Non-motoring > Strikes - Volume 2   [Read only]
Thread Author: VxFan	Replies: 232

Tue 7 Mar 23 11:05   Strikes - Volume 2 - VxFan

***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 ***** ============================================================= Discussion continues 658627 Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 27 Jun 23 at 10:21

Mon 20 Feb 23 18:31   Strikes - Lygonos

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...

Mon 20 Feb 23 19:52   Strikes - Manatee

I'd say they have a point. "We hugely value the work of junior doctors ..." Mr Barclay added. No you don't.

Mon 20 Feb 23 20:24   Strikes - zippy

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

Mon 20 Feb 23 20:55   Strikes - Lygonos

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       1

Mon 20 Feb 23 20:56   Strikes - Manatee

>> 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.

Tue 21 Feb 23 20:27   Strikes - Lygonos

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.

Tue 21 Feb 23 21:55   Strikes - CGNorwich

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.       1

Tue 21 Feb 23 22:02   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 04:39   Strikes - CGNorwich

>> 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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 06:44   Strikes - sooty123

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?

Wed 22 Feb 23 07:55   Strikes - Runfer D'Hills

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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 08:19   Strikes - Rudedog

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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 08:51   Strikes - sooty123

>> 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

Wed 22 Feb 23 08:59   Strikes - zippy

>> 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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 08:39   Strikes - Manatee

>> >> >> 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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 09:03   Strikes - CGNorwich

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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 10:55   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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....

Wed 22 Feb 23 14:26   Strikes - Manatee

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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 17:26   Strikes - CGNorwich

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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 19:01   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 19:21   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Wed 22 Feb 23 23:09   Strikes - Manatee

>> 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 >> Not that far out then. www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/pay/junior-doctors-pay-scales/pay-scales-for-junior-doctors-in-england

Thu 23 Feb 23 09:05   Strikes - CGNorwich

Depends what you call a qualified Doctor. I would say it was on who had finished their training.

Thu 23 Feb 23 10:06   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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.

Thu 23 Feb 23 10:08   Strikes - Lygonos

>>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.

Thu 23 Feb 23 10:22   Strikes - Manatee

>> 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.

Thu 23 Feb 23 11:02   Strikes - sooty123

Perhaps it would be more useful to suggest how much qualified Drs, be that fully or provisionally, should be paid?

Thu 23 Feb 23 13:18   Strikes - Lygonos

The same as everywhere perhaps? Struggling to fill posts, needs increased. Too many doctors, needs reduced (or at least stagnated).

Thu 23 Feb 23 17:16   Strikes - CGNorwich

Is there a shortage of graduates wishing to train as doctors?

Thu 23 Feb 23 17:37   Strikes - zippy

>> 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.

Thu 23 Feb 23 17:41   Strikes - Lygonos

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.

Fri 24 Feb 23 08:45   Strikes - CGNorwich

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.

Thu 23 Feb 23 18:47   Strikes - Manatee

>> 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

Thu 23 Feb 23 18:30   Strikes - sooty123

>> The same as everywhere perhaps? >> How much is that?

Thu 23 Feb 23 19:50   Strikes - Lygonos

>>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.

Thu 23 Feb 23 19:56   Strikes - sooty123

I get that, there's a number to start to resolve this. I'm wondering what the number is.

Thu 23 Feb 23 20:06   Strikes - zippy

>>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!

Fri 24 Feb 23 01:43   Strikes - Lygonos

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.

Fri 24 Feb 23 07:12   Strikes - hjd

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?

Fri 24 Feb 23 15:59   Strikes - sooty123

news.sky.com/story/train-drivers-union-tssa-cancels-strike-action-after-members-accept-pay-deal-12818865 One deal struck

Fri 24 Feb 23 16:42   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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.

Mon 6 Mar 23 18:17   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Mon 6 Mar 23 18:21   Strikes - tyrednemotional

>> 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."

Mon 6 Mar 23 18:26   Strikes - sooty123

Yes I read that. I mean the strikes across all sectors.

Mon 6 Mar 23 18:25   Strikes - Manatee

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.

Mon 6 Mar 23 18:30   Strikes - smokie

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

Mon 6 Mar 23 18:33   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Mon 6 Mar 23 21:54   Strikes - CGNorwich

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

Tue 7 Mar 23 05:14   Strikes - sooty123

I think they always said they'd settle for half their 'target' amount.

Tue 7 Mar 23 09:35   Strikes - CGNorwich

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

Tue 7 Mar 23 10:15   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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.

Tue 7 Mar 23 11:27   Strikes - sooty123

>> 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.

Wed 8 Mar 23 16:41   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Wed 8 Mar 23 17:24   Strikes - Biggles

Over two years though.

Wed 8 Mar 23 17:43   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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.

Wed 8 Mar 23 18:42   Strikes - Duncan

>> 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?

Wed 8 Mar 23 20:12   Strikes - Lygonos

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.

Wed 8 Mar 23 19:07   Strikes - sooty123

>> >> 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.

Thu 9 Mar 23 00:55   Strikes - Terry

Two year deals means the government can avoid strikes and disruption leading up to the next election.

Thu 9 Mar 23 09:37   Strikes - smokie

Not if it's this year and last year, like at least one has been!!

Sat 11 Mar 23 09:13   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Sat 11 Mar 23 09:57   Strikes - Fursty Ferret

>> 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.

Sat 11 Mar 23 10:12   Strikes - Lygonos

Irrelevant to teachers/nurses/doctors.

Sat 11 Mar 23 11:30   Strikes - zippy

>> 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.

Sat 11 Mar 23 18:55   Strikes - Terry

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.

Sun 12 Mar 23 12:35   Strikes - CGNorwich

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

Sun 12 Mar 23 12:45   Strikes - smokie

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."

Sun 12 Mar 23 16:42   Strikes - Lygonos

>>"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.

Sun 12 Mar 23 17:11   Strikes - zippy

>> >>"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.

Sun 12 Mar 23 16:52   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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.

Sun 12 Mar 23 17:16   Strikes - zippy

>>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.

Sun 12 Mar 23 18:13   Strikes - Rudedog

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.

Sun 12 Mar 23 18:45   Strikes - sooty123

I wonder if the 35% pay increase has been costed, in the billions I suppose with increased pension contributions.

Sun 12 Mar 23 21:05   Strikes - smokie

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...

Sun 12 Mar 23 21:51   Strikes - CGNorwich

Certainly the lack of a sense of reality and what can feasibly be achieved seems apparent.

Sun 12 Mar 23 22:17   Strikes TRAINS - zippy

Someone mentioned that the train strikes for the 16th, 17th and 18th March are off. Does anyone know if this is true?

Sun 12 Mar 23 22:47   Strikes - Manatee

>> 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.

Sun 12 Mar 23 23:06   Strikes - smokie

I'm not so sure threatening the withdrawal labour is negotiating. Blackmail maybe?

Mon 13 Mar 23 04:43   Strikes - Duncan

>> 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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 11:18   Strikes - Manatee

>> 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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 12:05   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 15:06   Strikes - Manatee

>> 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.       1

Mon 13 Mar 23 15:46   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 17:53   Strikes - CGNorwich

“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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 18:33   Strikes - Manatee

>>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

Mon 13 Mar 23 20:05   Strikes - CGNorwich

"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

Mon 13 Mar 23 09:22   Strikes - CGNorwich

>> >> 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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 09:42   Strikes - Lygonos

>>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

Mon 13 Mar 23 09:50   Strikes - Duncan

>> >> 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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 10:02   Strikes - Lygonos

But you haven't and there isn't.

Mon 13 Mar 23 11:40   Strikes - Duncan

>> But you haven't and there isn't. >> Only because I wasn't in charge.

Mon 13 Mar 23 10:02   Strikes - smokie

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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 13:31   Strikes - Lygonos

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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 14:02   Strikes - CGNorwich

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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 10:02   Strikes - sooty123

>> >> 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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 16:17   Strikes - Terry

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.

Mon 13 Mar 23 17:27   Strikes - zippy

>> 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.

Tue 14 Mar 23 00:50   Strikes - Terry

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.

Tue 14 Mar 23 08:15   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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.       1

Tue 14 Mar 23 09:10   Strikes - bathtub tom

>> 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.

Tue 14 Mar 23 11:45   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Thu 16 Mar 23 12:32   Strikes - sooty123

www.itv.com/news/2023-03-16/sources-suggest-offer-has-been-made-to-health-unions Close to a deal with the health unions

Thu 16 Mar 23 16:07   Strikes - CGNorwich

5% and a one off payment. It was always going to end thereabouts. Shame we had to go through all the drama and disruption.

Thu 16 Mar 23 16:27   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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.

Thu 16 Mar 23 17:29   Strikes - CGNorwich

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.

Thu 16 Mar 23 17:43   Strikes - Manatee

There was nothing ritual about it. The Government treated them with nothing but disdain for months.

Thu 16 Mar 23 17:47   Strikes - CGNorwich

Well they seem friends now. www.gov.uk/government/news/government-and-health-unions-agree-pay-deal-paving-way-for-an-end-to-strike-action

Thu 16 Mar 23 16:27   Strikes - sooty123

It hasn't been accepted yet. We may not find out for a few weeks.

Thu 16 Mar 23 17:22   Strikes - Manatee

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.

Thu 16 Mar 23 19:57   Strikes - Dieselboy

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.

Thu 16 Mar 23 20:06   Strikes - Lygonos

They'll look north of the border and tell Barclay to cram it with walnuts I suspect.

Thu 16 Mar 23 21:00   Strikes - Terry

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

Fri 17 Mar 23 06:50   Strikes - sooty123

>> They'll look north of the border and tell Barclay to cram it with walnuts I >> suspect. >> What did Scottish nhs staff get offered?

Fri 17 Mar 23 08:17   Strikes - Bobby

unison-scotland.org/nhs-pay-talks-2023-24/

Fri 17 Mar 23 06:50   Strikes - sooty123

www.itv.com/news/2023-03-16/passport-office-workers-to-strike-for-five-weeks-in-escalation-of-pay-row Passport office works on strike for 5 weeks.

Fri 17 Mar 23 09:24   Strikes - Duncan

>> 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?

Fri 17 Mar 23 10:11   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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?

Fri 17 Mar 23 12:07   Strikes - Mapmaker

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.

Fri 17 Mar 23 16:34   Strikes - Dieselboy

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?

Fri 17 Mar 23 17:02   Strikes - CGNorwich

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.

Fri 17 Mar 23 17:16   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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?

Fri 17 Mar 23 17:58   Strikes - CGNorwich

"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?

Fri 17 Mar 23 18:08   Strikes - Zero

In the balance of fairness, workers have a right to withdraw labour. Employers should therefore be entitled to consider them having resigned.

Fri 17 Mar 23 18:55   Strikes - zippy

>> 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

Fri 17 Mar 23 19:24   Strikes - Zero

>> 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

Fri 17 Mar 23 19:24   Strikes - CGNorwich

No they are not slaves of course and so can terminate their employment whenever they wish.

Fri 17 Mar 23 18:13   Strikes - sooty123

I suppose it depends on how you define legitimate, whichever your definition govs have put all manner of restrictions on strike action for years.

Sat 18 Mar 23 00:23   Strikes - Terry

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.

Sat 18 Mar 23 12:46   Strikes - Manatee

>> 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.

Sat 18 Mar 23 17:32   Strikes - smokie

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.

Sat 18 Mar 23 17:47   Strikes - Bromptonaut

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

Sat 18 Mar 23 18:00   Strikes - sooty123

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?

Sat 18 Mar 23 18:28   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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...

Sat 18 Mar 23 18:42   Strikes - Terry

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

Sat 18 Mar 23 18:58   Strikes - tyrednemotional

...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.

Sat 18 Mar 23 20:29   Strikes - Kevin

Includes adjusted pay rates. www.bbc.co.uk/news/55089900

Sun 19 Mar 23 01:32   Strikes - Terry

>> ...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.

Sun 19 Mar 23 09:32   Strikes - tyrednemotional

>> >> 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).).

Sun 19 Mar 23 10:00   Strikes - sooty123

(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.

Sun 19 Mar 23 15:25   Strikes - Zero

>> 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.

Sun 19 Mar 23 15:44   Strikes - sooty123

I did think that the pennypacketing of training would have occured as well. So i can't say I'm surprised at that either.

Sun 19 Mar 23 16:34   Strikes - Kevin

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.

Sun 19 Mar 23 17:41   Strikes - sooty123

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

Sat 18 Mar 23 20:00   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Sat 18 Mar 23 19:05   Strikes - Manatee

>> 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:)

Sat 18 Mar 23 20:05   Strikes - smokie

I've no idea if it does! I suspect not... :-)

Mon 20 Mar 23 08:07   Strikes - sooty123

>> >> 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.

Mon 20 Mar 23 08:13   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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.

Mon 20 Mar 23 08:43   Strikes - Duncan

>> >> 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?

Mon 20 Mar 23 08:51   Strikes - Terry

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.

Mon 20 Mar 23 09:05   Strikes - sooty123

> And where do the members think that money has come from? >> Santa?

Mon 20 Mar 23 09:08   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> 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?

Mon 20 Mar 23 09:43   Strikes - CGNorwich

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.

Mon 20 Mar 23 09:44   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Mon 20 Mar 23 09:54   Strikes - Zero

Low enough to be nil I would think. The public is of little consequence to them.

Mon 20 Mar 23 10:03   Strikes - CGNorwich

It does however take some pressure off the Government side.

Mon 20 Mar 23 10:04   Strikes - sooty123

What does?

Mon 20 Mar 23 10:16   Strikes - CGNorwich

Not being seen as the unreasonable party in the dispute

Mon 20 Mar 23 10:32   Strikes - sooty123

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.

Mon 20 Mar 23 10:53   Strikes - neiltoo

>> 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.

Mon 20 Mar 23 11:29   Strikes - Terry

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.

Mon 20 Mar 23 12:52   Strikes - Duncan

>> It is almost inevitable that the media and public will blame the government. >> I always blame the strikers.

Mon 20 Mar 23 11:00   Strikes - Manatee

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.

Mon 20 Mar 23 11:52   Strikes - sooty123

Driving examiners on strike for 3 weeks next month. I assume they'll get the same deal as passport staff.

Mon 20 Mar 23 18:09   Strikes - sooty123

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

Mon 20 Mar 23 18:30   Strikes - CGNorwich

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

Mon 20 Mar 23 18:44   Strikes - Zero

He did sound rather down beat

Tue 28 Mar 23 08:56   Strikes - sooty123

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65037422 Looks the teachers strike might run for a while yet.

Mon 3 Apr 23 09:26   Strikes - sooty123

news.sky.com/story/more-teachers-strikes-expected-as-major-union-members-reject-insulting-pay-offer-12848847 Strikes back on for teachers.

Thu 13 Apr 23 15:39   Strikes - zippy

Miss Z is on strike and was on the picket line. The Trust called them as there were critical patients and not enough cover from consultants. Miss Z and a couple of others were sent as relief and she said the patients were very unwell and the Trust wasn’t “playing games” as they deteriorated whilst the existing consultants and cover were already in surgery or dealing with other sick patients. One of the very ill patients had been delivered by helicopter. More junior doctors were put on standby by the local strike team in case they were needed. Hospital manager was very grateful & treated the 3 to grub in the canteen :-/ This isn’t the Trust that was on the news for claiming similar but wasn’t as serious as made out.

Thu 13 Apr 23 15:58   Strikes - CGNorwich

Time to amend their claim to something more realistic and make a move to ending the strike.

Thu 13 Apr 23 16:22   Strikes - Manatee

>> Time to amend their claim to something more realistic and make a move to ending >> the strike. They should absolutely not adjust their claim. The government is refusing to negotiate at the moment. In a negotiation, you give to get. Plus, it's the average ~2%pa over 4 years that is unrealistic. Not the ~35% which is based on restoration to real pay in 2010 IIRC. The government needs to make a case for the BMA to accept a lower settlement. The obvious one is to argue that the BMA should be using CPI, not RPI. Unfortunately, the interest rate on the doctors' student loans is linked to RPI, which would somewhat undermine that argument. What is unrealistic is to further reduce real earnings when there is a shortage of doctors in training not least because existing doctors can go elsewhere for double the pay. Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 13 Apr 23 at 16:24

Thu 13 Apr 23 17:47   Strikes - CGNorwich

35% is totally unrealistic in the current economic climate. They will iend up settling for a figure much near 10% 35% not going to happen nor is a settlement anywhere near that figure. One would hope that that Doctors were capable of seeing that and make a more sensible claim. If a labour government were in power they would I suspect be giving the same answer as the current government. If Doctor’s main aim in life is to secure the highest possible earnings at the expense of their patients then perhaps they do need to go elsewhere. They are never going to be happy in the NHS

Thu 13 Apr 23 17:56   Strikes - Manatee

The only thing that would explain the government position is that it doesn't want to solve the dispute.

Thu 13 Apr 23 18:08   Strikes - Lygonos

Has no effect on them using private services, and speeds up thevtendering out of multi-billion pound healthcare contracts to their chums.

Thu 13 Apr 23 18:11   Strikes - CGNorwich

>> The only thing that would explain the government position is that it doesn't want to >> solve the dispute. >> But what expains the Union position? Are they looking for a settlement or confrontation? A basic rule of the sort of such disputes is not to make a ridiculously high claim if you want to be taken seriously. Another is to see the other side's point of view. The Doctor's union has failed on both counts. The Government perspective means that they have to take into account the overall effects on the economy and in particular the claims of other workers in the public sector. A 35% settlement woiuld be a disastrous precedent and there is absoluteley no chance that the Government will accede to that or anything close. While the Union persists with that claim there is little to talk about.

Thu 13 Apr 23 19:25   Strikes - Manatee

>> But what expains the Union position? Are they looking for a settlement or confrontation? Of course they want a settlement. To that end they are prepared to negotiate AIUI. >> A basic rule of the sort of such disputes is not to make a ridiculously >> high claim No, it isn't, although whether it's ridiculous is debatable - and should be debated. >> Another is to see the other >> side's point of view. The Doctor's union has failed on both counts. As professional negotiators, I'm sure they will make every effort to understand the other side's POV. It might help if the other side joined in negotiation >> The Government perspective means that they have to take into account the overall effects on >> the economy and in particular the claims of other workers in the public sector. A >> 35% settlement woiuld be a disastrous precedent and there is absoluteley no chance that the >> Government will accede to that or anything close. While the Union persists with that claim >> there is little to talk about. There is everything to talk about. Put simply, gov has some upper limit that it can be pushed to (A), the docs have a minimum aspiration that they are prepared to strike for (B). Neither has yet disclosed its limit because if they do, they won't get it. If A>B, then there is deal waiting to be agreed within the overlap, but it can only be reached by negotiation. That is why gov is either stupid, or is happy to further damage the NHS by refusing to negotiate. Before you accuse the doctors of also trying further to damage the NHS, remember they are trying to negotiate. If B>A, then there is a gap rather than an overlap, and something has to give. Probably on both sides. And there will also need to be some soft benefits exchanged to help the reasoning along. There will be a dozen ways to package a suitably complicated settlement but it will take time and some serious application. Barclay is obstructing that. If he thinks it's a negotiating ploy, it's a bad one. Personally I don't think the doctors can be starved out. But if gov does succeed in starving them into submission, they will have the doctors back at work but they will be even further from a functioning NHS than they were before. There is a lot of evidence that this is what they want. They need to find a billion to sort this out. HS2 goes up by that much every month. There is no rule of precedence. Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 13 Apr 23 at 19:30

Thu 13 Apr 23 21:29   Strikes - CGNorwich

“Personally I don't think the doctors can be starved out. But if gov does succeed in starving them into submission,” A little bit over the top don’t you think?

Thu 13 Apr 23 21:44   Strikes - Manatee

Merely figurative.

Thu 13 Apr 23 22:24   Strikes - Kevin

>Of course they want a settlement. To that end they are prepared to negotiate AIUI. According to a Beeb report earlier this week you understand wrongly. They reported that a Govt. spokesman had said that if the union drops the 35% claim and stops the strikes they are willing to negotiate. The union has refused.

Thu 13 Apr 23 22:30   Strikes - Manatee

I was referring to the union. Why on earth would they drop the claim they want to negotiate on? Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 13 Apr 23 at 22:33

Thu 13 Apr 23 22:48   Strikes - Kevin

To get negotiations moving? Or is political point scoring more important?

Thu 13 Apr 23 23:03   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> To get negotiations moving? Or is political point scoring more important? You're a negotiator who believes that, during negotiations for whatever purpose, the other side are being laughably unreasonable in their public position as to what they want. They too know they won't achieve it but it explains why they're framing stuff as they are. What, from the point of view of getting an early and fair agreement, stops you from meeting or getting into some sort of /negotiation/arbitration/conciliation to see if there might, irrespective of either sides point scoring be something you could both say was OK. Or do you, as the employer wanting the whip hand, decide point scoring and finding reasons to sit tight is more important??

Thu 13 Apr 23 23:32   Strikes - Kevin

Whether you like it or not the reality is that the Govt. already has the whip hand. If the union is so far up their own 'arris that they're more concerned with arguing about who backs down first rather than getting a settlement for their members then they are on to a loser. The docs are due a decent pay increase but sticking to 35% as a condition for starting negotiations is not going to win them any friends with Joe Public.

Fri 14 Apr 23 05:24   Strikes - Manatee

I'd say the docs have a great deal of public sympathy, Tory stooges aside Only the government is playing the pre condition game. That's coercion not negotiation.

Fri 14 Apr 23 10:29   Strikes - Zero

>> I'd say the docs have a great deal of public sympathy, Tory stooges aside Nope, slapping in an outrageously high wage demand up front and then going on strike over it, is NOT the way to garner public sympathy, no matter what the role or cause..

Fri 14 Apr 23 10:59   Strikes - Manatee

>> >> I'd say the docs have a great deal of public sympathy, Tory stooges aside >> >> >> Nope, slapping in an outrageously high wage demand up front and then going on strike >> over it, is NOT the way to garner public sympathy, no matter what the role >> or cause.. It's a matter of fact, not what you think. I posted a link to the IPSOS poll which I think was about 3 says ago. 54% sympathise with the strike, 26% against. Conservative voters lean against them. Labour voters are about 3 times more likely to think doctors should have the right to strike. I think it's safe to say the government is playing politics here. yougov.co.uk/topics/health/trackers/should-doctors-be-allowed-to-go-on-strike?crossBreak=labour       1

Fri 14 Apr 23 11:19   Strikes - smokie

Not quite such a high figure in support in a more recent poll. www.ipsos.com/en-uk/over-half-britons-support-junior-doctors-taking-strike-action

Fri 14 Apr 23 12:06   Strikes - Manatee

>> Not quite such a high figure in support in a more recent poll. >> >> www.ipsos.com/en-uk/over-half-britons-support-junior-doctors-taking-strike-action That's the same link and same 54% as I quoted.

Fri 14 Apr 23 12:42   Strikes - smokie

Ah yes, your link is different but I see what you mean.

Fri 14 Apr 23 07:43   Strikes - Manatee

54% support junior doctors' striking. 26% are against. www.ipsos.com/en-uk/over-half-britons-support-junior-doctors-taking-strike-action Support for doctors is lower than for nurses and ambulance staff, but higher than for other groups such as teachers and railway workers. There have been indications that roughly half the claim would settle the dispute, so there is no reason for Barclay to refuse negotiation. Negotiation here is nothing like buying a second hand car when both parties can walk away and find another deal. There is only one end, which is a settlement, so refusing to negotiate is irrational. Unless it's doctrinal (pun unintended), recalling Thatcher vs. the miners or just further undermining the NHS, there is a calculation here by the government, and it isn't primarily about budgets. Whatever they do, they can't fix the waiting times before the election. Broadly, the public sector workers will not vote Conservative, nor the majority of the 54%. It's congruent with punishing benefit claimants - the least wealthy bear the 'austerity'. The annual amount of money involved is a thousandth of the cost of burned PPE.

Fri 14 Apr 23 05:16   Strikes - Manatee

It's the gov that is refusing to negotiate, it's incredible how upside down you have this. Gov is trying to impose the pre condition that the union gives in. And you blame the union?

Fri 14 Apr 23 09:39   Strikes - CGNorwich

I think the problem here is that you are looking at this from a political viewpoint whereas essentially it is simply a problem of price negotiation, no different in essence to selling anything else. I would.suggest that plucking a price from the air and refusing to budge is not a strategy to recommend to any house seller or used car dealer and will not work. The problem here is that whilst they might be very good doctors they have a lot to learn about negotiating. Effectively so far they have made no progress whatsoever, proof surely in the ineffectiveness of their strategy.

Fri 14 Apr 23 10:45   Strikes - Manatee

>> I think the problem here is that you are looking at this from a political >> viewpoint whereas essentially it is simply a problem of price negotiation, no different in essence >> to selling anything else. I would.suggest that plucking a price from the air and refusing >> to budge is not a strategy to recommend to any house seller or used car >> dealer and will not work. >> >> The problem here is that whilst they might be very good doctors they have a >> lot to learn about negotiating. Effectively so far they have made no progress whatsoever, proof >> surely in the ineffectiveness of their strategy. We clearly aren't going to agree. It is the government that has named its price and folded its arms. I agree that is a dumb strategy but you have it upside down. And it isn't a simple price negotiation in which either party can simply walk, as I have already said, because it has to be agreed. There is no alternative work force, and there is no alternative NHS. In that sense the cost of settling is already sunk, which is why it can be regarded as close to zero except to the extent that the government pays more than it needs to - what Barclay or whoever is pulling his strings has to do is negotiate to it, and the general expectation is that it can be done for maybe half the claim or even less, with a few soft concessions thrown in. Not to sit down and work it out before more damage is done is just moronic, unless there is a political reason, which there clearly is. The NHS is in utter disarray, the deficiency in social care means A&E is overwhelmed, which means the ambulance service is swamped, and waiting times for everything are way beyond acceptable even before the disruption from the strikes. Barclay's not saving a bean by dragging it out, he's just creating more chaos and cost. I am aware that the Daily Mail construes this as the BMA refusing to negotiate but which is the most "unreasonable" - the pay claim basically for restoration or 2%pa? 10% of so-called junior doctors say they intend to look for employment elsewhere within a year. Pay aside, what is there to retain them in the conditions that currently obtain?

Fri 14 Apr 23 11:16   Strikes - Kevin

>It's the gov that is refusing to negotiate, it's incredible how upside down you have this. Well I'm only going by what the Beeb have reported which was that the Govt. are willing to enter negotiations as soon as the union drops the 35% figure. I suppose some could argue, as you are, that that's the Govt's refusal to negotiate but frankly that is not pay negotiations it's political willy waving à la 1970s. If I were a junior doc I'd be telling the union to stuff their political ambitions where the sun don't shine and get around the table whatever the cost to their egos. Oh, and that ipsos you linked to only asked if people supported the docs going on strike for more pay. It did not, surprisingly, ask "Do you support the docs striking for 35% more pay?" It's meaningless in this context. Last edited by: Kevin on Fri 14 Apr 23 at 11:17

Fri 14 Apr 23 11:37   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> If I were a junior doc I'd be telling the union to stuff their political >> ambitions where the sun don't shine and get around the table whatever the cost to >> their egos. Genuine question: What is the BMA's political affiliation and what are the political ambitions mentioned above?

Fri 14 Apr 23 11:48   Strikes - Kevin

I honestly don't give a rat's what the BMA's political affiliations or ambitions are. Should they be part of pay negotiations?

Fri 14 Apr 23 11:57   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> I honestly don't give a rat's what the BMA's political affiliations or ambitions are. Should >> they be part of pay negotiations? No they should not but it was you (11:16) who asserted that the members should "telling the union to stuff their political ambitions where the sun don't shine". I'm asking what those ambitions are.

Fri 14 Apr 23 12:14   Strikes - Kevin

I'm afraid you'll have to ask them. If, as you are implying, they are only interested in pay negotiations why are we in this stalemate.

Fri 14 Apr 23 12:37   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> I'm afraid you'll have to ask them. If, as you are implying, they are only >> interested in pay negotiations why are we in this stalemate. The current stalemate is due to the government's stance in setting preconditions before it will talk. As Manatee has said it's pretty clear that there is a deal to be done and the it won't be anywhere near 35%. It was you who made a clear assertion that the union's aim is political. I'm genuinely curious about what the political aim is. The BMA isn't affiliated to the TUC or Labour (or any other political party). If you cannot explain what you meant at 11:16 I'm lead to the inevitable conclusion that you're following the line of those on the right down the years who use supposed political objectives to smear those involved in genuine employer/employee disputes.

Fri 14 Apr 23 13:59   Strikes - Kevin

Jump to whatever conclusions you like but I don't need to others to tell me what line I should follow, thanks. As I have said, I believe that the docs have a genuine grievance about pay. However, I am also of the opinion that they would already be sat around the table if there weren't political willy waving going on. Naive not to expect it from the politicians of course but it's counter productive for the union to join in. You don't take a knife to a gunfight.

Fri 14 Apr 23 12:21   Strikes - Manatee

>> >It's the gov that is refusing to negotiate, it's incredible how upside down you have >> this. >> >> Well I'm only going by what the Beeb have reported which was that the Govt. >> are willing to enter negotiations as soon as the union drops the 35% figure. That's just another way of saying they refuse to negotiate isn't it? As I said what seems like 100 years ago, you give to get. Agreeing to meet is not a give. It should be a given, it's a necessary place to start. There have been plenty of signals that this can be settled for maybe half the claim although there might need to be soft benefits and/or movement on conditions(and sensibly should be). It isn't the union that is willywaving. The government has been provocative from the start months ago, it's blindingly obvious that confrontation suits their desperate election strategy* and if the NHS gets broken, well they have wanted that for a long time. All they need is someone else to blame. *this is now somewhere between desperate measures + hoping Labour mess it up, and stitching up Labour if, as the odds are, the Tories are not the biggest party when it's over. Frankly they won't be able to fix anything before the election. In a year's time there will still be small boats and very long NHS waiting times. If it was just about settling the dispute they could have done it by now. Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 14 Apr 23 at 12:23

Fri 14 Apr 23 12:49   Strikes - sooty123

> *this is now somewhere between desperate measures + hoping Labour mess it up, and stitching >> up Labour if, as the odds are, the Tories are not the biggest party when >> it's over. Frankly they won't be able to fix anything before the election. In a >> year's time there will still be small boats and very long NHS waiting times. If >> it was just about settling the dispute they could have done it by now. >> I'm not sure that makes sense, you think the gov is trying to purposely lose the next GE? Or you think its a tactic that they think can win it?

Fri 14 Apr 23 16:16   Strikes - Manatee

>> I'm not sure that makes sense, you think the gov is trying to purposely lose >> the next GE? Or you think its a tactic that they think can win it? >> I don't think they are trying to lose it, but if they do then then the upside for them - and this is the reality of seeing things politically - is that Labour inherits Mission Impossible. Not much of what they're doing makes sense to me but I think hope is alive for them that "something will turn up" even while defeat, or at least absence of victory in the form of a majority, seems more likely. They realise that they can't fix most of what's broken, apart perhaps from getting inflation down because the forecasts are that it will drop below 3% anyway. They have absolutely nothing to be proud of so have pretty well committed to the culture war thing by the look of it, conjuring up general wokery, "lefty lawyers", etc. as enemies of the people. A year from now there will still be small boats, huge NHS waiting lists, and water companies dumping sewage. So they'll roll the dice, crank up the smear campaigns and hope Labour cocks up. They'll shoot as many of Labour's foxes as possible (e.g. improving childcare, although bizarrely most of what they have promised on that won't arrive this side of a general election). On things like the doctor strike they seem to be trying to smash the BMA, perhaps in homage to Thatcher for smashing the NUM, although the situation is not in any way similar. If they succeed then I suppose they hope "grinding down the unions" and by association Labour will please their target market, if not, well there's not much more to lose. It's a sort of hope for the best, prepare for the worst situation I think. Planning doesn't come into it much and I think the decisions are all now political - as they tend to be in the later part of a parliamentary term even in normal times. i.e. they are more focused on how it looks, than when/whether they solve the doctors' pay dispute.

Fri 14 Apr 23 16:43   Strikes - smokie

" Labour inherits Mission Impossible. " It's a bit premature to be making excuses already for the failure of the next Labour government isn't it? :-) Re smear campaigns, I found the ad saying Rishi doesn't think paedophiles should be jailed absolutely despicable, and I think many people of all political colours thought so. Last edited by: smokie on Fri 14 Apr 23 at 16:45

Fri 14 Apr 23 17:17   Strikes - Manatee

>> " Labour inherits Mission Impossible. " >> >> It's a bit premature to be making excuses already for the failure of the next >> Labour government isn't it? :-) >> >> Re smear campaigns, I found the ad saying Rishi doesn't think paedophiles should be jailed >> absolutely despicable, and I think many people of all political colours thought so. I agree. It was a tweet, I don't think there were any actual ads. But it was still a campaign and done by the supposedly responsible department. That disappoints me because the bare statistic tells you nothing - how many *were* jailed? Does anybody actually think Sunak doesn't believe in jail for paedophiles? Or that there aren't some cases where jail is inappropriate? The Shadow Justice Sec Steve Reed disingenuously says he saw the stats, forwarded them to the campaigns people and then the tweet appeared. He went on to defend it on the waffly basis that this is how you get awareness, and obviously that the Tories do it. That demonstrated to me that he doesn't understand his own brief, or doesn't want to. I completely agree with you, it was utter tripe and personal too - up there with Johnson's Starmer and Savile slur. It won't change my voting intention but if there's any more of it they will have to manage without my subs and I have emailed them to that effect, for what that's worth. I think there was probably an element of "we can do this too", as well as a concern that Sunak actually seems to be doing relatively well - he isn't an outright liar or an utter moron like the last two, and he has arguably faced down the swivel eyes on the NI protocol. thesecretbarrister.com/2023/04/10/heres-whats-wrong-with-labours-attack-ads-on-crime/ The secret barrister explains. He uses as examples of child sex offenders who might not be sent to jail - "An 18-year old asking a 15 year-old over SnapChat for “a cheeky picture”. A twenty-something with severe learning disabilities who touches the leg of a teenage boy on a bus. A young man with severe autism and ADHD who begins communicating online with a self-styled “paedophile hunter” posing as a 14 year-old. "

Fri 14 Apr 23 17:49   Strikes - sooty123

Re smear campaigns, I found the ad saying Rishi doesn't think paedophiles should be jailed >> absolutely despicable, and I think many people of all political colours thought so. >> If it had been one ad, I would have thought it was released without proper oversight, a gaff. However as there was two (?) it was obviously a plan. I'm not sure they'll repeat, it's a bit extreme for British tastes and i don't think they really work.

Fri 14 Apr 23 18:02   Strikes - Biggles

Since the PM has no input on sentencing of paedos, at the same level, Boris' jibe at Starmer re prosecuting JS should not have upset Sir Kneel.

Fri 14 Apr 23 16:49   Strikes - sooty123

Thanks for replying, I'm still not sure i follow you're train off thought though there's quite a few assumptions in there. But thanks anyway.

Fri 14 Apr 23 17:27   Strikes - Manatee

>> Thanks for replying, I'm still not sure i follow you're train off thought though there's >> quite a few assumptions in there. But thanks anyway. Stream of consciousness. They defy analysis. I mean, why wouldn't you go in and at least try to get people back to work when you're in charge of the NHS?

Fri 14 Apr 23 17:36   Strikes - sooty123

I believe that they think they are getting people back to work in the NHS, I don't believe they are irrational. It might be a failure or not time will tell. You can disagree with the tactics but, like i say, that's another matter.

Thu 13 Apr 23 19:51   Strikes - sooty123

While the Union persists with that claim >> there is little to talk about. >> Someone in the BMA was quoted as starting to move away from the 35% figure, I think they were looking for, in so many words, at half that figure.

Thu 13 Apr 23 16:05   Strikes - Manatee

Good. I find Barclay's attitude incomprehensible.

Thu 13 Apr 23 17:35   Strikes - Bromptonaut

>> Good. I find Barclay's attitude incomprehensible. Me neither. The Conservative Party puts itself forward as the party of business in terms of its focus and thought processes. So if you're a commercial outfit haemorrhaging cash and goodwill because of a pay dispute. It should, with constructive attitudes and based on how other similar gaps have been closed to find a route to compromise where both sides gain something. Instead, you refuse to talk until the staff side change their negotiating position. They're barking.

Thu 13 Apr 23 17:56   Strikes - Lygonos

Our 'tards have offered 4.5% and will almost certainly be told TFO. If they'd offered 8% with a focus on ongoing pay improvement and encouraged English junior doctors to move up here then we could have fixed the shortages* in Scotland :-) But they're too thick to work that out. *which cost a fortune in locum and agency staff to cover.

Thu 13 Apr 23 19:11   Strikes - sooty123

I'm not sure the Gov's position is confusing, I suspect some don't like their tactics but that's a different issue.

Fri 14 Apr 23 07:13   Strikes - sooty123

The nurses vote on whether to accept the gov's deal or not is due to be release today. Not seen any rumours one way or the other. Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 14 Apr 23 at 07:13

Fri 14 Apr 23 09:05   Strikes - Terry

The action (inaction) of Barclay is the mirror image of the junior doctors pay claim. Both are unrealistic or unacceptable opening gambits. The docs must know their chances of a successful claim is close to zero, Barclay similarly knows that he will ultimately need to negotiate.

Fri 14 Apr 23 13:02   Strikes - tyrednemotional

...they're both opening gambits - such stances are rarely, if ever, incorporated into final agreement (and are often seen as "unrealistic/unreasonable"). I've been on the receiving end of those in various negotiations (but couldn't possibly admit I've been the author of some). The fact is that any starting position should lead to talks and negotiations, in which the parties should not expect their opposites to perform "unreasonable acts", though each might expect, as a result of those talks, for there to be some, sometimes substantial, give and take. The problem in this case is that those talks simply are not happening. We all have our own view as to who is the guilty (guiltiest?) party in that, but in reading the direct statements from the BMA and the Government (and ignoring the spin put upon them by the media of various persuasions), it appears to me that it is the Government that is stonewalling, and the BMA being willing to engage "without preconditions (including the 35%)), and with ACAS if necessary", to attempt to find a solution. You pays your money......... (or possibly not in this case).       1

Fri 14 Apr 23 21:25   Strikes - Manatee

>> in reading the direct statements from the BMA and the Government (and ignoring the spin >> put upon them by the media of various persuasions), it appears to me that it >> is the Government that is stonewalling, and the BMA being willing to engage "without preconditions >> (including the 35%)), and with ACAS if necessary", to attempt to find a solution. This is the text of a letter sent today by the BMA to Barclay. Dear Secretary of State Re Junior Doctors' Pay Dispute Our second round of strike action has once again demonstrated junior doctors' united determination in calling for pay restoration. Due to your refusal of our recent offers and proposed dates for meetings, we have now not met since 22nd March. We are available to meet immediately. As we have consistently and repeatedly said, we do not have any pre-conditions to negotiations with you. We hope that you will set yours aside and engage with us in good faith. Given the barriers you have put in place to negotiations so far, we have confirmed to Acas our willingness to engage in a process facilitated by them. We urge you to agree to this. We hope you will take this opportunity to come to the table and pursue a negotiated outcome in good faith. Yours sincerely, (signed by the joint chairs of the Junior Doctors' Committee) Unless they are promulgating a false picture, it seems pretty clear why there is no progress and what Barclay needs to do. If his idea of negotiation is to let them stew to soften them up, that would be a very cynical attitude to the fate of millions of patients on waiting lists.

Fri 14 Apr 23 13:04   Strikes - sooty123

Sky are reporting the gov will allow depts to go to 4.5% with an additional 0.5% for the low paid.

Fri 14 Apr 23 16:16   Strikes - sooty123

news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-nursing-union-to-reveal-pay-deal-ballot-result-as-junior-doctors-strike-enters-final-day-12593360?postid=5772795#liveblog-body Why it is treating one bit of the public sector worse than the other? I'd imagine most of the unions would thinking similar if anyone disputes grants double figures in a pay increase. Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 14 Apr 23 at 16:19

Fri 14 Apr 23 16:33   Strikes - Duncan

Unison accept deal. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65275362

Fri 14 Apr 23 16:42   Strikes - sooty123

Quite a low turnout, but a pretty clear majority.

Fri 14 Apr 23 17:55   Strikes - sooty123

RCN rejects the deal. news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-nursing-union-to-reveal-pay-deal-ballot-result-as-junior-doctors-strike-enters-final-day-12593360?postid=5772981#liveblog-body

Fri 28 Apr 23 13:58   Strikes - sooty123

news.sky.com/story/unite-votes-to-reject-latest-nhs-staff-pay-offer-12868253 Looks like a split between different union members. I don't think the government could give them a separate offer. It'll rumble on into the summer with more strikes in the NHS and others as well.

Fri 28 Apr 23 14:50   Strikes - Rudedog

Also looks like the GPs either have or are about to ballot for strike action.

Fri 28 Apr 23 17:29   Strikes - smokie

I can just imagine the ballot paper - "Place an illegible squiggle against Yes or No"

Fri 28 Apr 23 18:30   Strikes - CGNorwich

Oh no! If the GPs go on strike we will wait for weeks to get an appointment.

Fri 28 Apr 23 22:18   Strikes - Duncan

If the GPs go on strike, that means we won't see a GP.

Sat 29 Apr 23 08:33   Strikes - CGNorwich

Can’t remember the last time I saw a doctor face to face. Think it was around ten years ago.

Sat 29 Apr 23 09:25   Strikes - smokie

...Nor your proctologist I guess...