Junior Doctors' Pay Claim Poll

[Biggy Stardust]

Killboy said:

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.

That's a very long way from answering his statement that "fair" is a massively subjective term (& impossible to achieve in reality).

[Killboy]

Biggy Stardust said:

That's a very long way from answering his statement that "fair" is a massively subjective term (& impossible to achieve in reality).

I dont think its for you to answer. Its for the doctors to answer. Pay them what they think is fair, or they leave. I dont think they care what you think

Every other employer has to do this.

[272BHP]

Killboy said:

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.

I grew up in the 70s and I didn't know anyone who went to University - no-one in my extended family, no-one in my street and no-one in my class at school.
Many faced a job market that seemed non-existent at the time and the despair was palpable in a way that thankfully most youngsters today will never ever know.
Many could not afford to get on the housing market at the time even when they were super cheap.

But yeah we all had it good

[s1962a]

Killboy said:

Biggy Stardust said:

That's a very long way from answering his statement that "fair" is a massively subjective term (& impossible to achieve in reality).

I dont think its for you to answer. Its for the doctors to answer. Pay them what they think is fair, or they leave. I dont think they care what you think

Every other employer has to do this.

People seem to have selective amnesia when it comes to demand and supply in terms of the labour force.

Use the example of binmen - if your stinking rubbish was not being collected on time by the council - sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't and wasn't very consistent, and the excuse they gave was that they cannot retain staff on the current wage they want to pay binmen, you'd probably ask them why they don't pay them more - if they told you that they cannot afford to pay more, then what? Would you be perfectly happy with your rubbish stinking outside your house because the council made a fair argument that they can't afford to pay them more? or would you want the council to somehow (a) raise funds or (b) find the money to be able to provide this service effectively?

Junior doctors are more qualified than binmen, but the difference is that stinking rubbish outside your house may or may not become a health hazard, but not being able to get treatment because of a lack of doctors could be far more dangerous.

[CrgT16]

ATG said:

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.

I agree they are not the only bright people around but they do have an extremely specialised skill set, are heavily regulated and carry a huge indemnity. Very different stress than your trader or analyst that just lost a few £M with no consequence to life or death and earning mid six figures…

You carry on alienating the doctors within the NHS then come here complain the service is st, not fit for purpose, etc. like companies headhunt best individuals to meet their goals and pay them well why shouldn’t good doctors be paid better? Because they are funded by the tax payers?? Therefore accept what’s given as it’s better than the average?

I much rather a senior surgeon is paid well, is happy at his work and feels appreciated than one that is overworked, working long shifts and getting paid £120k. Senior surgeons pay progression should see them earning towards £300-400k at the peak of their careers not stuck to £120-150 level as they can be now.

Then they would not leave the NHS to work privately and it would be better for everyone. Highly specialised skill set not allowed high pay?? Silly approach. They are not necessary the super bright but there is no argument they have highly specialised skills.

If people feel undervalued they leave, simple as.

Don’t look after your workforce, particularly highly specialised one and your company may not do well… same on the NHS.

My wife works for the NHS and is paid well but she works many hours. In spite of this she has always the mentality she must work more and more just to help as there is so much to do. She doesn’t get more money for doing so but somehow it’s drummed into her head she should “serve”. Commendable as it is will lead to her retiring earlier due to burn out.

Anyway be careful what you wish for. Even do we should not be held ransom to every pay demands we should at least have an honest and fair look into the issue, it’s causes and how to improve it for every worker.

[JagLover]

s1962a said:

People seem to have selective amnesia when it comes to demand and supply in terms of the labour force.

Use the example of binmen - if your stinking rubbish was not being collected on time by the council - sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't and wasn't very consistent, and the excuse they gave was that they cannot retain staff on the current wage they want to pay binmen, you'd probably ask them why they don't pay them more - if they told you that they cannot afford to pay more, then what? Would you be perfectly happy with your rubbish stinking outside your house because the council made a fair argument that they can't afford to pay them more? or would you want the council to somehow (a) raise funds or (b) find the money to be able to provide this service effectively?

Junior doctors are more qualified than binmen, but the difference is that stinking rubbish outside your house may or may not become a health hazard, but not being able to get treatment because of a lack of doctors could be far more dangerous.

The problem is also though that the council may be artificially restricting their intake of new binmen to be trained, even though far more people want to be binmen than there are training places available. In which case paying them more wouldn't tackle the problem of not enough bin men being trained.

In reality part of what we are seeing is the consequence of restricting the training places available to 6,000 a year for so many years. A recent increase to 7,500 will take years to have any significant affect and that is an inadequate level as well.

[turbobloke]

Killboy said:

Biggy Stardust said:

That's a very long way from answering his statement that "fair" is a massively subjective term (& impossible to achieve in reality).

I dont think its for you to answer. Its for the doctors to answer. Pay them what they think is fair, or they leave. I dont think they care what you think

Every other employer has to do this.

Of course every other employer doesn't have to do that, and paying what a group of workers demands isn't negotiation it's a diktat holding others to ransom, in this case including the public. If anyone thinks their pay is unreasonable they can look for and take employment elsewhere including abroad if they wish and have an offer. In a thread on strikes there was mention of 30% to 40% of junior doctors thinking of leaving, also of turnover of junior doctors being around 10% from available data, which is quite a mismatch. If 40% do actually beluga off, then politically no government could survive the NHS having nearly half staffing at junior doctor level, so something would be done for sure.

[pork911]

Killboy said:

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.

'because NHS' gets us nowhere.


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?

And should any pay rises be tied to exclusivity (no second jobs)?

[Killboy]

turbobloke said:

Of course every other employer doesn't have to do that, and paying what a group of workers demands isn't negotiation it's a diktat holding others to ransom, in this case including the public. If anyone thinks their pay is unreasonable they can look for and take employment elsewhere including abroad if they wish and have an offer. In a thread on strikes there was mention of 30% to 40% of junior doctors thinking of leaving, also of turnover of junior doctors being around 10% from available data, which is quite a mismatch. If 40% do actually beluga off, then politically no government could survive the NHS having nearly half staffing at junior doctor level, so something would be done for sure.

Sorry what? What employers do not have to pay fair wages for staff? Lol as usual.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I think we may have reached a critical point with doctor

[turbobloke]

Killboy said:

turbobloke said:

Of course every other employer doesn't have to do that, and paying what a group of workers demands isn't negotiation it's a diktat holding others to ransom, in this case including the public. If anyone thinks their pay is unreasonable they can look for and take employment elsewhere including abroad if they wish and have an offer. In a thread on strikes there was mention of 30% to 40% of junior doctors thinking of leaving, also of turnover of junior doctors being around 10% from available data, which is quite a mismatch. If 40% do actually beluga off, then politically no government could survive the NHS having nearly half staffing at junior doctor level, so something would be done for sure.

Sorry what? What employers do not have to pay fair wages for staff? Lol as usual.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I think we may have reached a critical point with doctor

You snipped your own post, which contained the statement I replied to, allow me to remind you.

Killboy said:

I dont think its for you to answer. Its for the doctors to answer. Pay them what they think is fair, or they leave. I dont think they care what you think

Every other employer has to do this.

So, every other employer has to pay their employees "what that think is fair" or they leave, which is clearly not so,

After my reply, you shifted your own goalpost and claimed it was about "employers do not have to pay fair wages for staff?" which is totally different. Your post claimed it had to be what the workers thought was fair aka a diktat not negotiation.

Lol at yourself if you thought nobody would spot this. Have you defined "fair" any other, more objective way as yet? Apologies in advance if I missed it.

[Killboy]

turbobloke said:

So, every other employer has to pay their employees "what that think is fair" or they leave, which is clearly not so,
.

Explain how this works?

[MiniMan64]

kambites said:

At the risk of stating the obvious, they need to be paid enough for the NHS to recruit (and retain) enough doctors. Given that they NHS has around 9000 unfilled medical roles and 45000 unfilled nursing rules there is clearly something wrong very at present. Whether a huge pay rise is the right solution is a question for someone who knows a lot more about the topic than me!

Same is true in education and that hasn’t stopped the government taking the piss there with pay.

[turbobloke]

Killboy said:

turbobloke said:

So, every other employer has to pay their employees "what that think is fair" or they leave, which is clearly not so,
.

Explain how this works?

Weird.

You need to explain it. it's what you claimed.

At 12:04 Killboy said:

I dont think its for you to answer. Its for the doctors to answer. Pay them what they think is fair, or they leave. I dont think they care what you think

Every other employer has to do this.

Over to you,if you wish, though after the rhetorical gymnastics in your posts it's not worth participating further.

Junior Doctors have a claim for a reasonable pay rise, there's some discussion about what's reasonable, now that would be worth participating in

[ukwill]

Killboy said:

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.

Taxpayers aren't dictating Doctors wages (and the vast majority of them were not able to get a Uni education in the 70s). I linked to salaries of Doctors and Nurses across Europe. Unsurprisingly, the UK is very far from being an outlier.

You seem to be under the impression that the way forward for Doctors/Nurses is to hold the Govt to ransom until they presumably get their way. Had you been around in the 70s you'd have 1st hand experience of seeing how that turns out.

The NHS has been a political football since inception. And the unions wouldn't want it any other way.

[Killboy]

turbobloke said:

Killboy said:

turbobloke said:

So, every other employer has to pay their employees "what that think is fair" or they leave, which is clearly not so,
.

Explain how this works?

Weird.

You need to explain it. it's what you claimed.

At 12:04 Killboy said:

I dont think its for you to answer. Its for the doctors to answer. Pay them what they think is fair, or they leave. I dont think they care what you think

Every other employer has to do this.

Over to you,if you wish, though after the rhetorical gymnastics in your posts it's not worth participating further.

Junior Doctors have a claim for a reasonable pay rise, there's some discussion about what's reasonable, now that would be worth participating in

It's very simple. If they are not happy with what they earn, they will likely look at options. If they find something more appealing, then they will weigh up the options and make a decision. There is likely very little the NHS can do to counter an offer financially.

I not sure what part of this you don't understand. And even if the employer's could dictate wages, do you want the person providing your medical care to be one of those that hasn't taken their value seriously?

Tell me how you see the alternative working

[Killboy]

ukwill said:

Taxpayers aren't dictating Doctors wages (and the vast majority of them were not able to get a Uni education in the 70s). I linked to salaries of Doctors and Nurses across Europe. Unsurprisingly, the UK is very far from being an outlier.

You seem to be under the impression that the way forward for Doctors/Nurses is to hold the Govt to ransom until they presumably get their way. Had you been around in the 70s you'd have 1st hand experience of seeing how that turns out.

The NHS has been a political football since inception. And the unions wouldn't want it any other way.

I don't really care what the doctors and nurses do with this strike. I'm looking way beyond the strike. This hasn't suddenly happened, the staff shortages are years in the making. See the above reply, I fully support people taking whatever is available to them to further themselves.

Edited by Killboy on Wednesday 12th April 13:43

[CrgT16]

Indeed the employers don’t have to increase the pay but they risk loosing their best employees if undervalued.

NHS doctors feel undervalued this can be due to many reasons not only the pay rate.

I don’t think we should roll over to demands but we should look in a serious way why we got to this stage.

All governments want to champion the NHS but expect the work to be done on a shoestring. Want to offer Rolls Royce level of care whilst spending Vauxhall money…

More doctors, more hospitals, more patients education and accountability. People can become healthier by adopting healthier lifestyles. That is also their responsibility. More capacity for the real serious stuff.

[ukwill]

Killboy said:

I don't really care what the doctors and nurses so with this strike. I'm looking way beyond the strike. This hasn't suddenly happened, the staff shortages are years in the making. See the above reply, I fully support people taking whatever is available to them to further themselves.

But there is nothing new with this particular strike. Indeed, there is nothing new with areas of the public sector striking in any given year.

I don't support anyone using other peoples lives for their own ends. And I don't support Govts playing on the goodwill and morality of its employees to try to remove the focus on it's own inept handling of the countries health system.

A fair few stats here:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brie...

Apparently "doctor numbers up 21% and nurses up 16% over the five years to November 2022"

[ukwill]

CrgT16 said:

Indeed the employers don’t have to increase the pay but they risk loosing their best employees if undervalued.

NHS doctors feel undervalued this can be due to many reasons not only the pay rate.

I don’t think we should roll over to demands but we should look in a serious way why we got to this stage.

All governments want to champion the NHS but expect the work to be done on a shoestring. Want to offer Rolls Royce level of care whilst spending Vauxhall money…

More doctors, more hospitals, more patients education and accountability. People can become healthier by adopting healthier lifestyles. That is also their responsibility. More capacity for the real serious stuff.

I'm not sure its about expecting "work to be done on a shoestring" - it's the biggest single expense of our public expenditure. Perhaps it's a case of "how would you chop up the pie"?

[CrgT16]

It is a shoestring… NHS is the world‘s bigger employer. 20% of that pie doesn’t really mean that much. I think the entire expectation of what it delivers needs readjusting. Anyways…