极速赛车168最新开奖号码 Comments on: ‘Social care buy-in for fair pay plan at risk after Budget tax hike’

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Killian Hughes

Killian Hughes — Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:28:25 +0000

I’m not a social worker but a health researcher but CC readers might be interested to know that one of the biggest mental health services which has a former SWE chair on its as advisory board and which derives almost all of its revenue from the NHS paid out £35Million in dividends to it’s owners. Needless to add that generally it has critical CQC ratings based on poor care, including bullying and assaults of patients, poor staffing with dirty and unsafe premises. Simone is right, unless Wes Streeting addresses the commercialisation of care money will go into companies I’ll suited to provide the services people deserve. Unlikely of course given Alan Milburn has been brought back to shape future ‘reforms’. I have very little knowledge of social work and even less about social workers so am not knowledgeable about what concerns them but it appears to me that the reporting from Community Care seems insightful.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Simone

Simone — Sat, 09 Nov 2024 11:31:16 +0000

I agree with Tahin and Alyson for no other reason then because 83% of care provision is run by private companies commercialised by venture capital whose profits go outside the country via offshore bank accounts often through shell companies. Hardship impending claims the King’s Fund but facts don’t back up it’s championing of these providers. Profits of up to 23% a year from an average of charging £5,000 a week. LAs helpless and hapless when it comes to choice because of the stranglehold these companies have on the “market”. Perhaps the King’s Fund could enlighten us why most care homes are located in areas of cheapest property with little regard to maintaining family and friendship networks for vulnerable adults and children. As social workers we deal with the consequences of these parasitic companies. Because we do we aren’t fooled by ‘charities’ and others championing them. More so as it seems they do on the terms and parameters defined for them by profit driven providers. Like most the King’s Fund seems to find little enthusiasm for pointing out that problems in the sector are inherent because of the commercialisation of the sector. I’m just a low grade possibly burnt out social worker but it took me precisely 17 minutes to find the information that substandard buildings are the norm and in children’s provision 1 in 5 homes are rated as requires “improvement” or are “inadequate” Simple if your inclination is improving provision to not only meet needs but to enhance the quality of lives and opportunities. Social workers care about these things because we see the consequences on people. Others might want to occasionally look up from their spread sheet and data analysis cocoons and ponder same.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Alyson

Alyson — Fri, 08 Nov 2024 12:47:53 +0000

King’s Fund would learn more about sustainable business models if it spent less time junketting ‘leaders’ and lobby groups and setting foot into a corner shop to ask those how they survive against multinational supermarkets with tax breaks they don’t get. No doubt the King’s Fund subscribes to the lazy assumption that as mostly family run businesses low pay is what sustains these. They would be wrong of course. They survive because they respond to what customers want in real time with convenience and prices they can afford to pay. Which begs the question why so called ‘Not For Profit’ providers are always demanding handouts from the government and hiking charges for residents. Could it possibly have something to do with complex bureaucracies put in place by ‘Not For Profit’ providers to sustain pay of Finance Officers, Business Managers and CEOs which mysteriously never show up in the “cost pressures” arguments. I attended a King’s Fund conference once where most of the presentations were about “Business Sustainability” and “Future Proofing Profits” rather than how to provide quality care without relying on subsidies and increasing charges while suppressing wages. So no lectures taken from the King’s Fund here, no sympathy for crocodile tears and scare mongering about closures. What I would listen to is if the King’s Fund mapped honestly who is providing care services, how many are owned by hedge fund backed debt loaded companies, which are off shore registered, which offset tax against accountancy tricks of projected losses and profit warnings. Not all of us social workers are ignorant about these ruses. Stop comparing social care to the NHS. Social Care sits outside of the public sector, the NHS is embedded in the public sector. I like cheese and I like marmite but I don’t go round pretending they are alike.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Tahin

Tahin — Fri, 08 Nov 2024 10:50:38 +0000

Funny kind of ‘independent’ commentary that just glosses over provider agencies, mostly hedge fund super conglomerates, “fearing” cost of fair pay for workers would not as they expected be “fully met” by the Treasury. That is by us the actual tax payers. I could unpick further but the King’s Fund is a serial defender of inequity when it comes to how social care should be funded so I’ll , as no doubt it’s de rigeuer in Think Tanks proclaim, just park it there.