Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:25 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

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

I doubt it very much - they also much leaner than we are here - i.e. less labour something the unions are constantly fighting against.

In Europe the unions work for the best interest of all stakeholders - in the UK the unions work for the benefit of one stakeholder group - the union

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:32 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

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?

And you point is what? They repay the training by continuing to work in the NHS - how many accountants trained by the big four are still working for them? a tiny fraction.

The same people who mop up the mess when the NHS makes a balls up!!

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:48 pm  

Mintball wrote:

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.

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.

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'.

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

You are so nieve -

The business is making a profit - it is a very diverse company with a number of differing revenue streams. The possibility remains that if the unprofitable firms continue to lose money it could put in jepordy those businesses that generate profits. Whilst they continue to hemmorage cash it means there is less cash to invest in the other profitable businesses. Despite what you think directors at this level think longer term - they cannot see the market in the products these companies produce improving due to the points I stated earlier so what do they do - keep losing money for the pleasure of keeping the sites open - it just isn't realistic and as I keep saying this is the real world its tough out here.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:50 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So you got better treatment when the specialist was treating you in his own time - hardly a shock - compared to NHS time when he is obliged to see as many people as he can to reduce waiting times. On that basis you have made a huge assumption that all other specialists are exactly the same.

No, if you read it again you will see that I said it wasn't a scientifically representative sample.
It is however, a real-life example.
My appointments were at times of my choosing on Fridays and Mondays, not exactly the specialist's "own time".

Sal Paradise wrote:

If your condition is critical 99% of the time the NHS will treat you in the appropriate manner - if it is not it can wait. So if you have the money why should you not be able to spend it on shortening the discomfort - you are not disadvantaging anyone in the queue in fact you are helping them get treated quicker - win win as far as I can see.
You are wrong when you say it is the same resource it isn't - if the specialist decides he doesn't want to do private work that resource evaporates. He isn't going to suddenly going to do the extra hours in the NHS. If BUPA don't build the hospital that also evaporates.

On this we will have to disagree until someone can produce the relevant stats because, in my experience and others who I know, the private treatment has been provided by specialists who worked in both NHS and private and never were their private appointments "out of hours".
There is a view that private practice is generally fitted-in over and above a full working week in the NHS, I'm reluctant to believe this as I haven't heard of anyone being told they'd have to pick a time when the specialist wasn't busy doing NHS work and I don't believe that private patients would tolerate an appointment at 9pm just because the doctor was busy at the NHS hospital during the day.
And, anyway, if there is a need for doctors to work overtime (in your argument, private practice), why should the more affluent get that time? If they can work that extra time, why can't they work it in the NHS?
There is a supply and demand issue here and I think most people who elect for private treatment do so to gain an advantage in supply.
The solution seems to me to be more doctors.
If there were sufficient doctors of the right quality to satisfy the NHS's needs, then the demand for private appointments would drop dramatically and I wouldn't be arguing on this thread.

Sal Paradise wrote:

I completely agree regardes certain treatments - IVF should be one that isn't done on the NHS, gender reasignment, some plastic surgery etc.

Let's just leave that there then ... as I'm sure we could disagree widely on exactly what those certain things should be.

Sal Paradise wrote:

On life not being far how do make it fair - dumb down the intellegent, scar the beautiful etc it isn't realistic or practical make everyone 6ft tall its crazy. In a civilised society we have to except these differences and move on.

How to make life more fair?
In a civilised society we would recognise the duty that the more fortunate have towards those who are not.


I apologise if I have covered the same ground as others have since my last post.
Re : the socialist bit ... there are are many views on what it is, if you'd care to start a thread on it, I'll tell you my version ... but for now, I'll tell you that my view on socialism isn't what you seem to think it is.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:51 pm  

Is this the same "real world" where minimum-wage carers get paid expenses and transport costs?
I notice you didn't return to that discussion.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:57 pm  

Him wrote:

Is this the same "real world" where minimum-wage carers get paid expenses and transport costs?
I notice you didn't return to that discussion.

He never returns to points where he's been taken apart.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:03 pm  

Mintball wrote:

He never returns to points where he's been taken apart.

A good policy to adopt in relation to surgical facilities, I reckon.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:05 pm  

Mintball wrote:

He never returns to points where he's been taken apart.

Yep, it's also a little strange that he describes El Barbudo's experiences with hospital consultants as not representative bur because it suits his argument is happy to use his own similarly un-representative experiences with the printing industry and print unions as evidence that British unions are somehow far worse than European unions.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:12 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You are so nieve -

The word you want is naive.

Sal Paradise wrote:

The business is making a profit - it is a very diverse company with a number of differing revenue streams...

You stated earlier that it was a profitable company: is it a profitable company or is it not?

Sal Paradise wrote:

... The possibility remains that if the unprofitable firms continue to lose money it could put in jepordy those businesses that generate profits. Whilst they continue to hemmorage cash it means there is less cash to invest in the other profitable businesses. Despite what you think directors at this level think longer term - they cannot see the market in the products these companies produce improving due to the points I stated earlier so what do they do - keep losing money for the pleasure of keeping the sites open - it just isn't realistic ...

What company are we talking about now? The one you earlier claimed was profitable – or some generalised idea of companies at large?

Let's examine what you posted earlier:

Sal Paradise wrote:

Yesterday a print company announced the closure of two of its sites...

"A" company. Not two, not three – but one.

Sal Paradise wrote:

... one totally unionised, one union dominated...

Different sites – not different companies. Still just one company.

Sal Paradise wrote:

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.

Again – a single company. And it is profitable, according to you yourself.

So what are you talking about when you suddenly wander off in to describing 'possibilities' at "firms", plural? And either this single company is profitable, as you claim, or it's "losing money" and 'hemmoraging' [sic] money as you also claim.

Which is it?

And you have also decided to ignore my comments about the income gap, about the problems caused by it, about the cost of living, wages and the need for people to have disposable income.

Did you not read them or couldn't you think of an answer that suited what you want to believe?

Sal Paradise wrote:

... as I keep saying this is the real world its tough out here.

Yes, we get the gist about your obsession with 'the real world'. We understand that, to you, schools and hospitals are not 'the real world'.

In my 'not-the-real-world', I have experienced redundancy (more than once), losing my home as a result of redundancy on one occasion, leaving my home and friends and moving most of the way down the country to find work. And then struggling for years to live somewhere decently and earn a decent living; being treated shoddily by more than one employer, being paid piss-poorly and spending years worrying about bills.

So kindly don't keep telling me that only you know about 'the real world' – an assertion based on nothing other than your preconceived guesswork and prejudices about what you imagine I do and have done and experienced.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:23 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

And you point is what? They repay the training by continuing to work in the NHS - how many accountants trained by the big four are still working for them? a tiny fraction.

The same people who mop up the mess when the NHS makes a balls up!!

The thread is about the NHS, not print companies or accountants.

NHS - it is writ large right at the top of the thread. Now be a good lad and try to keep on topic, rather than your continual wandering off into blaming all the ills of the world on trades unionism