British Medical Association could axe up to a third of its staff amid cash crisis

Members of the BMA voted on Monday to accept a government deal on pay and jobs, ending a series of strikes. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Members of the BMA voted on Monday to accept a government deal on pay and jobs, ending a series of strikes. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images British Medical Association could axe up to a third of its staff amid cash crisis Exclusive: Anger at union’s decision to put 200 of its 600 staff in England at risk of redundancy The British Medical Association is threatening to axe up to a third of its entire workforce to help it tackle a significant cash crisis. The doctors’ union has placed 200 of its 600 staff in England at risk of redundancy. That has triggered anxiety and fury among staff, who have accused the BMA of appalling behaviour and “hypocrisy”. Disclosure of the move comes days after resident doctors in England who belong to the BMA voted narrowly to accept a pay deal that will increase the salaries of the best paid to a basic £77,348. They won their pay rise after 15 rounds of strikes which badly disrupted NHS care and cost it billions. The BMA is losing millions of pounds every year despite its membership having hit a record 200,000 as a result of its vigorous campaigns in recent years – including strikes – for better pay. It has decided to shed up to a third of its staff in England as part of a major restructuring of its operations intended to help reduce its recurring deficit. The BMA’s finances are so precarious that it has needed a total of £86.8m in subsidies since 2008 from the British Medical Journal, which it owns, in order to stay afloat, an average of £5.1m a year. Most of the 600 staff belong to the GMB trade union, which claims the BMA has breached its own HR rules over the redundancies and sought to “gag” staff from speaking out about them. The BMA has not informed its membership about the reorganisation and the human cost involved. A BMA source said: “BMA staff are very scared. They all think they’re going to lose their jobs. People are absolutely miserable. They’re paranoid about the threat of redundancy. It’s the worst reorganisation ever.” One staff member said: “BMA leaders seem to think it’s one rule for them, another for everybody else. If a hospital treated its staff like this, we would come down on them like a ton of bricks, rightly.” The BMA told the Guardian that as few as 20 staff would lose their jobs. It gave that figure even though it had been discussing the possibility of up to 10 times that number – 200 – being made redundant in recent talks with GMB representatives. BMA staff are so incensed that GMB members there last month passed a vote of no confidence in Rachel Podolak, the union’s chief executive, who is leading the restructuring process. On a 72% turnout, 91% said they had no confidence in Podolak. The reorganisation is also designed to help the BMA focus more on its role as a trade u