Why isn’t Edie objecting to their workload? It’s dangerous for Edie and those requiring Edie’s care. That Edie expresses this alongside an objection to industrial action leads me to think that Edie agrees with regressive working practices. It isn’t for me to speculate on Edie’s motivations.
How much do you think doctors should get paid?
- Thread starter Edie
- Start date
baldrick
hmmmmm
Lol have you even watched the news lately - experienced consultants of standing bullied out of Birmingham hospitals because they objected to issues of safety. If one Trust is an unsafe place to work you can bet your bottom dollar they are all like that.
Perhaps when she has time she can come and explain.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
I do think they should get the 33%, yes. It's unlikely they will, because it sounds like so much money, even though it's actually just them asking for the effective pay decreases over the last decade to be reversed. If I hire you on £100 a week, then reduce it to £75pw, then you asking for a 33% increase is actually you asking for your original pay to be restored, not even asking for an increase at all.
Nurses and HCAs are hugely underpaid, but they won't be helped by doctors being paid less as well.
The current wages are good, but not for that level of skill, training and responsibility.
(For some reason I thought you were a nurse, Edie. Guess I haven't kept track).
And yes, student loan forgiveness for all medical staff working in the NHS is a no-brainer.
Unless there's some other reason you can't get a second student loan, you can actually get a second undergrad student loan for some subjects, and medicine is one of them.
Nurses and HCAs are hugely underpaid, but they won't be helped by doctors being paid less as well.
The current wages are good, but not for that level of skill, training and responsibility.
(For some reason I thought you were a nurse, Edie. Guess I haven't kept track).
And yes, student loan forgiveness for all medical staff working in the NHS is a no-brainer.
Unless there's some other reason you can't get a second student loan, you can actually get a second undergrad student loan for some subjects, and medicine is one of them.
She thinks consultants shouldn’t be striking. On this very thread. Have you even read it?
mojo pixy
שיר חדש
I have looked into it and I couldn't get one from Student Loans because I had one before. Other loans are available obvs but the terms are different than SLC and interest rates higher.
Now I think about it I may have failed the application because my loan from years ago ended by being written off (25-year limit). Still, those were the rules and I didn't write them. I'll check again anyway.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
In principle it seems to be that you'd be eligible even though the previous loan was written off. It's worth looking into again, anyway.
Student finance for undergraduates
Student finance - student loans or student grants for tuition fees and living costs, extra help, student loan repayments.
To clarify:
I opt out of EWTD- like almost all medics.
I work a standard week of 48 hours.
I then work 6 ‘additional hours’.
On top of that I pick up non-residential on call locums. This means I’m at home, but get called for advice or get called in to see a child if it’s complex and either the more junior doctors need help or another specialty needs my help.
On an average 16 hour weeknight on call I work four hours (in hospital or on my computer)- the rest I’m on standby which includes sleep. But that sleep is punctuated by telephone calls to some degree. Obviously I can’t drink, have to be within an hour of A&E.
I do it because: a) money (you don’t get paid as much for a non-residential as a residential on call obvs, but you get to be at home for most of it!); and b) cos the rota coordinator rings me up on my personal number and begs me.
I do all my locums on my ‘usual’ rota cos there’s massive rota gaps (ie there wouldn’t be a senior registrar working otherwise). They’re desperate for me- I could literally locum around the clock if I wanted to.
The only ‘rule’ is I need five uninterrupted hours rest a night.
I’m not attacking you mate. I hope you are recompensed accordingly for extra hours though and you’re not working yourself into an early grave.
baldrick
hmmmmm
I answered the question you asked about why she wasn't objecting to her workload. I don't know why you've suddenly decided I'm not adhering to the subject of the thread when I responded to that very question in my first post.
Perhaps Edie could answer the question instead of you then?
I get £27/hr
So £2,430 for a 90 hr week?I get £27/hr
baldrick
hmmmmm
Perhaps if you'd directed the question to her in the first place we might not be going round in circles.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
I have the impression that it's the timing of this particular IA being around the only two bank holidays we have in succession that Edie has a problem with, and TBH I can see that. That doesn't seem well thought out.
Pay either keeps up with inflation (let alone gets real increases) because management provides this without a fuss or because workers fight for it. If the former doesn’t happen, the latter has to. I fail to see the difficulty or controversy in this.
It might come as a surprise but the standard trade union position is for headcount, not overtime. That Edie engages heavily in one but isn’t too keen on the other does raise questions that aren’t merely systemic.
Everyone's ability to think is compromised after working a certain amount of hours, perhaps over 48, perhaps a lot less than that.
Working in the nhs feels like a kind of coercive control, if you don't work extra hours for no pay to fill all the gaps left by unfilled posts then people might die.
So… on top of my 48hrs…
One 16 hour rota’d shift- that’s contractual- plus 1 in four weekends. This is factored in to my pay.
Wouldn’t be unusual for me to do two locums on top:
If I do week day night of 16 hrs = 16 hours
Plus maybe a 24 hour weekend day = 24 hours
Which is 40 hours locum x £27 = £1080. Take 60% of that for net is £648 (on top of my monthly take home).
I sometimes do two week day nights, and often do 48 hour on call over the weekend, so can occasionally earn double that locum net take home. But when I say you feel like you’ve never stopped working
So I balance it out. Some weeks (very rarely) I don’t do any locums.It’s an absolutely massive part of why I’m not okay with it. Massive. It’s not in my view “safe”, and even if you argue it’s “safe” it’s going to fuck over sooo many patients. People who have been waiting months or years for surgery or hospital appointments. Real people- your friends and families and colleagues.
Given a choice between a fully staffed rota or opportunity for locum money I’d take the fully staffed rota EVERY time. I don’t think there would be a doctor who said otherwise. You have no idea how stressful it is working an underfilled rota- which is shorthand for saying doing the job of two (or more) doctors. It makes you wanna cry.
I don't think anyone doubts that you'd choose a fully staffed rota over money Edie but the rota is not actually your responsibility.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Based on £12 an hour real living wage, for a workable 35 hour week, would give a guaranteed £22,000 income safety net.
Put in a maximum 6 times differential across the salary spectrum and the would limit earnings to £132,000.
I suspect most people could get by quite comfortably on that.
I also know it's not going to happen. I'm just making a point about the inequality of income distribution.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Put in a maximum 6 times differential across the salary spectrum and the would limit earnings to £132,000.
I suspect most people could get by quite comfortably on that.
I also know it's not going to happen. I'm just making a point about the inequality of income distribution.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
That's basically how the NHS and emergency services* keep going.
(*and of course those parts of the NHS that are also emergency services).
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
'But if you pay doctors (who need 10 years training) the same as decorators (who need about a year) then doctors stay at home and paint their own houses....' I think the Swedish actually found that out...
People making life and death decisions: Train drivers, doctors etc should be rewarded for that, otherwise why take the risk? Not of course than most people earning over 60K at the moment are doing this...
Last edited:
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Edie I really think you have a retro idea of what a good salary is, based somewhere in the 90s or something. I'm also guessing that you bought a house a while ago. In most 'professional' jobs now 50k would be a very low salary to be aiming for, what with general inflation and of course house price inflation. In much of England now you couldn't buy a good family house on a salary of 50k. If two people in a couple earned that they could buy quite a small house in outer London, but why should salaries be set at levels where only couples can buy?
Of course many people are earning peanuts and struggling to eat etc. That's a matter of policy by the government. It doesn't help anyone to keep salaries down elsewhere, except at the very top end of the salary spectrum - but that top end is mostly not occupied by consultants, it's occupied by parasites who work in finance, management consulting etc, and lucky buggers whose hobby of coding suddenly became in high demand (most of the high earners on here I suspect). So lots of essentially worthless jobs now pay way more than being a doctor, but the comparison you want to make is with what nurses get paid? Anyway, it should be a no-brainer to say that in useful jobs everyone's salary should be going up or at least keeping pace with inflation. The only time I'd question the need for raises is in those parasitic jobs where people are getting £100k+ a year for fleecing people.
Of course many people are earning peanuts and struggling to eat etc. That's a matter of policy by the government. It doesn't help anyone to keep salaries down elsewhere, except at the very top end of the salary spectrum - but that top end is mostly not occupied by consultants, it's occupied by parasites who work in finance, management consulting etc, and lucky buggers whose hobby of coding suddenly became in high demand (most of the high earners on here I suspect). So lots of essentially worthless jobs now pay way more than being a doctor, but the comparison you want to make is with what nurses get paid? Anyway, it should be a no-brainer to say that in useful jobs everyone's salary should be going up or at least keeping pace with inflation. The only time I'd question the need for raises is in those parasitic jobs where people are getting £100k+ a year for fleecing people.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Part of the really shitty thing our employment culture has shifted towards is the concept that somehow it is the responsibility of the lowest coalface peon to accommodate the shortfalls of the executive.
I think you’re right on all counts tbh.
Similar threads
- Poll
