Countering a viewpoint

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 06 May 2016 19:09:10 GMT

Cross ref to thread on RCVS elections. One of Royal College's greatest ever blunders was allowing lay ownership of veterinary practices.

Wynne

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Bob Russell — Fri, 06 May 2016 18:05:35 GMT

We should ask ourselves why over the last decade the veterinary profession has changed from the most respected of the lot to somewhere between a hairdresser and a motor mechanic!

Deskilling, misuse of younger colleagues to pack in clients. Devaluing of what we do by offering services at uneconomic rates to build market to allow a business to be sold on for a profit.

The £79 pound vaccinations for life will not bother owners because it will not be their problem as the chain is likely to have been sold on.

Veterinary graduates being paid 4% less than they were last year (VTimes May 9 2016). What are people thinking of?

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Virginia Campbell — Fri, 06 May 2016 17:52:41 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]money is wasted treating drug addicts (evil evil criminals - law abiding people wouldn't become addicts in the 1st place)[/quote]

Wynne, promise us you won't ever get a job answering the Vetlife helpline.

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 06 May 2016 14:45:50 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]I agree with this (though would take out the idiots) [/quote]Most people are idiots (not necessarily academically), even Albert Einstein is with me on this one, its the few who aren't who make life worthwhile as well as the animals.

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Rob Loxley — Fri, 06 May 2016 13:45:29 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Isn't it a measure of our low standing in the public eye that we are lumped in with a whole lot of others[/quote]

No, it's a reflection of the paper methodology: they looked at Student Loans Co data for repayments from students starting courses post-1998 and what they were earning, tied to the standardised course code however "to avoid the data being disclosive, the SLC have provided a relatively aggregated version of the JACS code, namely the one digit version. For most students we therefore have the first letter of their JACS code which provides us with 19 separate subject areas"

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Richard Carter — Fri, 06 May 2016 09:59:57 GMT

With the vast majority of us in small animal practice although we might like to think of ourselves as medics as scientists and highly skilled, we are actually somewhere between the hairdresser and the motor mechanic for most of the public - needed in an emergency for something that is fast being perceived as an expensive luxury or hobby - i.e. not essential to modern life.

Helps to remember this when there are moves to become more exclusive by introducing practice schemes and GP specialists where the only people benefiting are those who are closing the gate after they are through. Keep the rules as complicated as possible to prevent the assistants from doing a start-up, keep the H&S agenda high to keep out individuals who cannot compete with corporates, keep up the scare stories of what will happen if an operation that used to be common place in general practice is not referred to a specialist.

The current direction is certainly not benefiting the pet owning public.

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Bob Russell — Fri, 06 May 2016 09:28:50 GMT

An indication that the powers that be have little respect for the profession and it is OK to stick us in with other graduates.

Not many years ago vets would have been classified with medics as the closest equivalent.

Arlo posted stuff that suggests that nearly 50% of vets are paid under £35K.

Thankfully I have done better out of the profession but suspect more recent graduates will continue to get fed up with the pay and working conditions and leave the profession in droves!

Long live the £15 booster and £79 vaccinations for life!

Not much hope on the horizon, I fear!

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 06 May 2016 08:44:49 GMT

Isn't it a measure of our low standing in the public eye that we are lumped in with a whole lot of others

Wynne

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 05 May 2016 20:31:00 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Yeah but they have to deal with people without the satisfaction of knowing that even though we've got to put up with the idiots at least we're treating their animals. I wouldn't do their jobs for double the money. [/quote]

I agree with this (though would take out the idiots) I'd hate to be a pharmacist, optician, dentist or GP. The job is so narrow. With a vet degree you can still practically set your own agenda. In 26 years I've done. Large Animal Practice, Mixed Practice, Small Animal Practice, a touch of equine (didn't enjoy that!!) Government work, locum work, worked briefly in a referral centre, OOH work with Vets Now, the only thing left?? is pathology and I don't fancy that, and ......... I still enjoy it.

Neil

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 05 May 2016 18:50:15 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Vets were languishing near the bottom and our medical colleagues at the top. They are earning double (on average)!

Our profession is so far below pharmacists, opticians etc that it is hardly surprising people leave after a few years. It is not worth the effort and stress.

[/quote]Yeah but they have to deal with people without the satisfaction of knowing that even though we've got to put up with the idiots at least we're treating their animals. I wouldn't do their jobs for double the money.

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Rob Loxley — Thu, 05 May 2016 18:46:55 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]Veterinary and agriculture£18,900£21,400[/quote]

Be aware that this includes people who studied

(D0) Broadly-based programmes within agriculture & related subjects
(D3) Animal science
(D4) Agriculture
(D5) Forestry & arboriculture
(D6) Food & beverage studies
(D7) Agricultural sciences
(D9) Others in veterinary sciences, agriculture & related subjects

so is not just vets! Contrast with the SPVS survey figures

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 05 May 2016 16:10:16 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I wish I could remember where I saw a table of expected incomes for graduates, ten years after graduating![/quote]

This one Bob? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36028368

Most lucrative degrees, 10 years on
Degree	Women's salaries	Men's salaries
Medicine	£45,400	£55,300
Economics	£38,200	£42,000
Engineering and technology	£23,200	£31,200
Law	£26,200	£30,100
Physical Sciences	£24,800	£29,800
Education	£24,400	£29,600
Architecture	£22,500	£28,600
Maths and Computer science	£22,000	£26,800
Business	£22,000	£26,500
History and philosophy	£23,200	£26,500
Social sciences	£20,500	£26,200
Biological sciences	£23,800	£25,200
European languages and literature	£26,400	£25,000
Linguistics and classics	£23,200	£24,100
Veterinary and agriculture	£18,900	£21,400
Mass communication	£18,100	£19,300
Creative arts	£14,500	£17,900

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 05 May 2016 11:02:48 GMT

I've given you 3*s

I agree with you avbout us undercharging.

If doctors earned their income in the market place, and earned twice as much as us because their fees were twice as high, then I wouldn't complain. I complain because they're no different from any other recievers of stolen goods.

Wynne

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Bob Russell — Thu, 05 May 2016 09:35:24 GMT

I wish I could remember where I saw a table of expected incomes for graduates, ten years after graduating!

Vets were languishing near the bottom and our medical colleagues at the top. They are earning double (on average)!

Our profession is so far below pharmacists, opticians etc that it is hardly surprising people leave after a few years. It is not worth the effort and stress.

In real terms I was so much better off when I graduated than most of today's new vets. Practices expected vets to stay vets for life. Now they are a disposable asset!

Medic pay is about correct for the skills and investment (although I do not support the junior doctors behaviour). It is our profession that has it wrong.

A few individuals are making a lot of money but the rank and file vets are paying the price. Referral practice sucking money from insurance companies so 'over the top' premises can be funded does not help either. Good care beats multi million pound premises in my opinion.

(All the centres I regularly use have sensible premises!).

For years it has been said that we undervalue ourselves when it comes to fees. An understatement for some of the newer chains!

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 05 May 2016 08:44:36 GMT

Iain It is meant to be taken literally. The cost of the NHS is astronomical, and unaffordable. There's no inducement to save money. A vast army of penpushers are employed to look busy. People who are fit to work clog up doctors surgeries wasting taxpayers money getting dishonest doctors to sign fraudulent "sick" notes. Unemployed single mothers waste taxpayers money having bastard brats so as to rob poor poor taxpayers of even more benefit money. Taxpayers money is wasted treating drug addicts (evil evil criminals - law abiding people wouldn't become addicts in the 1st place).............etc etc etc

Inflation wasn't a problem pre 1930 or thereabouts, when we were on the gold standard..........so every Bank of England note in circulation was backed by it's value in gold stored in the vaults. Tax was also far more affordable, and we still had police (and a far lower crime rate than now, as punishments were more effective) We still had the armed forces (and were far more of a world power than now) We had roads, and we had rubbish collection, but the government then had the sense not to cripple the hard-working in order to molly-coddle the unworthy. We had schools, and bright children from poor homes could get into grammar schools, and get on, instead of being kept back (in the name of egalitarianism) by the dimwits in a comprehensive.

It is a barter system, where public servants have forgotten that their status is that of servants. They now think that they are the masters, and we (poor taxpayers) are slaves.........compelled to work for notghing for 5/12ths of the year................and if forced unpaid labour isn't as good a definition of slavery as anything, I don't know what is!

The only way to escape slavery is to become one of the idle spoilt - benefit claimants

Wynne

RE: Countering a viewpoint

John Flynn — Wed, 04 May 2016 22:33:09 GMT

Money to pay public servants can be simply printed (not necessarily literally) by the government or its agents.

Tax is better thought of as a means to prevent and control present and future currency inflation - it's not like a barter system where you contribute some tangible goods to be redistributed to public servants.

RE: Countering a viewpoint

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 04 May 2016 22:10:40 GMT

Considering our tax pays NHS staff, council staff, teachers, MPs, firefighters, police, binmen and the local librarian, I'm just wondering why doctors are so overpaid?

Or is it just the green eyed monster?