In short, my opinion is it’s not. I’ll explain why…
Why is a new contract being proposed?
A new contract is being proposed to replace the current one that has some oddities to reflect a transition from an old era and is no longer fit for purpose. The stated aims for the junior doctor contract were:
The government is also looking to use the new contract to reduce the cost impact of having more doctors working at the weekend.
Reviewing the current contract, whilst I can now understand how it came to pass, my initial reaction was one of surprise that: the current contract will allow someone working 41 hours a week to be paid the same as someone working 48 hours a week and anyone working illegal hours is paid more – an odd incentive system. Certainly there seemed good reason to consider something different.
Why doctors say they’re striking
This can be summed up simply as: “Patient safety”. Do they have a point?
Doctors state that the key safeguards in place under the existing contract are being removed and that this makes the new contract unsafe.
The existing safeguards that they refer to relate to the requirement to pay extra “penalty” pay if doctors work illegal hours. The NHS Employers’ submission to the DDRB commented that this was often adversarial:
It is easy to see how this could be the case as doctors are effectively “rewarded” or “compensated” for working illegal hours.
The proposed new contract has the stated intention of making working hours better:
But doctors said this was meaningless as effective safeguards to enforce this weren’t in place.
After reading the documents and original proposals, this didn’t seem to be the case to me. There was a specific section on safeguards and it seemed to put the power to raise issues with doctors themselves. This all sounded ok.
But talking to some junior doctors I could understand why there were still problems. There were significant conflicts of interest around raising issues with working hours. One I spoke to told me the following:
“the process of reporting would be in the first instance to your educational supervisor and this is a serious problem.”
“Educational Supervisor’s role is to oversee your learning objectives for that job and check you are achieving them…It is also their job to write all of the reports that decide whether or not you ‘pass’ that year of training and write 3 references per 6 months that stay on your portfolio for every future employer to see forever. This is not a person you want to piss off!”
“There will always be the fear that if you are a conscientious stay later, that you will be thought of as slow and inefficient and that will reflect badly on your training report so you’ll not mention it, even feel guilty about it.”
“It would be entirely feasible to ruin your training year or even your future job prospects by ‘exception reporting’ honestly.”
This is clearly an issue but it was only after discussing things in detail that I got to this. All the articles, posts etc. that I read just talk about removal of existing safeguards being bad without talking about what is being added.
However, the January negotiations have recognised this issue and added a “Guardian of safe working”:
The revised proposals also reinstate financial penalties. However, these penalties will now stay within the health service to help improve working conditions or provide further training rather than providing extra pay:
This all sounds positive. Is the new contract unsafe? If it is, it doesn’t appear to be any less safe than the current one.
Why doctors are really striking
It’s not about the money but…
…is the way a lot of conversations go. But money is important. I don’t mind it being about the money but I do mind misinformation about the money.
We’ve had this on both sides with doctors talking about 30% pay cuts and government talking about 11% pay rises. Both are talking nonsense.
One of the key principles of the design of the new contract was that the cost of pay afterwards would be the same as the cost before i.e. no average pay cut and no average pay rise.
Most junior doctors currently work 40 to 48 hours a week and are paid a banding payment of 40% or 50% of basic pay in addition to their basic pay. The average pay of all junior doctors is quoted in the NHS Employers’ submission as 143.5% of basic pay.
Under the new system basic pay is quoted as 11% higher on average and there are then additional payments for hours worked over 40 hours per week, hours worked at night, on Sundays and Saturday evenings, and for working on call. Finally, there are additional incentive payments for some roles such as A&E and General Practice.
Depending on hours worked, some doctors would find themselves better or worse off than under the current system. But…crucially:
- These differences are not as significant as made out
- The average doctor is no worse off
- The difference in payments reflects some doctors doing greater number of hours and/or unsociable hours than others
Even more crucially, those who would be worse off under the new system will have their pay protected for 3 years. The nature of pay progression as a trainee means this should be enough to mean no “actual” pay falls.
My analysis of the proposed new pay structure based on the sample rotas is as follows (click to see larger image):
These are % changes so, taking into account that the £ amounts are much larger later on in a career, most are better off overall with the exceptions being rotas 3 and 4.
It is certainly not the case that the new contract is fundamentally offering pay cuts. And it is worth remembering that doctors are in the top 1.5% of earners in the country. Rightly so. But worth remembering.
There are some losers though. These are part-timers and those who don’t progress through training each year. This is because under the current contract pay progression is done purely on “time-served” rather than experience. This leads to the absurd position that under the current contract there are some levels of pay that can only be reached by those who progress more slowly!
Whilst this is a worse position for those affected, the new contract is a much fairer system. My only caveat would be that I think it would be reasonable to offer extended pay protection for part-time workers as part of the transition.
There is a lot of hot air about pay with politics being played on both sides. I also think there is a lot of misunderstanding because of this.
There is much misunderstanding on hours too and their interaction with pay. I’ve seen several comments talking about the extension of “plain-time hours” as if it was an increase in actual hours to be worked.
The rate of pay for any hours only really matters if the hours worked change. Otherwise the redistribution of pay is the same. For example, if I work Monday to Friday and am paid £10,000 a year for each day worked, it doesn’t really matter if I’m instead paid £14,000 a year for Mondays (because who likes Mondays?) and £9,000 a year for each of Tuesday to Friday. In both cases I would get £50,000 a year. It would only matter if I worked more or less Mondays.
The rise in basic pay compensates the loss of pay from the extension of plain-time hours. It will vary by individual rotas how well this works. However, the change in what hours attract a premium rate is only substantially important if shift patterns change.
The desire for a 7 day service means there is a presumption of more weekends being worked under the new contract. However, many doctors already work a lot of weekends. It would be good to see a clear question and answer for how many weekends it would be expected that junior doctors may work.
Potentially working more weekends is a valid concern. It is one that is also suggested as being part of why the new contract is unsafe. Of course, working Saturday instead of Monday is not less safe in itself. But doctors are concerned that extra weekend work will be covered by sacrificing cover Monday to Friday. On the presumption that there isn’t an oversupply of doctors in the week currently this concern is understandable. However, the government did make it clear in the parliamentary debate on this that the intention is to use the extra funding to recruit more doctors to provide this cover.
Doctors don’t trust government on this but it is very difficult to see how it can be addressed contractually.
Finally, whilst some doctors having to work more weekends is undoubtedly more inconvenient, it should perhaps be considered in the round with other measures that are being made to try and make life better and the trends in other jobs.
Politics, ideology, mistruths, misunderstanding and low morale
The handling of the contract dispute has been appalling. It has been appalling on both sides and I feel I should be able to expect more.
I’ve mentioned already the ridiculous claims on both sides about pay. But we’ve also had misrepresented statistics and childish name calling about who told who what via social media (again both sides!).
There are some clear underlying encamped views on each other’s ideologies and the poor handling by government has made it easy for a few that clearly have some political agenda to stoke the fire of a demoralised workforce. This is really why we have a strike today. There is no longer any trust.
When I talk to junior doctors about the issues they have they talk about the personal pressures they feel to work hours after their shift and through their breaks; because there are still sick people to treat and rotas aren’t adequate. They talk about the inability to get time off when they need it. Simple things that many of us take for granted like taking a day off for a family event or booking a holiday in advance before the best places are booked up. They talk about the problems of moving from one place to another and trying to have a relationship. They talk about not feeling valued with constant bad news stories in the press. They worry about the future and increased pressures as funding becomes more and more stretched.
They also talk about internal problems. Interestingly, in the same discussion I mentioned before I was also told:
“A lot of hierarchy and bullying still exists in medicine“
“some consultants are very aware of how working as a junior has changed and are very supportive, and others think we are lazy for not doing the 100+ hours that they used to do.”
This is an environment in which it is no surprise that they are demoralised and it is no wonder doctors feel the need to strike. But these issues exist under the current contract. They aren’t the reasons put forward for the strike action and they aren’t really part of the contract dispute.
In fact, if anything the proposed new contract is trying to address some of these things. Better yet talks are ongoing. There is time for more of these issues to be addressed. The contract dispute is a cover the real problems faced by junior doctors.
We should all support junior doctors but strikes about the new proposed contract are not the answer!!
Some Background reading…
Original paper submitted by NHS Employers to DDRB: http://www.nhsemployers.org/~/media/Employers/Publications/NHSE-DDRB-submission-Dec-2014.pdf
DDRB recommendations: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445742/50576_DDRB_report_2015_WEB_book.pdf
Offer made in November: http://www.nhsemployers.org/~/media/Employers/Documents/Need%20to%20know/JD%20A4%20booklet%20FINAL%20amends%2027%20Nov.pdf
Update on discussions in January: http://www.nhsemployers.org/~/media/Employers/Documents/Need%20to%20know/Letter%20from%20Danny%20Mortimer%20to%20SofS%20040116-Final.pdf
Letter to doctors setting out progress of discussions: http://www.nhsemployers.org/~/media/Employers/Publications/Junior%20doctors%20letter%2007%2001%2016%20final.pdf