Doctors' strike? What do you think?

[Solopower]

I think it's gong to be on 21 June, unless they can negotiate a solution with the NHS Employers' organisation (whoever they are).

Are they right to strike to protect their pensions?

The government who negotiated the 2008 pension change was Labour, who couldn't care less about sustainability or running things to a bottom line.

So why did they renegotiate it then? Boring day in the office?

The argument about NHS workers being greedy, not living in the real world etc dont really stack up given that a change was agreed 5 years ago with no huge disagreement or industrial action

Why did they renegotiate it? Probably so they'd be able to say they'd already done it once the Tories got back in so there was no need to do it again.

In my patch there are no full time principal GPs. Their average, full time equivalent earnings are in excess of £150k. Yes they work hard for it, but no longer excessively so in terms of hours. I think at this rate they are overpaid and have a very good deal on pensions compared with equivalent jobs in the private sector.

As for an F1 doctor only getting 22k, remember that is the basic for 40 hours and overtime is paid. They are trainees and in this particular year their contribution to patient care is not always that great compared with others they work with. They may have studied longer and learned more but the rapid salary increase after this accounts for the fact that after this they start to make an impact.

There is simply not the money to pay for such great pensions when there will be so many more people claiming them for so much longer. The demographics simply do not stack up. The private sector recognised this years ago and acted because it could. This is not an ideological point at all, it is based on a knowledge and understanding gained running a public sector pension scheme ;).

I wouldnt be a GP for 150K. I wouldnt be a GP for any money

Also, a lot of foundation doctors are in unbanded posts, so basic pay only.

Oh, and the Labour minister responsible initially proposed a sustainable change to pension schemes for the 2008 round but was over-ruled by Gordon Brown who didn't want to upset the unions. He didn't care about the long term effect but was blinkered by too many years in the bunker. So although you can partly blame Labour, actually it's Gordon Brown personally who bears responsibility. And he buggered up private pensions when he first became chancellor, so maybe it was one area that he didn't fully appreciate.

hivesofbees- it doesn't matter you wouldn't be a GP for 150k. Plenty of people would be. Medicine courses are massively oversubscribed.

And a foundation doctor is in training- they can hardly expect to be raking it in at that stage.

Im aware of what a foundation doctor is. I dont think they should be 'raking it in', but was pointing out that they wont all be earning overtime.

Medical school is oversubscribed. I dont know how long that will last for. And regardless of how good you think senior wages are, there are still long term unfilled posts that no-one even bothers to advertise any more because no-one will apply. But then, as I alluded to, its not just about the money.

What are these long term unfilled posts?

hiveofbees- I am struggling to think of any profession where those in training get paid overtime.

I mentioned overtime because udderlybanal had raised it. They may be in training but are doing a job. If they are rostered and have to come in and work a shift then I do think they should be paid for it. Overtime is probably the wrong word for it.

There are long term vacant posts at a consultant level, and specialty doctor level. Some have been empty for a very long time.

There are also vacant higher training posts and vacant core training posts but I wouldnt describe the training posts as being vacant for years because the posts dont last that long.

We're already hearing about how teachers are planning their next strike after a nice long summer break, so if they can strike (and with respect, they're not saving lives are they?) I don't see why the doctors can't too.

And let me assure you, having worked for over 20 years in the NHS (not as a doctor) it is certainy not a "cushy job". I have had to re-apply twice for my own post in the last few years.

If you have only worked for the NHS for the last 20 years, how are you in a position to say whether or not it is a "cushy job"? What is your point of comparison?

If there are vacant posts, then there is a need to look at the terms & conditions of those particular posts to make them more attractive. That doesn't mean all doctors in all specialties and areas are entitled to a gold-plated pension for every more, part funded by the tax-payer. According to the various news reports I have seen, the average doctor can expect a pension of between £48k-68k per annum when they retire. That's obscene, and the poor in society shouldn't be helping to shore up guaranteed pensions of that size for doctors.

Possibly, but its a bit more complicated than that, especially for consultant roles you need someone who is actually trained in that particular thing, and the numbers dont always balance - remember the thing with O+G trainees about 12 years ago when lots of them couldnt find consultant jobs becaise the expansion in nubers planned by the government didnt happen?

There are also a lot of people planning on retiring ASAP at the moment, trying to get out becaise they are worried about what the government will do next to pensions. That wont necessarily have been taken account of in planning trainee numbers.

Pensions are one of the things that keeps people in the NHS. In a lot of ways it isnt a bad strategy - it really puts people of leaving, even temporarily for the private sector, and people dont opt for the highfer private sector wages because of the promise of a good pension, which of course some people will never be able to collect on anyway.

I just don't believe our doctors are staying in the NHS solely for the pension. They get paid extremely well for the job they do (and I'm not saying they shouldn't- they train and work hard and have lots of responsibility). But many are working fewer hours than they were a few years ago. And the world has changed. And they will still be getting a much better pension than the vast majority of people when they retire (including lots of people in other responsible jobs who trained and worked hard and have lots of responsibility).

I'm not anti-doctors. I just don't support them on this issue. And it seems the 50% of them who didn't vote don't feel that strongly about it either.

I dont think that it is just because of the pension. There is also a strong feeling of doing a 'good thing' in the NHS, that I personally think that I would not feel so much in a profit making organisation. The point I'm making is that it is a bit of a balance, and cutting the pension tips peoples feelings towards thinking about other options.

A profit making organisation wouldn't be able to offer the kind of salaries and pensions that the NHS offers! It's all very well going on about "doing the good thing" when you know your employer effectively has a bottomless purse, and you can curse the government for "destroying the nations birthright" when they try to enact much-needed reform.

As I have repeatedly said - better salary, less good pensions. I know that this is the case. Its no good you keeping going on about how you dont think the private sector would pay as much when I already know a) what they would pay me and b) what I earn now. You obviously know neither, so I dont know why you think you know better than me whether a is more than b or not

Sorry to bang on about it, but that is exactly my worry about the privatisation of the NHS, JosephineCD. If profit-making organisations organisations can't offer the same salaries, pensions, (working conditions etc), how will they be able to demand the same level of expertise and high standards of training that we expect from the NHS? Equally, what will they do if doctors decide they can make more money overseas (those doctors, if they exist, who are only in it for the money)?

Answers: 1) make the patients pay; 2) lower standards of care.

As I have repeatedly said - better salary, less good pensions. I know that this is the case. Its no good you keeping going on about how you dont think the private sector would pay as much when I already know a) what they would pay me and b) what I earn now. You obviously know neither, so I dont know why you think you know better than me whether a is more than b or not
You only know what they would pay you NOW. Not what they would pay you were the pay and conditions in the NHS to be drastically changed. The NHS artificially skews pay and conditions in the private sector, just as the BBC does in the media.

Could you answer Solopowers questions too Josephine?

iPhone adding emoticons now I see!

I'd be interested in your thoughts on Solopowers question Josephine. I think we have some of the finest expertise in the world here, often NHS trained or working. I feel we forget sometimes how fortunate we are.

There's nothing fortunate about it. The doctors work here because they earn good money here. I've no doubt that some of them could earn more elsewhere, but here they effectively have a secure job for life, and a bumper pension. It wouldn't be worth the risk and upheaval for them to move overseas.

Its a balance isnt it. At the moment I think that the combination of salary and pension do keep most people in the UK. A fair few go overseas, and stay there, but most dont.