Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 19:57:53 GMT
So, Labour are pledging to bring in a four day working week. The Shadow Health spokesman said this would not apply to the NHS, but three hours later, with the aforementioned Shadow Health Minister sat in the audience, John McDowall said it WOULD apply to the NHS. No confusion there then and everyone reading from the same sheet. This will involve the NHS needing to recruit 250,000 more people. Even if those people were paid just 20k a year the cost would be 5 billion a year, and that is just using a figure of a very low wage without any of the additional costs that are met by an employer. You always get the impression with Labour that they never ever really think through their policies and it's just stuff they make up as they go along. I've worked 4 day weeks in the NHS for well over a decade. 12 hours a day. Or night come to that. Ah, but the Labour four day week is based on working 32 hours a week, including the NHS! |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 13, 2019 20:00:54 GMT
I've worked 4 day weeks in the NHS for well over a decade. 12 hours a day. Or night come to that. Ah, but the Labour four day week is based on working 32 hours a week, including the NHS! A lovely idea but I would suggest not a good idea for the NHS based on staff shortages. If the idea is that staff are more productive, that may well be the case elsewhere (such as Microsoft who recently successfully trialled it) but I would say most of my colleagues are working absolutely as fast as they can and often too fast for comfort. I doubt there are efficiencies to realise on the clinical side. However, most NHS workers are not clinical of course. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 20:14:28 GMT
Where the hell are they going to find the additional 250,000 people ? Also factor in the 'other' public services that run 24hrs/ 7 days a week, like the Police, Fire Service etc and in reality this whole scheme is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 13, 2019 20:23:54 GMT
Where the hell are they going to find the additional 250,000 people ? Also factor in the 'other' public services that run 24hrs/ 7 days a week, like the Police, Fire Service etc and in reality this whole scheme is ridiculous. I dont think it's ridiculous for all working people. We have evidence of companies where it's working well in certain departments. Essential and emergency services are a bit different for the same reason we work bank holidays and xmas etc. Theres probably a lot of administrative roles in the NHS where it could work if productivity offset the hours reduction. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 20:33:36 GMT
It seems to me that people like Nobby are bouncing around, desperately trying to prove something they are incapable of quantifying.
So let's ask the question.
Calculate UK productivity.
(Let's let go of accounting for investment in social housing, or international comparisons on health spending)
Let's ask the question of Nobby.
Calculate UK productivity and show your workings
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 20:57:40 GMT
It seems to me that people like Nobby are bouncing around, desperately trying to prove something they are incapable of quantifying. So let's ask the question. Calculate UK productivity. (Let's let go of accounting for investment in social housing, or international comparisons on health spending) Let's ask the question of Nobby. Calculate UK productivity and show your workings Wait a mo Oldie. I'll just consult my team of civil servants and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I am not bouncing around trying to prove anything. It's just common sense that if you enforce a 32hr week (4 days) then that means that organisations like the NHS will have to employ thousands more people, or as it's being said, 250,000 more. If the NHS has problems now with staffing, just how will they cope if they need another 250,000 staff? These really are basic questions. I'd love to work a 32hr four day week. It all sounds splendid. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 13, 2019 21:37:14 GMT
It seems to me that people like Nobby are bouncing around, desperately trying to prove something they are incapable of quantifying. So let's ask the question. Calculate UK productivity. (Let's let go of accounting for investment in social housing, or international comparisons on health spending) Let's ask the question of Nobby. Calculate UK productivity and show your workings Wait a mo Oldie. I'll just consult my team of civil servants and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I am not bouncing around trying to prove anything. It's just common sense that if you enforce a 32hr week (4 days) then that means that organisations like the NHS will have to employ thousands more people, or as it's being said, 250,000 more. If the NHS has problems now with staffing, just how will they cope if they need another 250,000 staff? These really are basic questions. I'd love to work a 32hr four day week. It all sounds splendid. The NHS has a problem with Clinician staffing. 50% of NHS directly employed staff are not clinicians. 30% are admin. So 30-50% would be eligible. I dont know how you have worked out your numbers but the point is, for eligible staff, you would only do this if the output remained the same (I.e. productivity increased). So there would be no need for anymore staff. How did you work out your numbers? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 21:38:48 GMT
Ah, but the Labour four day week is based on working 32 hours a week, including the NHS! A lovely idea but I would suggest not a good idea for the NHS based on staff shortages. If the idea is that staff are more productive, that may well be the case elsewhere (such as Microsoft who recently successfully trialled it) but I would say most of my colleagues are working absolutely as fast as they can and often too fast for comfort. I doubt there are efficiencies to realise on the clinical side. However, most NHS workers are not clinical of course. I work for an Insurance company. When I started out there were loads of inefficiencies but I’ve been through so many projects where the goal has been to increase productivity, reduce staff numbers, shorten processes etc and currently staff are being pushed to their absolute limits. Turnover of staff is at an all time high, morale is pretty low due excessive demands and more stress related absence than I can ever remember. To even suggest at the click of Corbyn’s fingers they could suddenly do the same work in four days is absolutely ridiculous. I suspect it’s a similar story across the private sector where management want more and more. The public sector is probably a different story. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 13, 2019 21:43:06 GMT
A lovely idea but I would suggest not a good idea for the NHS based on staff shortages. If the idea is that staff are more productive, that may well be the case elsewhere (such as Microsoft who recently successfully trialled it) but I would say most of my colleagues are working absolutely as fast as they can and often too fast for comfort. I doubt there are efficiencies to realise on the clinical side. However, most NHS workers are not clinical of course. I work for an Insurance company. When I started out there were loads of inefficiencies but I’ve been through so many projects where the goal has been to increase productivity, reduce staff numbers, shorten processes etc and currently staff are being pushed to their absolute limits. Turnover of staff is at an all time high, morale is pretty low due excessive demands and more stress related absence than I can ever remember. To even suggest at the click of Corbyn’s fingers they could suddenly do the same work in four days is absolutely ridiculous. I suspect it’s a similar story across the private sector where management want more and more. The public sector is probably a different story. Too bad for us I guess. There are companies out there that have made a success of it, I wouldnt mind working for one of them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 21:44:20 GMT
Wait a mo Oldie. I'll just consult my team of civil servants and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I am not bouncing around trying to prove anything. It's just common sense that if you enforce a 32hr week (4 days) then that means that organisations like the NHS will have to employ thousands more people, or as it's being said, 250,000 more. If the NHS has problems now with staffing, just how will they cope if they need another 250,000 staff? These really are basic questions. I'd love to work a 32hr four day week. It all sounds splendid. The NHS has a problem with Clinician staffing. 50% of NHS directly employed staff are not clinicians. 30% are admin. So 30-50% would be eligible. I dont know how you have worked out your numbers but the point is, for eligible staff, you would only do this if the output remained the same (I.e. productivity increased). So there would be no need for anymore staff. How did you work out your numbers? Just out interest and in your experience how many hours do Consultants generally work in the NHS? A large number undertake private work in addition to their NHS roles so genuinely interested in how they split their time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 21:46:04 GMT
I work for an Insurance company. When I started out there were loads of inefficiencies but I’ve been through so many projects where the goal has been to increase productivity, reduce staff numbers, shorten processes etc and currently staff are being pushed to their absolute limits. Turnover of staff is at an all time high, morale is pretty low due excessive demands and more stress related absence than I can ever remember. To even suggest at the click of Corbyn’s fingers they could suddenly do the same work in four days is absolutely ridiculous. I suspect it’s a similar story across the private sector where management want more and more. The public sector is probably a different story. Too bad for us I guess. There are companies out there that have made a success of it, I wouldnt mind working for one of them. For those that do manage it I bet their bosses wonder why they let their staff get away with such poor productivity in the past if they can suddenly knuckle down and do more overnight! |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 13, 2019 21:58:36 GMT
The NHS has a problem with Clinician staffing. 50% of NHS directly employed staff are not clinicians. 30% are admin. So 30-50% would be eligible. I dont know how you have worked out your numbers but the point is, for eligible staff, you would only do this if the output remained the same (I.e. productivity increased). So there would be no need for anymore staff. How did you work out your numbers? Just out interest and in your experience how many hours do Consultants generally work in the NHS? A large number undertake private work in addition to their NHS roles so genuinely interested in how they split their time. It does depend on what you specialise in a little but generally most work FT for the NHS and dont work privately. Those that do often work FT NHS as well but run private clinics on their days off or after clinic closes at 6ish. I think there are those that do PT too but when I tell you the private indemnity is about a grand a month it's not quite as big an earner as you may think. Generally I think the idea is to cram as many hours in as possible whether NHS or private and then retire early on the yacht. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 22:13:05 GMT
Just out interest and in your experience how many hours do Consultants generally work in the NHS? A large number undertake private work in addition to their NHS roles so genuinely interested in how they split their time. It does depend on what you specialise in a little but generally most work FT for the NHS and dont work privately. Those that do often work FT NHS as well but run private clinics on their days off or after clinic closes at 6ish. I think there are those that do PT too but when I tell you the private indemnity is about a grand a month it's not quite as big an earner as you may think. Generally I think the idea is to cram as many hours in as possible whether NHS or private and then retire early on the yacht. Judging by how much they charge insurance companies for medical reports (normally less than a page and based on notes rather than a fresh consultation) they will probably be doing quite well. Again depends on the area of speciality but most Psychiatrists for example charge around £1000 for what can be no more than a couple of hours worked. Helps pay for those yachts!!! |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 13, 2019 23:42:16 GMT
A lovely idea but I would suggest not a good idea for the NHS based on staff shortages. If the idea is that staff are more productive, that may well be the case elsewhere (such as Microsoft who recently successfully trialled it) but I would say most of my colleagues are working absolutely as fast as they can and often too fast for comfort. I doubt there are efficiencies to realise on the clinical side. However, most NHS workers are not clinical of course. I work for an Insurance company. When I started out there were loads of inefficiencies but I’ve been through so many projects where the goal has been to increase productivity, reduce staff numbers, shorten processes etc and currently staff are being pushed to their absolute limits. Turnover of staff is at an all time high, morale is pretty low due excessive demands and more stress related absence than I can ever remember. To even suggest at the click of Corbyn’s fingers they could suddenly do the same work in four days is absolutely ridiculous. I suspect it’s a similar story across the private sector where management want more and more. The public sector is probably a different story. Do you work in the same office as me? That is an identical experience to what we have and continue to go through. And we remain officially overstaffed!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 13, 2019 23:45:21 GMT
Just out interest and in your experience how many hours do Consultants generally work in the NHS? A large number undertake private work in addition to their NHS roles so genuinely interested in how they split their time. It does depend on what you specialise in a little but generally most work FT for the NHS and dont work privately. Those that do often work FT NHS as well but run private clinics on their days off or after clinic closes at 6ish. I think there are those that do PT too but when I tell you the private indemnity is about a grand a month it's not quite as big an earner as you may think. Generally I think the idea is to cram as many hours in as possible whether NHS or private and then retire early on the yacht. The surgeon who operated on my son works for the NHS, private practice and does aid work. Not sure how common the altruism is, presumably a senior consultant can afford to be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 11:24:48 GMT
What surprises me is that anyone would think a drive for productivity is not desirable ambition. Surely it's not why, it's how.
The good Officer tells us a productivity drive could have potential in non practitioner staff.
This is a good case in point.
I moved down from Hertfordshire where our local general hospital was closed and services concentrated in a new town hospital, Stevenage, about 8 miles up the A1M. The previous Government (Blair / Brown) had committed £300M to expanding that hospital as part of this plan, including good provision for parking.
Productive
Sadly they also committed a PFI to build a much needed surgical wing. Carillion built it and then unbelievably were awarded a management contract to run it.
They employed medical staff to practice who, in my single episode experience were mostly EU or Commonwealth nationals.
They were contracted to offer NHS services, which I deduced must have been a fixed price contract, under which they had a right to veto patients, as this happened to a family member. Reason? Because of added complications it was deemed that they would not be able to discharge according to their standard time frame. This facility was run outside of the North and East Herts Trust, the result was that the family member was referred back to the trust, whose facilities had been drained.
Unproductive, in every which way.
As back drop people started dying at this new facility and it was "repossessed"
Carillion went spectacularly bankrupt a short few years later.
The point being you cannot drive workforce productivity without investing in the tools that enable it.
Hence the need to discuss and vote for an extremely large capital investment (balance sheet) and then construct a budget that employs the staff to productively deliver the outcomes demanded with facility given them.
Given the Tories have done the diametric opposite of this since 2010, how on earth anyone could seriously consider voting for them defies logic.
They are both ideologically bankrupt and economically innumerate.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Nov 14, 2019 12:50:36 GMT
Tories telling lies again on radio 4 . A spokesperson " Until we get a working majority : we can't achieve our aims on big issues ". Oh what happened in 2015 election ? A 100 seat majority over Labour and enough to form a majority government.
I have never known a party in power for 10 years blaming every other Tom Dick and Harry..
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 14, 2019 13:06:01 GMT
Nobody yet mentioned the NHS figures out today?
Not good news for Government, staff or patients.
Figures for England:
The target is 95% of patients to be seen within 4 hours.
October 2019: 83.6%
September 2019: 85.2%
October 2018: 89.1%
The 95% standard was last met in July 2015.
Total attendance in October 2019 was 2,170,510, an increase of 4.4% on Oct 2018.
There were 563,079 emergency admissions in the month, 3.1% higher than the same month last year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 13:15:49 GMT
Nobody yet mentioned the NHS figures out today? Not good news for Government, staff or patients. Figures for England: The target is 95% of patients to be seen within 4 hours. October 2019: 83.6% September 2019: 85.2% October 2018: 89.1% The 95% standard was last met in July 2015. Total attendance in October 2019 was 2,170,510, an increase of 4.4% on Oct 2018. There were 563,079 emergency admissions in the month, 3.1% higher than the same month last year. Wait for the usual excuses...its all the health tourists you know😱🤣🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Nov 14, 2019 13:24:01 GMT
It;s because the Conservative Party thought it was 'funny' to cut public funding at the same time it reduced taxation on top earners. So what do we have now ? A police force cut to bare bones : Schools having to do self funding : do we have an Army anymore ? and young people services cut out.
So now we hear from the party funded by the top 5% saying " In the last 3 months we will fund etc etc etc ". What a u - turn from a party that chops and changes to suit themselves and the super rich!.
|
|
