Resident Doctor claims – justified or excessive?

Resident Doctors are no doubt critical and indispensable members of the NHS and at some stage in all of our lives, we will all be immensely grateful to one of them. Given that we all pay for their training through our taxes, the training that they undergo is costly for everyone, but the commitment shown by Resident Doctors is both commendable and should be appreciated and recognised.

Furthermore, their starting levels of pay are low by most standards, but although acknowledging this fact that this should be corrected, this needs to be seen in the light that they are in a training period, the costs of which are being funded by every taxpayer.

“However, in terms of their current claims, as highlighted by Robert Colvile in his Times article on the 13th of July, their claim for “pay restoration” which they claim requires a 29% increase is questionable on several fronts.”

Firstly, the Nuffield Trust’s own assessment is that since 2008, Resident Doctors pay has in fact only fallen by 5% since 2008.

Secondly, however, whatever the truthful deficiency in their pay rates, if the British Medical Association (BMA) have truthfully been properly representing their members, why have they not brought these claims up over the years in which they claim their membership to have lost ground?

Is it at all possible that the belligerence of the BMA’s current leadership in terms of strike action and despite being awarded the highest recent increase across the NHS, is a consequence of their trying to cover up their own failing to address their members’ interests over past years?

Thirdly, the BMA claims to be representing all of their members, yet only approximately 51%–52% of their membership voted to take strike action, it must be questionable as to whether that does constitute a truthful “mandate” for such action which places patient care at risk?

“Whilst rightly so, the medical profession and NHS is generally supported by the public, given that Residents Doctors, whom everyone will respect and admire, received a higher award than any other sector in recent reviews, it has to be questioned whether such public support will be maintained.”

One additional and final point in this case is that as so often is the case, when comparing NHS and indeed most public sector salaries with the private sector is that salaries are hiked up by between a 20%–23% pension contribution by the Employer.

When this is compared with most Employer pension contributions in the private sector which are generally only between 3%–5%, Resident Doctors are getting an additional 15% or more in their Employer pension contributions which is 3–4 times higher than anyone in the private sector.

Why, we rightly have to ask? It would be nice to know what justification there is for such an excessive premium.

In summary, yes, the Residents probably should have their initial pay rates increased. However, firstly should the BMA have better represented their Resident membership over the years and secondly, given that the country cannot afford the extra money at the current time, should the BMA consider and agree a trade off with a reduced employer pension contribution?