Privatisation
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:01 am
Some things just really shouldn't be outsourced...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... utsourcing
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... utsourcing
I used to date someone who worked in forensic science, and for serious graduate jobs the pay was pathetic, and I do mean seriously bad. And the crap pay, bad hours and over-flowing in trays meant she and most of her colleagues were seriously pissed off and frankly not doing their jobs properly, which also could have raised concerns about many a conviction attempt. Labour did nothing to address massive underfunding, and the Tories took their preferred model to pretend the problem was no longer the governments, neither approach was a good oneSandydragon wrote:The only defence was the difficulty in retaining personnel. Private sector pays a hell of a lot more. Its always seemed made that government service can't make allowance for special skin less and market conditions, but the fact is they do that really badly, hence why specialists leave and why contractors are bought back in.
However, the solution isn't to abdicate all responsibility. A lack of consistent regulation and oversight is concerning.
If they had paid forensics people the same as constables it would have been fine, but they were seen a civilian support staff and paid accordingly, i.e. badly.Digby wrote:I used to date someone who worked in forensic science, and for serious graduate jobs the pay was pathetic, and I do mean seriously bad. And the crap pay, bad hours and over-flowing in trays meant she and most of her colleagues were seriously pissed off and frankly not doing their jobs properly, which also could have raised concerns about many a conviction attempt. Labour did nothing to address massive underfunding, and the Tories took their preferred model to pretend the problem was no longer the governments, neither approach was a good oneSandydragon wrote:The only defence was the difficulty in retaining personnel. Private sector pays a hell of a lot more. Its always seemed made that government service can't make allowance for special skin less and market conditions, but the fact is they do that really badly, hence why specialists leave and why contractors are bought back in.
However, the solution isn't to abdicate all responsibility. A lack of consistent regulation and oversight is concerning.
perzackly.morepork wrote:Using private sector staff and facilities is fine, just regulate and oversee it. Looks like it was passed on down the line and bundled into touch like the English back line. If it is cost/benefit they are after, get a lawyer to run them through the compensation process. What fuckheads.
Yup. It’s fair to point out that state run organisations which are poorly regulated can perform equally badly.morepork wrote:Using private sector staff and facilities is fine, just regulate and oversee it. Looks like it was passed on down the line and bundled into touch like the English back line. If it is cost/benefit they are after, get a lawyer to run them through the compensation process. What fuckheads.
But that's the nub. Privatising water, for instance, is a screw up because it's a guaranteed monopoly. Ditto the trains. It's all about striking a balance, and Mells' image from earlier is perfect.SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I ran the Army's compulsory drug testing programme for 2 years and the contract for testing and expert pharmacological opinion was re-let during my time in the chair. Both FSS and LGC (Formerly The Laboratory of the Government Chemist) were among the bidders for the contract. Both of these privatised companies operated in a highly competitive commercial field and standards were necessarily exemplary. I do not believe that privatisation in itself is the problem, indeed I would argue that when the volume of public work is insufficient to justify the retention of a dedicated capability privatisation becomes essential. There are significant benefits, too. Our testing programme benefitted from LGC's ongoing research, which was driven by the commercial sector and would have been beyond the reach of a publically funded facility.
Clearly there is risk in any forensic programme; the science is not infallible and the scientists even less so. This is why most programmes incorporate robust assurance measures - of course these are low-hanging fruit when it comes to trying to shave a few dollars off the costs in order to boost the shareholder's dividend. The answer is to ensure that the assurance programme is wholly independent of the thing it is assuring.
I think the fact there was too much shit was the problem.morepork wrote:".....but cleanliness turned out to be so integral to the performance of hospitals..."
No shit.
Sorry, Stom but I don't think you're comparing like for like using the water example. I think that any government has a public responsibility to guarantee the very basics of life and allowing someone to profit from the supply of water is a step too far. I don't agree with water charges and I don't agree with the privatisation of the industry.Stom wrote:But that's the nub. Privatising water, for instance, is a screw up because it's a guaranteed monopoly. Ditto the trains. It's all about striking a balance, and Mells' image from earlier is perfect.SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I ran the Army's compulsory drug testing programme for 2 years and the contract for testing and expert pharmacological opinion was re-let during my time in the chair. Both FSS and LGC (Formerly The Laboratory of the Government Chemist) were among the bidders for the contract. Both of these privatised companies operated in a highly competitive commercial field and standards were necessarily exemplary. I do not believe that privatisation in itself is the problem, indeed I would argue that when the volume of public work is insufficient to justify the retention of a dedicated capability privatisation becomes essential. There are significant benefits, too. Our testing programme benefitted from LGC's ongoing research, which was driven by the commercial sector and would have been beyond the reach of a publically funded facility.
Clearly there is risk in any forensic programme; the science is not infallible and the scientists even less so. This is why most programmes incorporate robust assurance measures - of course these are low-hanging fruit when it comes to trying to shave a few dollars off the costs in order to boost the shareholder's dividend. The answer is to ensure that the assurance programme is wholly independent of the thing it is assuring.
That they had to add something foul tasting to as initially the big drinkers in the hospital found they could add a decent amount of the hand sanitister to the coffee and get themselves nicely drunkSerjeantWildgoose wrote:And of course they have also outsourced the washing of hands, with responsibility to do so now vested in an unsupervised wall-mounted hand-sanitiser dispenser.
It's about the same..er, a friend told me.SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Is the foul-tasting stuff they added to it even more foul-tasting than hospital coffee?
When I spent a few days in hospital with a broken leg I drank coffee as they simply didn't do skimmed milk (why have the healthier option in hospital) and I don't like the flavour of milk, and I'd take bad dark coffee over bad dark tea. And actually for a short while the coffee wasn't too bad, it was almost childhood memory to drink stale instant coffee stirred into boiled water. It hadn't at the time occurred to me one could mix the hand cleanser into the coffee, that was a story I heard from a nurse a few years later, and at the time I wouldn't have tried for fear of breaking my leg againStones of granite wrote:It's about the same..er, a friend told me.SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Is the foul-tasting stuff they added to it even more foul-tasting than hospital coffee?
cheeky young (?) c*nt. Now move, can't see the telly.Mellsblue wrote:It’s getting like the old people’s home again. Banquo will telling us about the time his parents bought the first TV on the street if we’re not careful. “What’s that nurse? It’s time for my medicine?”