Junior Doctors' Pay Claim Poll

[turbobloke]

Dixy said:

The pension is worse than it was and is not guaranteed <snip>

There was no mention of a guarantee. There was no mention of being worse or better than it was. Originally. Those points have been raised since.

I asked how this year's 10.1% increase has a less favourable impact on one consultant over another, other things being equal, where one retired in 2022 and the other will retire in 2024, given that the former won't be on strike whereas the latter may (a point raised along the way). What's your view?

We need to compare like with like, to see the impact of a 10.1% rise, other variables shouldn't change.

[turbobloke]

oddman said:

turbobloke said:

How does the 10.1% rise not impact as favourably on say a consultant retiring next year, as opposed to one who retired last year?

Given that a consultant retiring next year may go on strike this year.

The 10.1% was last years September CPI. Only those who are already retired get this

So the latest 10.1% wasn't on top of last year's approx 3% lift?

Of course it affects a consultant retiring next year. They'll benefit from the 3% last year, also the 10% this year, and whatever the April 2024 lift is based on Sept 23 indexation, applied to their situation, which for valid comparison purposes needs to be like with like.

[turbobloke]

pghstochaj said:

turbobloke said:

Dblue said:

Killboy said:

This is what happens when you fail to keep paying people what they are worth. You end up in the situation where what's needed to too high a jump a company can afford, and people simply leave and you are left with the desperate. Not a good situation for any company, and certainly not for a nations healthcare.

Exactly.

And there has to be a deep breath and a correction made. The reason they are striking is that not striking ended up with 15 years of a big fat nothing.

Honestly, the false economy of putting it off for year after year costs lots more than just giving them regular small rises

It may do so, we'll have to wait and see.

As posted at least twice at this point, my preferred solution with no more skin in the game than the next patient, is for the 35% nonsense to be withdrawn, an offer slightly bigger than the Scots offer (say 15%) with consideration of future rises as part of the deal, and the offer being accepted.

Taking the psss on both sides ought to stop.

That doesn't fix 15 years of pay erosion, it just fixes the last 12 months. I think medics are after more.

I didn't say what it fixes or make any related claim, and would note that fixing erosion from a cherry picked date (I showed earlier in the thread that pay is ahead if you look further back) is one consideration among others, such as affordability, inflation, acceptability in a cost of living crisis particularly to the large majority of people earning much less, other unions watching and ready to take the peas, etc.

[turbobloke]

Hants PHer said:

pghstochaj said:

2008 marked the commencement of pay erosion, initially as a result of the financial crisis, and the BMA broadly accepting that pay would not keep up with inflation for the short term. However, this has then gone on for 15 years. You can see that since 2008, pay for doctors have lagged behind average wage increases during the same period by a significant amount. Ultimately this has resulted in a graduate teacher earning more than a graduate doctor.

Your second point: That's how banded pay works.

Furthermore, somebody becoming a junior doctor set out on that path about seven years prior.

Right, so the BMA wants all of the bad (pay erosion) years reversed, but ignores any good (pay increase) years prior to that. Of course, by that logic one could go back to 1962 or something, but a demand for pay to be index linked back fifteen years is essentially a demand for inflation proof earnings - which presumably the BMA would insist on in future.

Exactly!

It may well be correct that 2008 marks a good starting point to demonstrate pay erosion, but if (as I did earlier in the thread) one chooses a date in the 1970s iirc - if anyone is keen enough, they can look back and check - then a pay cut would be in order to regain equality in real terms for 2023. Naturally there are various excuses not to do this. For the record, I personally wouldn't want that to happen, fwiw. However, taking the smooth but not the rough is a bit rough, and expecting pay to match inflation via some automatic entitlement is unknown in other sectors, is it not? Any examples of pay continuously linked to inflation would be good to see, if they exist.

[turbobloke]

pghstochaj said:

Hants PHer said:

pghstochaj said:

Perhaps you haven't though this through? The BMA has set out its starting point of having pay returned to 2008 on a real terms basis using RPI. Anybody that has conducted negotiations at a high level know that you need to go in high. There is a basis behind it, pay has been cut in real terms against RPI by x% in that period. You start high and then accept something lower (just like the government has started low at a random 5% offer). The fair point would presumably be something close to the average wage growth during the same period, which would see consultants at +25% and JDs at about +20%.

Regarding pay for JDs, once again, it is banded. I am not sure how you could change that in the NHS. A JD starting in 2017 started down the route in 2010 and could not possibly have foreseen stagnant wages throughout that time, certainly not when average wages have grown during the period in the UK. Once you have finished your medical degree and have approaching £100k in debt, it's hardly the time for a career change. However, one thing you can do is ask for more and if that is refused, see whether your colleagues agree that there is an issue and strike.

I am not sure you would accept low wages in your career. You would presumably move companies. It is a bit more difficult for consultants.

I have thought it through, but thanks for being condescending. If one is to be taken seriously in a bargaining process, then starting with a random year (2008) and applying a misleading escalator (RPI), most of which pre-dates several of your members, is unreasonable in my opinion. One might suggest that Mr. Barclay is equally unreasonable, and I might agree.

As for banding, that misses my point. Which, to reiterate, is that asking for pay rises that pre-date one's employment is unreasonable. Perhaps the BMA could estimate the average starting date of the NHS JD's and apply a CPI increase to that. But to join in 2017 and then demand pay rises backdated to 2008 is unreasonable. I expect that medical students are aware of NHS pay scales well before graduation.

Regarding para 1, this is exactly how negotiation works <snip>

Except that the current situation provides the one counter-example needed for that theory to fall.

The JD/Barclay debacle with your 'how it works' in place, clearly isn't working.

ETA going in or not going in with something 'pragmatic' doesn't suggest going in with something ludicrous, which is ludicrous.

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 4th July 15:29

[turbobloke]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Oh. Happy Birthday to you too BNT! Get your flameproof grundies on.

[turbobloke]

AstonZagato said:

86 said:

Tell it as it is !! PR going well for the BMA. Can’t beat the Sun for a headline ????

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22900244/marxist-bma...

One rule of thumb that has served me well over the years is that, if I find myself agreeing with a Sun headline, it is probably time to change my opinion.

?
The headline is correct in that the 35% position is ridiculous.

[turbobloke]

86 said:

No headline in Sun is correct

https://socialist.net/doctors-vote-time-to-transfo...

https://wstpost.com/far-left-doctors-employed-marx...

Revealing. It's not quite Reds Under The Bedpan as militant BMA activists are special and not your average JD. Docs deserve better.

[turbobloke]

pquinn said:

AstonZagato said:

86 said:

BMA now has no confidence in GMC wonder who is next ?

https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/breaking-news/bm...

Having seen how the GMC operates, I'm not surprised. Appalling organisation that is utterly wrong-headed, as far as I could see.

"The motion also said that ‘too many’ Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) fitness-to-practise (FTP) decisions are ‘disproportionate to the error of the doctors mistake’ "

They're whining that someone holds them to account for their actions. Can't say I have much sympathy.

Of course it's damning to some people's image of their profession finding out the st so many get up to so I can see why they aren't keen on it. Especially when so many clearly give zero sts about things that affect their patients.

It won't go down well 'at home' which is part of the problem. Not recognising what's going on around you, or thinking it's best kept away from public view, isn't going to improve the situation for patients.

Discussion of such things at this particular time with strikes taking place over pay (they say) won't be welcome, attempts to shut down debate won't help either.

[turbobloke]

irc said:

12.4% offered in Scotland.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23641562.p...

With ithree index linked rises ahead, possibly higher.

They already rejected an aggregate 14.5% over two years, plus talks on a change to the system of pay reviews. Too vague?

Strikes off for now.

[turbobloke]

S600BSB said:

NuckyThompson said:

That’s a good offer to be fair, still not ‘fair’ in the grand scheme of things because the wage hasn’t kept up with inflation over the years but tells me at least the Scottish government are better at negotiating than Westminster.

The Westminster government has been AWOL on this issue for some time - as with so much else.

This had the BMA 35% silliness, the rest is mostly Tory self-inflicted.

[turbobloke]

AstonZagato said:

julian64 said:

...snip
Either lower the grade requirement and training to become a doctor to pitch it at a level where you can pay the doctor less but realise that the NHS will be run by 'less able' staff.

Or pay what encourages the best and brightest out of school to go into medicine, but pay an equivalent wage to what the best and brightest would earn in the private sector.
...snip...

I'm not arguing but my wife (who teaches medical students in Cambridge - and has degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge) thinks that 'the brightest and best' don't necessarily make the best doctors. Many of her cohort are now professors and spend their times in labs - but were not particularly good doctors.

A lot of patient-facing medicine is pattern recognition - what are the signs, symptoms and risk factors; what are the diagnosis, management and prognosis? She thinks these are not only the preserve of the 'brightest and best'. Around that pattern recognition, it is empathy, communication with the patient and cooperation with multi-disciplinary teams that make the difference.

That's not to say we should recruit lower standard candidates to pay them less - but rather that the best doctors are not necessarily the 'brightest and best'.

What your wife is saying makes good sense to this non medic.

The only points to add are that significant numbers of such individuals aren't interested in medicine and do other things, and of those who are interested, it's easier and quicker and cheaper to use academic criteria as a filter, which also has face validity to outside observers, so moving fully to the above will be challenging as some potentially excellent patient-facers will remain filtered out.

[turbobloke]

Dixy said:

Steven Barclay could not even be bothered to suggest a meeting to get the strike stopped. Hope none of you had an appointment or op postponed because Hunt wont pay.

Because Hunt won't pay? Pay up or else? That's stand-over thuggery plain and simple.

"As a cardiac surgeon, I am extremely concerned about risks to patients of junior doctors’ strike"

As posted previously: three cardiac surgeons, senior doctors at the Royal Brompton and Harefield specialist heart and lung hospitals in London, have publicly stated that patients face an even greater risk than usual of being harmed or dying if their time-sensitive operation was delayed because NHS heart units would have too few medics available during the strikes.

Hunt's not striking and thus putting patients' lives at risk.

[turbobloke]

pavarotti1980 said:

turbobloke said:

Hunt's not striking and thus putting patients' lives at risk.

No but he is a complete hypocritical bell end though. As Health Secretary was involved in decision making that made the NHS worse; decided pandemic planning wasn't worth it etc etc. Then criticised the NHS as Chair of Health Select Committee for decisions made while he was SoS for that department. Bloke is coated in Teflon (not forgetting his horrible little smug face as well)

Points taken.

He could always binge on a Big Mac diet to change his appearance...

[turbobloke]

pavarotti1980 said:

turbobloke said:

Points taken.

points irrelevant to the topic but its off my chest now

[turbobloke]

markh1973 said:

Hub said:

Russ T Bolt said:

86 said:

Nice to see Teachers being responsible unlike doctors it seems. 6% that’s your lot for this year less lost pay ! Strikes and the ridiculous 35% from the BMA has achieved zippo.

Ps no more talks that’s it game over get back to work

Edited by 86 on Thursday 13th July 13:51

According to the BBC the Teachers haven't accepted this, it is being imposed by the 'Government'

I doubt they have accepted, it doesn't appear to be a funded pay rise which they were asking for, so school budgets will suffer and cuts to education provision will have to be made?

The four teaching unions have recommended that their members accept the offer and suspended the next set of strikes.

Expecting more money then expecting to dictate where it comes from is cute. Apparently schools will be expected to fund 3.5% from their own budgets, with the remaining 3% coming from cuts to the Department for Education's own budget. That's the cost of striking and getting a pay rise.

It's still not too late for the BMA to remove the ridiculous 35% demand, though politically motivated activists don't like to do things like that.

[turbobloke]

pghstochaj said:

turbobloke said:

markh1973 said:

Hub said:

Russ T Bolt said:

86 said:

Nice to see Teachers being responsible unlike doctors it seems. 6% that’s your lot for this year less lost pay ! Strikes and the ridiculous 35% from the BMA has achieved zippo.

Ps no more talks that’s it game over get back to work

Edited by 86 on Thursday 13th July 13:51

According to the BBC the Teachers haven't accepted this, it is being imposed by the 'Government'

I doubt they have accepted, it doesn't appear to be a funded pay rise which they were asking for, so school budgets will suffer and cuts to education provision will have to be made?

The four teaching unions have recommended that their members accept the offer and suspended the next set of strikes.

Expecting more money then expecting to dictate where it comes from is cute. Apparently schools will be expected to fund 3.5% from their own budgets, with the remaining 3% coming from cuts to the Department for Education's own budget. That's the cost of striking and getting a pay rise.

It's still not too late for the BMA to remove the ridiculous 35% demand, though politically motivated activists don't like to do things like that.

Thanks for doing your bit to cut inflation by taking below inflation pay rises since 2008, it is much appreciated.

Since 2008, and more than 10 years prior to that, I've paid myself what I liked, within the common sense envelope of working capital.

I don't know of any PHers with operational time machines, nor anyone moonlighting in powerful government roles and dominating the House of Commons balconies, likewise Bank of England stairwells, so there's not much available to us as individuals to influence inflation past or present.

[turbobloke]

Russ T Bolt said:

86 said:

Hilarious seems I have got under the skin of all the lefty posters on here. So much so that the usual feeble put downs, gender comments etc are the only response. It’s pathetic and some of you are doctors !! Shows I’ve been right all along. Strike as long as you like 6% that’s your lot.

But you are ok with your 10% increase to your benefit payments.

Doesn't the 10% benefit uplift apply across the board? Including NHS pensions?

[turbobloke]

Russ T Bolt said:

Is there a point to your post ?

If so it is unbelievably obscure.

Edited by Russ T Bolt on Thursday 13th July 19:03

It's bleedin' obvious.

[turbobloke]

pghstochaj said:

272BHP said:

pghstochaj said:

I also pay my cleaner more per hour than a graduate JD receives.

As you probably should. I expect the cleaner has years of experience, works at a fearsome pace and is an expert at what they do.

Whereas a graduate doctor no doubt doesn't know an **** from an elbow at that stage of their career.

In 10 years time the Doctor will earn a substantial salary and will be well on their way to accumulating a decent pension, the cleaner? well, not so much.

You don’t know what a JD is, do you?

Anybody can clean, with zero training and almost zero costs to start work. A JD? Not so much.

But remarkable that somebody in the thread is saying JDs should earn less per hour than a cleaner, that’s a new one on me.

They're not saying that, by your own words it's what you pay one cleaner and that's up to you.