Do you want to discuss boring politics? (49 Viewers)

[CCFCSteve]

Some of it is outcome based. But take education. GCSE results go into the calculation. We’ve just nuked all expected progress with lockdown, and got a behaviour crisis to boot. What can teachers do with that? Same in health, huge increase in sickness and staff absence and aftershocks from the pandemic.

The drivers and outputs are just totally different and not in control on a day to day basis. I can decide to write more code today, I couldnt decide my class was going to get better GCSEs today, huge amounts of that were locked in before they ever met me. I just don’t think GDP makes sense for public services, which often operate over huge timescales with output measured in the businesses around them. You don’t expect an instant return on EYFS for example, you have no idea on the economic impact a nursery worker had until that baby is in their 20s.

Anyone in public services will tell you the issues and their structural and resources. Old equipment crapping out, dealing with unresolved impacts of social issues, crap pay meaning your hiring pool is limited. The fact it’s gone down after a huge social shock like Covid shouldn’t be a surprise.

Im not talking about GDP and agree I don’t think public services should be involved in this. I’m talking about productivity. It was increasing pre covid (and since 2010) and although bounced post, hadnt increased again since 2022 and remains 6.8% below pre pandemic

I personally think without strikes and a bit of focus they’ll naturally improve anyway so not it sure why the upset

 

---

[CCFCSteve]

Something I often ask leaders when putting together metrics is “what action would you take if this number changed?” If your answer is “I’d withhold pay from workers until the number went up”, I’d argue you’ve not got the most useful metric for impacting change in your business.

Id argue if you keep giving people above inflation payrises without condition and improvement in performance (which is running below where it was/needs to be) you’re unlikely to have a business to employ any staff

Ps ‘withhold pay from workers’ is a bit different to saying we can’t keep paying above inflation payrises unless we improve performance ! I’d also suggest if everyone understands this there’s likely to be more people from all levels stepping forward with ideas of where improvements in productivity/processes can be made

 

[shmmeee]

Id argue if you keep giving people above inflation payrises without condition and improvement in performance (which is running below where it was/needs to be) you’re unlikely to have a business to employ any staff

Ps ‘withhold pay from workers’ is a bit different to saying we can’t keep paying above inflation payrises unless we improve performance ! I’d also suggest if everyone understands this there’s likely to be more people from all levels stepping forward with ideas of where improvements in productivity/processes can be made

“keep”!!??

 

[CCFCSteve]

“keep”!!??

View attachment 37198

As you know, I was talking about Reeves messaging yesterday ie what she can afford to do going forwards.

 

[MalcSB]

Tough choices

That will help NHS winter pressures. Not.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Didn’t expect to find you here stanning taxpayer handouts for millionaires

I'm all for unversallism and think means testing is pointless

 

[fernandopartridge]

Support services were typically targets for Cost Improvement Programmes, this can mean for example that expensive resource is standing idle for lack of a porter to move a patient.

Insufficient ICU beds means that a carefully constructed and enormously expensive team of doctors and theatre staff can be gathered for a hugely complex surgical procedure, only to be stood down at zero notice because the required ICU bed has been taken by an emergency admission.

Just two examples.

Im not entirely sure how the increased complexity of treatments is taken account of, if at all, in traditional measures of productivity. Huge sums are spent on “commissioning” which could otherwise be spent on patient care rather than counting the beans on one side and challenging the number of beans counted on the other. I could go on.

NHSE is currently making regional / subregional commissioners pay consultants (IE the big 4) to investigate and report why local health systems are in deficit. As you can imagine it's not cheap.

 

[Mcbean]

Today Bovver boots is launching the planning changes - that should be a laugh - housebuilder shares hit the roof but then slump on the prospect of building 2 bedroom housing association flats - no issue for me but ffs build them on the right place ie where there is work or investment going in - not in the middle of nowhere in our rapidly decreasing green countryside

 

[MalcSB]

I'm all for unversallism and think means testing is pointless

It’s surprising, or perhaps not, how little comment this, the scrapping of the social care cap and the retraction from the promised reduction in fuel costs has received from the socialist majority on this forum.

It must be very embarrassing for them.

 

[MalcSB]

Didn’t expect to find you here stanning taxpayer handouts for millionaires

TBF, the £300 will pale into insignificance compared to the income tax those millionaires will be paying.

 

[Ian1779]

I personally think without strikes and a bit of focus they’ll naturally improve anyway so not it sure why the upset

 

[CCFCSteve]

View attachment 37200

It’s a genuine comment about productivity. If you read through the previous posts my point was that productivity should/needs to improve to maintain inflation/above inflation pay rises.

There are unlikely to be strikes due to the proposed pay rises so that should naturally lead to higher productivity anyway. Hardly controversial

Edit - just to clarify, by definition you can’t produce any output if you’re on strike so obviously strikes would have a negative impact on public sector productivity. no strikes would therefore have a positive impact compared to last year.

 

[Ian1779]

It’s a genuine comment about productivity. If you read through the previous posts my point was that productivity should/needs to improve to maintain inflation/above inflation pay rises.

There are unlikely to be strikes due to the proposed pay rises so that should naturally lead to higher productivity anyway. Hardly controversial

But again how do you measure productivity in a school or hospital? We aren’t doing our jobs for profit, and certainly in the case of education I’d argue that productivity was not higher than before COV-ID at all.

 

[CCFCSteve]

But again how do you measure productivity in a school or hospital? We aren’t doing our jobs for profit, and certainly in the case of education I’d argue that productivity was not higher than before COV-ID at all.

The ONS obviously used various measures (which have gone on for years). The things that sprang to my mind across the public sector were strikes, ill health and WFH. They’ll be others around processes, focus on increasing people numbers in nhs but not the same on capital equipment, higher agency staff wages etc etc: Id need to see the split across services to comment

This isn’t a ‘all public sector workers are lazy’ conversation. This is a ‘something hasn’t been right since the pandemic that needs to change’. To not try to improve productivity would be crazy though and even Hunt had earmarked £4bn in investment to try to help

Ps I’d imagine due to its size, reduced productivity in the nhs would have a outsized negative impact on overall public sector productivity but I haven’t seen any breakdown so can’t comment

 

[chiefdave]

What’s gone wrong at HMRC then? Call answering time nearly 5 times that before Covid / WFH.

No idea mate but when WFH is consistently shown to increase productivity then I think we probably need to look elsewhere for the answer.

 

[CCFCSteve]

No idea mate but when WFH is consistently shown to increase productivity then I think we probably need to look elsewhere for the answer.

Im not sure that’s correct though Dave

WFH’s staunchest proponents just dropped a bomb: Fully remote workers are less productive

Fully remote work is associated with 10% to 20% lower productivity than fully in-person work, a new paper finds.

fortune.com

Many people will be more productive, many won’t be. It depends on role, personal circumstances, office/home environment, drive, experience, IT/Comms access, commute time etc etc. Everyone’s different

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Im not sure that’s correct though Dave

WFH’s staunchest proponents just dropped a bomb: Fully remote workers are less productive

Fully remote work is associated with 10% to 20% lower productivity than fully in-person work, a new paper finds.

fortune.com

Many people will be more productive, many won’t be. It depends on role, personal circumstances, office/home environment, drive, experience, IT/Comms access, commute time etc etc. Everyone’s different

Does seem that hybrid is a best of both worlds approach. Which is what the civil service does unless I’m mistaken

 

[CCFCSteve]

Does seem that hybrid is a best of both worlds approach. Which is what the civil service does unless I’m mistaken

Yeah, if you look back at my previous posts I’ve always said flexible/hybrid working is best. I believe that a majority of civil service is now back to the office at least part of the time which should hopefully help productivity figures

 

[shmmeee]

As you know, I was talking about Reeves messaging yesterday ie what she can afford to do going forwards.

The junior doctor pay rise, like the others, is needed because they’ve had pay suppressed for so long that we’ve got staffing crises everywhere. The last 14 years has been an exercise in can kicking and now the chickens are coming home to roost, possibly in cans (?).

You can’t cheat the market ultimately. Wages have to keep up with inflation in the longer term.

 

[MalcSB]

No idea mate but when WFH is consistently shown to increase productivity then I think we probably need to look elsewhere for the answer.

So I will assume WFH is a good thing. If that is the case, should those WFH but in receipt of London Weighting no longer be entitled to it as they are not incurring the costs of physically working in London? The savings could then go toward an enhanced allowance for those who do not have the WFH option - hospital porters for example?
If you dont agree, what is your rationale?

 

[Diogenes]

Does seem that hybrid is a best of both worlds approach. Which is what the civil service does unless I’m mistaken

Yep

Fully remote doesn't work but hybrid does and is proven.

It's worth saying though it depends on the role.

Some roles need far more office attendance but some are naturally suited to spending more time remotely. The best approach is to let business areas decide what works for them.

 

[CCFCSteve]

The junior doctor pay rise, like the others, is needed because they’ve had pay suppressed for so long that we’ve got staffing crises everywhere. The last 14 years has been an exercise in can kicking and now the chickens are coming home to roost, possibly in cans (?).

You can’t cheat the market ultimately. Wages have to keep up with inflation in the longer term.

Ive always believed that if an organisation/ business can afford it and an employee is doing their job, pay rises should be at least the level of inflation. Those that work hard, go above and beyond should get more than inflation. Those that aren’t delivering shouldn’t expect a pay rise

I’m a simple man

 

[Diogenes]

So I will assume WFH is a good thing. If that is the case, should those WFH but in receipt of London Weighting no longer be entitled to it as they are not incurring the costs of physically working in London? The savings could then go toward an enhanced allowance for those who do not have the WFH option - hospital porters for example?
If you dont agree, what is your rationale?

Agreed but they can't do that as hybrid working is not a contractual agreement. Most civil servants are contracted to an office and can be asked to come in 100% of the time.

If hybrid was written into the contract then the London weighting should only apply to the % of the time they would be contractually obliged to attend the office. Think that would be the fairest way around it and would free up some cash.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Agreed but they can't do that as hybrid working is not a contractual agreement. Most civil servants are contracted to an office and can be asked to come in 100% of the time.

If hybrid was written into the contract then the London weighting should only apply to the % of the time they would be contractually obliged to attend the office. Think that would be the fairest way around it and would free up some cash.

When I worked in the civil service, well it was a quango actually there was a different weighting for London and the South East, I don't think it's all about the cost of commuting, some of it about the higher general cost of living and also competition. That was all swept away I think once the quango was abolished and absorbed into the department.

 

[wingy]

When I worked in the civil service, well it was a quango actually there was a different weighting for London and the South East, I don't think it's all about the cost of commuting, some of it about the higher general cost of living and also competition. That was all swept away I think once the quango was abolished and absorbed into the department.

Remember them quangos for health board's at local level, actually worked delivery wise IMO!!

 

[shmmeee]

So I will assume WFH is a good thing. If that is

the case, should those WFH but in receipt of London Weighting no longer be entitled to it as they are not incurring the costs of physically working in London? The savings could then go toward an enhanced allowance for those who do not have the WFH option - hospital porters for example?
If you dont agree, what is your rationale?

I think there’s a fair argument for pro rata-ing London col payments.

 

[Ian1779]

The ONS obviously used various measures (which have gone on for years). The things that sprang to my mind across the public sector were strikes, ill health and WFH. They’ll be others around processes, focus on increasing people numbers in nhs but not the same on capital equipment, higher agency staff wages etc etc: Id need to see the split across services to comment

This isn’t a ‘all public sector workers are lazy’ conversation. This is a ‘something hasn’t been right since the pandemic that needs to change’. To not try to improve productivity would be crazy though and even Hunt had earmarked £4bn in investment to try to help

Ps I’d imagine due to its size, reduced productivity in the nhs would have a outsized negative impact on overall public sector productivity but I haven’t seen any breakdown so can’t comment

Again from an education perspective the pandemic exposed the large infrastructure gaps that had been papered over for so long - physical and from a workforce perspective. Subsidiary services like SEND and MH are non-existent in lots of places, and safeguarding at a county level is woefully inadequate nearly everywhere - this is where investment needs to also happen.
Teachers also realised that they finally could escape the sector with more WFH opportunities and a better work-life balance.
Now you have a perfect storm where the numbers leaving far exceed the numbers training.
It’s not a productivity thing, it’s a lack of investment that is holding the sector back, at the detriment of those going through it.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

London weighting is general costs of living. When I worked in London my commute costs were free (could walk) but rent etc was eye watering. That doesn't go away unless WFH is 100% of the time

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Again from an education perspective the pandemic exposed the large infrastructure gaps that had been papered over for so long - physical and from a workforce perspective. Subsidiary services like SEND and MH are non-existent in lots of places, and safeguarding at a county level is woefully inadequate nearly everywhere - this is where investment needs to also happen.
Teachers also realised that they finally could escape the sector with more WFH opportunities and a better work-life balance.
Now you have a perfect storm where the numbers leaving far exceed the numbers training.
It’s not a productivity thing, it’s a lack of investment that is holding the sector back, at the detriment of those going through it.

I left the profession in pursuit of exactly those things.

 

[shmmeee]

London weighting is general costs of living. When I worked in London my commute costs were free (could walk) but rent etc was eye watering. That doesn't go away unless WFH is 100% of the time

Economics change with once a week or once a month attendance tho. Makes it possible to move away so depends on the role I guess.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I think there’s a fair argument for pro rata-ing London col payments.

You could argue that the weighting should relate more to your home postcode rather than your base office

 

[Grendel]

No idea mate but when WFH is consistently shown to increase productivity then I think we probably need to look elsewhere for the answer.

It certainly does not improve productivity at the Council.

The departments I deal with who still have to be in offices and visible are far more reactive than the commercial and property side that all work from home most days and are impossible to get hold of

 

[fernandopartridge]

My work is hybrid now and has been for a couple of years, I'm one of very few people who actually goes to the office regularly.

I don't buy the idea that I'm any more productive, it still takes me the same amount of time to perform the same task. I think what a lot of the WFH increases productivity people are on about is hanging the washing out

 

[MalcSB]

Again from an education perspective the pandemic exposed the large infrastructure gaps that had been papered over for so long - physical and from a workforce perspective. Subsidiary services like SEND and MH are non-existent in lots of places, and safeguarding at a county level is woefully inadequate nearly everywhere - this is where investment needs to also happen.
Teachers also realised that they finally could escape the sector with more WFH opportunities and a better work-life balance.
Now you have a perfect storm where the numbers leaving far exceed the numbers training.
It’s not a productivity thing, it’s a lack of investment that is holding the sector back, at the detriment of those going through it.

Given the issues you have identified, where are the 6,500 extra teachers, funded by VAT on private education, going to come from?

 

[MalcSB]

London weighting is general costs of living. When I worked in London my commute costs were free (could walk) but rent etc was eye watering. That doesn't go away unless WFH is 100% of the time

From what I have read, WFH has meant that significant numbers of people have been able to move out of London and its immediate surroundings. A once or twice a week commute from Northamptonshire or the Isle Of Wight (lived in both) is relatively painless and the savings on housing costs far outweigh the cost of a train ticket.