Junior Doctors' Pay Claim Poll

[pghstochaj]

Gary C said:

272BHP said:

Dixy said:

Oh look 272 a political football you can spot to kick around and deflect from the real topic of the country failing to recognise the contribution and sacrifice made by JDs

A football I will kick all day happily.

Preferably in the face of militant JDs like this.

Agreed

why do JD's think they are so special ?

Not the only people that worked all the way though a Pandemic, keeping the country running, not the only people who have seen their pay not keep up with inflation.

They deserve a good pay rise, but holding the country to ransom with a loony left agenda ?

fk off.

[/Grump mode]

I feel like I have repeated myself numerous times in this thread but reading things like this, it still needs to be repeated. The graph below explains why JDs and consultants have been so unhappy. Pay has stagnated and even dropped below inflation for many, but on average, a UK worker was about -3% up to the end of December 2022 from 2009. A consultant or JD? Around -24%.

So JDs don't think they are special, they just want their pay to have followed the average trend. When a JD on graduation has a salary very similar to a teacher or nurse, there is likely to be an issue.

[Mr Penguin]

That graph assumes that 2010 is a good place to aim for and wasn't a high point where they were overpaid compared to the long term average.

[pghstochaj]

Mr Penguin said:

That graph assumes that 2010 is a good place to aim for and wasn't a high point where they were overpaid compared to the long term average.

Same for everybody else, no?

[Gary C]

pghstochaj said:

I feel like I have repeated myself numerous times in this thread but reading things like this, it still needs to be repeated. The graph below explains why JDs and consultants have been so unhappy. Pay has stagnated and even dropped below inflation for many, but on average, a UK worker was about -3% up to the end of December 2022 from 2009. A consultant or JD? Around -24%.

So JDs don't think they are special, they just want their pay to have followed the average trend. When a JD on graduation has a salary very similar to a teacher or nurse, there is likely to be an issue.

"they just want their pay to have followed the average trend"

No they dont

They want a pay award that restores them to what they would have had if every pay award had matched or exceeded inflation over the last 16 years

Now that sounds great but doesn't everyone else want and deserve the same then ?

I certainly haven't

[pghstochaj]

Gary C said:

pghstochaj said:

I feel like I have repeated myself numerous times in this thread but reading things like this, it still needs to be repeated. The graph below explains why JDs and consultants have been so unhappy. Pay has stagnated and even dropped below inflation for many, but on average, a UK worker was about -3% up to the end of December 2022 from 2009. A consultant or JD? Around -24%.

So JDs don't think they are special, they just want their pay to have followed the average trend. When a JD on graduation has a salary very similar to a teacher or nurse, there is likely to be an issue.

"they just want their pay to have followed the average trend"

No they dont

They want a pay award that restores them to what they would have had if every pay award had matched or exceeded inflation over the last 16 years

Now that sounds great but doesn't everyone else want and deserve the same then ?

I certainly haven't

No, that is their starting point, inflation matched. That’s where the 35% has come from. That would be about +5% more than the average salary growth in the same period. I suspect they would settle on +30% and just match the average salary growth during the same period and take that real terms cut.

All numbers give or take.

[Fast Bug]

I'd settle for a 30% pay rise, as would many other people. Never going to happen though is it?

Can you imagine every other union if junior doctors got 30%? The country would grind to a halt as they all vote to strike

[272BHP]

pghstochaj said:

No, that is their starting point, inflation matched. That’s where the 35% has come from. That would be about +5% more than the average salary growth in the same period. I suspect they would settle on +30% and just match the average salary growth during the same period and take that real terms cut.

All numbers give or take.

30%?

You haven't really thought this through have you?

[wc98]

Gary C said:

"they just want their pay to have followed the average trend"

No they dont

They want a pay award that restores them to what they would have had if every pay award had matched or exceeded inflation over the last 16 years

Now that sounds great but doesn't everyone else want and deserve the same then ?

I certainly haven't

You are certainly in one of the professions like doctors that definitely deserve more and in my opinion are worth more. Everyone has their ideas of what certain professions should be paid, i'm no different but there aren't many that justify being paid more than doctors, the Police could be doing with a significant increase in pay as well.

Sadly this country is far down the road of get what you can when you can and by any means, the notion of fair and equitable passes many by. Maybe if junior doctors hadn't been treated so badly in terms of remuneration and working conditions/hours for so long they wouldn't be so pissed off and would be more reasonable with their claims.

[Vasco]

Their award is much more likely to end up around 10-12%. To put in a claim for 35% was always just ridiculous and lost them a lot of support from other people.

It's not helped by being referred to as being for 'Junior Doctors'. Many people may assume that this terminology means the younger, less experienced, staff whereas in practice it includes even long-serving doctors who haven't moved up to a Consultant role.

[Gary C]

pghstochaj said:

No, that is their starting point, inflation matched. That’s where the 35% has come from. That would be about +5% more than the average salary growth in the same period. I suspect they would settle on +30% and just match the average salary growth during the same period and take that real terms cut.

All numbers give or take.

30% !

And that in a nutshell is the problem.

[pghstochaj]

Gary C said:

pghstochaj said:

No, that is their starting point, inflation matched. That’s where the 35% has come from. That would be about +5% more than the average salary growth in the same period. I suspect they would settle on +30% and just match the average salary growth during the same period and take that real terms cut.

All numbers give or take.

30% !

And that in a nutshell is the problem.

It can't be put down to a "nutshell", it has context. The issue is that since 2008, chronic salary erosion occurred which now makes the headline figure look ridiculous. However, you can't just look at "OMG 30%!" you have to look at their salaries relative to other professions to understand why the headline figure is not as ridiculous as it first sounds. It is a failure of the government and the BMA for not having slow incremental increases during the period.

If JD and consultant pay had tracked average earning changes during the period (but behind inflation) or other public service pay increases during the period then there wouldn't really be an argument. However, it didn't, it is far behind and now there is a mountain to climb.

[Gary C]

pghstochaj said:

It can't be put down to a "nutshell", it has context. The issue is that since 2008, chronic salary erosion occurred which now makes the headline figure look ridiculous. However, you can't just look at "OMG 30%!" you have to look at their salaries relative to other professions to understand why the headline figure is not as ridiculous as it first sounds. It is a failure of the government and the BMA for not having slow incremental increases during the period.

If JD and consultant pay had tracked average earning changes during the period (but behind inflation) or other public service pay increases during the period then there wouldn't really be an argument. However, it didn't, it is far behind and now there is a mountain to climb.

But thats the point

They have picked specifics to argue their point when the majority of the country have had pay erosion of a similar extent and being paid less in 2008 too.

Can you show a graph of the comparative gross salaries in 2008 for the sections they are being compared too ?

[Vasco]

pghstochaj said:

It can't be put down to a "nutshell", it has context. The issue is that since 2008, chronic salary erosion occurred which now makes the headline figure look ridiculous. However, you can't just look at "OMG 30%!" you have to look at their salaries relative to other professions to understand why the headline figure is not as ridiculous as it first sounds. It is a failure of the government and the BMA for not having slow incremental increases during the period.

If JD and consultant pay had tracked average earning changes during the period (but behind inflation) or other public service pay increases during the period then there wouldn't really be an argument. However, it didn't, it is far behind and now there is a mountain to climb.

But many others have had similar problems. There's no issue with any body trying to recover from poor pay increases - the JDs went wrong when they demanded a 35% increase. Totally ridiculous at the time (and continues to be so).

[pghstochaj]

Gary C said:

pghstochaj said:

It can't be put down to a "nutshell", it has context. The issue is that since 2008, chronic salary erosion occurred which now makes the headline figure look ridiculous. However, you can't just look at "OMG 30%!" you have to look at their salaries relative to other professions to understand why the headline figure is not as ridiculous as it first sounds. It is a failure of the government and the BMA for not having slow incremental increases during the period.

If JD and consultant pay had tracked average earning changes during the period (but behind inflation) or other public service pay increases during the period then there wouldn't really be an argument. However, it didn't, it is far behind and now there is a mountain to climb.

But thats the point

They have picked specifics to argue their point when the majority of the country have had pay erosion of a similar extent and being paid less in 2008 too.

Can you show a graph of the comparative gross salaries in 2008 for the sections they are being compared too ?

I have shown you a graph of their pay erosion versus the general population for the same period, adjusted for inflation, what are you looking for? That categorically shows that the average wage for the same role is about -3% down since 2008 in real terms. Nurses were about -12%, general professional and scientific services were about +1% and JDs and consultants were about -24%. This was up to 2022. The situation during 2023 made it worse again. This data is all corrected back to a typical 40 hour week.

That means that relative to the general worker, JDs and consultants have lost about 20% during the period 2008-2022. Hence why they are upset. It is simply wrong, statistically, to say that "the majority of the country have had pay erosion of a similar extent". No, 50% of the country has had better -3% in real terms and 50% has had worse than -3%. Based on those numbers, it probably wouldn't be a bad estimate to put JDs and consultants in the bottom percentile of real terms wage growth for the period.

What are you looking for which I have misunderstood.

[pghstochaj]

Vasco said:

pghstochaj said:

It can't be put down to a "nutshell", it has context. The issue is that since 2008, chronic salary erosion occurred which now makes the headline figure look ridiculous. However, you can't just look at "OMG 30%!" you have to look at their salaries relative to other professions to understand why the headline figure is not as ridiculous as it first sounds. It is a failure of the government and the BMA for not having slow incremental increases during the period.

If JD and consultant pay had tracked average earning changes during the period (but behind inflation) or other public service pay increases during the period then there wouldn't really be an argument. However, it didn't, it is far behind and now there is a mountain to climb.

But many others have had similar problems. There's no issue with any body trying to recover from poor pay increases - the JDs went wrong when they demanded a 35% increase. Totally ridiculous at the time (and continues to be so).

Who are the "many others"? The statistics indicate that your statement is incorrect. So is all the data I can find simply wrong? As a quick check of some common examples:

Newly qualified teacher in 2008: 20,627, 2023: 30,000. +45%.
Newly qualified band 5 nurse in 2008: 20,225. 2023: 28,407. +41%.
Newly qualified consultant in 2008: 73,403. 2023: 93,666. +27%.
JDs are a bit more difficult to compare as the contracts changed, but I think the like for like is £28,274 in 2008 to £32,398 in 2023. That's +15%.

Inflation during the same period, 56%.

[Vasco]

pghstochaj said:

I have shown you a graph of their pay erosion versus the general population for the same period, adjusted for inflation, what are you looking for? That categorically shows that the average wage for the same role is about -3% down since 2008 in real terms. Nurses were about -12%, general professional and scientific services were about +1% and JDs and consultants were about -24%. This was up to 2022. The situation during 2023 made it worse again. This data is all corrected back to a typical 40 hour week.

That means that relative to the general worker, JDs and consultants have lost about 20% during the period 2008-2022. Hence why they are upset. It is simply wrong, statistically, to say that "the majority of the country have had pay erosion of a similar extent". No, 50% of the country has had better -3% in real terms and 50% has had worse than -3%. Based on those numbers, it probably wouldn't be a bad estimate to put JDs and consultants in the bottom percentile of real terms wage growth for the period.

What are you looking for which I have misunderstood.

I assume that this can only relate to those JDs who stay around the same job grade - not the many that may receive extra payments for specialities acq - or the many who have actually moved up the ladder and are now categorised as Consultants?
Haven't these people, understandably, receive pay increases through promotion ?
.
.

[pghstochaj]

Vasco said:

pghstochaj said:

I have shown you a graph of their pay erosion versus the general population for the same period, adjusted for inflation, what are you looking for? That categorically shows that the average wage for the same role is about -3% down since 2008 in real terms. Nurses were about -12%, general professional and scientific services were about +1% and JDs and consultants were about -24%. This was up to 2022. The situation during 2023 made it worse again. This data is all corrected back to a typical 40 hour week.

That means that relative to the general worker, JDs and consultants have lost about 20% during the period 2008-2022. Hence why they are upset. It is simply wrong, statistically, to say that "the majority of the country have had pay erosion of a similar extent". No, 50% of the country has had better -3% in real terms and 50% has had worse than -3%. Based on those numbers, it probably wouldn't be a bad estimate to put JDs and consultants in the bottom percentile of real terms wage growth for the period.

What are you looking for which I have misunderstood.

I assume that this can only relate to those JDs who stay around the same job grade - not the many that may receive extra payments for specialities acq - or the many who have actually moved up the ladder and are now categorised as Consultants?
Haven't these people, understandably, receive pay increases through promotion ?
.
.

It is a like for like comparison, that is, for example, an FY1 doctor working 40 hours per week in 2023 versus the equivalent role in 2008. Of course people have pay increases as they work through the JD roles.

Whenever you compare pay changes with time, you don't do it for an individual, you do it for the role. Otherwise it would not make any sense.

[ConnectionError]

pghstochaj said:

Vasco said:

pghstochaj said:

It can't be put down to a "nutshell", it has context. The issue is that since 2008, chronic salary erosion occurred which now makes the headline figure look ridiculous. However, you can't just look at "OMG 30%!" you have to look at their salaries relative to other professions to understand why the headline figure is not as ridiculous as it first sounds. It is a failure of the government and the BMA for not having slow incremental increases during the period.

If JD and consultant pay had tracked average earning changes during the period (but behind inflation) or other public service pay increases during the period then there wouldn't really be an argument. However, it didn't, it is far behind and now there is a mountain to climb.

But many others have had similar problems. There's no issue with any body trying to recover from poor pay increases - the JDs went wrong when they demanded a 35% increase. Totally ridiculous at the time (and continues to be so).

Who are the "many others"? The statistics indicate that your statement is incorrect. So is all the data I can find simply wrong? As a quick check of some common examples:

Newly qualified teacher in 2008: 20,627, 2023: 30,000. +45%.
Newly qualified band 5 nurse in 2008: 20,225. 2023: 28,407. +41%.
Newly qualified consultant in 2008: 73,403. 2023: 93,666. +27%.
JDs are a bit more difficult to compare as the contracts changed, but I think the like for like is £28,274 in 2008 to £32,398 in 2023. That's +15%.

Inflation during the same period, 56%.

These graphs show salaries,

Can you provide graphs that show the full picture including pension contributions for example,

The way I see it the justification is based on incomplete data.

[pghstochaj]

ConnectionError said:

pghstochaj said:

Vasco said:

pghstochaj said:

It can't be put down to a "nutshell", it has context. The issue is that since 2008, chronic salary erosion occurred which now makes the headline figure look ridiculous. However, you can't just look at "OMG 30%!" you have to look at their salaries relative to other professions to understand why the headline figure is not as ridiculous as it first sounds. It is a failure of the government and the BMA for not having slow incremental increases during the period.

If JD and consultant pay had tracked average earning changes during the period (but behind inflation) or other public service pay increases during the period then there wouldn't really be an argument. However, it didn't, it is far behind and now there is a mountain to climb.

But many others have had similar problems. There's no issue with any body trying to recover from poor pay increases - the JDs went wrong when they demanded a 35% increase. Totally ridiculous at the time (and continues to be so).

Who are the "many others"? The statistics indicate that your statement is incorrect. So is all the data I can find simply wrong? As a quick check of some common examples:

Newly qualified teacher in 2008: 20,627, 2023: 30,000. +45%.
Newly qualified band 5 nurse in 2008: 20,225. 2023: 28,407. +41%.
Newly qualified consultant in 2008: 73,403. 2023: 93,666. +27%.
JDs are a bit more difficult to compare as the contracts changed, but I think the like for like is £28,274 in 2008 to £32,398 in 2023. That's +15%.

Inflation during the same period, 56%.

These graphs show salaries,

Can you provide graphs that show the full picture including pension contributions for example,

The way I see it the justification is based on incomplete data.

The pension scheme for doctors got worse in both 2008 and 2015, therefore the relative position for a doctor in 2008 and 2023 when allowing for salary and pensions is worse than just allowing for salary.