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

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Very difficult to "sack" people. The NHS is still a highly unionised entity. Operating in a different culture to the private sector.

There's already a lack of nursing staff in this country. Something which needs to be addressed.

Loughton_Monkey

misskool wrote: »

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.

First of all, it might be a good idea to get the consultants to spend more time in the NHS for their money, rather than swanning off doing private operations whenever they please.

Quite a few years ago, Gerry Robinson did a BBC series on the NHS which was a catalogue of mis-management, prima donna surgeons, muddling administrators, and hard working nurses not knowing what to do for the best other than fill in paperwork.

He still castigates the NHS here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9876178/Yes-we-can-fix-the-NHS-says-Gerry-Robinson.html

and here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10141241/Sir-Gerry-Robinson-Tesco-could-really-teach-the-NHS-a-thing-or-two.html

I could write a book on the failings of Whipps Cross hospital, which would make anyone's hair curl. Just to relate one of the 'lesser' but nevertheless frustrating habits they have.... and that is their unfailing habit of chalking up "Running 2 hours Late" on the clinic boards every time I go. I don't know how this can be when (a) the clinic only started 10 minutes ago, (b) you know the consultant's there because you saw him arrive, and (c) your appointment is for 15 minutes after start of clinic.

I always take crosswords to do, otherwise the only 'entertainment' is to watch and see if the cleaner (who is hidden in a small cupboard, with the trolley outside) every comes out to.. er... clean anything. Once she was in there the whole 3 hours I was waiting to be seen.

headcone

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Many in the private sector are being served up with like it or hike it pay cuts..

Well why not train to be a nurse.

If you are clever enough?

Loughton_Monkey

headcone wrote: »

Well why not train to be a nurse.

If you are clever enough?

Can he speak English?

That would be a good start.

Andy_L

The_Magnificent_Spoon wrote: »

How about, start them off on £21,388, and then increase their pay up to a maximum of £27,901 over however many years it takes, based upon their performance. NOT just on how long they've been plodding along in their job. Extra pay is not a reward for just having plodded along for eight years, it should be reward and recognition for a job well done.

The pay rises aren't automatic though, they are subject to a satisfactory annual review so are "reward and recognition for a job well done"

PaulF81

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The government has called for yet another halt on NHS pay in england, stating that £700m could be saved if a rise is withheld for 1.3m NHS staff in England.

Yet they hemorrhage money on the housing market, HS2 etc.


Now, while I realise there won't be much love on this particular section on the forum for any wage rises at all in the public sector...surely the government is taking a risk pumping money into banks, the housing market, HS2 etc, but doing this yet again to the NHS. If it's done to the NHS, it will be to the police etc too.

The government have suggested that pay increases should only be given if "there is strong evidence that recruitment, retention, morale or motivation issues require this".

In other words, squeeze them until they squeal. Race to the bottom stuff.

The chairman of the BMA has suggested it's incredibly insulting for the government to imply that if NHS staff do not accept this pay cut, the NHS staff themselves will be putting patient safety at risk.

As I say, I know I will be pretty much a lone voice on this on here, but haven't NHS staff done their bit now? Wouldn't mind so much if money wasn't being funneled into other sectors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24408681

Cut the level of service, not pay. Use the reduction in service as a reason to chop hundreds of overpaid, underworked consultants, managers and surgeons.

Give nurses a pay rise.

Save us a fortune in State pension when it has an effect on longevity.

John1993_2

lindsaygalaxy wrote: »

Also, for anyone that has been in hospital or needed emergency care, I am sure would give their right arm to have someone looking after them. I don't think nurses etc get paid anywhere near enough - these people save lives which you can't put a value on.

Well, some do. Some kill hundreds of old women, or fail to notice children being slowly killed. Others theive organs from babies, and yet others systematically hide fatal errors and refuse to accept blame.

I genuinely don't understand, when we've seen similar numbers of scandals in banking and health in recent years, why we still get "all nurses are angels" and "all bankers are corrupt", when it looks perfectly possible that there are about as many bad apples in each area.

Basically, why is Shipman seen as an anomaly, and Madoff seen as an archetype?

Graham_Devon

John1993 wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand, when we've seen similar numbers of scandals in banking and health in recent years, why we still get "all nurses are angels" and "all bankers are corrupt", when it looks perfectly possible that there are about as many bad apples in each area.

I'm not sure we have seen as many scandals in the NHS as we have in the banking industry over the past few years.

The scandals in the banking industry were on a large, co-ordinated scale.

Secondly, there aren't as many bankers as there are nhs staff, so you have to look at it relative to the number of people. Far more chance of having a few bad apples in amongst 1.3m people than there is amongst 10,000 (or whatever the number of bankers is).

Third, a lot of the scandals in the NHS were not intentional. I.e. they dd not devise systems in order to intentionally carry out harm (or fraud in banks). Bank workers, and in some cases, banks, did.

Fourth, I'm not even sure the two sectors are even comparable in any way. Banking in the capatalist world is pretty much as far away as you can get from care in the NHS.

So if you couldn't understand it, hopefully that will go some way to making it a little easier?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not sure we have seen as many scandals in the NHS as we have in the banking industry over the past few years.

The scandals in the banking industry were on a large, co-ordinated scale.

Secondly, there aren't as many bankers as there are nhs staff, so you have to look at it relative to the number of people. Far more chance of having a few bad apples in amongst 1.3m people than there is amongst 10,000 (or whatever the number of bankers is).

Third, a lot of the scandals in the NHS were not intentional. I.e. they dd not devise systems in order to intentionally carry out harm (or fraud in banks). Bank workers, and in some cases, banks, did.

Fourth, I'm not even sure the two sectors are even comparable in any way. Banking in the capatalist world is pretty much as far away as you can get from care in the NHS.

So if you couldn't understand it, hopefully that will go some way to making it a little easier?

bankers provide water for their staff; sadly nurses don't always do that for their patients

chewmylegoff

A couple of stats for you Graham.

There are over 1 million people employed in financial services.

Nearly 20% of the NHS budget (more than £20 billion a year) is set aside to cover the cost of litigation and damages payments to former patients and the families of former patients...