Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I generally support NHS workers.


But my work colleagues general consensus is how can anyone strike in this day and age.

You get higher wages by moving on - so you need private negotiation to create a wage market.


You never ever get higher wages in the job you're in - other than cost of living increases sometimes.

I've never considered striking either but I can see the doctors' case. I don't think we should bring in national widespread private sector providers just to break the government's monopsony on health workers. I suspect that the government is seeking to introduce more private sector providers for the exact opposite reason i.e. to reduce costs.

Uncleglen, a registrar (5-6 years of formal academic training, with a further 10-15 years of practical experience) earns about the same as a tube driver. I don't think they are fairly paid for the job.


Not sure the costs to train are directly linked to how much they should earn - if it cost only ?20k to train them then should they earn ?10k more? The fact is that becoming a doctor is hard work; if they had to pay for it themselves then there would be far fewer doctors all paid very considerably more.


Also, I'd add that they also pay for rquired professional qualifications out of their own pocket (each costing >?1.5k) and have to take annual leave to study and take the exams


Mike


PS I am not a doctor ...

we all know about tube drivers, and GPs for that matter. The tax payers' pockets are not bottomless pits, (regardless of what the miners and others might think).They want the kudos and the potential ?75,000+ for being a consultant then they have to take the rough with the smooth.

actually there are two things junior doctors want just now

1. not to have their take-home pay cut by 10-20% as a result of reclassfying their weekend hours (which they already work) as "normal".

2. Ensure NHS trusts continue to be restricted in their rostering to ensure safe coverage


This is not about weekend working as doctors already do this (unlike many other parts of the NHS) and they did not start this battle to get paid more.


I would also encourage you to look at what local council officers get paid, or London primary school teachers with 5 years experience.


In fact, the only job that I'm aware of in the public sector that pays even worse is nursing and social work, both averaging about ?25-29k.

Nurses start on less than that (?21k) and the government is set to replace bursaries with student loans.


Uncleglen, it takes at least 10 years to qualify as a GP, and much longer to reach consultant level. It requires a lot of hard work, study and student debt. Renumeration reflects that. And GPs btw, start on salaries of ?55k after qualification. Salary will rise according to experience and length of service.


Junior doctors on the other hand earn between ?22k and ?28k.


It's very easy to pluck out the salaries of top consultants and think that is the norm for pay scale, but it's actually not true. Most people working within the NHS are on very average salaries for their levels of skill and expertise.

Pay doesn't really have anything to do with how much training or how much skill is involved with the work someone does. Its set based on what it takes to recruit and retain people with the requisite skills. If the NHS has a shortage of junior doctors and is struggling to recruit, they need to adjust their pay scales. If not, then there is no issue irrespective of what train drivers or anyone else makes.


The fact is there is a shortage of junior doctors so worsening their existing working conditions both with respect to overtime pay and expected overtime work per person will be damaging.


I support the governments efforts to rain in costs but in this circumstance it simply won't work long term.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They want the kudos and the potential

> ?75,000+ for being a consultant then they have to

> take the rough with the smooth.



Bit like teachers really. Do you really think a teacher is worth more than a doctor?

Junior doctors do make a lot more than their base pay. On average junior doctors make 40k including the bonus pay for weekend and evening work in the early years of training and on average 56k in the later years of training including bonuses and supplements. Junior doctors in certain specialties make between 53k and 70k including bonus pay and as seniority progresses. Consultants make up to 100k.


Regardless of how much doctors make though, the pay isn't enough to retain and recruit appropriately so lowering it by reducing the hours that qualify for bonus payments is a bad long term strategy by the government.


Hunt is offering an 11% pay rise to help offset the loss of bonus payments for certain unsocialable hours; however, its obvious that given junior doctors nearly double their base pay rate through the supplements and bonuses an 11% payrise will still leave many of them worse off.

Salary scales are on the BMA website. 100k for a consultant is after 19y service at consultant level, which is usually reached around age 55-60y.


LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Junior doctors do make a lot more than their base

> pay. On average junior doctors make 36k including

> the bonus pay for week end and evening work.

> Junior doctors in certain specialties make between

> 53k and 70k including bonus pay and as seniority

> progresses. Consultants make up to 100k.

>

> Regardless of how much doctors make though, the

> pay isn't enough to retain and recruit

> appropriately so lowering it by reducing the hours

> that qualify for bonus payments is a bad long term

> strategy by the government.

The salary scales do not reflect total compensation of junior doctors. The whole argument they are making is that they want to keep their bonus pay for evenings and weekend work rather than lose them and get an 11% pay rise on the base pay.



My figures are based on the department of health estimates of total compensation. Of course, depending on the exact hours worked it will vary for each junior doctor.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11887308/How-much-are-junior-doctors-paid-and-why-are-they-threatening-to-strike.html

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Junior doctors do make a lot more than their base

> pay. On average junior doctors make 40k including

> the bonus pay for weekend and evening work in the

> early years of training and on average 56k in the

> later years of training including bonuses and

> supplements. Junior doctors in certain

> specialties make between 53k and 70k including

> bonus pay and as seniority progresses.

> Consultants make up to 100k.

>




How many hours a week do they need to work in order to earn these amounts? And how many of those hours are during the night or at weekends?


Personally I am not 100% behind the JD's striking, and a dislike the emotive arguments being used to support them. BUT I do think the offer that is on the table is shot.

Otta-- its not the total hours as much as the weekend and evening hours and that will vary be specialty a lot. I'm not sure what the average amount of evening and weekend work is across all doctors but that's where it comes out to.


There are two big issues with the proposal. Even though Hunt is guaranteeing no one who works a normal 48 hour week will be worse off, this is only possible by guaranteeing certain junior doctors' salaries through to 2019- its estimated that a quarter of doctors would be worse off due to receiving less supplements for weekend and evening work if this wasn't included in the proposal.


The doctors' concerns are: 1.) what happens after 2019; 2.) that because hours formerly classified as unsociable won't be classified as such anymore, it will be cheaper for those hours to be allocated to the roster and there will be an increase overall in evening and weekend work in the NHS; and 3.)as the pay guarantees don't apply to new doctors, this is going to have a negative impact on recruitment, particularly to specialties that already require lots of unsociable hours like A&E.


There is already a shortage of junior doctors in the acute care professions so its a ridiculous long term strategy. Salaries have to be set based on what's needed to recruit and retain staff and its already too low for that so the governments' proposal is idiotic and is just going to result in long term shortages in emergency care and the labor ward.

Broadly I agree with that summary LondonMix. Retention is a huge problem for the NHS and Jeremy Hunt seems to have no understanding of that. Similarly, the nursing bursery scheme was also introduced because of a shortage in nursing recruitment. A third of NHS staff are from overseas.


Srisky though is also right. Those higher levels of pay are dependent on length of service and experience. No-one walks into a higher level consultancy job. As for junior doctors, ?40k with overtime isn't unreasonable.

I don't disagree with Sirsky-- the up to 100k is definitely a consultant as I stated not a junior doctor and applies to a rather senior consultant at that. I was just providing the final potential salary as part of the discussion as people had brought up the 'end game'.


I get that the NHS is a blackhole of costs that is eating up more and more of the budget but this isn't a feasible solution. We can't run the NHS with no doctors willing to work in gynecology, A&E etc.


Something else has to give and if I had to guess its one of 3 politically suicidal options;


1. Raise taxes on everyone (not just upper tax payers)

2. Make pensions means tested disqualifying most except the extremely poor OAP from receiving it

3. Increasing the retirement age dramatically.

I did say POTENTIAL ?75,000+ I have taught aspiring medics in school and that is what they (and their pushy parents have their eye on). With everyone falling over themselves to earn a massive salary very quickly in order to buy an overpriced house in a suburb of London then medicine is not the road to go down...there was a time when flats were ring-fenced by the council for essential workers (and before you all start up it was Labour that first introduced the right to buy into their manifesto)

Medicine and law have always been seen as lucrative, respected and stable professions by parents, but as with most things it depends on speciality. That's not really the issue though. And housing is something that affects everyone, and both New Labour and the Conservatives are responsible for the place we are in. With more of the same to come, you have to wonder how bad it needs to get before government does something meaningful about it.


My own feeling is that ultimately, income tax will need to rise - although it's worth pointing out that NI has risen over the years, which amounts to the same thing (they both go into the same pot).

The demand for doctors has increased and like with anything, that results in increased cost. I'm not sure if junior doctors work longer or earn less in the past but today's reality is what it is.


There are lots of reasons the demand for medical professionals is so high-- we are living much longer, we are much less healthy (obesity resulting in co-morbidities that make treatment more complex and expensive), the EU directive restricting junior doctor hours to 48 hours (to keep rota fully staffed you now need more junior doctors than before).


There really needs to be a cultural shift where maintaining good health is seen as a civic duty as well as a personal good. Exercising should be as normal as brushing your teeth.

The new deal although offering an 11% base pay rise, takes away the overtime for unsocialble hours after 7pm weekdays and Saturday, which could effectively amount to a 20% pay cut for doctors. It is a highly demoralised plan to force through on Junior Doctors, I can't think of any private companies who could get away with this, because the company would lose their talent. Its taking advantage of the current crop of Junior Doctors who can not seek work outside of the UK as there is only one employer. Doctors who are training now would be wise to move abroad, which conversely will cause the NHS to hire doctors from abroad often on expensive locum rates.


It does seem very unfair to force through a paycut, no other public service has had this put upon on them and in the mid to long term its likely to cause staff shortages.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...