1. Extract from Reps Direct 175: 2^nd May 2003:

 

Agenda For Change Ballot

 

The ballot papers for the Amicus MSF ballot on Agenda for Change are now going out. If members have not received one by Tuesday 6th May they should contact 0500 10 10 11.  The most likely reason for a failure is going to be a change of location or home address which has not been notified to us.

 

All members in the NHS will be balloted including the newly formed Health Protection Agency. Members employed in the private sector or solely as self employed will not be balloted. Again failure to notify membership department of changes may create the occasional hiccough.

 

***********

 

You can update your membership details online, but if you do not receive a ballot paper by May 6^th you MUST
telephone 0500 10 10 11 to ensure that you are issued with a ballot paper.

 

 

2. Arguments for and against AFC

 

The Bulletin of the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists published an official statement from Amicus-MSF, alongside one from Gill George, an SLT working in London, to help SLTs decide how they want to vote.  Gill George, along with members in other Regions and other professions, has been campaigning for a “No” vote.

 

Your ballot paper will be accompanied by a leaflet explaining the official union position.  Please read this carefully.  Members who have not had access to arguments against AfC, might find the following information helpful.  This is Gill George’s critique of the information in the leaflet that you will receive with your ballot paper.

 

The turnout in postal ballots is always low - every single vote counts.  Your vote will make a difference, so don’t forget to use it.

 

Gill George says:

 

The leaflet accompanying the AFC ballot paper is a little one-sided.

 

We are told that AFC is about equal value for equal work.  The reality is that AFC dismantles the last 2 equal pay victories in the NHS - our own success for Speech and Language Therapists, and the Unison victory for women workers at the Cumberland Infirmary.  AFC will make future equal value claims almost impossible.

 

The claimed 10% pay increase actually amounts to a small pay cut this year - after you take into account the underlying rate of inflation and the recent increase in National Insurance contributions.

 

It is argued in the leaflet that individuals, professions and groups are 'likely to benefit additionally'.  We are not told about our members who face substantial pay cuts. Nor are we warned that recruitment and retention premia are inherently insecure.  These payments will be reviewed regularly, the value may be varied for new entrants, and the Proposed Agreement refers to them as 'transitional'.  It is unsafe to depend on recruitment and retention premia instead of fighting for a fair basic wage for all our members.

 

We are told that there will be protection arrangements for our members who work under 37.5 hours a week.  The leaflet forgets to mention that protection is time limited, or that new entrants work the extra hours straight away. Under AFC, 60% of our members will be working longer hours.  Why are we not told that it is union policy, passed at Annual Conference, to fight for a 35 hour week for all members?

 

There is nothing particularly 'modern' about job evaluation - it has been around for decades.  The union used to argue that job evaluation was pseudo-scientific and based on subjective judgments. Instead of job evaluation leading to fair pay, under AFC we are seeing job evaluation leading to lower salaries for a significant percentage of our members.

 

'Career development' sounds great.  But - with AFC - this means that some annual increments are linked to proving to your manager that you are 'competent'.  This competency pay is a form of performance related pay.  Performance related pay is discriminatory and divisive.

 

We are assured here that 'the money is there for AFC'.  Yet Roger Spiller, Amicus-MSF Head of Health, has stated many times that AFC is under-funded by 15 to 20%. Which is correct?

 

Dave Houliston, Chair of Amicus-MSF NHS National Advisory Committee, has circulated job evaluation results for our members in Pathology.  These are the results that the union wants to see.  They have not been agreed by the Department of Health, and there is no reason to suppose that they will be.  There is likely to be a significant over-estimate here of the salaries our Pathology members will end up on.

 

We continue to have no agreed profiles for Speech and Language Therapists, Pharmacists, and Family of Psychology.  From draft profiles and discussions with the DOH, we know that salaries for our members in these areas are almost certain to be - in the words of a union official - 'a disaster'.

 

For MTOs, absolute chaos prevails.

 

We do have some profiles for Community Nurses, but my colleagues tell me that these represent a lost opportunity, with little recognition of specialist skills.

 

60% of our members face an increase in working hours - equivalent to a 7% pay cut on its own for those currently working a 35 hour week.  Competency pay will apply to all of us.  Trusts will have the freedom to introduce performance related pay.

 

'Pay protection' is, in reality, a pay freeze from 2005 onwards - with no annual increments and no cost of living increases.  Even this is lost as soon as we change jobs.

 

We also have to consider the very real possibility that the second ballot will never take place.  The union says it will - but has not set out a timescale.  We have seen nothing in writing from the DOH to suggest that the Government will agree.

 

The Government is currently imposing a pay deal on Consultants - once AFC is in place in the Early Implementers, can we be confident that they will not do the same to us?

 

The 'two ballots' position is also the policy of Amicus MSF, but not Amicus AEEU.  The union merges fully on 1st January 2004 - who knows what our policy will be after this?

 

It is claimed that there is no alternative to AFC. This is nonsense.  There is always an alternative to accepting pay cuts and worse working conditions for our members.

 

A rotten deal does not become acceptable by pretending that there are no problems.  AFC is simply not working for our members.

 

The right response to Agenda for Change is to vote 'No'.

 

Members who do not get a ballot paper by 6th May should ring 0500 10 10 11.

 

Gill George

 

*************************

 

Please read the leaflet that comes with your ballot paper and decide which way you want to cast your vote.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Liz Panton