If we vote for Brexit what happens

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Bank staff like to pick their hours of working. Which results in Agency Staff being called in. In a unit such as SCBU can cost a £1k for someone to do a weekend night shift. That's where the money gets drained away. When specialist staff are required.

This is where we should be using base staff, on a roster system, rather than agency staff.

If this ability isn't within contracts, then why not? There should be the ability to manage this, and should be a 'reasonable changes' clause anyway.

Not sure of the new contracts, but there should also be the flexibility to pay at a higher rate for this type of shift. Not sure if it's there or not, but if cost-effective, then it should be.

This isn't an EU problem though, it's a problem with domestic policy, and is a specialist department I will openly admit I have no knowledge of.

Tricky's comments taken on board with the DWP, however as I've never used their services and don't know anyone that works for them, again I cannot speak on their behalf. It's a useful insight to have, and should be looked into if it is true, as it's not a good use of public money.

CKhalvashi

Private_Church wrote: »

I've seen plenty of waste in the NHS ranging from training up Paramedics to Practitioner standard who have a long history of being off sick and who were in their mid 40's when they started their training.

No sense whatsoever in training older Paramedics who have a history of being sick.

Completely agree with this. I don't believe there should be an age limit, but would possibly support a 'minimum service' following qualification, perhaps under a bonded system that while paid by the NHS/government, maybe £2/hour is worked off a training cost of say £27k for a 3 year course. Just under 7 years, and similar to a system in airlines for type ratings (which are a similarly costed additional license required to be able to fly that type of plane).

Then sitting and waiting in corridors watching numerous staff doing naff all but chatting about what they did on their weekends for ages so how many working hours are lost due to frivolous chat session between staff.

Having had surgery via the private sector through the NHS referral system there is no comparison with the private sector being efficient,fast and clean. I came back from visiting my mother in hospital tonight and its filthy, bacteria control is non existant, C-dif is rife ,broken bins,overflowing bins,radiators covered in so much dust its like fur coat,vulnerable patients having their food put out of reach etc etc and its still going on today.If you want photo's send me a PM.

I'd be interested to see this. I'd prefer to see this being given to the relevant people though.

Also interested in which hospital trust this is, so I can skim the reports. If you want to do that by PM, that's fine, too.

I fully accept that many in the NHS are hardworking , do a good job and it must be depressing but far to many just aren't interested and the NHS is just not efficient. It was only a few years ago they started doing GP referral x-rays in the evenings and only just recently doing MRI scans on a Sunday why?.................. Its very simple really we as a nation expect far to much from the NHS and we need to understand the NHS is not there for gender re-assignement or breast enlargment for women who feel self conscious ,the NHS needs to reform and become efficient or die.

Evening referrals in some hospitals are done through staff working full-time, but over 3/4 longer days a week. In others there may be dedicated workers, and in others it may be due to overtime.

My experience in the last 14ish years is with only one hospital, so I know how that works, but nothing else. I know how another hospital worked about 14 years ago, but not necessarily how it works now.

Just to add the Fire service are just as bad sending 5 vehicles 40 miles to rescue a cow from a ditch,spending £millions on re-branding exercises when they changed their names from the "Fire Brigade" to "Fire & Rescue". Or spending £10,000's on altering fire engines suspension so they can be lowered so that short firemen/women can reach the ladder racks only for them to leave the service shortly afterwards. These are just a few of the issues I've witnessed but anyone who thinks there isn't a problem is living in a dreamworld. The whole public sector is wasteful.
It really is that simple.

Agree with you here, too.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

This is where we should be using base staff, on a roster system, rather than agency staff.

Don't disagree. In principle sounds easy, Try managing an entire Children's unit of 120 staff and your opinion might change.

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Don't disagree. In principle sounds easy, Try managing an entire Children's unit of 120 staff and your opinion might change.

Luckily, I don't.

If you're 120 staff and need 10 on at a time over a weekend night (as an example), then you're looking at 3 days (22.5 hours) off in the week for 1 weekend night and 1 weekend day (split into 12 hours with 45 minutes of breaks) in 10, by the time leave is taken into account. In reality, the private sector would probably bung in an additional 50% for those shifts, and I see it as a good use of public money in this case, compared to £1k+ for a shift.

Band 7 is £21.16/hour at top rate, so add in £3 R&R as an example = £24.16, 24 * 1.5 = £36, * 12 = £432, + 30% for employers NI and pension = £560ish (without a calculator), so around half price. Not all will be on the top of band 7 either, however the figures used are examples only. If this happens on 1000 shifts a year (reasonable for one such department), then you're looking at £440k saved. Multiply by the 48 counties (assuming each has one), then you're looking at more than £20m saved, on one specialist service, assuming this is replicated throughout the country. No major change in working practices, just a change in how the staff are sought and where from.

There are other options for rostering that would probably be easier, however I don't envy the person that would be in charge of organising it one bit.

cogito

I thought this thread was about Brexit.

At least the UK does have an NHS unlike some countries in the EU, Ireland for one. And I've never seen pigeons walking about in hospital corridors as I did in the hospital in Sparti recently. And patients in the UK receive nursing , again unlike some EU countries where families have to either do it themselves or pay someone to do it for them.

The NHS is not perfect but it's vastly better than in many other countries.

kabayiri

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I personally think that's disgusting, and will lead to less tax paid and higher welfare. We can't have both.

People complain that people don't want to work because they're better on welfare, but reducing the minimum wage to £2 or £3 an hour will be completely counterproductive in dealing with that issue.
...

Are you consistent though?

Do you ever buy a t-shirt from Next or Primark? Do you own a smartphone made by FoxConn? Do you have a modern flatscreen tv?

If any of those answers is Yes then chances are you are accepting people working a dozen+ hours a day in some factory on the other side of the world, *just* so you can get it a few quid cheaper.

People are such hypocrites. I thought the point of FoM was to treat labour and product on the same basis. Well, even the high principalled EU allows sweatshop product from Turkey to enter our markets freely. So why not do it here.

I really don't understand why people can be selectively free market, and selectively interventionist.

kabayiri

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

...
The DWP and it's subsidiary quangos were bloated inefficient clubs for the boys, with company cars, final salary pensions and many perks besides.

Absolutely.

£550 a day for lads straight out of A levels sat there doing basic testing? (but actually listening to the cricket) -- by the way that figure is a decade old so it will easily be more now.

Don't make me laugh. Whoever signed off the procurement contracts with these 'suppliers' should be fired.

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

Everytime a Remainers speaks of the British being punished, what they should be saying is both us and France or Spain et al being punished with less trade.

You're still assuming the level of punishment is the same. We'll be punished hard by a bad deal, they'll barely be punished at all.

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

You're still assuming the level of punishment is the same. We'll be punished hard by a bad deal, they'll barely be punished at all.

Why is Holland worried about its 9% of its total exports to the UK then? You've been given other examples here of Europeans worried about trade barriers.

You seem to think they will erect barriers to our exports and we won't reply in kind.

Paint a picture of reality for me right down at trench level. How will French farmers take to being told they are about to have thier exports to the UK put at risk? According to your side they will shrug shoulders and proclaim it's all for the good of some abstract lofty principle.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

You're still assuming the level of punishment is the same. We'll be punished hard by a bad deal, they'll barely be punished at all.

There is no "they".

This isn't a collective when it comes to jobs and trade. The Spanish food producers won't give a monkeys about the Polish construction labourers. Why should they?

I'd be interested to know why you think Ireland would avoid a downturn similar to the 1930s event, if trade were to break down.