26th January 2013, 01:00 PM
I wasn't going to wade in on this one, but as a member of Council it probably does fall to me to clarify some things. There are issues of confidentiality though, and I am not going to betray anybody's confidences or say anything that would result in fewer DF members on Council than there are already!
The issue revolved around those mentioned by David earlier: that some people think the requirement of ROs to adhere to salary minima is on dodgy ground legally, and that the IfA may be leaving themselves open to legal challenges on the basis of price fixing etc. Other professional bodies do set salaries/prices in other ways, it may be that the IfA just has to be more circumspect about how they do it in future. The legal advice has been sought and will be discussed at the Council meeting on 30th (which is in London by the way, so don't bother protesting in Reading!). The Working Party discussed it last week but I am not going into details here.
The letter was signed by many RPHs, from units all over the country, of all sizes. There were a couple of notable, honourable exceptions, and I hope we can tell you who they are sometime soon, as not all employers are bad guys. Most are though, unfortunately. They have jumped on this 'legal problem' bandwagon in the hope of frightening Council into rejecting the whole concept of minima, to force their own political will upon Council. I find it disgraceful, undemocratic and intimidatory. That's what we are up against, and we have said as much in the last DF newletter.
I can't stop myself adding that if we had more DF members or sympathetic ears on Council we may not be in this mess at all- there are a few now, but maybe not enough to ensure the coup we need on 30th. Please feel free to stand next time,or to volunteer for DF duties- Gwyl (full time SPO job, 4 kids to support, Chiz (self-employed,1 kid to support) and myself (full time SPO job, 2 kids to support) could really do with the help quite frankly.
The issue revolved around those mentioned by David earlier: that some people think the requirement of ROs to adhere to salary minima is on dodgy ground legally, and that the IfA may be leaving themselves open to legal challenges on the basis of price fixing etc. Other professional bodies do set salaries/prices in other ways, it may be that the IfA just has to be more circumspect about how they do it in future. The legal advice has been sought and will be discussed at the Council meeting on 30th (which is in London by the way, so don't bother protesting in Reading!). The Working Party discussed it last week but I am not going into details here.
The letter was signed by many RPHs, from units all over the country, of all sizes. There were a couple of notable, honourable exceptions, and I hope we can tell you who they are sometime soon, as not all employers are bad guys. Most are though, unfortunately. They have jumped on this 'legal problem' bandwagon in the hope of frightening Council into rejecting the whole concept of minima, to force their own political will upon Council. I find it disgraceful, undemocratic and intimidatory. That's what we are up against, and we have said as much in the last DF newletter.
I can't stop myself adding that if we had more DF members or sympathetic ears on Council we may not be in this mess at all- there are a few now, but maybe not enough to ensure the coup we need on 30th. Please feel free to stand next time,or to volunteer for DF duties- Gwyl (full time SPO job, 4 kids to support, Chiz (self-employed,1 kid to support) and myself (full time SPO job, 2 kids to support) could really do with the help quite frankly.