Starmer's vision quest

[Rusty Nails]

I said that paying them more has not made them work harder. Look at the productivity data and tell me if you disagree.

And I said that just paying people more does not make them work harder. I thought that that simplistic idea had vanished a long time ago. Productivity increase is a lot more than individuals working harder.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

We all want to move on, don't we?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...closer-trade-partnership-with-eu-keir-starmer

 

[icowden]

I said that paying them more has not made them work harder. Look at the productivity data and tell me if you disagree.

Tell me how "working harder" is defined.

 

[CXRAndy]

Accomplishing more in the working period.

 

[Psamathe]

I said that paying them more has not made them work harder. Look at the productivity data and tell me if you disagree.

And I said that just paying people more does not make them work harder. I thought that that simplistic idea had vanished a long time ago. Productivity increase is a lot more than individuals working harder.

Staff retention can play an important part in productivity. Losing staff, delays recruiting (because there are not available qualified applicants), resource recruiting, unfilled posts, etc. can play a part in reducing productivity.

"Increasing" productivity across the country is a balance between gains offsetting losses so reduce the losses and it helps the average improve.

Ian

 

[Ian H]

Of course, if you can pay starvation wages and still get them to work their fingers to the bone, that's surely a win-win for everyone, innit?

Except for those starving, obviously, but you'd have to live in a caring society to worry about that.

 

[Stevo 666]

And I said that just paying people more does not make them work harder. I thought that that simplistic idea had vanished a long time ago. Productivity increase is a lot more than individuals working harder.

I don't disagree with that, but the government didn't do that with the public sector. They just chucked money at it and that didn't work, which was the point I was making above.

 

[icowden]

Accomplishing more in the working period.

And how do you measure that?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Of course, if you can pay starvation wages and still get them to work their fingers to the bone, that's surely a win-win for everyone, innit?

Except for those starving, obviously, but you'd have to live in a caring society to worry about that.

Is that bit covered in 'Neo-Liberal Economics For Dummies'?

 

[Stevo 666]

Of course, if you can pay starvation wages and still get them to work their fingers to the bone, that's surely a win-win for everyone, innit?

Except for those starving, obviously, but you'd have to live in a caring society to worry about that.

I've not seen any starving doctors or train drivers, even before Labour chucked money at them. So did they not deserve their rises?

 

[Stevo 666]

Staff retention can play an important part in productivity. Losing staff, delays recruiting (because there are not available qualified applicants), resource recruiting, unfilled posts, etc. can play a part in reducing productivity.

"Increasing" productivity across the country is a balance between gains offsetting losses so reduce the losses and it helps the average improve.

Ian

Agreed and as mentioned above, Labour did not do that when it dished out significant pay rises to the public sector with no strings attached. Which we are all paying for - well, those of us who are net contributors to the exchequer at least.

 

[CXRAndy]

And how do you measure that?

Certain businesses obviously produce numbers increase.

Social care, is different, seeing patients faster, less waiting times, a slight increase in patient recovery.

Staff moral is another metric, happy staff work better. But as the old saying goes' you can't always buy happiness '

 

[Psamathe]

Agreed and as mentioned above, Labour did not do that when it dished out significant pay rises to the public sector with no strings attached. Which we are all paying for - well, those of us who are net contributors to the exchequer at least.

I think the need for "strings attached" depends on the sector. eg for the NHS I think conditions attached are less appropriate as there are clinical considerations governments should leave to those with approriate knowledge and there are already targets that NHS as a whole should be moving towards. However for eg rail attaching conditions may be more appropriate and I was urprised Labour didn't include conditions (or maybe given Labour's lack of experience and ability maybe it isn't surprising).

Ian

 

[icowden]

Certain businesses obviously produce numbers increase.
Social care, is different, seeing patients faster, less waiting times, a slight increase in patient recovery.

How to explain healthcare whilst showing that you have no clue about healthcare.
Patients recover when they recover. Assigning an extra nurse isn't going to make them recover faster.

Waiting times are dependent on number of patients and number of trained professionals. You can run more clinics with more professionals that doesn't mean that any of them are working harder. Plus the number of patients seen can depend on the patients. Some will be quick and easy, some will be slow and want to talk about their life problems, and may have complex co-morbidities.

Doctors, Nurses and ACPs are not sat around on their hands because they can't be bothered to work now that their salary has increased by 5%. They are doing the same jobs and seeing the same number of patients.

 

[CXRAndy]

Patients recover when they recover.

Funny how some hospitals have better recovery rates than others

Maybe those patients are healthier

Or

Better care, from dedicated happy staff