Doctors strike in Great Britain...

[Steve]

Doesn't sound like me to be the "Land of the Free". :asian:

Oh good. Now we get the anti-american zingers.
Part of the job. If you choose to accept the position, you also agree contractually to waive your right to strike. They're free to get another job. Or they're free to strike, and their employers are free to fire them for it because they're in breach of contract. And they they're free to get another job.

Freedom is often a matter of perspective.

Teachers, though... they're screwed.

 

[Makalakumu]

Again, what if you own your own practice? Can the government force you to work? Can they suspend your license...I mean permission slip? How much of your labor is owned by others?

 

[Steve]

Are you asking a question you already know the answer to? I don't know of any law that requires any self employed person to stay in business. If you do, I'd appreciate it if you'd just get it out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CanuckMA]

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. But few doctors own their own practice anymore. It's still somewhat common with dental and vision, but the insurance situation in america (on both the consumer side and the business side) makes it much safer and more lucrative for doctors to work for someone else.

Yes, though. Ifyoure employed by the government, it can force you to work. Police, firefighters, any federal employee... All unable to strike. Teachers too, but they're doubly screwed in that they also have no right to arbitration. This is why teachers end up striking even though it's illegal for them, to do so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapata

Interestingly enough, in Canada most doctors own their own practice. They bill the province for the services they render, and from that pay the rent, office staff, etc. They're not government employees, they're self employed, but only bill a single entity.

 

[Makalakumu]

Are you asking a question you already know the answer to? I don't know of any law that requires any self employed person to stay in business. If you do, I'd appreciate it if you'd just get it out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's merely a matter of principle. If the government doesn't own your labor, they can't tell you when to work or when not to work. And if they do, they are essentially making a claim on your person. Hence my slave comment earlier.

 

[K-man]

Oh good. Now we get the anti-american zingers.
Part of the job. If you choose to accept the position, you also agree contractually to waive your right to strike. They're free to get another job. Or they're free to strike, and their employers are free to fire them for it because they're in breach of contract. And they they're free to get another job.

Freedom is often a matter of perspective.

Teachers, though... they're screwed.

Not meant to be anti American. Just with all the discussion of freedom of speech, right to bear arms etc, I would have thought that the right to withdraw labour can be appropriate under some conditions, even if you do have a contractual arrangement.

Also, there is no way I would suggest Americans are not 'free'. I certainly wouldn't like to live in any of the Middle Eastern countries or Zimbabwe. It's more that we may not be as free as we think. :asian:

 

[Steve]

It's merely a matter of principle. If the government doesn't own your labor, they can't tell you when to work or when not to work. And if they do, they are essentially making a claim on your person. Hence my slave comment earlier.

So then, they don't because they don't? I'm drug addled right now with a terrible cold so I'm probably missing things. But the government doesn't force people to work. Even federal employees are free to not work any time they want. Like any other employee, though, they risk losing their job. By your logic, any employee is essentially a slave, because they are required to work by their employer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

So then, they don't because they don't? I'm drug addled right now with a terrible cold so I'm probably missing things. But the government doesn't force people to work. Even federal employees are free to not work any time they want. Like any other employee, though, they risk losing their job. By your logic, any employee is essentially a slave, because they are required to work by their employer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My line of thinking is specifically directed at doctors, especially those that own their own practices. For any employee, a strike is a risk.

 

[Carol]

Not meant to be anti American. Just with all the discussion of freedom of speech, right to bear arms etc, I would have thought that the right to withdraw labour can be appropriate under some conditions, even if you do have a contractual arrangement.

And that is accurate. The right to withdraw labor can be appropriate, in some conditions, even if you do have a contractual agreement...and withdrawing labor doesn't have to mean striking. A large school system in Mass recently had a work "slowdown". The teachers arrived in time for their first class and left immediately after their last class. No arriving early, no discussions with a student before class, no helping students after class, no grading papers at home, no sports, no clubs, no extracurricular activities, no field trips, no school dances.

Also, there is no way I would suggest Americans are not 'free'. I certainly wouldn't like to live in any of the Middle Eastern countries or Zimbabwe. It's more that we may not be as free as we think. :asian:

As a libertarian, I agree with you. And with freedoms such as Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms, not all Americans are in agreement with what limits, if any, should be on such freedoms. Heck, we're not even in agreement over what the freedoms (or more accurately, the constitutional protections) are supposed to mean. Perhaps that is a by-product of freedom....we are all free to be individuals with individual points of view.

One thing for sure...freedom is simple in theory but it sure is complicated in practice. :asian:

 

[oftheherd1]

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. But few doctors own their own practice anymore. It's still somewhat common with dental and vision, but the insurance situation in america (on both the consumer side and the business side) makes it much safer and more lucrative for doctors to work for someone else.

Yes, though. Ifyoure employed by the government, it can force you to work. Police, firefighters, any federal employee... All unable to strike. Teachers too, but they're doubly screwed in that they also have no right to arbitration. This is why teachers end up striking even though it's illegal for them, to do so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapata

Employees of the federal government may be prohibited from joining unions; may be allowed to have unions, but not strike, or be a member of a union and allowed to strike. It all depends on the conditions of employment which will be spelled out as part of the hiring process, and usually in the job announcements. Even for those not allowed to form unions, or join one, they have protections through EEO. Not a perfect system perhaps, nor a promise of every complaint being taken care of to the employees satisfaction, but a system that seeks to prevent supervisors from taking action not based on well documented poor employees. Like any system, it depends on the people involved, on both sides of the issue.

 

[JWLuiza]

They don't own the labor, but much of our (Physician...err or in my case soon to be) income is based on Medicare/d. You aren't contractually obligated to work but you do have to meet certain requirements to have access to medicare or aid patients. If you leave the program you are also locked out for two years. These patients are barely profitable and in some cases are cared for at a loss. However the government currently is threatening a substantial cut in the payments for doctors. If it becomes unpalatable many doctors will just stop taking these patients, be locked out for two years and the patients will experience even greater difficulty getting into appointments. The gov't (both parties) know this is untenable and repeal the pay cut months at a time, preventing doctors from lobbying on other issues. It's kind of a cluster f**** right now.

 

[Tez3]

Here, GP practices are owned by the practice partners, usually the doctors , they are contracted to the NHS to provide services. They provide some private services like holiday innoculations, medicals for driving licenses etc. Often the premises are NHS owned but not always.

 

[Jenna]

From a purely personal anecdotal perspective, having made use of hospital services on both sides of the Atlantic, I will say the service I received in the US (some years ago) FAR surpassed what I get here in the UK. Having said that, I do not know what I would have done had my employer not covered me for hospitalisation in the US whereas here I do not directly pay for it and get a poorer service..

All I know is that I would not want a car that was built by the government here.. it would look like a Trabant! so why must I have surgery provided by the government here? then it is ME who ends up looking like a Trabant.. anyways.. anecdotal..

 

[Steve]

My line of thinking is specifically directed at doctors, especially those that own their own practices. For any employee, a strike is a risk.

But you're speaking hypothetically. That's what I'm not understanding. You're speaking to a philosophical position, but one that doesn't really exist. Right?

Doctors who own their own businesses are not required by the government to work. And while it would be pretty dumb, they'd be free to go on strike against themselves. And if you have information that suggests otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Steve]

Employees of the federal government may be prohibited from joining unions; may be allowed to have unions, but not strike, or be a member of a union and allowed to strike. It all depends on the conditions of employment which will be spelled out as part of the hiring process, and usually in the job announcements. Even for those not allowed to form unions, or join one, they have protections through EEO. Not a perfect system perhaps, nor a promise of every complaint being taken care of to the employees satisfaction, but a system that seeks to prevent supervisors from taking action not based on well documented poor employees. Like any system, it depends on the people involved, on both sides of the issue.

5 USC 7311

An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he -

1. advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
2. is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
3. participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
4. is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.

While some positions are bargaining unit and others are not, I've not heard of any Federal employee or agent able to strike. If you can point to a specific PD that can strike against the Federal Government, I'll gladly admit my mistake.

 

[oftheherd1]

5 USC 7311
[/LIST]

While some positions are bargaining unit and others are not, I've not heard of any Federal employee or agent able to strike. If you can point to a specific PD that can strike against the Federal Government, I'll gladly admit my mistake.

Well, I won't be able to double check that until tomorrow, since I will have to talk to some people I know, You may be right. I will let you know if I am wrong when I get that clarified. I mostly stated that out of the knowledge of how powerful some government job unions are.

 

[Makalakumu]

But you're speaking hypothetically. That's what I'm not understanding. You're speaking to a philosophical position, but one that doesn't really exist. Right?

Doctors who own their own businesses are not required by the government to work. And while it would be pretty dumb, they'd be free to go on strike against themselves. And if you have information that suggests otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

Correct. I don't know if this is an actual scenario, but since it is a fact that many doctors own their own practices and since all doctors belong to professional organizations that could coordinate a strike, it could be possible for a doctor who owns his own practice to go on strike. Therefore, it could also be possible, in a system where the government pays all the bills, for the government to literally force the doctor to work.

 

[Steve]

It seems to me that there are some pretty fundamental misunderstandings about what a strike is, who strikes, who can strike, and why they might choose to strike.

What incentive would a doctor who owns his own business have to strike?

Also, i think there is some confusion between the terms influence, regulation and slavery or loss of freedom.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

It seems to me that there are some pretty fundamental misunderstandings about what a strike is, who strikes, who can strike, and why they might choose to strike.

What incentive would a doctor who owns his own business have to strike?

Also, i think there is some confusion between the terms influence, regulation and slavery or loss of freedom.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why couldn't a professional organization organize a strike against a government that was mandating conditions that were unfair? Could a doctor who owns a private practice and who felt unjustly intruded upon engage in a strike? I acknowledge that this doesn't fit the traditional definition of a strike, but then again, doctors are a profession that don't typically go on strike. Perhaps this precedent redefines the term?

Also, in my opinion, influence, regulation, and slavery are degrees of coercion and therefore are degrees of loss of freedom. The government is a monopoly on the use of force in a society. When the government makes a recommendation, the implicit threat of government force is enough to curb many peoples behavior. When the government makes a law, the government is directly threatening you with a threat of violence if you do not obey. If this threat is applied to labor, as in the case of doctors, the government is literally taking away the doctors ability to choose whether or not they want to work. Whether the government chooses to revoke the doctors permission slip to practice or throws the doctor in a cage for refusing to practice, the result is the same. It's a loss of freedom and rhymes with the concept of slavery.

 

[K-man]

From a purely personal anecdotal perspective, having made use of hospital services on both sides of the Atlantic, I will say the service I received in the US (some years ago) FAR surpassed what I get here in the UK. Having said that, I do not know what I would have done had my employer not covered me for hospitalisation in the US whereas here I do not directly pay for it and get a poorer service..

All I know is that I would not want a car that was built by the government here.. it would look like a Trabant! so why must I have surgery provided by the government here? then it is ME who ends up looking like a Trabant.. anyways.. anecdotal..

Edit ... My picture didn't come up. Damn!!

Twice!! Double Damn!!

Jenna, I'm sure your recent surgery made you a very impressive looking Trabant!