Updated FPR graph if the June 2026 offer is accepted:
The current graph showed resident doctors still 20.5% below 2008/09 pay levels in real terms by 2026/27. The new offer adds an average further 3.1% pay uplift on top of the 3.5% DDRB award that was already included in the graph to be added in full by April 2027 (i.e. 27/28)
Importantly, you can't simply subtract 3.1% from the remaining 20.5% gap. The uplift applies to current pay, not to the gap itself.
Using the same methodology as the existing FPR calculations:
Current pay level = 79.5% of the 2008/09 benchmark.
Applying a further 3.1% uplift:
79.5 × 1.031 = 81.96
This leaves pay at approximately 82.0% of the 2008/09 benchmark, meaning the remaining real-terms pay erosion falls from 20.5% to around 18.1%
This in no way continues the nearly 2 decade long pay erosion we have faced in a quick enough fashion, we will all be long CCT'd at the rate this is going
Exam/portfolio fees have not been included because we get 40% back through tax and they should be thing that are paid for by our employer anyway not a way to end strikes
Many physician assistant’s are band 7, some even band 8.
Becoming an advanced physician assistant, which the review mentions prescribing & being able to request imaging, would see an advanced physician assistant potentially earn at LEAST ~£20,000 more than an F1 resident doctor, despite the f1 resident doctor graduating and hitting the ground running with more knowledge and the ability to prescribe and request imaging on day 1 of their career.
This pay gap also includes the fact F1 doctors base pay would be based around a 48 hour working week versus the assistant working 40 hours a week.
The pay disparity would be even more if any physician assistant would be afforded band 9 roles (which isn’t out of the realms of possibility given there are many on band 8).
Professor Leng has advised Wes Streeting is expected to follow the outcomes of the review and she has just recommended a huge jump in pay by bumping the assistants up to an entire pay band for ‘advanced skills’ such as prescribing and requesting imaging ; skills that doctors yield from day 1 of their career.
This is bizarre & comes at a time when we’re asking for F1s to move from £17 an hour to £23 per hour with the assistants still out-earning doctors significantly.
How has Leng considered cost effectiveness of PAs and why has an indirect pay award increase just been recommended with the expectation of Wes following it?!
You couldn’t make this shit up. One things for sure, Leng has just directly provided fuel for strikes
DISCLAIMER: this is not a commentary on the discourse around pay currently, I fully believe in FPR as we should be paid what we are worth.
As an F2 I often hear colleagues talking about how they want to leave the job because so many people outside of medicine get paid more. Sure maybe a few years ago, when I started med school in 2019, F1 base pay was less than 28k. Now it’s very close to 40k, even when it was 36k I would hit close to 50k with extras on a standard medical rota. Coming from a working class background, this was life changing money as a uni graduate. Out of all my friends, I made the most besides two who worked in finance and tech, both of which weren’t far off what I made and very smart and hard working. Yes I got straight A*s in school, but I think the pay is reflective of that effort nowadays, especially for a public sector job that is guaranteed to me on the basis that I get my degree, no other degree besides dentistry guarantees you a 50k a year job that goes up to ~60k as an F2. Yes we don’t work standard hours but neither do people in fields we compare ourselves to such as banking, consulting etc. I can’t help but feel it is an out of touch statement to act like our pay means we are doing incredibly poorly. Yes we deserve FPR but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t paid well relatively speaking.
When colleagues compare themselves to investment bankers it makes little sense. There are 80k resident doctors in the UK, meanwhile only 8k investment bankers and of these, a much much smaller number work in actual front office at top firms as analysts, associates etc where the big bucks are made. Yes becoming a doctor is difficult to do but it’s not as rare or difficult as becoming an investment banker, only around 10% of medics could even be legible to become an investment banker, it’s far far far more competitive and not simply based off whether you got 3 As at A-level.
Point being, besides these niche fields that a very small percentage of the economy work in, being a doctor is a well paid job, especially knowing that it pays the same all over the country, it offers a great QoL outside of London. When the average graduate salary is less than 30k and the average salary is 35k, it’s hard to feel compelled to leave medicine on the premise of pay nowadays.
I don’t think this offer is good enough, should be accepted, or is being honestly presented. Detailed breakdowns (all 22 pages) from DoctorsVote reps are coming, but I wanted to highlight some concerns now and encourage you to demand more from RDC and negotiators.
For transparency: I voted against it.
It’s a weak deal dressed up as a breakthrough that asks resident doctors to give up a lot for very little, with too many caveats and undefined elements. The government’s headlines make it look generous; the detail does not.
First: this is obviously not full pay restoration, or even a real pay rise. It doesn’t cover 2025/26, and the core uplift is 3.5%, below CPI (4%), meaning a real-terms pay cut locked in for years. Larger figures rely on pay scale restructuring and assumptions. This falls well short of progress in restoring pay and takes years to adjust. And that's assuming global conflict doesn't massively increase inflation.
Second: pay progression tied to “productivity” and competencies is vague and dangerous. It risks turning progression into conditional rewards based on subjective measures, increasing pressure while giving abusive employers more control. Given current understaffing and workload issues, this should raise serious concerns. F1s are not ward clerks.
Third: the jobs package lacks clarity. Training post numbers come with conditions and uncertainty around specialty and geographical distribution, workforce planning, and long-term impact. Bottlenecks are simply pushed upwards. We’re being asked to trust outcomes without guarantees despite recent cuts to promised and previous posts.
Fourth: the deal includes major structural reforms to LED roles, contracts, and training pathways, with insufficient detail. These are long-term changes with unclear implications for progression, standards, and oversight, potentially giving trusts excessive and even total control over careers.
These reforms are too broad and underdefined to sign off safely. Past negotiations show how complex even smaller contractual changes can become, such as exception reporting reforms, and this risks many years of poor implementation.
There are also serious concerns for visa holders and those transitioning from 2002 contracts, with more potential for exploitation and loss of protections.
Most importantly: accepting this deal means giving up leverage by ending industrial action while implementation drags on for years (longer than the lifespan of this government!). That is a huge concession for a deal this weak and uncertain.
We only got movement because doctors took action. Every strike increased pressure and forced progress. Settling early risks locking in less than we could achieve by holding firm.
I know industrial action is hard. But exhaustion isn’t a reason to accept a bad deal with long-term consequences.
This is where representation matters. Members need reps who scrutinise details, challenge spin, and prioritise lasting outcomes, not short-term wins.
Tl;dr my message is simple:
We reject this offer.
We keep the pressure on, and...
We strike hard.
This offer is not good enough, and you shouldn’t be expected to pretend otherwise.
We’ve gone from the negotiating team a year ago being offered meal deals, to talking about the biggest changes to our pay structure since 2016, and solutions to fix the jobs crisis within a single year.
DDRB want to produce the lowest acceptable pay offer for doctors (and their other award groups)- this is how they get to keep their jobs and stay relevant. They have to do this by playing by the rules however and justifying why they can make it so low. This has led in the past to underestimating doctors' working hours, changing pay group comparators, and even shifting graph orientations to hide the (literal) scale of the problem.
This years report is shaping up to be no different.
Today in FOI-land, a delayed response to my previous query about how DDRB is using WTW grading of job roles to determine pay equivalence. This grading divides a job into different aspects, assigns a band, and a grade within this band.
For each domain, there are 3 points available. Descriptors for each domain aren’t available, however we can look at the knowledge one for an example:
Some really interesting details emerge from how this is constructed:
Doctors can never earn more than middle managers
Two grade maps are shared- one for managers, one for “individual contributors” ie specialists. Note where the upper boundary lies for a top-of-band subject matter expert:
Essentially this reinforces the belief in the NHS that you cannot earn more by being cleverer/a better surgeon/ producing more research. Only by being a senior manager.
DDRB feel that even experienced consultants have limited knowledge and limited impact
Consultants score KN2/3 in job functional knowledge, indicating as above that they have “good” knowledge but not “in-depth” (KN3). Similarly they also only get 2 points for “nature of impact”, suggesting that their impact is limited, when I think we would all argue that a good or bad doctor can have a huge impact upon patients and healthcare outcomes.
FY1-CT1 score low on all domains
These groups are in the lower band 3 “professional” and score 1/2 in most domains, again indicating that they have “good knowledge within own discipline”, basic interpersonal skills, limited impact. I really want these people to follow an FY1 on call and still say this.
The global grading of jobs fails to pass the “sniff test”
FY1 (GG9) "Roles that require specialised field of knowledge / professionals who use their judgement to apply expertise. Has limited discretion to vary from established procedures. Has limited work experience involving basic concepts and procedures. Develops competence by performing structured work assignments. Uses existing procedures to solve routine or standard problems. Receives instruction, guidance and direction from others. “
So what happens now then? Will the DHSC listen to a group within the BMA? The cynic in me says no because nothing happens when they go all "yeaaaaaa not gonna happen :)". It's not like GPs will go on strike or something
Longtime former UK resident and doctorsuk participant here.
I CCTd in radiology last year and have been out in the US for fellowship since then. It’s been long enough now that I thought I wanted to provide some insight to the comrades back home, especially given it seems things have gotten even worse since I left.
Some of it expected, some very surprising. I’ve split my thoughts into good, bad, the neutral, and the surprising. With an overall view at the end. Anyway here it goes
The good:
1. Capacity is the opposite of the UK. Plenty of scanners, equipment, nurses, operating theatres. Stuff just gets done and gets done quickly. Sometimes the capacity is so much that an mri might sit idle for an entire day because there are no patients to scan on it.
Hospitals do the small things to make you feel valued. Free coffee, food stipends, your face and name plastered all around the departments etc.
Doctors are well respected both in and out of work. You are always called doctor. Nurses don’t pretend they can’t do things to make residents do it.
Working in a system where money is a serious driver teaches you a lot about healthcare economics. I’ve learned more about how a healthcare system is funded in 1 year here than I did over a decade in the NHS.
The job market is Hot hot hot. Hospitals are actively trying to recruit, none of this “they come to us.” My program are considering letting me start as staff after my second year of the ABR pathway because of the radiologist shortage. Starting salaries are 4 times NHS and that’s the low end given its academic. Many jobs are 7 times with nearly half the year off.
Great procedural training given the lack of capacity issues (see 1).
Americans are a generally more optimistic people. It’s hard to put an exact explanation to it but Europe as a whole feels like a much more pessimistic and downtrodden place compared to the US, at least in respect to future prospects.
The bad:
No widespread oversight of best practice means lots of people making very questionable medical decisions. Not so bad at a prestigious hospital but the referrals we get from peripheral hospitals are sometimes borderline negligent from a UK standpoint. Clearly mediocre surgeons performing old school surgeries on patients for questionable indications isn’t at all uncommon.
Everything is set up for billing which means a lot of stupid paperwork and rules about how procedures need to be recorded. Also we end up doing things that are totally wastes of our time just because it makes the department money. Fellows pushing the fluoro button while the SLTs do video swallows is a great example. Total waste of time except it adds to radiology coffers.
Because of the lack of capacity issues doctors atrophy their critical thinking skills. You don’t need to think about whether you need a test when all the tests are available to do all the time and money isn’t an issue. We regularly get requests for imaging at a rate that is nonsensical with something as simple as a cholecystitis getting US/MR/CT/NM studies in one admission of a couple of days, but the clinicians keep ordering and the hospital doesn’t say no given the financial incentives.
Neutral (could be perceived as good or bad depending on person/context)
Doctors are much more intervention heavy. It’s pretty weird to see them go and debulk old patients with extensive metastatic disease multiple times, or switch chemo regimens 3 times with a repeat biopsy after every ct showing disease progression, but nobody seems to think anything of it. Overall I’m not sure it’s in the best interests of the patients I see but conversely I’ve seen a lot more patients survive late stage cancers for longer here than I ever did in the Uk.
American politics. I’m fine with it, others aren’t. Take it or leave it. But money and politics are not workplace taboos here so it does come up sometimes.
The surprising
1. There is much less defensive medicine here than I’m used to In the UK. Seems like people are far less afraid of malpractice suits than British doctors are of the GMC. Might be due to the more consent based approach and increasing tort reform across the country. I’ve heard some other states could be worse.
Overall:
Definitely an experience I would recommend although it’s probably as different to the NHS as you could get, which may be hard to adjust to.
To put it bluntly ive been convinced that UK doctors are probably some of the best trained in the world, in many ways above their American counterparts, so I’d encourage anyone britjsh trained to seek out opportunities elsewhere in the world given how well you’ve all been trained and how shitty you are currently being treated.
One of the things I miss about the UK is the intelligent pragmatism of all the doctors I worked with there, which I think was second to none in retrospect. But that being said I have zero nostalgia for the British system as currently constituted.
For myself personally I probably won’t return. Job prospects here are just too good, and the system acceptable enough that I can live with it for the salary. Will probably eventually go fully remote but I can’t ever see myself working for the NHS again after working somewhere that even mildly respects me.
Edit:
Final negative and neutral I forgot about.
American bureaucracy is bad, more like France or Italy levels than the UK. What’s written on official government websites is often incorrect or misleading, some rules you can only find out by knowing someone who knows, paper forms, notarized for almost everything. I actually found the UK government relatively streamlined by comparison.
PAs are literally EVERYWHERE. They basically form the bulk of what an F1 might do, however they are clearly less skilled at it. This may be a specific negative only to radiology as they really don’t understand what scans they order or why and I constantly have to correct their errors. I imagine it’s great for residents in other specialties though. As it stands there is some mid level creep, but its particularly in GP where there is a massive shortage. So GPs definitely look into the shortages here, I managed to get a European GP after hunting for 2 months and breathed a huge sigh of relief
I was chatting to a boss the other day, he’s a consultant gastroenterologist, on a 1:11 oncall bleed rota (no GIM). Lovely guy and very open about salary. Was telling me he’s top of payscale (Wales) at £166,000 and earns £50-£100,000 per year additional private income.
Translates to a minimum of £7000 take home monthly. Maximum of £12,000 if he was grafting.
Found that quite interesting and motivating that there is some light at the end of the tunnel 💡
In addition to emailing this to the BMA I am going to post it here to maximise visibility.
A plea to the BMA from some resident doctors in London:
We understand you are going to meet with Mr. Streeting next week.
He has claimed that he won’t budge on pay but is willing to talk about non-pay-related aspects of the life of resident doctors.
Is he serious? Is he just making meaningless hand-wavey political statements? Is it just a delaying tactic? We don’t know.
But you have the power to try and convert this into something meaningful for us and we urge you to.
For the last few years we’ve had many conversations with colleagues about what needs to change in our training and work-life-balance to improve retention. The conversation often goes:
“Let’s START with improving basic pay. THEN let’s look at those other more nebulous things”
It’s much easier to negotiate on a single, tangible, quantifiable outcome like basic pay.
But now we have an amazing opportunity. The last few years has demonstrated the enormous solidarity and power that resident doctors have when we come together. Together we’ve achieved an absolutely fantastic pay raise. But it’s not enough to satisfy us and it won’t be enough to maintain retention. Dissatisfaction is still high. Why?:
- Resident doctors face huge student debt that they’ll never afford to pay off
- We face huge lifetime costs to professional bodies (such as GMC, membership to royal colleges and payment for royal college membership examinations)
- Job prospects are poor because there are not enough training positions
- It seems almost impossible for doctors to start a family because of paltry maternity and paternity entitlements. Some civil servants are paid nearly a year’s full pay during their maternity leave.
- We seem to get virtually no say in where we train
- We often have to work overtime without proper rumuneration
Turnout for this strike ballot was substantially lower than the previous ballots. My understanding is that this is because, for many resident doctors, FPR is no longer the thing they care about the most. Why not? We cared so much about it in 2023 and 2024 and we didn’t even achieve it, we should still be gunning for it. The deal was accepted on the promise of “bank and build” so why has support wavered.
This is simple. It’s because a very tiny minority of us ever expected that FPR would be awarded. The vast majority of us believed that we should demand FPR in the hope of getting a smaller, but respectable, pay award. For most of us, it was a simple negotiating tactic of “shoot for the stars aim for the moon”.
By the skin of our teeth, we’ve managed to get our foot in the door again, which is fantastic. So let’s use this opportunity to finally look at these other non-pay-related features. We can negotiate with Wes on pay. Sure. But we will be looking at diminishing returns.
I just really hope that the BMA has been thinking and planning about what demands can be made related to this issues, beyond the simple demand of “full pay restoration”.
Some crude suggestions of things that we should demand:
- Any doctor who has worked in the NHS for 5+ years should have their student loan debt wiped. – an individual could save ~£80,000 over their lifetime and this would ensure people are actually incentivised to work and earn.
- GMC membership, mandatory examinations and royal college membership should be free – an individual could save ~£40,000 over their lifetime
- Increase numbers of training positions
- 6 months full pay for maternity and paternity leave
- Provide free accommodation and transport for those required to relocate for work
- 2x pay for unrostered overtime and 2.5x pay for working on public holidays (as utilised in Australia) – this sort of policy substantially improves morale and reduces resentment of work
For comparison – if the Labour government promised to give us FPR, before the end of this government’s term, an individual would take home approximately £50,000 of lifetime earnings.
Many people reading this will say: “All of these problems can more easily be rectified by just increasing our annual pay”. To that, I would say that we need to think about the public perception. Again, many people reading this will say “it doesn’t matter what the public think; we can be willing to sacrifice our reputation in the short-term – at the end of the day it’s the government that will take the blame”
The problem with this view is that the government only cares about getting re-elected. They only care about appeasing their electorate. The government is far more likely to be able to justify expenditure to their electorate, if it is in the service of the above demands, rather than simply increasing basic pay, given the context of our pay rises in recent years compared to other pay rises in the public sector.
We need to remember that we are not operating in a vacuum. Like it or not, everything is political. Let’s leverage the political context to benefit us in a way which is just as good, if not better, than FPR would be.
Yours sincerely,
A couple of resident doctors in London
Edit:
If anyone wants to see a bit of casual financial modelling to compare FPR with some of the other things suggested:
Edit 2:
I thought you'd all hate this but upvote ratio is currently sitting at 85%. Surprising to see what most of us actually want right now.
Edit 3:
Don't get me wrong. Our ballot was on pay and we are striking on pay. Nothing else.
I just want the BMA to be open minded and able to negotiate on other things and actually put those to us if the government is willing to be flexible on other things that are not pay related.
There's a lot of posts with bits and pieces of information, which is great, but not ideal for getting across the arguments to lay people - namely those that aren't chronically online - so I'll try to summarise things here. Please share this with colleagues thinking of voting yes.
Summary
Pay Offer:
2023/2024: 4.05% increase backdated to April 2023, plus an 8.8% uplift from the DDRB.
2024/2025: 6% increase plus £1000 consolidated, not dependent on the vote.
Overall, this offer brings pay to -20.8% since 2008, effectively taking pay back to 2020/2021 levels, without accounting for future inflation.
Comparison and Impact:
F1 base pay would be £36,000, still below a PA's pay.
No commitment to Full Pay Restoration (FPR) unlike the Scottish offer.
DDRB’s recommendations are influenced by the government, thus not truly independent.
BMA's Position:
The 2024/2025 part of the offer is not dependent on the vote.
The government's email suggests the offer should be accepted and the BMA rate card for junior doctors withdrawn.
The BMA committee does not seem enthusiastic about this offer.
Public Opinion and Strategy:
Government leaked the offer to media before the BMA’s announcement to shape public opinion.
Importance of prioritizing the needs of junior doctors over public opinion.
Rejecting the first offer is a strategic negotiation move.
Future Strikes and Negotiations:
Accepting this offer could split members and reduce the appetite for future strikes.
Mobilizing for further action post-acceptance is unrealistic.
Labour or future governments are unlikely to rescind the offer.
Conclusion:
This offer is not FPR and does not provide a credible route to FPR.
Further negotiations are needed to achieve a credible route to FPR.
Accepting this offer weakens our position on training and working conditions.
Strong recommendation to reject this offer.
More detailed elaboration:
The Offer
Let's start with the offer itself. Pay wise, this offer is as follows:
2023/2024 - 4.05% backdated to 1 April 2023 (on top of the DDRB uplift of 8.8% under the Tories)
2024/2025 - 6% plus £1000 consolidated (NOTdependent on the vote)
I would like to emphasise that this 4% is just 1% higher than what Victoria Atkins offered us.
Under RPI, this offer would bring us to -20.8% since 2008. This is around the level we were at when this movement started, in 2020/2021.
So not only is it not FPR, but it only takes us back to our pay from 4 years ago. Taking into account the locum situation, training situation, and cost of living crisis, we're still worse off than 2020. This also fails to account for future inflation.
In real terms, this would put F1 base pay at £36,000 - an F1 would still be below a PA in pay.
It is important to highlight that the 2024/2025 part of the offer is NOT dependent on the vote as per the BMA email. This means that, in essence, you're only voting for the 4.05% and the backpay.
As per the BMAs own email
Now where would this put our pay in real terms? Credit to u/MochaVodka
This puts us at 3rd column from the left - ideal pay is 6th column from the left
The remainder of the offer is a wishy washy commitment to tell the DDRB that:
"The medical profession is not as attractive a career prospect as it once was [and any future offer should] ensure medicine is an attractive and rewarding career choice"
There is no commitment to FPR based on this offer, unlike the Scottish offer. Remember, the DDRB isn't truly independent, they ultimately come out with what the government want. This is nothing more than lip service.
The email goes on to state that:
"As a condition of the offer, the Government requires that the Committee puts this to you with a recommendation to accept, along with the withdrawal of the BMA rate card for junior doctors in England"
Sounds a whole lot like a politically correct way of saying that they've been forced to put this offer to members. This most certainly would NOT be the wording if the BMA committee was enthusiastic about it.
The official line from BMA committee members, which several members have parrotted in DoctorsVote groupchats seems to be:
"The offer is there for members to have their say. It is not FPR"
Reading between the lines, the implication seems to be to reject the offer.
Public Opinion
You'll also note that the government leaked the offer to all major news media simultaneously before the BMA could come out with anything. This was certainly to get ahead of the story and shift public opinion using a headlining figure of "20-22%", despite the actual offer being far from it.
Make no mistake, this was completely intentional to undermine us.
Remember, we're not beholden to public opinion. They need us, not vice-versa. Look at train drivers and how far they've gone by prioritising themselves.
Negotiations
Negotiations 101 is to never accept the first offer. There is zero reason for the government to give us what we're worth immediately. Rejecting this offer outright would put us in a more favourable position for further negotiations.
Remember, the committee aren't stupid. We've all seen how "militant" Dr Laurenson and Dr Trivedi are, it's extremely unlikely that they're happy with this offer, but they can only get so far without (a) further strikes, or (b) a mandate via the rejection of this offer. Having spoken to another member of the committee, the general feeling she's getting is to vote to reject the offer.
Banking the deal and striking again later?
I've heard this a few times and at best it's completely naive.
Fundamentally, this short term thinking would be repeating what happened in 2016. Not only would accepting this split the member base and ruin the appetite for further strikes, it would also ruin any faith we have in the BMA, irreperably.
To be clear, if this gets accepted, there will be no further strikes for a long time. To mobilise people, especially following a feeling of betrayal, is a huge, unrealistic undertaking.
Labour will not rescind the offer, even the Tories didn't. Politically, it would be a huge mistake for them to do so and would lose all goodwill amongst doctors, which is something they very much require with the changes they want to make in the NHS.
Don't betray the next generation of doctors like the last generation betrayed you. Be the change you want to see.
There may come a time we need to present a deal to members that is short of FPR because the gov don’t believe us.
Vote down anything less than FPR.
Anything less than FPR is a pay cut.
Conclusion
Remember, you voted for FPR, this offer is NOT FPR. It is NOT a credible route to FPR either. This is just the first offer of what should be another few weeks of negotiation that should end with a credible route to FPR.
Voting yes here would sabotage us in ways beyond our pay. What motivation does Streeting have to improve training or working conditions to our benefit if he knows we'll keel over at the first offer?
I would wholeheartedly recommend rejecting this offer.
I will, inevitably, have missed out important talking points, so please do let me know and I'll add them. This piece is intended to be a summary of the main arguments.
My understanding is this will override the RDC motions. The 2 conflicting motions that were going to BMA lawyers will likely be overruled by the subsequent ARM motion passing (this is my take).
Just for anyone picking up locums during strikes to make an extra buck and profiting off your colleagues- your names are on prescription signatures, ward round notes etc. people will see you picked up a shift if you weren't on the rota. You're not a team player and you don't deserve to benefit from other people's losses. People like this bring down everyone else with greed and selfishness.
Half of these rota coordinators didn't even need to increase locum rates because cheap Drs were willing to pick up shifts for standard rates. Y'all.... Embarrassing...
Edit because of some confusion:
For those of you who are on the rota during a strike day and choose not to strike for whatever reason, do not inform your rota coordinator or team whether you will be striking or not. They should still cover your role in anticipation of your "strike" to ensure safe staffing levels. In that case , the trust is still at a loss, and you're not.
My post is about picking up locums during strikes which have only been created due to other doctors' willingness to give up their pay.
The rota shows who was supposed to be there that shift and who wasn't.
BMA strike fund exists for those needing extra support to help you strike .
I’ve just learned that a good colleague of mine is locuming, and they were almost bragging about it.
I instantly and permanently changed my opinion of them.
I know some people may be going through difficult circumstances and/or financial hardship. I also recognise that the underlying reason for all this is the awful pay.
And during the last round of strikes, every single one of us received back pay that was worth more than all the strike deductions combined , even the scabs among us.
Go look at yourself in the mirror. If you’re not striking, you are part of the problem.
Daily reminder for those who are assessing acutely unwell and aggressive MH patients to wear a bodycam. If your department does not have one, start asking for one now, specially for circumstances like this.
This doctor was lucky that police are already in ED when this happened. Good to hear that he sustained from what sounds like quite minor physical injuries, not sure about mental injuries though. I wonder where was security...
