Doctors Strike - First in 30 years. Should they?

[andyandy]

Okay - the docs in the UK are going to strike for the first time in nearly 30 years (1975 last time apparently)....

2 questions:

1) should doctors be allowed to strike?
2) do you agree with this particular strike (over pensions)

Discuss

 

[andyandy]

Info:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op...ublic-sector-pensions-doctors&cat=top-stories

Doctors will take industrial action on 21 June in a dispute over pensions, the British Medical Association has announced. Its members will provide urgent and emergency care but will postpone non-urgent cases.
The doctors voted for industrial action for the first time since 1975 to protest against the government's planned shake-up of their pensions.
The British Medical Association (BMA) said separate ballots of six branches of its 130,000-strong membership, including GPs and hospital consultants, had produced an overall majority in favour of action
.The union is proposing that doctors would continue to provide all urgent and emergency care during any industrial action, in order to safeguard patients' welfare. Instead, their action will involve postponing non-urgent work, such as outpatient appointments, for a 24-hour period, either once or twice.
The vote sets up a major confrontation with ministers, who have given little ground over the BMA's strong complaints that the government's proposal will force doctors to contribute more to their pensions, work longer, and receive less in retirement on a career-average scheme instead of a final-salary one.

 

[Skepticemea]

The strike appears to be over the government's refusal to sit down and talk. There might be trenches in which people like to sit and hurl epithets like "commie" and "facist" etc. but the issue seems to be this - as a profession which has been continually misrepresented by this government as supportive over the reforms to NHS, the tearing up of employment contracts would appear to be the final straw.

If something is happening to your job and you are not being listened to by those making those changes and who refuse to talk to you about it, well... you do you start shouting or just get on with things and hope for the best?

 

[Rolfe]

On the other side of the coin, the BMA negotiated an incredibly sweet pay deal for doctors a few years ago, and the pensions the profession enjoys are beyond generous. I can see why they might be annoyed, but I can also find other groups who are more to be pitied as regards pension provision.

Rolfe.

 

[sarge]

Goverment employee pay should be set by legislation, and striking goverment employees should be jailed. Don't like those terms, don't work for the goverment. Want to work in a field where the goverment is the only employer? Tough.

 

[mediocrity511]

Goverment employee pay should be set by legislation, and striking goverment employees should be jailed. Don't like those terms, don't work for the goverment. Want to work in a field where the goverment is the only employer? Tough.

Pinochet an idol of yours?

 

[BenBurch]

On the other side of the coin, the BMA negotiated an incredibly sweet pay deal for doctors a few years ago, and the pensions the profession enjoys are beyond generous. I can see why they might be annoyed, but I can also find other groups who are more to be pitied as regards pension provision.

Rolfe.

If the negotiations were not in good faith, why should the government be trusted with ANYTHING?

 

[sarge]

Pinochet an idol of yours?

Well, he did rescue the Chilean economy from the failed Socialst goverment. On the other hand, he killed a handful of dissenters, and that is mostly bad. As for his handling of labor unions, I applaud him. He was nearly perfect.



More seriously, goverment properly provides essential services only, and only those services that private industry cannot be trusted to provide. If health care is such a service, then the providers should not be allowed to hold the country hostage in such a manner.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It is funny that leftists are usually decried for "levelling", but here it is the other side who wants to equally spread misery and wealth envy. Of course they have better benefits, what would be the point of a union if they didn't get results? They won't keep them if they lose tools at their disposal. Hooray for equality!

(Not familiar with the doctor's union over there, but the comments seem almost tautological.)

 

[Francesca R]

I don't think strike action should be illegal "because they are doctors", but final salary public pensions and fixed retirement ages are ethically unjust and breaking promises made in respect of those is morally superior to keeping them.

 

[Rolfe]

I've failed to find the thread where we discussed this in the wider context of public sector pensions in general. I'm not surprised they're kicking up, but the context is something that has to be considered.

In more affluent days, undertakings were made as regards pensions which are now anomalous in two ways. First because to honour these undertakings requires siphoning off a large amount of scarce taxpayers' money to keep a minority in luxury. And second because people not cushioned by working in the "public sector" have seen their pension benefits fall precipitously due to collapsing stock markets and interest rates.

The result of this is that a minority, the public sector workers, are being handed pensions that would require lifetime pension pots of around £600,000 to be funded in the usual manner of buying an annuity. That figure was for teachers. To be quite honest it's probably more like £2 million for a doctor. It's hard to see how these people could have "produced" enough in their working lives to accrue such a pot, in addition to their salaries.

However, these pensions are to be paid from taxes. Taxes levied on people who have struggled to accrue pension pots of £50,000 or £100,000, and now face retirement living on a very small income - when once they believed they had saved enough for a modestly comfortable old age.

Legally, those workers striking to preserve pensions of £25,000 p.a. or £80,000 p.a. (doctors likely to be closer to the latter figure) may have a case. Morally, I think they're on shaky ground.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

It does seem a bit rich.

But naturally, I feel everyone but me is overpaid and underworked.

 

[WildCat]

The result of this is that a minority, the public sector workers, are being handed pensions that would require lifetime pension pots of around £600,000 to be funded in the usual manner of buying an annuity. That figure was for teachers. To be quite honest it's probably more like £2 million for a doctor. It's hard to see how these people could have "produced" enough in their working lives to accrue such a pot, in addition to their salaries.

Oh does this ever sound familiar!

As a resident of Illinois, I sympathize with you.

 

[Francesca R]

I've failed to find the thread where we discussed this in the wider context of public sector pensions in general.

This one, I think.

 

[andyandy]

Since I started the thread, I'll add my opinions....

Firstly I am sympathetic of doctors being allowed to strike in extreme circumstances - ie when there is a case made that they are doing it for the good of the patients. I find it quite depressing however that despite the massively unpopular new NHS bill threatening the very fabric of the NHS (according to the doctors unions themselves....), they aren't moved enough to strike over that - but instead are only moved to do for money.....

and the wider context of public sector pensions - I actually don't agree with any public sector worker getting a £50,000 p/a index linked pension for the rest of their life (which was given as the average for doctors on the BBC today). 25 years of retirement - £1.25 million. There was some union rep on the radio claiming that the scheme was actually in surplus - but it seems hard to believe that it will be in 10-20 years time when there are large retirements of doctors with long life-expectancies ahead of them. I'd like to see the figures on that anyway....

A fairer system would be to cap public sector pensions at an index linked national median wage (currently around £25,000). Any more than that and you have to contribute into a private scheme. It's disgusting when we have heads of County Councils claiming six digit pension pots for life - whilst most public sector workers are lucky to see a tenth of that. Even it out and spend more on the lower paid workers. Of course this will never happen because the MP's pensions are amongst the most generous of all....

So, I support the idea of doctors striking in general - but I don't support them striking on this issue.

 

[richardm]

The strike appears to be over the government's refusal to sit down and talk. There might be trenches in which people like to sit and hurl epithets like "commie" and "facist" etc. but the issue seems to be this - as a profession which has been continually misrepresented by this government as supportive over the reforms to NHS, the tearing up of employment contracts would appear to be the final straw.

I've seen it suggested that doctors aren't allowed -by law - to strike over the NHS reforms, so striking over their contracts is the only stick they have to beat the government with.

 

[stokes234]

I've seen it suggested that doctors aren't allowed -by law - to strike over the NHS reforms, so striking over their contracts is the only stick they have to beat the government with.

That sounds right. Thatchers government brought in alot of anti-strike laws and I think the current situation is that you're only allowed to strike on issues that affect either you personally or people working the same job as you (for the same employer). You're not allowed to strike in solidarity with other professions or companies and you're not allowed to strike over purely ideological issues. I imagine if NHS workers could make a case that they would have to work more hours for less pay or similar then they could strike over the reforms.

As to this one, i'd have to know more about how much doctors actually get in pensions before I could decide if it was a fair amount or not, but I suspect the real answer would illicit little sympathy from me regarding these changes.

 

[sarge]

I detect a hint of a double standard at play - although not evidenced by any of the comments to this thread specifically.

There are folks that automatically support striking private sector unionists. These folks are not receptive to the notion that changing economic conditions require changes to collective bargaining agreements, especially as those agreements pertain to overly generous retirement plans.

These same folks seem to be quite willing to side with management (the goverment) when public sector employees threaten actions to preserve a negotiated retirement benefit. I hear a lot of "but other workers have had to make sacrifices, why should a goverment employee get better benefits?"

Goverment salaries should not be negotiable. They should be set by legislation. Goverment workers should only exist in so far as they provide essential services, and those services should not be hostage to worker greed. Goverment must be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, and this responsibility trumps goverment worker rights.

Private sector workers should be able to use any leverage they have to gain any concessions their industry will bear. I have no issue with unions in the private sector, although I do wish the (US) goverment had not tilted the playing field so far in favor of unions.

 

[mediocrity511]

That sounds right. Thatchers government brought in alot of anti-strike laws and I think the current situation is that you're only allowed to strike on issues that affect either you personally or people working the same job as you (for the same employer). You're not allowed to strike in solidarity with other professions or companies and you're not allowed to strike over purely ideological issues. I imagine if NHS workers could make a case that they would have to work more hours for less pay or similar then they could strike over the reforms.

As to this one, i'd have to know more about how much doctors actually get in pensions before I could decide if it was a fair amount or not, but I suspect the real answer would illicit little sympathy from me regarding these changes.

What if you knew their pensions were reformed only a few years ago in the interests of affordability? For me that's a big deal, workers can't just sit by and have their pay and conditions worsened by every successive government. If their pensions were changed to affordable just 2 years ago, how come we're still told they're unaffordable? Remember that public sector pension costs peak over the next couple of years and then the overall bill shrinks as the baby-boomers start to shuffle off their mortal coil.

 

[The Don]

What if you knew their pensions were reformed only a few years ago in the interests of affordability? For me that's a big deal, workers can't just sit by and have their pay and conditions worsened by every successive government. If their pensions were changed to affordable just 2 years ago, how come we're still told they're unaffordable? Remember that public sector pension costs peak over the next couple of years and then the overall bill shrinks as the baby-boomers start to shuffle off their mortal coil.

^ This and.......

The message from the government and the tenor of many of the calls to Radio5 is "these public sector employees have gold-plated pensions". It is true that there are very few defined benefits schemes in the private sector and that a much higher proportion of public sector employees have retained their defined benefits schemes.

The issue as I see it is not that public sector pensions have suddenly got so much better but that private sector pensions have got so much worse. There are a number of reasons for this:

• Bad investment returns
• Poor annuity rates
• Large private sector pension deficits due to the two factors above AND historic under-payments by firms when investment returns were good
• Private sector firms don't want the risks associated with defined benefits schemes
• Employees are much more pliable in these times, they'll take what they're given
• Back in the late 1980s, employees were (I certainly was) told that defined contributions would give a bigger pension (based on hopelessly optimistic investment projections)

To me it comes back to sheer envy. Private sector employees are envious of public sector pensions. (We) Private sector workers didn't fight hard enough for our pensions and now we're envious of those who are still fighting for theirs.