Plumdaff
joy in people
My fears and concern are clear from my first post on this thread back on page one . I'd hate to think you're taking one sentence of one of my many posts about this to make a completely unwarranted and out of order insinuation.
Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres
- Thread starter Contrarian
- Start date
My fears and concern are clear from my first post on this thread back on page one . I'd hate to think you're taking one sentence of one of my many posts about this to make a completely unwarranted and out of order insinuation.
Libertad
Sparking up a rollie in the Reichstag
I wasn't making a "completely unwarranted and out of order insinuation". The perceived insinuation is of your own construction.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I read Libertad's post as referring to the process by which clinicians are dragged into the DWP assault on claimants, rather than being an insinuation against the clinicians themselves.
toggle
wobbly
and the depending on the underlying history, the process of study can be a hell of a positive thing in aiding healing. at least IME.
Libertad
Sparking up a rollie in the Reichstag
Quite so.
Libertad
Sparking up a rollie in the Reichstag
De nada, we're all in this shitfest together.
Looby
Well-Known Member
Yeah, me too. Sorry!
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I think this is a very neat example of exactly the kind of confusion that DWP is going to sow, amongst service users, practitioners, and even the public in general, with these plans. And what will suffer most - apart, of course, from the poor people shoehorned into it - will be the perception of therapy of all kinds in the public eye. We have done well at destigmatising mental illness, but I strongly fear that we are rushing headlong into restigmatising it, as some kind of elective way of getting out of "doing our bit", again. It is becoming the 21st century equivalent of the wartime "lack of moral fibre" slur.
I am sure it's not entirely deliberate, but it does seem to serve their aims rather too well...
Contrarian
Member
Psychology Graduates told 'work for free' for a year if you want to be employed by the NHS
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/graduates-told-work-free-year-6179446
SLaM employed 330 unpaid Assistant Psychologists in 3 years https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...h/html/2/FOI response HTrench 140327.pdf.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/graduates-told-work-free-year-6179446
SLaM employed 330 unpaid Assistant Psychologists in 3 years https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...h/html/2/FOI response HTrench 140327.pdf.html
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I think this is outrageous.
For a lot of professions (mine included), there is a need for students to do placement work, usually carefully supervised, so that they have an opportunity to build up some experience and skills. But there is always a bit of a tension - or, I think, there should be - between the use of this ready supply of comparatively inexperienced people as a way of providing low-level treatment for simple cases, and creating an expectation whereby people in these fields are expected to do unpaid work that would otherwise be done by paid professionals with relevant levels of experience and skill.
The danger is - and it certainly happens in the counselling field - organisations become heavily reliant on trainee placements, and then expect trained professionals (who may well be struggling to find paid posts) to work for them for nothing, or "to build up their hours". Some organisations are even more brazen than that, and will try to get clinical supervision provided, by experienced supervisors, for nothing.
This wheeze sounds like much the same thing, and I think it stinks. Time was when employers (some employers, including the NHS) would not even consider insisting that staff trained at their own expense, and provided the training as part of the career path. I know that the NHS has been caught out by this before, in that they've often seen their staff disappear elsewhere just as soon as they had completed their training, but at least part of the blame for that has to lie with the tendency over the years to relentlessly pare back pay rates to the point where there is simply too much competition elsewhere.
A lot of things to do with employment seem to have begun to be cast in a moral dimension, the implication being that it is up to the individual to "better themselves", and only then will employers consider hiring them and paying them to work. The big risk here is that we price so many people out of the market - how many of us could afford to sustain ourselves for a year while we worked unpaid? - and end up in a situation, as we have elsewhere in healthcare, where there is a shortage of competent trained professionals. But that moralising seems to be reserved for employees: we don't see employers shouldering any moral obligations, for example, towards the development of the workforce, or to show the same loyalty to staff that they appear to demand the staff demonstrate to them.
One way or another, this is going to end badly. We're already seeing the problems a shortage of GPs and hospital consultants is causing, not to mention past difficulties with getting nursing staff. We don't seem to be doing anything to address those problems at source, and have relied on foreign-trained staff to operate our NHS instead - something that is both unfair to the countries doing the training, who could doubtless do with those people themselves, and to those who aspire to a career in health in this country, who find the training costs increasingly onerous, and the potential earnings once qualified to be likewise increasingly eroded. Some will still do it; many won't. And we will lose - and are losing - many very competent people who simply cannot afford to pursue such a career.
Similar threads
