Pay ballot result

[Dytter]

Anyone heard the result??

On days off so will be the last to hear.

[Data Dad]

I believe the result is due to be announced at noon, monday 2nd September

[Findo]

Majority in favour. Details shortly.

[ZIP250]

No Surprise there then. Powder still dry and untested,

Z:mad: :mad: :mad:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I can't remember exactly... I think it's something just over 60% for and just under 40% against.

[DangerousD]

On leave and knew the result was supposed to be announced at 2.00 this afternoon, what better place to find the result than on the union's web site............ but no - nothing as usual.

I thought a website was for communication - I must be wrong. Better getting the news off the rumour mill that is these pages. Thanks guys for keeping me updated.

Shame about the result, perhaps we should have taken a leaf out of those nice firemen chaps who believe they're worth 40% extra to get them back on an even footing after 25 years of below average increases (sound familiar?):D

[Roger Dodge]

The result was 60% in favour of the deal!!

Ho Hum, I'm off to see the Bank Manager for another loan:eek: :rolleyes:

[055166k]

No difficulty getting result. Number on back of membership card. 80%voted//966[62.9%]FOR,570[37.1%]AGAINST. I think.

[Liobian]

Well, friends - and I mean this most sincerely - where the h**l were the FOUR HUNDRED or so who could not be bothered to return their ballot papers ???? Don't complain that your union does nothing for you - if you're not prepared to support it or take an interest in such a ballot. I, for one, thank the team who managed to get us the improved figure on the table.
Cheers guys !!

[120.4]

An acceptable start in the revaluing of the workforce I'd say and thank you to the union team who managed to get the ball rolling. The next round, beginning late next year, needs to keep it rolling. We must be equally assertive so that by 2005 we are valued correctly.

Point 4
:)

[Undercover]

Don't wish to rain on the parade of the ATCOs among you who are now looking forward to a bit of a rise and some back-pay...

Since the engineers and PCS are still in dispute with management, have yet to come to a deal and the TU side still have a unanimity agreement... I don't imagine you'll be getting the rise you voted in favour of until the other parties are resolved and accepted via ballot too.

So now it seems the roles are reversed... ;)

[foo fighting]

undercover,

thought somehow that you all said a big yes back in the midst of times

[Greebson]

I'm glad we're all happy and don't have to go on strike now we've got an extra 0.5% this year. Congratulations to all those who voted yes; those extra months waiting for an extra tenner a week (before tax) have been really worth it. We really stuck it to 'em.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Loki]

B*gg*r!

[mainecoon]

bit of a strange attitude zero

pcs and the eng's yes vote was on the basis that there was no more money in the pot

tere obviously was as we atco's got more

it therefore made thier votes accepting the original deal null and void

so if they don't get an acceptable offer and vote no then the previous post is correct
back to square one remember all branches have to vote yes we are still one union i think you may be getting ahead of yourself:rolleyes:

[rickity]

I hear that the extra money that now has to be found to fund the pay rise will come from existing budgets. Now if the ATCOS were to give up all that paper and pens used on flight strips it might be affordable!!

[Undercover]

The fact is PCS and Engineers were right to believe there was no more money in the pot... There isn't!! They don't have the money to pay for the increased ATCO offer. Simple as that.

As mentioned they have said it will be funded from existing budgets. What this really means is that they will fund it by cutting costs/jobs/conditions.

The PCS and Engineers ballots were set aside as soon as an offer on basic pay was made to ATCOs. So we all have to be balloted again, once management give us an equally acceptable offer. So don't hold your breath.


It always pays to read the small print....

[BillyBoy]

They don't have the money to pay for the increased ATCO offer. Simple as that.
Well perhaps had management been more economical with the cash in the past this would not be the case!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Spaced Vortex]

I think it seriously dumb to try and force a 'full value' pay rise when the company is struggling. It's no good whining about ppp. We have got it and the trick is to use it to our advantage.

The time to wield 'the big stick' is in two or three years time when traffic growth is booming across the pond ('cause that's where the big bucks come from) and every one is flush with cash.

As ATCO's we have to face two realities:

A/ If we want to have a bigger slice of the pie we have to ditch the idea of unanimity with other unions. I am not advocating this; I think its a reprehensible thing, but I bet we get told or even offered this by management at some time in the near future. So do we just look after ourselves, or be the raft to which grades cling?

B/ The economic rose tinted glasses that most units have been using to view the world with have gone for ever, and the way management have run 'real' contracts like London City and Cardiff will be the way every unit will be faced with. The unlimited en-route pot is over. Us in Airports will still be the poor relations, despite the fact that we are the ones currently keeping the ship afloat.

The future is not Orange (let alone rosy) any more. Get used to it Big Boys; the Perch and Minnow society has been used to this for years and now it's everyone elses turn to join.

Does anyone really think it would be better State run? You ask any Airport employee. They know what's been happening to them over a period of years. Now it's the turn for en-route.

[Undercover]

Billy Boy - a small point... but still...

Before PPP this company was is an extrememly healthy financial state. All our creditors were paid well within time and the government got a nice little return from the profits of a "non profit making company"

In one day you land that company with £800m of fresh new debt and there's not really any way of avoiding a struggle. So in that sense I don't think management can be blamed for mis-managing the finances... although they CAN be blamed for rolling out the red carpet to the government and trying to convince us all it really was a good idea!! :mad:

[Nogbad the Bad]

Nice chip on your shoulder there, Spaced Vortex........

......why not try working for a living at an area unit that is busier than YOU could ever imagine ?

Or is it that you much prefer to live where you do......housing affordable ?? Nice countryside ??

Hmmmmmmmmmmm...........THINK next time before you post a nasty, malicious anti-area post, eh ?

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[1261]

I don't think that was a "nasty, malicious, anti-area post".

It is a statement of fact to say that the airports division (aka NSL) has been operating under some considerable commercial pressure for years.

Our union has been busy telling us that our pay should not depend on how busy we are, n'est pas?

I too live up here because it beats the hell out of sitting at a standstill on the M25! And yes, it's reasonably quiet - I can recommend it to anyone. But let's not end up slagging each other off on here; perhaps SV's post was a little terse (I'm thinking of that final comment :) ) but what they're saying ain't too far from the truth from where I'm sitting!

[Cuddles]

They can't work out where they're going to get the extra money from.

I can.

The money that they ought to be paying into our pension fund.:mad:

10% for everyone in CAAPS.:mad:

There we go. Sorted.:mad:

I'm wasted up here.:mad:

[Findo]

Vortex -

The time to wield 'the big stick' is in two or three years time when traffic growth is booming across the pond ('cause that's where the big bucks come from) and every one is flush with cash.

One small problem. We have an Economic Regulator who simply won't allow NATS to be "flush with cash". Their whole job is to drive down NATS charges. The more profit we make the less we will charge will be the mantra from ERG. NATS will simply not be allowed to pay lots of extra cash to the staff and add it on to the charges - that was the whole point of this PPP nonsense.

You say there is no point in bleating. Well while the Government are major shareholders there is every point in bleating. The public, through HM Government, still own the largest part of NATS. Your MP still has a say and so do the Ministers.

[Spaced Vortex]

Thank you both Nog and 1261. You both illustrate the point quite nicely.

Hmmmmm. A chip on my shoulder? Lets see I accept a pay deal which our employer demonstrably, cannot afford. I see what others have had to face and don't think it right. I don't like how others with less muscle get picked on for the benefit of management. OK Nog you gotta be right. After all I am not one of the illustrious exalted working in a fabulous edifice. Nice fish pond! I am not the one who is disgusted that everyone does not want to rush out the door shouting 'death to all managers'. Sorry, was that your chip or mine?

The some guys n' gals seem to think that the moment anyone questions their view of the world that its Area Bashing. Why is it some of you have no idea what goes on anywhere else? Or if you know, you could not give a toss. The bigger units within Airports have taken a big jolt over the past few years, and as for the small ones; well, they have taken a right kicking! When you warn the others what might happen to them, they think its personal and we all hate area.

NOT SO.

I am not naive enough to think that NATS and the government would spend seriously large sums of money on a nice new ATC toy without expectation of pay back in the form of higher through put and lower cost. They thought they would do this by (amongst other things) getting rid of assistants. Crash and burn! They thought they could handle much higher traffic levels with the same (or less) ATCO's. Crash and burn! They thought they had enough of everything, including income which was guaranteed. Crash and burn! Someone has to pay the bills and Airports is well squeezed.

I'm not surprised that there is a sharp intake of breath when I suggest, "it will happen to you". It's what happens when you take your head out of the sand for the first time.

I'm not surprised you want to go back to working 1 hour on and 1 off. I'd like to go back to gash days off and 4 to 5 hour Day shifts. I'd like to go back to a time when I could book leave just about when ever I wanted it because staff levels allowed it. I'd like to only work 3/4 of only one night shift, plus a shed load of other working practices that I can only dream of and never ever had a sniff of.

I suspect this is a common view held by many ATCO's. LATCC had all sorts of good things going for it that other units never had, but I also think you earned it. However, the move to NERC was always going to be the opportunity to take up much of this 'slack'. Management signalled this many times in the past. Many of your colleagues knew it was coming Nog, and September 11 just accelerated this process.

Where you screwed up was using the pay vote to demonstrate your frustration and expecting the rest of us to be 100% behind you. It aint going to work. Nor should it. If you want to take management to task by being honest and up front you would probably get a lot of support from elsewhere. But using pay as a vehicle was doomed. And it's really ludicrous to think that it would never happen had the regime stayed the same. Maybe you are correct, and I am wrong, but that shinny toy still has to be paid for, in more ways than one. Shame it does not work properly!

There is a view that LATTC and Swanick ATCO's are only interested in Gold. Perish that thought! When I hear talk of compulsory postings to make up the numbers and reducing pay levels at some units because they are so worthless, I laugh, and I am not the only one. Its a measure of how far some of you are disconnected. When you accept this, there is a chance we can get together and take on management and make them pay. They've had the company cars, inflated salaries and much better T & C on the back of the rest of us for far too long. There would be something in it for us as well as you. But while you persist in ignoring what has happened to the rest of us and claim a God Given Right to greatness, you will find support outside very hard to come by. Sympathy: maybe. Support? Don't be daft! Proof: a 2 to 1 acceptance.

The stunned horror of some of the correspondents to these forums that anyone could possibly disagree with the God Given Right principle, says it all.

Are you so hard done buy? I can name 5 Airports that have depended on overtime for may years to keep running. Are they going to get £500 a shift for future overtime? Definitely not! Yet suddenly there is a crisis en-route and lookey here! Why are you surprised when we then reject the road to a strike? So you can have even more, more, more, at our expense? Go on Nog, I've put the toys back in to your wonderful pram, and now it's 'thrown time' again.

Just don't expect a reply, unless you wish to be constructive.

Findo: Yes a fair point, but is this all it appears? I think not.

First the ERG formula restricts NATS to RPI -2 for a fixed period (I think 5 years but I may be wrong) Within this period if NATS makes more money then there is no further adjustment) Should the RPI -2 be too easy to make, then you would expect the following formula to be tighter still. So in a weird way, if NATS make too much money the will be glad to give some more to us so the books don't look to good!

Second, at a pre PPI staff brief an LAG rep said, quote, "even with the RPI formula we should have no difficulty making a shed load of money, so there's nothing to worry about!" Sept. 11th has obviously delayed this happy state of affairs. I accept that the whole idea depends upon Swanwick being able to deliver the traffic levels promised by management. I have my doubts they can deliver the required levels within a 1 or 2 year time scale and if they cannot do so we are all in serious trouble.

Finally, If you are correct then we all have a very bleak future to look forward to with regards to pay. The way the company caved in to the sectional pay claim suggests otherwise. But I accept I could be well wide of the mark. And we have all heard 'Jam tomorrow' many times before.

As for the governmet why listen now? This is a continued embarasment they want rid off. And my MP helped set this all up, so do you think he is going to admit being wrong? Do me a favour.

[Undercover]

Cuddles...

Would be nice to think the savings from the pensions holiday were being stashed away for a rainy day and could be dished out in the pay rise... but I'm afraid that money - like all the rest is used every month to keep the wolves from the door!!

As one great sporting commentator used to put it...

"What a strammash!"

[nats]

Vortex,
To pick up on one of your themes,airport staff doing overtime.That has never been a compulsory part of your working conditions,and in fact one of the reasons that LATCC as it was got a whack for doing O/T for the NERC trainiing,was that staff there folded their arms and said that they would not attend for the 'normal' rates.The more you do O/T the more management will use it as a tool to cover up 'real' staff shortages.It really is a bit rich to have a dig at area ,whilst claiming that airfields are worse off and then add in that O/T is a norm at some of these very units.
Is it only now when enhanced rates have been negotiated we all hear of how badly done by you are,and where does it state that airfields will not be entitled to them?there is a crisis off staffing at LACC,and I suspect the price for solving it has higher to go.
Your views on alleged practices at area units are out of date.

[jocko0102]

Spaced Vortex.

I tnink you may be missing the point that for a lot of controllers this was not just about pay.We were wanting to use this opportunity to stick it to management/government and fight back.
But we have well and truely blown our chances now.
If you believe that our union(prospect) will be hard nosed and fight all the way for us in a year or two then you live on another planet.
I do however think that the incentives were heavily weighted to NERC and please correct me if im wrong but i wonder how many saw short term monetary gain over long term benefits.

[Cuddles]

Undercover,

So, what happens if the pensions administrators recommend that payments are resumed?


Deep chit indeed

[Spaced Vortex]

OK! Very Constructive comments for which I thank you all.:D :D

The working practices I mentioned are out of date; my point is that some of the comments by others in these forums would appear to expect these to return when things are 'sorted out'. I don't think they will. I also get the idea that, whilst many of you deplore the current crisis because of its effects on our customers and (more importantly) safety levels, I have also heard it said, 'keep the flow control. I want my EG!' And it was seriously said! I know its a minority view, but I'll be b*gg*rd if I'll support that.

nats: Whilst what you say is true: many ATCO's did use the pay vote as a vehicle for expressing their feelings about other issues, you are the one that is missing the point. This was a PAY vote. I voted for a PAY award. I am not the only one to feel this way. I repeat: if the union were to come to me and ask for a vote on these other issues, I would be very happy to give NATS and the Government the kick in the ba**s they thoroughly deserve. They have lied to everyone and should be held accountable.

The Airline Group deserve the same because they are still employing those managers who said things like, 'We have adequate staffing levels'.

On the overtime issue: Let me clarify. Joko's point is balanced and well made, and what nats says is true. Overtime is voluntary. However, the union has, until now stated, 'we will not support you if you do overtime. You must not do it!'. Personally I do not partake. Then suddenly the 'NO, NO, NO Overtime' changes overnight because its en-route that needs it and the union does a 180. But is it for all of us? Oh no! "Designated Units" is the term you are looking for in the small print. At the moment the only unit I know of that's designated is Swanwick. Maybe there are others; I do know that my unit aint not one of them. Of my immediate colleagues, we all saw that in the proposed deal and said 'NERC only'. Are you then surprised that many of us take a cynical view about a great divide?

Whilst we are not contractually compelled to do overtime, I am glad that some ATCO's do so because I and my work mates would regularly have to face positions closed and even solo working. This is probably no fear for the big units. Why, well it's a lot easier for the big units to close a position where you normally operate 4, 5 or 6 or more and the capacity cut is 25%, 20% or less. Try doing the same when you close one of 2 or three positions. Different ball game. And the managers at smaller units are all grasping for that GM's post and go ape at the thought of Flow Control because they cannot 'control' their staff. It's career threatening. So for those who file 1261's and overloads the punishment postings, permanent day shifts follow. None of this should happen but it does so the doing or not doing is a fine call. What should happen is we say 'NO' and watch the system fail but that takes more guts than I've got, and I don't see a rush to martyrdom.

I have no intention of walking out of the door just so that someone, somewhere, gets an even bigger slice of the cake at my expense. I bet this is a common view of ATCO's in Airports both large and small. A 60/40 vote does support this hypothesis although it's not as simple as this. But unless the union and those of you working at Swanwick and TU address the issues that concern Airports et al., don't be surprised when they fail to support you in return.

End of Moan. No more to follow!
:(

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Whilst we are not contractually compelled to do overtime, I am glad that some ATCO's do so >>

I've read this thread with interest but have to say that the above statement is the most lunatic yet. ATCOs should NEVER EVER work overtime. It's no use bleating about being overworked and then agreeing to work more! Flight safety is of paramount importance and there is no question that many ATCOs are seriously overworked. Overtime might look like an easy way to make extra cash at a quiet airfield but at the larger units, no way Jose.

[1261]

Thing is HD, we don't actually get overtime per se. All that happens is they buy a day's leave off you. For me (after Gordon Brown's had his slice) it comes in at around £63; hardly worth making a mess of your leave for - so I too generally refuse to do any "overtime". An easy way to make cash it is not; generally only a couple of days a year will come your way (if you're interested).

I think the figure mentioned for AVAs at Swanwick was £500 per day. We have been told categorically that this will not apply to us (nor I suspect at any airports).

[All Systems Go]

Hi everyone.

not sure if its widely known within these circles but the current pay deal has hit yet another stumbling block. As I understand it the ATCO branch of no-Prospect voted yes to the 2% extra year spine point thingy. But certainly the Engineers threw our toys out the pram. Not sure about the ATSAs side. Well, yesterday was crunch day and our friends the Managment offered ATSS an extra 2% and that it - effective December 2003, the very end of the current pay deal. Not parity with the ATCO branch as was asked for. So on paper thats an 8-odd % pay rise for ATSS branch - but you only get 1 months worth of 8odd % in this current pay deal. So my friends the ATSS branch has grown a spine and has said no to this current offer. So the management have yet another week to make a better offer, otherwise us little Engineers are voted on what action to take next. What does this mean? This means that there will be no payments of any kind at present under this pay deal - i.e. the ATCOs don't get their additional attendance bungs and the like. Just thought you lot might like to know. Discuss please and tell me what the current thoughts of all concerned is.

[eyeinthesky]

Whilst I will probably be attacked because I am on the 'easy' side of the fence now, I must say I think that the PCS/ATCE approach to this pay round has really only got itself to blame for the present mess.

If the union are not happy with Pay Offer No.1 then they should not recommend and you shouldn't vote for acceptance of it in the first place. It is no good (and probably unenforceable in employment law?) to say that 'We'll accept that, but if the ATCOs get something better we want that, too'. Surely all the issues regarding job security etc are just as true now as they were then. So what makes you think that you are now in a strong enough position to take on Management in a fight for a further increase?

If your union was not prepared to stand up for what it believed in at the beginning and support the ATCOs in their negotiations, what makes you think they will do so now and, more importantly, what do you think the chances are of the ATCOs supporting you now?

My recommendation is to accept the increased offer (which is more than you voted for) and count yourselves lucky for all the reasons expounded by others in the discussions leading up to the vote on the ATCOs pay round.

I'm sorry if this sounds divisive and against the 'Together we stand, divided we fall' sentiment that has habitually run in this argument, but the decision to go it alone was taken by PCS and the Prospect Engineers in the first round. There were strong signals then that the ATCOs would reject the offer but you were advised to ignore that and accept. I'm afraid your union has made your bed, and now they have to persuade you to lie in it!

I am most certainly NOT in favour of driving a wedge between ATSAs, ATCEs and ATCOs, but I'm afraid the political games that PCS, particularly, have been playing this year have done that most effectively. They are now reaping the rewards.:(

[All Systems Go]

So youwant the Engineers to vote yes so you can have your extra little payments now? Well we expected that. We voted yes in the first round. Fair enough. But the managers of our fair company decided they'd try and be clever ******s and play one lot off against another - and its worked. We don't want support from ATCOs, mainly cos we know we're not gonna get it. You lot made it perfectly clear over many posts in here that your all gods and everyone else is the scum that you walk over. Maybe a little strong, but from my point of view your post Eye is typical of what we expected. You've got what you want now sod everyone else. Well it doesn't work that way. As we are all still in the SAME union, not a different union, and as you originally stopped the pay deal from happening, how can you complain that you are now stopped from having your bungs? In an ideal world ATCEs and ATSAs would get the same pay rise as the ATCOs. That is, after all, what we wanted. We don;t want equal pay (well, we do, but we'd never get it...), all we want is parity of pay increase to reflect the hard work we do in supporting the core business, as well as the new business that is starting to make a little cash. So you can say all you want that we should just shut up, and it will probabbly transpire that we will cos of the spineless union we have, but at the moment you're just gonna have to sit back and get used to someone else being in the driving seat for a change.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-ATCO. I'm anti people getting above their station. If the Systems Engineers weren't sat in Systems control, or the infrastructure boys at Heathrow and Gatwick weren't controlling the networks, or the day teams supporting all of us were not in the building, how much confidence would you have in the system to sit at your sector and work as hard as you always do? What happens when you get your first phantom ring? I suggest you won't be overly happy. So just remember that the little lowly Engineers have a very large part to play in the company. Remember that next time you tell us to accept a bigger pay rise for you.

[eyeinthesky]

ASG: No need for all the vitriol!

I was very careful in my post NOT to use the arguments you suggest such as: ' vote yes so you can have your extra little payments now?'. Or: 'You've got what you want now sod everyone else.'

My sympathies lie with you, because I feel you have been royally stitched up by your union, and I'm not overly impressed by what they've done for us either. I voted NO in the latest round, but have to abide by the will of the majority of those who could actually be bothered to vote (:mad: but that's another issue!). My point was that I really think that all the reasons used earlier which, we were told, made it impossible for ATSAs and ATCEs to vote no the first time are unchanged now. The only difference is that the ATCOs have managed to squeeze some more money out of NATS, and naturally you want some, too. However, the majority vote of your colleagues was in favour of the first offer, and I think that now to renege on that and ask for more is a pretty indefensible position in employment law.

I for one never ran down the importance of the work that others do to support the ATCOs, so I take offence at your suggestion that I do. To put it simply: I feel for you in your position as individuals, but this whole mess is due to the way your branch of the union have handled it. Good luck in trying to get out of it now, and I'm happy to wait for my money while you are doing it, but I wouldn't hold your breath. An extra 2% in Dec 2003 is 2% you didn't vote for the first time round (although like our 1.8% at the same time is I think ammunition which management will use against us in the 2004 pay round). It's not parity, but it's an improvement.

[Greebson]

ASG

You say management were clever ******s by dividing us all, they weren't, they lied and ATCE/ATSA union members were duped, ATCO union members weren't. You talk as if ATCOs have somehow betrayed you for doing initially what you are doing belatedly; we didn't. The ATCO branch of Prospect did not have a crystal ball to look into, we did not know you were going to be spineless, perhaps we will in the future. You say we won't, and are not wanted to, back you up; why should we, having read all the carps and winges over the past couple of months. I never read a single, "Well done to the ATCOs let's see if we can do the same.) It was more like, "Oh it's not fair, they've got a bigger pay rise than us, let's have an extremely long sulk and blame everything on ATCOs" At what point did YOU ever show us any support?
You don't get a donkey to like you by beating it with a stick, stop complaining and do what you have got to do.

[sector8dear]

Just to set the record straight, it was Prospect and its ATCO members who reneged on the originally agreed offer after Prospect originally recommended acceptance. NATS Management did not ask the Prospect ATCO Branch to reject the pay offer.........

This whole fxcxixg mess is caused by Prospect ATCOs trying to change their pay and conditions on the back of the annual pay round rather than as a separate working practises negotiation. Surely even an ATCO can grasp the point that the annual pay round is FOR ALL NATS EMPLOYEES not just ATCOs.

Could have been so simple................:mad: :mad: :mad:

[250 kts]

sector8.

A bigger load of B*****S I have not read on this forum.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[eyeinthesky]

Sector8:

Quote
Could have been so simple................
Unquote

Simply put: ATCOs didn't believe that the pay offer adequately rewarded the demands placed upon OPERATIONAL people and rejected it, against the advice of Prospect. That's called democratic voting, not sheep.

The other union and other branch members may have felt the same thing, but they didn't feel they could reject it for all the reasons put forward at the time.

The result is what you see today. No good whinging now.

It has nothing to do with WP negotiations, which are a separate challenge still ahead.

As I said to ASG, I wish them luck in their present quest, but I feel it is all one stage too late.:(

[Greebson]

Sector 8

Haven't heard from you for a while, thought you were away at learning to speak sense college, ahhh well we live in hope.

[Aunt Rimmer]

ASG - you really have a chip on your shoulder about ATCOs don't you? To recap, the first vote for ATCOs, ATCEs and ATSAs was carried out simultaneously - we are all given freewill at birth - to explain, that gives us the right to make our own decisions. ATCOs voted against the deal - (not against ATSAs and ATCEs) - if you are suggesting that we are guilty of some kind of treason, then I think you are living in the 1970s.

S8D - 'reneged on the originally agreed offer' .......? In the words of Miss Olive Actory of Chewing the Fat .... 'I can definitely smell *****'

It's not agreed until it's voted on ... other wise WHY DO WE HAVE A VOTE. Go and buy a dictionary - then learn to read it. :p

[Bev Bevan]

As I understand it... the 3 branches that comprises the Central trade union Side all agreed to recommend the offer. Somewhere between the CTUS meeting and the ATCO's BEC meeting there was a change of heart and they (the ATCOs) decided to reccommend a No vote.

Is that incorrect??

If not, then who can blame PCS and the ATCE/Prospect for going back and recommending a Yes???

The whole thing is a bloody mess, and the sooner that all three branches become one, in the same union, the better. But I guess the ATCO's wont have that.......

(Edited for ambiguous and generally ****e grammar)

[All Systems Go]

You've got to love a weak mind. Always reverting to personal insults cos they can't grasp what a proper discussion involves.

To recap Aunt: I don't have a chip on my shoulder about ATCOs, I don't hate ATCOs and I think most ATCOs are very decent human beings. Obviously there are exceptions, as there are in all walks of life. We seem to find most of the exceptions ppruning.

Now back to the story. Us OPERATIONAL people deserve a decent pay rise. To that I think we all agree. What seems to be the bigger issue here is that the rest of us want parity with the ATCOs after there was a little struggle for power in the lower ranks of the company. Fair enough. ATCOs win every time no doubt. What the problem is, all you blind ATCOs who can't see the ATSA past the end of their nose as they tilt their head upwards (not all ATCOs by any means - as I said 95% of them are very decent nice people) is the way the other ranks are VALUED (remember that word? Was thrown about a bit a while ago). The other OPERATIONAL grades in the company feel very undervauled. For a start we have a management system everyone knows only too well do not love us mere foot soldiers. Then we have the "gods" who look down on us. Do you know how much hard work the rest of the company actually puts in so Mr. and Mrs ATCO can come into work, sit down and chat to planes all day long? Sure you have pressure and a hard job, but so do the rest of us. Now imagine, if you will, our friends the Managers who want to reward the ATCOs for whinging (Fair play to you - it worked), and kick the rest of us in the short and fuzzies and make us all feel like not actually working hard any more. All we want is a little recognition for the job we do. Just like you. We may be sheep at times when it comes to saying yes, but don't go getting excited and upset when we say no once in a while. Let us have our fight and see what happens. You've had ours and you won.

[Undercover]

I'm afraid sector8 is right... sorry if that doesn't fit into the "ATCOs always right" world...

When the original deal was done, all TU parties INCLUDING ATCO branch agreed to recommend a "yes" vote to their members. The engineers and PCS stood by their word. The ATCO branch bottled it when their members obviously gave them an earful and went back on their word. That's the facts.

Now... the ATCOs then vote no, as is their right. It's not fair to say that all were lied to by management and the ATCOs saw through it as the reality is there is no money there to pay for this improved deal. So it wasn't a lie. The money will be found by going to the banks and begging for more loans, with the assurance that the conditions of the deal will bring cost savings.

So in effect, rather than "flexing muscle" and gaining a victory, the ATCOs rejection has got us into a situation of trading off our terms and conditions for a few extra quid.

As to the legality of the engineers and PCS now rejecting the original offer... If you read the small print on the ballot form, this was clearly seen as a condition of the vote. So perhaps a bit of credit should go to those who predicted such a shambles may occur.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. The ATCOs have got their pound of flesh... but will have to wait until the rest have been satisfied before getting a sniff of the readies.

Let's just hope that this concentration on short term gain doesn't end up with us selling out some of our future security, I for one, wouldn't think it's worth it.

[Big Nose1]

Actually Undercover both you and sector8 are wrong.:eek:

At the conclusion of the CTUS pay negotiations the negotiating teams, including the ATCO one, agreed to recommend to their own BEC`s that the deal on offer was the best that could be achieved by negotiation. No more, no less.

The ATCO BEC, after discussions, decided to recomend rejection and make it perfectly clear that industrial action would be a distinct possibility if the members voted no.

It is the ATCO membership who rejected the deal very conclusively.:)

[DangerousD]

Just my own opinions but.......

I'm sorry if the assistants and engineers feel that they have been let down but this has been caused by the union negotiators and not the atco's themselves. They were wrong to come out of the original meeting with an agreement to recomend acceptance and then change their minds, I suspect they did this because they soon realised that the atco's would reject anyway as we are not sheep and are allowed to vote with our own free will and so wanted to save face. I think that the result of the improved ballot (approx 60-40) shows that just because the union recomends acceptance you still have the right to make up you're own mind. I personaly still voted no due to the strings attached but will accept with good grace the democratic result.

What I cannot understand on these forums is the fact that I have now said the above I will be seen by people to be anti engineer or assistant which I most definately am not. Good luck to them if they manage to get any more money out of the company and, I, for one will not mind not getting my back pay for a little while yet ( I've lasted 9 months already without it). Just don't expect me to fighting you're corner too vigorously as I beleive after you've already voted yes you can count yourself lucky to get any more!

[WINTERMUTE]

ATSA's should all think carefully about the can of worms they may be opening by demanding more cash. If management need to save money long term, they may look at squeezing the ATSAs hard to get their money's worth. At the moment there is a shortage of ATCOs which is costing NATS a s**tload of cash- so more money for ATCOs is probably a long term investment for management. However (and I think this is very wrong) management don't value ATSAs the same way.

There is no comparable shortage of ATSAs to lend weight to your pay claim, so although you may get a comparable offer now, you can look forward to being made to work for every penny. ATSAs currently enjoy a fairly relaxed life most of the time- reading the paper, regular breaks and early goes. You may find yourselves working the 3 1/2 hour maximum I believe you can work before getting a 30 min break, staying later, no 1/2 days leave etc.

I happen to think this would be dreadful if it happened, and agree ATSAs and engineers deserve more respect from both ATCOs and management, but perhaps PCS should think long and hard about where it wants to take its members following its F**k up over pay this year.

[Undercover]

A little pedantic Big Nose... ? ;)

Whatever the diplomatic wording, all of the TU negotiators agreed to go back to their respective BEC with a positive message that this was the best they were going to get.

No matter who said what, the outcome and the current situation remain the same.

Have my fingers crossed that management now make an acceptable offer and we can all get our money without having to take strike action... who wants to do overtime to land these pigs?? :rolleyes:

[flower]

I am on leave what is the current state of play, do we have to vote again?
I thought once the pay offer was accepted that was that.
I do not want to insult ATSAs & ATCE but this constant sniping will backfire on you badly, management will look at any excuse to further deplete your diminishing ranks.
It is your union negotiators you should be having ago at not atcos.

[Direct HALIFAX]

WINTERMUTE

You say that there's no shortage of ATSAs - not so.

Sectors are routinely closed (not opened) at Swanwick because there are not enough ATSAs.

[Big Nose1]

Pedantic, no i don`t think so Undercover. Just pointing out that the ATCO`s decided to take the risk of industrial action and the ATSA`s and Engineers didn`t.

Quite happy to agree that we are in a mess, personally not bothered about my back pay or the introduction of overtime.

As you don`t tell us from your profile what you do in NATS i can`t coment on your final point:D

[Undercover]

As soon as I work out exactly what it is I do, I'll be sure and let you know. :D

[flower]

Zerouali,
No windup, I am on leave all I know is from what I see here on PPrune and the Prospect website , which says that the ballot result was that of acceptance.
I did do a night duty overtime last night, and asked what was going on and was told that afurther 2% had been offered to ATSA's and ATCE's .Nobody could offer me further insight as to what is happening.

As an aside I didn't vote to accept and stood up at a meeting and said it is quite wrong that this has all happened.
But I must abide by the majority vote ,right or wrong, thats democracy.

flower

[da silva]

This is all getting very tiresome .....
I normally prefer to read rather than contribute.

These issues seem to be doing a pretty good job of dividing NATS staff into opposed camps. Not good new for starters.

We (NATS) are allegedly a "company". We all work for the same people. We all have colleagues who are ATSA, ATCO, ATCE plus all the other grades who hardly seem to get a mention.

I see far too many posts here that imply that there are only certain members of the "company" who deserve a pay rise of X. I guess I must be old fashioned. If a group of people have collectively done a bloody good job of handling more traffic against the odds then surely that group of people collectively deserve to be rewarded for it ???

I am neither ATCO, ATCE or ATSA (but I used to be one) I am merely classed in statistics as "other". I believe I work every bit as hard as my colleagues across NATS. I work long hours, sometimes I bring my work home .... and no my In Tray is never empty and always waiting for me on a Monday morning. Oh yes ... and half an hour for lunch !

I believe that we should all be rewarded for the hard work we are faced with. However we appear to be in danger of tearing ourselves apart from the inside with all this inter-unit bickering.

Lets all hope it is sorted out soon so we can get the money and get on with it

[120.4]

There is a passage in the Bible about workers who had agreed to one Dinarius for a day's work. Other workers also agreed to a Dinarius but for only half a day's work. When the accounting came the first lot, having seen the second lot get a Dinarius for half a day's work expected to get more than they had agreed to but were rebuked by the landowner who stuck to the agreement they had made. They went away grumbling but had not been mistreated.

When the original vote went through some agreed to a deal. Others were not satisfied and negotiated a different one. However, out of jealousy, some of the first group now want to go back on their word and in so doing will hold up the payment for everybody. That seems rather self motivated to me. All sections had the chance to negotiate on the same terms. Why be envious of those who were prepared to take a risk and did better? That is not honourable.



Point 4






:)

[Undercover]

Thanks for the biblical lesson .4...

just one small detail....

It was a conditional acceptance. The improved offer to others invoked that condition. So it did it's job.

Just don't like the shoe being on the other foot I reckon.

Da Silva... well said. Quite why the higher earners among us are grumbling about the lower earners getting a fair share of an increase is beyond me... well, actually it's not. I can see exactly why... but as my mother always told me; "If you can't find anything nice to say, say nothing at all" :p

[Dances with Boffins]

da silva

An erudite post. You should contribute more often, although your calming words will probably have little effect on the more polarised opinions in this particular thread. Pity, because the venom here displayed is starting to worry quite a lot of us who would simply like to see a fair award to all emplyees of our fair company.

[Undercover]

Maybe there's hope for us after all!

As a certain Mancunian monkey man used to sing, "Love Spreads"



...can't we all just.... get along... ? :D

[120.4]

Undercover:

"It was a conditional acceptance..." Which means what exactly?

Do you mean that you were satisfied with the deal... unless others weren't... in which case you wouldn't be satisfied either? It was up to each individual to assess the offer on its merit. Having done that and expressed your satisfaction by ballot you have no such right of recall just because others weren't. Either the deal was fair to you or is wasn't and if you thought not, you should have had the courage to say so. The truth is that under the current circumstances the deal was not fair to the ATCOs and they expressed that view.


The Bible quote is appropriate.

Point 4



:)

[Bev Bevan]

I dont know about the engineers.. but as far as PCS are concerned, acceptance was recommended on the basis that there was no more money available and the offer was the best one could hope for under the circumstances. It was also made clear (BEFORE the vote) that if it suddenly turned out that there *was* more money on the table.. (i.e. the ATCO's alone got an improved pay offer) then the pcs vote would be set aside.
I think that was a perfectly fair stance to take.

Why should a (already more highly paid) section of staff get a bigger PERCENTAGE rise than the rest? I've still not seen a satisfactory answer to that one. The increase in cost of living is pretty much the same for all of us.

BB

[roger]

we need now to follow one of two options...

1, ATCOs, ATSAs and ATCEs join together to form one singular negotiating team, or;

2, ATSAs, ATCEs and ATCOs split totally and negotiate for themselves.

Because basically this pay round has been a fiasco from the beginning and totally unacceptable to all the union members.

All for one and one for...you get my drift.

roger

[120.4]

Prospect was also told that there was no more money on the table. Would you expect the management to say that there was?

If PCS were satisfied with the offer before the vote why is that same offer somehow not satisfactory now? What is the motivation here?

Perhaps the PCS members need to question their leadership as to how these circumstances have arisen but as things currently stand, each section has voted yes to the final offer made to it and that should be the end of the matter.

You win some you lose some. PCS made its own choice and that is not the ATCOs' fault.

Point 4
:)

[Bev Bevan]

"If PCS were satisfied with the offer before the vote why is that same offer somehow not satisfactory now? "

See my post above :confused:

I say again: "acceptance was recommended on the basis that there was no more money available and the offer was the best one could hope for under the circumstances. It was also made clear (BEFORE the vote) that if it suddenly turned out that there *was* more money on the table.. (i.e. the ATCO's alone got an improved pay offer) then the PCS vote would be set aside.
I think that was a perfectly fair stance to take. "

Given the "alleged" financial problems witin NATS, the statement that there was 'no more money' on the table, the fact that of one of a number of things possibly kicking off round the world (another Al Qaaeda incident, India v Pakistan, USA v Iraq) would cause another downturn in air travel, it was more than reasonable to suggest that the offer was the best we could hope for.

I would be far more concerned if PCS negotiators were to stand by and accept the ATCO's getting a larger %age rise and do nothing. Would the ATCO's have done so if it was the other way round? you bet they wouldnt. and neither should they.

Part of the problem, is that the ATCO's have used pay as a stick with which to beat Management due to general poor morale and not just over pay levels.


Roger, I felt that your option (1) above was necessary before PPP... it's even more so now... though I believe that if such a proposal was put forward, the ATCO branch of Prospect wouldnt wear it for a moment...

Edited for crappy typing

BB

[F7F]

I have been reading this forum for the last couple weeks and I think this may have been pointed out before but here goes again the initial pay offer was REJECTED:rolleyes:

All three branches of Prospect must say YES:rolleyes: ATCO branch rejected the offer thus that offer was rejected by ALL three branches.

Thus the point raised by 102.4 about voting YES does not stand, add to this that the ATSS and PCS sections have put the initial votes aside as is there want under the circumstances and which they are well within their rights to do so:p

As for question being asked of the reps for ATSS and PCS I whole heartedly agree, but what about the most senior officials of Prospect and there actions in bringing this situation about.

Strength in unity seems like a winner to me, maybe we should all learn from this debacle. Lets be one NATS under one PROSPECT.

[120.4]

Then I may be misunderstanding something and if that is the case I apologise.

After the initial vote, when NATS and Prospect entered into fresh discussions, why were PCS not involved in that (or were they?). Why did NATS only make an improved offer to Prospect? Presumably because PCS had signalled their satisfaction and so had no mandate?

If the negotiating rules permit you to put the initial vote aside if Prospect secured better and all 3 sections have to vote yes to accept, what was the point in PCS recommending acceptance if Prospect didn't? Shouldn't PCS have sided with the ATCOs in the first place? THAT was where the division started.

The point still stands that all members were told there was no more money on the table (as one might expect them to say). It was up to each section to accept that or not.

May I finally add that I have no difficulty whatsoever with ATCAs an ATCEs receiving the same offer. We are all essential parts of the system. My point is that if you are going to change sides because another section negotiates better than you do you should have taken your lead from it in the first place and then we wouldn't still be waiting for the money.

Point 4


:)

[120.4]

Okay, but why did PCS not align itself with Prospect in the first place if that is what it would subsequently do anyway?? (Remember, Prospect had also been told there was no more money.) It seems to me that the split started when PCS leaders recommended acceptance.

We have to negotiate as ONE if we want to move forward as one.

Point 4

:)

[Undercover]

Well... I've now seen the "improved" offer to all non-ATCOs... and it is better... but still less than the ATCOs were offered on basic, with a few bits and pieces added to throw a few bungs at those making the most noise. :rolleyes:

Going briefly back to point 4's angle on why PCS didn't align with Prospect... I genuinely don't think it was a case of PCS being duped by management and the ATCOs calling their bluff. Management were being honest when they said there was no more money available... the ATCOs just decided to ignore reality and ask their reps to go dig up a money tree. All credit to them for forcing management to get the begging bowl out and now we'll all end up with more. But we're not getting more of the money that was in the pot - they'll just take out another loan with the banks - balanced off by promises of more job cuts to follow.

If this offer is accepted now (don't count on it) then I hope we can all learn from the farce caused by this and stick together from now on. We all need each other to get our jobs done in this company. We have different jobs and command different salaries... but we all deserve fair and equal treatment.

[120.4]

Absolutely right.

Point 4

:)

[eyeinthesky]

At the risk of stirring it up further, I would ask whether the 2% extra that ATSAs and ATCEs were offered w.e.f. Dec 2003 was on basic salary only or on UHP and London Weighting as well (if eligible). If it was the latter, then it is a much better offer than the ATCOs 1.8% on BASIC ONLY at the same time.;)

[F7F]

Parity on basic pay and no strings attached please....


Guys,

my understanding of how we started this debacles is as follows, if I am wrong please chip in...

All three sets of negotiators left the discussions to present to their respective Branch Executive Councils (BEC's) the 6% offer. I am led to believe general concensus was that they would all likely accept the offer.:rolleyes:

The PCS and ATSS BEC's recommended acceptance whilst the ATCO BEC recommended rejection.

It would appear that there was/is a break down in comms or process between the three branches after the branches made their recommendations. Particularly when the strongest branch (and the one with clout) rejects the deal!!!!:mad:

Maybe something for a new topic? Voluntary Severance scheme, what is it? Will this undermine the present redundancy terms. Add to this the proposed changes to Staff Surpluses agreement (what are they Prospect):mad: we may be adding ingredients together that do not make an apple pie for the staff.

F7F

[JuicyLucy]

I, for one, hope the Voluntary Severance scheme is good enough to dump this, once great company to work, for and get the hell out............

[sector8dear]

Blah Blah Blah

Yawn Yawn

Snooze Snooze

:D :D :D

[5milesbaby]

Thank you for your very constructive and team building comments Sector8Dear.

Bev Bevan, I don't think that, under the current negotiation system we have, the "(already more highly paid) section of staff get a bigger PERCENTAGE rise than the rest? " should get a bigger pay rise, as it is a joint negatiation, so one for all etc....... However, I do believe the '(already more highly paid)' are so for very good reason, and personally do not think its still enough. Reason??? Who's liable.

Beating management with a stick is wanted to be done for so many reasons, it just happenned this time as its one reason sorely thought about by many, and breaking point is closer than ever.

Your union is only there as a guide, reading the tramlines in a bat and ball game is never easy.

[Undercover]

The "voluntary severence scheme" is an interesting one... since we already have screeds of agreements relating to redundancy, retirement, resignation etc.

My guess is that this is aimed at the many workers who are on mobile grades and whose jobs are moving to the Solent Business park in the near future... but don't wish to go. At present you either move or you resign. If they're now going to offer pay-offs of some kind to these people then I think they've got a winning formula for many in PCS at least.

[Bev Bevan]

5mb,

For the record... I do not begrudge a single penny that ATCO's recieve, for the reasons you give, you all deserve it.
I'm just saying it's wrong that there is a differential in the percentage increase. Cost of living is high for everyone, especially here in the south.

As for the new offer to PCS.. at least management have gone some way towards redressing the imbalance and under the circumstances I am reasonably satisfied with that.


Now... how do we stop this ever happening again??!

How would the ATCO's as a whole feel about the idea of creating a single section within Prospect for ATCOs, ATSAs and ATCEs?

That would strengthen the operational side as a whole, and put an end to any future management attempts to divide and conquer.

Can anyone find any holes in that argument?

BB

[xerxius]

Interesting one Bev. You may have played for one of the greatest rock bands of all time but I'm not sure that many ATCO's would agree with you.

Word on the street is that ATCO's should ditch their ties with PCS and go it alone. After all, PCS are just holding us back, right?

[5milesbaby]

I feel that PCS should be ditched totally and yes, all ATCO's and ATSA/ATCE's belong to one union, Prospect. If we are going to continue joint negotiations, then only one union should be involved, fighting for the STAFF, not sections of it. As I said before, I believe ATCO's should get more than they do, but this does not mean I think we shouldn't all get the same annual pay rise. Over the last two years, ALL at Swanwick have worked their butts off to get everything toward smooth (as close as is possible in the current climate), and all deserve the same rewards. Likewise, all ajoining units have had to cope with some total drivel as Swanwick gets to terms with the new system, and attempts to still get up to speed (or full manning), bearing the brunt when things go t!t$ up.

Should the unions no longer join together in negotiating for future rises, I think it will just lead to staff splits when one group gets more than the other, obviously killing more morale on the shop floor. But maybe........................................

[Bev Bevan]

5milesbaby - spot on.

Part of the problem with PCS is that it doesnt just represent the ATSAs... but all the admin staff as well. hence my argument that the operational grades should be all represented by one section within Prospect.

Of course, PCS should continue to represent the admin grades.

Any union leaders reading this?

BB

[120.4]

I have no problem with a combined section for all operational staff. As I was trying to say in my earlier posts this whole problem came about because PCS made a recommendation out of line with a section whose lead (by their own admission) they were always going to follow if it decided to fight. How can one now take PCS seriously? If you are going to dump your own leaders' recommendations and ballot when another section makes a stand then what on earth is the point of PCS being involved in the negotiations and why bother with a vote?

If we are to remain separate then you must fight your own fight and not climb on the ATCOs' bandwaggon and that means standing by your own vote. (I am amazed NATS recognised your change of position.) Personally I would rather we were one and stood together, better for all.

Point 4
:)

[Undercover]

Surely the best thing for all is to be unified and represented as employees of NATS - regardless of grade, location etc.

An operational/non-operational split is still just that... a split... and so weakens the position of all.

No argument that the ATCOs hold greatest sway with management, but their position is strengthened with every other group who join them.

If we could all concentrate less on picking each other apart to decide who deserves most and look upon our fellow workers as just that... then we'll all see the benefits.