Should doctors strike?

So at med school you didn't realise you'd have to work on after your hours to finish dealing with a patient, that the age of retirement would go up, that you would get taxed more whilst at the same time the price of everything goes up.

Slightly naive impression of the country.

Ride the gravy train whilst it's good by all means but don't complain when it goes sour.
 
Last edited:
Sir SR said:
My understanding was that the actual pension received isn't subsidised as such. I thought the pension payments by current workers paid for the pensions received?!.
Click to expand...

That may be how they're spending the current pot and it may be ok at the moment due to the number of pensioners relative to workers paying in...

However as the number of pensioners increases (as it will) the strain on those workers paying in will increase until the balance shifts & the pensions payed out will exceed the contributions paid in.

That's the issue that needs solving.

As i see it the only long term viable pension solution for all of us is for us to only get back what we each pay in (plus whatever interest the schemes managed to make gambling on stocks, etc)

Realistically I guess that means all of us pay more and get less.
 
jimmyb said:
So at med school you didn't realise you'd have to work on after your hours to finish dealing with a patient, that the age of retirement would go up, that you would get taxed more whilst at the same time the price of everything goes up.

Slightly naive impression of the country.

Ride the gravy train whilst it's good by all means but don't complain when it goes sour.
Click to expand...

I don't think the junior doc that was on here earlier was complaining, just stating facts.

I've yet to hear a balanced argument from you Jimmyb. Why do you think doctors are so upset?
 
H2O said:
That may be how they're spending the current pot and it may be ok at the moment due to the number of pensioners relative to workers paying in...

However as the number of pensioners increases (as it will) the strain on those workers paying in will increase until the balance shifts & the pensions payed out will exceed the contributions paid in.

That's the issue that needs solving.

As i see it the only long term viable pension solution for all of us is for us to only get back what we each pay in (plus whatever interest the schemes managed to make gambling on stocks, etc)

Realistically I guess that means all of us pay more and get less.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In fact this was renegotiated very recently to make it sustainable. Speaking to friends who are affected, it seems that it's the constant shifting and the fact that some may lose nearly 70% of their income after tax/ni/pension.

Makes you wonder who we're going to attract to attract to the profession, in order to look after the ageing population.
 
jimmyb said:
No. No one should be allowed to strike. The majority of occupations (not all) that are involved in strikes are careers that people have chosen to go into, don't go into something knowing the conditions then complain when you're doing it. Likewise don't go to uni then complain about being in debt, you knew that would happen before you started.

simples.



and that's not happening to everyone at the moment is it not!?

A lot of the conditions that people going on strike protesting about as being "poor" are the absolute dream to a lot of workers/employees.



Rant over :D
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope you never experience any type of changes to your wages, pensions, benefits, working hours, or working conditions in whatever rosy occupation you chose.

It's all well and good stating that people knew what their chosen career would involve but when those once accurate expectations change then it's well within people's rights to withdraw their labour in an attempt to maintain the conditions they entered into the occupation under. Of course, you could prevent people from having that right to withdraw labour but that's something commonly known as slavery.
 
Last edited:
Sir SR said:
I don't think the junior doc that was on here earlier was complaining, just stating facts.

I've yet to hear a balanced argument from you Jimmyb. Why do you think doctors are so upset?
Click to expand...

There was an agreement made some years ago about the amount paid into the pension, making it affordable, and that is now trying to be changed. They aren't going to take home as much money and they feel betrayed by the government.

Join the club and watch the country grind to a halt when 100% of people that feel the above go on strike.
 
So not actually that long ago?

And when you say affordable - for the government or the doctors? I suspect the government.
 
Last edited:
ding76uk said:
Just to clarify, they are NOT striking.

Everyone moans about the pensions, but they pay in huge amounts to their pot and said pot is 2 billion over.

Have some of you not heard, pay peanuts, get monkeys?
Click to expand...

This. Maybe not wishing to annoy our primate relatives, but this is my greatest worry. We will always need doctors. We want the best people for the job, not the self selected few who will be able to afford the training, bear the costs of training.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I sincerely hope you never experience any type of changes to your wages, pensions, benefits, working hours, or working conditions in whatever rosy occupation you chose.

It's all well and good stating that people knew what their chosen career would involve but when those once accurate expectations change then it's well within people's rights to withdraw their labour in an attempt to maintain the conditions they entered into the occupation under. Of course, you could prevent people from having that right to withdraw labour but that's something commonly known as slavery.
Click to expand...

I have, in practically every job I've ever had.

The rosy occupation i'm in now allows me to be self employed, i milk the benefits for everything i can get, did i go into being self employed thinking the benefits are going to be like this forever, that what the government said wasn't going to change in the near or distant future, no.

Despite being told the retirement age do i think that will never change, no.

Despite what i'm told do i believe that anything i pay into as an investment/pension will be worth that when i come to cash it in, no.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry to have to say this, but I really don't think they have much of a case for striking.
The % they pay towards pension is going up, well, thats life. Since the 70's the Police pension contribution had been 11%, and has just gone up to 12 ish. It's due to go up again to around 14%. On top of which they will have to work to 60 to get a full pension, except they wont be able to in most cases as the fitness test will ensure that very few cost the treasury a full pension. Now, people constantly complain about the Police 'gold plated' pension scheme, but its going to be worth less, even if you do somehow manage to get a full pension that a doctors, and they pay more for it!
Yes, I accept that Doctors do a great job, mostly, but so does everyone else.
 
Bernie174 said:
I'm sorry to have to say this, but I really don't think they have much of a case for striking.
The % they pay towards pension is going up, well, thats life. Since the 70's the Police pension contribution had been 11%, and has just gone up to 12 ish. It's due to go up again to around 14%. On top of which they will have to work to 60 to get a full pension, except they wont be able to in most cases as the fitness test will ensure that very few cost the treasury a full pension. Now, people constantly complain about the Police 'gold plated' pension scheme, but its going to be worth less, even if you do somehow manage to get a full pension that a doctors, and they pay more for it!
Yes, I accept that Doctors do a great job, mostly, but so does everyone else.
Click to expand...

And to add to their troubles they don't have the ability to go on strike, just another one of life's unfairnesses.

The trouble we'd be in if everytime someone didn't like something about their job they downed tools and went on strike.
 
Hadn't checked back into this thread, but thanks for the support for medical staff, anyone working in the NHS who sees stuff like that always really appreciates it :).

jimmyb said:
So at med school you didn't realise you'd have to work on after your hours to finish dealing with a patient, that the age of retirement would go up, that you would get taxed more whilst at the same time the price of everything goes up.

Slightly naive impression of the country.

Ride the gravy train whilst it's good by all means but don't complain when it goes sour.
Click to expand...


It's not really a gravy train jimmyb. Some people have a warped idea of how much doctors are paid. Maybe a few decades ago, even trainee doctors were really affluent, but currently it's not true at all. Yeh, doctors do moan sometimes about their salaries but who doesn't? It's just a moan, they just get on and do their jobs, and bearing in mind what nurses and other health pros get paid, complaining about your salary is liable to get you smacked :).

As to your medschool comment, most of us know what we signed up for. I was just pointing out that it's not as easy a ride as you seem to think. If you think we make too much money, then I'd counter by saying that I think we earn it.

In terms of the 'strike'...I don't support it, and pretty much everyone in my hospital atm won't be taking any action. The pensions reform does affect us - I haven't really read about it in detail but I think it means a new contract where we will need to pay a considerable amount more into the pensions contribution scheme and take a bit less out at the end - but it's still a great scheme comparatively, and NHS workers (not just doctors!) definitely benefit from it when compared to private sector workers. Currently I put ~£2300 into the pension pot each year. This is a percentage of pre-tax income, and the actual percentage goes up with pay grade - I think that under the new scheme the contribution for a doctor at my level would go up to £4500 (~ a bit less than double). I'm not sure how those amounts are comparable to private schemes or schemes for other public sector workers.

The problem is for the seniors who are being told that they will be given much less pension money under this new scheme, despite them paying a heck of a lot over their 40-odd years in contributions, with their contributions invested according to the old scheme. The money is theirs' by rights, but the government wants to siphon off some of the money in the pension pot to reinvest elsewhere. I don't know if this is fair (it probably is justifiable tbh, considering the economy) but I definitely don't think they need to cancel all their outpatients appointments either. No matter what they say, it's irresponsible in terms of patient care.

That's a really simplistic explanation, maybe someone with more knowledge about the economics side can expand on it a bit.
 
Last edited:
As somebody said earlier, they're not actually striking are they?

I suspect the pensions thing is the straw which broke the camels back.
 
Sir SR said:
As somebody said earlier, they're not actually striking are they?

I suspect the pensions thing is the straw which broke the camels back.
Click to expand...

Tbh I don't know how you'd define a 'strike'. If this is industrial action, it's half-hearted to say the least. A bunch of GPs won't be holding routine appointments on a certain day, which doesn't really matter, as I think they'll still have to be on call for emergencies. Some consultants have postponed their routine follow-ups for a week (read routine - not urgent, or not waiting for a key investigation). That just means more work for them as they'll need to work through the backlog. Nothing at all in acute and ward based care, and I haven't heard of any surgery being postponed but I might be wrong.

I think where there is actually a deal of anger, is in the pay rises given to public sector workers (e.g. those who work in transport) who can afford to strike and often get a lot of support for it (stick it to the government! etc). Whereas doctors and nurses are getting pay freezes and pension cuts, but any talk of a strike is put off as irresponsible (which it is). Whereas shutting down the transport in a city for a weekend is responsible? Striking is used by some public sector industries to hold the government 'to ransom', but the government can hold certain public sector key services 'to ransom' as they can't take industrial action.

I disagree with industrial action as a concept, probably because I've learnt to hate walking to work :lol:.
 
jimmyb said:
The trouble we'd be in if everytime someone didn't like something about their job they downed tools and went on strike.
Click to expand...

I think this is true, and it gives an indication oh how bad things must have got for the pensions thing to be the tipping point.

Working in constrained conditions whilst trying to provide the best care for their patients. Having the nhs reforms inposed, which look to be the bigger issue. And of course the fiasco in messing up the training recruitment a few years ago.

The pensions are the proverbial straw.

The doctors union has decided to protest in the safest way they can as a result.
 
Bernie174 said:
I'm sorry to have to say this, but I really don't think they have much of a case for striking.
The % they pay towards pension is going up, well, thats life. Since the 70's the Police pension contribution had been 11%, and has just gone up to 12 ish. It's due to go up again to around 14%. On top of which they will have to work to 60 to get a full pension, except they wont be able to in most cases as the fitness test will ensure that very few cost the treasury a full pension. Now, people constantly complain about the Police 'gold plated' pension scheme, but its going to be worth less, even if you do somehow manage to get a full pension that a doctors, and they pay more for it!
Yes, I accept that Doctors do a great job, mostly, but so does everyone else.
Click to expand...

Bernie if the police were allowed to strike they would. Their showing at talks about privatisation showed that.
 
joxang said:
A bunch of GPs won't be holding routine appointments on a certain day, which doesn't really matter ...... Some consultants have postponed their routine follow-ups for a week
Click to expand...

All of this does matter, it's an attack on the patients!
Cancelled appointments means further delay in ending worry, possible suffering and inconvenience.
The pensions are estimated at around £68k a year plus a lump sum payment of over £80k. If you can't manage with that sort of inflated payment (compared with most working people) then you need to analyse your lifestyle.
The action is wrong and overwhelmingly it will not have public support.
 
joxang

The difference is that you are in effect Civil Servants, the transport industry is now private. They make a profit, and the unions can squeeze more out of the employers.

You don't make a profit, well, you can, work in the private sector, which is what happened when the NHS started, Doctors weren't paid by the NHS, they did it for love. They made their money from the private sector, or so I am told. So because the NHS can't make a profit, you get hit by pay freezes etc.

A better way of dealing with this (and to be fair all of the public sector pensions) is to make all departments more efficient. However, every 5 minutes we have a fresh reform of the NHS, and oddly, it just causes it to swallow up more cash. I think it's about time someone looked at it (and again all the other public departments) and properly sorted the mess. Certainly it could be done in the Police, which I have some experience of, not by cutting pay, but by getting shot of the dead wood non producers. Most of who are above the rank of Inspector, or Civil Police Staff. A cull there would save a fortune, and I don't doubt the same would be true of the NHS.
 
gramps said:
All of this does matter, it's an attack on the patients!
Cancelled appointments means further delay in ending worry, possible suffering and inconvenience.
The pensions are estimated at around £68k a year plus a lump sum payment of over £80k. If you can't manage with that sort of inflated payment (compared with most working people) then you need to analyse your lifestyle.
The action is wrong and overwhelmingly it will not have public support.
Click to expand...

Where has that figure come from gramps? It smells of government spin. Am happy to be corrected.

I thought it was routine work that was being stopped. Life saving, a&e, cancer work and emergencies were carrying on. Again happy to be corrected.

As an aside Gramps, how would you propose that doctors should protest. As I said earlier, from speaking to doctors, it's the gradual chipping away.
 
gramps said:
All of this does matter, it's an attack on the patients!
Cancelled appointments means further delay in ending worry, possible suffering and inconvenience.
The pensions are estimated at around £68k a year plus a lump sum payment of over £80k. If you can't manage with that sort of inflated payment (compared with most working people) then you need to analyse your lifestyle.
The action is wrong and overwhelmingly it will not have public support.
Click to expand...

Please read all of what I wrote and then respond again :bang:.


I do NOT support the action, but they can be hardly called strikes.

"All of this does matter, it's an attack on the patients! Cancelled appointments means further delay in ending worry, possible suffering and inconvenience"? Ok I accept that theoretically, doctors' responsibilities towards patients means that they should never take industrial action of any sort, but what is happening is hardly going to make a dent in anyone's care. When you spill out rhetoric like that it just sounds like a silly attempt to grab the moral high ground.

I DON'T think that they should be complaining about their pensions (though I think you're overstating the value by a considerable amount) but I think that in a perfect world, if someone invests a very large amount of money over 45 years with the government in order to get an agreed upon larger amount of money back at the end of it, then he/she should get that agreed upon amount.

Ofc it's not a perfect world.


Bernie174 said:
A better way of dealing with this (and to be fair all of the public sector pensions) is to make all departments more efficient. However, every 5 minutes we have a fresh reform of the NHS, and oddly, it just causes it to swallow up more cash. I think it's about time someone looked at it (and again all the other public departments) and properly sorted the mess. Certainly it could be done in the Police, which I have some experience of, not by cutting pay, but by getting shot of the dead wood non producers. Most of who are above the rank of Inspector, or Civil Police Staff. A cull there would save a fortune, and I don't doubt the same would be true of the NHS.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. We squirt alcohol gel at managers walking around in swanky suits clutching ultrabooks and making fancy excel graphs. The big wastage in the NHS is in requisition. And I mean MASSIVE wastage. We spend roughly 1000% more on some supplies than if we just walked into a shop and bought their entire stock, and then buying a truck to take it back to the hospital. Unfortunately, the management consultancies that the government hires to deal with things like that are incompetent money grabbers.
 
So can anyone do the pay in vs pay out calculation on an individual basis to show if they're still (ever were) getting disproportionately more out?

Eg

(assuming final salary means you continue to get full pay, not a percentage of it.)

If you worked from 20-65 (45 years) at a static salary then retire on a final salary pension and live to 80 (15 year retirement) you'd have had to put aside 33% of your wages to break even.


Loads of variables not taken into account, & I've no idea what the actually pension payments are like but without this kind of breakdown I can't form an opinion on which side is being unreasonable.

All I can say is in my view strikes/ industrial action are basically blackmail which is something I'm unwilling to support.
 
I think the final salary thing is dependent on the number of years of
service. I think you get 1/80th of the final salary multiplied by the number of years complete service. From a quick google search. Ooh. This debate beats revision!!

Now I don't know what other variables are involved. I'm not clear if this is the old/current/proposed system.

I suspect that the figure quoted by the government is that of a maximally earning doctor who started at a Doogie Howser age. I suspect the reality will be considerably less. As is the nature of government spin.

Given the length of training (and resultant debt) newly qualified doctors don't contribute til late on anyway.

Again. We want to be careful. We want to attract the best people to become doctors. If it is constantly made more unattractive, we will have lesser quality docs of the future and disaffected ones practicing now. Not ideal for the health of you and yours or me and mine.
 
H2O said:
All I can say is in my view strikes/ industrial action are basically blackmail which is something I'm unwilling to support.
Click to expand...

Is there any other viable alternative when employers are unwilling to listen to grievances?
 
Sir SR said:
If it is constantly made more unattractive, we will have lesser quality docs of the future and disaffected ones practicing now. Not ideal for the health of you and yours or me and mine.
Click to expand...

This!

The extra hours (unpaid) that doctors put in will ebb away as their conditions worsen. People will be less attracted to the profession, mistakes will be made and people will die.

Will those of you bemoaning this complain about police being allowed to retire at 30 years served. Technically 10-15 more years can be had out of them. Don't say it won't happen, I am sure doctors and firefighters are next.
 
Last edited:
Mikesphotaes said:
What strike is this, or are you a Daily Mail reader?
Click to expand...

:lol: whats wrong with reading the DM? It's just the same crap as any other paper!

You seem to have the reading problem
 
Last edited:
Splog said:
:lol: whats wrong with reading the DM? It's just the same crap as any other paper!

You seem to habermas the reading problem
Click to expand...

Habermas?? Ah I see you corrected it. I thought it was a Daily Mail in joke!!
 
Splog said:
:lol: whats wrong with reading the DM? It's just the same crap as any other paper!

You seem to have the reading problem
Click to expand...

I guess the point Mike's making is that the doctors are all still going to work. Just not doing the non critical work?
 
Sir SR said:
I guess the point Mike's making is that the doctors are all still going to work. Just not doing the non critical work?
Click to expand...

Then he should read the thread title...
 
That is (needlessly) slightly provocative.

If doctors were striking they wouldn't be going to work, doing the critical work.
 
Last edited:
Sir SR said:
That is (needlessly) slightly provocative.

If doctors were striking they wouldn't be going to work, doing the critical work.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
TriggerHappy said:
Is there any other viable alternative when employers are unwilling to listen to grievances?
Click to expand...

It's certainly difficult & I'm not sure of the answer. I guess it would vary depending on each set of circumstances.

Blackmail's a pretty extreme choice.

Without the figures I've mentioned I can't tell if they're not listening to a grievance or being realistic.

What do you do when someone who refuses to acknowledge your argument demands something from you that you're no longer able to supply?
 
Splog said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

The provocative part was about the reading comment. Although he did swear at you in public ( called you a daily mail reader).

The doctors are protesting. Industrial action. Not actually striking.
 
Sir SR said:
The provocative part was about the reading comment. Although he did swear at you in public ( called you a daily mail reader).

The doctors are protesting. Industrial action. Not actually striking.
Click to expand...

When did I say they were striking?
 
Implied by the title of the thread and your first post.

Correct me if I've got it wrong.

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top