Doctors vote in favour of industrial action

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18254499

A majority of doctors have voted in favour of taking industrial action over changes to their pensions.
The British Medical Association balloted more than 104,000 medics across the UK on the government's plans which it claims are unfair.
Half responded, with 79% of GPs, 84% of hospital consultants and 92% of junior doctors voting in favour.
The union's leadership will confirm its plans later, having previously ruled out a full-out strike.

If action is taken it will be the first time since 1975 that doctors have taken such a step.

I'm wondering just what this means for those of us on waiting lists for non urgent treatment.. Selfish of me I know but still worrying.

---------- Post added at 12:40 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

21 June is the day for industrial action.Non urgent cases will not be dealt with..

Sigh! I guess I'd better find out if I am on the list for that day..and if not how it affects the order of operations..

And here is why they are doing it (from the link above).

Doctors are among the best paid public sector employees - and as such they also have the most lucrative pensions.

The average hospital consultant retiring today will enjoy a pension of £48,000 a year and a lump sum of over £140,000.

Among public sector pensions being paid out, doctors account for two thirds of the top 1% of pay outs.

As a result, this government - and the Labour one that preceded it and reformed pensions in 2008 - has taken the judgement that it wants the best paid to subsidise the pensions of the lowest.

Contributions will rise the greatest for the highest earners. Those earning over £110,000 a year will end up contributing 14.5% of their salary.

Many may understand that approach, but doctors believe they are being unfairly targeted.

They point out that the top-paid civil servants will not be hit in the same way - and that perceived injustice has put the profession at loggerheads with the government.

I think that the top-paid Civil Servants should be treated the same.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And here is why they are doing it (from the link above). I think that the top-paid Civil Servants should be treated the same.

Amen to that. But they'll need to be on PAYE first....

I admire our medical professionals hugely but I'm sorry I don't have a great deal of sympathy in this area. Many people are suffering far more than they are and are far less able to afford it.

That was actually a (mostly) made-up story - most of the so-called Civil Servants on non-PAYE deals were interim or contract staff, and they were following normal practice for interim/contractors....

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That was actually a (mostly) made-up story - most of the so-called Civil Servants on non-PAYE deals were interim or contract staff, and they were following normal practice for interim/contractors....

Well I was only referring to those representative of the non made-up bit..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17927792

He was on a two year contract, not a full-time long-serving Civil Servant...

Indy

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I for one am going to support doctors in this, l have some good friends who are doctors, and they go through very hard training to become a doctor.

Its always easy for people to say that doctors earn too much money, but for what they do, they have earn't it.

What doctors, Arthur - the GPs, the A&E, the Consultants - or all of them?

I think the key issue here is Doctors already agreed to reform in 2008 which led to increased contributions. It's one thing to reform a system which is decades old and the deal people signed up with will have to change, it's another to go back on a deal from only 4 years ago.

If you make a deal you expect it to be honoured. If the Doctors agreed to the latest reforms what's to stop the Government further reforming it again in 4/5 years time? Where does it stop?

[Ramrod]

I sympathise but we are all in this financial mess together and some/a lot of us will feel the pain

Originally Posted by Damien

I think the key issue here is Doctors already agreed to reform in 2008 which led to increased contributions. It's one thing to reform a system which is decades old and the deal people signed up with will have to change, it's another to go back on a deal from only 4 years ago.

If you make a deal you expect it to be honoured. If the Doctors agreed to the latest reforms what's to stop the Government further reforming it again in 4/5 years time? Where does it stop?

Didn't think that deal had anything to do with pensions, more about the minimum income practice guarantee and other bits and bobs.

Update - it did include the retirement age of 65, but that was before the deep doo-doo hit the fan.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

We are in this financial mess due to the shoddy behaviour of this coalition government, they have come in and made severe cutbacks, made changes to the pension schemes, all to save money.

They suggest we go to the private sector for everything going, only to make money for people that are in the governments pockets.

I am 60 now and had a hard working life, and would love to take things easy, l can't as we are no longer capable of having the luxuries.

The pension saga has been started by this government, and doctors etc have the same rights as us and that is to strike.

It was noted that the police would love to strike.

Doctors etc work long hours and l for one would not like to be one.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

We are in this financial mess due to the shoddy behaviour of this coalition government, they have come in and made severe cutbacks, made changes to the pension schemes, all to save money.

They suggest we go to the private sector for everything going, only to make money for people that are in the governments pockets.

I am 60 now and had a hard working life, and would love to take things easy, l can't as we are no longer capable of having the luxuries.

The pension saga has been started by this government, and doctors etc have the same rights as us and that is to strike.

It was noted that the police would love to strike.

Doctors etc work long hours and l for one would not like to be one.

From the link in the very first post...

Originally Posted by BBC News

As a result, this government - and the Labour one that preceded it and reformed pensions in 2008 - has taken the judgement that it wants the best-paid to subsidise the pensions of the lowest.

(my bold)

[Lew]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

We are in this financial mess due to the shoddy behaviour of the previous Labour government…

Fixed that for you, Arthur.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Surely you know by now that Arthur doesn't do facts.

Doctors can finance their better pensions out of their above average earnings. Why should those in the private sector on lower incomes subsidise them?

above average related to whom?

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Update - it did include the retirement age of 65, but that was before the deep doo-doo hit the fan.

The situation will always fluctuate however, could Doctors expect their contributions to lower when the economy recovers?