[GCW]

I'll reserve comment for now and see what the Daily Malicious has stirred up!   

[andy popp]

Was wondering if any of the Docs on here were taking action?

[lagerstarfish]

what's the point of striking when it's raining too much to get out on rock?

and can I get those benzos on a monthly pick up? how about some DFs for my bad back/leg/shoulder

and can you sign my application for a free bus pass?

can you phone benefits agency and explain that I need to claim DLA because my agoraphobia/anxiety means that I can only use the local corner shop to buy my Frosty Jack - it costs 50p more than at Asda

[GCW]

Was wondering if any of the Docs on here were taking action?

"Action"- yes.

I was just interested to see what people think after all the bad publicity, and back stabbing from Ministers.

[Snoops]

I think the main point is not so much the increase in contributions (6.5 % now going up to 9-12%) but the fact that the civil service including MP's have a very similar pension and only contribute approximately 2%.
The main point of the BMA is if we have to do it - fine, but you need to lead by example and do it yourselves as well.This seems to have been missed by the media who have successfully portrayed it as 'a money grabbing bastards'

[rginns]

I think doctors need to take some of the slack like everyone else - my employer (private sector) doesn't contribute anything to my pension and if I go on strike I'd soon be handed my P45. Doctors going on strike seems a bit rich bearing in mind nurses are hardly getting a better deal.

I do however think MPs are taking the piss if they expect not to have to contribute in a similar way. Pretty hypocritical

[GCW]

It's not all about money, that's where it's all gone wrong.

GP partners already pay both the employees and employer's contributions,  so a quarter of their salary instantly goes on pensions.  I'm not that bothered about that, everyone in the country will pay more pension contributions to get less pension.  The fact the BMA has gone along with the money side of things makes all doctors sound like money grabbing bastards who earn £££££££.

My main issue is the retirement AGE.  I can't see how I could consult with 30 people per day, in 10 minute slots, at the age of 68 and be safe.  Would you want a 68 year old surgeon operating on you at 3am?  I certainly wouldn't.

The problem we have is that the BMA has opted for action that affects patients, which I certainly don't agree with.  If we'd said "OK, we aren't going to get involved in CQC/ revalidation/ commissioning" then Lansley would have shat his pants and patients wouldn't have been affected.  What we've actually ended up doing is pissing off the public who have no clue what's really going on because they've been fed bullshit by the papers.

I'm taking industrial action (I'm not calling it a strike because I am in work and will see anyone that needs seeing) because that's the only way I can make a point.  It just so happens that there's nobody that needs to be seen so far!!  Sod's law.

[slackline]

I'm not disagreeing with you GCW but you could say the same about increasing the retirement age and the potential for detrimental consequences for a lot of professions.

[GCW]

I agree completely.

One of the issues though is the introduction of revalidation to prove you are still fit to work, which is actually a lot of work (supposed to be at least 2 hours per week) on top of a normal day.  There is no longer an option to retire if you think your standards are dropping, unless you take a significantly reduced pension. 

I fully expect that what will happen in years to come is that people will retire on ill health grounds on a full pension at an earlier age on the basis of being unfit to do the job, which will be backed up by the revalidation results.

I've said before that the NHS pension scheme is actually good and is profitable for the Government.

I'm not saying NHS staff are special (after all, the money side covers all employees), I said above that everyone has to take the hit.

[GraemeA]

Reminds me of a poem

    First they came for the teachers,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a teacher.

    Then they came for the doctors,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a doctor.

    Then they came for the other public sector workers,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a public sector worker.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[andy popp]

I don't disapprove  - a useless answer I know.

The money issue is clearly a hard sell in these time - though I've no doubt at all the papers have been spreading misinformation left, right and centre. The age issue I agree with you totally GCW - the consequences of mistakes are much more severe in some professions. If I'm still teaching at 68 I'll probably be boring but I won't actually kill anyone.

I totally support the right of the medical profession to take industrial action (a word I used deliberately).

[GCW]

Makes me think more of Deep Thought's reply to the threat of a national Philosopher's Strike-   And who will that inconvenience?

[IanP]

Reminds me of a poem

    First they came for the teachers,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a teacher.

    Then they came for the doctors,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a doctor.

    Then they came for the other public sector workers,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a public sector worker.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Nice poem unfortunately for the vast majority in the private sector they came years ago (my defined benefits pension scheme was closed more that 3 years ago and it's only because I've been at the same employee for years that I've lasted that long).

[IanP]

My main issue is the retirement AGE.  I can't see how I could consult with 30 people per day, in 10 minute slots, at the age of 68 and be safe.  Would you want a 68 year old surgeon operating on you at 3am?  I certainly wouldn't.

Retirement age is increasing for everyone since on average we're living longer.  The associated argument I guess would be that a 68 year old in 25 years time should be as healthy as a 65 old now, not sure how true this is - are we living longer in poor health rather than having more years of good health?

More importantly people on DB schemes don't have to work to their retirement age to get a pension, if they retire early there pension will be reduced appropriatly.

To understand the arguments better I'd like to see some real figures.   Lets assume a docutor starts paying into a pension at age 25 and at retirement earns £80,000 (ignoring inflation / wage increase makes it all easier to understand)  - what pension would they get. for example, if they retired at 60, 63 or 68?

[slackline]

To understand the arguments better I'd like to see some real figures.   Lets assume a docutor starts paying into a pension at age 25 and at retirement earns £80,000 (ignoring inflation / wage increase makes it all easier to understand)  - what pension would they get. for example, if they retired at 60, 63 or 68?

Have a play (not actually used it myself, just the top hit of a  search).

[Lund]

I work in the private sector; my pension is worthless, there aren't even any contributions to it at the moment (they've been "suspended", which is apparently legal, where as just not doing them isn't, gotta love that), and I think that I will have to work until I die (if I can).  Striking isn't possible for me.

So on the one hand strikers come across as a bunch of wankers.  The world's smallest violin comes out to play it's merry little tune.  Fuck you, cos I've been fucked for years.  And the more people moan about the loss of their good deal, the more I despise them.  The more they bring unbalanced politics and personality cults (e.g. Dave the cunt, fat-tongued Miliband, etc.) into it the more I disregard their opinions as being out of the real world and pointless.

Against that however, as a balanced and analytical chap I have to set the counter arguments.  Usually these are few.  In some specific cases: doctors, nurses, teachers to a much lesser extent (mainly because there's the private sector and 14 weeks holiday a year???! SWEET JESUS), you're stuffed if your employer (the state) wants to shaft you.  You can't resign and go and do the same job somewhere else that won't screw you like I could (theoretically of course, practically everyone is getting shafted at present).  So striking is the only option, and I understand that.

So, in this specific case, if there is a valid point to make (and I have little opinion on that as I don't know enough), then you need to make it.  You can't vote with your resignation.  So you must strike.  However, I wonder why if it's important you don't do it properly.  Walk out for a fortnight.  That would get the message across loud and clear.  A day?  Bothered.

[GCW]

The current scheme is that you can retire on a full pension at 60 if you have made full contributions (25 years full time)- this used to be included voluntary contributions, but this has effectively gone now.

It gets a bit complicated, but to keep it simple:

In the standard old style scheme if you work until 60 with full contributions the pension will be around £37,000 pre tax.  If you retire 5 years early, without extra contributions, it will be about £29,000.  If you retire 10 years eary it will be £23,000 ish.

This varies depending on if you want lump sum payments etc etc though, but as a general guide it's about right.  I can only presume the new deal will mean you get less, but 8 years later.

I have no idea how this equates to someone in the private sector that has earned that amount for 37 years?

[rginns]

My main issue is the retirement AGE.  I can't see how I could consult with 30 people per day, in 10 minute slots, at the age of 68 and be safe.  Would you want a 68 year old surgeon operating on you at 3am?  I certainly wouldn't.

That very much depends on the person, I take the point about surgery but as for being a GP, being experienced and established is a definite plus point non?

I'll be working until I'm 70, so as for retiring at 68, that's early!

When all's said and done, I wouldn't do your job for toffees G, so who's the winner? 

[GCW]

However, I wonder why if it's important you don't do it properly.  Walk out for a fortnight.  That would get the message across loud and clear.  A day?  Bothered.

As I've said, I personally think today's action is the wrong approach.  As a profession, there is no way we would do anything that actually affects patient care.  As I said, I'm in work as usual and will see whoever needs seeing.  By not doing routine scripts/ paperwork etc all that happens is I do double tomorrow.  It's not like a coal miner/ teacher etc that can walk out for a fortnight.

The BMA has fucked us, basically.

[GCW]

That very much depends on the person, I take the point about surgery but as for being a GP, being experienced and established is a definite plus point non?

There's actually quite a lot of pressure in making a decision every 10 minutes that can potentially lead to missing a cancer/ ending up in court/ accidentally killing someone, and to do that 30 times a day every day for 30 odd years may mean you end up making errors towards the end of your career.

You're right that it depends upon the person, I know a lot of 60 year olds that wouldn't be fit for work.  But effectively we won't be able to choose as easily as we used to.

[GCW]

In the standard old style scheme if you work until 60 with full contributions the pension will be around £37,000 pre tax. 

I have no idea how this equates to someone in the private sector that has earned that amount for 37 years?

Although I've just done the calculation on the teacher's calculator and it came out with £55k?!?!!

[slackline]

There's actually quite a lot of pressure in making a decision every 10 minutes that can potentially lead to missing a cancer/ ending up in court/ accidentally killing someone, and to do that 30 times a day every day for 30 odd years may mean you end up making errors towards the end of your career.

Statistically you'll have made some errors before the end of the thirty years too.

The important thing to add credence is whether the number/rate of errors increases with age, so is there any evidence showing that the rate at which errors occur shows a significant relationship with age>

And not just a statistically significant one since with a large enough data set a small increase of 0.01% increase in the number of errors could be statistically significant, but that may not be a large enough increase to be considered dangerous.  If the rate of errors increased by 1% for every year over 60 then that might be of greater concern.


Again, I'm not trying to disagree with anyone, just asking if there is evidence for whether something is actually bad or not, as otherwise it is a reasoned conjecture (or hypothesis that could do with testing).


On a tangent, but actually quite relevant, is a recent paper on how to effectively test public policies.  Can't see many people volunteering to participate in this case though.

[GCW]

There are quite a lot of papers in neuropsychological journals that demonstrate a significant reduction in cognitive function after the age of 60, although I don't know of any that specifically look at doctors and errors.  There have been a couple of papers from the states that show stress increases errors doctors make, I seem to recall an increase of 14% or so.

[nik at work]

I have a notional understanding of the reasons for the action, and have sympathy with it. However...

The fact is that it will always be seen by the majority of the population as a "strike" over "money". Given doctors relatively generous salaries (yes it's more complicated than that, yes there are people who earn a LOT more, yes you work bloody hard) compared to the man in the street it's always going to be a hard sell to drum up much popular support whatever the Daily Scaremonger reports. I think as a group you appear to have attracted less venom than teachers.

FWIW I support your right to take this action, as I supported the teachers right to take their action. Although both actions had absolutely no effect on my life which does make acceptance easier. Should the local cake shop go on strike (over pasty-tax for example) I'd be reet pissed orf...

[Offwidth]

A few points..

There is no clear evidence that the generation affected by these changes will live longer. Teachers as an example were famous for having a very short life span (compared to contemporaries) if they retired late. The generation that is living longer had a healthy youth, and on average possibly the best working conditions and the most generous pension arrangements ever (esp wrt middle class early retirement); no wonder they live a long time.

Secondly money is part of the problem. These pensions are either based on a real pot (like USS or Local Government) or a contract with government that provides cheap finance for the state in return for employees financial stability in old age. Its noticeable that the government have stopped complaining so loudly about affordability... maybe this is to do with the fact that there never as much of a problem as they claimed following the major changes a few years back. Now we have average monthly employee contribution increases of about 50%, alongside public sector pay declining against the new pension marker of CPI by more than 10% already over the last 3 years (and possibly heading for a similar drop over the next few), even the nominal state pensions arrangements are likely in profit. In my pension (TPS) the government still haven't provided full actuarial details on affordability despite a couple of years of argument and on-off industrial action. What they have provided includes the almost laughable two assumptions that pay will increase by CPI +1% on average over the next quarter century and that we will all stay in a public sector job to retirement (its much cheaper if we go early). Does no one else suspect the likely accelerating privatisation of many public sector functions: schools, hospitals, universities, civil service functions etc?

Private sector comparisons are a dirty trick indeed: just because companies rip off their workers (and then there is a deferred rip-off of the state) this is not a justification for the same process to occur elsewhere. We will all pay for these ripped-off workers when they are on benefits due to inadequate pensions when they are old. It is a disaster for the future of our economy that all workers are not forced to save properly for a pension. If the government is seriously looking to save our futures by reforming pensions why are they not looking at this much bigger private sector pension black hole first?? But they are not are they: they just need cash to fund their coffers in a period of self inflicted austerity (cf the Keynsian view) and they believe in privatisation and the public sector is seen as an easy target. They dont care a jot about workers with little or no pension, irrespective of their sector, and not enough yet on the huge headache on extra benefit costs coming to all of us.

If the public sector is too large then pay reduction and/or redundancy is a lot more honest than raiding peoples savings (pensions are after all deferred pay already earned and paid for). However, this is not as good for our government in the short short term as raiding cash from pension contributions (and making transfers to the private sector cheaper as a nice little spin-off).