1 Agenda For ChangeNegotiations on AfC are now well underway. The last reps direct referred to the PRB evidence and pay claims which have been or are being submitted. It is through this route that pay increases for the next year or three will be produced. We need to remind ourselves that AfC is about realigning salaries not in itself producing increases, although that will undoubtedly happen for some. A series of meetings were held with Alan Milburn to discuss the outstanding areas of difficulty over Agenda for Change. Below is the content of a briefing paper sent to him in advance of our meeting. A number of issues referred to are already being modified and others will as the negotiations progress. One such issue was the assurance from Alan Milburn that the Software for implementation will be available for the early implementers. Whilst there are some difficulties we have to overcome by patient joint working, others are the subject of some difficulty, not because of a problem in the DoH but because we and other unions have a number of conflicting demands within and between us. There will undoubtedly have to be compromises to ensure we have a workable agreement with proper protections for members. Amicus identify’s Agenda for Change as the most effective way of correcting many of the anomalies in the present arrangements. It also provides objectively determined flexibility to reflect the Skills Escalator and Skill Mix. The Job Evaluation scheme provides an objective way of determining pay and minimises pay inequalities. However the process of reaching agreement has shown weaknesses on the part of the DoH which have created nervousness on our part. It is clear from delays that either HR professionals have not been used and/or consulted or that resources are inadequate. In any event, more professional and experienced staff could have expedited matters. There has been a lack of drive, which has left the TU side exasperated. Staff side often being pressed for responses eg Early implementers within 6 days and then having to wait for, first 7 weeks and then till agreement is reached for the DoH response. Equal Value Our own difficulties have grown over the past few months partly because of delay, partly because of indications of the new conditions and not least because the principles of JE, equalities and consistency are being breached. We have already referred to the need for each of the PRBs/negotiating groups to produce common improvements to all three spines. Now we find that the DoH view is that PRBs should have the ability to amend grades and progression, presumably applied salaries as well. In addition the concept of allowances for Recruitment and Retention can only be valid if the stock of potential staff is sufficient and the distribution wrong either inside the Health Sector or between health and non health employment. If there is a real shortage then allowances will not increase the total other than in the very long term. Further anything other than a short term allowance, to be withdrawn when it has worked, is likely to provoke equal value claims. Stability and consistency of approach will benefit all in the longer run. To establish pay levels one has to provide two things: a rational approach to relativities within the employer and a mechanism for relating the pay structure to the rest of the economy. The JE scheme should provide the former. For the latter we need to utilise jobs occurring in and out of the NHS. It is these jobs where R&R problems often occur. If R&R payments are made to them it destroys the possibility of a link and thus protects low pay for those without a link and perpetuates discriminatory practices. Job Evaluation One further matter that is giving us concern is the recent announcement that the software package for scoring the Profiles will not be available in time for Early Implementers. From our perspective we are not prepared to go ahead with any manual arrangement. The EIs are intended to test the system in total not just part of it. In addition the memories of the Clinical grading scheme are still fresh in every ones mind and the potential inconsistencies of local management implementation are two awful to comprehend. Pay and structure Without full sight of the proposed structure along with pay, it is difficult to know how it is likely to work out. The proposal to have only 8 bands indicates potential difficulties. Placing staff with clearly different levels of responsibility in the same grade will work against flexibility. Putting 5 mini grades into band 8 is nonsensical. If automatic progression is not available then we should be honest and create a 12 grade structure. Thus reducing the points range in each of the bands not just the highest. Further whilst we recognise that extending ranges of bands can reduce losers on implementation, it leads to other problems later. If the difference between two bands is only one increment, then promotion will be of little value and it could take a decade for higher graded staff to catch up with longer serving lower graded staff. Long service based scales are also contrary to the principles of equal value. The answer to high numbers of losers is to increase the base of the scales and move more staff upwards. 24/7 working The principle of the proposals on 24/7 working are clearly much less than many are already receiving. Regardless of contractual arrangements staff will not be prepared to disrupt their lives for a low level of payment. There has yet to be any hint of understanding on the part of the DoH that reductions in existing levels will reduce rather than increase flexibility. The aim to introduce 24/7 working for more staff at present levels of cost is not going to work. Of course the levels of payment required to work 24/7 will depend in large part on the improvements to basic earnings. Harmonisation At a time when the EU, Government and the NHS are all seeking to improve working lives and family friendly working, the idea of increasing working hours and reducing holidays is unacceptable. The present range of weekly hours runs from 35 to 42. To harmonise at 37.5 will require an increase of up to 4.5 hours per week. To reduce holiday entitlement from 33 days to whatever figure we settle on is again not acceptable. Indeed we are under justifiable pressure from our members to reduce the standard working week in the NHS to 35. With present staffing levels this could not work. However we need to be able to fully protect hours and holidays. We shall be looking for periods of protection to broadly match the period over which we might expect further reductions in the standard 37.5 hrs to 35.. Allowances We agree that the number of allowances should be minimised. Where they are necessary, for factors not fully included in the Factor plan, they should be determined at National level. Where allowances are to recompense workers for living in an area of high cost of living (not just the South East of England), then they should be applicable over a large area and not discriminate between individual trusts. Housing is the biggest problem in some areas and non pay solutions may be a better way of reflecting this. Assimilation On assimilation, those under graded should be placed on the minimum of the new scale immediately to prevent equal value claims. Again it is difficult to identify the problems without access to the new scales and JE results. From comments above it is clear that periods of protection for pay; hours; holidays should differ. Implementation As a union we are committed to the principles of Partnership and A4C. Whatever success we have in some of the areas above we are likely to face substantial numbers of members who will see themselves as loosing out. The natural tendency of our members to support their colleagues, means that we cannot take a yes vote for granted. We have already raised the need for us to have some seconded reps to help explain the agreement in the first place and then to watch the EIs and subsequently to train reps. The DoH response was that the staff side should address this issue. However we are of the view that it is necessary for Amicus to have their own seconded reps to talk to those professions where we are the appropriate union, it is our members who will vote and determine the Amicus decision on A4C. We are not prepared to see A4C being agreed by the big battalions with our members reluctantly going along, for this is likely to lead to members resisting the agreement at every stage.
Negotiations on AfC are now well underway. The last reps direct referred to the PRB evidence and pay claims which have been or are being submitted. It is through this route that pay increases for the next year or three will be produced. We need to remind ourselves that AfC is about realigning salaries not in itself producing increases, although that will undoubtedly happen for some. A series of meetings were held with Alan Milburn to discuss the outstanding areas of difficulty over Agenda for Change. Below is the content of a briefing paper sent to him in advance of our meeting. A number of issues referred to are already being modified and others will as the negotiations progress. One such issue was the assurance from Alan Milburn that the Software for implementation will be available for the early implementers. Whilst there are some difficulties we have to overcome by patient joint working, others are the subject of some difficulty, not because of a problem in the DoH but because we and other unions have a number of conflicting demands within and between us. There will undoubtedly have to be compromises to ensure we have a workable agreement with proper protections for members.
Negotiations on AfC are now well underway. The last reps direct referred to the PRB evidence and pay claims which have been or are being submitted. It is through this route that pay increases for the next year or three will be produced. We need to remind ourselves that AfC is about realigning salaries not in itself producing increases, although that will undoubtedly happen for some.
A series of meetings were held with Alan Milburn to discuss the outstanding areas of difficulty over Agenda for Change. Below is the content of a briefing paper sent to him in advance of our meeting. A number of issues referred to are already being modified and others will as the negotiations progress. One such issue was the assurance from Alan Milburn that the Software for implementation will be available for the early implementers. Whilst there are some difficulties we have to overcome by patient joint working, others are the subject of some difficulty, not because of a problem in the DoH but because we and other unions have a number of conflicting demands within and between us. There will undoubtedly have to be compromises to ensure we have a workable agreement with proper protections for members.
Amicus identify’s Agenda for Change as the most effective way of correcting many of the anomalies in the present arrangements. It also provides objectively determined flexibility to reflect the Skills Escalator and Skill Mix. The Job Evaluation scheme provides an objective way of determining pay and minimises pay inequalities.
However the process of reaching agreement has shown weaknesses on the part of the DoH which have created nervousness on our part. It is clear from delays that either HR professionals have not been used and/or consulted or that resources are inadequate. In any event, more professional and experienced staff could have expedited matters. There has been a lack of drive, which has left the TU side exasperated. Staff side often being pressed for responses eg Early implementers within 6 days and then having to wait for, first 7 weeks and then till agreement is reached for the DoH response.
Equal Value
Our own difficulties have grown over the past few months partly because of delay, partly because of indications of the new conditions and not least because the principles of JE, equalities and consistency are being breached. We have already referred to the need for each of the PRBs/negotiating groups to produce common improvements to all three spines. Now we find that the DoH view is that PRBs should have the ability to amend grades and progression, presumably applied salaries as well. In addition the concept of allowances for Recruitment and Retention can only be valid if the stock of potential staff is sufficient and the distribution wrong either inside the Health Sector or between health and non health employment. If there is a real shortage then allowances will not increase the total other than in the very long term. Further anything other than a short term allowance, to be withdrawn when it has worked, is likely to provoke equal value claims. Stability and consistency of approach will benefit all in the longer run.
To establish pay levels one has to provide two things: a rational approach to relativities within the employer and a mechanism for relating the pay structure to the rest of the economy. The JE scheme should provide the former. For the latter we need to utilise jobs occurring in and out of the NHS. It is these jobs where R&R problems often occur. If R&R payments are made to them it destroys the possibility of a link and thus protects low pay for those without a link and perpetuates discriminatory practices.
Job Evaluation
One further matter that is giving us concern is the recent announcement that the software package for scoring the Profiles will not be available in time for Early Implementers. From our perspective we are not prepared to go ahead with any manual arrangement. The EIs are intended to test the system in total not just part of it. In addition the memories of the Clinical grading scheme are still fresh in every ones mind and the potential inconsistencies of local management implementation are two awful to comprehend.
Pay and structure
Without full sight of the proposed structure along with pay, it is difficult to know how it is likely to work out. The proposal to have only 8 bands indicates potential difficulties. Placing staff with clearly different levels of responsibility in the same grade will work against flexibility. Putting 5 mini grades into band 8 is nonsensical. If automatic progression is not available then we should be honest and create a 12 grade structure. Thus reducing the points range in each of the bands not just the highest. Further whilst we recognise that extending ranges of bands can reduce losers on implementation, it leads to other problems later. If the difference between two bands is only one increment, then promotion will be of little value and it could take a decade for higher graded staff to catch up with longer serving lower graded staff. Long service based scales are also contrary to the principles of equal value. The answer to high numbers of losers is to increase the base of the scales and move more staff upwards.
24/7 working
The principle of the proposals on 24/7 working are clearly much less than many are already receiving. Regardless of contractual arrangements staff will not be prepared to disrupt their lives for a low level of payment. There has yet to be any hint of understanding on the part of the DoH that reductions in existing levels will reduce rather than increase flexibility. The aim to introduce 24/7 working for more staff at present levels of cost is not going to work. Of course the levels of payment required to work 24/7 will depend in large part on the improvements to basic earnings.
Harmonisation
At a time when the EU, Government and the NHS are all seeking to improve working lives and family friendly working, the idea of increasing working hours and reducing holidays is unacceptable. The present range of weekly hours runs from 35 to 42. To harmonise at 37.5 will require an increase of up to 4.5 hours per week. To reduce holiday entitlement from 33 days to whatever figure we settle on is again not acceptable. Indeed we are under justifiable pressure from our members to reduce the standard working week in the NHS to 35. With present staffing levels this could not work. However we need to be able to fully protect hours and holidays. We shall be looking for periods of protection to broadly match the period over which we might expect further reductions in the standard 37.5 hrs to 35..
Allowances
We agree that the number of allowances should be minimised. Where they are necessary, for factors not fully included in the Factor plan, they should be determined at National level. Where allowances are to recompense workers for living in an area of high cost of living (not just the South East of England), then they should be applicable over a large area and not discriminate between individual trusts. Housing is the biggest problem in some areas and non pay solutions may be a better way of reflecting this.
Assimilation
On assimilation, those under graded should be placed on the minimum of the new scale immediately to prevent equal value claims. Again it is difficult to identify the problems without access to the new scales and JE results.
From comments above it is clear that periods of protection for pay; hours; holidays should differ.
Implementation
As a union we are committed to the principles of Partnership and A4C. Whatever success we have in some of the areas above we are likely to face substantial numbers of members who will see themselves as loosing out. The natural tendency of our members to support their colleagues, means that we cannot take a yes vote for granted. We have already raised the need for us to have some seconded reps to help explain the agreement in the first place and then to watch the EIs and subsequently to train reps. The DoH response was that the staff side should address this issue. However we are of the view that it is necessary for Amicus to have their own seconded reps to talk to those professions where we are the appropriate union, it is our members who will vote and determine the Amicus decision on A4C. We are not prepared to see A4C being agreed by the big battalions with our members reluctantly going along, for this is likely to lead to members resisting the agreement at every stage.
2 Statement on Agenda For ChangeThis statement taken in large part from the above briefing, was endorsed by the Amicus Health National Advisory committee on 5th November 2002 Amicus MSF identify Agenda for Change as the most effective way of correcting many of the anomalies in the present pay and grading structures. It also provides objectively determined flexibility to reflect the Skills Escalator and Skill Mix. The Job Evaluation scheme provides an objective way of determining pay and minimises pay inequalities. Amicus MSF has a number of concerns, which will have to be resolved before the arrangements could be acceptable to our 65,000 professional and skilled members in the NHS. Whilst the scheme has been developed through partnership, recently a number of decisions have been taken unilaterally by the DoH. We need urgently to return to a partnership approach. No trialing of the scheme through Early Implementers should be undertaken until the scheme is complete. Early Implementers must have the software controls in place for Job Evaluation. The principles of Equal Opportunity and Equal Pay must be upheld in the new structures and payment systems Pay shall be determined by the value of the job, as determined by Job Evaluation, across all three pay spines Pay bands shall not unreasonably overlap There shall be a sufficient number of pay bands to reflect significant differences in job value. Each band shall have a similar range of points Recruitment and retention payments shall be time and circumstance limited and removable. Pay related to a workers performance is inconsistent with Equal Pay. Pay Review Bodies/Staff negotiating group, shall not be able to change relativities nor award differential payments other than for short term R&R problems. Harmonisation of terms and conditions shall not adversely effect exiting conditions of staff. In particular no member of staff shall be expected to work longer hours nor take shorter holidays than at present. Payments for out of hours work or unsocial hours worked shall properly reflect the disruptive impact on staff and their families. Harmonised arrangements shall not be used to reduce the cost of 24/7 working and flexibility. Implementation has to be properly monitored and AMICUS MSF require seconded reps to be funded by the DoH to enable the professions which we represent to be confident of consistency of application, especially in the Early Implementers.
This statement taken in large part from the above briefing, was endorsed by the Amicus Health National Advisory committee on 5th November 2002
Amicus MSF identify Agenda for Change as the most effective way of correcting many of the anomalies in the present pay and grading structures. It also provides objectively determined flexibility to reflect the Skills Escalator and Skill Mix. The Job Evaluation scheme provides an objective way of determining pay and minimises pay inequalities. Amicus MSF has a number of concerns, which will have to be resolved before the arrangements could be acceptable to our 65,000 professional and skilled members in the NHS.
3 Fire-fighters Industrial Dispute - What should you doAll employers are obliged to conduct a risk assessment if there is any potential increase in risk. There clearly will be if there is no professional fire and rescue cover. Do not forget the role of paramedics or heli-pads where fire-fighters would normally be in attendance. Members are being asked to perform functions in the event of a fire that would normally be dealt with by professional fire-fighters. Simple actions such as using an extinguisher on a small fire should be part of the normal Safety Training to all staff, as should decisions on the evacuation of patients. Where there is no professional cover, members responses will be to help, whether formally appointed by the Trust or not. Where life is threatened and especially where patients are at extra risk, staff will naturally want to help. Before you do so make sure you and your family are protected. The dangers are greater than just dealing with a fire. If the Trust needs your assistance, they should develop plans and positions ahead of time. If staff are being selected for formal roles then they require training to a level of defined competence and should not act outside that competence. It would not be unreasonable to receive some recompense for the training involved.< The employer needs to ensure that they have indemnity insurance cover so that the workers own Life Assurance is not prejudiced. Most policies will not cover dangerous activities or occupations. Further the employers own Employers Liability Insurance, may well not cover situations where the worker knowingly puts themselves in danger. We have had experience of these problems before over bomb scares and Animal Rights activities. It is entirely possible for the employers to protect their employees against the hidden costs and dangers. Given the potential of a strike, all hospitals will be at extra risk so you should all, preferably through the joint staff side, but in any event urgently, contact the HR Department for them to make the necessary arrangements. A fuller paper on advice is available from the Amicus Working Environment Department through Janet.Golds@amicus-m.org.
All employers are obliged to conduct a risk assessment if there is any potential increase in risk. There clearly will be if there is no professional fire and rescue cover. Do not forget the role of paramedics or heli-pads where fire-fighters would normally be in attendance.
A fuller paper on advice is available from the Amicus Working Environment Department through Janet.Golds@amicus-m.org.