UK Labour Market Stats

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's not that clear.

My local hospital employs bank nurses every shift every day. I imagine it's the same for every hospital. In fact the daily need for bank nurses is so entirely predictable that hospitals could employ more permanents. Your argument is that if a business could employ more permanents then they should do so and not use zero hours except when you're applying a context known only to yourself.

If hosptials could employ permanent staff, in most circumstances they will.

The beauty of banking is that you can tap into skills as and when you need them. One week you may need a midwife for a month to cover sickness. The next you may require a specialist COPD nurse to cover 2 weeks holiday.

That doesn't mean you can emply a permanent midwife as you need one for a single month.

You are not just tapping into a person when you use banking. You are tapping into the required skill as and when needed too.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If hosptials could employ permanent staff, in most circumstances they will.

The beauty of banking is that you can tap into skills as and when you need them. One week you may need a midwife for a month to cover sickness. The next you may require a specialist COPD nurse to cover 2 weeks holiday.

That doesn't mean you can emply a permanent midwife as you need one for a single month.

You are not just tapping into a person when you use banking. You are tapping into the required skill as and when needed too.

I get that but at my hospital I know for a fact that bank staff are present on every shift every day of the week. Normal nurses and not just specialists covering in-extremis circumstances. I can't see how using bank staff can be cost effective to cover holidays and sickness because you can guarantee that on any given day people will be off for one reason or another. It's a tax on poor planning.

It bothers me because I fund the inefficiency. I don't see how using zero hours for routine jobs like warehousing can be efficient but I don't shop in Sports Direct so don't care.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I get that but at my hospital I know for a fact that bank staff are present on every shift every day of the week. Normal nurses and not just specialists covering in-extremis circumstances. I can't see how using bank staff can be cost effective to cover holidays and sickness because you can guarantee that on any given day people will be off for one reason or another. It's a tax on poor planning.

It bothers me because I fund the inefficiency. I don't see how using zero hours for routine jobs like warehousing can be efficient but I don't shop in Sports Direct so don't care.

In truth, you probably realise that that sort of use (which I agree goes on) is all down to budgets. While they won't be able to pass an increase in permanent nursing costs, they will be able to spend the same amounts and more on emergency nursing.

It's the insanity of how the NHS now works. And theres more to come, especially from this government.

A 2% saving is a target to be hit. Even if it costs 10% elsewhere to hit it. Hunt is certainly on a mission and if it costs £50m to save £3m elsewhere, it's a cost worth paying as politics trumps all (and it helps that half the party has an interest in that £50m and the channels is spent within).

antrobus

Tromking wrote: »

You seemed to ignore the stat that said the private sector have twice as many employees on ZHC`s as the public sector. ....

Might even be true.:)

But then, given that there are five times as many people working in the private sector than there are working in the public sector, that would still mean that relative incidence of ZHC was double in the public sector.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are not being that careful, as you hadn't even hinted that you were using figures as a percentage of the workforce. .....

Given the relative sizes of the public and private sector, what other basis could you possibly use?

Pick any metric, and the head count is bound to be bigger in the private sector.:)

Tromking wrote: »

...As for banking and supply teachers, I think care needs to be taken here too before the context is lost. The very nature of the job demands zero hour contracts and everyone taking part in such a role will understand that. You can't really sign up to bank nursing and offer your services without being on such a contract. Pretty much the same as retained firemen. Not having a job is part of the course. Unlike Sports Direct, for example.

So ZHCs are perfectly OK when the "very nature of the job demands zero hour contracts and everyone taking part in such a role will understand that".

An argument that anyone, including Sports Direct, can use as they see fit. Good to know.