Public Sector Pay Restraint Ending?

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Public sector should be paid the same as the private sector plus or minus about 1% (as you couldn't hit it exactly for any given year). Right now they are paid 3% more than the probste sector. Should they should get below inflation pay increases until the two are the same. If then we have a nurse shirtgage or a fore fighter shirtgage or an x shirtgage then pay can be increased for them however you would need to lower pay for other public sector workers to make up the difference so that overall the public and private sector are paid the same.

So if there is truely a need to pay nurses more to retain them then pay them more but you will need to do so by paying other public sector workers less. It is unfair that public sector workers are already paid more and people want this to go up

BTW I think a pay increase of 1-2% for nurses would do FA to stop them leaving. If I hare a job or dins it too difficult and my boss offered me 1% more it would male zero difference. The retention problem can only be solved by a significant pay rise which would be unaffordable. The alternative would be to import nurses from poorer countries which is also undesirable but has been a big part of the NHS for decades.

Personally I like nurses. Double their pay I don't care. But find the money from the paychecks of other public sector workers. Maybe bag if wind is willing to see his income cut 15% so nurses can enjoy a 15% pay rose its only fair nurses do a dofocult job and bag of wind just surfs the net all day

I just re-read that in a strong French accent. What's a "shirtgage"? Who are "Fore Fighters"? I'll need a chimpanzee to human translator for "If I hare a job or dins it too difficult" ...."it would male zero difference". What does a "15% pay rose" look like? Do you find one in a florist? If you are attempting to come across as educated it's probably best to give English a bit of a go...

The irony of your snipe about surfing the net all day is that it has taken me three pages to catch up with all the rubbish you have posted in the last 8 hours whilst I have been at work.

Have a go at posting something intellectual and factually based. I dare you. I know of a good English teacher by the way too.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

You could be wrong I assume you don't work in the HR department and don't know the actual turnover you are probably just guessing on the few dozen or so people around you which is a small sample set.

Which is ironic as it is what you do - find something and have a guess / make up some numbers, and then ignore anything or anyone who shows you evidence to the contrary.

GreatApe wrote: »

Also I assume you are talking about a specific role or part of 'the oil industry'
It would be like me looking at just GP pay and retention which is high and inferring that as 'the heath industry. It might be better to look at the oil industry in its whole which might be worse than your assumption of no one ever leaves. Even if true its not the norm but an outlier.

Oh look, right on cue, your assertion that GP retention is high is wrong. It is so wrong that the university of bath have a paper on the subject and NHS England has setup a program to try and stop GP's from quitting in their thousands. You won't read either of course, but for anyone else who wants to enlighten themselves, they are below

GP Retention Crisis:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/gp/gpfv/workforce/retaining-the-current-medical-workforce/retained-doctors/

http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/2016/01/07/gps-retire-early/

GreatApe wrote: »

I don't know if wards are understaffed.

But I bet it's not going to stop you having an ignorant opinion though.

GreatApe wrote: »

If they are they need to recruit more people. Also the scale of the problem needs to be noted. Does a ward have 1% fewer staff than it needs or 10% or 30%? Clearly there is a big difference between 1% and 30% so just saying understaffed is too little information

Oh there we go. They need to recruit more people? Yeah, like 40,000 extra nurses? I don't know how many 'hints' you want that there is a nursing shortage in this country? You've been provided with numbers and you choose to ignore them. How about NICE - the national institute for healthcare and excellence and a whole page of journal standard research showing there is a severe shortage of nurses?

https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=nursing+shortage

GreatApe wrote: »

Also if it is true. How do you get more staff? Is it just plain blunt wages. Can a 2% increase in wages cover the problems and keep more staff and encourage new ones to join? For physics teachers they offer a bonus on the first year as so few physicists want to go into teaching. Maybe this type of bonus scheme would be more effective. Maybe guising more kids at 17-18 into nursing would be more effective. If there is a big problem I don't see it being solves by 1-2% pay increases. It seems a political posturing to me not a real problem that is trying to be addressed by real measures.

Investment. The government have taken away the training bursary so people don't go into the profession. They are then overworking to the point of breakdown everyone in the NHS - not just nurses but doctors, physios, healthcare workers, the lot of us. It isn't about a pay rise for me, it is about having more feet on the ground so that you aren't every single day of the week racing around and still not finishing your caseload, let alone when someone is off sick.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Which is ironic as it is what you do - find something and have a guess / make up some numbers, and then ignore anything or anyone who shows you evidence to the contrary.



Oh look, right on cue, your assertion that GP retention is high is wrong. It is so wrong that the university of bath have a paper on the subject and NHS England has setup a program to try and stop GP's from quitting in their thousands. You won't read either of course, but for anyone else who wants to enlighten themselves, they are below

GP Retention Crisis:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/gp/gpfv/workforce/retaining-the-current-medical-workforce/retained-doctors/

http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/2016/01/07/gps-retire-early/



But I bet it's not going to stop you having an ignorant opinion though.



Oh there we go. They need to recruit more people? Yeah, like 40,000 extra nurses? I don't know how many 'hints' you want that there is a nursing shortage in this country? You've been provided with numbers and you choose to ignore them. How about NICE - the national institute for healthcare and excellence and a whole page of journal standard research showing there is a severe shortage of nurses?

https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=nursing+shortage



Investment. The government have taken away the training bursary so people don't go into the profession. They are then overworking to the point of breakdown everyone in the NHS - not just nurses but doctors, physios, healthcare workers, the lot of us. It isn't about a pay rise for me, it is about having more feet on the ground so that you aren't every single day of the week racing around and still not finishing your caseload, let alone when someone is off sick.

I did not claim that there were too many or two few nurses.

I asked how many there were 1/3/5 years ago and no one seems to be able to answer that. It would be a good starting point.

And once more the vacancy rate is not an indicator of a shortage. It's just an indicator of turnover. There are 750,000 vacancies for everything at any given time. That tens of thousands of vacancies exist for retail jobs at any one time is not an indication that retail is in trouble or we need more retail workers. That 40,000 nurse positions are available is not an indicator of a shortage of nurses.

That GPs face a retention problem shows it's not all about the money so paying nurses 1-2% more isn't going to solve things.

Oh and I'm glad you did an honest days work. We did miss you on here but the 'insert public sector workforce' needs you at your beat during working hours.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Which is ironic as it is what you do - find something and have a guess / make up some numbers, and then ignore anything or anyone who shows you evidence to the contrary.



Oh look, right on cue, your assertion that GP retention is high is wrong. It is so wrong that the university of bath have a paper on the subject and NHS England has setup a program to try and stop GP's from quitting in their thousands. You won't read either of course, but for anyone else who wants to enlighten themselves, they are below

GP Retention Crisis:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/gp/gpfv/workforce/retaining-the-current-medical-workforce/retained-doctors/

http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/2016/01/07/gps-retire-early/



But I bet it's not going to stop you having an ignorant opinion though.



Oh there we go. They need to recruit more people? Yeah, like 40,000 extra nurses? I don't know how many 'hints' you want that there is a nursing shortage in this country? You've been provided with numbers and you choose to ignore them. How about NICE - the national institute for healthcare and excellence and a whole page of journal standard research showing there is a severe shortage of nurses?

https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=nursing+shortage



Investment. The government have taken away the training bursary so people don't go into the profession. They are then overworking to the point of breakdown everyone in the NHS - not just nurses but doctors, physios, healthcare workers, the lot of us. It isn't about a pay rise for me, it is about having more feet on the ground so that you aren't every single day of the week racing around and still not finishing your caseload, let alone when someone is off sick.

you sound like a very bitter man. all you rposts just potray anger. maybe chill out this weekend and come back fresh in the new week so you can understand better and be more logical in thinking?

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Oh and I'm glad you did an honest days work. We did miss you on here but the 'insert public sector workforce' needs you at your beat during working hours.

agree. afterall we are all paying bagofwinds salary!

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

I did not claim that there were too many or two few nurses.

I asked how many there were 1/3/5 years ago and no one seems to be able to answer that. It would be a good starting point.

And once more the vacancy rate is not an indicator of a shortage. It's just an indicator of turnover. There are 750,000 vacancies for everything at any given time. That tens of thousands of vacancies exist for retail jobs at any one time is not an indication that retail is in trouble or we need more retail workers. That 40,000 nurse positions are available is not an indicator of a shortage of nurses.

That GPs face a retention problem shows it's not all about the money so paying nurses 1-2% more isn't going to solve things.

Oh and I'm glad you did an honest days work. We did miss you on here but the 'insert public sector workforce' needs you at your beat during working hours.

You don't read anything I put up here anyway so I'm certainly not going to waste an hour digging up statistics for you to ignore. You go find them - the data is there. It's Friday night and I'm off to the pub with some of my dumb medical colleagues. Might dig this up later - it'll provide us all with a laugh.

Whilst I'm gone, what is my "beat" during working hours? I've got a shirtgage of male dins to attend to. Let me know if you need that English teacher's details. Tootle Pip.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

agree. afterall we are all paying bagofwinds salary!

And I'm paying your benefits whilst you sit around in your boxer shorts watching Jeremy Kyle and posting on here all day. Mother will be calling you down for dinner soon.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

you sound like a very bitter man. all you rposts just potray anger. maybe chill out this weekend and come back fresh in the new week so you can understand better and be more logical in thinking?

And your posts "portray" mis-education and ignorance. I can forward you on that teacher's contacts too - maybe he'll do yourself and Great Ape a discount if he can see you at the same time?

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

And your posts "portray" mis-education and ignorance. I can forward you on that teacher's contacts too - maybe he'll do yourself and Great Ape a discount if he can see you at the same time?

i dont need a discount. i get paid benefits from your hard work. not to mention nurses hard work. LOL!!!

BobQ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Another way of looking at this 'issue' is to simply have less public services and let the private sector address the need

That way the tax payer saves money and the private sector will pay the appropriate rate - funded by those who actually need the service

Then also the service consumer would have a choice of both IF and where they obtain their service

Yes when your house is on fire you can decide IF you need a fire brigade or whether to let it burn. Of course if you decide the latter your neighbour can decide if they want a fire brigade. Or you could just ask for quotes.

Then you can decide if you want pay for the private prison, if not enough do we can let the murderers and burglars out. Then you can decide if you want a private policeman to investigate the burglars activities. Maybe choose the weekday service and hope that you do not get a burglar at weekends.

How do you envisage protecting our border?

Youll save a fortune. It seems to me that some people hate the public sector so much that they really will cut off their nose to spite your faces.

Do explain why this idea is not as silly as it sounds.