to think that doctors shouldn't go on strike over pension changes

[starwarrior]

Why shouldn't they just suck it up like the rest of us?

I accept that in small firms, the balance has been tipped against union membership, but have the strong impression that many can't be arsed getting organised, the default setting being unions are useless. Which is now being demonstrated by the doctors, is not true.

What the government doesn't like about public sector pension funds, the Teachers' Superannuation, for instance, is that they can't get their hooks into them. Unlike the pensions of Robert Maxwell's employees. That's the way of private pensions, and one the government would love.

What is happening IS a race to the bottom and all the cod "let's be sensible" is a way of invalidating the claims of those interested in fighting for their corner.

they should be able to as it is a free country.

echt, I beleve in unions but I wouldn't be too sure that this the BMA is going to win this fight.

Unions can't do anything anymore and are now actually just another establishment organisation.

Shall we talk about the postal union or the firemans union that managed to secure deals that were worse than the deals originally put on the table in respect disputes...

recent*

Well, I sincerely hope they win. Maternity leave, holiday entitlement, health and safety at work did not come about as the gift of enlightened governments, but as a consequence of trades unions.

Not sure what you mean by unions not being able to do anything any more, offred; it looks as they are from here.

I'm off now, lunch to make, work to go to.

You are (still) generalising from your 1 NHS consultant client to every other NHS employee.

I don't know what I will get? How could I? I don't know what my final salary will be, I don't know how many years I will have accrued by the end of my career, and who knows what the scheme will actually look like at the point I retire.

Should also say that I don't know what my career average salary will be either.

Yes, so coy with my inability to predict the future .

I don't think that retiring at 60 is on the cards though, nor is having enough years to retire on 50%.

Doctors pensions are good, think I said that previously. And for those desperate to talk figures, if I retire at 60 I'll get a lump sum of over £100,000 and an annual pension of about £48,000. So a great deal. If I were on the 2008 scheme I'd get no lump sum and £39,000 retiring at 60. Still good. And with the latest deal a bit less. And then there'll be another deal. So less again. Meanwhile the senior civil servants (on equivalent salaries) advising the government on these changes are whinging at the increase from 3.5% contributions to a massive 6.9%. Ours will be 14.5%. If theirs increased to the same as ours - fair enough. If things have got to change then it should be the same for all. And before anyone says I should work until 68, the average life expectancy of someone in my specialty is apparently 73. So no I won't be working until 68, I will go at 60 and suck up the financial penalty.

Yes I know they're good. I've never said they're not. Though head teachers of big secondary schools and senior civil servants will also have similar figures. To most of us as I have already said, this is about equity and a general level of dissatisfaction with the government about the handling of the NHS, as well as supporting our less well paid colleagues. We know we are fortunate and we're not all money grabbing bastards.

You are focusing on a relatively small group within the NHS pension scheme, that you apparently feel are earning too much and getting too big a pension. It is an NHS pension scheme, not a doctors pension scheme, and even within the medical profession, not everyone is a Consultant or GP.

Exactly hiveofbees! And anyway the government will get most of my 1 million back when I pop my clogs a lot earlier than the average life expectancy like many doctors will!

No they shouldn't just suck it up. It shouldn't be a race to the bottom.

Meanwhile the senior civil servants (on equivalent salaries) advising the government on these changes are whinging at the increase from 3.5% contributions to a massive 6.9%. Ours will be 14.5%. If theirs increased to the same as ours - fair enough.

So just to be clear then you're promoting a 'race to the bottom'?

Doctors will lose money by having to contribute more to their pensions, so other civil servants should lose money too.

Or is it not a race to the bottom when it's unionised public sector employees advocating it?

I don't think that it is necessarily a 'race to the bottom' to ask why there is this difference. Its possible that there may be a very good reason for that difference, but we don't know that without asking.

I don't know if I'll have a job post training (will be a total of 17 years from when i started med school); I definitely worry about it a great deal.
I think, as said before, there is nothing awful about doctors hours anymore as compared with many other professions, and I am well-paid. I also agree doctors are not the only people making life and death decisions.
But there are many doctors who in the past did work the shifts that lasted 2 or 3 days, and 1 in 2 on-calls etc, who are still working now - I did, and I'm only 36.
I don't really believe the pension scheme will operate as its currently meant to by the time I retire so consider it a myth anyway and I don't support the (likely futile and harmful) strike myself.