Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

Pross

Tashman said:

pinno said:

Tashman said:

That the rest of the family will be 3/4 of the way through the "new" tube of toothpaste by the time I actually finish the "old" one

Assuming the 'rest of the family' out number you say... 3 to 1, their consumption is going to be triple yours. If there are 4 of them....

Are you moaning about the rest of the family not finishing the 'old one' off before starting the new one?

Yes, this entirely. There's plenty still left in there but the buggers are too lazy to squeeze it properly

Do they also start off by squeezing from the top?

Pross

First.Aspect said:

elbowloh said:

Pross said:

Job adverts that don't really say what the role involves. I regularly scan through looking for things related to my current job but slightly different and interesting and have seen a few recently that might fit that description but when you read the advert it's just a load of waffle and buzz words with nothing to really say what you would be doing. If I was keen to change jobs I would just send in an application but when just taking an interested look at what's around it's not very helpful.

Likewise, giving absolutely no idea of the salary a job attracts. How do you gauge whether it is worth an application? In my sector roles can be a bit fluid in their descriptions so you can't always guess the likely salary. I get that companies don't want to put of applicants with a low salary or end up paying more than they could have because the range on the salary was higher than the applicant would have accepted but ultimately if you set an upper limit you're prepared to pay and you think the applicant is worth it where is the issue?

I know what you've mean as I've changed jobs twice since the pandemic began. You can waste both your own and the recruiters time enquiring a job that is £20k a year less than you're looking for.

My current role's job title seems fairly junior, but pays a helluva lot more than many roles that are advertised as a "Head of..." role. It's also a lot more interesting and varied that what was described in the advert. Having said that, it's not the job I applied for or interviewed for. Following the interview, my (now) director called and said we're not giving you the job, but there's this other role we want to offer you, do you want it?

"Competitive salary" means we don't really have a clue so are offering whatever fits with the people we've got. This means that the less frequently that a company laterally hires, the less likely that this will be competitive.

I've been applying for positions at companies who have decided to expand their legal team in house. Whoever was there before is graduating to the manager of the new team. Almost all of them are paying that person less than the people they are trying to recruit to work for them.

I had this with job I applied for about 15-20 years ago. I knew I was being paid above average for the level of the job I had but was ready to move up and applied elsewhere. I got an interview that went very well and it came to the dreaded salary chat. That asked what I was looking for so I said I'm currently on 'x' and as this is a higher level I would be looking for 'y' (which was a fairly modest rise, maybe a couple of grand). The two people interviewing looked stunned and the more senior, who was running the office and was about 2 grades higher, told me that was more than he was earning. I suspect both of them were on the phone to recruitment consultants the next day.

Wheelspinner

Pross said:

Job adverts that don't really say what the role involves. I regularly scan through looking for things related to my current job but slightly different and interesting and have seen a few recently that might fit that description but when you read the advert it's just a load of waffle and buzz words with nothing to really say what you would be doing. If I was keen to change jobs I would just send in an application but when just taking an interested look at what's around it's not very helpful.

Likewise, giving absolutely no idea of the salary a job attracts. How do you gauge whether it is worth an application? In my sector roles can be a bit fluid in their descriptions so you can't always guess the likely salary. I get that companies don't want to put of applicants with a low salary or end up paying more than they could have because the range on the salary was higher than the applicant would have accepted but ultimately if you set an upper limit you're prepared to pay and you think the applicant is worth it where is the issue?

Back when I was in the job market, a position was advertised listing a string of “desired” technical quals and a bunch of other fluff. I ticked about 5 of the 7 tech skills boxes and thought I’d try my luck, since I was pretty sure they’d find nobody with all of it. There was no salary guideline, nor a contractor rate.

Had a call from the company HR a couple days later. She eventually asked what my salary expectations would be if a permanent position was offered. Told her somewhere in the $150k ballpark, pending other conditions.

Short silence.

“We’re really budgeting for around 95-100 maximum, I’m sorry.”

I burst out laughing. Told her if they really did expect to find someone with all the skillset listed I’d be astonished if that person would accept less than 200k for a perm role, as they’d easily command 1300 bucks a day as a contractor. Wished her good luck.

What’s the point of an HR department that has no clue about the market they’re recruiting in?

rick_chasey

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Job adverts that don't really say what the role involves. I regularly scan through looking for things related to my current job but slightly different and interesting and have seen a few recently that might fit that description but when you read the advert it's just a load of waffle and buzz words with nothing to really say what you would be doing. If I was keen to change jobs I would just send in an application but when just taking an interested look at what's around it's not very helpful.

Likewise, giving absolutely no idea of the salary a job attracts. How do you gauge whether it is worth an application? In my sector roles can be a bit fluid in their descriptions so you can't always guess the likely salary. I get that companies don't want to put of applicants with a low salary or end up paying more than they could have because the range on the salary was higher than the applicant would have accepted but ultimately if you set an upper limit you're prepared to pay and you think the applicant is worth it where is the issue?

Back when I was in the job market, a position was advertised listing a string of “desired” technical quals and a bunch of other fluff. I ticked about 5 of the 7 tech skills boxes and thought I’d try my luck, since I was pretty sure they’d find nobody with all of it. There was no salary guideline, nor a contractor rate.

Had a call from the company HR a couple days later. She eventually asked what my salary expectations would be if a permanent position was offered. Told her somewhere in the $150k ballpark, pending other conditions.

Short silence.

“We’re really budgeting for around 95-100 maximum, I’m sorry.”

I burst out laughing. Told her if they really did expect to find someone with all the skillset listed I’d be astonished if that person would accept less than 200k for a perm role, as they’d easily command 1300 bucks a day as a contractor. Wished her good luck.

What’s the point of an HR department that has no clue about the market they’re recruiting in?

HR aren't recruiters - they don't tend to face the external market, so why would they know if they've not hired that kind of role externally before?

Anyway, there's more that goes into deciding what comp they want to pay than market rate. We've all heard or read moneyball - firms apply that logic all the time and have done since forever.

Wheelspinner

rick_chasey said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Job adverts that don't really say what the role involves. I regularly scan through looking for things related to my current job but slightly different and interesting and have seen a few recently that might fit that description but when you read the advert it's just a load of waffle and buzz words with nothing to really say what you would be doing. If I was keen to change jobs I would just send in an application but when just taking an interested look at what's around it's not very helpful.

Likewise, giving absolutely no idea of the salary a job attracts. How do you gauge whether it is worth an application? In my sector roles can be a bit fluid in their descriptions so you can't always guess the likely salary. I get that companies don't want to put of applicants with a low salary or end up paying more than they could have because the range on the salary was higher than the applicant would have accepted but ultimately if you set an upper limit you're prepared to pay and you think the applicant is worth it where is the issue?

Back when I was in the job market, a position was advertised listing a string of “desired” technical quals and a bunch of other fluff. I ticked about 5 of the 7 tech skills boxes and thought I’d try my luck, since I was pretty sure they’d find nobody with all of it. There was no salary guideline, nor a contractor rate.

Had a call from the company HR a couple days later. She eventually asked what my salary expectations would be if a permanent position was offered. Told her somewhere in the $150k ballpark, pending other conditions.

Short silence.

“We’re really budgeting for around 95-100 maximum, I’m sorry.”

I burst out laughing. Told her if they really did expect to find someone with all the skillset listed I’d be astonished if that person would accept less than 200k for a perm role, as they’d easily command 1300 bucks a day as a contractor. Wished her good luck.

What’s the point of an HR department that has no clue about the market they’re recruiting in?

HR aren't recruiters - they don't tend to face the external market, so why would they know if they've not hired that kind of role externally before?

Anyway, there's more that goes into deciding what comp they want to pay than market rate. We've all heard or read moneyball - firms apply that logic all the time and have done since forever.

Well, in that specific case, HR were doing the recruitment. The company had advertised directly, not via an agency, and the contact details given were for their HR function. They should do their homework!

To be fair, whoever gave them the role description should also have had a clue what they were asking for, but clearly didn't. I worked in a fairly specialist software implementation field, with relatively few other similarly qualified and experienced people working in the same space. We all billed pretty much the same rate as each other and had done for years.

rick_chasey

Honest question, how do do your homework on what people are paid without having a good reason to ask people what they are paid?

I can flip it around. I wouldn't have a job if HR knew all this stuff about recruitment. The fact I do (and the industry wide revenue is growing at a rapid rate, despite linkedin effectively acting as an automation factor) suggests that it's not really an HR strength.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Honest question, how do do your homework on what people are paid without having a good reason to ask people what they are paid?

I can flip it around. I wouldn't have a job if HR knew all this stuff about recruitment. The fact I do (and the industry wide revenue is growing at a rapid rate, despite linkedin effectively acting as an automation factor) suggests that it's not really an HR strength.

our internal recruiters are useless but in fairness to them they do not set the salary

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Honest question, how do do your homework on what people are paid without having a good reason to ask people what they are paid?

I can flip it around. I wouldn't have a job if HR knew all this stuff about recruitment. The fact I do (and the industry wide revenue is growing at a rapid rate, despite linkedin effectively acting as an automation factor) suggests that it's not really an HR strength.

our internal recruiters are useless but in fairness to them they do not set the salary

Good. They are the enemy and as far as I am concerned every internal recruiter I see is stealing food from my child's mouth. Their failure ultimately ends up in my success (literally, usually).

TheBigBean

I'd look at far more jobs if I could apply directly for them. I just can't trust recruiters to not tell my colleagues.

And I'm not alone, in the hedge fund industry, some people use a fake name to apply for jobs.

Wheelspinner

rick_chasey said:

Honest question, how do do your homework on what people are paid without having a good reason to ask people what they are paid?

I can flip it around. I wouldn't have a job if HR knew all this stuff about recruitment. The fact I do (and the industry wide revenue is growing at a rapid rate, despite linkedin effectively acting as an automation factor) suggests that it's not really an HR strength.

I've no argument with the fact that (decent) recruiters are entirely separate from HR, but really the HR guys should have some idea - they do the paperwork after all.

Out here, quite simple to find out what the "market" is - Pay attention to what else is advertised for a start.

I'd have not been surprised if they were "hopeful" to pay ~ 135k - they'd have attracted some technically qualified but functionally inexperienced people at that, with a few of their desired skills missing. But to be so far off was really quite amusing.

Conversely, the government contract jobs were famous for paying over the market. I was told by one (excellent) recruiter the reason was it was the only way they could convince "good" candidates to apply, because everybody knew how much of a PITA they were to work for.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Job adverts that don't really say what the role involves. I regularly scan through looking for things related to my current job but slightly different and interesting and have seen a few recently that might fit that description but when you read the advert it's just a load of waffle and buzz words with nothing to really say what you would be doing. If I was keen to change jobs I would just send in an application but when just taking an interested look at what's around it's not very helpful.

Likewise, giving absolutely no idea of the salary a job attracts. How do you gauge whether it is worth an application? In my sector roles can be a bit fluid in their descriptions so you can't always guess the likely salary. I get that companies don't want to put of applicants with a low salary or end up paying more than they could have because the range on the salary was higher than the applicant would have accepted but ultimately if you set an upper limit you're prepared to pay and you think the applicant is worth it where is the issue?

Back when I was in the job market, a position was advertised listing a string of “desired” technical quals and a bunch of other fluff. I ticked about 5 of the 7 tech skills boxes and thought I’d try my luck, since I was pretty sure they’d find nobody with all of it. There was no salary guideline, nor a contractor rate.

Had a call from the company HR a couple days later. She eventually asked what my salary expectations would be if a permanent position was offered. Told her somewhere in the $150k ballpark, pending other conditions.

Short silence.

“We’re really budgeting for around 95-100 maximum, I’m sorry.”

I burst out laughing. Told her if they really did expect to find someone with all the skillset listed I’d be astonished if that person would accept less than 200k for a perm role, as they’d easily command 1300 bucks a day as a contractor. Wished her good luck.

What’s the point of an HR department that has no clue about the market they’re recruiting in?

HR aren't recruiters - they don't tend to face the external market, so why would they know if they've not hired that kind of role externally before?

Anyway, there's more that goes into deciding what comp they want to pay than market rate. We've all heard or read moneyball - firms apply that logic all the time and have done since forever.

Up until maybe the mid-90s I would say pretty much all companies did their own recruiting. The first time I ever contacted a recruitment consultant was in 1998 when I had been working for nearly a decade.

Tashman

Pross said:

Tashman said:

pinno said:

Tashman said:

That the rest of the family will be 3/4 of the way through the "new" tube of toothpaste by the time I actually finish the "old" one

Assuming the 'rest of the family' out number you say... 3 to 1, their consumption is going to be triple yours. If there are 4 of them....

Are you moaning about the rest of the family not finishing the 'old one' off before starting the new one?

Yes, this entirely. There's plenty still left in there but the buggers are too lazy to squeeze it properly

Do they also start off by squeezing from the top?

YES!!!! Aaaaarrrghhh

pblakeney

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Job adverts that don't really say what the role involves. I regularly scan through looking for things related to my current job but slightly different and interesting and have seen a few recently that might fit that description but when you read the advert it's just a load of waffle and buzz words with nothing to really say what you would be doing. If I was keen to change jobs I would just send in an application but when just taking an interested look at what's around it's not very helpful.

Likewise, giving absolutely no idea of the salary a job attracts. How do you gauge whether it is worth an application? In my sector roles can be a bit fluid in their descriptions so you can't always guess the likely salary. I get that companies don't want to put of applicants with a low salary or end up paying more than they could have because the range on the salary was higher than the applicant would have accepted but ultimately if you set an upper limit you're prepared to pay and you think the applicant is worth it where is the issue?

Back when I was in the job market, a position was advertised listing a string of “desired” technical quals and a bunch of other fluff. I ticked about 5 of the 7 tech skills boxes and thought I’d try my luck, since I was pretty sure they’d find nobody with all of it. There was no salary guideline, nor a contractor rate.

Had a call from the company HR a couple days later. She eventually asked what my salary expectations would be if a permanent position was offered. Told her somewhere in the $150k ballpark, pending other conditions.

Short silence.

“We’re really budgeting for around 95-100 maximum, I’m sorry.”

I burst out laughing. Told her if they really did expect to find someone with all the skillset listed I’d be astonished if that person would accept less than 200k for a perm role, as they’d easily command 1300 bucks a day as a contractor. Wished her good luck.

What’s the point of an HR department that has no clue about the market they’re recruiting in?

HR aren't recruiters - they don't tend to face the external market, so why would they know if they've not hired that kind of role externally before?

Anyway, there's more that goes into deciding what comp they want to pay than market rate. We've all heard or read moneyball - firms apply that logic all the time and have done since forever.

Up until maybe the mid-90s I would say pretty much all companies did their own recruiting. The first time I ever contacted a recruitment consultant was in 1998 when I had been working for nearly a decade.

I started contracting through agencies in 1987.
Got put onto it by some old timers. It's been going on for a very long time.

Pross

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Job adverts that don't really say what the role involves. I regularly scan through looking for things related to my current job but slightly different and interesting and have seen a few recently that might fit that description but when you read the advert it's just a load of waffle and buzz words with nothing to really say what you would be doing. If I was keen to change jobs I would just send in an application but when just taking an interested look at what's around it's not very helpful.

Likewise, giving absolutely no idea of the salary a job attracts. How do you gauge whether it is worth an application? In my sector roles can be a bit fluid in their descriptions so you can't always guess the likely salary. I get that companies don't want to put of applicants with a low salary or end up paying more than they could have because the range on the salary was higher than the applicant would have accepted but ultimately if you set an upper limit you're prepared to pay and you think the applicant is worth it where is the issue?

Back when I was in the job market, a position was advertised listing a string of “desired” technical quals and a bunch of other fluff. I ticked about 5 of the 7 tech skills boxes and thought I’d try my luck, since I was pretty sure they’d find nobody with all of it. There was no salary guideline, nor a contractor rate.

Had a call from the company HR a couple days later. She eventually asked what my salary expectations would be if a permanent position was offered. Told her somewhere in the $150k ballpark, pending other conditions.

Short silence.

“We’re really budgeting for around 95-100 maximum, I’m sorry.”

I burst out laughing. Told her if they really did expect to find someone with all the skillset listed I’d be astonished if that person would accept less than 200k for a perm role, as they’d easily command 1300 bucks a day as a contractor. Wished her good luck.

What’s the point of an HR department that has no clue about the market they’re recruiting in?

HR aren't recruiters - they don't tend to face the external market, so why would they know if they've not hired that kind of role externally before?

Anyway, there's more that goes into deciding what comp they want to pay than market rate. We've all heard or read moneyball - firms apply that logic all the time and have done since forever.

Up until maybe the mid-90s I would say pretty much all companies did their own recruiting. The first time I ever contacted a recruitment consultant was in 1998 when I had been working for nearly a decade.

I started contracting through agencies in 1987.
Got put onto it by some old timers. It's been going on for a very long time.

Sure but the majority of employers would deal with job applications (certainly for permanent roles) directly and most companies that I applied for had a Personnel Department - now they'll have a 'Human Resources Partner' for personnel issues and use a recruitment consultant for hiring.

kingstongraham

My new debit card looking like this:

pinno

Yebbut, does it do the job?

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Job adverts that don't really say what the role involves. I regularly scan through looking for things related to my current job but slightly different and interesting and have seen a few recently that might fit that description but when you read the advert it's just a load of waffle and buzz words with nothing to really say what you would be doing. If I was keen to change jobs I would just send in an application but when just taking an interested look at what's around it's not very helpful.

Likewise, giving absolutely no idea of the salary a job attracts. How do you gauge whether it is worth an application? In my sector roles can be a bit fluid in their descriptions so you can't always guess the likely salary. I get that companies don't want to put of applicants with a low salary or end up paying more than they could have because the range on the salary was higher than the applicant would have accepted but ultimately if you set an upper limit you're prepared to pay and you think the applicant is worth it where is the issue?

Back when I was in the job market, a position was advertised listing a string of “desired” technical quals and a bunch of other fluff. I ticked about 5 of the 7 tech skills boxes and thought I’d try my luck, since I was pretty sure they’d find nobody with all of it. There was no salary guideline, nor a contractor rate.

Had a call from the company HR a couple days later. She eventually asked what my salary expectations would be if a permanent position was offered. Told her somewhere in the $150k ballpark, pending other conditions.

Short silence.

“We’re really budgeting for around 95-100 maximum, I’m sorry.”

I burst out laughing. Told her if they really did expect to find someone with all the skillset listed I’d be astonished if that person would accept less than 200k for a perm role, as they’d easily command 1300 bucks a day as a contractor. Wished her good luck.

What’s the point of an HR department that has no clue about the market they’re recruiting in?

HR aren't recruiters - they don't tend to face the external market, so why would they know if they've not hired that kind of role externally before?

Anyway, there's more that goes into deciding what comp they want to pay than market rate. We've all heard or read moneyball - firms apply that logic all the time and have done since forever.

Up until maybe the mid-90s I would say pretty much all companies did their own recruiting. The first time I ever contacted a recruitment consultant was in 1998 when I had been working for nearly a decade.

I started contracting through agencies in 1987.
Got put onto it by some old timers. It's been going on for a very long time.

Sure but the majority of employers would deal with job applications (certainly for permanent roles) directly and most companies that I applied for had a Personnel Department - now they'll have a 'Human Resources Partner' for personnel issues and use a recruitment consultant for hiring.

Keep up at the back!!! We are all “colleagues” now

Pross

The graphics on The Hundred, they're really assaulting my eyes and take up a huge chunk of the screen. It reminds me of that Let's Dance arcade game or Guitar Hero.

kingstongraham

pinno said:

Yebbut, does it do the job?

I guess, as long as I can read the tiny numbers on the back that tell me which card is which. I'm getting old is the real annoyance.

elbowloh

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Job adverts that don't really say what the role involves. I regularly scan through looking for things related to my current job but slightly different and interesting and have seen a few recently that might fit that description but when you read the advert it's just a load of waffle and buzz words with nothing to really say what you would be doing. If I was keen to change jobs I would just send in an application but when just taking an interested look at what's around it's not very helpful.

Likewise, giving absolutely no idea of the salary a job attracts. How do you gauge whether it is worth an application? In my sector roles can be a bit fluid in their descriptions so you can't always guess the likely salary. I get that companies don't want to put of applicants with a low salary or end up paying more than they could have because the range on the salary was higher than the applicant would have accepted but ultimately if you set an upper limit you're prepared to pay and you think the applicant is worth it where is the issue?

Back when I was in the job market, a position was advertised listing a string of “desired” technical quals and a bunch of other fluff. I ticked about 5 of the 7 tech skills boxes and thought I’d try my luck, since I was pretty sure they’d find nobody with all of it. There was no salary guideline, nor a contractor rate.

Had a call from the company HR a couple days later. She eventually asked what my salary expectations would be if a permanent position was offered. Told her somewhere in the $150k ballpark, pending other conditions.

Short silence.

“We’re really budgeting for around 95-100 maximum, I’m sorry.”

I burst out laughing. Told her if they really did expect to find someone with all the skillset listed I’d be astonished if that person would accept less than 200k for a perm role, as they’d easily command 1300 bucks a day as a contractor. Wished her good luck.

What’s the point of an HR department that has no clue about the market they’re recruiting in?

HR aren't recruiters - they don't tend to face the external market, so why would they know if they've not hired that kind of role externally before?

Anyway, there's more that goes into deciding what comp they want to pay than market rate. We've all heard or read moneyball - firms apply that logic all the time and have done since forever.

Up until maybe the mid-90s I would say pretty much all companies did their own recruiting. The first time I ever contacted a recruitment consultant was in 1998 when I had been working for nearly a decade.

I started contracting through agencies in 1987.
Got put onto it by some old timers. It's been going on for a very long time.

Sure but the majority of employers would deal with job applications (certainly for permanent roles) directly and most companies that I applied for had a Personnel Department - now they'll have a 'Human Resources Partner' for personnel issues and use a recruitment consultant for hiring.

Last 3 jobs were all through internal recruitment departments, although the last two outsourced the shitty admin bit about right to work and collecting qualification details etc

Never had much luck with external recruiters in that they often haven't got a clue about what the job really is or the qualifications and experience that they're asking for.

pinno

kingstongraham said:

pinno said:

Yebbut, does it do the job?

I guess, as long as I can read the tiny numbers on the back that tell me which card is which. I'm getting old is the real annoyance.

Nice big numbers on the BofS card.
...and a nice picture of the standing stones of Callinish.

kingstongraham

pinno said:

kingstongraham said:

pinno said:

Yebbut, does it do the job?

I guess, as long as I can read the tiny numbers on the back that tell me which card is which. I'm getting old is the real annoyance.

Nice big numbers on the BofS card.
...and a nice picture of the standing stones of Callinish.

Can't see how that helps me.

pinno

kingstongraham said:

pinno said:

kingstongraham said:

pinno said:

Yebbut, does it do the job?

I guess, as long as I can read the tiny numbers on the back that tell me which card is which. I'm getting old is the real annoyance.

Nice big numbers on the BofS card.
...and a nice picture of the standing stones of Callinish.

Can't see how that helps me.

Neither can I TBH.

morstar

Reading the hedgehogs thread. I knew it wouldn’t be pretty and it wasn’t.

That’ll’’ learnt me!!!!!

pblakeney

Dog walkers. Again. Why bother posting? Because this one is special.
Came up behind a couple walking their dog off the leash on a country road, no pavement. So normal, wrong as usual.
This couple had to apologise profusely for not being able to control the dog as it is deaf. WTAF!
If ever a dog should be on a leash it is a deaf dog on a road.

kingstongraham

People riding their bikes on paths in Richmond Park that are no cycling. Don't they ever think "I wonder why there aren't many other people riding their bikes here"?

Pross

kingstongraham said:

People riding their bikes on paths in Richmond Park that are no cycling. Don't they ever think "I wonder why there aren't many other people riding their bikes here"?

They know full well it's no cycling but that doesn't apply to them. I refer you to your recent response on the Coronavirus thread.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

People riding their bikes on paths in Richmond Park that are no cycling. Don't they ever think "I wonder why there aren't many other people riding their bikes here"?

They know full well it's no cycling but that doesn't apply to them. I refer you to your recent response on the Coronavirus thread.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some are genuinely surprised and walk their bikes when I let them in on the secret.

ballysmate

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

It's actually been easier to see a gp here since Covid started when you actually need on, as they're doing a better job of triaging out the trivial. Often see them same day.

Had to wait 2 weeks for a telephone consultation.
Absolute censored .

To continue my rant at how shoite our GP service is.
My mother's neighbour, mid 70s had a knee replacement and was discharged from hospital last Tuesday. He was advised to contact his surgery to arrange for his dressings to be changed and the 32 clips to be removed. Quite reasonable advice.
His missus phoned our surgery to arrange this but was told there was nothing available for 6 weeks. When told that this was not acceptable, the receptionist told my mother's neighbour that she would have to do it herself.
Eventually, after several phone calls and arguments, it has been agreed that she can take him to the surgery on Friday to be attended.

In case anyone thinks I am on an anti NHS tirade, a big shout out to New Cross eye hospital in Wolverhampton for yesterday. Excellent, yet again.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

It's actually been easier to see a gp here since Covid started when you actually need on, as they're doing a better job of triaging out the trivial. Often see them same day.

Had to wait 2 weeks for a telephone consultation.
Absolute censored .

To continue my rant at how shoite our GP service is.
My mother's neighbour, mid 70s had a knee replacement and was discharged from hospital last Tuesday. He was advised to contact his surgery to arrange for his dressings to be changed and the 32 clips to be removed. Quite reasonable advice.
His missus phoned our surgery to arrange this but was told there was nothing available for 6 weeks. When told that this was not acceptable, the receptionist told my mother's neighbour that she would have to do it herself.
Eventually, after several phone calls and arguments, it has been agreed that she can take him to the surgery on Friday to be attended.

In case anyone thinks I am on an anti NHS tirade, a big shout out to New Cross eye hospital in Wolverhampton for yesterday. Excellent, yet again.

You may have answered this before, but if they are routinely that bad is there another practice that you could move to, or does it justify some more formal complaint to the practice and then taking it further?

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/how-to-complain-if-you-re-unhappy-with-your-gp-or-doctor-s-surgery-a2fyc8v0Q7Nj