FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => General Interest => Topic started by: Proby on October 30, 2004, 12:09:25 PM
-
I am coming up to three years service. I have been placed into assimilation point G for my pay meaning im on £21849.
The thing is that no-one in my brigade seems to be in a position to tell me when i will be competent FOR PAY PURPOSES. Does the old qualified exam still exist?
I have heard mention of NVQs etc but again its not something my brigade seems to know anything about. I have passed my probation exams but am now stuck in this limbo. I think its pretty disgusting that the people who employ me are unable to give me an answer to this question hence i am asking here?
Can anyone help?
Also .... Does anyone know of any brigades which have wholetime members running retained on days off as my brigade are supposedly implementing this but again this is an ongoing things that no one has an answer as to why it hasnt started yet .... (they advertised for applicants over a year ago).
-
Proby (or ex proby with 3 years!)
Been through this before and it was VERY clear in the Pay Agreement. No one should not understand and certainly not the FRS personnel department!
It is absolutley amazing, nay disgusting, that there are FRS who do not know what they are doing about this. The way for all staff to move to competent pay is so crucial that is beggars belief that there are managers without the brains to have worked this out, especially when it is in writing and there are so many who already know! I am also somewhat bemused by personnel not having read these documents themselves - it is your pay and how can you ever be deemed competent (or maintain if so deemed already) if you don't take responsibility for yourself too! Unit 2 of the Ff NOS!
So for those who have chosen to ignore all the documentation that has been around until now here we go again:
4.33 Whole-time Firefighters and Fire Control Operators with less than four years’ service on 6th November 2003 will be assimilated to temporary assimilation pay points with effect from 7th November 2003. These assimilation points are equivalent to the current pay points (up to and including fourth year) enhanced by 7% with effect from 7th November 2003, 4.2% from 1st July 2004 and subsequent pay increases. Employees in this position will continue to receive increments on the assimilation points related to their length of service. They will move onto the competent rate of pay once they have completed four years’ service or are deemed competent in IPDS terms, whichever is the earlier.
For those starting now and therefore on the new route to competent pay:
From the Grey Book -
Rates of pay are based on defined stages of development leading to demonstration of competence in the employee’s role. These stages are:
Training
For the roles of Firefighter and Firefighter (Control) the training stage is the point at which an employee is in full-time training and is not yet performing the role in its appropriate context. An employee in this position will receive the trainee rate of pay.
Development
The development stage is where an employee is working under supervision in the role and is being assessed against the different functions that make up that role. An employee at this stage, before demonstrating competence in the full requirements of the role, will receive the development rate of pay.
Competent
After all applicable functions have been assessed as having been achieved, the employee will have demonstrated “competence” in his or her role and will receive the appropriate competent rate of pay
For a Firefighter this is all 9 units of the NOS - the NVQ would give you a qualification after successful demonstration against 7, the other two would still need to be completed so would not give competent for pay purposes, just a part thereof. However, again from the Grey Book:
As with all other units in a role map, a fire and rescue authority can require an employee to carry out driving duties. Where the fire and rescue authority does not require an employee to drive or, for genuine reasons, the employee is unable to drive he or she shall be regarded as competent in the role subject to having demonstrated competence in all other applicable functions in the role map.
So you do not have to be an appliance driver (Unit 9 in full) to be competent for pay purposes unless the FRS requires you to, you may need to be a light vehicle driver though and all the other competence within Unit 9, bar the LGV driving.
For those thinking of the 'special responsibility payments' they should be awarded it is worth noting the words from the Grey Book on the role maps:
The units of competence that form each of these roles are laid down in the NJC document – Fire and Rescue Services Rolemaps. Fire and rescue authorities can require any reasonable activity to be carried out by an individual employee within his or her role map. These role maps reflect fire and rescue service responsibilities incorporated into local Integrated Risk Management Plans in order to:
Apply a risk-based approach to fire cover and to all its activities in deciding how best to use its resources.
Focus on reducing the level of fire and other emergencies.
Develop and maintain effective partnerships with a range of agencies in the public, private and voluntary sectors where these can deliver cost-effective improvements in community safety.
Adopt safe systems of working to secure the health and safety of both its staff and the general public.
Minimise the impact of the incidents it attends and of its response at those incidents on the environment.
So none really available for anything, for example IRU, Rope rescue, TL, ALP etc - all fall within the above.
The old qualified examination is just that - the old one. There is no qualified examination any longer.
Retained duty when off from WT duty time is now available for any FRS wishing to offer it and there are too many doing this aleady to note. The Grey Book makes clear that there should be two periods of 24 hours free of duty though, this may mean only 2 days out of 8 when a WT member may be eligible for RT duty? Also if in an adjoining service then your service should require you to comply with their secondary employment rules.
-
excellent answer as always!
a couple of points potentially for disagreement though - additional responsibility payments - while i agree with some of your list i dont agree with it all, there will be an opportunity for additional resposibility allowance where there is a shortage of skills etc (from grey book - i assume if youre all that interested you'll already know the paragraph/page number!)
also some of the activities and skills that are maintained outside of the role map should attract additional payments - it really is down to the individual if they dig in deep and the skills really are required then they will attract payment, if they agree to do everything including training aquiring new skills etc to be able to carry out an activity outside of their role map then they will get no extra payments, and as previously stated it doesnt preclude an authority from additonal payments to meet their needs!
-
Dave
I agree withyou about special resonsibility payments and what should happen. I just happen to think that the wording, of the section in the Grey Book, is so loose that employers will use it to make any skills they require fall out of the National Occupational Standard and thus not attract a SRA.
Also that is not my list - it is verbatim from the Grey Book! I sincerely hope that some examples of skills shortages to meet IRMPs, or some that are outside the role but within the job function are found soon. I fear that if not the SRA will fail to beapplied and we lose the opportunity to value people's additional skills properly.
Perhaps the requirement to have a qualification, D32/33/A1/D34/V1, in order to make assessment decisions, or verify them, for NVQ systems could be a first? After all these were optional units in the role maps for WM and above and not within the role itself, they do fall within the job function too............... Any FBU branch/FRS negotiating this yet?[/i]
-
Thanks for your help guys (or gals)
Its a sad state of affairs when you telephone your personnel dept and they cant tell you anything, "you'll have to contact the training dept" is the standard quote.
Then the training dept cant give you an answer cause "we dont know".
Shocking that my employers cant tell me the direction of their service but the likes of yourselves can.
-
optional units - hmmmmmmmmnnnnnn
ok, wont go into that yet,
part of the trial includes looking at four potentials (where the role map doesnt fit)
moving to the next role
stopping the work
work shift (to where it should be done)
additional responsibility payments
so as a principle it is being looked at by the njc sub group - where it goes?????
dave bev
ok - optional units - are within the role and may be required as part of the job function - no additional responsibility payments as they are part of the rolemap and within the job function - thats the way it looks at the moment
and so it goes! (nick lowe for those of you who remember! breaking glass ep! - 5 points for mr beverley's team)
-
Dave
It is my understanding that the optional units in the Ff role map are included in the role - i.e. all 9 for competent pay (less the driving if not required to be a driver), but have now been taken out of the role maps fro CM, WM, SM and above. So this means that L20 for CM, A1 for WM and A1/V1 for SM (and above) are no longer in the role. These are the skill areas we should be fighting for SRA payments straight away, as the services need them for NVQs/Workplace assessment/QA. Following any success here then go back to look at other skill areas for payments?
John
-
Proby
I think you should name and shame your FRS, they should all be in the know. Dave could be said to be well in the know - being a national FBU official, however I just read the documentation sent to EVERY FBU member and those sent to every FRSA, all available on the internet to this day too. Some knowledge came as a result of working in IPDS, but nothing that wasn't openly available anyway.
That any management (especially HR) should not know is absolutely disgraceful - where have they been, what do they read and how much are we paying them to be not-yet competent in their roles?
That any employee has not understood the terms of our pay settlement and its implementation is disappointing, that they may not even know that such documents exist is surprising, that they cannot find this out from others (somewhere amongst whom at least one must have read it) is amazing!
-
john, there are optional units still in some roles - these were originally intended (i understand) to 'help' in the specialist roles within the rolemaps. this has got a bit 'cloudy' recently (there was also some read across from nvq's) so there is more work that needs to be done as regards clarification. fire investigation nos are about to be 'looked' at using fletcher consultancy (again!) but they and the fire safety nos will still need to be approved by the njc before they can be introduced. currently its only the standard ff and control roles that actually have agreed rolemaps.
the trails are progressing - a couple of brigades have almost finished testing the process though they have uncovered some 'difficulties' which will need to be sorted before the process can be finalised. a couple seem to have had problems re a or b within a role.
as for knowledge via openly available docs, i think you do pretty good in working things out, pity others cant do the same thing. i would be careful however cos some of the docs out there arent the agreed docs, though they have been posted with good intent they are wrong! so be careful about making definitive decsions or policies based on what may be inaccurate info. if you get chance to slow things down it could be more beneficial in the long run. this isnt the fbu saying grind the process to a standstill, we are committed to the process - im just suggesting dont run too fast and too far just yet. final meeting of the sub group to the njc has just been finalised for the 6th dec so you should all know more by then!
dave bev
-
My brigade reckons you do either 4 years or be competent in IPDS, which means having ticks in all of the boxes in the role model software.
-
Scott - that is exactly as the pay agreement said, nice to know some have read it.
Dave - agree that soem of the docs are still 'draft' or were os, the ones I have looked at for pay are those released byt he NJC so agrred.
As for the role options I understand that those for CM and above have been quietly removed from their origianl postions? If this is so then A1 (or D32/33) and V1 (D34) are now not even options? Surely these should attract SRAs where the service requires them? This means most as the NVQ is well entrenched in the development systems.
If the unit is not an optional one then the service should not include it in the role, definitely outside the role and in function.
-
My brigade reckons you do either 4 years or be competent in IPDS, which means having ticks in all of the boxes in the role model software.
As an update the brigade have agreed to pay competant pay after completion of the probationary log book. This is because new recruits are on IPDS compliant log books and will be competant on completion, which also meant they would get more money than people who joined before them (with less than 4 years service), who completed the old style log book.
-
that is supposed to be happening everywhere scotty, not just in your brigade - its one of the (many?) anomolies that exist but wont in the future
the process is very much a 'local' one cos there are that many different systems in place - so in yours its log books, in other brigades its ..........
dave bev
-
It was the FBU locally to thank for this. Initially the brigade didnt want to pay until four years was completed.
-
OK folks, following a complaint, I've removed a post that was causing offence (and all subsequent replies and comments about it.)
It's rather sad that I have to do this, try and remain mannerable to each other please. :(
I would rather not close this topic as most of us seem able to debate this like adults, those who cannnot will be barred.
Thanks to the significant majority who are able to maintain a their dignity and not post drivel.;)
PS Dav Bev, what makes you think I have a life outside FireNet anyway? :)
-
Out of interest my FRS has just put all Ffs, not yet on full pay because they had not yet reached the service time, through tests. These were based on the qualified Ff tests of yesteryear. All who passed were put onto competnet pay, all Ffs joining from 2003 are on a NVQ route to competent pay so we now have no-one who isn't on full pay, or working toward the NVQ (IPDS route) to competent pay. We have two Ffs with less than 3 years service on competent pay via achievement of the NVQ.
-
Christopher, Most of the unacceptable comments that appear on the BBs come from people who log in as guests, often notwithstanding the fact that they are members without the balls ( can I say that word??) to say who they really are. People like Davey who have interesting opinions to express, whether right or wrong, are never afraid to say who they really are. When the website went chargeable, the BBs were not available to non-members. On behalf of many of the fire community who did not wish to become members, I had a discussion with the Webmaster, who in any case I feel is well entitled to the measly tenner that is all that it costs to register, and I suggested that the fire community would be better served if the BBS went ''public'' again, a request to which he willingly and kindly acceded. Was that the right thing to do????? I am sure he could make them accessible only to those who register their ID.
-
Colin a good idea, if it was a requirement to register it should not put anyone off, if it did they are probably those we would rather not have?
-
Personally, I am ambivalent. It matters little to me that people put silly childish comments on the BBs, usually under a pseudonym claiming they are someone that they are not, when in fact they are registered under another name. (see for example comments on PAs 79). But if it upsets others, its a possible solution that they/ the Webmaster could always bear in mind. That is the only reason I flagged it up. Come the revolution, Davey and the boys will have the BB nationalised, our illustrious webmaster will be sent to a Gulag, where he can live out his days slaving over a hot PC, and those who speak out of turn will be send to a re-education establishment to learn to be politically correct. I myself am too old to learn and last time I had a coffee with Davey he told me there was nothing for it other than to have me shot, but only for my own good.
-
Colin
Surely the BB should be modernised in line with current New Labour practice - (nationalised at someone elses expence?)
-
Actually it should probably be a PFI.
-
colin, it was for the people (and by the people of course) and even your attempt to induce favours with the promise of a sticky bun should have been made less obvious if you really wanted to be spared cometh the day!
i am all for free specch, but with the responsiblity of free speech there comes all sorts of other stuff!- this isnt yet the time of revolution so why dont people identify themselves so that honest and open debate can take place for the benefit of all, and even old dogs can be taught new tricks so indeed the webbie may be useful in the days to come, in fact i will ensure the gulag is suitably enriched with cultural artifacts!
ok rant over, back to the real topic.
Pay Versus Competency or simply PVC. (steady colin !)
NJC meet on tuesday - (amongst other issues) R2R - might be interesting - (for non fireys NJC is employer/employee group who agree conditions of service etc)
dave bev
-
i have a pay dispute with my brigade at the moment.
i joined on may 9th 2001
In 2003 my brigade withdrew the qualified exam and failed to introduce a means of assesing my competency.
i pointed out that as of may 2004 i was eligible for a competent rate of pay under the new pay agreement but had been denied the oppportunity due the brigades failure to introduce a competency assesment.
i was told that i would be would be moved onto competency pay upon completing 4 yeas service( 3 weeks ago) which i have .
i was also told that i would now be classed as a competent firefighter.
This week the brigade introduced a competency assesment . Succesful applicants will have their pay back dated to the start of their 3rd year due to the brigades inabilty to test them during that period.
i however can get no answers as to whether i will also recieve back pay or whether i can also take this competency exam as they aready regard me as competent.
( could they withdraw my competnecy if i failed lol ??! )
can ayone tell me where i stand ? My brigade have no answers at present but im suspecting that the answer may involve two fingers.
i fully agree to back paying the firefighters who pass this assesment as its the fault of the brigade that they have been denied these earning for that period however i do feel that i also have been denied that wage and if i am supposedly classed as competent 3 weeks ago why should i have to take the competnecy exam if they will even let me?
during the period in which i was not rated competent but eligible to take a assesment if they'd had one in place, i was invited ( with others) to interview for promotion to lff due to my having passed lff part 1 ( part 2 no longer required).
i argued that if i was competent enough to be elibible for the next role i surely was competent in my current role . (clutching at straws i know.)
and if i was in development ie under supervision why was i riding as OIC on the Emergency Tender and Turntable ladder. im either under supervision or in charge of a front line vehicle which is it?
if i was not in developement then i wanted competent pay ....that was my argument.
all of which was pooh pooed by Avon Fire Brigade.
i would appreciate any thoughts
simon
-
simon, you need to speak to your rep body. it would be inappropriate for me to make comment on here until they have had the opportunity to progress the issue.
there are a few issues you raise which would need more info than i am prepared to post on an 'open' forum, so i suggest you involve your rep body as a matter of urgency
dave bev