Home Articles Downloads Forum Products Services EBME Expo Contact
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 8 of 10 1 2 6 7 8 9 10
#15930 20/03/03 7:57 AM
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 200
Master
OP Offline
Master
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 200
I found out yesterday that the reason there are no MTO profiles yet is that there are believed to be over 100 different MTO jobs. It is beginning to look like our job will be evaluated at local level. I don't know if this good or bad. Your new pay band is determined by how well you score in the job evaluation questionare. As an MTO 3 at the top of the grade if I manage to get into Band 6 there is the possibility of getting to £27,500. If however as I suspect I end up in band 5 I will take a PAY CUT of £500 p.a. This pay cut is ring fenced for 5 years which hopefully menas that after inflation rises we will not lose out. I think the only option is to vote no as no-one can tell us which pay band we will go into.


Assimilated at last...
#15931 20/03/03 9:22 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 10
Novice
Offline
Novice
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 10
I do agree Bill the only answer is to vote no at the moment but if the nurses gain out of it and doctors I think we will be pushed to the sidelines again and the vote will be accepted.

We are still not state registered so they dont think we have an important job to do within the NHS.

Anyone got any news on the voluntary clinical technologist state registration? rolleyes

#15932 26/03/03 10:53 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 12
Novice
Offline
Novice
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave H:
Don't know if it's what you are getting at chaps but the recently heralded "Agenda for Change" launch can be found at www.doh.gov.uk

There is a pdf file outlining the changes as well as a covering letter to Chief Execs extolling it's virtues.

Some good ideas wink lots of bad ones frown , inmy opinion.

Several points worthy of scrutinization, namely, the holiday entitlement, loss of double time for a Sunday, where would we be "assimilated", is it done by job evaluation or will it be done by MTO/EO "scaled to fit"

These "Gateway" points, are these just another way of employers "blocking" progression due to "unacceptable or unobtainable" goals being set. eek

I shall be reading with interest and hoping to see lots of postings from colleagues in these "Early Implementer Sites" to see how they are finding the transition.

#15933 28/03/03 11:41 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 45
Technologist
Offline
Technologist
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 45
Iam lead to believe that the profile for a
Medical Engineer is due out soon on the agenda
for change ws. Does anybody know any more info
regarding this?


drink anyone?
#15934 03/04/03 11:24 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 797
Likes: 1
KM Offline
Philosopher
Offline
Philosopher
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 797
Likes: 1
What about gateways.
I believe there will be gateways on the grades.
Bit like the old extended points at the tops of MTO grades.
2 gatesways on each grade is wht Ive heard.
confused

#15935 04/04/03 10:17 AM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3
I believe Amicus-MSF will have a job evaluation for MTOs out shortly. There is also the Recruitment and Retention Premia to be considered. As far as I know, this will add a cash lump sum to jobs listed nationally as having R & R problems, which includes MTOs. I believe this will work by taking the difference in earnings for the worst off MTO in a department after move over to AfC and adding that cash amount to every one else's salary within that department.This will be a permanent arrangement and will therefore be pensionable and count towards overtime calculations.

#15936 04/04/03 1:48 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 32
Visionary
Offline
Visionary
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 32
Has anyone waded through the Knowledge and Skills Framework document yet?
Just when I thought that I'd got my head around the Job Evaluation 'Factors'someone moved the goalposts and introduced the KSF 'dimensions'.

Does anyone know how I can acquire / sneak a peek at the draft NOS? I realise they are under develpoment but the whole of the 3 main AfC documents are the same, but available.
The KSF has to link with the NOS and I'd like an idea of how.
Has anyone volunteered to be an AfC Rep for Amicus? I've done so today and hope I may be of some service to my colleagues, profession and myself.
Why don't a few more of you get off your proverbial backsides and get involved.
Perhaps we wouldn't be so 'forgotten' as some of you appear to be/think you are.

Enough ranting for now.
Have a good weekend.

Andrea :p

#15937 06/04/03 10:08 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I notice that the (farcical) web prescence (a few lines) explaining NOS in Healthcare Science (what we are classified as working within the bounds of), has finally died a death and that the apparently feigned interest in actually explaining where we stand in the scheme of things seems to have fizzled-out; now that the documents that don't really tell us anything meaningful about our role in the scheme of things have been published. The documentation I've read still does not explain how my job role will be assessed (unlike those for Portering Staff, across the very diverse job range, to Physicists). Strange, since somebody somewhere must have known enough about what goes on in the NHS to have been able to come up with job profiles for 100 occupations, so far....were we at the bottom of the to-do list?

Now at least the other occupations know what the criteria for assessment of pay is likely to be - it is laid down in a profile - they will be able to put forward arguments for or against AfC and possibly negotiate on a level playing field, putting together a case and assessing the effects of AfC long before the AfC bombshell is dropped in their lap. How come the 100 or so very diverse job roles could be sorted out, yet it is so difficult to give the same consideration to a range of MTO technical roles (43 was the last figure I read in the NOS documentation presented in an IPEM publication) and apply profiling to us? I have read the documents and they indicate that the weightings were specially formulated to take diversity into account - what's the problem?

Now we are left to wonder whether the relatively small number of individuals in the 14 AfC pilot sites have a high enough status and a diverse-enough range of job roles to be fully representative of the tasks that we all do, or have the potential to do; that hopefully they shout loud enough to make a difference if they are going to be compromised by AfC. This aside, it looks as if it will be left to local processes to decide pay anyway and we'll have to toe the line on National Agreements if we are to get any cost of living pay rise in the next three years. Devisive is the word, I think. The evidence I've seen seems to indicate that there won't be national standards applied to our jobs in a consistent manner - it will be left to local assessment - missing the opportunity to standardise on services and skill provision.

We all know where local negotiations left us last time - grievance procedures left right and centre (I notice that anything beyond an appeal has been conveniently abolished in AfC). I just hope AfC works in our favour or there'll be a mass exodus of more experienced staff to the hospitals that pay the best rates or worse (I'm thinking of retraining to be a Radiographer, Physiotherapist, Physicist or a Nurse - how's that for diversity and flexibility?). I wonder if we're really going to see anything in the way of recognition, higher status and the potential for development or is it a red-herring to lull the unions and us all into thinking we're all going to be recognised as playing a valuable role in the NHS scheme of things while we're actually being marginalised and possibly manipulated, to save money.

The last time that this sort of thing happened at a local level, there was a mad scramble by individuals to take on extra responsibilities and attempt to raise their own profiles, etc, etc, to raise their grade or earning potential. It turned out that there were only a very few better off in the end because others with an agenda decided what the criteria were for assigning a certain grade without those criteria being published or fully explained to "the masses" properly. Deja Vue, Rodney, Deja Vue.....

#15938 07/04/03 2:17 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 380
Sage
Offline
Sage
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 380
I attended a Unison presentation on AfC given by Gail Adams head of nursing at Unison. It appears we will only be able to vote if we are union members, what about non union members? Apparantly the represented unions during negiotiations with the Dept of Health wanted only members to have a vote (so much for democracy). They also said that additional job profiles and gradings were still being released, only 100 of the 200 jobs being assessed are released so far. She was unsure whether EBME techs were included in this. Any job that would need to be assessed locally will be done so by the line manager and a union representative using a computer assessment tool.

During the meeting the radiographers were up in arms as they will lose out from loss of on call allowances and unsocial hours. Although this is protected for up to five years I can see people leaving in droves in 6 years time, if you want an X ray in 6 years time forget it. Some of our colleagues benefit from on-call and unsocial hours. Unison are however recommending that their members vote in favour even though they provided some quite unconvincing answers to the questions that they were asked. I wondered whether they actually knew anything about the scheme, the standard answer was we see how it works in the earlier implementation site and recommended changes. What about the poor guinea pigs in the implementation sites? You are playing with their salaries!!!

I suggest you all go to any union organised presentations and press them hard for answers, I got the impression that Unison had sold out. By the way I am not a member of Unison but went along as I thought I might get some proper facts, boy was I wrong.

#15939 07/04/03 2:33 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I really do get the impression that there's no intention of giving us job-profiles, even though there's a while to go before AfC is implemented.

For some reason it will be down to local assessment - this will lead to more fragmentation and divisions between job-roles around the country.

By the way; Did anyone attend the NOS meeting in Bolton on the 1st April? If so, was it useful? Unfortunately I didn't get to hear about it in time.

Page 8 of 10 1 2 6 7 8 9 10

Moderated by  DaveC in Oz, RoJo 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
3 members (J Darby, daisizhou, 1 invisible), 334 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
MDevins, EmsR16, Fergusben1, Guilherme Gomes, Salvatore
10,173 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums25
Topics11,055
Posts73,704
Members10,173
Most Online5,980
Jan 29th, 2020
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5