ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by CQMS

So this easy work is no longer a burden on the state, can't see the problem myself.

The NHS appears more expensive as they deal with more difficult work. A private provider can be made to appear cheap. If private provider screws up, guess where you'll end up?

Originally Posted by jarrod248

What's wrong with you lot? They can withdraw labour,

Not often I agree with you but I do here. Couple of points:

-They've gone through the correct procedure to invoke strike action. This may be an unsatisfactory procedure, but it is not for the union to change it.

-They've gone on the attack and chosen a time to maximise the effect. This is a standard military practice - why deny it to the TUs'.

A private provider is dirt cheap to the state if it all goes right and it mostly does. If someone wants to pay for their treatment why shouldn't they, if it goes wrong then the NHS is where they belong. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have gone wrong in the NHS, indeed it may even have been the same surgeon.

Originally Posted by CQMS

A private provider is dirt cheap to the state if it all goes right and it mostly does. If someone wants to pay for their treatment why shouldn't they, if it goes wrong then the NHS is where they belong. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have gone wrong in the NHS, indeed it may even have been the same surgeon.

Well it's not just about people paying its also about the state paying. If we pay private companies to do easy stuff we have to expect the NHS will appear more expensive on the complex stuff. I'm not opposed to using private companies as we did so under fundholding and we do so now.

A and E staff, coppers, HMF.

until any of the above go on strike do, not, disturb.

NHS, Police, emergency services are are a different kettle of fish upon which i have not direct experience to comment.

Home Office though, as far as organisations go isn't a bad one to work for. Granted, it's not the most exciting of work nor is it the best paid. But for what most people actually do, it's reasonable pay not too mention that it is pretty employee friendly in terms of work/life balance.
Unlike nurses, doctors, soldiers et al I've yet to meet anyone who wanted to be a 'civil servant in the Home Office' when I grow up. I've met loads who did it for 'a couple of years' and are still there twenty years later. They're there for the reasons I've mentioned. Organisations change and have to evolve, ad previous posters have suggested; if you don't like it move on.

Originally Posted by leveller

These CEO's though tend to sit on the boards of ex public companies.

Did you at any point think it would be a good idea to withdraw your services or refuse to do anything that wasn't in your job description?

Job Description? You are having a laugh. My grade describes my skills and level of responsibility I am expected to take. A more fixed job description would constrict me make me inflexible. You know as well as I do that in the private sector if you are not flexible or willing to JFDI when things need doing then you will get nowhere in terms of career or reward. Problem is that does get exploited on occasion.

There is one thing that I do despise people that have retained the complete civil servant mentality for. Some of them see their salary as appearance money, not something you have to justify and earn, so they do the minimum and do exactly 37.5 hours a week. The one thing that does piss me off is the phrase "that's not my job".

Have I ever considered formally withdrawing my services? Honest answer is not since I married 20 years ago. That made me have a responsibility for more than just me. Prior to that I have walked out on "lightning" one day strike twice and struck on two other occasions where we were formally balloted. Have I been frustrated? Many times.

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Teaching. Exam results show a consistently improving trend every year, so much so they've had to introduce A* grades and Universities cannot distinguish between the best students because nearly all are now geniuses!

Hahahahaha, nothing to do with lowering the grades needed to pass then, when I was at school, to get an "A" meant a 90% pass mark, not the 50something % it is now!