The British Medical Association (BMA) finds itself in a delicate situation, caught between a rock and a hard place. It's a tale of divided loyalties and conflicting interests.
The BMA is facing a potential strike from its own clerical staff, who are demanding better pay. But here's the twist: the BMA is also backing resident NHS doctors in England as they embark on a five-day strike action over pay disputes. (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/dec/17/resident-doctors-in-england-begin-five-days-of-strike-action)
Negotiations between the BMA and the GMB union hit a wall on Tuesday, increasing the likelihood of a strike by administrative staff at the BMA in the coming year. Sources reveal that the GMB, representing a significant portion of BMA's internal staff, is preparing for a potential strike ballot.
The BMA, grappling with financial constraints, claims to offer competitive pay rates but is under fire for proposing a below-inflation pay rise. As the BMA attempted to negotiate with its staff, another negotiation team struggled to reach an agreement with Health Secretary Wes Streeting regarding the demands of resident doctors. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wes-streeting)
These resident doctors, formerly known as junior doctors and comprising almost half of the NHS workforce (https://www.theguardian.com/society/nhs), initiated their strike on Wednesday, abstaining from work until Monday morning. This marks the 14th strike since March 2023, highlighting the escalating tensions.
The GMB union has accused the BMA of hypocrisy, arguing that while the BMA criticized the government for offering doctors a 2.5% pay increase, they themselves offered their staff a mere 2% rise. The GMB asserts that BMA staff have endured a 17% pay erosion since 2012 due to consecutive below-inflation pay awards.
A survey conducted by the GMB revealed that over 91% of their members at the BMA support industrial action. Despite this, the BMA has allegedly failed to make substantial progress, offering only minor adjustments like increasing the non-consolidated payment and an extra day's leave at Christmas.
While the BMA claims the pay award's cash impact ranges from 3.2% to 16.31%, including the value of additional leave, the GMB disputes these figures, arguing they are misleading as they combine consolidated and non-consolidated pay elements. The GMB maintains that the real pay increase is significantly lower, between 1.90% and 1.98%.
The GMB spokesperson expressed disappointment in the BMA's tactics, stating, "It's disappointing that BMA management are now resorting to placing a percentage pay value on Christmas days off. Perhaps the ghost of Christmas future is lurking in the corridors of BMA House..." They reiterated their commitment to securing a fair offer that addresses years of pay erosion, just as resident doctors are doing for themselves.
Rachel Podolak, BMA's CEO, defended their position, stating they offer above-market rates and are constrained by budget pressures. She said, "We've made every effort to enhance our offer within our financial limitations. This package provides an affordable increase for 2026 and includes non-salary benefits crucial for staff well-being."
And this is where it gets controversial: Is the BMA truly being hypocritical, or are they navigating a complex financial landscape? Should they prioritize the demands of their staff or focus on supporting resident doctors' strike? What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
