Bondage

[eastern wiseguy]

Speaking to an old trainee today she tells me that on her course ...shortly to leave the college there were at least two individuals who have made it plain that as soon as it is possible(following validation ) they will do their utmost to abandon NATS and move to the sunnier climes of New Zealand(one failed to get in to NZ ATC and was told to come back later with the faint promise of a job ...the other apparently has relatives or some such out there).Why on earth do we spend time and money on these people?If there is a national shortage of ATCO'S is it not time we bonded these guys and at least get SOMETHING back out of the training?Seems to me I as an OJTI am wasting my time!.Fine if they want to further their career abroad...but lets' get SOME work out of them!! Rant subsides

:* :* :*

[PPRuNe Radar]

Rant or not ... I agree 100%

[savechip55]

Maybe NATS should employ the same terms of employment as the RAF, once you have completed your course you have to complete three years of service before even contemplating a move. Slightly restrictive, but does make sure they get thier pound of flesh!!! :)

[Standard Noise]

eastern, while I agree with your sentiments, there are other matters which would need attention first.
NATS need to sort out their training system as a whole bfore resorting to bonds. Cut down on waiting times to live training and treat trainees as people rather than an endless line of cannon fodder and they may just stay. There are too many organisations which treat staff as a resource, rather than as individual human beings. Look after the staff and they will have no need to look elsewhere for a career, and by that, I'm not talking about paying them more! Why do you think Belfast City were able to pick up 3 NATS trainees in little over 18 months? One of the biggest reasons, for two of those people anyway, was the time delay before live training. It's not much fun putting your life on hold for 18 months while you go through the college only to be told you're going to be holding for another 18 months before you even get on an AVC (or whatever they call them now).

There are those of us dumped by NATS (with 5 ratings in my case) who had no desire to leave the company at all despite the fact that the length of our college course was long enough for us to figure out that NATS wasn't terribly well run and that most of the management hadn't a clue what they were up to (see the history of NERC as an example). But this did not make us look for other employment.....at least not til the training system had screwed us. Off the top of my head, 5 of my course have quite a few airfields on their CV (Belfast City, Bristol, Coventry, Cranfield, Filton, Humberside, Leeds, Sheffield, Sumburgh, Teeside and West Freugh).

We could still have been working at NATS had we been given a chance, with no need for bonds.

[126,7]

Very misleading subject...I was actually expecting something completely different:}

If NATS doesnt make the students sign training bonds, then they will probably learn sooner or later.
South Africa learnt that bitter lesson a little late but they have a 5 year training bond now which you sign just before you do the radar course. I dont think anyone has left before the 5 years were up, as the buy-out price was horrendous.

[Bern Oulli]

I've been wondering this for the last 34 years. I speak as a product of the old Board of Trade 3 year cadet system, who left less than two years after graduating (mainly because I had a more attractive offer). Nonetheless, the BoT, CAA or NATS did not recoupe their investment in me at the time. They have done since 'cause I came back like a ****.

[letMfly]

I,m another hairy old product of the 3 year cadetship who left and came back (like a ****). I believe the real reason that NATS hasn't indulged in a bit of bondage with our young trainees is because our managers and company lawyers haven't got the savvy to make a legally binding contract.

They tried it with some of the boys (and girls) in blue who joined us in the 90s but their contracts weren't worth the paper they were written on. But there again with umpteen years of experience of working under NATS management I wasn't really surprised. The words piss-up and brewery spring to mind!

[Spitoon]

I can't help thinking that Standard Noise's point is far more important than a couple of inexperienced youngsters shouting their mouths off - one wonders whether NZ would want anyone with this sort of pedigree anyway.

The real waste of money is the countless cadets and trainees who've been terminated of allowed to wither on the NATS vine only to go on and work very sucessfully and productively in the non-NATS world. What's really disappointing is that the same mistakes seem to be being made today as 20 years ago (and probably much longer).

[AlanM]

Bern

You used that naughty swear word some years ago in a lesson...

...funniest thing I ever heard at CATC. You are da man!!

[millerman]

It is all very well saying that someone has to sign up for "X"amount of years,but if they want to leave they will find a way!
They may start screwing up deliberately or just making life difficult for everyone else.Then what will be the outcome?

[Jerricho]

I can see where your coming from Millerman with this, but if I was working with somebody, I would hope they would be professional enough not to start "screwing up" or making life hard for others. And if this was the case, I'm sure there would be more than one person working with this type who would make sure their future employer knew exactly what sort of a$$hole they were employing.

[TepidBoy]

Eurocontrol insist on 4 years of bondage after training is completed...... but thats Holland for you!!

[fly bhoy]

I also get your point millerman, but another thing to consider is if new applicants knew before they applied of, say, a 5 year bond after graduation, then it would possibly serve to put off the type of people who only want to go through the NATS training, validate then trying to find work elsewhere.

FB

[055166k]

Hello EasternW, you mustn't knock New Zealand because it is an essential career move up the NATS ladder. A controller from West Drayton fancied a move to NZ ATC. Couple of years later came back straight into old job and immediately promoted to ATCO 1. All the chaps at West Drayton thought that was a jolly good show. We are so happy to know that loyalty and service are still assets in the company rather than the ability to impress at a succession of inappropriate management monkey-trick selection workshops [or whatever this week's buzzword is for promotion board].......hang on a minute.......I may have got this back to front.

[Save my bacon]

I'd like to whole-heartedly agree with Spitoon's point about NATS wasting resources by 'chopping' people that later go on to be competent controllers elsewhere.

I could start ranting here (but I won't!!) but I have seen about 8 people from my original course go on to validate with non NATS airfields. They obviously had the ability but NATS doesn't cater for 'slow learners'. It seems to depend on the mood of the unit/management at the time, but it never ceases to amaze me how some people get years (literally) of training at certain units, and others get chopped within 3 months because they couldn't cut it straight away on, say, TMA North. What a waste!!!

Mind you, as it turns out they all think it was the best thing that happened to them as they validated FAR quicker then any of us who were posted to TC/NERC and got more money. in the short term anyway.

Nice to be rewarded for success within NATS.....hmm....

[Scott Voigt]

Ya know, I think that some of you are missing the point... You don't need to bond someone to the job for five or more years. You just have to pay them what they are worth and they won't go looking for other jobs in other companies. I can't think of anyone who goes looking at other places to work other than the FAA unless they either wash out, or retire. We may not be all that happy with our employer all of the time, but we can't find a better paying job most places with ATC.

regards

Scott

[ferris]

055166k
What makes you think that sitting in the same chair for 20 years equips you better for a management job than someone who has the gumption to get out and try things?
As for "loyalty" being an asset; how fast do you think the co. would chop you if it suited them?

Scott.
That is precisely the point. Bonding is usually used to prevent people from moving up and on at the first opportunity, in order to get a return on the training investment. You are correct in the FAA probably being the pinnacle employer in terms of money, but would hordes of american controllers move outside the States for money alone, if it was on offer elsewhere?

[055166k]

Ferris, I respect your view.....and it was a bullseye. A serious point reflecting on the title subject is the need for NATS to examine its recruitment policy. Gone are the days when a controller was hired in effect to control for the major part of his/her career. The inexplicable search for overqualification-for-job candidates has resulted in a competent workforce.....but a workforce which regards operational shopfloor controlling as no more than a stepping stone on the career ladder. NATS now has a bloated controller force on controller money in such a wide and disperse spectrum of jobs that an alien from Mars would not be able to identify our core business. If managers are necessary then I do not think anyboby could seriously suggest [on the evidence of the last decade] that overpromoted ex controllers have done the business. If managers are needed then recruit managers; if controllers are needed then recruit controllers, but on clear and unambiguous contract of employment terms. I think the original post inference of some kind of bond has merit. To power down from uncharacteristic serious mode.....I have been checking my airmiles accumulation quotient.....should make UAE by about 2007.

[ferris]

I don't know that I agree with the inference that ATS providers shouldn't try to hire the best available candidates? Sort of "only hire people who know their place and don't want to rise above their station"?
Preaching to the converted, I know, but ATC seems to be the worst breeding ground for managers around. I have never heard an ATC express satisfaction with management. Maybe it is the penchant for promotion of convergent thinkers. Maybe the controllers just don't know what good mangement is anyway (and then go on to be managers). I hear what you are saying about bloated structures. Why is it that if you manage ATCs, you must get more money than them? And their managers more money again? The ATC working the screen is carrying the real responsibilty. Or if you leave the floor to vanish into the back room, you retain your (high) salary. Why does a provider require 2.5 times as many non-op staff than controllers? Why does the boss of ATC, with 3000 staff and a small budget, earn 50% more than the boss of the largest govt dept, with 60,000 staff and a massive budget (in oz)? I digress.....
Not everyone wants to manage, but I think a lot of disatisfaction stems from the fact that things are getting so tight (worldwide), there is no 'career' as such, any more. It's just a case of "sit here, this is your lot" for as far as you can see. Controllers with experience in the different disciplines are getting scarce. Is it any wonder guys are bitter and twisted by age 25?


If I'm still here in 2007, bring a decent red, will you?

[63000 Triple Zilch]

One of the main issues of bondage has not been touched upon in this thread. It is the primary reason why NATS has never been able to invoke bondage, namely if you give all students a 5 year bond for example, what do you do if they fail?? Under existing employment leglislation the bond cannot be made conditional upon success. NATS would have to pay compensation for termination of contract, that is assuming the student were to go quietly. It can be argued of course that we should not be looking at failures as management targets say that the aim is 80% pass at LACC but who am I to question training targets?? That being another story!!

[Scott Voigt]

Ferris;

Actually if given a chance to go somewhere after we retire <G>, I know that there would be quite a few folks who would if it were someplace that they would like to live. Seeing where you are working, I know that would not be what most of us would consider a paradise to work at... Probably something along the lines of New Zealand or Fiji places like that. Now, I for one would jump at going to most places in Europe... I also know a few folks who would. But not for less money or less of a life style that we are use to...

regards

Scott

[ferris]

Scott,
Gee you guys are hard to please! What makes you think Fiji, NZ (or the UAE) would want clapped out old yanks to come and work (on at least their previous salary) anyway? :=


63000TZ
Why do you need to make the bond conditional upon success? Just make them sign it once they are about to validate. Surely a lawyer could write a suitable contract?
Oz is moving to introduce a bond, and as far as I am aware there is no legal impediment. I can't say that I disagree with them in principle, and the way this bond was structured, it reduced with each passing year. So, if after, say, 3 years you were desperate to go, it was not unreasonable to buy your way out (it had 5 yearly steps).

[Scott Voigt]

Ferris;

Like I said, if they want folks, they are going to have to do something to attract them <G>, at least from the place the has the MOST controllers in one system <BG>...

regards

Scott:E

[Spitoon]

The discussion here has been very interesting. Overall though, I suspect that few people start NATS (or any other large provider's) training with the intention of completing the training and then leaving the organisation. Bonding will not make a great deal of difference to vastr majority of trainees and those that plan to leave will either take their chances of being taken to court across international boundaries or will adjust their plans to make their move three or fivears later or whatever. Arguably, someone who leaves after several years of operational experience is a greater loss than someone who moves as soon as they've finished training. And, of course, in the current environment someone with several years experience is far more attractive to other employers. So ... I don't think bonding actually offers any great benefits.

Occasionally I guess that someone sucessfully completes the training and then finds that they hate the job or are always hanging on by their fingernails and quit. Bonding in these circumstances is probably counter-productive.

I maintain that the real waste is the huge numbers of controllers whose training NATS terminate - often at a late stage - but that go on to demonstrate that they are quite able to do the job. And as Save my bacon points out, once out in the real world, many of these controllers are productive members of the unit far more quickly than theit NATS counterparts. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the artificially extended or protracted training that NATS employs turns out better controllers, all it probaly does is demoralise people and exacerbate the self-perpetuating training logjam!

On the subject of management, is it any wonder that many controllers think that they would be good managers? Controllers spend their lives managing situations - it's what we do. Controllers who find themselves in a management position are generally not too bad at managing situations. Unfortunately, there's a bit more to real management than this - people management and financial management are the obvious ones - and this is where many current managers might be considered weak.

Then there are the managers who aren't trained managers and don't have an operational background .....

[ferris]

Spitoon
Well said. You hit a few nails on the head there. I think bonding only helps keep people who want to leave and do ATC elsewhere. But anecdotally, that would be the majority who leave before retirement. Generally speaking, to move internationally you have to have some operational time under your belt anyway.
On the point of training times; After coming thru the system of 'make it in this time, or you are out', I thought that was the way. Then coming over here and seeing the very long training time allowed for locals, then seeing the quality of the end product (and I stress at this particular unit ) I am convinced that lots of potentially good candidates were burned back home after having considerable time and money put into them. There has to be a line somewhere, but I am convinced 'western' methods are very ego driven.

[Spitoon]

ferris, your last sentence may say it all!

[63000 Triple Zilch]

Ferris,
Good points, but if you defer the bonding until just before validation then the student is already in the position of being able to go elsewhere

[ferris]

But your options are very limited without any actual screen time.