State supports for Vulnerable Children.

P

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,990
A friend of mine is a Speech Therapist. She works 2 days a week. Of the 6 women she works with none of them work fulltime. The vast majority of Speech Therapists are women. We have a chronic shortage of Speech therapists.

Women make up the majority of medical graduates. This is more pronounced in child and adolescent services such as Psychiatry of Learning Disability and Child and Adolescent Psychiatry where they make up more than two thirds of newly qualified specialists.
Female doctors are far more likely to cite work-life balance as a priority and, on average, work significantly shorter hours than their male counterparts.


I'm not criticising the choices women make and I certainly don't want to get into a debate about the very real legacy of sexism which reinforces some of those choices.
My question is should we look again at how we structure these jobs and how we train people who work in these areas as we are not producing/filling one job for each person we train. The cost of training someone who chooses to work part time is the same as the cost of training someone who chooses to work fulltime. How do we get better bang for our buck? We are critically short of people to help very vulnerable children because the people we have trained to work in those areas are far more likely to choose to work part time.
 
Somehow I don't think the needs of vulnerable children will be a priority to those sectors clamouring for a 4 day week either.
 
Purple said:
A friend of mine is a Speech Therapist. She works 2 days a week. Of the 6 women she works with none of them work fulltime. The vast majority of Speech Therapists are women. We have a chronic shortage of Speech therapists.

Women make up the majority of medical graduates. This is more pronounced in child and adolescent services such as Psychiatry of Learning Disability and Child and Adolescent Psychiatry where they make up more than two thirds of newly qualified specialists.
Female doctors are far more likely to cite work-life balance as a priority and, on average, work significantly shorter hours than their male counterparts.


I'm not criticising the choices women make and I certainly don't want to get into a debate about the very real legacy of sexism which reinforces some of those choices.
My question is should we look again at how we structure these jobs and how we train people who work in these areas as we are not producing/filling one job for each person we train. The cost of training someone who chooses to work part time is the same as the cost of training someone who chooses to work fulltime. How do we get better bang for our buck? We are critically short of people to help very vulnerable children because the people we have trained to work in those areas are far more likely to choose to work part time.
Click to expand...
I know! Let's just stop mothers from working outside the home and neglecting the poor childer. That way they won't be depriving a man of a job that he badly needs to support his family. (Or even more badly needs to support Paddy Power and Arth Guinness.)
I think we actually tried that way back in the day before all them feminists started burning their bras and ruined everything. It was very successful until a few brazen hussies came along and upended the whole thing. Wrecked it, so they did. No wonder we're surrounded by ..... (insert favourite gripe here) .... mumble, mumble, mutter, etc etc.......
 
Baby boomer said:
I know! Let's just stop mothers from working outside the home and neglecting the poor childer. That way they won't be depriving a man of a job that he badly needs to support his family. (Or even more badly needs to support Paddy Power and Arth Guinness.)
I think we actually tried that way back in the day before all them feminists started burning their bras and ruined everything. It was very successful until a few brazen hussies came along and upended the whole thing. Wrecked it, so they did. No wonder we're surrounded by ..... (insert favourite gripe here) .... mumble, mumble, mutter, etc etc.......
Click to expand...
What on earth are you talking about?
 
Purple said:
What on earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...
It used to be seen as a "problem" when women, particularly married ones with children, worked outside the home. You are drifting perilously close to declaring it a problem now when some of them don't.

Both attitudes are wrong for the same reason. We should be encouraging personal choice as much as possible. A speech therapist who works in paid employment two days a week and works as homemaker for the remainder is making an excellent contribution to overall societal wellbeing.
 
Baby boomer said:
It used to be seen as a "problem" when women, particularly married ones with children, worked outside the home. You are drifting perilously close to declaring it a problem now when some of them don't.

Both attitudes are wrong for the same reason. We should be encouraging personal choice as much as possible. A speech therapist who works in paid employment two days a week and works as homemaker for the remainder is making an excellent contribution to overall societal wellbeing.
Click to expand...
What? Is this satire..they're using the job for their own selfish ends at the expense of providing a public service
 
Purple said:
My question is should we look again at how we structure these jobs and how we train people who work in these areas as we are not producing/filling one job for each person we train. The cost of training someone who chooses to work part time is the same as the cost of training someone who chooses to work fulltime. How do we get better bang for our buck? We are critically short of people to help very vulnerable children because the people we have trained to work in those areas are far more likely to choose to work part time.
Click to expand...
Remove the option of these nonsensical working arrangements-it's supposed to be the public service
 
ATC110 said:
What? Is this satire..they're using the job for their own selfish ends at the expense of providing a public service
Click to expand...
You kidding me? Slavery's been abolished, you know! Working is now optional. Work and you get paid. Don't and you won't. Work part time and you get part pay. Seems pretty fair to me.

After all, what's the difference between the State employing one full time or two part time speech therapists, or nurses, or dentists or whatever? It's not like there's an obligation to work for the State either. They're perfectly free to go into private practice and many do. It's absurd to suggest they shouldn't be free to work part time, if they can find an employer willing to pay part time salary.
 
Family friendly work policies aren't limited to public sector. Many private sector bodies, particularly larger organisations, in hi-tech sector and financial services offer job-sharing and similar schemes. Public sector bodies can't use money to attract candidates, so family friendly policies are an important tool.
 
Did you read the OP?
There's a chronic shortage of Speech Therapists leading to waiting lists and is not an efficient use of publicly-funded education/training.

The purpose of the public service is not to accommodate the personal whims of those employed by it.
 
ATC110 said:
Did you read the OP?
There's a chronic shortage of Speech Therapists leading to waiting lists and is not an efficient use of publicly-funded education/training.

The purpose of the public service is not to accommodate the personal whims of those employed by it.
Click to expand...
Did you read the bit about how family friendly policies attract staff? What do you think would be the outcome of the removal of part-time working policies in this sector?
 
RetirementPlan said:
WHat evidence would this be, please?
Click to expand...
"Evidence" of malfeasance in the public sector is obviously difficult to impossible to prove hence the state of the service; if it was easy there might be a chance of reform resulting in effective public service delivery rather than embedded self-interest of its employees, which is intrinsic to discommoding the public it purports to serve.

It's common knowledge what goes on in the public sector so matter how many times you ask for evidence or try to discredit any discussion of same, it won't change this.

The only people in denial/defending the indefensible of how the public service operates are those with something to lose from reform.
 
ATC110 said:
"Evidence" of malfeasance in the public sector is obviously difficult to impossible to prove hence the state of the service; if it was easy there might be a chance of reform resulting in effective public service delivery rather than embedded self-interest of its employees, which is intrinsic to discommoding the public it purports to serve.

It's common knowledge what goes on in the public sector so matter how many times you ask for evidence or try to discredit any discussion of same, it won't change this.

The only people in denial/defending the indefensible of how the public service operates are those with something to lose from reform.
Click to expand...
There are abuses in the public service. Lead swingers, time servers, CYA merchants and the downright dysfunctional tend to be tolerated somewhat more than in most (but not all) private sector employment. I've worked in both BTW so I'm speaking from experience.

But part time work isn't a problem or an abuse. For many workers with family responsibilities, it isn't a choice between part-time and full-time; it's a choice between part-time and no job.
 
ATC110 said:
"Evidence" of malfeasance in the public sector is obviously difficult to impossible to prove hence the state of the service; if it was easy there might be a chance of reform resulting in effective public service delivery rather than embedded self-interest of its employees, which is intrinsic to discommoding the public it purports to serve.

It's common knowledge what goes on in the public sector so matter how many times you ask for evidence or try to discredit any discussion of same, it won't change this.

The only people in denial/defending the indefensible of how the public service operates are those with something to lose from reform.
Click to expand...
Evidence of all actions in the public sector is remarkably easy to find. Lots of information is published already, and if that's not enough, you can submit FOI or get a friendly TD to submit a PQ to bring more information to light. The 'common knowledge' is the last resort of the Joe Duffy caller. Most of the suggestions on this thread have little to do with reform, and everything to do with the almost spiteful, vengeful, misguided application of measures that really don't help that much in their native sector to satisfy some kind of almost blood lust, rather than any sensible reform or management. Some degree of understanding of the nature of the public sector, the objectives of the public sector, the nature of 'consumer demand' in the public sector, the restrictions of operating under a strict legislative framework, the restrictions of operating under public sector budgeting and procurement just might bring something insightful to the debate.

There's lots wrong in the public sector, and lots of scope for improvement and reform, as their is in all sectors. I haven't seen one constructive proposal here, and I've seen little evidence of what problems we're trying to solve.
 
RetirementPlan said:
Evidence of all actions in the public sector is remarkably easy to find. Lots of information is published already, and if that's not enough, you can submit FOI or get a friendly TD to submit a PQ to bring more information to light. The 'common knowledge' is the last resort of the Joe Duffy caller. Most of the suggestions on this thread have little to do with reform, and everything to do with the almost spiteful, vengeful, misguided application of measures that really don't help that much in their native sector to satisfy some kind of almost blood lust, rather than any sensible reform or management. Some degree of understanding of the nature of the public sector, the objectives of the public sector, the nature of 'consumer demand' in the public sector, the restrictions of operating under a strict legislative framework, the restrictions of operating under public sector budgeting and procurement just might bring something insightful to the debate.

There's lots wrong in the public sector, and lots of scope for improvement and reform, as their is in all sectors. I haven't seen one constructive proposal here, and I've seen little evidence of what problems we're trying to solve.
Click to expand...
An FOI request or PQ for obviously unofficial but embedded abuse of position on an individual level? Right.

Mass misuse/abuse of taxpayers money met with a "spiteful, vengeful" response..is this supposed to be unreasonable.

Much of your post reads like deliberately obfuscating spiel between a service-delivery blocking unionist and a hapless manager trying to get the job done.
 
Slavery, stopping women working outside the home, working men who are gambling addicts, public servants are all lazy, I admit there's lots wrong with the public service but I can't think of a single example... this is like a case study in hyperbole.

My point when I started this thread is that we still assume that when we educate a speech therapist etc we will end up with one full time speech therapist. The same goes for doctors and nurses. These sectors are dominated by women and women are far more likely to choose to work part time. The higher paid the job is the more likely they are to be able to make that choice financially. There's absolutely nothing wrong with any of that.

The issue is that our education system hasn't kept up with reality. We actually need more people trained in these areas to get the required number of full time equivalent employees. We train more doctors per head than any other country in the world but a good chunk of them (30-50%) are foreign and were never going to stay here in the first place (each year the doctors unions tell lies about how they are leaving because being a doctor in this rich first world country is so hard, aaawwwww, poor didums). Maybe we should have a hybrid student loan system so make up some of the difference (maybe we should have that anyway as I believe rich people shouldn't be educated using the taxes of poor people but that's a different issue).

So maybe our education system is a reflection of the Patriarchy or maybe men should do more childcare or maybe (Insert stereotype here), but while we are dealing with all of that can we take a look at reality and, like, take it into account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top