Why should we work longer hours for less?

I WISH to correct any misconceptions engendered by your article and editorial about hospital registrars pay (Dec 13).

I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that what your newspaper describes as “overtime” is actually compulsory rostered work for registrars. This week alone, I am rostered to carry out two shifts of greater than 24 hours duration in addition to my regular daily duties. In total I will be rostered to work 79 hours this week. The pay I receive will (I hope) be a direct mathematical product of these long hours and the pay rate. I don’t want to work this many hours, but I don’t have a choice. I also note your editorial lauds the “very considerable progress” in controlling “overtime” costs the last few years. Even cursory research into the industrial relations of junior doctors would have revealed that this is actually due to the fact that many hospitals, most notably CUH, now refuse to pay their doctors for a substantial proportion of their hours worked. The only work practices that have been changed are those of the payroll department.

This has been a major factor in the emigration of junior doctors to countries that will require them to work more humane hours and pay them for the hours they do. In describing this fraudulent behaviour as “very considerable progress” are we to take it that your newspaper is in favour of making all workers do illegally long, dangerous hours for no pay or should it just apply to junior doctors? The same question could be asked of the state.

Anthony O’Connor

Ballinteer Avenue

Dublin 16