TigerBao said:
Surely in a not-so-amazing economy it would be better to create more jobs, as more people getting paid means more people buying more to feed the economy and things will balance out? Also more people available to supply healthcare means healthier people with better support and fewer sick days so less money lost...
Am I just being incredibly naive or are they going about this in an incredibly counter productive way?
Unfortunately I think you may be tending towards the naive.
What you are proposing is the strategy that the previous government used to pad out the public services and conceal unemployment.
Unfortunately they had to borrow money to do it and someone now has to pay it all back.
First rule when you are in deep financial trouble (apart from cutting up your credit cards or whatever the government uses instead) is to cut back on everything you can so that expenditure is closer to income. Only hire for vital posts. Cut anything that can be regarded as non-essential.
The second problem (which is tied to the first) is that it is no good whatsoever just to increase the number of people working in an area.
They must be fully qualified for the work, motivated to do it, and the work must directly relate to the service being supplied.
Rumour has it that many PCTs had to accept some staff with less expertise than was really hoped for because of the lack of qualified and motivated staff prepared to work in a PCT at PCT pay scales.
I can understand how this can criple any organisation because I have worked in organisations which tried to expand too fast by just throwing bodies at the job without considering the implications. All that happened was the experienced people were swamped and distracted by the untrained and unskilled additions and ended up producing less than they had before and being demoralised because the unit as a whole had been given a load of unachievable targets. If there is no way you can meet your targets you usually stop trying.
So I am in favour of cuts where they are appropriate, and recruitment of skilled workers where they are needed.
Sounds too simple to be true?
Bear in the mind that the people who make the hire/fire decisions are often bureaucrats and middle managers who have an unfortunate tendency to value people who fill roles that they understand and relate to. So they hire people just like themselves, and increase their empire and the pool of jobs they and their colleagues are qualifid to fill. Management hires and values management.
The other problem is that there probably aren't enough skilled workers anyway.
Has anyone noticed how many HCPs are from Eastern Europe and South Africa?
No disrespect to them, but if the jobs could be filled locally they probably would be.
So there is no easy fix.
Bureaucracy needs to be cut and efficiency increased.
Public services are notoriously hard to streamline because nobody owns the money - it is just paper and computer numbers. No real hard cash.
This is one reason why privatisation is a favourite - give the job to someone who counts every penny because it comes out of his/her own pocket and s/he will soon cut out anyone who is not contributing to that profit.
Too easy again?
Public services should be providing a service, not just a profit for a private individual.
Private firms have too much motivation to cut out everything they can.
O.K. - I have now convinced myself we are all doomed.
And to think I used to be merely cynical!
Oh, diabetes.........I'm sure that figured in all this somewhere.....
Yeah. The Health Service (along with many other public bodies) is going to have a really rough few years.
Diabetics need good, well funded health care.
So we diabetics are particularly doomed. :shock:
Cheers
LGC
