【正文】 tional barriers。pay fairly and equitably for work done, with career progression based on responsibility,petence and satisfactory performance。and simplify and modernise conditions of service, with national core conditions and considerable local flexibility’(cited in NAO, 2009: 4–5).衛(wèi)生部門表示其目的是“讓員工用新的、打破傳統(tǒng)壁壘的工作方法將自己最好的一面展示給病人；基于稱職和令人滿意的表現(xiàn)基礎上的公平公正的工作薪酬和事業(yè)發(fā)展；在國家的核心條件和相當?shù)牡赜蜢`活性基礎上簡單化和現(xiàn)代化條件的服務。”（引國家審計署，2009:45）The scope of the reforms included ‘simplified’ national pay spines covering different occupational groups, a national job evaluation scheme(unlike local government and HE where individual employers and unions could choose their job evaluation scheme), harmonised terms and conditions, and a petencybased career framework known as the ‘Knowledge and Skills Framework’.改革的范圍包括“簡化”國家支付以涵蓋不同的職業(yè)群體及統(tǒng)一的條款和條件，一個國家的工作評價方案（當?shù)卣叭魏蝹€別雇主和工會可以選擇他們的工作評價方案）和一個被稱為“知識與技能框架”能力本位的職業(yè)框架。The arrangements that AfC replaced, with many separate agreements for different groups of staff, were judged ‘a(chǎn) mess’(King’s Fund, 2007: vi).Published research, however, indicates major shortfalls on central government expectations for health service transformation as a result of this part, the issues uncovered relate to efficiency or valueformoney returns on the financial investments that have been ，而這些被稱為“一塌糊涂”單獨協(xié)定是為了員工中不同群體（國王基金，2007：vi）。然而，公共的研究表明中央政府的主要不足在于對衛(wèi)生服務轉(zhuǎn)變成這個協(xié)議的結(jié)果預期不足。The problems are, however, also more qualitative in the sense that a ‘rushed implementation...failure to embed personal development plans for all staff[and] absence of an independent robust evaluation of the impact’ of the programme necessitated an inquiry ‘to address issues of accountability and to enable lessons to be learned’(King’s Fund, 2007: vii).然而，問題也比較定性在這個匆忙實施并不影響所有員工的個人發(fā)展計劃。這個發(fā)展計劃缺少為解決問題而需要的一個獨立的查詢方案并能夠從中吸取教訓的影響的強烈評價。While significant pay increases(an average 10% for frontline professionals in the 3 years to 2007)were awarded to NHS employees under AfC, critics argue that there has been neither a productivity increase nor intended transformation in practice(King’s Fund, 2007).A recent evaluation of AfC by the NAO(2009)found that ‘staff were not working sufficiently differently from when they were on their old pay contracts and as a consequence staff initially received increased pay for doing their existing roles’(NAO, 2009: 7).雖然在AFC下NHS雇員被授予顯著的加薪（的前線專業(yè)人員在三年內(nèi)到2007年的平均10%），但批評者認為這里既沒有生產(chǎn)率的提高也不會導致改造實踐的提高（國王基金，2007）。國家審計署對AFC的一個最近評估發(fā)現(xiàn)：員工不能充分的工作有別于當他們處于舊有薪金合同并因初期做好現(xiàn)有角色獲得的提薪時。Most importantly, the NAO argued that there has been no improvement in productivity and there was no evidence that the 163。 billion in net savings over the first 5 years of the agreement promised to the Treasury had been achieved(NAO, 2009:7).Finally, a report from the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in June 2009 reported that the NHS pay bill for AfC staff had risen by % a year on average since 2004–2005 while productivity had fallen by % a year on average between 2001 and 2005(House of Commons, 2009: 3).最重要的是，審計署認為在生產(chǎn)率方面沒有提高，沒有證據(jù)表明第一個五年13億英鎊的凈儲蓄已經(jīng)完成對財政部的協(xié)議承諾。These criticisms are coupled with evidence that, despite the extra cost, the process has far from satisfied many staff NAO could find no evidence that job satisfaction had improved and there had been no reduction in the proportion of staff unhappy with their career progression or ，盡管會產(chǎn)生額外的費用，但這個進程對于許多工作人員來說已經(jīng)遠遠得不到滿足。審計署找不到任何工作滿意度得到改善的跡象，并且在員工比例減少的情況下并他們沒有在事業(yè)規(guī)劃或晉升上有什么不滿。Systemic performance management improvements, supported by the Knowledge and Skills Framework, have left much to be have plained that the current version of the Framework is inadequate on two counts: it is judged both cumbersome and costly to , the NAO report did ment that it is now easier for managers to estimate labour costs and manage ，系統(tǒng)性績效管理的改進有許多的不足之處。管理者抱怨說當前版本的框架存在兩方面的不足：它被認為是既繁瑣又高昂的實施。盡管如此，國家審計署的報告還是評論它現(xiàn)在更容易為管理者評估勞動成本和管理預算。There have also been improvements from the shift to the single pay and grading system in terms of pay NAO concluded, however, that AfC ‘cannot yet be shown to have enhanced value for money’, largely because the Department of Health did not put in place any robust method for measuring such improvements(NAO, 2009: 8).這也有從轉(zhuǎn)變到單一薪酬和薪酬管理方面的分級制度的改善。不過國家審計署得出結(jié)論：AFC還不能被證明在金錢方面具有更大的價值，這主要是因為衛(wèi)生部沒有在此提出任何為測量這種改進的方法（NAO，2009:8）。Despite these rather critical assessments, it might be argued that recent reviews have missed one of the major points of AfC – the avoidance of expensive equal pay cases through the introduction of a single, jobevaluated, grading even here, the benefit of AfC has been called into ，但它可能會爭辯說最近的評論已經(jīng)錯過了AFC的主要觀點之一——通過引入單一的、工作評估的分級結(jié)構(gòu)以避免昂貴的同工同酬案件。但即使在這里，AFC的利益也一直被質(zhì)疑。A recent employment tribunal case(Hartley et Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust et al.)argued that the agreement was innately lengthy judgement produced in 2009, however, found in favour of the importantly, the AfC job evaluation scheme was found to be a valid analytical scheme which satisfied the Equal Pay （Hartley 等人與諾亞比亞醫(yī)療保健NHS信托基金會等）認為該協(xié)議是固有的性別歧視。然而最重要的是，在2009年產(chǎn)生的冗長判決中受訪者發(fā)現(xiàn)，AFC的工作評估方案被認為對“同工同酬”法案來說是一個有效的分析性方案。This decision was important because, if the claimants had been successful, itwould have opened up the NHS to a potential 13,700 further equal pay cases which could have cost the NHS millions of pounds in back ，因為如果索賠人已成功，那將會讓NHS打開一個潛能到13700以上。這種平等薪酬的情況可能會在拖欠工資上花費NHS數(shù)以百萬英鎊。: end of the academic/support staff divide?The ‘Framework Agreement’, negotiated between the HE employers and the(then)seven unions over a 2year period in 2004, was the oute of a new negotiating machinery following the merger of funding arrangements for institutions and the creation of a single employers’body, the Universities and Colleges Employers Association(UCEA), for the whole sector in ：學術(shù)/支持員工分離的結(jié)果？在1994年為了整個行業(yè)這個框架協(xié)議——大學和學院雇主協(xié)會——是新的伴隨著機構(gòu)合并后的籌資安排和一個單一雇主創(chuàng)造體的談判機制的結(jié)果。HE的雇主和七個工會間的談判在2004年超過了一個長達兩年的時間。The establishment of a new sectorwide joint negotiating mittee – the Joint Negotiating Committee for HE Staffs(JNCHES)– in 2001