Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Great point
The call centres are all hybrid so some are in office some are at home
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (46 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
The call centres are all hybrid so some are in office some are at home
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
We can work from home 5 days a week if we want. It's great and the company benefits massively from happy staff, a wider pool of applicants and reduced costs.
fatso
Well-Known Member
100% agree, but it is at least a first step in the right direction.
No doubt far too late for the incredibly difficult incident you point out, but getting this first principal through the house of commons is a significant milestone.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
As a whole, the public sector productivity isn’t recovering expected. It was more productive in 1997 than it is now.
I don’t think everyone being in the office would automatically fix that, but the figures in the public sector are particularly damning and something needs to change drastically.
The private sector productivity in this country isn’t particularly strong either. The UK is now the WFH capital of Europe (if not the developed economies).
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
I reckon cheap outsourcing of labour has much more of an impact that wfh on the private sector
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
And you know pay freezes and funding cuts and the fact that measuring productivity in the public sector is a bit of a guessing game.
If Nvidia can manage to become the world’s most valuable company while 100% WFH anyone else blaming it is just exposing poor management skills TBH.
mmttww
Well-Known Member
Is productivity really relevant or helpful as a measure of success when you're talking about delivering public services? We've got waiting lists etc. for that.
Feels like talking about GDP as 'the' measure of how well the economy is doing. 'GDP is up by 0.3%!'. Cool, food still costs 20% more than two years ago.
Feels like talking about GDP as 'the' measure of how well the economy is doing. 'GDP is up by 0.3%!'. Cool, food still costs 20% more than two years ago.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It’s pretty meaningless in the public sector, and where it’s not it’s almost always down to lack of capital investment (IT in the NHS wasting everyone’s time for example).
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Low income skilled migration certainly wouldn’t have helped. We’re one of the least automated economies in the developed economies.
Ironically, Reeves’ employer NI raise has raised the costs of labour so businesses are accelerating the drive for automation (think more self-checkouts etc) as they cut hours.
This is all beside the point, the bigger issue here is the public sector productivity has gone down from 1997 levels. You think about all the tech innovation since then and anyone should be alarmed.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Let’s assume that’s true. The public sector was providing the same services in 1997 (healthcare, teaching, policing and so on) so explain how it’s not a bad thing that productivity has gone down?!
We’ve had a tech revolution so how productivity hasn’t gone up should worry anyone.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Tell me how productivity has gone down in education?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Read an article in the FT recently that said exactly that. Measuring public sector productivity is a largely meaningless exercise and comparing it to private sector, which isn’t calculated the same way is pointless.
Article suggested that after years of austerity to then turn round and question why the public sector isn’t ‘productive’ and then blame the workers is absolute insanity.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
How is it meaningless? This is nonsensical point to make.
You’ve got record levels of funding and increasing headcount in the public sector whilst less services are being delivered.
You can blame ‘austerity’ as the boogey man but frankly, funding for the NHS and other areas still increased.
How anyone can look at public sector productivity being lower now than 1997 and being ok or saying ‘it’s meaningless’ is bewildering. Barely anyone had mobile phones or reliable internet back then.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
What does this actually mean?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What's the benchmark for "levels of funding" and why is it relevant?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Productivity is output per hour. How do you measure public sector output? You can’t realistically. And even the ONS admits this:
It’s meaningless. You can’t realistically measure the productivity of a teacher for twenty years for example. It’s a complete joke statistic and the ONS are clearly embarrassed having to produce it if you read their stuff.
How to compare and interpret ONS productivity measures - Office for National Statistics
Explains how to compare and understand the three measures of productivity produced by the ONS, especially public service productivity, with details on inputs, output and coverage.
www.ons.gov.uk
If you make up a measure and it’s been flat since 1997, you’ve probably got a shit measure cos an awful lot both good and bad has happened in that timeframe and only an absolute moron or liar would disagree.
Public sector work is generally human to human labour intensive work and the efficiencies, just like in the private sector, come not from having less lazy employees but from capital investment in the systems and tools they use.
There’s some that think just chucking extra money at the problem solves everything*, never inwardly looking to see how the money is spent and asking whether people are doing their jobs effectively. To the point where Ian (sorry Ian but this springs to mind) seemingly threw out that underfunding might’ve been one of the main contributing factors in the Grooming scandal even though problems started early 2000s and initial findings suggest ethnicity and people not doing their jobs were the main issues
Just makes me wonder if there is any real accountability in certain elements of the public sector, such as NHS, police and the councils. Do a shit job**, blame funding. Both can be the problem and both need solving. if it’s just extra cash that’s thrown at it and we’re not then seeing an improving delivery of services, the social contract between tax payer and state will break and that’s when you get your Reforms of this world coming into play
I’m personally willing to see where we are in 4 years as these things take time but I do have some concerns
*of course it helps massively but if you’re not careful huge amounts can get wasted without noticeable improvements
**not necessarily through lack of effort but some of the processes etc
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Not in real terms. The NHS also had to take up the slack from other areas. The obvious one being mental health services pre austerity largely being supported by local authorities. The NHS, police and prison service all had to pick up the slack at a time when the police force lost 10,000 officers. The prisons are full for a reason.
Last edited:
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It's not chucking money at it solves everything, it's that the measures of success are completely different.
How do you measure frontline NHS productivity when each patient will require differing amounts of care and treatment? Is someone dealing with a very complex, rare illness or cancer being 'unproductive' because it takes up a lot of time and they should just ignore it for easy cases so they look like they're getting stuff done? Should teachers ignore the less able kids in class because it's not a 'productive' use of their time?
At this point I expect you'll say "I'm talking about admin staff etc". Well I have done an admin public sector role and I can tell you it can be so much harder to get stuff done than in business. You're often dealing with the most vulnerable, those who aren't particularly intelligent, the elderly who need help. Do you have any idea how long it can take to understand what they want or get a simple message/instruction across in those circumstances? I could probably deal with half a dozen queries when working in accounting to every one I dealt with in public sector. And with things going ever more online trying to direct some of those people to the relevant places I can only imagine it's getting even harder.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Does there not come a point, maybe after 14 years of efficiency savings, that you stop thinking the answer to the problem of a huge decrease in the performance of pubic services in the last 14 years is more efficiency savings?
Thats not to say everything is perfect of course but it seems pretty much the definition of doing the same thing yet expecting a different result.
I don't think it's a completely out there idea to suggest that a properly functioning social services may have been more effective. It's something that can never be proved one way or another but one thing we do know is that time and time again woefully under resourced social services have been found to contribute to horrific incidents concerning the vulnerable.
After all social care was pretty much the template for austerity, the 1989 Children's Act and 1990 Community Care Act both being significant drivers behind a move to modernise and increase efficiency which led to ever worsening performance while services were constantly being review by management consultants looking for further efficiencies by merging specialist services into more generalised areas.
Potentially there's also an issue here that the less complex, and therefore more efficient, and profitable, parts of the public sector have been moved to private providers. While what is left of public sector is left to pick up the complex, and expensive, roles nobody else wants to deal with.
I wasn’t necessity talking about the specific productivity measures, however, they have been in place for a while so should provide a steer on performance. I do agree they are imperfect for the public sector. If there are reasons and justifications for the drops from pre pandemic levels then they should obviously be taken into consideration. That doesn’t mean they should be entirely ignored, especially when considered alongside other stats and anecdotal evidence
I’ve unfortunately had a lot of dealings with the nhs recently and have seen first hand both the excellent empathy and care on show but also the major inefficiencies in how things are done and the processes in place. It’s a chaotic mess on the wards. I have spoken to various others who believe the same, these issues weren’t due to lack of people.
I’ve mentioned previously the potential better immediate return on investment (for want of a better phrase) would be higher spending into social care to free up NHS beds being blocked and capacity, but instead it remains the poor relation living off NHS crumbs.
Dave - just seen your reply before posting the above. you’ve misread/misunderstood what i said. I’m not talking about efficiency savings, I want more investment as I’ve stated, I just want it spent wisely and to see improvements for the extra money being spent.
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. Personally I think we're going to be years off seeing substantial results given how fucked everything is. We're at the slowing the tanker down stage, still a long way off the turning it round stage.
Not sure we'll get to that point as there's already people complaining months into a new government that they haven't instantly solved every issue.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I think you have misinterpreted me here.
I merely hypothesised that services that have not been able to recruit and retain adequately such as police and social workers are by definition underfunded - maybe have not been as effective as they should have been.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Saw it with my ex where she worked in the NHS. She worked in a specialise service for young people with mental health issues at risk of offending, and we're talking serious offences like murder. Their department was hugely successful to the point that people would visit from around the world to attempt to duplicate their success.
Austerity arrived and 'efficiencies' were made. That meant a freeze on recruitment, allowing them to run down staff levels while publicly stating that nobody had been made redundant. Then they were merged in with general mental health services.
Throughout all this the staff gave repeated warnings that what was being proposed would mean they couldn't deliver the service to the same standard and there would likely be tragic consequences. You know the sort of thing, something happens and you get told 'known to mental health services' and they take the blame despite it meaning little more than they were on a long waiting list.
Sure enough the 'efficiencies' were pushed through and within a matter of months there was a murder. Of course there was then an inquiry and inadequate mental health provision was citied. But nothing changed. Pretty much everyone that worked there has now been recruited to work overseas.
my point was that the grooming gang scandal goes back 25 years so I can’t imagine underfunding was a problem compared to the main issues already mentioned.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Ultimately you get what you pay for. Any politician claiming they can reduce funding and keep services is lying.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
But they were doing them properly before?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It's also the go to when things are under funded.
Become a care worker and we'll see if you're just not doing your job properly.
Last edited:
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Grenfel documentary is a powerful piece of tv
If no one is held criminally responsible for that no one will ever be held criminally responsible for anything ever period
If no one is held criminally responsible for that no one will ever be held criminally responsible for anything ever period
Last edited:
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
I know hes notorious on here, but a whole documentary on Grendel seems excessive! Thats gonna do his ego a world of good!
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Edited
Nick
Administrator
Depends on the person, doesn't it?
Any time people fuck up in public jobs it's "oh under funded"
Fuck ups or Daniel pelka, under funded. People doing nothing about nonce gangs, not enough funding.
It's the instant go to for some on here.
Nick
Administrator
Would be easy, I'd just not bother and claim under funding when people i didn't report things or do my job.