Junior Doctors' Pay Claim Poll

[ATG]

Ruskie said:

loafer123 said:

Ruskie said:

Doctors are underpaid and overworked compared with theirs peers abroad and should be paid appropriately.

Posted earlier in the thread;

https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/12/doctors-s...

Now do Canada, Australia and NZ.

Because ... ? Why are they more representative of "fair"? Are their economies more comparable to ours? (A clue: they aren't.)

[loafer123]

Ruskie said:

loafer123 said:

Ruskie said:

loafer123 said:

Ruskie said:

Doctors are underpaid and overworked compared with theirs peers abroad and should be paid appropriately.

Posted earlier in the thread;

https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/12/doctors-s...

Now do Canada, Australia and NZ.

Why not India, Bangladesh and Pakistan?

Life is too short to debate with stupid people and/or trolls. I will let you decide which category you fit into. I won’t be engaging with you again.

A fit of pique from someone unable to justify an illogical position.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

[ATG]

In my humble opinion, when you see disgruntled employees calling for ridiculous pay rises, what you're seeing is often more of a cry for help or a collective nervous breakdown rather than a simple wage demand. (Exceptions to this rule are train drivers and firemen.) If you've got pretty crappy working conditions where you're persistently overstretched so you can't offer the level of care to the individual that you think is required, where your patients are having to wait ages before they get to see you, where the rest of the country thinks you're working for an institution whose wheels are falling off ... guess what? You're going to feel like you're undervalued. And that manifests itself in people yelling "pay me more!" and hoping that more cash might make them feel better about their jobs. But cash alone won't do that. If you want people to feel good about their work you need to make them feel valued in a much broader sense than just financial remuneration. They need to feel that their opinion is respected by their employers, that they're given the time and facilities to do their jobs properly, that the general public recognise their expertise. Fail to do all this soft non-financial stuff and throw money at the problem instead and you'll be left with a better-remunerated but still deeply unsatisfied and increasingly cynical workforce.

[turbobloke]

ATG said:

In my humble opinion, when you see disgruntled employees calling for ridiculous pay rises, what you're seeing is often more of a cry for help or a collective nervous breakdown rather than a simple wage demand. (Exceptions to this rule are train drivers and firemen.) If you've got pretty crappy working conditions where you're persistently overstretched so you can't offer the level of care to the individual that you think is required, where your patients are having to wait ages before they get to see you, where the rest of the country thinks you're working for an institution whose wheels are falling off ... guess what? You're going to feel like you're undervalued. And that manifests itself in people yelling "pay me more!" and hoping that more cash might make them feel better about their jobs. But cash alone won't do that. If you want people to feel good about their work you need to make them feel valued in a much broader sense than just financial remuneration. They need to feel that their opinion is respected by their employers, that they're given the time and facilities to do their jobs properly, that the general public recognise their expertise. Fail to do all this soft non-financial stuff and throw money at the problem instead and you'll be left with a better-remunerated but still deeply unsatisfied and increasingly cynical workforce.

That chimes with Mister Motivator aka Herzberg, but I'd agree with it either way.

Quote on Herzberg principles from the American Academy of Family Physicians which at this point seems an apt source of a comment said:

Hygiene issues, such as salary and supervision, decrease employees' dissatisfaction with the work environment. Motivators, such as recognition and achievement, make workers more productive, creative and committed.

[272BHP]

Dixy said:

No a Junior doctor can be a surgeon, if you have a hip replacement it will probably be done by a junior doctor paid less than a train driver but doing twice as many hours.

Junior doctors are still learning the profession and that necessarily requires sacrifice, commitment and a lot of hours - at least they get paid for it.

There are lots of private sector jobs out there where if there is a problem then you are expected to work off the clock with no extra pay.

[ATG]

turbobloke said:

Herzberg

Said it more pithily than me, unsurprisingly.

[FiF]

Killboy said:

FiF said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/ne...


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/what-is-...

Lol. 6 figure salaries

Let me guess, you didn't read it. The 6 figures refers to consultants and even then makes clear some consultants don't make that.

It's true junior doctor core pay has fallen in real terms about 12%. But the disingenuous and mathematically illiterate way the BMA is using to try and justify 35% increase just marks them out as unworthy. Even FullFact has debunked the £14/hr ballocks.

article said:

Currently, those starting out as doctors in England take home a basic pay of £29,384. This moves up to £34,012 in year two, and £40,257 in year three when they start to specialise.

The Government has said, however, that these figures look more like £38,000, £46,000, and £55,000 respectively, once you take into account additional earnings for working unsocial hours.

Junior doctors in their first year make up about 11pc of all junior doctors in England, with the majority of them on higher pay bands according to NHS England workforce statistics published late last year.

The British Medical Association, the registered union for doctors, claimed back in March that junior doctors make just £14.09 per hour – less than someone who works at Pret a Manger.

However, fact checking organisation Full Fact has since suggested this is not wholly true, arguing hourly pay for the average junior doctor – once extra earnings and holiday is accounted for – is more like £20 to £30 per hour.

Independent pension consultant John Ralfe said that a junior doctor earning the third-year pay average of £40,257 would retire after 40 years with an NHS pension paying £29,790 each year – if their salary remained the same throughout their career.

He said the pension deal was “spectacularly bigger” than those offered to private sector workers today. He added that if the same junior doctor saw their pay rise 35pc to £54,347, they would retire on a pension paying £40,000 a year.

The analysis is also based on a scenario where the junior doctor in question never moves off junior pay. The majority of doctors go on to earn far more than £40,257 during their lengthy careers.

Consultants earn a basic salary of anywhere between £88,364 to £119,133 per year, according to the NHS.

[JagLover]

ATG said:

Ruskie said:

loafer123 said:

Ruskie said:

Doctors are underpaid and overworked compared with theirs peers abroad and should be paid appropriately.

Posted earlier in the thread;

https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/12/doctors-s...

Now do Canada, Australia and NZ.

Because ... ? Why are they more representative of "fair"? Are their economies more comparable to ours? (A clue: they aren't.)

Indeed

As mentioned before Australia are somewhat unusual as being even more reliant than us on foreign doctors. They also have the good fortune of another English speaking country who trains doctors to a high standard and where a significant proportion of the population would be willing to move to their country, in us. They have therefore made the logical decision to pay doctors with a few years experience more to poach them from overseas rather than go to the expense of training them themselves.

Other European countries are an equally valid comparison and these are healthcare systems which typically train a higher proportion of their own doctors and in those countries salaries are similar to the UK or lower.

So the UK needs to look at both retention but also on the number of new recruits each year, which has been below the required level for years, and saying other developed countries, in general, simply pay more is not correct.

Edited by JagLover on Thursday 13th April 06:31

[FiF]

On the issue of training more doctors I find difficulty in understanding the govt position. There is a general opinion that training needs to be doubled, figures of 7,500 being raised to 15,000 per year being mentioned. That's also behind the introduction of the 4year graduate entry rapid scheme supported by bursaries.

To this end a number of new medical schools have been built, the 3 Counties Medical School in University of Worcester being one. Sidenote Worcester already is a large training centre for nurses and paramedics. The school will enrol the first cohort to start their rapid 4yr course in September, it received over 1,000 applications and could be starting well over 100 students. General Medical Council has approved this.

However the number of students who will be funded by our Government is 0, yes zero, they refuse to fund it. The same applies to other new schools, eg Brunel, Chester. 100 new students will be starting in September, all apart from 20 are international students paying ~45k per year to fund their own courses, and the worry is that few of them will stay afterwards locally. The 20 from UK are funded by charity and a one off payment by the local trusts.

The local 3 Counties trusts are particularly worried about retention locally and had great hopes for this new school as they have difficulty recruiting and retaining vs the attractions of Birmingham and London etc. Seems to me although there are some appropriate noises being made, yet central government seems asleep. Where have we heard that before. Do we detect the Treasury?

Just to add the local trusts currently spend 70million per year on agency and locums to deal with labour shortages, and to keep on thread topic re jnr doctor strike as someone posted earlier who do we think actually turns up as an agency worker?

[loafer123]

The issue of training is around the in hospital training and shadowing. They could build more medical schools, but there are currently not enough on the job training places during their courses.

[s1962a]

FiF said:

Just to add the local trusts currently spend 70million per year on agency and locums to deal with labour shortages, and to keep on thread topic re jnr doctor strike as someone posted earlier who do we think actually turns up as an agency worker?

Exactly. So rather than spending £4.6bn on agency doctors, we spend an extra £1.6bn on wage increases for existing doctors to hopefully increase retention and save some of that agency bill. Seems like a bit of a no brainer to resolve this situation and save some money in the long run.

[FiF]

loafer123 said:

The issue of training is around the in hospital training and shadowing. They could build more medical schools, but there are currently not enough on the job training places during their courses.

Not totally, the figures I've quoted, real training placements were available if Govt funding were allowed.

The fact there are 100 students starting showed they are there. Obviously cannot comment on the wider picture.

Simon Trickett Chief Exec of H and W integrated care said:

“It is really frustrating. The local system is 100% behind this medical school. The GP surgeries, the hospitals, the community services and the local councils all really want it. But it is being blocked from entering the market.”

[Dixy]

272BHP said:

Junior doctors are still learning the profession and that necessarily requires sacrifice, commitment and a lot of hours - at least they get paid for it.

There are lots of private sector jobs out there where if there is a problem then you are expected to work off the clock with no extra pay.

Doctors never stop learning. The NHS runs a see one, fk one up, teach one system. An SHO learns from a reg and teaches an F1.

Doctors dont run time sheets like your local mechanic. Like other professionals they tend to arrive an hour before they should and leave when they are able to. They have to contract out of WTD and if they logged the hours they did the hospitals would be finned so management bully them to keep there heads down and mouths shut.
Having employed staff I am aware of employment law and have in the past put my toes against the line, The NHS cant see the line it is so far behind them.

[Murph7355]

s1962a said:

Exactly. So rather than spending £4.6bn on agency doctors, we spend an extra £1.6bn on wage increases for existing doctors to hopefully increase retention and save some of that agency bill. Seems like a bit of a no brainer to resolve this situation and save some money in the long run.

Why just 1.6bn? Are the juniors the only ones working as locums/agency?

I suspect it's far more likely to be experienced doctors pulling extra shifts, or who are only officially working part-time (or not at all - "retired"?) for the NHS.

I'm not against medical staff, teachers etc getting paid more...but there need to be t's and c's attached to that to preclude the sort of practices that are, it seems, happening often right now (people taking their training abroad; early retirement; working agency; etc). As an example, I cannot see why govt isn't funding medical courses (and placements in hospitals etc). We should be targeting funding for important jobs (I'd include things like engineering in this etc)....but the student should also sign up to not taking their qualifications and experience gained abroad without payback.

We also need to live within our means...so increases in one area need a drop in another, more tax or some combo.

[s1962a]

Murph7355 said:

s1962a said:

Exactly. So rather than spending £4.6bn on agency doctors, we spend an extra £1.6bn on wage increases for existing doctors to hopefully increase retention and save some of that agency bill. Seems like a bit of a no brainer to resolve this situation and save some money in the long run.

Why just 1.6bn? Are the juniors the only ones working as locums/agency?

I suspect it's far more likely to be experienced doctors pulling extra shifts, or who are only officially working part-time (or not at all - "retired"?) for the NHS.

I'm not against medical staff, teachers etc getting paid more...but there need to be t's and c's attached to that to preclude the sort of practices that are, it seems, happening often right now (people taking their training abroad; early retirement; working agency; etc). As an example, I cannot see why govt isn't funding medical courses (and placements in hospitals etc). We should be targeting funding for important jobs (I'd include things like engineering in this etc)....but the student should also sign up to not taking their qualifications and experience gained abroad without payback.

We also need to live within our means...so increases in one area need a drop in another, more tax or some combo.

Not sure if you saw the links I posted earlier - the £1.6bn is what it'll cost to pay junior doctors 35% more vs the £4.6bn we spent on them last year for agency staff. Of course any pay offer can come with conditions and a commitment to the NHS etc.

Increasing Junior doctor salaries by 35% would cost £1.65bn
https://www.bma.org.uk/media/6665/junior-doctor-pa...

the NHS spends £4.6bn on agency doctors
https://www2.staffingindustry.com/%20eng/Editorial...

[skwdenyer]

Murph7355 said:

s1962a said:

Exactly. So rather than spending £4.6bn on agency doctors, we spend an extra £1.6bn on wage increases for existing doctors to hopefully increase retention and save some of that agency bill. Seems like a bit of a no brainer to resolve this situation and save some money in the long run.

Why just 1.6bn? Are the juniors the only ones working as locums/agency?

I suspect it's far more likely to be experienced doctors pulling extra shifts, or who are only officially working part-time (or not at all - "retired"?) for the NHS.

I'm not against medical staff, teachers etc getting paid more...but there need to be t's and c's attached to that to preclude the sort of practices that are, it seems, happening often right now (people taking their training abroad; early retirement; working agency; etc). As an example, I cannot see why govt isn't funding medical courses (and placements in hospitals etc). We should be targeting funding for important jobs (I'd include things like engineering in this etc)....but the student should also sign up to not taking their qualifications and experience gained abroad without payback.

We also need to live within our means...so increases in one area need a drop in another, more tax or some combo.

As regards training, that's how the world works. They're already taking out large student loans to pay for their training. You'd like to penalise them some more, and differently to other professions? (I'd rather we waived student loans for people who work in the NHS for XX years BTW. Carrot vs your stick.)

You want to outlaw early retirement for doctors? Why only them?

As regards agency, I agree, that needs dealing-with. It would be better if we had a state-run "agency" for those medical professionals who want more flexible work than a full-time contract - competition is doing nothing for the NHS in that space

We don't need to fund engineering jobs IMHO; we need a strategy to promote engineering job-creation in the UK. We're very bad at that.

[JQ]

Murph7355 said:

s1962a said:

Exactly. So rather than spending £4.6bn on agency doctors, we spend an extra £1.6bn on wage increases for existing doctors to hopefully increase retention and save some of that agency bill. Seems like a bit of a no brainer to resolve this situation and save some money in the long run.

Why just 1.6bn? Are the juniors the only ones working as locums/agency?

I suspect it's far more likely to be experienced doctors pulling extra shifts, or who are only officially working part-time (or not at all - "retired"?) for the NHS.

I'm not against medical staff, teachers etc getting paid more...but there need to be t's and c's attached to that to preclude the sort of practices that are, it seems, happening often right now (people taking their training abroad; early retirement; working agency; etc). As an example, I cannot see why govt isn't funding medical courses (and placements in hospitals etc). We should be targeting funding for important jobs (I'd include things like engineering in this etc)....but the student should also sign up to not taking their qualifications and experience gained abroad without payback.

We also need to live within our means...so increases in one area need a drop in another, more tax or some combo.

One of my relatives is a Partner in a GP practice of 9 doctors. Not one of them works full time, generally all 3 days per week. My relative then works a couple of shifts per month in A&E via an agency and earns more on that one shift than in a week as a GP. A friend of theirs recently left their GP role to take up agency work - with 2 shifts per week they've seen no drop in income against their previous full time role.

The NHS effectively encourage their own staff to leave so they can re-employ them off-book at ridiculous rates. It's a strange way to run a business.

[Murph7355]

s1962a said:

Not sure if you saw the links I posted earlier - the £1.6bn is what it'll cost to pay junior doctors 35% more vs the £4.6bn we spent on them last year for agency staff. Of course any pay offer can come with conditions and a commitment to the NHS etc.

Increasing Junior doctor salaries by 35% would cost £1.65bn
https://www.bma.org.uk/media/6665/junior-doctor-pa...

the NHS spends £4.6bn on agency doctors
https://www2.staffingindustry.com/%20eng/Editorial...

You are juxtaposing two different numbers.

The 4.6bn doesn’t seem to be only spent on junior agency doctors.

Paying the 1.6bn junior doctor increase in no way guarantees that the 4.6bn wouldn't need to be spent. Or even that 1.6bn of it wouldn't need to be.

[s1962a]

Murph7355 said:

s1962a said:

Not sure if you saw the links I posted earlier - the £1.6bn is what it'll cost to pay junior doctors 35% more vs the £4.6bn we spent on them last year for agency staff. Of course any pay offer can come with conditions and a commitment to the NHS etc.

Increasing Junior doctor salaries by 35% would cost £1.65bn
https://www.bma.org.uk/media/6665/junior-doctor-pa...

the NHS spends £4.6bn on agency doctors
https://www2.staffingindustry.com/%20eng/Editorial...

You are juxtaposing two different numbers.

The 4.6bn doesn’t seem to be only spent on junior agency doctors.

Paying the 1.6bn junior doctor increase in no way guarantees that the 4.6bn wouldn't need to be spent. Or even that 1.6bn of it wouldn't need to be.

Yes, agreed. That £4.6bn could be a mixture of junior doctors and consultants - I don't know what the breakdown is but there are a lot more junior doctors than consultants, and you might need one consultant per area per shift but you'd need many junior doctors in the same area. Lets use half of that figure as an example for the sake of argument - £2bn a year spent on agency junior doctors in a year. If it costs £1.6bn a year to give junior doctors a 35% increase, then over the course of a few years, that £2bn might get reduced.

Point is, we are spending on agency doctors right now - they are required, so spending on a salary increase seems more sensible than spending on agency doctors.

[Murph7355]

skwdenyer said:

As regards training, that's how the world works. They're already taking out large student loans to pay for their training. You'd like to penalise them some more, and differently to other professions? (I'd rather we waived student loans for people who work in the NHS for XX years BTW. Carrot vs your stick.)

You want to outlaw early retirement for doctors? Why only them?

As regards agency, I agree, that needs dealing-with. It would be better if we had a state-run "agency" for those medical professionals who want more flexible work than a full-time contract - competition is doing nothing for the NHS in that space

We don't need to fund engineering jobs IMHO; we need a strategy to promote engineering job-creation in the UK. We're very bad at that.

You misunderstood what I was saying. When I noted govt should fund places, I was meaning the same as your carrot.

I also agree that the rules on retirement should be consistently applied. (And all rules - windfall taxes are bogus too, for example). The challenge we have right now is that the publicly unfunded pensions were so generous that it presents that as an option.

The competitive market for healthcare professionals isn't a proper one here. Partly because the NHS is pretty much a monopoly and they clearly aren't managing terms well.

That could be fixed in several ways I suspect. What would happen if the govt simply said "no more agency". As you note, they could add more flexible perm roles... But would all of that 4.6bn of work simply not get done? How would the people doing it fill the earnings void?

Maybe the honesty needs to start there, and we all get told that large chunks of service are simply no longer viable unless we pay more tax (to pay higher wages to carrot people into working).