BMA (British Medical Association) taking industrial action

princeofpounds

Unfortunately, I feel their point will be drowned out by the fact they are on above average wage, which is neither here nor there really.

But is this concept of 'fair treatment' really here or there either?

Why should changes to doctor's deals be compared to teachers or firemen or whatever? We don't look at those groups and say that they are being treated unfairly because they get paid less, or have consistently got lower wage rises over the past decades. So why is it right to compare one aspect of the employment package (pension retirement age and contributions) but not others (pay)?

And incidentally the concern is not really about fair treatment, but that changes to employment packages should necessarily progress at the same rate across all professions. Which isn't super-logical when you think about it.

Now that argument doesn't mean that doctor's don't have a case to strike. All it means is that most of the arguments for the strike that sound superficially plausible are ultimately just simple assertions that they don't like the new deal on the table.

ILW

Wookster wrote: »

Apparently a £53,000 pension is not enough.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee!

They do also get a £150,000 lump sum on retirement.

Must be tough.

Graham_Devon

princeofpounds wrote: »

Why should changes to doctor's deals be compared to teachers or firemen or whatever? We don't look at those groups and say that they are being treated unfairly because they get paid less, or have consistently got lower wage rises over the past decades. So why is it right to compare one aspect of the employment package (pension retirement age and contributions) but not others (pay)?

This issue isn't about pay.

The media and individuals are comparing pay and pensions. The BMA are not. The issue is being made into it being over pay by the media.

I'm not going to get involved in this argument, as to be honest, there is little sympathy towards the doctors, and what sympathy there is will ebb out over the coming weeks. I do feel they have a point about their pensions specifically being targetted. You suggested looking at firemen and teachers....well why not look at nurses and admin staff working in the very same places? They haven't had their pensions changed in such a way, and they all work under the same roof....thats what justifies, in my mind, doctors concern about being treated equally.

I just feel it's unfortunate that the media will simply bat the argument down into how much they are paid. Their colleagues, some high up admin staff and managers will get paid more, but won't have their pension age and contributions changed alongside doctors. That's an issue, I'm sure everyone will agree, and that, as far as I can gather, is part of the reasoning for the "unfair" treatment.

I know there will be very little sympathy trying to talk about the details though, which is why I'm not leaving the dicussion. It's too easy to focus on their pay and say "ahh well, diddums".

I feel if the changes are to be made, fair enough. but apply them to their colleagues too. Instead, the government are targetting the well off and getting the response they want....the public backing them up as the media make it out to be about rich people moaning.

The_J

Only really relevant if you are over the age of 45. If you are younger than that pensions won't exist in their current format when you retire :j

lostinrates

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is the angle which many of the left seem to take, including the left leaning media.

It's an easy way to attack their argument.

However, I have to say....what other profession has been targetted in such a way that the age of retirement is increased to 68?

As the BMA states. They are not asking for preferencial treatment, just fair treatment. To have a sudden change of retirement (2 actually as there was one recently) to 68 AND an increase in contributions, solely to one group of preofessionals does seem a bit weird.

The media are backing the government up on this one though, and attacking the fact that they are on above average wage. It's a dangerous path to walk down when we get to the stage that we can treat those on above average wage differently to everyone else.

I'm not pro the action, but I'm not sure what else can be done to make their point? Unfortunately, I feel their point will be drowned out by the fact they are on above average wage, which is neither here nor there really.

Graham, everyone sorting out their own pension in private sector makes the contributions they need to to meet the pension fund they want, its not 'singling out'. Gps wages are good for gratuates in similarly qualified work, their contributions to their pensions should be commensurate with the pension they want to draw, no?

As for the age increase...well, again....its smething that impacts on most people now and i would say it hits the well paid much less, if the well paid want to they can make savings to cover a younger retirement age, where as those who wage covers their basic needs cannot.

Andy_L

AIUI their main complaint is that higer paid staff are having a bigger %age increase in contributions than lower paid staff (which obviously impacts more on Doctors being high paid professionals).

DaddyBear

Ok, quick doctor's perspective.
NHS pension has been in profit since inception.
Last year it provided £2bn to the treasury.
All surplus goes into the Government black hole, none s ring-fenced or invested.
NHS pension was reviewed in 2007 and several recommendations made to make to ensure it is sustainable:
closure of final salary schemes, increased contributions upto max of 11% and increased retirement age from 60 to 65.
All were implemented. Despite being the first public sector scheme to close the final salary system the recommendations were accepted without complaint because we recognised that sustainability of the system was essential.

Fast forward 4 years.
Further changes forced upon us without any possibility of negotiation:
Additional increase in contributions to max of 14.5%
Increase in retirement age to 68
Switching all current members to average salary scheme.

Our gripes:
Blatant unfair treatment compared to other public sector workers.
We are being expected to swallow 2 massive changes in 4 years.
Why should doctors pay double the contributions of a civil servants for the same pension, we're clearly being used to subsidise other public sector pensions.
Expecting doctors to work until 68 is totally unrealistic and smacks of the government simply not understanding or caring about the logistics of being a doctor. At 68 are you in a position to conduct a mentally challenging job without any protected breaks that often involves emergencies in the middle of the night? Other professions such as the police have an earlier retirement age because of the difficult nature of ther work.

DaddyBear

lostinrates wrote: »

Gps wages are good for gratuates

it's ignorance such as this, compounded by media bile, that means doctors never receive sympathy. On what planet is a GP a graduate? You have to be a doctor for AT LEAST five years, soon to rise to at least 7 years before becoming a GP. GP wages are not good for someone at least 5 years out of Uni.

ILW

I have heard quoted that for a private pension to pay the same level of benefit would require a pot of around £1.7 million.
Cannot see many doctors would have contributed that much.
Seems to equate to over £40,000 pa over 40 years.

The_J

I largely agree with you DaddyBear except on the age point.

We are all going to have to work for longer. Being a good Doctor is almost always down to experience and yes, expecting them to work the same hours as they did when they were 30 is absurd but I absolutely expect them to stay on in a training or supervisory capacity and 68 isn't and won't be that old.

However the changes are being pushed through too quickly and you are suffering from bending over too easy the first time around.