Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[turbobloke]

IanA2 said:

KarlMac said:

IanA2 said:

Four interesting charts here:


http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/four-charts-...

I'd like to see a chart that maps out how much each country spends on its health care service. My guess is that we'd be quite high on that list (and that is a genuine guess)

I'm not convinced throwing more money at the nhs is the best thing for everyone involved

The best measure is the percentage of GDP. Some details here:

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-a...

Fair enough but that's just money in, with no regard to outcomes in terms of quality of healthcare out. Given the propensity for error, waste and fraud the omission is significant.

I'm also far from convinced that continuing to throw more money at the NHS is the best thing for everyone involved, but the political reality is that it's very likely to happen regardless. Not that of itself it's a bad thing when the NHS is in debt, but cost-benefit is always about more than cost.

[sidicks]

julian64 said:

Not to hijack the thread but you keep making the same mistake. I am not an employee of the public sector.
All GP's in this country are self employed, effectively self contracted with one contract making about 85% of our income.

Only half the work I do in a day is seeing patients, the other half is running a business.

Remember therefore I pay both employers and employees contributions to the scheme.

No mistake made - I've mentioned on more than one ocassions that you might be a GP (and if that was the case, you go much closer to actually funding your own pension). However, as I understood it, you did receive a massive pay increase that more than covered the cost of the 'employer' contributions! The excess still comes from the taxpayer though.

And this scheme is very much the exception to the rest of the public sector schemes!

[sidicks]

IanA2 said:

Julian, for goodness sake don't allow facts to interfere with ill-informed fantasies......

Perhaps you might like you're-read what I wrote about the GP scheme yesterday, well before Julian explained his situation..

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 26th November 00:11

[sidicks]

IanA2 said:

Four interesting charts here:


http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/four-charts-...

Interesting that they look at ratio of salary (excluding other benefits) to average wages rather than a more direct comparison - why would that be?

Interesting that they focus on salaries but don't include other benefits, that would increase the effective amount by 30% or more.

[sidicks]

IanA2 said:

The best measure is the percentage of GDP. Some details here:

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-a...

Doesn't that show we spend more on public Heath (as a % of GDP) than the OEC average..??

[mph1977]

IanA2 said:

julian64 said:

sidicks said:

Which public sector scheme are you in that has employee contribution rates of 33%??

Not to hijack the thread but you keep making the same mistake. I am not an employee of the public sector.
All GP's in this country are self employed, effectively self contracted with one contract making about 85% of our income.

Only half the work I do in a day is seeing patients, the other half is running a business.

Remember therefore I pay both employers and employees contributions to the scheme.

Julian, for goodness sake don't allow facts to interfere with ill-informed fantasies......

it;s a well know fact Sidicks doesn;t like the the truth of the amount returned to the treasury to spead again by the NHS pension scheme

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

it;s a well know fact Sidicks doesn;t like the the truth of the amount returned to the treasury to spead again by the NHS pension scheme

Amount returned ?!


It's a 'well known fact that NHS employees often don't have a clue about the value of their pensions and the cost of providing those pensions, as frequently evidenced by the nonsense spouted about 'surplus' etc..,

Once again, please take your own advice, stick to the areas you understand and leave discussions about pensions to others who understand what they are talking about!

[turbobloke]

Sky News studio guest comment on the gov't move to talks as ACAS...with the first strike still going ahead: "typical of the left-wing BMA" as though we needed to be told.

[Dixy]

This is not about pensions or about politics. This is about an employer saying they intend to change terms and will impose them if not accepted. Hunt took out a knife and the Doctors have shown him a gun. When he puts his Knife away they can talk.

[sidicks]

Dixy said:

This is not about pensions or about politics. This is about an employer saying they intend to change terms and will impose them if not accepted. Hunt took out a knife and the Doctors have shown him a gun. When he puts his Knife away they can talk.

Surely an employer has a right to propose changes to employee's terms if they think it will benefit the customer?

[turbobloke]

Dixy said:

This is not about pensions or about politics.

It's almost as if you typing it makes it so.

[Dixy]

sidicks said:

Surely an employer has a right to propose changes to employee's terms if they think it will benefit the customer?

Propose yes, impose no.

Turbo try talking to Junior Doctors rather than getting your opinion from Sky news.

[sidicks]

Dixy said:

Propose yes, impose no.

Turbo try talking to Junior Doctors rather than getting your opinion from Sky news.

And if they 'propose' terms and you don't like them, then what?

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 26th November 08:41

[BigMon]

sidicks said:

And if they 'propose' terms and you don't like them, then what?

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 26th November 08:41

Isn't that what ACAS is for? To reach a mutually agreeable solution?

[ucb]

sidicks said:

Dixy said:

This is not about pensions or about politics. This is about an employer saying they intend to change terms and will impose them if not accepted. Hunt took out a knife and the Doctors have shown him a gun. When he puts his Knife away they can talk.

Surely an employer has a right to propose changes to employee's terms if they think it will benefit the customer?

There's no benefit to the consumer here. It will not change patient experience. The only beneficiaries of this proposed contract are NHS Employers and the DoH.

I agree with Dixy that this issue is not about pensions - the NHS pension terms are the same for all employees and they can take it or leave it as they choose. No junior (or senior for that matter) doctor has mentioned pensions when discussing this proposed contract. Indeed the juniors may benefit in terms of pensions due to the increase in basic pensionable pay of 11%.

This issue is about valuing your employees, recognising and recompensing them appropriately for unsocial hours. The sole purpose of this contract is to reduce junior doctors take-home pay. The pay will be protected for those currently in training (for 3 years) but the medical students awaiting graduation and employment are not going to see the same money.

It is however all about politics.

Edited by ucb on Thursday 26th November 08:57

[sidicks]

ucb said:

There's no benefit to the consumer here. It will not change patient experience. The only beneficiaries of this proposed contract are NHS Employers and the DoH.

I agree with Dixy that this issue is not about pensions - the NHS pension terms are the same for all employees and they can take it or leave it as they choose. This issue is about valuing your employees, recognising and recompensing them appropriately for unsocial hours. The sole purpose of this contract is to reduce junior doctors take-home pay. The pay will be protected for those currently in training (for 3 years) but the medical students awaiting graduation and employment are not going to see the same money.
It is however all about politics.

Change the pensions then there will be more money for salaries...

[ucb]

sidicks said:

ucb said:

There's no benefit to the consumer here. It will not change patient experience. The only beneficiaries of this proposed contract are NHS Employers and the DoH.

I agree with Dixy that this issue is not about pensions - the NHS pension terms are the same for all employees and they can take it or leave it as they choose. This issue is about valuing your employees, recognising and recompensing them appropriately for unsocial hours. The sole purpose of this contract is to reduce junior doctors take-home pay. The pay will be protected for those currently in training (for 3 years) but the medical students awaiting graduation and employment are not going to see the same money.
It is however all about politics.

Change the pensions then there will be more money for salaries...

There would be, but the DoH won't be paying the staff with it thats for sure.

I edited my post after you quoted it. You are the only person who keeps bringing the pension T&Cs into this discussion. The DoH, BMA, NHSE have made no mention of pensions in their press releases regarding this contract. I agree the pensions are hugely important issue, but it's not resulting in the dispute and industrial action.

[sidicks]

ucb said:

There would be, but the DoH won't be paying the staff with it thats for sure.

I edited my post after you quoted it. You are the only person who keeps bringing the pension T&Cs into this discussion. The DoH, BMA, NHSE have made no mention of pensions in their press releases regarding this contract. I agree the pensions are hugely important issue, but it's not resulting in the dispute and industrial action.

The wider issue is about how the NHS is funded - doctors are comparing about changes to their terms precisely because they think they will be paid less in some circumstances. Yo can't discuss pay and ignore other benefits which have huge cost implications for the NHS.

[BigMon]

sidicks said:

The wider issue is about how the NHS is funded - doctors are comparing about changes to their terms precisely because they think they will be paid less in some circumstances. Yo can't discuss pay and ignore other benefits which have huge cost implications for the NHS.

Can you please show us the following:

1. The proposed alterations to the NHS pension scheme by the government
2. The parts of the proposed changes the medical profession are arguing against

We must be reading different threads because I don't see many people arguing that pension reform isn't required.

However, and this is the salient point, pension reform is not part of this proposed raft of changes!

Feel free to ignore the above however. I feel strangely confident you will.

[ucb]

Yes, that is a wider issue. Pay more tax, have the state hold your hand through life or pay no tax and do it all yourself. I am in favour of the latter FWIW but prejudiced posters on this thread seem to want to lump me in with the hard left of politics.

But it is not the reason for industrial action. The reason for IA is poorer working conditions/pay/imposition of contract, not pensions.