How will The Agenda for change be effected by the governments committment to giving successful trusts the right to pay staff what they want ?
As far as I can see it looks like this will create a whole new load of pay spines with trusts that have money (are there any) paying their staff above what the agenda has assigned them.
Thus rendering the agenda a paperwork exercise that will be short lived.

Then again maybe Ive got it all wrong and we will all be given a decent hearing wether we have direct patient contact / responsibility or not,
Im suprised the unions havent picked up on this point more.
Sorry have to stop there just got to feed the flock of pigs that have landed on the window ledge.

The general feeling about a.f.c in my department is it does not take into account the indirect patient contact we have and the technical skills and experience we bring to the N.H.S.
We have not recieved enough information on where we will end up on the new grades and therefore can not vote for it.
Looking at some of the MTO grades that have been valuated it looks as if we will be taking a pay cut. It is the intention of all the MTOs working here to VOTE NO!

Amicus - why couldn't you have asked for our views during the 4 years of negotiation on AfC between the government and the Trades Unions? Why wait until now, at the last minute, when it looks like many MTOs could be compromised by AfC? As an MTO, I feel let down by AMICUS-MSF, particularly because of the poor communications regarding AfC. All I've heard from MSF about AfC, in four years, is one page of info on AfC (I had to request that myself).

Oh, and a ballot form, of course - recommending me to vote for a system without giving me rational arguments about how it could be applied to my job role - just an ominous warning about "uncharted territory" if I don't vote yes. Not very convincing is it? Three items of correspondence from MSF in three years - the MSF newspaper stopped being delivered a year or two ago - what's going on? No suggestions from AMICUS-MSF about possible steps to protect my job or income that could be affected by AfC in the long term. I'm really disappointed in the lacklustre performance of AMICUS-MSF, so far, particularly regarding communications with it's NHS members. Does anybody else share the same views or am I out of touch?

KM,

The unions have picked up on this business about the clinical roles of MTOs and have accepted that there will be a divide or multi-tier system between those with direct patient contact, those with indirect and those without. This example is documented in the union representatives bulletins on the AMICUS-MSF(NHS) website. However we all know it is not so cut and dried out there. Most of us liaise with Doctors, Nurses and other professionals all day, every day - and have contact with patients in clinical areas as routine. Anyhow they have negotiated and accept many of the likely scenarios that could adversely affect us, it seems. Come to think of it; I'm slowly beginning to realise that those union representatives involved in the AfC negotiatons seem to have agreed to quite a few "compromises" on our behalf, without giving proper consultation to members. What do you think?

Richard

I totally agree with your opinion on Amicus-MSF. I am a member of the MSF and get all my information from Unison.