Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Close

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Regional pay 'cartel' claims it can save 6,000 jobs

  • 46 Comments

More than 6,000 NHS “jobs” in the South West could be saved if major changes go ahead to staff pay, and terms and conditions, it has been claimed.

The controversial South West Consortium of NHS trusts has published two “discussion” documents exploring the challenges it claims the NHS is facing and why action needs to be taken to address them.

As previously reported by Nursing Times, the consortium – described as a “cartel” by unions – is considering breaking away from the national Agenda for Change framework.

The new documents are a clear move by the consortium to try and build a case for drawing up its own regional version of the pay framework, although it has stressed no decisions have yet been made.

Dorset Healthcare Foundation Trust has become the latest organisation to pay a £10,000 membership fee to join the group, taking the total number of NHS trusts involved to 20. Together, they employ around 68,000 NHS staff across the South West.

Within the documents, the consortium claims a more “fit for purpose” system of pay and terms and conditions could safeguard more than 6,000 jobs in the region.

Some of the potential ways the consortium believes it could save money include reducing annual leave, changing consultant on-call supplements, adding extra working hours, reducing incremental pay, and reducing sick pay benefits.

The changes would be applied not just to staff on Agenda for Change but also to all grades of doctors, board directors, very senior managers, bank and agency staff and interim workers.

One of the documents states: “The alternative to addressing pay, terms and conditions is a wholesale reduction in headcount which, in potentially compromising minimum staffing levels and therefore patient safety, is extremely undesirable and costly.”

A full business case for the changes, which will also contain a series of recommendations, will be presented to each of the group’s trusts for discussion by their borads later this year.

The consortium has said it remains committed to national negotiations on changes to Agenda for Change. Unions, however, have accused the 20 trusts in the consortium of undermining those talks.

Christina McAnea, chair of the NHS staff-side council and Unison’s head of health, said: “This organisation has no status, or authority to enter into negotiations, and the trades unions will not be engaging with any proposals made by the cartel to cut pay, terms and conditions of our members.”

She warned the changes being mooted could harm, rather than help, the NHS in the South West, and also criticised the money trusts were spending on setting up the consortium.

“It beggars belief that at a time of financial constraint across the NHS, 20 trusts have ploughed £200,000 into a scheme whose only outcome will be to penalise hard-working staff,” she said. “This short term fix designed to address cost pressures is a negative move for employers, staff and patients.”

Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust chief executive Chris Bown, who is chair of the consortium, said: “Consortium trusts are fully supportive of the national negotiations between employer representatives and unions.

“We believe we can and should work in the background as these discussions continue to give us the best opportunity to be sustainable organisations in the years ahead.”

But a Department of Health spokesman strongly hinted the cartel had come about because unions were dragging their heels in negotiations, saying that some NHS trusts were “frustrated” a national deal had not been reached on Agenda for Change proposals over the past 18 months.

“The need for local negotiations could be significantly reduced if the NHS staff council were able to bring national negotiations to a swift and successful conclusion,” he said.

  • 46 Comments

Readers' comments (46)

  • Get yourselves a big bag of popcorn folks. This is going to be a lively debate :)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • £200,000 spent so far on this crap

    imagine what yacht that could buy for the chief exec of the gloucester trust!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Tinkerbell

    emotional blackmail??? It will now be our fault for not offering to work for less.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • lets all work for **** all, that will save loads of money

    honestly remember a few years back stop incremental pay and we will guarantee no redundancies!!

    same old crap to make someone redundant you have to show that their work is no longer needed.....so 6000 jobs are no longer needed in these trusts then

    oh my god where are the unions in these trusts and why arnt they balloting the staff for industrial action

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Some of the potential ways the consortium believes it could save money include reducing annual leave, changing consultant on-call supplements, adding extra working hours, reducing incremental pay, and reducing sick pay benefits."

    That says it all really !!!!!!!!!!!

    Still, at least the Project Managers, Business Managers, Performance Managers, Contracts Managers etc. will all be safe.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    'One of the documents states: “The alternative to addressing pay, terms and conditions is a wholesale reduction in headcount which, in potentially compromising minimum staffing levels and therefore patient safety, is extremely undesirable and costly.”'

    I have a prediction. If the end result of all of this, is indeed reduced numbers of staff (or, more precisely, reduced staff-hours) I think that 'potentially compromising minimum staffing levels and therefore patient safety' will mysteriously disappear - I doubt that any senior managers will say 'we have had to reduce staff numbers and to therefore reduce the level of patient care/safety we can offer'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Tinkerbell

    they don't give a flying duck about patient safety it's all about saving money at the cost of patient safety. Lip service rules, manipulation rules, bending the truth rules, they wouldn't know what the truth was if it came up and slapped them in the face.

    No wonder Bevan hated them with a passion. I can fully understand why.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Everyone
    We are all part of a Union ( of nurses, apart from Mike Srone). If we do not resist this TOGETHER then it will happen to all of us. Cassandra tells the truth, eh Tink.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This consortia has an agenda which is a clear threat to terms and conditions of of staff (and in particular Nurses)

    The consortia headed by the arrogant Bown (CE at Poole) has emerged from the shadows and now boasts its own website -

    http://meetingthechallenge.info/

    The latest "discussion" documents are openly displayed on the site and I would urge that ALL nurse/midwives read these papers.

    There must be a robust and effective challenge by the Staff Side organisations to this consortium. Such a challenge can only be mounted if the Staff Side Representatives have the FULL support of members. All proposals which will result in a down grading of current employees terms and conditions of service MUST be rejected.

    Remember the proposals include wonderful changes such as increasing (for no additional remuneration) the working week to 45 hours, reducing annual leave entitlement, removing unsocial hours payments and restricting pay scale progression.

    If Nurses and Midwives fail to recognise the threat this consortium poses to the individual professional they will deserve the "fait accompli" which WILL be presented.

    Vigorous opposition is required up to and including STRIKE ACTION must be planned with the active support of the majority of staff.


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Tinkerbell

    redpaddys12 | 23-Aug-2012 10:44 pm

    Redpaddy and Jenny we must get this message out to our colleagues. I am back on it and telling them what's going on whenever an opportunity arises.

    Yesterday i went round my units letting them know about this latest kick in the teeth. I'm hoping that the penny is finally going to drop but they still don't seem that bothered. I really don't know what to say to them when i get this apathetic response.
    A union is only as strong as its members.

    I don't know if you have a chance to watch the re-runs of 'Yes Minister' (was on 30 years ago) but nothing much seems to have changed with all the wheeling & dealing that goes on in westminster.

    Last night the programme was titled 'compassionate' about a new hospital that had been opened with all 500 administrators in place but no patients and no doctors and nurses so therefore couldn't open.

    When the minister questioned this he was told by his secretary we need the administrators there for the smooth running of the hospital, but there's no patients there the minister replied. Yes replies the secretary but we're hoping people won't realise it's open yet, that's why we have left a few skips outside and some scaffolding to give the impression it's still a building site because we can't afford to open it yet in the current financial climate. Yes but there are 500 administrators working there, yes to ensure the smooth running.

    Ever decreasing circles.

    Nothing much changes does it?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 102050results per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.