Colin Adkins,
Amicus-MSF Negotiator on
Agenda for Change,
presented his views in
SLT-AFC
Newsletter 3 and I
commented on some
points.
Colin has responded to my
comments, and I will invite
him to respond again.
1. Newly Qualified
SLT compared with Newly
Qualified PT
Colin: ... I
presume you agree it is
fair that a SLT, OT and
Physio start from the same
point on qualification
...
Liz: 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"?
Colin's Reply:This
assertion is untrue. A
newly qualfied physio,
podiatrist, biomedical
scientist, dental
therapist, midwife etc are
all on Band 5. Band 5 for a
newly qualfied SLT gains
from assimilation to Band
5. According to our last
survey (post Euro
judgement) 9% of SLTs were
on Band 1.
My reply: The AFC
Job Evaluation Handbook, p
99, records the score for a
Physiotherapist as 348 -
387. The SLT Profile 488RR
records a score of 326 -
358. The score for a NQ SLT
is lower than a NQ PT.
I have nothing against
PTs, that is not the point.
The point is that this does
not demonstrate the
"equality on qualification"
that Colin claims for
AFC.
My mistake in quoting
"Band 1" rather than "AFC
Band 5" - but please note
that Colin's reference to
"Band 1" is to the Whitley
SLT Band 1, not AFC Band
1.
The 9% of SLTs on Whitley
Band 1 might benefit from
assimilation to AFC Band 5
in terms of pay. However,
when we discussed the
profiles in the North East,
we were careful not to
consider implications for
pay - we just could not
recognise the profiles as
"real" current jobs or as
feasible "future
posts".
Just as we did not
consider pay, we also
ignored other changes to
terms and conditions, such
as hours. Someone less bad
at sums than me could
perhaps check whether the
9% of SLTs on Band 1 do
"benefit" when you take
changes in hours and
holidays into account?
2. Career
progression
Liz: 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.
Colin: This is not
true. we have yet to create
profiles for senior
clinical roles i.e. Band 7
and 8.
My Reply: My point
related specifically to
career progression from SLT
to "Specialist" - the
"first rung" on the career
ladder. This point is not
addressed by Colin's
response.
Are we to believe that
SLTs will be able to hop
over AFC Band 6 to reach
Bands 7 and 8 purely on the
basis of clinical
expertise? I do not find
this credible.
3. Career progression
... again
Liz: 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
profiled as posts with
managerial
responsibilities.
Colin: Untrue. This
in our view is a part Band
2 (Whitley) profile which
fits comfortably with
colleagues on the lower
'three consecutive points'
of this scale. Indeed if we
control its application as
we outlined many colleagues
will gain.
Once again according to
our survey 59% of
colleagues are on Band 2
(Whitley).
My Reply: I would
disagree. There is nothing
in the "lower three
consecutive points" of
Whitley SLT Band 2 to
suggest this (see Word
download
Download Current SLT Bands
Indicative
Features).
Colin: Indeed if we
control its application as
we outlined many colleagues
will gain.
My Reply: If this
is a reference to 'the
"development of
professional roles"
facility agreed with
midwives' that Colin
also mentioned - we have to
put it on trust that such
an agreement will be
reached in future.
Is it wise to accept the
profiles before this
agreement is in place?
4. Career progression
... and again
Liz: 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.
Colin: Maybe. But
we have not got to that
shared understanding yet
for reason outlined in my
previous contribution.
My reply: I find it
very worrying that after
years of negotiation on the
principles of the new pay
system, that this is not
yet a shared understanding.
However, this is also
apparant from the
agreement. The first
paragraph of which
reads:
Partnership Approach To
Pay And Service
Modernisation
(i) All parties agree to
work in partnership to
deliver a new NHS pay
system which supports NHS
service modernisation and
meets the reasonable
aspirations of staff. The
signatories to this
agreement will accordingly
work together to meet the
reasonable aspirations of
all the parties to:
- Ensure that the new
pay system leads to
more patients being
treated, more quickly
and being given higher
quality care;
- Assist new ways of
working which best
deliver the range and
quality of services
required, in as
efficient and effective
a way as possible, and
organised to best meet
the needs of
patients;
- Assist the goal of
achieving a quality
workforce with the
right numbers of staff,
with the right skills
and diversity, and
organised in the right
way;
- Improve the
recruitment, retention
and morale of the NHS
workforce;
- Improve all aspects
of equal opportunity
and diversity,
especially in the areas
of career and training
opportunities and
working patterns that
are flexible to family
commitments;
- Meet equal pay for
work of equal value
criteria, recognising
that pay constitutes
any benefits in cash or
conditions;
- Implement the new
pay system within the
management, financial
and service constraints
likely to be in
place.
CONCLUSION
Colin says,
"Watch my lips. We are
not going to consciously
sell SLTs short. Provided
we follow the course we
have outlined we can
determine the real nature
of the problem, if it
exists, and then watch us
go! Confidence and trust
colleagues."
I say, watch
our lips, we
are not going to let anyone
sell SLTs short,
consciously or
otherwise.
The union needs to listen
to SLTs. We might not be
experts in writing job
descriptions, but we are
the experts in what SLTs do
and in the most effective
and efficient way to manage
hard-pressed,
thinly-stretched services
for the benefit of
patients.
Provided the union listens
to us, it can
determine the real nature
of the problem. And would
we be making quite such a
fuss if a problem didn't
exist? Confidence and trust
need to be earned, and are
not available on
demand.
We have already been sold
down the river on hours of
work, now the profiles
published for consultation
are (ahem) disappointing,
to say the least. How much
are we expected to put on
trust?
SLTs played a very long
game, and we lost out
personally for many years,
when we came out of the pay
review body. But we
understood the game plan
and accepted its risks,
knowing that it opened the
door to the parity
claims.
We were publically
ridiculed for the trust we
put in the union then
(anyone remember the
scathing publications of
Prof Roger Dyson?) Forgive
me my scepticism, but I see
no game plan. I see only
hopeful promises.
In further correspondence
(in relation to the
pensions issue) Colin says,
Please go this extra
lap on the national work
and then we will give
information to SLTs totally
unembellished and covering
all aspects.
Colin has suggested
several times that when we
see all the SLT profiles,
including the ones yet to
be produced, that we will
find all of them
acceptable.
Given the problems with
the ones issued so far, I
remain to be convinced. I
think it does no harm that
some regions have rejected
them. This does not
preclude them being
accepted later when we have
seen all of them and can
put the "early releases" in
context. However, until
then, it seems safer
not to accept them.
And as silence can be taken
as assent, it is better to
speak out and say that they
are unacceptable as they
stand.
Liz Panton SLT