EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Agenda For Change Disclosing AFC results

I understood that job descriptions should have been written by the post holder, then agreed with the post holders line manager, signed off by both and then submitted.
It would appear that there are going to be vast discrepancies, the very thing that A4C was supposed to stop.
For simplicity, I wrote all our updated JDs using mine as the basis. Each of the three technicians were then handed them and I agreed to alter some.I even missed a very important function on one and just added it when it was brought to my attention.
My manager then read mine and apart from changing some wording, which was to my benefit, all were signed off.
Do I feel confident? - No! Especially with what we have all seen and read on this site. It would be interesting to discover what would have happened to Tracey's grade if her JD had been given to several matchers across different Health Boards. Good luck to her though!

The Line Manager for the department is writing the JD's. We were not given the choice. At departmental level the decision was taken to hang back and see what happened to those that went first. Now it just seems to be getting a bit silly that we haven't even been allowed to see them yet, although having said that there still doesn't seem to be any great hurry as the matching process is moving along at a snails pace. I think most people reading this forum will be surprised by the range of discrepancies that are starting to appear and I think that this just reinforces my original view that it would all come down to the quality of the evaluation panel. I still don't see how non technical people can evaluate technical jobs and perhaps now we are seeing the proof.

Ultimately this all boils down to saving money don’t be disillusioned by anything else! There are one or two who stand to gain, but on the whole most will not, and probably end-up lossing!

The nurse practitioners/specialists here have been banded 6. However, the ward sisters have been banded 7? How they have figured that out I have no idea? The majority of Pracs/Specialists were Sisters before they had ‘promotion’?

I know it’s nothing to do with EBME stuff, just thought I’d warn you?

Roger, isn't that what you would expect. My experiences in life have told me that managers (sisters?) get paid more than technical staff (specialists). If you want to maximise your salary, accentuate the management side of your work.

And here are the results from Cornwall:

MTO2 - Band5
MTO3 - Band6
MTO4 - Band7
MTO5 - Band8a

Phil, do you happen to know what the entry level qualifications are on the various MTO JDs?

Hi Phil,are any of your guys/gals Renal Techs?

AFC Results:

MTO2 - BAND 5
MTO3 - BAND 6
MTO4 - JAQ

Afternoon all.
This thread is excellent and hopefully i will soon be adding our results. Thank's to all who have posted so far.
However, in view of the fact that AFC analyzes the post / job role and not the MTO grade, it would mean alot more to each one of us if the results contained brief titles ie: NNU Tech, ICU Tech or Renal Tech as has already been mentioned. This would greatly improve the national picture and i say would contribute as evidence in any appeals, after all AFC is suppose to harmonise pay nationally is it not?

Shins - Not sure what you mean by 'entry level'. Each band has a basic qualification(or equivalent) as stated on the profile for that band + any extra training and experiance.
Steve - Yes we have some Renal Techs. They are included in the above results.
Topper - Yes I agree the more results posted here the better