Pay Rise Cancelled for NHS staff

Sir_Humphrey

macaque wrote: »

Picking hairs does not help your cause. It looks like you have run out of decent arguements (which I suppose you have). We are talking about a part time job. Where GPs earn less than 100k, it is because they are either newly qualified or have elected to work short hours. I imagine a many women GPs with young children are picking up £50-100k for a short working week.
http://www.nasgp.org.uk/rates/medeconomics_jan_2006.pdf

You have no problem with Doctors earning a lot of money. That is because you are a fellow gravy train travellor. If the system started to clamp down on GPs, who knows where it would stop.

No, you posted data that completely disproves your original statement. Game, set and match to Sir H.

EDIT: I originally did not mention this as I thought it too obvious, but I presume you understand the term 'pro rata'?

Graham_Devon

macaque wrote: »

Picking hairs does not help your cause. It looks like you have run out of decent arguements (which I suppose you have). We are talking about a part time job. Where GPs earn less than 100k, it is because they are either newly qualified or have elected to work short hours. I imagine a many women GPs with young children are picking up £50-100k for a short working week.
http://www.nasgp.org.uk/rates/medeconomics_jan_2006.pdf

With respect. You are making this up as you go along. What do you class as a short working week? You are now bringing locums into the equation, to prove your point, which doesnt prove your point as locums are a seperate entity, and that is their turnover, NOT profit.

Sir_Humphrey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

With respect. You are making this up as you go along. What do you class as a short working week? You are now bringing locums into the equation, to prove your point, which doesnt prove your point as locums are a seperate entity, and that is their turnover, NOT profit.

I'm spending a very dull afternoon proof-reading, Macaque's hilarious arguments are the only thing keeping me sane! Don't stop him! LOL!

macaque_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

No, you posted data that completely disproves your original statement. Game, set and match to Sir H.

EDIT: I originally did not mention this as I thought it too obvious, but I presume you understand the term 'pro rata'?

I could split hairs myself but I don't see any need to. You are trying to score points on the grounds that a minority do not fall into this category. As a response that is neither intelligent, relevant or even mature. The debate is about GPs earning between £100k and £250k. Such amounts are ridiculous when compared to nurses pay and totally peverse when you realise that many of these GPs are also doing private work on the side.

Sir_Humphrey

macaque wrote: »

I could split hairs myself but I don't see any need to. You are trying to score points on the grounds that a minority do not fall into this category. As a response that is neither intelligent, relevant or even mature. The debate is about GPs earning between £100k and £250k. Such amounts are ridiculous when compared to nurses pay and totally peverse when you realise that many of these GPs are also doing private work on the side.

Even the person whose data you are quoting thinks you're talking nonsense! Give it up! Great entertainment for me though! I'd hardly call you getting your sums wrong by 50-100k as splitting hairs! ROFL!

Edale

GPs used to have an awful job with 24/7 responsibility for patients, many of them doing loads of on call and the pay did not reflect this. Hence there was a massive shortage of GPs, I remember the BMJ used to have pages of GP jobs. They changed the contract in 2004, gave a massive payrise and took away out of hours responsibility. They even had £10k golden hellos to attract people to general practice because they had such a recruitment problem at the time. Suddenly GPs could earn as much, if not more than a consultant with 20 years experience as a consultant. You can be a fully qualified GP within about 4/5 years of leaving medical school but it takes more like 10/12 years to be a consultant. So because of this governments shrewd negotiations a GP 5 years out of medical school could earn more than a consultant 30 years out of medical school and have no out of hours committment! Doctors retrained, I heard of a surgeon switching to general practice. Post 2004 there are hardly any GP jobs in the BMJ any more - I wonder why.

Even the BMA who negotiated the deal couldn't believe they had got away with it - see article

I think the government realise they over egged it and GPs pay has not risen in the last couple of years.

I think doctors do need to be rewarded well, they should be the most capable in society and then have to train for many years. However I am not sure that the new GP's and Consultant's contracts benefited anyone other than the doctors themselves.

macaque_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What do you class as a short working week?

A short working week is when I discover that my GP is surgaring off to do private work in the middle of the day. And don't bleat that they make up for this by doing long hours. I don't think GPs should be doing long hours. If they were pilots or lorry drivers, they would be breaking the law.

happymumto2

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Know how much the average PC gets paid ?....

basic salary is around £33,000 add in good pension (even new downgraded scheme pays half pension at 55 - some authorities are spending MORE on pensions than actual policing) etc brings it up to around £40,000. If the bobby is on the beat all the time then fair enough but £40k for someone who spends half the week (at least) form filling for HMG - personally, I think that's a bit steep.

Police do 6-12 weeks training, nurses do at least 3 years, yet their basic salary is nowhere near that of a police officer who trained for 12 weeks, hardly fair is it?

twirlypinky

donaldtramp wrote: »

I'm going to really, really enjoy when the squeeze starts hitting the public sector;) . If you guys think it isn't coming, you obviously have no idea what's happening in the UK.

Be smug whilst you can, because the smile will be wiped from your faces, sooner than you think;)

What a berkish comment to make - any research behind this at all?

The public sector is already squeezed. My local hospital trust is having to find over £40 million next year because the local primary care trust say they simply don't have the money to fund the healthcare. Yet, the trust need to still meet all the waiting targets. It's an impossiblity.

I'd love to see you working as a manager in an acute hospital trying to cut 10% off an already tight budget. People like you make me so cross. You really have no idea.

twirlypinky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, you may notice I said "office workers" specifically.

Best to read whats actually said before ranting

My friend works in NHS finance and hasn't spent an Easter with her family in 3 years because year end ALWAYS falls on Easter and she's in work at the weekends. She does not get paid overtime because they won't pay it, but she stills goes in because she wants her job done properly.

You don't know everyone, you're guessing, and it's not really on.