Of additional concern in the new contract negotiations is that the government appears determined to remove the only safeguard in place which prevents hospitals forcing doctors to work beyond their contracted hours as a matter of course.

Doctors do not receive 'overtime' as many press reports have erroneously stated. Doctors cannot opt-out of part of their rotas. Rotas are assigned depending on the specific job requirements and the shifts are non-negotiable.

Some hospitals routinely or occasionally will understaff their rotas; sometimes this is done to save money and sometimes because they are not sufficiently organised to recruit sufficient numbers in a timely manner. Either way patient safety is affected. The work still needs to be done so those doctors on the rota end up working additional unpaid hours - often routinely - which results in reduced rest and increasing likelihood of making mistakes.

Under the current contract, doctors can demand that their hours are monitored over a 2 week period. If they have to routinely work beyond their contracted hours, the hospital is fined and the doctors are back-paid the additional hours to the commencement of the job in question. Hospitals are therefore incentivised to be properly staffed.

The new contract replaces this safeguard by a hospital appointed guardian which monitors its own Drs and can impose a fine on itself. The fine can then be spent as the hospital sees fit. Why would any government INSIST on this change?

Of additional concern in the new contract negotiations is that the government appears determined to remove the only safeguard in place which prevents hospitals forcing doctors to work beyond their contracted hours as a matter of course.

Doctors do not receive 'overtime' as many press reports have erroneously stated. Doctors cannot opt-out of part of their rotas. Rotas are assigned depending on the specific job requirements and the shifts are non-negotiable.

Some hospitals routinely or occasionally will understaff their rotas; sometimes this is done to save money and sometimes because they are not sufficiently organised to recruit sufficient numbers in a timely manner. Either way patient safety is affected. The work still needs to be done so those doctors on the rota end up working additional unpaid hours - often routinely - which results in reduced rest and increasing likelihood of making mistakes.

Under the current contract, doctors can demand that their hours are monitored over a 2 week period. If they have to routinely work beyond their contracted hours, the hospital is fined and the doctors are back-paid the additional hours to the commencement of the job in question. Hospitals are therefore incentivised to be properly staffed.

The new contract replaces this safeguard by a hospital appointed guardian which monitors its own Drs and can impose a fine on itself. The fine can then be spent as the hospital sees fit. Why would any government INSIST on this change?

Thanks for the coverage on this issue. However, please do not be misled by the government: there is NO MORE money on offer. Doctors in training receive a salary which comprises a relatively modest 'basic pay' element which is for a standard 40 hour week. Given that the majority of doctors in training work 60-70 hours a week, they also receive a banding supplement which is a percentage of their basic pay - typically 40-50% - because they work approximately 40-50% more hours than a 'normal working week' and such work includes a proportion of weekend and night shifts.

The pay rise the government has publicly offered doctors in training is not really a pay rise because it applies ONLY to basic pay. The pay rate for the remainder of the time doctors work will be reduced. The upshot for doctors - particularly those who work the longest hours and most weekend and evening shifts - is that they will see a 20-30% PAY CUT for doing at least as many hours as they do at present.

The government is very clear in that 'pay envelope' for the new contract will be no higher than that of the current contract. However, they try to claim that 75% of doctors in training will be 'better off' and only 1% worse off. Basic mathematics tells you that you cannot improve pay for 75% of doctors without increasing the pay envelope - unless the 1% who lose out are subsidising the rest of the work force. The sums do not add up.