2009/4/29 Gavin Jamie <[log in to unmask]>:
> There is the fundamental assumption here that Carr-Hill is an equitable
> formula. There were several methodological issues in its production
> which render it not so (although these were mostly acknowledged by the
> Prof at the time). These mostly stemmed from too small a sample size of
> practices and the rather strange way of measuring work.
As I recall there was general outrage when the results of the
application of the Carr-Hill formula became known in 2004, with
several examples of inappropriate results coming to light. Pressure
was applied to delay the introduction of the new contract, so that the
Carr-Hill formula could be improved and made fit for purpose.
However, for political reasons the Government wished to implement the
Contract without delay. This allowed no time for improvement of the
formula and so the MPIG was applied instead.
Five years have now passed and no attempt has been made to improve the
formula as far as I know. My question is why the GPC thinks it
appropriate to revert to the unmodified Carr-Hill formula now when it
was considered totally unacceptable back in 2004.
Mike
--
Michael Leuty
Nottingham, UK
|