next »

[anon23]

can anyone explain what is National Framework Agreement about? I mean, practically, how it is going to affect our pay? Who are the ones who will benefit?

[science_expat]

More info please. My take is that academic staff did reasonably well - with the 3% and the transfer my salary went up by £2500 - but a lot of support and academic related staff are having posts downgraded.

[anon23]

I am asking about academic staff.  My pay was adjusted after the 3%, but soon the university will be doing another "national framework agreement" toward a 51 point single pay spine  --is that what you meant by transfer?
Heard that it would involve the HERA questionaires and job evaluations which are confusing. Just wonder if any of you could share your experience in the evaluation process and the impact?

[theakston]

My University transferred over to a 51 point scale this September. I believe that most academic staff received an increase in pay, although those at lecturer A and B received the most. I'm lecturer A, in my third year. My wage increased by 4k (but I was transferred back to the bottom of the lecturer A scale - I think there's some formula to make up for this at some point in the future.)

[snape]

We are on the 51 point scale too.
We have four job families. As I was Academic-related I ended up in the management rather than the education family. The problem with this is my progression now depends on managing people rather that developing in my education role.

[expatinuk]

We've STILL not been told where we are. We got the 3% but we didn't get any increment change. We've been told that everything will be done in the new year and back dated.

*sigh*

[snape]

I did OK on the transfer itself(we were one of the first universities to do it). The problematic issue is that it can now take longer to reach the top of your grade (assuming you don't get promoted).

[qrypt]

It is a very complicated issue.  There is supposed to be a "no detriment" principle - no one currently employed is supposed to end up with less money, even over the long term, than they would have received had this not been adopted.  I have seen spreadsheets showing that this is the case - not sure whether to believe them, but the assertions are made strongly by UCU.  It is all subject to local negotiation and implementation.  I am at a new job, bottom of the SL scale, at a place that has already implemented it - and I have to say, the result has been very favorable for me.  I've seen quibbles about marginal impacts - someone had a discretionary point and he was going to lose it on the new scale, he was upset about that despite the fact that he was still going to have more money (but somehow less status).  But it is supposed to be the case that no one ends up with less money.

As for the OP, the only way to tell what it might imply for you is to look at the details.  You might go to the UCU web site (then to the AUT?  Depends where you are) and look for the list of universities that have already implemented it, find the details about the transfer from old scale to new, and find yourself somewhere on that scale.  The implementation has not been identical in every university, but there are not radical departures as far as I can tell.  If you want to tell me your current location on the old scale, I can probably give you an indication of what that might mean, as per the experience of places that have already implemented. 

[snape]

The no detrimient principle is very complex. Our HR department blinded me with science when I made an enquiry about my progression.