then it's not necessary anymore. I frikken hate the Tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course they should, ….." Thread closed.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel for the patients I really do, but the government can afford the pay increase. The junior Doctors and Nurses deserve every penny they're asking for. Some of the NHS executives pay should be frozen and their bonuses until this pay issue is resolved. This also goes for those MPs, their salaries are supported in deduction like travel and so on plus the MPs salaries are not their only source of income." I really do find the argument that 'the government can afford it' highly amusing. The government has no money of it's own and the government doesn't actually pay for anything. It is us taxpayers that pay for things. The government has a duty to get value for money for taxpayers. Tge first thing they should be doing is cutting wastage and increasing efficiency. Unfirtunately, governments are incapable of running anything efficiently | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They've been underfunded for so long I'm surprised anyone goes into the profession as it's so well known for poor pay, soon they won't be anyone taking up these roles. Anyone should be able to strike when it's putting patients at harm though I'm slightly conflicted I'm sure it's going against their codes of conduct with the position it leaves many patients but the right to strike should be available to all. So yeah I'm neither here nor there with it. Mrs " They like to make out that patients will be harmed but the reality is there are always people around to ensure that doesn't happen... when the nursery were striking, I our trust our pharmacists were administering medicines.. After appropriate training of course.... and the technicians and supporting staff kept pharmacy wheels turning | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They've been underfunded for so long I'm surprised anyone goes into the profession as it's so well known for poor pay, soon they won't be anyone taking up these roles. Anyone should be able to strike when it's putting patients at harm though I'm slightly conflicted I'm sure it's going against their codes of conduct with the position it leaves many patients but the right to strike should be available to all. So yeah I'm neither here nor there with it. Mrs They like to make out that patients will be harmed but the reality is there are always people around to ensure that doesn't happen... when the nursery were striking, I our trust our pharmacists were administering medicines.. After appropriate training of course.... and the technicians and supporting staff kept pharmacy wheels turning" So if it makes no difference if they strike or not strike, seems they aren't needed. Which I don't believe to be the case at all. Of course patient care is being harmed. Yes they should be able to withdraw labour in certain circumstances. But the obfuscation on both sides is typical of a lack of will to hammer a deal out. Reinstating pay to 30 years ago (or whatever the demand is for) is simply ridiculous. Reasonable pay structures and package is just that. Reasonable. As for the concept of just paying them more... Funding has to be found from somewhere. It's the money go round | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course they should, but as the strike began yesterday, tens of thousands is facing nhs cancellations and their care will be cancelled due to it. The strike will last for 6 days, it will run from 7am on 3 january to 7am on 9 january. It is said that it will be a massive disruptions and it have been described as the longest one in the nhs 75 year history. With their walk out, the safety of the patients will be compromised as the staff will be reduced, how will they mange their safety and the strike at the same time and what do you think the strike is about, is it about the wage? 100% behind them. They deserve to be paid fairly for what they do. The lack of investment in the NHS ( by governments in Westminster, Cardiff and Edinburgh) over the last 30 years is nothing short of a national disgrace. " Government is us. We pay them in taxes to pay nhs staff. I want rid of trusts because they are bankrupting our hospitals. Trusts get our taxes to pay staff it is the trusts who need investigating. Where has the our taxes gone to put hospitals into administration | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They've been underfunded for so long I'm surprised anyone goes into the profession as it's so well known for poor pay, soon they won't be anyone taking up these roles. Anyone should be able to strike when it's putting patients at harm though I'm slightly conflicted I'm sure it's going against their codes of conduct with the position it leaves many patients but the right to strike should be available to all. So yeah I'm neither here nor there with it. Mrs They like to make out that patients will be harmed but the reality is there are always people around to ensure that doesn't happen... when the nursery were striking, I our trust our pharmacists were administering medicines.. After appropriate training of course.... and the technicians and supporting staff kept pharmacy wheels turning So if it makes no difference if they strike or not strike, seems they aren't needed. Which I don't believe to be the case at all. Of course patient care is being harmed. Yes they should be able to withdraw labour in certain circumstances. But the obfuscation on both sides is typical of a lack of will to hammer a deal out. Reinstating pay to 30 years ago (or whatever the demand is for) is simply ridiculous. Reasonable pay structures and package is just that. Reasonable. As for the concept of just paying them more... Funding has to be found from somewhere. It's the money go round" Welll if there's money to give multimillionaire mates big tax breaks there's money to fund the nhs properly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course they should, but as the strike began yesterday, tens of thousands is facing nhs cancellations and their care will be cancelled due to it. The strike will last for 6 days, it will run from 7am on 3 january to 7am on 9 january. It is said that it will be a massive disruptions and it have been described as the longest one in the nhs 75 year history. With their walk out, the safety of the patients will be compromised as the staff will be reduced, how will they mange their safety and the strike at the same time and what do you think the strike is about, is it about the wage?" I always look outside of the picture to where the problem started from. Try the trusts Shag who pay their wages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course they should, but as the strike began yesterday, tens of thousands is facing nhs cancellations and their care will be cancelled due to it. The strike will last for 6 days, it will run from 7am on 3 january to 7am on 9 january. It is said that it will be a massive disruptions and it have been described as the longest one in the nhs 75 year history. With their walk out, the safety of the patients will be compromised as the staff will be reduced, how will they mange their safety and the strike at the same time and what do you think the strike is about, is it about the wage? I always look outside of the picture to where the problem started from. Try the trusts Shag who pay their wages. " Trusts Shag that are running our hospitals bankrupt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They've been underfunded for so long I'm surprised anyone goes into the profession as it's so well known for poor pay, soon they won't be anyone taking up these roles. Anyone should be able to strike when it's putting patients at harm though I'm slightly conflicted I'm sure it's going against their codes of conduct with the position it leaves many patients but the right to strike should be available to all. So yeah I'm neither here nor there with it. Mrs They like to make out that patients will be harmed but the reality is there are always people around to ensure that doesn't happen... when the nursery were striking, I our trust our pharmacists were administering medicines.. After appropriate training of course.... and the technicians and supporting staff kept pharmacy wheels turning So if it makes no difference if they strike or not strike, seems they aren't needed. Which I don't believe to be the case at all. Of course patient care is being harmed. Yes they should be able to withdraw labour in certain circumstances. But the obfuscation on both sides is typical of a lack of will to hammer a deal out. Reinstating pay to 30 years ago (or whatever the demand is for) is simply ridiculous. Reasonable pay structures and package is just that. Reasonable. As for the concept of just paying them more... Funding has to be found from somewhere. It's the money go round Welll if there's money to give multimillionaire mates big tax breaks there's money to fund the nhs properly " The problems within the NHS aren't that it can't be funded. The problem is the structure along with the 'all encompassing' nature of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course they should, but as the strike began yesterday, tens of thousands is facing nhs cancellations and their care will be cancelled due to it. The strike will last for 6 days, it will run from 7am on 3 january to 7am on 9 january. It is said that it will be a massive disruptions and it have been described as the longest one in the nhs 75 year history. With their walk out, the safety of the patients will be compromised as the staff will be reduced, how will they mange their safety and the strike at the same time and what do you think the strike is about, is it about the wage?" Basic salary for juniors is from £32k to £63k more than me as a mental health worker | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel for the patients I really do, but the government can afford the pay increase. The junior Doctors and Nurses deserve every penny they're asking for. Some of the NHS executives pay should be frozen and their bonuses until this pay issue is resolved. This also goes for those MPs, their salaries are supported in deduction like travel and so on plus the MPs salaries are not their only source of income. I really do find the argument that 'the government can afford it' highly amusing. The government has no money of it's own and the government doesn't actually pay for anything. It is us taxpayers that pay for things. The government has a duty to get value for money for taxpayers. Tge first thing they should be doing is cutting wastage and increasing efficiency. Unfirtunately, governments are incapable of running anything efficiently" We all know that the money comes from US taxpayers, but, is it not managed by the government? If the government can find the money to go to war and support war's monetarily, globally, going into the millions if not billions per year then yes the government sure can support those on strike. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who has witnessed the good work the NHS does first hand over the years I won’t criticise the staff for their efforts. However there is some much waste and what I’d called ‘pen pushing staff’ in the NHS now, it’s sort of become an employment club, forgetting that it’s actually a tax-payer funded service to serve the public that funds it ! It’s the 5th largest employer in the world, when you look at that number then you realise that’s a big hungry animal to keep feeding. One thing I will say is that everyone keeps banging on about the NHS being a model Heath service for the world to admire, that may be the case, but why has no other country in the world has replicated it ? - perhaps because the model doesn’t actually work and the conversation on remodelling the NHS system is one that always breaks out into aggressive arguments." Spot on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They've been underfunded for so long I'm surprised anyone goes into the profession as it's so well known for poor pay, soon they won't be anyone taking up these roles. Anyone should be able to strike when it's putting patients at harm though I'm slightly conflicted I'm sure it's going against their codes of conduct with the position it leaves many patients but the right to strike should be available to all. So yeah I'm neither here nor there with it. Mrs They like to make out that patients will be harmed but the reality is there are always people around to ensure that doesn't happen... when the nursery were striking, I our trust our pharmacists were administering medicines.. After appropriate training of course.... and the technicians and supporting staff kept pharmacy wheels turning So if it makes no difference if they strike or not strike, seems they aren't needed. Which I don't believe to be the case at all. Of course patient care is being harmed. Yes they should be able to withdraw labour in certain circumstances. But the obfuscation on both sides is typical of a lack of will to hammer a deal out. Reinstating pay to 30 years ago (or whatever the demand is for) is simply ridiculous. Reasonable pay structures and package is just that. Reasonable. As for the concept of just paying them more... Funding has to be found from somewhere. It's the money go round Welll if there's money to give multimillionaire mates big tax breaks there's money to fund the nhs properly " How much money is required to fund the nhs "properly"? Who pays for it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question..." You expected more on a forum where saying “cake?” Is considered top tier comedy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... You expected more on a forum where saying “cake?” Is considered top tier comedy? " Probably didn't tbf  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question..." Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children " Yes. Yes they should. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children " Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course they should, but as the strike began yesterday, tens of thousands is facing nhs cancellations and their care will be cancelled due to it. The strike will last for 6 days, it will run from 7am on 3 january to 7am on 9 january. It is said that it will be a massive disruptions and it have been described as the longest one in the nhs 75 year history. With their walk out, the safety of the patients will be compromised as the staff will be reduced, how will they mange their safety and the strike at the same time and what do you think the strike is about, is it about the wage? I always look outside of the picture to where the problem started from. Try the trusts Shag who pay their wages. " Hi becs and yes, you are right there, it is about who pays their wages as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon." Leave and go where ? Go to another company just to be taken advantage of again ? These people have much needed skills. They did not get their qualifications out of a crisp packet. It takes hard studying, exams, experience plus having to take abuse. It's not easy. Plus when they're qualified they have to wait for a position to come available which could/usual takes years so they're stuck in that position and wage because some old that won't retire  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Leave and go where ? Go to another company just to be taken advantage of again ? These people have much needed skills. They did not get their qualifications out of a crisp packet. It takes hard studying, exams, experience plus having to take abuse. It's not easy. Plus when they're qualified they have to wait for a position to come available which could/usual takes years so they're stuck in that position and wage because some old that won't retire "I'm a little confused. First you speak of companies, then you speak of skills. Are we specifically speaking about the Dr's or private industry? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon." Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?"I'm a business owner/employer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Leave and go where ? Go to another company just to be taken advantage of again ? These people have much needed skills. They did not get their qualifications out of a crisp packet. It takes hard studying, exams, experience plus having to take abuse. It's not easy. Plus when they're qualified they have to wait for a position to come available which could/usual takes years so they're stuck in that position and wage because some old that won't retire
I'm a little confused. First you speak of companies, then you speak of skills. Are we specifically speaking about the Dr's or private industry?"There is nothing to be confused about, you're not stupid, you understand perfectly. This sort of treatment is happening to employees in both sectors public and private. Yes I am speaking about the junior Dr but it can be applied elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Leave and go where ? Go to another company just to be taken advantage of again ? These people have much needed skills. They did not get their qualifications out of a crisp packet. It takes hard studying, exams, experience plus having to take abuse. It's not easy. Plus when they're qualified they have to wait for a position to come available which could/usual takes years so they're stuck in that position and wage because some old that won't retire
I'm a little confused. First you speak of companies, then you speak of skills. Are we specifically speaking about the Dr's or private industry?
There is nothing to be confused about, you're not stupid, you understand perfectly.
This sort of treatment is happening to employees in both sectors public and private.
Yes I am speaking about the junior Dr but it can be applied elsewhere."If we're speaking about Junior Dr's specifically then they're within their first 2 years. They knew all of this before choosing their careers, only to get pissed off almost immediately after qualification. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer."Ah so that explains your position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Leave and go where ? Go to another company just to be taken advantage of again ? These people have much needed skills. They did not get their qualifications out of a crisp packet. It takes hard studying, exams, experience plus having to take abuse. It's not easy. Plus when they're qualified they have to wait for a position to come available which could/usual takes years so they're stuck in that position and wage because some old that won't retire
I'm a little confused. First you speak of companies, then you speak of skills. Are we specifically speaking about the Dr's or private industry?
There is nothing to be confused about, you're not stupid, you understand perfectly.
This sort of treatment is happening to employees in both sectors public and private.
Yes I am speaking about the junior Dr but it can be applied elsewhere.
If we're speaking about Junior Dr's specifically then they're within their first 2 years. They knew all of this before choosing their careers, only to get pissed off almost immediately after qualification."The world is in turmoil, cost of living is at an all time high. The wages aren't cutting it anymore and you expect the Dr's to accept it or leave. Strike, Strike and more strike. I hope they get every penny they're demanding. We should all go on strike ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position. "I reckon I know of someone who got a visit from three ghosts around ten days ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
I reckon I know of someone who got a visit from three ghosts around ten days ago." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position. "It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Leave and go where ? Go to another company just to be taken advantage of again ? These people have much needed skills. They did not get their qualifications out of a crisp packet. It takes hard studying, exams, experience plus having to take abuse. It's not easy. Plus when they're qualified they have to wait for a position to come available which could/usual takes years so they're stuck in that position and wage because some old that won't retire
I'm a little confused. First you speak of companies, then you speak of skills. Are we specifically speaking about the Dr's or private industry?
There is nothing to be confused about, you're not stupid, you understand perfectly.
This sort of treatment is happening to employees in both sectors public and private.
Yes I am speaking about the junior Dr but it can be applied elsewhere.
If we're speaking about Junior Dr's specifically then they're within their first 2 years. They knew all of this before choosing their careers, only to get pissed off almost immediately after qualification.
The world is in turmoil, cost of living is at an all time high. The wages aren't cutting it anymore and you expect the Dr's to accept it or leave. Strike, Strike and more strike. I hope they get every penny they're demanding. We should all go on strike !"Go on strike bud, no one is stopping you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" and made it better. " Now there's a claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Mr is paid more than a Junior doctor. He's technically an unskilled worker, not to mean he doesn't earn his wage. It's a manual job and he was a key worker so obviously, his position is somewhat important. But he isn't saving lives. Absolutely they should strike. Those complaining it's disruptive... that's literally the purpose. I have full sympathy for those who are going to have procedures etc postponed. I think most of us know the frustration of this or similar. But we can't hope to have a working NHS without the actual health care workers. " Having sympathy for those people who might not have life saving interventions from striking medical staff, is very commendable, give yourself a pat on the back. You have opened my eyes! I can only imagine the frustration of someone who signed up to a job knowing full well what the pay scale was, and how that must over shadow the frustrations of a person who could potentially die through lack of treatment.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better. "Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights? Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?"I’ve no idea how you could have possibly arrived at this conclusion… other than person who doesn’t support striking = Victorian gangmaster. I also think your assumption that only employers are against striking is equally lame | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?"I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements. However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'. What a ridiculous conclusion to reach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach."The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes). So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I’ve no idea how you could have possibly arrived at this conclusion… other than person who doesn’t support striking = Victorian gangmaster. I also think your assumption that only employers are against striking is equally lame"Your interjection is both unnecessary and misses the actual point being made. It was a deliberate leading question to gain understanding. See my text post to Feisty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I’ve no idea how you could have possibly arrived at this conclusion… other than person who doesn’t support striking = Victorian gangmaster. I also think your assumption that only employers are against striking is equally lame
Your interjection is both unnecessary and misses the actual point being made. It was a deliberate leading question to gain understanding. See my text post to Feisty."And there was me thinking this was a public forum. You have no right to decide what is or isn’t unnecessary. If you require ‘deliberate leading’ questions to provide gotcha moments to highlight your actual point then chances are you don’t really have one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from."No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification. You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong. Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone benefits from the general population being healthier and having easy, affordable access to medical treatment. Literally everyone. This government have pushed a broader message of "personal responsibility" (i.e, "I'm alright Jack, and fuck you if you're not") since time immemorial. Beyond the question of whether collective bargaining, of which strikes are a crucial tool, should be allowed, there is the question of how much we value having a class of healthcare workers who are paid handsomely for the completely indispensable and 100% worthwhile service they give." I'm not sure personal responsibility is about "I'm alright so fuck you". If people care so much about their own health... Then why are we the fattest, unhealthiest, most sedentary population in... Somewhere. Personal responsibility is about caring for yourself more than relying on others to do it for you and blaming someone else we have a diet of carcinogenic food and then get cancer. It's linked but different to how shit the health care provision is in this country. It's a massive problem that requires a massive solution amd massive funding. I personally don't think we have the ability in our country to think past our own noses and the end of the week. So the chance of finding better healthcare under the rock of strike action is quite slim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I’ve no idea how you could have possibly arrived at this conclusion… other than person who doesn’t support striking = Victorian gangmaster. I also think your assumption that only employers are against striking is equally lame
Your interjection is both unnecessary and misses the actual point being made. It was a deliberate leading question to gain understanding. See my text post to Feisty.
And there was me thinking this was a public forum. You have no right to decide what is or isn’t unnecessary.
If you require ‘deliberate leading’ questions to provide gotcha moments to highlight your actual point then chances are you don’t really have one "Not a gotcha just exploration. You didn’t add to the conversation though, you simply criticised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?"So why are you against people being able to strike? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?"I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning. I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom. I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career. "Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified? Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!"Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY). By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone benefits from the general population being healthier and having easy, affordable access to medical treatment. Literally everyone. This government have pushed a broader message of "personal responsibility" (i.e, "I'm alright Jack, and fuck you if you're not") since time immemorial. Beyond the question of whether collective bargaining, of which strikes are a crucial tool, should be allowed, there is the question of how much we value having a class of healthcare workers who are paid handsomely for the completely indispensable and 100% worthwhile service they give. I'm not sure personal responsibility is about "I'm alright so fuck you". If people care so much about their own health... Then why are we the fattest, unhealthiest, most sedentary population in... Somewhere. Personal responsibility is about caring for yourself more than relying on others to do it for you and blaming someone else we have a diet of carcinogenic food and then get cancer. It's linked but different to how shit the health care provision is in this country. It's a massive problem that requires a massive solution amd massive funding. I personally don't think we have the ability in our country to think past our own noses and the end of the week. So the chance of finding better healthcare under the rock of strike action is quite slim. " Most people DON'T care about their health though, at least not enough to have a good diet and exercise and look after their bodies and teach their kids to do the same - because they haven't been given the tools or the ability to understand why eating pies all your life results in obesity and bowel cancer and heart disease. This could be improved by e.g. proper nutritional education, clamping down further on fast food marketing, incentivising or otherwise helping parents to get their kids moving and making better health choices... But when previous governments have tried to do this, certain people started screaming about the "nanny state". Unsurprisingly it's the same people who think doctors and nurses should shut up and get back to work. There is a direct correlation between health and wealth. Poor people need the NHS more than rich people do. Is it any surprise the Tories want to take it away and further deepen the problem by making access to healthcare contingent on your bank balance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The solution seems pretty simple to me. Everyone who thinks they should be paid more can accept a voluntary 10% addition to their income tax. Let’s see how that works out. " Or how about pals of the government who were awarded multi-million £ contracts for their start to PPE companies, that provided unusable PPE during the pandemic have to pay back the money. And we use that. Sorted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The solution seems pretty simple to me. Everyone who thinks they should be paid more can accept a voluntary 10% addition to their income tax. Let’s see how that works out. Or how about pals of the government who were awarded multi-million £ contracts for their start to PPE companies, that provided unusable PPE during the pandemic have to pay back the money. And we use that. Sorted." I’m sure you would like to be first in the line to make the additional voluntary contributions to impoverished doctors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m sure you would like to be first in the line to make the additional voluntary contributions to impoverished doctors. " It might surprise you to learn that some of us would be comfortable with a tax hike. As long as it was spent on employing competent healthcare workers, instead of Tory profiteering. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how the "junior doctors knew what they were signing up for, they should shut up or fuck off" crowd are so absolutely certain this strike is just a cynical money-grab at the taxpayers' expense. Yet I notice a lot of the same guys can't wait to spring to Michelle Mone's defence on that other thread. I wonder how these guys would take it if they were told they weren't allowed to advocate for favourable pay in their own jobs. I suppose they'd all say thank you sir, and sit back down?" It’s nice to see all the socialist workers defending these impoverished doctors. Strike being led by a former public school boy who owns a £500k flat mortgage free in London and is Director of a family business that has £2 million of investments. But sure let’s all pay more tax. And people say the Left has lost its way…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how the "junior doctors knew what they were signing up for, they should shut up or fuck off" crowd are so absolutely certain this strike is just a cynical money-grab at the taxpayers' expense. Yet I notice a lot of the same guys can't wait to spring to Michelle Mone's defence on that other thread. I wonder how these guys would take it if they were told they weren't allowed to advocate for favourable pay in their own jobs. I suppose they'd all say thank you sir, and sit back down? It’s nice to see all the socialist workers defending these impoverished doctors. Strike being led by a former public school boy who owns a £500k flat mortgage free in London and is Director of a family business that has £2 million of investments. But sure let’s all pay more tax. And people say the Left has lost its way…." I'm sure this was a "gotcha" in your head but I'm not sure what your point is. The strike organiser happens to be wealthy... So what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how the "junior doctors knew what they were signing up for, they should shut up or fuck off" crowd are so absolutely certain this strike is just a cynical money-grab at the taxpayers' expense. Yet I notice a lot of the same guys can't wait to spring to Michelle Mone's defence on that other thread. I wonder how these guys would take it if they were told they weren't allowed to advocate for favourable pay in their own jobs. I suppose they'd all say thank you sir, and sit back down? It’s nice to see all the socialist workers defending these impoverished doctors. Strike being led by a former public school boy who owns a £500k flat mortgage free in London and is Director of a family business that has £2 million of investments. But sure let’s all pay more tax. And people say the Left has lost its way…. I'm sure this was a "gotcha" in your head but I'm not sure what your point is. The strike organiser happens to be wealthy... So what?" Sure what happens if they are all overpaid compared to the average worker? They are “worth it” in your head for some reason. The reality is that these overprivileged doctors are and have for some time been Labour’s key demographic. Urban dwelling affluent graduates. Together with a rump of Useful Idiots who are unable to think for themselves and stick to the Labour Party like shit because their father and grandfathers voted for them half a century ago. The greatest threat to the NHS in this country is (and has been for many years) the BMA and its money grubbing members. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I support them 100% and wish the Gov would sort it out and pay them what they are worth My stepdad has had several appointments cancelled and (urgent) surgery was delayed once as well last year. He's had his op now and is doing really well - but his next scan will likely be cancelled due to the strike "They are performed by radiographers or radiologists. The strike should not be affected by the junior doctors striking. Glad he's doing well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how the "junior doctors knew what they were signing up for, they should shut up or fuck off" crowd are so absolutely certain this strike is just a cynical money-grab at the taxpayers' expense. Yet I notice a lot of the same guys can't wait to spring to Michelle Mone's defence on that other thread. I wonder how these guys would take it if they were told they weren't allowed to advocate for favourable pay in their own jobs. I suppose they'd all say thank you sir, and sit back down?" Who has sprung to Mone's defence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes Doctors should have the right to strike, but equally patients should have the right to see criminal action taken against the BMA and/or individual Doctors for endangering life. Rights are a two way street." Don't be silly, patients don't have rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how the "junior doctors knew what they were signing up for, they should shut up or fuck off" crowd are so absolutely certain this strike is just a cynical money-grab at the taxpayers' expense. Yet I notice a lot of the same guys can't wait to spring to Michelle Mone's defence on that other thread. I wonder how these guys would take it if they were told they weren't allowed to advocate for favourable pay in their own jobs. I suppose they'd all say thank you sir, and sit back down? It’s nice to see all the socialist workers defending these impoverished doctors. Strike being led by a former public school boy who owns a £500k flat mortgage free in London and is Director of a family business that has £2 million of investments. But sure let’s all pay more tax. And people say the Left has lost its way…. I'm sure this was a "gotcha" in your head but I'm not sure what your point is. The strike organiser happens to be wealthy... So what? Sure what happens if they are all overpaid compared to the average worker? They are “worth it” in your head for some reason. The reality is that these overprivileged doctors are and have for some time been Labour’s key demographic. Urban dwelling affluent graduates. Together with a rump of Useful Idiots who are unable to think for themselves and stick to the Labour Party like shit because their father and grandfathers voted for them half a century ago. The greatest threat to the NHS in this country is (and has been for many years) the BMA and its money grubbing members. " Are you honestly saying Doctors (ie very highly skilled, highly trained, specialists) should be paid the same as average workers? Not really thought that through Rog have you? Starting to sound like a Communist! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The solution seems pretty simple to me. Everyone who thinks they should be paid more can accept a voluntary 10% addition to their income tax. Let’s see how that works out. Or how about pals of the government who were awarded multi-million £ contracts for their start to PPE companies, that provided unusable PPE during the pandemic have to pay back the money. And we use that. Sorted. I’m sure you would like to be first in the line to make the additional voluntary contributions to impoverished doctors. " You may have missed the post you replied to with an alternative suggestion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes Doctors should have the right to strike, but equally patients should have the right to see criminal action taken against the BMA and/or individual Doctors for endangering life. Rights are a two way street. Don't be silly, patients don't have rights. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!
Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY).
By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions. "Yep that was how I got to 7 years. Not sure how it really changes the point I was making? On your other point I didn’t see anything I needed to respond to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!
Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY).
By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions.
Yep that was how I got to 7 years. Not sure how it really changes the point I was making? On your other point I didn’t see anything I needed to respond to?"The point is they get a wage during foundation years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, no one should ever be stopped from withdrawing their labour. That’s slavory Secondly, at some point people need to be paid properly. The way we talk about how them striking will hurt people kinda shows how important a job it is, yet they aren’t being paid to reflect that. Thirdly, they can and will leave. Other countries will pay better. The long term effects of paying healthcare workers poorly comes in a great little saying. “Pay peanuts, get monkey”. You can’t expect to have world class healthcare on a budget payroll. Pay them properly. " This, you are right there, they should be able to do it and yes, they should as well pay them properly too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!
Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY).
By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions.
Yep that was how I got to 7 years. Not sure how it really changes the point I was making? On your other point I didn’t see anything I needed to respond to?"Your question was: At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified? We're speaking about Junior Dr's which means they aren't qualified yet so in actual fact renders the question null and void. Unless you're saying they are qualified in which case we can speak about 5 years since they started training. As for the other part, there was plenty to respond to, but if you don't/can't respond I'll assume you agree with my responses to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!
Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY).
By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions.
Yep that was how I got to 7 years. Not sure how it really changes the point I was making? On your other point I didn’t see anything I needed to respond to?
The point is they get a wage during foundation years."Are they qualified at that point or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!
Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY).
By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions.
Yep that was how I got to 7 years. Not sure how it really changes the point I was making? On your other point I didn’t see anything I needed to respond to?
Your question was: At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
We're speaking about Junior Dr's which means they aren't qualified yet so in actual fact renders the question null and void. Unless you're saying they are qualified in which case we can speak about 5 years since they started training.
As for the other part, there was plenty to respond to, but if you don't/can't respond I'll assume you agree with my responses to you. "You’re starting to sound like two other regular posters, uncannily so in fact
5yrs or 7yrs so what, it represents a long period of time b/w deciding to be a doctor and facing reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!
Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY).
By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions.
Yep that was how I got to 7 years. Not sure how it really changes the point I was making? On your other point I didn’t see anything I needed to respond to?
Your question was: At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
We're speaking about Junior Dr's which means they aren't qualified yet so in actual fact renders the question null and void. Unless you're saying they are qualified in which case we can speak about 5 years since they started training.
As for the other part, there was plenty to respond to, but if you don't/can't respond I'll assume you agree with my responses to you.
You’re starting to sound like two other regular posters, uncannily so in fact
5yrs or 7yrs so what, it represents a long period of time b/w deciding to be a doctor and facing reality."I'm happy for you to put me in a bracket. The point is facts. We all like facts, well some of us do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!
Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY).
By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions.
Yep that was how I got to 7 years. Not sure how it really changes the point I was making? On your other point I didn’t see anything I needed to respond to?
The point is they get a wage during foundation years.
Are they qualified at that point or not?"The junior doctors are those who then undertake the two years foundation training. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The solution seems pretty simple to me. Everyone who thinks they should be paid more can accept a voluntary 10% addition to their income tax. Let’s see how that works out. Or how about pals of the government who were awarded multi-million £ contracts for their start to PPE companies, that provided unusable PPE during the pandemic have to pay back the money. And we use that. Sorted." So meanwhile back on earth... Nobody is getting any money back from whatever dodgy deals we're done. So in reality we the tax payer will have to pay. But the point is... So what. Next year some other bit of the crumbling nhs will hold the govt to ransom and on it goes. Meanwhile the nations health is going downhill like a 3rd world country | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone benefits from the general population being healthier and having easy, affordable access to medical treatment. Literally everyone. This government have pushed a broader message of "personal responsibility" (i.e, "I'm alright Jack, and fuck you if you're not") since time immemorial. Beyond the question of whether collective bargaining, of which strikes are a crucial tool, should be allowed, there is the question of how much we value having a class of healthcare workers who are paid handsomely for the completely indispensable and 100% worthwhile service they give. I'm not sure personal responsibility is about "I'm alright so fuck you". If people care so much about their own health... Then why are we the fattest, unhealthiest, most sedentary population in... Somewhere. Personal responsibility is about caring for yourself more than relying on others to do it for you and blaming someone else we have a diet of carcinogenic food and then get cancer. It's linked but different to how shit the health care provision is in this country. It's a massive problem that requires a massive solution amd massive funding. I personally don't think we have the ability in our country to think past our own noses and the end of the week. So the chance of finding better healthcare under the rock of strike action is quite slim. Most people DON'T care about their health though, at least not enough to have a good diet and exercise and look after their bodies and teach their kids to do the same - because they haven't been given the tools or the ability to understand why eating pies all your life results in obesity and bowel cancer and heart disease. This could be improved by e.g. proper nutritional education, clamping down further on fast food marketing, incentivising or otherwise helping parents to get their kids moving and making better health choices... But when previous governments have tried to do this, certain people started screaming about the "nanny state". Unsurprisingly it's the same people who think doctors and nurses should shut up and get back to work. There is a direct correlation between health and wealth. Poor people need the NHS more than rich people do. Is it any surprise the Tories want to take it away and further deepen the problem by making access to healthcare contingent on your bank balance." Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone benefits from the general population being healthier and having easy, affordable access to medical treatment. Literally everyone. This government have pushed a broader message of "personal responsibility" (i.e, "I'm alright Jack, and fuck you if you're not") since time immemorial. Beyond the question of whether collective bargaining, of which strikes are a crucial tool, should be allowed, there is the question of how much we value having a class of healthcare workers who are paid handsomely for the completely indispensable and 100% worthwhile service they give. I'm not sure personal responsibility is about "I'm alright so fuck you". If people care so much about their own health... Then why are we the fattest, unhealthiest, most sedentary population in... Somewhere. Personal responsibility is about caring for yourself more than relying on others to do it for you and blaming someone else we have a diet of carcinogenic food and then get cancer. It's linked but different to how shit the health care provision is in this country. It's a massive problem that requires a massive solution amd massive funding. I personally don't think we have the ability in our country to think past our own noses and the end of the week. So the chance of finding better healthcare under the rock of strike action is quite slim. Most people DON'T care about their health though, at least not enough to have a good diet and exercise and look after their bodies and teach their kids to do the same - because they haven't been given the tools or the ability to understand why eating pies all your life results in obesity and bowel cancer and heart disease. This could be improved by e.g. proper nutritional education, clamping down further on fast food marketing, incentivising or otherwise helping parents to get their kids moving and making better health choices... But when previous governments have tried to do this, certain people started screaming about the "nanny state". Unsurprisingly it's the same people who think doctors and nurses should shut up and get back to work. There is a direct correlation between health and wealth. Poor people need the NHS more than rich people do. Is it any surprise the Tories want to take it away and further deepen the problem by making access to healthcare contingent on your bank balance. Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. "
Is poverty a choice? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a glut of people want to train and become doctors in 2022 - 23 compared to say 2008 - 2009. Would we expect the wages to go up by 35%, assuming that the standard of entry was not lowering and numbers entering were greater? Full on lefties are going to love this one, I imagine "What has the standard and numbers entering uni got to do with it? And why are you asking what "we" would expect? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!
Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY).
By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions.
Yep that was how I got to 7 years. Not sure how it really changes the point I was making? On your other point I didn’t see anything I needed to respond to?
Your question was: At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
We're speaking about Junior Dr's which means they aren't qualified yet so in actual fact renders the question null and void. Unless you're saying they are qualified in which case we can speak about 5 years since they started training.
As for the other part, there was plenty to respond to, but if you don't/can't respond I'll assume you agree with my responses to you.
You’re starting to sound like two other regular posters, uncannily so in fact
5yrs or 7yrs so what, it represents a long period of time b/w deciding to be a doctor and facing reality.
I'm happy for you to put me in a bracket.
The point is facts. We all like facts, well some of us do "Yeah love some facts. So what are they in this case? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If a glut of people want to train and become doctors in 2022 - 23 compared to say 2008 - 2009. Would we expect the wages to go up by 35%, assuming that the standard of entry was not lowering and numbers entering were greater? Full on lefties are going to love this one, I imagine
What has the standard and numbers entering uni got to do with it?
And why are you asking what "we" would expect?"Supply and demand, simple as.. Fruit picking, 100's of thousands of people can do that, doesn't pay too well. Asking what would we expect because of the above | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Only recently someone on fab said we need a revolution another replied that it wouldn't happen because we're all too lazy. I think this strike proves that if it did happen the government would just ignore us until we got fed up and went home or they were removed from power. " Yes, you are right there, this strike proves that too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course they can strike and I dont see £20 an hour as unreasonable for them. Currently paid less than £15 phr and constantly working non paid overtime. Its a disgrace that this shambles of a govt wont even meet them to talk." Actually it's £16.67ph for the first year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!
Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY).
By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions.
Yep that was how I got to 7 years. Not sure how it really changes the point I was making? On your other point I didn’t see anything I needed to respond to?
Your question was: At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
We're speaking about Junior Dr's which means they aren't qualified yet so in actual fact renders the question null and void. Unless you're saying they are qualified in which case we can speak about 5 years since they started training.
As for the other part, there was plenty to respond to, but if you don't/can't respond I'll assume you agree with my responses to you.
You’re starting to sound like two other regular posters, uncannily so in fact
5yrs or 7yrs so what, it represents a long period of time b/w deciding to be a doctor and facing reality.
I'm happy for you to put me in a bracket.
The point is facts. We all like facts, well some of us do
Yeah love some facts. So what are they in this case?"I don't believe I've offered any. Just point out your 'facts' aren't such. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m also really enjoying the BMA deciding what is an emergency and dismissing requests for derogation, because a form isn’t completed properly…. What empathy they show.. The them an us that they called out is a beauty, not the government and us, the NHS and us. "Agreed, the government has managed to make everyone, public, public services, unions, local governments, eu, everyone everywhere has been turned into an opponent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m also really enjoying the BMA deciding what is an emergency and dismissing requests for derogation, because a form isn’t completed properly…. What empathy they show.. The them an us that they called out is a beauty, not the government and us, the NHS and us. "The BMA are a self-serving mafia. Only a few years back they were seeking to limit the number of med school places in order to protect their elite little club. They resist nurses and pharmacists taking a broader role in diagnosis and prescribing. Yet lo and behold, their members either emigrate, work part-time or retire at 52. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m also really enjoying the BMA deciding what is an emergency and dismissing requests for derogation, because a form isn’t completed properly…. What empathy they show.. The them an us that they called out is a beauty, not the government and us, the NHS and us.
Agreed, the government has managed to make everyone, public, public services, unions, local governments, eu, everyone everywhere has been turned into an opponent. "The BMA has chosen to make the NHS its opponent, they smack of everything I thought we had managed to get rid of in the left of left. But silly me there they are, hiding in plain sight and sucking up our tax money to fund its cause…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Worth every penny and more! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. Pay them what they deserve. Full pay restoration for me, as someone who works with lots of them every day
Worth every penny and more! "You should contribute directly to their pay of you feel that strongly, are you above and beyond what you pay in taxes? If more of you got together you would give these people what they want and what you think they deserve, win win, but don’t assume I’m paying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is more to this than meets the eye. There is a political agenda and that is to smash the idea of universal care. The NHS is already basically privatised and the only piece in the jigsaw that is left is the complete take over by a US style insurance scheme. The government is controlling the narative. The government is quite happy for these strikes to go ahead as it is like asking the patient to cut their other throats to cure a sore throat. Until we get a government that is completely committed to universal health care the future looks grim. " This. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should they be able to strike is such a lazy question... Should foster parents be able to strike ? It’s a job right? Or are healthy fostered children more important than dying children Personally I'm in the camp of banning strikes. Don't like it, leave. I'll await the bullshit flying my way soon. Oh Feisty by name Feisty by nature
Are you an employee or a business owner/employer?
I'm a business owner/employer.
Ah so that explains your position.
It's always been my position. I'm now in my position in life because I didn't like being employed so I done it myself and made it better.
Hmmm but when you were employed did you receive paid holidays? Weekends off? Sick pay? Redundancy? Company covering cost of equipment for job? Etc Ever considered why you received those employment rights?
Do you offer the same to your employees? Legally you have to. Assume you’d rather you didn’t have to though right?
I did receive some of those benefits, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are all legal requirements.
However, just because I don't agree with some parts of employment law, that doesn't mean 'I'd rather not'.
What a ridiculous conclusion to reach.
The point is that you enjoyed employment rights that are only in place due to the trade union movement. Go back to Victorian times to see what rights employees had. And what was the “weapon” the trade unions used to secure these rights? The threat of or actual withdrawal of labour (ie strikes).
So being against strikes seems odd and lacking in awareness over something you personally have benefitted from.
No the point being made was you reached a ridiculous conclusion without any qualification.
You spoke in 'fact' when in fact half of what you wrote was wrong.
Re. Something I have personally benefitted from. Supposedly I've also benefitted from white privilage too, does that mean I shouldn't be against it?
So why are you against people being able to strike?
I notice you don't answer my posts but just keep going with your own questioning.
I'm not in favour of any workforce holding employers to ransom.
I've said it already, Dr's opted for a career knowing conditions before choosing said career, striking within the first 2 years because they don't like it is ransom. They chose that career.
Are their conditions the same or have they deteriorated? At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
Sorry if I missed a direct rather than rhetorical question from you. Ask away!
Assuming you get 7 years by taking 5 years med school and then 2 years FY, it would be disingenuous to speak about 7 years of training being that were speaking about Junior Dr's (those in FY).
By the way, in order to have an actual conversation, it should be 2 way, hence I said my posts and not my questions.
Yep that was how I got to 7 years. Not sure how it really changes the point I was making? On your other point I didn’t see anything I needed to respond to?
Your question was: At the time of undertaking their 7 years of training, what was the expectation of what things would be like when they qualified?
We're speaking about Junior Dr's which means they aren't qualified yet so in actual fact renders the question null and void. Unless you're saying they are qualified in which case we can speak about 5 years since they started training.
As for the other part, there was plenty to respond to, but if you don't/can't respond I'll assume you agree with my responses to you.
You’re starting to sound like two other regular posters, uncannily so in fact
5yrs or 7yrs so what, it represents a long period of time b/w deciding to be a doctor and facing reality.
I'm happy for you to put me in a bracket.
The point is facts. We all like facts, well some of us do
Yeah love some facts. So what are they in this case?
I don't believe I've offered any. Just point out your 'facts' aren't such. "What facts are those? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What facts are those?" Are we really playing this game? You're welcome to go back and read, I'm not doing it for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what do you think the strike is about, is it about the wage?" I'd have more respect for them if they wanted reform of the diabolical way the NHS is mis-managed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What facts are those? Are we really playing this game? You're welcome to go back and read, I'm not doing it for you. " Now you’re sounding like another poster | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What facts are those? Are we really playing this game? You're welcome to go back and read, I'm not doing it for you. Now you’re sounding like another poster "Yeah you keep saying. It's all in this thread, I'm sure you're capable of scrolling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. " Right, "made up politicking". Okay. So according to you the truth is what - half the population is actively deciding to be morbidly fat and sick and to take their kids with them? Why are they doing it? You're saying it's not because they don't know better, so what is it? Are they all suicidal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. Right, "made up politicking". Okay. So according to you the truth is what - half the population is actively deciding to be morbidly fat and sick and to take their kids with them? Why are they doing it? You're saying it's not because they don't know better, so what is it? Are they all suicidal?" I think there is a lot of truth in the lack of personal commitment we have in society today, ones own healthcare being right up there. Overweight, obese is celebrated as good look in some quarters, it sells to those that were outside of the usual good looking and fit types, marketing was aimed at.. We all have a duty to look after ourselves and see through the BS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. Right, "made up politicking". Okay. So according to you the truth is what - half the population is actively deciding to be morbidly fat and sick and to take their kids with them? Why are they doing it? You're saying it's not because they don't know better, so what is it? Are they all suicidal?" I have no idea and make no assumptions. But people have control of very few things in their lives. How they move about and what they put in their bodies is one they have absolute control over. If they light a cancer stick and put it in their mouths is another. Blaming others because we are unhealthy is a lazy cop out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course they should, but as the strike began yesterday, tens of thousands is facing nhs cancellations and their care will be cancelled due to it. The strike will last for 6 days, it will run from 7am on 3 january to 7am on 9 january. It is said that it will be a massive disruptions and it have been described as the longest one in the nhs 75 year history. With their walk out, the safety of the patients will be compromised as the staff will be reduced, how will they mange their safety and the strike at the same time and what do you think the strike is about, is it about the wage? Basic salary for juniors is from £32k to £63k more than me as a mental health worker " Hi becs and yes, they earn more than a mental health worker too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, no one should ever be stopped from withdrawing their labour. That’s slavory Secondly, at some point people need to be paid properly. The way we talk about how them striking will hurt people kinda shows how important a job it is, yet they aren’t being paid to reflect that. Thirdly, they can and will leave. Other countries will pay better. The long term effects of paying healthcare workers poorly comes in a great little saying. “Pay peanuts, get monkey”. You can’t expect to have world class healthcare on a budget payroll. Pay them properly. " So if we as a population are going to pay them more how would you fund this. 35% pay rise.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. Right, "made up politicking". Okay. So according to you the truth is what - half the population is actively deciding to be morbidly fat and sick and to take their kids with them? Why are they doing it? You're saying it's not because they don't know better, so what is it? Are they all suicidal? I think there is a lot of truth in the lack of personal commitment we have in society today, ones own healthcare being right up there. Overweight, obese is celebrated as good look in some quarters, it sells to those that were outside of the usual good looking and fit types, marketing was aimed at.. We all have a duty to look after ourselves and see through the BS." WTF? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. Right, "made up politicking". Okay. So according to you the truth is what - half the population is actively deciding to be morbidly fat and sick and to take their kids with them? Why are they doing it? You're saying it's not because they don't know better, so what is it? Are they all suicidal?" Maybe because they are stupid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What facts are those? Are we really playing this game? You're welcome to go back and read, I'm not doing it for you. Now you’re sounding like another poster
Yeah you keep saying. It's all in this thread, I'm sure you're capable of scrolling. "The only thing I can see was a list of employment rights that was a mixed bag and I went in to say they had to be provided legally. I conflated a few by not more carefully wording my post. Is that it? Lot of effort for very little? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. Right, "made up politicking". Okay. So according to you the truth is what - half the population is actively deciding to be morbidly fat and sick and to take their kids with them? Why are they doing it? You're saying it's not because they don't know better, so what is it? Are they all suicidal?" That's the $64,000 question. It baffles me too. Just visit the Canaries in Winter and witness the appalling physical state of many Brits. It's depressing - much worse than the Skandis, Germans and others. What is the mindset that drives this? A 'free' NHS maybe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". WTF? "I think that what both NotMe66 and Backformore100 are saying is that people in bad health through lifestyle choices have only themselves to blame. It's not the total absence of nutritional education from school curriculums. It's not the billions poured into advertising and lobbying by junk food firms. It's not the fast food outlets outnumbering healthy options twenty-to-one. It's not the complete failure of governments to incentivise healthy behaviour or to penalise the brands who profit from the opposite, or to discourage businesses from creating entire workforces who are expected to sit at a computer and not move all bloody day. And it's definitely not the "who does he think he is" tone that right-wing tabloids took when Jamie Oliver tried to have school dinners contain slightly less refried MRM pellets and slightly more actual food. No, it's the general population - nutritional experts, accomplished chefs and personal trainers the lot of them - who despite their innate lifestyle skills are choosing to shovel down six meals' worth of high-calorie, low-value crap, two packs of Marlboro reds and a half-crate of Stella every day. Why? Neither of these commenters know, or have much interest in finding out (although NotMe66 seems to think it might be because there are plus-size models now, rather than just the anorexic ones), but both are absolutely certain that it's individuals who are 100% to blame for the situation. I suppose it must also be their fault they're poor, too. What's to be done about these people who refuse to make better choices? I don't know, but in the meantime let's aggressively defund all the public services they use and male it harder for them to access welfare, that's bound to improve the situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That's the $64,000 question. It baffles me too. Just visit the Canaries in Winter and witness the appalling physical state of many Brits. It's depressing - much worse than the Skandis, Germans and others. What is the mindset that drives this? A 'free' NHS maybe?" Lol yeah, a 'free' NHS is also why I drive to work with a blindfold on. It could instead be that the Skandis and Germans (who also have socialised medicine) don't think you're a pussy if you don't work at least a 60-hour week, and don't have a media that shrieks with indignation when their governments tell people to feed their kids a bit of broccoli from time to time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". WTF?
I think that what both NotMe66 and Backformore100 are saying is that people in bad health through lifestyle choices have only themselves to blame.
It's not the total absence of nutritional education from school curriculums. It's not the billions poured into advertising and lobbying by junk food firms. It's not the fast food outlets outnumbering healthy options twenty-to-one. It's not the complete failure of governments to incentivise healthy behaviour or to penalise the brands who profit from the opposite, or to discourage businesses from creating entire workforces who are expected to sit at a computer and not move all bloody day. And it's definitely not the "who does he think he is" tone that right-wing tabloids took when Jamie Oliver tried to have school dinners contain slightly less refried MRM pellets and slightly more actual food.
No, it's the general population - nutritional experts, accomplished chefs and personal trainers the lot of them - who despite their innate lifestyle skills are choosing to shovel down six meals' worth of high-calorie, low-value crap, two packs of Marlboro reds and a half-crate of Stella every day.
Why? Neither of these commenters know, or have much interest in finding out (although NotMe66 seems to think it might be because there are plus-size models now, rather than just the anorexic ones), but both are absolutely certain that it's individuals who are 100% to blame for the situation.
I suppose it must also be their fault they're poor, too. What's to be done about these people who refuse to make better choices? I don't know, but in the meantime let's aggressively defund all the public services they use and male it harder for them to access welfare, that's bound to improve the situation."You're just making stuff up that I have not written. That's lazy and I can't debate that way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. Right, "made up politicking". Okay. So according to you the truth is what - half the population is actively deciding to be morbidly fat and sick and to take their kids with them? Why are they doing it? You're saying it's not because they don't know better, so what is it? Are they all suicidal? That's the $64,000 question. It baffles me too. Just visit the Canaries in Winter and witness the appalling physical state of many Brits. It's depressing - much worse than the Skandis, Germans and others. What is the mindset that drives this? A 'free' NHS maybe?" I doubt the mindset even considers the NHS. The mindset won’t even understand cause and effect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. Right, "made up politicking". Okay. So according to you the truth is what - half the population is actively deciding to be morbidly fat and sick and to take their kids with them? Why are they doing it? You're saying it's not because they don't know better, so what is it? Are they all suicidal? That's the $64,000 question. It baffles me too. Just visit the Canaries in Winter and witness the appalling physical state of many Brits. It's depressing - much worse than the Skandis, Germans and others. What is the mindset that drives this? A 'free' NHS maybe?" You make a very interesting point. They also come from countries, that do no aspire to funding an NHS. That have longer life expectancy and better outcomes in most measurable indicators of a nations health. Kind of off the op, but worthy of thought. I don't know the total package their junior doctors are on but also worthy of comparison. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". WTF?
I think that what both NotMe66 and Backformore100 are saying is that people in bad health through lifestyle choices have only themselves to blame.
It's not the total absence of nutritional education from school curriculums. It's not the billions poured into advertising and lobbying by junk food firms. It's not the fast food outlets outnumbering healthy options twenty-to-one. It's not the complete failure of governments to incentivise healthy behaviour or to penalise the brands who profit from the opposite, or to discourage businesses from creating entire workforces who are expected to sit at a computer and not move all bloody day. And it's definitely not the "who does he think he is" tone that right-wing tabloids took when Jamie Oliver tried to have school dinners contain slightly less refried MRM pellets and slightly more actual food.
No, it's the general population - nutritional experts, accomplished chefs and personal trainers the lot of them - who despite their innate lifestyle skills are choosing to shovel down six meals' worth of high-calorie, low-value crap, two packs of Marlboro reds and a half-crate of Stella every day.
Why? Neither of these commenters know, or have much interest in finding out (although NotMe66 seems to think it might be because there are plus-size models now, rather than just the anorexic ones), but both are absolutely certain that it's individuals who are 100% to blame for the situation.
I suppose it must also be their fault they're poor, too. What's to be done about these people who refuse to make better choices? I don't know, but in the meantime let's aggressively defund all the public services they use and male it harder for them to access welfare, that's bound to improve the situation."I couldn't have put it better myself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". WTF?
I think that what both NotMe66 and Backformore100 are saying is that people in bad health through lifestyle choices have only themselves to blame.
It's not the total absence of nutritional education from school curriculums. It's not the billions poured into advertising and lobbying by junk food firms. It's not the fast food outlets outnumbering healthy options twenty-to-one. It's not the complete failure of governments to incentivise healthy behaviour or to penalise the brands who profit from the opposite, or to discourage businesses from creating entire workforces who are expected to sit at a computer and not move all bloody day. And it's definitely not the "who does he think he is" tone that right-wing tabloids took when Jamie Oliver tried to have school dinners contain slightly less refried MRM pellets and slightly more actual food.
No, it's the general population - nutritional experts, accomplished chefs and personal trainers the lot of them - who despite their innate lifestyle skills are choosing to shovel down six meals' worth of high-calorie, low-value crap, two packs of Marlboro reds and a half-crate of Stella every day.
Why? Neither of these commenters know, or have much interest in finding out (although NotMe66 seems to think it might be because there are plus-size models now, rather than just the anorexic ones), but both are absolutely certain that it's individuals who are 100% to blame for the situation.
I suppose it must also be their fault they're poor, too. What's to be done about these people who refuse to make better choices? I don't know, but in the meantime let's aggressively defund all the public services they use and male it harder for them to access welfare, that's bound to improve the situation.
You're just making stuff up that I have not written. That's lazy and I can't debate that way. "Oh, I'm not debating with you. I'm entertaining myself by sarcastically framing how reductive and illogical your opinion is (as victim-blaming tends to be). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Youu make a very interesting point. They also come from countries, that do no aspire to funding an NHS. That have longer life expectancy and better outcomes in most measurable indicators of a nations health. Kind of off the op, but worthy of thought. I don't know the total package their junior doctors are on but also worthy of comparison. " I mean, that's just bullshit. Germany and Scandinavia enjoy universal healthcare systems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. Right, "made up politicking". Okay. So according to you the truth is what - half the population is actively deciding to be morbidly fat and sick and to take their kids with them? Why are they doing it? You're saying it's not because they don't know better, so what is it? Are they all suicidal? That's the $64,000 question. It baffles me too. Just visit the Canaries in Winter and witness the appalling physical state of many Brits. It's depressing - much worse than the Skandis, Germans and others. What is the mindset that drives this? A 'free' NHS maybe? I doubt the mindset even considers the NHS. The mindset won’t even understand cause and effect." When poor quality food (calorie dense, nutritionally deplete) food is available and means the difference between starving and feeling full, people will go for the latter. It's Hobson's choice. Cause and effect is irrelevant. Polynesia has a double burden of malnutrition, both under and over. It's the case in point of starve or fill up on cheap crap from the West. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pretty much none of that is true but made up politicking. Apart from the bit where people don't care about their health enough. If you seriously think people don't know that eating veg is good eating fat is bad... Its all over food packaging, adverts, media... People choose not to do so because they like their choice and as I said... Can't look past next week. That and shit unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. But that's not for a govt to fix... Thats for an individual to make better choices... Which is in their gift. Right, "made up politicking". Okay. So according to you the truth is what - half the population is actively deciding to be morbidly fat and sick and to take their kids with them? Why are they doing it? You're saying it's not because they don't know better, so what is it? Are they all suicidal? That's the $64,000 question. It baffles me too. Just visit the Canaries in Winter and witness the appalling physical state of many Brits. It's depressing - much worse than the Skandis, Germans and others. What is the mindset that drives this? A 'free' NHS maybe? I doubt the mindset even considers the NHS. The mindset won’t even understand cause and effect. When poor quality food (calorie dense, nutritionally deplete) food is available and means the difference between starving and feeling full, people will go for the latter. It's Hobson's choice. Cause and effect is irrelevant. Polynesia has a double burden of malnutrition, both under and over. It's the case in point of starve or fill up on cheap crap from the West." Indeed. The factors are multiple but the money in your pocket trumps all. But I doubt very very much anyone is sitting there eating burgers n chips thinking “doesn’t matter if I get obese as the NHS is there!” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". WTF?
I think that what both NotMe66 and Backformore100 are saying is that people in bad health through lifestyle choices have only themselves to blame.
It's not the total absence of nutritional education from school curriculums. It's not the billions poured into advertising and lobbying by junk food firms. It's not the fast food outlets outnumbering healthy options twenty-to-one. It's not the complete failure of governments to incentivise healthy behaviour or to penalise the brands who profit from the opposite, or to discourage businesses from creating entire workforces who are expected to sit at a computer and not move all bloody day. And it's definitely not the "who does he think he is" tone that right-wing tabloids took when Jamie Oliver tried to have school dinners contain slightly less refried MRM pellets and slightly more actual food.
No, it's the general population - nutritional experts, accomplished chefs and personal trainers the lot of them - who despite their innate lifestyle skills are choosing to shovel down six meals' worth of high-calorie, low-value crap, two packs of Marlboro reds and a half-crate of Stella every day.
Why? Neither of these commenters know, or have much interest in finding out (although NotMe66 seems to think it might be because there are plus-size models now, rather than just the anorexic ones), but both are absolutely certain that it's individuals who are 100% to blame for the situation.
I suppose it must also be their fault they're poor, too. What's to be done about these people who refuse to make better choices? I don't know, but in the meantime let's aggressively defund all the public services they use and male it harder for them to access welfare, that's bound to improve the situation.
I couldn't have put it better myself "That is a shame, but if you read my post again and challenge what wrote I think you could... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Overweight, obese is celebrated as good look in some quarters, it sells to those that were outside of the usual good looking and fit types, marketing was aimed at.." I am more cynical in relation to the use of plus size models. While there has been a whole “let’s celebrate people (mostly women let’s be honest here) of all shapes and sizes” snd wrap it up in a positivity veneer...I just think it makes good business sense. If over half your market is plus sized then they are far more likely to invest themselves in your brand if they identify themselves with it. Make your market feel good about your brand and you sell more product to them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". WTF?
I think that what both NotMe66 and Backformore100 are saying is that people in bad health through lifestyle choices have only themselves to blame.
It's not the total absence of nutritional education from school curriculums. It's not the billions poured into advertising and lobbying by junk food firms. It's not the fast food outlets outnumbering healthy options twenty-to-one. It's not the complete failure of governments to incentivise healthy behaviour or to penalise the brands who profit from the opposite, or to discourage businesses from creating entire workforces who are expected to sit at a computer and not move all bloody day. And it's definitely not the "who does he think he is" tone that right-wing tabloids took when Jamie Oliver tried to have school dinners contain slightly less refried MRM pellets and slightly more actual food.
No, it's the general population - nutritional experts, accomplished chefs and personal trainers the lot of them - who despite their innate lifestyle skills are choosing to shovel down six meals' worth of high-calorie, low-value crap, two packs of Marlboro reds and a half-crate of Stella every day.
Why? Neither of these commenters know, or have much interest in finding out (although NotMe66 seems to think it might be because there are plus-size models now, rather than just the anorexic ones), but both are absolutely certain that it's individuals who are 100% to blame for the situation.
I suppose it must also be their fault they're poor, too. What's to be done about these people who refuse to make better choices? I don't know, but in the meantime let's aggressively defund all the public services they use and male it harder for them to access welfare, that's bound to improve the situation."What on earth got you to this from what I said, actually what either of us said? You say I think part of the reason is we have plus size models now and not anorexic ones
2 things jump straight off the page there.
My actual words "Overweight, obese is celebrated as a good look in some quarters, it sells to those that were outside of the usual good looking and fit types, marketing was aimed at.."
Read the words carefully, clearly I'm saying obese people are being sold to by advertisers, as well as the norm in the marketing world. They have extended their reach. However there are morbidly obese influencers cashing in and promoting their obesity as something to be proud of, packaged up as an aspiration to aspire too, which in my book is criminal.
Secondly, you called the "usual" in that comment as anorexic. You then go on to question me?
What a toxic reply you wrote, and it is people like you shaming anyone you can to obtain the greatest amount of virtue signalling rights, that is bringing misery on people who think that it must be okay to not take a responsible and considered approach to their own health because people like you are championing their rights to destroy their chances of a healthier lifestyle by promoting your support for people to be left alone and blame everyone in absence of their life style choices.
You are not around picking up the pieces when these people have real health issues, you want doctors and nurses to do that! What a selfish way of thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What facts are those? Are we really playing this game? You're welcome to go back and read, I'm not doing it for you. Now you’re sounding like another poster
Yeah you keep saying. It's all in this thread, I'm sure you're capable of scrolling.
The only thing I can see was a list of employment rights that was a mixed bag and I went in to say they had to be provided legally. I conflated a few by not more carefully wording my post. Is that it? Lot of effort for very little?"You conflated a few
You made some crazy assumptions about me
You then conflated Dr's training
How can we have honest conversation when this is your tactic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What facts are those? Are we really playing this game? You're welcome to go back and read, I'm not doing it for you. Now you’re sounding like another poster
Yeah you keep saying. It's all in this thread, I'm sure you're capable of scrolling.
The only thing I can see was a list of employment rights that was a mixed bag and I went in to say they had to be provided legally. I conflated a few by not more carefully wording my post. Is that it? Lot of effort for very little?
You conflated a few
You made some crazy assumptions about me
You then conflated Dr's training
How can we have honest conversation when this is your tactic?"Not a tactic just, perhaps, poor wording on my behalf. Maybe? On Doctor’s training I counted the Foundation Years as part of training. My bad if not but seemed to me it kind of was? Still don’t see how that changes the point being made that much? My assumptions about you were being deliberately provocative (so yes a bit of a game in that case). But let’s be honest. You employ that tactic often yourself so...
So are you now willing to give a straight answer why you don’t think Junior Doctor’s should be allowed to strike other than they knew it was a tough job and what pay scales were, or is that it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the one hand i understand why there striking on the other ive had my surgery cancelled four times now because of the strikes, work have put me on light dutys but im now getting to the stage that even light dutys are getting harder and harder, if it carrys on much longer im gona end up on sickness benefit sitting at home, " That sounds bad hope you will be ok. Who do you blame for this? Is it the fault of Doctors or the Govt? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What facts are those? Are we really playing this game? You're welcome to go back and read, I'm not doing it for you. Now you’re sounding like another poster
Yeah you keep saying. It's all in this thread, I'm sure you're capable of scrolling.
The only thing I can see was a list of employment rights that was a mixed bag and I went in to say they had to be provided legally. I conflated a few by not more carefully wording my post. Is that it? Lot of effort for very little?
You conflated a few
You made some crazy assumptions about me
You then conflated Dr's training
How can we have honest conversation when this is your tactic?
Not a tactic just, perhaps, poor wording on my behalf. Maybe?
On Doctor’s training I counted the Foundation Years as part of training. My bad if not but seemed to me it kind of was? Still don’t see how that changes the point being made that much?
My assumptions about you were being deliberately provocative (so yes a bit of a game in that case). But let’s be honest. You employ that tactic often yourself so...
So are you now willing to give a straight answer why you don’t think Junior Doctor’s should be allowed to strike other than they knew it was a tough job and what pay scales were, or is that it?"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come on mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what NotMe is saying is that regardless of external factors (of which there are many) people still have to/should take personal responsibility and make better choices. While on the one hand “home economics” is not taught in state schools any more (is that right? I don’t actually know), we do now have access to more free information about nutrition (thanks to the internet) than ever before. One specific point NotMe made that I want to comment on: Overweight, obese is celebrated as good look in some quarters, it sells to those that were outside of the usual good looking and fit types, marketing was aimed at.. I am more cynical in relation to the use of plus size models. While there has been a whole “let’s celebrate people (mostly women let’s be honest here) of all shapes and sizes” snd wrap it up in a positivity veneer...I just think it makes good business sense. If over half your market is plus sized then they are far more likely to invest themselves in your brand if they identify themselves with it. Make your market feel good about your brand and you sell more product to them!" Ah NotMe answered and it appears we are saying similar things on the last point. Just a further point to add re marketing... The use of plus sized models in fashion ads is not something that we have seen extended to food or supermarket ads. We do not see obese people in McDonalds ads or Tesco ads, or Deliveroo ads, or alcohol ads. Wonder why (rhetorical)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come on mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship." I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right?" I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how the "junior doctors knew what they were signing up for, they should shut up or fuck off" crowd are so absolutely certain this strike is just a cynical money-grab at the taxpayers' expense. Yet I notice a lot of the same guys can't wait to spring to Michelle Mone's defence on that other thread. I wonder how these guys would take it if they were told they weren't allowed to advocate for favourable pay in their own jobs. I suppose they'd all say thank you sir, and sit back down? It’s nice to see all the socialist workers defending these impoverished doctors. Strike being led by a former public school boy who owns a £500k flat mortgage free in London and is Director of a family business that has £2 million of investments. But sure let’s all pay more tax. And people say the Left has lost its way…. I'm sure this was a "gotcha" in your head but I'm not sure what your point is. The strike organiser happens to be wealthy... So what? Sure what happens if they are all overpaid compared to the average worker? They are “worth it” in your head for some reason. The reality is that these overprivileged doctors are and have for some time been Labour’s key demographic. Urban dwelling affluent graduates. Together with a rump of Useful Idiots who are unable to think for themselves and stick to the Labour Party like shit because their father and grandfathers voted for them half a century ago. The greatest threat to the NHS in this country is (and has been for many years) the BMA and its money grubbing members. Are you honestly saying Doctors (ie very highly skilled, highly trained, specialists) should be paid the same as average workers? Not really thought that through Rog have you? Starting to sound like a Communist! " Are doctors all very highly skilled, highly trained specialists? The job that used to be done by GP’s now seems to be done by pretty disinterested and medium to low skilled nurses. When I do on occasion see a GP I don’t particularly get the impression that I am seeing anyone with any high degree of skill or expertise. I can see that a consultant may have more expertise but that is why they are paid more once they have acquired the experience and expertise. NHS cultists seems to think that junior doctors who yesterday were on the piss every night at college and today are faffing about in a hospital ward should all be on £100k at their fellow citizens’ expense because well they are “worth it” for some odd reason. No doubt the same people are probably still doffing their cloth cap when they enter the doctors’ surgery. Does the Chief Executive of Shell get paid the same as the first day graduate trainee? I guess the graduate trainee understands their position in the process and that if they learn and build their knowledge and experience then better opportunities and salaries may await them in future (not guaranteed of course, unlike in the NHS). The spoilt brats who are running the junior doctors strikes just want everything now because that’s what daddy gave them, and they get to “play socialist revolutionary” for a bit as well before moving to Saudi Arabia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. " Well at least you finally clarified your position. Thanks. Took more effort than I expected. Thanks for BMA info. What do you think is a fair settlement? Would you be happy to be paid less than those 15 years ago doing same job? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. Well at least you finally clarified your position. Thanks. Took more effort than I expected. Thanks for BMA info. What do you think is a fair settlement? Would you be happy to be paid less than those 15 years ago doing same job?" I don't have the answer for what is fair, that's between negotiators. Plenty of people are being paid less (in real terms) than entry level positions 15 years ago. Would I be happy? It's a mute question being that I have 20 years experience. My daughters will when they enter the workplace, it is what it is, they have their chosen paths. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how the "junior doctors knew what they were signing up for, they should shut up or fuck off" crowd are so absolutely certain this strike is just a cynical money-grab at the taxpayers' expense. Yet I notice a lot of the same guys can't wait to spring to Michelle Mone's defence on that other thread. I wonder how these guys would take it if they were told they weren't allowed to advocate for favourable pay in their own jobs. I suppose they'd all say thank you sir, and sit back down? It’s nice to see all the socialist workers defending these impoverished doctors. Strike being led by a former public school boy who owns a £500k flat mortgage free in London and is Director of a family business that has £2 million of investments. But sure let’s all pay more tax. And people say the Left has lost its way…. I'm sure this was a "gotcha" in your head but I'm not sure what your point is. The strike organiser happens to be wealthy... So what? Sure what happens if they are all overpaid compared to the average worker? They are “worth it” in your head for some reason. The reality is that these overprivileged doctors are and have for some time been Labour’s key demographic. Urban dwelling affluent graduates. Together with a rump of Useful Idiots who are unable to think for themselves and stick to the Labour Party like shit because their father and grandfathers voted for them half a century ago. The greatest threat to the NHS in this country is (and has been for many years) the BMA and its money grubbing members. Are you honestly saying Doctors (ie very highly skilled, highly trained, specialists) should be paid the same as average workers? Not really thought that through Rog have you? Starting to sound like a Communist! Are doctors all very highly skilled, highly trained specialists? The job that used to be done by GP’s now seems to be done by pretty disinterested and medium to low skilled nurses. When I do on occasion see a GP I don’t particularly get the impression that I am seeing anyone with any high degree of skill or expertise. I can see that a consultant may have more expertise but that is why they are paid more once they have acquired the experience and expertise. NHS cultists seems to think that junior doctors who yesterday were on the piss every night at college and today are faffing about in a hospital ward should all be on £100k at their fellow citizens’ expense because well they are “worth it” for some odd reason. No doubt the same people are probably still doffing their cloth cap when they enter the doctors’ surgery. Does the Chief Executive of Shell get paid the same as the first day graduate trainee? I guess the graduate trainee understands their position in the process and that if they learn and build their knowledge and experience then better opportunities and salaries may await them in future (not guaranteed of course, unlike in the NHS). The spoilt brats who are running the junior doctors strikes just want everything now because that’s what daddy gave them, and they get to “play socialist revolutionary” for a bit as well before moving to Saudi Arabia." You make some odd statements Rog. Who are these NHS cultists who think Junior Doctors should be on £100k? Feisty just pointed out the BMA want Junior Doctor salaries restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. Seems reasonable to me that they want to earn as much as they would have 15yrs ago? You avoided the point on them earning more than average workers. I really am starting to wonder whether you are a closet Communist? Yes they are highly skilled (although you moved the goalposts from Junior Doctors to GPs then to nurses doing some of what GPs used to do so I am now confused who you are actually talking about?) BTW GPs are indeed highly skilled as are nurses so what do you mean by “average worker”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. Well at least you finally clarified your position. Thanks. Took more effort than I expected. Thanks for BMA info. What do you think is a fair settlement? Would you be happy to be paid less than those 15 years ago doing same job?" I don’t know. What’s inflation at the moment and what are average pay rises across the private sector? What is productivity like in the NHS at the moment? Is it going up or down? Should public sector workers be given a pay rise when productivity is in collapse? Why should they be paid even the same when output is decreasing? Why should I as a taxpayer (who gets fuck all for all the taxes I pay) pay for dismal public services? And plenty of people aren’t paid as well as they used to be. It is extremely common in the private sector for older workers for example to be in much better pension schemes or to have much better contracts of employment. Would I prefer to be in the same schemes? Yes but I understand that they are simply unaffordable. Businesses would go bust if they tried to maintain the same benefits. Public sector workers generally and doctors in particular (I know quite a few, including virtually all of my neighbours) live in a bubble and are completely oblivious to economic reality (aside from their own obviously). That’s what happens when everyone else is forced to pay your wages and there is no cost of failure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. Well at least you finally clarified your position. Thanks. Took more effort than I expected. Thanks for BMA info. What do you think is a fair settlement? Would you be happy to be paid less than those 15 years ago doing same job? I don't have the answer for what is fair, that's between negotiators. Plenty of people are being paid less (in real terms) than entry level positions 15 years ago. Would I be happy? It's a mute question being that I have 20 years experience. My daughters will when they enter the workplace, it is what it is, they have their chosen paths. " If you don’t have an answer for what is fair then why are you against them fighting to simply be where they were 15 years ago? Oh plenty of people are paid less. So? Does that make it ok? And us that so true? It conflicts with the narrative that wages are higher thanks to Brexit and the narrative that wage growth is causing inflation. It can’t really be both ways can it? Or, as I suspect, what you really mean is it is ok for private sector folks to earn more but public sector should be happy with real term pay cuts. Is that it Feisty? Private sector good. Public sector bad? I am sure you will say no but that is what is coming across. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. Well at least you finally clarified your position. Thanks. Took more effort than I expected. Thanks for BMA info. What do you think is a fair settlement? Would you be happy to be paid less than those 15 years ago doing same job? I don't have the answer for what is fair, that's between negotiators. Plenty of people are being paid less (in real terms) than entry level positions 15 years ago. Would I be happy? It's a mute question being that I have 20 years experience. My daughters will when they enter the workplace, it is what it is, they have their chosen paths. If you don’t have an answer for what is fair then why are you against them fighting to simply be where they were 15 years ago? Oh plenty of people are paid less. So? Does that make it ok? And us that so true? It conflicts with the narrative that wages are higher thanks to Brexit and the narrative that wage growth is causing inflation. It can’t really be both ways can it? Or, as I suspect, what you really mean is it is ok for private sector folks to earn more but public sector should be happy with real term pay cuts. Is that it Feisty? Private sector good. Public sector bad? I am sure you will say no but that is what is coming across." Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth? I'm not fighting the 'what is fair' question. I'm against striking and holding people to ransom. That's not a difficult thing to understand. Finally, do you really want me to do percentage comparisons between sectors for the last 15 years? I've got some time today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. Well at least you finally clarified your position. Thanks. Took more effort than I expected. Thanks for BMA info. What do you think is a fair settlement? Would you be happy to be paid less than those 15 years ago doing same job? I don’t know. What’s inflation at the moment and what are average pay rises across the private sector? What is productivity like in the NHS at the moment? Is it going up or down? Should public sector workers be given a pay rise when productivity is in collapse? Why should they be paid even the same when output is decreasing? Why should I as a taxpayer (who gets fuck all for all the taxes I pay) pay for dismal public services? And plenty of people aren’t paid as well as they used to be. It is extremely common in the private sector for older workers for example to be in much better pension schemes or to have much better contracts of employment. Would I prefer to be in the same schemes? Yes but I understand that they are simply unaffordable. Businesses would go bust if they tried to maintain the same benefits. Public sector workers generally and doctors in particular (I know quite a few, including virtually all of my neighbours) live in a bubble and are completely oblivious to economic reality (aside from their own obviously). That’s what happens when everyone else is forced to pay your wages and there is no cost of failure." As I thought, here is another Private sector good Public sector bad Advocate. Pesky bloody workers wanting fair pay. How very dare they! Hey and all those private sector workers who aren’t paid as much as they used to be...just leave and get a better job right? Don’t like it leave! That’s what some are saying to Doctors. Why the acceptance of the lowest common denominator? Why advocate everyone has less rather than everyone has more. Why “I don’t have it so you shouldn’t have it” rather than “we all should have it”? And why is it Rog that you are not outraged (and even seem supportive) of someone like Baroness Mone enriching herself and her family due to her position but are outraged and against other public sector workers getting a fair deal? I see this quite a lot. It is like there is a collective Stockholm Syndrome that forces ordinary people to support the rich getting richer (sometimes through nefarious methods) but to turn on other ordinary people who step out of line and dare ask for fair treatment. It is like there has been 44 years of national grooming! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. Well at least you finally clarified your position. Thanks. Took more effort than I expected. Thanks for BMA info. What do you think is a fair settlement? Would you be happy to be paid less than those 15 years ago doing same job? I don't have the answer for what is fair, that's between negotiators. Plenty of people are being paid less (in real terms) than entry level positions 15 years ago. Would I be happy? It's a mute question being that I have 20 years experience. My daughters will when they enter the workplace, it is what it is, they have their chosen paths. If you don’t have an answer for what is fair then why are you against them fighting to simply be where they were 15 years ago? Oh plenty of people are paid less. So? Does that make it ok? And us that so true? It conflicts with the narrative that wages are higher thanks to Brexit and the narrative that wage growth is causing inflation. It can’t really be both ways can it? Or, as I suspect, what you really mean is it is ok for private sector folks to earn more but public sector should be happy with real term pay cuts. Is that it Feisty? Private sector good. Public sector bad? I am sure you will say no but that is what is coming across. Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth? I'm not fighting the 'what is fair' question. I'm against striking and holding people to ransom. That's not a difficult thing to understand. Finally, do you really want me to do percentage comparisons between sectors for the last 15 years? I've got some time today. " What is the point of striking if it does not provide any leverage? Withholding labour is by definition holding the employer to ransom! You can do some comparisons if it makes you happy. But if that is to prove that many people/sectors are earning less than before then I will save you the effort and say yes I agree and know. But you missed the point that some are saying/implying things are good (salaries up due to Brexit) and others are saying things are too good (salaries are up driving inflation) and yet all three things cannot be simultaneously true can they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah brexit for the win. " Were we playing Brexit Bingo? Do I get a prize  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". What on earth got you to this from what I said, actually what either of us said?" I can read. "You say I think part of the reason is we have plus size models now and not anorexic ones
2 things jump straight off the page there.
My actual words "Overweight, obese is celebrated as a good look in some quarters, it sells to those that were outside of the usual good looking and fit types, marketing was aimed at.."
Read the words carefully, clearly I'm saying obese people are being sold to by advertisers, as well as the norm in the marketing world. They have extended their reach. However there are morbidly obese influencers cashing in and promoting their obesity as something to be proud of, packaged up as an aspiration to aspire too, which in my book is criminal."So, you'd have to point me to where anyone is actually promoting obesity as something to aspire to. But the fact you have an issue with marketers aiming their products at overweight people means what - you don't thing fat people should be allowed clothes that fit? "econdly, you called the "usual" in that comment as anorexic. You then go on to question me?" The fashion industry has typically featured women who are underweight, often dangerously so, and mostly continues to do so. Is there a part of that you disagree with? "What a toxic reply you wrote, and it is people like you shaming anyone you can to obtain the greatest amount of virtue signalling rights, that is bringing misery on people who think that it must be okay to not take a responsible and considered approach to their own health because people like you are championing their rights to destroy their chances of a healthier lifestyle by promoting your support for people to be left alone and blame everyone in absence of their life style choices." So you're now saying I'm also to blame, because of my belief the government should actively promote healthy lifestyles and penalise businesses that profit from unhealthy lifestyles? You think somehow this belief of mine encourages people to have worse habits? Explain. "You are not around picking up the pieces when these people have real health issues, you want doctors and nurses to do that! What a selfish way of thinking." I mean, it is the literal job of doctors and nurses to help when people have real health issues. They're better at it than I am. I want the government to pay them more, and to do things that reduce the amount of health issues that arise to begin with. I am happy to pay more taxes for this to happen. Please clarify in what way you find that "selfish". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. Well at least you finally clarified your position. Thanks. Took more effort than I expected. Thanks for BMA info. What do you think is a fair settlement? Would you be happy to be paid less than those 15 years ago doing same job? I don't have the answer for what is fair, that's between negotiators. Plenty of people are being paid less (in real terms) than entry level positions 15 years ago. Would I be happy? It's a mute question being that I have 20 years experience. My daughters will when they enter the workplace, it is what it is, they have their chosen paths. If you don’t have an answer for what is fair then why are you against them fighting to simply be where they were 15 years ago? Oh plenty of people are paid less. So? Does that make it ok? And us that so true? It conflicts with the narrative that wages are higher thanks to Brexit and the narrative that wage growth is causing inflation. It can’t really be both ways can it? Or, as I suspect, what you really mean is it is ok for private sector folks to earn more but public sector should be happy with real term pay cuts. Is that it Feisty? Private sector good. Public sector bad? I am sure you will say no but that is what is coming across. Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth? I'm not fighting the 'what is fair' question. I'm against striking and holding people to ransom. That's not a difficult thing to understand. Finally, do you really want me to do percentage comparisons between sectors for the last 15 years? I've got some time today. What is the point of striking if it does not provide any leverage? Withholding labour is by definition holding the employer to ransom! You can do some comparisons if it makes you happy. But if that is to prove that many people/sectors are earning less than before then I will save you the effort and say yes I agree and know. But you missed the point that some are saying/implying things are good (salaries up due to Brexit) and others are saying things are too good (salaries are up driving inflation) and yet all three things cannot be simultaneously true can they?" Why do we always need leverage? What about just negotiating in good faith? And I include both sides in that. Do you think a 35% increase is fair? I know you'll argue 'all those years they didn't get one'. I'll respond by 'negotiate in good faith'. I didn't miss the point. I haven't argued that position so it meant nothing to our conversation. Nice to see you shoehorn Brexit in though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. Well at least you finally clarified your position. Thanks. Took more effort than I expected. Thanks for BMA info. What do you think is a fair settlement? Would you be happy to be paid less than those 15 years ago doing same job? I don't have the answer for what is fair, that's between negotiators. Plenty of people are being paid less (in real terms) than entry level positions 15 years ago. Would I be happy? It's a mute question being that I have 20 years experience. My daughters will when they enter the workplace, it is what it is, they have their chosen paths. If you don’t have an answer for what is fair then why are you against them fighting to simply be where they were 15 years ago? Oh plenty of people are paid less. So? Does that make it ok? And us that so true? It conflicts with the narrative that wages are higher thanks to Brexit and the narrative that wage growth is causing inflation. It can’t really be both ways can it? Or, as I suspect, what you really mean is it is ok for private sector folks to earn more but public sector should be happy with real term pay cuts. Is that it Feisty? Private sector good. Public sector bad? I am sure you will say no but that is what is coming across. Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth? I'm not fighting the 'what is fair' question. I'm against striking and holding people to ransom. That's not a difficult thing to understand. Finally, do you really want me to do percentage comparisons between sectors for the last 15 years? I've got some time today. What is the point of striking if it does not provide any leverage? Withholding labour is by definition holding the employer to ransom! You can do some comparisons if it makes you happy. But if that is to prove that many people/sectors are earning less than before then I will save you the effort and say yes I agree and know. But you missed the point that some are saying/implying things are good (salaries up due to Brexit) and others are saying things are too good (salaries are up driving inflation) and yet all three things cannot be simultaneously true can they? Why do we always need leverage? What about just negotiating in good faith? And I include both sides in that. Do you think a 35% increase is fair? I know you'll argue 'all those years they didn't get one'. I'll respond by 'negotiate in good faith'. I didn't miss the point. I haven't argued that position so it meant nothing to our conversation. Nice to see you shoehorn Brexit in though "Good wasn’t it Waiting for my prize
Negotiate in good faith only works if both parties genuinely want to negotiate in good faith. How did this all start? What talks were had right back at the beginning before they resorted to striking? In those talks were both parties already acting in good faith or not? Or are we now seeing the result of the impasse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Poor wording = adding things that aren't true and using those things to make assumptions. Come oo mate, give me a break. I've already given you my answer. I don't believe a work force should be allowed to hold employers to ransom. I believe that's what strikers are aiming to achieve. Especially in a junior Dr's role, still training AND knowing pay before opting for the profession. Its a bit like an apprentice plumber choosing a career and then striking whilst still doing their apprenticeship. I conflated a few things that were not legal employment rights with ones that (I believe) are. Again that doesn't change the point being made that those rights were hard won due the trade union movement and threat of strike action. The point being you have enjoyed those rights but it would appear do not support what needed to be done to secure them. Seems hypocritical to me (and I see lots of people saying stuff like that). As you are an employer are you happy to provide those rights to your staff? That was the provocative bit because it seemed, to me, that if you were against people taking strike action then you must be against employment rights which were won off the back of strike action? I can see your argument but again I ask, be it over 5 or 7 years, have conditions changed and got worse? My understanding is they are not only striking over pay but also conditions, right? I enjoy some rights that were not fought for by myself yet do not support certain aspects of those rights = Hypocrite. Bit of a stretch. I don't support a single aspect of employment law = I must be against employment law. Bit of a stretch. My understanding (source:BMA) is that this strike is over pay. They want levels restored to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation. 15 years ago, way longer than the 5 years in university. Well at least you finally clarified your position. Thanks. Took more effort than I expected. Thanks for BMA info. What do you think is a fair settlement? Would you be happy to be paid less than those 15 years ago doing same job? I don't have the answer for what is fair, that's between negotiators. Plenty of people are being paid less (in real terms) than entry level positions 15 years ago. Would I be happy? It's a mute question being that I have 20 years experience. My daughters will when they enter the workplace, it is what it is, they have their chosen paths. If you don’t have an answer for what is fair then why are you against them fighting to simply be where they were 15 years ago? Oh plenty of people are paid less. So? Does that make it ok? And us that so true? It conflicts with the narrative that wages are higher thanks to Brexit and the narrative that wage growth is causing inflation. It can’t really be both ways can it? Or, as I suspect, what you really mean is it is ok for private sector folks to earn more but public sector should be happy with real term pay cuts. Is that it Feisty? Private sector good. Public sector bad? I am sure you will say no but that is what is coming across. Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth? I'm not fighting the 'what is fair' question. I'm against striking and holding people to ransom. That's not a difficult thing to understand. Finally, do you really want me to do percentage comparisons between sectors for the last 15 years? I've got some time today. What is the point of striking if it does not provide any leverage? Withholding labour is by definition holding the employer to ransom! You can do some comparisons if it makes you happy. But if that is to prove that many people/sectors are earning less than before then I will save you the effort and say yes I agree and know. But you missed the point that some are saying/implying things are good (salaries up due to Brexit) and others are saying things are too good (salaries are up driving inflation) and yet all three things cannot be simultaneously true can they? Why do we always need leverage? What about just negotiating in good faith? And I include both sides in that. Do you think a 35% increase is fair? I know you'll argue 'all those years they didn't get one'. I'll respond by 'negotiate in good faith'. I didn't miss the point. I haven't argued that position so it meant nothing to our conversation. Nice to see you shoehorn Brexit in though
Good wasn’t it Waiting for my prize
Negotiate in good faith only works if both parties genuinely want to negotiate in good faith. How did this all start? What talks were had right back at the beginning before they resorted to striking? In those talks were both parties already acting in good faith or not? Or are we now seeing the result of the impasse?"I would suggest that 35% isn't good faith. I don't know where the Govt started. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. Pay them what they deserve. Full pay restoration for me, as someone who works with lots of them every day
Worth every penny and more!
You should contribute directly to their pay of you feel that strongly, are you above and beyond what you pay in taxes?
If more of you got together you would give these people what they want and what you think they deserve, win win, but don’t assume I’m paying "Work with them like I do and I’m sure you’d change your mind. I do contribute to them, I pay my taxes like everyone else. I also get paid more than a junior doctor and think they should be paid WAY more than most people. However you’re entitled to your opinion , as much as I massively disagree with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
