Junior Doctors' Pay Claim Poll

[turbobloke]

Electro1980 said:

survivalist said:

It’s easy to blame the government’s custodianship, but in reality a large amount of blame needs to assigned to upper and middle management within the NHS.

The short term fix is probably a pay rise for doctors that improves recruitment and retention. The long term solution should be significant reform, but there will likely be so much resistance to reform that it’ll be more like a demolish and rebuild. Probably at least a decade away though.

What reform is that?

Imagine the genuine wide-eyed innocence ^ ho ho ho, how long have you got?!

In the amount of time suitable for a post in a PH thread, there's this, and the promised follow-up to it, just for starters.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2023/06/radical-...

[turbobloke]

sawman said:

turbobloke said:

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2023/06/radical-...

We will have to wait til at least november to find anything useful on that link

No, we won't, as the link lists areas for reform, from recruitment and career paths which grow the number of hospital specialists 3x faster than GPs, to removing structural / political / financial / cultural barriers that prevent the current NHS vision being implemented, to the NHS funding model - and this provides anwers to the question in the post I replied to about 'what reform'.

Waiting for November means waiting for suggested strategies, not that the NHS isn't in need of reform in many areas before November.

[turbobloke]

djc206 said:

poo at Paul's said:

Has anyone really noticed these strikes yet, apart from seeing them in the news.
I’m guessing there is only a couple or so percent of the population that use the nhs with any sort of daily or weekly regularity, 95 percent likely only once in a blue moon. So even doubling up the strikes with the poor consultants, I just don’t see how anyone’s really going to notice too much. It’s nit like cutting the electiric or water or or something

1 in 9 people are on an NHS waiting list apparently so more than you think.

What proportion would be off the waiting list without the strikes?

[turbobloke]

djc206 said:

turbobloke said:

djc206 said:

poo at Paul's said:

Has anyone really noticed these strikes yet, apart from seeing them in the news.
I’m guessing there is only a couple or so percent of the population that use the nhs with any sort of daily or weekly regularity, 95 percent likely only once in a blue moon. So even doubling up the strikes with the poor consultants, I just don’t see how anyone’s really going to notice too much. It’s nit like cutting the electiric or water or or something

1 in 9 people are on an NHS waiting list apparently so more than you think.

What proportion would be off the waiting list without the strikes?

Kicking on for a million cancelled appointments now apparently not that many peoples issues will be dealt with in a single appointment. Got to be in 6 figures though hasn’t it.

That remark about appointments doesn't answer my question about the waiting list, though the avoidance of it hints at the answer. May I have another go?

What proportion would be off the waiting list without the strikes?

[turbobloke]

skwdenyer said:

JagLover said:

Fixing recruitment is a matter of improving capacity, that was artificially constrained for too long.

On the other point it is also easy to blame management when the problem may instead be structure and incentives.

Due to the increased spending on healthcare we are now around the European average as a percentage of GDP. Those countries once cited as being far above us are not very different now in the present. France is at 11.9% compared to our 11.3% for example.

If those countries are having significantly better healthcare outcomes then perhaps have a look at how they are organising things.

You don’t seem to understand that a lot of healthcare spending is area under the curve stuff. Just because we’re spending the same as France *this year* doesn’t mean we’re catching up with prior under-spending. Machines and facilities and training and the benefits of public health spending and so on don’t just appear for free.

Sure but both of our major, wise political parties have committed £1.4 trillion to achieve Not Zero going forward, and if they ever need to create and use sufficient storage for 10 days of dull calm weather ('dunkelflaute') when unreliables aren't just unreliable but completely useless, that goes up to well over £3 trillion.

As you will appreciate, gov't costings (actually CCC but gov't swallow it) such as the Not Zero £1.4 trillion are pie in the sky under-estimates and don't include inflation. The storage cost calculation is straightforward but was in any case from Oxford uni profs, so accurate, and only inflation needs adding. Let's not quibble and take it as £5trillion.

In effect NHS can stfu and get in the queue or you will boil in your own juices. Like it or lump it.

[turbobloke]

gangzoom said:

JagLover said:

The initial plans for the year were for the waiting lists to come down due to additional spending targeted at this.

Its amazing how normalised we become to a new reality. The thought of keeping a patient on the waiting list just for 1 month was mad when I was a medical student. Now we are 'happy' to have not many people waiting for 78 weeks to be seen.......which is 1.5 years to be seen/operated on etc!!!!

At one point, I think it's been stopped now, was there not a separate waiting list to go on the waiting list?

[turbobloke]

AstonZagato said:

The BMA's Consultant spokesperson was on R4's Today programme at 7ish this morning. He had a different tack to the Junior Doctors.

First demand was restoration of independence to the pay review bodies - remove the artificial constraints.

When asked what the pay demand was, it was "no further worsening this year" but went back to talking about independent pay review bodies. When pushed for what that meant for wages, he said "inflation". Probed further, he tried to stay with "no real terms cut" but eventually got to a number - 11%. He then quickly pointed out that it was not far from the Scottish deal, so was clearly achievable.

Much more grown up than the 35% from the JDs. It's almost as though the BMA had read my negotiating recommendations earlier in this thread.

Agree with that, I've posted a number of times earlier in the thread that it would have been helpful if JDs dropped 35% and then gov't tabled a Scotland type offer.

[turbobloke]

pavarotti1980 said:

chemistry said:

It was just an example. Sorry you didn’t realise that, but happy to clear up the confusion.

Any more useless examples?

There was no specific mention of that sum being sufficient of itself, it read to me as more of a contribution, that said a 5 minute monty python argument can be such fun.

JDs on average have got 8.8% this year, not bad. If their BMA 35% activist chums gain a brain cell somehow then next year the rise may be even more, and I'd be more than happy if JDs got a decent uplift. I'd also be more than happy if they managed somehow to kick out those useless activists on the committee that hasn't run things very well.

[turbobloke]

Killboy said:

turbobloke said:

Agree with that, I've posted a number of times earlier in the thread that it would have been helpful if JDs dropped 35% and then gov't tabled a Scotland type offer.

Yeah, because that would have helped. Both sides should take the silly offers off the table - so who should do it first?

Tories are rocking the waiting lists now. Great success.

Both sides are involved, not just the one that's unrepresentative of your politics on this matter.

35% was and is utterly ridiculous. This year is 8.8% hopefully next year more still. There's nothing more this year, next year may see BMA activists seeing sense.

[turbobloke]

pavarotti1980 said:

turbobloke said:

There was no specific mention of that sum being sufficient of itself, it read to me as more of a contribution, that said a 5 minute monty python argument can be such fun.

JDs on average have got 8.8% this year, not bad. If their BMA 35% activist chums gain a brain cell somehow then next year the rise may be even more, and I'd be more than happy if JDs got a decent uplift. I'd also be more than happy if they managed somehow to kick out those useless activists on the committee that hasn't run things very well.

They got 8.8%? When did this get awarded?

It arrives this month apparently, backdated to April.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-doctors-to-...

[turbobloke]

Killboy said:

turbobloke said:

Killboy said:

turbobloke said:

Agree with that, I've posted a number of times earlier in the thread that it would have been helpful if JDs dropped 35% and then gov't tabled a Scotland type offer.

Yeah, because that would have helped. Both sides should take the silly offers off the table - so who should do it first?

Tories are rocking the waiting lists now. Great success.

Both sides are involved, not just the one that's unrepresentative of your politics on this matter.

35% was and is utterly ridiculous.

Yeah, both sides, but only one want to play silly buggers. We can file it alongside other pledges success.

You post that ignoring the 35% silly punt from the other silly buggers (BMA activists), nice work.

[turbobloke]

pavarotti1980 said:

turbobloke said:

It arrives this month apparently, backdated to April.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-doctors-to-...

So they are unilaterally imposing a pay award whilst simultaneously refusing to negotiate. Sounds like a real vote winner

It's not about pay, it's about politics and the next election? Sounds like BMA activism.

[turbobloke]

Killboy said:

turbobloke said:

You post that ignoring the 35% silly punt from the other silly buggers (BMA activists), nice work.

Yup. So who should blink first?

Well, it's clearly working.

The 35% tactic didn't work this year, was that your point?

I mentioned that an average 8.8% for JDs wasn't too bad in the current context. ONS reporting notes that annual average regular pay growth for the private sector was 8.2% April to June 2023.

[turbobloke]

pavarotti1980 said:

turbobloke said:

It's not about pay, it's about politics and the next election? Sounds like BMA activism.

Who mentioned the next election?

You raised it without using the word 'election' with your vote winner remark as highlighted in bold - when exactly are winning (and losing) votes involving the government due to be cast?!

So coy, yet so transparent, just like BMA political activism as mentioned previously.

pavarotti1980 said:

So they are unilaterally imposing a pay award whilst simultaneously refusing to negotiate. Sounds like a real vote winner.

[turbobloke]

Killboy said:

turbobloke said:

The 35% tactic didn't work this year, was that your point?

I mentioned that an average 8.8% for JDs wasn't too bad in the current context. ONS reporting notes that annual average regular pay growth for the private sector was 8.2% April to June 2023.

8.8% hasn't worked either

Its nice that they are trying at least....... to match this year's increases - which is somewhat the problem. How does it look going back a little further.

Odd how you keep laughing at your own posts, is there a subtle meaning to it? The 8.8% has and hasn't worked. The strikes are ongoing. On the other hand, av 8.8% backdated to April is this year's award. Now there's next year to play for, with enough time for the BMA JD committee's activists to embrace realism. News this morning had hints that there were talks about next year's position in the offing.

[turbobloke]

honda_exige said:

AstonZagato said:

Venisonpie said:

I notice the Express shouts at its reader today telling them the PM will force doctors back to work, but how? No amount of discussion will get away from the basic situation which is the govt needs the doctors more than the doctors need them, regardless of politics.

Barclay says he will impose minimum service requirements on doctors. According to the Times this morning, doctors will risk the sack if they fail to work when required for basic safety. I'm not sure how that works. If they sack all the doctors then who provides the minim service?

Venisonpie said:

Popular opinion will count for very little here although outside of this forum I imagine there's a lot of it for doctors.

Is there? I suspect that you'd get some different answers depending what you asked.
I think the average man in the street would answer along these lines:
Are junior doctors underpaid? Yes
Are consultants underpaid? No
Is a 35% rise reasonable? No, it's ridiculous
Is the 8.5% offer reasonable? No, they deserve more
Who is at fault for the strikes? Will be split on party lines - Doctors being greedy or Govt being Tories
Who is at fault for the waiting lists? Split among doctors, govt or Covid

How have you decided that Consultants aren't underpaid? Average for a consultant cardiologist is £48/hr I believe?

Or to put it another way, from the Cardiologist job profile at Prospects.ac.uk the salary for a Consultant Cardiologist will range from £88,364 to £119,133 which may be out of date as other sources give the lower bound as £93,764 per year - roughly equivalent to £48 per hour.

Postcodes matter: Salary Expert reckons the average cardiologist salary in London is £262,977 an equivalent hourly rate of £126

[turbobloke]

Flying machine said:

272BHP said:

honda_exige said:

I saw yesterday that Physicians Assistants, who aren't doctors and have no real accountability are paid £11k more per year than JDs. That is untenable, especially when JDs are still playing with their careers daily knowing that any slight error may be referred to the GMC.

Maybe the Physicians Assistants at that pay level are experienced and know an arse from an elbow, which is more than maybe the JD who is still learning the job.

I can certainly spot an arse! I'll just assume that you are quite dim to hold that sort of view, which is ok and explains your comments it I suppose.

When making dimness allegations, check post content?!

[turbobloke]

Flying machine said:

turbobloke said:

When making dimness allegations, check post content?!

Shift happens!

[turbobloke]

Dixy said:

I wonder what value the average tax payer puts on their health and life.

Quite, also what value they put on the country being able to defend itself so they can feel confident of being free to enjoy any good health they have, a country capable of producing enough affordable energy to keep lights and heating on so they remain safe and in good health particularly when elderly, etc.

Health and social care is already the second-largest area of government spending, after welfare.

[turbobloke]

pghstochaj said:

Exactly. A critical thinker would perhaps say "why is Steve Barclay allowing strikes to continue when it's costing so much?". Doctors are well paid, this should not be a surprise to anybody. This is about pay erosion.

This is PH, everybody is in highly paid jobs despite only going to the university of life. Perhaps a doctor with 6 years of university and numerous hurdles to reach consultant level should also be paid well.

Apart from the false assumption highlighted, pay erosion depends on the start and end periods being looked at.

Earlier in the thread I found BMA and Hansard data for pay one year in the 1970s as opposed to the current BMA cherry pick of one year in the 00s. When corrected for 2023 money using the BoE inflation calculator, pay in 2023 came out higher. Naturally that didn't go down well, there were all sorts of half-assed reasons why the BMA comparison was better, what a surprise. It's still the case that any chosen period can have its reasons and it's essentially an arbitrary process capable of manipulation via a mix of choice and excuse.

The reason I've supported a higher pay offer than this year's 8.8% backdated to April doesn't relate to any cherry picked erosion or increase. Nor does it depend on 6 yrs at university followed by training. Contrary to the claim above the point that this is PH will give a far higher proportion of people who were at uni for 6 yrs or more and underwent continuous training afterwards, compared to the general public.

For me it's down to the exceptionally challenging level of responsibility for life and limb that JDs have. Consultants too of course, but for inexperienced JDs it has to be sphincter puckering at times, lots of times. We all hope that those years at uni and the ongoing training are doing enough for the JDs as well as their patients, which at some time will include other JDs and Consultants as well as 'the rest of us'.