Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Peter Ding — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:01:07 GMT

In that case the Great Bustard Project has gone badly, sadly, wrong....

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

J G Wray — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:51:11 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]I heard that it was, in fact, an emu (JGW has never liked big birds) and it was only a one night stand. The emu didn't get paid either.[/quote]

Bustard!

JGW

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

J G Wray — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:47:31 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]Not quite up to your usual standard, all things considered.[/quote]

Sorry, dear.

[quote user="Martin Jones"]Discretion is about things being delivered in plain wrappers and mutual interests being protected.[/quote]

Is it? I thought that was just for ordering unsavoury stuff off the internet.

[quote user="Martin Jones"]It doesn't really extend to being stiffed by an employer: in these cases, your definition of being discrete is tantamount to a gagging order.[/quote]

Now now that's hyperbole.

[quote user="Martin Jones"]Naming and shaming IS perhaps indiscrete, although it's more likely to be potentially defamatory. More to the point, it may fall within the remit of the GtoPC in terms of disparaging comments.[/quote]

Thank you for pointing this out. With any luck, from now on, no one will do it. Hopefully they will even refrain from referring to "Corporates".

[quote user="Martin Jones"]As to your willingness to pay extra for discretion, the mind boggles as to what you may feel you need to pay to hide. Would it be a sliding scale according to the magnitude of the hushing-up? Or do you perhaps have trade secrets that mustn't fall into the hands of your competitors?[/quote]

Ah, you no read my posting. I askee question, whether locum has price for discretion, just like everything else. I do have a few secrets, which must not fall into competitors hands, but these are mainly to do with my weaknesses.

[quote user="Martin Jones"]You do realise that just by posting your valuable insights on the veritable colander that is vetsurgeon, you may be dragging the profession kicking and screaming into the 21st century?[/quote]

Careful - the colander analogy upsets Mr Guthrie. Is there anyone really kicking and screaming? Not yet, I think, right up to the moment an indiscretion on this list bites 'em back. Why take the risk?

JGW

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:05:56 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] 'I worked for JGW, he didn't pay me, and was having an affair with an ostrich'.[/quote]

I heard that it was, in fact, an emu (JGW has never liked big birds) and it was only a one night stand. The emu didn't get paid either.

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:00:33 GMT

Bad behaviour by employers in this profession has for many years gone largely unchallenged. Certain practices have had 'bad' reputations via the grapevine but a forum like this is IMO a suitable place to discuss and warn.

Overt 'naming and shaming' has risks and is best avoided but I cannot see anything wrong with discussing a situation where a colleague feels he or she has been treated inappropriately.

I cannot see anything in the original post to suggest any malicious intent. Similarly I do not see anything that I would consider inappropriate in the public domain (although I doubt the general public would be interested in this type of case).

All forums (fora?) should be considered semi-public or as you say 'public and leaky' so some care should be exercised in posting.

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Martin Jones — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:34:16 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]

But whither discretion, an attribute of an old fashioned professional I suggest? Perhaps I should expect to pay an additional rate for discretion.

JGW

[/quote]

Jon,

Not quite up to your usual standard, all things considered.

Discretion is about things being delivered in plain wrappers and mutual interests being protected. It doesn't really extend to being stiffed by an employer: in these cases, your definition of being discrete is tantamount to a gagging order. Naming and shaming IS perhaps indiscrete, although it's more likely to be potentially defamatory. More to the point, it may fall within the remit of the GtoPC in terms of disparaging comments.

As to your willingness to pay extra for discretion, the mind boggles as to what you may feel you need to pay to hide. Would it be a sliding scale according to the magnitude of the hushing-up? Or do you perhaps have trade secrets that mustn't fall into the hands of your competitors?

You do realise that just by posting your valuable insights on the veritable colander that is vetsurgeon, you may be dragging the profession kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

Mr Jones

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:12:12 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]"She" works/worked for Penrose and Partners and mentioned a Corporate. HOw difficult does it make it to work out who is being characterised here?[/quote]

Forgive me for my stupidity, but 'very'??

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]public and leaky forum[/quote]

I just hate being called 'public and leaky'. And you seem to imply that is a characteristic / criticism of this forum specifically. The reality is that online forums are ALL public and leaky. Nature of the beast.

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

J G Wray — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:29:35 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"] Hang on .... no names are mentioned what's the problem?She could have posted under Anon but you don't like that either[/quote]

Dear Mr Holmes,

"She" works/worked for Penrose and Partners and mentioned a Corporate. HOw difficult does it make it to work out who is being characterised here? I'm hoping discretion will prevent "her" from going any further on a public and leaky forum.

As for the "Anon" monicker you are confusing content with attribution. The content of the postings in this thread are maligning organisations with a version of events. The "Anon" attribution, if it has any merit whatsoever, could only be justified for a personal matter so serious that it might , well, I'm not sure quite what. It would be miles off and rank self-interest to post under Anon over a matter of personal gain/loss like this.

JGW

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:25:25 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"] Yeah, I guess. I wonder if we should amend our locum agreements to include a confidentiality clause so that we ensure that our locums don't end up discussing practice business on sites like this?[/quote]

JGW, this is the second time (at least), that you've had a pop at someone for discussing practice business on 'sites like this'.

On both occasions, the person you've had a pop at did not name the practice they were talking about, or give any details which would make it possible to identify which practice they were talking about.

So I just don't think you have a valid argument. On the contrary, sites like this exist precisely so that members like Iain can come and get advice from peers / see what other people think / have a rant (or all three), and provided 'no names', I encourage it.

I just don't understand your gripe. I mean, lets say a member of VetSurgeon came and locummed for you, and you failed to pay. Later, the locum came to this site and said that they had locummed for a miserable old bugger that didn't pay, and asked how they might go about sueing an employer.

They haven't named you. They haven't said where in the country you are. Locums tend to locum for lots of practices, so even if you thought they were talking about you, you couldn't be certain (perhaps they'd been stiffed by someone else).

Bottom line is that since there is no way that I, the reader, could have any idea who you are, there IS NO BREACH OF DISCRETION.

A breach of discretion would be if they came to this site and posted: 'I worked for JGW, he didn't pay me, and was having an affair with an ostrich'.

Under those circumstances, I would say that you'd have a reasonable point for discussion. Still not sure whether you are right or not to expect discretion in the modern world of instant communication. Or is it that we now live in a more open world, and have to accept, like Mubarak, that our actions will now be discussed in public? And is that necessarily a bad thing? Discuss!

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Mark Holmes — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:36:33 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]

[quote user="Iain McAllister"]I guess old fashioned values are a thing of the past [/quote]

Yeah, I guess. I wonder if we should amend our locum agreements to include a confidentiality clause so that we ensure that our locums don't end up discussing practice business on sites like this?

I note that a couple of people are asking for locum work through this site. Given their postings on this site to date I wonder if a prospective employer can expect something old fashioned like discretion from them? I make a distinction here between discretion and loyalty. I expect no loyalty from a locum, because their interaction with the permanent practice is so transient there is no time for mutual respect and trust to be built. But whither discretion, an attribute of an old fashioned professional I suggest? Perhaps I should expect to pay an additional rate for discretion.

JGW

[/quote] Hang on .... no names are mentioned what's the problem? She could have posted under Anon but you don't like that either!

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Tim Mainland — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:21:43 GMT

It's a 2 way street. Some years ago we appointed a locum. On day one she didn't turn up. As she lived locally, I paid a visit. No answer at the door, despite a car in the drive. The said car had a sticker on it of a practice some miles away. I phoned the said practice and discovered that she had recently taken up employment there. Not so much as a polite phone call was forthcoming at any stage.....

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

J G Wray — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:52:25 GMT

[quote user="Iain McAllister"]I guess old fashioned values are a thing of the past [/quote]

Yeah, I guess. I wonder if we should amend our locum agreements to include a confidentiality clause so that we ensure that our locums don't end up discussing practice business on sites like this?

JGW

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Iain McAllister — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:50:59 GMT

Yeah this was a corporate :-)

I guess old fashioned values are a thing of the past !

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Clive Ansell — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:05:18 GMT

Work agreed by email is a contractual arrangement, but It depends on what basis the work was agreed, and what T&C's were discussed at the time. I usually agree to a calender months notice, which works in either direction and protects both parties, although one has to be flexible sometimes. I think you would have a job claiming breach of contract for work booked as far ahead as September.

I recently gave up a weeks work because one of the practice owners children was ill and he cancelled his holiday. It was a genuine situation and I usually work for him 6 - 8 weeks every year, plus he will rebook the week later on, a little annoying but at least I had a week off which I used to rebuild my road bike ready for the spring.

I have had 3 occasions over 10 years where corporates (2 with the same one!, in which they actually breached the terms of their own HR department multi page contract)) have cancelled work at very short notice, 17 hours in one case. The first time I shrugged and put it down to experience, the second and third I successfully pursued them for lost revenue. What annoyed most with these cases was the way in which it was done, with total disregard at at such short notice with no explanation or reason given. I avoid them now.

Re: Practice reneges on Locum agreement

Peter Ding — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:26:45 GMT

No more than any practice has against a locum or prospective employee who is unable to take up a position he/she has accepted within a fortnight of the start date.

In such cases there may be provable resultant damages, with the cost of re- advertising and overtime being the most obvious. Often £1000 or more.

In your cases I think you would also have to prove that as a direct result you were unemployed for those dates: difficult to do with so much locum and part-time work being available generally.