Si1 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 <br />What did I write which makes you think that?<br /><br /><br /><br />There's no ability for bosses to do that in the public sector - hence the pay scales the corollary of which supports my point bye now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Goldfish Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) delete Edited October 5, 2013 by oldsport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadget Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Oh right so they still get their increments ? 3.5% pay rise on average for living a year longer according to the government, Still a decent pay rise IMHO. Yes a more experienced nurse etc will be better and deserve a higher salary. But that's what promotion is for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Goldfish Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 3.5% pay rise on average for living a year longer according to the government, Still a decent pay rise IMHO. Yes a more experienced nurse etc will be better and deserve a higher salary. But that's what promotion is for... Doesn't promotion mean a change of role? What's wrong with people being happy to stay in their current job but just with (slightly) greater rewards for doing it better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Very silly. Health care is massively expensive and complex. If you think tens of millions of procedure every year don't need managing then your simply barking. The US spends more than 10 times the amount per capita we do on managing their health system. But presumably you'll think that's OK because it's private. You're just blinded by some weird ideological hatred The US system is totally financialised. I read somewhere that one or two hospitals in the US are available where you can pay the cost in cash...the amount you pay in these hospitals is the same as the excess you on your insurance covered bills...it seems 4/5ths of the Bill is pure ripoff...and the US system has anti trust laws written out for them.... In addition poor buying by Large Government groups lead to headlines like £500 for a light switch, £10,000 for a door...all way over costed because of the way they dont actually give a frack. and the NHS is saddled with Massive PFI repayments for all the new carparks and office blocks they bought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Doesn't promotion mean a change of role? What's wrong with people being happy to stay in their current job but just with (slightly) greater rewards for doing it better Mate of mine works in support services in a NHS hospital...he cant say a word out of turn ( like he would outside the building), managers fiddle the system by moving themselves around and making thenselves more "valuable", and worse, they call in and extra manager to see how to make the department more efficient.....he says he now has 4 more managers than when he started about 15 years ago. his job has unchanged....he is looking forward to his poultry pension soon.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Craw Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/04/jeremy-hunt-nhs-pay-rise-cancelled The planned 1% rise would cost £500m, while the incremental payments, which entail an average 3.5% rise, and 6.7% in some cases, would cost an estimated £700m more a year. If a general 1% rise costs £500m, then £700m in incremental payments is a 1.4% rise on the pay bill. Incremental payments might average 3.5% for those staff that get them, but many staff get no increment. 0%. The percentage of staff getting 6.7% incremental rises will be very small. Just saying. Edited October 5, 2013 by White Craw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausdave Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 There has been a huge increase in the number of employees over the last 10 or 15 years. Nurses up 25% GPs up 25% Specialists up 50% Managers up 70% (management numbers now actually falling) A lot of the increase, particularly among nurses, and other health professionals has been in part-time workers. The actual number of worked hours has still increased, but nowhere near as dramatically, and has not actually kept up with population growth. The increase in numbers is also not even throughout the country. London generally has had the biggest increase in staff numbers. This has not been shown in more deprived areas, particularly the North West and North East; at higher grade positions, this is often due to difficulty in recruiting, as people in a position to apply, are not interested in working there. Over the last 15 years (between 1998 and 2013) there have been the following indicative salary increases (RPI over this period approx 2.9% per year). Entry level nurses: Approx 3.8% pa (approx 75% increase) Experienced nurses: Approx 4.2% pa (approx 85% increase) Consultants: Approx 2.6% pa (Approx 50% increase) Could you direct us towards the source of your figures? Make interesting reading but I can't find any evidence of the type of pay increases you're referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 so small it gets gobbled up on the weekly energy bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChumpusRex Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Could you direct us towards the source of your figures? Make interesting reading but I can't find any evidence of the type of pay increases you're referring to. I had to compile the figures myself from whatever statistics I could find. I was able to find payscale information from 2013 and historical information from 1998. The historical information came from: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmhealth/38/8121016.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awaytogo Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 In 1999 the budget for the NHS was around about 39 billion. Now it's somewhere in the region of 120 billion. So far as I can tell the main difference is that staff pay doubled and there are a lot more administrators and managers. The NHS costs three times as much as it did and has not improved very much. While I would not trust the Conservatives to cut someone's hair it would probably be best to have a less expensive health service. Trouble is people get all emotional about NHS cuts. I believe as do many more people that this government what to privatise the NHS, That is when ones personnel health care will become expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motch Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Thanks for posting the information, it provides a useful insight to what is happening on the ground. don't forget to add in onsite parking charges for staff and things like a annual license fee for nurses which i think have gone up somewhat over the years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Mate of mine works in support services in a NHS hospital...he cant say a word out of turn ( like he would outside the building), managers fiddle the system by moving themselves around and making thenselves more "valuable", and worse, they call in and extra manager to see how to make the department more efficient.....he says he now has 4 more managers than when he started about 15 years ago. his job has unchanged....he is looking forward to his poultry pension soon.... It'll just be chickenfeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausdave Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I had to compile the figures myself from whatever statistics I could find. I was able to find payscale information from 2013 and historical information from 1998. The historical information came from: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmhealth/38/8121016.htm Cheers. Personally I don't begrudge these increases. Starting nursing salary: £14,294 http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/pay_rates_201314 Starting junior doctor: £ 22,636 Both below national average. Both on a par with other nearby European countries. Being a synical individual I question what all the press is about. Attack on wages? Excuse for privatisation? If the government is pushing for privatisation of parts of the NHS you can be sure of a few things. 1 - our taxes won't be significantly reduced 2- we'll have to fork out for private medical insurance 3- it'll be the same people treating us in the same places ( only if they're now private they'll be paid shed loads more money) 4- there will be an increasing gulf formed between the have and have nots ( already inequalities in access rates etc but at least it's accessible by all) Personally I feel the press and us seem to be lapping up the propaganda fed by the government. There may be truth to it but I just can't believe anything this government tells me without questioning what the spin is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Cheers. Personally I don't begrudge these increases. Starting nursing salary: £14,294 http://www.rcn.org.u...ay_rates_201314 Starting junior doctor: £ 22,636 Both below national average. Both on a par with other nearby European countries. Being a synical individual I question what all the press is about. Attack on wages? Excuse for privatisation? If the government is pushing for privatisation of parts of the NHS you can be sure of a few things. 1 - our taxes won't be significantly reduced 2- we'll have to fork out for private medical insurance 3- it'll be the same people treating us in the same places ( only if they're now private they'll be paid shed loads more money) 4- there will be an increasing gulf formed between the have and have nots ( already inequalities in access rates etc but at least it's accessible by all) Personally I feel the press and us seem to be lapping up the propaganda fed by the government. There may be truth to it but I just can't believe anything this government tells me without questioning what the spin is. did you forget the augmentations and supplements they get? heres the first one: Any time on Saturday (midnight to midnight) and any week day after 8 pm and before 6 am: Band 1 - time plus 50% Band 2 - time plus 44% Band 3 - time plus 37% Band 4-9 - time plus 30%. All time on Sundays and Public Holidays (midnight to midnight): Band 1 - double time Band 2 - time plus 88% Band 3 - time plus 74% Band 4-9 - time plus 60%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggus Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Cheers. Personally I don't begrudge these increases. Starting nursing salary: £14,294 http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/pay_rates_201314 Starting junior doctor: £ 22,636 Both below national average. Both on a par with other nearby European countries. Being a synical individual I question what all the press is about. Attack on wages? Excuse for privatisation? If the government is pushing for privatisation of parts of the NHS you can be sure of a few things. 1 - our taxes won't be significantly reduced 2- we'll have to fork out for private medical insurance 3- it'll be the same people treating us in the same places ( only if they're now private they'll be paid shed loads more money) 4- there will be an increasing gulf formed between the have and have nots ( already inequalities in access rates etc but at least it's accessible by all) Personally I feel the press and us seem to be lapping up the propaganda fed by the government. There may be truth to it but I just can't believe anything this government tells me without questioning what the spin is. Entry level pay for nurses is £411 per week. That's in the first year, when they have just finished training. At the top end they are paid £1893 per week. 'Salaries for Band 5 under the NHS Agenda for Change Pay Rates (the entry point for graduate nurses) start at £21,388, rising to £27,901. Salaries in London attract a high-cost area supplement. Salaries at senior level (Bands 7-9 in the NHS) range from £30,764 - £98,453.' http://www.prospects.ac.uk/adult_nurse_salary.htm In the first year of training doctors are also only paid $400 per week. This increases to about £600 per week in year two. Overtime payments add another two or three hundred pounds per week, of course. After training the sky is the limit. Some NHS GPs trouser four thousand wight hundred pounds per week. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/348493/The-200-GPs-who-earn-more-than-250k-a-year NHS pay seems excessive to ordinary people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Should have invested in geese. Investment? I'll take a gander at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausdave Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 NHS pay seems excessive to ordinary people. Just for the sake of argument, what should pay rates be then? What do we value a nurse, a policeman/women, fire officer at? In this country it's ok for a football to earn an average of 30k per week but somehow it's not ok for a highly skilled public sector employee to earn the average wage of £26,500 per year. Headline figures of an individual earning 'x' are fine, but they're just that, headline figures. Vast majority don't earn that. What is the amount they should earn then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Just for the sake of argument, what should pay rates be then? What do we value a nurse, a policeman/women, fire officer at? In this country it's ok for a football to earn an average of 30k per week but somehow it's not ok for a highly skilled public sector employee to earn the average wage of £26,500 per year. Headline figures of an individual earning 'x' are fine, but they're just that, headline figures. Vast majority don't earn that. What is the amount they should earn then? They should earn well if they do well......poor performers should not automatically be paid the same as the best performer....the public should help decide, after all they are providing a public service....poor staff should be retrained, if that doesn't help they should be managed out......what people want is consistency no matter where they live....this should not be a postcode lottery......bad practice needs to be eradicated.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motch Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 They should earn well if they do well......poor performers should not automatically be paid the same as the best performer....the public should help decide, after all they are providing a public service....poor staff should be retrained, if that doesn't help they should be managed out......what people want is consistency no matter where they live....this should not be a postcode lottery......bad practice needs to be eradicated.... A hospital where my partner lives had a time in motion and how can we improve this and that a few years ago, with people being observed and checked for quite sometime and away from view at times so not just a one day affair by anymeans.. Main issue after about £250k spent in analysing all this? need more staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 A hospital where my partner lives had a time in motion and how can we improve this and that a few years ago, with people being observed and checked for quite sometime and away from view at times so not just a one day affair by anymeans.. Main issue after about £250k spent in analysing all this? need more staff. Yes, more good caring hard working compassionate front line staff....go back to the days where nurses got paid a bursary and worked much of their training on the wards not in some academic institution in the sky.....good staff can manage themselves if allowed to.....cut out more of the expensive middle (jobs for the boys) padding, make it an environment where staff can speak out without fear, let them voice their ideas to help improve service and care....start valuing staff and the good staff will return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausdave Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 They should earn well if they do well......poor performers should not automatically be paid the same as the best performer....the public should help decide, after all they are providing a public service....poor staff should be retrained, if that doesn't help they should be managed out......what people want is consistency no matter where they live....this should not be a postcode lottery......bad practice needs to be eradicated.... Nice principle. Should they be paid more for treating difficult sick or overweight people? The results/ performance targets from treating these people will be worse. Therefore stands to reason you shouldn't be paid as much to treat the sickest. Or if you do you're poor staff. A surgeon who operates only on the most high risk cases will probably have figures that are not as good as someone who performs boob jobs all day. By your reasoning he must be poor performer. Eradicate his poor performing practice so he only treats nice well patients. Resulting figures will be excellent. Your view is a good one, it's nice in principle and I am being facetious. Reminds me of the yes prime minister sketch from years ago. The most efficient hospital in the NHS with the best performance targets met was one that had closed its doors to patients and was treating no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motch Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Nice principle. Should they be paid more for treating difficult sick or overweight people? The results/ performance targets from treating these people will be worse. Therefore stands to reason you shouldn't be paid as much to treat the sickest. Or if you do you're poor staff. A surgeon who operates only on the most high risk cases will probably have figures that are not as good as someone who performs boob jobs all day. By your reasoning he must be poor performer. Eradicate his poor performing practice so he only treats nice well patients. Resulting figures will be excellent. Your view is a good one, it's nice in principle and I am being facetious. Reminds me of the yes prime minister sketch from years ago. The most efficient hospital in the NHS with the best performance targets met was one that had closed its doors to patients and was treating no one. nail - on - head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Nice principle. Should they be paid more for treating difficult sick or overweight people? The results/ performance targets from treating these people will be worse. Therefore stands to reason you shouldn't be paid as much to treat the sickest. Or if you do you're poor staff. A surgeon who operates only on the most high risk cases will probably have figures that are not as good as someone who performs boob jobs all day. By your reasoning he must be poor performer. Eradicate his poor performing practice so he only treats nice well patients. Resulting figures will be excellent. Your view is a good one, it's nice in principle and I am being facetious. Reminds me of the yes prime minister sketch from years ago. The most efficient hospital in the NHS with the best performance targets met was one that had closed its doors to patients and was treating no one. Not that old chestnut....you have to build into anything the difficulty/risk of the job in hand otherwise human nature will predict that the lower hanging fruit will taken first if it is priced the same as the difficult to reach stuff at the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Id fire the lot of them, go to india and china, recruit them there and re-hire on 1/3rd the wage. Time our public sector realized its not just the factory workers who they look down on that are expendable, its them too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.