Nothing infuriates me quite like anti working class propaganda being pushed by the eilte

!deliberatelyinfuriating?

They got their claps, what else do they want?

Our government can't pay doctors, but it can give away trillions to private corporations and constantly raise the pay of politicians.

I'm interested, but how do we get our mates from Eton to profit from this?

Ah yes, another lie from the brexiteer brigade which is a gift for future generations to live with.

Yeah, right.

Our GDP per capita is now lower than Lithuania, just another brexit benefit.

Written by, and for, cunts.

I feel the author also deserves some credit. So: Fuck Steve Barclay.

I mean, to be fair, it's also a business strategy on the Internet.

In my opinion I think quotes in general should be banned from being headlines. It's been abused as a tactic for making inflammatory headlines with little factual basis under the technicality it just being the words of someone else.

It'll be paraphrased from something a Tory said and I suspect the quotes cover the "paper" from libel since they can then claim it was opinion rather than fact

Yes, the health secretary, it literally says so in the headline.

I read a while back that it's to insulate the paper from any potential defamation lawsuits, the quotes are there to ensure the difference between "we believe the strikes are harming patients also this person says they must stop" and "this person believes the strikes are harming patients and also says they must stop"

It's actually very common practice in the UK, most headlines make use of quotations to endorse a position by means of quoting an opinion and providing context to that opinion.

In this specific case it is of course bullshit, the language of the headline is deliberately worded to incite anger against the healthcare professionals and the quotes are added to preserve the emotive qualities of the headline when read by the layperson while insulating the paper from legal risk.

Yeah it's in the first line of the article under the headline.

Yep, the Daily Fail. Fucking Murdoch rag.

Daily Hate Mail

for an expensive toilet paper brand, even they try to save on manufacturing costs

From the paper that brought you: "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" an editorial from 1934 reporting on Hitlers blackshirts, by the then editor Viscount Rothermere who's son the current Viscount Rothermere still owns it... same shite different arsehole...

There's nothing capitalist about the situation.

Toilet paper is better, right?

Toilet paper is actually priceless. It's very important. I think you meant "used" toilet paper.

There's a very high level of support for NHS strikes, around 2:1 for vs against. Mebbe cast aspersions on those with the power to resolve them, not the people the Daily Mail will never give a platform to.

Thatcher outlawed this (surprise, surprise) but thr way Japanese train drivers strike is they run the trains but refuse to collect fairs. That seems like a much better system to me.

I don't know how doctors could do something similar though.

They aren’t idiots as much as they are greedy. They didn’t get into government leadership positions because they want to help people. They do it so they can take advantage of it and make money.

When they fuck up and people suffer, it isn’t an “accident”. It’s design because in the end they are making money off the people paying them off, etc.

Our big mistake is thinking these people are well intentioned, but forgiving their fuck ups because of “incompetence”. No, they are purposefully fucking you over to benefit themselves.

The bosses ARE the government. Never work for the public sector!

Daily Heil

Either way doctors have insane hours.

They're striking because they're greedy? But to strike they're losing money, so...

Spot the American.

I think it's 4141 Farm, probably an address if the paper is delivered? Just my guess. Could also just be a quick note someone jotted down on the closest piece of paper during a phone call or something, who knows haha

I think so. I get the same sort of articles pushed on me in my news feed, like "How this 20 year old's side hustle allowed her to buy a house with cash!" It feels sometimes like a narrative being pushed by media conglomerates to keep people hopeful or to sway public opinion, but I assume the actual answer is that those articles generate a reliable number of clicks and therefore revenue.

So yeah, it's infuriating to consider that people are being manipulated like that, but in most cases it doesn't really affect me, so my fury stays at a mild level.

It sounds like you think this shouldn't be here, but do you think it's not worth talking about or that we should all be more than mildly infuriated?

https://youtu.be/Nd7cohTdRAo?t=450

You will benefit from seeing class in this more practical way, because right now, politicians and the people who finance their campaigns are the ones benefiting from the vague definition that keeps things the way they are, in their interest.

And just so we’re clear about how I’m defining class, here it is: Society is divided into two classes, not three, not four, not five. On the one hand, there are those who need to work to live, and on the other, those who have the privilege to make other people work so they don’t have to.

So long as you exchange your mental or physical energy for a salary, you are part of the working class. The class of people that works. A term which I know is confusing because to most people “working class” just means “poor,” but here it literally means what it says, regardless of whether the work you do is white-collar or blue-collar.

The remaining few who make most if not the entirety of their money through rents, speculation, or profit, mainly by owning things like companies or housing, not through their own work, are called the capitalist class, or the owner class.

Capitalism is like one giant game of monopoly. At first we all start off and we are all pretty much equal. Then a few players start getting lucky, within a few generations there is a clear divide. Not as much of stark contrast as today but its there. At this point you can still have a job that pays well while not being in the 1%. Eventually, the unlucky players run out of money and start being eliminated. That's when the luckiest players starts sucking up money from those who actually have it. The 1% will become the 0.5%, then the 0.25%. We will one day have just the 1.

Everyone is a worker except for hereditary lords.

If it feels wrong, they can be paid. End of story.

As far as I'm aware, doctors striking typically works differently than most other labor. They usually have a certain number of doctors in rotation working to take care of crticial things. Non-critical operation gets delayed indefinitely though.

Just like the rail worker strike in the US, my opinion is that if some people are that critical that anyone thinks they shouldn't strike, their employers shouldn't let it get to that point. Preferably the employees would have democratic control of the company so it never becomes an issue, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Anyway, the company is responsible for strikes happening, not the workers.

They are leaving.

Drexit (“Doctor-Exit”) is the exponentially growing trend for doctors to walk away from their jobs in the NHS, either to new healthcare systems overseas such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or perhaps worse, into new professions altogether, leaving behind their well trained medical brains. This exodus has been gaining momentum for several years with the workforce now at breaking point.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/02/06/why-are-so-many-doctors-quitting-the-nhs/

Four in 10 junior doctors are actively planning to quit the NHS as soon as they can find another job, according to a survey by the British Medical Association. The survey, released as part of the BMA chair of council Prof Philip Banfield’s new year message, found poor pay and working conditions were among the main reasons for junior doctors wanting to leave.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/28/four-in-10-junior-doctors-plan-quit-nhs-survey

"If junior doctors are paid so badly wouldn't a better response to this be to quit and do something else or move to a different country?"

They are, and they have been...? The NHS has been hemorrhaging staff since well before the pandemic, from nurses, senior nursing staff, registrars, junior doctors and consultants... I know at least 5 people myself from various hospital/GP health care trades that have upped sticks and moved to Canada, Australia or New Zealand... because of exactly these problems. They get payed better and have a higher quality of life in the commonwealth than back here...

If health care is a human right, it should be available to everyone, paid for by those who have the money. And those who provide it of cause should be paid well, from doctors to nurses to assistants.

Doctors aren't the only ones with power to end the strike. What about their demands? Doctors who aren't getting what they need aren't able to provide the best care either.

It's the government that has systematically been selling off the NHS to private companies and allowing private insurers to let those who can pay skip those queues making them longer for everyone else, and it's the government that has refused to give enough money both to the NHS itself and its staff (intentionally, so that it can't function, which makes people like you complain about queues and blame strikes instead of looking at why they are both happening in the first place, while they're busy doing the aforementioned selling off and profiteering).

Well done for putting yourself up as an example to show everyone who this propaganda is aimed at and how well it works.

Okay, so this kind of rationale is used a lot in the US to justify treating all kinds of professions (almost always those that exist at the action layer, where you're doing the actual nominal work of the business) like shit. The rough format is "Won't someone PLEASE think of the {customer}?!" Of course, this is always aimed at the people at the action layer, never ever at the administrative level. So, it might be more accurate to say "YOU need to care about the customer [because nobody else will]." It's often very closely tied to sacrifice rhetoric in the workplace, where the employer places the onus on the employee to sacrifice, often without any bound. In other words, to accept personal loss with no expectations of recompense; they'll take as much as they can get from the employee, and no amount of sacrifice will ever be 'enough', as there will always be some new crisis demanding a new sacrifice.

In teaching, this is "Won't someone please think of the kids? What will they do if there's no school? Remember why we're here, it's about the kids." In EMS and all of healthcare, just replace the kids with the patients. It's very common to see this in any industry where they think they can get away with paying their people in passion. It's shitty and exploitive, and it ultimately does a disservice to the customer by creating high employee turnover, low organizational experience, organizational dysfunction (often in spite of ballooning admin costs and positions in these types of sectors) and more burned out employees.

Ya an over worked under paid medical workers with limited resources is preferred... The only people hurting others is wealthy individuals

How about, refusal to pay fair wages to [insert worker category] harms [insert end user]?

Article says it’s coming into a period when the NHS is coming under pressure- what do you think that translates to for the doctors and healthcare professionals that prop up that system? Sunshine and roses?

Back to reddit you go

Okay, so, technically it may be correct, that there's a causal relationship between access to medical services, the demand on those services and the availability of those providing the services. If supply goes down due to a strike, then yes, services are being interrupted to those who need them, and thus the situation is "harming" patients.... By some definition of "harm".

However, this bullshit headline implies that doctors are actively and intentionally harming patients and they are exclusively responsible for that, which is entirely untrue.

It's the government's responsibility to ensure that the healthcare system operates effectively and efficiently, and if they're pushing people to the point where they feel that they need to execute a strike in order to be heard, that's a significant sign of poor management at best, IMO.

The headline tries to shift the concept of responsibility for patients being "harmed" from the lack of doctors due to the strike.... From the government, who is actually at fault, to the doctors, who are simply trying to get a fair deal.