Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:32 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

We must agree to differ - I have already said these individuals will work more hours than they are contracted for no extra monies in the NHS. The private work enables them the luxuries - private education for their kids etc - that the years of training and skill deserve. Or are we back to the Socialist ideal that these people should earn the same as dustbin man? Greed is a very emotive word something I wouldn't associate with these individuals - they are pretty poor cousins to the dentists and vets of this world and far more skilled and pressured. The chances of someone dying under knife is a bit more serious than if your dog croakes it.

You view about Primark and New York is interesting - I bet when you paint the materials you use are more New York than Primark?

How many of these consultants were educated and trained by the private sector?

When these private consultants make a balls-up, which private hospital do they ship their patients to, so that they can receive emergency treatment?

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:40 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Grow up - for someone who says she doesn't post on many threads you sure are making a good attempt...

Check all the threads on the front page of the Sin Bin and work out the percentage of those that I post on. Then you can report your findings back here.

Sal Paradise wrote:

... The real world is this - if LGI employed 20 more nurses than it needs it will still be there, these specialists will still have a job - if we employed 20 more printers than we needed we wouldn't and no one would have a job - what bit of this is so difficult for you to comprehend?

You really struggle to understand simple things, don't you? Like bananas. Perhaps when you "grow up" you'll acknowledge that you were wrong about that (and a few other things that you've been pulled on by various people). I'm not holding my breath.

When I mentioned BT, I was talking not of a company that was at risk, but about a company that was making a profit. Because it wanted to make more profit – the profit it was making wasn't enough – it sacked people.

In your 'real world', throwing people on the scrapheap is acceptable. Screw them. Screw their families. Screw their lives. Not to save a company that was failing and in danger of going under – but to make more profit.

Now, it that the case – ir is it that you don't understand the difference between a company at risk of going bust and one that is making money and simply wants to make more?

Perhaps you imagine that jobs are two a penny and anyone can easily find a new one if they don't like the one they're in (or if they're made redundant)? In which case, to employ your own logic, you have chosen to work a full day and effectively subsidise your employer by travelling for three hours either side of that. That, you insisted, is the 'real world'. If that is not the situation and your working arrangements are not a matter of your choice, then it makes your position of being happy to see people thrown on the scrapheap – when there is no threat to the company – even more inexcusable, when you know and understand that they may well struggle to find new work.

Sal Paradise wrote:

... Yesterday a print company announced the closure of two of its sites - one totally unionised, one union dominated. The unions have pushed wage rates to uncompetitive levels they have also refused to consider flexible labour because it might have a knock on affect in other chapels. As result everyone will lose their jobs aprox 160 people, this is the real world. This is a profitable company with excellent management, great cash flow etc.

So they were making profits, eh?

They weren't actually in danger of going bust, eh?

A company with a substantially unionised workforce was doing well, yes? Making profits, yes? Even with those "uncompetitive" wages?

And since the cost of living is falling rapidly – and has done over the last 30 years – it is entirely reasonable for workers to see their wages fall too, yes?

And the national economy won't suffer, because since it isn't massively reliant on the service and retail sectors, it doesn't need people with money in their pockets to spend?

Yesterday, a mailing house lost a big contract because, after amalgamating with another company, it found it had too much work, and management tried to tell a long-term, major client that it wasn't going to do a pre-booked job and would do it sometime when they found it convenient.

That's 'the real world'.

Sal Paradise wrote:

No one can afford labour costs that harm their competitive advantage - something that is completely beyond your comprehension.

You really don't care much for your fellow human beings.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:50 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

... Or are we back to the Socialist ideal that these people should earn the same as dustbin man?...

1) Kindly quote the place where this is set down as some sort of socialist tenet.

2) Kindly quite where anyone on this forum, in these discussion has ever suggested that this should be the case.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:03 pm  

EHW wrote:

sounds reasonable to me.

Rationing the number of referrals a GP can make is "reasonable"? How do you work that one out then?

GPs don't refer people just to fill up the time available to NHS consultants, they refer them because there is a clinical need to refer. The rationing of referrals is aimed at reducing cost to the NHS, while still providing the smokescreen of short waiting times. No account is taken of the demographic of a GP's practise or the clinical needs of his patients, that may be well outside of the median.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:11 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

Said it before and I'll say it again - the printing trade only has itself to blame for union problems, my uncle was a skilled printer until he retired and I've dealt extensively with printing companies in the past, they are the one trade where the 1960s unionised closed shop attitude is still alive and well, and thriving.

It is an interesting point - it used to be case but the bigger players are now closing all their unionised sites and keeping open the non-unionised sites. Much to Unite's chagrin The likes of Sibbald live in a world of their own completely detached from reality. Unite will close every site in which it has a dominant influence.

The issue with print is four fold:
1. Alternative media and the relative ROI on each TV, mobile, Internet etc
2. Over capacity in the market place
3. Rising raw material costs and the inability to pass these costs due to point 2
4. The huge proliferation of pre-packs that are distorting the market place.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:15 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

It is an interesting point - it used to be case but the bigger players are now closing all their unionised sites and keeping open the non-unionised sites. Much to Unite's chagrin The likes of Sibbald live in a world of their own completely detached from reality. Unite will close every site in which it has a dominant influence.

The issue with print is four fold:
1. Alternative media and the relative ROI on each TV, mobile, Internet etc
2. Over capacity in the market place
3. Rising raw material costs and the inability to pass these costs due to point 2
4. The huge proliferation of pre-packs that are distorting the market place.

Do the German & French printing companies have similar problems with unions?

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:16 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

On the basis that this was/is a "failing hospital" and we're continually told how wonderful the private sector is, I look forward to a rapid improvement, polite, understanding staff (just for Dally), no waiting lists, all the best doctors working there and a low mortality rate.

Should I hold my breath?

no mon ami,

just come to france and experience how a real national health system works

our local airport at Limoges ships in dozens of UK NHS patients weekly for treatment in the local hospitals to help lower the UK waiting lists

the system works - it's brill !

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:16 pm  

Mintball wrote:

1) Kindly quote the place where this is set down as some sort of socialist tenet.

2) Kindly quite where anyone on this forum, in these discussion has ever suggested that this should be the case.

You need to read this thread - one poster has said that one of his tenet's of life is that everything should be done to make things fairer and equalise out these quirks of birth.

Socialism can be interpreted in a number of ways - the basic premise suggests wealth is spread more evenly - how do you suggest this is possible when you have the inequalities that basic procreation delivers.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:17 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Do the German & French printing companies have similar problems with unions?

He never has responded to your repeated mentions of the state of affairs on the Continent, has he?

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:23 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You need to read this thread - one poster has said that one of his tenet's of life is that everything should be done to make things fairer and equalise out these quirks of birth.

He did not say that everyone should be on the same wage. He did not claim that he believed that the bin man and the surgeon should be on the same rate.

So, where has anyone claimed this?

Sal Paradise wrote:

Socialism can be interpreted in a number of ways - the basic premise suggests wealth is spread more evenly - how do you suggest this is possible when you have the inequalities that basic procreation delivers.

In the last 30 years, the income gap between those at the very top and everybody else has widened. Just a reflection of the "inequalities that basic procreation delivers", you think?

According to The Spirit Level, countries where there is a wider income gap have greater social problems than countries where there is a narrower income gap. Do you think that this is good? Do you think it acceptable? Do you think that a greater percentage of people in the UK and US are, for instance, somehow genetically predisposed to be worse off than people in, say, Sweden and Japan?

Do you think that Sweden and Japan are socialist countries? Do you think that Sweden and Japan are economic basketcases?