Trouble is that that argument stands up if the job remains the same.
The chronic shortage of workers across the whole sector leads to rota gaps that the nurses and doctors fill without extra pay.
Burn out is a real factor.
The pension is not as good as it was. I have just retired and have been awarded 37% of what they said I would get when I started in 1988!
All these factors are not realised.
Is it not still a defined benefit pension scheme?
If so, it may not be as good as it was, but it is far superior to what is available in the private sector.
The NHS retaining an unaffordable pension scheme is only possible because it is funded by the taxpayer, whilst that same taxpayer is denied accessing anything remotely similar.
Lest we forget, the limit has also just been removed on the Lifetime Pension Allowance, which stood at £1,073,100.
This was driven in part because NHS doctors reached the point where they maxed out on their allowable pension contributions, making it uneconomic for them to carry on working. This was cited as a major reason why doctors, and GP’s in particular, were retiring or working part time.
To be clear, I don’t begrudge them any of their benefits - they do a marvellous job - but focusing exclusively on junior doctor’s pay ignores how their earnings increase significantly over the length of their careers. It also ignores the rest of their renumeration package, which is still generous by comparison to what is available elsewhere.
So by all means increase junior doctor’s pay, but admit that it will cost a lot of money to do so. Some of that funding should perhaps come from paring back other benefits such as their pension scheme? Otherwise it seems like they want to both have their cake and eat it.
Another alternative might be to consider that, to match the pay offered in those countries where the junior doctors are moving to, we should also look to match the way their health services are organised and funded.