Pay Protection for Life
The BMA (British Medical Association) is a trade union - well resourced and influential - given the make-up of its membership.
But a trade union all the same - just like all the rest.
The BBC has run a story about lifetime bonuses for NHS consultants - a practice that dates back to 1948 when the NHS was created.
The bonuses are worth a lot of money - nearly 20,000 consultants benefit from these payments apparently - which are worth up to £75,000 a year on top of a basic annual salary - of almost £90,000.
But what the BBC has uncovered is that these big bonuses cannot be taken away from doctors - incredibly they are protected for life.
In effect the bonuses - or to be precise the higher salaries incorporating the bonuses - are guaranteed until the doctor's employment comes to an end.
But they continue to reap the rewards - because the higher salary also makes a huge difference going forwards - by giving a huge boost to the employee's pension benefits.
Now this is not a good use of public money - and if the scheme disproportionately favours male doctors - then it is blatantly discriminatory into the bargain.
Predictably the BMA defends the scheme - instead of considering the bigger picture - and the impact on the rest of the workforce.
Lifetime pay protection is about using public money to benefit higher paid, male dominated jobs - how can that be fair, just or lawful?
But a trade union all the same - just like all the rest.
The BBC has run a story about lifetime bonuses for NHS consultants - a practice that dates back to 1948 when the NHS was created.
The bonuses are worth a lot of money - nearly 20,000 consultants benefit from these payments apparently - which are worth up to £75,000 a year on top of a basic annual salary - of almost £90,000.
But what the BBC has uncovered is that these big bonuses cannot be taken away from doctors - incredibly they are protected for life.
In effect the bonuses - or to be precise the higher salaries incorporating the bonuses - are guaranteed until the doctor's employment comes to an end.
But they continue to reap the rewards - because the higher salary also makes a huge difference going forwards - by giving a huge boost to the employee's pension benefits.
Now this is not a good use of public money - and if the scheme disproportionately favours male doctors - then it is blatantly discriminatory into the bargain.
Predictably the BMA defends the scheme - instead of considering the bigger picture - and the impact on the rest of the workforce.
Lifetime pay protection is about using public money to benefit higher paid, male dominated jobs - how can that be fair, just or lawful?
