BMA (British Medical Association) taking industrial action

Wookster

DaddyBear wrote: »

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.

I'm afraid to say you're kidding yourself if you think your pensions are in anyway sustainable.

GPs have had an astonishingly good few years, with the GP contract being extremely generous. Doctors still have a better pension than almost everyone else... in the country.

The reason you're facing so many changes is because the benefits accruing to yourselves (including insane police pensions) are simply unaffordable.

Have a look at Greece to see an extreme example of the state overspending.

Perhaps the only point of substance you raise is that your contributions are higher than other civil servants, but otherwise, wake up and take a look around.

lostinrates

The_J wrote: »

Oh right, I didn't realise you were s/e. Hopefully when you're 68 you'll be able to employ a lackie to do the work for you while you sit back and count the monies.

I know someone called Graham who would be perfect! He's a bit disobedient but tenacious.

Its only recent that i am self employed. I have a teeny tiny new business. I only need to employ on a casual basis atm, so is easier and at the current state of turnover to contract other self employed people. But yes, hopefully i will have a more permanant employee situation before i retire. If i retire. I also hope that my husband will be able to reduce his hours of employment before then to an eighty, or sixty percent of full time situation. This will be choice afforded by good wage that not all will have, and something those of us with decent qualifications and income should consider when we count the benefits and drawbacks of our current situations.

smartn

Is it not the case that the money has to come from somewhere, the somewhere being private sector workers who have already had major changes made to there terms and conditions of employment due to current economic circumstances? I think a bit of realism from Doctors on this wouldn't go amiss, or hey perhaps we should all strike and really try and bring the country down so there is even less money to pay anyones pensions. I've got a lot more sympathy for lower paid workers striking so they can maintain a basic standard of living than GP's striking so they can have several holidays abroad a year whilst retired!

CLAPTON

DaddyBear wrote: »

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.

so your basis complaint is that your pension scheme is only the second best scheme in the country rather than the best of all.

however, would you agree that the doctors average salary should equal (i.e. be massively reduced) to the civil servants average salary as you seem to compare yourself with them?

chewmylegoff

DaddyBear wrote: »

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.

(1) the NHS pension scheme can never "provide" money to the treasury, because it all comes from the treasury in the first place. it's just an accounting entry. the gross NHS budget is £106 billion a year. that cost is reduced by £2 billion because instead of paying the money to staff now, the govt makes future promises to the staff that they will receive the money later.

(2) the only reason that the NHS pension scheme is "in profit" as you suggest is that the number of staff employed by the NHS now is much larger than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago, so the number of pensioners << the number of current staff.


pension provision is part of pay. i don't think doctors really have too much of a bad deal in terms of their overall package, and in any case, GPs in particular should be making their own pension provision and should not be receiving contributions from the NHS because they are self employed.

DervProf

Wookster wrote: »

Apparently a £53,000 pension is not enough.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee!

And on a £53K pension, that won't be any coffee, that'll be M&S coffee.

Itismehonest

chewmylegoff wrote: »

(1) the NHS pension scheme can never "provide" money to the treasury, because it all comes from the treasury in the first place. it's just an accounting entry. the gross NHS budget is £106 billion a year. that cost is reduced by £2 billion because instead of paying the money to staff now, the govt makes future promises to the staff that they will receive the money later.

(2) the only reason that the NHS pension scheme is "in profit" as you suggest is that the number of staff employed by the NHS now is much larger than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago, so the number of pensioners << the number of current staff.


pension provision is part of pay. i don't think doctors really have too much of a bad deal in terms of their overall package, and in any case, GPs in particular should be making their own pension provision and should not be receiving contributions from the NHS because they are self employed.

Yes, that is the point, chewmylegoff. While there may be a surplus now, when the current batch reach retirement age there will not be enough to go around. The level is unsustainable.

It was interesting to see an ex-doctor turned MP on TV yesterday who said that, until she became an MP, she'd had absolutely no idea of the level/costs of pensions in the private sector. She suggested that her ex-colleagues in the BMA asked their next 10 patients on relevant private pensions what they paid & what they would receive as it may be an eye-opener for them.

lostinrates

Itismehonest wrote: »

Yes, that is the point, chewmylegoff. While there may be a surplus now, when the current batch reach retirement age there will not be enough to go around. The level is unsustainable.

It was interesting to see an ex-doctor turned MP on TV yesterday who said that, until she became an MP, she'd had absolutely no idea of the level/costs of pensions in the private sector. She suggested that her ex-colleagues in the BMA asked their next 10 patients on relevant private pensions what they paid & what they would receive as it may be an eye-opener for them.

Gosh, almost exactly the situtaion i described in post 23 with dh's mate.

I think in truth many people are very bad at realising how the cards fall for them in comparison to others.

Andy_L

chewmylegoff wrote: »

pension provision is part of pay. i don't think doctors really have too much of a bad deal in terms of their overall package, and in any case, GPs in particular should be making their own pension provision and should not be receiving contributions from the NHS because they are self employed.

GPs pay both the employer & employee contributions to the NHS scheme

chewmylegoff

Andy_L wrote: »

GPs pay both the employer & employee contributions to the NHS scheme

fair enough, that's how it should be really given their self employed status. i probably should have known that since i used to draw up the accounts for quite a few GP partnerships, but it's been a long time...