Drs' payrise should be funded by cutting 23.7% govt pension contribution

[eyeses]

The Telegraph today suggests that the Government could fund a significant payrise to Resident Doctors by reducing our surprisingly high payments into their pensions.

"Yet what is often forgotten is that these doctors enjoy bumper pensions worth close to 75pc of their salaries in retirement – and which are guaranteed to rise with inflation each year.
Doctors enjoy index-linked, taxpayer-funded “defined benefit” schemes, many of which pay a proportion of the recipient’s final salary from the day they retire.
Under the NHS scheme, staff contribute between 5.2pc and 12.5pc of their salaries while the state contributes a vast 23.7pc each year.
By comparison, private sector workers, who are almost all enrolled in “defined contribution” pensions where the value of the final pot depends on investment performance, receive a contribution of just 3pc from their employer.
The NHS is paying out nearly £1bn a month in staff pensions, with almost 2,000 staff receiving pensions of more than £100,000 annually – a figure that has more than doubled in a year."

AIBU - No, junior Drs deserve that we fund a big pay rise and huge pension
IANBU - We pay far too much into Dr's pensions and they want the money now

What Resident Doctors don't want you to know about their pay

This is not correct. Even without legacy benefits, doctors’ pensions are still based on career average earnings. In other words, doctors still belong to a defined benefit scheme with a guaranteed, index-linked income, of a type that has been largely ruled out as unaffordable for everyone else.

More accurately, doctors’ pensions used to be off-the-scale, rip roaringly incredible, and are now merely insanely generous relative to anything you’ll find in the private sector.

There is a reason they fight the idea of a DC pension like the majority of employees in the private sector, it’s because they know what an incredibly generous and expensive perk the current index linked pension is. It’s time for it to end, although we will probably have to wait for a party that isn’t funded by the unions for it to change. Nigel/Kemi, over to you.

Doctors unhappy with their pay and working conditions should just leave the NHS—or maybe even the country.

Who needs doctors, anyway? We can handle things ourselves, right? It’s survival of the wealthiest and fittest—that’s just how nature works, isn’t it? Most of the Mumsnet crowd is wealthy enough to manage their own problems, and I’m pretty sure Mumsnet is popular among affluent people—it’s practically a hub of wealth. Plus, there’s always the internet—spend a few hours on Mumsnet and you can find an answer to any health concern.

That’s why I support anyone looking to find work, land a job outside the UK, and live with freedom. All this chaos makes me feel like the country doesn’t appreciate doctors, so it’s better for them to head abroad and avoid financial hardship.

And just watch the cost of your health care sky rocket. Keep your fingers crossed you stay healthy.

If we keep caving into these pay demands the NHS will definitely be costing us a lot more.

The only thing keeping me (and very very many colleagues) in my NHS job for the past few years has been the pension. Mess with that and I’d have gone long ago. Be careful what you wish for.
As it is after 37 years nursing I shall take the vast majority of my pension penalty free the day I turn 55 next year and I’m done.

You wouldn’t really be affected though. They cannot take the pension you have built up in the defined benefit scheme off you, unless the country goes bankrupt that is, and public sector pensions is one of the very biggest financial threats we face.

Yes, there we have it. Pension at 55. Who else gets that in business? It’s part of the pay package and it’s generous.

Are there far far too many people applying to be doctors in this country or not? Are we flooded with applicants or not? Because if we are (and junior doctors say we are) we can be massively laid back about doctors moving overseas.

And s starting salary of £38k rapidly rising to sky high is ‘financial hardship’ is it? Goodness, I wonder why doctors have a reputation for being arrogant???

This I think is actually a good idea. My headline salary is about £60k but add my benefits and non contributory final salary pension (which is actually private sector as I got in before my employer moved new employees to defined contribution) and it’s worth more like £85k. I know you don’t get it now but it’s a valuable part of your compensation package and it seems like a good idea to make it really transparent what it is worth

The doctors are complaining there is too much competition for jobs. Which means we don’t have a problem attracting staff.

sadly the telegraph can’t be relied on nowadays

For a start, it’s not a big reveal moment… most people know public sector pensions are DB and worth more

secondly they are striking due to erosion of wages over time. I don’t entirely agree with their case, but it’s simply not a valid argument to erode a different part of their package instead

thirdly the statement that DC pensions pay 3% is disingenuous. That’s the legal minimum to be paid in, plenty pay more, many match what you pay in

they are just a reform mouthpiece nowadays, very predictable

They ve accepted the 5.4%, that was part of the settlement, the current offer is 2.5%.
So a pay cut.

On your suggestion they all up sticks and leave, what then, what happens should you be rushed into AE after a traffic accident/stroke/etc or we are suffer another Liverpool car attack or a Manchester arena?

I would. I have to be in a qualifying role at 55 to be able to take that part of the pension at 55 without penalty (special class status). I can’t leave/move to the private sector or would lose that right.
This isn’t part of the current pay package, it’s a longstanding benefit that was scrapped for new starters in 1995.

@sleepwouldbenice It would give them jam today and less jam tomorrow though. So if they talk about salaries, it’s of some use! Whatever we do, their total package is never ever talked about. Just wage erosion that many others suffer from too. The difference is that those paying their wages don’t have massive pensions themselves. We need to compare pay packages overall and doctors are in a gilded cage and privileged, but still complain and strike! Everyone else is paying for them whilst getting very much worse conditions of employment themselves with no other employer putting in 24% towards their pensions. We do need honesty but we get total spin!

This*. Total packages should be compared....and when comparing past remuneration.

The National Health Service Pension Scheme Regulations 1995 stipulated the following employer contributions:

• For members whose employment was by way of manual labour, the employer contributed 5% of their pensionable pay.
• For other members (which included most doctors and officers), the employer contributed 6% of their pensionable pay.

The employer contribution rate is 23.7 per cent of pensionable pay (this was applicable from 1 April 2024). This is an increase from the previous rate of 20.6 per cent, in place from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2024. https://www.nhsemployers.org/articles/nhs-pension-scheme-employer-contributions

@Bearnie

Take BA. it’s an underfunded pension scheme with a side hustle of arranging flights

TBF they've had a series of ever decreasing in benefit schemes...

The old gold standard civil service based scheme (APS) closed to new joiners maybe 40 years ago (and financially was/is OK).

The next scheme that came along (NAPs) is where there are funding issues but that also closed to new joiners quite a few years back.

The current schemes are pretty run of the mill...pretty good but nothing like APS.

Have the NHS schemes evolved in a similar manner?

@notimagain Not the doctors one. The state is very different to BA - a company trying to make money. The NHH has negative productivity and no need to trim wage costs!

The doctors pick and choose which information they use to back their case.
It's time the government held their ground and put any money into extra residencies to reduce the scandal of unemployed graduate medics rather than cow- towing to this elitist profession.
Junior doctors want a big salary with relatively little experience. Many other comparable science based graduate jobs don't start on such a top wack!
They complain about insufficient residency places - but what do they expect when they, the existing post holders, are demanding so much dosh. The government don't have unlimited resources.
They complain about long hours - but can claim overtime for extra hours worked ( unlike other graduates in the public sector like teachers) and as previously mentioned, are too greedy to hold back and allow any extra money to go into extra posts which would surely improve their own working hours.
For every one of the strident residents in the picket lines I bet there is at least one resident without a post who would love to just be in a job.
Most other graduates would suck it up for a few years on a lower( but still good wage) in order to access the later benefits of higher pay and a good pension.

Resident Docs are thrown in at the deep end, even without experience. They are forced to work v long hours.
With much higher levels of qualifications than teachers.

As far as i can see, a slightly above inflation level pay offer & a further multi year deal, combined with a pay review body would solve this strike.

The costs, even with their 29% 3 year deal, was just 135m, thats chicken feed for a Govt.

The last strike cost £1.7billion and 1.5m cancelled appointments.

Failure to resolve will just lead to Resident Dr's, one they ve experience, leaving the NHS, longer waiting lists, more people on long term sick.... win win!!

Thank you for this information. A lot of posters were giving the impression that the 23.7% did not apply to the people who are striking but to people who have been in the job for decades. It's good to have that clarified.
I am quite astonished that what was already an unusually high benefit was raised, and so recently.
I do sometimes wonder who's interests the BMA is really working for.

The amount put in by the employer was increased but the benefits decreased

The 1995 version was final salary, but now it's a career average one

I worked in the public sector. Pay was always lower than the equivalent work in the private sector and it was stated by governments of all colours that this was because of the pension.
Have the NHS schemes evolved in a similar manner?
Yes.
Over the years the NHS pension has eroded and become far less generous. Those retiring now will do far, far better than the resident doctors or anyone who joined since 2020.

But this argument is just you disagreeing with junior doctors full stop.
I have worked for private sector, public sector, not for profits etc. Of course its the whole package you should consider, both as an employee and employer.
But the erosion of their wages is a real issue. I dont wholeheartedly agree with their current argument
However the reality is that too many people are leaving the profession and care quality is dropping. Supply and demand and quality are the issue, not all this "we pay their wages " b.s.
There were years and years when the nhs got very little pay increase and the private sector was booming ( my DHs parish and bonus were incredible compared to my capped increase). Its all coming home to roost.

*payrise not parish!