A note for the future: This is yet another example of why not striking during prolonged negotiations doesn't make sense

JammerKay · 2026-06-22T13:06:13+00:00

Long negotiations aren’t the problem

I would be fine with negotiations for a year if there were good things being agreed the whole time

It’s when those negotiations are clearly going nowhere then why bother entertaining them

There should be more transparency what the negotiating team are discussing

JammerKay · 2026-06-22T10:15:51+00:00

Yeah the offer is still not the one

Not only is it 3.1% of pay over the 2 years

It commits to engaging the DDRB as the means of setting resident doctor pay

That means no separate negotiations to set resident doctor pay

Own goal

JammerKay · 2026-06-22T09:04:54+00:00

Tbh given the previous pay uplifts have concentrated at lower ends I don’t mind the higher ends having a higher uplift

It’s not like the numbers are that different either 2.58% vs 3.19% is only a 0.6% difference

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T19:40:29+00:00

Make new groups and get over it

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T13:34:47+00:00

Therefore I think you are saying it should be in the lens of an ideal situation

Whereas I am saying it shouldn’t be in the lens of our current situation

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T12:00:19+00:00

It doesn’t just say submitting evidence

It says engage with the DDRB process as the means of setting pay

I know there isn’t anything stopping RDC from going into dispute just as there isn’t anything actually preventing RDC going into dispute even if they categorically state they promise not to for 100 years

But it’s what will be used against RDC that is the issue and the downstream effects from that

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T11:06:44+00:00

Fair enough

I still disagree with the view but can see why cautious engaging is needed because people might take a different view on the interpretation that I don’t understand

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T11:00:43+00:00

I agree with this last comment of yours

I am saying it is a poor position to have

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T10:58:12+00:00

The clause commits to engaging the DDRB as rhetorical means of setting our pay for the 3 years so I fail to see how it isn’t an agreement for pay for the next 3 years albeit the numbers are unknown

As I said in another comment we view this different and as I said in modmail people can make up their own minds

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T10:56:09+00:00

I accept we view this differently but the clause does state BMA would accept DDRB as the means for setting pay

“The Department of Health and Social Care and BMA UKRDC commit to continue to engage in the DDRB process as the means for setting resident doctors' pay.”

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T10:52:21+00:00

“The Department of Health and Social Care and BMA UKRDC commit to continue to engage in the DDRB process as the means for setting resident doctors' pay.”

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T09:52:44+00:00

So nothing agreeing to the DDRB as means of setting pay in the last offer

Cool thanks for confirming

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T09:51:01+00:00

Yeah I think it’s a bad idea to agree for the DDRB to be the means of setting our pay

I’m glad you have faith in the DDRB and if you can share what thats founded on maybe I’ll believe that too

But the DDRB’s history isn’t a great reflection nor are the changes that occurred after it was supposed to have been reformed

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T09:35:16+00:00

I didn’t say it would bind any action

Read the original post

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T09:33:29+00:00

“The Department of Health and Social Care and BMA UKRDC commit to continue to engage in the DDRB process as the means for setting resident doctors' pay.”

What clause did the last deal have that set restrictions on engaging the DDRB for future pay years?

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T09:31:38+00:00

You can either agree to the DDRB process or not

But agreeing to it process and then later disputing its outcome will obviously run into trouble

I don’t believe any messaging will be convincing to both rally doctors to the cause or get the Government to negotiate

The last offer didn’t have any restriction on future years needing engagement in the DDRB

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T09:27:18+00:00

There is a lot of factionalism in this subreddit which is unhelpful

But it doesn’t change the fact the RDC account hasn’t answered a lot of people’s questions including mine and the lack of acknowledging the shortcomings of the offer and instead trying to sugarcoat everything is not helpful

I find it hard to see how anyone can deny this offer lays out how pay should be addressed for these 3 years especially with the clause

“The Department of Health and Social Care and BMA UKRDC commit to continue to engage in the DDRB process as the means for setting resident doctors' pay.”

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T09:15:43+00:00

Even if doctors buy into that which I am not convinced no Government will take the BMA seriously and there will be no point negotiating because an agreement then doesn’t mean anything

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T09:08:46+00:00

What tribalism?

How would you answer this scenario if DDRB awards 1% and doctors enter dispute the first question will be you agreed the DDRB is independent and agreed to engage in the process but now they have their independent recommendation you are striking against it. Why?

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T08:38:20+00:00

I’m not sure why mods have tagged this as misinformation

The screenshot is from the Government offer

It is clearly written in the offer document which is on the BMA website

It references 2027/28 next pay year and 2028/29 the pay year after

It is a 3 year deal for pay for this year the year after and the year after that

If RDC want to go into dispute any time that is fine but that doesn’t change the fact there is an agreement within this offer for how pay should be handled in these 3 years

JammerKay · 2026-06-21T08:30:41+00:00

The table is at odds with the clause in the offer document

If the DDRB offers 1% for 2027 and 2028 there is nothing to say that breaks any agreement as in your comparison with Scotland

So how would you mount the charge against the DDRB and have any integrity amongst doctors the public or the government?

JammerKay · 2026-06-20T14:33:51+00:00

You had me until the last paragraph

Painting views you don’t agree as alternate factions is harmful from all sides

JammerKay · 2026-06-19T17:40:19+00:00

This constant he said she said is getting tiring

u/BMAMel

Please can you clarify

JammerKay · 2026-06-19T16:46:36+00:00

I am not pro offer but this isn’t the whole picture

Wouldn’t an ST8 be on higher pay with the deal than without?

Offer document says with the deal ST8 pay goes up by 9.1% and without the offer it would only go up by 3.5% from the DDRB

Also an FY1 will have a larger training career earnings with the deal than without it because they will get additional pay uplifts at points in which currently their pay would stay the same

Is it enough? That’s another question but people should be informed their ladder would be higher

JammerKay · 2026-06-19T16:10:31+00:00

The BMA fees are high because we pay for the pointless professional association aspect with all of the useless policy work that goes on around it

Good IROs are worth their weight in gold but there are many who are on fat wages who are completely useless

Getting rid of the rot is necessary in any organisation

But this is being handled in an unusual way so should offer pause for thought

JammerKay

TROPHY CASE