Whyed gill

Overwork is the norm. Social Workers are put in impossible positions, read the files, get your visits up to date, get your recordings up to date, it matters not if 1 visit is a 3 hour round trip, just do it.

Oh, and by the way, go on this course so you can learn better how to do this. But, if you get behind on your casework whilst on it, you had better find the time to catch up or else. At the same time be a well informed, trained thoughtful and reflective practitioner. Oh, and please treat people with respect and empathy whilst you are treated like dirt. Beats me why anyone would want to do statutory Social Work these days. I Agree AM …to often this is a true summery of how front line social workers are treated, based on my long term social work experiences particularly in Child protection and Adult social Care.

Case wieghting; is a very important issue for professionals, clients and local authorities,and needs a health a safety input from union , HR and BASW. If there were cases ready for closure why didnt the manager assist with that , close and record anything essential in authoritive overview summery. This is our registration money they are spending.

If we have any sort of team lunch we have had to pay ourselves for years. Shame on them. I much prefer to fight with a case management system that is onerous, slow and has to many fields to fill out! What would Munro say!! If recording is the priority then make the systems and procedures easier, not blame the individual.

I would have also liked to have seen more support for this worker if case records was the concern. Also some more management training around the demoralising effects of scrutinising a worker, promoting others over and inappropriate mentoring allocations, minimising her personal issues and caseload.

Unfortunately it looks like another example of a manager and worker struggling to get by in a system and procedural minefields that work against our desire to support our service users and each other effectively. Perhaps she should have raised the issues ie caseload, systems etc with management rather than not doing what is requires of her as that put service users at risk.. Munro previously reported that 16 cases should be the maximum for a full time worker.

Poor management insight for failure to work out the caseload vs hours do not add up unless of course they were expecting her to work on her day off and some weekends and I bet she has more complex cases given her experience. Would like to see the manager holding the caseloads and keeping up with the work whilst maintains a reasonable work life balance. Too far removed from reality. I know some managers equate experience to being superhuman with expectations of the worker holding the most complex cases and being able to still manage high caseloads.

This is why I could not face Local Authority front line social work again. In January this year, I left Local Authority practice. I tried alternative social care ocupations and found it was just as bad — service users came last. Love it. Steep learning curve, but I feel valued, respected and liked by senior and line managers, team members and service users.

I am very unlikely to return to any Local Authority post. I miss the camaraderie, the Court work and the high of a good job well done and closed. Additionally we have a day of duty in the week, 1 or 2 days of new assessments and meetings once a week.

So, 2. We have better managers now but this has been the case for years now. I think social workers have become expensive admin staff. I resigned from my post as I had to fill out in six different systems where I would be and how long and then rewrite if I did something different.

On top of case loads there would be minutes of team meetings duty work etc. Also not taken into account is the amount of travelling training supervision etc. I found myself working full time hours but only paid for 18 and half in order to maintain my quality of service and record keeping. The proper help would have been to reduce case load in order to have up to date records.

When are we going to have an organisation That supports not punishes. A caring organisation that does not care for staff sad but true. In criticism of the high case load number, a good number of responders conveniently ignored that:. This is known as fallacy of incomplete evidence or confirmation bias. Cherry picking and ignoring data to suit an argument. If you all use this method in your practice, god help us.

What about doing no work on the high risk case? Comment on that? You JR are living in cloud cuckoo land I fear……….. Visiting a client is low on the list. Social work, and practise are really in conflict with a overloaded bureaucratic system that is Local authority. Local authority rarely cares for its staff anyway. All they care about is protecting each other because Social long ago lost its professional status and became part of the bureaucratic control system that is local authority.

I spent over 42 years at the coal face as a team manager senior social worker social worker in all areas of social work. I was a triple grad who had worked in industry.

I often found more humanity in that world than ever did in most of the local authorities I worked in both as a regular and after retirement as a locum…. Campaign those of you who are still doing what can be a thankless task , The only way forward in the future is a independent social work care department covering all areas of social work and care homes separately funded … With proper training a more focused professional bureaucracy..

Than you would get the kind of service that is professional and focused on the client…. Yes its complicated and initially costly but in the long run will cheaper and more effective.. Frankie you are right.. I worked for 4 days a week 30 hours and was supposed to have a caseload of 20 but it was often above this and I often worked more than 30 hours and did not get the time back.

I have now taken early retirement and have never been happier, at least I had that choice, many social workers do not! I totally agree with this. You've accepted analytics cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time. You've rejected analytics cookies.

We use cookies to make our services work and collect analytics information. To accept or reject analytics cookies, turn on JavaScript in your browser settings and reload this page.

The case involved two junior barristers who had successfully applied to become senior barristers, Queen's Counsels QCs. Before they could become QCs they were required to make this declaration:. The central issue was whether the requirement to make the declaration discriminated against the applicants as nationalists. While the case was ultimately successful on other grounds, the court found that there was no political discrimination.

It found that the Applicants were not required to declare allegiance to the Queen and were merely required to undertake to render the same service to the Queen as they would to any other client.

If it were otherwise, an unscrupulous person, claiming to be the victim of discrimination on the grounds of political opinion, could adjust his professed belief in order to accuse the decision maker of inequality of treatment". In considering established case law in the field of sex discrimination he drew a distinction in relation to political belief stating:.

Simply because such a decision is opposed does not mean that it discriminates against those individuals who are against it. It is impossible to cater for every brand of political opinion by anything other than the most bland political decisions". News Labour and European Law Review. Political Discrimination - only Northern Ireland politics need apply!

A broad definition A tribunal decision in an application against the union NIPSA by a member who had unsuccessfully applied for a post led to a broader interpretation of the term political opinion.

A very broad definition? Justification In a different context, the issue of union activities provides an example of the use of justification as a counterbalance to a wide definition of political opinion. A different type of discrimination?