NHS Cleaners Subsidise NHS Consultants
The Independent newspaper published some interesting figures the other day - showing that the salaries of NHS consultants have soared in recent times - by a whopping 68 per cent.
Over the last nine years - even after allowing for inflation - the average consultant is £28,000 better off than they were in 2000 - with an annual salary of £120,900.
And that figure doesn't take into account other generous payments consultants receive - such as merit awards - which can boost their earnings by tens of thousands of pounds a year.
So the question is this:
"Why should a low paid hospital cleaner (on £10,000 a year) contribute to the cost of an NHS consultant's medical degree - when the medical profession ends up being so generously rewarded?"
Because that's what's happening just now - low paid workers who never go near a university are subsidising those that do - and who end up in these highly paid jobs.
Now NHS consultants are entitled to be well paid for what they do - clearly there's lots of training, skill and dedication involved - before they reap the financial rewards of a six figure salary.
But what's unfair is that they should expect other workers - much lower paid workers - to help subsidise their chosen career path - particularly as it's so well paid.
Labour started to tackle this unfairness when in government - by first introducing and subsequently raising tuition fees to more realistic levels - as part of its policy of encouraging wider access.
The logic being that those who actually benefit from a state subsidised higher education - should pay much more of the actual cost involved.
Quite why that has become such a bad idea just because Labour lost the election - is beyond me. Ed Miliband needs to get his priorities right.
Because when all is said and done - a lowly paid NHS cleaner should not be asked to subsidise the next generation of highly paid NHS consultants.
Over the last nine years - even after allowing for inflation - the average consultant is £28,000 better off than they were in 2000 - with an annual salary of £120,900.
And that figure doesn't take into account other generous payments consultants receive - such as merit awards - which can boost their earnings by tens of thousands of pounds a year.
So the question is this:
"Why should a low paid hospital cleaner (on £10,000 a year) contribute to the cost of an NHS consultant's medical degree - when the medical profession ends up being so generously rewarded?"
Because that's what's happening just now - low paid workers who never go near a university are subsidising those that do - and who end up in these highly paid jobs.
Now NHS consultants are entitled to be well paid for what they do - clearly there's lots of training, skill and dedication involved - before they reap the financial rewards of a six figure salary.
But what's unfair is that they should expect other workers - much lower paid workers - to help subsidise their chosen career path - particularly as it's so well paid.
Labour started to tackle this unfairness when in government - by first introducing and subsequently raising tuition fees to more realistic levels - as part of its policy of encouraging wider access.
The logic being that those who actually benefit from a state subsidised higher education - should pay much more of the actual cost involved.
Quite why that has become such a bad idea just because Labour lost the election - is beyond me. Ed Miliband needs to get his priorities right.
Because when all is said and done - a lowly paid NHS cleaner should not be asked to subsidise the next generation of highly paid NHS consultants.
