Junior Doctors' Pay Claim Poll

[CrgT16]

35% looks bad… they have a quick career progression from the low wage. They may want to make up for the years of low pay rises but it has bad optics.

Pay them a decent wage for what they do or increased the quality of life within their work… sure.

It’s more a symptom of not having enough staff to deliver the job I think.

[Ashfordian]

Murph7355 said:

Ashfordian said:

As with the nurses pay claim, the top figure is a negotiating position. They'll probably accept 5-9% this year but the original position will put a lot of pressure on the yearly pay reviews so that future rises take their pay towards correcting this pay gap. Maybe this latter point will be a proviso of accepting a 5-9% offer. That's certainly how I would negotiate it!

Going in with a ludicrous position to start with is a daft tactic IMO. It won't get the public on side, and knowing you're going to have to come down a lot before people will even start to have a sensible discussion just leaves you open to being chipped.

Depends if you are negotiating for the short term or the long term. If you went in at 12% and accepted 5-9%, you are handicapping your long term negotiations.

[deckster]

CrgT16 said:

Pay them a decent wage for what they do or increased the quality of life within their work… sure.

It’s more a symptom of not having enough staff to deliver the job I think.

Do you perhaps think that those two sentences might in some way be related?

[Otispunkmeyer]

irc said:

"
By the fifth year of training a doctor’s standard base salary has increased to over £51,000. This places junior doctors amongst the top 15 per cent of earners in the UK within five years of graduation. Further, these salary numbers ignore that when doctors work antisocial hours (such as evenings, nights and weekends) they get paid significantly more. "


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/im-a-junior-do...

9% in line with other public sector workers in fact more than most seems enough.

Edited by irc on Tuesday 11th April 09:25

Yep. 5 years out from graduating engineering with a masters, or even a PhD.... you would be extremely lucky to be on 50k. Engineers are apparently in demand as well. Software engineering is probably a different story mind you. Medical degrees are hard. So are engineering ones. so they can't be using that as an excuse and no one thinks you're worth paying anything until you've got some experience under your belt even if you do know what you're talking about.

[Biggy Stardust]

Ashfordian said:

As with the nurses pay claim, the top figure is a negotiating position. They'll probably accept 5-9% this year but the original position will put a lot of pressure on the yearly pay reviews so that future rises take their pay towards correcting this pay gap. Maybe this latter point will be a proviso of accepting a 5-9% offer. That's certainly how I would negotiate it!

Which pay gap are you referring to? Is it different to everyone else in the country?

[Murph7355]

Ashfordian said:

Depends if you are negotiating for the short term or the long term. If you went in at 12% and accepted 5-9%, you are handicapping your long term negotiations.

Why?

They're not going to get 35%, so asking for it is pointless.

What are they expecting over the longer term? Current inflation levels are allegedly transient. Expecting a chunk over inflation year on year to address some perceived "gap" is a road to disappointment IMO.

Until a govt can sort our finances out, big upticks for public sector workers aren't likely/feasible.

That is not to say NHS workers don't "deserve" more pay. I wish we lived in a different world where they and teachers etc are valued more. But the money simply isn't there to pay significant chunks more.

[irc]

MiniMan64 said:

irc said:

"
9% in line with other public sector workers in fact more than most seems enough.

What public sector workers were offered 9%?

My mistake. More like 7%. Though more for some low paid staff.

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

[FiF]

Frankly the way their rep misused % calculations and
mixed in absolute numbers of pounds to obfuscate and try to justify the 35% figure made me lose almost all respect for their demands.

It's a common mistake that people make when using % to justify a position, and mathematically illiterate. Hope she's more capable at working out dosage, dozy sod.

[blueg33]

irc said:

"
By the fifth year of training a doctor’s standard base salary has increased to over £51,000. This places junior doctors amongst the top 15 per cent of earners in the UK within five years of graduation. Further, these salary numbers ignore that when doctors work antisocial hours (such as evenings, nights and weekends) they get paid significantly more. "


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/im-a-junior-do...

9% in line with other public sector workers in fact more than most seems enough.

Edited by irc on Tuesday 11th April 09:25

Tricky. I pay a 27 year old land manager £75k plus bonus that adds up to another £30k as that is the going rate in my industry. To get to that salary a land manager has done 4 years at uni and 3 years experience.

A doctor has to study longer and will earn half of the amount my land managers earn.

I think young doctors probably need paying more, but the rate of increase should tail off.

[Biggy Stardust]

blueg33 said:

Tricky. I pay a 27 year old land manager £75k plus bonus that adds up to another £30k as that is the going rate in my industry. To get to that salary a land manager has done 4 years at uni and 3 years experience.

A doctor has to study longer and will earn half of the amount my land managers earn.

I think young doctors probably need paying more, but the rate of increase should tail off.

For your comparison I think you'd need to allow for the value of job security & pension provision.

[Ashfordian]

Murph7355 said:

Why?

They're not going to get 35%, so asking for it is pointless.

What are they expecting over the longer term? Current inflation levels are allegedly transient. Expecting a chunk over inflation year on year to address some perceived "gap" is a road to disappointment IMO.

Until a govt can sort our finances out, big upticks for public sector workers aren't likely/feasible.

That is not to say NHS workers don't "deserve" more pay. I wish we lived in a different world where they and teachers etc are valued more. But the money simply isn't there to pay significant chunks more.

Lots of creative ways to get to, or close to the 35% figure.

Something like, accept 6% this year, and agree a 2% above inflation for the next 10 years pay deal. Could easily skew this so that early career wages get a 2-3% above inflation increase, while others get 0.5-1% above inflation increase over the 10 years.

I agree those communicating the 35% are doing a terrible job, so I would put it on the Health Department to come up with a creative way to achieve this figure.

Your trouble is that you are still looking at this from a short term view.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Biggy Stardust said:

For your comparison I think you'd need to allow for the value of job security & pension provision.

Yeah. My wife's a teacher. I calculated the cost of her pension if I tried to do it privately and it was 6 figures! It might not feel like it, but she *is* a millionaire.

Nobody mentions that at pay negotiation time.

[CrgT16]

One issue is that the hours worked are not set in stone due to the nature of the work.

That’s why they end up saying £14/h that’s only because they can be doing many more hours than they are in theory contracted to.

The NHS is not fit for purpose you either build more hospitals, train more doctors and supporting staff or you curb what you offer.

The politicians like to offer the service but then don’t provide the means to the workers of the NHS to provide it and in some instances vilify the profession.

As it stands it’s not sustainable. The workers don’t like it and will go part time or do some private work. The patients will not get what they think they were promised. No one wins, continuous exodus from the profession, worst service, etc.

To be a full time doctor/consultant on the NHS it’s a big ask. From a pure financial view they’re a lot more cost jobs with better hourly rates and minimal accountability if you get it wrong.

Pay them more to retain the staff but if the entire system doesn’t change it won’t last long regardless how much money you throw at it in it’s current state.

[Murph7355]

Ashfordian said:

Lots of creative ways to get to, or close to the 35% figure.

Something like, accept 6% this year, and agree a 2% above inflation for the next 10 years pay deal. Could easily skew this so that early career wages get a 2-3% above inflation increase, while others get 0.5-1% above inflation increase over the 10 years.

I agree those communicating the 35% are doing a terrible job, so I would put it on the Health Department to come up with a creative way to achieve this figure.

Your trouble is that you are still looking at this from a short term view.

The long term view needs paying for now.

I don't disagree that we have a problem now. That bit is for govt to sort out and either persuade us all to pay more tax, or take expenditure from elsewhere and apply it to NHS staffing.

Why should pay rises be above inflation?

blueg33 said:

Tricky. I pay a 27 year old land manager £75k plus bonus that adds up to another £30k as that is the going rate in my industry. To get to that salary a land manager has done 4 years at uni and 3 years experience.

A doctor has to study longer and will earn half of the amount my land managers earn.

I think young doctors probably need paying more, but the rate of increase should tail off.

It's notoriously difficult comparing across job families. Is being a land manager more "worthy" than being a doctor? I doubt it.

But worthiness and pay are not heavily causitive in our society.

What drives you having to pay 100k a year for a land manager 5yrs out of uni?

[CrgT16]

deckster said:

Do you perhaps think that those two sentences might in some way be related?

That’s obvious isn’t it?

[biggles330d]

blueg33 said:

irc said:

"
By the fifth year of training a doctor’s standard base salary has increased to over £51,000. This places junior doctors amongst the top 15 per cent of earners in the UK within five years of graduation. Further, these salary numbers ignore that when doctors work antisocial hours (such as evenings, nights and weekends) they get paid significantly more. "


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/im-a-junior-do...

9% in line with other public sector workers in fact more than most seems enough.

Edited by irc on Tuesday 11th April 09:25

Tricky. I pay a 27 year old land manager £75k plus bonus that adds up to another £30k as that is the going rate in my industry. To get to that salary a land manager has done 4 years at uni and 3 years experience.

A doctor has to study longer and will earn half of the amount my land managers earn.

I think young doctors probably need paying more, but the rate of increase should tail off.

or, they shouldn't consider being doctors at all and consider a career in land management...

These doctors will not have gone into the industry being unaware of the pay. They might not have been as aware of the workload, but I'm always a bit dubious about that argument. If you are massively overworked to the point of dropping, frankly any amount of additional money isn't going to fix that problem. It's the wrong answer to the wrong question. At that point it's about resources in the sector, not pay. Still a Government problem though.

35% is a laughable ask and so far beyond reasonable I'm not surprised they are getting the reaction from Government that they are getting.

[blueg33]

Biggy Stardust said:

blueg33 said:

Tricky. I pay a 27 year old land manager £75k plus bonus that adds up to another £30k as that is the going rate in my industry. To get to that salary a land manager has done 4 years at uni and 3 years experience.

A doctor has to study longer and will earn half of the amount my land managers earn.

I think young doctors probably need paying more, but the rate of increase should tail off.

For your comparison I think you'd need to allow for the value of job security & pension provision.

Its a good point. Job security is down to how good you are, pension is 8% by employer and I forgot to add we pay £7k per annum car allowance.

By the time he is mid 30's a good land guy is on £110 plus bonus. By the time he is in his 40's he is on £170 plus up to 100% of salary as bonus. This does outstrip most doctors but job security become a bigger issue.

[skwdenyer]

vulture1 said:

Surely everyone can back date and work how hoe inflation adjusted they are owed 35% etc.
Globalisation and the fact we are poorer as a country on the world stage.

No, people who work in businesses that properly index wages can’t do that.

There’s no actual question but that real-terms NHS wages have gone backwards, is there?

[skwdenyer]

Otispunkmeyer said:

Yep. 5 years out from graduating engineering with a masters, or even a PhD.... you would be extremely lucky to be on 50k. Engineers are apparently in demand as well. Software engineering is probably a different story mind you. Medical degrees are hard. So are engineering ones. so they can't be using that as an excuse and no one thinks you're worth paying anything until you've got some experience under your belt even if you do know what you're talking about.

That’s what, sadly, you get for staying in the UK as an engineer. The poor level of remuneration is a big factor in our economic malaise.

Take your PhD into financial services, or overseas, and live a very different life.

What people are missing in this discussion is that many medical staff *do* emigrate - their skills are in demand, at much higher levels of pay.

[Biggy Stardust]

skwdenyer said:

No, people who work in businesses that properly index wages can’t do that.

There’s no actual question but that real-terms NHS wages have gone backwards, is there?

What happened to those outside the NHS? Similar.