|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
#30471 - 06/05/08 08:35 AM
Re: Curious is AFC a step forward?
[Re: Kawasaki]
|
Lee S
Master
Registered: 17/09/06
Posts: 206
Loc: Hereford
|
Call me a cynic but I believe that AfC was a government ploy to achieve its twin aims of giving nursing staff a much needed pay rise and of not increasing the overall pay budget for the NHS.
Unfortunately for the government it was revealed that there are many people in the NHS who deserve more money and some of them got it.
Lee
_________________________
Don't forget "we've never had it so good".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#30632 - 09/05/08 08:52 AM
Re: Curious is AFC a step forward?
[Re: JohnBhoy]
|
Mike Burns
Newbie
Registered: 18/03/08
Posts: 2
Loc: Wales UK
|
My understanding of AFC is that nowhere within the national agreement does it state that new entrants have to start at the bottom of the payscale. (There may be a new document to state the opposite but if there is I havn't seen it).
If you were to start above the bottom of the payband there could be potential problems however. One of these problems could be that you may be placed in a paypoint above one of the gateways within that payband. I am not sure if this is allowed to happen.
I suspect that with regards to the progression beyond the gateways within each payband, NHS employers would ask 'how could a new employee have demonstrated the agreed knowledge and skills appropriate to that part of the pay band'. In your case you could argue that you have those skills and knowledge by virtue of your previous experience.
This system is certainly unfair based on AFC precedent. You stated that you were looking at band 6 posts I believe. The unfairness stems from the 'New NHS pay system - An Overview' document which states that 'Qualified professional staff joining band 5 as new entrants will have accelerated progression through the first two points in six monthly steps, providing that those responsible for the relevant professional standards in the organisation are satisfied with their standard of practice. This 12 month period is known as preceptorship'.
It is blatantly obvious that this is directed at Nurses, Radiographers, Physiotherapists etc. I think enough has been written on this site about whether we should be seen as state registered professionals or not and I won't comment further here, but you get my drift.
Unfortunately this NHS dodument does tend to imply that all new entrants go to the bottom of a particular payband. However, if it is good enough for band 5 staff, why not band 6.
If it was me I would ask why I could not have accelerated progression in line with AFC agreements. Good luck anyway.
Edited by Mike Burns (09/05/08 10:03 AM)
Edit Reason: typo's
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#30638 - 09/05/08 10:30 AM
Re: Curious is AFC a step forward?
[Re: Mark.E]
|
Lee S
Master
Registered: 17/09/06
Posts: 206
Loc: Hereford
|
The post is labeled "curious is AFC a step forward?"
In the first post on this subject Mark E. asks "Can anyone explain to me why it is almost impossible to get more than the bottom of the pay scale?"
Then " Now call me stupid (and I have been many times.. thick skinned now!) but wasn't AFC supposed to be a way of recruiting and retaining people.. or have I missed the point.. or the reality of the situation?"
So three interrelated questions, its a shame you didn't like the answers given but generally they seem to answer the questions posed.
What was AfC supposed to achieve? It was supposed to make the pay system more fair giving equal pay to people having equal levels of work and skill. Note "supposed to".
Recruiting and retaining people may have been a thread of AfC but it wasn't the original reason that was given to justify AfC and there is as pointed out a Recruiting and retaining option that management may use.
It appears that as the new starter normally starts at the bottom of the pay band, people already in post will be earning more initially, this would seem to be reasonable in the vast majority of cases.
“have I missed the point.. or the reality of the situation?" call me cynical or what ever you want but I do not Trust any politician to ever say what they mean or mean what they say,
AfC in my opinion was not brought in to make life better for non clinical staff.
It seems to me that generally people bring to these posts the things that they feel are important or occasionally funny (ha ha or ridiculous)
The list of contributors “never changing” may be down to the fact that when you do contribute people start snipping.
Lee
_________________________
Don't forget "we've never had it so good".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#30640 - 09/05/08 10:34 AM
Re: Curious is AFC a step forward?
[Re: Lee S]
|
Geoff Hannis
Hero
Registered: 12/02/04
Posts: 3044
Loc: the path less trodden
|
... or biting (... anyway, I thought you were off on holiday)! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#30644 - 09/05/08 01:10 PM
Re: Curious is AFC a step forward?
[Re: Kawasaki]
|
biomedbill
Savant
Registered: 22/07/05
Posts: 123
Loc: south yorkshire
|
I concurr with Kawa. I've just spoken to our AFC guy who said that a potential employee can be offered any point on the scale depending on experience etc. but (and it's a big butt (always makes me laugh)) managers are obliged to offer the lowest point they can. Unfortunately there is no way of applying relevant experience outside of the NHS to the AFC pay scales. It's an all too common practise now for managers to take on less experienced staff just to save money, consequently the service suffers as a result. Keep trying though.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
