Remuneration disputes for doctors in training can and should be avoided | Letter

It is the government’s inability to make a satisfactory offer after fifteen years of wage restraint that has fueled the ongoing strike action by trainee doctors (junior doctors in England plan vote for more strikes, January 8). That this position should have been reached at all also reflects the inadequacy, as currently applied, of the independent pay review process, which was initiated in the 1960s to prevent precisely these types of disputes.

In the past, significant catch-up prices could be recommended. As a junior doctor in 1970 I benefited from a Doctors’ and Dentists’ Review Body (DDRB) award of 30%, more than the British Medical Association’s submission of 26%, which the Labor government accepted in full, in the middle of a general meeting . election campaign. The decision to limit the number of consultants to 15% led to the resignation of the DDRB and retaliation from the BMA. Labor, somewhat unexpectedly, lost the election.

The government says the doctors’ claim is unaffordable. The DDRB must take this into account, but affordability is essentially a political construct. What is not affordable is a demoralized workforce that can take its skills elsewhere. It should be a priority for the next government to re-examine the remit and functioning of the oversight body, to ensure that decisions on doctors’ pay (and that of other professionals, whose machinery is modeled on the DDRB) are be taken on an equally large scale. possible removal from the political process.

Meanwhile, while the parallels with 1970 are not precise, Rishi Sunak will certainly not be foolish enough to allow the government’s intransigence to lead to continued strike action until the next election.
Doctor Anthony Isaacs
London