Discussion continues
658627
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 7 Mar 23 at 11:05
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64653488
But we gave you 8.2% over the past 4 years including an inflation busting 2% last year...
|
I'd say they have a point.
"We hugely value the work of junior doctors ..." Mr Barclay added.
No you don't.
|
Miss Z is up for striking as are most of her colleagues!
They are especially fuming since it was discovered that the trust she works for has been deliberately not filling hours between forcing staff to work extra. EG. Shift 1 ends 20:00. Shift 2 starts 20:00 but trust gets locums to start at 21:00 or 22:00 to save money.
Last edited by: zippy on Mon 20 Feb 23 at 20:28
|
They (Govt) don't get it*
This is a cohort who have largely eschewed private practice because NHS pay and conditions have been decent.
We're heading for a two-tier service and once it starts it will be unstoppable.
Crap service for the plebs.
Expensive services for the rich.
* - maybe they do get it, and this is the plan all along.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 20 Feb 23 at 20:56
|
>> They are especially fuming since it was discovered that the trust she works for has
>> been deliberately not filling hours between forcing staff to work extra.
Wow. I hope they end up having to pay them for it. They should.
|
LOL @ the Government's proposal for next year's pay increase: 3-3.5%
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64725008
Enjoy your collapsing public services.
|
|
Let’s just give everyone a pay rise equal to inflation plus 5% and repeat the same next year and the year after and the year after that . It’ll all be fine I’m sure.
|
>> Let’s just give everyone a pay rise equal to inflation plus 5% and repeat the
>> same next year and the year after and the year after that . It’ll all
>> be fine I’m sure.
OTOH there's a limit as to how long you can let ordinary people's living standards go downhill.
Even ten years ago when I left the Civil Service my best year for pension was not 2013 but c2008 * CPI.
And the max for my grade is still the same £41,000 or thereabouts today.
|
>> OTOH there's a limit as to how long you can let ordinary people's living standards
>> go downhill.
Actually there isn’t. There is no fundamental reason to believe that real wages can always increase year on year. That is one of the myths of our times. If wages outrun the economy you get inflation and everyone loses.
|
|
What's the solution, where do we go from here? Do we tell those in the public sector/on strike to suck it up and deal with the consequences of that?
|
|
That’s pretty much what is happening in the private sector Sooty. Many businesses are struggling and their employees won’t be getting any pay rises.
|
Can anybody here help explain how the negotiations work when there are more than one union representing staff?
Seems the Govt are now talking to RCN today…… if by some miracle they come to some agreement what happens to all of the remaining staff belonging to Unison and the GMB?
Do they have to go along with it…. especially if concessions are agreed how could that be imposed on staff not covered by this union… would also be difficult to agree any productivity improvements (whatever they could be) without including ALL staff within a Trust being involved otherwise I can’t see them working.
I’ve always wondered if a pay rise is won by one union whether it then applies to staff in other unions (or no union) working in the same role.
|
>> That’s pretty much what is happening in the private sector Sooty. Many businesses are struggling
>> and their employees won’t be getting any pay rises.
>>
You could be right, as long as we're aware of the outcome of that choice. It may be that that happens.
Difficult to broadbrush in the private sector, just for info sky reported average payrise as 7.x % this year. Some are getting payrises however that's not much comfort if you're not.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 22 Feb 23 at 08:53
|
>> That’s pretty much what is happening in the private sector Sooty. Many businesses are struggling
>> and their employees won’t be getting any pay rises.
>>
Despite much better than expected profits my employer, a major bank, has decided that everyone at the grade I am in will get a pay rise.
It's not consolidated though. Which means that I will not count towards pension contributions, redundancy etc. etc. and importantly to next years pay round - so pay next year could actually reduce!
EG Pay £40,000, 5% rise equals £42,000. If next years pay rise is 2.5% then next years pay will be £41,000 and not £43,050. If there is no pay rise next year, pay will revert to £40,000.
Allowances have not changed. So the £3000 odd a year for a company car has been the same for the last 15 years. The allowance which was supposed to get a Mondeo or Passat has moved to a Fiesta or Polo on the car scheme.
|
>>
>> >> OTOH there's a limit as to how long you can let ordinary people's living
>> standards
>> >> go downhill.
>>
>> Actually there isn’t.
Of course there is. He did say they have to increase in real terms, and in fact if real wages bad just stayed the same as they were in 2008 they'd be about 20% better off than they are now and far less likely to be on strike.
They are striking, inter alia, for the survival of the NHS. These people have options, in the private sector or abroad.
|
|
There is a difference between what a set of workers deserve and what an economy can afford without severe adverse effects on others who have less leverage and ability to make demands. There are plenty of workers in the private sector who have had to accept pay rises very much below inflation. It is tough for everyone. A sense of reality has to prevail.
|
>> There is a difference between what a set of workers deserve and what an economy
>> can afford without severe adverse effects on others who have less leverage and ability to
>> make demands. There are plenty of workers in the private sector who have had to
>> accept pay rises very much below inflation. It is tough for everyone. A sense of
>> reality has to prevail.
There's another reality though. The one that governments of both stripes have relied on since the eighties which is around the market for labour. The employer that is not paying enough to recruit, motivate and retain staff will lose people. The first to go will be the good ones. Supermarkets understand this and have upped rates significantly.
If the remit for the 'independent' review body is 3% for 2023/24 that doesn't bode well....
|
I hope you aren't swallowing the £1000 cost to every household lie. And if the basic for qualified doctor remains around £28k in real terms then it won't be long before the NHS really is unworkable and the hard right will have got what they want. They really do believe that people on wages should be poor i.e. that they deserve nothing for their part in wealth creation and the surplus really does belong to the monkeys who have more bananas than they could eat in a thousand lifetimes.
Meanwhile wage earners need no more than is necessary to live on, no job security, and minimal health and welfare provison.
People who depend on wages voting for the present Conservative party would be dimmer than turkeys voting for Christmas. At least the turkeys get fed for life.
|
I don’t know where you get your pay figure for a qualified doctor but it appears to be wildly out.
www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/doctors/pay-doctors/pay-doctors
It’s a painful but basic economic fact that you cannot escape from the effects of inflation by giving everyone bigger and bigger pay rise every year Difficult as it is to accept that is the painful truth. We are all destined to get poorer , at least in the short to medium term. It will either be by accepting smaller payincreases or by uncontrolled inflation. If the latter the poor will suffer most.
|
I don't think it's so much this part 12 months but part of an overall drop in wages over a decade or so. I think its more helpful to think of this brewing over a longest term rather than a short term single issue.
If inflation does fall this year to 2% by Christmas, i don't think that will end these issues and they'll rumble on for some time yet.
|
news.sky.com/story/nhs-crisis-why-are-so-many-staff-leaving-the-health-service-12812473
Although this only covers the NHS it may well cover other sectors to a certain extent.
|
|
Depends what you call a qualified Doctor. I would say it was on who had finished their training.
|
>> Depends what you call a qualified Doctor. I would say it was on who had
>> finished their training.
I would say a Junior Doctor is qualified but still learning as they progress towards Consultant status.
|
>>Depends what you call a qualified Doctor. I would say it was on who had finished their training.
Once you have completed a medical degree you can use the honorary title Dr.
Achieving a medical degree makes you a 'provisionally' registered doctor with the GMC.
After 12 months (assuming satisfactory completion of your Foundation year jobs) you become a fully registered doctor with the GMC.
Further 'qualifications' are for specialist or GP status, by passing a Royal College membership exam - there is no compulsion for doctors to go down this route however, but you can't be a GP or a consultant without having done so.
|
>> Depends what you call a qualified Doctor. I would say it was on who had
>> finished their training.
You'd be wrong, sorry.
www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/international-doctors/life-and-work-in-the-uk/toolkit-for-doctors-new-to-the-uk/doctors-titles-explained
Junior doctors are doctors in clinical training. They are qualified doctors.
|
Perhaps it would be more useful to suggest how much qualified Drs, be that fully or provisionally, should be paid?
|
The same as everywhere perhaps?
Struggling to fill posts, needs increased.
Too many doctors, needs reduced (or at least stagnated).
|
|
Is there a shortage of graduates wishing to train as doctors?
|
>> Is there a shortage of graduates wishing to train as doctors?
>>
No.
There is a shortage of degree places. Medical degrees cost a lot more than many other degrees and are subsidised by the Government, who effectively cap the number of places available.
|
There is also a very large exodus from the profession, both through early retirement, young doctors leaving either the country or medicine entirely, and established senior doctors reducing their hours of work.
|
|
So that would indicate that there is no economic need to increase wages for trainee doctors. If qualified doctors are leaving the UK for better paid jobs elsewhere then that is where pay increases are called for.
|
>> Is there a shortage of graduates wishing to train as doctors?
I think I see what you're getting at. There is a shortage of doctors. Australia is a favourite destination once qualified.
Of course we have long had a lot of doctors in the NHS who have come here from other countries. Maybe they are in shorter supply than they were, for similar reasons (or the other thing that isn't to blame for anything).
Poor pay and poor working conditions in the UK are the most frequently cited reasons for doctors emigrating
www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj.o3066.full
|
>> The same as everywhere perhaps?
>>
How much is that?
|
>>How much is that?
I wasn't clear.
If there is an issue with recruitment and retention then more than is currently paid.
If there is an excess of doctors then you can let the rates stagnate.
The problem we have had for a decade is there has both been an issue with R&R and pay stagnation and the country is in a huge hole of unfilled medical (and nursing) posts that costs even more to cover by paying agencies 2-3x the normal rate to fill shifts.
All entirely predictable, and with a government that DGAS because they have private medical care.
|
|
I get that, there's a number to start to resolve this. I'm wondering what the number is.
|
>>NHS Junior Doctors...
Miss Z is a surgeon. Royal College exams passed etc. and AIUI has one more set to do in a few years to become a consultant.
She is still in training herself and moves departments every six months, spending a year in a hospital before moving on to another hospital within the deanery. The NHS works like this to fill vacancies at less popular locations which would struggle to get doctors otherwise. Her shifts are split over 24 hours a day - on rotations and are not always sensibly planned - e.g. she has had day shifts and night shifts mixed together with minimum breaks (she's not the only one - most junior doctors at the current hospital are in the same boat).
She does about half her time on her training wards and the other half "on call" which means dealing with (emergency) incidents all over the hospital. As a registrar she is responsible for training her team of junior doctors. She has co-written medical papers and presented them in seminars abroad.
She can authorise and perform operations herself up to her competency level.
I called tonight for a call at 19:00 when she should have finished work and be at home.
Instead she was just about to scrub up and go in to surgery for a long operation on a very sick patient. Some of the next shift (the locums) didn't turn up and they should have have undertaken the operation. Miss Z was of the opinion that the operation was necessary tonight as delaying it would have very poor consequences for the patient and her consultant agreed, so they collared an anaesthetist booked the theatre.
Oh, and train drivers earn more!
|
Salaried NHS GP rates in England (40hr/wk):
2011 - £53,781 - £81,158
2022 - £65,070 - £98,194
www.nhsemployers.org/system/files/2021-06/Pay-Circular-MD-1-2011.pdf
www.nhsemployers.org/system/files/2022-08/Pay-and-Conditions-Circular-MD-3-2022.pdf
21% increase over 11 years. Prices have rise 35% over the same period.
The English govt's starting point for next year is apparently 2%.
I presume everyone can see where this is inevitably leading.
|
What percentage of GPs are salaried and what percentage are self-employed? Presumably younger GPs are more likely to be employed at the start of their careers.
Also what percentage of GPs work 40 hours/week?
|
>> news.sky.com/story/train-drivers-union-tssa-cancels-strike-action-after-members-accept-pay-deal-12818865
>>
>> One deal struck
The URL there is off beam. TSSA is the Transport Salaried Staff Association and covers clerical and mangerial etc people. The train drivers union is ASLEF.
|
news.sky.com/story/firefighters-strike-averted-as-they-accept-12-pay-rise-12827431
One pay deal sorted. I wonder if the strikes are running out of steam, there's a couple been resolved and I suspect the Ambulance one may be the next one to be resolved.
|
>> I wonder if the strikes are running out of steam.....
>>
...I think the clue to what is happening is in the foreword to your linked story:
"A majority of FBU members voted for a new offer of a 7% rise backdated to July last year and a 5% increase from July this year after voting in January to go on strike when offered a 2% pay offer."
|
|
Yes I read that. I mean the strikes across all sectors.
|
I think what's changed is that the Government has started to negotiate rather than coerce. The claims will naturally have been pitched high, concessions are expected in negotiation.
I said weeks ago that the government did not want to settle the claims, and the visibly coordinated a "blame Labour" for the strikes. The problem is they miscalculated, and there was a lot of public support for them.
This provocation was most evident from the conduct of the rail negotiations, and beautifully explained by Mick Lynch.
|
Slight tangent, a recent episode of More or Less: Behind the Stats looked into how nurses' pay compared across Europe, and it was interesting how differently the conclusions can appear depending on what was compared - gross pay, purchasing power and how much the profession was valued (in terms of where it lay in the overall remuneration of different professions) were the three which I recall.
It's here if anyone wants to listen www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0f33v0f
Last edited by: smokie on Mon 6 Mar 23 at 18:31
|
That may well be why, there seems to be some new money for the negotiations. Perhaps they did miscalculate, perhaps they didn't want to be seen to give in too soon.
Whichever way, it's good they are being resolved.
|
|
7% accepted by the FBU makes the nurses’ demand of 19% seem rather fanciful. I expect they will end up accepting something similar.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 6 Mar 23 at 21:55
|
|
I think they always said they'd settle for half their 'target' amount.
|
|
Asking for 19% in the first place makes them look rather naive when it comes to negotiating. They seem to have made little progress so far.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 7 Mar 23 at 09:36
|
>> Asking for 19% in the first place makes them look rather naive when it comes
>> to negotiating. They seem to have made little progress so far.
Lack of progress so far is due to the employer, ie the SoS for Health, refusing to return to the 2022/3 award relying on the supposedly independent review body's award.
It seems that now, months after this started, they might be prepared to do something with a lump sum to cover 22/3 and something better for 23/4.
|
>> Asking for 19% in the first place makes them look rather naive when it comes
>> to negotiating. They seem to have made little progress so far.
>>
I suspect there's a bit more water to go under the bridge yet.
|
news.sky.com/story/rmt-puts-new-and-improved-offer-from-network-rail-to-vote-12828774
Seems the final and best offer wasn't quite the final and best offer. Between 10-15% pay rise.
|
>> Over two years though.
Yeah, the solution they're finding seems to be a bit extra this year, possibly a lump sum that's not immediately consolidated into actual annual rates, then more in 23/4.
|
>> Yeah, the solution they're finding seems to be a bit extra this year, possibly a
>> lump sum that's not immediately consolidated into actual annual rates, then more in 23/4.
Is it all going to work out - with the various days lost unpaid since they started striking?
|
Is it all going to work out - with the various days lost unpaid since they started striking?
I guess every 2.5 days on strike = 1% less pay that year, but every 1% payrise gained is 2.5 days of extra pay every year until you retire/leave/get sacked.
|
>> >> Over two years though.
>>
>> Yeah, the solution they're finding seems to be a bit extra this year, possibly a
>> lump sum that's not immediately consolidated into actual annual rates, then more in 23/4.
>>
That seems to be the norm across many of these pay disputes.
|
|
Two year deals means the government can avoid strikes and disruption leading up to the next election.
|
|
Not if it's this year and last year, like at least one has been!!
|
www.itv.com/news/2023-03-10/health-secretary-invites-junior-doctors-for-pay-talks-ahead-of-72-hour-strike
Of course it's a public statement and perhaps representative of private discussion. But to state its 35% or keep striking is a pretty high bar to set yourselves.
|
>> I guess every 2.5 days on strike = 1% less pay that year,
Doesn't work like that. It's possible to lose a lot more for one day of striking. If your strike causes knock-on effects then you can lose close to a month's pay for your one day of strike action.
Seen it happen to friends in the airline industry. I believe there was an intention to challenge but in the end their union got guidance from KC who advised against it.
|
|
Irrelevant to teachers/nurses/doctors.
|
>> Irrelevant to teachers/nurses/doctors.
>>
I haven't had the chance to run this past Miss Z but her rota is over 24 hours and her pay is based on the rota. She gets paid more than standard because of the rota.
What I don't know is if this is because she does more than 37 hours a week or if it is due to weekend / night shifts. If the latter then it could impact her pay.
|
I used to work in a part of the public sector which had a large proportion of 24x7 shift working staff.
Premiums were paid to staff who exceeded a set number of night shifts and/or early or late shifts in each month. If staff failed to meet the shift threshold, the pay premium was reduced to the level below, not reduced proportionately.
So striking for 2 days could not only lose pay for the two days not worked, it could mean the premium pay was reduced from (say) 40% to 20% for the entire months salary.
Unsurprisingly rosters were organised to normally do the minimum shifts to reach the premium pay threshold for as many staff as possible.
|
An interesting article on the junior doctor’s pay demands.
Why are doctors demanding the biggest pay rise? www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64907379
|
I like that one. The closing quote makes sense, given the claims in the article.
"If we have some money to give a pay rise to NHS staff," a source close to the negotiations says, "doctors are not at the front of the queue."
|
>>"If we have some money to give a pay rise to NHS staff," a source close to the negotiations says, "doctors are not at the front of the queue."
And thus the increasing two-tier system of crap service for the plebs and bespoke service for those with money.
|
>> >>"If we have some money to give a pay rise to NHS staff," a source
>> close to the negotiations says, "doctors are not at the front of the queue."
>>
>> And thus the increasing two-tier system of crap service for the plebs and bespoke service
>> for those with money.
>>
>>
I agree with the Doc here.
But it is coming. The local Trust offers intolerable waits for cataract surgery or pay a couple of thousand and get bumped to the front of the list. Same doctor, same hospital. One private list, one NHS list.
Mother in law had to pay for an operation that significantly helped her quality of life (house bound vs going out regularly). Cost £8k. 90 year old on state pension. It hurt financially.
My mum, injections to manage osteoarthritis pain. NHS wait 2 years, with some concerns re risk. She booked in to private clinic to get it done. £500. Same consultant did it.
It's a dreadfully state of affairs.
|
>> I like that one. The closing quote makes sense, given the claims in the article.
>>
>> "If we have some money to give a pay rise to NHS staff," a source
>> close to the negotiations says, "doctors are not at the front of the queue."
The issues are the same across the Health Service. Trying to divide those at the lower end of the pay scale from those on salaries that look like 'loadsamoney' to Joe Public is classic government tactics.
Whatever job you do, if pay is not enough to recruit, motivate and retain the users are stuffed.
|
>>Trying to divide those at the lower end of the pay scale
My employer has given junior staff 4% extra on top of the standard percentage pay rise offered to everyone else, so bank tellers and similar staff have got a decent rise.
My rise was non-consolidated - so I'm not so impressed, but I understand the rationale.
They have also removed some qualifying criteria for age related benefits which are a significant package increases for junior staff.
|
Going to be a funny day tomorrow... all ops canceled apart from two cancer lists and they will only have consultants running them... consultants running ED and doing the night cover for surgery and anaesthetics, my Trust is taking it day by day so tomorrow we will make the decission whether to cancel procedures for Tuesday.
|
|
I wonder if the 35% pay increase has been costed, in the billions I suppose with increased pension contributions.
|
|
The Beeb article talks about how the junior doctors organisation has been sort of taken over by slightly more militant younger doctors. I suppose that makes conflict more likely, thinking back to the old days of militant union leaders...
|
|
Certainly the lack of a sense of reality and what can feasibly be achieved seems apparent.
|
Someone mentioned that the train strikes for the 16th, 17th and 18th March are off.
Does anyone know if this is true?
|
>> Certainly the lack of a sense of reality and what can feasibly be achieved seems
>> apparent.
They seem to me to be negotiating very well.
|
|
I'm not so sure threatening the withdrawal labour is negotiating. Blackmail maybe?
|
>> I'm not so sure threatening the withdrawal labour is negotiating. Blackmail maybe?
>>
Blackmail is demanding money or other benefit or advantage on the threat of revealing damaging or incriminating information.
That is my definition, not the legal definition. But it's about right.
|
>> I'm not so sure threatening the withdrawal labour is negotiating. Blackmail maybe?
>>
If you're going hyperbolic, I'd use extortion.
Very difficult to negotiate anything with an intransigent entity unless, ultimately, you are prepared to walk. They are employees, not slaves.
Junior hospital doctors start on £14 an hour. The cleaners round here charge £15. It would cost £1bn to meet the claims of junior doctors, nearly half of which would end up coming back in tax.
And they won't need to settle the claim in full to reach agreement.
|
And they won't need to settle the claim in full to reach agreement.
>>
It's not the 0.5/1/2bn that it is being suggested in this dispute that's the issue.
It's two other issues, first publicly acknowledging that public sector has fallen behind in the past 10-12 years and secondly looking to close that gap. Everyone else in the public sector would then, naturally, want a similar deal.
|
>> Everyone else in the public
>> sector would then, naturally, want a similar deal.
Of course they would. But if I were a junior doctor, I'd say that's irrelevant. This is my, justified, claim for the restoration of my wages.
And, as I said, I don't think the employers would have to pay in full to settle. I'm pretty sure they could get a settlement nearer CPI rather than RPI for a start, which would cut the cost by up to 40%, and I'm also sure the employers know that. Anyone who's ever negotiated a commercial agreement knows you throw everything into your opening position and not to do so is just foolish in most scenarios. The government is dragging it out, which is also standard practice. It's up to them to negotiate, not to the BMA to "be reasonable", and they hope it will cost less if they fold their arms for a while.
|
Of course they would. But if I were a junior doctor, I'd say that's irrelevant.
>>
I'm sure they would, but the government have a somewhat wider remit.
|
“Anyone who's ever negotiated a commercial agreement knows you throw everything into your opening position and not to do so is just foolish in most scenarios.”
I think that anyone who is skilled at negotiation does not make an initial demand so detached from reality. The doctors know they will have to accept a deal well under ten percent. Their union leaders are just playing politics and are likely to lose public sympathy if they persist with their current stance.
|
>>I think that anyone who is skilled at negotiation does not make an initial demand so detached from reality.
A judgement. Why would they pitch a claim for a lower amount than their forerunners had been paid a few years ago? The point is that there is a rationale for it which they can argue is reasonable enough to be taken seriously, so not detached from reality at all. The other side is not forced to pay it or even discuss it but they can't deny the logical basis, and if they hope to settle for less without starving them out then they will have to produce some arguments of their own as to why the BMA should accept it.
I'm thinking of a commercial dispute I was in some years ago. I had what I considered a solid claim for £9m. The other side said they would pay nothing and produced some (to me) dodgy reasoning which rejected the basis of any claim at all. My masters agreed to issue proceedings, which we did to overcome a refusal to negotiate. The claim was for £17m. which was as big as our lawyers and forensic accountants could make it. We went to mediation (courts don't like people who haven't made meaningful efforts to settle) which initially failed.
I thought the other side would argue with the basis for about £8m of the claim which arose from a rather optimistic interpretation of the agreement governing the relationship, but they didn't. Hard to do that without giving credibility to the other £9m. The mediator came back from them with nothing, except a suggestion of his own that if we offered something they might start to move.
I don't think a negotiator should give or offer anything without a quid pro quo, but I was overruled by my then boss and we offered unconditionally to settle for £14m. Not only was it rejected, but they gave us nothing. We of course dug in, and predictably they just waited hopefully for our next free gift. We all went home at midnight with no further progress.
The mediator, a QC, turned out to be a lot smarter than I thought he was and he chipped away at them in the days following and came back with an offer to pay £7.2m. which we accepted.
The £17m was a kite but I'm sure it helped to get the settlement we did.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 13 Mar 23 at 18:36
|
"A judgement. Why would they pitch a claim for a lower amount than their forerunners had been paid a few years ago? "
Presumably they have a figure in mind for which they will settle and unless they really liviing in LA LA land that is going to be a lot lot less less than 35%. Around 7% perhaps seems doable Asking for 35% and settling in the end for a single digit amount will simply make the Government be seen as winners and the union negotiatiors seem inept. Far better to start at more realistic figure and be seen as having secured a good deal for your fellow workers.
I'm not a fan but the Doctor's rather naive leaders could learn a bit about tactics from Mick Lynch
|
>> >> Certainly the lack of a sense of reality and what can feasibly be achieved
>> seems
>> >> apparent.
>>
>>
>> They seem to me to be negotiating very well.
>>
You think a settlement anywhere near their claim is achievable? They will eventually settle for something around 7% just like all the other groups now on strike or threatening strike action. A touch of reality by all parties and everybody can go back to work.
|
>>You think a settlement anywhere near their claim is achievable? They will eventually settle for something around 7% just like all the other groups now on strike or threatening strike action. A touch of reality by all parties and everybody can go back to work.
Indeed I expect you are right. But I also expect dialogue for the next few years to decide how (or if) to reinstate junior doctor pay to historic levels.
Of course if the demand was for 7% they'd be getting 4.5% tops and with a crummy rise next year.
35% is in the realms of fantasy - my starting salary in the mid-late 90s was about £16k for 40 hours (and another £8k for 32 further hours contracted overtime - lowest paid person in the hospital overnight!). National median earnings then were about £16k for a full-time worker.
In 2022 median earnings were £33k and starting doctor salary was about £28,800 for 2021-22.
So after this year's settlement maybe another 12-15% spread over a few years to be at a similar level as I was (conditions have changed of course, but although junior doctors work less hours than I did after the EU working times directive was implemented, the intensity of the work is significantly higher on average).
The alternative is losing doctors who have had £300-400k spent on their training to overseas health care or into the private services.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 13 Mar 23 at 09:43
|
>>
>> The alternative is losing doctors who have had £300-400k spent on their training to overseas
>> health care or into the private services.
>>
Doesn't have to be.
If I have spent 3 to 400k on training a doctor, then I would make sure there was a contractually binding agreement in place that he/she would repay that cost if they left the NHS.
|
But you haven't and there isn't.
|
>> But you haven't and there isn't.
>>
Only because I wasn't in charge.
|
|
That does happen a fair bit in the private sector these days. I remember going on external Microsoft training in the early 2000s and having to sign up to the company for a year as a result.
|
Has happened in the Forces for decades.
Army/Navy/RAF offer sponsorships to medical students in exchange for a short-term commission.
Medical students don't have significant opportunity to work while studying so already start their careers with up to 100 grand of debt.
There's a good reason they don't want inadequate pay.
|
|
There,s a good reason why everyone doesn’t want inadequate pay. Everyone would like more. Unfortunately we can’t all have what we would like.
|
>>
>> The alternative is losing doctors who have had £300-400k spent on their training to overseas
>> health care or into the private services.
>>
From what the health unions publicly state that doesn't seem an option that is very popular.
|
Strikers base their initial claim on the erosion of real wages against some historical high point - for most at the moment around 2010 levels.
This is unsurprising - but objectively one would question - why? There is equal logic for basing a pay offer on the lowest real pay historically.
Not making or denying a case for the docs - but I think 35% is probably over the top.
|
>> Not making or denying a case for the docs - but I think 35% is
>> probably over the top.
>>
It puts them where they were before "austerity" kicked in.
Looking at banks, what happens is that the pay ranges move with the market, but the individual salaries don't - they move with the annual percentage increases so you can get the situation where people started in the middle of the range but have been slipping back against the market in real terms and will eventually be at the start point of the range.
Annoyingly new starters will usually get put in the middle of the range and potentially earn more than experienced employees. The answer to this is to move regularly - the employer has no loyalty to you - a bit like insurance companies offering better deals to new customers.
|
I'm reminded that the final act in 2010 of the Treasury Secretary was a note left for his successor "sorry chaps, we've spent all the money, and the cupboard's bare" (or words to that effect).
Effectively an admission of profligacy for which relative austerity was an almost inevitable outcome. No more magic money tree until the pandemic for which there was some justification.
I agree with your comments re pay of new starters - but it has always been the case that those with the energy to move jobs at regular intervals will often earn more than those who stay put.
Those who stay effectively choose relative security, stability and pensions historically anyway) over short term rewards. At 50+ most employers know you won't be going anywhere else, and that the future for any organisation lies mostly with the young, energetic, motivated etc.
I write this not as a personal criticism - simply a reality which I experienced until (fortunately) a voluntary redundancy offer intervened.
|
>> I'm reminded that the final act in 2010 of the Treasury Secretary was a note
>> left for his successor "sorry chaps, we've spent all the money, and the cupboard's bare"
>> (or words to that effect).
>>
>> Effectively an admission of profligacy for which relative austerity was an almost inevitable outcome. No
>> more magic money tree until the pandemic for which there was some justification.
As I've said before there's a long tradition of outgoing Ministers leaving such messages. Reggie Maudling left one for the incoming Chancellor in 1964 along the lines of "Sorry for leaving everything in a mess Old Cock.
The issue was not what the message said but the political naivety of the man who left it in the modern era. I can pretty much guarantee the Tories will mention it during the next election campaign.
|
>> Those who stay effectively choose relative security, stability and pensions historically anyway) over short term
>> rewards. At 50+ most employers know you won't be going anywhere else,
The 'fur lined rut' where I was also happily ensconced until voluntary redundancy came my way.
|
www.itv.com/news/2023-03-14/hunt-considering-pension-changes-in-the-budget-in-drive-to-bolster-workforce
Not directly related to junior Drs, but I imagine in large part it's aimed at the more senior NHS employees.
|
|
5% and a one off payment. It was always going to end thereabouts. Shame we had to go through all the drama and disruption.
|
>> 5% and a one off payment. It was always going to end thereabouts. Shame we
>> had to go through all the drama and disruption.
It was clear, probably by Christmas, that a deal involving a one off non consolidated payment on top of the previous 2022/3 offer and something reasonable for 2023/4 was a viable way forward.
But then the Employer, ie HMG, was sticking bone headedly to the idea that the award by the so called 'independent review body' was cast in stone and they would talk about anything except that award.
|
Possibly but I guess the woriker too had to go throught the ritual of a confrontation before accepting a much lower offer. They were asking for inflation plus 5% remember.
Perhaps the Doctors and government can now agree a settlement without months of disruption.
|
|
There was nothing ritual about it. The Government treated them with nothing but disdain for months.
|
|
It hasn't been accepted yet. We may not find out for a few weeks.
|
|
The government spent weeks stonewalling. The fact that they are now making offers underlines the necessity of striking. This could have been settled months ago. I think they'll need to come up with some more.
|
|
If a (granted, very small) straw poll of my colleagues this afternoon is anything to go by, any ballot will be responded to with a resounding no.
|
|
They'll look north of the border and tell Barclay to cram it with walnuts I suspect.
|
The government started with an obviously inadequate offer given inflation rates.
The unions started with an obviously excessive and untenable claim given economic circumstances
The "unions" seem to have difficulty in understanding the concept of" acting in concert". Most recommending the deal and one not. Utterly stupid behaviour - the government can "divide and rule".
Had a little more wisdom been shown by either party, a resolution may have been reached much sooner.
Last edited by: Terry on Thu 16 Mar 23 at 21:00
|
>> They'll look north of the border and tell Barclay to cram it with walnuts I
>> suspect.
>>
What did Scottish nhs staff get offered?
|
>> Passport office works on strike for 5 weeks.
>>
If you are skint, how can you afford to go on strike/take five weeks off without pay?
|
>> If you are skint, how can you afford to go on strike/take five weeks off
>> without pay?
Will the union pay some strike pay in what is selective action?
|
Where do unions get oodles of cash from to pay 'strike pay'? The nutters annual subscription rate is somewhere between £1 (first year post-qualification) and £233 (for a headmaster).
So less than a day's pay.
|
Unite pay £70 or £80 a day during strike action - I forget which.
Why do people strike when they can't afford to? Principals? Short term pain for long term gain?
|
Of course the modern way is not to go on an all out strike but to strike for a day or two, strategically timed to minimise the cost to workers and unions and maximise the inconvenience to the company and general public. Railway unions are particulalry good at this
An effective way to deter strikes would be to impose a minimum period for them.
|
>> An effective way to deter strikes would be to impose a minimum period for them.
Is detering strikes, ie making it more difficult for people to withdraw the labour they're paid for, even a legitimate thing for government to do?
|
"Is detering strikes, ie making it more difficult for people to withdraw the labour they're paid for, even a legitimate thing for government to do?"
It depends I guess. A question of balance.
Do you think that any group of workerss should always have an absolute right to exert maximum disruption at minimum cost and without taking into account the effect that it may have on others whenever they want in pursuit of higher pay?
|
|
In the balance of fairness, workers have a right to withdraw labour. Employers should therefore be entitled to consider them having resigned.
|
>> Do you think that any group of workerss should always have an absolute right to
>> exert maximum disruption at minimum cost and without taking into account the effect that it
>> may have on others whenever they want in pursuit of higher pay?
Yes! They’re not slaves after all and they are striking because they don’t believe their employers are being fair to them.
Without strikes, treatment from employers would get worse.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 17 Mar 23 at 20:14
|
>> Yes! They’re not slaves after all and they are striking because they don’t believe their
>> employers are being fair to them.
>>
>> Without strikes, treatment from employers would get worse.
You seem to be treated badly most of the time by your employer? Have you decided to go on strike? Would they care if you did? Would they treat you better when you went back to work? Would you have a job if you decided to go back to work?
I guess No is the answer to all that. At the end of the day, those who can cause the maximum disruption go on strike.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 17 Mar 23 at 19:25
|
No they are not slaves of course and so can terminate their employment whenever they wish.
|
|
I suppose it depends on how you define legitimate, whichever your definition govs have put all manner of restrictions on strike action for years.
|
Some professions cannot strike - eg: police and military - for obvious reasons. They need a process to set pay objectively and fairly.
We live in an increasingly complex and integrated society where the actions of a small group can cause huge disruption and harm. It is reasonable to ask whether other groups should be subject to the same disciplines.
The key to acceptability is the way in which pay and conditions are then set.
|
>> Some professions cannot strike - eg: police and military - for obvious reasons. They need
>> a process to set pay objectively and fairly.
>>
>> We live in an increasingly complex and integrated society where the actions of a small
>> group can cause huge disruption and harm. It is reasonable to ask whether other groups
>> should be subject to the same disciplines.
>>
>> The key to acceptability is the way in which pay and conditions are then set.
Anyone on the receiving end of this would surely start with an inflation linkage from an acceptable wage as some sort of benchmark?
On that basis, for the government to say to a group of people whose real wages have declined by 20%+ over 13 years that they intend to remove their right to strike is declaring war. "Industrial relations" is not in their dictionary.
I don't think the NHS disputes are settled quite yet.
|
|
One often has to be cautious about statements like "declined by 20% over 13 years". What about over 13 years 6 months, or 12 y 6 m? Or 15 years or 30 years? It enables each side to be too selective over the starting point, obviously to their own advantage.
|
Surely, the point about using 13yrs as a benchmark is that it covers 2010 onwards, ie timr when the Conservatives, albait asa coalition initially, have beeni n power.
In practice public sector pay was going backwards from 2008 or before - see my previous post about claculating my CS pension.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 18 Mar 23 at 17:49
|
|
I wonder if that's broadly true across the public sector, are there any groups that have done significantly better over the past years or so than the rest?
|
>> I wonder if that's broadly true across the public sector, are there any groups that
>> have done significantly better over the past years or so than the rest?
Historically some groups like Police or the Forces did better than, say, junior managers in the Court Service. But not under the current lot.
Unless somebody knows better...
|
Link to a Guardian article:
www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jul/19/how-public-sector-pay-has-fallen-in-real-terms-in-charts
Private sector pay is consistently below public sector - often attributed to the higher proportion of trained professionals, butt better pensions and job security.
Overall public sector pay has fallen by ~4% in real terms since 2009. It seems that private sector pay also fell over the same period by a not dissimilar amount.
Within the public sector there are clear winners (govt admin, care workers, postal workers, train drivers) and losers (health, social care, prison officers)
The major take home message is that real incomes have remained largely unchanged since 2005, with high levels of growth from 1997.
Politically - in 1997 Labour committed to keep to earlier Tory spending plans. There is some lag in policy changes feeding through to outcomes. So the jury is out
- was pay growth after the 1997 election due to existing Tory plans, or new Labour initiatives.
- it must largely be Labour mismanagement which stalled growth in pay in 2005
- although the cupboard was bare in 2010, the Tories have failed to improve things
|
...interesting but rather outdated thoughts on what is public sector. Neither Postal Workers nor Train Drivers, for instance, have been public sector for quite some time.
In addition, historic comparisons are also rather skewed by the fact that large tranches of the lower-paid erstwhile public-sector workers have now been "outsourced" and are private-sector employees (e.g. hospital cleaners), being paid at even lower rates to keep the outsourced costs down.
|
>> ...interesting but rather outdated thoughts on what is public sector. Neither Postal Workers nor Train
>> Drivers, for instance, have been public sector for quite some time.
Technically correct but:
- the commonly expressed view during their strikes was that the GOVERNMENT should do something (money, negotiations etc). Implication is that they are subject to government control
- they both provide services which are generally regarded as critical to the public
As train drivers and postal workers seem to have done rather better than the strictly public sector employees, there could be an argument that workers get better pay awards in the private sector.
In truth it is difficult to separate government (strong) influence from these sort of enterprises. They do not operate as a free market due to regulation of pricing, service levels, etc.
|
>>
>> As train drivers and postal workers seem to have done rather better than the strictly
>> public sector employees, there could be an argument that workers get better pay awards in
>> the private sector.
>>
...i think you've managed to prove that historic comparisons of "Public" and "Private" sector pay and practice are fraught with difficulties (and can be bent to suit one's argument ;-) ).
Is the steel sector public or private? Likewise Academies running schools? The Highways Department of my local council is now a wholly-owned, spun-off subsidiary run as a commercial company (own company registration, own accounts, etc.) There are similar examples around the country. Is that public or private?
Take your choice, but they all set their own pay rates.
(BTW, I understand that one contributory factor to pay inflation on the railways since privatisation has been the practice of "poaching" staff such as drivers from a small pool by offering differential, higher wages than neighbouring operators - something that didn't happen (at least widely) in public ownership with nominally national pay scales).).
|
(BTW, I understand that one contributory factor to pay inflation on the railways since privatisation
>> has been the practice of "poaching" staff such as drivers from a small pool by
>> offering differential, higher wages than neighbouring operators - something that didn't happen (at least widely)
>> in public ownership with nominally national pay scales).).
>>
Down to a lack of enough training schemes probably driven by not wanting to pay for a training scheme the company may not see the benefit of.
|
>> Down to a lack of enough training schemes probably driven by not wanting to pay
>> for a training scheme the company may not see the benefit of.
There used to be multiple progression. In all the trades on the railway. No longer exists. No "National" training schemes. (some shared facilities).
Only Network Rail has a national standardised school for signalers.
|
|
I did think that the pennypacketing of training would have occured as well. So i can't say I'm surprised at that either.
|
The lack of any replacement for the apprenticeship schemes run by the mining and steel industry when the NCB and BSC were run down was a big mistake.
They used to turn out dozens of sparkies, pipe-fitters and mechanics each year and were a good career option for hands-on type school leavers.
|
|
I think there's alot of apprenticeships in the country but perhaps more smaller companies rather than large public owned companies. Although 4 out of the top 5 largest number of apprentices are the public sector.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 19 Mar 23 at 17:42
|
|
I'm a bit surprised it's a 4% drop, I didn't think it would be as much as has been mentioned in the press and would've guessed a 10% fall.
|
>> One often has to be cautious about statements like "declined by 20% over 13 years".
>> What about over 13 years 6 months, or 12 y 6 m? Or 15 years
>> or 30 years? It enables each side to be too selective over the starting point,
>> obviously to their own advantage.
Indeed. But I guessed at both the time period and the percentage. You didn't argue so the point presumably stands:)
|
|
I've no idea if it does! I suspect not... :-)
|
>> >> If you are skint, how can you afford to go on strike/take five weeks
>> off
>> >> without pay?
>>
>> Will the union pay some strike pay in what is selective action?
>>
I heard the union are covering the five weeks with strike pay equivalent to net pay.
|
>> I heard the union are covering the five weeks with strike pay equivalent to net
>> pay.
I think I'd read that as well. Certainly been done before with Members who are not on strike asked to contribute a weekly or monthly payment over and above their subs to support those taking selective action.
|
>> >> Will the union pay some strike pay in what is selective action?
>> >>
>>
>> I heard the union are covering the five weeks with strike pay equivalent to net
>> pay.
>>
And where do the members think that money has come from?
|
Selective strikers means they get maximum disruption at minimum cost.
Just like the employers who want maximum efficiency/output at lowest cost.
It is just a question of who has the greater power in the union/employer relationship and how it is used. There is no great moral divide.
|
> And where do the members think that money has come from?
>>
Santa?
|
>> And where do the members think that money has come from?
Well, even if it's a 'strike fund' put together over several years the source is still their subs or other contributions.
What inference are you expecting people to draw?
|
|
I think they might have misjudged public reaction to their action, Obviously a lot of sympathy for the nurses and doctors but probably not so much for a bunch of clerical staff trying to prevent you taking your annual holiday in the sun in order to secure a pay rise.
|
|
I suspect they're not overly bothered about public opinion, that's not to say its of nil importance to them, just not very high.
|
|
Low enough to be nil I would think. The public is of little consequence to them.
|
|
It does however take some pressure off the Government side.
|
|
Not being seen as the unreasonable party in the dispute
|
I think it might, but we'll know more in a couple of months when the back log of passports has built up and the media find lots of sad faced families. Mind you who's to say what's unreasonable.
Working in the passport office isn't very popular, lots of jobs unfilled/scaled below what's required. Perhaps the government will extend people's passports to get around the issue.
|
>> Perhaps the government will extend people's passports to get around the issue.
>>
In view of the EU rules on passport expiry dates, this is unlikely to work for trips to Europe.
|
It is almost inevitable that the media and public will blame the government.
Apparently they have been offered 2% - they are no doubt claiming for a lot more.
|
>> It is almost inevitable that the media and public will blame the government.
>>
I always blame the strikers.
|
|
Big problem extending 10 year passports. Destinations count 10 years from issue to the expiry date. In 2014 I was issued a passport with 10 years and 3 months on it, but I now have to treat it as expiring 3 months before the end date. Another Brexit bonus possibly.
|
|
Driving examiners on strike for 3 weeks next month. I assume they'll get the same deal as passport staff.
|
www.itv.com/news/2023-03-20/striking-rail-workers-vote-to-accept-pay-deal
Seems the network rail strike has been resolved, 10%-15% over 2 years.
www.itv.com/news/2023-03-20/scottish-nursing-union-ends-immediate-risk-of-strikes-by-accepting-pay-offer
Scottish nurses agree to the pay deal, not by much though but enough.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 20 Mar 23 at 18:11
|
|
Network Rail workers acceptance has rather pulled the rug from under Mr Lynches feet. On radio trying to put the best possible spin on it
|
|
He did sound rather down beat
|
Strikes - Lygonos
