This poll is concerned with current salary versus the top of band 5 (currently £24,198)

I know that there are many other factors such as length of service, current grade and responsibilities (ie, Team Leader, Section Leader, etc.) but I wanted to keep it simple.

Also remember the top of band 5 is lower than current MTO 3 (not including points), therefore any MTO 3 will lose out theoretically if they get Band 5 (albeit not a significant loss, it's still a pay cut).

That is pretty much the point of this poll, because technicians who have experience are generally MTO3 in my experience, although I do know of engineers who are on MTO4.

Currently, going from the top of MTO3 to top of Band 5 would mean a reduction in salary of about £500. For those with MTO3 plus points (or MTO4), this is even greater.

I thought it would be an idea to find out how many techs will lose out if they are put on Band 5.

Topper,

My view is that it's not just about the immediate loss of earnings and possible loss of future pension entitlements - these are protected to some extent, temporarily. What's important is the effective "capping" of potential earnings and prospects - particularly for those long-serving MTO3s who feel that they have been carrying out specialist roles, without due recognition, whose AfC JD fails to adeqautely reflect this. Those individuals who will find themselves in a system that's even more difficult to progress in than the current one whilst watching their peers advance based on what's been written on a JD and the support they have from their mangement, not necessarily significant differences in job-role.

Yes, I agree, but don't forget that if you cap an individuals potential earnings, then this ultimately effects your pension entitlements in the future.

Your pension is effectively defered pay, so:

lower pay now + lower potential earnings = lower pension in the future.

If you work for NHS finance, this translates to:

WIN (now) + Win (later)= WIN BIG!

BSM,

I just had a thought about this pensions issue but unfortunately I'm not that familiar with the financial aspects so I thought I'd just "throw this one out for general consumption".

We and our local employer contribute a proportion of our earnings towards a pension that is related to our earnings. If AfC compromises the position of individuals with respect to grading on a lower salary then and when R&R or protection ends, if required, the pension will revert back to a lower pension entitlement. It's not as if individuals accept another job with AfC - we are keeping the same job just different grading, that's been "awarded" after we've signed off the JD hence salary and pension.

If this scenario applies to individuals shouldn't they and their local employer be entitled to a pension contributions refund or some compensation based on the loss of future entitlements they are promised and they have contributed to under the existing rules of the scheme (if they choose to remain in it) plus possibly there might there be tax-implications as well? The pension entitlement hence contributions are linked to earnings aren't they and this affects tax doesn't it?

The other aspect is that if individuals want to avoid loss of pension they will have to defer it and leave the scheme since they're not accepting a new job-role. Hence the scheme could effectively give little or no choice to members who may have accrued large pensions and may have entitlements affected by AfC grading but to leave it or lose future pension entitlement they've contributed towards already. Deferring the pension would be the only sensible and reasonable option thus effectively the employer would be forcing the issue.

Typically this could hit long-serving, older pension-holders, quite hard who may intend to stick with the scheme until retirement. This has got to be the sort of thing that needs to be pursued to establish whether it is legal nevermind ethical. It's bound to affect some of us eventually, sooner rather than later, when AfC protection ends. Since actuaries rate the value of entitlements in the NHS schem at about 20% of pay then the loss of entitlements is potentially considerable for some, relatively speaking. The legal aspects need to be explored I think.

Perhaps I have the wrong-end of the stick but I think I'll ask pensions and HR when I get back into work, then contact the NHS pensions agency and possibly the Inland Revenue.

Perhaps it's all irrelevant and in fact individuals are asked to sign for and accept new AfC terms and conditions after the fact thus accept a new job effectively. Still doesn't take away the fact that people in this position might have had to defer their pension to protect it and thus cannot return to the NHS pension scheme post AfC, post protection, otherwise they lose out on benefits they've already contributed towards once.

I believe, although I may be wrong, that any pension already accrued will be frozen.

After all, with the government trying to change our (NHS employees) pension from a final salary scheme to a NHS career average pension entitlement, this is how they intended to proceed.

From what I have heard, if the government gets its way and changes the NHS pension, you will retain the rights to your pension to date under the terms at that time (Final Salary), but any future pension entitlement would be based on a career average salary.

Obviously, there will be formulae and various other rules that the pension will be subjected to, but I believe that this is the way that they will proceed.

I have heard that there will be some protection, possibly for 10 years, so that staff who are close to retirement will not find that their pension is affected. As for the rest of us, with R&R and annual rises due to inflation and negotiation, it is probably hoped that we will not notice.

After all, if I work for the NHS for the rest of my working life, and assuming that the age of retirement is 65, then I will have another 30+ years left to work. For my part, I have no idea what my salary will be then!

I mean, who can say what their salary will be in 10, 20 or 30 years!!

Hi BSM,
Many thanks for the poll. I've just voted. It would be brilliant if we could get every MTO in the NHS to vote. It would prove that Agenda for Change was a con for us and many other professions in the NHS. It was never a system for improving pay for the likes of us and many of the low paid NHS workers. I know that in my hospital nurses seem to do OK out of AfC job matching but Medical Secs, Estates Staff, etc don't. AfC is basically a "rob Peter to pay Paul (or Paula)" system, which ever way you look at it. For example, the increase in working hours to 37.5 for everyone means that for those whose hours increase, (for some an extra 2.5 hrs/week)this is effectively a pay cut as you will be working more hours in future for the same, or less pay. Also, the AfC job weighting system is biased towards paper or "equivalent" qualifications which again means that lower skilled jobs loose out. Unfortunately, we are stuck with AfC and those of us who are active in unions are now trying to get the best we can for our members.
Ian Rez

Interesting to note that you are involving the unions when it was the unions who supported and recommended acceptance of AfC to its members.