Letters

Imposition of extended hours is just the start
The Q in QOF was meant to be for quality, not quantity. Allowing extra (extended) hours into the quality framework is a disaster; once the GPC concedes this, the government will be able to push us further year by year - or no pay rise. We have already seen this happen. 

Having received my 'ballot paper' this week, the 'key question' is to opt for imposition A or B. Where is the option of continued negotiation, of rejecting unilateral changes to our contract, of making a stand? The profession has not been given the third option of saying 'no'.

It must surely be unlawful to change a contract unilaterally in this way.

What other group of professional negotiators or trade union would accept this position, and then poll their members with such a short range of options?

Why bother to seek our opinion without giving us the opportunity to reject both A and B?

Come on GPC. Give us some reasonable options. Of course imposition A is better than B. Anyone could look at the current options and make that decision. But does that mean that we should accept it?

Dr Simon Hodes, Watford, Hertfordshire.

Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register

Already registered?

Sign in

Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus