RugbyRebels

Absolutely. It was a bloody scandal, bu one which it suited pretty much no one to highlight. The Royal Colleges kept quiet because some of their members were making serious money. The Trusts kept quiet because their management must at least in part have got them into the situation.

I'll see if I can dig out the R4 programme from which I've got most of my facts. If only I could remember which documentary strand it was...

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
The nurses know they can get more by going the agency route on the back of various governments trying to drive down costs and make less appealing the life of nurses with permanent contracts. I can only suppose this hasn't been changed as the cost to correct salaries overall dwarfs agency costs.

Actually it's much much cheaper to hire permanent staff, to the extent that some Trusts have been giving joining bonuses and providing accommodation for nurses from southern Europe. I think some have been paying over the odds as well. I can't say precisely what the reason for the growth in the use of agency nurses was. It is of course a quick fix when you are understaffed and provides some extra flexibility but it clearly got well out of hand. My experience in my field is that once an agency budget has been created it is always used so as to justify the budget existing for the next year, even if that means getting lawyers to sit on their hands whilst agents come in and present cases.

Around 16 years ago the girl I was seeing was staying in nurses accommodation, and I nearly fell off my chair when some of her friends also staying there told me what they could/did earn going the agency route. At the time I was faffing around doing some temp/contracting work on about £16-17/hour and they had me beat, albeit they didn't always have 40 hours a week from 9-5. To me it not only seems hugely wasteful to have temp work that never know the routines of a given job it must also hugely annoy those doing the same work, and indeed be covering for the naturally slower agency staff, to be getting paid much less.

The temp situation is just crazy.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
The nurses know they can get more by going the agency route on the back of various governments trying to drive down costs and make less appealing the life of nurses with permanent contracts. I can only suppose this hasn't been changed as the cost to correct salaries overall dwarfs agency costs.

Actually it's much much cheaper to hire permanent staff, to the extent that some Trusts have been giving joining bonuses and providing accommodation for nurses from southern Europe. I think some have been paying over the odds as well. I can't say precisely what the reason for the growth in the use of agency nurses was. It is of course a quick fix when you are understaffed and provides some extra flexibility but it clearly got well out of hand. My experience in my field is that once an agency budget has been created it is always used so as to justify the budget existing for the next year, even if that means getting lawyers to sit on their hands whilst agents come in and present cases.

Around 16 years ago the girl I was seeing was staying in nurses accommodation, and I nearly fell off my chair when some of her friends also staying there told me what they could/did earn going the agency route. At the time I was faffing around doing some temp/contracting work on about £16-17/hour and they had me beat, albeit they didn't always have 40 hours a week from 9-5. To me it not only seems hugely wasteful to have temp work that never know the routines of a given job it must also hugely annoy those doing the same work, and indeed be covering for the naturally slower agency staff, to be getting paid much less.

Heaven forbid, people who save lives should get paid a decent wage...

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Actually it's much much cheaper to hire permanent staff, to the extent that some Trusts have been giving joining bonuses and providing accommodation for nurses from southern Europe. I think some have been paying over the odds as well. I can't say precisely what the reason for the growth in the use of agency nurses was. It is of course a quick fix when you are understaffed and provides some extra flexibility but it clearly got well out of hand. My experience in my field is that once an agency budget has been created it is always used so as to justify the budget existing for the next year, even if that means getting lawyers to sit on their hands whilst agents come in and present cases.

Around 16 years ago the girl I was seeing was staying in nurses accommodation, and I nearly fell off my chair when some of her friends also staying there told me what they could/did earn going the agency route. At the time I was faffing around doing some temp/contracting work on about £16-17/hour and they had me beat, albeit they didn't always have 40 hours a week from 9-5. To me it not only seems hugely wasteful to have temp work that never know the routines of a given job it must also hugely annoy those doing the same work, and indeed be covering for the naturally slower agency staff, to be getting paid much less.

The temp situation is just crazy.

It certainly is. it's not quite as bad as PFI because I think the sums were smaller but in principal its the same.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Actually it's much much cheaper to hire permanent staff, to the extent that some Trusts have been giving joining bonuses and providing accommodation for nurses from southern Europe. I think some have been paying over the odds as well. I can't say precisely what the reason for the growth in the use of agency nurses was. It is of course a quick fix when you are understaffed and provides some extra flexibility but it clearly got well out of hand. My experience in my field is that once an agency budget has been created it is always used so as to justify the budget existing for the next year, even if that means getting lawyers to sit on their hands whilst agents come in and present cases.

Around 16 years ago the girl I was seeing was staying in nurses accommodation, and I nearly fell off my chair when some of her friends also staying there told me what they could/did earn going the agency route. At the time I was faffing around doing some temp/contracting work on about £16-17/hour and they had me beat, albeit they didn't always have 40 hours a week from 9-5. To me it not only seems hugely wasteful to have temp work that never know the routines of a given job it must also hugely annoy those doing the same work, and indeed be covering for the naturally slower agency staff, to be getting paid much less.

Heaven forbid, people who save lives should get paid a decent wage...

What about the one's who don't save lives? Because obviously the vast majority of even hospital treatment isn't to save lives.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Actually it's much much cheaper to hire permanent staff, to the extent that some Trusts have been giving joining bonuses and providing accommodation for nurses from southern Europe. I think some have been paying over the odds as well. I can't say precisely what the reason for the growth in the use of agency nurses was. It is of course a quick fix when you are understaffed and provides some extra flexibility but it clearly got well out of hand. My experience in my field is that once an agency budget has been created it is always used so as to justify the budget existing for the next year, even if that means getting lawyers to sit on their hands whilst agents come in and present cases.

Around 16 years ago the girl I was seeing was staying in nurses accommodation, and I nearly fell off my chair when some of her friends also staying there told me what they could/did earn going the agency route. At the time I was faffing around doing some temp/contracting work on about £16-17/hour and they had me beat, albeit they didn't always have 40 hours a week from 9-5. To me it not only seems hugely wasteful to have temp work that never know the routines of a given job it must also hugely annoy those doing the same work, and indeed be covering for the naturally slower agency staff, to be getting paid much less.

Heaven forbid, people who save lives should get paid a decent wage...

They do get paid a decent wage, and if you think that all the money paid on temps goes to the temp then you are mistaken.

Furthermore, why are trusts spending money consistently on temps. Its poor management and that one could be spent better elsewhere, i.e. on treating more patients. If there is a long term shortage of staff then recruit.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Actually it's much much cheaper to hire permanent staff, to the extent that some Trusts have been giving joining bonuses and providing accommodation for nurses from southern Europe. I think some have been paying over the odds as well. I can't say precisely what the reason for the growth in the use of agency nurses was. It is of course a quick fix when you are understaffed and provides some extra flexibility but it clearly got well out of hand. My experience in my field is that once an agency budget has been created it is always used so as to justify the budget existing for the next year, even if that means getting lawyers to sit on their hands whilst agents come in and present cases.

Around 16 years ago the girl I was seeing was staying in nurses accommodation, and I nearly fell off my chair when some of her friends also staying there told me what they could/did earn going the agency route. At the time I was faffing around doing some temp/contracting work on about £16-17/hour and they had me beat, albeit they didn't always have 40 hours a week from 9-5. To me it not only seems hugely wasteful to have temp work that never know the routines of a given job it must also hugely annoy those doing the same work, and indeed be covering for the naturally slower agency staff, to be getting paid much less.

Heaven forbid, people who save lives should get paid a decent wage...

I've nothing against that. But I'd be in favour of promoting the salaries of all nurses, though I'm not sure what one does about the lazy/stupid ones other than perhaps accept inefficiencies will always be present, and not promoting the salaries of those who have the agency contracts with all the associated negative effects.

There

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
Around 16 years ago the girl I was seeing was staying in nurses accommodation, and I nearly fell off my chair when some of her friends also staying there told me what they could/did earn going the agency route. At the time I was faffing around doing some temp/contracting work on about £16-17/hour and they had me beat, albeit they didn't always have 40 hours a week from 9-5. To me it not only seems hugely wasteful to have temp work that never know the routines of a given job it must also hugely annoy those doing the same work, and indeed be covering for the naturally slower agency staff, to be getting paid much less.

Heaven forbid, people who save lives should get paid a decent wage...

I've nothing against that. But I'd be in favour of promoting the salaries of all nurses, though I'm not sure what one does about the lazy/stupid ones other than perhaps accept inefficiencies will always be present, and not promoting the salaries of those who have the agency contracts with all the associated negative effects.

There are plenty of lazy ones fro my recent experience of the NHS. Its a shame in that many nurses do a fantastic job, but when you encounter the rude and incompetent ones, it tarnishes them as a whole.

The NHS doesn't have unlimited finances, so it needs to operate within its means. With each year I think we are getting closer to needing a proper review of the NHS rather than just chucking money at it, particularly as demands on it grow.

There has been a proper review which suggests we'll need a minimum of £8bn of extra by 2020. I think it's important that actually we just stop reforming its structures for a bit. Cameron ran the 2010 election on a manifesto of no top down reform and then let his SoS for Health do exactly that. People need time to get systems running smoothly and they'll never be able to do that if every few years they tinker with the structures again.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There has been a proper review which suggests we'll need a minimum of £8bn of extra by 2020. I think it's important that actually we just stop reforming its structures for a bit. Cameron ran the 2010 election on a manifesto of no top down reform and then let his SoS for Health do exactly that. People need time to get systems running smoothly and they'll never be able to do that if every few years they tinker with the structures again.

But wasn't the premise of the review that the NHS would continue to do exactly the same as it is now? How much more will be needed by 2030? At some point, how money is raised to fund the NHS needs to be looked at, preferably ina cross party manner.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There has been a proper review which suggests we'll need a minimum of £8bn of extra by 2020. I think it's important that actually we just stop reforming its structures for a bit. Cameron ran the 2010 election on a manifesto of no top down reform and then let his SoS for Health do exactly that. People need time to get systems running smoothly and they'll never be able to do that if every few years they tinker with the structures again.

But wasn't the premise of the review that the NHS would continue to do exactly the same as it is now? How much more will be needed by 2030? At some point, how money is raised to fund the NHS needs to be looked at, preferably ina cross party manner.

It's been required for years. Ministers and members having been promising it for years and it never happens. It's too much of a hot potato both politically and financially. Look at the fallout from trying to do something as relatively simple as renegotiating Jnr doctors' contracts. Imagine trying to implement a radical over haul, one that would make Lansley's cock-up look like a reorganisation of the local scout group, it would be impossible to achieve with all the different vested interests. The NHS, and health care in general, will stumble along being disjointed and inefficient forever.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Actually it's much much cheaper to hire permanent staff, to the extent that some Trusts have been giving joining bonuses and providing accommodation for nurses from southern Europe. I think some have been paying over the odds as well. I can't say precisely what the reason for the growth in the use of agency nurses was. It is of course a quick fix when you are understaffed and provides some extra flexibility but it clearly got well out of hand. My experience in my field is that once an agency budget has been created it is always used so as to justify the budget existing for the next year, even if that means getting lawyers to sit on their hands whilst agents come in and present cases.

Around 16 years ago the girl I was seeing was staying in nurses accommodation, and I nearly fell off my chair when some of her friends also staying there told me what they could/did earn going the agency route. At the time I was faffing around doing some temp/contracting work on about £16-17/hour and they had me beat, albeit they didn't always have 40 hours a week from 9-5. To me it not only seems hugely wasteful to have temp work that never know the routines of a given job it must also hugely annoy those doing the same work, and indeed be covering for the naturally slower agency staff, to be getting paid much less.

Heaven forbid, people who save lives should get paid a decent wage...

I was getting paid £10/hr almost 30 years ago,..... doing manual labour. Now, manual labour in 'that London' pays not much more than £8.50..?.
It's the dirtiest irony of capitalism is that the most vulnerable, most productive, most altruistic people and professions are treated so badly by a bunch of crooks, liars, wannabes and feckwit politicos.

>Hang on,....can't we reform our political constitution..?.
>>No, Mate. Sorry.
> why not ?, we own this country..?.
>> Yeah......it belongs to you. But there are lots of poor people living in the country who disagree.
> There are still poor people living in the country..?.
>> You ever been to Daventry, Mate...?.
> Places like Daventry got us out of Europe..?.
>> I didn't say that
> But they're all inbred.
>> Baaaah.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There has been a proper review which suggests we'll need a minimum of £8bn of extra by 2020. I think it's important that actually we just stop reforming its structures for a bit. Cameron ran the 2010 election on a manifesto of no top down reform and then let his SoS for Health do exactly that. People need time to get systems running smoothly and they'll never be able to do that if every few years they tinker with the structures again.

But wasn't the premise of the review that the NHS would continue to do exactly the same as it is now? How much more will be needed by 2030? At some point, how money is raised to fund the NHS needs to be looked at, preferably ina cross party manner.

The premise of the review was that it should provide the same level of service but to take account of the demographic and other changes such as increasing obesity.

I genuinely don't understand why people call for cross party review of things like this. How and what you provide by way of the NHS is a political decision. It's right and fair that parties have different views between them and across them and the prospects of cross party agreement are nil. There are plenty of independent research groups and even they don't agree on what should be done.

Sandydragon wrote:There

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Heaven forbid, people who save lives should get paid a decent wage...

I've nothing against that. But I'd be in favour of promoting the salaries of all nurses, though I'm not sure what one does about the lazy/stupid ones other than perhaps accept inefficiencies will always be present, and not promoting the salaries of those who have the agency contracts with all the associated negative effects.

There are plenty of lazy ones fro my recent experience of the NHS. Its a shame in that many nurses do a fantastic job, but when you encounter the rude and incompetent ones, it tarnishes them as a whole.

The NHS doesn't have unlimited finances, so it needs to operate within its means. With each year I think we are getting closer to needing a proper review of the NHS rather than just chucking money at it, particularly as demands on it grow.

The government has unlimited finances.

What is difficult to understand about that?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There has been a proper review which suggests we'll need a minimum of £8bn of extra by 2020. I think it's important that actually we just stop reforming its structures for a bit. Cameron ran the 2010 election on a manifesto of no top down reform and then let his SoS for Health do exactly that. People need time to get systems running smoothly and they'll never be able to do that if every few years they tinker with the structures again.

But wasn't the premise of the review that the NHS would continue to do exactly the same as it is now? How much more will be needed by 2030? At some point, how money is raised to fund the NHS needs to be looked at, preferably ina cross party manner.

The premise of the review was that it should provide the same level of service but to take account of the demographic and other changes such as increasing obesity.

I genuinely don't understand why people call for cross party review of things like this. How and what you provide by way of the NHS is a political decision. It's right and fair that parties have different views between them and across them and the prospects of cross party agreement are nil. There are plenty of independent research groups and even they don't agree on what should be done.

Only b ecasue genuine reform would take longer than one parliament and having a broad direction of travel would be useful with the inevitable changeover of government.