Some of it is outcome based. But take education. GCSE results go into the calculation. We’ve just nuked all expected progress with lockdown, and got a behaviour crisis to boot. What can teachers do with that? Same in health, huge increase in sickness and staff absence and aftershocks from the pandemic.
The drivers and outputs are just totally different and not in control on a day to day basis. I can decide to write more code today, I couldnt decide my class was going to get better GCSEs today, huge amounts of that were locked in before they ever met me. I just don’t think GDP makes sense for public services, which often operate over huge timescales with output measured in the businesses around them. You don’t expect an instant return on EYFS for example, you have no idea on the economic impact a nursery worker had until that baby is in their 20s.
Anyone in public services will tell you the issues and their structural and resources. Old equipment crapping out, dealing with unresolved impacts of social issues, crap pay meaning your hiring pool is limited. The fact it’s gone down after a huge social shock like Covid shouldn’t be a surprise.
Something I often ask leaders when putting together metrics is “what action would you take if this number changed?” If your answer is “I’d withhold pay from workers until the number went up”, I’d argue you’ve not got the most useful metric for impacting change in your business.
Id argue if you keep giving people above inflation payrises without condition and improvement in performance (which is running below where it was/needs to be) you’re unlikely to have a business to employ any staff
Ps ‘withhold pay from workers’ is a bit different to saying we can’t keep paying above inflation payrises unless we improve performance ! I’d also suggest if everyone understands this there’s likely to be more people from all levels stepping forward with ideas of where improvements in productivity/processes can be made
That will help NHS winter pressures. Not.Tough choices
I'm all for unversallism and think means testing is pointlessDidn’t expect to find you here stanning taxpayer handouts for millionaires
NHSE is currently making regional / subregional commissioners pay consultants (IE the big 4) to investigate and report why local health systems are in deficit. As you can imagine it's not cheap.Support services were typically targets for Cost Improvement Programmes, this can mean for example that expensive resource is standing idle for lack of a porter to move a patient.
Insufficient ICU beds means that a carefully constructed and enormously expensive team of doctors and theatre staff can be gathered for a hugely complex surgical procedure, only to be stood down at zero notice because the required ICU bed has been taken by an emergency admission.
Just two examples.
Im not entirely sure how the increased complexity of treatments is taken account of, if at all, in traditional measures of productivity. Huge sums are spent on “commissioning” which could otherwise be spent on patient care rather than counting the beans on one side and challenging the number of beans counted on the other. I could go on.
It’s surprising, or perhaps not, how little comment this, the scrapping of the social care cap and the retraction from the promised reduction in fuel costs has received from the socialist majority on this forum.I'm all for unversallism and think means testing is pointless
TBF, the £300 will pale into insignificance compared to the income tax those millionaires will be paying.Didn’t expect to find you here stanning taxpayer handouts for millionaires
But again how do you measure productivity in a school or hospital? We aren’t doing our jobs for profit, and certainly in the case of education I’d argue that productivity was not higher than before COV-ID at all.It’s a genuine comment about productivity. If you read through the previous posts my point was that productivity should/needs to improve to maintain inflation/above inflation pay rises.
There are unlikely to be strikes due to the proposed pay rises so that should naturally lead to higher productivity anyway. Hardly controversial
But again how do you measure productivity in a school or hospital? We aren’t doing our jobs for profit, and certainly in the case of education I’d argue that productivity was not higher than before COV-ID at all.
No idea mate but when WFH is consistently shown to increase productivity then I think we probably need to look elsewhere for the answer.What’s gone wrong at HMRC then? Call answering time nearly 5 times that before Covid / WFH.
No idea mate but when WFH is consistently shown to increase productivity then I think we probably need to look elsewhere for the answer.
Does seem that hybrid is a best of both worlds approach. Which is what the civil service does unless I’m mistakenIm not sure that’s correct though Dave
WFH’s staunchest proponents just dropped a bomb: Fully remote workers are less productive
Fully remote work is associated with 10% to 20% lower productivity than fully in-person work, a new paper finds.fortune.com
Many people will be more productive, many won’t be. It depends on role, personal circumstances, office/home environment, drive, experience, IT/Comms access, commute time etc etc. Everyone’s different
Does seem that hybrid is a best of both worlds approach. Which is what the civil service does unless I’m mistaken
As you know, I was talking about Reeves messaging yesterday ie what she can afford to do going forwards.
So I will assume WFH is a good thing. If that is the case, should those WFH but in receipt of London Weighting no longer be entitled to it as they are not incurring the costs of physically working in London? The savings could then go toward an enhanced allowance for those who do not have the WFH option - hospital porters for example?No idea mate but when WFH is consistently shown to increase productivity then I think we probably need to look elsewhere for the answer.
Does seem that hybrid is a best of both worlds approach. Which is what the civil service does unless I’m mistaken
The junior doctor pay rise, like the others, is needed because they’ve had pay suppressed for so long that we’ve got staffing crises everywhere. The last 14 years has been an exercise in can kicking and now the chickens are coming home to roost, possibly in cans (?).
You can’t cheat the market ultimately. Wages have to keep up with inflation in the longer term.
So I will assume WFH is a good thing. If that is the case, should those WFH but in receipt of London Weighting no longer be entitled to it as they are not incurring the costs of physically working in London? The savings could then go toward an enhanced allowance for those who do not have the WFH option - hospital porters for example?
If you dont agree, what is your rationale?
Agreed but they can't do that as hybrid working is not a contractual agreement. Most civil servants are contracted to an office and can be asked to come in 100% of the time.
If hybrid was written into the contract then the London weighting should only apply to the % of the time they would be contractually obliged to attend the office. Think that would be the fairest way around it and would free up some cash.
Remember them quangos for health board's at local level, actually worked delivery wise IMO!!When I worked in the civil service, well it was a quango actually there was a different weighting for London and the South East, I don't think it's all about the cost of commuting, some of it about the higher general cost of living and also competition. That was all swept away I think once the quango was abolished and absorbed into the department.
So I will assume WFH is a good thing. If that is
the case, should those WFH but in receipt of London Weighting no longer be entitled to it as they are not incurring the costs of physically working in London? The savings could then go toward an enhanced allowance for those who do not have the WFH option - hospital porters for example?
If you dont agree, what is your rationale?
Again from an education perspective the pandemic exposed the large infrastructure gaps that had been papered over for so long - physical and from a workforce perspective. Subsidiary services like SEND and MH are non-existent in lots of places, and safeguarding at a county level is woefully inadequate nearly everywhere - this is where investment needs to also happen.The ONS obviously used various measures (which have gone on for years). The things that sprang to my mind across the public sector were strikes, ill health and WFH. They’ll be others around processes, focus on increasing people numbers in nhs but not the same on capital equipment, higher agency staff wages etc etc: Id need to see the split across services to comment
This isn’t a ‘all public sector workers are lazy’ conversation. This is a ‘something hasn’t been right since the pandemic that needs to change’. To not try to improve productivity would be crazy though and even Hunt had earmarked £4bn in investment to try to help
Ps I’d imagine due to its size, reduced productivity in the nhs would have a outsized negative impact on overall public sector productivity but I haven’t seen any breakdown so can’t comment
I left the profession in pursuit of exactly those things.Again from an education perspective the pandemic exposed the large infrastructure gaps that had been papered over for so long - physical and from a workforce perspective. Subsidiary services like SEND and MH are non-existent in lots of places, and safeguarding at a county level is woefully inadequate nearly everywhere - this is where investment needs to also happen.
Teachers also realised that they finally could escape the sector with more WFH opportunities and a better work-life balance.
Now you have a perfect storm where the numbers leaving far exceed the numbers training.
It’s not a productivity thing, it’s a lack of investment that is holding the sector back, at the detriment of those going through it.
London weighting is general costs of living. When I worked in London my commute costs were free (could walk) but rent etc was eye watering. That doesn't go away unless WFH is 100% of the time
I think there’s a fair argument for pro rata-ing London col payments.
No idea mate but when WFH is consistently shown to increase productivity then I think we probably need to look elsewhere for the answer.
Given the issues you have identified, where are the 6,500 extra teachers, funded by VAT on private education, going to come from?Again from an education perspective the pandemic exposed the large infrastructure gaps that had been papered over for so long - physical and from a workforce perspective. Subsidiary services like SEND and MH are non-existent in lots of places, and safeguarding at a county level is woefully inadequate nearly everywhere - this is where investment needs to also happen.
Teachers also realised that they finally could escape the sector with more WFH opportunities and a better work-life balance.
Now you have a perfect storm where the numbers leaving far exceed the numbers training.
It’s not a productivity thing, it’s a lack of investment that is holding the sector back, at the detriment of those going through it.
From what I have read, WFH has meant that significant numbers of people have been able to move out of London and its immediate surroundings. A once or twice a week commute from Northamptonshire or the Isle Of Wight (lived in both) is relatively painless and the savings on housing costs far outweigh the cost of a train ticket.London weighting is general costs of living. When I worked in London my commute costs were free (could walk) but rent etc was eye watering. That doesn't go away unless WFH is 100% of the time
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?