If the sessions were carried out correctly then why we're doing this is the
first thing.

Dave

I've had endless "awareness sessions" and "your questions answered
seminars", none of which seem to actually say anything along the lines of
why we are doing this.

I take it then that you didn't attend an awareness session?
Mind you we have a lab of nearly 130 staff and I delivered 2 sessions to a
total of 12 people.
I amazes me with something so far reaching how people can show so little
interest. I suppose they just assume that someone else will sort it

Dave

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 !!