Response to
the SLT Profiles -
Varying Views
Colin Adkins, Amicus-MSF
Lead Negotiator on Agenda
for Change presented his
views on AFC in the RCSLT
Bulletin and Therapy
Weekly. This was before the
proposed SLT profiles were
published for consultation
with union members.
Colin's views at that time
were published alongside of
those of Gill George, SLT
from London Region. The
London Region and the North
East Region have rejected
the proposed profiles.
Colin believes we should
accept them, and mentions
the proposed Amicus-MSF SLT
Campaign in the autumn.
I have added my comments,
and Colin will be invited
to respond to these.
If you want have your
views published in the
Newsletter, please email
Liz Panton
SLT
Response to
the SLT Profiles - Colin
Adkins
Amicus-MSF Negotiator,
Agenda for Change
Rejection of profiles will
only put off the
inevitable. What we are
seeking to do is to control
their application where
they are acceptable. eg.
the SLT profile for "Band
1's" .
"Specialist" under Agenda
For Change has different
connotations from what it
is understood in the
profession. According to
one of the leading
profilers, "specialist" is
one step above newly
qualified. So we need to
look at is how we move
people quickly through AFC
Band 5 (the newly qualified
gain on this profile) into
AFC Band 6, using the
"development of
professional roles"
facility agreed with
midwives. This is in the JE
Handbook.
At the same time we need
to examine where there are
gaps in levels of practice
across the whole profile
range. Key to this is
whether there is a gap
between "Highly Specialist"
and where we would presume
a consultant (a gap itself)
would fit. A senior manager
from one of the London
Trusts believes there is a
gap here, and we will work
on a model profile. This
will presumably be in AFC
Band 8a or 8b, with the
"consultant" profile higher
again. This is a principle
that we intend to
create.
Now back to where I came
in. Rejection will lead to
wholesale local evaluations
across the career range. In
doing this we will cede any
control that we have by
agreeing nationally agreed
profiles. For members to
gain from rejection they
will have to prove why they
should have a higher
outcome than other Allied
Health Professions at
similar levels of practice.
This is quite
difficult!
The key basis of our case
is that the pace at which
professions develop and the
nature of skill mix
differs. Whilst I presume
you agree it is fair that a
SLT, OT and Physio start
from the same point on
qualification, movement
through the scale differs
as practice and the needs
of your clients differ.
We need to go this extra
lap on the profiling and
then we will know what we
will be saying in our
campaign which will be
launched in autumn.
Colin Adkins
Amicus-MSF
COMMENT
"Starting Point" and
Career Progression
Colin says the Band 1
profile is "acceptable" and
"I presume you agree it is
fair that a SLT, OT and
Physio start from the same
point on
qualification".
One of the reasons that
the Band 1 SLT profile is
unacceptable is that
it proposes that a newly
qualified SLT starts on a
lower point than a
newly qualified
physiotherapist. Is that
"fair"?
The "starting point" issue
is not simply about
qualifications. The 1990
SLT grading system
reflected the fact that
newly qualified SLTs were
never appointed on the
bottom of the PAMs pay
scale. SLTs started their
careers at Senior II, even
before graduate entry was
the norm. This reflected
differences in duties and
responsibilities. Now we
are to start lower down the
scale. Is this fair?
Colin points out that
AFC uses different
terminology for jobs, with
"specialist" having a
different meaning to the
one we are used to.
The terminology is not the
problem. Job Titles are not
the problem. The problem
lies in the content of the
profiles. It is true that
SLTs have been anxious
because the profiles for
"specialists" do not match
our understanding of the
term "specialist". Colin is
right, this is a red
herring. However, we were
careful to ignore the
profile "job titles" when
we considered them in the
North East. We still could
not identify any jobs that
matched any of the
profiles.
The problem with the
profiles is an old one, and
one that we have confronted
repeatedly in the past. A
model that is appropriate
for relatively large
professions, such as
physiotherapy, is being
applied to a relatively
small profession like ours.
It doesn't work, and the
real "unfairness" is that
SLTs are penalised simply
because there are not
enough of us.
We fought this in the past
by coming out of the Pay
Review Body. This was the
only way to break the link
with the "PAMs" career
structure. We paid dearly
for this for many years, in
lower pay rises. We came
out of the Pay Review Body,
because the only route to
career advancement was
through managerial
responsibilities
The union fought for, and
won, a career path that
rewarded clinical
expertise. This career
structure was implemented
in 1990. The union
continued to fight for SLTs
to have "Equal Pay for Work
of Equal Value", equal to
our comparators in Clinical
Psychology, Pharmacy and
Works/Estates Officer
grades. And we won
again.
The proposed profiles
under AFC are regressive.
They take us back to a
position that was abandoned
in 1990, to a system of
career progression tied to
managerial
responsibility.
The problem with the
profiles for "specialists"
is not the mis-match
between AFC and RCSLT
terminology for job titles.
The problem is that
"specialist" posts, the
first step up the rung on
the career ladder, are
posts with managerial
responsibilities.
This was recognised as
inappropriate for SLTs in
1990. I do not believe that
things have changed so much
that it is appropriate
now.
During the course of the
SLT "Equal Value" cases,
job evaluations schemes
like "Hay" were declared
inappropriate for a
clinical context. That is
why the Government had to
start from scratch with
AFC. Unfortunately, AFC
repeats the problems
inherent in Hay, ie. that
managerial and
administrative duties are
valued over clinical
expertise.
AFC doesn't just take away
the gains we made in 2000,
it even overturns the SLT
clinical career structure
introduced in 1990. The
clinical values we
negotiated could have been
applied to other
professions. Instead, they
have been undermined. Will
these values be retained
anywhere in the NHS after
AFC? Yes. Within medicine
and dentistry, the
professions which opted out
of AFC.
Liz Panton
SLT
|
Organising for Agenda for
Change
An email list can help
you to organise.
SLT Union Rep's and
Managers in the North East
and Cumbria have set up a
Yahoo! email discussion
list at
SLT-RAMP.
We use this to share
information and organise
meetings.
Discuss Agenda for
Change
* With SLTs on the
RCSLT
Noticeboard
* With Amicus-MSF members
from across the NHS at
MSFHealthSectorMembers
* Arrange to meet for an
online discussion at
the
RCSLT
Public Chat Room
or the
SLT-North Group
Chat Room.
You need to join the
SLT-North group to use the
Group Chat Room - see the
"Join this Group" link at
the top right hand corner
of the SLT-North Chat Room
page. There are Chat
Room Tips on the
SLTnorth website.
Share Information
Have you got information
to contribute to this
Newsletter
or the
SLT-AFC.Latest-Info.com
website?
If you have, please email:
Please forward this
Newsletter to other SLTs
who might be interested in
receiving or sharing
information about Agenda
for Change.
SLT Agenda for Changes
Updates - to subscribe or
unsubscribe, go to
SLT-AFC.LATEST-INFO.COM
Mailing List
Form
Fill in your name and
email address and select
"Subscribe" or
"Unsubscribe".
Or email:
|