Doctors: Money Grabbing Wankers or Justified?

Doctors will be striking on 21st June, so don't get your knob caught in your flies or overdo the wanking as there will be nobody to see to you.

Doctors currently earn £100k+ and upon retirement will get a lump sum of £150k and at least £48k per year to live on. But the government wants them to contribute more of their salary to their pension - 14.5% to be exact.

So are the doctors just money grabbing wankers like the majority of public sector workers or are they justified?

i appreciate the work doctors do and don't begrudge them a penny of what they earn. but what these public sector workers don't seem to realise is that the economy is in big trouble and everyone needs to pitch in. and again, why should the private sector fund the public sector pension?

I was reading something earlier today on the BBC website that says a new doctor entering the profession in 2012 will receive a pension of £68,000 per year under the government's proposed new scheme when he retires.

Based on this, I have to conclude that that they are money grabbing wankers if they are striking. That's nearly 3 times what the average worker earns while they are actually working.

largehat wrote:

Based on this, I have to conclude that that they are money grabbing wankers if they are striking. That's nearly 3 times what the average worker earns while they are actually working.

But would you not say doctors are worth three times the average public sector worker? After all, anyone can be a binman or work in the benefit agency call centre. Not everyone can be a doctor.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:

Based on this, I have to conclude that that they are money grabbing wankers if they are striking. That's nearly 3 times what the average worker earns while they are actually working.

But would you not say doctors are worth three times the average public sector worker? After all, anyone can be a binman or work in the benefit agency call centre. Not everyone can be a doctor.

Bear in mind that figure was for both sectors, not just the public sector.

But in answer to your question, I agree that yes, doctors are worth 3 times as much as someone on £24k per year, but we're talking about their pension rate, not their salary.

I can never understand why people swallow this Tory line - Private good, Public bad.

Look what has happened to the price of water, gas, electric, since they have been privatised. I won't tell you because you know the answer.

Why is it that working people are told - you're lucky to have a job, if you don't like it don't do it and let someone else have it etc, whilst the one at the top are showered with cash because, if they are not given £millions + more £millions in bonuses, they'll be off.

Getting back to the point i.e. doctors. If there wasn't an NHS and you had to pay for your time, how much would these doctors be charging. I think you'll find that they would be earning a site more than they are now, but more importantly there would be some people who just couldn't afford it and have to go without.

But my main point is not how much they earn or how much their pension is, but that when they decided on their career, retirement and pensions were part of their decision.

The economic mess has been caused by irresponsible, greedy bankers. Ordinary people (inc. doctors) are now being told they have to have their standards cut to sort it out. Oh yea, no change at the top because don't forget, if they don't keep getting their £millions they will go to Singapore (or some such place).

How on earth can working people try to blame other working people whilst those at the top stuff their fat faces and look down and say 'Not my fault, it's those people down there, those tax paying people'.

Chipbutty, do you agree with the Doctors striking next month?

Doctors are not known for their militancy. Their decision is an indication of the gross mismanagement of the countries finanes by this incompetent uncaring government. It is not just doctors (including senior consultants) that are against the governments ham-fisted economic policy, but the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, no less, has spoke out against their actions.

Hat, in answer to your question, I would not presume to know enough about just what is at stake here. This is not a cop-out. I can only assume the doctors must be very angry to take such action.

If it helps. I am strongly in favour of the working man having the right to with-draw their labour.

Yeah all that's fair I guess, butty. My only issue with anything you've written is your suggestion that people who work in the private sector resenting public sector workers' benefits is a Tory onstruct. It isn't. It's true to say that when people's terms and conditions change after they have he entered a career path it is unfair, but it is a reality of everyday life for people working in the private sector.

In the private sector peoples jobs and wages are being squeezed, hours are being cut, people are being made redundant, and pensions are far less lucrative than public sector pensions as I am sure you know. There is nothing party political about people not wanting to subsidise the pensions of other people so those people can have a better retirement than they do, and then being pissed off when they strike. It just seems wrong to be striking over that, I have no objection to the right to strike, but I do think a number of public sector unions need to get real.

I am not and never have been employed in the public sector.

There seems to be an assumption that workers in the public sector rely entirely on private sector employees tax contributions for their pensions. This is clearly not the case (don't believe everything the Mail and Express tell you). Public sector workers pay for their pensions from day one.

You say that in the private sector, jobs and wages are being squeezed, this is true, unnecessarily so in my view, but the vast amount of job losses are occurring in the public sector, Cameron and Osbourne are falling over themselves to say that job losses in the public will be made up in the private sector (wishful thinking I think).

If the public sector has a reasonable pension scheme, this should be copied by others, not ridiculed. It should not be a race to the bottom.

I never assumed or suggested you were employed in the public sector.

The assumption isn't that workers in the public sector rely entirely on private sector employees tax contributions for pensions. Please don't assume I formulate my views from the right wing press just because I happen to disagree with you. Public sector employees pay for their pensions in part, but they get a far bigger contribution from the state than private sector employees get from their employer.

The public sector is inefficient and wasteful in the extreme. There are people working in the public sector who do fuck all all day at work. They all fuck off home early on a Friday and do a 35 hour working week. If the public sector was - hypothetically - taken over and managed by private companies and run to the standards those of us in the private sector must adhere to - the job losses you're referring to now would be the tip of the iceberg. There are too many people who think a job in the public sector is for life, and who have a false sense of entitlement to a massive pension and job security in difficult times.

It's exactly why so many people who have worked in the public sector all their career are disadvantaged when they try to find a job in the private sector.

I agree with you that it is ridiculous of the government to suggest that the private sector will 'pick up the slack' of public sector redundancies.

Your last point is idealistic, in the sense that it is true but is not going to happen. And certainly not in times of economic austerity. It is not a race to the bottom, this issue is about the public's perception of fairness and how they think their taxes are being spent. There is a widely held view that public sector employees have their head in the clouds and there are very few people in this day and age who sympathise with the current trend of public sector striking over pensions. They damage the economy, deprive the rest of us of important services that we are paying for and are perceived to be motivated by unrealistic self interest.

chipbutty wrote:I am not and never have been employed in the public sector.

There seems to be an assumption that workers in the public sector rely entirely on private sector employees tax contributions for their pensions. This is clearly not the case (don't believe everything the Mail and Express tell you). Public sector workers pay for their pensions from day one.

You say that in the private sector, jobs and wages are being squeezed, this is true, unnecessarily so in my view, but the vast amount of job losses are occurring in the public sector, Cameron and Osbourne are falling over themselves to say that job losses in the public will be made up in the private sector (wishful thinking I think).

If the public sector has a reasonable pension scheme, this should be copied by others, not ridiculed. It should not be a race to the bottom.

Actually that's not true (at least not for local government employment) and I worked in the public sector for almost 30 years.

What happens is that you do pay into the pension fund from the beginning as you quite rightly said but that money is used to pay for the CURRENT pensions of retired staff - NOT saving up your own 'pot' for when you retire.

Over the years public sector employment as grown and people receiving benefits have tended to live longer - so you consistently need more and more people paying into the scheme to stand still so to speak - a bit like a 'ponzi scheme' I guess!

In short the process is unsustainable and something needs to be done - and quite understandably those already in the pension scheme don't want to give up their existing benefits for something inferior - but the bottom line is that things just can't carry on the way they have been going.

largehat wrote:
In the private sector peoples jobs and wages are being squeezed, hours are being cut, people are being made redundant, and pensions are far less lucrative than public sector pensions as I am sure you know. There is nothing party political about people not wanting to subsidise the pensions of other people so those people can have a better retirement than they do, and then being pissed off when they strike. It just seems wrong to be striking over that, I have no objection to the right to strike, but I do think a number of public sector unions need to get real.

This is the best thing you have ever written.

I am going to go into great detail about what i think on this here we go,I am with the docs on this one.

chipbutty wrote:I can never understand why people swallow this Tory line - Private good, Public bad.

Look what has happened to the price of water, gas, electric, since they have been privatised. I won't tell you because you know the answer.

Why is it that working people are told - you're lucky to have a job, if you don't like it don't do it and let someone else have it etc, whilst the one at the top are showered with cash because, if they are not given £millions + more £millions in bonuses, they'll be off.

Getting back to the point i.e. doctors. If there wasn't an NHS and you had to pay for your time, how much would these doctors be charging. I think you'll find that they would be earning a site more than they are now, but more importantly there would be some people who just couldn't afford it and have to go without.

But my main point is not how much they earn or how much their pension is, but that when they decided on their career, retirement and pensions were part of their decision.

The economic mess has been caused by irresponsible, greedy bankers. Ordinary people (inc. doctors) are now being told they have to have their standards cut to sort it out. Oh yea, no change at the top because don't forget, if they don't keep getting their £millions they will go to Singapore (or some such place).

How on earth can working people try to blame other working people whilst those at the top stuff their fat faces and look down and say 'Not my fault, it's those people down there, those tax paying people'.

great post.... have one of these...

My last post on this subject.

This idea that if everything was managed by the private sector (whoever the owners may be, probably not British) then everything would be run better and more cheaply. There is no evidence to support this Tory assumption (fed to the masses by Murdoch, Dacre, Desmond). Private health-care for the elderly, privately run security firms, prisons and detention centres just a few examples that come to mind, all have poor records. The railway line maintenance had to be taken back into public ownership after several major crashes where people lost their lives. I'm sure that working for some private companies is harder and more demanding with less pay at the end of the day than in the public sector, but why is this supposed to be the way forward, it looks a backward step to me.

Getting back to the doctors. Forget about the pay and the pensions thing. The government have ripped up a contractual agreement without negotiation or agreement. This is outrageous and cannot go unchallenged. If they get away with this what next? What will be the point of debating future agreements. Any such deals will be worthless.

The NHS was far better run when matrons were in charge of the wards and were responsible for managing supplies and staffing levels.

Nowadays the NHS has more chiefs than Indians. Too many bloody business managers who haven't a clue about medicine or looking after folk.

Doctors, by their very occupation, tend to be caring, sympathetic individuals so for them to consider strike action it shows they are being shafted.

Reebok Trotter wrote:The NHS was far better run when matrons were in charge of the wards and were responsible for managing supplies and staffing levels.

Nowadays the NHS has more chiefs than Indians. Too many bloody business managers who haven't a clue about medicine or looking after folk.

Doctors, by their very occupation, tend to be caring, sympathetic individuals so for them to consider strike action it shows they are being shafted.

Brilliant post, RT, and 100% agreeance with you.