AIBU to think a potential 2% pay rise for the NHS staff is ridiculous?

[Sunflowers68]

NHS England is cautioning against giving employees raises of more than 2%. is A band 2 salary is now only 10p above minimum wage due to the recent increase in the minimum wage. Surely, a 2% increase is insufficient for a job this challenging? If you are still working in the NHS, can you share your reasons why?

They call themselves Junior Doctors. That's what they always have on their placards. Nothing to do with their age but all to do with their medical status.

Doesn't junior doctor mean all hospital doctors except consultants? Their pay scale running up to £73k or £78k in London with automatic progression and jobs security, with the addition of pensions, holidays etc.

Where the hell do you get the cracked idea that junior doctors jobs are secure.
The have two years foundation which could be anywhere in in the country followed by competitive applications to the CT1 training for three years again anywhere in the country if lucky to get a post and then competitive applications to specialist training again anywhere in the country if lucky. Once started will be rotated around hospitals within the region (IE the whole of Scotland).
If not successful in gaining training posts then it will a series of one year posts covering maternity leave or more likely go abroad (unless like many 30+ year olds will have a partner here with a career maybe a baby or two)

There's been a recent movement towards adopting the term resident doctors for grades below consultant as it is less infantilising on these very intelligent hardworking professionals

*Whyhaveibeencutoutofmamsnot *

My understanding is that junior doctors have completed a medical degree and foundation training and have anywhere up to 8 years experience. At the top of the scale they currently earn £73,000 (or £78,000 in London) - which would equate to £98,550 or £105,300 with the 35% pay rise they are demanding.

I was speaking to a couple of consultants about the strike last week and they said that the jobs of junior doctors are secure. Apologies if they were wrong.

Yet that's not the term they themselves use on their placards!

www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/junior-doctors-to-be-called-resident-doctors

I'm pleased enough with today's announcement of 5.5% - I remember a lot of years with below inflation payrises.

What do others think?

I am pleased with it too

I am pleased with it too. As a relatively high band I would have been happy to see lower bands receive more and higher bands less but 5.5% isn't bad

I'm also pleased. Really happy for the junior docs too.

I agree with this too, as a B7, I would prefer to see our 3's and 4's get a slightly higher percentage and us slightly lower.

I think 5% is reasonable though. But didn't Dr's get 22%?

The junior doctors did get 22%.

No, that's how the headlines are being phrased but - The pay rise offer will take place over two years, according to The Times.

It constitutes a pay rise of between 8.1% and 10.3% as well as a backdated 4.05% increase for 2023-24.

That is on top of a 6% pay rise for 2024-2025, topped up by a £1,000 payment - an equivalent to a pay rise of between 7% and 9%.

IMO by giving the lower bands more and higher bands less all you do is remove any incentive for promotion. So I'm happy that the offer is the same % for all.

Agree!

So, Unite say we'll be balloted about this now - will this drag everything out even more?

No it's a pay award. I believe they'll pay it regardless of whether we agree or not

Yes @socks1107, that's what confused me!

I am just aware how my colleagues on lower bands struggle with the cost of living. My pre raise salary as a B7 was 54k, will be 56k after the raise, nice to have but not going to make a significant difference to me. But that same amount to someone on 20k would make much more difference. A pint of milk/rent etc costs the same whether you are on 20k or 100k

I suspect that might have more to do with pay restoration and further strike action. 5.5% is reasonable but, I believe, still leaves pay lower than it was in 2007 in real terms. IIRC the unions grudgingly recommended accepting the pay deal that ended the strikes because they didn’t think they would get anything better but didn’t rule out further strike action.

Nobody is on 20k, it's below minimum wage. Everyone is struggling with increased costs, milk and rent has increased the same % for everyone so I don't see why we shouldn't want our wages to increase by the same % as others to compensate. You'll also be paying more tax on your raise than the lower bands. So if they got 2k extra they'd see 80% of it (minus NI and pension) but you'd see 60% of it (ditto, minus NI and pension and possibly increased student loan payment). So in real terms you are getting a lower pay rise, there will be less extra in your pay packet than theirs. If you feel guilty donate your increase to charity, but I'm grateful the increase is the same across the bands. We've reached a point where it's literally not worth going for promotion.

Also when I was a 7 and DH was a 5 we took home roughly the same due to his shifts, so lower bands aren't necessarily worse off.

B3 start point is 22k outside London.

Comparing shift uplift with non shift uplift pay bands is not relevant, have to compare like with like.

There are no promotions to go for anyway from B7. B8 clinical roles are very scarce, many people will sit on top of B7 for 30 years or more, and sitting behind a desk in a management role is not the best use of specialist clinical skills. So it's not really relevant to say it's not worth going for a promotion is a reason to not pay lower bands a higher percentage, and there are no promotions to go for anyway!
In my opinion it should be a lump sum increase across the scales, but I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I was comparing like with like. See the point about lower bands seeing 80% of the a raise of the same amount, compared to higher bands' 60%. Any response to that?

Well first of all, there are opportunities beyond band 7 for nurses, but also not everyone is a nurse so we don't all top out at 7. And you misunderstand my point about promotion, I'm not necessarily talking about higher bands. But if you continually give lower bands higher pay rises it eventually narrows the gaps between bands. So why be a staff nurse with all the additional work and responsibility it entails when a band 3 is paid almost the same? Especially when you then have to pay off your student loan and have higher pension contributions. Why go for a band 6 when you earn almost the same as a 5? (This is already an issue in nursing where taking promotion can be a pay cut due to loss of shift allowance).

GP surgery worker here. I'm not even getting a 2% rise. I'm getting nothing and I'm already on less than my hospital and community counterparts.

If I could find an alternative mon-fri job to fit in with childcare (single parent) I would

If everyone was given for example a 2k pay rise, how would that narrow the gaps?

Those on the lowest bands are likely having to claim UC to make ends meet. The money is all coming out of the taxpayer pot, so why not pay them a living wage in the first place.

Re 60% vs 80% - 60% of 50k is still much more than 80% of 22k, so still better off/,getting more of a raise.

We are AHP's, so shift allowances aren't a common occurance except those which do on calls/7 day working.