Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
sidicks said:
Is that significant in terms of the value of the benefits?
Not really when you factor in an increased accrual rate and the very generous rate of revaluation!
So why has the Guv'mint spent so much time/effort in pushing it through for all public sector bodies ? And why have the TU's tried to resist?Not really when you factor in an increased accrual rate and the very generous rate of revaluation!
jjlynn27 said:
Not playing 1001 questions by sidicks.
Did you post information from order-order about junior doctor salaries that turned about to be completely false. Yes or no will suffice.
So you're now avoiding the actual discussion topic and are referring to a different incident from 2016?Did you post information from order-order about junior doctor salaries that turned about to be completely false. Yes or no will suffice.
I wonder why?!
Regardless, a documented source (that turns out to have been wrong) can at least be verified, compared to vague and unqualified anecdotal evidence from a third party!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 10th August 09:35
Countdown said:
So why has the Guv'mint spent so much time/effort in pushing it through for all public sector bodies ? And why have the TU's tried to resist?
The TU resist everything out of principle - regardless of what is actually taking place. From their communications it is clear that either they don't understand or they simply deliberately seek to mislead their members (and the general public).And the government have to be seen to be doing something.
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Not playing 1001 questions by sidicks.
Did you post information from order-order about junior doctor salaries that turned about to be completely false. Yes or no will suffice.
So you're now avoiding the actual discussion we were having and are referring to a different incident from 2016?Did you post information from order-order about junior doctor salaries that turned about to be completely false. Yes or no will suffice.
I wonder why?!
Now, answer the question. Did you post information from order-order about jds that turned out to be completely false. Yes or no.
jjlynn27 said:
I'm not sure how to say this differently so that you are able to get it. Information presented here is from a trusted friend. When friends share that they've been promoted or changed a job for significantly more money I don't ask them to show me their pay slip.
Nor was a copy of their payslip being requested.The point is that it remains unsubstantiated, anecdotal information, nothing more, particularly the comment about the pension (which is what I commented on).
Feel free to pretend otherwise.
jj trolling again I see?
Funnily enough I do know what the package would be if McKinsey offered a position to someone who decided to go there as a new starter instead of entering medicine. At that level it wouldn't be bad but it wouldn't be spectacular by comparison like you claim though if they managed to stick around it would improve. Neither is the pension exactly special.
They'd also find out early on that they hadn't chosen a particularly easy alternative career wise.
Again this is anecdotal but then I'm not going to spend my time harassing someone to respond either.
Funnily enough I do know what the package would be if McKinsey offered a position to someone who decided to go there as a new starter instead of entering medicine. At that level it wouldn't be bad but it wouldn't be spectacular by comparison like you claim though if they managed to stick around it would improve. Neither is the pension exactly special.
They'd also find out early on that they hadn't chosen a particularly easy alternative career wise.
Again this is anecdotal but then I'm not going to spend my time harassing someone to respond either.
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
So why has the Guv'mint spent so much time/effort in pushing it through for all public sector bodies ? And why have the TU's tried to resist?
The TU resist everything out of principle - regardless of what is actually taking place. From their communications it is clear that either they don't understand or they simply deliberately seek to mislead their members (and the general public).And the government have to be seen to be doing something.
Suggesting that the TUs are generally ill-informed is balderdash. They take advice from highly-paid private sector actuaries like Hymans Robertson et al.
CARE makes little difference to those who stay on the same salary throughout their career (although they might benefit from a better accrual rate). CARE makes a significant difference to those who start at the bottom and work their way up, and a massive difference particularly to those who get promoted later on in their career, OR get big pensionable lump sums at any point in the last 3 years of their service.
In simple terms, if movement from Final salary to CARE hadn't had a positive effect on Govt finances (and a mainly negative effect on PS employees' pensions) they wouldn't have bothered doing it. Govt employees don't feel the need to "be doing something". They are quite happy to sit there and do nothing.
sidicks said:
The point is that it remains unsubstantiated, anecdotal information, nothing more, particularly the comment about the pension (which is what I commented on).
I have had many arguments with sidicks but he does have a point here.Arguing otherwise is just playing the man not the ball.
Countdown said:
Sorry but that's rubbish.
Suggesting that the TUs are generally ill-informed is balderdash. They take advice from highly-paid private sector actuaries like Hymans Robertson et al.
Read some of their press releases about pensions and justification for DB benefits etc. It's often a lot of nonsense. The only other conclusion is that they deliberately seek to mislead the wider public, which might well be true...Suggesting that the TUs are generally ill-informed is balderdash. They take advice from highly-paid private sector actuaries like Hymans Robertson et al.
Countdown said:
CARE makes little difference to those who stay on the same salary throughout their career (although they might benefit from a better accrual rate).
That makes no sense - the R in CARE means that benefits (but not employee contributions!) would be significantly higher, unless these people have repeatedly had inflating busting pay rises year on year!Countdown said:
CARE makes a significant difference to those who start at the bottom and work their way up, and a massive difference particularly to those who get promoted later on in their career, OR get big pensionable lump sums at any point in the last 3 years of their service.
Is that the minority or the majority?Countdown said:
In simple terms, if movement from Final salary to CARE hadn't had a positive effect on Govt finances (and a mainly negative effect on PS employees' pensions) they wouldn't have bothered doing it. Govt employees don't feel the need to "be doing something". They are quite happy to sit there and do nothing.
The only way that the move to CARE schemes has benefited government finances (and disadvantaged employees) is if expected salary increases for those workers is expected to be above CPI + 1.5%.Edited by sidicks on Thursday 10th August 10:50
Jonesy23 said:
jj trolling again I see?
Funnily enough I do know what the package would be if McKinsey offered a position to someone who decided to go there as a new starter instead of entering medicine. At that level it wouldn't be bad but it wouldn't be spectacular by comparison like you claim though if they managed to stick around it would improve. Neither is the pension exactly special.
They'd also find out early on that they hadn't chosen a particularly easy alternative career wise.
Again this is anecdotal but then I'm not going to spend my time harassing someone to respond either.
'Instead of entering medicine'. Funnily enough I do know what the package would be if McKinsey offered a position to someone who decided to go there as a new starter instead of entering medicine. At that level it wouldn't be bad but it wouldn't be spectacular by comparison like you claim though if they managed to stick around it would improve. Neither is the pension exactly special.
They'd also find out early on that they hadn't chosen a particularly easy alternative career wise.
Again this is anecdotal but then I'm not going to spend my time harassing someone to respond either.
You know, demonstrably, jack. Unsurprisingly.
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
'Instead of entering medicine'.
You know, demonstrably, jack. Unsurprisingly.
It appears he's actually offering the same sort of 'anecdotal evidence' that you are.You know, demonstrably, jack. Unsurprisingly.
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Sorry but that's rubbish.
Suggesting that the TUs are generally ill-informed is balderdash. They take advice from highly-paid private sector actuaries like Hymans Robertson et al.
Read some of the press releases about pensions and justification for DB benefits. It's a lot of nonsense. The only other conclusion is that they d;eiberately seek to mislead the wider public.Suggesting that the TUs are generally ill-informed is balderdash. They take advice from highly-paid private sector actuaries like Hymans Robertson et al.
Simple question; given the choice, you'd prefer a CARE to a Final Salary scheme?
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
CARE makes little difference to those who stay on the same salary throughout their career (although they might benefit from a better accrual rate).
That makes no sense - the R in CARE means that benefits (but not employee contributions!) would be higher, unless these people have repeatedly had inflating busting pay rises year on year!sidicks said:
Countdown said:
CARE makes a significant difference to those who start at the bottom and work their way up, and a massive difference particularly to those who get promoted later on in their career, OR get big pensionable lump sums at any point in the last 3 years of their service.
Is that the minority or the majority?sidicks said:
Countdown said:
In simple terms, if movement from Final salary to CARE hadn't had a positive effect on Govt finances (and a mainly negative effect on PS employees' pensions) they wouldn't have bothered doing it. Govt employees don't feel the need to "be doing something". They are quite happy to sit there and do nothing.
The only way that the move to CARE schemes has benefited government finances (and disadvantaged employees) is if expected salary increases for those workers is expected to be above CPI + 1.5%.Countdown said:
That seems to contradict what you're suggesting. They're fighting (by fair means or foul) to retain a FS DB scheme. Why would they do that if a FS scheme wasn't better than a career average?
Better for some...Countdown said:
Simple question; given the choice, you'd prefer a CARE to a Final Salary scheme?
That would obviously depend on the details of the terms of those two schemes and my own expected development.countdown said:
This is going to shock you but, until very recently, most people in the Public Sector had annual increments plus a pay award, and they were usually more than inflation. And a LOT of people do get promoted. they will all be worse off under CARE.
So all this talk about the 'hard done by' public sector worker and their lack of pay rises because of 'austerity' is a load of nonsense?And why should people have pay rises of more than inflation plus pay awards?
Countdown said:
CARE makes a significant difference to those who start at the bottom and work their way up, and a massive difference particularly to those who get promoted later on in their career, OR get big pensionable lump sums at any point in the last 3 years of their service.
The majority.
Why would anyone get a 'big pensionable lump sum' in their last 3 years of service?The majority.
Countdown said:
Which isn't difficult when you also take into account things such as promotion and incremental increase.
It's funny how all these 'promotional and incremental' increases are never mentioned when it comes to discussing the funding of the NHS and the nasty, austerity-induced pay caps...sidicks said:
Countdown said:
That seems to contradict what you're suggesting. They're fighting (by fair means or foul) to retain a FS DB scheme. Why would they do that if a FS scheme wasn't better than a career average?
Better for some...sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Simple question; given the choice, you'd prefer a CARE to a Final Salary scheme?
That would obviously depend on the details of the terms of those two schemes and my own expected development.sidicks said:
countdown said:
This is going to shock you but, until very recently, most people in the Public Sector had annual increments plus a pay award, and they were usually more than inflation. And a LOT of people do get promoted. they will all be worse off under CARE.
So all this talk about the 'hard done by' public sector worker and their lack of pay rises because of 'austerity' is a load of nonsense?And why should people have pay rises of more than inflation plus pay awards?
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
CARE makes a significant difference to those who start at the bottom and work their way up, and a massive difference particularly to those who get promoted later on in their career, OR get big pensionable lump sums at any point in the last 3 years of their service.
The majority.
Why would anyone get a 'big pensionable lump sum' in their last 3 years of service?The majority.
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Which isn't difficult when you also take into account things such as promotion and incremental increase.
It's funny how all these 'promotional and incremental' increases are never mentioned when it comes to discussing the funding of the NHS and the nasty, austerity-induced pay caps...Countdown said:
Surely "better for most" otherwise they'd be making most of their members worse off by insisting on FS, wouldn't they? Unless you're still arguing that they would because TU reps are "thick"....
I said no such thing - I said that they either didn't understand or they deliberately sought to mislead. There is plenty of evidence of the latter.
Countdown said:
Indeed. So how can you make a blanket assertion that Public Sector membersare on average better off under CARE than FS without knowing their circumstances....?
You are correct. But the relevant circumstances are often discussed in the news, with the public sector workers and their supporters making claims about their wages etc, which would seem somewhat inconsistent with the above!But it clearly will vary by individual. Those at the bottom of chain, with limited potential for improvement, are likely to be better off.
countdown said:
A debate for a different thread. let's stick to pensions, shall we?
It's directly relevant for the justification for public sector gold-plated pensions in the first place!Countdown said:
...or if you're on good terms with the CEO, or if you know how to game the system. I know of one person who asked for a project bonus payment to be deferred for 8 months (knowing that he was going to retire in 3 years and 7 months).
I suggest that CARE was a much fairer system if it avoided these blatant abuses!Countdown said:
Yes. Blame those thick know-nothing Trade Union reps.
Your words, not mine!sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Surely "better for most" otherwise they'd be making most of their members worse off by insisting on FS, wouldn't they? Unless you're still arguing that they would because TU reps are "thick"....
I said no such thing - I said that they either didn't understand or they deliberately sought to mislead.
sidicks said:
There is plenty of evidence of the latter.
If there's plenty of evidence then please show me an example where they (the TU reps) are "deliberately misleading". sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Indeed. So how can you make a blanket assertion that Public Sector members are on average better off under CARE than FS without knowing their circumstances....?
You are correct. But the relevant circumstances are often discussed in the news, with the public sector workers and their supporters making claims about their wages etc, which would seem somewhat inconsistent with the above!But it clearly will vary by individual. Those at the bottom of chain, with limited potential for improvement, are likely to be better off.
sidicks said:
countdown said:
A debate for a different thread. let's stick to pensions, shall we?
It's directly relevant for the justification for public sector gold-plated pensions in the first place!sidicks said:
Countdown said:
...or if you're on good terms with the CEO, or if you know how to game the system. I know of one person who asked for a project bonus payment to be deferred for 8 months (knowing that he was going to retire in 3 years and 7 months).
I suggest that CARE was a much fairer system if it avoided these blatant abuses!Countdown said:
If they "didn't understand", isn't that just a politer way of saying "they're thick"?
1) No.2) I didn't explicitly say they didn't understand, I said either they didn't understand or they deliberately choose to mislead.
You seem to be suggesting the latter (as you claim it's definitely not the former) which may well be true.
Countdown said:
And again, do you think TUs rely on their own reps to evaluate pension schemes? I can tell you for a fact that that isn't the case. Both sides have actuaries advising them. I'm currently aware of one ongoing discussion where the same firm of actuaries is advising both sides. So to suggest that either side doesn't fully undertsand the implications of the changes which have been implemented is completely wrong.
Again. I've said no such thing.Countdown said:
If there's plenty of evidence then please show me an example where they (the TU reps) are "deliberately misleading".
When defending public sector pensions they often focus on the average pension being relatively modest (deliberately ignoring the number of years accrual or contributions).I believe that some time ago, Unison were planning on changing their own scheme from Final salary to a CARE scheme due to the size of the deficit / ongoing costs.
Yes, they are there to defend their members, but they do some to be able to avoid economic realities when it suits them!
Countdown said:
We're possibly going round and round in circles. I agree that those people whose salaries doesn't increase above the "revaluation" level may be better off. I doubt that is "most" people. That is partly why the TU reps fought so hard against it.
The only conclusion is therefore that the majority of people in these schemes are expected to be earning salary increases of more than 1.5% above inflation each and every year.That is certainly inconsistent with the message from the public sector about 'austerity'.
Countdown said:
I asked you a question you neatly avoided earlier so I'll try again. IF you were in the LGPS scheme would you prefer the CARE or the FS scheme?
My response was appropriate given the vague and incomplete nature of the question.In the naive case, if I was expecting annual pay increases of more than inflation plus 1.5% then clearly the final salary version is more advantageous, all other things being equal.
My point (again) is that if this is the case, then I would be moaning about pay caps etc
countdown said:
If I understand correctly you're suggesting that CARE is, on average, no worse for employees than an FS scheme. I think this is wrong.
I'm suggesting no such thing. I've been quite explicit about when CARE is better and when it is worse. My point has been to highlight the implications (for salary) if you claim that CARE is worse.Countdown said:
"Fairer" insofar as those whose salary increases significantly over their career are significantly worse off, and those whose salary increases by less than CPI over the entirety of their career, are "better off" - one can only be amazed at why the Public Sector employees weren't grabbing this amazing opportunity with both hands!
Fairer in the sense of affordable for those funding the vast majority of the benefit and more directly-linked to contributions actually paid?I'm a junior doctor. Wouldn't mind tripling my salary at McKinsey or an 800k golden hello at the end of specialist training
What exactly do these medics do that merits/warrants an 800k golden hello. Genuine question
Thanks
FWIW, I feel massively underpaid. I'm doing an a+e rotation at the moment where I work 10, 12 or 13 hour shifts. There are shorter shifts on my rota. 9 days in four months where I'd work 8 hours but I have to take my leave on those days. I work approx 47 hours a week on average and the overtime (above 40 hours) is paid at £14 per hour. I work about an extra hour per shift just because otherwise I'd be sat around not doing work. When you start seeing a patient at 5pm and you're scheduled to finish at 6pm, it ends up taking until 7pm by the time you've done your bit and handed over.
I paid 9k in fees and don't feel any commitment to the NHS. I do feel commited to the patients though and that's probably what will keep me in the NHS until the level of privatisation gets unbearable. Fyi, the minors bit of my a+e department is already run by a private company.
What exactly do these medics do that merits/warrants an 800k golden hello. Genuine question
Thanks
FWIW, I feel massively underpaid. I'm doing an a+e rotation at the moment where I work 10, 12 or 13 hour shifts. There are shorter shifts on my rota. 9 days in four months where I'd work 8 hours but I have to take my leave on those days. I work approx 47 hours a week on average and the overtime (above 40 hours) is paid at £14 per hour. I work about an extra hour per shift just because otherwise I'd be sat around not doing work. When you start seeing a patient at 5pm and you're scheduled to finish at 6pm, it ends up taking until 7pm by the time you've done your bit and handed over.
I paid 9k in fees and don't feel any commitment to the NHS. I do feel commited to the patients though and that's probably what will keep me in the NHS until the level of privatisation gets unbearable. Fyi, the minors bit of my a+e department is already run by a private company.
jjlynn27 said:
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
'Instead of entering medicine'.
You know, demonstrably, jack. Unsurprisingly.
It appears he's actually offering the same sort of 'anecdotal evidence' that you are.You know, demonstrably, jack. Unsurprisingly.
I'm sure you'll come back and tell me that they were actually a special case and maybe even give some sort of clue about exactly what role they took up?
Otherwise you're arguing about 'facts' where you haven't presented the details you're arguing are wrong. Nothing new there...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff