NHS Staff Sickness
Discussion
Sheepshanks said:
Logistix said:
So by that logic you could increase recruitment and retention by reducing salaries?
It’s bonkers, you’re literally using the old argument of ‘to make people in the private sector work harder pay them more while to make people in the public sector work harder pay them less.’
That’s not how economics works.
It is how Government dogma works though which is why we are in such a mess.
Do you apply the same argument to bankers’ pay?
I wasn’t arguing, just asking a question.It’s bonkers, you’re literally using the old argument of ‘to make people in the private sector work harder pay them more while to make people in the public sector work harder pay them less.’
That’s not how economics works.
It is how Government dogma works though which is why we are in such a mess.
Do you apply the same argument to bankers’ pay?
Do you think that increasing pay will improve retention or will it result in staff moving abroad as other countries increase their pay to compete?
I must say I find that a little hard to accept, and it’s not the usual way it works.
And once again, why should this be the opposite of the usual mantra in the private sector where you address recruitment and retention problems by increasing pay?
Logistix said:
And how would that help to retain senior staff who will be desperately needed to train those junior doctors (and remember that the plan is to cram their training into 4 years and double their numbers which will require more not less seniors)?
Are they more likely to cram the training into 4 years or dilute the standard? The government seem to have done a great job of giving people on benefits and pensioners inflation linked 'pay' increases whilst portraying everyone else as being the bad guys for requesting pay increases. The fact that the government, and other western governments, are predominantly responsible for the high inflation conditions in the first place just makes it even more insulting IMHO.
BAMoFo said:
Logistix said:
And how would that help to retain senior staff who will be desperately needed to train those junior doctors (and remember that the plan is to cram their training into 4 years and double their numbers which will require more not less seniors)?
Are they more likely to cram the training into 4 years or dilute the standard? Probably a bit of both.
The thing is, medicine is a hugely demanding degree course, the pre-clinical years involve basically doing huge chunks of several disciplines that are single degrees in their own right, while in the clinical years further studies are interleaved with clinical placements meaning that the academic year is packed, without the usual long holidays that most students get.
I struggle to see what could realistically be left out without producing less well educated junior doctors, and remember that after all of that you produce (under the current system) a doctor who is not able to practice independently and who is really just beginning a long period of further study while at the same time working.
The current very gifted entrants find the medical course challenging (and they do tend to be the high flyers, I do some pre-Oxbridge tutoring for 6th formers wanting to study medicine and their school careers tutors are pretty clear that these tend to be the most able in their years.) As previously if you lower the bar to entry the cohort of students is likely to include those who would struggle to get through the current syllabus, let alone a more intensive one.
Why is this so? Because medicine is hard, really hard and the consequences of getting it wrong are obvious.
So qualified medics are a very valuable commodity. One that the Government seems happy to annoy, belittle and ultimately lose to emigration, burnout, retirement etc.
For example my wife quit as a consultant after 15 years as a doctor to have children, fully intending to return. Having experienced life outside the NHS, and seeing how bad the treatment of staff was (not just pay, but that’s an important part if it) she decided not to return to medicine.
The government’s tactics are really dumb, IMHO.
Logistix said:
Do you think that increasing pay will improve retention or will it result in staff moving abroad as other countries increase their pay to compete?
The question is whether it would arrest the current migration of staff to other countries.If those other countries do up their offer then I don't see why things would change (to any significant degree).
BAMoFo said:
The government seem to have done a great job of giving people on benefits and pensioners inflation linked 'pay' increases whilst portraying everyone else as being the bad guys for requesting pay increases. The fact that the government, and other western governments, are predominantly responsible for the high inflation conditions in the first place just makes it even more insulting IMHO.
Well, obviously, those on benefits, and pensioners, are on fixed incomes that are the bare minimum for survival. If their income doesn't increase with inflation then they drop below survival level.Sheepshanks said:
The question is whether it would arrest the current migration of staff to other countries.
If those other countries do up their offer then I don't see why things would change (to any significant degree).
So is higher pay ever an incentive to retention, either in the private or public sector?If those other countries do up their offer then I don't see why things would change (to any significant degree).
What was the reason given for removing the cap on bankers’ bonuses and reducing top rates of income tax? Why would it be different for doctors, they have the same susceptibility to reward as anyone else.
(Some) people are unwilling to see public sector workers paid better I suspect because they view work that doesn’t generate direct financial returns as somehow less deserving of financial rewards than less caring professions where profit is easy to see.
To be fair medics have demeaned themselves by believing the same for years but there has been a real shift in attitudes which is why I think strike action has been called after so long. The problem the government (and the next) has is that following this realisation, medics are unlikely to return to their previous subservient stance.
Sheepshanks said:
Well, obviously, those on benefits, and pensioners, are on fixed incomes that are the bare minimum for survival. If their income doesn't increase with inflation then they drop below survival level.
Well quite obviously the increases were not means tested in any way and not all pensioners needed an increase. I would agree that many on benefits are on the bare minimum, but there are others that receive more than my family income and are living very comfortably indeed.Edited by BAMoFo on Monday 3rd July 19:39
thepeoplespal said:
Means testing costs mega money, cheaper to give to all, as it is relatively simple and doesn't need a whole new bureaucracy to administer it.
The point is that they were given inflation linked increases and others are almost having to go cap in hand for it. The current generation of pensioners have had the best opportunity ever to make something of their lives and it will never be repeated for subsequent generations. In a country which has lost its ability to balance the books I don't think they should be given special treatment.
Edited by BAMoFo on Monday 3rd July 21:36
BAMoFo said:
The current generation of pensioners have had the best opportunity ever to make something of their lives and it will never be repeated for subsequent generations.
This gets trotted out time and again and it's wrong. Ah yes, but "houses used to be much cheaper". Don't forget "wages were massively lower" and they lived through a decade of runaway inflation that makes the past 12 months look like a walk in the park.They're a generation who's paid both for their parents, through National Insurance contributions that were immediately spent by the government, and paid for their kids through high taxes that were immediately spent by the government.
Pensioners look expensive to run now because life expectancy has increased so much. But there's no point the next generation complaining about it - they have at least as good a life expectancy!
Logistix said:
For example my wife quit as a consultant after 15 years as a doctor to have children, fully intending to return. Having experienced life outside the NHS, and seeing how bad the treatment of staff was (not just pay, but that’s an important part if it) she decided not to return to medicine.
Do you know if this is the same in other countries or if its specific to the UK? I've spoken to a few doctors from other countries and they all say that they wouldn't recommend medicine as a career and they hope their children do something else.Panamax said:
Snip
Pensioners look expensive to run now because life expectancy has increased so much. But there's no point the next generation complaining about it - they have at least as good a life expectancy!
They probably won't have at least as good a life expectancy. However, even assuming they do, they certainly won't have comparable pensions because they are simply unaffordable due to their Ponzi style nature.Pensioners look expensive to run now because life expectancy has increased so much. But there's no point the next generation complaining about it - they have at least as good a life expectancy!
Panamax said:
Snip
Pensioners look expensive to run now because life expectancy has increased so much. But there's no point the next generation complaining about it - they have at least as good a life expectancy!
I always question life expectancy data. It seems that all those excess deaths due to covid hasn't made a dent on the figures.Pensioners look expensive to run now because life expectancy has increased so much. But there's no point the next generation complaining about it - they have at least as good a life expectancy!
Also, with so many overweight adults and kids, it is probable that there will be a downward trend as well.
Panamax said:
BAMoFo said:
The current generation of pensioners have had the best opportunity ever to make something of their lives and it will never be repeated for subsequent generations.
This gets trotted out time and again and it's wrong. Ah yes, but "houses used to be much cheaper". Don't forget "wages were massively lower" and they lived through a decade of runaway inflation that makes the past 12 months look like a walk in the park.They're a generation who's paid both for their parents, through National Insurance contributions that were immediately spent by the government, and paid for their kids through high taxes that were immediately spent by the government.
Pensioners look expensive to run now because life expectancy has increased so much. But there's no point the next generation complaining about it - they have at least as good a life expectancy!
My granda worked in a sawmill all his life from 18-65. house supplied 3 bed semi as well. granny raised 2 boys. They wern't rich but they wernt poor.
he worked 42 hours in summer and 37 hours in winter per week.
The other side Grandfather worked as a lorry driver and also in a coal mine throughout his career.
Grandma raised 4 daughters. mining town 3 bed semi council house eventually bought at a reduced price.
Can you do that nowadays on 1 salary. raise a family 2-4 kids nice 2,3,4 bed semi?
Racehorse said:
The bit no one can understand is if someone is taking the mick on a constant basis, how do the NHS managers not do anything?
Line managers have very little say in the process. If someone triggers a stage 2 sick review - which is done automatically via Healthroster - HR is automatically involved and will dictate the course of action. HRs position is to 'support' staff rather than sack them and this process can go on for ages. Once you get to stage 3 staff get options for altered duties or hours in the hope it will allow them to be sick less. Stage 4 is technically where you get fired as this is when stage 3 hasn't worked and clearly the staff member is taking the piss or just not cut out for the job, but this is discretionary rather than automatic and anyone with a pre-existing health condition or other life complication will get let off. Absences are tracked on an annual cycle. If you get to stage 3 and then don't go off again until it's been one year since the first absence, then you drop back down to stage 2.
Managers hands are tied really. HR direct everything to do with personnel and they play it very safe.
Edited by Brainpox on Saturday 8th July 13:55
sjc said:
I know if people that have hit stage two twelve times,they simply start the cycle over and over again playing the system. Those in charge are either too incompetent,too scared,or can’t be arsed to follow it through and sack them.
Ex NHS nurse and union rep here. The sickness policy is triggered automatically and staff have been dismissed due to capability issues many times. There are hoops to jump through (rightly so) and there are cases where people try to play the system.However the policy is pretty prescriptive and does not allow for a great deal of leeway. It is worth remembering though a lot of staff will have protected characteristics - disabilities for example. They have protections in place by law.
SD.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff