Care homes and care workers

[Silvercat]

I understand, and the private homes probably do have a lot more control, but i do wonder if the whole market is a bit price driven, causing this problem with low wages.

Barchester Homes had 68 care homes around the country and had a bunch of shareholders to satisfy. Sadly all they were focussed on was profit and higher share dividends. TBH, it shouldnt cost £1300 a week to look after an elderly person and certainly the teams working at the coal face only see a fraction of this. So you have to ask what is happening to the rest of it?Barchester routinely increased care home fees by between 5-7% ever year when my Mum was there, with absolutely no justification. Worse still when we challenged it they more or less said it is all down to supply and demand. There is a much greater demand for Alzheimer's care than there is capacity in the system so guess what, they charge what they like because they can. Elderly folk are literally queuing up to grab a care home slot because there just isnt the capacity. In my view care homes ought to be run on a 'capped profit' basis agreed with UKG so it drives the right behaviours in the system. Until there are some constraints in place to cap profits, then it will continue to be a proverbial 'gravy train' for many owners and companies who run theses places.
This is probably why my mums care home manager was able to turn up at her funeral in a new Range Rover.

 

[MarkMas]

I know a few people who run care homes and they are certainly not goldmines, as councils and individuals are very limited in what they can pay. You can make a living (even a pretty good living) in that business, but you do need to keep costs down and care levels up, which is hard. An dso long as worker s can be found, wages are low.

In another thread on here some people were saying that it is wrong to run a for-profit care home. I'm not sure they really meant that all care homes should be run by the state or charities, or that private care home owners shroud be forced to run at a loss until they went broke. That seems like a bad thing.

Essentially, it is a problem with capitalism, that there is structural pressure to drive down wages of the low-skilled employees, as long as there is a good supply of them. This is not something new. After the Black Death there was a big rise in workers' wages (in real terms) because there were so few of them. Maybe a virus is the answer! Also there is a structural problem of wages at the top getting higher and higher, as there is effectively no restraint on that, and my theory is that increasing tax rate just increases those wages.

Government interventions can help, and we already have minimum wage and some progressive taxation. But in-work benefits seem to end up as a subsidy for the employers not the employees. Tesco can find workers at minimum wage BECAUSE the government tops up the individual's income with tax credits.

Don't have any good answers to that.

 

[MarkMas]

Zero hour contracts should've been outlawed before they came off the printer....

There are many examples of abuse in zero hours contracts, but also there are many examples of new 'gig-economy' situations where an employee greatly benefits from this non-commitment flexibility. Simply outlawing a particular form of employment liked by, say, 5% of the workforce because there are abuses that impact, say, 10% seems very crude.

 

[MarkMas]

Barchester Homes had 68 care homes around the country and had a bunch of shareholders to satisfy. Sadly all they were focussed on was profit and higher share dividends. TBH, it shouldnt cost £1300 a week to look after an elderly person and certainly the teams working at the coal face only see a fraction of this. So you have to ask what is happening to the rest of it?Barchester routinely increased care home fees by between 5-7% ever year when my Mum was there, with absolutely no justification. Worse still when we challenged it they more or less said it is all down to supply and demand. There is a much greater demand for Alzheimer's care than there is capacity in the system so guess what, they charge what they like because they can. Elderly folk are literally queuing up to grab a care home slot because there just isnt the capacity. In my view care homes ought to be run on a 'capped profit' basis agreed with UKG so it drives the right behaviours in the system. Until there are some constraints in place to cap profits, then it will continue to be a proverbial 'gravy train' for many owners and companies who run theses places.
This is probably why my mums care home manager was able to turn up at her funeral in a new Range Rover.

If there is the demand, and it is very profitable, why isn't there a growth in supply to meet the demand (and constrain prices)? Why does a 'capped profits' basis drive the right behaviours? Is one of those behaviours a reduced supply? If 'capped profits' drives right behaviours, should this be applied to all business activity?

 

[Silvercat]

I know a few people who run care homes and they are certainly not goldmines, as councils and individuals are very limited in what they can pay. You can make a living (even a pretty good living) in that business, but you do need to keep costs down and care levels up, which is hard. An dso long as worker s can be found, wages are low.

In another thread on here some people were saying that it is wrong to run a for-profit care home. I'm not sure they really meant that all care homes should be run by the state or charities, or that private care home owners shroud be forced to run at a loss until they went broke. That seems like a bad thing.

Essentially, it is a problem with capitalism, that there is structural pressure to drive down wages of the low-skilled employees, as long as there is a good supply of them. This is not something new. After the Black Death there was a big rise in workers' wages (in real terms) because there were so few of them. Maybe a virus is the answer! Also there is a structural problem of wages at the top getting higher and higher, as there is effectively no restraint on that, and my theory is that increasing tax rate just increases those wages.

Government interventions can help, and we already have minimum wage and some progressive taxation. But in-work benefits seem to end up as a subsidy for the employers not the employees. Tesco can find workers at minimum wage BECAUSE the government tops up the individual's income with tax credits.

Don't have any good answers to that.

It's like everything..its all down to market forces (supply and demand). I have never come across any private care home which doesn't making a bloody good return. At the end the day its a business. So I suspect the majority do very nicely out of it although I'm sure there will be the odd exception.

 

[Silvercat]

If there is the demand, and it is very profitable, why isn't there a growth in supply to meet the demand (and constrain prices)? Why does a 'capped profits' basis drive the right behaviours? Is one of those behaviours a reduced supply? If 'capped profits' drives right behaviours, should this be applied to all business activity?

The fundamental difference is you're dealing with vulnerable peoples lives, not commodities which you can trade as you see fit. So this is very different in my view.

 

[lozcb]

A very valid point Loz.

I know of cases where family have refused to take Gran out of a hospital bed when they are fit enough to leave but need care at home... the reason given in this case was they were going to Florida for a three week holiday... so Gran goes into a home or stays in BRI.

My own adopted mother nused both her parents at their home before they died; she was a maricurie nurse after retirement from the NHS. No idea how she copes emotionally with that... she did the same for her brother in law last year... and she is in her 70s!!!

As you know Peter, Kaz was a retirement village Manager for Extra Care charitable trust , managing 350 properties flats and bungalows all on one purpose built site , and also managing the care fo them , she left around 4 years ago thankgod , I used to hear of horrendous stories of what siblings wouldnt do for their own parents and complain endelessly that the Villages costs were eating away at there inheritance , so glad she left , it will have been an absolute nightmare these last few months

 

[midlifecrisis]

Why do squabbling siblings think that inheritance is their money.
My dad said to me not to expect anything. True to his word we got nowt. None of us turned up at the reading of the will either. We have our own money.

 

[lozcb]

Why do squabbling siblings think that inheritance is their money.
My dad said to me not to expect anything. True to his word we got nowt. None of us turned up at the reading of the will either. We have our own money.

Its all part of the millenial thing , expectations of something for nothing , not in everycase of course , but the thought of some siblings when they see their parents being what they percieve as being frivolous is amazing , Kaz had one couple get in contact with the head office to get their mum and dad banned fro the internet room as they had just booked another world cruise lol ,£45K worth lol

 

[midlifecrisis]

It's not a millenial thing, but that's a lazy argument.

 

[Wack61]

There are many examples of abuse in zero hours contracts, but also there are many examples of new 'gig-economy' situations where an employee greatly benefits from this non-commitment flexibility. Simply outlawing a particular form of employment liked by, say, 5% of the workforce because there are abuses that impact, say, 10% seems very crude.

Sorry I don't know what a gig economy is unless it's U2 from the back row , that was really ****

All I see is a system that benefits employers and ex police that don't want to be at home with their wives and don't really need the money

I don't see how someone with 2 kids and a mortgage sees any benefit from not knowing if they're earning £40 or £400 that week.

 

[MarkMas]

Sorry I don't know what a gig economy is unless it's U2 from the back row , that was really ****

All I see is a system that benefits employers and ex police that don't want to be at home with their wives and don't really need the money

I don't see how someone with 2 kids and a mortgage sees any benefit from not knowing if they're earning £40 or £400 that week.

Someone with two kids and a mortgage can sign on to their helpdesk application whenever they have some free time from looking after the kids and the home, to earn some money handling calls, and then just sign out again when they have to pick up a kid from school. Or just not do it at all if one of the kids is home sick.

I'm not saying it is a great system for everyone. And there is a lot of abuse. But it can work really well for some people sometimes. Better to fix the problems (if possible) than just say "This is bad, ban it!"

 

[CatmanV2]

than just say "This is bad, ban it!"

BUT THAT'S SO MUCH SIMPLER. IT MUST BE RIGHT

C

 

[rossyl]

BLOODY BABY BOOMERS

Their parents lived through the war. They didn't.

They got paid to go to university.

Many jobs didn't even require higher education.

Wages have risen, overall, throughout their lifetimes.

They had huge opportunity to buy housing for very little. Even multiple homes, without penalty of second home stamp duty.

Seen their houses multiply exponentially in value.

They've seen and had opportunity to benefit from huge advancement in the wealth of the Western World, and all the opportunities to make money from it.

After all of that they're shoving their parents in care homes, at such a rate that demand has pushed up supply. They then moan about the cost.

The cost of such care home can easily be paid for by the fully-paid off house that the elderly parents likely lives in. But of course, that eats into the inheritance that Baby Boomer has earned through blood, sweat and tears...

Cat among the pigeons much?

Structural advantages are often invisible to those who benefit from them. It's easier to just see the negatives, no matter how minute they are.

Sometimes the stuff I read on hear makes reach me in desperation, for my tiny violin!

 

[mjheathcote]

No Zero Hour contracts here in France.

Yes, but most are on contract and don't have a long term job, but a contract for a few years that can be terminated. Not many are properly employed and why so many have to rent. Quite different to the UK.
However the French government then pays a rediculous amount of redundancy for 2 years at a % of one's salary. Can't remember what it is now but say if it is 50% (was much higher) , if you earned 100 grand the government would pay you 50 grand for 2 years!
They do play the game. My French brother in law just bounces from a job on contract long enough to then sponge off the government for 2 years and then repeats the cycle.