Junior Doctors' Pay Claim Poll

[turbobloke]

Ruskie said:

86 said:

One last post

It was either the picket line or cosmetic surgery life is so tough as a junior doctor and I have no financial support. Sums up the youth of today. Should help their case massively!!

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/30/e...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1198077...

It’s literally says ‘medical student’ in the web address. Why would a medical student be on a doctors picket line? It’s wild you thought this was a good idea to post, especially as it’s a DM link.

Offset by the Grauniad link, what a pair, and let's not shoot the messenger.

[turbobloke]

Murph7355 said:

skwdenyer said:

Murph7355 said:

Dixy said:

....
We found billions for covid, we have to make hard choices....

We didn't find billions during Covid.

We "found" billions in the same place government "found" billions the last time some on this thread think the NHS actually worked....

Err, we found the money for the NHS to work (assume you mean under Blair/Brown) because we had a strong and growing economy. GFC got in the way of that; but our response to that was so catastrophic as to screw us up for 15 years+.

It is wrong to say (as you seem to be saying) that, because national debt has gone up since the GFC, so the additional spending on the NHS pre-GFC was to cause. Post ergo proctor hoc, as I said before.

All that was being done was that money was being borrowed - we were running a deficit through most of the years the NHS was "working".

The economy growing was of little use while the debt was still being piled on. And the management of the economy pre-2008 left us really well prepared for the GFC....

Labour were also still in charge for a couple of years after the GFC. Their responses to that were also part of the issue.

I am not saying NHS expenditure was the sole cause of National Debt rising (far from it). But nor can anyone say that we found money to pay for a functioning NHS either as we were running a deficit. We could not afford the level of services being provided, period. Sure, we can argue on this thread that it was spending on education that tipped the balance. Or on an education thread, blame defence etc....But you can only go round in those circles for so long.

As I said earlier, I agree we need to grow the economy. We need to increase productivity. And we need more people actually paying tax rather than constantly assume someone else should pay it all. But until those problems are addressed (who in the HoP has solutions to them...?), we can't just stick our heads in the sand and say "fk it, everyone in the NHS deserves a 35% pay rise so here you go, have at it". What will happen to the deficit and National Debt curves then?

The NHS is a broken proposition and has been since the start. It needs radical, cross-party reform and that cross-party group need to have an honesty session with the electorate on what it can realistically cover.

That degree of honesty is anathema to politicians who carry a short-term view. Often as far as the next general election. With the BMA not taking a more realistic opening position, it's arguable they're not alone. Fixing JD salaries in one go - realistic?

[turbobloke]

isaldiri said:

skwdenyer said:

Borrowing in a growing economy in order to invest is precisely when you should borrow - interest rates tend to be low, confidence is high. The stupid thing was continuing to issue linked gilts when there was no need for them - that was setting us up as hostages to future events (as we see now - just look at the cost of debt financing). When times are good, we should strengthen the country as much as possible - not by cutting, but by investing.

Your default position seems to be that whether the country is growing or not, we should be borrowing ever more amounts of money 'to invest'. Times were good in the early 200s and as you say, it's precisely when you should borrow. And then later on we should have borrowed far more in recessionary times again. Assume that no one that we're having to borrow from like say the financial markets will have an issue to that because when you say the money is for investing, people will always believe that and inevitably the country will grow. Easy as you later say clearly....

skwdenyer said:

If we'd borrowed as we could easily have done in 2008 (and/or QE of course), we would not have been in trouble later. The UK economy was in a far worse shape come Covid, but we had not trouble funding 14% of GDP. Funding 5% of GDP in '08 would have been easy.

You can't have that argument both ways

Because we didn't do it then, we've been in trouble for 15 years. Because we didn't do it then, we've had to borrow far more to keep going through Covid. Because we didn't do it then, our economy is sliding and looks set to continue to slide.

You live in a world that ignore the reality of financial markets if you think the UK would have been willy nilly able to fund however much % you want (and certainly as much as the US) in the aftermath of 2008 just because in 2020 the BoE magicked up even more money. Or that the UK could have vastly funded more than what it did during covid to prevent the economy from further sliding without making some of the present issues like...er inflation now rather a lot worse.

Good post.

Still no sign of JD or Gov't moves on the strike issues.

[turbobloke]

Killboy said:

s1962a said:

The Australian brain drain bleeding the NHS dry


Paywall https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/15/nhs-do...

Non Paywall https://archive.ph/iItUz

They'd be mad not to take those offers.

Or JDs have family, friends, interests, and other reasons which dominate finance in an already well-off (if underpaid) situation. If they'd be mad not to, why don't more actually do it? Several posts including one from me have pointed out that if the alleged 30% to 40% of JDs condidering a move out of the NHS did so, any gov't would have no choice but to act very quickly indeed.

[turbobloke]

Murph7355 said:

AstonZagato said:

.... . My personal thoughts are that the doctors will lose that battle unless they drop the 35% demand. It is so far from what anyone else is getting, and from what is deliverable, that I doubt that enough of the public will swing behind them. They don't want to be the ones blamed for Granny dying. The 35% number is possibly enough political cover for the government to try to break the strike through not engaging.

I think you are correct.

Likewise.

[turbobloke]

Killboy said:

turbobloke said:

Or JDs have family, friends, interests, and other reasons which dominate finance in an already well-off (if underpaid) situation. If they'd be mad not to, why don't more actually do it? Several posts including one from me have pointed out that if the alleged 30% to 40% of JDs condidering a move out of the NHS did so, any gov't would have no choice but to act very quickly indeed.

And I've said it before - you act like we are not there yet. What do you think the point will be for the government to act quickly? 24h waits at A&E?

We're not there yet as turnover isn't 40% and the government isn't making any urgent moves. I don't disagree that the NHS is broken, on a wider basis, with major and likely unpopular reform needed.

[turbobloke]

s1962a said:

Biggy Stardust said:

s1962a said:

They can fix it right now - offer the 35% pay increase, lock doctors in to stay longer with the NHS, and reduce some of the billions we are spending on agency doctors.

Genius. I'm amazed nobody thought of this. What about all the other public sector workers who will want a similar pay rise?

Well, if they have a huge backlog of vacancies, and their work is as life saving as what doctors do, then they can try their luck. Why are you lumping all public sector workers under the same importance umbrella?

I can't and won't answer for Biggy Stardust. My take on is that regardless of what any PHer thinks, each Union boss will think (and claim) that their workers are just as important in the overall scheme of things, whether they wear scrubs and lift a scalpel or big rubber boots and lift heavy things (patients?) makes no difference, so they deserve the same.

[turbobloke]

Fast Bug said:

Killboy said:

Just how broken does it need to be? Why wait for 40%? Everyone wants the NHS to be run like a business - but any business that lost 40% of their staff has already failed

The effects of this are going to snowball. The numbers are speaking for themselves. But the longer term effects will be interesting - anyone coming out of school now is going to have a serious think about whether medicine is worth it. Many already in the pipeline will be looking at their options.
And there are not enough people coming in to satisfy demand already - so its just going to get worse.

I also think there is this perception that doctors just need to work ludicrous hours because thats what they've always done. I'm going to suggest times have changed.

But the BMA voted for that, they wanted to restrict the number of places at medical schools and a ban on new medical schools being opened. You can't complain about the lack of intake when you've voted to control the volume of people joining the profession. If you want more Junior Doctors you need to open the gates to let more in IMO.

All the blaming various political parties doesn't get you anywhere as they're all as bad as each other in all honesty. Do I think junior doctors should be paid more? Of course I do, however 35% isn't a sensible starting point as that's never going to happen. I agree with the 43% that think it should be a 5-9% increase, and I'd probably say the very top of that. I'd also say an inflation beating pay rise next year (even though many in the private sector won't get it). And I'd also reduce their debts from studying on a sliding scale the longer they stay within the NHS.

That looks like something which makes sense, so will never happen with politicians involved

[turbobloke]

skwdenyer said:

Murph7355 said:

You're seeing what you want to see.

I have consistently said that all politicians are as bad as each other.

You have. Which means you pull down the good with the bad.

Too few to mention. Money's too tight to mention. The 35% is a most unlikely outcome.

[turbobloke]

skwdenyer said:

Murph7355 said:

skwdenyer said:

....
You realise we have worse public services even than the US now? No wonder so many people here wanted to leave the EU - all those modern, prosperous EU states showed us how it could be
...

Dogma, you say

Dogma to point out what’s happened to our public services in my lifetime? No I don’t think so.

Seriously, look around. Ask yourself how we got here.

The throwaway comment about the EU? Again, but dogma. I don’t believe in the EU in some dogmatic way; purely a pragmatic balance-of-benefits manner.

Short-term can be guessed, long-term is unknown, so no definitive position is credible long-term. Claims of such are dogma. In addition, focusing on trade is as usual only part of the brexit situation. However, this isn't (yet another) brexit thread, hopefully.

Regarding JDs, and as anticipated by some on the thread, "senior doctors are intervening in JD strikes as union softens on 35% pay demand". Claimed as an 11.30am article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/nhs-ju...

[turbobloke]

s1962a said:

Agreed. Dont worry, tories and chums will have mates that can set up private healthcare companies, and provide an alternative to the NHS.

Not the point, senior doctors are stepping in already and the BMA is softening on 35%. Any thoughts?

[turbobloke]

skwdenyer said:

Steve Campbell said:

skwdenyer said:

Money isn't too tight to mention. The pay award requested would cost £1.65bn in year 1, £0.65bn of which would go back to the treasury in direct taxation. So call it a net £1bn pa.

We're burning £4bn of PPE (we aren't even donating it to places it could be of some use).

Agency NHS staffing costs £1bn pa. It certainly isn't hard to imagine that, with the proper strategy around this, a fair chunk of £1bn in savings couldn't be found in agency staffing alone.

£1bn costs less than 0.2p on income tax, if raised that way. And yet we're *cutting* income tax by 1p. Polling shows that 65% of voters would support *increasing* income tax by 1p to provide more money for the NHS - there are literally votes in such a policy.

It's the tip of the iceberg though. 35% to Dr's then everyone wants 35%. The 19% for nurses would have increased the budget by £4B. These "extreme" requests for massive pay rises are unrealistic. OK, they might be a negotiating stance, but when you start in a negotiation so far away from reality, it's not unusual for the other party to ignore you and walk away as they think you are being ridiculous and not realistic or serious.

Would you rather we had strikes every year, to make sure pay rises are sorted annually? These "extreme" asks are driven by the failure to take action earlier.

I can't see the gov't or a majority of the public falling for such blackmail threats. This strike is already wavering, senior doctors intervening, BMA softening on the 35% so what realistic basis is there for a gov't to encourage or indeed placate more union bosses?

[turbobloke]

skwdenyer said:

SunsetZed said:

That sounds reasonable to me, as long as the pension provision is changed to make it in line with private company pensions. So DC not generous, guaranteed DB pensions any longer.

Why? I'm not suggesting normalising NHS pay with the private sector. I'm proposing normalising NHS pay with respect to inflation.

A key part of the contract has always been lower-than-private-sector pay, in conjunction with an excellent pension.

If you erode the benefits of the pension, you'll have lots more people choosing to opt out / transfer out. That would be ruinous to the country's finances, since the scheme doesn't actually have conventional assets.

Pension Times said:

In the past, impressive pensions given to public sector workers were designed to make up for lower basic salaries, which tended to be significantly lower than in the private sector. However, this is no longer the case, as figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the average public sector employee now earns considerably more per week than someone in the private sector. This means they are now benefitting from higher salaries and far better pensions.

JD pensions are a given and JDs are already above average (mean) income for the UK at £16.60 per hour. Of course, they should be.

The Independent said:

The latest average pay data from NHS England covering the year to September suggests junior doctors are paid between £20 to £30 per hour

That's from 11 April 2023 so presumably refers to September 2022. The numbers are somewhat different to union campaigning.

[turbobloke]

NerveAgent said:

skwdenyer said:

MiniMan64 said:

I always find the public vs private sector comparison interesting from a grass-is-greener perspective.

The general feeling from private sector employees is that public sector jobs on health and education and the like have better pay, pensions and conditions. If that’s true though, how come staff are leaving those sectors by the hundred?

The ones who think the grass is greener are often the ones who can't get advancement on their side of the fence...

As evidenced by some in this thread that have inadvertently realised their employer has been screwing them over with pay whilst trying to win an argument.

If that happens with the self-employed is it an arrestable offence and would we go pay blind (even quicker)?!

[turbobloke]

More than 2,000 hospital appointments have been cancelled in Leicester alone during junior doctor strikes. News like this won't help the cause.

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2023-04-21/junior...

[turbobloke]

sawman said:

turbobloke said:

More than 2,000 hospital appointments have been cancelled in Leicester alone during junior doctor strikes. News like this won't help the cause.

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2023-04-21/junior...

depends on how those with cancelled appointments react - if they follow the media lead, and say its terrible the Drs should be ashamed of themselves its not good for opinion.
However, if these patients use the time they would been having an appointment to send a letter to steve barclay asking him to do his job and sort it out, it might be even help move things along

Point taken, it's just that considering the 'contact government' option, it seems less likely.

[turbobloke]

NerveAgent said:

turbobloke said:

NerveAgent said:

skwdenyer said:

MiniMan64 said:

I always find the public vs private sector comparison interesting from a grass-is-greener perspective.

The general feeling from private sector employees is that public sector jobs on health and education and the like have better pay, pensions and conditions. If that’s true though, how come staff are leaving those sectors by the hundred?

The ones who think the grass is greener are often the ones who can't get advancement on their side of the fence...

As evidenced by some in this thread that have inadvertently realised their employer has been screwing them over with pay whilst trying to win an argument.

If that happens with the self-employed is it an arrestable offence and would we go pay blind (even quicker)?!

Errrmmm, you’re going to have translate this one.

As you wish, though a moment's pondering shows it's obvious. Starting with the bold bit and going from there...

Consider an employer screwing an employee over with pay when the employee is self-employed and therefore the employer.

Autoerotic payism?

[turbobloke]

NerveAgent said:

turbobloke said:

NerveAgent said:

turbobloke said:

NerveAgent said:

skwdenyer said:

MiniMan64 said:

I always find the public vs private sector comparison interesting from a grass-is-greener perspective.

The general feeling from private sector employees is that public sector jobs on health and education and the like have better pay, pensions and conditions. If that’s true though, how come staff are leaving those sectors by the hundred?

The ones who think the grass is greener are often the ones who can't get advancement on their side of the fence...

As evidenced by some in this thread that have inadvertently realised their employer has been screwing them over with pay whilst trying to win an argument.

If that happens with the self-employed is it an arrestable offence and would we go pay blind (even quicker)?!

Errrmmm, you’re going to have translate this one.

As you wish, though a moment's pondering shows it's obvious. Starting with the bold bit and going from there...

Consider an employer screwing an employee over with pay when the employee is self-employed and therefore the employer.

Autoerotic payism?

Does this gibberish have anything to do with my point about the clearly employed people in this thread that said they’d had crap pay rises?

The BMJ fatalities / injuries from cotton wool and todgers in hoovers (etc) A&E information didn't either. Occasional humour is like that. At least you get it now and self-employment is back on the radar, not everyone is an employee in the sense implied.

Back to the strike.

[turbobloke]

Dixy said:

Some interesting snippets back from JDs.
Many had left the BMA in part because of the Hunt debacle and many because when they had asked for help and support they had been useless. It would seem many have re-joined for protection so they could strike.
Many decided to join the strike despite their natural anti strike feelings just to show solidarity. Having done this for 4 days and effectively had an unscheduled 4 day holiday they felt so refreshed they realised how overworked they were.
Many strikes falter because the workers run out of money, as has been pointed out JDs are not poor and are striking for pay that reflects their worth and for their conditions to be improved.
It may come as a shock to Barclay that their resolve may have hardened.

Yes possibly so, at the same time there are reports that the BMA position has softened (see earlier post).

[turbobloke]

Dixy said:

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/23464248.fair-oak...
https://thumbsnap.com/BjF2XVEE
When you ask what to cut perhaps here may be a suggestion, this group just got 10% and all 5 of them contribute a lot less to society than one JD.
Oh and I would like to pay a lot more tax next year, but I dont want the rates to change.

Very classy indeed, top top.