Doctors Strike

[csgohan4]

Most unions have tried to work with the government but you cant work with someone who won't budge hence the strike.

Unfortunately the media as always is purely political in its coverage.

Even the Health secretary are going down the route 'Look at the poor patients being affected by you evil doctors' Well if you engaged with them in the first place this wouldn't have happened.

What happened to prevention is better than the cure? if at all there will be a cure

[csgohan4]

Most unions have tried to work with the government but you cant work with someone who won't budge hence the strike.

Unfortunately the media as always is purely political in its coverage.

To be fair, the government can't do much in terms of Bankers and their pay, only thing they can control are civil servant wages and pensions at the very least. That is unfair but reality

[Saracen]

Just curious, the new rules which have been implemented are now based on average career earnings as you know. So the pension pay out is now significantly less than the numbers your quoting for an Average Doctor. I could be mistaken but they are worse off than they were before, significantly.

No, those detailed figures were under the 2008 scheme. I can give examples under the previous scheme, but they're hard to compare, partly because of the much earlier retirement age (60) and partly because of the lump sum. For instance, a hospital doctor on a final salary of £90,000 would get just over £40,000 per year, and a tax-free lump sum of over £120,000 (which was worth about £200,000 pre-tax at 40%).

Under the 2008 rules, hospital doctors and salaried GPs pensions were based on final salary but on 60ths, and GP partners pensions were based on a form of career average.

But .... the BMA keep going on about how they dealt with all this several years ago, in the 2008 changes, but omit to mention that the take-up of the 2008 scheme was tiny. Most of those allegedly "sorted out" under the 2008 scheme didn't join it. So aren't sorted out.

[neonplanet40]

They can do plenty. A complete overhaul is needed. Which is what they have forced upon the public service. It is only fair they do the same with the big players.But they wont because bang goes their funding

[g8ina]

Perspective ....

My personal pension is fifty quid a month...

[Saracen]

The government has the ability to change law does it not? Are they exercising this right for the betterment of the country and to tackle what is now becoming a global problem? Debatable.

All I see is the conservatives throwing a smokescreen over the whole thing using it as an opportunity to punish everyone but the people that caused this problem in the first place instead of tackling the real problem. Typical of the conservatives really, I never expected anything more.

I hear where you're coming from, but really, it's misplaced.

The pensions issue is not about the current economic climate. Our ability to continue to provide public services on the current scale, and in the current manner, is in question, but the pensions issue is very different.

First, we're not talking about whether current NHS pensions are affordable now. The changes that are being implemented mean that any doctor retiring within 10 years will get the pension expected.

Second, benefits already earned are protected. The issue is about changing the terms over what contributions yet to be paid, and by people not within 10 years of retirement, will accrue in the way of benefits.

And third, this "time bomb" has been ticking away for at least 20 years. I remember a friend of mine (a pensions manager) warning me of this as a developing problem, in the 1970s. It was not as severe then as now, but it was already developing.

This issue is nothing, at least directly, to do with the current economic climate. It's about the sustainability into the long-term, because contributions now are accruing rights that will come due in 30, 40 50 years into the future, and that is when the bomb will detonate.

[Saracen]

They can do plenty. A complete overhaul is needed. Which is what they have forced upon the public service. It is only fair they do the same with the big players.But they wont because bang goes their funding

It's much trickier. With the private sector, as long as the tax-payer isn't on the hook to pay them, pensions are between executives and share-holders. And what the government can do about that is distinctly limited. THey can enable and empower shareholders, as is currently under discussion over executive pay. And I hope they do.

And they may be able to do something about tax levels on extremely high earners, not least in terms of the opportunities for avoidance. And I rather expect that they will. Remember Osborne's warning in the last budget .... I don't remember the exact words but it was along the lines of dealing with "aggressive avoidance" firmly, without warning, including using retrospective legislation.

Personally, after Cameron's blast at Jimmy Carr, I'm rather expecting that we will see some "retrospective" action, and I rather suspect that his blast was preamble for it. It would, after all, be hugely popular, and they could use a bit of popularity right now

[neonplanet40]

I hear where you're coming from, but really, it's misplaced.

The pensions issue is not about the current economic climate. Our ability to continue to provide public services on the current scale, and in the current manner, is in question, but the pensions issue is very different.

First, we're not talking about whether current NHS pensions are affordable now. The changes that are being implemented mean that any doctor retiring within 10 years will get the pension expected.

Second, benefits already earned are protected. The issue is about changing the terms over what contributions yet to be paid, and by people not within 10 years of retirement, will accrue in the way of benefits.

And third, this "time bomb" has been ticking away for at least 20 years. I remember a friend of mine (a pensions manager) warning me of this as a developing problem, in the 1970s. It was not as severe then as now, but it was already developing.

This issue is nothing, at least directly, to do with the current economic climate. It's about the sustainability into the long-term, because contributions now are accruing rights that will come due in 30, 40 50 years into the future, and that is when the bomb will detonate.

Sorry I may have led you to misinterpret what I was trying to say which was:

That the government is using this as a way of covering up dealing with the economic crisis and those responsible. Instead focusing on the public sector. It also seems to be an easy target for an ever increasing ignorant media. I am no economist so, as for pensions in the long run being affordable - I haven't a clue.

All I know is that what I signed up for has since changed and no doubt it will change many times before I reach an ever increasing retirement age. Is this fair? I think not and would be willing to strike to stick up for my belief.

The other point I was trying to make is that doctors have the RIGHT to strike as does most other people who have already done so. So the media digging them into the ground and making them all the scum of the earth - for me (who is not a doctor) is utterly despicable and it really does show our media in a bad light (deservedly).

[badass]

No, those detailed figures were under the 2008 scheme. I can give examples under the previous scheme, but they're hard to compare, partly because of the much earlier retirement age (60) and partly because of the lump sum. For instance, a hospital doctor on a final salary of £90,000 would get just over £40,000 per year, and a tax-free lump sum of over £120,000 (which was worth about £200,000 pre-tax at 40%).

Under the 2008 rules, hospital doctors and salaried GPs pensions were based on final salary but on 60ths, and GP partners pensions were based on a form of career average.

But .... the BMA keep going on about how they dealt with all this several years ago, in the 2008 changes, but omit to mention that the take-up of the 2008 scheme was tiny. Most of those allegedly "sorted out" under the 2008 scheme didn't join it. So aren't sorted out.

Lots of high figures there. The people that get pensions that big also pay a very large percentage of their salary as contributions.

There are 2 sides to this story and you are only quoting figures from the government side and dismissing all figures from the Doctors side as irrelevant.

Doctors in this country get paid less than countries where market forces determine their pay, such as the USA. Even if the pension is gold plated, perhaps this makes up for the monopoly abuse the government uses to drive down pay?

[Saracen]

Lots of high figures there. The people that get pensions that big also pay a very large percentage of their salary as contributions.

There are 2 sides to this story and you are only quoting figures from the government side and dismissing all figures from the Doctors side as irrelevant.

Doctors in this country get paid less than countries where market forces determine their pay, such as the USA. Even if the pension is gold plated, perhaps this makes up for the monopoly abuse the government uses to drive down pay?

Pay in the US is irrelevant unless you also take intro account all other comparison factors, like tax structures and rates (and I don't mean a simplistic comparison of basic income tax rates), and other features of employment, like holiday entitlement, house prices, and so on.

Also, I did not dismiss figures from the doctor's side as irrelevant. What I did was point out that the BMA "facts" million referred to are, by and large but not entirely, not facts, and that even where they are, they are part of the picture.

And, some of the figures I've quoted are Department of Health figures, sure. But many are not. The detailed pension estimates I gave were from an independent medical financial consultant, not either the government or the BMA.

Other figures I gave were from a charity (the Intergenerational Foundation) who, by the way, represent the interests of future generations that will be paying the bill and,. again, are not exactly the government.

Some other figures came from Hargreaves Lansdown, a financial advisor and, by the way, the one I use.

So please, agree with me or not (it being a free world and all that), but don't tell me I'm only quoting government figures, because not only is it not true, but I even referenced or alluded to where many of the figures were coming from.

Oh, and those "financial advisers" figures .... they were on a GP Training website. Again, hardly "government figures". The figures showing a pension of between (in round figures) £70k and £80k are not government figures in any way, shape or sense. They are calculations based on expectations from an actual firm of pension consultants specialising in the medical sector.

Of course, nobody knows exactly what pensions will be in 40 or 50 years, because, first, they can only be averages across the sector, and secondly, nobody knows what economic conditions will be in 50 years time, what inflation will have done for 50 years, whether they will even still be an NHS in 50 years, or for that matter, whether a meteor strike will have destroyed mankind by then. So yes, they're examples based on predicted income levels and patterns, but estimates by impartial and independent experts, providing advice to doctors, not propaganda to government.

And, are the BMA even disputing those pension levels? That, it seems to me, isn't their argument, and that's why I think they're living on a different planet.

[Saracen]

Sorry I may have led you to misinterpret what I was trying to say which was:....

Noted.

.... which was:

That the government is using this as a way of covering up dealing with the economic crisis and those responsible. Instead focusing on the public sector. It also seems to be an easy target for an ever increasing ignorant media.....

Hmmm. A conclusion I would dispute, in part at least, but in reality, there may be an element of truth in that.

It's a way of diverting attention, for a while, away from more immediate matters, but .... it's not an issue that's just raised it's head. As I said, a pensions manager discussed the broad outlines of the public sector pension issue with me decades ago, though not in anything like the stark terms we have now and not in relation to doctors.

But successive governments have either entirely dodged or partially ducked this issue for many years. It's categorically not an issue the coalition have invented.

....

I am no economist so, as for pensions in the long run being affordable - I haven't a clue.

....

I am an economist, and an accountant, and I have worked in a pensions department, but I'm not a pensions expert and certainly not a public sector pensions expert. I don't pretend to any particular expertise.

I have, however, read the Hutton report (more than once), and as little time with Google will lead you to all sorts of extra analysis, from think tanks and policy groups, to the House of Commons Library.

There is, as a matter of actuarial fact, an issue over public sector pensions. For that matter, there's an issue over state pensions too, and in large part for the same reasons ..... changing longevity.

....

All I know is that what I signed up for has since changed and no doubt it will change many times before I reach an ever increasing retirement age. Is this fair? I think not and would be willing to strike to stick up for my belief.

Hmmm, "fair". Here we go again.

Fair to who? How about the taxpayer that is going to be paying for a very large part of this, without ever aspiring to a pension anything like as generous. Zak, in his usual deliciously understated way raised a wonderful counterpoint to the claims that doctors deserve such high pensions because they're doing such a dangerous or unpleasant job. Personally, I'd rather face the drunks in A&E on a Friday night than a determined and actually pretty damn capable insurgency like the Taliban, who were doing their damnedest to either blow my head off with an AK47 or blow my ass into the next world with an IED.

Okay, l so you signed an agreement. Agreements can vary. Employment contracts can vary. And, any benefits already accrued are protected. A large part of this policy is about people that aren't even yet doctors, but will become so in years to come.

If you are, now, then you will have rights paid for and earned, already, that are protected as they are, and this is about what will have to be paid in future for future rights. Do you seriously think that there is no possibility of changing your pension arrangements for years going forward, just because you've started working? If so, then once again, I would point you to the private sector and what has and continues to happen, and ask why public sector staff, on pensions generally FAR better than private sector ones, think they're so damn special?

My pension, which I had signed an agreement for and which I had paid into, vanished in a puff of smoke, and I get nothing at all, and doctors think that just because their ludicrously generous pension is going to still be one of the best available anywhere but not quite as good as it was before that it's "unfair". Really? Are supposedly bright people really that naive?

If this scheme was going to leave doctors poorly provided for, I could see that "fair" claim sticking, but remember, a large part of what doctors get paid in pension comes directly from taxation on the rest of us, not from contributions made by doctors. So, "fair" has to be a case of not just doctors getting a huge pension, but an element of fairness for the rest of us that are paying for it.

...

The other point I was trying to make is that doctors have the RIGHT to strike as does most other people who have already done so. So the media digging them into the ground and making them all the scum of the earth - for me (who is not a doctor) is utterly despicable and it really does show our media in a bad light (deservedly).

Well, I'm not about to defend the media. I certainly haven't said doctors shouldn't have the right to strike. I just said I think they're being incredibly venal, given all the surrounding circumstances, and given that even after all these changes they'll have a pension the vast majority of the public would love to have half of, if they do.

And, from reports coming in, in seems that quite a few doctors concur with the view that, however unhappy they are about the changes, striking is not the way forward.

Frankly, I think one reason it's daft is the way it'll likely play. Did you see the Daily Politics at lunchtime? Digby Jones got stuck into the BMA rep and pointed out that they were putting a lot of their hard-won credibility with the public right in the line with this, precisely because of the strength of the pension, even after the changes.

I don't think the government want this fight, but I do think they're right up for it, prepared for it, will fight it all the way, and that they've calculated that a combination of the size of doctors pensions after the changes, and the fact that just about any action is going to cause at the least inconvenience and hassle for patients, that the PR is almost entirely in their favour. If this was nurses, or janitorial staff, etc, there would be a lot more public sympathy, but striking doctors will be seen as greedy precisely because the deal they're being offered is one most people would sell their first-born for, and that's what doctors are moaning about having to put up with.

If they cannot see how this is going to play if it goes on for long, then "naive" is the only word I can use, without having to ban myself. The BMA are, in my view, utter idiots for picking this fight, because I can't see a remote chance they're going to win it. If the government cave in, the very next time they get into a pensions fight, the argument will be "but you gave in to the doctors and they earn far more than we do".

This is not one the government can afford to lose, and so, the doctors are, in my view, going to end up eating this. They could have eaten it with with some dignity, and scored highly with the public, or they can have it shoved down their that, gagging and puking, and come across as greedy, but eat it they will.

[Zak33]

Every occupation has different pay scales and rightly so. Unfortunately some people think because Doctors are getting a pension above the national Average they don't deserve this. Are you or others advocating Doctors are paid the same wages as say cleaners?

no..not cleaners, though they too have to pay into a Pension to get something.

But I was comparing the Armed Forces as a job with long hours, dangerous conditions, doing a lot for our society and doing it all their life... kinda thing.

As to Doctors getting a pension above the national average.. I think we might need to rephrase that.

The median average salary-linked public sector pension that is currently being paid out to a pensioner, is worth £5,600 a year.

(NAPF).

Now.. if a Doctor gets a pension of say... £65k per year.. it's over 10 times above it.

So.. technically above ...yes... but not a few quid above. more than ten times.

[Zak33]

Perspective ....

My personal pension is fifty quid a month...

is that what you pay in.. or what you take out?

I have, since I was 18 paid into a pension. I'm 41.

I started at £25 per month in the early 90's.. and I am now paying in lots more than that. Lots more...

For me to get anywhere close to a £65k per year pension I'll need to up my contributions still further to approx £850 per month on my current calculations. .. for the next 25 years. Bear this in mind with the fact that I've already been paying in at an increasing amount for over 20 years.....

[0iD]

It's not the Doctors you have to worry about striking, it's if/when the Nurses strike that she poo will hit the ventilation & the backbone of the NHS will break.

[Zak33]

It's not the Doctors you have to worry about striking, it's if/when the Nurses strike that she poo will hit the ventilation & the backbone of the NHS will break.

agreed.. and it's not their pension anyone resents tbh....

[csgohan4]

it seems people here resent doctors pensions and their pay. But if they weren't as highly paid would you get the best people to work in the U,K with the best tertiary centres which rival the United States. Where would your cancer treatment be when the best oncologist have fled to pastures greener when the Government screwed them for the last time or would the surgeon operating on your heart be competant if his predecessor a world expert moved to New zealand where the pensions and pay is better?

Again I reiterate you pay peanuts you will get peanuts. You want the best you need to pay reasonably and not go keep changing the finish line every so often