IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Yes, and he's technically correct.  We are paying for the MD to work in the UK whilst also paying Marina Hudson to act up as medical director. He was hiding behind 'substantive' and claiming it was the questions fault.

 

The real point is whether his costs were being recovered, in whole or in part, from the UK NHS Trust he was working in. 

[Holte End]

6 hours ago, cissolt said:

Yes, and he's technically correct.  We are paying for the MD to work in the UK whilst also paying Marina Hudson to act up as medical director. He was hiding behind 'substantive' and claiming it was the questions fault.

 

But the question was clear.  The word ' substantive' wasn't in the question, because he adds  to the answer means he really he has intentionally deceived. The question was "How many medical directors are on the payroll of Manx Care ."

[Dr. Grumpy]

9 hours ago, Gladys said:

The real point is whether his costs were being recovered, in whole or in part, from the UK NHS Trust he was working in. 

Its a safe bet that zero costs are being recovered from the UK trust

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

Its a safe bet that zero costs are being recovered from the UK trust

Would that not make him a 'substantive' employee?

[Holte End]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

Its a safe bet that zero costs are being recovered from the UK trust

It's a safe bet they will be charging Manx Care.

[Ghost Ship]

10 hours ago, Gladys said:

The real point is whether his costs were being recovered, in whole or in part, from the UK NHS Trust he was working in. 

Yes.  As I've mentioned in this thread before it's very common for clinicians (and other staff) in the NHS* to be employed by one trust but - for whatever reason - to be seconded to another trust.

Normal procedure would be for the employing trust to recharge that member of staff's salary costs to the trust where they are actually working.  The only real exception to that would be if the employing trust was receiving a benefit from that member of staff working in the other trust.  (eg they were doing so in order to gain experience or training that the employing trust required but could not provide)

16 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Would that not make him a 'substantive' employee?

As a former NHS manager I'd say that whether or not he's been seconded to a different trust and whether or not his salary costs are being recharged are both irrelevent as to whether or not he is a "substantive" employee.

Within the NHS* a "substantive" employee is anybody on the payroll whose employment is not temporary or not of a fixed term nature.  They don't necessarily have to be working for the trust that employs them - their employment just needs to be non-temporary.  (I used to get tired of people saying or telling me that they had a "permanent" contract.  Nobody has a "permanent" contract.  They're either substantive or not.)

25 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

Its a safe bet that zero costs are being recovered from the UK trust

There could be a good reason for that.  But as it's the Isle of Man there may not be...

 

*  In the UK at least.

Edited June 20 by Ghost Ship

[Gladys]

9 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

Yes.  As I've mentioned in this thread before it's very common for clinicians (and other staff) in the NHS* to be employed by one trust but - for whatever reason - to be seconded to another trust.

Normal procedure would be for the employing trust to recharge that member of staff's salary costs to the trust where they are actually working.  The only real exception to that would be if the employing trust was receiving a benefit from that member of staff working in the other trust.  (eg they were doing so in order to gain experience or training that the employing trust required but could not provide)

As a former NHS manager I'd say that whether or not he's been seconded to a different trust and whether or not his salary costs are being recharged are both irrelevent as to whether or not he is a "substantive" employee.

Within the NHS* a "substantive" employee is anybody on the payroll whose employment is not temporary or not of a fixed term nature.  They don't necessarily have to be working for the trust that employs them - their employment just needs to be non-temporary.  (I used to get tired of people saying or telling me that they had a "permanent" contract.  Nobody has a "permanent" contract.  They're either substantive or not.)

There could be a good reason for that.  But as it's the Isle of Man there may not be...

 

*  In the UK at least.

That was what I was hinting at really, and whether on the payroll or not, if there is a contract of employment, you would consider them a 'substantive' employee, whatever that really means. 

[Ghost Ship]

4 hours ago, Holte End said:

But the question was clear.  The word ' substantive' wasn't in the question, because he adds  to the answer means he really he has intentionally deceived. The question was "How many medical directors are on the payroll of Manx Care ."

As I understand the issue the real question that needs to be asked is whether Manx Care are recharging the trust in Liverpool (or wherever it is) with the payroll costs of the member of staff in question.  And if they aren't, why they aren't. 

I can believe that "One" is an appropriate answer to the question "How many medical directors are on the payroll of Manx Care?".  I just don't think it's the right question to be asking...

Edited June 20 by Ghost Ship

[Ghost Ship]

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

That was what I was hinting at really, and whether on the payroll or not, if there is a contract of employment, you would consider them a 'substantive' employee, whatever that really means. 

It basically just means that they haven't got only a bank contract and/or that they aren't employed only on a temporary basis (eg fixed term).

So without knowing the details I suspect that both the medical director and the "acting" medical director are both substantive employees of Manx Care, but that there is only one person in the substantive role of medical director.

The role of acting medical director is not substantive, but the employee in it will have a sustantive contract in another role with Manx Care.  (That's assuming the person in the acting up role was already working for Manx Care)

 

(NB   When looking at these sort of issues it's often necessary to distinguish between employees - substantive or not - and the roles they are in - substantive or not)

[Gladys]

Agree with your first paragraph.  But the second paragraph kind of assumes that the answer to the first is that they are not being paid by IOMG so they wont be on the payroll.

If they are being paid by IOMG  then the correct answer is two.  If there are contracts of employment with two people, again the answer, surely, is two? 

We had the same confusion over Magson.

[Dirty Buggane]

Most of us had no confusion with Magson. If you are not residing on the island you should not have been given the job, and nothing that knob Ashford or Cooper ever say's will make me think any different

[Ghost Ship]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Agree with your first paragraph.  But the second paragraph kind of assumes that the answer to the first is that they are not being paid by IOMG so they wont be on the payroll.

If they are being paid by IOMG  then the correct answer is two.  If there are contracts of employment with two people, again the answer, surely, is two? 

We had the same confusion over Magson.

We cross-posted.

Does my comment about distinguishing roles from the people in them help clarify?

 

 

As regards Magson, was there any confusion?  My clear understanding was that she always remained employed* by the Clinical Commisioning Group in the UK where she came from, and that they recharged her salary to the Manx Government.

As far as I'm aware she was never an employee of the Manx government (substantive or otherwise), but she was seconded into a substantive role within the structure of Manx Care (or the DHSC or whatever it was called at the time).

Strictly speaking, during the time she was in post the Manx government didn't employ anybody in her role.  She was filling the role on a secondment basis from a nother NHS organisation in the UK.

(Or at least that's my understanding.  My only knowledge of all this is picked up from what I've read about the Dr Ranson debacle.  Based on the Isle of Man I'd be happy to accept that you know a lot more about it than I do)

[Ghost Ship]

1 minute ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Most of us had no confusion with Magson. If you are not residing on the island you should not have been given the job, and nothing that knob Ashford or Cooper ever say's will make me think any different

On the one hand I agree with you, on the other hand I don't.

If you are going to restrict these jobs so that the incumbent has to reside on the Isle of Man, I think you are unnecessarily restricting the pool of talent you can choose from.

Having said that (and I've made this point on several threads here concerning the civil service) I'd be extrememly wary of anybody from the UK or elsewhere who wanted to apply for a senior position in the Isle of Man.  My immediate question would be "Why do you want to work in the Isle of Man?".  I'd be very concerned that they were running away from something or that they were just plain incompetent and couldn't get or hold down a decent job in the UK.

As I've said before I worked in the treasury for a couple of years in the early 1980s after I graduated.  With the exception of William Dawson in the post of treasurer nearly all the senior officers and heads of department were Manx.  Why the civil service seems to have to employ so many people from across to fill senior positions is a mystery to me.  Employ locals.

[Dirty Buggane]

Because its the done thing, the new buzz employment mantra in government circles.

[wrighty]

34 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

We cross-posted.

Does my comment about distinguishing roles from the people in them help clarify?

 

 

As regards Magson, was there any confusion?  My clear understanding was that she always remained employed* by the Clinical Commisioning Group in the UK where she came from, and that they recharged her salary to the Manx Government.

As far as I'm aware she was never an employee of the Manx government (substantive or otherwise), but she was seconded into a substantive role within the structure of Manx Care (or the DHSC or whatever it was called at the time).

Strictly speaking, during the time she was in post the Manx government didn't employ anybody in her role.  She was filling the role on a secondment basis from a nother NHS organisation in the UK.

(Or at least that's my understanding.  My only knowledge of all this is picked up from what I've read about the Dr Ranson debacle.  Based on the Isle of Man I'd be happy to accept that you know a lot more about it than I do)

I'm pretty sure Magson was interim, for two years, not substantive. Just to add to the terminological confusion.