Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

NHS strike - what the unions "forgot" to tell you

14th Oct 2014
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Yesterday various parts of the NHS went on strike . Take the RCM by way of example , their website trumpeting the 82% in favour   https://www.rcm.org.uk/content/pay-results-you-voted-yes  . However, they don't tell you the percentage of members who voted. There is a reason ..... you've guessed it - it is around 50% I am led to believe

So therefore 60% of members are not positively in favour of supporting a strike

I am not saying that the union has no grievance nor that they should be prevented from withdrawing their labour. But are the public not entitled to know the full story ? 

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (33)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
14th Oct 2014 12:53

Don't start me ...

... what they also don't tell you is the blocked rise is only in addition to their annual increment.

May be they do deserve it, I deserve a massive pay rise, but you can't have it if there is no money, or, as Hunt says, you can have the rise, but there will be less of you getting it!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
14th Oct 2014 13:23

I wonder what the 'average'

nurse is on these days (with say 5-10 years experience....I suspect significantly higher than the minimum wage the union would like you to imagine.) 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
14th Oct 2014 13:51

Wonder no more ...

http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/pay_rates_2014-15

Let us not forget, such professions are on national payscales, and whilst there is some weighting in many areas even the low grade scales will be significant levels of income.

As it so eloquently states, the minimum starting salary for a registered nurse is £21,478 - in many areas that would easily let you buy a property, in others you would have no chance. Just looking within 10 miles of Hull Royal Infirmary there are plenty of two bed houses under £50,000, within 10 miles of St Peter's Hospital, Chertsey, the first proper 2 bed home that is not shared ownership is @ £130,000!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bazzapc
14th Oct 2014 14:02

Gratitude?

These people do a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances.  How many people would want to face the issues NHS staff face day in, day out?  The government have focussed on pay when there are so many wasteful areas of spend within the whole structure.  How many would pay >£700 for a desktop pc now (no high spec required)?
Also the ever increasing numbers and layers of management, caused by the necessity to tick boxes due to the data requirements of Trusts and on through to government.
There are so many issues that should be tackled first.  Pay is simply the 'easy' option which this government cash in on the public sympathy against those who would take more than is available.
I do not work for the NHS and so have no axe to grind.  I simply listen to people who do work for them to understand the issues better than reading the rags that used to be newspapers.

 

Thanks (0)
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
14th Oct 2014 14:32

I'd be happy to give them all a 10% pay rise ...

... If their pension schemes were changed from defined benefit, to defined contribution.  Few public sector workers I have spoken to appreciate how valuable their final salary schemes are.

Pension apartheid in the UK needs to end.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Rammstein1
14th Oct 2014 15:07

Spot on

Nail on the head Locutus.  They haven't got a clue how great their pensions are.  Give all civil servants payrises and take their gold plated pensions off them.  Then we would see them moan!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
14th Oct 2014 15:31

It is not just that ...

... if our hospitals were not filled with health tourists and gravid migrant mothers it would not be buckling under the strain, but, you can only pay out the pot what is in it, however deserving people are. SO, we need a bigger pot, but filling it is hard when businesses are still reeling from the recession and struggling under an onslaught of RTI, AE, draconian compliance penalties etc.

Totally agree on the mis-managed budgets though - but the costs that need cutting are the ones for the people who manage the budgets - turkeys voting for Christmas scenario!

Now, charging for for A&E treatment of self-inflicted injury may help fill the pot. And not just paralytic idiots on a night out, that goes for RTA's too. I have never understood why ambulances and fire crew cannot charge appropriately for attendance - if that forces insurance premiums up so be it, but it may improve driving. Same goes for pot-holers, sky-divers, mountaineers etc. If you wish to got seeking adrenalin thrills fine, but take out insurance to cover the poor sods who have to pick the pieces when it all goes [***] up.

Whilst on a rant, totally agree with Simon Heffer in the Mail yesterday, make bicyclists have third party insurance, like him I have nearly been wiped out on crossings by bicyclists who think it OK to pass at full tilt buses and lorries that are waiting at crossings for pedestrians to cross. As he says, yes cars go through red lights etc. too, but they have identification and get punished if caught!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
14th Oct 2014 17:05

the shocking reality is

that most people are busier, under more pressure, work longer hours (without overtime pay) and have to travel greater distances due to housing costs....that's the real world...and doesn't merely apply to the public sector.  Of course...like everyone else you have a choice...the door is over in the corner.  But very few do...because most know they couldn't get it better elsewhere...of course they are welcome to join me in January if they want to see what often happens in our profession....assuming that falls within the definition of 'difficult circumstances'. 

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
15th Oct 2014 09:47

Public penions and waste in public sector

I was telling an NHS worker recently how much I would need in cash to retire . It's a 7 figure sum - how many self employed people , often earning little more than said NHS workers, have the opportunity to save such amounts

I have no issue with generous public pensions , it's a trade-off for the lower pay and sacrifing of opportunity asI see it. However there does need to be a happy medium so they can't clear off at 55 and milk the system by claiming pension "early" and then working in the private sector using skills and training paid for by you and I

On the topic of waste , mentioned earlier, did you knwo that if a patient comes in speaking a foreign language the team treating have to ring a special language (at a hefty price)  hotline EVEN IF one them is fluent in the tongue of the patient .

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neileg
16th Oct 2014 10:04

Public Sector pensions

I'm a chartered accountant and work in the public sector. Yes the pension is generous but according to ICAEW I earn about 45% of the average pay for a chartered accountant. Swings and roundabouts.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Sheepy306
16th Oct 2014 12:26

@ neileg.......Depends what you're using to compare your salary. The salary survey's are often produced by recruitment agencies who have a vested interest in pushing the salaries far higher then they are in reality, creating a 'grass is always greener' mindset in potential candidates, or perhaps that is me being cynical. Partners salaries, especially those in London, massively distort the figures.

A very very quick google search brings this article up http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5d078974-1e57-11e0-bab6-00144feab49a.html#axzz3GIro0k4m , data taken from Marks Sattin (financial recruiter). They show that 23% of qualified accountants earn £100k+, Even the ICAEW show average members gross salaries as £80k.

I worked in practice in the East Midlands for 15 years, I never ever met a non-partner earning anywhere near that (even a half-decent manager would be nearer to £40k if he was lucky). From recollection a senior manager in a top 10 Birmingham firm was doing well to be on £60k.

 

Agree with justsotax, people are free to move jobs/careers/sectors however they wish (and that applies equally to people who moan in the private sector), if you're not happy with the salary package or stress levels then get a job that gives you what you want/think that you deserve, or work harder and get a promotion. I resent those that use strikes in order to blackmail the country, whatever their job is or whoever they work for.

 

@ Bazzapc - I don't think gratitude is lacking for the job that is being done, I agree that a lot of public sector works do a fantastic job, that includes nurses, police etc etc. Some people in the NHS for example experience significant stress, others don't. I wonder how that stress compares to say a sole practitioner desperately struggling to get his business off the ground? With a family to feed, mortgage to pay, no capital reserves, certainly no pension pot accruing, slow paying clients, cashflow problems, having to learn the ropes of running a business alongside your own technical knowledge and the regulatory requirements. It's not all roses elsewhere but they don't create a song and dance about it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
16th Oct 2014 13:22

neileg

presumably you are now looking to move into the private sector? ... although I suspect finding that job that pays double what you currently get is going to be more difficult than you think...

Thanks (0)
Replying to Glennzy:
avatar
By neileg
17th Oct 2014 12:51

I know all too well

justsotax wrote:

presumably you are now looking to move into the private sector? ... although I suspect finding that job that pays double what you currently get is going to be more difficult than you think...

I know how difficult it is to get a job in any sector at any salary at my age (58). Earlier this year I came within two week of being redundant. At least I'm not far off drawing my 'gold plated' pension...

My private sector pension 'investment' with Equitable Life isn't going to help much.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
16th Oct 2014 13:55

Exactly Sheepy ...

... Average pay is meaningless, it is affected by big firm partners on £500k+ salaries - you need to be looking at the mode, not the mean.

Eg, (made up figures/areas for illustration only)

10 accountants, 1 on £25k (north) 8 on £50k (se), 1 on £500k(London)

Mean is £92.5k! If you take 45% of that you get £41.62k, which is actually 83.25% of your "likely" salary. 

Don't forget too, public sector has national payscales, if you are in the north, your £41.62k is actually 166.48% of your private sector equivalent!

You will probably find a public sector accountant earns more than the "average" CA in the real world. Then factor in flexi-time, ridiculous amounts of leave, sick pay etc., on top of the generous pension arrangements, relative job security etc. these days I think you will find the old high pensions later compensate for low pay now dogma is extinct.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Wiganer Elaine
16th Oct 2014 15:55

Unions

Historically, unions were started so that your ordinary, average working class man had an organised body that attempted to look after his interests.

Working conditions for the average "working-class" worker were abominable in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

The unions wanted better working conditions, reasonable hours, reasonable pay, entitlement to holidays, support when workers were sick, especially if work-related, etc. 

Today, the rights of the ordinary working man as espoused by the founders of the union movement are enshrined in law.

The union movement today is an undemocratic monolith which seeks to justify its existence by perpetuating an old fashioned "class war" that no longer now truly exists.

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Matrix:
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
18th Oct 2014 20:09

Unions

Hear hear !!!

Esp as some members as more equal than others

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jonnyd
16th Oct 2014 17:13

Public sector atitudes

Actually was speaking to a Civil Servant the other day about holidays-He informed me that he still had "2 weeks sick days" to take this year! Sums it up really! They live in a different world to the rest of us in the private sector.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Knight Rider
16th Oct 2014 17:39

democracy

It does seem a travesty of democracy when action is taken with so little support. Perhaps strike action should require an absolute majority of those eligible.

Sadly the NHS in a global economy is a gramophone in a digital world unable to cope with migrants,health tourists and a myriad of other claimants that the NHS was never intended to deal with.

Until we face up to this and recognise that treatments cannot all be free at the point of use (they are not already as anyone who has had to park at a hospital will testify) these grievances with the government of the day will continue.

One day hospitals will compete with each other for patients and health service workers will have their pay determined by the market.

Top tip for anyone visiting Plymouth Derriford hospital - free parking nearby in William Prance Road!

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
17th Oct 2014 17:17

who mentioned

gold plated pensions...albeit that the benefit compared to the contributions will always beat a private pension.  And unfortunately the private sector is not immune to redundancy - but its fair to say that the days when the public sector job was a 'vocation' due to its extremely poor salary are long gone....but don't tell the unions.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th Oct 2014 10:36

NHS migrants - look at the stats in this article ...

UK open door - free treatment policy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2788843/immigrants-hiv-true-co...

For a country that is pretty much broke - one has to ask what is going on in the UK

Quite apart from the fact that the country potentially becomes a pool for imported diseases - with no proof required that a foreign national does not have a disease before entering the country.

And the funding for all this has to come from somewhere - especially for long term treatment?

On the other hand we hear that the NHS has a £32 bn deficit - how does all this reconcile?

 

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
19th Oct 2014 15:38

NHS is a soft touch for migrants

One wonders if the reason that we are so generous is a feeling of guilt for the colonial years. And even that only accounts for part of the picture . I believe that maternity provision is no wbeing charged for but I suspect the recovery rate is in the low teens at best .

It's time to wise up and run this aspect of the NHS like a business - where are the in-house accountants ?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
20th Oct 2014 09:15

Icing on the cake ...

Oh - and the icing on the cake with NHS migrants is that once in the system they cannot be deported because of their 'Human Rights'

Basically the argument goes along the lines of - sending them home would breach their Human Rights by returning them to a country that does not provide all the facilities of the NHS (which could apply to just about any country in the world)

But of course these countries don't provide equivalent NHS resources - why else would NHS migrants choose to be over here in the first place?

So it's a catch-22 situation and unfortunately the current Human Rights legislation emanating from Europe seems incapable (or unwilling) of seeing the situation for what it is and the abuses it fosters

Anyway - What about the Human Rights of the majority? - i.e. on limited funding why should a UK taxpayer have to stump up more money for the NHS whilst at the same time having delayed waiting times (18 months) or refused operations (over 80) because of NHS funding issues when they have contributed to the system for many years, but become second class citizens!

... and yet NHS migrants have a free-pass potentially at the expense of UK nationals having deliberately targeted the UK's facilities and been in the country 10 minutes

A balance needs to be struck and yet politicians (EU/UK) and their collective arrogance fail to grasp these simple concepts and continue trying to beat-up the UK for trying to impose some form of immigration restraint - also the current UK Government is massively at fault here, by allowing the situation to continue

Finally, asylum should only be applicable to the first safe country the 'oppressed' person reaches. It should NEVER be an option as a lifestyle choice, which means that anyone coming to the UK indirectly via any other safe-haven should automatically be debarred from seeking asylum and returned to their immediate country of departure – without even being given the choice to apply for asylum because the concept does not apply

How can one claim asylum from France by crossing the channel under a truck – doesn’t make sense!

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
20th Oct 2014 10:09

Ah, but ....

If we leave the EU, and all the massive costs it imposes on us one way and another, then we are told we won't be able to influence the EU over Ebola!

If that's the best reason that Barroso can come up with for staying in the EU, then .... but still, he can hardly say we are the most valuable cash cows, can he?

Like immigration, the EU is good for big business, but not for the people who finance it (ie. the 'little people').

Sorry. I know I am being sarcastic, but when will the 'little people' of the UK start to see some benefit?

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
20th Oct 2014 10:30

Leaving EU will be a non-event

When I say non-event I mean that things are highly unlikely to follow any of the predicted paths . In particular we are unlikely to face economic catastrophe and life will "feel" less onerous for a lot of SMEs .  Those doing business with Europe may have to comply with EU rules but that would be their choice , just as they have to comply with rules for other parts of the globe.

It should put an end to the fake asylum seekers who are swamping our services and making life a misery for hardworking honest truck drivers and wasting enormous amounts of police time . Have you see on the reality tv shows what is involved when stowaways are discovered at the service station ?

Instead of grumbling about fortress Britain being isolated , perhaps it is time to become a true fortress and only allow workers into the country if they are processed in their home country .

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
20th Oct 2014 19:03

@JC (and others)

Why do people travel through a safe country (ie. France) to get to the UK, rather than staying in the safe country of France?

What are the French doing right, and the UK are doing wrong? Anyone know? France must be acting within EU rules, or aren't they?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Oct 2014 09:16

Possibly ...

because they have been told that the UK is a soft touch and once in the country they are pretty much below the radar

We have no ID system (for good/bad), whereas in some other European countries anyone employing someone without an ID card is in trouble

Even if someone is 'caught' in the UK it then sets in motion a long pantomime of trying to remove them from the country with costly, time consuming appeals to Europe about over-ruling the UK courts - i.e. Abu Hamsa

Don’t forget that local councils have a legal obligation to house a person under certain circumstances - http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-legal-information/public-housing/homeless-people.html - which again is why children become caught up in all this – they are a bargaining tool

So the real question is - do other EU countries such as Romania (could be any new entrant) have the same legal obligations to house people? If not then why is the UK expected to support Romanian nationals to a better standard than their own country is prepared to provide (i.e. give them a house at UK taxpayer expense)

No-one can blame people for trying to get a better life, however, the whole UK system of checks & balances has broken down and is open to abuse - EU rules have played a large part in this

Even within Europe, how can countries with vastly different average wages & standards of living become part of the EU & the Schengen Agreement (no borders) without migration or movement controls – otherwise the obvious will occur

As for Mr Barroso, perhaps he would like to comment on the UK application for membership of the E.E.C. in 1970 where he six original members drew up Council Regulation, 2141/70, giving each other ‘equal access’ to each other's fishing waters. The underlying reason for Regulation, 2141/70, was that approximately 70-80% of the ‘European’ fish stocks were to be found within UK National Waters and as a new member of the EEC Britain would have to accept all existing European Legislation on the basis of the 'acquis communautaire'

A point worth noting is Council Regulation, 2141/70, was only adopted on the morning of 30 June, the day the British application for membership was made and during the first 22 years of its existence the CFP was completely illegal; according to the EEC's own laws - and authorisation was only retrospectively inserted into Article 3 of the Treaty of Maastricht!

So frankly if Mr Barroso want to discuss legality then we should go back to basics and address the illegal manoeuvring carried out by the original members when the UK applied for membership. How about redress by giving us back our fishing grounds and compensation for all historic ‘illegal’ fishing by other EU members

http://trawlingfortruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/what-happened-in-1970-2.html

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
21st Oct 2014 10:02

Thanks, JC

That confirms my suspicion that we are a cash cow to be exploited and used!

I already knew about the changing of the rules for fishing rights on the morning that we joined. I just see so many hidden costs of being in the EU, ie. the NHS, benefits, the paying of unemployment benefits to people not even living in this country, the large families that are being supported by benefits when they don't even live in this country. All this money goes abroad and isn't even spent in the UK to help boost trade in the UK,

I wonder exactly how much money leaves the UK purely through being an EU member (not just membership fees), with no benefit to this country at all.

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
21st Oct 2014 13:25

UK mentality is the root of the problem

We seem to have this sense of "fair play" that is trumpeted by the great and the good. It's a load of piffle

There cannot be fair play if it is one-sided ie we get mugged , day in and day out

If trends continues we'll end up with a country of non-paying foreigners that have no ties or alleigance to the country and you know where that leads to....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Knight Rider
21st Oct 2014 13:59

Free Movement

 

I think that the free movement of people is widely seen as a good thing - but this seems to be confused with the free movement of labour which only benefits those who can benefit from cheaper hotels,restaurants,builders and childcare. Everyone else has to face increased difficulty accessing schools, housing and medical services.

Worryingly we hear that British people are unwilling to take the jobs that immigrants are taking; but I don't remember staffing problems in these services before the wave of immigration earlier this century. If only the most talented come to the UK these are surely the individuals that should stay in their home countries to improve prosperity there?

Perhaps we should apply the same rules to all that come to the UK whether or not they are from the EU?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neiltonks
21st Oct 2014 14:29

Fascinating

I find it fascinating how at the moment, any discussion involving politics quickly turns into a rant against foreigners and the EU even when the original topic was domestic (in this case NHS workers taking strike action)!

Let's go back to the original topic for a while.

It's true that there wasn't an absolute majority of union members voting for a strike, just a (big) majority of those who voted. Does this invalidate the action? Well if so, then arguably it's many years since we had a legitimate government in the UK.

Any election with a turnout of less than 50% must result in a minority administration in terms of votes received as a proportion of the total electorate, even if everyone who participated voted for the same party. In practice, of course, votes are spread around and the party with the most successful candidates rarely has the support of 50% of the total electorate even if the turnout is higher. In fact, they often aren't even supported by 50% of those who actually voted, thanks to our first-past-the-post system and unequal constituency or ward sizes. And yet we accept these people as our leaders, and have done so for generations.

With less-popular elections, things are even worse - most of the PCCs currently running our police forces were voted for by less than 10% of the total electorate.

And sometimes, we just don't bother with democracy at all. I've never been able to vote for my local Parish council in over a decade, since whenever a vacancy arises someone is co-opted to fill it and no election happens. Yet I have by law to pay them their cut of the Council Tax each year.

So if the will of those who choose to vote is OK for governing the country or the police force, why should it be an unacceptable way to determine whether or not a group of people will turn up for work on a particular day?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
21st Oct 2014 21:15

Not so fascinating -
If you are unhappy with your working conditions and benefits the doors over their, close it on your way out.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Oct 2014 08:31

@neiltonks - Is there really no correlation ...

Between a finite UK resource (taxpayer money) and providing for foreign nationals in various guises (benefits, NHS, child support abroad etc.)

Surely the topic relates to NHS strikes because of pay and the resulting balloting - cause and effect!

Paying for the rest of the world = reduced money in the kitty = no pay rise = strike ballot = ballot turnout issues

As with all things the solution could be simple, but not addressed - for general elections etc. everyone must vote - for unions at least 70% of those eligible must vote - as for PCC's, goodness knows! have no idea why they exist in the first place, just another layer of incompetence funded by us; just get rid of them
 

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
22nd Oct 2014 12:04

Election winners

Should there be different rules for strike ballots and referenda , as opposed to first past the post in a parliamentary election ?

There are clear differences in a strike ballot , as other people are being deprived of their income and right to work

With referenda you can make a rule that there has to be a majority of the electorate in favour - remember Scotland 1979 ? After all , it is a change to status quo not a necessary election of a new government to a dissolved parliament , where there has to be some kind of result that gives us a ruling party

So , there you have it . Time to set up the Flying Scotsman Electoral Commission . It would keep me busy for years with a budget of millions and would give a result that probably kept nobody happy

Thanks (0)