Nurses to get laid off.

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by britman101

Under the notice that was given everyone seems so fixated on the nurse layoffs. But the government is poised to privatize parts of the healthcare system in Alberta. Looks like 850 full time lab jobs will now be taken over by a private lab company. If the current workers do not get rehired by the private company they will be hitting the unemployment lines. And only time will tell if this makes sense or was a service that should have been left alone. Because doctors base a lot of their decisions on lab results.

That's actually AHS making that decision again. Not the gov.

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Riiight..... (again) preaching against the red coolaid whilst chugging the blue.


Please try and become informed. The NDP pumped up wages?!?!?

Keep the comedy going.

Danielle Smith is kind of right in some regards.....

There’s ALOT to examining where any raises were...... and be strategic/ surgical in reducing them....but nooooooo... we got sum our own ideological agendas we wanna implement now....(vouchers, privatize, .... yada yada) best to just broad cut and preach financial bugetmageddon.

Management....and the fact that there’s various levels of middle management Prolly yup....

Some govt groups prolly got increases..... ie. doctors..... good luck cutting their services.


But no. You jus be you and spew ur blue...... heh

Oh shush. You're sounding like a rhetoric spewing shill piece. I spew black, mostly coffee, because it's what keeps me going during my work week that most would cry about.

I don't like Kenny, I didn't vote for Kenny and I think even less of the NDP. I want accountability for the many dollars I have taken from me and thats it. Our healthcare is not modern or efficient and it definitely is not free.

Im also well traveled enough to understand our education system has little boast about either.

Its unfortunate that the union will be involved in the layoffs as well. We will have to keep knuckle draggers with seniority over people with ambition and pride.

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Yea... corporations... problem with corporations is that ALL are geared to not deliver best service for best price.... they are all geared to delivering best PROFIT while delivering a certain product or service.... and lots of times profit can be gained more efficiently by reducing service quality.

The base motivation is out of whack.


But ya.....t there’s probably some good ideas kicking around in the market.

I am dying laughing.

That is the base motivation of EVERY good company. It's how you make profit consistently. Customer retention beats maximum margin everytime. How do you get customer retention? Good service, good product, good price. Repeat.

You just called every business owner, CEO, president and manager on this forum a crook.

And you think public service has a base motivation of best for best? You're killing me. Public service is motivated by best for best? That incredible.

[Pheasinator]

The managers who were tasked with trimming the fat are not union, they are saving their own skin at the expense of front line staff.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by Pheasinator

The managers who were tasked with trimming the fat are not union, they are saving their own skin at the expense of front line staff.

Then the unions should be protesting AHS instead of the UCP... But that will never happen.

[jstubbs]

Originally Posted by rem338win

I am dying laughing.

That is the base motivation of EVERY good company. It's how you make profit consistently. Customer retention beats maximum margin everytime. How do you get customer retention? Good service, good product, good price. Repeat.

You just called every business owner, CEO, president and manager on this forum a crook.

And you think public service has a base motivation of best for best? You're killing me. Public service is motivated by best for best? That incredible.

Problem being there are about a million examples of why corporations time and time again throw quality out the window for profits, either because they know they can get away with it (usually due to a monopoly on that industry) or because they're greedy. Look at MEC, which was just recently being discussed. They eroded their quality entirely in pursuit of higher profits, just for it to bite them in the rear. How about Tim Hortons? Some big corporation bought them, and their quality went down immensely for the pursuit of better profits. Worse service/good provided solely because the shareholders constantly want to see better returns. You see it time and time again. The "best" corporations who maximize profit find the perfect balance between providing just enough quality to keep customers coming back/keep coming. But that can still be one helluva low bar when it comes to a monopolized service in an industry with high barriers to entry.

How about Canadian telecom? Are we paying such high prices, sometimes multiple times more than other countries, because we're receiving service multiple times better than other countries? Not even close. But we only have handful of companies to choose from, so they can collectively give us the shaft so their shareholders profit. Meanwhile, phone plans are cheaper in SK because of SaskTel, a government provided service. Hmm??

And when it comes to massive government contracts, what "customer retention" does their need to be? Almost none. Do the bare minimum to not get black listed and that is it. Governments issue RFPs, and select the lowest "qualified" bidder--which can often be some low bar criteria to become one. How often have we seen the same ****e contractors win bids for government contracts, even after a **** poor prior performance? You see it time and time again with public contracts. And those are just the big nine figure contracts that ever make it to the news.

Here is a great example: Tthe Alberta Government gutted their entire disaster recovery department in the 1990s. They went to private contractor bids. The same company won the bid for nearly 20 straight years. Where is their incentive to provide the best possible service? There isn't one. Then when the Slave Lake fire and Calgary flood disasters happened, they billed the government insane amounts. The company in question billed well in excess of $20m to run the disaster recovery operations in 2013 alone. All they did was handle the administrative coordination side. Each dollar billed had a % attached purely for profit--and if anyone here had to deal with the government contractor after their home was damaged/destroyed in the 2013 Calgary flood, you would know exactly how poor the service ended up being.

Does this mean every CEO, President, manager, etc is a crook, simply because their company's primary objective is profit first, quality of service second? Absolutely not. An old neighbour of mine actually ran the company in question that did disaster relief. She was the furthest thing from a crook. But she also didn't retire early as a very wealthy individual from giving the government a fantastic deal on contract bids. Probably would have been a MUCH larger scandal had it been someone else running the show, to be frank.

Just some food for thought. I can agree private companies can provide services for cheaper--but depends on the situation and service. The benefit of a private company providing a service on behalf of the government typically makes the most sense for project work, or work where there are economies of scope/scale advantages that allow a private company to provide the service for cheaper than a government can. Otherwise, it can be cheaper for the government to administer the service.

[bessiedog]

Yea..... wut Stubbs said!!

So there!


And did you actually shush me?!?

Really? Shush...?

Cause if you did you win.

[RO CC]

So all the premiers have a meeting today. They talk and talk and come to an agreement: let’s all ask Jussie Turdough for and extra 5% for each province’s health care! No agreement on pipelines, transfer payments, or anything else. Now isn’t that cute.

[Map Maker]

What about this for a solution?

The newest or lowest ranking managers in AHS, trade in their office jobs and go back to being an RN.
I would think 80% of the managers are former RN's that have been brought up.

This would reduce the amount of managers and increase the amount of RN's, and save money at the same time.

To me, it's a win-win.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Map Maker

What about this for a solution?

The newest or lowest ranking managers in AHS, trade in their office jobs and go back to being an RN.
I would think 80% of the managers are former RN's that have been brought up.

This would reduce the amount of managers and increase the amount of RN's, and save money at the same time.

To me, it's a win-win.

I would venture to bet that your guess of 80% is low. Over the years the number of non bedside nurses have risen to crazy numbers but there isn't a Canadian model to compare it too. Almost everyone knows the US model is a failure, but to not look at other countries systems is a massive mistake.

[Dynamic]

Originally Posted by Map Maker

What about this for a solution?

The newest or lowest ranking managers in AHS, trade in their office jobs and go back to being an RN.
I would think 80% of the managers are former RN's that have been brought up.

This would reduce the amount of managers and increase the amount of RN's, and save money at the same time.

To me, it's a win-win.

Uhhh who is going to do the job that the current managers are doing? Do you think the current managers are going into work and staring at a wall for 8 hours before going home. I know very little about the AHS structure but I’m assuming managers are there to support the RN’s on the floor, making schedules, finding solutions to daily issues that arise, managing budgets, dealing with discipline, ensuring procedures are followed, and many other functions that supervisors and managers do in any private industry. I’m not even a supervisor or manager myself but I know their roles are important as well to an organizations health.

[Map Maker]

Yes I actually do think the majority of managers are staring at a computer screen and going to meetings and nodding their heads, and making up schedules that aren't needed and only cause more confusion.

There must be a couple RNs on here. Tell me, how many managers did you have in early 2000's and how many do you have now?
And has the difference in production been positive or negative?

[Dynamic]

Originally Posted by Map Maker

Yes I actually do think the majority of managers are staring at a computer screen and going to meetings and nodding their heads, and making up schedules that aren't needed and only cause more confusion.

There must be a couple RNs on here. Tell me, how many managers did you have in early 2000's and how many do you have now?
And has the difference in production been positive or negative?

I would be interested to hear what a typical supervisor/manager span of control is in AHS. I agree if a low level manager is only directly responsible for 10 or less people, that is excessive. But there is a sweet spot when you have a manager responsible for a reasonable amount of people and in turn he/she will make all those under him/her better. Once you go to far the other way (too many people to effectively manage) managers start to lose control. All the “savings” you had by removing managers are going to show up elsewhere.

[daveyn]

Anybody who has worked in any health care system outside of Alberta will tell you AHS is incredibly top heavy administration wise compared to anywhere else, its fat at top in AHS. Incredibly overstaffed compared to other jurisdications.

[Dynamic]

[QUOTE=daveyn;4070715]Anybody who has worked in any health care system outside of Alberta will tell you AHS is incredibly top heavy administration wise compared to anywhere else, its fat at top in AHS. Incredibly overstaffed compared to other jurisdications.

https://www.albertahealthservices.ca...eb-version.pdf

According to this report with verifiable and factual information, Administration costs are actually lowest in AHS compared to the rest of Canada. Rest of Canada averages 4.6% and AHS is somewhere around 3.3%. I’m not sure if that’s including managers or what Administration costs actually consist of but it seems everyone’s assumption that AHS is bloated is not entirely true.

[RO CC]

[QUOTE
According to this report with verifiable and factual information, Administration costs are actually lowest in AHS compared to the rest of Canada. Rest of Canada averages 4.6% and AHS is somewhere around 3.3%. I’m not sure if that’s including managers or what Administration costs actually consist of but it seems everyone’s assumption that AHS is bloated is not entirely true.[/QUOTE]

Being an AHS report about the AHS’s waste consciousnesses, it’s hard to ignore.
Thanks for sharing, I guess.

[Grizzly Adams1]

Originally Posted by hambiggers

I laugh because everyone thinks that the current managers at work are playing mahjong, and not doing their job. This is a delusional opinion, guys.

No, we've lost the concept of efficiency when it comes to organized labor, more work, less time at the spa, the Retreat , or on "Professional Development" plus 8 to 5 work days, 5 days a week.

Grizz

[Smoky buck]

Necro thread

[RandyBoBandy]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Necro thread

X2