"I've paid into the system!"

[Cyclone]

No more to say on the subject tbh. Clearly the credibility of what you say is complete zero.

 

Actually I went out straight from work and was busy all evening.

 

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

Lets keep it on the other thread though, no need to keep derailing this one about you and your lack of crime reporting.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Cyclone

[JFKvsNixon]

How do you think we feel when a part-qualified trainee walks off to (allegedly) greener pastures? It's not as if we can send their next employer a bill for the training and investment to date, is it?

The NHS has no profitable parts. There are simply more expensive bits of it and less expensive bits of it.

 

Trivia: the only profitable public department across the entire public service (as in making an actual profit in net terms, no accounting hocus-pocusing) is the relatively obscure/little-known/tucked in a tiny corner of the public awareness Patent Office, due to the renewal fees it collects annually for patents, trademarks and designs (which are effectively a tax), the aggregate amount of which (comfortably-) exceeds its annual budget allocation. It is the only public service to actually make money for the Exchequer in the true sense of the expression.

 

I'm lucky not to know much about the kind of (expectedly, infrequent) circumstances that would lead to this situation...but I'm liability-/-business savvy enough to strongly suspect that the private hospital's/self-employed surgeon's professional liability insurance may well pick up the NHS' tab in such circumstances (I'm informed it currently takes private surgeons/consultants a matter of 2+ months of billed activity just to pay the annual premium these days -the NHS provides its own to its employees, unsurprisingly- and yes, that does mean 'work for 2 months just to pay the premium, start earning from the 3rd month on').

 

Same here, I'm just trying to explain that there is no imbalance borne from the NHS training its employees during their employ: it's a historically intrinsic aspect of professional life and careers, and the NHS has to provide it for its employees just the same as any other public and private organisation employing professionals . For any professional organisation, there is no choice or alternative BUT to train professionals, to provision for & maintain output capacity...keeping hold of them is another HR problem entirely

 

When the part-qualified employee leaves, the majority of the time, do they not leave to an employer that has had similar training overheads? The circle is completed when you replace them with an employee that another employer has part-trained. Now imagine that there was a whole sector that didn't have the training overheads, and you had to try to compete with them.

 

I agree, that training it's next generation, from the bottom to the top, is part of what the NHS does. I just feel that if another business wants to compete with the NHS then it should contribute, in time and money, towards the training the next generation, because without them they could not do their business.

 

 

When I talk about profitable parts of the NHS, I'm talking about services that the NHS can do for less money than they receive for providing those services. This then helps fund the the services that costs more than there NHS receives. Problems arise when the private sector can come in and cherry pick which services it can offer, leaving the NHS with the expensive and loss making services.

 

 

You may be business savvy enough to expect a private business's indemnity insurance to pay the NHS for any emergency treatment that it has to carry out on a private patient, but the truth of the matter is that there is not liability for them to have to. So with private businesses only paying the costs that they have to, they'll make no contribution.

 

It's not just paying for the treatment that the NHS provides to private patients, the NHS also has to have those extremely expensive services ready and waiting for when they're needed, another service/cost that private healthcare do not have to provide.

 

So again if a business wants to compete against the NHS, but it relies upon the NHS to provide some of it's back up services then is it not fair that the playing field is level and they make a contribution towards these services?

 

The private business could be creative in how they cover these costs, maybe they could begin to charge car parking fees as a start?

Edited May 13, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[L00b]

When the part-qualified employee leaves, the majority of the time, do they not leave to an employer that has had similar training overheads?

That employer has less overheads since it has not incurred them training the PQ.

 

That employer often as not offers a more enticing salary that is, in terms of operating costs, still cheaper to that 'poaching' business than the whole cost of training the PQ up to that stage (the highest portion of the training cost, to transition from babes-in-the-woods to self-performing-with-moderate-overview).

 

The morality or fairness of it all doesn't come into it. It's a corporate choice (train from scratch or poach PQs) and, for all businesses, just another facet of competition.

The circle is completed when you replace them with an employee that another employer has part-trained.

Doesn't happen that easily with professionals. Especially those who are 'rare' and hold a goodly portion of the balance of power in recruiting terms. If you'll search my old posts, you'll run into me mentioning how difficult we have had it for years trying to attracts PQs and fully-qualified (FQs) in Sheffield, even though we're offering them a gold bridge/'chute.

 

PQs/FQs just don't want to come here, they'd sooner be in London or Manchester.

Now imagine that there was a whole sector that didn't have the training overheads, and you had to try to compete with them.

I don't have to imagine anything: we have long had that situation for some of our services, including the most profitable ones (e.g. administration of renewals, long poached by 'renewal companies' who don't have any professionals, just admin and database jockeys). So have all other 'proper' competitors of ours the length and breadth of the country. They and we adapt, and survive.

I agree, that training it's next generation, from the bottom to the top, is part of what the NHS does. I just feel that if another business wants to compete with the NHS then it should contribute, in time and money, towards the training the next generation, because without them they could not do their business.

Think of it in these terms: a Consultant trains and works within the NHS and serves his time, and maybe much more (with the NHS getting its value out of it all the while), before one day deciding that he's had enough of the public service, and wants to try his hand at entrepreneurship.

 

He sets up a private clinic: the only assets he 'takes' from the NHS at that time are his skills and knowledge (which are not actually the NHS': they are his alone, because -thankfully- no one can be prevented by law or contract from using one's skills and knowledge to make a living). Everything else (facilities, staff, etc.) has to be acquired with private investment money (his/the banks').

 

That investment has to provide a return, so the private clinic charges and tries to make a profit, at all times in competition with other private clinics.

 

As I mentioned before, the exact same logic applies to e.g. ex RAF-trained pilots and ex HMRC-trained tax specialists. So what of these, JFK? Should BA, EasyJet, Ryanair et al pay a subsidy to the RAF?

You may be business savvy enough to expect a private business's indemnity insurance to pay the NHS for any emergency treatment that it has to carry out on a private patient, but the truth of the matter is that there is not liability for them to have to. So with private businesses only paying the costs that they have to, they'll make no contribution.

If the complications arising during private surgery stem from a surgical error, mistake or other slip, the private clinic (and within that context and 'up' from that, the private consultant, most of whom are self-employed) is liable for the 'repair', including the NHS charges if the NHS must take over. No ifs or buts about it.

So again if a business wants to compete against the NHS, but it relies upon the NHS to provide some of it's back up services then is it not fair that the playing field is level and they make a contribution towards these services?

See above. Private clinics don't 'compete' with the NHS (the NHS goes to them for subcontract work ad hoc both to relieve pressure in the system and for very rare/specialist procedures), and are liable for NHS costs when they mess up to the extent that the NHS has to take over.

The private business could be creative in how they cover these costs, maybe they could begin to charge car parking fees as a start?

The private business has to maintain its car park(s) just the same as the NHS. Given a same car park, that maintenance cost is the same regardless of public/private ownership and budget source.

 

Whether to charge for the use of a car park to offset its maintenance cost (or some other purpose), or swallow that maintenance cost as e.g. a marketing cost, is a management decision.

Edited May 13, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone]

When the part-qualified employee leaves, the majority of the time, do they not leave to an employer that has had similar training overheads? The circle is completed when you replace them with an employee that another employer has part-trained. Now imagine that there was a whole sector that didn't have the training overheads, and you had to try to compete with them.

 

I agree, that training it's next generation, from the bottom to the top, is part of what the NHS does. I just feel that if another business wants to compete with the NHS then it should contribute, in time and money, towards the training the next generation, because without them they could not do their business.

 

 

When I talk about profitable parts of the NHS, I'm talking about services that the NHS can do for less money than they receive for providing those services. This then helps fund the the services that costs more than there NHS receives. Problems arise when the private sector can come in and cherry pick which services it can offer, leaving the NHS with the expensive and loss making services.

 

 

You may be business savvy enough to expect a private business's indemnity insurance to pay the NHS for any emergency treatment that it has to carry out on a private patient, but the truth of the matter is that there is not liability for them to have to. So with private businesses only paying the costs that they have to, they'll make no contribution.

 

It's not just paying for the treatment that the NHS provides to private patients, the NHS also has to have those extremely expensive services ready and waiting for when they're needed, another service/cost that private healthcare do not have to provide.

 

So again if a business wants to compete against the NHS, but it relies upon the NHS to provide some of it's back up services then is it not fair that the playing field is level and they make a contribution towards these services?

 

The private business could be creative in how they cover these costs, maybe they could begin to charge car parking fees as a start?

 

When I've had training in the past, it's not been uncommon to sign a contract stating that if you leave within X months that you will be liable to repay a % of the training cost.

Could the NHS not do this? (If there's a real problem of people qualifying and then immediately leaving to work entirely in the private sector, which I'm not sure there is).

[L00b]

When I've had training in the past, it's not been uncommon to sign a contract stating that if you leave within X months that you will be liable to repay a % of the training cost.

Could the NHS not do this? (If there's a real problem of people qualifying and then immediately leaving to work entirely in the private sector, which I'm not sure there is).

That's (ordinarily) called "training contracts" and I'm informed is standard practice for medical staff in the NHS (it's getting to be std practice in a lot of professions), with a length varying in dependence on seniority and cost of training (it's a domed curve).

 

That's why I keep mentioning 'serving one's time' in the NHS

 

Same with HMRC I believe, tax inspectors can't leave (-to the Dark Side and become private wealth managers ) for X years after completing training. Happy to be updated/corrected by taxman about this. But X = 15 years for French tax inspectors, that one I know for sure.

Edited May 13, 2015 by L00b

[Chris_Sleeps]

I believe it is called a married persons pension? My granddad paid the pension for the both of them. He died before my nan hit retirement age.

I'd not even factored in a private pension, so her income will be even higher than my rough calculation of £17,000.

 

I'm just not swallowing an 80+ year old woman working 30 hours a week. Part-time maybe, but not 30 hours.

Her house is in a nice area, it is quite big and I'm sure the council would LOVE for her to move out so they could ram a big family in it but she's been there for over 56yrs and she doesn't want to move and shouldn't be made to at 84!

Council rent pre-1989 gives her protected tenancy rights. The council may love to throw her out, but have extremely limited grounds to do so, and none if she is paying her rent. She's OAP so no bedroom tax.

 

Nope. Not swallowing. This all screams off to me. I think you're stretching the truth to make a point.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Chris_Sleeps

[Obelix]

Trivia: the only profitable public department across the entire public service (as in making an actual profit in net terms, no accounting hocus-pocusing) is the relatively obscure/little-known/tucked in a tiny corner of the public awareness Patent Office, due to the renewal fees it collects annually for patents, trademarks and designs (which are effectively a tax), the aggregate amount of which (comfortably-) exceeds its annual budget allocation. It is the only public service to actually make money for the Exchequer in the true sense of the expression.)

 

Surely the Inland Revenue makes a considerable "profit" from it's tax collecting activities....

 

And I'm sure the Royal Mint turns a handsome profit. I mean it literally makes money hand over fist (but it may be fairer to class it as a company rather than a public service)

[L00b]

Surely the Inland Revenue makes a considerable "profit" from it's tax collecting activities....

 

And I'm sure the Royal Mint turns a handsome profit. I mean it literally makes money hand over fist (but it may be fairer to class it as a company rather than a public service)

You're mistaking the stock turnover measure for the P/L account

 

The measure of profitability for public services is any fat over and above the annual department budget (inclusive of any and all budget overruns).

Edited May 13, 2015 by L00b

[Obelix]

I think we are missing a "tongue in cheek" smiley on this board....

[Chelle-82]

I'd not even factored in a private pension, so her income will be even higher than my rough calculation of £17,000.

 

I'm just not swallowing an 80+ year old woman working 30 hours a week. Part-time maybe, but not 30 hours.

 

Council rent pre-1989 gives her protected tenancy rights. The council may love to throw her out, but have extremely limited grounds to do so, and none if she is paying her rent. She's OAP so no bedroom tax.

 

Nope. Not swallowing. This all screams off to me. I think you're stretching the truth to make a point.

 

This....

 

Precisely why I didn't want to go into it! Some idiotic know it all turns up and starts to tell me I'm wrong!

 

I really don't care if you can't swallow it. Choke on it for all I care.

 

And by the way - she works from 7am - 1pm Monday to Friday! do the Maths.