Junior Doctors strike

MaizieD you often bring up Lady Thatcher’s household budget economics however, it is not just the Conservative Party that continues this misinformation the Labour Party support and perpetuate the exact same theory

But if we don't remunerate appropriately, then doctors and nurses will go elsewhere ( Canada was the choice of my doctor BIL).
Significant sums of money paid to the leaders of large firms, top level bankers etc are justified because " we need to keep these people as they are important and we don't want them to leave". Following that hypothesis, aren't medics important?

My daughter has kept in touch with school friends, they are all high achievers who went to good universities and got good jobs in a variety of fields. They all started work four years before she did as she did graduate entry medicine. They have much smaller student loans, and were earning whilst she was still paying tuition fees and taking out student loans, they were also furthering their careers and are now moving into really well paid positions whilst she's still training and taking exams. She's quite happy with this as she chose medicine as a career and has absolutely no regrets, the only time she gets a bit fed up is when she has to miss celebrations because she's working weekends or nights and she can't find anyone to change with her. This is quite frequent as she has to do a lot of nights and weekends and it really affects her ability to have a social life. For those of you who think medicine is a career like the law or accountancy or whatever, it really isn't! Doctors and other people who support us 24/7, 365 days a year should be paid to reflect this so that they can at least make their non working time as easy as they can. Try sleeping in the day time in a hot bedroom when your neighbours are out in the garden having a BBQ!

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD you often bring up Lady Thatcher’s household budget economics however, it is not just the Conservative Party that continues this misinformation the Labour Party support and perpetuate the exact same theory

No. I absolutely agree with you, not only all the political parties but most journalists and commentators promulgate it.

But Thatcher, you have to admit, is the most high profile exponent of it. Love her or hate her, everyone remembers her statement and her household budget analogy. Not only those who were alive at the time, but it get passed down as a truism.

But once a party gets its hands on the Treasury it surely must know that the national finances don't work like that. Governments of all shades can find however much money they want to when they think it's needed. They know that they don't need 'the taxpayer' to fund it and that they don't need to 'borrow' it either. It's just much more politically acceptable for a chancellor to shake their head sadly and say 'We'd like to do that but we just can't afford it' than for them to say 'We don't believe in supporting/funding x,y or z'

But, I very much hope that the more the general public understands how state funding works the less they'll be influenced by the 'we can't afford it', or the 'how are you going to pay for it?' statements and they'll be better able to judge the social and/or economic benefits, or drawbacks, of proposed policies. And vote accordingly

MaizieD 👍

Wyllow3

I don't use that language neither do many I know because of its associations with complaining and moaning about supporting vulnerable people of many kinds.

So I dont agree "most other taxpayers".

Good for you, Wyllow.

I like to call it 'public money' because, if we believe that 'we' are 'the state' (which I do) then it is our money which is being spent and managed on our behalf by the government in power (theoretically I assume they are in power because most of the voters liked their ideas for spending public money).

Even if I believed that taxes fund spending (though it must be very obvious by now that I don't) I'd still sidestep the 'taxpayers' money' label because most people who use it seem to equate 'taxpaying' with paying income tax only. Which makes it easy for them to scorn those on benefits. But those on benefits pay tax too via VAT on their purchases. Not a fact that the 'virtuous taxpayers' like to acknowledge...

Actually even if you believe taxes fund public spending denying people pay rises is still counterproductive. People who earn more pay more tax. Employing more people means more tax. More disposable income means more spending and so more tax(VAT). The only reason not to pay more is actually idealogical- "we will not be pressured by unions or strikes". There's no reason, or logic, or economics behind it.

SueDonim

Fleurpepper

What is the terminology currently. It used to be

Houseman
Senior Houseman (SHO)
Registrar
Senior Registrar

Junior doctor. That’s it. It applies to everyone who is not a consultant, even if they’ve worked in the NHS for 30 years and have shedloads of experience.

Interestingly, my dd says staff use the old terms informally to denote hierarchy, as in ‘Go and ask X, she’s a senior.’

I think it was decided to refer to all non-consultants as juniors so that patients wouldn’t demand to see a senior registrar rather than a houseman.

I meant what are the different stages of 'Junior doctor' called nowadays.

foxie48

My daughter has kept in touch with school friends, they are all high achievers who went to good universities and got good jobs in a variety of fields. They all started work four years before she did as she did graduate entry medicine. They have much smaller student loans, and were earning whilst she was still paying tuition fees and taking out student loans, they were also furthering their careers and are now moving into really well paid positions whilst she's still training and taking exams. She's quite happy with this as she chose medicine as a career and has absolutely no regrets, the only time she gets a bit fed up is when she has to miss celebrations because she's working weekends or nights and she can't find anyone to change with her. This is quite frequent as she has to do a lot of nights and weekends and it really affects her ability to have a social life. For those of you who think medicine is a career like the law or accountancy or whatever, it really isn't! Doctors and other people who support us 24/7, 365 days a year should be paid to reflect this so that they can at least make their non working time as easy as they can. Try sleeping in the day time in a hot bedroom when your neighbours are out in the garden having a BBQ!

Absolutely!!

Junior Grades
1. SHO – is the old term for a junior doctor in training now replaced by ST1 – ST2 – ST3. Also known in some hospitals as Clinical Fellow.
Training Grades
FY1 and FY2 – the first 2 years of clinical experience after qualification
ST1 – ST3 are the first 3 years of Basic Specialty Training (Old SHO)
ST4 – ST8 are the remaining 5 years of Higher Specialist Training. (Old Specialist Registrar)

Simple guide comparing old and new medical grade terminology here.
remediumpartners.com/doctor-grades-in-the-nhs/

Glorianny Actually even if you believe taxes fund public spending denying people pay rises is still counterproductive. People who earn more pay more tax. Employing more people means more tax. More disposable income means more spending and so more tax(VAT).

Indeed.

Many taxes apart from income tax and NI. Lots of taxes.

Germanshepherdsmum

But the buck didn’t stop with her, rather like trainee lawyers who have passed all their exams and do a lot of work but are not fully qualified.

I put this chart on another thread but it seems some people on here need a reality check. It seems a few think the Conservatives must always be shown to be right however much the truth must be twisted to make it seem that way.

Not only are the majority of doctors caring for us very much real Doctors not some weird incompetent half trained beings, but they do not get paid in relation to what they do.

I think we just have to accept that the Conservatives are out to destroy all opportunity to have a functioning NHS.

I think we also have to recognise that their salary is based on a 40 hour week, but they work many more hours for which they are paid. When you equate their total remuneration with say that of a newly qualified solicitor who has to work the same horrendous hours 6 hours sleep is a luxury) but on a fixed salary, the financial outcome is not dissimilar. I’m by no means saying that either profession should have to work the hours they do, but it’s the reality of both jobs. I remember my son, as a newly qualified solicitor, saying he’d get a better hourly rate working at MacDonalds, and he was right. Each of course earns far more as they progress. And no, I’m not saying junior doctors shouldn’t have a pay rise.

I’m not saying junior doctors shouldn’t have a pay rise.

Nobody has said that, have they?

foxie48

Junior Grades
1. SHO – is the old term for a junior doctor in training now replaced by ST1 – ST2 – ST3. Also known in some hospitals as Clinical Fellow.
Training Grades
FY1 and FY2 – the first 2 years of clinical experience after qualification
ST1 – ST3 are the first 3 years of Basic Specialty Training (Old SHO)
ST4 – ST8 are the remaining 5 years of Higher Specialist Training. (Old Specialist Registrar)

Thanks for this.

SHO for Senior House Officier- before that it was 'House Officer'

MaizieD

^One doctor on tv said he could not afford to live near his hospital in Oxford. Lots of young professionals find themselves in this situation too.^

Instead of insinuating that doctors shouldn't be trying to be better off than other young professionals, how about comparing them with the highly paid financial sector employees of a similar age?

I don't understand why everyone has to be reduced to the lowest common denominator...

Absolutely.

Fleurpepper

maddyone

Germanshepherdsmum

A junior doctor is paid just over £14 an hour for their first year of workplace training. So not a fully qualified doctor.

No!
A fist year doctor is a fully qualified doctor. After the five or six years at university a doctor graduates as a doctor. They then work F1 and F2 and are paid a salary because they are fully qualified doctors. They have not specialised at that point but they are fully qualified. During university they work in the hospitals too, it’s called clinical experience and they are still learning. My daughter spent three full years of her time at university engaged in clinical work in the hospitals, in a variety of hospitals all around London as she trained at UCL. Make no mistake about it, after six years at university, during which time she collected two degrees, one a BSc and the other a medical degree, in other words, a doctorate, she was fully qualified. Further work, study, and training is then acquired over years in order to become a Consultant.

Well done her. OH qualified at UCH in 1969. His first year as a Junior doctor, when I met him, he worked 140 hrs a week for exactly £1000. A different world altogether then!

20 hour days, every day for a week! Wow! I assume that included overnight on-calls.
I know a new teacher was earning £1308pa in 1974, so £1000 for a doctor 5yrs before sounds comparable.

Surely the UK economy is based on supply and demand. If there aren't enough doughnuts to satisfy the public's need, then the price goes up, until the number of doughnuts equals the number of people prepared to pay that price.
But this is heresy for the public sector. There aren't enough doctors, so other doctors work harder to cover the gaps, become burnt-out and leave. Consequently even fewer doctors.
We don't have enough doctors

Chardy

Fleurpepper

maddyone

Germanshepherdsmum

A junior doctor is paid just over £14 an hour for their first year of workplace training. So not a fully qualified doctor.

No!
A fist year doctor is a fully qualified doctor. After the five or six years at university a doctor graduates as a doctor. They then work F1 and F2 and are paid a salary because they are fully qualified doctors. They have not specialised at that point but they are fully qualified. During university they work in the hospitals too, it’s called clinical experience and they are still learning. My daughter spent three full years of her time at university engaged in clinical work in the hospitals, in a variety of hospitals all around London as she trained at UCL. Make no mistake about it, after six years at university, during which time she collected two degrees, one a BSc and the other a medical degree, in other words, a doctorate, she was fully qualified. Further work, study, and training is then acquired over years in order to become a Consultant.

Well done her. OH qualified at UCH in 1969. His first year as a Junior doctor, when I met him, he worked 140 hrs a week for exactly £1000. A different world altogether then!

20 hour days, every day for a week! Wow! I assume that included overnight on-calls.
I know a new teacher was earning £1308pa in 1974, so £1000 for a doctor 5yrs before sounds comparable.

Yes, that was the norm then. Yes, some on-call at night and week-ends- but as said above, that meant nothing if you worked in A&E, Cardiac Ward, or Obs and gynea- women had babies, needed stitching and C sections night and day.

OH was Houseman and then SHO in London hospitals- can you imagine how it must be for junior doctors to find suitable accommodation? It was bad enough in London in the 70s! In fact, our rent for our small damp and dingy flat, with a 50p gas fire, with bills, in the attic of an old house, cost more than salary. We had to give it up to live in his room at the hospital, in a pre-fab, 1 x 2'6 bed, a small desk, 1 chair and a sink- and shower and WC shared for 6 rooms at end of corridor. When the bleep went, all the Junior docs got up as it was heard in every room. We then moved to the West Midlands, and after living in dingy horrible hospital accommodation in the attic of the Victorian part of the hospital, could afford a small house - but nothing to put in it.

Sorry, beginning to sound like the Yorkshire men and Monty Python- but so true.

More wow!

Germanshepherdsmum

I think we also have to recognise that their salary is based on a 40 hour week, but they work many more hours for which they are paid. When you equate their total remuneration with say that of a newly qualified solicitor who has to work the same horrendous hours 6 hours sleep is a luxury) but on a fixed salary, the financial outcome is not dissimilar. I’m by no means saying that either profession should have to work the hours they do, but it’s the reality of both jobs. I remember my son, as a newly qualified solicitor, saying he’d get a better hourly rate working at MacDonalds, and he was right. Each of course earns far more as they progress. And no, I’m not saying junior doctors shouldn’t have a pay rise.

I just don't feel we need a solicitor as much as we do a doctor. Our health, well-being and even life may depend on a doctor. A solicitor really doesn't come that high on my list. Well-trained or not, sleeping or not, I do not give a solicitor the value I put on a doctor. I would go as far as to say it seems a very odd comparison.

Chardy, you are absolutely right. I love your doughnut analogy.