Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[London424]

mph1977 said:

fblm said:

It's just the usual drivel of someone who doesn't know what a scheme that uses new funds to pay existing liabilities is called and how they inevitably end.

yes it;s called 'pay as you go ' in terms of pensions and in the case of schemes operating within the public sector it;s conscious decision my government to be able to spend the surplus again in year rather than using it to fund the future liabilities ( cue chicken little figures being banded about by the envious rolling up liabilities occuring between the next month and up to 60 or 70 years hence into one massive figure of 300+ billion )

section 4.6 "In cash terms, the Scheme recorded a Net Cash Requirement (NCR) of -£1.196 billion against
the voted estimate of -£1.021 billion, this is surplus cash due to income exceeding pension
benefit payments, and the £1.196 billion will be returned to HM Treasury during 2014-15. "

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Documents/Pensions/Resour...

Reading that document it is genuinly scary of how valuable that pension is compared to what, as an employee, you pay in. That is seemingly ignored by members.

[wolves_wanderer]

Nice that we have gone from "leftys" to the other PH hobby horse of public-sector pensions now. Neither of any relevance mind you.

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

yes it;s called 'pay as you go ' in terms of pensions and in the case of schemes operating within the public sector it;s conscious decision my government to be able to spend the surplus again in year rather than using it to fund the future liabilities ( cue chicken little figures being banded about by the envious rolling up liabilities occuring between the next month and up to 60 or 70 years hence into one massive figure of 300+ billion )

section 4.6 "In cash terms, the Scheme recorded a Net Cash Requirement (NCR) of -£1.196 billion against
the voted estimate of -£1.021 billion, this is surplus cash due to income exceeding pension
benefit payments, and the £1.196 billion will be returned to HM Treasury during 2014-15. "

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Documents/Pensions/Resour...

And mph1977 continues to demonstrate his ignorance...

Nice to see you're resorting to the 'envy' jibes for people that are simply pointing out things you don't understand!

There's a big difference between being able to read a pension document and understanding what it means.

Just as me watching 'Casualty' on a Saturday night doesn't qualify me as a doctor.

HTH

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 26th November 13:00

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

The 15% was what was initially recommended by DDRB, as you should know as you linked the table. Even 15% was not cost neutral, not even close. And that was the reason that 98% backed strike.

On what evidence do you make that claim ??

[Dixy]

barryrs said:

I wonder if the BMA will triumphantly exit talks at ACAS today having agreed a 15% pay rise

So you believe it is just about money.

[wolves_wanderer]

woowahwoo said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Nice that we have gone from "leftys" to the other PH hobby horse of public-sector pensions now. Neither of any relevance mind you.

Are we scrapping them, then? Goodie!

By them I assume you mean pensions and the answer is no. They aren't even part of the negotiation about which all those horrible communist doctors are threatening strike action so completely irrelevant to the point of the thread. Not that that is stopping sidicks et al banging their favourite little drum of course.

[London424]

wolves_wanderer said:

woowahwoo said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Nice that we have gone from "leftys" to the other PH hobby horse of public-sector pensions now. Neither of any relevance mind you.

Are we scrapping them, then? Goodie!

By them I assume you mean pensions and the answer is no. They aren't even part of the negotiation about which all those horrible communist doctors are threatening strike action so completely irrelevant to the point of the thread. Not that that is stopping sidicks et al banging their favourite little drum of course.

Is the only answer more money? It's just a negotiation about how much more?

[sidicks]

wolves_wanderer said:

By them I assume you mean pensions and the answer is no. They aren't even part of the negotiation about which all those horrible communist doctors are threatening strike action so completely irrelevant to the point of the thread. Not that that is stopping sidicks et al banging their favourite little drum of course.

Neither is it stopping the likes of mph1977 determined to demonstrate how little he understands about the topic!

[sidicks]

Dixy said:

barryrs said:

I wonder if the BMA will triumphantly exit talks at ACAS today having agreed a 15% pay rise

So you believe it is just about money.

If the government had proposed the same working terms but with a 15% higher salary - how many would have voted to strike?

[Dixy]

sidicks said:

And he continues to demonstrate his ignorance...

There's a big difference between bring able to read a pension document and understanding what it means.

Just as me watching 'Casualty' on a Saturday night doesn't qualify me as a doctor.

HTH

This does help immensely, a Doctor could make a reasonable fist of understanding a pension document, and even if they totally screwed it up, someone could sort it out in a month or two. Whereas when your son arrives at A&E at 2 am on a Sunday morning with minutes to live the best you could hope to do is sob whilst he dies.

HTH

[barryrs]

jjlynn27 said:

barryrs said:

I wonder if the BMA will triumphantly exit talks at ACAS today having agreed a 15% pay rise

The 15% was what was initially recommended by DDRB, as you should know as you linked the table. Even 15% was not cost neutral, not even close. And that was the reason that 98% backed strike.

Lets be honest; any change was going to be resisted by the BMA. As soon as the DDRB report was in i expect minsters were looking for a way to sell it and as with any negotiation you dont start with your best offer.

I also dont accept that the proposed DDRB scenarios arent close to being cost neutral.

If you are a junior doctor try using this calculator and it will give you results for all 4 of the DDRB scenarios http://www.rotageek.com/DDRB-Junior-Doctors-Pay-Ca...

[sidicks]

Dixy said:

This does help immensely, a Doctor could make a reasonable fist of understanding a pension document, and even if they totally screwed it up, someone could sort it out in a month or two. Whereas when your son arrives at A&E at 2 am on a Sunday morning with minutes to live the best you could hope to do sob whilst he dies.

HTH

Well mph1977 may not be a doctor but he's certainly failing miserably to understand the pension document he is referring to, and time and time again on here we see claims from other public sector workers that demonstrate how little they understand about their benefits!

I

[jjlynn27]

barryrs said:

Lets be honest; any change was going to be resisted by the BMA. As soon as the DDRB report was in i expect minsters were looking for a way to sell it and as with any negotiation you dont start with your best offer.

I also dont accept that the proposed DDRB scenarios arent close to being cost neutral.

If you are a junior doctor try using this calculator and it will give you results for all 4 of the DDRB scenarios http://www.rotageek.com/DDRB-Junior-Doctors-Pay-Ca...

You didn't accept that junior doctors can't pick their banding or have any influence whatsoever on their rotas. I already said that I'm not junior doc. But I do know quite a few, and they did calculation with HR using C+ scenarios (15%) and the loses are between 15-25% depending on speciality, banding and on-call requirements.

[mph1977]

sidicks said:

Well mph1977 may not be a doctor but he's certainly failing miserably to understand the pension document he is referring to, and time and time again on here we see claims from other public sector workers that demonstrate how little they understand about their benefits!

I

you have consistently claimed that the current position requires substantial cash injection fro mthe treasury to meet it's in year liabilities where in fact the converse is true and the NHS pension alone return returns 1 and 2 billion a year to the treasury on the basis of a long standing promise of the exchequer to underwrite scheme liabilities.

then we get the hicken little figures bandied about about the future liabilities beeing 300 + billion ... this is hyperbole at best to whip up a frenzy of envy ... much as you could create a frenzy of hyperbole aobut the amount owed on mortgages etc ...

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

The 15% was what was initially recommended by DDRB, as you should know as you linked the table. Even 15% was not cost neutral, not even close. And that was the reason that 98% backed strike.

On what evidence do you make that claim ??

On the evidence that 98% voted to strike after talking to HR how it will affect them using C+ scenario. Still waiting on an answers to relevant questions for this thread.

[BigMon]

jjlynn27 said:

Still waiting on an answers to relevant questions for this thread.

Don't hold your breath.

However, a non-thread related post about pensions will be here shortly.

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

you have consistently claimed that the current position requires substantial cash injection fro mthe treasury to meet it's in year liabilities

I have said no such thing.

mph1977 said:

where in fact the converse is true and the NHS pension alone return returns 1 and 2 billion a year to the treasury on the basis of a long standing promise of the exchequer to underwrite scheme liabilities.

The current surplus is irrelevant to the cost of the scheme compared to the contributions paid by the employees,

Try googling 'ponzi scheme' and educate yourself!

mph1977 said:

then we get the hicken little figures bandied about about the future liabilities beeing 300 + billion ... this is hyperbole at best to whip up a frenzy of envy ... much as you could create a frenzy of hyperbole aobut the amount owed on mortgages etc ...

Entirely different in many ways, but very similar in many ways - these are still amounts that have to be paid and the less the taxpayer has left to pay for public services which is what our taxes should be used for.

I'm sorry you don't understand that!

[BigMon]

As I said............

To those who would like to keep this thread vaguely on track perhaps it may be better not to respond to sidicks here? Common sense and reasoning appear to be having no effect.

If he wishes to start an 'Unsustainable public sector pensions' thread then that is his perogative.

[sidicks]

BigMon said:

As I said............

To those who would like to keep this thread vaguely on track perhaps it may be better not to respond to sidicks here? Common sense and reasoning appear to be having no effect.

If he wishes to start an 'Unsustainable public sector pensions' thread then that is his perogative.

I'm correcting inaccuracies and misrepresentations from others - if they don't make them, I won't need to respond.

For the avoidance of doubt:
- I don't expect doctors to work longer hours for the same pay (on average), however there are likely be some specific circumstances where someone was significantly benefitting from the current arrangements but may be disadvantaged under the new ones. Unfortunately that's life, and inevitable as the NHS has to evolve.

If the claims made by the government that most people won't lose out under the proposal is false then this is clearly bad form from the government.

Having said that, the NHS clearly needs major reform as we can't keep spending more money on it above the rate of GDP growth, year after year, as this has major implications for other public services.
We need to ensure that the money that is allocated to public services is appropriately spent - that means on providing front line services and paying employee salaries, NOT subsidising massive pensions for staff.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 26th November 14:28

[turbobloke]

sidicks said:

BigMon said:

As I said............

To those who would like to keep this thread vaguely on track perhaps it may be better not to respond to sidicks here? Common sense and reasoning appear to be having no effect.

If he wishes to start an 'Unsustainable public sector pensions' thread then that is his perogative.

I'm correcting inaccuracies and misrepresentations from others - if they don't make them, I won't need to respond.

Which is understandable. Contracts-pay-pensions...obvious relevance. With all the complaints you get, it's a case of the nearer the target you are the thicker the flak.