Fw: agency work

[Jayne]

There are always rip off merchants out there Macha :-(  and I'm sorry about your husband's experience.  I think on the whole, agencies provide a good service.  In years past when I've used agencies to work temp or to go on to permanent positions, they have negotiated very good terms and wages that I wouldn't have gotten by myself.       About using a cleaner to interview a prospective employer - I WISH it were so easy!!!!  I would gladly give it to anyone that could do it with good results.  Unfortunately in my case I don't find it easy at all and I'm sorry to say it but a lot of lies and deceit come forth in these interviews.   Jayne         ----- Original Message ----- From: Macha McDonald To: ozmidwifery Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 10:54 PM Subject: RE: agency work In the case of my husband, he worked through the one agency for a little over 2 years...we'll say 2 years.  In that time, he earned about $90,000, which is about $860 a week, about $170 a day, and about $21 per hour...all before tax.  It was revealed that the agency were charging the company $50 per hour for his services.  So, the agency were getting $1160 per week, or $60,320 per year.  The only contact my husband had with the agency was about one phone call per 6 months, a pay slip each week, 2 group certificates and one interview.  For that, they made $120,000 over 2 years!!!!  I don't know about anyone else, but that seems ridiculous to me!!!  If the hospital can't find someone to interview a prospective employee (even the cleaner could do it), and save themselves that much money, there has got to be something wrong with the system!!!  I am all for hospitals having their own nurse banks, no change to the employee's wages. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jayne Sent: Saturday, 23 February 2002 11:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: re: agency work  Agencies also take care of the Workcover and superannuation so you can take that out of the Agency's cut.  They also do the interviewing and numerous other things to ascertain whether a person is suitable for a position so of course that cost is taken care of and doesn't fall back on the hospital.    Agencies are also a business and it costs them money to provide their services.  And we all need to earn $$$ at the end of the day!!!   I think the hospitals will revert to employing agency staff because it is easier and as in many industries that use agency staff, it can often be cheaper for them!     Jayne   ----- Original Message ----- From: Macha McDonald To: ozmidwifery Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:21 PM Subject: agency work I am a bit divided on this issue.  My mum is an agency nurse, and her workload is already small, and about to be made smaller.  So, I can understand how you, and my mum feel.  However, My husband has worked through agencies (not nursing) and it seems these agencies cost the hospitals, and ultimately the public, an arm and a leg (terrible pun!!!).  While your pay is better than that of permanent staff, the agency can get up to double what you get an hour.  It cost my husband's work more than $50 an hour to employ him.  Of that, he got a little over $19 per hour.  I don't think our 'public' health system should be charged through the nose, because it is running short of funds as it  is.  My mum spoke something of the hospitals setting up their own nurse banks.  Anyone know any more about this?  I think if that were the case, and the money was staying in the hospitals and not going to a wealthy private firm, I'd be glad to have my tax money pay temp nurses more than a permanent.  -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jenny Balnaves Sent: Friday, 22 February 2002 12:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: To all OzMidwives working out there..this is in reference to the directive from the Victorian Government regarding agency nurses/midwives. I am a practising midwife, having worked in this field for 26+years. Due to a change in my work situation, I began working with an agency late last year and have found the experience of working at different hospitals as a midwife, both in the city of Melbourne, and in rural areas very refreshing. Unfortunately because of escalating costs the government has decided to reduce the usage of agency nurses/midwives unless absolutely necessary (agency staff are only to be used to replace sick staff and are NOT to be utilised for staffing numbers). As a result my workload is to be reduced. My question is this...why should we be penalised if we are prepared to travel to different hospitals to "help out" when there are staff shortages and the like? There is a definite need for agency nurses/midwives and I feel it is sad that those in power assume we are receiving too much money for our practice. To me..it looks like we are taking a large step backwards.  If I am prepared to travel in all directions for my work, at the last minute, and assimilate in an unfamiliar environment as well as occasionally be met with a degree of hostility because I am an Ägency Midwife", should I not be encouraged? At the going rate of pay these days for permanent staff...which when you think about it is still not very good for the work that we do, those of us that do work agency should be encouraged and given what dollars we earn in return for good work practice. I welcome replies from anyone out there who has an opinion on this matter. May I also add, that apart from one or two minor incidences..I have been extremely well received in all places I have worked and reiterate that I enjoy the experience of Agency Midwifery immensely. Thank you, Jenny. Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe.