Doctor's Strike

[MOCAŠ]

I posted it because I thought it was funny. That's the end of it. Nothing more complicated than that!

I know, I get it. But the debate that's ensued wasn't about the cartoon or the fact that you'd posted it.

Someone at some point was probably going to start a thread to discuss the doctors' strike, just as they did about the threat of a tanker drivers' strike. They just happened to hang it on a hook that you'd conveniently provided.

You know how threads on here have a tendency to take on a life of their own...

 

[st4]

Guys, guys...

It was just a cartoon I posted. Please don't analyse it all to death - just take it for the humour it was intended to be.

Wrong forum for that

 

[Colin_b]

Based on the doctors I know, if they do strike there will be a boom in the wine trade

 

[HR17]

Those who I know, although officially striking, will still be at work doing their paperwork, clinical research, reading up, auditing etc. They just won't be doing the routine clinics, although elective surgery will be going ahead, as well as urgent need clinics - cancer, pain etc.

I can't see many of them standing round the staff entrance screamig 'Scabs!' at their colleagues, although it would be amusing seeing the old school, public school, Oxbridge lot at it.

Also, when the media refer to 'junior' doctors, what they're referring to are trainees. Its the consultant where the buck stops.

 

[davethemus]

I support any worker who strikes to defend their conditions and pay.

Of course it is an inconvenience when anyone strikes, that's because people's labour is important and it makes life more difficult when they withdraw it, if it didn't then there would be no point in them doing the job in the first place.

 

[Harrythedog]

This chopping and changing of people's original contracts is getting far too common and is dangerous for all. There is already a procedure in place for changing contracts i.e. Pay the employee off with the relevant compensation and re-advertise the position with the new terms and conditions.

 

[Dryce]

I support any worker who strikes to defend their conditions and pay.

This chopping and changing of people's original contracts is getting far too common and is dangerous for all. There is already a procedure in place for changing contracts i.e. Pay the employee off with the relevant compensation and re-advertise the position with the new terms and conditions.

If the economy is strong then the conditions, pay, contracts tend to look after themselves on an upward basis.

OTOH if the economy is weak and has to remain competitive then the pressure on them is disproportionately downwards.

The least flexible aspect of our economy is labour. Now that in part is as a result of a 'good thing' because employees are generally well protected. However in the current real world it's potentially destructive. Many businesses are damaged by their inability to flex their workforces as much as they need (net result is a tactical saving of jobs in the short term but potentially greater strategic long term damage and loss of lots more).

As regards doctors. It's become an oversubscribed profession and the past three or four governments have been a bit too kind contractually.

 

[Apial]

As regards doctors. It's become an oversubscribed profession .

What are the statisics for your observation? How many applicants are there for each job?

My feeling is that we need more doctors, so perhaps the number of jobs funded is inadequate. Our local hospital has one night time duty doctor to cover all the inpatients AND A&E. The local GP srvice is very booked up. In fact i looked up one of the local hospital doctors and discovered that the GMC had struck him off previously for assaulting colleagues. The hospital must have been desperate when they took him on.

But perhaps I'm wrong. I really would like to know especially as my daughter is about to start her degree in Medicine.

 

[Dryce]

What are the statisics for your observation? How many applicants are there for each job?

Try talking to some of the 3rd/4th year students at the moment and their job expectations.

There are some real concerns as to what happens after graduation.

But perhaps I'm wrong. I really would like to know especially as my daughter is about to start her degree in Medicine.

The situation will be 'managed'. Way too embarrassing for the economy to have unemployed medical graduates.

And even if it is not managed perfectly the % left in the cold will be way smaller than other degrees.

 

[HR17]

There will always be jobs for the good medicine graduates. Just getting the degree doesn't necessarily mean they'll be a good doctor. Getting the degree is just the start of their training.

 

[LTD]

Doctors are striking yet will treat emergency cases without question.

Maybe if the citizens and migrant population of the UK would actually only use the NHS for issues that really affect them instead of treating as a flaming social club or justification of benefit claims then there would be less financial restraints on all services and the people that actually require the treatment can get the attentions they deserve and require in a proper and fit timescale where they are attended to by people in a job with enough time and resources to actually carry out everything properly.

As usual, it is the system parasites that are wasting it for everyone and forcing these changes to working conditions and benefits on the medical staff that makes them take actions they don't want to do but have to as it is a last resort after negotiations failed.

My wife is an NHS professional and has seen her pensionable qualifications change dramatically over the last few years. She will now be expected to receive her NHS pension 49 years after joining the NHS ...

 

[Gh3382]

I believe that people should have their rights defended.

However I dont think anyone should be able to hold the country to ransom.

I am struggling to remember when anyone won anything out of a strike.

It is now wake up time for the public sector. What is happenning now has happened over years in the private sector with pensions and conditions

Gordon "prudent " Brown raped and pillaged the private pension sector to maintain unsustainable levels of spending. That included all pensions not just those for the rich. Thats after selling all the gold reserves at the lowest price possible which if sold now would probably clear the national debt.

It does not matter if you like it or not who or who you are its reality time and everyone is getting a wake up call and not just in this country. If I ran my finances like the country had been ran by Blair and Brown I would have been bankrupt and kicked out my house.

Despite the majority of doctors being junior the average retirement pension for a doctor is £68K. Not bad I am sure many on here would to have liked earn that at some time in their working life.

As for the NHS it all too often just a tool for too many who dont want to work to bluff unprovable illness and ailments to access what is all too often a over generous benefit system which creates a lifestyle that working could not. I dont mean everyone and I believe that many of those who genuinely need help are tarred wrongly in many cases with the same brush.

As someone that runs a small business I would love someone to guarantee my pension and pay me for holidays and full sickpay.

Its not just the public sector as private sector fat cats are well overdue for a kicking as well.

The Cheif Executive of my local council is on over £250k a year but the city is declining at an unbelievable rate and the average wage of residents here is 16K. Not bad for being a failure.

And lastly I enjoyed the humour from the original post.

gh3382

 

[ss201]

I enjoyed the humour too, so thanks for posting the cartoon.

On a more serious note, however....

If the average annual pension for a doctor is £68k (excluding state pension) and the annual pension of a highly paid civil servant is based on a percentage of final salary - how is a nurse or other health service worker in London or anywhere in the south east expected to live on a a similar percentage of their final salary? Those people spent their lives working on shifts, dealing with the nasty end of patient care whilst earning a small percentage of what doctors earned for 30 years. They deserve a comfortable retirement too.

I'm all for people having a decent standard of living in their retirement, but haven't the high earners had the fruits of 30 years of good income and the associated benefits to save a little for their retirement? In my view, it's time the whole pension thing was dealt with once and for all. Put a cap on pensions at 30k per annum for all and plough the money saved into growing the economy for future generations. At 65, if you've been sensible, you'll have a house worth a shed load of money, no mortgage, more than enough clothes and possessions to last the rest of your life and how many holidays a year do you need to take?

Unfortunately we have had a succession of governments that have just refused to grasp the nettle on this subject. The doctors' pensions situation is just the tip of a massive iceberg.

 

[markjay]

...You know how threads on here have a tendency to take on a life of their own...

I know, I know, my Indonesian Ring thread for example...

 

[davethemus]

I believe that people should have their rights defended.

However I dont think anyone should be able to hold the country to ransom.

I am struggling to remember when anyone won anything out of a strike.

It is now wake up time for the public sector. What is happenning now has happened over years in the private sector with pensions and conditions

Gordon "prudent " Brown raped and pillaged the private pension sector to maintain unsustainable levels of spending. That included all pensions not just those for the rich. Thats after selling all the gold reserves at the lowest price possible which if sold now would probably clear the national debt.

It does not matter if you like it or not who or who you are its reality time and everyone is getting a wake up call and not just in this country. If I ran my finances like the country had been ran by Blair and Brown I would have been bankrupt and kicked out my house.

Despite the majority of doctors being junior the average retirement pension for a doctor is £68K. Not bad I am sure many on here would to have liked earn that at some time in their working life.

As for the NHS it all too often just a tool for too many who dont want to work to bluff unprovable illness and ailments to access what is all too often a over generous benefit system which creates a lifestyle that working could not. I dont mean everyone and I believe that many of those who genuinely need help are tarred wrongly in many cases with the same brush.

As someone that runs a small business I would love someone to guarantee my pension and pay me for holidays and full sickpay.

Its not just the public sector as private sector fat cats are well overdue for a kicking as well.

The Cheif Executive of my local council is on over £250k a year but the city is declining at an unbelievable rate and the average wage of residents here is 16K. Not bad for being a failure.

And lastly I enjoyed the humour from the original post.

gh3382

It seemed to work for British Airways staff a few years ago, last I checked Willie Walsh had moved on.

It's economic ignorance to compare the finances of a country to your household finances, even if you do though you're actually wrong. When you take a mortgage out you then have debt worth 3.5 times of your 'GDP', but you still do it because it's manageable debt and you're investing in the future.

Regarding private pensions, in 2007 private pension companies were given in total tax breaks of £87 billion yet contributions from their members were £85 billion, doesn't sound like 'plundering' to me.

 

[John]

It seemed to work for British Airways staff a few years ago, last I checked Willie Walsh had moved on.

He moved into X Fuctor or a garden improvement show I think...

 

[Gh3382]

It's economic ignorance to compare the finances of a country to your household finances,

pardon my ignorance, so you are saying that there is no comparison. banks and lenders were lending 100% on houses which were overvalued in a overheated market.



You do not need to have a economics degree to realise that if that asset or house devalues that and too much money has been lent against the value the banks and other lenders have been dropped in the sh1t.

Then you use public money to bail it all out (which I would not have done but let market forces take their course) and then borrow money to try and keep it all sustainable.

immaterial if it is your own finances or the country's the same principle exists if you borrow too much money and can not afford to pay it back it causes hardship and you need to tighten your belt so that the borrowers know they have a chance of getting back what they lent you and their interest, Or they bankrupt you or raise your interest rates exasperating the problem.

Regarding private pensions, in 2007 private pension companies were given in total tax breaks of £87 billion yet contributions from their members were £85 billion, doesn't sound like 'plundering' to me.

You are right they were but what about all the other years since when the pot has been plundered. the only reason the tax breaks were given was to sweeten the pot to encourage people to opt out of the state scheme and go private as the state schemes are unsustainable.

In 1987 when my employer tried to put me in a private pension scheme when the state said they will not be enough for people to draw from the state it was not hard to work out even in the private sector that more people taking out of the pot than putting in was not going to work. This means less pension in either sector. That same scheme was also available to the public sector who paid less into the pot and were guaranteed what pension they would draw from the scheme. The private sector contributors were open to market forces so when the stock markets went down the pension return went down but the public sector were ringfenced whose employers contribution was paid by the state. So I would put more money in but not be given a guarenteed return. So if the scheme went upside down I would lose it but the public sector contributors were ok.

I suppose that was equality was it, I dont think so .

I took things into my own hands and glad I did because i know exactly what I will get and not be reliant on the state or be the victim of some pimple faced pubescent schoolboy salesman for a bank who was more interested in his kickback than my future.

Gh3382

 

[davethemus]

pardon my ignorance, so you are saying that there is no comparison. banks and lenders were lending 100% on houses which were overvalued in a overheated market.



You do not need to have a economics degree to realise that if that asset or house devalues that and too much money has been lent against the value the banks and other lenders have been dropped in the sh1t.

Then you use public money to bail it all out (which I would not have done but let market forces take their course) and then borrow money to try and keep it all sustainable.

immaterial if it is your own finances or the country's the same principle exists if you borrow too much money and can not afford to pay it back it causes hardship and you need to tighten your belt so that the borrowers know they have a chance of getting back what they lent you and their interest, Or they bankrupt you or raise your interest rates exasperating the problem.

You are right they were but what about all the other years since when the pot has been plundered. the only reason the tax breaks were given was to sweeten the pot to encourage people to opt out of the state scheme and go private as the state schemes are unsustainable.

In 1987 when my employer tried to put me in a private pension scheme when the state said they will not be enough for people to draw from the state it was not hard to work out even in the private sector that more people taking out of the pot than putting in was not going to work. This means less pension in either sector. That same scheme was also available to the public sector who paid less into the pot and were guaranteed what pension they would draw from the scheme. The private sector contributors were open to market forces so when the stock markets went down the pension return went down but the public sector were ringfenced whose employers contribution was paid by the state. So I would put more money in but not be given a guarenteed return. So if the scheme went upside down I would lose it but the public sector contributors were ok.

I suppose that was equality was it, I dont think so .

I took things into my own hands and glad I did because i know exactly what I will get and not be reliant on the state or be the victim of some pimple faced pubescent schoolboy salesman for a bank who was more interested in his kickback than my future.

Gh3382

Your all over the place here. I understand your point in this post but in your last post you tried to compare the running of a country to the running of a house budget, they're totally different, so incomparable.

I also believe the banks should have been allowed to fail but what this has to do with public sector pensions I don't know.

Regarding equality, when has capitalism been about equality? I can't remember. The withdrawal of labour is a part of the free market and if you support the idea of a free market then you also must support the idea of a strike, even if you disagree with the detail.

Also the idea of my pension isn't as good as my neighbours so I want my neighbours to be worse is an unhealthy way to think IMO. Why not say I want my pension to be as good as my neighbours. Why try and drag everyone down instead of pull everyone up?

 

[Dryce]

It seemed to work for British Airways staff a few years ago, last I checked Willie Walsh had moved on.

Don't get caught up in the propaganda of this dispute.

He effectively got promoted as the new airline group integrated and he headed up the whole group rather than just BA.

The union propaganda of the time tells it differently.

I hold this particular dispute as one of the excellent examples as to how a union should not go about its business. The actual details of how it arose and how it was conducted and how it was resolved are fascinating. The leadership of the union branch makes for a very interesting story in itself.

 

[Colin_b]

Your all over the place here. I understand your point in this post but in your last post you tried to compare the running of a country to the running of a house budget, they're totally different, so incomparable.

There are a lot of similarities, and really the principles are the same.

Balance earnings against expenditure, long and short term.

Manage long term and short term debts.

Investment for future needs, repairs, children and the unexpected.

Basically manage your very local economy properly.

I don't have elections every 4 or 5 years at home, which helps - I don't need to buy votes.