Quote Originally Posted by baggiematt View Post
Again Omeg, it’s totally out of context from the BMA. The 2002 contract was incredibly lucrative as there was a 40-50-80% supplement added on. That’s why they changed it in 2016. The only people left on those deals are doctors who started pre 2016 and were those that choose not to train. They are certainly not at the bottom of the scale and paid very well.

I also think this ‘real terms’ pay decrease is deceiving. They are basing that on if they were on the old contract and had increases in line with inflation. But the old contract is no longer available.

I don’t blame them for being a bit deceptive by the way. They will be mindful that a 4 day strike will cost lives, operations and cost a boat load for replacement staff and they will want support for the cause.
I accept everything you say on this baggiematt and whilst the starting pay isn't great, it isn't that bad either and, of course, once they progress the financial rewards are there. One of my concerns however is about the long standing stories of junior doctors being expected to work dangerously long shifts but not being paid for these by the hour because they are salaried. This was the case, but is it still?

It used to be very common in many sectors that junior managers worked long hours and that, if broken down by the hour, their pay was little better than staff rate because they were salaried. The justification was that once they progressed then the financial rewards were there. Working time directives have since eradicated much of this with only the far better paid senior managers being exempt from the directives but are these working time measures now applicable to junior doctors do you know? ( Aside from the financial issue, the danger of working such long shifts would also, of course, be that this would ultimately impact on their performance and therefore the quality of patient care).