Public sector watch
Discussion
randlemarcus said:
StevoCally said:
Privatisation of Child Protection services possibly incoming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27452457
The only positive I can see from this is providing an actual benchmark of whether local authorities do a better job with this service given some of the previous posts on here constantly critising the work public sector social workers do.
It'll be interesting to see how these private companies integrate and work in unison with other bodies that Child Protection work demands.
If we benchmark with the PH thread about a Child Welfare visit, where the public sector Child Services couldn't be arsed to get out of the office, and handed it to the police, I think we'll have a reasonable picture.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27452457
The only positive I can see from this is providing an actual benchmark of whether local authorities do a better job with this service given some of the previous posts on here constantly critising the work public sector social workers do.
It'll be interesting to see how these private companies integrate and work in unison with other bodies that Child Protection work demands.
oddly enough the Facilities management services in a PFI hospital I worked in were an order of magnitude better than when the same front line staff were managed by the trust, becasue you aren't 'saving money' when you are going to incur a penalty charge ...
Meanwhile £166m has gone to NHS bosses in bonus payments, a rise of 36% and while there's nothing wrong with rewarding good performance with public money when the NHS is chokka with good performance, this is public money and the NHS isn't that good even though it's seemingly above criticism to some. For 2013, looking at Q4, more trusts breached all three elective waiting time targets than the previous quarter and against the same period in 2012, while for cancer patients performance against the ‘62 day wait from GP referral’ target has reached its lowest level in 2 years as 18 trusts breached this performance standard, an increase from 12 in the previous and compared to just 4 at the same time in 2012. 25 of 147 foundation trusts were subject to enforcement action at 31 12 13 and a further 8 were under investigation. Then there's the January 2014 proposed dissolution of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust reminding us of what went on before. There's more besides, gagging payments included, but as £166m is only equivalent to around 4000 nurses not much will happen.
mph1977 said:
That depends o nthe performance regime doesn;t it
oddly enough the Facilities management services in a PFI hospital I worked in were an order of magnitude better than when the same front line staff were managed by the trust, becasue you aren't 'saving money' when you are going to incur a penalty charge ...
Out of interest which company was doing your FM?oddly enough the Facilities management services in a PFI hospital I worked in were an order of magnitude better than when the same front line staff were managed by the trust, becasue you aren't 'saving money' when you are going to incur a penalty charge ...
Countdown said:
mph1977 said:
That depends o nthe performance regime doesn;t it
oddly enough the Facilities management services in a PFI hospital I worked in were an order of magnitude better than when the same front line staff were managed by the trust, becasue you aren't 'saving money' when you are going to incur a penalty charge ...
Out of interest which company was doing your FM?oddly enough the Facilities management services in a PFI hospital I worked in were an order of magnitude better than when the same front line staff were managed by the trust, becasue you aren't 'saving money' when you are going to incur a penalty charge ...
mph1977 said:
Balfour Beatty , although some of the BB managed staff retained NHS employment ... i do suspect that maiy og the problems with FM in the old hospital was down to the grossly dysfunctional management of the tinpot DGH with delusions of grandeur that dominated the trust ...
Interesting. I've not dealt with Balfour Beatty. I have dealt with Carillion, Interserve, Mitie, AWG and a few others and the service has been patchy at best. You end up spending so much time on contract management that you wonder why you contracted out in the first place.turbobloke said:
Meanwhile £166m has gone to NHS bosses in bonus payments, a rise of 36% and while there's nothing wrong with rewarding good performance with public money when the NHS is chokka with good performance, this is public money and the NHS isn't that good even though it's seemingly above criticism to some.
Similar to terribly-run banks giving bonuses to their good staff. Do you think they should wait until the whole organisation is running perfectly? If not, why are managers in the NHS held to a different standards?Countdown said:
mph1977 said:
Balfour Beatty , although some of the BB managed staff retained NHS employment ... i do suspect that maiy og the problems with FM in the old hospital was down to the grossly dysfunctional management of the tinpot DGH with delusions of grandeur that dominated the trust ...
Interesting. I've not dealt with Balfour Beatty. I have dealt with Carillion, Interserve, Mitie, AWG and a few others and the service has been patchy at best. You end up spending so much time on contract management that you wonder why you contracted out in the first place.wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
Meanwhile £166m has gone to NHS bosses in bonus payments, a rise of 36% and while there's nothing wrong with rewarding good performance with public money when the NHS is chokka with good performance, this is public money and the NHS isn't that good even though it's seemingly above criticism to some.
Similar to terribly-run banks giving bonuses to their good staff. Do you think they should wait until the whole organisation is running perfectly? If not, why are managers in the NHS held to a different standards?Then there's use of public money from taxes in NHS bonuses.
Private money in effect is private, savers and investors and shareholders are there by choice and if they don't think a bank's performance is good enough they can choose another bank but there's no other NHS and we have no choice in our taxes funding it.
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
Meanwhile £166m has gone to NHS bosses in bonus payments, a rise of 36% and while there's nothing wrong with rewarding good performance with public money when the NHS is chokka with good performance, this is public money and the NHS isn't that good even though it's seemingly above criticism to some.
Similar to terribly-run banks giving bonuses to their good staff. Do you think they should wait until the whole organisation is running perfectly? If not, why are managers in the NHS held to a different standards?Findings that marketisation of the NHS has caused real harm and wasted money. Annual recurring costs of 4.5billion conservative estimate. Start up costs of recent Labour and coalition initiatives estimated at 3 billion each. Real harm done to services simply due to either political ideology and/or pressure from commercial interests.
link
link
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
Meanwhile £166m has gone to NHS bosses in bonus payments, a rise of 36% and while there's nothing wrong with rewarding good performance with public money when the NHS is chokka with good performance, this is public money and the NHS isn't that good even though it's seemingly above criticism to some.
Similar to terribly-run banks giving bonuses to their good staff. Do you think they should wait until the whole organisation is running perfectly? If not, why are managers in the NHS held to a different standards?Then there's use of public money from taxes in NHS bonuses.
Private money in effect is private, savers and investors and shareholders are there by choice and if they don't think a bank's performance is good enough they can choose another bank but there's no other NHS and we have no choice in our taxes funding it.
See, it is simple enough - the state wants the best people, so does the private sector. The other option is to offer far lower wages and incentives than the private sector and watch all the decent talent head out the door.
Pappa Lurve said:
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
Meanwhile £166m has gone to NHS bosses in bonus payments, a rise of 36% and while there's nothing wrong with rewarding good performance with public money when the NHS is chokka with good performance, this is public money and the NHS isn't that good even though it's seemingly above criticism to some.
Similar to terribly-run banks giving bonuses to their good staff. Do you think they should wait until the whole organisation is running perfectly? If not, why are managers in the NHS held to a different standards?Then there's use of public money from taxes in NHS bonuses.
Private money in effect is private, savers and investors and shareholders are there by choice and if they don't think a bank's performance is good enough they can choose another bank but there's no other NHS and we have no choice in our taxes funding it.
Pappa Lurve said:
See, it is simple enough...
As above, it isn't that simple.Then your concern is not the payments, but governance. I have no idea how these peoples performance is assessed so I can;t comment but assuming it assessed in a reasonable way, it remains a simple issue. I have contracted to both public and private. If the state sector wants my services, i bill them at the same rate as I do private. My role is similar so why should my pay be different? That being the case, and considering the NHS requires lots of good staff in a huge array of skills, they need to pay the market rate. Or they can hire rubbish people!
The issue to me is not pay at all but value which in this situation basically means their job performance. Assuming that the methods by which performance is measured are reasonable of course. I was measured in very similar ways in both public and private sector and contracts awarded,or indeed not awarded, on that basis.
Right now, I am considering roles in both sectors. These are different roles but the packages are very similar when one takes everything into account as relevant to me (for example, health care or free travel for my kids is not terribly interesting to me cos I don't have any!). If the package in the public sector was noticeably inferior, why on earth would I do it?! If it was noticeably better then one could argue I would be over-paid and thus bad value. I of course would argue I would never consider myself over-paid even if I did 10% of the work for 500x the pay.... but oddly the pay for doing pretty much nothing is rubbish!
The issue to me is not pay at all but value which in this situation basically means their job performance. Assuming that the methods by which performance is measured are reasonable of course. I was measured in very similar ways in both public and private sector and contracts awarded,or indeed not awarded, on that basis.
Right now, I am considering roles in both sectors. These are different roles but the packages are very similar when one takes everything into account as relevant to me (for example, health care or free travel for my kids is not terribly interesting to me cos I don't have any!). If the package in the public sector was noticeably inferior, why on earth would I do it?! If it was noticeably better then one could argue I would be over-paid and thus bad value. I of course would argue I would never consider myself over-paid even if I did 10% of the work for 500x the pay.... but oddly the pay for doing pretty much nothing is rubbish!
Pappa Lurve said:
Then your concern is not the payments, but governance.
Having checked with myself, my concern as expressed in recent posts in this thread is with the payments and arises from another concern over leadership in the NHS including governance and particularly in terms of probity.turbobloke said:
Pappa Lurve said:
Then your concern is not the payments, but governance.
Having checked with myself, my concern as expressed in recent posts in this thread is with the payments and arises from another concern over leadership in the NHS including governance and particularly in terms of probity.If you are saying the payments are too high, too high compared to what? In my experience from the small parts of the state sector, the pay was a little lower than private, but not greatly so and when took into account the whole package, not terribly different. As for the performance measurements, based only on the areas I have worked in,it is the same as the private sector.
There is only an issue if these people are over-paid. And that is only the case if they are under-performing or earning massivly more than a similar role in the private sector.
Pappa Lurve said:
turbobloke said:
Pappa Lurve said:
Then your concern is not the payments, but governance.
Having checked with myself, my concern as expressed in recent posts in this thread is with the payments and arises from another concern over leadership in the NHS including governance and particularly in terms of probity.Pappa Lurve said:
If you are saying the payments are too high...
Not so, I'm saying that making the payments when incompetence and failure are being covered up by gagging whistleblowers inevitably means there will be doubt about the bonuses.
Pappa Lurve said:
As for the performance measurements, based only on the areas I have worked in,it is the same as the private sector.
So the NHS makes profits and staff are paid a bonus predicated on their contribution to the bottom line? That's doubtful.Pappa Lurve said:
There is only an issue if these people are over-paid. And that is only the case if they are under-performing or earning massivly more than a similar role in the private sector.
As above, the market rate should apply to salaries, then in terms of bonus payments linked to performance the issue of hidden failure needs to be eradicated.Ok,all fair enough which assumes you can prove these people have underperformed by their measures. If not,its a totally spurious argument. Show me these whistle blowers who are paid to keep silent. And a Daily Wail url os does not qualify as a full and unbiased source.
Oh, you also appear to assume everyone is measured on profit. I am not, nor is a single person in my office, just over 2,000 people yet we all have performance measurements. I suggest that if one feels that is the only way to measure results, it is probably a very good thing you don't set pay/
Oh, you also appear to assume everyone is measured on profit. I am not, nor is a single person in my office, just over 2,000 people yet we all have performance measurements. I suggest that if one feels that is the only way to measure results, it is probably a very good thing you don't set pay/
Pappa Lurve said:
Ok,all fair enough which assumes you can prove these people have underperformed by their measures. If not,its a totally spurious argument. Show me these whistle blowers who are paid to keep silent. And a Daily Wail url os does not qualify as a full and unbiased source.
Which people? It's a matter of confidence, not detailed knowledge. Until the stables are hosed out, bad odour goes everywhere and everyone is affected including those genuinely doing a great job. That's how a systemic lack of confidence works! You ask me to show you the whistleblowes paid to keep shtum...Presumably a Guardian link will qualify, but neither the Mail nor the Guardian as secondary source matter one iota since the primary source is the gagged whistleblower Gary Walker.
Former chief of United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust says culture of oppression and fear has silenced critics
Article said:
Gary Walker was sacked in 2010 from his job as chief executive of United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust for gross professional misconduct over alleged swearing at a meeting. He claims he was forced to quit for refusing to meet Whitehall targets for non-emergency patients and was then gagged from speaking out as part of a settlement deal.
Walker said he warned senior civil servants that he was confronted with the same choices that resulted in the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust scandal. He blamed a "culture of fear" at the highest levels in the health service for attempts to silence critics.
More of the same, and there's not a single Mail link in sight at your request Walker said he warned senior civil servants that he was confronted with the same choices that resulted in the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust scandal. He blamed a "culture of fear" at the highest levels in the health service for attempts to silence critics.
NHS is paying millions to gag whistleblowers
Article said:
NHS whistleblowers are routinely gagged in order to cover up dangerous and even dishonest practices that could attract bad publicity and damage a hospital's reputation.
Gagged but not paid NHS Trust GovernorThe only surprise is that you had to ask.
Pappa Lurve said:
Oh, you also appear to assume everyone is measured on profit.
Neat reversal...Surely that was closer to your position, saying that public sector bonuses are paid on the same measures as private sector?!Pappa Lurve said:
As for the performance measurements, based only on the areas I have worked in it is the same as the private sector.
All I did was point out one basis which demonstrates the obvious point that contribution to profit, a common element of performance measures and bonus entitlement in the private sector, rarely (if ever) applies in the public sector including NHS suits.Pappa Lurve said:
I am not, nor is a single person in my office, just over 2,000 people yet we all have performance measurements. I suggest that if one feels that is the only way to measure results, it is probably a very good thing you don't set pay/
Nobody except you has said anything about 'the only way to measure results'. And if I do, which as a business owner is hardly novel, quiver at a time of your own choosing.
Then just possibly stop digging as the hole is getting deep at this stage.
Those cases are troubling clearly, but to then pull out the bad odour thing, so you saying everyone in PS should not get paid bonuses until you decide?!
Plus, a few cases, ok, public service employees I believe something like 10 million people in the uk, could well be far more. Those case are of course a problem but if you really think it is possible to asses moiollions of people based in that, I would suggest otherwise.
Ps is not perfect, not by a long shot, but it strikes me that those who say the wages are too high or bonuses are generally have neither worked in it nor understand much about it. Would you think the public have a right to know what each person earns, what they do and how they are assessed? That being the case, how many of us are capable of assessing a neurosurgeon for example?!
You mentioned profit as the key measure in public sector, not I. I merely pointed out it is one of many measures.
I am delighted you own your own business. So do I. In one business we owned, only 4 people were assessed on profit or revenue out of over 700 full time staff. Yet we made a profit every year until we sold.
So how would you suggest people in PS should be paid and measured? I often think if people actually had worked in PS they might have an idea of how it works.
Plus, a few cases, ok, public service employees I believe something like 10 million people in the uk, could well be far more. Those case are of course a problem but if you really think it is possible to asses moiollions of people based in that, I would suggest otherwise.
Ps is not perfect, not by a long shot, but it strikes me that those who say the wages are too high or bonuses are generally have neither worked in it nor understand much about it. Would you think the public have a right to know what each person earns, what they do and how they are assessed? That being the case, how many of us are capable of assessing a neurosurgeon for example?!
You mentioned profit as the key measure in public sector, not I. I merely pointed out it is one of many measures.
I am delighted you own your own business. So do I. In one business we owned, only 4 people were assessed on profit or revenue out of over 700 full time staff. Yet we made a profit every year until we sold.
So how would you suggest people in PS should be paid and measured? I often think if people actually had worked in PS they might have an idea of how it works.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff