Plenty of money for houses....but not for nurses

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

......It's very difficult to measure performance in a clinical environment in any case. Each case i different. That's medicine.

It's only difficult because there's little "management" going on.

Ask private hospitals if they adopt performance related pay.

Jennifer_Jane

It's designed to put patients first - IF it accomplishes that, then I'm for it. About time that happened.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't know. Why would you expect me to know? Just stating that the system was already as wished for.

It's very difficult to measure performance in a clinical environment in any case. Each case i different. That's medicine.

my point is that in large parts of the public sector, salary increments are in principle performance related i.e you only get them if your performance is at least satisfactory

however, in practice nearly everyone gets their increment

ILW

Is it not possible to recruit suitable people to these positions?

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

Is it not possible to recruit suitable people to these positions?

the problem isn't recruitment, it's the reluctance to actually sack under performing people

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

the problem isn't recruitment, it's the reluctance to actually sack under performing people

True, but surely the ability to recruit sets the level of wages. Demand and supply etc.

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

True, but surely the ability to recruit sets the level of wages. Demand and supply etc.

yes indeed, but the public sector has salary progression with a grade

so each year one gets an increment to your salary until you reach the max of that scale

so even when the government freezes salary pay scales many/most still actually receive a rise as they move up the pay scales.

in many parts of the public sector these are performance related... in practice I question whether that actually happens

The_Magnificent_Spoon

CLAPTON wrote: »

the problem isn't recruitment, it's the reluctance to actually sack under performing people

Nail. Hammer. Boom.

ILW

I heard that only about 25% of NHS staff have any direct contact with patients anyway.

misskool

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't know. Why would you expect me to know? Just stating that the system was already as wished for.

It's very difficult to measure performance in a clinical environment in any case. Each case i different. That's medicine.

Why not cut consultant's pay or GP pay and then pay the nurses?

Then you would have pay parity in the NHS?

There are sectors of the NHS that are incredibly overpaid and those that aren't paid enough. Surely the answer would be to adjust pay in the organisation so it's fair for everyone working in it.

Then they wouldn't have to ask for any more money to fund any extra increases and the govt wouldn't have to ask low paid staff to take pay cuts.