So says Elaine Aspinwall-Roberts in a blog post published today. She argues they damage the prospects of permanent staff and are not good for service users. She argues:
"When agency staff leave, all the time and effort the team has put into inducting and supporting them is wasted, and has to be repeated with the next worker. This is a serious drain on the time and goodwill of the permanent staff, and, ultimately, services can suffer."
Are there any agency workers out there? What do you make of this viewpoint?
CareSpace support
I've worked through agencies and although I'm currently employed full-time, I think it's a bit of a heavy-handed brush to be tarring people with. Some people need more flexibility than can be offered in a permanent job. It's hard enough to go into a job as an agency worker anyway without a team manager who obviously despises your presence.
Agencies fill a need and to be so aggressively opposed probably doesn't help anyone. I'm sure any manager's ideal would be a full and permanent staff team but in some areas, that's just a pipe-dream. Far better to concentrate efforts on working effectively with agency staff rather than writing them all off.
I've now experienced both sides of the argument. When I was a children's worker I was dead set against agency staff, not just from the perspective that Elaine puts forward but morally their extra costs come directly out of an already tight budget and I really objected to this however.... now as a student I really needed some money over the summer so I signed up with an agency and I'm doing a short period of work in a children's centre.
Over the summer months especially, social services needs workers to cover holiday periods and agency workers are the most efficient way of facilitating this. When it's handled correctly I think issues such as induction periods and staff moral are not a problem. When staff know that an agency worker is brought in for X piece of work and for a limited time period staff can get behind this and it can work smoothly. I think problems arise when agency staff aren't there to cover time limited pieces of work but when staffing levels are low rather than address the problem of why they are low, agency staff are brought in and soon leave because of of low moral / conditions the original staff left for. Then permanent staff start to recent the constant revolving door and it offers a poor service level for service users.
However, the longer council's offer such riddiculously low cost of living increases, it will leave very few the option but to leave their jobs and to go onto angency books to meet the costs of their student loans - which have of course gone up more than twice the ammount of that pathetic pay offer!
Not sure if that answers your question?
Would there not be advantages in getting contact with people not already inculcated into local working practices too? I'd have thought that the different perspectives agency workers bring could be extremely beneficial in itself.
Not that I'm a social worker myself but I have worked alongside agency staff in other settings and I think that sometimes the contribution of a fresh pair of eyes in invaluable.
Visit my blog at http://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/
I think in the modern labour market agency staff are going to be inevitable as there are always going to be positions that need to be filled temporarily or urgently.I suspect the blogger is directing her criticism more at a system that she believes has come to rely too much on agency staff, rather than the contribution of the staff themselves. I think it's a situation that is replicated across various sections of the economy.
I don't know - when she uses phrases like 'taking the agency shilling' to criticise social workers that choose to work for agencies, she's using unnecessarily emotive language. The situation would change if managers in her position offer much more flexible working patterns and the recruitment systems took less than six months from interview to recruitment.
As Stuart says, agency workers aren't necessarily completely green and needing to be re-trained every five minutes. Sometimes the range of expertise can be useful.
Yes, I should probably stop trying to put words into her mouth and let her blog speak for itself!
And I'm sure there are lots of agency staff who fulfil a very valuable function
Having been an agency Manager of most of the past 9 years let me say that there are real 'challenges' in not having the employment safety of being employed - as soon as you raise issues you are probably on your way out (issues which, by the way, employed staff ought to have raised but have felt powerless to do), I have helped a number of Teams to increase their effectiveness / morale / enthusiasm by having an open and, I hope, nurturing style of management only to leave and see the positions reached crumble again. Where are the Local Authorities that welcome challenge, that put quality over and above hitting Performance Indicators, that ensure front line managers do make supportive visit with their staff and know, at first hand, what is going on and how staff work / interact with others?
Stuart is absolutely right about the benefits a fresh pair of eyes bring but agency staff need to beware - Teams and Authorities often do not like to have their weaknesses highlighted and do not see constructive 'criticism' as helpful as it often exposes the deficiencies and shortcomings of some of the permanent staff.
It is not always an easy relationship being an agency worker but I wouldn't swop it for being employed again - the new experiences , new challenges, new relationships developed and seeing different ways of working have all been extremely stimulating.
It would be useful not to run duplicate 'threads' on this Topic - this particular thread seems to be the best one to continue with.
I agree. The other thread was put up accidentally but unfortunately I don't have the ability to move it across to this one.
Basically the blog complains about Social Work entering the true free labour market. Social Workers are there "to make a difference" and because they care, but at the end of the day the are professionals, with career plans and who wish a fair return for their work. I think it is a bit simplistic to say that agency workers are bad for social work - are free opportunities bad for Social Work? I think that the Government has traditionally seen this profession as a "goodwill" job, where workers expect low pay, high responsibility and workpressure. Well, this is changing and the Local Authorities need to keep up. Yes, Social Workers are committed to their profession and service users and are keen to learn, specialize and provide a high standard of service. However loyalty is earned, not taken for granted. If the Local Authorities want excellence, they need to pay for it. These are the rules of the labour market.
I am an employee of a Local Authority. My agency colleagues do the same job as I do, but I get paid much less. I am not ashamed to say I need money. I am young, I have a mortgage and want children which I cannot really afford right now (sounds dreadful, doesn't it?). I am doing silly overtime for which I am not paid because this is the Local Authoriy's policy. I only stay because I am doing the PQ, but once I become competitive on the labour market I will go wherever I get the best deal. I have seen this a number of times in my Local Authority, who is still blind to the needs and aspirations of its Social Workers, but complains that it cannot recruit or retain experienced staff.
Perhaps also this relates to another thread where someone is asking about whether they should have stress put on their sick note because that is the result of the insane hours they are working in a local authority post.
I'm not an agency worker. I'm the much maligned in some quarters but still similar, independent social worker. This is a lifestyle choice. If I want to work at 2.00 am I can sleep in the next day. If I want a long weekend away I don't have to work out whether or not there's someone else in the office for duty cover, etc, etc. Selfish maybe but my partner is also self-employed and it works for our lifestyle. However as far as practice goes the same applies to agency and independent: if the work standards and team working are not good enough we don't get more work. With the recently suggested 'social work practices' (and having been suggested once it is only a matter of time before they become accepted, whatever the arguments in the meantime - that's the way of politics), it looks as though agencies and their variations will be a permanent feature of the future of social work.
I was recently reading a newish government report on the children's workforce, Building Brighter Futures, and this said that Barnet Council (in North London) has a rule that any agency social workers are only allowed to work in the children's services department for three months. After this they either must become permanent employees or move on. This sounds harsh but Barnet has reduced its vaccany rate for frontline children and families social workers from 35 per cent four years ago to three per cent now.
I worked as an agency worker for 6 months approximately 3 years ago. I did this after 23 years in residential social work the last 9 years of which I' d spent as a children's home manager. I completed my dip in 2004, something which the Care Standards Act required of all home managers. Prior to this I had been paid and recognised as qualified in view of the fact I have an honours degree in humanities, a post grad qualification in education and a management diploma. I went into agency work for a short time while I made up my mind about what I wanted to do. During the 6 months I spent as an agency worker, the Local Authority indicated that they wanted me to take a permanent job with them. I attended interview and was successful in being offered the job. However, when it came to salary, the Local Authority chose to regard me as a "newly qualified" worker and would only offer me the same money as someone who had just graduated and had no prior experience. I applied for another post with another Local Authority who initially offered me a decent salary (albeit still a £2000 "cut" compared to my previous full time post) which they then withdrew as they too chose to regard me as a newly qualified worker. Newly qualified salaries at that time in my home area were between £18000 and £21000, both of which equated to a substantial pay cut which (particularly as a lone parent) I could not possibly absorb. There was no flexibility or negotiation in relation to this- the approach seemed to be "We want your skill, experience and knowledge however we're not going to pay you for them." A strange situation when you consider one authority were happy to pay me more as an agency worker than I had earned at my previous full time post but expected me to take a lot less when they employed me. Needless to say, I don't work for either of those Local Authorities. I have worked for a Local Authority in the past. I would need to see evidence of major improvements in the way they treat their staff before I'd consider working for another. It's very true that you only get what you pay for and if authorities are n't prepared to value people and and pay them what they're worth, then they will go elsewhere. It often seems that the people that Local Authorities look after the least well are their own staff. I love my job however, like everyone else, I work to pay the bills and I expect to be paid what I'm worth as well as valued.
This is not as B&W as it sounds. As an agency social worker I have previously applied for a permenant position, but then
invited in as a Locum until HR finalise the contract and then 4 months on.......? I have also been offered a permanent position
and 4 months later still out of work because HR had not done all the necessary clearances/. Why? Because their HR Officer -
young had not done her job whereas I was able to gather all the info required in a half day. Nonetheless, the Manager for the team
I was selected to go in could not wait any longer and withdrew their job offer. Of course I was disappointed and continued to be
unemployed because of a council worker's inefficiency. I complained to my local MP however. I did at least get an apology. So you
see Ms Roberts some agency staff do want permanent jobs but due to circumstances beyond our control are drawn back to the
next assignment.