big ears
Well-Known Member
Do you also not support the view that to retain the best people you need to pay them a decent salary?As an NHS employee myself, I would of course be very happy to accept more money if it were offered.
My lack of sympathy for the medical trainees' strike is informed by the following thinking - on which I'd be pleased to have comments if it's thought flawed.
The salaries of doctors in training AFAIK range from £29,000 to £58,000 depending on experience.
While they're in these jobs, they are being paid to train at public expense to qualify for hospital jobs which are paid to the extent that those in them have complained publicly and bitterly about the unfairness of their having to pay tax when their lifetime pension-contributions have exceeded £1,000,000.
If they decide for general practice, their salaries will be between £60-100,000 - or, if partners potentially a good deal more depending on their, or their managers', business acumen.
In either case, they will have excellent opportunites for additional private work, part-time working and flexibility, as well as a more-or-less complete assurance of job security.
The comparison of a medical trainee's salary with that of a nurse in charge, say, of a ward of 20-30 acutely-ill patients makes me wonder how quite how reward and responsibility are linked in the NHS medical vs. AFC (i.e. the non-medical/dental) payscales.
This mantra is so often said of the private sector wages and salaries yet forgotten about when it comes to public sector workers.
Don’t forget also that most doctors and nurses paid £9k a year tuition fees and have a student debt that will amount to an extra 9% income tax for most of their working lives. You quote salaries but once over £22k they pay 29% tax and once over £50k they pay 49% tax once you add in student loan payments.
Comparable public sector wage growth and private sector growth do not match. The Junior doctors are only asking for parity.