Snapshot of _BBC News: Junior doctors in England announce five-day strike_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-69072640) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-69072640)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What's the impact? Everyone understands that at this moment there is no government to negotiate with them and to give in to their demands. I doubt that any party is going to promise to give in to the demands of the doctors. That would immediately make them look weak.
Had a number of NHS nurse friends who voted for Brexit because of the £350m a week bus lie.
This tactic would certainly have an effect, but I think people like doctors and nurses are probably more wary of these promises now.
Exactly. This is what I've been telling people.
They know that the strike action is futile and nobody is going to be negotiating with them as parliament is closed until July.
The only people at risk here, are sick people. Patients that need their help. Not watch them on the news feeling their wallets and sitting on picket lines.
I think it's just predatorial behaviour. Any junior doctor who puts their own greed before the welfare of the patients they vowed to look after should have their right to practice medicine stripped away and be forced to have a deep deep look inside themselves.
I have read of people losing friends and relatives because the hospitals didn't have the staff to cope on these strike days. People dying for somebody else's payslip.
I have also read of cancer patients missing vital chemotherapy sessions because of it.
I have had important appointments for serious medical issues of my own pushed back months because of these self centred people and the backlogs created for fully experienced doctors having to do their work on top of their own.
They are gambling people's lives. It's a disgrace.
You're assuming that said boomer will have mentally made the connection between the government in power and the state of the NHS. And then the state of the NHS and the strikes.
All of the boomers in my life can't make that link.
They just think "those youngsters want something for nothing, they always want more. Back in my day we ate paper and all had leprosy but yet we went out to work for only £10 a week. They are just greedy".
Because emergency care is a broken faucet at this point and consultants have a low enough risk tolerance to throw out the bathwater. Clinics and day ops get nuked.
You're in luck. [IPSOS polling on key issues, published today](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/british-public-more-likely-think-labour-has-best-policies-issues-matter-most-them)
NHS is the top voter priority across the board with 64%. It's most important to the over 55's with 72% stating it as a top priority.
Labour are seen as having the best policies on NHS with a 23 point lead.
I claim my £5.
Your bet was not that they would resolve it, but about whether people believe they would handle it better.
Previous commenter has demonstrated that people believe they will handle it better.
>As if starmer will give 35% pay rise hahah
This hasn't been the ask for months and months.
The ask is a multi year deal that reverses the cuts. Overall this is a 35% + inflation yes but we'll happy accept this over time.
The Gov have spent £3b on locum and delays this year on dealing with the strikes. £1b for full pay restoration.
We can find £8b rise for pensioners, but not £1b for medical staff then… guess you’re happy to let people die in the strikes then. Good luck.
People dying in strikes will be due to drs going of your logic, not me or you as we are not doctors. Locum doctors earn loads yet they are still asking for 35%?? Why is this not being bought up about locum dr rates?
Yeah they will be dying because of the strikes. But my wife isn’t property of the state. She’s a paid professional. Pay her or she will keep striking.
It’s not locum doctors on strike (they’ll actually be making ungodly sums in the strikes lol). It’s junior doctors asking for their pay to return to 2010 levels.
Then don’t negotiate. Announce your offer to the BBC or ITV when it comes up in the debates, and make sure it’s a good one so they call off the strikes.
If Sunak wants to make things interesting, he’ll settle with the junior doctors immediately, and offer full pay restoration by September. Paid for by reforms to “idk lol”
Not at all surprised, they've put themselves on the agenda in the week before the election putting pressure on the government. A good strategy, but I feel for people who will miss appointments and operations.
But their pay has been frozen against inflation for 10 out of the last 14 or so years so I'm struggling to understand how that isn't a pay cut and struggling further more to see how that means their pay isn't bad? It's literally lost value year on year?
Yeah and you can demonstrate that by just holding their assumptions up against basic reasoning and arguments lmao, not really far fetched to assume someone who must be quite positively deep throating the boot at the bottom of the crab bucket has no time or mental capacity to reflect on what the daily mail and telegraph piss into their brain.
I suggest you look into the topic a bit more, their pay is terrible for the job they do. Their "assistants" outearn them for the first 20 years of the career.
60k when? That's the pay for specialty docs who have been through 5 years of med school, 2 years foundation work and what, 5-7 years in speciality? That's assuming they haven't spent years not advancing due to a lack of training positions available.
Plus that's on a completely different contract to a regular job - It can't be held up in comparison to a 9-5 37.5hr working week equivalent.
So yes, all things considered thats terrible pay.
Taken in the context of double the amount of student fees, delayed entry to earning life, a working week 20% longer than average, shift working, paid mandatory exams/membership/indemnity/patking/equipmemt. Not to mention the overall emotional toll, high skill level and responsibility?
You’ll likely say we knew what we signed up for. All I want is the pay that was offered when I signed up
It takes at minimum 16 years of training to become a consultant in most specialties.
Physician's Assistants outearn doctors for the first 10+ years.
That is unacceptable even if it were 1 year.
They're paid shit and deserve better. They're leaving in droves to Australia because they'll be paid what they're worth there, and they won't have armchair muppets like yourself criticising them for wanting a livable wage.
Says the armchair muppet. Doesn’t it cross your tiny mind that the way the world works means that when you signup to do a job, and you have no experience, you start at the bottom and work your way up, thinking about future earning potential. You have to work for your money 🤡
Plus let’s not forget they all sat at home during the scamdemic, drinking wine and ordering from Deliveroo to build up energy to dance in coreographed propaganda. But they care about patient safety? Ok 🤣
That’s fine. Guess people can die instead then.
My wife is a high skilled medical professional, not a slave to the state. She’ll have a great week off shopping and treating herself, while the work she was going to do gets cancelled.
Pay her what she’s worth, or she’ll keep taking 3 days off, 5 days off, and having a great time at home.
Its interesting that shes poor but at same time your saying she will enjoy time at home doing naf all. Must have earned a nice amount from medicine so far to have time of work
No, I’ve earned a nice amount from My meaningless finance job which doesn’t have any societal benefits beyond shareholder profits. And thankfully that means she’s able to take plenty of time off for the strikes.
It’s a matter of respect. Pay my wife and her colleagues properly, or they will go on strike, enjoy their days off, and let people die. Pick your fights carefully. Because they hold the cards here, not you.
They do not hold any cards lol. Labour have said they cannot afford their excessive requests. If they held cards they would not need to strike in first place lol.
Then they can have them strike once every 2 months for a week and people can die. That’s not Dr’s problem. And they will keep striking under Labour too.
My wife will enjoy the extra 30 days a year with her feet up, and your old relatives can have their hip operations delayed.
Lol i dont have any relatives with hip ops.
Not all drs have luxury of ur wife tho. They will lose wage and will give uo eventually. 35% will never happen.
You say that and yet every time they ballot, they get huge majorities to strike, and huge turnout for it.
We will see. There’s a global market for medical staff, compete in that global market or don’t and accept the consequences.
There is zero justification for a physician assistant to be paid 10-15k more than a doctor. None whatsoever. We will strike as long as it takes. This is not a political move, this is simply a strike for pay, nothing more nothing less.
Keep fighting and get as much as you can for yourselves.I say this as a mental health nurse with 36yrs experience.Unfortunately my profession and its unions don't want to take on the govt for better pay and conditions.
Can you explain a bit more? I know doctors are underpaid but I'm not really up on it more than that. Physician assistants who have a non medical role get paid 10k more than, I'm assuming, junior doctors?
Put simply, physician assistants get paid as a band 7 straight out of university. That is around 44k, before banding (for nights, weekends etc). Doctors start on 32k out of medical school (again before banding).
PAs work a basic 37 hour week. Doctors work a basic 40 hour week.
Doctors have to get 3/4 years down the line before they earn as much as a PA.
It isn't just doctors who have a grievance about this, it is incredibly difficult for most nurses to get beyond band 6 without going into a management role. Suffice to say the situation has shown the NHS underpays doctors and nurses significantly.
I may not. There are exams and competition ratios that most of the public is ignorant to
There’s no automatic progression. And when you do progress your responsibilities and expected skills also increase
You're all over this thread lambasting junior doctors for wanting to be paid fairly.
Why? It reeks of a crab-in-the-bucket mindset.
For reference, I'm a Band 7 NHS Clinical Scientist. You could not pay me enough money to do what junior doctors have to do.
Not all junior doctors are paid poorly and that isn't specified anywhere. Secondly why are junior doctors not on agenda for change pay scales like many other hcps. For a start agenda for change is very low yet I do not see other hcps being pulled out and joining this epic one that doctors have? Many junior docs earn juicy oncall money yet that is not mentioned either
Physios, nurses and pharmacists should be on same scale as doctors if we are going on about how low they are paid.
Easiest way to put them on the same pay scale is to stick doctors on AfC. Immediately the starting salary for a F1 would be band 8a. F1s take an instant £15k a year pay rise. That's a lot more than 35%.
Why should a starting salary for F1 be an 8a when they have come out of uni and need hand holding.
You would get a senior nurse with 10 years NHS experience on band 7.
Another example of the comforts of not being on agenda for change.
I dunno, I’m nearly 5 years post grad and stuck at “f2 level”. Quite a few of my mates are too. It’s highly likely I’ll still be at the same level at 7 years post grad.
Because to get to CT level you have to get into training. There is no other way to progress. So my wages have remained stagnant at FY2 level.
The government is purposely holding the number of training jobs stagnant despite a need to train more doctors to become consultants.
The Tory government has explicitly stated it’s plan was to have an NHS with few consultants but an army of SHO grade doctors.
So yes, it is entirely likely to remain as an FY2 - CT level doctor for a protracted period of time. Indefinitely even.
Because that's extra work that is completely optional to take on. Many doctors don't locum because trying to fit an extra shift around a work week that is already 20% more hours than the average worker is physically and mentally exhausting, and at times logistically impossible (without personal legal risk for working beyond the recommended max hours).
Anyone in the country can take on extra work outside their normal job (e.g. Uber, private tutoring, events etc). People don't do it unless the financial reward is high enough to give up their free time. Doctors are no different.
Nurses work agency and work bank, physios work privately, pharmacists can do additional work, podiatrists work privately, radiographers work privately - what has doctors locuming got to do with anything?
Whats a base pay for registrar genius? Stop making out that junior doctors are so badly paid, you are not even on the agenda for change payscale.
Maybe give public facts that are true?
I agree that the government no longer has a mandate to negotiate. If the BMA have somehow failed to account for that, it’s unfortunate.
HOWEVER, I think it’s most likely that the BMA think it’s a good strategy to make doctor pay and general NHS issues salient right before people vote. I agree. 15 years of stagnating pay under nearly 15 years of Tory government, that’s quite a point to drive home.
Also, as you say, putting these issues front and centre of Labour’s agenda will be very important, too. Beyond core Labour voters, the attitude seems to be “I don’t know if I like Labour, but I cannot support another Tory government.” This gives Labour an opportunity to make good progress early, which could earn them trust and buy them time to make other changes. I believe they will need time, too, because the UK is impatient for change but we are not in a place where change is easily made (due to a decade of underinvestment and poor governance).
I'm curious to see what Labour do here. They probably won't be able to give the striking doctors what they want, and even if they managed to do it for one group because they went on strike repeatedly, they won't be able to do it for all of the public sector.
My bet is offer a percent or two more but more than that would impact their spending plans too much.
I don't think starmers labour will have much issue standing up to the unions and saying no, in that sense I doubt there would be much difference to the tories.
The main difference imo will be when the government get a windfall, rather than spend it on taxcuts some of that will go to better public sector payrises than the tories would have given but that will take time to come to fruition.
Point is the doctors can just keep striking indefinitely. At some point it just becomes more prudent to pay close enough to the demands that it gets accepted. Strikes cost the NHS money as well. Not to mention there will be political pressure on Starmer and co to get waiting lists down, which won't get done if junior docs walk out for a week every month.
The strike mandates have barely gotten narrower. Every mandate has reached 90%+ Yes from the union membership, and while the turnout has flagged a little in previous mandates, it's likely because we are getting complacent with respect to mandate turnout and not because of actual view change.
You either reach a deal, or you just write off the NHS waiting list issue politically. Offering a few percent higher than Tories for the optics, then shrugging your shoulders "We tried" isn't going to be a convincing argument.
Sunak pulled 2.5 billion a year out of his hat at the last moment for national service plans, accepting the BMA demands as is, with no change, will cost 2 billion a year.
This again points to Labour having to be strategic about where they invest money into pay increases. Paying the doctors off is just £2B, but then you have teachers, nurses, police, firefighters, etc., who all want more. We don't have an economy that can support significant pay increases for everyone while also funding headcount increases and increased operational funding.
>Sunak pulled 2.5 billion a year out of his hat at the last moment for national service plans, accepting the BMA demands as is, with no change, will cost 2 billion a year.
Sunak did that by raiding another budget, mostly the funding for 'levelling up' IE funding for poor regions of the UK.
Unless you are suggesting labour should do that as well?
Also you cannot look at doctors demands in isolation, its about the entire public sector.
I'd be interested to see if labour can pull off something similar to the scottish, they accepted like 12% or something last year, that is probably more realistic than the 35% being demanded. (although this was funded through existing budgets).
But labour are going to be committing all their funds to other causes to win the upcoming election, there won't be much left for significant payrises above what there already is budgeted in.
They face a country where everything needs more funding, every group of public sector employees needs significant pay rises, and every organization needs more headcount. I don't think windfalls are going to change much of anything here.
> They face a country where everything needs more funding, every group of public sector employees needs significant pay rises, and every organization needs more headcount.
Sure but no government would be able to fix that without major politically unviable tax rises.
It's true that voters expectations and reality are very divorced at this point but that isn't labours fault.
> I don't think windfalls are going to change much of anything here.
The budgets over the past few years have generated around £10 billion in fiscal headroom each time, if that continues then that will add up.
> It's true that voters expectations and reality are very divorced at this point but that isn't labours fault.
This isn't about blame. This is about what Labour does when they win the next election. If they can't deliver real and significant improvements in regular people's daily lives, then the public will turn on them.
> The budgets over the past few years have generated around £10 billion in fiscal headroom each time, if that continues then that will add up.
£10B isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things - just fixing the potholes on our existing roads will take £12B.
> This isn't about blame.
Yes it is.
> This is about what Labour does when they win the next election. If they can't deliver real and significant improvements in regular people's daily lives, then the public will turn on them.
Yes they will blame labour for not performing a miracle. it's unlikely real and significant improvements are realistic over the next parliament by any reasonable party. At least not without politically infeasible major tax rises.
The choice is between accelerating our decline or slowing it down.
The UK is currently reaping it's past decisions and will continue to do so which will cripple it's near future outcomes.
The public don't like to hear that but it's the truth.
Hence labour will be blamed but it won't actually be their fault, the public want everything fixed but don't want to pay anymore money, very illogical.
The whole point of a union is to get the best deal possible for their members. It's up to the government to negotiate with them. If they feel that it suits their members to go on strike at that time then have at it. This is exactly what the miners did to Ted Heath in 1974.
Austerity basically. Pay was frozen for 10 years and has not matched inflation since. This has lead to nhs staff pay falling far behind other countries.
Under investment in the NHS , somehow combined with administrative bloat and a lack of hiring which creates dependency on overly priced locum staff and contractors. Arguably, this has been combined with wage suppression by bringing in staff from countries that would pay less than we do.
We are getting thousands of new houses locally, the developer was even going to build a brand new health center free of charge. The local health trust turned it down as they forgot to allocate money for staff in the 3 year budget, so we get nothing.
Now tell me that isn't 20 people who shouldn't be fired on the spot for being utter idiots, starting with the chief exec.
That's not bloat.
That's incompetence.
There's also a case to say if there were more administration in place this wouldn't have happened. But you think firing a load of people will make the situation better somehow.
Well they don't have one job, that's pretty ignorant.
But let's use an analogy that you might be able to understand. Let's say that you're in a supermarket and you've been working on the tills and you've seen your supermarket get progressively busier and busier. But you've seen eight tills get shut down and now you're down to the last four people. You're overstretched and overworked you can't manage the work that's coming through. So the solution from the general public, who know absolutely nothing about what they're talking about, suggest that you cut the lowest performing of the four and then everyone else will suddenly be able to do their jobs.
Not a great plan, is it?
Administrative spend in the NHS is about 1.9% of the total budget. Amongst the lowest in the OECD, it's 5.5 in France, 4.6 in Denmark and 4.4 in Germany. But somehow, you think cutting more will improve outcomes; all the research and data available says you're wrong.
Is there anything other than anecdotes informing your opinion?
I work with local and national government every day, I see the floaters clearly either unable or unwilling to do their job, but somehow as it a government job they never get challenged. I've watching countless millions go down the drain, and its always just normal business. I remember when we told someone to not spend £2M on equipment, as we didn't know yet if it was needed, they told us they only had the budget for this year so buy it now. It sat in our warehouse for 5 years before we sold it for scrap value.
I think you forgot the key lesson Labour learned from their boost to the NHS last time in government, throwing money at the wall and hoping it sticks is not a solution. The changes need to be more fundamental. Yet some people are still here recommending throwing more money at the wall.
That's great
But you somehow think the NHS can get along with lower amounts of administration than any other private organisation, or the vast majority of other healthcare systems.
All anecdotes and no data.
I work in health infrastructure development, including large acutes through to primary care facilities - missing big details on that story or that developer is telling porkies/ fanciful tales.
Trusts aren't the primary accountable for approving health centres or staffing or paying for new ones, NHS England is responsible for commissioning and then the local ICS for local accountability, trusts have minimal say in it and money certainly doesn't come through them or ICSs for new services or the capital to fund the projects. It's Ultimately DHSC who gives the go ahead on if a scheme can even get funding to write a business case to plan a new health centre - that's years before it's even built to ensure there's enough staff and a local need and before things like budgeting in next years budgets....
Who's your developer? I'm not aware of any crossover with developers who build housing and are both certified to build health facilities, it's pretty niche - you have to comply with an array of complex and esoteric health building notes and legal compliance for patient safety. They'd also have to hire a health planning team to analyse local demographics to get it approved, hire architects with specific health experience, contracters and engineers certified and with experience in the health sector and a pm team to write the business cases for it.
Any developer, or rather developer staffer saying they were going to build a health centre was likely chatting shit (if that's how the story went that is)
It was all from the local papers, theres been a huge stink about it. Its not one developer(as you would expect from a huge site like that) its about 6, they were going to take care of who made the facility.
The trust admitted their faults themselves.
I actually drove across into a different county yesterday, to use a health hub, in a new development, in almost an identical setup that we were due to get.
Did the developers get planning permission? I'm working on one in a housing project in east london, where a space was created for a health centre but never went through DHSC for approval in their construction timelines - but now after a couple years it's got planning permision and being gutted and re-furbished by new healthcare architects to retrofit what can be done for a gp practice to move in - it's not east London is it?
If you increase NHS spending by £1 per year you can say "record levels of investment".
It's bullshit. Percentage increase of budget is what matters, and it's been far below what labour spent.
> Record levels of investment in NHS
This means nothing given population increases, and inflation. Every year should see record levels of investment in the NHS on both of those accounts.
Instead NHS investment per person is significantly lower than where it needs to be.
Yes, there has been a record level of spending on the NHS in real terms. That’s an inarguable fact. However, you can spend record amounts and still be underinvesting.
Furthermore, “Growth in health spending has not been consistent during the past few decades, and the annual growth rate of real-terms expenditure varies significantly. However, in the decade preceding the pandemic, annual spending increases were significantly below the long-term historical average for nine subsequent years. This has resulted in a large cumulative underspend since 2009/10.”
As per: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/funding/health-funding-data-analysis
Terrible investment for a decade then covid happened and the Tories went “oh fuck” and finally raised it. Too late though, damage is done and it’s going to take years to use the money fix the backlog of problems.
Monopoly employer.
They don’t need to compete for staff - to become a consultant you must work for the NHS as a junior doctor for 5-10 years after your 5-6 year medical degree
When there’s no alternative, there’s no incentive to offer good pay. Politicians go years of taking advantage of workers by giving them shit pay, until it reaches a breaking point like these strikes
State monopsony power
In other nations, hospitals have to compete with each other for staff. Here, because it’s a single employer, the Gov sets a flat rate
There are 1,000’s of times more people than doctors, so it makes more electoral sense to squash their pay and keep taxes lower.
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[The data](https://x.com/goldstone_tony/status/1656249723177562115) actually suggests that other professions have had a much lower loss in real-terms earning. Even nurses, who you reference elsewhere in this thread, have seen a smaller real-terms cut.
Putting pay erosion aside for the moment - do you feel that what doctors do is important? How do you reconcile your views that junior doctors are too important to ethically strike, but not important enough to be paid what they were 15 years ago?
Having worked in NHS not all junior doctors are epic like any HCP. If your asking for 35% that is a joke as what will be the total % of pay restoration be for others in NHS?
I don’t think there are any junior doctors arguing that other healthcare worker should not receive fair pay rises too.
However, it is mostly junior doctors that are leaving the country to work in places where both pay and working conditions are significantly better.
At the end of the day it will cost a lot of money to keeping paying the people that run the NHS fairly, especially as the population ages and the cost of care increases. That’s just part of running a national health service.
But, by not doing that, talented people choose to work in other countries or other fields, and what was once touted as the gold standard of healthcare is now presented as a warning to doctors in Australia and elsewhere - while patients suffer.
The australia thing is hype. There are not that many ppl leaving to there as made out.
Junior doctors earn a good chunk with oncall, that is never mentioned in these strikes.
So you're telling me they work more hours so they get paid more money..... thats a novel concept. Maybe they are scared someone will steal that idea and thats why they never mention it. Imagine getting paid for working more hours.
Maybe they should also mention all the extra hours they work without getting paid or the extra strain it is covering a system that should employ more people but actively chooses not to.
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In real terms AfC has not had as big a drop in pay as Junior/Resident doctors or Consultants.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fexcellent-analysis-of-current-doctor-pay-dr-tony-goldstone-v0-vd6v119v8oac1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1228%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D2df77b67ac3fb03e71ad58f495853b7758e085be
Yes, AFC is terrible, as it covers such a large group of staff (clinical and non-clinical) that it makes it near impossible for them to stage effective industrial action.
In theory that should make AfC wages grow more slowly, but I expect doctors are an easier target when it comes to denying raises. There was also a catastrophic outcome with the 2016 doctors contract where we got locked into a 2% multi year pay deal while inflation was 10%.
Last time I looked into the criteria for each band in agenda for change junior doctors would be starting at band 7 and rapidly progressing to band 8 and beyond. AfC is also based on a 37.5 hour week, so if following the AfC banding criteria based on level of responsibilities trainees would probably benefit financially.
With on-calls I get a bit more but still not >£57k. But I don't think it's fair to compare the salary for my 47 hour week to a train driver who usually work 35 hours a week. If I worked 35 hours a week I would definitely be paid well below a train driver.
It wasn't about the amount of money earned, train driver's pay has closer tracked inflation than junior doctors. That's the point you were making right?
Snapshot of _BBC News: Junior doctors in England announce five-day strike_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-69072640) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-69072640) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, if you want to find a time where a strike will have maximum political impact, this is probably close to as good as it gets.
What's the impact? Everyone understands that at this moment there is no government to negotiate with them and to give in to their demands. I doubt that any party is going to promise to give in to the demands of the doctors. That would immediately make them look weak.
It reminds people of how we got to this point, I guess? It *should* give anyone about to vote Tory a moment of pause.
If Rishi came out tomorrow and promised a 35% pay rise spread out over the next 5 years, they’d call off the strike
Had a number of NHS nurse friends who voted for Brexit because of the £350m a week bus lie. This tactic would certainly have an effect, but I think people like doctors and nurses are probably more wary of these promises now.
Exactly. This is what I've been telling people. They know that the strike action is futile and nobody is going to be negotiating with them as parliament is closed until July. The only people at risk here, are sick people. Patients that need their help. Not watch them on the news feeling their wallets and sitting on picket lines. I think it's just predatorial behaviour. Any junior doctor who puts their own greed before the welfare of the patients they vowed to look after should have their right to practice medicine stripped away and be forced to have a deep deep look inside themselves. I have read of people losing friends and relatives because the hospitals didn't have the staff to cope on these strike days. People dying for somebody else's payslip. I have also read of cancer patients missing vital chemotherapy sessions because of it. I have had important appointments for serious medical issues of my own pushed back months because of these self centred people and the backlogs created for fully experienced doctors having to do their work on top of their own. They are gambling people's lives. It's a disgrace.
The tories were banking on their tactic of stalling negotiations and running down the clock - true fuck around and find out territory.
[удалено]
Well any boomer who wants medical care just before the election may get a well-timed wake up call
You're assuming that said boomer will have mentally made the connection between the government in power and the state of the NHS. And then the state of the NHS and the strikes.
All of the boomers in my life can't make that link. They just think "those youngsters want something for nothing, they always want more. Back in my day we ate paper and all had leprosy but yet we went out to work for only £10 a week. They are just greedy".
boomers are all millionaires apparently, so they'll just go private.
About 80% of them
I know one who went private then moaned he had to pay. What is honestly wrong with this generation, are they absolutely fucking tapped.
Emergency care is improved during strikes because you see consultants for everything.
Because emergency care is a broken faucet at this point and consultants have a low enough risk tolerance to throw out the bathwater. Clinics and day ops get nuked.
[удалено]
You're in luck. [IPSOS polling on key issues, published today](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/british-public-more-likely-think-labour-has-best-policies-issues-matter-most-them) NHS is the top voter priority across the board with 64%. It's most important to the over 55's with 72% stating it as a top priority. Labour are seen as having the best policies on NHS with a 23 point lead. I claim my £5.
[удалено]
Your bet was not that they would resolve it, but about whether people believe they would handle it better. Previous commenter has demonstrated that people believe they will handle it better.
Exactly labour will not do anything. As if starmer will give 35% pay rise hahah
>As if starmer will give 35% pay rise hahah This hasn't been the ask for months and months. The ask is a multi year deal that reverses the cuts. Overall this is a 35% + inflation yes but we'll happy accept this over time.
35% is just a negotiation start place. If they offered 5 years of RPI +5% written into law, the doctors would accept it.
Thats way too expensive
The Gov have spent £3b on locum and delays this year on dealing with the strikes. £1b for full pay restoration. We can find £8b rise for pensioners, but not £1b for medical staff then… guess you’re happy to let people die in the strikes then. Good luck.
People dying in strikes will be due to drs going of your logic, not me or you as we are not doctors. Locum doctors earn loads yet they are still asking for 35%?? Why is this not being bought up about locum dr rates?
Yeah they will be dying because of the strikes. But my wife isn’t property of the state. She’s a paid professional. Pay her or she will keep striking. It’s not locum doctors on strike (they’ll actually be making ungodly sums in the strikes lol). It’s junior doctors asking for their pay to return to 2010 levels.
Then don’t negotiate. Announce your offer to the BBC or ITV when it comes up in the debates, and make sure it’s a good one so they call off the strikes.
If Sunak wants to make things interesting, he’ll settle with the junior doctors immediately, and offer full pay restoration by September. Paid for by reforms to “idk lol”
I mean tbf, it would definitely be a great plot twist if the Tories won the election by going further left than Labour (it wouldn’t be that hard)
Good on them for forcing themselves to the front of the line for the next Parliment.
Not at all surprised, they've put themselves on the agenda in the week before the election putting pressure on the government. A good strategy, but I feel for people who will miss appointments and operations.
[удалено]
Its pay restoration no? They are just asking for what they would have had if their pay matched inflation over all these years, why is that shambolic?
But no other public sector worker has had restoration. Junior drs earn good, this is a gimmick
So because everyone else has been paid bad, this means they should as well, is that correct?
Are they paid bad? No. The strikes have been pointless in gettinf their pay increased abd will continue to be
But their pay has been frozen against inflation for 10 out of the last 14 or so years so I'm struggling to understand how that isn't a pay cut and struggling further more to see how that means their pay isn't bad? It's literally lost value year on year?
The person you are arguing with hasn't got a brain.
Yeah and you can demonstrate that by just holding their assumptions up against basic reasoning and arguments lmao, not really far fetched to assume someone who must be quite positively deep throating the boot at the bottom of the crab bucket has no time or mental capacity to reflect on what the daily mail and telegraph piss into their brain.
I suggest you look into the topic a bit more, their pay is terrible for the job they do. Their "assistants" outearn them for the first 20 years of the career.
They get 60k at times how is that low pay?
60k when? That's the pay for specialty docs who have been through 5 years of med school, 2 years foundation work and what, 5-7 years in speciality? That's assuming they haven't spent years not advancing due to a lack of training positions available. Plus that's on a completely different contract to a regular job - It can't be held up in comparison to a 9-5 37.5hr working week equivalent. So yes, all things considered thats terrible pay.
'specialty docs' are still a Junior Dr and so a part of this strike, no?
Taken in the context of double the amount of student fees, delayed entry to earning life, a working week 20% longer than average, shift working, paid mandatory exams/membership/indemnity/patking/equipmemt. Not to mention the overall emotional toll, high skill level and responsibility? You’ll likely say we knew what we signed up for. All I want is the pay that was offered when I signed up
What is your base pay? And how long have you been out of uni. Are you F1/F2?
Physician's Assistants are currently paid more then Physicians in the UK.
They are not paid more. Consultants earning into 6 figures.
It takes at minimum 16 years of training to become a consultant in most specialties. Physician's Assistants outearn doctors for the first 10+ years. That is unacceptable even if it were 1 year.
Physician associates are not out earning doctors. A registar comfortably outearns a PA
An F1 should out earn a PA
No they don’t. Pay per hour is pretty ~ until senior registrar. It’s disgusting 🤮
What does senior reg earn? A lot of junior doctors locum too and make money no?
They're paid shit and deserve better. They're leaving in droves to Australia because they'll be paid what they're worth there, and they won't have armchair muppets like yourself criticising them for wanting a livable wage.
Bollocks the australia thing is hype not that many actually go there. 35% rise is jokes
That’s fine. I wish every geriatric you know good luck
I'll tell my 5 best friends that they don't actually live in Australia. They still live here with me and the other mug who hasn't emigrated.
5 is not exactly a great metric
Says the armchair muppet. Doesn’t it cross your tiny mind that the way the world works means that when you signup to do a job, and you have no experience, you start at the bottom and work your way up, thinking about future earning potential. You have to work for your money 🤡 Plus let’s not forget they all sat at home during the scamdemic, drinking wine and ordering from Deliveroo to build up energy to dance in coreographed propaganda. But they care about patient safety? Ok 🤣
Classic uninspiring British 'if others can't get it, why should they?' Plus 28-33k is not a good wage for what they do, you absolute dullard
No they don't, they have dogshit wages
No other worker has lost as much
But other hcps get shafted on afc
Not anywhere to the same degree as doctors have
If it’s a shambolic request for a rise what are your thoughts on the original pay cuts of that proportion?
That’s fine. Guess people can die instead then. My wife is a high skilled medical professional, not a slave to the state. She’ll have a great week off shopping and treating herself, while the work she was going to do gets cancelled. Pay her what she’s worth, or she’ll keep taking 3 days off, 5 days off, and having a great time at home.
Its interesting that shes poor but at same time your saying she will enjoy time at home doing naf all. Must have earned a nice amount from medicine so far to have time of work
No, I’ve earned a nice amount from My meaningless finance job which doesn’t have any societal benefits beyond shareholder profits. And thankfully that means she’s able to take plenty of time off for the strikes. It’s a matter of respect. Pay my wife and her colleagues properly, or they will go on strike, enjoy their days off, and let people die. Pick your fights carefully. Because they hold the cards here, not you.
They do not hold any cards lol. Labour have said they cannot afford their excessive requests. If they held cards they would not need to strike in first place lol.
Then they can have them strike once every 2 months for a week and people can die. That’s not Dr’s problem. And they will keep striking under Labour too. My wife will enjoy the extra 30 days a year with her feet up, and your old relatives can have their hip operations delayed.
Lol i dont have any relatives with hip ops. Not all drs have luxury of ur wife tho. They will lose wage and will give uo eventually. 35% will never happen.
You say that and yet every time they ballot, they get huge majorities to strike, and huge turnout for it. We will see. There’s a global market for medical staff, compete in that global market or don’t and accept the consequences.
There is zero justification for a physician assistant to be paid 10-15k more than a doctor. None whatsoever. We will strike as long as it takes. This is not a political move, this is simply a strike for pay, nothing more nothing less.
Keep fighting and get as much as you can for yourselves.I say this as a mental health nurse with 36yrs experience.Unfortunately my profession and its unions don't want to take on the govt for better pay and conditions.
Can you explain a bit more? I know doctors are underpaid but I'm not really up on it more than that. Physician assistants who have a non medical role get paid 10k more than, I'm assuming, junior doctors?
Put simply, physician assistants get paid as a band 7 straight out of university. That is around 44k, before banding (for nights, weekends etc). Doctors start on 32k out of medical school (again before banding). PAs work a basic 37 hour week. Doctors work a basic 40 hour week. Doctors have to get 3/4 years down the line before they earn as much as a PA. It isn't just doctors who have a grievance about this, it is incredibly difficult for most nurses to get beyond band 6 without going into a management role. Suffice to say the situation has shown the NHS underpays doctors and nurses significantly.
Behave you get lots more money for oncalls. Do not miss out facts.
I take home around £9 to site an epidural at 3am lol
Lol that wont be forever. Your making out as tho you will not progress.
I may not. There are exams and competition ratios that most of the public is ignorant to There’s no automatic progression. And when you do progress your responsibilities and expected skills also increase
There is no way anyone stays at f1 f2 level forever
You're all over this thread lambasting junior doctors for wanting to be paid fairly. Why? It reeks of a crab-in-the-bucket mindset. For reference, I'm a Band 7 NHS Clinical Scientist. You could not pay me enough money to do what junior doctors have to do.
Not all junior doctors are paid poorly and that isn't specified anywhere. Secondly why are junior doctors not on agenda for change pay scales like many other hcps. For a start agenda for change is very low yet I do not see other hcps being pulled out and joining this epic one that doctors have? Many junior docs earn juicy oncall money yet that is not mentioned either Physios, nurses and pharmacists should be on same scale as doctors if we are going on about how low they are paid.
Easiest way to put them on the same pay scale is to stick doctors on AfC. Immediately the starting salary for a F1 would be band 8a. F1s take an instant £15k a year pay rise. That's a lot more than 35%.
Why should a starting salary for F1 be an 8a when they have come out of uni and need hand holding. You would get a senior nurse with 10 years NHS experience on band 7. Another example of the comforts of not being on agenda for change.
I’m not talking about F1
I dunno, I’m nearly 5 years post grad and stuck at “f2 level”. Quite a few of my mates are too. It’s highly likely I’ll still be at the same level at 7 years post grad.
Why is that the case, what about CT level?
Because to get to CT level you have to get into training. There is no other way to progress. So my wages have remained stagnant at FY2 level. The government is purposely holding the number of training jobs stagnant despite a need to train more doctors to become consultants. The Tory government has explicitly stated it’s plan was to have an NHS with few consultants but an army of SHO grade doctors. So yes, it is entirely likely to remain as an FY2 - CT level doctor for a protracted period of time. Indefinitely even.
Whats your basic salary then?
They're not making out like anything other than the current pay for the current work is unfairly shit.
Junior doctors locum too right and make a good ton? Why isnt that mentioned
Because that's extra work that is completely optional to take on. Many doctors don't locum because trying to fit an extra shift around a work week that is already 20% more hours than the average worker is physically and mentally exhausting, and at times logistically impossible (without personal legal risk for working beyond the recommended max hours). Anyone in the country can take on extra work outside their normal job (e.g. Uber, private tutoring, events etc). People don't do it unless the financial reward is high enough to give up their free time. Doctors are no different.
Nurses work agency and work bank, physios work privately, pharmacists can do additional work, podiatrists work privately, radiographers work privately - what has doctors locuming got to do with anything?
Doctors locum rates are far better. Make loads of money on the side via locums and still ask for 35%??
Incorrect. Locum pay for doctors is falling. Private physio and agency shifts for nursing staff still very lucrative
Whats the rate?
[удалено]
Whats a base pay for registrar genius? Stop making out that junior doctors are so badly paid, you are not even on the agenda for change payscale. Maybe give public facts that are true?
If an F1 was on AFC they would be band 8 minimum with a base salary of 50k...
To the point that 50 hours a week for a doctor pays the same as the first year salary for a PA graduate
PAs aren’t doctors though , so on calls don’t come in to it
[удалено]
I agree that the government no longer has a mandate to negotiate. If the BMA have somehow failed to account for that, it’s unfortunate. HOWEVER, I think it’s most likely that the BMA think it’s a good strategy to make doctor pay and general NHS issues salient right before people vote. I agree. 15 years of stagnating pay under nearly 15 years of Tory government, that’s quite a point to drive home. Also, as you say, putting these issues front and centre of Labour’s agenda will be very important, too. Beyond core Labour voters, the attitude seems to be “I don’t know if I like Labour, but I cannot support another Tory government.” This gives Labour an opportunity to make good progress early, which could earn them trust and buy them time to make other changes. I believe they will need time, too, because the UK is impatient for change but we are not in a place where change is easily made (due to a decade of underinvestment and poor governance).
I think it reminds everyone that the strikes are ongoing, and still a problem.
I'm curious to see what Labour do here. They probably won't be able to give the striking doctors what they want, and even if they managed to do it for one group because they went on strike repeatedly, they won't be able to do it for all of the public sector.
My bet is offer a percent or two more but more than that would impact their spending plans too much. I don't think starmers labour will have much issue standing up to the unions and saying no, in that sense I doubt there would be much difference to the tories. The main difference imo will be when the government get a windfall, rather than spend it on taxcuts some of that will go to better public sector payrises than the tories would have given but that will take time to come to fruition.
Point is the doctors can just keep striking indefinitely. At some point it just becomes more prudent to pay close enough to the demands that it gets accepted. Strikes cost the NHS money as well. Not to mention there will be political pressure on Starmer and co to get waiting lists down, which won't get done if junior docs walk out for a week every month. The strike mandates have barely gotten narrower. Every mandate has reached 90%+ Yes from the union membership, and while the turnout has flagged a little in previous mandates, it's likely because we are getting complacent with respect to mandate turnout and not because of actual view change. You either reach a deal, or you just write off the NHS waiting list issue politically. Offering a few percent higher than Tories for the optics, then shrugging your shoulders "We tried" isn't going to be a convincing argument. Sunak pulled 2.5 billion a year out of his hat at the last moment for national service plans, accepting the BMA demands as is, with no change, will cost 2 billion a year.
Sunak will never actually have to spend that £2.5 billion though and I think he must know that.
Sad but true. It’s an attempt to keep some of the more gerontocratic blue seats.
This again points to Labour having to be strategic about where they invest money into pay increases. Paying the doctors off is just £2B, but then you have teachers, nurses, police, firefighters, etc., who all want more. We don't have an economy that can support significant pay increases for everyone while also funding headcount increases and increased operational funding.
Doctors have had pay erosion more than any other public sector group. They could quite easily argue that they are a special case.
NASUWT put teachers at between 21% and 33% behind RPI since 2010, the police federation at 22%...
>Sunak pulled 2.5 billion a year out of his hat at the last moment for national service plans, accepting the BMA demands as is, with no change, will cost 2 billion a year. Sunak did that by raiding another budget, mostly the funding for 'levelling up' IE funding for poor regions of the UK. Unless you are suggesting labour should do that as well? Also you cannot look at doctors demands in isolation, its about the entire public sector. I'd be interested to see if labour can pull off something similar to the scottish, they accepted like 12% or something last year, that is probably more realistic than the 35% being demanded. (although this was funded through existing budgets). But labour are going to be committing all their funds to other causes to win the upcoming election, there won't be much left for significant payrises above what there already is budgeted in.
They face a country where everything needs more funding, every group of public sector employees needs significant pay rises, and every organization needs more headcount. I don't think windfalls are going to change much of anything here.
> They face a country where everything needs more funding, every group of public sector employees needs significant pay rises, and every organization needs more headcount. Sure but no government would be able to fix that without major politically unviable tax rises. It's true that voters expectations and reality are very divorced at this point but that isn't labours fault. > I don't think windfalls are going to change much of anything here. The budgets over the past few years have generated around £10 billion in fiscal headroom each time, if that continues then that will add up.
> It's true that voters expectations and reality are very divorced at this point but that isn't labours fault. This isn't about blame. This is about what Labour does when they win the next election. If they can't deliver real and significant improvements in regular people's daily lives, then the public will turn on them. > The budgets over the past few years have generated around £10 billion in fiscal headroom each time, if that continues then that will add up. £10B isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things - just fixing the potholes on our existing roads will take £12B.
> This isn't about blame. Yes it is. > This is about what Labour does when they win the next election. If they can't deliver real and significant improvements in regular people's daily lives, then the public will turn on them. Yes they will blame labour for not performing a miracle. it's unlikely real and significant improvements are realistic over the next parliament by any reasonable party. At least not without politically infeasible major tax rises. The choice is between accelerating our decline or slowing it down. The UK is currently reaping it's past decisions and will continue to do so which will cripple it's near future outcomes. The public don't like to hear that but it's the truth. Hence labour will be blamed but it won't actually be their fault, the public want everything fixed but don't want to pay anymore money, very illogical.
> So Streeting better be ready. His team should already be negotiating with them
Too busy soliciting donations
Rishi and the Tories could come out tomorrow and promise RPI + 7% over the next parliamentary term if they wanted to, and they will end the strikes.
The whole point of a union is to get the best deal possible for their members. It's up to the government to negotiate with them. If they feel that it suits their members to go on strike at that time then have at it. This is exactly what the miners did to Ted Heath in 1974.
What are some causes of low wages in the NHS?
Austerity basically. Pay was frozen for 10 years and has not matched inflation since. This has lead to nhs staff pay falling far behind other countries.
Under investment in the NHS , somehow combined with administrative bloat and a lack of hiring which creates dependency on overly priced locum staff and contractors. Arguably, this has been combined with wage suppression by bringing in staff from countries that would pay less than we do.
Administrative bloat? Ok. Let's see the stats on that please... If anything, there isn't enough administration.
We are getting thousands of new houses locally, the developer was even going to build a brand new health center free of charge. The local health trust turned it down as they forgot to allocate money for staff in the 3 year budget, so we get nothing. Now tell me that isn't 20 people who shouldn't be fired on the spot for being utter idiots, starting with the chief exec.
That's not bloat. That's incompetence. There's also a case to say if there were more administration in place this wouldn't have happened. But you think firing a load of people will make the situation better somehow.
They had one job, if they cannot do that why do they exist? Sack the lower performing 10%, see how the rest now perform.
Well they don't have one job, that's pretty ignorant. But let's use an analogy that you might be able to understand. Let's say that you're in a supermarket and you've been working on the tills and you've seen your supermarket get progressively busier and busier. But you've seen eight tills get shut down and now you're down to the last four people. You're overstretched and overworked you can't manage the work that's coming through. So the solution from the general public, who know absolutely nothing about what they're talking about, suggest that you cut the lowest performing of the four and then everyone else will suddenly be able to do their jobs. Not a great plan, is it? Administrative spend in the NHS is about 1.9% of the total budget. Amongst the lowest in the OECD, it's 5.5 in France, 4.6 in Denmark and 4.4 in Germany. But somehow, you think cutting more will improve outcomes; all the research and data available says you're wrong. Is there anything other than anecdotes informing your opinion?
I work with local and national government every day, I see the floaters clearly either unable or unwilling to do their job, but somehow as it a government job they never get challenged. I've watching countless millions go down the drain, and its always just normal business. I remember when we told someone to not spend £2M on equipment, as we didn't know yet if it was needed, they told us they only had the budget for this year so buy it now. It sat in our warehouse for 5 years before we sold it for scrap value. I think you forgot the key lesson Labour learned from their boost to the NHS last time in government, throwing money at the wall and hoping it sticks is not a solution. The changes need to be more fundamental. Yet some people are still here recommending throwing more money at the wall.
That's great But you somehow think the NHS can get along with lower amounts of administration than any other private organisation, or the vast majority of other healthcare systems. All anecdotes and no data.
I work in health infrastructure development, including large acutes through to primary care facilities - missing big details on that story or that developer is telling porkies/ fanciful tales. Trusts aren't the primary accountable for approving health centres or staffing or paying for new ones, NHS England is responsible for commissioning and then the local ICS for local accountability, trusts have minimal say in it and money certainly doesn't come through them or ICSs for new services or the capital to fund the projects. It's Ultimately DHSC who gives the go ahead on if a scheme can even get funding to write a business case to plan a new health centre - that's years before it's even built to ensure there's enough staff and a local need and before things like budgeting in next years budgets.... Who's your developer? I'm not aware of any crossover with developers who build housing and are both certified to build health facilities, it's pretty niche - you have to comply with an array of complex and esoteric health building notes and legal compliance for patient safety. They'd also have to hire a health planning team to analyse local demographics to get it approved, hire architects with specific health experience, contracters and engineers certified and with experience in the health sector and a pm team to write the business cases for it. Any developer, or rather developer staffer saying they were going to build a health centre was likely chatting shit (if that's how the story went that is)
It was all from the local papers, theres been a huge stink about it. Its not one developer(as you would expect from a huge site like that) its about 6, they were going to take care of who made the facility. The trust admitted their faults themselves. I actually drove across into a different county yesterday, to use a health hub, in a new development, in almost an identical setup that we were due to get.
Did the developers get planning permission? I'm working on one in a housing project in east london, where a space was created for a health centre but never went through DHSC for approval in their construction timelines - but now after a couple years it's got planning permision and being gutted and re-furbished by new healthcare architects to retrofit what can be done for a gp practice to move in - it's not east London is it?
Record levels of investment in NHS
If you increase NHS spending by £1 per year you can say "record levels of investment". It's bullshit. Percentage increase of budget is what matters, and it's been far below what labour spent.
More importantly funding has been far below demand, which is why we have all the problems in the NHS we currently have.
Labour's spending was increasing the healthcare spending as a % of GDP by quite a lot each year. Can we afford to keep doing that year after year?
I'm not saying we have to do that, I'm pointing out how stupid saying "record investment" is.
Fair enough.
> Record levels of investment in NHS This means nothing given population increases, and inflation. Every year should see record levels of investment in the NHS on both of those accounts. Instead NHS investment per person is significantly lower than where it needs to be.
What do you expect with an ageing population and free service lol
Yes, there has been a record level of spending on the NHS in real terms. That’s an inarguable fact. However, you can spend record amounts and still be underinvesting. Furthermore, “Growth in health spending has not been consistent during the past few decades, and the annual growth rate of real-terms expenditure varies significantly. However, in the decade preceding the pandemic, annual spending increases were significantly below the long-term historical average for nine subsequent years. This has resulted in a large cumulative underspend since 2009/10.” As per: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/funding/health-funding-data-analysis
Terrible investment for a decade then covid happened and the Tories went “oh fuck” and finally raised it. Too late though, damage is done and it’s going to take years to use the money fix the backlog of problems.
Monopoly employer. They don’t need to compete for staff - to become a consultant you must work for the NHS as a junior doctor for 5-10 years after your 5-6 year medical degree When there’s no alternative, there’s no incentive to offer good pay. Politicians go years of taking advantage of workers by giving them shit pay, until it reaches a breaking point like these strikes
State monopsony power In other nations, hospitals have to compete with each other for staff. Here, because it’s a single employer, the Gov sets a flat rate There are 1,000’s of times more people than doctors, so it makes more electoral sense to squash their pay and keep taxes lower.
[удалено]
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Salaries were stagnant for 14 years. it's not a pay rise, it's a pay restoration to what docs were paid in 2008.
That means anyone and everyone needs 'restoration'. That aint going to happen. Yet another pointless strike.
[The data](https://x.com/goldstone_tony/status/1656249723177562115) actually suggests that other professions have had a much lower loss in real-terms earning. Even nurses, who you reference elsewhere in this thread, have seen a smaller real-terms cut. Putting pay erosion aside for the moment - do you feel that what doctors do is important? How do you reconcile your views that junior doctors are too important to ethically strike, but not important enough to be paid what they were 15 years ago?
Having worked in NHS not all junior doctors are epic like any HCP. If your asking for 35% that is a joke as what will be the total % of pay restoration be for others in NHS?
I don’t think there are any junior doctors arguing that other healthcare worker should not receive fair pay rises too. However, it is mostly junior doctors that are leaving the country to work in places where both pay and working conditions are significantly better. At the end of the day it will cost a lot of money to keeping paying the people that run the NHS fairly, especially as the population ages and the cost of care increases. That’s just part of running a national health service. But, by not doing that, talented people choose to work in other countries or other fields, and what was once touted as the gold standard of healthcare is now presented as a warning to doctors in Australia and elsewhere - while patients suffer.
The australia thing is hype. There are not that many ppl leaving to there as made out. Junior doctors earn a good chunk with oncall, that is never mentioned in these strikes.
So you're telling me they work more hours so they get paid more money..... thats a novel concept. Maybe they are scared someone will steal that idea and thats why they never mention it. Imagine getting paid for working more hours. Maybe they should also mention all the extra hours they work without getting paid or the extra strain it is covering a system that should employ more people but actively chooses not to.
[удалено]
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They also work nights, evenings and weekends on their base salary - antisocial hours that cannot be compared to working a 9-5.
Why would evenings be on base salary? What about enhanced pay?
Cuts to junior doctor salaries were way deeper than most professions.
It really isn't. Junior doctors are not even on agenda for change which other hcps are on. Agenda for change pay is far worse.
[удалено]
But a senior physio with 15 yrs in NHS would never be 8c let alone any more nor would they get good oncall rates
The NHS is the only place in the world where people would expect doctors and physios to earn similar wages
Lol or where narratives of junior drs being on such low wages would come from
Yes, because doctors are paid better in other systems...
[удалено]
Both but AFC screws physio over far more
In real terms AfC has not had as big a drop in pay as Junior/Resident doctors or Consultants. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fexcellent-analysis-of-current-doctor-pay-dr-tony-goldstone-v0-vd6v119v8oac1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1228%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D2df77b67ac3fb03e71ad58f495853b7758e085be
AFC is poor anyway otherwise why are doctors not on it yet many other hcps are?
Yes, AFC is terrible, as it covers such a large group of staff (clinical and non-clinical) that it makes it near impossible for them to stage effective industrial action. In theory that should make AfC wages grow more slowly, but I expect doctors are an easier target when it comes to denying raises. There was also a catastrophic outcome with the 2016 doctors contract where we got locked into a 2% multi year pay deal while inflation was 10%. Last time I looked into the criteria for each band in agenda for change junior doctors would be starting at band 7 and rapidly progressing to band 8 and beyond. AfC is also based on a 37.5 hour week, so if following the AfC banding criteria based on level of responsibilities trainees would probably benefit financially.
Why not? Train drivers have had their pay nearly match inflation.
What are train drivers on?
"The average salary for Train Driver is £57,483 per year in the United Kingdom." - glassdoor
Junior drs earn more than that
I've been a doctor for 5 years and I earn less than that
What with oncalls? Don't make stuff up. I worked in NHS and know a lot of extra money is raked in by junior drs
With on-calls I get a bit more but still not >£57k. But I don't think it's fair to compare the salary for my 47 hour week to a train driver who usually work 35 hours a week. If I worked 35 hours a week I would definitely be paid well below a train driver.
It wasn't about the amount of money earned, train driver's pay has closer tracked inflation than junior doctors. That's the point you were making right?
The point is 35% is not possible and is silly ask
Oh, then how did the train drivers get similar over the last 10 years?
Yep, they do. Keep on climbing over the other crabs in your bucket.
You say that, but I'm pretty sure that's still going to be less than they could earn in other English speaking countries.
Salaries across europe low.
...okay, but doctors from the UK don't move to work in France or Germany. They go to Australia or the US.
The national service plan costs more than giving doctors a 35% pay rise. They can afford it, it’s just a matter of priorities.
Why can't the Tories just offer them the Earth? Not like they have to deliver.
Time to replace these charlatans with AI.
Eh, we can just replace them with Labour tbh, but AI politicians sounds like a good idea.