"Manky Badger" said::

The problem was unless a way was found of comparing all jobs in NHS the NHS
was facing a tidal wave of equal pay claims by multiple overlapping
proffessions. There is still a risk of some of this as some of the groups
who have gained are theoretically entitled to make claims for backpay going
back 7 years, and some no win-no fee solicitors are sniffing around.

At the end of the process the only claims allowed will be "rest of NHS" v
Doctors and the Midwives are preparing one v Obstetricians.

Being cynical third lab got it right, result instant recruitment problem,
thus go do it again.

The lab North of you seems to be in the strange position were initially they
got it right then their Trust management found out about you and tried to
use that as the excuse to drag them down this will be a problem across the
country, nationaly 1=6, 2=7 is deliverable but it will not just happen if
people sit on their hands and whinge, some else should have done the work
for me, why do I have to help update a JD or read about Job evaluation.

However I have a lot of sympathy for labs that did things in good faith
months and months and months ago because HR demanded it and now find
themselves with poor results as they at the time did not have access to
advice which became available later as other sites went through the process,
as profiles were reviewed etc.

The final versions of the BMS profiles were only available on April 8th,
with between 6 weeks and 3 months between matching and results published to
work out finnacial implications for each individual many of the results
available now would have been matched to the earlier versions which gave
less differentiation between the 5 and 6 profiles.

Bottom line
5 needs degree only no further training not even logbook
6 needs postgrduate training
7 needs Masters level knowledge

if your 2's are matching to 6 they do not need FIBMS or Masters, in which
case 6 is right, or you did not make the JD's clear in which case it will be
fixed at review.

Good luck and if any of your Grade 1's want to move to Portsmouth, Plymouth,
Southampton, Bournemouth, Reading, Oxford, etc etc we would be happy to take
them as well.

Don't know - don't care :o)
I think I'm missing the point here. What is this need to compare jobs all
about anyway ?

We seem to be in a daft scheme whereby there's now parity created between
the cleaners and the car park attendants and imbalance created between the
urine bench & the electrolyte station.
Why wasn't it all done nationally in that nationally ALL
ubergrupen-radiographers should have been graded as band Z and then any
local discrepancies could be sorted later.

I'm now in the position whereby I and the chief up the road (ex-college pal)
are actively losing basic grade staff to a third equidistant lab who pays a
band higher.
OK, we'll get upgraded eventually, but in the meantime one lab has solved it
staffing problems at the expense of two others.

Anomalies will occur and obviously need to be highlighted and corrected
either up or down.

Is it a difference in JDs or matching?
Anyway that should be sorted when QA happens.

How else do you compare jobs?

Dave

Yes but it's not acheived this, has it? We have jobs demonstrably the same,
such as a trainee in haematology in my lab and a trainee in haematology in
the lab up the road and now we are paying them differeently.

It's probably the best way to compare jobs in the NHS to end up with
equal pay for equal jobs or at least A4Cs version of the jobs.
How else do you compare the jobs of lets say an MLA to a cleaner?

If that's what people do then the JDs should be changed which might be
easier said than done.

Good, let's hope they get it right this time.

Dave

Surely this is just an excercise in semantics ?

All that's going to happen is that those with bad gradings copy the job
descriptions of those with good gradings and then appeal.

I beleive the unions have agreed to restart the whole process over again.

It has been decided nationally that's what the profiles are, but you
can't assume that because you have a certain job title the person isn't
working at a higher or possibly lower level.
The problem is how complete are the JDs or possibly how robust the
matching process is.
Have experienced BMS 1s agreed the same JD as newly qualified?
Do the JDs mention anything about giving advice, supervision or training?
Do the JDs use language which conveys the need for experience or complex
nature of the work?

Maybe Dan with his contacts can find out how the other trust downgraded
it's staff.

I presume there must be appeals over this?

Dave

The latest I've heard is that staff an hour's drive up the motorway who did
have 1=6, 2=7 have since been downgraded so 1=5 & 2=6.

Why on earth wasn't such grading decided nationally ?

any further movement in Kent,

For information of approx 42 Trusts so far with Pathology results only 6
have 2=6
1 =6 is the majority at between 60 and 70% of Trusts

You seem to be in a small minority

Well I'm not travelling all the way to Kent so you can meet someone :-)

When all this is sorted it will be interesting to compare bandings where
there is a strong staff side and where there isn't.

Have you heard the bandings from any other local trusts?
If they come out as hoped, then you'll have even worse recruitment
problems than now.
Hopefully some BMS 1 band 6 JDs will appear so band 5s can compare them
to their own.

It's KSF next

Dave

Deepest Kent.
As for agreeing, I'm still to meet anyone who agreed for A4C in the first
place, let alone any of the details of it's implementation.

Where are you and who the hell agredd to abandon scoring in favour of salary
matching,

There is pressure to get this finished but also to get this right!!

You need the scores and the justification for each factor.

I know what you mean, but there's still lots of info and someone on there
is collating the bandings.

Yes, although if the content isn't in your JD in the first place then
nothing will happen.

Dave

Dunno - we got the gradings this pm.  It would seem that scoring was
abandoned in favour of "salary-matching"

I find that group has very complex posts that don't actually say much :o)

Is there to be any national consistancy checking ?

That doesn't look good.
Which end of the bands are the points scores?

There was a post on Dave Houlliston's group saying that across the country
the majority of experienced BMS 1s were 6, BMS 2s 7 and one BMS 3 8b.
I don't know how many this covered though.

If others come out on the higher bands then it should be picked up during
consistancy checking.

Dave

Anyone got any updates on where BMS grades have fitted in to the A4C
bandings ?

FWIW in my neck of the woods we have

MLA                    Band 2
Trainee BMS        Band 3
BMS (all of 'em)    Band 5
Senior BMS          Band 6
Chief BMS            Band 7

Tribunals, here we come !!