Strikes are only ever about money, actually, no matter what platitudes the unions mouth: and inevitably, the union will sell its members down the river over the other issues it was pretending that the strike was really about once the pay issue is settled.
It's disingenuous of the BMA and the doctors to pretend that this strike was about working hours and patient care: doctors are already working the hours the strikers claimed are untenable - it's just that more of those extra hours are at the higher rate than they would have been under the new agreement. So it's not about hours or patients' care - the bottom line is the money.
I'm an academic. The most major union in our sector has various mealy-mouthed strikes, that they present as being about working conditions (mainly): actually, like the doctors, they are about pay. They stop giving a shit that our average week is 70 hours month in, month out, once they get the 2% payrise that they were agitating for - that anyway ends up being less over the course of the year than the 2 or 3 days' pay already lost through the strike. I'm one of the lucky ones, though- as I work in HE, I get a small rise every year connected with inflation (as well as a spine point): those in the private sector, especially those who are not part of multi-nationals and in high prestige jobs, aren't so fortunate - I know many people who haven't even had an inflationary rise in 7 or 8 years.
One day and two day strikes solve nothing: and cost union members more financially than any gains made in the end. But the lack of honesty over the real issues is what makes it all so mealy-mouthed, whether it's doctors or academics: because when it is all settled, and clear that, actually, it was about the money (you know, like previous doctors' strikes, or threatened GP strikes etc etc) it makes all those involved look completely lacking in integrity.
Some of the rhetoric surrounding the issues has been ridiculous too: this whole notion of the "brightest and best" who, suddenly, are all going to retrain to do something else because of this. Firstly, I don't believe that only the "brightest and best" become doctors- I like to think that many of those who train are doing it out of a sense of vocation, as educators are, for example, rather than to get high salaries. Anyone who is bright "could" have been a doctor, in the same way they "could have been" a lawyer, banker, analyst etc It's both insulting and inaccurate to imply that the very best of young peoplehood go into the medical profession. Secondly, a lot of careers where you need an extensive amount of tertiary education are, unfortunately, low paid in the beginning (and some right through to the end) - and as no-one (well, not no-one, but it's a very, very fortunate doctor who doesn't have to do overtime and weekends) actually gets the starting salary, it's relatively irrelevant. You rarely see sales' salaries advertised where the figure isn't OTE, do you? Thirdly, it's absurd to try to pretend that there's a link between the "goodness" of a career and its salary: otherwise, footballers wouldn't earn many, many times what social workers do.
I don't blame the doctors for wanting more money: but I blame them for not being honest about it. It makes them look mealy-mouthed and disingenuous when it becomes clear, as it always does, that this is really just about money.