5 ms·

What I don't understand: Say I'm a doctor, and I declare I will only work my 40 hours (or however much a full time is where you are). I will literally leave wh

by 317070 3y ago

What I don't understand: Say I'm a doctor, and I declare I will only work my 40 hours (or however much a full time is where you are). I will literally leave when my time is up. Oh, and I don't pick up phones outside of work. Or read emails. What will anyone else do about it? Fire me? Then they have even less doctors... It seems to me doctors do have the power to change things, even without collectivizing. But for some reason I don't understand, it doesn't seem to work out.

IncreasePosts 2y ago
If you don't have your own practice, yes, they might fire you. If you're only working "part time", you're bringing in less in patient associated payments for the owners compared to people who work more. There's also the fact that doctors might prefer $700k/yr working 80 hour weeks vs $350k/yr working 40 hour weeks. A lot of people who become doctors are workaholics and were behaving in a similar manner throughout their schooling.
kwhitefoot 3y ago
They would earn less money. > the power to change things, even without collectivizing. Not really it's a sort of prisoner's dilemma. The one who refuses to work stupid hours gets fired and someone else has their job. If they stood together then it might work.
- 317070 3y ago
  But there is no one waiting for their job. In most places there is a shortage of doctors.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > Not really it's a sort of prisoner's dilemma. The one who refuses to work stupid hours gets fired and someone else has their job. Is this relevant in a profession that already doesn't have enough practitioners? I mean, let's say there is a shortage of 100 doctors in a location that currently has 900. If you fire one, wouldn't they easily pick up one of the open 100 slots?
  - kwhitefoot 2y ago
    The individual concerned is still fired and has a harder time surviving than the company that fired them.
flerchin 3y ago
There's a duty of care* that doctors have. If there's no one else to care for your patient, you're required by law to care for them. (I'm not a doctor, but it's a real thing) It's one thing to risk being fired. It's quite another to lose your profession. *google "duty of care" for more info

by 317070 3y ago

IncreasePosts 2y ago

If you don't have your own practice, yes, they might fire you. If you're only working "part time", you're bringing in less in patient associated payments for the owners compared to people who work more. There's also the fact that doctors might prefer $700k/yr working 80 hour weeks vs $350k/yr working 40 hour weeks. A lot of people who become doctors are workaholics and were behaving in a similar manner throughout their schooling.

kwhitefoot 3y ago

They would earn less money. > the power to change things, even without collectivizing. Not really it's a sort of prisoner's dilemma. The one who refuses to work stupid hours gets fired and someone else has their job. If they stood together then it might work.

317070 3y ago
But there is no one waiting for their job. In most places there is a shortage of doctors.
lelanthran 3y ago
> Not really it's a sort of prisoner's dilemma. The one who refuses to work stupid hours gets fired and someone else has their job. Is this relevant in a profession that already doesn't have enough practitioners? I mean, let's say there is a shortage of 100 doctors in a location that currently has 900. If you fire one, wouldn't they easily pick up one of the open 100 slots?
- kwhitefoot 2y ago
  The individual concerned is still fired and has a harder time surviving than the company that fired them.

flerchin 3y ago

There's a duty of care* that doctors have. If there's no one else to care for your patient, you're required by law to care for them. (I'm not a doctor, but it's a real thing) It's one thing to risk being fired. It's quite another to lose your profession. *google "duty of care" for more info