One of the conclusions of today's damning report into the GSCC's conduct system for social workers is that social workers should pay more than the current £30 annual fee to register, to make the regulator financially independent of the Department of Health.
Any thoughts?
The findings in general are shocking - conduct cases stalled to save money, important files mislaid, poor quality investigations...
What do people think should be the way forward now?
CareSpace support
Doesn't surprise me. Why should social workers have to pay for a regulatory body whose only function is to wield a big stick against those it holds on records. It's not as though the GSCC actually does anything for the individuals who are paying the fees!
I guess we aren't really going to have a choice of whether we will pay or not if the fees go up.
Mithran:One of the conclusions of today's damning report into the GSCC's conduct system for social workers is that social workers should pay more than the current £30 annual fee to register, to make the regulator financially independent of the Department of Health. Any thoughts?
Quite a few, but most of them aren't repeatable!
It's hard to say how annoyed I'd be at any proposed rise from the current rates, as my level of annoyance would be closely tied to how big a rise we were talking about - "increasing registration fees for social workers to improve efficiency" sounds like something of an oxymoron, to say the least.
It should also be noted that some local authorities (though I'm not sure how common this is) reimburse their workers for the registration fee at present, so that's likely to stop if the rise is anything significant.
My .local authority reimbursed the first year because we all made a fuss but never continued to do so in subsequent years.. however, our OTs who pay a substantially larger fee, do get reimbursed. Were the fees to rise substantially I would go straight to HR..
Mithran: One of the conclusions of today's damning report into the GSCC's conduct system for social workers is that social workers should pay more than the current £30 annual fee to register, to make the regulator financially independent of the Department of Health. Any thoughts?
Why would you give an incompetent organisation even more money? Don't be daft.
They routinely mix up and get involved in things which simply are not their business and do not meet a criteria for involvement. All the while they leave public protection matters in the air. They are a sham. And somebody is suggesting they get MORE money?
Why are we paying money to the GSCC when we know it is The Super Soaraway Sun which vets our practice, with all those falling in behind them?
I would like the National audit office do a value for money study and then I could make a considered decision
It's hard I know ...but you have to try.....go on
So we are being asked to pay more to register with a morally bankrupt GSCC. When it was caught red-handed being economical with the truth and guilty of malpractice nothing happened. Now June Thoburn , "emeritus professor at the University of East Anglia" quoted in Community Care "estimates the new fee will be somewhere around the £200-£300 mark." Well done professor. That's just what we need to hear. But just a mo arent you the very same June Thoburn "who was vice-chair of the GSCC until last year"? Maybe if you and your kind had paid attention a bit more, woken up and smelt the coffee then social workers would not have to pick up the bill for your ineptitude. The GSCC thinks that social workers are loaded.. When Mike Wardle of GSCC ( £200,000 per annum) presented evidence to the House of Commons Children and Families Committee, Barry Sheerman the chairman says:
Q118 Chairman:
This is a really difficult profession. It is very demanding and stressful and you need an amazing range of competences to do it, and yet it pays pretty awfully.
It is very demanding and stressful and you need an
amazing range of competences to do it, and yet it
pays pretty awfully.
Mike Wardle:
It does not pay awfully, but it pays less than comparable professions.
than comparable professions.
Chairman:
It does not sound that good to me.
.
We wouldn't get a choice in paying more, but I for one wouldn't be happy about it, unless we got something useful in return.
~ The race goes not always to the swift, but to those who keep on running ~
I hate paying money to some thing that only has a role to stand and kick me around the floor - for not having the time to live up to a model they can't even live up to themselves
bit like Ofsted full of bloody failed teachers telling other how to do it
Mithran: One of the conclusions of today's damning report into the GSCC's conduct system for social workers is that social workers should pay more than the current £30 annual fee to register, to make the regulator financially independent of the Department of Health. Any thoughts? As in all dealings with the GSCC, we do not appear to have a choice about payment if we wish to continue to practice. However, I have yet to find out how this organisation benefits social workers; it certainly has not improved our reputation with the general public. Many social workers do not get their fee re-imbursed by their employers, so a rise to £200-£300 p/a is extortionate, especially considering the level of pay most workers receive. This is, in essence, a tax on social workers, to fund a government quango. We get nothing from the GSCC in return for our money, and this rise in fees is not going to improve the problem of recruitment and retention of social workers.
As in all dealings with the GSCC, we do not appear to have a choice about payment if we wish to continue to practice. However, I have yet to find out how this organisation benefits social workers; it certainly has not improved our reputation with the general public.
Many social workers do not get their fee re-imbursed by their employers, so a rise to £200-£300 p/a is extortionate, especially considering the level of pay most workers receive. This is, in essence, a tax on social workers, to fund a government quango. We get nothing from the GSCC in return for our money, and this rise in fees is not going to improve the problem of recruitment and retention of social workers.