Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: roverstillidie91 on November 08, 2023, 12:43:43 am
-
Unbelievable - now using private companies for ambulance services.
https://everydoctor.org.uk/campaigns/privatisation-of-ambulance-services/
https://twitter.com/JujuliaGrace/status/1721075085027459240?s=19
-
I wonder who'll win the tenders for privatisation of the armed forces?
-
I wonder who'll win the tenders for privatisation of the armed forces?
It's an absolute scandal.
Clearly privatization isn't to the benefit of normal people but to its shareholders.
I wonder if Keir Starmer is going to protect our NHS? https://weownit.org.uk/
-
I wonder who'll win the tenders for privatisation of the armed forces?
Wagner?
-
Most likely Aegis, AirScan, Academi, AISC, Erynis, G4S, IIL, JSC, KBR, MAG Aerospace, MPRI, Northbridge Services, Northop Gruman, Raytheon, Rubicon, Sandline, L3 Comms, Constellis, URG, Vinnell.
-
Of course there's loads of private companies already working with the armed forces as there has been for many years.
Why not let private companies run ambulances if they can do it cheaper and more effectively (big if)
-
As per the water companies the trains the ...........
-
The trains were shite before privatisation.
-
''Thames Ambulance to be stripped of its North Lincolnshire contract.
Thames Ambulance Service Ltd (TASL) started its contract with North Lincolnshire in 2016 for non-urgent patient transport. Problems in the service soon surfaced, but despite working with the CCG and recommendations from the Care Quality Commision (CQC), the company failed to improve. As a result, in March 2018 the CCG served notice on the company.
An inspection by the CQC in October 2017, led to a damning report in February 2018, which can be found on the CQC website. The CQC uncovered a range of failings including one day when 13 patients were left waiting at hospital for transport. Patients were also left waiting in the cold for transport and missing appointments because the service couldn’t be provided adequately enough to get patients there on time.
One of TASL staff members described their employer as “inept” and “disorganised”. The state of the service’s vehicles was also highlighted by the CQC inspectors, with one vehicle 5,000 miles past its service due date and no hot water being available to clean them properly, inspectors found''
https://www.nhsforsale.info/ambulance-services/#:~:text=The%20CQC%20uncovered%20a%20range,get%20patients%20there%20on%20time.
-
Splendid! Privatisation was always going to provide a superior service at reduced cost. What a wonderful endorsement of the entire concept....
BobG
-
The trains were shite before privatisation.
it should be brought back into public hands, working on the railway its clear to see.
And it costs the taxpayer more money than it being in public hands.
-
Of course there's loads of private companies already working with the armed forces as there has been for many years.
Why not let private companies run ambulances if they can do it cheaper and more effectively (big if)
It won't be cheaper, privatisation has been a disaster.
All the public services where possible should be brought back into public hand.
Especially water, railway, energy
-
The trains were shite before privatisation.
Do you ever go from Donny to London on the train?
-
In fact, come to think of it,did you ever try going from anywhere to anywhere by train in the late 90s, after half a decade of privatisation?
-
Of course there's loads of private companies already working with the armed forces as there has been for many years.
Why not let private companies run ambulances if they can do it cheaper and more effectively (big if)
It won't be cheaper, privatisation has been a disaster.
All the public services where possible should be brought back into public hand.
Especially water, railway, energy
In an ideal world, yes, but nationalisation means no competition, no incentives, and politically motivated actions such as holding the government to ransom with constant strikes, like the last time the Railways were publically owned.
-
Matt Hancock is deeply concerned ................ private buses.
''I am deeply concerned to hear Stagecoach's proposal to no longer run its vital bus services connecting Newmarket and Bury St Edmunds to Cambridge, from the end of October. These services provide a lifeline to so many people, and their removal will not only have a huge and detrimental effect on the local community but on the environment too. From children and young adults attending college to the elderly who rely on these important services to get around. Their proposed removal is not acceptable, and I will do all I can to fight the decision. I want to reassure all those with concerns that I am in touch with Stagecoach and will get to the bottom of this''
https://www.matt-hancock.com/campaigns/stop-cancellation-stagecoach-bus-services-11-and-12
-
Of course there's loads of private companies already working with the armed forces as there has been for many years.
Why not let private companies run ambulances if they can do it cheaper and more effectively (big if)
It won't be cheaper, privatisation has been a disaster.
All the public services where possible should be brought back into public hand.
Especially water, railway, energy
In an ideal world, yes, but nationalisation means no competition, no incentives, and politically motivated actions such as holding the government to ransom with constant strikes, like the last time the Railways were publically owned.
Agree with what you say but if it is run for the benefit of the people surely it is better in public hands.
Striking is a democratic right and is a negotiation tactic.
Just something the Tories don't seem to understand.
You'll find the strikes are more in the railways case is for safety and conditions and NHS is for patient safety than pay.
Privatisation and especially running down the NHS has led to mass staff shortages.
And the railway relies on staff working their rest days to keep it covered.
Now they're refusing is why you are seeing mass train cancellations.
There are a lot of useful videos of YouTube which show the disaster rail privatisation has been.
-
I'm sure many workers are glad of overtime and in my experience would begrudge new starters "taking money out of their pockets."
The only problem with socialism is socialists.
-
I'm sure many workers are glad of overtime and in my experience would begrudge new starters "taking money out of their pockets."
The only problem with socialism is socialists.
what we need is a government who works for the benefit of the constituents not the other way around.
I do get paid overtime but if its not there it doesn't bother me too much.
The fact is staff are now refusing to work overtime because it's cheaper to pay overtime than hire more staff.
Which is why I believe the best way to negotiate is to just work booked shifts, hardly going to stand by stating half if services are cancelled because staff have decided to have their days off how selfish of them
Remember what the trade unions fought and gained for us i.e. paid holidays, sickness pay, maternity rights etc
-
It's always been cheaper to pay overtime than to hire new staff.
Trade unions did a good job initially, but then they got too much power and almost destroyed the country.
-
It's always been cheaper to pay overtime than to hire new staff.
Trade unions did a good job initially, but then they got too much power and almost destroyed the country.
It is all about meeting in the middle.
For example, we may want 5% rise in salary and we ask for 8 and then they offer 5 or 6 and we accept.
Issue is the Tories don't seem to understand negotiations.
The trade union movement needs to gather momentum again. As controversial as that sounds.
-
You don't seem to understand that it's not the government who are paying for wage rises out of their own pockets, it's the public who pay for it!
-
You don't seem to understand that it's not the government who are paying for wage rises out of their own pockets, it's the public who pay for it!
which in turn benefits the economy as we spend the money and this in turn keeps people in jobs and we get taxed on it etc.
The public also pay for things like TOCs being on strike so they companies don't lose anything but the staff do which is private which I guess the Tories don't shout about.
We as the taxpayers are also ripped off for energy, water and all of the other sectors which have been privatised and their shareholders exploit to the expense of the taxpayer yet again.
And this country has the most strict anti trade union laws around.
Which is why you see for example health workers moving abroad for better pay and conditions etc.
-
So, when Mr generous Starmer gets in, he'll just give in to every wage rise claim and we'll all live happily ever after?
-
So, when Mr generous Starmer gets in, he'll just give in to every wage rise claim and we'll all live happily ever after?
In reality he is red Tory so probably not.
The thing is people follow the money and the pay and conditions. It just means losing your best workers and isn't good for morale in a company.
I predict in all honesty that Labour have started to dig their own grave and will end up in government without a majority.
-
So many untruths in here.
The best one overtime is cheaper. I spent years working in outsourcing in a plc (and I saw good and bad through it). Overtime was the devil for us, largely the difference between profit or loss, we spent huge amounts of time and money avoiding it. It will never usually be effective.
Worth remembering that often those shareholders you reference are your pension scheme.
-
So, when Mr generous Starmer gets in, he'll just give in to every wage rise claim and we'll all live happily ever after?
I think a more common sense approach would be to allow wages to rise gradually over time to avoid situations where strikes are required, tie the wages of those at the top to those at the base, if there is a bonus everyone gets it, everyone contributes to the success or failure of an entity, wouldn't you say?
The same reasoning to privatise should be used to nationalise then it takes away the political component.
-
''Royal Mail loses 360-year monopoly on delivering parcels from Post Office sites''
''Royal Mail is to lose its 360-year-old monopoly on delivering parcels from Post Office branches, after concerns about poor quality of service persuaded the postal service to sign deals with rivals Evri and DPD in the run-up to Christmas.
The two couriers would be added to the options available at the counter from later this month, the Post Office said, with customers given a choice for the first time.
Industry sources said the decision was the result of increasing dissatisfaction at the Post Office with Royal Mail because of customers complaining about the standard of service''
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/07/royal-mail-loses-360-year-monopoly-on-delivering-parcels-from-post-office-sites
The government of the day couldn't be trusted to run a car boot sale.
''There has been considerable press comment on the report and who has benefitted most from the sale. Attention has been drawn to the £750 million increase in value of shares on the first day of trading and to the fact that some of the priority shareholders have subsequently sold their share allocation at a considerable profit. (For example, Taxpayer lost out to big investors in mail float, says watchdog,Financial Times, 1 April 2014)''
''A report by the National Audit Office (NAO) on the Privatisation of Royal Mail, published 1 April, concluded that “…although the Department [of Business, Innovation and Skills] achieved its primary objective of delivering a sale of shares within this Parliament it could have achieved better value for the taxpayer.”''
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/privatisation-of-royal-mail-who-benefitted-the-taxpayer-or-the-shareholders/
How many entities would be privatised if customer dissatisfaction was used as a reason?
-
,EVRI? Bloody EVRI??
I suspect a deep plot.
EVRI are so effing atrocious that they had to change their name not very long ago to cover up their shame. If Royal Mail are resorting to these charlatans then either they have been leaned on, or, they plan to demonstrate just how bad the alternatives are.
BobG
-
Of course there's loads of private companies already working with the armed forces as there has been for many years.
Why not let private companies run ambulances if they can do it cheaper and more effectively (big if)
G4s were allowed into a certain police force for10 yrs to see if this worked.
It didn’t.
-
Of course there's loads of private companies already working with the armed forces as there has been for many years.
Why not let private companies run ambulances if they can do it cheaper and more effectively (big if)
G4s were allowed into a certain police force for10 yrs to see if this worked.
It didn’t.
I used to work on a police contract and it couldn't work. The police were just impossible to work with and some of the staff were so disruptive it was impossible, officers deliberately sabotaging the contract etc, was an absolute nightmare.
-
Of course there's loads of private companies already working with the armed forces as there has been for many years.
Why not let private companies run ambulances if they can do it cheaper and more effectively (big if)
Pud, is there any public information that compares the performance/cost for any operation before/after privatisation?
-
So many untruths in here.
The best one overtime is cheaper. I spent years working in outsourcing in a plc (and I saw good and bad through it). Overtime was the devil for us, largely the difference between profit or loss, we spent huge amounts of time and money avoiding it. It will never usually be effective.
Worth remembering that often those shareholders you reference are your pension scheme.
Typically, overtime costs less. It costs to find new staff, train them, pay for their benefits, and all other costs associated with recruiting new staff. Also, the workload may only be temporary.
If employees are happy to work overtime to cover the workload, and it is within the law, reducing their overtime through recruitment will cause resentment on the shop floor.
-
Of course there's loads of private companies already working with the armed forces as there has been for many years.
Why not let private companies run ambulances if they can do it cheaper and more effectively (big if)
Pud, is there any public information that compares the performance/cost for any operation before/after privatisation?
No idea, Google is your friend. Its unlikely that full details will come out because it's usually sensitive data. There may be stats about how much goes back in house to public entities, probably not that much, certainly not in my areas.
So many untruths in here.
The best one overtime is cheaper. I spent years working in outsourcing in a plc (and I saw good and bad through it). Overtime was the devil for us, largely the difference between profit or loss, we spent huge amounts of time and money avoiding it. It will never usually be effective.
Worth remembering that often those shareholders you reference are your pension scheme.
Typically, overtime costs less. It costs to find new staff, train them, pay for their benefits, and all other costs associated with recruiting new staff. Also, the workload may only be temporary.
If employees are happy to work overtime to cover the workload, and it is within the law, reducing their overtime through recruitment will cause resentment on the shop floor.
Short term I agree, long term you'd never do it. Every business I've worked in wants to avoid it and yes it can be an issue with the unions and workforce. Often goes away when you remind them they'll make it back in their bonuses from achieving more profit (if you have the right structure in place).
-
The problem with a highly networked system like trains is that if you cut staffing to the bone and rely on overtime to fill in gaps, you're f**ked when a member of staff doesn't turn up, or arrives at node X in the network too late to run the train that's supposed to be going to nose Y. Because you've got zero spare capacity to fill in the gap. And so the problem ripples through the system, and you end up with a cluster f**k like the Transpennine service which was only running 70-80% of its scheduled service this time last year.
On the issue of private Vs public ownership in the rail system, we are the only country in the world that has our train operations broken up into loads of separate private companies.
Can I suggest that anyone who reckons that's a good way to run a system compares it with the state owned German, French, Dutch or Italian systems?
-
Oh yeah, and although BB neatly ignored my question when he was ranting on this topic last night, it's worth noting that one of the most efficient, punctual and cheapest per mile rail services in the country is LNER. Which was run into the ground by two private sector companies, and is now run perfectly well as a nationalised service.
-
Oh yeah, and although BB neatly ignored my question when he was ranting on this topic last night, it's worth noting that one of the most efficient, punctual and cheapest per mile rail services in the country is LNER. Which was run into the ground by two private sector companies, and is now run perfectly well as a nationalised service.
its not an equal playing field when you compare LNER with lots of other Toc'c as the ECML has always had preferential treatment in infrastructure spending, upgrades and capex. Also as the main supplier on this route they get the pick of the plum pathing and train diagrams ahead of the open access Tocs like Grand Central, Hull trains and Lumo.
Your other point about the previous operators does stand, National Express have to be the real pariah in all this, there operating standards were and are still disgraceful, whilst ever this current franchise system is in place they should never be allowed anywhere near a railway contract ever again.
With a change of government it would not be a bad idea to expand on the current not for profit operating standard that LNER and others now operate under.
-
''Pud, is there any public information that compares the performance/cost for any operation before/after privatisation?'''
'''No idea, Google is your friend. Its unlikely that full details will come out because it's usually sensitive data. There may be stats about how much goes back in house to public entities, probably not that much, certainly not in my areas''
Therefore, unless you have intimate knowledge of an entity before and after a privatisation/nationalisation has occurred your position is as informed as anyone else's, no?
-
Oh yeah, and although BB neatly ignored my question when he was ranting on this topic last night, it's worth noting that one of the most efficient, punctual and cheapest per mile rail services in the country is LNER. Which was run into the ground by two private sector companies, and is now run perfectly well as a nationalised service.
its not an equal playing field when you compare LNER with lots of other Toc'c as the ECML has always had preferential treatment in infrastructure spending, upgrades and capex. Also as the main supplier on this route they get the pick of the plum pathing and train diagrams ahead of the open access Tocs like Grand Central, Hull trains and Lumo.
Your other point about the previous operators does stand, National Express have to be the real pariah in all this, there operating standards were and are still disgraceful, whilst ever this current franchise system is in place they should never be allowed anywhere near a railway contract ever again.
With a change of government it would not be a bad idea to expand on the current not for profit operating standard that LNER and others now operate under.
And yet Branson's mob went bust running that featherbedded ECML...
-
Oh yeah, and although BB neatly ignored my question when he was ranting on this topic last night, it's worth noting that one of the most efficient, punctual and cheapest per mile rail services in the country is LNER. Which was run into the ground by two private sector companies, and is now run perfectly well as a nationalised service.
It is because all I'm saying is factually correct.
It simply doesn't work and you can't expect a safe and reliable railway cutting it to the bone.
Remember the rail disasters from years ago that is what will end up happening again if the government keeps refunding it.
These franchises do end so its pretty simple to bring it back into public hands.
-
The railways are already nationalised it's just that the dividends paid out from profits go to shareholders and it's dressed up as private enterprise .
I say that because the government handed over £13bn to the industry last year and we all know where governments get their money from .
-
''Pud, is there any public information that compares the performance/cost for any operation before/after privatisation?'''
'''No idea, Google is your friend. Its unlikely that full details will come out because it's usually sensitive data. There may be stats about how much goes back in house to public entities, probably not that much, certainly not in my areas''
Therefore, unless you have intimate knowledge of an entity before and after a privatisation/nationalisation has occurred your position is as informed as anyone else's, no?
Except I do, I've worked on both sides on many many different things. You seem to think everything is public and cited. You couldn't be further from the truth.
I've worked on things with the press and many thought politics involved and sat there wishing the truth would come out, usually it doesn't. Simply, not everything you see is out there, that's a fact.
-
''Pud, is there any public information that compares the performance/cost for any operation before/after privatisation?'''
'''No idea, Google is your friend. Its unlikely that full details will come out because it's usually sensitive data. There may be stats about how much goes back in house to public entities, probably not that much, certainly not in my areas''
Therefore, unless you have intimate knowledge of an entity before and after a privatisation/nationalisation has occurred your position is as informed as anyone else's, no?
Except I do, I've worked on both sides on many many different things. You seem to think everything is public and cited. You couldn't be further from the truth.
I've worked on things with the press and many thought politics involved and sat there wishing the truth would come out, usually it doesn't. Simply, not everything you see is out there, that's a fact.
Nope, not at all
-
Of course there's loads of private companies already working with the armed forces as there has been for many years.
Why not let private companies run ambulances if they can do it cheaper and more effectively (big if)
G4s were allowed into a certain police force for10 yrs to see if this worked.
It didn’t.
So was China
-
So many untruths in here.
The best one overtime is cheaper. I spent years working in outsourcing in a plc (and I saw good and bad through it). Overtime was the devil for us, largely the difference between profit or loss, we spent huge amounts of time and money avoiding it. It will never usually be effective.
Worth remembering that often those shareholders you reference are your pension scheme.
Typically, overtime costs less. It costs to find new staff, train them, pay for their benefits, and all other costs associated with recruiting new staff. Also, the workload may only be temporary.
If employees are happy to work overtime to cover the workload, and it is within the law, reducing their overtime through recruitment will cause resentment on the shop floor.
Depends I would say, I get your logic. However such as the railway does rely on people's goodwill to cover shifts on overtime especially the TOC's where overtime for Sunday's is now part of the working week so they don't get any extra money. And guess what, they've decided not to do any additional Sunday's as it isn't worth it now.
Hence why you see trains cancelled all the time. Because there isn't enough staff.
Plus the monstrosity of an initiative by the government to attempt to get rid of guards and ticket offices.
-
The problem with a highly networked system like trains is that if you cut staffing to the bone and rely on overtime to fill in gaps, you're f**ked when a member of staff doesn't turn up, or arrives at node X in the network too late to run the train that's supposed to be going to nose Y. Because you've got zero spare capacity to fill in the gap. And so the problem ripples through the system, and you end up with a cluster f**k like the Transpennine service which was only running 70-80% of its scheduled service this time last year.
On the issue of private Vs public ownership in the rail system, we are the only country in the world that has our train operations broken up into loads of separate private companies.
Can I suggest that anyone who reckons that's a good way to run a system compares it with the state owned German, French, Dutch or Italian systems?
Put in railway privatization I believe there is a documentary which appears top of the search and many others which clearly shows privitzation has been a failure.
Or look up weownit.org online or on social media which gives you the facts.
All sold as a lie by the Tories and who ever else has done the same. It is clear to see what is happening with our NHS the impact of things when you defund and tender it out to the private sector.
Private companies are here to make profit, not give a good service.
-
So many untruths in here.
The best one overtime is cheaper. I spent years working in outsourcing in a plc (and I saw good and bad through it). Overtime was the devil for us, largely the difference between profit or loss, we spent huge amounts of time and money avoiding it. It will never usually be effective.
Worth remembering that often those shareholders you reference are your pension scheme.
It is cheaper to pay overtime, especially on the Railway. If you have a member of staff earning lets say £2000 a month and you have 4 staff. Both work a paid days overtime 1 shift per month and is £250 a shift. That's £1,000 a month and throughout these companies that's a significant saving.
Shareholders I am refering to are in relation to who runs the TOC's not to do with pension schemes, it is the same for Water privitization where the infrastructure has been neglected for years and now we are supposed to have higher bills to pay for it.
Private companies do not pay for the maintenance and upgrade of infrastructure. It is Us sadly.