Guest guest Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Can't remember what I said last time (senior moment!) but I'm voting yes on the grounds that it doesn't benefit me directly but I think it would be a pity if nurses and HVs in academia were seen as voting against something which would benefit the professions as a whole. It may also be a driver in the end to improve our conditions. That's the nursing bit of me. The HV bit has read Mark in the March Community Practitioner cautiously saying that 'there's no reason to suspect AfC wouldn't offer an improved deal'. Colleagues probably know that both Unison and Amicus have recommended a two stage ballot, and I read somewhere that the second stage for Unison would be this time next year, so quite what will happen to the earlier implementer sites is unclear. From: Cowley <sarah@...> Date sent: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:39:05 +0000 Subject: agenda for change Send reply to: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] Hello everyone I have received my RCN ballot paper about agenda for change. They tell me they are balloting those outside the NHS as well as NHS staff, because NHS rates are used as a benchmark for healthcare pay in all settings. I echo Liz's comments about university salaries: most of our staff would be delighted to have similar rates of pay to those offered in the NHS, but they are not used as a benchmark for us. However, I hate the thought of a wasted vote and would like to support colleagues who will be affected by agenda for change. Should I say 'YES' as advised by the RCN, or 'NO' and why whichever you advise, please? best wishes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 I suggest everyone barrages their organisations to take up the cause of university employed nurses. June agenda for change Hello everyone I have received my RCN ballot paper about agenda for change. They tell me they are balloting those outside the NHS as well as NHS staff, because NHS rates are used as a benchmark for healthcare pay in all settings. I echo Liz's comments about university salaries: most of our staff would be delighted to have similar rates of pay to those offered in the NHS, but they are not used as a benchmark for us. However, I hate the thought of a wasted vote and would like to support colleagues who will be affected by agenda for change. Should I say 'YES' as advised by the RCN, or 'NO' and why whichever you advise, please? best wishes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Im voting no because Colin at Amicus suggested it may be possible to argue for Hvs going into 7. julia -----Original Message-----From: Cowley [mailto:sarah@...]Sent: 14 March 2003 21:39 Subject: agenda for changeHello everyoneI have received my RCN ballot paper about agenda for change. They tell me they are balloting those outside the NHS as well as NHS staff, because NHS rates are used as a benchmark for healthcare pay in all settings. I echo Liz's comments about university salaries: most of our staff would be delighted to have similar rates of pay to those offered in the NHS, but they are not used as a benchmark for us. However, I hate the thought of a wasted vote and would like to support colleagues who will be affected by agenda for change. Should I say 'YES' as advised by the RCN, or 'NO' and why whichever you advise, please? best wishes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 But if the majority vote no, there won't be a band 7, will there, since AfC won't be implemented. < > From: " Noy " <julianoy@...> Date sent: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:12:52 -0000 Subject: RE: agenda for change Send reply to: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] Im voting no because Colin at Amicus suggested it may be possible to argue for Hvs going into 7. julia agenda for change Hello everyone I have received my RCN ballot paper about agenda for change. They tell me they are balloting those outside the NHS as well as NHS staff, because NHS rates are used as a benchmark for healthcare pay in all settings. I echo Liz's comments about university salaries: most of our staff would be delighted to have similar rates of pay to those offered in the NHS, but they are not used as a benchmark for us. However, I hate the thought of a wasted vote and would like to support colleagues who will be affected by agenda for change. Should I say 'YES' as advised by the RCN, or 'NO' and why whichever you advise, please? best wishes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Colleagues of mine have raised the possibility that DNs will be graded 7 and HVs 6, . I meet with the Amicus rep tomorrow so will check this out - but before we celebrate we should be aware that there may be such a discrepancy. Ruth agenda for change > Hello everyone > I have received my RCN ballot paper about agenda for change. They tell > me they are balloting those outside the NHS as well as NHS staff, > because NHS rates are used as a benchmark for healthcare pay in all > settings. I echo Liz's comments about university salaries: most of our > staff would be delighted to have similar rates of pay to those offered > in the NHS, but they are not used as a benchmark for us. > > However, I hate the thought of a wasted vote and would like to support > colleagues who will be affected by agenda for change. Should I say > 'YES' as advised by the RCN, or 'NO' and why whichever you advise, please? > > best wishes > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 Ruth, this is a first! You are usually our optimistic pacifier, keeping us positive and focused on the job! However, it does look as though Amicus have let health visiting down very badly, just as they did with the register, so I am not surprised if you are angry. The complex and continuing difficulties we are having in that regard are all down to the loss of health visiting as a named profession in the regulatory statute, which CPHVA celebrated as a 'great victory.' There is a very paradoxical situation at present, with government repeatedly SAYING that they value health visiting, and repeatedly SHOWING that they do not. However, unless we have a union that can make a formal challenge, whether overtly or by quiet behind-the-scenes negotiation, we will never make progress as a profession and, even though there may be short term gains, in the long term our profession will fail and the communities we serve will lose out. I would just remind all CPHVA members that it is the time of year for Centres to start thinking about their AGM motions. The RCN congress is usually in May. I threaten every year but seriously think that this is likely to be the year when I will finally give up my RCN membership, because they opposed the third part of the register. I would, however, seriously recommend UKPHA membership. They are not a union, but a public health professional association. Their conference has excellent, inspiring and diverse content; it values nurses, but not to the exclusion of everyone else, because multi-disciplinarity is the name of the game. It is OK to talk about health visiting there ! I am just back from Cardiff and too tired to write any more. Ruth Grant wrote: >I met with the Amicus Rep last night and it is clear that the HV job profile >is band 6 whereas DN is band 7. This is because DNs and G grade ward sisters >automaticall manage a team. Individual HVs will have to prove that the HV >profile does not fit their particular job or reflect their skills/experience >etc. This therefore pits the individual against their employer who will >band all HVs in Band 6 initially. Given that Trusts are strapped for cash >and they will have to find more for top band 6 HVs and all DNs plus nurse >specialists with only a 2% uplift to implement AfC, the likelihood that HVs >will be rebanded is, in my opinion, remote. The Amicus rep then suggsted >that those HVs should stand up for their rights or look for a better post! >We pointed out the highly medical model of grading and expressed thoughts >that the PH/social/psychological or HVing is badly reflected in the points >system. He agreed. Unless one is either a nurse specialist or nurse >consultant HVs will be Band 6. Furthermore G grade ward sisters will be >Band 7 with no further qualficiations than RGN. > >Huge waves of resentment were expressed by HVs present. > >It is my opinion that the CPHVA is quite deliberately trying to widen its >political influence with government by reducing its committment to Health >Visiting in favour of a more Community Practitioner approach. I mentioned >the survey undertaken by JMC(?) in preparation for the NMC register debacle >and wondered if the wording on the voting paper for AfC will be equally >ambiguous. Adoption of the AfC with HVs so disadvantaged combined with HVs >no full registrants on the PH register will be a double blow to the >profession and reduce the pool of potential candidates. In turn this will >lead to less HVs and further move to 'unpick' the HV role and give bits of >it away and downskill it. > >Ruth > Re: agenda for change > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 Thanks . I will email him. It feels as though somebody should be doing something active, like setting up a working group of some kind, to try and fathom how to address this, and all the other, issues. In the past couple of days I have heard that the school nursing profile has being re-examined by RCN which is good, but word is that health visitors are happy with their grading; one group were told 'it's only you; everyone else is happy' (I think we heard that before, when we were all being told: "it's only you that wants health visiting in the statute!") I was at a health visiting conference today which was very upbeat and positive in many respects, but there is so much going on that it is hard to know where to begin, and I have to confess that, even though I am concerned about the grading, I don't have time to get my head around what is needed for that, as well as worrying about the register, the health visiting title, changing education and - oh yes - the day job! Can anyone else give us a lead about how to unravel it all? Noy wrote: and everyone, Colin.Adkins@... Re: agenda for change , Colin is not a member of Senate; I believe your message was forwarded to him by another member, to whom he responded, then his reply was forwarded. It is good advice for everyone to contact him though, if he is the CPHVA contact leading on this: can you remind us of his email address? I expect that CPHVA will be the union that is leading on health visitors' rates, but do not know how this particular exercise is operating. thanks Noy wrote: You need to contact Colin at Amicus - it is through this website that he contacted me, because I was so ungracious about it all!! He is anxious to hear from all at the coalface or in the know, about whether Hvs feel they have presented a fair reflection of what we do.So please, everyone, if you are not happy,CONTACT HIM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 Thought SENATE members may be interested in this Regards Margaret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 This is very much the same as was said in an 'agenda for change' day that I attended, although it was stated that the HV profile was one of the first to be developed and could therefore be said to not fully address the work of a health visitor as well as those profiles that were developed later. The idea was that the profile being rewritten was being considered to accrue a better all over 'rating', making it easier to make the case for those undertaking extended roles to tip into grade 7 without too much additional aggro. Judy -----Original Message-----From: Margaret Buttigieg [mailto:margaret@...]Sent: 30 June 2003 12:04 Subject: Agenda for Change Thought SENATE members may be interested in this Regards Margaret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 So they thought it was OK to publish with an half baked, badly thought out profile? I do hope they've found time to be a bit more careful with the rest of it..... . On 30 Jun 2003 at 16:21, Judy wrote: > This is very much the same as was said in an 'agenda for change' day that I > attended, although it was stated that the HV profile was one of the first to > be developed and could therefore be said to not fully address the work of a > health visitor as well as those profiles that were developed later. The idea > was that the profile being rewritten was being considered to accrue a better > all over 'rating', making it easier to make the case for those undertaking > extended roles to tip into grade 7 without too much additional aggro. > > Judy > Agenda for Change > > > Thought SENATE members may be interested in this > > Regards > > Margaret > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 I moved on rather than out and into a university research post but the pay is just as bad and short term contracts are a nightmare. My son is three years into his first post university job and earns more than me already! My daughter and her partner (biochemists) both left the public service sector because of poor pay and conditions and moved into the private sector. Leaving health visiting may be an option for some but its not all jam on the other side! On 3 Jul 2003 at 7:55, Ann GIRLING wrote: > Don't blame you - trouble is I don't sense any sign of loss or regret from employers having got out myself. However for me it's the best thing I ever did and i wish i'd done it earlier!! > Ann > Agenda for Change > > > Thought SENATE members may be interested in this > > Regards > > Margaret > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Interesting Jeanette - seems a raw deal to me - surely we should all be working together here Margaret Re: agenda for change Margaret, whilst folk may not be turned away from meetings it seems that the discussions for Agenda for Change seem to be organised according to individual union representations, and people are being categorised. Colleagues who do not fit in with a particular union or professional organisaiton seem to be missing out with a voice on the pay discussions. I became particularly aware of this the other week at a meeting when a union rep. stated that she thought the A-C grades would miss out on accurate job evaluations and could get a poor deal, if they didn`t belong to Amicus or Unison. Their individual skills would not be valued accordingly. Our own hv assistant does not belong to any particular trade union and will have serious issues about the grading of her job.She has now decided to is leave the job and has been accepted as an asst Social Worker in Social Services where there seems to be a better career structure for her to develop her skills and she knows what the pay structure and progress points will be.As a mature woman she doesn`t want to spend years acquiring qualifications before getting to the job she wants. She does not have a nursing qualification and could not therefore progress to Health Visiting if she wanted to. I feel our colleagues in A-C grades could get a very raw deal unless they have been advised to join a union or have colleagues willing to stand up for them. jeanette Margaret Buttigieg <margaret@...> wrote: Implementing Agenda for Change like the introduction of clinical grading is not going to be easy and I always thought we were all in this together and there to support each other. Last week I was horrified to hear from a CPHVA LAR that she had been told that in doing work within her organisation to develop job descriptions for AforC, she was not allowed to work with anyone who was not a Amicus/CPHVA member. Indeed she had - and I heard this from another source - turned two nursery nurses and another Hv colleague away form her meeting - which is partly trust supported - as they are not members of the CPHVA. I would have thought a better approach would have been to invite them to stay and encouraged them to join the Union. However I do feel that if that is the message form CPHVA then we have got to a very poor state of affairs - is this happening elsewhere? Margaret Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.