"Maria" <mariathomson@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:e32ao3ls02fp2rasiivc1o1oourod5bovj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 04:57:27 -0800 (PST), Nkosi
> <minankosi@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9 Jan, 11:40, Maria <mariathom...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>> We are always talking about jobs offering a wage that anyone iw
>>> willing to pay, so...given that so many people have actually died from
>>> dirty hospitals and lacksadaisical cleaning (as well as difficulty in
>>> recruiting any cleaners at all), how much do *you* think that hospital
>>> cleaners should be paid, or is the contempt for the low paid so bad
>>> that they are still only worth ?5.75/hour, even when people's lives
>>> depend on it?
>>
>>People should be paid what they have earned by studying, both at
>>school, college or university.
>
> OK...why?
> IMHO people should be paid on merit - people who have spent time at
> university usually get more money by default, even if their job is
> superficial or they are lazy or they are bad at it.
They get paid what an employer is prepared to pay them.
>>Why should a refuse collector who may
>>have left school at 15 with no qualifications be paid the same as an
>>Engineer who has at a minimum 4 years of post school qualifications
>>behind them not to mention GCSE's and A levels.
>
> I'm not saying he should be paid the same, but IMHO he should be paid
> more than he is (i.e. more than say a barmaid or a shelf-stacker)
> because he is prepared to undertake essential work that the educated
> person is not. He should certainly be paid more than the minimum wage
> because more than minimum effort is required from him.
The minimum wage isn't about minimum effort but minimum standards; that is,
the intention is that everyone should be paid enough to satisfy minimum
living standards, not paid for putting in minimum effort.
>> those with lower
>>educational standards generally drift toward the lower paid
>>occupations as their level of competence with the main skills,
>>English, Maths etc is almost nil.
>
> So it doesn't matter if the cleaner is incompetent? It might not
> matter if they are sweeping up a factory floor of paper cuttings or an
> office loo, but it certainly does matter if they do not understand the
> kinds of protocols necessary for the prevention of infection in an
> environment packed with people vulnerable to contracting an infection.
> You don't have to have A levels to do that, but you do need a modicum
> of intelligence, and moreover, you do need to actually care that you
> are doing the job properly.
What they need to understand is how to clean things to a particular
standard. Their employers set this standard because it prevents hospital
acquired infections. It isn't necessary for cleaners to understand the
standard, they just need to meet it.
The agency should be enforcing those standards. The hospital should ensure
the agency enforces those standards.
> Most people I know who earn minimum wage
> do minimum required and rush off to live their basic lives - they
> don't want to deliberately harm anyone, but they are only there to get
> the money which is so small there is no incentive to do better.
It follows then that the minimum standard should be sufficient to ensure
there is no infection brought about by not cleaning things properly.
> And one more thing - if a hospital cleaner is only worth ?5.75/hour,
that is how much the agency is paying them (is that gross or net?)
> how come the hospital is prepared to pay ?13/hour for one (via an
> agency)?
I'm sure there are lots of motivations.
> They are getting completely unskilled, inexperienced cleaners
> who will do half a job and skip off early if nobody is looking.
This seems silly. Why don't agencies enforce the minimum standards we are
talking about? Why do hospitals not get rid of agencies that don't enforce
standards?
Why are we talking about increasing pay when people aren't doing their jobs
properly?
> For a reasonable compromise, say ?8.hour, they could afford to
> interview and assess prospective cleaners to see if they are up to it,
> and employ a qualified person to train them. The cleaners could be
> paid ?7/hour and receive a bonus if they do a proper job and an
> attendance allowance for actually turning up (the latter being a
> serious problem with cleaning jobs because some are so bad people just
> wander off and find an easier one).
>
> Cleaning hospitals should be a medically graded job, or at least a job
> where the cleaners are graded for knowledge, experience and
> efficiency.
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, reward the cleaners who perform well and
get rid of those who don't.
> I don't know how anyone can simply dismiss the bad
> attitude towards essential staff upon whom lives actually depend.
>