Junior Doctors' Pay Claim Poll

[rscott]

Dixy said:

A new health secretary, what happens next
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng03792gqo

Appears we have a Health Secretary who is prepared to actually discuss pay with the junior doctors - something we've been lacking for a while.

[Mr Penguin]

rscott said:

Appears we have a Health Secretary who is prepared to actually discuss pay with the junior doctors - something we've been lacking for a while.

There were talks https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67626218
There were talks more recently https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0w01y46qyo

[Dixy]

Agree to talks and actually negotiating are 2 different things.

[Hants PHer]

Dixy said:

Agree to talks and actually negotiating are 2 different things.

Of course, and that applies as much to the BMA as it does to the government(s). Now that Rob Laurenson & Co. have achieved their aim of removing the Tories, I predict they (the BMA) will roll over, play nicely, and settle for a modest % rise with promises of a review of conditions of employment. The 35% thing will be quietly dropped.

[oddman]

Hants PHer said:

Dixy said:

Agree to talks and actually negotiating are 2 different things.

Of course, and that applies as much to the BMA as it does to the government(s). Now that Rob Laurenson & Co. have achieved their aim of removing the Tories, I predict they (the BMA) will roll over, play nicely, and settle for a modest % rise with promises of a review of conditions of employment. The 35% thing will be quietly dropped.

I think if they settle for around 10% or less, then I'll concede that there was a significant political motivation behind the strike because I imagine the Tories would have settled at that level. Streeting seems to be the first minister who might meet them somewhere near half way. He'll be well aware that it will be difficult to achieve waiting list promises if consultants and other doctors in non training grades are acting down to cover strike action.

I would guess a package that could see restoration of a portion of the pay degradation over a number of years with a few sweeteners like NHS paying the first time you take an exam.

There's a lot of potential for win/win with good faith negotiations. eg. some kind of deal around committment to the NHS in return for student loan/debt repayment.

[rscott]

Dixy said:

Agree to talks and actually negotiating are 2 different things.

Yep, but even agreeing to talk is a step nearer resolving it than we've been for years

[Mr Penguin]

oddman said:

I think if they settle for around 10% or less, then I'll concede that there was a significant political motivation behind the strike because I imagine the Tories would have settled at that level. Streeting seems to be the first minister who might meet them somewhere near half way. He'll be well aware that it will be difficult to achieve waiting list promises if consultants and other doctors in non training grades are acting down to cover strike action.

I would guess a package that could see restoration of a portion of the pay degradation over a number of years with a few sweeteners like NHS paying the first time you take an exam.

There's a lot of potential for win/win with good faith negotiations. eg. some kind of deal around committment to the NHS in return for student loan/debt repayment.

The most recent strike was two days before a general election and during purdah when the government can't actually engage with it. What is that other than a political strike?

[djc206]

Hants PHer said:

Of course, and that applies as much to the BMA as it does to the government(s). Now that Rob Laurenson & Co. have achieved their aim of removing the Tories, I predict they (the BMA) will roll over, play nicely, and settle for a modest % rise with promises of a review of conditions of employment. The 35% thing will be quietly dropped.

The Tories removed themselves, it had nothing to do with the BMA. They were languishing in the polls long before the JD’s started their campaign.

[S600BSB]

Hants PHer said:

Of course, and that applies as much to the BMA as it does to the government(s). Now that Rob Laurenson & Co. have achieved their aim of removing the Tories, I predict they (the BMA) will roll over, play nicely, and settle for a modest % rise with promises of a review of conditions of employment. The 35% thing will be quietly dropped.

Hope so. A package to improve JDs’ working conditions is long overdue. Hopefully a long-term commitment to restore pay levels will also be part of the overall offer.

Good to hear that Wes spoke to the BMA yesterday.

[rscott]

Mr Penguin said:

The most recent strike was two days before a general election and during purdah when the government can't actually engage with it. What is that other than a political strike?

When was the last offer from the Tories to hold discussions?

[carlo996]

S600BSB said:

Hope so. A package to improve JDs’ working conditions is long overdue. Hopefully a long-term commitment to restore pay levels will also be part of the overall offer.

Good to hear that Wes spoke to the BMA yesterday.

Restore pay levels. FFS. Don’t worry the lefties are in now and I’m sure they’ll capitulate.

[Fast Bug]

rscott said:

When was the last offer from the Tories to hold discussions?

May looking at one of the links above. Not really sure of there's much point holding them in June when the Tories had their bags packed and sat by the front door waiting to leave.

[oddman]

rscott said:

Mr Penguin said:

The most recent strike was two days before a general election and during purdah when the government can't actually engage with it. What is that other than a political strike?

When was the last offer from the Tories to hold discussions?

Strike dates were announced before the election announcement and tied to the mandate for strike action. They could have called it off but chose not to. I see it as a warning shot over Wes Streeting's bow and supported them.

BMA member for 30+ years. I can assure you that BMA officers represent, but are not representative of ordinary doctors. Usually the personality types who are drawn towards the trappings of power or the earnest 'change the world' types. Overzealous reps can be a PIA in the workplace because they know their T&Cs inside out etc. and can limit flexibilty when it comes to the reality of providing 24/7 care. The rest of us have to do the work while they swan off to London, claim expenses enjoy hospitality.

Senior reps are propably no more left wing than the average senior doctor and betrayed the trainees during previous round of IA.The trainee reps are probably notably to the left of their colleagues back at the hospital. Nevertheless the ballots in favour of striking were overwhelming.

Most ordinary doctors are thoroughly fed up with the BMA because of their tiresome campaigning on boxing, cycling helmets and 'save the NHS' rather than aggressively addressing at least a decade's pay erosion. This has led to the 'political' dispute we see now. There is a widespread suspicion that senior BMA officers have been weak in negotiations on behalf of their members because of the historical record of the award of honours to senior BMA officers and influence of the prospect of honours on current senior officers ie. 'gong chasers' prepared to sell out the wishes and needs of their members for an O M or K. You don't get that with the RMT or more typical union. The trainees have taken on these lessons and are being less supine.

I haven't thought it was politically motivated before and, although some of the young tyros probably dream they could bring down a government, the mandate, from the apolitical rank and file, for the IA was based on pay and conditions. Like I said if they settle around the 10% mark and that's not tied to a recurring supra inflationary settlement. ie they accept a deal from Labour that they would have rejected from the Tories then I'll concede there must have been significant political motivation.

Edited by oddman on Saturday 6th July 14:15

[Oliver Hardy]

Hants PHer said:

Dixy said:

Agree to talks and actually negotiating are 2 different things.

Of course, and that applies as much to the BMA as it does to the government(s). Now that Rob Laurenson & Co. have achieved their aim of removing the Tories, I predict they (the BMA) will roll over, play nicely, and settle for a modest % rise with promises of a review of conditions of employment. The 35% thing will be quietly dropped.

But isn't it what the Doctors have been asking all along?

From 24 Feb 2024


"The truth is we had very reasonable conversations with people in the room when we were talking at the end of last year,” Trivedi said, adding that the union would be willing to put an attractive single-year pay offer to members for a vote."

Trivedi, an anaesthetist, was speaking ahead of junior doctors starting five days of walkouts at 7am on Saturday as part of their battle for higher pay and better working conditions, following an unprecedented six-day strike last month.

https://www.ft.com/content/00c3033a-6ab7-420f-8670...

Financial times, not sure it is paywelled?

[Vasco]

oddman said:

Hants PHer said:

Dixy said:

Agree to talks and actually negotiating are 2 different things.

Of course, and that applies as much to the BMA as it does to the government(s). Now that Rob Laurenson & Co. have achieved their aim of removing the Tories, I predict they (the BMA) will roll over, play nicely, and settle for a modest % rise with promises of a review of conditions of employment. The 35% thing will be quietly dropped.

I think if they settle for around 10% or less, then I'll concede that there was a significant political motivation behind the strike because I imagine the Tories would have settled at that level. Streeting seems to be the first minister who might meet them somewhere near half way. He'll be well aware that it will be difficult to achieve waiting list promises if consultants and other doctors in non training grades are acting down to cover strike action.

I would guess a package that could see restoration of a portion of the pay degradation over a number of years with a few sweeteners like NHS paying the first time you take an exam.

There's a lot of potential for win/win with good faith negotiations. eg. some kind of deal around committment to the NHS in return for student loan/debt repayment.

So much of that had a good chance of success under the Tories but Unions stupidly claiming 35% killed any commom sense.

[oddman]

Vasco said:

So much of that had a good chance of success under the Tories but Unions stupidly claiming 35% killed any commom sense.

Agree it was an idiotic tactical error and indicative of the calibre/naivety of the people involved.

Anyone outside medicine engaged enough to take an interest in the dispute would understand the maths and the justice in the general goal of pay restoration but also recognise that 35% is totally unrealistic. Something along the lines of 'It would take a 35% increase in salary to restore our pay to 2010 levels. Our aim is to get the best deal for our members in closing this gap' would have probably been more sensible.

Instead they handed Barclay an excuse for bad faith negotiation (TBF the treasury would never agree to 35%) and the Tory press an opportunity to portray these wet behind the ears, middle class medics as the greatest threat to democracy since Scargill.

[pghstochaj]

oddman said:

Agree it was an idiotic tactical error and indicative of the calibre/naivety of the people involved.

Anyone outside medicine engaged enough to take an interest in the dispute would understand the maths and the justice in the general goal of pay restoration but also recognise that 35% is totally unrealistic. Something along the lines of 'It would take a 35% increase in salary to restore our pay to 2010 levels. Our aim is to get the best deal for our members in closing this gap' would have probably been more sensible.

Instead they handed Barclay an excuse for bad faith negotiation (TBF the treasury would never agree to 35%) and the Tory press an opportunity to portray these wet behind the ears, middle class medics as the greatest threat to democracy since Scargill.

I don't think that the BMA has genuinely asked for 35% as a single one-off pay increase, and I can't find evidence of this. I think the BMA demand is just simplified down to this for headlines/the public.

For example, today on Sky News:

"Junior doctors want pay restored to 2010 levels, which amounts to a roughly 35% pay rise - something the new PM has said the government cannot afford.

But the BMA union representing junior doctors say they are just seeking a path to getting there within a reasonable timeframe - something they will discuss with the new health secretary today as formal negotiations are set to get under way this week."

[Vasco]

pghstochaj said:

I don't think that the BMA has genuinely asked for 35% as a single one-off pay increase, and I can't find evidence of this. I think the BMA demand is just simplified down to this for headlines/the public.

For example, today on Sky News:

"Junior doctors want pay restored to 2010 levels, which amounts to a roughly 35% pay rise - something the new PM has said the government cannot afford.

But the BMA union representing junior doctors say they are just seeking a path to getting there within a reasonable timeframe - something they will discuss with the new health secretary today as formal negotiations are set to get under way this week."

Did you not see all their placards, or hear their Union leaders?. It was a claim for 35% with no reference to being over a period of time.

[pghstochaj]

Vasco said:

pghstochaj said:

I don't think that the BMA has genuinely asked for 35% as a single one-off pay increase, and I can't find evidence of this. I think the BMA demand is just simplified down to this for headlines/the public.

For example, today on Sky News:

"Junior doctors want pay restored to 2010 levels, which amounts to a roughly 35% pay rise - something the new PM has said the government cannot afford.

But the BMA union representing junior doctors say they are just seeking a path to getting there within a reasonable timeframe - something they will discuss with the new health secretary today as formal negotiations are set to get under way this week."

Did you not see all their placards, or hear their Union leaders?. It was a claim for 35% with no reference to being over a period of time.

So when they asked for pay restoration (which you acknowledge was not accompanied with a timeframe, whether short or long) you took that to mean "in one go" rather than "over a defined time period". I think it would have been worth spending a few moments to look into what pay restoration meant during the strike and what the negotiators were seeking.

For example, the BMA in Scotland negotiated and agreed the following in 2023:

"This year, junior doctors in Scotland will receive a pay rise of 12.4% backdated to April. For the following three financial years SJDC will now enter yearly negotiations with the Scottish government that must “make credible progress” in real terms towards full pay restoration to 2008 levels. Inflation will be guaranteed as the floor for each round of ongoing negotiation."

And in terms of specific reference to phasing, in January this year [BBC]:

"The BMA's junior doctor leaders, Dr Vivek Trivedi and Dr Robert Laurenson, made it clear this was not enough, and have been urging ministers to make a "credible" new offer. The demand for pay to be restored in one go has been toned down - they now say they would be happy to see it phased in over a number of years."

But most importantly, what did the BMA say in a letter to the PM in June? I have marked up the key line in relation to phasing.



In terms of placards making specific demands for pay restoration without phasing, what placards are these? I just spent a few minutes trying to see which placards said "pay us 35% in one single pay rise". I couldn't find any. In fact, here is a sample of what I did find.

[Vasco]

pghstochaj said:

Vasco said:

pghstochaj said:

I don't think that the BMA has genuinely asked for 35% as a single one-off pay increase, and I can't find evidence of this. I think the BMA demand is just simplified down to this for headlines/the public.

For example, today on Sky News:

"Junior doctors want pay restored to 2010 levels, which amounts to a roughly 35% pay rise - something the new PM has said the government cannot afford.

But the BMA union representing junior doctors say they are just seeking a path to getting there within a reasonable timeframe - something they will discuss with the new health secretary today as formal negotiations are set to get under way this week."

Did you not see all their placards, or hear their Union leaders?. It was a claim for 35% with no reference to being over a period of time.

So when they asked for pay restoration (which you acknowledge was not accompanied with a timeframe, whether short or long) you took that to mean "in one go" rather than "over a defined time period". I think it would have been worth spending a few moments to look into what pay restoration meant during the strike and what the negotiators were seeking.

For example, the BMA in Scotland negotiated and agreed the following in 2023:

"This year, junior doctors in Scotland will receive a pay rise of 12.4% backdated to April. For the following three financial years SJDC will now enter yearly negotiations with the Scottish government that must “make credible progress” in real terms towards full pay restoration to 2008 levels. Inflation will be guaranteed as the floor for each round of ongoing negotiation."

And in terms of specific reference to phasing, in January this year [BBC]:

"The BMA's junior doctor leaders, Dr Vivek Trivedi and Dr Robert Laurenson, made it clear this was not enough, and have been urging ministers to make a "credible" new offer. The demand for pay to be restored in one go has been toned down - they now say they would be happy to see it phased in over a number of years."

But most importantly, what did the BMA say in a letter to the PM in June? I have marked up the key line in relation to phasing.



In terms of placards making specific demands for pay restoration without phasing, what placards are these? I just spent a few minutes trying to see which placards said "pay us 35% in one single pay rise". I couldn't find any. In fact, here is a sample of what I did find.

Perhaps you should have checked the general media at the time, who routinely reported that it was a 35% claim. Did they add 'over a period of time' ?. [answer is NO...]

In fact, despite hundreds of comments and posts on PH I don't recall anyone suggesting that it may have been intended to be a staggered claim.

My point, on numerous occasions on PH, has been that it should have been a 35% AIM if that was what they intended - but it was always referred to as a CLAIM - and government, media etc rightly treated it as some silly Union approach that could be ignored until they returned to reality.