Nice People Thread Part 9 - and so it continues

GDB2222

PasturesNew wrote: »

Maybe if they trained "enough" then, over time, they'd run short of suitable candidates as some wouldn't be good, some will have changed jobs, some will have gone abroad, some will have had kids and given up work, some will have become ill and retired.

By training more than enough you know you'll always have a choice of candidates for jobs + the associated support services, charities and organisations that act as feeders into the system and supporters post-system will also have qualified people undertaking assistance.

I can see why they need to train more than they require, but the requirement takes into account candidates who change jobs, go abroad or have children, etc. That is the reason for requiring so many. The average working life of a speech and language therapist is only a few years before most of them move on. Training twice the requirement is simply wasteful.

Part of the issue is probably that there is a long lead time. 1st, the NHS has to interest universities in putting on a course, then they have to check that the proposed course meets their requirements, and finally the University has to start the course up. It then takes 4 years for people to graduate.

GDB2222

michaels wrote: »

I just pretend the 'h' isn't there, not sure if that is correct?

That is cheating.

GDB2222

bugslet wrote: »

For reasons that escape me, sub-cut was supposed to be easier to do in the nursing home environment than an IV. I'm wondering if we might go down the IV route as they have a 24 hour mobile IV team that come out to private homes and nursing homes.

He is supposed to be getting a visit from Speech and Language to make sure his swallowing is OK. If Lady GDB would be so kind as to swing by Widnes on her way home, it would be one more thing to tick off the long list.

In true haulage fashion, I can give her night out money:D

I hope that it all works out okay with the drip, whichever route you take.

If the swallowing is not working properly, fluids or food (if Mr Bugs is still having solid food) can be inhaled, which can lead to pneumonia. To avoid this, he may need to have any fluids thickened (with stuff like cornstarch). And that is about all I picked up secondhand from the course, I am afraid.

bugslet

Hi GDB

We are fairly sure thee is no swallowing problem, it's a ruling out something exercise.

He hasn't eaten solids for a few months. Now he just hasn't eaten for about 2 weeks.

All I want is for him to be comfortable until he hits the exit slip.

SingleSue

michaels wrote: »

Not that nice a comment, but it is interesting to see how economics drives demographics in ths country - the 'hard working families' don't have many kids because they can't aford them/the loss of one income whereas those at the top and bottom of the income/social spectrum can afford big families. Lucky we also import all those motivated young immigrants to help balance the population between the extremes.

I suppose we could have been called a largish family with 3 children.....but at the time of having them, we both worked. I wouldn't say we were very well off, or very badly off, we were just normal and we adapted and countered for the loss of earnings by thinking out of the box.

So, now ex hubby took over the cleaning of his office for extra in his pay packet instead of the boss paying a lot extra for cleaners and I did opposite hours to him, firstly because childcare was not available and secondly, because it saved childcare costs!

We also budgeted very carefully, we didn't have loans or credit cards, cars on finance, expensive holidays etc. If we didn't have the cash, then we didn't get it. I remember a couple of colleagues moaning that we were better off because we (at that time) got tax credits and that was why we had more disposable money than them when the truth was, even with the tax credits, they still took home almost three times what we did.

Their problem was they just HAD to have a new 10k kitchen every 5 years, a 6k holiday every year, a new car on finance every 3 years, top priced clothes every month etc, they spent more on clothes each month (courtesy of their lovely credit cards) than we did on our entire food and utilities bills...whereas we cut our cloth to suit our income.

Edit - I forgot the sofas, they replaced their sofa suites every 2 years each time costing about 3k!

SingleSue

GDB2222 wrote: »

I can see why they need to train more than they require, but the requirement takes into account candidates who change jobs, go abroad or have children, etc. That is the reason for requiring so many. The average working life of a speech and language therapist is only a few years before most of them move on. Training twice the requirement is simply wasteful.

Part of the issue is probably that there is a long lead time. 1st, the NHS has to interest universities in putting on a course, then they have to check that the proposed course meets their requirements, and finally the University has to start the course up. It then takes 4 years for people to graduate.

I'm not sure what it is like now but 10 years ago, it was an absolute nightmare trying to get a speech therapist. We had a def shortage of them and when they did manage to get one in post, they usually ended up pregnant within a few months.

I eventually gave up with youngest and official speech therapy as due to the shortage, they started doing group speech therapy and he was deemed unsuitable due to his autistic like behaviour tag (he wasn't formally diagnosed at the time and that was the only thing they could 'tag' him with) and he couldn't access the specialised speech therapy designed for autistic children because of his autistic like behaviour tag and it wasn't a proper diagnosis!

I did my own research on American websites and did it myself instead...hours and hours, weeks and weeks, months and months of intensive work but the end result was we got the speech going.

michaels

SingleSue wrote: »

I suppose we could have been called a largish family with 3 children.....but at the time of having them, we both worked. I wouldn't say we were very well off, or very badly off, we were just normal and we adapted and countered for the loss of earnings by thinking out of the box.

So, now ex hubby took over the cleaning of his office for extra in his pay packet instead of the boss paying a lot extra for cleaners and I did opposite hours to him, firstly because childcare was not available and secondly, because it saved childcare costs!

We also budgeted very carefully, we didn't have loans or credit cards, cars on finance, expensive holidays etc. If we didn't have the cash, then we didn't get it. I remember a couple of colleagues moaning that we were better off because we (at that time) got tax credits and that was why we had more disposable money than them when the truth was, even with the tax credits, they still took home almost three times what we did.

Their problem was they just HAD to have a new 10k kitchen every 5 years, a 6k holiday every year, a new car on finance every 3 years, top priced clothes every month etc, they spent more on clothes each month (courtesy of their lovely credit cards) than we did on our entire food and utilities bills...whereas we cut our cloth to suit our income.

Edit - I forgot the sofas, they replaced their sofa suites every 2 years each time costing about 3k!

Sue - I don't think 3 is unusually large, I was thinking about 4 plus - is 3 considered unusually large these days?

However in a family with a very high income and 3 boys there would be more choice to try for a 4th girl than for a family who were already at the limit of what they could afford. Similarly in a non-working household having more kids will increase disposable income rather than reduce it.

SingleSue

We actually thought about having a 4th to try for that elusive female child (we didn't actually think about whether we could afford it really, we just knew we would somehow - we were desperate for a girl)...thankfully, my maternal feelings vanished when I went to see my newborn nephew in hospital and his cry turned me cold!

Within a year I was sterilised and within 2 years, I had had a hysterectomy, so no idea what would have happened in the years to come and our financial situation improved...we may well have gone for it.

Doozergirl

michaels wrote: »

Sue - I don't think 3 is unusually large, I was thinking about 4 plus - is 3 considered unusually large these days?

However in a family with a very high income and 3 boys there would be more choice to try for a 4th girl than for a family who were already at the limit of what they could afford. Similarly in a non-working household having more kids will increase disposable income rather than reduce it.

I don't underestimate how lucky we are to have a boy and a girl. I think we'd have been happy with two of any variety (how can I genuinely speak from a position I'm not in?) but I think there can be a 'what if' for some people and they go on to have more.

I'm not suggesting at all that the children aren't loved, just that for some people there is a desire to have the other flavour of child For us, any decision only needs to be based on really wanting three children.

I'm pretty sure I don't. I will be sad when the nest is empty, but maybe we'll take on a child in need. I'll be in my mid-forties when DD is 18.

Apologies if any of that came out wrong, I know what I mean

Masomnia

Spirit wrote: »

I have heard worse reasons.

This week a trainee from the graduate scheme came to see me.

Me " what made you apply for this particular scheme. "

Grad trainee " my dad was really keen for me to do it"

Me " and why the preference for the xx training scheme"

Grad trainee " dunno really"

That was half an hour of my life I will never see again.

Rejections have started coming in for my graduate job applications.

Reading the above is raising my blood pressure somewhat.

Nevermind.