Tag Archives: driving

The price of driving down care home costs? Staff who quit after a few weeks | Michele Hanson

My friend Mavis just applied for a job in a care home for the elderly. Marvellous, I thought. She is bound to get it. She is perfect for the job: personable, bright, forthright, cheery, hard-working, her social skills are top-notch, and we are desperate for care workers.

Off she went for her interview, told the fellow all about her life and past experience, including running two successful employment agencies, and when he’d heard all that, he started asking questions: “When you felt under pressure, what did you do about it? What are your strong points and weaknesses?”

“Are you seriously asking me these questions?” said Mavis.

“Well they’re on my sheet,” he said. “I’ve got to ask, so what are your answers?” Mavis had a stab at them, but knew she’d blown it. She asked a few questions herself and found out that his average staff turnover was four weeks. Yes. Four weeks. And the business was a franchise. You put in a bid, as low as you can because the cheapest usually wins, then you pay your staff flumpence to look after vulnerable and often weak, poorly people who need intense care and therefore a care worker with physical strength, great patience, kindness, empathy and time to talk with them. No wonder staff only last a few weeks.

This is the trouble with making money out of the sick, feeble and helpless. It’s frightfully difficult to make much profit without treating them, and their care workers, like rubbish, unless you charge private residents an arm and a leg to make up for the peanuts you’re getting for the state-funded residents. Or unless you’re part of a chain owned by private equities – as long as it doesn’t get into too much debt with its owners, who may pull out if they aren’t trousering enough profit for their rich investors; then your whole chain goes down the pan and the elderly residents are out on their ears. Then what?

The councils will have to mop up the mess. Perhaps they could take the care homes back in-house again. And have them adequately funded and staffed. Wouldn’t that be lovely? My dream for 2018.

The price of driving down care home costs? Staff who quit after a few weeks | Michele Hanson

My friend Mavis just applied for a job in a care home for the elderly. Marvellous, I thought. She is bound to get it. She is perfect for the job: personable, bright, forthright, cheery, hard-working, her social skills are top-notch, and we are desperate for care workers.

Off she went for her interview, told the fellow all about her life and past experience, including running two successful employment agencies, and when he’d heard all that, he started asking questions: “When you felt under pressure, what did you do about it? What are your strong points and weaknesses?”

“Are you seriously asking me these questions?” said Mavis.

“Well they’re on my sheet,” he said. “I’ve got to ask, so what are your answers?” Mavis had a stab at them, but knew she’d blown it. She asked a few questions herself and found out that his average staff turnover was four weeks. Yes. Four weeks. And the business was a franchise. You put in a bid, as low as you can because the cheapest usually wins, then you pay your staff flumpence to look after vulnerable and often weak, poorly people who need intense care and therefore a care worker with physical strength, great patience, kindness, empathy and time to talk with them. No wonder staff only last a few weeks.

This is the trouble with making money out of the sick, feeble and helpless. It’s frightfully difficult to make much profit without treating them, and their care workers, like rubbish, unless you charge private residents an arm and a leg to make up for the peanuts you’re getting for the state-funded residents. Or unless you’re part of a chain owned by private equities – as long as it doesn’t get into too much debt with its owners, who may pull out if they aren’t trousering enough profit for their rich investors; then your whole chain goes down the pan and the elderly residents are out on their ears. Then what?

The councils will have to mop up the mess. Perhaps they could take the care homes back in-house again. And have them adequately funded and staffed. Wouldn’t that be lovely? My dream for 2018.

The price of driving down care home costs? Staff who quit after a few weeks | Michele Hanson

My friend Mavis just applied for a job in a care home for the elderly. Marvellous, I thought. She is bound to get it. She is perfect for the job: personable, bright, forthright, cheery, hard-working, her social skills are top-notch, and we are desperate for care workers.

Off she went for her interview, told the fellow all about her life and past experience, including running two successful employment agencies, and when he’d heard all that, he started asking questions: “When you felt under pressure, what did you do about it? What are your strong points and weaknesses?”

“Are you seriously asking me these questions?” said Mavis.

“Well they’re on my sheet,” he said. “I’ve got to ask, so what are your answers?” Mavis had a stab at them, but knew she’d blown it. She asked a few questions herself and found out that his average staff turnover was four weeks. Yes. Four weeks. And the business was a franchise. You put in a bid, as low as you can because the cheapest usually wins, then you pay your staff flumpence to look after vulnerable and often weak, poorly people who need intense care and therefore a care worker with physical strength, great patience, kindness, empathy and time to talk with them. No wonder staff only last a few weeks.

This is the trouble with making money out of the sick, feeble and helpless. It’s frightfully difficult to make much profit without treating them, and their care workers, like rubbish, unless you charge private residents an arm and a leg to make up for the peanuts you’re getting for the state-funded residents. Or unless you’re part of a chain owned by private equities – as long as it doesn’t get into too much debt with its owners, who may pull out if they aren’t trousering enough profit for their rich investors; then your whole chain goes down the pan and the elderly residents are out on their ears. Then what?

The councils will have to mop up the mess. Perhaps they could take the care homes back in-house again. And have them adequately funded and staffed. Wouldn’t that be lovely? My dream for 2018.

The price of driving down care home costs? Staff who quit after a few weeks | Michele Hanson

My friend Mavis just applied for a job in a care home for the elderly. Marvellous, I thought. She is bound to get it. She is perfect for the job: personable, bright, forthright, cheery, hard-working, her social skills are top-notch, and we are desperate for carers.

Off she went for her interview, told the fellow all about her life and past experience, including running two successful employment agencies, and when he’d heard all that, he started asking questions: “When you felt under pressure, what did you do about it? What are your strong points and weaknesses?”

“Are you seriously asking me these questions?” said Mavis.

“Well they’re on my sheet,” he said. “I’ve got to ask, so what are your answers?” Mavis had a stab at them, but knew she’d blown it. She asked a few questions herself and found out that his average staff turnover was four weeks. Yes. Four weeks. And the business was a franchise. You put in a bid, as low as you can because the cheapest usually wins, then you pay your staff flumpence to look after vulnerable and often weak, poorly people who need intense care and therefore a carer with physical strength, great patience, kindness, empathy and time to talk with them. No wonder staff only last a few weeks.

This is the trouble with making money out of the sick, feeble and helpless. It’s frightfully difficult to make much profit without treating them, and their carers, like rubbish, unless you charge private residents an arm and a leg to make up for the peanuts you’re getting for the state-funded residents. Or unless you’re part of a chain owned by private equities – as long as it doesn’t get into too much debt with its owners, who may pull out if they aren’t trousering enough profit for their rich investors; then your whole chain goes down the pan and the elderly residents are out on their ears. Then what?

The councils will have to mop up the mess. Perhaps they could take the care homes back in-house again. And have them adequately funded and staffed. Wouldn’t that be lovely? My dream for 2018.

The price of driving down care home costs? Staff who quit after a few weeks

My friend Mavis just applied for a job in a care home for the elderly. Marvellous, I thought. She is bound to get it. She is perfect for the job: personable, bright, forthright, cheery, hard-working, her social skills are top-notch, and we are desperate for carers.

Off she went for her interview, told the fellow all about her life and past experience, including running two successful employment agencies, and when he’d heard all that, he started asking questions: “When you felt under pressure, what did you do about it? What are your strong points and weaknesses?”

“Are you seriously asking me these questions?” said Mavis.

“Well they’re on my sheet,” he said. “I’ve got to ask, so what are your answers?” Mavis had a stab at them, but knew she’d blown it. She asked a few questions herself and found out that his average staff turnover was four weeks. Yes. Four weeks. And the business was a franchise. You put in a bid, as low as you can because the cheapest usually wins, then you pay your staff flumpence to look after vulnerable and often weak, poorly people who need intense care and therefore a carer with physical strength, great patience, kindness, empathy and time to talk with them. No wonder staff only last a few weeks.

This is the trouble with making money out of the sick, feeble and helpless. It’s frightfully difficult to make much profit without treating them, and their carers, like rubbish, unless you charge private residents an arm and a leg to make up for the peanuts you’re getting for the state-funded residents. Or unless you’re part of a chain owned by private equities – as long as it doesn’t get into too much debt with its owners, who may pull out if they aren’t trousering enough profit for their rich investors; then your whole chain goes down the pan and the elderly residents are out on their ears. Then what?

The councils will have to mop up the mess. Perhaps they could take the care homes back in-house again. And have them adequately funded and staffed. Wouldn’t that be lovely? My dream for 2018.

The price of driving down care home costs? Staff who quit after a few weeks

My friend Mavis just applied for a job in a care home for the elderly. Marvellous, I thought. She is bound to get it. She is perfect for the job: personable, bright, forthright, cheery, hard-working, her social skills are top-notch, and we are desperate for carers.

Off she went for her interview, told the fellow all about her life and past experience, including running two successful employment agencies, and when he’d heard all that, he started asking questions: “When you felt under pressure, what did you do about it? What are your strong points and weaknesses?”

“Are you seriously asking me these questions?” said Mavis.

“Well they’re on my sheet,” he said. “I’ve got to ask, so what are your answers?” Mavis had a stab at them, but knew she’d blown it. She asked a few questions herself and found out that his average staff turnover was four weeks. Yes. Four weeks. And the business was a franchise. You put in a bid, as low as you can because the cheapest usually wins, then you pay your staff flumpence to look after vulnerable and often weak, poorly people who need intense care and therefore a carer with physical strength, great patience, kindness, empathy and time to talk with them. No wonder staff only last a few weeks.

This is the trouble with making money out of the sick, feeble and helpless. It’s frightfully difficult to make much profit without treating them, and their carers, like rubbish, unless you charge private residents an arm and a leg to make up for the peanuts you’re getting for the state-funded residents. Or unless you’re part of a chain owned by private equities – as long as it doesn’t get into too much debt with its owners, who may pull out if they aren’t trousering enough profit for their rich investors; then your whole chain goes down the pan and the elderly residents are out on their ears. Then what?

The councils will have to mop up the mess. Perhaps they could take the care homes back in-house again. And have them adequately funded and staffed. Wouldn’t that be lovely? My dream for 2018.

Poverty ‘driving people to choose between eating or keeping clean’

Growing numbers of people are facing hygiene poverty, where they are unable to afford essential products such as shampoo and deodorant, and are having to choose between eating and keeping clean, a charity has found.

A report from In Kind Direct says thousands of people are seeking help and describes the issue as a “hidden crisis”. Last year the charity distributed a record £20.2m of hygiene products, a rise of 67% on £12.1m the year before.

Robin Boles, chief executive of In Kind Direct, said: “This is hitting families hard. The fact that last year was our busiest year ever, distributing products to charities and the people they help, highlights the stark choices people are facing.”

The study has prompted campaigners to call for the government to do more to alleviate poverty. They say cuts to working benefits coupled with rising inflation have left families struggling.

Samantha Stapley, operations manager for England at the Trussell Trust food bank network, described the report as “very concerning”. She added: “When people are referred to food banks with no money for food, they’re often struggling to afford other basic essentials too.”

The report shows 82% of 948 charities have seen an increase in demand over the past year from people who cannot afford essential items.

A further poll of 1,000 people, conducted by In Kind Direct, found that 37% of those surveyed, and 56% of 18- to 24-year-olds, have had to go without hygiene or grooming products, or cut down on them, owing to low finances.

Stapley said Trussell Trust research with the University of Oxford had found that more than half of the households visiting the network’s food banks were struggling to afford toiletries.

She added that voluntary organisations alone could not resolve the problem and the underlying causes of poverty needed to be addressed. “Making work more secure, tackling the high cost of living and working to reduce the issues people experience with benefit payments would all make a difference,” she said.

Her words were echoed by Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, who said: “To tackle it we first need to ensure that benefits once again reflect families’ needs and so rise with inflation. No one should have to suffer the indignity of living without basic sanitary products.”

Andrew Barr, manager of the Trussell Trust food bank in Oldham, said: “People are not able to afford the things that they need, not want, and that is a worry.”

Barr noted a rise in people coming to the service. “There is certainly an increase in demand for them [hygiene products] and it’s something we try and get people to donate to us,” he said.

The In Kind Direct report cites the case of Rucksana Begum, 32, who gets products from her local charity in Tyneside, Crest UK. She said: “I’m a new mum, not working, so I struggle to pay household bills. Not having to worry about buying sanitary towels, shaving gel and products, which I wouldn’t be able to afford, is a big help. I feel better about myself and it helps my mental wellbeing.”

The report comes amid campaigns for free sanitary products. Amika George, 17, from London, is petitioning for these items to be provided to all girls on free school meals.

She said: “I read about the issue of period poverty in March and was bewildered that … [the charity] Freedom4Girls had to redirect sanitary products from Kenya to Leeds. I did some research and no one could believe it was happening in the UK.

“The work charities are doing is really great, but the government should implement something long-term to change people’s lives for the better.”

George commented on the growing gap between rich and poor, saying: “It’s really tragic that there are children who struggle with the effects of poverty at such a young age … Something like not being able to afford sanitary products has a long-lasting impact on health and also dignity.”

Poverty ‘driving people to choose between eating or keeping clean’

Growing numbers of people are facing hygiene poverty, where they are unable to afford essential products such as shampoo and deodorant, and are having to choose between eating and keeping clean, a charity has found.

A report from In Kind Direct says thousands of people are seeking help and describes the issue as a “hidden crisis”. Last year the charity distributed a record £20.2m of hygiene products, a rise of 67% on £12.1m the year before.

Robin Boles, chief executive of In Kind Direct, said: “This is hitting families hard. The fact that last year was our busiest year ever, distributing products to charities and the people they help, highlights the stark choices people are facing.”

The study has prompted campaigners to call for the government to do more to alleviate poverty. They say cuts to working benefits coupled with rising inflation have left families struggling.

Samantha Stapley, operations manager for England at the Trussell Trust food bank network, described the report as “very concerning”. She added: “When people are referred to food banks with no money for food, they’re often struggling to afford other basic essentials too.”

The report shows 82% of 948 charities have seen an increase in demand over the past year from people who cannot afford essential items.

A further poll of 1,000 people, conducted by In Kind Direct, found that 37% of those surveyed, and 56% of 18- to 24-year-olds, have had to go without hygiene or grooming products, or cut down on them, owing to low finances.

Stapley said Trussell Trust research with the University of Oxford had found that more than half of the households visiting the network’s food banks were struggling to afford toiletries.

She added that voluntary organisations alone could not resolve the problem and the underlying causes of poverty needed to be addressed. “Making work more secure, tackling the high cost of living and working to reduce the issues people experience with benefit payments would all make a difference,” she said.

Her words were echoed by Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, who said: “To tackle it we first need to ensure that benefits once again reflect families’ needs and so rise with inflation. No one should have to suffer the indignity of living without basic sanitary products.”

Andrew Barr, manager of the Trussell Trust food bank in Oldham, said: “People are not able to afford the things that they need, not want, and that is a worry.”

Barr noted a rise in people coming to the service. “There is certainly an increase in demand for them [hygiene products] and it’s something we try and get people to donate to us,” he said.

The In Kind Direct report cites the case of Rucksana Begum, 32, who gets products from her local charity in Tyneside, Crest UK. She said: “I’m a new mum, not working, so I struggle to pay household bills. Not having to worry about buying sanitary towels, shaving gel and products, which I wouldn’t be able to afford, is a big help. I feel better about myself and it helps my mental wellbeing.”

The report comes amid campaigns for free sanitary products. Amika George, 17, from London, is petitioning for these items to be provided to all girls on free school meals.

She said: “I read about the issue of period poverty in March and was bewildered that … [the charity] Freedom4Girls had to redirect sanitary products from Kenya to Leeds. I did some research and no one could believe it was happening in the UK.

“The work charities are doing is really great, but the government should implement something long-term to change people’s lives for the better.”

George commented on the growing gap between rich and poor, saying: “It’s really tragic that there are children who struggle with the effects of poverty at such a young age … Something like not being able to afford sanitary products has a long-lasting impact on health and also dignity.”

Poverty ‘driving people to choose between eating or keeping clean’

Growing numbers of people are facing hygiene poverty, where they are unable to afford essential products such as shampoo and deodorant, and are having to choose between eating and keeping clean, a charity has found.

A report from In Kind Direct says thousands of people are seeking help and describes the issue as a “hidden crisis”. Last year the charity distributed a record £20.2m of hygiene products, a rise of 67% on £12.1m the year before.

Robin Boles, chief executive of In Kind Direct, said: “This is hitting families hard. The fact that last year was our busiest year ever, distributing products to charities and the people they help, highlights the stark choices people are facing.”

The study has prompted campaigners to call for the government to do more to alleviate poverty. They say cuts to working benefits coupled with rising inflation have left families struggling.

Samantha Stapley, operations manager for England at the Trussell Trust food bank network, described the report as “very concerning”. She added: “When people are referred to food banks with no money for food, they’re often struggling to afford other basic essentials too.”

The report shows 82% of 948 charities have seen an increase in demand over the past year from people who cannot afford essential items.

A further poll of 1,000 people, conducted by In Kind Direct, found that 37% of those surveyed, and 56% of 18- to 24-year-olds, have had to go without hygiene or grooming products, or cut down on them, owing to low finances.

Stapley said Trussell Trust research with the University of Oxford had found that more than half of the households visiting the network’s food banks were struggling to afford toiletries.

She added that voluntary organisations alone could not resolve the problem and the underlying causes of poverty needed to be addressed. “Making work more secure, tackling the high cost of living and working to reduce the issues people experience with benefit payments would all make a difference,” she said.

Her words were echoed by Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, who said: “To tackle it we first need to ensure that benefits once again reflect families’ needs and so rise with inflation. No one should have to suffer the indignity of living without basic sanitary products.”

Andrew Barr, manager of the Trussell Trust food bank in Oldham, said: “People are not able to afford the things that they need, not want, and that is a worry.”

Barr noted a rise in people coming to the service. “There is certainly an increase in demand for them [hygiene products] and it’s something we try and get people to donate to us,” he said.

The In Kind Direct report cites the case of Rucksana Begum, 32, who gets products from her local charity in Tyneside, Crest UK. She said: “I’m a new mum, not working, so I struggle to pay household bills. Not having to worry about buying sanitary towels, shaving gel and products, which I wouldn’t be able to afford, is a big help. I feel better about myself and it helps my mental wellbeing.”

The report comes amid campaigns for free sanitary products. Amika George, 17, from London, is petitioning for these items to be provided to all girls on free school meals.

She said: “I read about the issue of period poverty in March and was bewildered that … [the charity] Freedom4Girls had to redirect sanitary products from Kenya to Leeds. I did some research and no one could believe it was happening in the UK.

“The work charities are doing is really great, but the government should implement something long-term to change people’s lives for the better.”

George commented on the growing gap between rich and poor, saying: “It’s really tragic that there are children who struggle with the effects of poverty at such a young age … Something like not being able to afford sanitary products has a long-lasting impact on health and also dignity.”

Poverty ‘driving people to choose between eating or keeping clean’

Growing numbers of people are facing hygiene poverty, where they are unable to afford essential products such as shampoo and deodorant, and are having to choose between eating and keeping clean, a charity has found.

A report from In Kind Direct says thousands of people are seeking help and describes the issue as a “hidden crisis”. Last year the charity distributed a record £20.2m of hygiene products, a rise of 67% on £12.1m the year before.

Robin Boles, chief executive of In Kind Direct, said: “This is hitting families hard. The fact that last year was our busiest year ever, distributing products to charities and the people they help, highlights the stark choices people are facing.”

The study has prompted campaigners to call for the government to do more to alleviate poverty. They say cuts to working benefits coupled with rising inflation have left families struggling.

Samantha Stapley, operations manager for England at the Trussell Trust food bank network, described the report as “very concerning”. She added: “When people are referred to food banks with no money for food, they’re often struggling to afford other basic essentials too.”

The report shows 82% of 948 charities have seen an increase in demand over the past year from people who cannot afford essential items.

A further poll of 1,000 people, conducted by In Kind Direct, found that 37% of those surveyed, and 56% of 18- to 24-year-olds, have had to go without hygiene or grooming products, or cut down on them, owing to low finances.

Stapley said Trussell Trust research with the University of Oxford had found that more than half of the households visiting the network’s food banks were struggling to afford toiletries.

She added that voluntary organisations alone could not resolve the problem and the underlying causes of poverty needed to be addressed. “Making work more secure, tackling the high cost of living and working to reduce the issues people experience with benefit payments would all make a difference,” she said.

Her words were echoed by Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, who said: “To tackle it we first need to ensure that benefits once again reflect families’ needs and so rise with inflation. No one should have to suffer the indignity of living without basic sanitary products.”

Andrew Barr, manager of the Trussell Trust food bank in Oldham, said: “People are not able to afford the things that they need, not want, and that is a worry.”

Barr noted a rise in people coming to the service. “There is certainly an increase in demand for them [hygiene products] and it’s something we try and get people to donate to us,” he said.

The In Kind Direct report cites the case of Rucksana Begum, 32, who gets products from her local charity in Tyneside, Crest UK. She said: “I’m a new mum, not working, so I struggle to pay household bills. Not having to worry about buying sanitary towels, shaving gel and products, which I wouldn’t be able to afford, is a big help. I feel better about myself and it helps my mental wellbeing.”

The report comes amid campaigns for free sanitary products. Amika George, 17, from London, is petitioning for these items to be provided to all girls on free school meals.

She said: “I read about the issue of period poverty in March and was bewildered that … [the charity] Freedom4Girls had to redirect sanitary products from Kenya to Leeds. I did some research and no one could believe it was happening in the UK.

“The work charities are doing is really great, but the government should implement something long-term to change people’s lives for the better.”

George commented on the growing gap between rich and poor, saying: “It’s really tragic that there are children who struggle with the effects of poverty at such a young age … Something like not being able to afford sanitary products has a long-lasting impact on health and also dignity.”