Slave Doctors

Joined
31 May 2016
Messages
15,782
Reaction score
2,371
Country
United Kingdom
I listened to an excellent Radio 4 program yesterday on the topic of "slave" doctors being recruited by private companies from Nigeria to work in private hospitals. There is a BBC report here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63141929

Not only do these private firms target countries which are banned from recruitment, due to their own country needing them, but they work them up to 3 weeks on (24 hour on call) and deduct pay if they can't work due to tiredness, are ill or need to take time for management, appraisals and admin. They all end up working for private hospitals, like Nuffield Health under conditions that the NHS do not allow.

If they moan they get their visas cancelled. Literally treating them like slaves.
 
thank you for posting, its a shocking article.

It seems odd to imagine such a highly educated profession being exploited, we usually think of worker exploitation at the low end
 
People in poor countries tend to see jobs like Doctor, Lawyer, engineer etc as desirable and they see working in the UK NHS as a great way to lift themselves out of poverty. Its really disappointing to see companies like NH involved, particularly for private work, where the customer is expecting a higher standard of care, not a lower one.

The NHS don't actively recruit from these countries due to the damage it does to healthcare in that country. So the private "recruiters" sweep in hire the talent and then slave it out to private hospitals.

I'm not one to see racism where it isn't, but I couldn't help noticing there was not much diversity on the company website
 
Last edited:
BBC went through it too, news channel. It's "an excellent example of privatisation". They get these people to sign a piece of paper that is intended to get around the working time directive. Actually I was given one of those once the directive was announced. I signed it on the basis that I can't sign away my rights under law. Rather similar to receiving a payment that effectively limited my ability to change job. A group of us did get legal advice on that one. The working time directive may also be viewed in a different way. Some one can work excessive hours if they want. NHS, broadcasted on BBC.

Not so sure about just targetting red list countries that need to keep them. Nigeria is one and earlier reports have said that a lot of doctors there want to leave their country. Also the GMC exam. They provide it but not clear who uses them.
 
 
These are private doctors and private hospitals, these practices are not allowed in the NHS, so its not about privatisation. By signing an opt-out of the WTD you are absolutely, legally waiving your right in law to be protected by the regulation. However, you can usually opt back in at any time subject to the terms of your opt out. Companies can attach privileges to the opt out, but it is tricky for them to withdraw them as a result of you opting back in.
 
Funnily enough, the Working Time Directive is an example of workers rights that our Brexer government is keen to "reform" into the bin.

I suppose, if we wanted workers rights, we wouldn't vote Conservative.
 
By signing an opt-out of the WTD you are absolutely, legally waiving your right in law to be protected by the regulation.
Until the matter is dealt with in a court. So show me a case where signing one has removed a persons legal rights. It's a woolly area as overtime always has been. There are also some companies that will expect some of that for free and have ways of encouraging people to do that.

The can do more if some one wants seems to be a pretty general interpretation of it all. That in real terms is very similar to how it has always been.
 
These are private doctors and private hospitals, these practices are not allowed in the NHS, so its not about privatisation.
The NHS is being privatised...

And have you noted how many hours doctors work in NHS hospitals?
 
Until the matter is dealt with in a court. So show me a case where signing one has removed a persons legal rights. It's a woolly area as overtime always has been. There are also some companies that will expect some of that for free and have ways of encouraging people to do that.

The can do more if some one wants seems to be a pretty general interpretation of it all. That in real terms is very similar to how it has always been.
No it really isn't https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1833/regulation/5/made

Section 4 states the maximum time you may work. The default position.
Section 5 allows you to opt out along with any time period from the original opt out, for opting back in.

Nothing in this legislation governs pay or expectation of pay. As long as you are paid minimum wage for your hours, the company can have whatever policy it likes for overtime etc. I once had a contract that stated hours necessary to perform the role.

So if you sign an opt out, you are waiving your legal right to the protection Section 4 provides.

Did you understand the WTD law worked differently?
 
Did you understand the WTD law worked differently?
Just where does it sat that a worker can be forced to work these hours what ever they are set at?

5.—(1) The limit specified in regulation 4(1) shall not apply in relation to a worker who has agreed with his employer in writing that it should not apply in his case, provided that the employer complies with the requirements of paragraph (4).

All I did by signing a waver was to allow myself to work over a 48hr a week. Something that I would seldom do anyway but have at times when needed, ;) The longest was winter test working in Sweden. Limited time to do the work so did a 80hr+ week and another over 48hrs. My choice.

This is why seeing the act is an aspect of worker protection isn't correct. One area where it is after a fashion is HGV drivers monitored via a tachograph. ;) That's to protect other road users as well.
 
I don't understand your question? Are you asking: can a worker be asked to work more than 48 hours a week if they opt out? Yes. opting out waives your right to an hours cap. Employment is - money in exchange for doing what you are told (within reason).
 
I don't understand your question? Are you asking: can a worker be asked to work more than 48 hours a week if they opt out? Yes. opting out waives your right to an hours cap. Employment is - money in exchange for doing what you are told (within reason).
Even if they have opted out, do they lose all protection in law to hours of work ? I don't think it is quite as simple as you suggest
 
For example?
WTD places a cap on hours worked, it defines what constituted hours worked and any exemption for professions/activities etc. If you opt out, you opt out of the cap.

So for example I can write a contract that says, something along the lines of:

employee will work the necessary hours required for the job, with a minimum of 35 form 9AM to 5PM, subject to WTD
 
Even if they have opted out, do they lose all protection in law to hours of work ? I don't think it is quite as simple as you suggest
It isn't. The opt out is just as I said - it allows people to work more than 48hrs - if they like and of course if the work is needed.

TBH I don't think opting out makes much difference to that aspect really.

NHS is an interesting area. You will find info on nurse's shifts that vary. This one for instance

but google will show that lots work 12hr shifts. They may also do extra ones to provide coverage. They may even work a lower number of them than they could but with a cut in salary. The only limitation on the 12hr shift is not being able to immediately start another one.
 
Back
Top