Mark.N,

That's the point - I wasn't aware or even involved in the first vote - if there actually was one.

As I recall, I had two postal votes, one must have been about 2 - 3 years ago asking to vote on the the concept of A4C and another about 6 months later asking to vote on the go-ahead, although i do recall there was no alternative.
but like Richard says, there was no earlier discussion with union members.

As an Amicus rep I find It quite frustrating when staff/members "Blame" unions.Remember that a staff representative is exactly that ,a person who is there to represent the views of staff to both the negotiating bodies which represent the members and to management.Therfore when union members blame the unions are they blaming themselves,remember they are the union.

Members were balloted I cannot remember the exact figure but it was in the order of 55% of the vote cast to accept AfC ,the great pity was that approximately 60% bothered to vote.

From my personal experience Its usually the most apathetic amongst us that moan the loudest when things go wrong.

As for members of staff who are not represented by trade unions did they expect to be consulted individually, alternatively why did they not instigate negotiations themselves, why do they expect unions or others to do it on their behalf if you dont ask you dont get

A rather cheesed off Rep AKA John

In that case can you explain why a few years ago 90% of members voted against a pay offer the union went into the meeting and accepted it against the wishes of their members

Sounds like the " Bruvs " are Revolting !! John

Hi John,

Yes I see your point and I respect and appreciate the fact that there are individuals that are committed enough "to put their money where their mouth is" and act as local TU representatives. I think on local issues that affect members it's great to be able to have the support of the union for advice on employment issues, etc.

However what I'm criticising is the handling of AfC, given my own experiences and others. I think there have been genuine problems, as perceived by a lot of members in the NHS, with regard to communications between AMICUS and it's members - specifically over AfC. Our local representatives were inundated with requests so they just couldn't make themselves available all the time.

I disagree with your views on non-members receiving consultation John, in that they are as much entitled, as much as members of Trades Union are, to consultation on major employment issues by their employer. Even where I work it is possible that many would not have been aware of AfC at all until they received a letter about it a few months before matching - this was a bit late for consultation in my opinion - despite the delays in matching.

I am probably not typical in that I did an awful lot of searching-out of information myself and was aware of changes to the pension legislation that facilitated the ability of the NHS to cut pension entitlements as a result of downgrades in pay due to AfC (after payment protection periods expire) - my point being that our regional full-time representative for AfC, specifically, apparently wasn't aware of this when the concern was raised. Another point being if the regional people aren't aware of the facts then is it likely the local ones are?

I think you're correct on this one but if a TU takes subscriptions and market themselves like a business, as AMICUS does (including being able to find me to dispatch loan info but not as a member to update me on important issues), then members are going to expect to be able to act like paying customers and complain. Despite this local representatives do go above and beyond what most employees are prepared to do and I, for one, appreciate this. Especially when things go right as a result of their efforts.

As a union member, Branch Chair of Unison, I disagree with John.

I voted against AfC. Everyone I know, barring one or two exceptions, voted against AfC but still it came.

I disagree, in as much, as i believe everyone had/has a right to an opinion on such a major issue.

Not being a member of a TU shouldn't proclude anyone from having a right to register their opinion.

The NHS has no problem contacting staff on an annual basis to seek their views as part of the "Staff morale survey"

Surely then everyone should have been consulted in a similar way over AfC.

With the current financial mismanagement of the NHS it is now being pointed at staff, by the media, as " partly their fault" due to the increased costs of AfC.

I dont agree with AfC, in my view we will still be sorting this mess out for years to come.

By the way my job matching was in August, still haven't heard a dicky bird, as hundreds of others haven't either but we declared 100% assimilation on Jan 1st and are alledgely going to be 100% banded and paid by 1st April.

Just out of interest, has anyone else been given a temporary banding on AFC, with a "long term protection" payment to make their money on the old system the same as on the new system???

Or is it just me?

I presume theres some incentive for trusts to appear to have assimilated all their staff!!

Hello Richard ,Dave, The Next Best Thing.

the point I am making about non trade unionist not being consulted is this; If the Trust(s) fails to negotiate with non T. U. staff then it is for them(the staff) to be proactive in the process and initiate discussion. As a T.U. rep I feel the best way this can be achieved is for them to join a T.U.,yes they have their faults because humans are involved.

If T.U. struggle to get the best for their members it does not take a rocket scientist to explain the difficulties faced by individuals ,or small staff groupings.

As for the comments posted by the Next Best Thing, all I can say is that I cannot remember the incident of the 90% vote ,but if thats what you said happened I have no problem accepting It as a fact; My reply would be What did you!! do about it? Did you attend your next branch meeting and register your dissatisfaction,?Did you perhaps try to get support for a vote of no confidence in those responsible.

I go back to my original comments the Reps. and the Leadership are their to represent you, the member, if they fail to do this, In your opinion (and enough members agree with you ) they will be replaced.

Yes Tracy, a number of people here have been given the same pay, with protection, as a temporary banding. It probably gets the chief exec. out of a problem with having to meet targets on the implementation of A4C.