That's bonkers, if not against employment law, and not something I've ever known during my 30 odd years in the Health Service. I did return from my honeymoon many years ago to discover I was being suspended as I'd been accused of rape during my absence. As the reported act happened while I was actually still in the Canaries I suggested I could return to work or I'd be stood outside the hospital with a large sign and the local press next day. I returned to work. That maybe was me bullying a bit but I was jolly upset and a jobsworth was being very silly, and nasty. As I hinted it's pretty easy to pick out examples of bad practices from public and private sectors. But even a smug bugger like myself should try not to generalise too much or swallow wholesale some of the convenient myths. I think overall small employers (which by default are mainly private) can intimidate and dismiss staff the easier, however there remain institutional cultures in the public sector which are far from healthy. To me it just feels the constant drip drip of negatives will hardly help recruitment of staff in roles we keep saying are important, but maybe that's the point.
I am a first line manager in a local authority and there are several staff in related areas who are allowed to take the absolute piss. One sits in the office on his personal laptop working on personal projects in photoshop (while getting paid extra for working as an "Acting Supervisor"), another spends months on sick leave, another has recently gone off sick with stress (coincidentally her first day off was the day when she was due to have a meeting with her manager about the tens of thousands of pounds in payments that she's failed to take over the last year). There are a number of others who simply aren't capable of doing the job they're employed to do. They've worked here for years though and will probably continue to work here for years. I don't think these are particularly isolated incidents either. People do lose their jobs in the public sector but it's usually through reorganisations and redundancies rather than because they can't do the job. The number of staff who get sacked for incapability is very small. The usual response seems to be to try and move the person on so they're someone else's problem. I have a problem member of staff in my team and that's the advice I was given on a training course. Which doesn't work when the problem person can't do their current job but thinks they should be in a more senior job that requires a masters degree that they don't have and is in their mid-50s (meaning there's very little chance they can get the qualification before they retire). These are common themes among most public sector workers I've spoken to. Here's a blog written by public sector workers that essentially says the same thing: https://welovelocalgovernment.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/not-getting-sacked/ Here's a management consultant's account of a meeting with high level NHS managers: http://www.excitant.co.uk/you-cant-sack-people-in-the-public-sector-really/ Here's a blog from the Guardian that links to some research on public vs private sector management: http://www.theguardian.com/society/...log/2010/nov/05/public-sector-poor-performers
I spent a long time in the NHS and was a first line manager 78-83, a middle manager 83 - 94 and a senior manager from 94 - 04. I continued as a practising clinician throughout my managerial career. and after it. I recognise much that has been said about under performing staff. I would however add that in my experience these were a small minority, (but very time consuming). The vast majority would walk the extra mile especially if they were personally valued. Many worked beyond their contractual hours, many showed a degree of flexibility. What was a real drain on the NHS was the frequent and largely unnecessary re-organisations that have continued since my exit. In fact organisational change was so frequent it became the norm. The consequence of such short term thinking of our politicians was a lowering of moral that can be seen to having a direct line to the current junior doctor dispute. An example: I have a friend, a well respected medical consultant, hard working, diligent, highly skilled, he is retiring 2 years early having reduced his hours over recent years. When I asked him why he said 'I am not valued for what I do. 5 years ago I shared an office with a colleague and had access to a secretary. An outpatient clinic would have 10 patients and I would nearly always fit in an urgent referral. Now I have no dedicated secretarial support, I have to complete my own administration on a computer program that doesn't accurately reflect the complexity of my role, so I keep comprehensive hand written notes to reflect the reality of what I do.The consequence of the extra work means that I now see 6 or 7 patients per clinic and rarely accept urgent referrals. I am not as productive as I used to be but work harder, time to go'. There are many reasons why it is difficult to manage within the public sector, but within the NHS I would argue that the biggest factor has not been staff being difficult to dismiss, it is the succession of Health Secretaries for whom organisational change was perceived to be the answer, when valuing clinical staff properly, and I'm not necessarily meaning financially, would have prove more fruitful.
Put so much better than I could! Puck's links above do raise valid points but the one thing such 'stats' cannot reflect is it's not comparing like with like. You can't just alter costs, staff and quality when you're dealing with people (despite what one of my old managers claimed).
The second episode of 'Inside Obama's White House' was on tonight. It focused on 'ObamaCare'. I just don't get the American outlook, I'm sorry. One woman didn't get the breast cancer treatment she needed soon enough because she didn't declare when she had acne years ago. Bonkers.
As far as I'm aware, the USA is the only 1st World country without a form of nationalised health care, preferring to leave it to private and charity hospitals. Off-hand I can't think of another. And what's even worse, they reject the idea. It's the schism that sums up America. The haves and the have-nots. What does each citizen of that [great?] country owe each other? Nothing. Not their community, their protection, their camaraderie. You might get a gun barrel pointed at you though occasionally if you stray into the wrong area, which might make you wish you had a decent health service. It's a health service form of capitalism. The haves get enough of it. The have-nots might as well die after they've stopped being useful. Perhaps I exaggerate. But not really.
I have to admit I don't know the NHS too well. My service has reorganised once in the six years I've been there and I think that was the first major reorganisation for years. Interestingly it involved the removal of a dedicated admin team which has lead to a similar, although less extreme, situation to the one your friend describes. I'm not even convinced it makes financial sense - staff on £30k a year are now having to do filing/admin work that staff on £20k a year used to do, which inevitably means they do less of what I think of as "actual work". I would also expect the NHS to have staff more prepared to put extra effort in simply because of the nature of the work. Social services would be similar I imagine but in council departments where people are dealing with necessary but less obviously beneficial or rewarding things like housing benefit, council tax, street cleaning or parking tickets I think motivation becomes more of an issue. I'm sure a lot of people working in the NHS grew up dreaming of helping others... nobody grows up dreaming of dealing with parking tickets! Which stats do you mean? Surely all organisations have to deal with people? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm just not sure what point you're making here.
Not taken as confrontational mate. Just trying to get my point across (badly!) without drowning people in examples or stats (like comparing so called outcomes from private and public sectors) which are often interpreted to make a particular point. But as you ask . . . . In 2000 I started work in a community team treating addictions, mainly heroin and alcohol, we offered home or inpatient detox alongside the option of residential rehab. Our records and outcomes were written, a "success" was considered 6 weeks free of alcohol or 6 months away from any opiates. By 2013 we never offered home detox from heroin (I was by then anyway the only member of staff who was competent do do this, others were 'let go'). We were not allowed to refer to inpatient units for detox, alcohol or drugs. A&E picked up much of the slack there. For one afternoon a week I was instructed to drive a van to a local car park and sit there (with a colleague) for 3 hours, this was so the Trust could claim it offered an outreach programme, we never saw a single client, in almost a year. That year no one was approved for residential rehab as social services withdrew funding replacing it with 'Equine Therapy'. Our computer stats now said 5 days away from alcohol or 7 days away from opiates was a successful treatment. I was told to discharge alcohol clients quickly to maintain this stat, if I refused my boss did it for me. The service was held up as massively improved on the basis of comparing these outcomes with previous records. It was actually a fraud, so I left. My point is to be valid you need to compare like with like. This is almost impossible when your business is people and the goalposts are constantly changed. The real shame is we seem to be taking the worst from the private sector while holding on to many of the faults of the public. Tiggermaster's point about constant re-organisation is key, in my 13yrs the Trust was changed 4 times due to the 'tender' system. Each brought different systems, computers and management with them. Bloody chaos.
My experience comes from the other side of our system both working for and with social services. I'm not going to say too much about my 10 years with the social services. If I start I don't think I have enough patience or pages. We worked with social services, (I had left a few years before) as we were trying to look after my wife's brother who had Huntington's chorea. We looked after him for 16 years at home. It was a constant battle from day one with the social services until we lost him on New Year's Day 2014. Almost from the day we applied for help through our doctor they wanted to take him away to a home. They tried every trick in the book. However they didn't recon on someone that knew their way of working and was prepared to fight my wife's brother's corner for him. I knew the laws backwards including what was then the new EU laws on human rights etc. They battled with me for the greater part of the time we looked after him. Always wanting to take him away from his home where he felt safe and secure. It wasn't going to happen as long as we were there to prevent it....... And he died where he wanted to be..........at home! The reason I'm telling you this is because of the officials at local level trying to save money and not caring a damn for what was the best for him to help him cope with his type of illness. Even ignoring specialist reports his and other doctors ........they knew better except they didn't. They came across someone who was prepared to use every avenue available. Even the courts if necessary which almost happened. However the thing I constantly worried about was what about the people that didn't have someone to stand up for them? Someone to advise what they are actually entitled to by law. My experience is not unique trust me. Asked why they don't inform...... They advised they didn't have the money because of cuts. This from an office that had 3 lots of new furniture in 6 years. Need I say more about waste?
Snoopers charter. An amendment has been proposed to make it more difficult for MP's communications to be sought. At the current time, it's literally the only amendment proposed. Clause 24, page 19, line 8, at end insert “and where the member is a member of the House of Commons he must also consult the Speaker of the House of Commons” "This amendment would require the Secretary of State before deciding to issue a warrant that applied to an MP’s communications to consult the Speaker." http://www.publications.parliament....0143/amend/investigatory_rm_pbc_0322.1-2.html Looks like DTLW was right. So much for changing it up a lot. MPs are like "protect my rights, but **** the publics rights"
I agree BT , but I can assure you this is not just about waste , A very close relative works in the NHS , they have pleaded for money to be moved from one dept to another regularly , they are told NO . So if a dept has a specific budget , if they don't spend it , they lose it the next year ( hence the new office furniture ? ) . That is crap . If the powers that be LISTENED & distributed the dwindling revenues better , it would make sense . Yes it is WASTE , but not through any fault of the local teams . IMHO .
http://news.sky.com/story/1665533/labour-mps-anger-over-corbyn-loyalty-list Oh dear. The Conservatives have practically handed it to them on a plate this week and Labour do this. To be fair to Corbyn it doesn't sound like it's him that's drawn the list up. Neither party seem very unified at the moment.
Tbh, I don't really see what's so wrong with his list. It doesn't affect anyone but the Labour Party, and it tells Corbyn who he can trust. With so many members it would surprise me if Cameron doesn't have his own. Where the error actually occurred was letting it get into the hands of the Conservative media.
