You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It should be pointed out that this is only a problem for those over the border.
Care, compassion and empathy.... 😕
Please Scotroutes, please tell me you work with inanimate objects. 😀 😉
5thElefant - Member
I fundamentally disagree with that, cost of living payrises should be a right otherwise you take a pay cut each year. Incremental rises each year in addition for just doing your job on the other hand...Who's going to pay for it? Everyone else has taken a pay cut, you want us to pay more tax as well? Leave. If you're really worth more you'll find a better paid job.
POSTED 7 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
Thatchers children have entered the building.
[quote=slackalice ]
Please Scotroutes, please tell me you work with inanimate objects. Please slackalice, tell me you know what irony is.
At least THM got it 🙂
Removing our increments and pay rises will save jobs
we can all do maths cutting your pay in half will save jobs.
as i mentioned it is about priorities and the public sector is not amongst theirs [ except for new and novel ways to cut costs that harm the workers and the poor and pave the way for rescue from the wonderful private sector that finds them]
Yes, I agree.
Cutting payrises will save jobs, and not paying useless managers who shouldnt ever be in a job would save even more money, but by some strange quirk of fate, theyre the ones who decide the budgets for wages and theyre the ones most able to protect their jobs along with the hangers on below them.
Yes, there are some poor managers, but about the same proportion as in the private sector in my experience. Senior NHS managers are in an invidious position where they take the wrap for making the cuts that are imposed on them by the government.
Scotroutes, not only got it but thought it was joke of the day!!
So we can all do the maths....well if you are paid by the government then the scary maths is to ask what level of fiscal surplus, yes surplus not lower deficit, is required to stabilise, yes stabilise not reduce, our level of public debt.
PFS (required) = current debt ratio x (long term interest rate - long term growth rate)
You can do the sensitivity yourself. See what needs to be done with debt of @90%, LTIR of @2.75% and growth of @1%. Then look what happens if markets take a dislike to what you are doing and long term bonds rise to say 3%. Ummm....
....and this is the context for wage discussions. Not pretty.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24419314 ]'No NHS pay freeze' in Scotland[/url]
It will be quite intresting in how scotland plc will be funding all this buying of votes for its own government, but then this lot down here have no idea about how to spend money sensibly, only how to cut essential services for those who cant afford to pay for private treatment.
Don't get too excited bruneep. Remember that Andy Burnham - Labour Shadow Secretary of State for Health - wants consistent policies across all of the UK. Still, it's nice of him to let us know what some of the consequences of a No vote next September will be, eh?
Here's a crazy idea, increase the NHS budget so it can pay people more. Of course that would mean cutting other things, but i'd rather health workers were paid property and felt valued than pay for a replacement for trident.
Don't get too excited bruneep
I'm not, the SNP have offered a "deal" to the fire service with their dispute. I think its interesting that they are clearly sticking 2 fingers up to Westminster at present. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the vote next year tho.
(At least in the short term) Scotland's budget deficit will (most likely) be higher as an independent country. So the same pressure faced now will be even worse. So these pledges look hollow IMO...
So not good news either way (but be careful what you wish for!)....
I've recently started work in the NHS, after 30 years of working in the private sector.
Eye opener, is all I will say...
Scotland's budget deficit will (most likely) be higher as an independent country. So the same pressure faced now will be even worse. So these pledges look hollow IMO...
So you reckon that Scotland will vote for independence then ?
Since you apparently think "these pledges look hollow".
No, because the majoirty are too sensible. For clarity "will" should have said "would" to avoid misunderstanding 😉
teamhurtmore - Member(At least in the short term) Scotland's budget deficit will (most likely) be higher as an independent country.
That depends on a long ton of factors- how the national debt would be distributed being a big one. But according to GERS, Scotland's current deficit is proportionally less than the UK deficit.
I work for the NHS on a zero hours contract and don't get any increments, sick pay or other benefits of a permanent contract, yet I have to work every weekend and often at very short notice ( same day or one day ) .
I do the same job as my colleagues, yet feel taken for granted and not valued by management as all of my work is in their favour, not mine.
But Restless thats a good bit of management, getting someone to work for zero hours, no pension etc, so litle cost only the cost of your wage, and so sadly people obey and more companies jump on the wagon,because they know people want a job or more importantly to earn money.
Whereas there are some of us who get to pick and choose from various short contracts every week and get paid more than the regular permanent staff. (Not that I've bothered to take any NHS work yet...)
Yes they get their cake and eat it.
The infuriating thing is, I was told I would have the opportunity to apply for a substantive position when they became available, but this hasn't happened.
New staff come in on a substantive contract and myself and the others on zero hours have been overlooked again and again.
Apply to work at a different place then.
If life were that simple I would !!
We are a third world nation: we just haven't noticed yet
[img] 
[/img]
So that's why there are so many minorities about.
[img] 
[/img]
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/mp-claims-3p-for-100-metre-car-trip-1
...... !!! ..........! (I have no words......) 😯 👿
'No NHS pay freeze' in Scotland
Ah yes the old quick we can get a few more votes by claiming we won't do something that's controversial.
Call me a tinfoil-hat-wearing lefty if you like but aren't the Tories deliberately stretching the NHS to breaking point to try and justify their claims that it's 'not working' and needs to be privatised?
More of this please: 😕
HCA is already at the centre of a massive row after being accused of overcharging the NHS by millions of pounds in a damning report released last week.It owns the Gamma Knife Centre at Barts hospital, which has been given the new contract alongside Bupa’s private Cromwell hospital.
HCA has a chequered history in the US and has been fined more than $1billion for mis-selling healthcare.
Mr Morris said: “Given this company’s record in America why are they being given lucrative contracts by our NHS?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-corporation-america-donates-2246513
Ah yes the old quick we can get a few more votes by claiming we won't do something that's controversial.
Who would you associate that statement to Drac ? It undermines the case for independence by emphasising that independence isn't necessarily needed to protect Scotland from the excesses of this right-wing Tory LibDem cabal.
And there's nothing immoral about pointing out that you won't be doing something which you consider to be unjustified and immoral.
You do understand the the Department of Health has no say in the running of the NHS in Scotland and that their latest suggestion only ever applied to employees in England?Drac - Moderator
> 'No NHS pay freeze' in Scotland
Ah yes the old quick we can get a few more votes by claiming we won't do something that's controversial.
You're a
tinfoil-hat-wearing lefty
1. The Conservatives aren't that organised.
2. The Conservatives aren't that strategic.
3. The population would string them up if they tried to properly privatise the NHS wholesale.
4. I doubt you could privatise the NHS, it's taken this long to privatise something relatively simple like the Royal Mail.
No they're happy enough to score cheap political points as are their Labour colleagues rather than resolve the underlying issues in the NHS. Free health care at the point of delivery in it's current form isn't sustainable without more investment (to cope with the ever increasing number of patients and treatable diseases) and massive improvements in the delivery and management of the service.
You do understand the the Department of Health has no say in the running of the NHS in Scotland and that their latest suggestion only ever applied to employees in England?
Yes thanks but my comment still applies.
Who would you associate that statement to Drac ?
Because they do it every time they can.
The Conservatives aren't that organised.
The Conservatives aren't that strategic.
Do you actually believe that ?
I find it rather bizarre to dismiss public school educated born to rule Tories as clueless amateurs.
If there's one skill that the Tories and their wealthy allies have it's their marketing skills.
Yes they are organised and strategic. That's how they've managed to stay in government most of the time since universal suffrage was first established.
I think I'd vote for a party/politician who could be honest about the state of the NHS and the other social systems in this country (education, social services etc.).
Basically, all they would need to do was say "Yep, they are in a sorry state, here's a Cost/Benefit analysis of how to sort them out, here's how much additional tax we need to raise and it's going to be 5% on income tax."
That'd get my vote. But no party or politician seems to want to bite the bullet.
You could have a hypothecated tax take for the NHS and call it something like National Insurance. I'd vote for that. Problem is, I'd then expect/want a similar level of accountancy for other taxes.
War Tax - err, I can I just opt out of that one please.
MPs Expenses Tax - get tae ****!
I'm back! I survived the RCGP conference. I am pleased to report I had a warm and cordial welcome and even BA contributed to a memorable day by getting me to Leeds and back, cheaper than the train, quicker and on time.I took part in the media question time. It turned out to be a hoot! The robust exchanges between Lady GaGa and Prof Sir Simon Wesley, (A John McEnroe look-alike) the panel chairman, woke the audience up and dissolved them into fits of laughter when they realised he and Lady G are husband and wife. Heaven knows what breakfast time is like in their household!
I had a spat with a very polite bloke from the BMA with a sesquipedalian question. Apparently I'd upset him by saying the thread-bare, self-focussed, hopelessly led, vacuous, confused, split-loyalty BMA had let the reforms in by the back door. I thought everyone thought that; he didn't. Never mind. He got over it!
The previous day Conference had been treated to a visit from LaLite. He told his audience he wanted to be the most GP-loving Secretary of State in living memory; it was his mission to end the box ticking bureaucracy of QoF.
Now, GPs are a bright lot but like any other audience they are easily distracted. When they hear; 'GP-loving, memory, mission, and bureaucracy', they don't hear; 'end and QoF'. At that point Conference should, as one, have stood up and shouted 'Woooha! Wait a minute... end QoF and replace it with what?'
When a pickpocket bumps into you at the train station and apologises profusely for his momentary clumsiness and enquires, earnestly, as to your wellbeing, you don't notice his deft hand lifting your wallet. LaLite is the Apollo Robbins of healthcare. He is not after bureaucracy or loving you, he is after your wallet!
The whole idea of removing QoF is to remove costs. LaLite knows about the Circle of Doom; the fact that after 2015 all funding bets are off. The NHS is facing a black-hole of something like £30bn, maybe more. No one is going to suggest putting taxes up so costs must be cut.
I know, practice costs are going up and GP incomes are levelling off but LaLite will want more. GPs; expect a pay cut. GPs need an urgent alternative to the conflicted, confused and convoluted BMA to represent them without the clutter of all the Docs in other parts of the NHS chiming in with their two-pennyworth.
It's not just GP's cash LaLite has his eyes on. The NHS pay-packet is up for grabs. Seventy percent of costs are wages and salaries. Annual increments, linked to length of service and satisfactory performance, add £700m pa to salary costs. They are set to become part of the history of healthcare. The DH say; 'can't pay, won't pay'. Strange how NHS Scotland says it can and will?
LaLite wants the Pay Review Bodies (which are due to make their recommendations in February or March) to defer the planned 1% pay rise until he has negotiated seven-day working with Unions. The Chancellor's weighed-in; ".... and confirmed (HMG) want NHS pay to have stronger links to performance, quality and productivity".
Explain to me how a nurse on a ward can influence the quality of care she delivers if the numpties in the Board Room cut staff, reduce hours and screw-up patient to nurse ratios? Remember, the biggest pay-winners last year were senior managers who got a whopping average rise of 16.4%. The real pay cost inflation has resulted from The Carbuncle's upgrade of posts, post-reform.
What to do? All Trusts have the authority to set local pay and conditions. Unions don't like it as they lose their raison d'etre. Nevertheless, it can be done. In the early 90's I sat down with staff, great managers and some very far sighted Union bosses and introduced the first local-pay and conditions package in the NHS.
We created the headroom for increments by working together to cut costs. No one knows more about efficiency than the front-line. You just have to listen.
The clodhopping NHS Employers sound, to me, like they're the back-door of the DH and cut no ice. Trust Boards will be buffeted by cack-handed national negotiations motivated by party and politics in the run-up to the election. Right now there is a brief opportunity to take a serious look at how to use pay as a lever to bring people together, not a stick to keep them apart.
Boards, take note; it's time to look after your most valuable asset; your people. Circle the wagons
From NHS Managers: http://www.nhsmanagers.net/newsletter/
(there are lots of hyperlinks in the original that obviously haven't copied across)
here's how much additional tax
So you've already decided that addition tax is required.....why ?
9. In times of austerity, can we afford the costs of the NHS and other public services?We believe that it is both more affordable and more efficient to deliver key public services, especially health and social care, through a non-market system. Privatisation and commercialisation wastes vast amounts of public money by diverting into shareholder profits and fees and payments to lawyers, accountants and administrators. It will increase costs and transfer risk from the wealthiest in society to the poorest and most vulnerable.
We also note the growing anger around the failure to address the banking and credit crisis, and the public money that has been lavished on supporting the financial sector to the detriment of public services. We believe there is strong case that resources and money could be found to fund and sustain an excellent health service for all, if we had an economy that was not structured to serve the demands and greed of the top 1% wealthy.
[url= http://www.nationalhealthaction.org.uk/faqs/ ]National Health Action Party FAQs[/url]
In the 1980s the Tories very successfully convinced a politically significant minority that Britain couldn't afford to pay them a decent wage. "We've been paying ourselves too much" they claimed, by "ourselves" they meant [u]you[/u] of course.
Today they appear to be having some success in convincing a significant number of people that Britain can't afford to have decent social provisions.
So you've already decided that addition tax is required.....why ?
No specific reason, just a general assumption that it's falling to bits, it's workers aren't happy and seem to be underpaid particularly those at the coal face. I thought it a reasonable assumption to make. I'm happy to be educated otherwise though.
Very interesting link though, will have a trawl through later on. I have similar concerns about state education and social care too.
The Conservatives aren't that organised.
The Conservatives aren't that strategic
Lansley spent most of his time in opposition planning the [i]blitzkrieg[/i] that would become the ConDem reforms, utterly muddleheaded as they are.
Meanwhile, the private sector (Virgin, Serco, Circle & the rest) are being handed more & more NHS services.... of course, they (& their profits) are dependent upon NHS acute capacity, infrastructure and workforce training - even as the NHS gets slagged off!
It's an utter pish-take.
just a general assumption that it's falling to bits, it's workers aren't happy and seem to be underpaid particularly those at the coal face
Remember that NHS workers pay income tax also, so increase income tax and they'd likely be worse off.
Also who are you talking about when you say underpaid NHS staff? As some possibly are (paramedics?) and some definitely aren't i.e. Doctors.
Remember that NHS workers pay income tax also, so increase income tax and they'd likely be worse off.
Depends how much you increase their pay by!
I don't know who in the NHS is underpaid and who isn't I'm afraid. As a general rule of thumb I'd assume nurses, cleaners, paramedics and the ilk are underpaid, and consultants, managers etc. aren't. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the management and pay scales of the NHS. It's a huge organisation and one I've never worked in, and to be honest my post was an off-the-cuff one based on the priniciples that those at the bottom (employees and service users) are getting shafted for the sake of the great God capitalism and it upsets and infuriates me that this is happening.
I'm a Paramedic Team Leader, I earn a pretty good wage I never say otherwise. I work as a Paramedic, I have 15 staff to look after, a station and 2 vehicles. On top of that of course comes all the H&S Regs to monitor and follow, seems I'm classed as responsible for Fire Safety too, I will soon be given a budget to stick to rigidly for consumables.
Ok I could maybe get more in the Private sector for a similar role or as close as you can get as there isn't really one. However I wouldn't get the pension I have even though it's not the one I signed up for 24 years ago it's still pretty good. I won't get the security offered by the NHS as people will always take ill our work load is increasing so plenty of customers.
We've 'agreed' to take lower pay rises the last few years and we did with the 1% then for a right Hunt to come along and say sorry no isn't right. Even more so when they gladly took 11% payrise which is far more than I've had in the last 6-8 years put together.
I'll say it again the pay increments are a contractual agreement, they are not automatic they're performance based although this hasn't always been followed.
they are not automatic they're performance based although this hasn't always been followed.
Out of interest, have you ever known anyone not get the annual pay point increase?
Ours is automatic, it doesn't matter what you have or have not done you will always get it. As a result we have people you wouldn't trust as first aiders on the top of their pay bands!
Out of interest, have you ever known anyone not get the annual pay point increase?
Ours is automatic, it doesn't matter what you have or have not done you will always get it. As a result we have people you wouldn't trust as first aiders on the top of their pay bands!
Nope. However this is being tightened up from next year and should be for all trusts.
As a result we have people you wouldn't trust as first aiders on the top of their pay bands!
If they that bad why hasn't anyone raised this?
As a result we have people you wouldn't trust as first aiders on the top of their pay bands!
My missus is on the top of one of the highest pay bands - I wouldn't trust her as a first aider. She is a bloody good physio though.
Checklist for "under attack" workers:
- 60% of the employees do not get an annual length of service increment of 3.5% BEFORE the pay rise
- 20% london weighting
- 33 days annual leave when you have 10 years service
- 5 days additional annual parental leave
- an automatic pay differential of £21K a year just for being 4 years older
- up to 16 days sick leave on average for some roles that is never actively managed and never goes down
- Annual length of service increments that for nearly every person on Agenda for Change are in practice automatic
- "clinical merit awards" or to use naughty private sector language "bonuses", for some clinical staff that can exceed £70K and are not performance based and ARE taken into account for pension calculations
- a completely unsustainable defined benefit pension that everyone else pays for...
- your annual length of service increment less year is only 100% more than the average worker in the whole population will get
- you have complete job security
It's completely right that healthcare workers are paid well and compensated for jobs that are very often hard emotionally (and in some cases physically). But 3.5% compared to the 2% that everyone else will probably get in a year when the country is still broke reflects this more than adequately and is not a value judgement on the staff - or an attack on the service.
I like to keep stuff simple as dinner is nearly ready.
I like the NHS, they saved my life and I didn't have to sell my house to pay for the pleasure of being alive still.
Nope. However this is being tightened up from next year and should be for all trusts.
It needs to be but it would involve managers having to manage which in out trust doesn't really happen at all.
If they that bad why hasn't anyone raised this?
Managers who are best buddies with the people in question and lack in backbone to do anything that may rock the boat.
It's a pretty poor situation across the board and I don't see it improving any time soon. As it goes I quite like my job so I'll just continue to do it as best I can and avoid the politics that's involved.
robdixon - Memberthe country is still broke
😀
For most of the last 300 years Britain has been more in debt than it is now.
If we're "broke" now, then we've been "broke" for more than 300 years, so I wouldn't start worrying about
it ! 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
BTW you'll note that after second world war Britain was a lot more "broke" than it is now, and yet that was a period of huge investment and growth, including the creation of the NHS and the construction of unprecedented amounts of affordable housing.
Britain is broke is a Tory sham to justify ideologically motivated cuts. And give them their due, it works very well.
Synopsis?
Other than with health being a devolved matter there was never any threat to the 1% payrise for NHS Scotland staff...
Out of interest, have you ever known anyone not get the annual pay point increase?
Ahem.
toxicsoks - MemberThe incremental pay increases my lot get are based on their annual appraisals where competencies and well defined knowledge and skills frameworks are used. If the individual isn't progressing and displaying the required competencies and ksf's - no increment. Simples.
.................................and I should know because I do the appraisals. Generally speaking it gives most people the incentive to get their ar5e in gear and be sorted for their six monthly review.
Ernie, please tell me you are joking. How far is your tongue in your cheek when you posted that? Or is it just a test/joke to see if you can get away with it?
Yeah of course I'm joking, Britain's never been in so much debt before 🙄
Well leaving aside the fact that the graph is grossly misleading (calculation of debt, total UK debt including households and corporates, the UK as a debtor nation not a creditor one as in the past, and global levels of gov debt - you can't look at the UK in isolation etc), the idea that those trajectories are a solution is nonsense.
The UK has one of the worst histories of long-term debt management in the world. How did those downslopes occur? A combination of historic defaults, debt restructurings, then financial repression (all different forms of theft), inflation and bail outs. LatAm has a bad press, but we are almost as bad if not worse.
The formula I showed earlier is clear. No government will run a surplus sufficient to stabilise debt. Growth will not, indeed cannot, save us. So what is he future? 10 - 20 years of government theft dressed up as financial repression. Without the introduction of stringent capital controls, this has to lead to a depreciating currency and higher inflation in time. Relatively poor for low income households.
So to bring this back to the OP and NHS - there can only be one conclusion. The outlook for wages and pensions for anyone employed by the government is negative. And it's not rosy in the private sector either.
teamhurtmore - MemberNo government will run a surplus sufficient to stabilise debt. Growth will not, indeed cannot, save us. So what is he future?
Do what the public sector would do- declare bankrupt, set up a new UK with different directors retaining all the profitable bits.
Or- since the situation we're in is not really significantly different to much of the world, we just carry on. In the end, it'll become clear that the whole paradigm is ****ed, madeup numbers make us simultaneously the richest and poorest countries in the world... And we look at debts that will never be repaid and say "Well if it'll never be repaid then **** it, it's all mad". With the resources, knowledge and technology that we have today it's absurd that the human state will be poorer tomorrow. Compound interest isn't the most powerful force in the universe, it's an idea made up by monkeys.
There'll come a point where nobody can argue that unborn kids should pick up the crushing bills of their fathers without having a brick thrown at their head.
Northwind, economist, has spake.
I was just listening to a conversation between two speech and language therapists yesterday ( one of whom was my wife ). Seems that one of them had made the mistake of revealing that chronic understaffing was the reason a "client's" child couldn't be seen for three months. Sounded like sheer, head-banging-on-brick-wall frustration on the part of the therapist.
Said client was less than happy. Not life or death but the child in question is unable to engage at school due to his severe communication issues, has fallen well behind and has developed behavioural issues which have seen him excluded from school. How would you feel if it were your child, whose stammer couldn't be treated, and whose future was being seriously affected by an easy to treat issue? Purely because an nhs trust couldn't afford to hire staff?
Good point NW - in effect that is what the UK did in the past.
Excellent. I'll bring the bricks.
So to bring this back to the OP and NHS - there can only be one conclusion.
Yep, that it's bugger all to do with the state of the economy and everything to do with ideologically motivated cuts.
Whilst in opposition the Tories were perfectly happy with the Labour government's spending plans [u]despite the fact that the deficit was increasing.[/u]
In fact the Tories were so supportive of Labour's spending plans that in Sept 2007 George Osborne pledged to match them :
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html ]Tories vow to match Labour spending[/url]
[b][i]The Conservatives sought last night to destroy Labour claims that they would cut public services by issuing a formal pledge to match Gordon Brown’s spending plans.
George Osborne vowed last night to stick to Gordon Brown’s plan of increasing public spending by 2 per cent in real terms over the next three years.
“Today, I can confirm for the first time that a Conservative government will adopt these spending totals,” the Shadow Chancellor said.
“Total government spending will rise by 2 per cent a year in real terms, from £616 billion next year to £674 billion in the year 2010/11. [/i][/b]
And you can see from this graph, which you will of course dismiss as "misleading", what was happening to the deficit in Sept 2007 :
[img] 
[/img]
So what happened, why did the Tories change their minds ? Well the global credit crunch caused by greedy risk-taking bankers resulted in a crises in the UK economy.
This was far good an opportunity for the Tories to miss and they suddenly announced that the recession was all the fault of the Labour government for spending too much and that in government they would have to make "difficult decisions" and slash public services, permanently.
So there you have it......the Tory Party's mates the bankers, screw the British economy, the Tories then use that as an excuse to screw the British people, and it's all the fault of the last Labour government !
Of course the fact that they had to make a complete about-turn from saying that they supported Labour's spending plans 100%, to saying that Labour's spending was the cause of the worse global economic crises since the 1930s, proves beyond any doubt that the Tories had absolutely no idea whatsoever that there would be a global credit crunch/recession/crises.
They would much rather have never pledged to match 100% Labour's spending plans, if only they had known that there would be a global credit crunch/recession/crises. But then at the end of the day, like you, they're not the economic geniuses which they would like people to believe they are 🙂
Robdixon on that list there is so many false statements.
For now I'll just say the pension one. Really that everyone else pays for are people still claiming that, I've paid in for 24 years so has my employer and on top of that I pay taxes like everyone else so I'm sorry what part am I not paying for my pension?
Right back in and for once not had a bad shift so time address these before I grab some sleep.
- 60% of the employees do not get an annual length of service increment of 3.5% BEFORE the pay rise
Is that including or not including NHS?
- 20% london weighting
Very common 'bonus' that
- 33 days annual leave when you have 10 years service
Loyalty rewards brought in to try and keep NHS staff with experience.
- 5 days additional annual parental leave
News to me I'm owed about 50 days there then
- an automatic pay differential of £21K a year just for being 4 years older
News to me too.
- up to 16 days sick leave on average for some roles that is never actively managed and never goes down
4 Episodes of sickness in 12 months and your gone with our Trust, that can be as few as 4 days in total. So where's that bollocks come from?
- Annual length of service increments that for nearly every person on Agenda for Change are in practice automatic
Shouldn't be but it's not followed strict and as I've mentioned it's a contractual agreement, similar as the holidays it's to reward staff for length of service to keep them working in the NHS.
- "clinical merit awards" or to use naughty private sector language "bonuses", for some clinical staff that can exceed £70K and are not performance based and ARE taken into account for pension calculations
Are you a Daiy Wail reader?
- a completely unsustainable defined benefit pension that everyone else pays for...
Covered that up there.
- your annual length of service increment less year is only 100% more than the average worker in the whole population will get
Want to type that out again as it makes no sense.
- you have complete job security
No we don't. We're as secure as is possible with employment but not complete., my wife also works for the NHS. Her role is at risk at the moment there has been staff doing a similar role to hers finished in the last 12 months I've they decided they're not needed anymore. The choice was to go or take a huge pay cut into the new restructed roles, basically the same job renamed.
drac - you need to do maths (*as does EVERYBODY with a pension), however in a DC (defined contribution scheme aka money purchase) you will CERTAINLY get out only what you pay in plus any investment returns. In ANY DB (definied benefit, aka final salary scheme) you MAY get out more than you pay in - it depends when you die...and they stop paying your pension. (*also take into account spouse/dependency type benefits)
However, try some maths.
Add up all your contributions/employer contributions[taking into account how your employer rate compares with other employer rates] paid over the years - then divide it by the number of retired years. Work along these lines
Retirement time - well if you go at 58 say 25 (*wiki gives male average at 82),so you will be pensioned for 25 years which you have paid in for 35 years. So you/your employer will pay in £X in contributions (note that contributions are presumably a salary % and take into account your initial salary is presumably a fair bit less than your current/final salary), you will get a pension of £Y per annum for 25 years. My personal guess is that at 82 Y will be a LOT bigger than X. That shortfall in the case of any public sector pension is underwritten by all the govmt/all taxpayers. (Private sector schemes just go bust when they can't pay - see Equitable life)
Or here is another maths:
A DC person will need to have accumulated a pot of £100,000 to get a RPI linked pension of about £2780. ( http://www.ft.com/personal-finance/annuity-table),so add up all your/your employer contributions and then convert to a DC rate and see which is better.
Robdixon,
job security? Yet another incredibly costly restructuring means that even existing nhs trust have made redundancies across all sectors including nursing, that's before your get into the realm of areas that are being [s]privatised[/s] put out to tender and then restructured further still.
- "clinical merit awards" or to use naughty private sector language "bonuses", for some clinical staff that can exceed £70K and are not performance based and ARE taken into account for pension calculations
cousultants only of course. The average wage in the nhs is not even near the £70k you quoted. Exactly what proportion of these nhs workers do you think these performance related bonuses apply to?
- up to 16 days sick leave on average for some roles that is never actively managed and never goes down
-and which roles would they be? -and which dinosaur of a trust does not actively manage sickness these days? When I worked in acute respiratory care you would be sent home for the sorts of coughs and splutters we all get because the risk you presented to the patients we had there outweighed the benefit of you staying and working. The same is certainly true for those in intensive care/hdu too ie your stay home sick threshhold is a lot lower than elsewhere. And we nearly all caught (inhaled) an airborne Norwalk-Like-Virus that nothing short of bunking off work would have protected us from and cost us all a few days off sick each. There are many places where through poor resources and poor support of staff, or just sheer bad luck, the job makes you ill whether it is managed by an NHS trust or a private company. If it makes you feel any better, I haven't had a day off sick or parental leave for three years, my couple of illnesses have had the good grace to occur during my 33 days annual leave. As for my colleages, my manager would be 'managed' about this and I would nevertheless be subject to a formal interview with HR if I was off sick (even for a day at a time) more than twice this year.
drac - you need to do maths (*as does EVERYBODY with a pension)
I understand how it works thanks very much I should do after 24 years of paying in but it's the stupid comments that people make "everyone else pays for..." is gubbins. I pay tax too so we I pay just as much plus my contributions so I pay more than "everyone else".
And yes you're right technically we all pay for each others pension.
Managers who are best buddies with the people in question and lack in backbone to do anything that may rock the boat.It's a pretty poor situation across the board and I don't see it improving any time soon. As it goes I quite like my job so I'll just continue to do it as best I can and avoid the politics that's involved.
Ah yes I remember our little conversation at Exposure now.
Wow, quite a post last night Ernie. Straw men, ad homs, graphs, smoke and mirrors....a STW classic!
ernie_lynch - Member
Yep, that it's bugger all to do with the state of the economy and everything to do with ideologically motivated cuts.
???? Feel free to ignore what is in front of us!!!!!
Whilst in opposition the Tories were perfectly happy with the Labour government's spending plans despite the fact that the deficit was increasing. In fact the Tories were so supportive of Labour's spending plans that in Sept 2007 George Osborne pledged to match them :
True and that was an error. Politicians, eh!
Look back at budget deficits and surpluses - this has "bugger all" to do with ideology and politics, that's lazy analysis. Politicians love to bring forward consumption and delay paying for it ie they love debt. How often do we run budget surpluses and under which parties? Strip out gov debt and how much has the Uk economy actually grown over the past 40 years (the answer is not good)?
The Tories are as bad a Labour, thats why its important not to be tied to political allegiances. The reason why Labour deserve relatively more (current) flak IMO is (1) they had made progress in bringing finances back under control, (2) their economic training and background tells them that this is a good thing (ie move to surplus in good times - ie be counter-cyclical) but (3) they then embarked on the ultimate folly (believing that they had "miracled" an end to boom and bust) and started to expand the budget deficit aggressively just at the time they should have been doing the opposite. And we know where Gordon spent most of that money...
So there you have it......
We enter an inevitable downturn exacerbated massively by the financial crisis (as the BoE was warning) with very high levels of deficit rather than surplus.....
...and it's all the fault of the last Labour government !
100% they abandoned their ideology (read Ed Balls' admissions), their training and their responsibility. The only mitigating fact is that they were not alone in this. Probably the biggest villain was (the RW hero) Alan Greenspan in all of this.
They would much rather have never pledged to match 100% Labour's spending plans, if only they had known that there would be a global credit crunch/recession/crises. But then at the end of the day, like you, they're not the economic geniuses which they would like people to believe they are
Ignoring the unnecessary ad hom, very true. The history of governments "managing the economy" is not a good one. Politicians want power and implementing anti-cyclical policies doesn't win votes. Far better to fill voters with sugar and clean up the inevitable mess afterwards (Liam Byrne?!?)
So the Tories now use deceit - misleading talk about progress on dealing with the deficit. Why? because stabilising debt via running surpluses will lose them power, so they will resort to the tried and tested policy of theft using the more harmless name of financial repression just as we did 1940s-60s (althought to be fair it's probably the best of all the bad options). We have already had the deceit of QE. Sounds grand until you realise what it is.
The bottom line is the same - a future of tight fiscal policies with inevitable hit to public sector wages combined with theft from savers. But if people want to hide their heads in the sand, so be it. Its their wages and pensions after all.
What it all boils down to is you can't afford to run an aggressive war machine and a caring health service at the same time.
I wonder which the govt is giving priority to?
Let's look at this increment thing a little differently.
Firstly, it's not an indefinite annual increase as some seem to think - you don't keep going up and up. Each role will be in a pay band (or it might straddle a couple). Let's say your job is an Agenda for Change Band 4 role. The scale for that has seven points ranging from £18,838 to £22,016. After seven years service, assuming you've hit your performance targets etc, you'll be at top of scale and unless you move jobs you ain't getting any more increments.
Now, the government, pushing an agenda, likes to look at this from the bottom and talk about increases like it's a freebie, a bonus, throwing money away. How about we look at it the other way round: The full salary for the job has been assessed as £22,016. BUT, if you start new in the role, you only get £18,838 and it will take you six years work, professional development etc. before you will receive that full salary.
Looked at like this, if the government wants to get rid of increments because they are a bad idea, then if they're not talking about cutting the salaries for roles, then logically they need to pay everyone at the 'full' (i.e. top of scale) rate for the job from day one. Not a great money saver.
Alternatively, if they are going to the bottom of scale, they're giving everyone a pay cut, aren't they? They'll either have to cut pay for existing workers who are higher than the bottom of the scale or have different pay points for the same job: bottom of scale for anyone starting after it comes in, and a range of higher salaries for those already somewhere further on. As usual, not thought through.
Best barmy thinking I've heard on the radio about this was someone (didn't catch who) talking about the savings being available to "spend on front line services". I'm not sure what they think the majority of the money for "front line services" is if it ain't the salaries of the people delivering them...
Well explained Edlong.
robdixon - Member- up to 16 days sick leave on average for some roles that is never actively managed and never goes down
Just stop and think about that for a second. Who's more likely to be sick than a health worker? Who comes into contact with the most ill people? Who can least afford to be at work while ill? Do you want to be treated by an ill doctor, or nurse? And of course, many of these roles include physical work (moving patients etc), long hours and high stress, even higher than average risk of assault.
It's absolutely inevitable that health workers will have a higher rate of sickness than the average. If you ever see the NHS claim otherwise, things have gone very badly wrong.
Drac - Moderator
Well explained Edlong.
+1 x 1000.
A few bits of evidence for my earlier post which received a few follow up questions / request for evidence: the Agenda for Change data are readily available here (see the PDF for the detail):
http://www.nhsemployers.org/payandcontracts/agendaforchange/pages/afc-ataglancerp.aspx
The £500m / year of Clinical Merit Awards is referenced here...
And the size of annual clinical excellence awards (bonuses) for medics exceeding £73K a year are covered in this review:
...and finally the strange patterns of sickness absence in which some staff groups take an average of 16 days a year off whilst other directly patient facing roles take as few as 2 days a year off are covered at the link below. It's a given that some roles are more stressful than others so that needs to be taken into account but even so when back office / admin staff are averaging 9 days off there's a pretty big chance sickness absence isn't as well managed as it could be.
Northwind makes an interesting point above and suggests that staff dealing with sick patients are more likely to be sick as a result but the data doesn't support this - Hospital Doctors typically work the longest hours yet statistically take significantly less sickness absence than colleagues.
http://www.hscic.gov.uk/staffsicknesspr
Putting the sickness absence into more context The NHS in England [b]averages[/b] 9.5 sick days per FTE a year - that's over 13 million sick days a year at a cost of over £3B a year when extrapolated across the whole NHS workforce including Scotland and Wales (where sickness absence is actually higher) and on any given day means that more than 60,000 staff are off sick - that's enough to run 12-15 large hospitals.
Just managing sickness absence in the worst performing Trusts to the mean that some of the best performing Trusts [i]already[/i] achieve year on year would save the NHS £1.5B a year (possibly more depending how sickness absence is covered) or enough to pay the majority of the capital cost of of HS2 by the time it's predicted to open in 2026.
From your first link
At two defined "gateway points" on each pay band, pay progression is based on them demonstrating the applied knowledge and skills for that job.
Putting the sickness absence into more context The NHS in England averages 9.5 sick days per FTE a year
Not 16 then.
"I understand how it works thanks very much I should do after 24 years of paying in but it's the stupid comments that people make "everyone else pays for..." is gubbins. I pay tax too so we I pay just as much plus my contributions so I pay more than "everyone else"."
"everyone else pays for..." is gubbins
"He added: ‘Once taxpayer-funded employer contributions, over £16bn last year, are added to the burgeoning cashflow shortfall, along with additional costs care of the Treasury’s 25 year “no change” pledge [following the reforms], the annual cost of providing public service pensions will be over £1,500 per household, by 2016, and rising rapidly,’ he added.
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2013/03/public-sector-pensions-funding-gap-set-to-double/
As one of those households I pay too.
and so do all the households who aren't getting a subsidized public sector final salary pension...................
If it's any consolation most private sector workers aren't actually multimillionaire bankers (*deliberate mispelling) and will have to pay a bleeding fortune in DC pension contributions to get a decent pension.
robdixon, again, what proportion of the 'attacked' nhs staff you spoke of in your earlier post get these £70k clinical merit awards? Since you seem so well informed in such matters you mihgt like to help the less informed casual reader out by expressing this as a percentage of the workforce in total, and for a bit of proper non-daily-mail-outrage, you could add the minimum and average annual salaries of nhs employees too. Oh and tell us what proportion/percentage of the total NHS wage bill is paid out as clinical merit awards (my hunch is that it will start with at least two zeroes and a decimal point 😉 )
PS even [i]nurses[/i] in private sector care often can and often do get real money bonuses, either just for christmas, as a share of their manager's performance bonus, or skilfully/correctly dealing with 'mystery shoppers' (typically a telephone enquiry or referral, or someone posing as a snooping journalist ) I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing but the nhs is most certainly not about to introduce this practice already widespread in private healthcare.
and so do all the households who aren't getting a subsidized public sector final salary pension...................
Likewise you pay for our pay with NI and tax part of that pays for our pensions too. You won't get a discount of they abolish our pensions. They needed reviewed I've never denied that, they have been twice in the last few years. It means despite the time I've paid in I pay more in, get less out and facing an extra 10 years at work.
There's no NHS millionaires that made their money in the NHS.
Northwind makes an interesting point above and suggests that staff dealing with sick patients are more likely to be sick as a result but the data doesn't support this - Hospital Doctors typically work the longest hours yet statistically take significantly less sickness absence than colleagues.
The point about hospital doctors being less sick than other staff is an interesting one well known to hospital staff and sometimes debated at the nursing station in the small hours between turning patients and cleaning up poop. I use this analogy as most nurses will tell you this is why doctors are less sick less often than nurses: they are involved in far less manual handling (so fewer injuries despite also in my experience taking the biggest risks with their backs compared to nurses, porters, physios, OT's, ambulance crew and ODA's), and total per-week duration of close proximity to and physical contact with breath, vomit, wee and poo is hugely less.
The NHSBSA do not alas break down assaults on staff by professional group, only by acute/pct/mental health trusts which all of course have a range of professional groups within them (although most incident reporting systems do record professional groups in their many drop down menus; it would be interesting to see if nurses are right in claiming that they get physically assaulted and harassed/abused more per head than doctors or receptionists).
Just managing sickness absence in the worst performing Trusts to the mean that some of the best performing Trusts already achieve year on year would save the NHS £1.5B a year (possibly more depending how sickness absence is covered)
Oh and finally, there is little point in looking at figures and making public/private comparisons now or in the next few years as there will be tupe arrangments for tendered-out ex-nhs services that cover sick pay for ex-nhs staff, but you will have a devil of a job in 5 years time getting private healthcare to publish reliable figures (actually any figures at all!!) on how much taxpayers money is still being spent on sickness and absence now that they are [s]having their slice[/s] providing a better VFM service. 😆
Edlong I'm saving that for next week when I go on strike it could be easily adapted!
Hi Drac
"They needed reviewed I've never denied that, they have been twice in the last few years. It means despite the time I've paid in I pay more in, get less out and facing an extra 10 years at work."
Private sector pensons were 'reviewed' ages ago - so have suffered a worse impact I'd suggest as private sector employees will have had less/0 time in a final salary scheme/longer time at having to pay more, also note state pension changes and S2P changes which impact 'everybody' (*meaning both private and public sector workers).
I appreciate you're feeling hard done by but imho the harsh reality is that the private sector were harder done by some time ago. Another imho, is that this harsh reality has been delivered too late by the 'public sector' (* admittedly a smallish % of them) who were busy staying in power as opposed to managing the country properly)
*awaits prelection vote buying offers from both sets of rsoles
and so do all the households who aren't getting a subsidized public sector final salary pension
IIRC the current NHS pension scheme was negotiated to be self-funding, ie. the costs are met from contributions of members and not by the taxpayer; if the costs go up, so can the contribution rate (as is already happening).
Obviously, as we all know, the contribs go straight back to the Treasury and there isn't actually an 'NHS Pension Fund'...