Have a look at this NHSNet site from the Medical Physics Department at Guys and St Thomas's. It contains the JD and PS used for their AfC, it doesn't unfortunately give what bands they were matched to.

The password is pass

It will only work on computers connected to the NHS network, medical school computers may work dependent on firewalls

http://nww.gstt.nhs.uk/medphys_doc/application/index.asp

I raised the issues in my previous posting because from what Roy's saying:

Roy does this mean you have MTO3's with enhancements (that may end up on Band6, considering Paul's posting as a 'benchmark' for AfC) servicing nebulizer compressors and flometers as their 'extra' responsibility?

I take it your comment, quoted above, must refer to MTO4's, who may be placed on AfC Band6, having to work with MTO3's with enhancements who may be placed on the same band? The problem being that all can progress to the top of the scale so they all attain the same salary eventually?

I suppose the amount of dissatisfaction would be due to the loss in pay differential between the individuals and on how much value is placed on those extra responsibilities that currently do not warrant a higher grade such as an MTO4 - tricky since MTO4's are on Band6 as well according to Paul's posting.

I thought this progression would have to be based on performance or attainment of skills and taking on responsibilities if necessary (KSF). No-one can take on responsibilities and skills ad infinitum can they? Hence progression must stop somewhere.

MTO3's with enhancements will, of course, have more potential for progression than MTO4's who will initially (hopefully) be placed on higher salaries. Of course it's only fair that if the MTO3's with enhancements take on new skills and responsibilities they are paid the same; eventually.

Anyhow, based on what Roy says and what Paul has posted, it looks like MTO3's could lose out significantly on potential earnings and lack of progression and the MTO4's with significantly more responsibilities could lose their pay differential with MTO3*/**/*** if placed on Band6.

In this case, considering salaries on the AfC band6, they wouldn't have R&R applied though. MTO4's with enhancements, at the top of their scale, would have R&R applied if they're not placed on Band7. So Band 7 it is; which means that the potential difference in earnings between MTO3 and MTO4 with enhancements gets even wider - £11k-£12k.

Seems to me that the AfC bands, whilst having similar or better pay differentials (bottom to the top of the band) compared to the MTO scales, are pitched Ok for the level of expectations of MTO's with extra responsibilities/pay enhancements but may severely compromise MTO's without a recognised speciality.

No doubt there are MTO3's out there who have not been given an area of responsibility (their contribution or skills are not recognised) who will fall foul of the system and possibly end up on R&R, whilst they watch other colleagues do a lot better, relatively speaking, because AfC rewards 'specialities' however 'trivial'.

The question is what incentive will an EBME manager offer an engineer at the top of their pay band post AFC to take on an increase in responsibility ? Previously he could have offered a star point or two at a cost of £1000 each but post AFC his only option appears to be a regrade to the next band at a cost around £6000 eventually. Unless its a mojor change to the engineers job discription I can't that being likely.

Good point: That's assuming individuals get placed onto the top of the Band initially. How do we move between MTO grades at the moment? You're absolutely right; I pity those MTO3's at the top of the grade that get dumped onto the top of a band5 - that could include me. At least with AfC, if you're placed on Band6, there seems to be greater pay-differential between top and bottom of band for 'flexibility' than there currently is with the MTO3 scale. It would make sense to move individuals across onto the equivalent scale on band6 wouldn't it? Then allowing for progression based on future performance or responsibilities taken-on.

Doogie.
It's often difficult to accurately judge the tone in a written statement rather than in a face-to-face conversation - but I think I detect a hint of sarcasm in your posting !
I'll try and answer some of your points ; -

Yes I do try and develop my staff and improve my department. The lack of a training budget makes that quite a challenge - but I do try.

I don't "believe" in dead mans shoes, I just know it's a reality. My departments "establishment" is 1 x MTO5, 1 x MTO4, 5 x MTO3, 2 x A&C3 and 1 x A&C4. That's it. No flexibility. No leeway. I can't "promote" any of my MTO3s to an MTO4 because I only have 1 x MTO4 slot, and it's full. I've given additional points to two of the MTO3s, but that's as much as I can do. They've taken on significant additional responsibility for those extra points, but I can't move them up a grade.

If AfC is really going to "motivate staff" then where's the motivation is saying "Take on this extra responsibility and you can have an extra £1,000 now, but in 5 years you'll be on the same pay as everyone else." ? ?

You're taking my use of "life support" too literally - but there's no doubt that a patient's life literally depends, minute by minute, on a ventilator or anaesthetic machine in Theatre, so if you haven't serviced or repaired it correctly, there's a real chance that patient will die. If a nebuliser fails to work, they can always phone for an ambulance. Surely it's only right for the technician who carries that responsibility to be rewarded ?

I used the Band 5 as an example - I'm hoping that at least some of my technicians will get onto Band 6. We'll have to see. AfC has already taken a huge amount of work. Re-writing the job descriptions onto the new format forms and working through the 16 Factors to ensure that there was something in the JD to identify what our role was in relation to each Factor Definition was very time consuming.

Our roles are constantly under development, so that wasn't an issue - we've had to adapt the way we work to keep pace with the changes in the clinical areas, especially the extended hours in the Theatres. Taking a "fresh approach" has been an ongoing situation for years !

Why do you think the gateways in the bands could present a barrier to anyone ? We all have to have regular performance reviews and if we need any training in order to be able to achieve 100% compliance with our job descriptions, then our employer has to provide it - or pay for it if it's external. If they don't, then they can't use our performance as a reason for stopping us getting through the gateway. So you can get through whether or not you've been properly trained or are fully complying with your JD. I don't think that's a very "fortunate" situation for anyone, because it means that some employers will continue to ignore staff training all together. Why should they spend lots of money training people this year just so that they can progress up a scale so that they have to pay them more money in a few years time ? They're going to have to pay them the money anyway, so they might as well save what they can now by not giving the training.

It's a twisted sort of logic which doesn't take into account any of the benefits of training (like staff motivation and safety) but if a hospital is up the creek with its revenue budget, they have to economise everywhere they can.

Incidently, I'm not saying that any of the mind sets described above exist in the hospital where I work. This is a purely hypothetical discussion.

Richard.
I think I've answered your point about the extra responsibility ! As I've said, I just used the Band 5 as an example, but yes, my point is, you need to have differentiation in order to provide motivation, because at the end of the day, 99.9% of us come to work to pay the mortgage and have an annual holiday. If by taking on more responsibility you can go to Tenerife rather than Skegness, that's likely to be the motivation.

Hopefully the historical awarding of "trivial" "specialities" will be addressed by AfC because it's the job, not the person, which is being graded. Some people may have been given additional points - or even higher grades - because they threatened to leave. No "real" additional responsibility was taken on and the upgrade was a form of R&R premium. AfC should reward job holders who have additional responsibilities which provide a genuine added value to the department, hospital or Trust (hopefully all three) by putting them on a higher grade. The R&R premium + pay protection will then fulfill the need of the person who advanced by applying pressure, rather than increasing their contribution.

I know. There's lots of generalisations in that little lot and I'm sure some people will see it as a personal attack - but please just take it in way it was intended - a means of explaining my concerns over the long term effects of AfC by using examples we are all familiar with rather than obscure philosophical arguments - and that wasn't a dig at anyone either :p

Some of us feel we have already been slotted in due to our job title. Instead of medical Electronics Manager the new title of TEAM LEADER has been used which just happens to be mentioned in Band 6!!
Not that anybody would prejudge the outcome of AFC 12 months ago.

Roy Whats wrong with Skegness? I can't wait to aspire to a sundrenched east coast when my grade comes through.

Lee, how can you possibly believe that anyone could have pre-guessed AfC ? The use of Team Leader must be a coincidence. Just like the requirement for R&R before they knew what grade we'd be on

There's probably nothing wrong with Skegness - I just couldn't think of a UK resort beginning with "T"

Tenby?

Thanks for that Roy - sounds, on the face of it, like an honest assessment of the situation in your department RE: Current grading and factors that may affect AfC banding. I know we're all human and keeping politics and past circumstances regarding how individuals achieved 'extra responsibilities' reflected in pay or enhancements is difficult but:

I agree with the first part of your statement but the last sentence could come across as a vindictive as far as those individuals who were in a position to 'lever' their situation are concerned - your response sounds pragmatic to me - I'm not criticising what you're saying. But where does this leave the MTO3s that just haven't been offered the opportunities and that no-one has been prepared to train, relinquish responsibilities to allow them to progress, develop skills, or justify enhancements even when a speciality has been available?

It would be interesting to find out how you were able to justify enhancements when someone threatened to leave rather than justify them based on the individuals contribution. My previous manager(s) have said in the past that it's just not possible and I've assumed I've just not been up to the negotiation - not that I've not been worth it in my opinion. It's hard to negotiate when managers, who know they're getting you on the cheap, are prepared to let skilled individuals go and bring in lesser-skilled on the same grade or less just to keep the 'body count' up. Even when it means the service isn't quite as slick afterwards.

Out of approximately 3000 individuals, doing this sort of job, there must be a lot of experienced individuals out there in a similar position that do not even have a 'trumped-up' responsibility, on paper, to possibly get them onto an AfC band that might enable them to progress on merit and continue to contribute. And I suppose there's a lot more individuals haggling for a speciality ('trumped-up' or not) and specific responsibilities so they stand a better chance of getting onto a Band with greater prospects of progression. For many it's like a scenario from the 'last chance saloon' - everyones desperate to get in on the gold rush.

It's been so easy for some managers to circumvent the Whitley Council guidelines I suppose, faced with demand for Technicians. The worry this raises to someone in my position, who may have pinned their hopes on AfC, NOS, KSF, VRCT, etc, etc, who's at the top of MTO3, with lots of years experience and training, etc but with no formalised job-role (specific responsibilities) and without a speciality (not through want of training, a lack of knowledge or experience) is that I could end up being left on a band that means R&R will apply and prospects of progression will non-existant or be poor at best and without a requirement to fully utilise their skills.

Not much need for ski's in Skegness Lee - who're you trying to kid?

Long time no see - hope you and the family are well.