|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 28, 2011 9:15:22 GMT 1
It is comforting to know that our NHS, midst all the turmoil of cost-efficiency savings, is not ovetlooking its oppressed minorities
It seems as if they are sending 'Gay Managers' on a training course at a luxurious venue at a cost of £36,000 to learn about how Gats should manage NHS statff.
The course is run by Stonewall.
I feel sure that such courses will enormously improve the health of the British public, and in particular the health of Sonewall's bank balance
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 28, 2011 14:22:34 GMT 1
If you read the details on the StoneWall website, would-be attendees have to compete for a place. It does not appear to be the NHS sending all queer managers on a freebie, as your post implies.
Limited places, and seems to cost about 1,000 per person. I presume it is to individual NHS trusts whether or not they fund this.
Where does this gem come from? The Daily Express. Where the comments show the level of understanding that people have:
Which in itself shows that people have no idea of the specific career needs of lesbians and gay men, or of the discrimination they face, as these comments themselves show.
As we know from the military in the US (and used to be here as well), unfair employement practises mean we have qualified, valuable people loosing their jobs just because they are gay. If we want a better NHS, then we have to make sure we have the best managers and clinicians (note this course is for clinicians as well). If gay people aren't living up to their full potential, than that is a waste of the vast amounts of money spent training them in the first place. If women, or blacks, or gays, aren't moving into top posts as much as we might expect, with white males from the right schools taking all the plum jobs instead, then that means we are probably not getting the best people for these jobs, which is after all what we all claim to want.
Just another example of the knee-jerk gays are funny (see all the mincing queens references), their needs aren't to be taken seriously, only 1% of the population so who cares...............
Seems equality legislation is to be applauded when someone is in a group that looks to benefit, but funny if not downright evil when it concerns some group you're not a member of. But as many women know, lack of equality legislation isn't funny when what it effects is your pay-packet.
And some people ought to remember that it was only in 2003 that sacking someone just because they were gay (or indeed straight) was specifically outlawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 28, 2011 14:27:48 GMT 1
"no idea of the specific career needs of lesbians and gay men, or of the discrimination they face"
Oh, puhlease!
Sorry, typo.
I meant to say "Right on, STA! Go for it!"
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 28, 2011 14:47:51 GMT 1
Have you tried talking to any gay people? Are they any gay people in senior positions in your organisation? Ever wondered why if they are, they stay firmly in the closet?
We had a senior lecturer, who was formerly a consultant in the NHS. He happens to be gay, but was never out whilst he was in the NHS, because he said his job prospects would have been zero if he had been. And he was working in care of the elderly. So, he was lost to the NHS because he finally decided that a job in academia was a more comfortable environment for him.
SO let's be perfectly clear here -- we SPEND hundreds of thousands on training people. If people don't make full use of that training, leaving the NHS when they may be a very good consultant, because of the attitudes towards gay people, then that is a terrific waste! If spending a little money on training courses to try and prevent that works, then that will make more efficient use of money spent in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 28, 2011 15:00:52 GMT 1
try replacing lesbians and gay men with women, do you find it as funny now M? Or do women only count because they were an oppressed majority.................
For some reason discrimination against women, or men, or blacks, isn't seen as funny, but claiming there is discrimination against gay people IS (and the cue for as many comments about screaming queens and cottaging as possible please!). Which of course is in itself discrimination, just as when anyone black would be met with talk about jungle-bunnies, or little kids at school and comments about them stinking of curry................................
Let's be totally pragmatic about this -- the US military lost valued translators etc because they think sacking people purely on the grounds of being gay is a good thing to do. If the NHS is loosing highly-trained and expensively trained staff because of attitudes towards gays, then that is a collosal waste of money. If the best people for the job aren't putting themselves forward, becase of attitudes towards women or gays, than that means we have the same tired ole white males from public schools clique running the whole shebang, which isn't necessarily the most efficient way to run the NHS (or the country). Of course, those white males who are already in charge aren't usually open to suggestions that they might not be the best people to run everything, hence the silly comments we get.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 28, 2011 17:56:09 GMT 1
Let's be totally pragmatic about this -- No, let's be totally dogmatic. In a time of cutbacks and stringency, special training courses for gay managres is a waste of money. All managers need training - management skills do not depend upons sexuality - it is sheer PC dogmatism in action |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 28, 2011 20:15:22 GMT 1
Except that whether or not the best people go for promotion, or decide to leave and seek a friendlier environment may depend on sexual orientation (or race, or gender). Hence if a quick, cheap course can help retain these people, and make sure they reach their full potential, then that is saving the money that has already been invested in them.
Other employers have found such schemes to be useful, so why not the NHS? It is a relatively small outlay (1000 each), which if it can encourage more people, that we have already invested in in terms of training, to stay on in the NHS, has got to be good value for money overall.
Of course, a knee-jerk tabloid response is all too easy, and even easier if the people concerned are gay, because many people who aren't gay can't necessarily appreciate that there may be issues for gay people that are different to those for straight people. Where I work (university) most people weren't unaware that until recently, sacking someone for being gay wasn't actually illegal -- which was the sort of thing that didn't exactly help gay people feel confident and happy in the workplace.
As I said before, the NHS invests a lot in people like clinicians in terms of the cost of their training -- failing to retain people is then really throwing money down the drain.
|
|
