Where would we be without them?
Cushy job for life, anyone?
- Thread starter EFLImpudence
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,567
- Reaction score
- 2,669
- Country
No - its possible to have 50,000 more than now by recruiting 30,000 new and retaining 20,000 who are predicted to leave.
If we have 200,000 Nurses today and annual attrition of 30,000, if we can reduce that to 10,000, then to increase the number of nurses to 250,000 we need only find another net new 30,000.
Whether its possible is another matter, but they were not telling lies using the above maths.
Not really, if the 19,000 leaving were due to a reduced headcount that's been reversed then that would be justifiable. A bit iffy on language as new implies, well, new, but you can get there without massive word twisting.
But if you're only adding another 31,000 jobs then it doesn't count. They aren't new roles, they aren't roles that'd be being removed but are now retained, they're just budgeting bullshit.
My team at work is trying to hire new staff to increase headcount, we also have an ongoing need to manage the natural attrition that you get in a team pushing three digits strong. If our management pulled this sort of stunt then we'd be looking at them funny.
But let's say it does make sense, that somehow persuading people not to quit means hiring new people. Does that mean that if you were to **** them off, run a survey to say they're all going to quit, then apologise, then you've hired 300,000 new nurses? That doesn't seem right.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,567
- Reaction score
- 2,669
- Country
there are 100 people in your IT department and attrition is running at 10 per year. You think you can reduce this to 5 and want to increase the headcount in the department to 130. How many new recruits are needed? Clue - its not 30
From what I can see the conservatives did not claim to be hiring 50,000 new nurses, but adding 50,000. I may be wrong, as I have only seen it reported 2nd hand.
From what I can see the conservatives did not claim to be hiring 50,000 new nurses, but adding 50,000. I may be wrong, as I have only seen it reported 2nd hand.
Sponsored Links
Both would be misleading in this case. Improving retention doesn't add people, it reduces recruitment cost. PS IT runs a higher attrition rate than the national average 10%, we're a mercenary bunch.
The claim comes from the conservatives manifesto.
https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf#page=2
Reading that, it seems reasonable to assume they meant adding more roles. If you're being pedantic they say 'more' which means an increase in what is already there. So more misleading than 'new'.
As written I'd have to say it's misleading, deliberate or accidental.
If you reduce attrition and increase recruitment you get a nett increase. In the tory manifesto's case they are promising a 50,000 increase. How they do it is irrelevent. 50,000 more means 50,000 more.
Only if you have an infinite number of roles. Which the NHS doesn't. Otherwise all that happens is the recruitment team knock off a bit early.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,567
- Reaction score
- 2,669
- Country
They weren't saying they were going to increase headcount by retention alone.
:
I can find nothing misleading in the above against a strategy of retention and recruitment. It actually makes great business sense whether you are hiring IT consultants, Nurses or Lawyers to focus your strategy on retaining good people over hiring new.
In my business it take 9 months for a new hire with the relevant qualifications and experience to understand the job before they can be productive. I'd imagine healthcare is similar.
If we have 200,000 now they are committing to increase it to 250,000
:
I can find nothing misleading in the above against a strategy of retention and recruitment. It actually makes great business sense whether you are hiring IT consultants, Nurses or Lawyers to focus your strategy on retaining good people over hiring new.
In my business it take 9 months for a new hire with the relevant qualifications and experience to understand the job before they can be productive. I'd imagine healthcare is similar.
If we have 200,000 now they are committing to increase it to 250,000
That's the thing, they aren't. They're only increasing by 31,500. So in our example, 200,000 - 231,500.
Which probably proves my point. You have been misled.
Edit: it's all about the number of ifroles available and funded which I don't believe the Tories are planning to increase that much. I'm wrong then I've been misled about the misleading. Links ont he back of a postcard!
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,567
- Reaction score
- 2,669
- Country
the other 18,500 are coming from retention of existing staff that would otherwise leave?
I'm not the one who doesn't seem to get it
I'm not the one who doesn't seem to get it
Ok. I will give you a 50,000 pay rise by increasing your wage by 31,000 and not reducing it by 19,000 which I was going to do.
If you pledge to increase the number of nurses, as the Tories have done, the recruitment teams are not going to 'knock off early'.
If the NHS has 100,000 nurses (pulling numbers out of the air) and they lose 10,000 in a year but recruit 10,000 in the same year, the overall nurse numbers remain the same.
If the NHS has 100,000 nurses and they improve retention so only lose 5,000 in the year and at the same time increase recruitment (by offering bursaries, NHS passports etc) to 15,000 in the same year, then the number of nurses goes up by 10,000 to 110,000.
That is what the tories have said they are going to do to give a nett increase of 50,000 nurses.
But based on your previous argument, wouldn't that equate to an increase of 20,000 nurses?
Sponsored Links
