Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Dagmar Steele — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:02:11 GMT

Yes, very much so! I don't see any point in putting myself or a nurse at an unnecessary risk. It may not be their fault but it is definitely not mine, so why should I take the risk? And my resentments stretch even further. Don't you just love it when they unleash Bonny and make you run after her through the whole surgery for half an hour? I must be getting grumpy I suppose.

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Mark Holmes — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:49:58 GMT

Whilst comparing scars does anybody else get fed up and borderline resentful of agressive animals. I don't even bother with growly cats anymore, they generally just run into Dr Dom. Similarly with dogs, I will try with a muzzle but its quite half hearted and I find myself reaching for that little blue bottle with greater and greater frequency.

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Catherine Williams — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:39:25 GMT

Hate to break the pattern but it's always Yorkies or Jack Russells for me. The scars are smaller but the Yorkie teeth leave some lovely infections behind!

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:49:13 GMT

Total agreement with Tim and Plantaganet-and yes I hate the corporates-one of RCVSs greatest mistakes ever

Wynne

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:58:33 GMT

GSD (police dog) 2000. Grabbed and held forearm. Very painful but no punctures so no scars...does that count?

Are we seeing a pattern developing here?

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:39:23 GMT

*drops pants*

GSD, 1987. As a young child he bit me in the...cheek...(least favorite scar ever)

(fine, it was before I was in secondary school, never mind vet school, so I understand it doesn't count.) :)

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:08:42 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Everything comes back to competition helping the client but not the vet or nurses.[/quote]

And not necessarily the client in the long run.

Half ear lobe, GSD, 1975.

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Simon Neuhoff — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:17:04 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

Compare scars next? ;)

[/quote]

*Rolls up sleeve* Labrador. 2002. Sank its teeth right into the bone.....

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Bob Russell — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:08:23 GMT

If you try to run a practice offering a good life/work balance, full compliance with WTD, better staffing levels etc this comes with a cost. Unfortunately the general public are constantly looking for a 'bargain'. This means someone will jump in with a 'cheaper' deal whether a low-cost clinic or an internet pharmacy.

The pressure to offer more for less can be intense and competition often seems to result in the owners and staff paying the price to keep a business viable. A non-viable business does not offer job security. Everything comes back to competition helping the client but not the vet or nurses.

I don't have the answers I am afraid!

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Tim Mainland — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:59:09 GMT

Phil You have a point but don't go OTT! There are so many regs now that all businesses are likely to use a range of external contractors in order to maintain compliance. WTD in vet practice is just one. And you have seen the opportunity to meet a need. Tis the way of the world. But there are many for whom it is impossible to stay compliant at all. Some countries have opt outs for small businesses below a certain size. I suspect there may be modification of WTD in the next few years. We'll see...

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Phil Hyde — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:36:39 GMT

There have been many naive comments made on this thread.

It appears that many practices have no problems dealing with the WTD.

Rubbish.

Many of these practices are in this happy situation simply because they use emergency clinics to carry the can for them.

As the owner of two such clinics I am happy with this as I now realise that EC's are here to stay. But this simply passes on the responsibility to conform with these regulations onto us.

If ALL parts of the current regulation were enforced then EC's would simply go out of business; closely followed by most veterinary practices.

Oh, and don't feel that just because you spend most time at home when on duty you are in some way exempt. This is not what the regulations say. If you cannot continue with your life as when not on duty (ie, drink etc) then you ARE covered by these regulations.

I have always been very concerned with these regulations. Yes, their intention is good, but they have absolutely no relevance to someone trying to run a 24 hour service where the employees have to be available but not necessarily working.

It is a complete botch of a piece of legislation (not my words, but that of the head of the H&S dealing with vets). If you are sitting there thinking in your little ivory tower that you comply then... you don't. Either someone else is taking the rap for you, or you simply don't understand them.

Rant over...

For now.

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Alice Courtney — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:15:09 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]

[quote user="Alice Courtney"](so please cut me some slack and don't shout at me!)[/quote]

I really, really wasn't shouting at you.

[/quote]

It's OK, I know Sometimes writing on forums comes across very differently to saying things face-to-face, and I'm always conscious of trying to avoid things getting personal, for all concerned - it's tricky isn't it??!!

Without experiencing it first-hand, I do get an idea of what it must be like for employers, just by seeing my manager's face when a vet's missing in rounds in the morning (e.g. sickness or a locum not turned up etc)...that "uh-oh" look that says so much! Actually I go through life with lovely rose-tinted spectacles on (which I recommend, although not sure SpecSavers do them any more, it's a recession after all), so I perhaps hadn't realised how badly employees are treated. I see my colleagues as fellow professionals and friends, and treat them as such. Anyway, what goes around comes around, so treat someone like **** and you'll get it thrown back in your face somewhere down the line, right? (Along with rose-tinted specs, I also have Over-Simplification Syndrome, which I also recommend )

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

plantagenet — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:30:09 GMT

[quote user="Alice Courtney"](so please cut me some slack and don't shout at me!)[/quote]

I really, really wasn't shouting at you. I had no idea it was this bad on the employers' side of the fence till I went through the gate to where I thought the grass may be greener, of my own free will. I just want employees to see their employers as real human beings, who also have anxieties and needs and families and often no longer have the boundless energy of youth. In mixed mainly large animal practice at the start of my career, I worked a totally insane working week during the lambing season but it was somehow more fun (perhaps that's the misty distance of youth past)

fellow employers have been very badly treated by employees and have had little recourse to law and dared not sack them for fear of complaints.

Take your boss out for a drink and interest yourself in their work difficulties, it may be an eye-opener and it may forge a less 'them and us' relationship. After all 20 odd years ago, I was you! (if you see what I mean)

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Tim Mainland — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:31:41 GMT

Alice,

Of course all of yours questions and scenarios are very real, and please don't feel anything but positive about the whole concept, and indeed towards practice ownership. It needs more young vets to carry that flag forward, in future, and not simply to roll over to the corporates. Our profession is worth saving!!

With regard to your friend in Scotland, it may well not be the life for everyone! But keep in touch as best you can - she may well need you! My point re your initial question is that "opting back in" has big consequences in a small workplace for the others involved. And maybe, moving on would be a better resolution, under such circumstances. The employer may have no means to dismiss the individual who opts back in, but the consequences for others in the practice could be grave. This in turn, to my mind, simply means that WTD is quite impossible in some places, and under some circumstances. The guys there have to make choices, and need a lot of slack! Not just forced employment law regs.

Ultimately we all have to be responsible for our own choices, and that was certainly how it use to be! Dinosaur returns stage left. But I'm saddened now that some do choose to invoke regulations, and thus worsen the scenario for others around them. If you really don't like something, think of your colleagues, and ask whether you are in the right place at all. Not personal, of course!

As for practice ownership, it is not rocket science! And it is surprising how young vets, who have no experience of it, move into it and grasp the mantle. I've noted overnight personality change on more than one occasion! But I really would like to see both government and EU facilitating the regulations pertaining to the small workplace in such a way that it encouraged the young to get into business, rather than frightening them off. Our profession could only benefit. Yet ironically, it is those same regs which protect the young employee vet, but which at the same time frighten off the same person from entering business in their own right. You noticed the implications of WTD, Alison. There are of course many other unhelpful regs. The practice owner of the future has to be able to put these things into perspective, work around them as proves necessary for local conditions, and make progress. It takes care, courage, diligence, hard work and enthusiasm. And a thick skin at times. But despite that all I and Plantaganet have said, I think it's worth it. Hope he does too. And I really hope that many other young vets will continue to agree for many years to come.

Show the corporates a better way.....your profession needs you!

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Alice Courtney — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:57:26 GMT

Oh I'm SO SORRY, I had no idea I'd written that much....SORRY!!!

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Alice Courtney — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:56:39 GMT

Just a reminder, I started the thread as a hypothetical question... Although it does appear to have opened up a can of worms, they are worms that are probably best discussed in an open-can way, and (perhaps I'm being too generous) my impression is that most of the replies have been useful contributions to the discussion. Sure, some people have strong views at each end of the spectrum, but I personally haven't felt that it's been all about complaining about our work and our working hours? I agree with you Tim, we all came into the profession knowing full well what may be required of us, and there are alternative careers (even after qualification) that can provide alternative working environments and more sociable working hours.

When I asked the topic's question, I was wondering quite a lot of things...

For example, whether it would even be possible for the profession to EVER, as a whole, work to WTD rules? Not because we are all desperate to do so, and certainly not because we all resent the hours we're working and are denying that animal welfare must come first, but because it is probably better to discuss such eventualities before they happen. To know what it would mean for individuals, businesses, and the professional as a whole, and to think of some 'what if' scenarios. At some point in the future, the EU may require this of us. We can't ignore that fact, surely?

Also, from an imaginary individual employee's view-point (not my own), I was thinking of a hypothetical scenario of a vet being one of those Tim refers to, who's isolated, overworked, under huge amounts of pressure, and who feels they simply can't rescue themselves from the vicious circle of work-work-work without somehow forcing their employer to offer better working hours, or quitting their job completely. Perhaps we vets, being the dedicated perfectionists that we are, sometimes put ourselves under too much pressure? We assume it's normal and totally acceptable for SOME of our profession to work themselves to the ground, in order to provide a good service and ensure good animal welfare everywhere no matter what the circumstances, and also ensure there are private practices and we don't all have to work with corporates....(oh dear I see where the worms are coming from!!). In this imaginary scenario, I would rather that vet requested to opt back into the WTD, then either quit their job or carry on their spiral of depression and dispair.

We vets are only human. We as a profession have to figure out how to balance animal welfare and RCVS requirements, with the problems of being human. I'm relatively young and inexperienced, I don't have any experience of large animal work, nor practice ownership or management. I admit I'm probably utterly under-qualified to even comment on this topic, but I have friends in the profession who genuinely are struggling, and I felt I needed to think of ways that our profession can help vets like them.

I'd finally like to add that I have huge respect & admiration for those of you who, like 'Plantaganet', put so much on the line to have your own private veterinary business. But, as an ignorant person on these matters (so please cut me some slack and don't shout at me!), there seems to be a general assumption that private practice/ownership and WTD rules are fundamentally mutually exclusive; one cannot run/work for a private practice (much less a mixed/large animal practice that does their own OOH?) AND work <=48hrs/week. Is this true? Do people have experience that denies/confirms this? If it's true then this has significant implications as to the future of the profession, should the EU ever force us to accept the WTD...If it's not true, then what are some private practices doing to enable WTD to be enforced, whilst still providing OOH cover, and what effect does this have on their employees, and the business as a whole?

(p.s. Tim I have one personal anecdote that I want to share with you. A very good friend of mine went to work in the wilds of Scotland as a large animal vet. She works ridiculously long hours. She rarely has internet connection. She has no family or friends nearby. I have not had any of my emails/texts/calls returned for over a year (perhaps she just doesn't like me any more!!). Do I think she is in a good mental state? Well, I wouldn't be if I were her. If she's not, what are her options? But on the other side of the coin, her employer would have to employ 2 people instead of just her, if they were both only doing 48hrs/week, so how on earth will that work?? I have no answers to this, hence the topic question...)

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Tim Mainland — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:10:12 GMT

This thread is a very relevant one. However I'm beginning to find the tone of it increasingly sad, and I'm very glad that it is not open to Joe Public! It does not sound good.

We all signed up to this profession with an oath to serve the welfare of our patients. There was little mention of anything else. No WTD, no standards, nothing. Just patients' interests. And we are all bright enough to know that patients become sick when it happens, not when it's convenient to us. The idea that we can manage our days to fit around this issue has challenged the best management brains in our profession to the end of their collective tethers for the whole of my career. And largely it is achieved. But there will still be days when we all sit around on our behinds, and other days when we get no lunch. Appalling! But what really saddens me is that most of the noise I hear on the subject comes from localities where it is relatively easier to meet WTD etc. Yet much of our wonderful country is outside such well served and populated areas. Vast swathes of Scotland, Wales, and their Islands. Areas where animal welfare, in its most general meaning, is a massive issue. Areas which are simply undervetted for the animal population ( though not its finances). Yet there, our colleagues still have to wave our profession's flag under the same wretched regulations. Do we hear them wingeing? Personally, I notice such practitioners (on fora such as this) much more frequently asking clinical questions. God knows how many hours they must work, but it's patient issues that seem to bother them. Well it would, wouldn't it, because they may not see another vet to ask an opinion, or share a case with.... this week...this month! So then they take on an assistant.....OMG rules n regs and it'll mean oh yes, they can help with 25% of the hours in the week. Why bother.....

For the first 20years of my professional life I worked in mixed practice, on an average rota of slightly worse than 1 in 3. WTD was a huge problem. But we worked hard, we treated our patients - lots of them - and I saw a lot of tired but largely happy vets. Last 10y I've been in SA suburbia, no OOH, no WTD problems. Vets are certainly easier to manage, but are they happier and more fulfilled in their professional lives? On reflection, I think not.

We are not alone in the problems of WTD, rules n regs, and whatever. They are common to all walks of life and give huge problems to others too. Not least the medical profession, where one would expect the State to be able to implement its own regulations to the satisfaction of all - but it's not so. But we are the privileged profession who have been given the remit to protect the interest of our animal patients. And we have a dying breed ,"plantaganet", who take all the financial risks (outside of the corporate wolves) to provide a playing field for others, on which to practise both the art and science of Veterinary medicine. Managing that field, keeping the bank wolves at bay, keeping the employment law hounds happy, keeping they H&S terriers calm, keeping every member of staff in the style to which they are accustomed......? Yup, most days I, too, wonder why we bother. And if I could go back to 1983, when all this stuff started for me, maybe, just maybe, I'd do the whole damned lot - 24/7 and all - all by myself.

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

plantagenet — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 09:09:58 GMT

[quote user="sarah mason"]The legislation is there already, if your employees are working >48 hours and havent opted out then the legislation is being broken.[/quote]

No, its only me that's doing it. Being an employer in the current financial situation is no fun but can be difficult to do anything else but keep your head down and carry on. We often have so much tied up in the business that we cannot just walk away- which an employee always can. We chose to do it - yes, but without idiots like us in single ownership or small partnership, you'd all be working for the corporates. Actually you probably all will be when anything smaller is not viable any more.

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Sarah Wheeler — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 08:35:49 GMT

But I drive around in my car (LA vet) after being on call and although It's not as big as an HGV there are days (and nights) that I've been so tired that I know I was falling asleep at the wheel

As far as working hours go, we do 8.30 till 6. I am pretty strict about finishing at 6 b/c I've got a young child to pick up, feed, and put to bed (husband is a dairy farmer so he can't). However I haven't had a proper lunch break in months....

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Mark Hedberg — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 07:57:12 GMT

I hope you'll forgive me, but "at least we're not killing people" is still a weak justification for ignoring rest rules. I'm fine with dedication, professionalism, and enthusiasm (or even more money!) If we had to decide WTD based on whether or not you kill people (or to be less inflammatory, grading the possible consequences) exactly who would be subject to WTD?

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Mark Holmes — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:09:43 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"][quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="alison howell"]Are you saying that it doesn't matter if vets are too tired to work properly because it's only animals we would kill?[/quote]

Of course not!

I'm saying that it is quite correct that someone driving around a lethal weapon (HGV) should have their working time monitored more closely than a vet.

[/quote]

You mean vets using euthapent, scalpels, ketamine, etc?

[/quote] Ou would be having a very bad day if you managed to kill one person with any of those, let alone a family. Tired HGV driver is far more dangerous than a tired Vet!

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Mark Hedberg — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:50:54 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="alison howell"]Are you saying that it doesn't matter if vets are too tired to work properly because it's only animals we would kill?[/quote]

Of course not!

I'm saying that it is quite correct that someone driving around a lethal weapon (HGV) should have their working time monitored more closely than a vet.

[/quote]

You mean vets using euthapent, scalpels, ketamine, etc?

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

sarah mason — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:33:08 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

Are people really working >48 hours? (Considering OOH time at home is still not included in the WTD)?

[/quote]

YES! but as an employer / owner any more legislation making my life more difficult, I'll just jump under a bus - it'll be less painful.

[/quote]

The legislation is there already, if your employees are working >48 hours and havent opted out then the legislation is being broken.

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

Gillian Mostyn — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:20:44 GMT

[quote user="alison howell"]Are you saying that it doesn't matter if vets are too tired to work properly because it's only animals we would kill?[/quote]

Of course not!

I'm saying that it is quite correct that someone driving around a lethal weapon (HGV) should have their working time monitored more closely than a vet.

Re: Hypothetical question: opt in to 48hr week?!

vs0u — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:18:01 GMT

I have noticed that in many practices nurses are rota'd on to do early and late shifts for example 8 till 4, 11 till 7, whereas in the same practice, even those where there are 3 or 4 vets, the vets all work 8.30 till 7. I always wonder why. Personally I prefer a shorter day even if it means working 5 days not 4.

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

hmm..... drive an HGV into a family saloon and kill off an entire family....vs a cat...... hmmmmmmm

[/quote]

Are you saying that it doesn't matter if vets are too tired to work properly because it's only animals we would kill?

But WTD is designed to protect the employee not the quality of the work they do!