Junior Doctors' Pay Claim Poll

[Carl_Manchester]

irc said:

The best performing university in the country as measured by average salary after 5 years is Oxford. £47k.

as many lawyers and wanna be hedge fund whizz kids will attest, it's not the salary that's the problem, it's the hours you have to do to get the salary.

the rise that the junior doctors are after many not be a palatable number to many but it may be closer to the truth than we want to admit to.

[JagLover]

kambites said:

The way the industry is at the moment I don't think they'd manage to fill enough medical spots in British universities even if enough places were available. I know I wouldn't be willing to do 7 years at university and build up six figure debts to then put up with the rubbish NHS doctors have to deal with for the salaries they earn!

Medical courses are heavily oversubscribed. Even if expanded to 15,000 places (so doubled) they would still likely have 2 applicants for every place.

[philv]

Every one in the uk, working or on benefits, should get 35 percent, every year.
Especially when inflation falls, we'll all be doing super.
Doesn't it work like that?

And if it doesn't at least the doctors are safe in the inflationary lifeboat first and foremost.

[pork911]

Limpet said:

Remuneration is a tricky one, as you say.

You can avoid uni altogether, go into sales and earn £150k a year by the age of 30 if you're good, and you get the right breaks. It's not for me at all, but I know people retired (comfortably) at 50 with a decent property portfolio who've contributed nothing more significant to society than selling photocopiers and associated services and software. In terms of value to society, there is no comparison with a doctor, or indeed anyone in the medical profession.

Our society is very odd.

Think there's a tax take piece missing from your social value jigsaw.


How many doctors does someone have to fund before this contribution to society is deemed of any significance?

[crankedup5]

Under pay / devalue and people will shift elsewhere to find their true worth.

[Killboy]

Tory HQ

[JagLover]

parabolica said:

You have to also bear in mind a lot of other countries aggressively hire for doctors and nurses and offer much better pay and conditions; whether it is elsewhere in Europe, Asia or Australia. An ex-UK junior doctor who moved to Sydney recently did a youtube video breaking down her UK vs Australia pay and conditions and in the end she was making around 50% more net for working 50-60 hours a week there, instead of 80 hours in the UK, and her hospital paid for the visa, relocation etc.

Australia is a bit unusual in the degree to which it is reliant on foreign trained doctors and also the close links with the UK that make moving there relatively easy. For them they prefer to recruit from the NHS rather than to invest more in training their own.

The UK pays more to doctors than most European countries so it isn't really the case where there are loads of countries paying a lot more, just some specific ones which, like the NHS themselves, are heavily reliant on recruiting from abroad.

[JagLover]

Limpet said:

Remuneration is a tricky one, as you say.

You can avoid uni altogether, go into sales and earn £150k a year by the age of 30 if you're good, and you get the right breaks. It's not for me at all, but I know people retired (comfortably) at 50 with a decent property portfolio who've contributed nothing more significant to society than selling photocopiers and associated services and software. In terms of value to society, there is no comparison with a doctor, or indeed anyone in the medical profession.

Our society is very odd.

I suspect that this is the PH skewed perception of salaries yet again. In terms of earned income £92K is at the 96th percentile level. So while there may be a number of "unworthy" occupations earning more than senior doctors, statistically they are not particularly large as a percentage of the population.

[pork911]

Ashfordian said:

Murph7355 said:

Why?

They're not going to get 35%, so asking for it is pointless.

What are they expecting over the longer term? Current inflation levels are allegedly transient. Expecting a chunk over inflation year on year to address some perceived "gap" is a road to disappointment IMO.

Until a govt can sort our finances out, big upticks for public sector workers aren't likely/feasible.

That is not to say NHS workers don't "deserve" more pay. I wish we lived in a different world where they and teachers etc are valued more. But the money simply isn't there to pay significant chunks more.

Lots of creative ways to get to, or close to the 35% figure.

Something like, accept 6% this year, and agree a 2% above inflation for the next 10 years pay deal. Could easily skew this so that early career wages get a 2-3% above inflation increase, while others get 0.5-1% above inflation increase over the 10 years.

I agree those communicating the 35% are doing a terrible job, so I would put it on the Health Department to come up with a creative way to achieve this figure.

Your trouble is that you are still looking at this from a short term view.

That assumes 35% should happen and that being creative so it is achieved without looking so bad is good for anyone other than the recipients.

[kambites]

JagLover said:

The UK pays more to doctors than most European countries so it isn't really the case where there are loads of countries paying a lot more, just some specific ones which, like the NHS themselves, are heavily reliant on recruiting from abroad.

True but the UK also has higher average salaries in general and higher costs of living than most of Europe. If you look at the ratio of junior doctor salary to average salary, the UK is amongst the lowest payers in Europe. The UK is also right at the top (or bottom depending on how you look at it) in terms of real-terms net salary fall over the last ten years.

Ultimately there's lots of different ways to look at it which give different results which is (1) why the media manage to come up with such hugely skewed arguments to meet their particular political agenda and (2) why it's so hard to come up with a genuinely realistic view of what's going on.

IMO 35% is clearly ridiculous, but given that they have been getting below inflation pay rises for the last decade, so is anything below the current rate of inflation. Personally, I think 10-15% for new starters (probably more like 5-10% for more experienced doctors who earn a lot more anyway) coupled with a significant reduction in workload would be the best compromise, but I'm not sure the latter is really possible in the short term.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 12th April 10:42

[pork911]

crankedup5 said:

Under pay / devalue and people will shift elsewhere to find their true worth.

Before we send out the blank cheques, as before - Which tax funded workers are getting what increases and what taxes are rising by how much to pay for this and how often will this all continue to rise at what rate?

[deckster]

JagLover said:

I suspect that this is the PH skewed perception of salaries yet again. In terms of earned income £92K is at the 96th percentile level. So while there may be a number of "unworthy" occupations earning more than senior doctors, statistically they are not particularly large as a percentage of the population.

The point isn't that doctors are paid well compared to the average. The point is that doctors are by definition amongst the brightest and best of their cohorts and have many options available to them. We all want our doctors to be drawn from the brightest and best, so we need to make the career attractive those who are very likely to academically be in the 99th percentile.

Paying them poorly, working them until they drop, and telling them to shut up and stop whining because they'll earn lots of money once they make consultant doesn't really seem like the best way to achieve this.

[ukwill]

Nurses salaries across europe
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/06/nurses-sa...

Doctors salaries across europe
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/12/doctors-s...

Edited by ukwill on Wednesday 12th April 11:15

[ATG]

julian64 said:

Already medics are the best and brightest in our society and should be rewarded as such. If they hadn't chosen medicine when they left school they could have the choice of ANY other job in the country. They are the best of us.

This "they're the best and the brightest" stuff is often said, and clearly believed by quite a few young medics anyway. It isn't true and it is profoundly unhelpful to think that it is. Loads of people are bright and academically able. Some choose to do medicine, others choose to do other things. The idea that medics are a rarefied elite is an absolute fantasy. And it's a problem because it starts you down a path of "exceptionalist" thinking in which you start thinking it's normal for the normal rules NOT to apply because "doctors". Why do junior doctors have to work insane hours with no sleep so they make mistakes?? "Because, doctors" said the old guard. Going back a little further, why should hospitals be managed by people with clinical skills but no managerial aptitude? "Because, doctors." Etc, etc.

As discussed on the thread already, some young land managers get paid more than some young doctors. So what? If we set aside the assumption of exceptionalism, why are we surprised? Why assume they should be paid more? Does a professor of maths get paid more? No. Does a swaps trader get paid more? Yes. So what?

So they make difficult decisions? Yes. Under pressure? Yes. Life and death consequences? Yes. Life altering consequences? Yes. So do social workers. So do police. So do the military. It's tough for all of them.

Recognising the relative normality of medicine could help normalise expectations of remuneration, career progression and working conditions to everyone's benefit. If there are recruitment and retention problems, you "just" pull the usual levers to correct it as you would in other sectors, and that includes pay rises amongst other things.

[Killboy]

JagLover said:

I suspect that this is the PH skewed perception of salaries yet again. In terms of earned income £92K is at the 96th percentile level. So while there may be a number of "unworthy" occupations earning more than senior doctors, statistically they are not particularly large as a percentage of the population.

Well 92k is certainly not going to be easy living in London.

[pork911]

The 'best of us' getting ambushed by a Tory government not issuing large and continual pay rises to junior doctors in the NHS?

[Tommo87]

irc said:

"
By the fifth year of training a doctor’s standard base salary has increased to over £51,000. This places junior doctors amongst the top 15 per cent of earners in the UK within five years of graduation. Further, these salary numbers ignore that when doctors work antisocial hours (such as evenings, nights and weekends) they get paid significantly more. "


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/im-a-junior-do...

9% in line with other public sector workers in fact more than most seems enough.

Edited by irc on Tuesday 11th April 09:25

That’s certainly a different story than the typical left winger wishes to pressure everyone to believe.

[turbobloke]

ATG said:

julian64 said:

Already medics are the best and brightest in our society and should be rewarded as such. If they hadn't chosen medicine when they left school they could have the choice of ANY other job in the country. They are the best of us.

This "they're the best and the brightest" stuff is often said, and clearly believed by quite a few young medics anyway. It isn't true and it is profoundly unhelpful to think that it is. Loads of people are bright and academically able. Some choose to do medicine, others choose to do other things. The idea that medics are a rarefied elite is an absolute fantasy. And it's a problem because it starts you down a path of "exceptionalist" thinking in which you start thinking it's normal for the normal rules NOT to apply because "doctors". Why do junior doctors have to work insane hours with no sleep so they make mistakes?? "Because, doctors" said the old guard. Going back a little further, why should hospitals be managed by people with clinical skills but no managerial aptitude? "Because, doctors." Etc, etc.

It's also ironic that, due to there being fewer Vet Schools in the UK than Med Schools,and given the demand for both, the academic entry requirements to be a Vet are often higher than to be a Doc. Vet courses commonly offer (on predictions) at A*AA / AAA compared to AAA / AAB for Medicine (Buckingham quotes ABB).

Obviously it varies, for example Cambridge look for A*A*A for medicine. Like or loathe Oxbridge, that's where what julian64 described can generally be found and as you point out, across all subjects and destined for a variety of professions. The argument for paying doctors well is a wider one, and their abilities need to go beyond school exam measures as per aspects of UCAT or BMAT (e.g. Section 3) and similar. I do voluntary work with a couple of local schools supporting prep / applications for science and vet/medicine so get to see some of this in action.

[ukwill]

Killboy said:

Tory HQ

But there is never agreement on what "fair" actually means. Sounds very virtuous though.

[Killboy]

ukwill said:

But there is never agreement on what "fair" actually means. Sounds very virtuous though.

No - people that grew up in the 70 that have paid for houses conveniently when they were super cheap dictating what people graduating from med school should earn is somewhat entertaining.

You get what you pay for ultimately. So next time you are sitting on the waiting list for something or sitting in A&E for hours, have another think about how you can prevent those making a living for themselves from abandoning you.