The BMA are meeting to decide whether to strike or not, for the first time since 1975.
This is based on a ballot that the union for doctors (that's what it is not some 'professional body') held amongst its 130,000 members. The subject of their ire is them having to contribute more to their gold-plated pension funds
They are so incensed that barely 35% could be bothered to vote. Of that 2/3 were in favour of industrial action - by quick math that means that around 24% are in favour of going on strike or some kind of work to rule.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the BMA's leadership position. This position essentially translates as the NHS is fine and efficient, doesn't need fixing, we want more money and we want to keep more of it but of course we always put the patients first, (unless it interferes with our other (more personal) aims!)
We must wait and see what a strike would mean .
If it does come to some industrial action , one wonders what the Labour Party (such keen advocates of short waiting lists (in theory anyway) and union rights) will do - support the BMA or support the austerity measures? Because that's what this is about - it isn't about 'saving the NHS' - it is about adjusting pension provisions and making them more equitable and closer to what the country can afford.
Think about it, where do you think the money for those gold plated pensions comes from - Yes, you're right - the NHS budget. So less money contributed from doctors and other health workers means less money spent on front line care.
Incidentally,
One of the questions in the initial ballot, related to what would be the result of the current proposals. Would they make you bring your retirement age forward, draw pension earlier, neither or not applicable? Among those under 30 years of age, 20.5% said it would cause them to bring their retirement forward. I can't work out what that means. Pensions are so good that they can retire VERY early or they didn't understand the question. Must be something else because either response is scary!
This is based on a ballot that the union for doctors (that's what it is not some 'professional body') held amongst its 130,000 members. The subject of their ire is them having to contribute more to their gold-plated pension funds
They are so incensed that barely 35% could be bothered to vote. Of that 2/3 were in favour of industrial action - by quick math that means that around 24% are in favour of going on strike or some kind of work to rule.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the BMA's leadership position. This position essentially translates as the NHS is fine and efficient, doesn't need fixing, we want more money and we want to keep more of it but of course we always put the patients first, (unless it interferes with our other (more personal) aims!)
We must wait and see what a strike would mean .
- Strike - No hospital or GP cover? How would that square with the Hippocratic Oath?
- No weekend work? Most GPs don't do that anyway but they, along with Students are the least militant group with just 55% of those bothering to vote, being in favour of some kind of industrial action . Consultants in A&E are pretty rare birds at the weekends, as well
- Emergency Service only? Around 45% of Consultants and the same level of Staff Grade/Speciality Doctors support this.
If it does come to some industrial action , one wonders what the Labour Party (such keen advocates of short waiting lists (in theory anyway) and union rights) will do - support the BMA or support the austerity measures? Because that's what this is about - it isn't about 'saving the NHS' - it is about adjusting pension provisions and making them more equitable and closer to what the country can afford.
Think about it, where do you think the money for those gold plated pensions comes from - Yes, you're right - the NHS budget. So less money contributed from doctors and other health workers means less money spent on front line care.
Incidentally,
One of the questions in the initial ballot, related to what would be the result of the current proposals. Would they make you bring your retirement age forward, draw pension earlier, neither or not applicable? Among those under 30 years of age, 20.5% said it would cause them to bring their retirement forward. I can't work out what that means. Pensions are so good that they can retire VERY early or they didn't understand the question. Must be something else because either response is scary!
No comments:
Post a Comment