Junior Doctors Strikes
- Thread starter Dr House
- Start date
So your suggestion is we pay more tax?
I mean it must be the only way as the NHS is perfectly managed with absolutely zero waste at all.
Now lets look at some of the actual issues that these doctors are moaning about, as identified here:
www.bbc.co.uk
"The talks broke down as it emerged doctors were to be given a 3.5% pay rise this year. The increase was recommended by the independent pay review body and accepted by government."
Boo hoo, every other public service wont get a 3.5% pay rise.
"On top of this, the government had also offered to cover some out-of-pocket expenses resident doctors face, including exam fees, as well as increase the number of training posts to address what the BMA has described as a jobs shortage at the start of year three of their training."
Sounds like a good deal to me.
"doctors have received pay rises totalling nearly 30% over the past three years."
Jeez, sounds like they found a way to screw out more money and choosing to repeat the process.
Doctors announce six-day strike in England as talks break down
The walkout over jobs and pay is one of the longest yet in the dispute, and will begin on 7 April in England.
www.bbc.co.uk
"The talks broke down as it emerged doctors were to be given a 3.5% pay rise this year. The increase was recommended by the independent pay review body and accepted by government."
Boo hoo, every other public service wont get a 3.5% pay rise.
"On top of this, the government had also offered to cover some out-of-pocket expenses resident doctors face, including exam fees, as well as increase the number of training posts to address what the BMA has described as a jobs shortage at the start of year three of their training."
Sounds like a good deal to me.
"doctors have received pay rises totalling nearly 30% over the past three years."
Jeez, sounds like they found a way to screw out more money and choosing to repeat the process.
Nice strawman there, I said nothing about NHS management or waste, nor gave any suggestions. However the NHS has been underfunded for decades and we all know this.
But you keep carrying on assuming you know what others are thinking.
Yes, the NHS is not perfectly managed (show me any entity on that scale that is...) and yes it has waste and inefficiencies (again show me any entity on the scale of the NHS that doesn't.) But trying to constantly improve "efficiency" only gets you so far.
Fact is, the NHS has been massively under-funded for years and as we have an increasingly large proportion of pensioners relative to other age groups (whom require significantly more healthcare on average).
This should have been seen coming for many years, yet time and again people vote for the party that will give them tax cuts, thinking only of themselves, rather than the bigger picture of actually funding the NHS properly so they get the healthcare they need in a timely manner.
Because what is the alternative? we disband the NHS and take up private health insurance system? It'll end up just like the US, do we really want that?
Last edited:
Since no organisation in the entire world is perfectly managed with absolutely zero waste at all, why are you trying to highlight this as a failing of the NHS?
Wouldn't a more sensible comment be to provide evidence of how much waste goes on (as a % of the budget) and how that is comparable to other health services through the developed world to then be able to say if the NHS is significantly inefficient?
Because if you do actually look into the data, then the NHS is considered to be comparably quite efficient in administration costs and where a lot of inefficiency it has comes from is from old outdated infrastructure due to underinvestment in buildings and technology. Something that would require more tax spending/borrowing to fix.
Last edited:
Yes 100%
They changed the name to Resident doctors to help address this but the reality is that the image sticks, I work with many doctors in their 50's and 60's who are not consultants in A&E but have wealth of experience and have pass exams but would be defined as "junior"
But there is a naming system
Medical Student - year 1 to 5/6
FY1/FY2 - Year 1 and 2 post qualification
ST1, ST2 - year 3,4 post qualification
The above are junior
ST3 to ST8+ - Year 5 to 10+ - these are senior doctors but still call junior, they work largely independently, they are running the A&E department, operating, running clinics. These guys are paid £32/h after the pay rise they have had already, it goes upto £35.60 after ST6.
Also keep in mind they now have over 100k of student debt with 7% interest.
I believe that you have described the problem. Rigid pay grades directed by little more than length of service. If you are a not very good or barely adequate ST3 do you get to be ST4?
Having been a professional engineer in the private sector all my working life in which there were quite wide pay bands, your progression was largely determined by performance and your directors judgement based on annual assessments and CPD.
There were descriptive titles like junior, senior and principal but nowhere near ten or more grades. A senior engineer could earn less than a top end junior or more than a low end principal although the lines were not explicit but inferred.
I know which system produced better effectiveness and less friction. Dare i say it better results too.
Last edited:
Hagar,
You dont progress from ST2 to ST3 pay on its own, you have to pass exam, pass ARCP and be considered to be competent so its not just automatic progression.For the ones not in training, they could work at ST2 pay for many many years before being moved onto the senior rota when they are deemed to cube competent.
Here Is a table of the pay.
| Grade | Years post qualification | Hourly rate |
|---|---|---|
| FY1 | 1 | £18.67/hour |
| FY2 | 2 | £21.36/hour |
| CT1–CT2 | 3–4 | £25.32/hour |
| ST3–ST5 | 5–7 | £31.27/hour |
| ST6+ | 8+ | £35.57/hour |
Well that seems fair enough.
They dont come out of it looking good, I remember posting a graph from here sourced from the BBC, which showed the salary they are claiming is the issue, only applies to the first year of their employment, after that point it raises rapidly, and this isnt even taking account of any year on year rises on top of that.Now lets look at some of the actual issues that these doctors are moaning about, as identified here:
Doctors announce six-day strike in England as talks break down
The walkout over jobs and pay is one of the longest yet in the dispute, and will begin on 7 April in England.
"The talks broke down as it emerged doctors were to be given a 3.5% pay rise this year. The increase was recommended by the independent pay review body and accepted by government."
Boo hoo, every other public service wont get a 3.5% pay rise.
"On top of this, the government had also offered to cover some out-of-pocket expenses resident doctors face, including exam fees, as well as increase the number of training posts to address what the BMA has described as a jobs shortage at the start of year three of their training."
Sounds like a good deal to me.
"doctors have received pay rises totalling nearly 30% over the past three years."
Jeez, sounds like they found a way to screw out more money and choosing to repeat the process.
Unions are the problem. The resident doctors committee overruled the BMC of which they are part and the BMC leadership having recommended acceptance with the government. The deal was not presented to the members.
So the proverbial tail wagging the NHS dog.
So the proverbial tail wagging the NHS dog.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 33,064
- Location
- Rutland
The deal was rubbish and the mandate was already partly used up so I can see why. The DDRB announcing another subinflation deal for 2025-2026 was what sealed the deal.
The contrast between the UK and Wes wanting to position himself for PM, and Scotland where they got a deal together and avoided spending billions on strike cover, is rather stark.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 33,064
- Location
- Rutland
Around 3.5% ish, which is what the DDRB offered for 2025-2026. Next year is predicted to be similar but lots of uncertainty with Iran/energy costs.
The new deal offered a 3 year deal which is pretty complicated but outlined here:
The headline is a minimum 3.5% next year with the more junior tiers receiving more and the more senior receiving the minimum. Years 2 and 3 are vague. There's no commitment to any form of pay restoration, which is what they want.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 33,064
- Location
- Rutland
They will say they've been hit more than everyone else (there is truth in that) and the Residents can pretty much sustain strike action indefinitely currently. So I don't see how this ends other than a deal, it's just a matter of how many billions are wasted in the mean time.
Reconsider your strike in 48hrs or lose an extra 1000 positions, do those striking over pay really give any hoot over adding another 1000 positions, they want more money not people doing their job
