EBME Forums Forums Free discussion Free discussion Working environment

O.K. John my fellow esprit de corps...Enlighten us

If I may be so bold Louis may I tag a question or two on for John
You didn't say if the staff you took on were T.U.P.E. transfers from MEMS at Southend. If they weren't did they loose their jobs
What happens to your new staff if you loose the contract, do you absorb them or do they become "surplus to requirements"
Does the phrase "..keeping on your toes.." mean under cutting the competition to win the contract.
In my experience that is what normally impresses our masters who keep us in our kennels

Dave, Louis and Karl,

Your questions are particularly relevant since what John Sandham seems to be talking about, as far as I can tell, is competitive tendering for NHS contracts or negotiation of SLA's within the NHS – which may not cross the financial threshold for the tender process to apply. I am not against NHS services being provided for within the NHS, since some hospitals will have excess capacity to meet the requirements of a particular external contract and can income-generate to the hearts-content of the chief executive.

Contracts for maintenance services are being put out to tender which is a good thing because it means there is a demand but strangely enough in many cases they are already provided in some fashion by the NHS organisation putting out the invitation to tender. If this is the case, then there will be staff to consider when the contract is awarded – the staff which are considered to be failing to provide the service required in-house! I am not so sure how one would transfer staff in these circumstances that John Sandham mentions, perhaps he would explain how it works in more detail. I can see pitfalls – the questions that have been raised are all valid.

In theory TUPE transfers do not seem too bad for the transferees – it's what happens to the service and the individuals afterwards. Unfortunately, in my experience, some NHS managers are particularly bad at managing the out-sourcing of services and the staff involved in transfers; they're not interested in looking after the interests of the staff or the service post-transfer – just look at the problems that exist with cleaning, catering, transport, security and porter services and the detrimental effect that this has on the service provided in some instances.

Transfers to the private sector are particularly worrying. There is a tendency for loss of staff before and after the transfer because of uncertainty – individuals may not wish to transfer, the driving down of skill levels, less favourable terms, working conditions and remuneration package to increase profitability will have effect after the transfer, especially after the formation of a two-tier environment in the workplace – those employees originally transferred on NHS terms possibly retaining better terms and conditions than private-employees recruited after the transfer.

The private company could argue that these employees are better off - less skilled and less qualified individuals that would not be employed in the NHS might be accepted into a private company on better terms for the private employer than the NHS would offer. Whatever, there will be an arrangement which is fundamentally different to the way the NHS works. That is; until the original transferees are dispensed with in some way or dispersed (I believe the term is natural wastage) and the private company is able to fully exert its corporate philosophy or "corporate identity' on its new employees.

To try this out-sourcing business on by transferring professionally qualified and technically skilled staff from the NHS to the private sector, compulsorily, is ludicrous. If there is a demand for skills then those dissatisfied with the transfer will walk away: I have done it myself. The fact is that it is as difficult for private employers to appoint staff as it is for the NHS to do so – the argument that the NHS has to rely on private contractors for skilled labour is weak. Private contractors rely on skilled NHS staff providing labour – especially in medical equipment maintenance in a hospital setting, the NHS 'trains' more staff than the private sector does. The NHS loses skills as a result of out-sourcing.

My old maintenance department lost at least 60% of its staff as a result of out-sourcing. If loss of staff is a good indicator of a bad employer, then the private company we transferred to must have a particularly bad reputation, as an employer, indeed. Some companies offer to provide an improved service by relying on the staff that will transfer to them – the excuse for this is that the staff will be managed more appropriately and so be able to provide the service better, privately. In my own experience the managers of the private company I was transferred to openly admitted that it was all a learning process – a new thing to them in this country.

The unfortunate consequence of out-sourcing, which is particularly worrying, is that the private employer is free to take on less-skilled or less experienced staff at lower cost. This will only drive reputations (and salaries) down, in my opinion. Insurance policies cover the risk of something going wrong. There will have to be a compromise between minimum acceptable standards and cost – taking into account profit of course. At least the NHS has technical grading structures if not standards (which should apply nationally in my opinion) Perhaps these should specify the sort of qualifications and skills required. Maybe this should be extended to job-roles and responsibilities perhaps. Given adequate CPD and a career path then the NHS would be able to retain its employees rather than hand them off to the highest (or should I say lowest tendering) bidder.

If national standards and working practices were applied (we were led form the top by professionals) then the services that we provide might not be in such a mess. Having to rely on out-sourcing of any service is a last resort it seems to me. The message that they NHS is putting out to the staff is "We cannot manage this maintenance service', "We do not want to commit any more resources to this service - we cannot provide this service and give value for money', "We only want the key staff – i.e. Doctors, Nurses and other Healthcare professionals in our team' and "We do not want this organisation as part of our Trust'. I cannot understand why some trusts do not want to provide their own service, especially for specialised, essential maintenance (which is required by law) and other clinical and technical support roles in clinical areas.

Alienate the staff already working for you, why don't you? It is not enough to starve the organisation of resources and mismanage it in the first place. Then wonder why it's impossible to recruit and retain staff.

Dear Richard, absolute poetry my friend, In my experience, most of the true professionals are on the middle rung with no where to go, usually because the rung above them is occupied by an Estates Manager or some other Bod who are totally clueless to the important role all our fellow co-efficient's play within the NHS. Oh sufferance my friends, sufferance.

These people should be held to account if our good selves cannot meet the standards recommended,as Richard says, "they are obliged by law".
Not meeting the standards due to poor funding, training, and staffing levels.
My Friends, we need technical independence and representation, right up to the top level.

Financial restraints will always hold back any department creating a makedo and mend culture which unfortunately many departments in my experience fall into.
However, are own consciences will always help are overworked underpaid colleagues (nursing staff etc.) when they are in trouble, ie when the contract equipment fails and they need a quick fix. So should we stand up for ourselves more and deny our services on principle? Would your hospital deny service to patients that have been failed by private healthcare? I think not.
The cost of private companies entering our "kennels" is very nice short term, but longterm? However how many Finance directors think longterm?

Mercury Man, my comrade, I appreciate your heart, one cannot fault your loyalty to our front line co-workers, however, please understand our current position. You could start by reading the following:-

https://www.ebme.co.uk/arts/mdem.htm

written by the eminent Bill Davies FIEE. These are the standards expected of us, So basically a quick fix might help our poor intemperance's in their hour of need whilst at the same time, putting ones own rear “out of the window” so to speak, ask around my friend, these are times of ensuring ones backside is well and truly concealed in these days of self-preservation. If we cannot acquire the correct tools for the job then the personnel starving our resources should be held accountable, I am convinced in a court of law, they will.

QUITE RIGHT KARL, HURRAH. HURRAH,
WE SHOULD ALL HAVE THE SAME THOUGHTS, HURRAH.
KARL FOR PRESIDENT, HURRAH, HURRAH.
FOR HE'S A JOLLY GOOD FELLOW,
FOR HE'S A JOLLY GOOD FELLOW.
FOR HE'S A JOLLY GOOD FEHELLEHOW,
WHICH NOBODY CAN DENY.
HURRAH, HURRAH, KARL HURRAH.
TA RAH.

What can one say !!!

Edgar, my isoflurane sniffing mentor, here's a sicknote, valid for another 5 days

http://www.essex.ac.uk/personnel/Forms/selfcert.rtf

Meantime, still awaiting input from John ?

John is on annual leave, Louis.
H.

Hitler went on annual leave in 1938 taking in Poland, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Belguim and France. Hope there are no hospitals where John is !!!



of course this must be taken in the humour it is given