翻译对照稿由刀豆文库小编整理，希望给你工作、学习、生活带来方便，猜你可能喜欢“对照翻译”。
Consequent on the 2004 agreement, it was expected that negotiations would take place between authorities and unions to deliver ‘equal pay proofed structures’.At the time the report on equal pay blockages was released in November 2006(LGE, 2006b), only a third of authorities had implemented new ‘single status’ pay structures, a figure representing a quarter of the local government workforce.By 2009, this pattern had not changed very much.The slow progre has been attributed to two main blockages.因此在随后的2004年协议上，预计将在政府和工会间展开围绕着校对平等薪酬结构的谈判。当时对于薪酬平等障碍的报导被发布在2006年11月的LGE上，报导指出只有三分之一的当局实施了新的单一薪酬结构，而这指代表着四分之一的政府劳动力。这种模式直到2009年也没有太大的改变，进展缓慢，已被认定为它的两个主要障碍之一。
The first blockage has been with financing the agreement because of the high costs of providing back pay for those upgraded and future ‘pay protection’ iues for those down-graded as a result of the job evaluation exercises.A second major but related blockage has been the need for both employers and trade unions to mount defences against legal challenges from employees supported by ‘no win, no fee’ solicitors.第一个障碍因素与为支付拖欠工资而导致的高成本经济协议相关，这些高成本来源于一些升级问题和为因工作评估而导致下调的将来支付保护问题。第二个利益攸关的主要障碍已经成为对于雇主和工会来说都需要用来防御那些来自受不赢就不收费的律师支持的雇员的法律挑战。
The major iue is that, under equal pay legislation, employees in England and Wales found to have been discriminated against in terms of their pay levels may be entitled to up to six years’ back pay as compensation.While this can be ameliorated financially by reaching agreement with trade unions through a collective agreement, the problem was that, encouraged by solicitors,employees were increasingly challenging such agreements.在同工同酬的法规下，英国和威尔士的雇员们发现其主要问题是在他们的薪酬水平下如果受到歧视将有权享有长达六年的拖欠工资作为补偿。虽然通过一次集体协议与工会达成协议可以减轻财政，但问题是这样的协议会导致员工在律师的鼓励下越来越具有挑战性。
The pay bill expense(reportedly involving a permanent increase of up to 5% to achieve equality-proofed structures)had to be dealt with during 2007–2008, the final year of the 2004 settlement.This included combined back pay and implementation costs estimated at almost £3 billion.付账单费用（据报道，一个长久增长达到5%从而实现相对公平的结构）不得不在2007-2008年2004个结算的最后一年处理掉。这包括联合欠薪和实施费用总共估计在30亿英镑左右。
Adding to the unplanned financial burden, the central government department of HM Revenue and Customs told councils that employees and employers should expect to meet tax and National Insurance charges on any back pay.LGE estimated that this latter aspect would raise settlement costs by more than a quarter.加上考虑到计划外的财政负担，中央税务和海关部门的负责人告诉议会：雇员和雇主应该预料到支付在任何欠薪上的税和国家保险费用。LGE估计这后一方面的原因可能会提高结算费用的四分之一以上。
There was also a risk that ambitions to outsource certain services to secure
efficiency gains would also be impeded – in relation to staff transferred under the Transfer of Employment(Protection of Employment)regulations – if employers inheriting these staff were unwilling to accept the transferred liabilities.这里也有一个风险就是如果为了确保收益效率而外包某些服务那么自己的野心也会受阻，比如在涉及就业（就业保护）条例下转移员工那么雇主就不得不继承这些不愿接受转让责任的员工。
Employment Tribunal decisions have also undermined the collective bargaining proce,whereby the trade unions find themselves with no alternative but to pursue deals regarded as unaffordable by the employers.Local government employers are therefore unable to enter negotiations.就业法庭的决定也削弱了集体议价过程，工会发现自己除了被雇主视为由于负担不起而寻求交易之外别无选择。因此地方政府雇主未能进入谈判。
While the details of succeful, individual no-win-no-fee claims are case-specific,unions feel obliged to seek the maximum poible back pay consequent on these decisions and/or legal counsel’s opinions.Beyond employers, legal challenges are targeting unions on the ground that they have not paid sufficient attention to advancing the interests of affected members.虽然成功的详情，个别的不赢就不收费的要求是特殊情况，工会觉得有义务根据他们自己和/或法律顾问的决定来寻求最大可能的返薪。除了雇主外，由于雇主没有对受影响成员的利益给予足够的重视，法律挑战的矛头也指向了工会。
The case of Allen and others versus GMB(Court of Appeal, 2008);whereby, the union was found to be legally liable for not obtaining full backdating for its female members, has made unions extremely wary of negotiating ‘deals’ with employers.Despite poible appeals,a litigious culture has developed, effectively creating a stalemate in the collective arena, despite the national agreement that prepared the ground for equality cases to be resolved during 2007.艾伦和其他与GMB相对的（上诉法院，2008），由于被发现对他们的女性成员没有取得全面回溯是有法律责任的，这使得工会非常谨慎的与雇主交易谈判。尽管上诉文化发展后可能上诉，但为了有效的在集体主义环境上建立一种态势，在2007年全国性的协议还是准备双方站在平等的地位解决这一问题。
The employers have called on central government to legislate to make collective settlements legally inviolate in subsequent claims to the courts(LGE, 2006b).This needs to be accompanied, they say, by greater flexibility in how local authorities’ resources may be used and the character of the tribunal system.A role for the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service(Acas)has been proposed in facilitating conciliation in pursuit of agreements made statutorily exempt from legal challenge.随后雇主在法庭上呼吁中央政府通过立法使集体定居点不可侵犯（LGE，2006b).他们说，这需要在怎样利用地方当局的资源和法庭系统的特点上伴随更大的灵活性。咨询调解和仲裁服务的一个作用是促成调解以追求法定协议而不是法律上的挑战。
LGE data tracking implementation of the grading and pay progreion arrangements, as of April 2007, indicates that, on one hand, authorities are taking advantage of the flexibility under the devolved regime to acknowledge local labour markets.In the upper half of the pay scale, for example, authorities in the south of England are placing jobs evaluated at a given level,under the NJC job evaluation scheme,on higher scale points than northern authorities.截至LGE四月的数据跟踪实施分级和支付进展安排表明，一方面当局在承认当地劳动力市场上采取发达政权下的灵活性优势。比如在NLC的评估方案下，在薪级表的上半部分，英格兰南部当局比北部当局更大规模的放置了给定水平的评估工作。
On the other hand, among the one quarter of authorities that report having completed pay reviews,half have opted for quite narrow pay bands, with around 70% opting to retain annual seniority-based incremental progreion within the scale for at least some workforce members.另一方面一半都选择比较窄的薪酬级别，在四分之一的当局报告已经完成的薪酬评论上，大约70%选择保留年度资历基础增量进程中至少包含有一些在职人员在内。
Shorter pay bands tend to be aociated with a minimal equal pay risk, something that appears uppermost in the minds of some three-quarters of LGE respondents.There is concern that these priorities risk development of a reward strategy for local government employees that is ‘incoherent or tend[ing] toward the lowest common denominator’(LGE, 2007: 2).These anxieties are not altogether different from those expreed regarding the modernisation concept voiced by Peters and Pierre(2000).较短的薪酬级别往往是风险最小的同工同酬，一些最重要的东西出现在四分之三的LGE受访者大脑中。这些优先为当地政府雇员薪酬战略的风险开发相干或倾向于最小公分母（LGE，2007:2）。这些忧虑不完全与Peters和Pierre（2000）所表达的现代化概念相同。
2.NHS: an agenda for change?
The NHS ‘Agenda for Change’(AfC), has been described as ‘one of the most complex and lengthy pay negotiations in the world’(Bevan et al., 2004: 8).The agreement, involving 17 trade unions, was finally reached in late 2004 and most staff had been aimilated to the new structures by March 2006.The AfC agreement covers all non-clinical staff4 in the NHS, around 35% of which are qualified nurses who account for some 40% of the pay bill(National Audit Office(NAO), 2009).2、NHS（英国的国家卫生事业局）:一个议程的改变？
NHS的“变更议程”（AFC），已被描述为“一个世界上最复杂、最漫长的薪酬谈判。”（Bevan等，2004:8）涉及17个工会的协议终于在2004年年底达成，并且大部分员工已经在2006年3月被新的机构所接纳。变更议程的协议涵盖了所有在NHS里非临床的人员，其中占用40%账单的是大约总人数35%的合格护士（国家审计署（NAO),2009).The key principle behind the agreement was ‘to introduce a system that would pay staff on a consistent basis by reference to the work they do and the skills and knowledge they apply’(NAO, 2009: 4).The rationale ‘was not just to pay staff more, but to secure changes in working patterns and productivity that would translate into benefits for patients’(King’s Fund, 2007: vi).协议背后的关键原则是“引进一个可以基于员工所完成的工作及所提供的技能和知识来支付员工工资的系统（国家审计署 2009,4）。理由是“并不只是为了付给员工的更多，而是为了确保在工作模式和生产力的改变下能变得对病人有好处”（国王基金，2007：vi）
The Department of Health’s stated aims were to ‘enable staff to give their best for patients,working in new ways and breaking down traditional barriers;pay fairly and equitably for work done, with career progreion based on responsibility,competence and satisfactory performance;and simplify and modernise conditions of service, with national core conditions and considerable local flexibility’(cited in NAO, 2009: 4–5).卫生部门表示其目的是“让员工用新的、打破传统壁垒的工作方法将自己最好的一面展示给病人；基于称职和令人满意的表现基础上的公平公正的工作薪酬和事业发展；在国家的核心条件和相当的地域灵活性基础上简单化和现代化条件的服务。”（引国家审计署，2009:4-5）
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 competency-based career framework known as the ‘Knowledge and Skills Framework’.改革的范围包括“简化”国家支付以涵盖不同的职业群体及统一的条款和条件，一个国家的工作评价方案（当地政府及任何个别雇主和工会可以选择他们的工作评价方案）和一个被称为“知识与技能框架”能力本位的职业框架。
The arrangements that AfC replaced, with many separate agreements for different groups of staff, were judged ‘a me’(King’s Fund, 2007: vi).Published research, however, indicates major shortfalls on central government expectations for health service transformation as a result of this agreement.In part, the iues uncovered relate to efficiency or value-for-money returns on the financial investments that have been made.这个协议被AFC的许多单独协定所代替，而这些被称为“一塌糊涂”单独协定是为了员工中不同群体（国王基金，2007：vi）。然而，公共的研究表明中央政府的主要不足在于对卫生服务转变成这个协议的结果预期不足。
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 neceitated an inquiry ‘to addre iues of accountability and to enable leons to be learned’(King’s Fund, 2007: vii).然而，问题也比较定性在这个匆忙实施并不影响所有员工的个人发展计划。这个发展计划缺少为解决问题而需要的一个独立的查询方案并能够从中吸取教训的影响的强烈评价。
While significant pay increases(an average 10% for frontline profeionals 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).虽然在AFC下NHS雇员被授予显著的加薪（的前线专业人员在三年内到2007年的平均10%），但批评者认为这里既没有生产率的提高也不会导致改造实践的提高（国王基金，2007）。国家审计署对AFC的一个最近评估发现：员工不能充分的工作有别于当他们处于旧有薪金合同并因初期做好现有角色获得的提薪时。Most importantly, the NAO argued that there has been no improvement in productivity and there was no evidence that the £1.3 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 5.2% a year on average since 2004–2005 while productivity had fallen by 2.5% a year on average between 2001 and 2005(House of Commons, 2009: 3).最重要的是，审计署认为在生产率方面没有提高，没有证据表明第一个五年13亿英镑的净储蓄已经完成对财政部的协议承诺。
These criticisms are coupled with evidence that, despite the extra cost, the proce has far from satisfied many staff members.The 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 progreion or promotion.这些批评进一步表明，尽管会产生额外的费用，但这个进程对于许多工作人员来说已经远远得不到满足。审计署找不到任何工作满意度得到改善的迹象，并且在员工比例减少的情况下并他们没有在事业规划或晋升上有什么不满。
Systemic performance management improvements, supported by the Knowledge and Skills Framework, have left much to be desired.Managers have complained that the current version of the Framework is inadequate on two counts: it is judged both cumbersome and costly to implement.Nonethele, the NAO report did comment that it is now easier for managers to estimate labour costs and manage budgets.通过知识和技能框架的支持，系统性绩效管理的改进有许多的不足之处。管理者抱怨说当前版本的框架存在两方面的不足：它被认为是既繁琐又高昂的实施。尽管如此，国家审计署的报告还是评论它现在更容易为管理者评估劳动成本和管理预算。
There have also been improvements from the shift to the single pay and grading system in terms of pay administration.The 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).这也有从转变到单一薪酬和薪酬管理方面的分级制度的改善。不过国家审计署得出结论：AFC还不能被证明在金钱方面具有更大的价值，这主要是因为卫生部没有在此提出任何为测量这种改进的方法（NAO，2009:8）。
Despite these rather critical aements, it might be argued that recent reviews have mied one of the major points of AfC – the avoidance of expensive equal pay cases through the introduction of a single, job-evaluated, grading structure.But even here, the benefit of AfC has been called into question.尽管这些不是关键的评估，但它可能会争辩说最近的评论已经错过了AFC的主要观点之一——通过引入单一的、工作评估的分级结构以避免昂贵的同工同酬案件。但即使在这里，AFC的利益也一直被质疑。
A recent employment tribunal case(Hartley et al.versus Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust et al.)argued that the agreement was innately sexist.The lengthy judgement produced in 2009, however, found in favour of the respondents.Most importantly, the AfC job evaluation scheme was found to be a valid analytical scheme which satisfied the Equal Pay Act.一个近期的就业法庭案件（Hartley 等人与诺亚比亚医疗保健NHS信托基金会等）认为该协议是固有的性别歧视。然而最重要的是，在2009年产生的冗长判决中受访者发现，AFC的工作评估方案被认为对“同工同酬”法案来说是一个有效的分析性方案。
This decision was important because, if the claimants had been succeful, it
would 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 pay.这一决定是重要的，因为如果索赔人已成功，那将会让NHS打开一个潜能到13700以上。这种平等薪酬的情况可能会在拖欠工资上花费NHS数以百万英镑。
3.HE: end of the academic/support staff divide?
The ‘Framework Agreement’, negotiated between the HE employers and the(then)seven unions over a 2-year period in 2004, was the outcome 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 Aociation(UCEA), for the whole sector in 1994.HE：学术/支持员工分离的结果？
在1994年为了整个行业这个框架协议——大学和学院雇主协会——是新的伴随着机构合并后的筹资安排和一个单一雇主创造体的谈判机制的结果。HE的雇主和七个工会间的谈判在2004年超过了一个长达两年的时间。
The establishment of a new sector-wide joint negotiating committee – the Joint Negotiating Committee for HE Staffs(JNCHES)– in 2001 included the objective to create a new single pay spine for all staff below the level of Profeor or equivalent.在2001年建立一个新的全部门谈判委员会——为其职员而联合的谈判委员会——包括目标为处于在教授或相当水平下的所有员工建立一个新的单一支付脊柱。
UCEA described the Framework Agreement as ‘the largest human resources initiative ever undertaken in the sector’, providing a framework ‘to modernise pay arrangements with the specific aim of promoting equality, transparency and harmonisation to ensure equal pay is delivered for work of equal value’(UCEA, 2008: 3).UCEA描述这个框架协议为“在部门内实施的最大人力资源倡议”，通过促进平等的特殊目标为现代化的支付安排提供一个透明度和谐和的为确保同工同酬的交付同等价值的工作（UCEA,2008:3)。
The agreement was only reached after lengthy negotiations and, while the support staff unions(Amicus, GMB, T & G and Unison)and the National Aociation of Teachers in Further and Higher Education(now UCU)signed up to the agreement in 2003, the Educational Institute of Scotland only signed in January 2004 after a separate agreement on pay protection for existing academic staff.协议只有经过漫长的谈判达到，最终员工工会和继续教育和高等教育中的全国教师协会在2003年签署协议，苏格兰教育研究所于2004年1月签署了一份旨在为现有教学人员提供薪酬保护单独的协议。
The Aociation of University Teachers(now UCU), however, declared a dispute over the proposed agreement and only finally signed the agreement in March 2004 after agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding that gave additional guarantees of pay protection for academic staff under any future arrangements.然而，大学教师协会宣布了对该协议一个的争论和最终在2004年3月签署该协议，然而签署协议的前提是达成一个无论在任何未来协议下都给予额外的教学人员提供薪酬保护保障的谅解备忘录。
