eglnyt
I'm all for cutting jobs within NATS, if it is done properly; i.e. wasters get chopped.
A very dangerous strategy and one
only advocated by those arrogant enough to believe that they aren't likely to get chopped.
I'm not arrogant, though I know my job is pretty safe.
It is not arrogant to say we should cut the fat and get rid of people who contribute little or nothing to the company.
It is not arrogant to expect the company (who when it suits claims times are hard) to look at roles and decide which ones are really necessary and which can be dropped.
It is not arrogant to say that if the company wants to tighten it's belt then we should ensure that we only employ people making a meaningful contribution.
It is not arrogant to expect the company to amalgamate roles where possibly, therefore cutting some personnel and saving money.
These are things the company should be doing all the time, instead of spunking away money willy-nilly when the times are good, then bleating when the times are bad.
I've said it countless times before, I'll say it again - we are either running NATS as a business or we are not. If we are, as Management try to claim, we should stop pi$$ing about and do it properly all the time, not just in a recession...
It's not as simple as support staff versus operational - there are many staff at CTC etc who we need to retain to ensure that projects that have been started continue to have work done on them. However there are many staff,
company wide, we can get rid off. There are many staff we could have got rid of regardless of the economic downturn - it's just a shame that our business 'leaders' can't be ar$ed to do it when we were making money.
NATS is now beginning to sow what it has reaped - we would have been much better placed to face financial storms if we were streamlined all the time, the way a proper business should be.
You write:
...My expectation of a union is that it represents all its members and gives the weaker members some power derived from the more powerful. I hope that for any union protecting jobs comes top of the lists...
Only the jobs that deserve saving. Lets not cut jobs for cutting jobs sake - no one agrees with that. But lets get brutal about jobs and positions that are duplicating effort and/or wasting company money. If that sounds harsh, then welcome to the real world(!) You mention Woolworths and Zavvi etc, maybe if these companies had less overheads they would have fared better... certainly the writing has been on the wall for Woolies for years.
In business there is no room for sentimentalism -
The only safe strategy is to fight for every post whoever fills it and whatever you may think about their abilities. I hope that is what the union will do.
We don't live in Utopia, and I for one don't see why the company should be selective about how it scrimps and saves - if the posts are not required then goodbye...
...The problem is none of us know how long we will be fit and able to perform as well as we do today and one day, when it happens again, you may find yourself in one of those posts that...
Therein lies the difference between office working and ATCOs...
Maybe you think it is arrogant, but ATCO competency in later years is a real issue, and the company should look after ATCOs when some of them fail to keep up with traffic when they near retirement - the contracts are written to allow work to retirement, NATS is a safety orientated industry after all. ATCOs should not be penalised if, when they have a few years to retire they can no longer keep up with traffic which was (and will again) grow(ing) by huge amounts each year. This very small handfull of ATCOs can still give a hell of a lot to NATS in there last 2 or 3 years.
It's not the same as working in an office, If someone in an office can't keep up with the latest version of Word or Excel, then...
We are a business, lets run things like a business... that means making sure we do not duplicate or triplicate effort, that we do not employ people who have little to really do to fill their days. It does not mean we cannot look after the staff that we keep - it just means that we do not keep the staff we do not need!
It's really not a difficult concept, we are not a charity.
Just a few final points - in your posts you state...
Reducing costs is the only option but however much you think might be wasted on reward ceremonies and management initiatives there is no way you are going to save the sort of sums involved without cutting jobs.
the fact is every little helps.
also
Reducing costs is the only option but however much you think might be wasted on reward ceremonies and management initiatives there is no way you are going to save the sort of sums involved without cutting jobs.
and
My expectation of a union is that it represents all its members and gives the weaker members some power derived from the more powerful. I hope that for any union protecting jobs comes top of the lists of the things it does, protecting income is also important but not as important. I don't expect a union to favour improving the lot of its more powerful better off members at the expense of its weaker ones.
and
The only safe strategy is to fight for every post whoever fills it and whatever you may think about their abilities. I hope that is what the union will do.
So exactly what are you trying to say? You reply to people who state 'get rid of unnecessary jobs' by implying ATCO arrogance, then you go on to say what you have above.
Do you think we should cut jobs or not??? Your 3 statments above are at complete odds with each other!
So where do we have a cut-off - presumably you want to ensure you are safe, what about
'the people in a weaker position than you'?
If you think we do need to cut jobs, as your first statement clearly states, are you not in danger by your very stance ands statements, of being as arrogant as you claim ATCOs to be?
You talk about protecting weaker members - what about the ones in a weaker position than you? Your statements in the very same post contradict each other!!!
No one believes we should chop people or jobs that are needed, but we should chop jobs that are wasteful. Maybe if you stopped trying to make this an ATCO versus everyone else issue, then you would see the irony in what you write
And finally, this gem -
without the benefit of the routine regulatory breaks that operational staff enjoy
Do you really know what NATS core business is?
Do you really understand it?
Do you know what NATS primary function is?
The answer to the third question, in case you are struggling, is SAFETY in the provision of ATC. The breaks we 'enjoy' are as you say
regulatory - they are mandated in law.
They are there for safety reasons. You spout off the management line all the time - that is your right... but at least try to understand what ATC is actually about.