EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Agenda For Change Agenda for Change

Ray,

You mentioned that we would have the option to stay on our existing contracts. At the Unison talk I went to only a small percentage of staff within the NHS would be able to choose between sticking on their existing contracts or transferring to AfC. If you were one of those that could, how succesful would you be when trying to negiogiate your annual pay increase. Do you think you Union would support you or the masses who had to forcibly transfer to AfC. Voting for something that you don't have the full facts for is very naive as is hoping that you will have a get out of jail card when things don't quite go to plan.

Does anybody know when the AfC pilot study is likely to be completed?

As the unions have had so much to say in pushing the AFC will they also be contacting member groups to see how many of us actually got the chance to vote on the issue ? I am aware of bods from both Unison & Amicus that didnt get votes.
I remember the days of meetings actually taking place and votes being counted up, the main excuse from the unions when approached re the lack of a voting form is "they where sent out".
Maybe theres a big stash of these disappering forms somewhere.
Come on unions remember who you support and start to listen to the voices before its to late.

It looks as if the Trades Unions are prepared to accept that minority groups like ours may be compromised; on the basis that you can't please everybody all of the time. 80,000 NHS workers was the figure I read in a Union newsletter - that's a minority considering the size of the NHS workforce! Considering our job roles, reading between the lines, anyone with a routine job role, a more technical than scientific bias and limited patient contact will probably come out worst-off than we currently regarding pay. That's what concerns most of us isn't it? Would groups be inclined to take industrial action if it came down to it? and more importantly, in view of the performance so far, would the Unions give support to it?.

Id guess the government doesnt want to much hastle created over AFC as its being rolled out as if everyone in the NHS will benefit positively.
Therefore any action as you suggest would probably draw negative publicity towards them and
possible loss of votes. The unions might not come out smelling of flowers either with loss of membership ensuing.
However I think we do need to approach someone with regards to the jobs we do, to point out who we are and what we do."proove we exist" its not
enough to sit there and say my ceo doesnt even know I exist, WHY NOT ?
Hes not going to come and look for you we need to get out there and get involved.

I think this business comes down to whether the skills are in demand and whether the CEO is willing to pay for them, not whether the CEO knows you exist but I take your point KM. A job profile for MTO's doing our line of work, assessed nationally, would have put everyone doing the same job on the same footing but by evaluating roles locally we all know that there will be losers because of penny-pinching in many NHS Trusts. Looking on the bright-side there will be winners, of course.

While it is still unclear what AFC will ultimately mean to us, I felt that at least there was something in writing, some good, some not so good, with some sort of safety net.
Many years ago I stood outside the factory gates in protest at the offer made to the engineering staff, after several months of token stoppages we had a deal imposed on us that was a fraction of what was originally offered.
This was then carried on for many years, we were powerless to do anything about the draconian "increases" imposed on us year after year. In real terms we lost out year on year. The only recourse was to leave and go to another company, nearly all of which were operating the same system. This was mainly because union membership was only about 20% of the workforce.
I don't know the % of memebership in EBME depts throughout the NHS but without full or a large majority of members I can see that whatever is considered by our NHS/Govt. masters will be imposed on all of us.Maybe far less than has already published.
I may well be wrong, as usual, but I felt that agreeing in principle with a chance to agree or disagree the final deal when fully worked out was the right option.
Sorry for disappointing some of you guys, I hope it does all work out for us in the end OK.

Ray,
You put some good, worthwhile opinions in the discussion. Dont feel to let down by what looks like a difference in opinions from others. We can all be wrong, it could go either way, lets just hope the decisions are made that are to our advantage.
The sooner someone comes forward with a description of some sort for any current grade comparrison the better. At least then we will all have something to work from.
The current fog is just to thick to see through.

As I am not a union member, so I don't get to vote. Fortunately, I came into this field recently by way of career change, so I can vote with my feet. My loss may not be noticed, but I may feel better for it!
On a more serious note, the nursing staff have been underpaid and undervalued for many years, this deal is really for them. All the job evaluation criteria is based around their skills. Unfortunately we do not score highly in many crucial areas. Most if not all new nurses are degree qualified this is becoming a requirement. Although I have a degree, it is not a requirement for my job and will not be counted so they are one up there already.
If agenda for change gives the Nursing staff a better deal, they will vote for it and there are more of them than us. So however our (your) unions vote, the numbers are not in our favour. Lets face it the Government are not going to alienate the whole of the Nursing profession by stopping agenda for change because a few biomeds are against it.
I can only and do hope that locally our management realise what we provide and decide to reward us accordingly. Engineers in other fields are comparatively well paid, but do not have the job security the NHS provides. I revert to my first statement and if it does not go in my favour, a few recruitment agencies will be getting my CV.

The articles pasted below are from the UNISON and amicus - MSF Web sites

UNISON NEWS
Yes to Agenda for Change
(2/6/03) More than 80% of UNISON members who voted in the ballot on Agenda for Change have backed calls for the system to be tested in 12 'early implementers' sites.
93,280 members voted (a 22% turnout) with 76,056 (81.5%) in favour and 17,224 (18.5%) against.
A special UNISON conference held in April endorsed the recommendation of the union's health group executive committee, to allow Agenda for Change - the proposed pay modernisation package for the NHS - to be piloted in the proposed sites.
Its impact will be monitored closely so that problems can be identified and resolved, where necessary, through further negotiation.
Having reviewed its impact in the early implementor sites, the decision on whether the system should be rolled out to the rest of the NHS will be the subject of a further membership ballot in 2004.
The service group executive will now hold a special meeting on 6 June in order to consider the ballot result and discuss its strategy for monitoring developments in the sites.
A meeting of the Central Negotiating Group - which is made up of recognised NHS unions, the four health departments, and representatives of the NHS, and has been responsible for negotiating Agenda for Change - takes place on 11 June.
At this meeting, all of the unions will report back on the outcome of their consultations and the decision on whether to go ahead with implementation in the early implementer sites will be taken.

From amicus - MSF

Agenda For Change Ballot Result
Further to the result published in Reps Direct 177. The full details of the ballot result are:
Papers distributed 56,938
Papers returned 23,821
Papers blank/spoilt 23
Question

“I agree to Agenda for Change proceeding to the Early Implementer Stage”

Number voting YES 18,785 (78.9%)
Number voting NO 5,013 (21.1%)