Many partners complacent on GP job market
Dr David Church's analysis of the current GP job market is disingenuous to say the least ('Lack of partners isn't the issue').
The demand for non-partner posts before the new contract occurred in circumstances where there were:
- no gross differences in the remuneration of salaried GPs and partners
- far fewer salaried positions than exist currently.
The fact that 10 years ago some GPs argued there were insufficient non-partner posts available does not justify holding all those currently employed in such positions in perpetuity. The GPC argued in 2002 that partners' incomes should be increased to encourage more GPs into partnerships. The opposite has happened, with the extra cash hoovered up by those least in need of encouragement.
It would be hard to point out all the holes in the argument that salaried GPs should and could easily make up the difference in income through locum and out-of-hours jobs. Try working 10 sessions of general practice at £55-70,000 a year and then supplementing that with night and weekend shifts at £50-60 an hour to make up the £35K difference - what would happen to your family relationships?
Sessional GPs need strong, separate representation that can forcefully challenge the complacent thinking that lies behind many partners' refusal to acknowledge the unfairness in the current GP job market.
Salaried GP, Camden, north London