Just received my February issue of Profile, the union rag.
On page 13, I stumbled across this little article – copied in full, grammatical errors in the article text are not mine - I copied verbatim.
Thing is, I cannot recall receiving any communication since the pension vote informing us that we are delaying pay talks. Has anyone received such notification? Are the union failing once again in communication, one of the biggest issues we complained about during the pension debacle, an issue they promised to resolve?
More to the point, are the union falling over themselves to appease management? We should be pushing hard, not waiting to see if the economy gets better, or even worse.
Or is this a case of a very poorly worded and timed article - in which case surely the union should not allow such poor standards in their official literature (another example of shocking communication skills).
My comments are in red.
Air traffic control officers and system specialists at NATS have delayed talks on the 2009 pay round until the spring because of the deteriorating economic situation, after voting in favour of controversial changes to their pension scheme.
The NATS trade union side had submitted a claim for an increase for all staff from January based on the August 20098 RPI figure, which stood at 4.8%, plus 1%.
The claim, submitted in September by the trade union side, noted that NATS had posted profits for 5 years running – with a cumulative total of £329m – and reduced debts by £164m over the same period. At the same time the volume of air traffic had increased by 22%.
National secretary, Garry Graham said: ”We recognise the economic circumstances have changed since the claim was lodged and that there is a significant gap between our positions” said Graham.
“However, we believe that the significant increases in productivity achieved by members should be reflected in the pay offer to all NATS staff.”
On pensions, the negotiating team set out to protect existing members of the scheme, ensure new arrangements were flexible enough to stand the test of time and provide a high quality scheme for the future. (I was under the impression that the negotiating team had set out to protect the pension for all – OneNATSOnePension I seem to recall... maybe that was a lie from the outset.)
The deal approved by the members ballot includes: a 15 year cap on future pensionable pay from Jan 01; the introduction of a more efficient way of paying pension contributions – to be up an running in 2010 (why so long?); and a new defined contribution scheme to be implemented on April 1.
National secretary Garry Graham said the vote was a positive step towards securing pension provision for the future. “Work on the detail of the defined contribution scheme and SMART pensions is continuing” (I was under the impression that only the MOU was to be finalised, after all, we were balloted on set values for SMART pensions and the defined contribution scheme, were we not?)
The union, and specifically the secretary as it is his statement in this official publication, are not exactly being effective in putting their money where their mouth is by holding off on talks
“However, we believe that the significant increases in productivity achieved by members should be reflected in the pay offer to all NATS staff.”
Not exactly being backed up by the action of delaying talks, is it Mr G???
For all of the company ‘yes’ men (I don’t necessarily mean anyone who voted ‘yes’ to the pension), on the same page as this article there is a list of pay deals (2008 and 2009) that have been agreed. Amongst them (specifically 2009 deals):
Audit Commission – 4.9%
BAE Land Systems Munitions – 5.6%
There are also listed, a lot of late 2008 pay deals,just finalised, in the region of 3-5%
So asking for a rise is not out of the question, and does not mean, (contrary to what some of you management lackeys try to claim), that we are not living in the real World.
Unfortunately, it is looking increasingly obvious that the Union is not prepared to fight for members.