Discussion continues
668941
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 14 Feb 24 at 11:02
|
www.itv.com/news/2024-02-02/train-drivers-strikes-to-bring-more-travel-misery
No end in sight, one of the unions involved said they are content if needed to continue this for the next 18 months.
|
|
How long does it take to train a new driver?
|
>> 18-24 months
>>
Chuffing hell!
|
>> >> 18-24 months
>> >>
>>
>> Chuffing hell!
And thats the fast track.
|
...the driving bit is relatively easy since the removal of steam. (stopping a train in the right place is a bit challenging, though!). I've certainly had a go at least 3 times on the main line (unofficially, of course), and I'd be mildly surprised if Z hasn't.
It is, though, only a very small part of the training and requirements. Rules and regulations, safety instructions, mechanical and other training, route knowledge, etc., etc. take a lot of leaning and examination time.
|
Good luck to them. The direct rail employees have hung on to their wages and working conditions better than most through the privatisations, outsourcing of jobs and other pauperisation measures directed at working people since 1979.
They are already doing better than many but that's no reason to accept more levelling down.
The Conservatives work for the ruling class who basically think it is their right to make millions while working people are subject to "efficiencies". They can only do so because those same deluded working people keep giving them the power to do so.
Superb interview with Mick Lynch by Lewis Goodall on the latest Newscast pod if anyone needs reminding what unions are for.
|
I don't blame them.
The NHS doesn't know how to look after its staff. Doctors have had holidays cancelled at the last minute, including expensive foreign ones with no offer of recompence. One doctor I know of has had the leave he booked for his wedding and honeymoon cancelled.
Miss Z's current trust is refusing to honor extra days leave that you accumulate with service.
One of Miss Z's juniors has told he can't have time off for his exams - despite giving 6 months notice and it initially being agreed. The exams cost ££££.
At Xmas, there were cleaners (not to disparage them) who got double time who were earning more than several junior doctors on the wards for that shift.
|
The impact on us now.
A doc came and took bloods at lunchtime
I then got a call at home in the middle of the night from a NHS centre saying my wife should go to A&E asap and an ambulance has been ordered ( as she is bed bound).
Appears to be blood clot two weeks after an another A&E visit and an operation.
After quite a a lot of hours in the bed queue in the corridors an A&E bay was found for her.
She is still awaiting an ultrasound scan and still in the same A&E bay.
Now 27 hours in A&E
With the lack of staff the service is pretty good.
My daughter, an Obs and Gyne consultant is obvious v busy. Her work never ever ceases.
I am off to get suitable food from Tesco and see if i am allowed to feed her.
|
On the one hand the service excels - the middle of the night call etc - on the other it is failing
abysmally - 27 hours in A&E. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have an answer to it.
But more importantly - I hope your wife gets attended to quickly now and all turns out well. You sound like you are a very tolerant man, but don't hesitate to make some noise if that's what seems to be needed. That sometimes seems to get results for some...
Last edited by: smokie on Sun 11 Feb 24 at 12:28
|
|
Sorry that was the Newsagents pod not Newscast.
|
>> The Conservatives work for the ruling class who basically think it is their right to
>> make millions while working people are subject to "efficiencies". They can only do so because
>> those same deluded working people keep giving them the power to do so.
>>
Whilst not accepting the premise of your argument, one has to ask "why do they keep voting the Tories in?"
If you are saying the electorate are too stupid and gullible, then what is the solution? Intelligence test before we go into the polling station? Reduce the minimum voting age even further?
Serious question - what is your solution?
Perhaps the Labour Party should choose a leader who is electable - remember Michael Foot? Jeremy Corbyn? - and then get behind him/her.
|
“Perhaps the Labour Party should choose a leader who is electable - remember Michael Foot? Jeremy Corbyn? - and then get behind him/her.”
They have. The will win by a landslide. Why do the Tories not see that election success necessitates moving to the centre rather than adopting crackpot right wing policies.
|
I agree Labour will probably win the next election and form the government.
It may not be by a landslide - much depends on what happens in Scotland - although I suspect Labour/SNP would work out a deal (independence referendum?). It remains to be seen how the LibDems fare in current Tory seats where they are often the "protest vote".
Polls suggest that the outcome will not be a vote for Starmer, but motivated "not the Tories".
I find Starmer decent but uninspiring. A worthy successor to Gordon Brown but he does not have the talents of a Blair, Thatcher or Johnson with their ability to communicate and clarity of purpose (a separate issue to political belief).
He has made many "policy refinements" (U-turns) over the last couple of years, latest is £28bn climate investment. There is little transparency over future policy and plans - strategy is dominated by blame the Tories, tell everybody Labour will be better, don't alienate voters.
The Tories clearly have a "nutter right" evidenced by a vote for Liz Truss and now her misguided attempts to rally the troops behind a move to the right. Many older members will likely resign their seats at the next election (no bad thing)
The left of the Labour party has not vanished - the difference is that even they realise in their desire for power they need to present a unified party - Starmer, for the moment, is in charge.
Both mainstream parties know the centre ground is where elections are fought. Characterising Sunak as crackpot right wing is no more accurate than casting Labour as the loony left (nationalise everything, squeeze the pips, up the workers ....)
|
|
I just wish that they'd all £$%^-off and leave us alone for four years. I'm sick of the lot of them.
|
I didn’t say Sunak was crackpot right wing although he is certainly to the right of the party. The party is however very much in the control of the loony elements and Sunak seems incapable of reigning them in. The Tories are in danger of surrendering the centre ground to Labour and ensuring that they won’t see power again for at least eight years.
Starmer may not be inspiring but I will settle for decent, capable and honest and will be giving Labour my vote this time round. Can’t be worse than what we have surely?
|
>>He has made many "policy refinements" (U-turns) over the last couple of years, latest is £28bn climate investment. There is little transparency over future policy and plans - strategy is dominated by blame the Tories, tell everybody Labour will be better, don't alienate voters.
Don't fall for the confected 'flip flop' rhetoric. The bigger, and substantive rather than hypothetical, U-turn which you must have forgotten by far on climate was by Sunak. All Starmer is saying is that it is now clear than £28bn a year is now unaffordable. I don't think he had much choice, because Labour feels it must promise immovable fiscal discipline which a £28bn spending promise is now incompatible with. The mission is still clean power by 2030 (quote).
Flip flop is 3 prime ministers in a single year. Sunak is already on his second relaunch as PM. Since the last GE 4 years ago there have been 6 Education Secretaries, 5 Home Secretaries, and champion bluffer Grant Shapps has successively been "in charge" of Transport, Business, Energy, Home Office, and Defence, at which he is an embarrassment. etc. etc. Look them up.
I understand why No 10 is pushing the flip flop stuff but when interest rates have risen fourfold since Starmer's leadership campaign (remember he has never fought a GE on the 'promises' he is being attacked for) then all earlier bets are off, whoever you are.
I'm surprised you think the Tories have anything much left on strategy. For months they were obsessed by the boats, now it all seems culture war related.
I would agree that Labour seems to be keeping its powder as dry as possible.
Nothing is in the bag. The only poll that matters is on election day.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 11 Feb 24 at 16:11
|
>> I would agree that Labour seems to be keeping its powder as dry as possible.
>>
>>
>> Nothing is in the bag. The only poll that matters is on election day.
>>
I think Labour is in danger of not getting its powder out of the magazine in time for the GE.
They had chances in May 2010, May 2015, June 2017, December 2019 - what went wrong?
As a Tory, even I don't think this is a good government. In 2019 I refused to vote for Boris Johnson, which caused some confusion in the polling station when I told the official that I didn't want a polling slip for the General election - just give me one for the local election, please.
I think Labour will win the next GE. If they don't, then they don't deserve to have power.
|
>> They have. The will win by a landslide. Why do the Tories not see that
>> election success necessitates moving to the centre rather than adopting crackpot right wing policies.
Because they believe that being very right wing is what got them elected last time, and they are loosing because they have gone left of that. They cant except they have screwed up royally.
As far as electing leaders with personality we had Boris who had that in spades. We also had a d********
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 11 Feb 24 at 15:18
|
Why do the Tories not see that
>> election success necessitates moving to the centre rather than adopting crackpot right wing policies.
>>
The party and members think the problem isn't because they are too right wing but that they've too many who should be in the LD or Labour and if they put a proper Conservative manifesto then they'll win.
|
>>They have. The will win by a landslide.
I'm left leaning and I'm not convinced. I know people made poorer since 2010 who still praise the Tory party and will vote for them whatever.
|
>>I know people made poorer since 2010 who still praise the Tory party and will vote for them whatever
Better the devil you know.
|
>>
>> Serious question - what is your solution?
Education. Critical thinking.
>> Perhaps the Labour Party should choose a leader who is electable - remember Michael Foot?
>> Jeremy Corbyn? - and then get behind him/her.
Starmer has done a remarkable job, strategically. Presentation is average, but he's getting better, and he can match or better most of the barrel scrapings on the opposite front bench.
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Serious question - what is your solution?
>>
>> Education. Critical thinking.
You mean at school or something else?
|
I haven't a plan, but that to me seems like the deficiency in democracy, which is susceptible to mitigation. Why wouldn't we be taught about the curse of demagoguery before we reach voting age? Be taught to spot propaganda, smears, rhetoric, hyperbole, and extreme economy with the truth?
The pointing at and blaming of minorities and dissident voices is what really distinguishes governments like the current one, not the fact that they are labelled Conservatives. Even Thatcher's government and today's Labour party have more in common with each other than either does with than the degenerate mess that we have at the moment. The signs were all there with Brexit and Johnson, now it is unmistakeable.
|
Why wouldn't we be taught about the curse of demagoguery before
>> we reach voting age? Be taught to spot propaganda, smears, rhetoric, hyperbole, and extreme economy
>> with the truth?
I suppose because it's probably hard to do in practice.
|
Did anyone watch the Royal Institution Christmas lectures this year, 3 programmes each an hour long. They are designed for kids of pre-election age, yet were quite fascinating and enlightening!!
The third did go into how AI can be used to manipulate people, particularly into how it can serve up personalised misinformation and disinformation. I think there is already some quite useful knowledge and understanding in (at least some of) the young - maybe even more than some of the older generations.
|
|
Thanks for the reminder, I missed these...watching the first one now. I'll be an AI bore by the end of the week.
|
>> Thanks for the reminder, I missed these...watching the first one now. I'll be a
>> bore by the end of the week.
>>
Oh! Surely not?
|
>> >> Thanks for the reminder, I missed these...watching the first one now. I'll be a
>> >> bore by the end of the week.
>> >>
>>
>> Oh! Surely not?
Typical Tory, deliberate misquote:)
|
|
None of us exist on here now, we are all just AI facsimile. Mind you some of the "I" implementations are better than others.
|
>> Whilst not accepting the premise of your argument, one has to ask "why do they keep voting the Tories in?"
Simply put, due to the influence of the pro right press and culture wars.
|
>> >> Whilst not accepting the premise of your argument, one has to ask "why do
>> they keep voting the Tories in?"
>>
>> Simply put, due to the influence of the pro right press and culture wars.
There is less right wing press readership than you think. The real reason is that those who lean to the right are more likely to vote - Unless there is a reason to do so. many people right now* think there is
*. right now? maybe a few months back, the tories are right, time is working on their side.
|
>> There is less right wing press readership than you think. The real reason is that
>> those who lean to the right are more likely to vote - Unless there is
>> a reason to do so. many people right now* think there is
The right wing press, in particular the Mail and the Telegraph, have influence that spreads well beyond those who actually buy the paper or read it on line.
|
Z's right, practically nobody reads them directly, but Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph tripe, often without context, is very widely circulated on Twitter and FB and I see them every day despite avoiding the their papers like COVID.
I don't think the Telegraph discloses circulation publicly now but the weekday print edition is under 300,000. That's enough for about 3% of homes in the UK.
|
There is a bit of paranoia in play here.
There is a natural tendency to take notice of that which offends ones preconceived sense of "right" - certainly applies to (say) illegal immigration, Gaza, benefit fraudsters, tax, waste in the public sector. etc.
Out of interest a link to todays front pages: www.frontpages.com/uk-newspapers/
The "tabloids" focus mainly on what I would regard as trivia. The quality press is mixed - US election, water bosses bonus ban, overseas students, Hunt budget blow. Printed press is slowly dying, most sales are "tabloids" with quality journalism taking second place.
It is only a single day. To assert the low circulation "quality" press have a disproportionate impact on public opinion is, at the very least, suspect.
There may be at least as strong an argument that sanctimonious and critical media reporting of Tories is creating overly unfair negative sentiment.
Last edited by: Terry on Mon 12 Feb 24 at 19:14
|
>>There is a bit of paranoia in play here.
You've shot yourself in the foot there.
1. The front pages are widely reported. I see them on the BBC daily.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-68270658
2. The usual suspects are all running pro-conservative/anti Labour rhetoric.
Express - SHAPPS - WOKE CULTURE IS POISONING COMMON SENSE
Telegraph - SHAPPS - WOKE EXTREMISTS ARE RIFE IN THE ARMY
Times - CANDIDATE IN ANTI-SEMITISM ROW BACKED BY STARMER
Mail - AFTER JEWISH GROUPS CONDEMN STARMER FOR STANDING BY CANDIDATE WHO BLAMED ISRAEL FOR HAMAS ATROCITY, CRITICS DEMAND TO KNOW:
SO - HAS LABOUR REALLY CHANGED?
I am currently tuned in to GB News, having found our it's on Freeview. The Prime Minister will be on at 8pm, I can't wait to see the audience. I hope you all appreciate my sacrifice.
|
Where's the pro-cons/anti Labour slant in those headlines? Is 'Woke' culture something that Labour have laid claim to?
As for Azhar Ali - One day after Labour confirmed they would continue to campaign for him as their candidate for Rochdale they suspend him from the Party and withdraw support pending an investigation. Go figure.
|
>> As for Azhar Ali - One day after Labour confirmed they would continue to campaign
>> for him as their candidate for Rochdale they suspend him from the Party and withdraw
>> support pending an investigation. Go figure.
The initial story was that he'd fallen Hook, Line & Sinker, for a conspiracy theory in the immediate aftermath of 7/10. Too late to nominate another candidate so it's accept his grovelling apology or have no official candidate.
By yesterday it was apparent that there were several other recordings and the press could run a "1-2-3".
At that point they sacked him.
Was he appointed locally? Certainly a local man.
Could 'Gorgeous George' slip home on the nearside rail?
|
>> Could 'Gorgeous George' slip home on the nearside rail?
>>
Wouldn't it be wonderful if he did?
That would certainly liven things up in The House!
|
>Too late to nominate another candidate so it's accept his grovelling apology or have no official candidate.
So, at first, Labour HQ thought they'd get away with "Vote for Ali! He's not anti-semitic, he's just stupid"?
|
www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-02-13/another-labour-prospective-candidate-suspended-after-anti-israel-comments
Looks like another for SKS to bin off. He's not having the best week at work this week.
>> Where's the pro-cons/anti Labour slant in those headlines? Is 'Woke' culture something that Labour have
>> laid claim to?
>>
>> As for Azhar Ali - One day after Labour confirmed they would continue to campaign
>> for him as their candidate for Rochdale they suspend him from the Party and withdraw
>> support pending an investigation. Go figure.
>>
|
>He's not having the best week at work this week.
And it looks like getting worse.
Reporters following Starmer around Wellingborough were pestering him for details of other attendees.
|
>> Where's the pro-cons/anti Labour slant in those headlines? Is 'Woke' culture something that Labour have
>> laid claim to?
No, it's something the Tories bang on about and blame Labour for. It's the culture war stuff, creating division around woke, gender issues, cancel culture, political correctness, lefty lawyers and so on, all of which are regularly thrown at Starmer/Labour in PMQs and speeches by certain ministers.
I don't think it's spontaneous, do you remember 30p Lee Anderson saying some time ago that the election would probably be fought with 'culture wars'? I don't believe he thought that up on his own.
The Shapps stuff is similarly "anti-woke". That there is a shortage of recruits in general and a lack of diversity in the armed forces in particular is generally accepted and apparently some aspects of recruitment practice effectively filter out some potentially good candidates.
Shapps has taken criticism from his own side for his outburst.
news.sky.com/story/grant-shapps-accused-of-igniting-weird-culture-war-spat-around-wokery-over-armed-forces-diversity-plan-13070984
>>
>> As for Azhar Ali - One day after Labour confirmed they would continue to campaign
>> for him as their candidate for Rochdale they suspend him from the Party and withdraw
>> support pending an investigation. Go figure.
Not the first time a politician has u-turned owing to public pressure. Remember Marcus Rashford, Boris Johnson and school meals? On that occasion Johnson did the right thing, albeit for the wrong reason.
Clearly an idiot (Ali), but the main point here is that it actually illustrates the role of the popular press, ironically.
His crime AIUI was to repeat the report that Israel had had prior warning or knowledge of the raids, which report was also on the BBC at the time.
He apparently did this IIRC in October and the Mail has cleverly sat on this until the election deadline has passed. The result might be that George Galloway wins, which should make the Parliament channel more entertaining.
|
I was referring to the links you provided as examples to claim that Terry had shot himself in the foot. They were simply reports that Shapps had, quite rightly in my opinion, told MoD brass to forget any idea of relaxing security checks for foreign appliants just to hit diversity targets.
>..the election would probably be fought with 'culture wars'?
The culture wars and wokery is definitely going to be a factor in the election. You don't need to be clairvoyant to see that Joe Public is thoroughly sick and tired of it. Appealing to the Cambridge Debating society isn't going to win any votes in Wath Upon Dearn Working Men's Club and the wokeism attacks are working simply because Labour are failing to call out the more ridiculous examples.
Last month the MoD advertised for a "Nuclear Emergency Response Manager - Navy Command" to help deliver "a Nuclear Emergency Response capability" at Faslane - Salary £35,290. At the same time TfL was hiring a "Diversity and Inclusion Lead" - Salary £80,000 and the NHS hiring diversity and inclusion managers starting at £108,000.
>Shapps has taken criticism from his own side for his outburst.
I fail to see how anyone can think that that is valid criticism when Warsi doesn't even address what he actually said. If she wants to take a poke at Shapps she should at least get her story straight.
>> As for Azhar Ali
I think Starmer would be relieved if it was just another U turn report. The real story is that, despite knowing the content of the recording, Labour continued to back Ali and thought that they could get away with it until it became clear that there was more to come.
>..the Mail has cleverly sat on this until the election deadline has passed.
I've seen no information of how the recordings came to be released or whether the Mail held them back until Ali was confirmed as the Labour candidate but what he said wasn't a simple repetition of the rumours as covered by BBC that Israel may have been warned of an impending attack. It was a direct accusation that Israel knew of the probable scale and savagery of the attack and deliberately allowed it to take place as an excuse to invade Gaza.
>The result might be that George Galloway wins, which should make the Parliament channel more entertaining.
Would it be too much to hope for a Monster Raving Loony victory?
|
>> I was referring to the links you provided as examples to claim that Terry had
>> shot himself in the foot. They were simply reports that Shapps had, quite rightly in
>> my opinion, told MoD brass to forget any idea of relaxing security checks for foreign
>> appliants just to hit diversity targets.
That part of the report is a non story. It's not upto the army or the MoD what the elements are in SC. They can't lower the standard because they don't own it that's upto the cabinet office. Hence the use of the phrase 'challenge the process'
I suspect its a middle ranking officer report that'll go nowhere. Bit of something out of nothing.
|
>> I am currently tuned in to GB News, having found our it's on Freeview. The
>> Prime Minister will be on at 8pm, I can't wait to see the audience. I
>> hope you all appreciate my sacrifice.
>>
They'll be delighted, you've just doubled the audience...
|
I lasted half an hour.
I'd say it was staged, they started by saying that neither Sunak nor GBN knew what the Questions would be but they were obviously curated by somebody as they were all beautifully articulated and just went from one topic to another.
Sunak looked very comfortable (for him) and just reeled off the answers mostly ending with a digatLabour., except for one question from a very angry man shouting about vaccine damage, giving the impression he'd gone off script.
It came across as a party political broadcast which would of course be illegal.
|
Saw clips of that guy being huckled out.
Also, saw a clip of folk leaving and one asking where he claimed his expenses from!
|
>>I'd say it was staged, they started by saying that neither Sunak nor GBN knew what the Questions would be but they were obviously curated by somebody as they were all beautifully articulated and just went from one topic to another.
I know someone who was in the audience and who had been asked beforehand to supply questions for them to choose (his was about EVs funnily enough).
Not impossible that neither Sunak or GBN knew but question vetting was certainly done.
www.speakev.com/threads/will-the-pm-answer-my-question-on-evs-and-ved.183148/#replies
GBeebies is the lowest form of wit.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 13 Feb 24 at 17:13
|
>>I know someone who was in the audience and who had been asked beforehand to
>> supply questions for them to choose (his was about EVs funnily enough).
I attended a recording of Any Questions in the early seventies where the audience supplied the questions but the BBC team decided which ones were asked and in what order.
|
>>I attended a recording of Any Questions in the early seventies
I might have watched that...
While sitting on the potty!
|
>>
>> >>I attended a recording of Any Questions in the early seventies
>>
>> I might have watched that...
>>
>> While sitting on the potty!
I would have been shovelling down a pint ordered when the last orders bell rang.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68250536
Junior Drs on strike for 5 days later this month.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68250536
>>
>> Junior Drs on strike for 5 days later this month.
>>
Both sides need to stop posturing. The Doctors need to put aside their strike plans and sit down and talk to the government. They will end up doing that sooner or latter. Sooner would be better for everyone.
Inflicting stress and suffering on patients to secure a pay increase is not a good look.
|
>> Both sides need to stop posturing. The Doctors need to put aside their strike plans
>> and sit down and talk to the government. They will end up doing that sooner
>> or latter. Sooner would be better for everyone.
It's difficult to get a straight account of how such talks as there are are progressing. The current minister is better than her predecessor but there still seems to be way too much in the way of demands to the unions instead of actually getting round the table and talking brass tacks.
|
Both doctors and rail workers reported claims are hugely selective. It is difficult to know who to believe - a link to a Nuffield Trust report - in respect of doctors:
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/exploring-the-earnings-of-nhs-doctors-in-england
10% are foundation level and earn an average of £41k pa (including allowances). At more senior junior doctor level (60%) earn an average of £71k.
I make no judgement as to whether this is good or bad, save that it runs completely counter to the message from the media and unions. Conclusion - media reporting is a distortion making public opinion formed thereon largely irrelevant.
Whether government and unions are actually talking constructively or not we have no clue.
Pragmatically - the public are becoming accustomed to a substandard service from rail and NHS.
For most folk rail is utterly unimportant. Most (bar commuters) have never caught a train in years. With increased work from home post pandemic, it is easy to plan around strike days.
The NHS, to its credit, still deals very effectively with critical needs. I suspect there is rather more public sympathy as extended waiting lists can be distressing - although I wonder whether, as with rail, we are fed an unbalanced/distorted view of waiting list reality.
As an election approaches there are two disparate thoughts. Will the Tories want to solve the disputes before the next election no matter what it costs. Or will they they stand firm forcing Labour to be explicit about their plans amd budget to resolve the issue.
|
>> Will the Tories want to solve the disputes before the next election no matter what it costs. Or will they they stand firm forcing Labour to be explicit about their plans and budget to resolve the issue.
They will do whatever they think suits their own purpose best. Not ours, not the doctors' or other workers.
Why they think their current approach to negotiation is in their interest I don't know. Perhaps they think 'their' voters will reward them for punishing strikers.
When they reached a settlement with the RMT last year it was because they finally gave up trying to ratchet back conditions and the workers (by ballot) accepted a relatively modest pay offer. Has the government learnt anything? I doubt it.
|
>>The Doctors need to put aside their strike plans and sit down and talk to the government.
You would expect me to say it's the government that is the problem, and it is.
The doctors have announced the strike dates. They have also told the government that they will call off the strike if the government allows more time for negotiation. As previously, it is the government that is refusing to negotiate, not the union.
They are right to continue in my view. The government wants to ratchet pay and conditions in one direction only. The only way to fight that is to refuse to work for it. What has been offered so far is well short of restoration to 2010 level of pay.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 11 Feb 24 at 20:59
|
What has been offered so far is well short of restoration to 2010 level of pay.
True of coursel for a large section of the population including many at the bottom of the heap. The doctors will eventually settle for not much more than the latest offer. That is usuallly the way of these things. They would be wise to do a deal now.
|
>> What has been offered so far is well short of restoration to 2010 level of
>> pay.
>>
>> True of coursel for a large section of the population including many at the bottom
>> of the heap.
Mainly for those without collective negotiation. The average wage has however now caught up with inflation comparing with 2010.
The doctors will eventually settle for not much more than the latest
>> offer.
I agree. So what's the problem? The government's incompetent negotiation? It's basic. There is a deal to be found, I'm almost certain if we could see both sides' bottom line there would be an overlap. Perhaps it doesn't suit the government's agenda to find it. I'm not sure why, but a degradation of the NHS would not hurt privatisation prospects.
|
>> I'm not sure why, but a degradation of the NHS would not hurt privatisation prospects.
Already happening.
Junior doctors start with far more debt and a higher tax bill than I did.
Many are qualifying and going into locum and private work.
40% of this year's GP trainees are foreign graduates, mostly from Africa - many of them are looking to work either overseas in US/Canada or in private clinics once they have their Membership of the Royal College of GPs.
Dentistry is showing them the way.
|
>>www.euronews.com/next/2023/08/11/doctors-salaries-which-countries-pay-the-most-and-least-in-europe
The GPs and 'specialists' which looks to be interpreted as consultants in the UK, seem to be doing relatively OK on pay.
I don't see anything that looks like non-consultant hospital doctors there. Looking at the salary I suspect it actually excludes Specialty and Specialist Doctors who are a growing number of doctors who aren't GPs, consultants, or junior doctors but it's hard to compare basic pay with actual pay so I'm not sure.
I don't have a very good grip on how doctoring is organised TBH. I'm pretty sure most of the GPs in the large practice I go to work there part-time. Why that is I don't know. Maybe that's the strategy of that particular business. Some people are also now reporting that they are being seen by a 'Physician Associate' which is some cases has left them feeling short-changed.
Bad industrial relations is essentially a management failure. Management has one job, which is to keep the organisation operating (pun intended).
|
For 20 years GP practices have largely earned money according to the number of patients on their list.
There is some fudge factor for patient age/deprivation where population demographics vary but that's about it.
A practice of 4 GPs, a handful of not-doctors, and 10,000 patients brings in exactly the same money as a practice of 8 GPs and 10,000 patients.
Which provides the better service?
Which GPs earn more?
Therein lies the issue.
|
>> Bad industrial relations is essentially a management failure. Management has one job, which is to keep the organisation operating (pun intended).
It takes two to tango. It is also in the interest of the unions to keep the "enterprise" operating, without which there are no jobs or pay.
Management seek to maximise their value for money. Unions seek job preservation, and maximising members incomes. Both may act with political intent. Either or both may or may not be competent, effective and fair.
There is little to differentiate their behaviours. If disputes are extended, at least one is placing self interest above resolution and agreement.
The Japanese approach used to be (may still be) for both sides to put forward to arbitration what they each regarded as a fair settlement. The outcome would favour that closest to "reasonable and fair".
It would be an interesting speculation to apply this to the doctor and rail disputes - would an independent arbitrator come down in favour of the union or government position?
|
|
Depends who pays the independent arbiter the most?
|
>> Depends who pays the independent arbiter the most?
>>
The arbitrator does not create a compromise - he chooses one option or the other.
If (say) the unions claim 30%, the employers offer 3%, but the normal level of increase is (say) 5-7%, the arbitrator would uphold the employers offer.
The system should ensure both employers and unions start off with broadly sensible proposals as they know that more extreme positions will simply lose in arbitration.
If the arbiter simply favours the one who pays the most, the system won't work. What remains are semi perpetual strikes which benefit no-one - the public, employers or unions. There must be a better way!
|
>> The arbitrator does not create a compromise - he chooses one option or the other.
I'm sure that's correct for some forms of commercial arbitration - for example arising in contract to do and act at a cost.
I think the term is used more widely to cover a range of processes such as conciliation, mediation etc etc.
While I was working for the quango we spent a lot of time working around the different characteristics of forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
More heat than light as some people, Ombudsmen, in particular had a massive 'tanks/lawn issue when discussing the advantages/downsides of Ombo schemes - which of course differ between themselves.
|
Are you sure?
Why start a new volume that already has 60 odd posts in it?
|
>> Are you sure?
>>
>> Why start a new volume that already has 60 odd posts in it?
Because I moved some of the discussions from volume 3 to reduce it's size. Something I generally do with when starting a the next volume. I would have thought you'd have picked up on that these past 14 years :)
|
>> I would have thought you'd
>> have picked up on that these past 14 years :)
>>
For some years now my memory has been like a very crowded bookshelf.
You can push something new on at one end, but something will fall off the other end.
P.S. What do we get for LS&GC?
P.P.S. Nearly forgetting my principal duty.
tinyurl.com/bn42rws8
Last edited by: Duncan on Wed 14 Feb 24 at 11:25
|
"You can push something new on at one end, but something will fall off the other end."
I'm nicking that for when my kids start banging on about not remembering something fairly irrelevant.
|
>> I'm nicking that for when my kids start banging on about not remembering something fairly
>> irrelevant.
>>
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNeWZwUn3x0
|
|
Nothing to do with the next election being around the corner, of course.
|
|
Now is the winter of our discontent.
|
Start the process of converting railway lines to dedicated coach routes. Dismantle the rail network. No more strikes. Cheaper fares. Save £5bn pa on subsidies.
What's not to like?
|
>> Start the process of converting railway lines to dedicated coach routes. Dismantle the rail network.
>> No more strikes. Cheaper fares. Save £5bn pa on subsidies.
>> What's not to like?
They did that around Luton - Dunstable. An old railway line thet's now a guided busway.
|
How to pee off new doctors...
The F1 placement offers are out today. That's for students starting at hospitals this August after finishing their degrees.
The placements this year are totally random. Students are asked to rank their choices of all trusts throughout the country and they are chosen on local needs and academic grades. So if a student lives in Durham, gets good grades and wants to work in Durham, then there is a good chance they will be placed there.
This system has been totally ignored this year and students are being placed totally randomly. There are very many upset students complaining that physician associates chose where they work, are less qualified and earn £10k a year more.
I suspect more and more will be off to where they are better appreciated as soon as they can.
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 7 Mar 24 at 22:15
|
|
Any idea who changed the system and why? It seems unlikely they've done it deliberately to pee them off so maybe the previous system wasn't ideal in some way?
|
On the face of it it seems daft to disrupt the new doctors lives + the expense of relocating (who pays) - however a few possibilities:
- staffing needs across the country are variable making individual selection sub-optimal
- desirable that trainee doctors are exposed to varied experience in different trusts
-
|
I suspect the old system took was problematic in that it took resources to sort everyone out.
The old system did place candidates at all hospitals but gave better candidates their more favoured choices of their deanery and did disadvantage those candidates that were not so hot. Of course, if you were good and wanted a less popular location then you would get very likely get it.
The other side of this is regional bias, new doctors living in say, Norfolk, might actually want to work in Norfolk and surrounding areas, whilst others would be happy to work in Aberdeen. Why put the Norfolk doctors in Aberdeen or visa versa - it's crazy and un-necessary.
Many young doctors have local obligations such as family, children at schools, homes etc. The old system allowed choices near these obligations the new one does not. They are not grounds for appeal.
Miss Z has been a Dr since 2017 and is a registrar / surgeon. She still has to move hospitals every year and departments every 6 months until fully qualified. She has always got the deanery that she had chosen. You don't get to chose the trust or hospital within the deanery. She has said that if they start this with her grade and she gets a ridiculous (to her) placement then she is walking.
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 8 Mar 24 at 02:04
|
>Why put the Norfolk doctors in Aberdeen or visa versa..
To learn a new language?
|
>> >Why put the Norfolk doctors in Aberdeen or visa versa..
>>
probably valuable experience for those specialising in Genetics?
|
|
....yeah; they've got to learn about "NFN" sometime...
|
According to the radio this morning the parties have not even met for months. There may be 'talks about talks' soon.
I was getting a bit hacked off with Times Radio's Stig Abell repeatedly going on about £68k for a four day week. It's 35 hours with most companies rostering four days on per week.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 7 May 24 at 08:27
|
|
I'm not sure there's a difference?
|
>> I'm not sure there's a difference?
35 over four days would, in places I've worked, be regarded as compressed hours; full time over 4 days rather than five.
The way Abell was putting it implies they work fewer than 30 hours.
|
A long hard look is needed to understand whether the rail network has any part in a long term transport strategy, or whether some elements (eg: commuter routes) should be retained.
Analysis should include:
- the social and economic costs of disruption over the last two years
- the adaptations and behaviour changes the strikes have initiated in the travelling public
- alternative ways to meet transport needs mor efficiently
It seems that the strikes are now of close to zero consequence. Regular users have alternative arrangements in place. Infrequent users may better plan their lives around the assumption the trains will not run - it would avoid uncertainty.
My perception is that drivers are very well rewarded compared to other similarly responsible transport jobs.
|
PArt of the problem is that the costs of the disruption are not borne by the train operating companies. If they were I suspect ATOC (or whatever it's called now) would have been more focussed. There's also a political dimension as in the DfT trying to control the process while saying 'nothing to do with us squire'.
I don't think behaviour change is driven by the strikes themselves. Rather that the pandemic massively turbo charged an already gradual move to flexible working. People can and do arrange work attendance commitments around the strikes.
The drivers are certainly well paid though whether that's too high v the market for highly skilled workers is another question.
|
|
£68k seems rather a lot, if that's what they get. Don't you think so, if compared to nurses, doctors etc (who I accept are clearly underpaid)
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 7 May 24 at 11:44
|
>> £68k seems rather a lot, if that's what they get. Don't you think so, if
>> compared to nurses, doctors etc (who I accept are clearly underpaid)
Not sure comparison with people who we all accept are underpaid is particularly illuminating.
Doctors get close to what drivers are said to be on once they're a few years in; NHS website suggests north of £60k.
Is the oft quoted £68k what the average guy shuttling a class 350 between here and Euston is on? Does it include overtime and shift allowances?
Not saying the number quoted is wrong but I'm suspicious of anything coming out of government/ATOC without seeing what the union has to say.
|
Approximate pay for reasonably comparable jobs - although there is no doubt a range around that plus overtime etc:
- bus drivers £31k
- coach drivers £34k
- HGV drivers £35k
Training for a train driver is apparently ~one year.
Comparison with medics is facile - training is 5 years at medical school + several years depending speciality selected. Pay for train drivers is unambiguously either overly generous or unacceptably excessive depending on your point of view.
|
>> Pay for train drivers is unambiguously either overly generous or unacceptably
>> excessive depending on your point of view.
Same question as above; what exactly is included to get to £68k?
Not sure bus or LGV drivers are much help as a comparator. Nothing like the complexity of a loco, the rules and regs and of course route knowledge.
If it really is excessive then it's a superb illustration of how a good Union boots pay and conditions.
|
|
Then we can only hope for more good unions to bring the average national wage up to 68k to catch up with the train drivers.
|
Completely relevant.
A train is far less complex to "drive" - it goes where the rails go. Bus and coach drivers have passenger responsibility + dealing with road traffic conditions. HGV drivers are responsible for control of a vehicle which if driven carelessly can cause massive damage and death.
Another comparator - airline pilots. Easyjet pilots get paid £44-83k. They need far higher skill levels being required to operate in three dimensions rather than just stop and start in the right place. Driving a train could (almost) be replaced by a simple app!!!
It really is excessive and (I agree) a testament to union power if exercised solely in the interests of union members. It needs tough management, not excuses.
|
|
Sack the lot and retrain a new bunch who are happy to sign a no strike agreement.
|
|
I understood they're only rostered for four days/35 hours/£65K pa. Overtime's permanently available for the other three days. It's the overtime ban that causes lots of problems.
|
>> I understood they're only rostered for four days/35 hours/£65K pa. Overtime's permanently available for the
>> other three days. It's the overtime ban that causes lots of problems.
Overtime ban is a big problem here as London NW rely on it particularly on Sunday.
|
|
CGN, you run P&O in your spare time??
|
Well it worked didn’t it. P and O have been financially successful since and their ferries run on time.
I am truly fed up with a bunch of overpaid trains drivers holding the public to ransom and weeping crocodile tears over the trouble and inconvenience they cause.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 7 May 24 at 18:32
|
www.bbc.com/news/articles/c19kdyyxzr3o
Looks the deal might placate some JD now but not for long.
|
Real risk is that the new government, in pursuit of quick politically positive wins, will find they have compromised their negotiating power for future public sector pay deals.
Implications - higher taxation, inflation, proof that strikes work.
They (and therefore we) may pay for their current generosity or negotiating skills in the future.
|
>>proof that strikes work.
Strikes work most of the time. They wouldn't remain in the industrial relations toolkit if they didn't.
|
>> >>proof that strikes work.
>>
>> Strikes work most of the time. They wouldn't remain in the industrial relations toolkit if
>> they didn't.
>>
Strikes are the last desperate attempt of one side to force their views on another - the practical and moral equivalent of fire and rehire from the employers point of view.
They evidence relationship failure, an inability to negotiate a satisfactory outcome, intransigence on both sides (usually).
Some strikes must go down in history as utterly dismal failures - coal miners, steel workers, car workers killed viable businesses to the detriment of both unions, owners and wider communities.
I struggle to think of a settlement reached as a result of a strike, where both strikers and employers reflect and jointly conclude that it was worthwhile to find the best solution.
Unions claim success, although the cost in reputation and lost earnings may take years to recover. Employers express relief that a solution has been found through gritted teeth.
Future relationships and negotiations will forever (or certainly several years) be compromised by the experience.
|
>> Strikes are the last desperate attempt of one side to force their views on another
Lot of stuff there to go into.
I'd accept the principle that striking is a last resort. However the right to withdraw labour in the short term ain't like fire/re hire; it's a short term tactic or strategy.
Current/recent industrial action in NHS is directly down to the intransigence of the previous administration and its failure to engage in negotiation with its employees.
The both parties thing is a high bar and perhaps a false one; if the workers win it doesn't need the bosses to be happy.
The miners won in the early seventies. The failure of the car industry owed as much to management as to the workforce. BL's lack of viability was as much down to management's decisions as to relationships with the workforce.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg49v5k771o
Just when the gov thought they'd solved one strike another pops up.
And another one
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgq2ve4pdeno
|
|
A third one would be ASLEF drivers going back on strike on weekends next month over working conditions and dislike of their management.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Fri 16 Aug 24 at 21:13
|
Strikes - Volume 3 - sooty123
