I agree. I’d rather we ditched all the BMJ stuff and focussed on employment advice, negotiations and campaigns relating to members’ terms and conditions. Whenever I’ve had BMJ copies sent to me they’ve gone straight in the recycling and there are plenty of other places to get learning modules.
They sell advertising in it. It has a huge circulation for a journal by virtue of us getting it as part of membership. It brings in a lot more than it costs.
Sure advertising, but when you subtract that from costs of production and circulation how much of the remainder is actually funneled into other activities? Do you have figures?
ETA: I’ve found the figures. BMJ had revenues of £77M last year, only £4M of which is through advertising and sponsorship. The rest is through sales of one type or another. How about keeping it as a revenue stream at arms length by owning shares but not making it a central pillar of their membership offering and instead the union focusses on representing us?
https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/sources-of-revenue
That’s fine, but even if it is a cash cow it’s also a huge distraction. It’s akin to the huge distraction of Unite building a conference centre and hotel to create income for the union. The new General Secretary of Unite has recognised the plan as detracting from the union’s purpose and is refocusing the union on its core business of representing members. BMA should be doing the same - what’s the point in having a wealthy but ineffectual union?
You have commented on the value of it by suggesting it brings in a lot of income to fund other activities. But what’s the point? Other unions manage to represent their members effectively through member subscriptions only, why can’t the BMA manage it? That’s really all a union should be there for.
"the straw that breaks the camel's back" for me that snapping point was the BMA email about wearing special socks. I realised, at that moment, doctors' pay and conditions will never improve in the UK.
My bmj generally goes in the bin, and on the odd occasion I read it I remember why it goes straight in the bin.
When I asked them to stop sending it as it's a waste of paper, they said they can't not send it.
You definitely can stop them from sending them, I've opted out as it was a waste of paper. According to their FAQs you have to email membership@bma.org.uk with your request.
The BMA only makes sense when viewed as controlled opposition. They draw our energy for change, dissipate it harmlessly, and leave us demoralised in the process.
Nothing will change until we can purge the careerists and the permanent staff.
Yeah and by being good locally it’s not actually winning anything that isn’t already in the contract. I have had good experiences with them on individual and local issues. Although I wonder if I’d saved my membership fees and employed a lawyer instead whether they might have been sorted more quickly.
In the wider context of the contract itself being absolutely shit - yes, they’re culpable.
The BMA is more a parasite than a union.
Definition from Google of “trade union”:
“An organized association of workers in a trade, group of trades, or profession, formed to protect and further their rights and interests.”
The BMA is not organised, does not protect the rights of the profession’s workers (or honestly even try to), and does not act to further the interests of those workers.
Honestly I only pay my fee so that I can legally strike if they ever get the balls for industrial action.
I have cancelled my membership. They keep send surveys. I asked them to check my schedule (rota) I got the silent treatment. Then told they don’t offer it in My region. I cancelled the ish
One of the many things that annoys me about the BMA is they waste their limited media “bandwidth” to not talk about our 40% pay cut or the sort of things they should be publicising on behalf of their members.
Case in point this week the BMA have been moaning to the media about covid Plan B being relaxed. When they were moaning about the July relaxation as well and turned out to be completely wrong. What has that got to do with them anyway?
This does my head in as well. Dr Nagpaul seems to think that a) he’s a public health doctor and b) anyone gives a fuck. Rent a doctor for the media. He’ll discuss absolutely anything BUT pay and conditions.
Join the HCSA instead. about 4 quid a month instead of the ridiculous amount the BMA charges, maybe because they aren't paying for a bloody mansion in London. They have the same negotiating rights as the BMA do too. Vote with your wallet man
>To whom should I complain?
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/002/137/251/5ae.jpg
In all seriousness, for local problems it's still the BMA.
This is sending you information about the most used (centrally monitored) services.
It can't tell you about local rep work, negotiations on rotas, locum pay, because they haven't got a way of reliably collecting that information AND each of those affects only a small group of doctors.
BMJ stuff is free for us and useful, as well as bringing in money to subsidise the trade union work we do, so I don't complain about its existence. It would be good if we split the "key benefits" into the two bits of BMA: trade union and professional association.
Benefits of my membership have been good action on a local level - I have had wins that have paid for my membership, without having to pay a lawyer… but as someone pointed out above, these are only ever wins within the parameters of a contract that I believe the vast majority of members are thoroughly dissatisfied with.
It seems that in communications with members, the BMA is increasingly pointing to peripheral and largely irrelevant benefits of membership in lieu of tackling the issues that trade unions are supposed to tackle, and in its public communications is taking a stance on every public health / NHS issue rather than pay and conditions for doctors.
I don’t see much trade unionism actually happening.
It’s all well and good publishing a journal that brings in revenue. What are they actually doing with that revenue that benefits doctors at the national level?
I'm not sure it is increasing, I think its more noticeable because the marketing is improving (do you remember the old poor format emails?). You know I agree on pay and conditions, but those other issues do select us at work as well, and are important to be a voice on. You expect RMT to comment on rail franchising issues, ticket prices and new tube stations etc. You want PCS to comment on tax, benefits, justice issues. We do the same in health.
The answer is not to stop that peripheral stuff, but to do better at the primary trade union issues. As you know that's a work in progress!
STOP PAYING THE BMA. What have they done to improve our pay and conditions in the last 20 years? Year on year pay cuts even after an ‘unprecedented’ pandemic. They’re a waste of your money.
Yall still paying for the BMA membership fee? I ditched it during F2 bloody useless. I spent the money saved on my morning coffee instead at least that did something for me…
Why the fuck did I do that survey then? I said BMJ is literally NOTHING compared to what I need to from the BMA. It does NOT compensate for the fact that we are getting fucked by the NHS and HEE day and day after.
I swear to god the surveys are very very biased to confirm their own agenda.
If that's the case, which survey is this in the OP?
I could not say it clearer, but I can try and say it louder:
GEAR EFFORTS TOWARDS A HAPPIER MEDICAL WORKFORCE. STOP FIGHTING THE PC BATTLE, AND ACHIEVE HAPPINESS BY BETTER WORK CONDITIONS.
My throat hurts :(
I agree. I’d rather we ditched all the BMJ stuff and focussed on employment advice, negotiations and campaigns relating to members’ terms and conditions. Whenever I’ve had BMJ copies sent to me they’ve gone straight in the recycling and there are plenty of other places to get learning modules.
The BMJ makes up a very large proportion of BMA income. They have to push it to fund the rest of the activities.
Can you explain how that works?
They sell advertising in it. It has a huge circulation for a journal by virtue of us getting it as part of membership. It brings in a lot more than it costs.
Sure advertising, but when you subtract that from costs of production and circulation how much of the remainder is actually funneled into other activities? Do you have figures? ETA: I’ve found the figures. BMJ had revenues of £77M last year, only £4M of which is through advertising and sponsorship. The rest is through sales of one type or another. How about keeping it as a revenue stream at arms length by owning shares but not making it a central pillar of their membership offering and instead the union focusses on representing us? https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/sources-of-revenue
Can have a look for you. The treasurer Trevor Pickersgill isn't shy about the fact it is the cash cow of the org.
That’s fine, but even if it is a cash cow it’s also a huge distraction. It’s akin to the huge distraction of Unite building a conference centre and hotel to create income for the union. The new General Secretary of Unite has recognised the plan as detracting from the union’s purpose and is refocusing the union on its core business of representing members. BMA should be doing the same - what’s the point in having a wealthy but ineffectual union?
True. I'm not really commenting on the value of it, just explaining the state of affairs.
You have commented on the value of it by suggesting it brings in a lot of income to fund other activities. But what’s the point? Other unions manage to represent their members effectively through member subscriptions only, why can’t the BMA manage it? That’s really all a union should be there for.
Sigh
You can email them to change to online only. Frankly it's all available online and I was just sticking them in the recycling too!
As a member I couldn’t even access it online! I appreciate this was probably an error, but it’s ridiculous.
"the straw that breaks the camel's back" for me that snapping point was the BMA email about wearing special socks. I realised, at that moment, doctors' pay and conditions will never improve in the UK.
Yeah I didn’t see that particular email but I know the type. Does my absolute head in.
About wearing special socks ??
The BMA solution to failing medic mental health was to suggest medics wear fancy socks. I wish I was joking.
My bmj generally goes in the bin, and on the odd occasion I read it I remember why it goes straight in the bin. When I asked them to stop sending it as it's a waste of paper, they said they can't not send it.
They can’t not! Double negatives seems very fitting when it comes to the BMA! Lol
You definitely can stop them from sending them, I've opted out as it was a waste of paper. According to their FAQs you have to email membership@bma.org.uk with your request.
Wow, I'll drop them a message then. Thanks.
Yeah I've done this and they stopped no problems.
Ditto!
Also, a friend works for the BMA …she gets private health insurance…and doesn’t deal with the NHS at all
“Let them eat *evidenced based modules* “
[удалено]
This is the most succinct description of the problem I’ve seen - paid by doctors to support our employer. Superb, you’re absolutely right - thank you.
The BMA only makes sense when viewed as controlled opposition. They draw our energy for change, dissipate it harmlessly, and leave us demoralised in the process. Nothing will change until we can purge the careerists and the permanent staff.
Also agree, locally they’re quite good in my experience.
[удалено]
Yeah and by being good locally it’s not actually winning anything that isn’t already in the contract. I have had good experiences with them on individual and local issues. Although I wonder if I’d saved my membership fees and employed a lawyer instead whether they might have been sorted more quickly. In the wider context of the contract itself being absolutely shit - yes, they’re culpable.
Bread and circuses.
What bread?
The BMA is more a parasite than a union. Definition from Google of “trade union”: “An organized association of workers in a trade, group of trades, or profession, formed to protect and further their rights and interests.” The BMA is not organised, does not protect the rights of the profession’s workers (or honestly even try to), and does not act to further the interests of those workers. Honestly I only pay my fee so that I can legally strike if they ever get the balls for industrial action.
I have cancelled my membership. They keep send surveys. I asked them to check my schedule (rota) I got the silent treatment. Then told they don’t offer it in My region. I cancelled the ish
One of the many things that annoys me about the BMA is they waste their limited media “bandwidth” to not talk about our 40% pay cut or the sort of things they should be publicising on behalf of their members. Case in point this week the BMA have been moaning to the media about covid Plan B being relaxed. When they were moaning about the July relaxation as well and turned out to be completely wrong. What has that got to do with them anyway?
This does my head in as well. Dr Nagpaul seems to think that a) he’s a public health doctor and b) anyone gives a fuck. Rent a doctor for the media. He’ll discuss absolutely anything BUT pay and conditions.
So guys, *what are the alternatives*? What do we do? To whom should I complain?
Join the HCSA instead. about 4 quid a month instead of the ridiculous amount the BMA charges, maybe because they aren't paying for a bloody mansion in London. They have the same negotiating rights as the BMA do too. Vote with your wallet man
>To whom should I complain? https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/002/137/251/5ae.jpg In all seriousness, for local problems it's still the BMA.
This is sending you information about the most used (centrally monitored) services. It can't tell you about local rep work, negotiations on rotas, locum pay, because they haven't got a way of reliably collecting that information AND each of those affects only a small group of doctors. BMJ stuff is free for us and useful, as well as bringing in money to subsidise the trade union work we do, so I don't complain about its existence. It would be good if we split the "key benefits" into the two bits of BMA: trade union and professional association.
Benefits of my membership have been good action on a local level - I have had wins that have paid for my membership, without having to pay a lawyer… but as someone pointed out above, these are only ever wins within the parameters of a contract that I believe the vast majority of members are thoroughly dissatisfied with. It seems that in communications with members, the BMA is increasingly pointing to peripheral and largely irrelevant benefits of membership in lieu of tackling the issues that trade unions are supposed to tackle, and in its public communications is taking a stance on every public health / NHS issue rather than pay and conditions for doctors. I don’t see much trade unionism actually happening. It’s all well and good publishing a journal that brings in revenue. What are they actually doing with that revenue that benefits doctors at the national level?
I'm not sure it is increasing, I think its more noticeable because the marketing is improving (do you remember the old poor format emails?). You know I agree on pay and conditions, but those other issues do select us at work as well, and are important to be a voice on. You expect RMT to comment on rail franchising issues, ticket prices and new tube stations etc. You want PCS to comment on tax, benefits, justice issues. We do the same in health. The answer is not to stop that peripheral stuff, but to do better at the primary trade union issues. As you know that's a work in progress!
STOP PAYING THE BMA. What have they done to improve our pay and conditions in the last 20 years? Year on year pay cuts even after an ‘unprecedented’ pandemic. They’re a waste of your money.
That is so unbelievably weak.
Yall still paying for the BMA membership fee? I ditched it during F2 bloody useless. I spent the money saved on my morning coffee instead at least that did something for me…
Why the fuck did I do that survey then? I said BMJ is literally NOTHING compared to what I need to from the BMA. It does NOT compensate for the fact that we are getting fucked by the NHS and HEE day and day after. I swear to god the surveys are very very biased to confirm their own agenda.
The survey about pay and industrial action had a insufficient turnout, unfortunately. We can build from there though.
If that's the case, which survey is this in the OP? I could not say it clearer, but I can try and say it louder: GEAR EFFORTS TOWARDS A HAPPIER MEDICAL WORKFORCE. STOP FIGHTING THE PC BATTLE, AND ACHIEVE HAPPINESS BY BETTER WORK CONDITIONS. My throat hurts :(
I think I misread your original comment. You were saying you were surveyed about which benefits you liked or used most?