NHS problems etc

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

GPs are independently run and the NHS contracts them.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

GPs are independently run and the NHS contracts them.

Wasn't really discussing them to be honest. But GPs are an interesting case of bleeting incessantly but apparently having complete control over their situation.

I find it impossibly hard to assess from the outside.

wallace_and_gromit

Mrs W&G is an NHS Pharmacist and her two top tips to make a difference are:

1 - Fund social care properly so that healthy folk aren't occupying beds for want of somewhere to go. This would apparently be a game-changer as so much time is spent trying to find beds for incoming patients that would be better used caring for patients.

2 - Change the remuneration structure / pension limits so that there's less incentive to retire from the NHS and then work for an agency at 4x previous salary cost to NHS and so that experienced 50+ folk aren't motivated to retire or reduce hours simply to avoid a big tax bill.

Comments above are maybe not necessarily wholly reflective of the NHS as Pharmacists are pretty well paid on the whole. There is strong competition from the private sector (Boots, Lloyds etc) to keep the NHS paymaster honest!

Another couple of her observations:

1 - There's seemingly a lot of senior medical staff who seem to use their current role as a stepping stone to a more senior role, which tends to be more managerial in nature. So the day-today medical requirements are not necessarily as high a priority in the NHS as one might suppose.

2 - She has never encountered an "NHS Manager" (i.e. the clipboard-wielding non-entity as envisioned by the Daily Mail) as such. All the people who manage things relevant to her are senior medical staff who are moving into managerial roles because that is where the higher grades and the power lie.

slowmart

https://www.statista.com/statistics/318922/number-of-nurses-in-the-uk/

Clear correlation between brexit and nurse headcount.

I can’t understand why the NHS gave to pay middlemen for the provision of agency/part time roles. Surely a online central register would negate the extra cost this incurs

Licensed pharmaceuticals, again, surely government funded projects would deliver the same outcomes with less ongoing cost?

We are an ageing population with increased requirements for healthcare provision,

Again it seems we have a lack of political will, intelligence and agility to tackle this head on.

I’m just wondering how many bodies have to pile up before the pressure actually triggers meaningful change for the better.

Oh and it probably doesn’t help, two of the largest nursing agencies are also significant contributor’s to the Tory party.

laurentian

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

Lots! In my wife's case, her immediate line manager is an absolutley wonderful person but a pretty mediocre manager.

Is the line manager also a healthcare professional?

This isn't an argument for fewer managers, it is for good management, who can effectively make it so that the front line can concentrate on doing what they are good at, and for the right people at the right time. There's no point in having lots of front line staff and terrible organisation and coordination meaning they are wasting their time.

I think she is a healthcare professional (i.e a midwife) who has been elevated to "manager"

kingstongraham

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

Lots! In my wife's case, her immediate line manager is an absolutley wonderful person but a pretty mediocre manager.

Is the line manager also a healthcare professional?

This isn't an argument for fewer managers, it is for good management, who can effectively make it so that the front line can concentrate on doing what they are good at, and for the right people at the right time. There's no point in having lots of front line staff and terrible organisation and coordination meaning they are wasting their time.

I think she is a healthcare professional (i.e a midwife) who has been elevated to "manager"

Exactly - this isn't the way to find the best performing managers. Probably now doesn't do the thing she is actually good at, because becoming a manager was the only way to get more status and remuneration.

slowmart

wallace_and_gromit

slowmart said:

I’m just wondering how many bodies have to pile up before the pressure actually triggers meaningful change for the better.

I know this was meant rhetorically, but given the propensity of old folk to vote Tory and age-related mortality trends, you could probably actually put a number on this!

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

Lots! In my wife's case, her immediate line manager is an absolutley wonderful person but a pretty mediocre manager.

Is the line manager also a healthcare professional?

This isn't an argument for fewer managers, it is for good management, who can effectively make it so that the front line can concentrate on doing what they are good at, and for the right people at the right time. There's no point in having lots of front line staff and terrible organisation and coordination meaning they are wasting their time.

I think she is a healthcare professional (i.e a midwife) who has been elevated to "manager"

Exactly - this isn't the way to find the best performing managers. Probably now doesn't do the thing she is actually good at, because becoming a manager was the only way to get more status and remuneration.

Your approach, whilst sensible, doesn't win elections. A lot of the mess can be blamed on the coalition government's decision to get rid of the PCTs and replace them with CCGs - this was the exact opposite of your approach.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

GPs are independently run and the NHS contracts them.

Wasn't really discussing them to be honest. But GPs are an interesting case of bleeting incessantly but apparently having complete control over their situation.

I find it impossibly hard to assess from the outside.

GP surgeries are paid per patient on their books plus bonuses for other stuff. From this they pay the salaried GPs' wages. What's left over goes to the partners.

The partnered GPs could argue that the amount per patient is insufficient, but even then they do need to accept their role in making the salaried GP job unattractive.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

GPs are independently run and the NHS contracts them.

Wasn't really discussing them to be honest. But GPs are an interesting case of bleeting incessantly but apparently having complete control over their situation.

I find it impossibly hard to assess from the outside.

GP surgeries are paid per patient on their books plus bonuses for other stuff. From this they pay the salaried GPs' wages. What's left over goes to the partners.

The partnered GPs could argue that the amount per patient is insufficient, but even then they do need to accept their role in making the salaried GP job unattractive.

My difficulty is pinning down whether or not, or why, the GP salaried role is unattractive.

Or any more so than other professional services with a market rate. Clearly the salaried GPs earning in the 100k range are generating income that pays for much higher salaries for the partners, but join the club.

For them, is it really the salary?

rick_chasey

So according to the podcast, the role/conditions of the role have changed a lot over the years.

Often GPs are no longer 'community' drs anymore in the same way, in that they don't get to know their patients over time in the same way - lots of churn.

They're also dealing increasingly with chronic illnesses that they used to not have to deal with as they'd be sent directly to specialists.

They basically are getting overworked - so they either row back their hours to compensate or quit.

And plus patient satisfaction and trust with GPs is at an all time low and so they're dealing with more frustrated patients.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

GPs are independently run and the NHS contracts them.

Wasn't really discussing them to be honest. But GPs are an interesting case of bleeting incessantly but apparently having complete control over their situation.

I find it impossibly hard to assess from the outside.

GP surgeries are paid per patient on their books plus bonuses for other stuff. From this they pay the salaried GPs' wages. What's left over goes to the partners.

The partnered GPs could argue that the amount per patient is insufficient, but even then they do need to accept their role in making the salaried GP job unattractive.

My difficulty is pinning down whether or not, or why, the GP salaried role is unattractive.

Or any more so than other professional services with a market rate. Clearly the salaried GPs earning in the 100k range are generating income that pays for much higher salaries for the partners, but join the club.

For them, is it really the salary?

"From 1 April 2022, the pay range for salaried GPs is £65,070 to £98,194". This is lower than most people think based on the 10 years of study/training. On top of that, it can be a stressful job without that much support. This has been the case of a long time.

I suspect to attract more people, it either needs more money or better conditions, but that is probably stating the obvious.

briantrumpet

I don't think any of my pupils who have gone into medicine have ended up as GPs, mostly going into surgery, specialisms or research.

surrey_commuter

slowmart said:

that is a very interesting graph.

Do you have one for leavers?

ddraver

Being a GP has a bad rep amongst current med students. They seem to think it's a dumping ground. All the "good" doctors go on to be consultants etc.

One of Pa's post-retirement jobs was to speak to med students about being a doctor on charity expeditions (think Kilimajaro) and he would say it was a great job for that sort of thing - seeing a wide variety of issues, physical & mental and working out what they were and who to send them to - but the room apparently tended to be hostile.

An anecdote - at one of these things they had a quasi-Bear Grylls guy who was talking about how to catch a death-snake with your bare hands so it can be ID'd and the right anti-venom can be given etc. alongside a bunch of other wild hair raising stories. One more sensible students asked how often he'd had to actually do any of these things and was sheepishly told...well, never actually...

He then told a true story about a young woman self-harming in their tent and how hard that was (for him, not the girl). Pa got up and said he'd never had any of the extreme things happen to him either and would run away from any snake, but he saw someone that self-harms everyday.

Perhaps the snake catching wasnt so important

(none of that has much to do with the NHS, but is perhaps an insight into how the job is viewed by students)

webboo

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

Lots! In my wife's case, her immediate line manager is an absolutley wonderful person but a pretty mediocre manager.

Is the line manager also a healthcare professional?

This isn't an argument for fewer managers, it is for good management, who can effectively make it so that the front line can concentrate on doing what they are good at, and for the right people at the right time. There's no point in having lots of front line staff and terrible organisation and coordination meaning they are wasting their time.

I think she is a healthcare professional (i.e a midwife) who has been elevated to "manager"

Exactly - this isn't the way to find the best performing managers. Probably now doesn't do the thing she is actually good at, because becoming a manager was the only way to get more status and remuneration.

I was elevated to become an NHS manager, grade wise I stayed the same. The trust I worked for decided that all band 7 nurses should be either clinical leads or team leaders. So from being responsible for 5 or 6 nurses, you were suddenly running a team of thirty staff of all professions such Consultant psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists and admin staff as well as managing the budget. If you didn’t agree to this you would become a band 6 nurse.
This was all to achieve budget savings, it’s never about better care

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

GPs are independently run and the NHS contracts them.

Wasn't really discussing them to be honest. But GPs are an interesting case of bleeting incessantly but apparently having complete control over their situation.

I find it impossibly hard to assess from the outside.

GP surgeries are paid per patient on their books plus bonuses for other stuff. From this they pay the salaried GPs' wages. What's left over goes to the partners.

The partnered GPs could argue that the amount per patient is insufficient, but even then they do need to accept their role in making the salaried GP job unattractive.

My difficulty is pinning down whether or not, or why, the GP salaried role is unattractive.

Or any more so than other professional services with a market rate. Clearly the salaried GPs earning in the 100k range are generating income that pays for much higher salaries for the partners, but join the club.

For them, is it really the salary?

"From 1 April 2022, the pay range for salaried GPs is £65,070 to £98,194". This is lower than most people think based on the 10 years of study/training. On top of that, it can be a stressful job without that much support. This has been the case of a long time.

I suspect to attract more people, it either needs more money or better conditions, but that is probably stating the obvious.

Degree 3-4 years
PhD 4-5 years
Patent exams 3-5 years.

NQ salary ca. £60-70k, after 10-14 years training.

You can say similar things about lots of other professions, including solicitors (with the exception of the meat grinder that is NQ solicitor for magic circle firms).

So given the pension provision is so good as well, is it salary or conditions that's the problem?

If it is salary, how much should a GP be paid? And how much would they need to be paid for the conditions to be worthwhile?

kingstongraham

webboo said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

Lots! In my wife's case, her immediate line manager is an absolutley wonderful person but a pretty mediocre manager.

Is the line manager also a healthcare professional?

This isn't an argument for fewer managers, it is for good management, who can effectively make it so that the front line can concentrate on doing what they are good at, and for the right people at the right time. There's no point in having lots of front line staff and terrible organisation and coordination meaning they are wasting their time.

I think she is a healthcare professional (i.e a midwife) who has been elevated to "manager"

Exactly - this isn't the way to find the best performing managers. Probably now doesn't do the thing she is actually good at, because becoming a manager was the only way to get more status and remuneration.

I was elevated to become an NHS manager, grade wise I stayed the same. The trust I worked for decided that all band 7 nurses should be either clinical leads or team leaders. So from being responsible for 5 or 6 nurses, you were suddenly running a team of thirty staff of all professions such Consultant psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists and admin staff as well as managing the budget. If you didn’t agree to this you would become a band 6 nurse.
This was all to achieve budget savings, it’s never about better care

Doesn't make sense, does it? Get good managers in and let clinical staff do their thing. Also they will never be distracted from their job because there's important clinical work to be done.

kingstongraham

There's no votes in saying that there needs to be more money for management in the NHS though.

webboo

I don’t think I made a bad job of being a manager but it’s not what I wanted to do. I could have made a decision years before to go in to management and chase the grades, but clinical work was my choice.
They did say as well as managing the team I could keep a small caseload of patients if I wanted. As if.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

webboo said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

Lots! In my wife's case, her immediate line manager is an absolutley wonderful person but a pretty mediocre manager.

Is the line manager also a healthcare professional?

This isn't an argument for fewer managers, it is for good management, who can effectively make it so that the front line can concentrate on doing what they are good at, and for the right people at the right time. There's no point in having lots of front line staff and terrible organisation and coordination meaning they are wasting their time.

I think she is a healthcare professional (i.e a midwife) who has been elevated to "manager"

Exactly - this isn't the way to find the best performing managers. Probably now doesn't do the thing she is actually good at, because becoming a manager was the only way to get more status and remuneration.

I was elevated to become an NHS manager, grade wise I stayed the same. The trust I worked for decided that all band 7 nurses should be either clinical leads or team leaders. So from being responsible for 5 or 6 nurses, you were suddenly running a team of thirty staff of all professions such Consultant psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists and admin staff as well as managing the budget. If you didn’t agree to this you would become a band 6 nurse.
This was all to achieve budget savings, it’s never about better care

Doesn't make sense, does it? Get good managers in and let clinical staff do their thing. Also they will never be distracted from their job because there's important clinical work to be done.

That's the theory. How is it working out?

webboo

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

webboo said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

Lots! In my wife's case, her immediate line manager is an absolutley wonderful person but a pretty mediocre manager.

Is the line manager also a healthcare professional?

This isn't an argument for fewer managers, it is for good management, who can effectively make it so that the front line can concentrate on doing what they are good at, and for the right people at the right time. There's no point in having lots of front line staff and terrible organisation and coordination meaning they are wasting their time.

I think she is a healthcare professional (i.e a midwife) who has been elevated to "manager"

Exactly - this isn't the way to find the best performing managers. Probably now doesn't do the thing she is actually good at, because becoming a manager was the only way to get more status and remuneration.

I was elevated to become an NHS manager, grade wise I stayed the same. The trust I worked for decided that all band 7 nurses should be either clinical leads or team leaders. So from being responsible for 5 or 6 nurses, you were suddenly running a team of thirty staff of all professions such Consultant psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists and admin staff as well as managing the budget. If you didn’t agree to this you would become a band 6 nurse.
This was all to achieve budget savings, it’s never about better care

Doesn't make sense, does it? Get good managers in and let clinical staff do their thing. Also they will never be distracted from their job because there's important clinical work to be done.

That's the theory. How is it working out?

If your asking me it’s working fine given I retired 5 years ago

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

GPs are independently run and the NHS contracts them.

Wasn't really discussing them to be honest. But GPs are an interesting case of bleeting incessantly but apparently having complete control over their situation.

I find it impossibly hard to assess from the outside.

GP surgeries are paid per patient on their books plus bonuses for other stuff. From this they pay the salaried GPs' wages. What's left over goes to the partners.

The partnered GPs could argue that the amount per patient is insufficient, but even then they do need to accept their role in making the salaried GP job unattractive.

My difficulty is pinning down whether or not, or why, the GP salaried role is unattractive.

Or any more so than other professional services with a market rate. Clearly the salaried GPs earning in the 100k range are generating income that pays for much higher salaries for the partners, but join the club.

For them, is it really the salary?

"From 1 April 2022, the pay range for salaried GPs is £65,070 to £98,194". This is lower than most people think based on the 10 years of study/training. On top of that, it can be a stressful job without that much support. This has been the case of a long time.

I suspect to attract more people, it either needs more money or better conditions, but that is probably stating the obvious.

Degree 3-4 years
PhD 4-5 years
Patent exams 3-5 years.

NQ salary ca. £60-70k, after 10-14 years training.

You can say similar things about lots of other professions, including solicitors (with the exception of the meat grinder that is NQ solicitor for magic circle firms).

So given the pension provision is so good as well, is it salary or conditions that's the problem?

If it is salary, how much should a GP be paid? And how much would they need to be paid for the conditions to be worthwhile?

equalise the pensions with the private sector so they avoid the tax problems and can't afford to retire early.

And consider whether funnelling all care through hospitals is the best idea.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

webboo said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

Lots! In my wife's case, her immediate line manager is an absolutley wonderful person but a pretty mediocre manager.

Is the line manager also a healthcare professional?

This isn't an argument for fewer managers, it is for good management, who can effectively make it so that the front line can concentrate on doing what they are good at, and for the right people at the right time. There's no point in having lots of front line staff and terrible organisation and coordination meaning they are wasting their time.

I think she is a healthcare professional (i.e a midwife) who has been elevated to "manager"

Exactly - this isn't the way to find the best performing managers. Probably now doesn't do the thing she is actually good at, because becoming a manager was the only way to get more status and remuneration.

I was elevated to become an NHS manager, grade wise I stayed the same. The trust I worked for decided that all band 7 nurses should be either clinical leads or team leaders. So from being responsible for 5 or 6 nurses, you were suddenly running a team of thirty staff of all professions such Consultant psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists and admin staff as well as managing the budget. If you didn’t agree to this you would become a band 6 nurse.
This was all to achieve budget savings, it’s never about better care

Doesn't make sense, does it? Get good managers in and let clinical staff do their thing. Also they will never be distracted from their job because there's important clinical work to be done.

That's the theory. How is it working out?

Doesn't sound like it's happening, does it?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

webboo said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

Lots! In my wife's case, her immediate line manager is an absolutley wonderful person but a pretty mediocre manager.

Is the line manager also a healthcare professional?

This isn't an argument for fewer managers, it is for good management, who can effectively make it so that the front line can concentrate on doing what they are good at, and for the right people at the right time. There's no point in having lots of front line staff and terrible organisation and coordination meaning they are wasting their time.

I think she is a healthcare professional (i.e a midwife) who has been elevated to "manager"

Exactly - this isn't the way to find the best performing managers. Probably now doesn't do the thing she is actually good at, because becoming a manager was the only way to get more status and remuneration.

I was elevated to become an NHS manager, grade wise I stayed the same. The trust I worked for decided that all band 7 nurses should be either clinical leads or team leaders. So from being responsible for 5 or 6 nurses, you were suddenly running a team of thirty staff of all professions such Consultant psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists and admin staff as well as managing the budget. If you didn’t agree to this you would become a band 6 nurse.
This was all to achieve budget savings, it’s never about better care

Doesn't make sense, does it? Get good managers in and let clinical staff do their thing. Also they will never be distracted from their job because there's important clinical work to be done.

That's the theory. How is it working out?

Doesn't sound like it's happening, does it?

Well in a lot of professions the higher up you get the less of the original professional work you do. The best scientists in industry end up managing scientists and not doing science, Lawers run the company and manage lawyers, but don't do the actual layering so much. Etc.

What are you proposing, lift the glass ceiling for actual clinical work, and get admin and managers in for cheaper?

Problem there is you get managers without an understanding of all of the implications of their decisions, don't you?

First.Aspect

webboo said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

webboo said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

I wonder how much stress and workload is caused by the army of administrators making decisions to help nurses, over their heads. One of the biggest contributors to any workplace stress is a lack of control, right?

Lots! In my wife's case, her immediate line manager is an absolutley wonderful person but a pretty mediocre manager.

Is the line manager also a healthcare professional?

This isn't an argument for fewer managers, it is for good management, who can effectively make it so that the front line can concentrate on doing what they are good at, and for the right people at the right time. There's no point in having lots of front line staff and terrible organisation and coordination meaning they are wasting their time.

I think she is a healthcare professional (i.e a midwife) who has been elevated to "manager"

Exactly - this isn't the way to find the best performing managers. Probably now doesn't do the thing she is actually good at, because becoming a manager was the only way to get more status and remuneration.

I was elevated to become an NHS manager, grade wise I stayed the same. The trust I worked for decided that all band 7 nurses should be either clinical leads or team leaders. So from being responsible for 5 or 6 nurses, you were suddenly running a team of thirty staff of all professions such Consultant psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists and admin staff as well as managing the budget. If you didn’t agree to this you would become a band 6 nurse.
This was all to achieve budget savings, it’s never about better care

Doesn't make sense, does it? Get good managers in and let clinical staff do their thing. Also they will never be distracted from their job because there's important clinical work to be done.

That's the theory. How is it working out?

If your asking me it’s working fine given I retired 5 years ago

Good for you. But honest question - in pay negotiations where any public sector union compares salaries to the private sector, would you be happy on your behalf if they negotiated parity in areas like pensions, retirement age and annual leave in exchange for the salary parity?

ugo.santalucia

Getting an ambulance after 90 minutes for a heart attack, is as good as not getting one at all…
Basically, we are on par with some developing nations in Africa… scary to think you are on your own in an emergency… I wish I didn’t have to work and could move abroad

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

Getting an ambulance after 90 minutes for a heart attack, is as good as not getting one at all…
Basically, we are on par with some developing nations in Africa… scary to think you are on your own in an emergency… I wish I didn’t have to work and could move abroad

And this, my friend, is in a nutshell why the children who have been running the country will not be running the country for at least a decade after the next election.

Stevo_666

ugo.santalucia said:

Getting an ambulance after 90 minutes for a heart attack, is as good as not getting one at all…
Basically, we are on par with some developing nations in Africa… scary to think you are on your own in an emergency… I wish I didn’t have to work and could move abroad

Somewhere like France?
https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64216269
https://euronews.com/2022/07/08/on-life-support-can-frances-struggling-healthcare-system-be-saved
Seems we are not alone.

Although we should be looking at how other countries structure their healthcare systems as part of the planning for the future.