Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2024 8:01:46 GMT
You are missing what i'm saying. A negotiation (naturally) needs two sides who are party to the outcome, but with conflicting interests. If one of the negotiating parties isn't paying for the resolution, then the result is very likely to be corrupt The solution is not to have pantomime negotiations with the payer not at the table - instead, the government just decides what the pay will be That is based on the assumption that the authorities concerned don't have budgetary constraints and always give in. Which as we saw with the young doctors strike is clearly not the case. Indeed, after the doctors saw a real fall of over 25% in their wages, they settled for a rise of 14% over 2 years, doesn't sound like government just handing out money to me. Indeed. And the recruitment and retention crisis was clearly becoming chronic and approaching a tipping point after years of de facto real terms pay cuts. The only way to solve this is to increase pay and improve conditions. If we did nothing, a service collapse due to a mass exodus would have cost us vastly more. Paying the agreed deal is actually far cheaper than the likely costs of not doing so would risk being. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 19, 2024 8:21:00 GMT
You are missing what i'm saying. A negotiation (naturally) needs two sides who are party to the outcome, but with conflicting interests. If one of the negotiating parties isn't paying for the resolution, then the result is very likely to be corrupt The solution is not to have pantomime negotiations with the payer not at the table - instead, the government just decides what the pay will be That is based on the assumption that the authorities concerned don't have budgetary constraints and always give in. A budgetary constraint is not the same interest pattern as paying for a resolution. This is why no boss would enter a negotiation telling the other side what the maximum he could pay is. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 19, 2024 8:38:40 GMT
That is based on the assumption that the authorities concerned don't have budgetary constraints and always give in. A budgetary constraint is not the same interest pattern as paying for a resolution. This is why no boss would enter a negotiation telling the other side what the maximum he could pay is. Because there is no maximum limit. The limit is the amount you can offer that satisfies the worker you employ enough for them to stay. If that limit is higher than the company can afford then the business is not viable. Not sure how you visualise the NHS becoming "Not viable". |
|
