Band 5 for Newly Qualified Health Visitors

[Guest guest]

As a current Health Visitor within this trust I agree with Margaret and Jennie,

it makes no sense for somebody to do their Health visiting training and then get

paid the same as they were before but have all the extra responsibility. I

wonder if the question that should be asked is why the Trust are considering

paying a Nursery Nurse a Band 5 in the first place. I fully support the use of

appropriate skillmix within the Health Visiting team but do feel the lines with

regard to pay and responsibility could be becoming very blurred.

I would also argue that more Trusts should be paying Health Visitors a Band 7

looking at special skills and difficult caseloads.

Regards

Sharon

Always remember to be kinder than you think is necessary as people often have

silent battles they are dealing with xx

[Guest guest]

How does this work under Agenda for Change? I would suggest getting the Union involved to challenge thisVery best wishesMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: Sharon <sharoninthelodge@...>Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 23:26:27 +0000 (GMT) < >Subject: Band 5 for Newly Qualified Health Visitors As a current Health Visitor within this trust I agree with Margaret and Jennie, it makes no sense for somebody to do their Health visiting training and then get paid the same as they were before but have all the extra responsibility. I wonder if the question that should be asked is why the Trust are considering paying a Nursery Nurse a Band 5 in the first place. I fully support the use of appropriate skillmix within the Health Visiting team but do feel the lines with regard to pay and responsibility could be becoming very blurred.I would also argue that more Trusts should be paying Health Visitors a Band 7 looking at special skills and difficult caseloads.RegardsSharonAlways remember to be kinder than you think is necessary as people often have silent battles they are dealing with xx

[Guest guest]

Dear Senators,

I am sure you are all well versed in how Agenda for Change works in that each

post is evaluated by a partnership pannel which then translates to a number of

'points' which is then matched to a pay scale where you then end up with the

correct band.

There is a national profile for health visitng and this comes out at band 6,

with further national profiles for specialist/advanced/practice educator posts

at band 7.

You cannot use the system to decide that a band 6 post will work out at band 5

for a bit because they are new in post(!) as that is the point of pay point

increment/progression and clearly a point of the KSF gateways (Knowledge and

Skills Framework).

There are some jobs that have accelerated progression but non that have dodgy

regression.

In any organisations where they suggest this, staff should be asking for the job

description that has been evaluated and consistency checked at a band 5 (which

shouldn't exist) and if it does exist I would suggest this should be raised with

local reps to then raise with regional full time officials.

Some organisations may argue that they can't afford band 6 so want to pay band 5

(you are usually told this by people who are on band 8 or 9) but AfC was brought

in to ensure equal pay for equal work. To use it in the above way would be to

break the principle of AfC, break partnership working and leave organisations

open to claims at employment tribunal for equal pay.

This would not be an argument about professions but about a pay system that is

being abused and should be treated in that way.

Regards,

Dave

[Guest guest]

Dear Margaret,

Currently all but one Foundation Trust (FT) is on AfC T & C's. The trust that

isn't was agreed under a staff ballot, but people may be interested to read the

artcile on the following link:

http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/acute-care/foundation-trust-to-\

drop-below-agenda-for-change-pay-rate/5010841.article

Unite took one FT in the NE to employment tribunal (ET) (twice) because they

refused to pay a part of AfC (RRP) to our members and won (twice).

Trusts may think it's an easy way to go but they would need to consider all the

issues that Senator's have raised but also many more including they have to put

something in its place and with AfC taking 6 years to negotiate and being proven

to be equality proof (as tested by other ET's) etc, not an easy 'journey'.

NHS colleagues should more be concerned about the approach to remove staff from

the NHS by use of social enterprises which are very much removed from the NHS. I

do hope you have all looked at the campaign materials on our website regarding

Health Before Profit (www.unitetheunion.org/health). This is hopefully less

likely to happen with the statement that we managed to get out of SoS Andy

Burnham re. the NHS being the preferred provider but trusts are still trying it

on.

Regards,

Dave

>

> Hi

>

> Thanks for this helpful explanation - I am sure this will not be the last we

hear of organisatons suggesting this.

>

> Have you had any thoughts about how provider units who link to Foundation

Trusts may try to act when Foundation Trusts are not subject to AfC

>

> Margare

> Re: Band 5 for Newly Qualified Health Visitors

>

>

>

> Dear Senators,

>

> I am sure you are all well versed in how Agenda for Change works in that

each post is evaluated by a partnership pannel which then translates to a number

of 'points' which is then matched to a pay scale where you then end up with the

correct band.

>

> There is a national profile for health visitng and this comes out at band 6,

with further national profiles for specialist/advanced/practice educator posts

at band 7.

>

> You cannot use the system to decide that a band 6 post will work out at band

5 for a bit because they are new in post(!) as that is the point of pay point

increment/progression and clearly a point of the KSF gateways (Knowledge and

Skills Framework).

>

> There are some jobs that have accelerated progression but non that have

dodgy regression.

>

> In any organisations where they suggest this, staff should be asking for the

job description that has been evaluated and consistency checked at a band 5

(which shouldn't exist) and if it does exist I would suggest this should be

raised with local reps to then raise with regional full time officials.

>

> Some organisations may argue that they can't afford band 6 so want to pay

band 5 (you are usually told this by people who are on band 8 or 9) but AfC was

brought in to ensure equal pay for equal work. To use it in the above way would

be to break the principle of AfC, break partnership working and leave

organisations open to claims at employment tribunal for equal pay.

>

> This would not be an argument about professions but about a pay system that

is being abused and should be treated in that way.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dave

>