Junior doctor strike: Union's pay demands unrealistic, says Steve Barclay

heeeed said:
In all fairness you can’t very easily compare the 2 payslips based on that as the one from 2000 was the old contracts before the ‘new deal’ of 2002.
However the job of being a junior doctor hasn’t somehow become cushier in the last 20 years, and the intensity has generally gone through the roof.

ignore the on call part and accept that 2 similar roles based on similar experience has seen no increase in 22 years
Click to expand...
you suggesting the new deal was the problem?
 
It certainly has contributed to pay essentially dropping yes. The cynic in me says that was factored into the new deal being struck at the time with an intention to keep the overall cost in the longer term pretty much the same, but short term it looked better. They needed to do something at the time as the situation was untenable then also in different ways.

I was one of the cohort that benefited the most from it in all honesty, having started work at the crossover, but the short term benefits were eroded for future cohorts financially, and it didn’t take a lot of years for that to happen. Pretty much nobody did locums as a PRHO when I qualified, but F2’s that work with me in primary care are all doing them these days.

I see echoes in the GP contract of 2004 that initially looked good, but in the longer term is pretty dire for GPs
 
heeeed said:
It certainly has contributed to pay essentially dropping yes. The cynic in me says that was factored into the new deal being struck at the time with an intention to keep the overall cost in the longer term pretty much the same, but short term it looked better. They needed to do something at the time as the situation was untenable then also in different ways.

I was one of the cohort that benefited the most from it in all honesty, having started work at the crossover, but the short term benefits were eroded for future cohorts financially, and it didn’t take a lot of years for that to happen. Pretty much nobody did locums as a PRHO when I qualified, but F2’s that work with me in primary care are all doing them these days.

I see echoes in the GP contract of 2004 that initially looked good, but in the longer term is pretty dire for GPs
Click to expand...
heeeed said:
It certainly has contributed to pay essentially dropping yes. The cynic in me says that was factored into the new deal being struck at the time with an intention to keep the overall cost in the longer term pretty much the same, but short term it looked better. They needed to do something at the time as the situation was untenable then also in different ways.

I was one of the cohort that benefited the most from it in all honesty, having started work at the crossover, but the short term benefits were eroded for future cohorts financially, and it didn’t take a lot of years for that to happen. Pretty much nobody did locums as a PRHO when I qualified, but F2’s that work with me in primary care are all doing them these days.

I see echoes in the GP contract of 2004 that initially looked good, but in the longer term is pretty dire for GPs
Click to expand...
That destroy dental funding in this country. what killed this country War in Afghanistan, Blair, David and not for Brexit and May.
 
The great hobby of having opinions on how much other people should get paid whilst choking at the thought of someone else doing the same to you.

Classic Britain :D
 
CapitalOne said:
The great hobby of having opinions on how much other people should get paid whilst choking at the thought of someone else doing the same to you.

Classic Britain :D
Click to expand...
I suspect some of them were the same people advocating for MP’s to be paid more too.

I want teachers, nurses, doctors and all others essential jobs and roles to be paid more. I don’t know how that’s going to be paid for, that’s not my job, but they deserve it far more than most of us and far more than most earning far more.
 
Last edited:
Doobedoo said:
I suspect some of them were the same people advocating for MP’s to be paid more too.

I want teachers, nurses, doctors and all others essential jobs and roles to be paid more. I don’t know how that’s going to be paid for, that’s not my job, but they deserve it far more than most of us and far more than most earning far more.
Click to expand...

It's obvious how it has to be paid for, through taxation. But the conservatives will never look at increasing tax rates at the higher end of the scale.

The lowest end of the scale have nothing left to give, they're even being helped out with energy handouts etc.

The middle end of the scale have been squeezed to breaking point, with mortgage rate increases these are the people now spending the majority of their income on keeping a roof over their head and the lights on.

Whilst the upper end of the scale have barely felt a thing.
 
Doobedoo said:
I don’t know how that’s going to be paid for, that’s not my job, but they deserve it far more than most of us and far more than most earning far more.
Click to expand...
Its fairly obvious, the tax burden of the millionaires earning money through capital gains and dividends is far lower than what it should be. While people like Rishi pay effective rates of 23% on incomes of multi million pounds the working person is saddled with a 40 or 45% rate on far lower sums.
 
Semple said:
It's obvious how it has to be paid for, through taxation. But the conservatives will never look at increasing tax rates at the higher end of the scale.

The lowest end of the scale have nothing left to give, they're even being helped out with energy handouts etc.

The middle end of the scale have been squeezed to breaking point, with mortgage rate increases these are the people now spending the majority of their income on keeping a roof over their head and the lights on.

Whilst the upper end of the scale have barely felt a thing.
Click to expand...


Increasing taxes is not a solution, you pay for it through increases in efficiency, meaning more can be done than was previously done.

The point of taxes is to take that money and invest it in to things that produce the overal benefit to the economy of which various companies will not do because the cost of that is too much for the benefit to the one company..

The cost of taxes is a reduction of investment in the private sector,

When you take taxation to then not invest anything, this is a net negative.

And you end up with stagnation.

And you can go all the way to 100% taxes, at which point the decline will become pretty steep.
 
200sols said:
Its fairly obvious, the tax burden of the millionaires earning money through capital gains and dividends is far lower than what it should be. While people like Rishi pay effective rates of 23% on incomes of multi million pounds the working person is saddled with a 40 or 45% rate on far lower sums.
Click to expand...
Yeah but poor rich people and all that. Greed rules.
 
200sols said:
Its fairly obvious, the tax burden of the millionaires earning money through capital gains and dividends is far lower than what it should be. While people like Rishi pay effective rates of 23% on incomes of multi million pounds the working person is saddled with a 40 or 45% rate on far lower sums.
Click to expand...
it's does seem unfair that he pays a lower percent of tax that most of us do. I am stressing that due to not thinking about it I accidentally will be going slightly over the £1000 PA interest off my savings for the next 5 years (should have put into bonds I guess) so now gonna have to figure out how to do a tax return or will get charged... and yet others are earning eye watering amounts paying stuff all.

note yes I have a decent chunk of change in savings but I am not allowed a pension at the moment due to my job (complicated which is why I don't want to have to do a tax return) so this is my pension from the last 7 years.
 
Last edited:
platinum87 said:
Increasing taxes is not a solution, you pay for it through increases in efficiency, meaning more can be done than was previously done.

The point of taxes is to take that money and invest it in to things that produce the overal benefit to the economy of which various companies will not do because the cost of that is too much for the benefit to the one company..

The cost of taxes is a reduction of investment in the private sector,

When you take taxation to then not invest anything, this is a net negative.

And you end up with stagnation.

And you can go all the way to 100% taxes, at which point the decline will become pretty steep.
Click to expand...

Increases in efficiency only go so far. After the last rounds of austerity where health trusts have had to remove any unnecessary spending, there's practically no more efficiency savings to be made.

The only way to then cut spending would be a reduction in staffing, which ultimately would provide an even poorer level of service.

Taxing at an individual level rather than at a corporation level will not reduce investment in the private sector. Find me a rich person who says they're no longer going to spend a penny if they have to pay more tax. It'll be a unicorn because these types of people live for spending money.
 
inferno said:
We need to come to terms with the fact we are not a wealthy country anymore, we can’t afford the standard of living we are used to.
Click to expand...
People are fine with that, as long as it's not them. They don't mind if everyone else becomes poorer but they are completely unwilling to sacrifice any of the "luxuries" they are used to.
Over my life I have seen the wealth of the average family increase dramatically. I have never once seen anyone make a backward step. When they "tighten their belts" they actually just try to do the same things cheaper, rather than fundamentally change their lifestyle. That's totally unthinkable to them, yet it's usually how their parents lived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom