non op GSs??
What a ridiculous idea.
We are allowed one per watch at the moment and that's enough. GS's need to be current to be any good at, well GS'ing.
I would go completely the other way - give all the middle managers the paperwork that they have passed down to Gs's/LASs - at least that way they (middle managers) will then be gainfully employed instead of scrabbling about for things to do... Yes, I mean you lot Safety and Training managers etc!!.
Then approach suitable controllers (by suitable I mean common sense decisions to approach people who are diligent and not just lazy feckwits), with say 5 years or more operational experience, and ask them if they want to go on the GS/LAS roster.
The more the merrier and the GS position then becomes just another role rostered on the monthly watchbill, volunteers would do it maybe 2 or 3 times a month at the most.
Give said volunteers half a pay spine for doing it.
The result - more diligent supervisors who give a monkeys about what is going on around them, instead of having supervisors at the moment who are so weighed down by extraneous duties that they are not giving the GS primary role (which should be assisting controllers run the sectors in their sector group) the attention it should have.
Lazy Gss will soon be rumbled - as it stands we have some supervisors who aren't valid in all roles, and/or that are more concerned with their social life than with being proactive in keeping coordinators informed etc.
ProM
I have always been an advocate for cutting superfluous staff if it was done properly. i.e. a study carried out and those roles that are overstaffed get trimmed. Unfortunately I don't think the redundancies have been done that way.
Also, why did it take an economic downturn for Barron to decide to 'cut the fat', if that is indeed what has happened? Surely a good businessman would aim to run a lean organisation all the time? The Times article I pointed your way lays claims from Barron that he has revolutionised NATS in his tenure... not very well if that's the case.
He can't say he has been running a lean organisation if he is saying that the roles that have just been cut/amalgamated were superfluous. He can't have it both ways!!
Truth be told, I actually think our management team have been lazy and downright negligent with regards to manpower. While the economy is good, many companies get away with poor business practices and overstaffing; especially those with a monopoly.
When the economy turns bad and they start scrambling around to make savings, you soon see how slack the reins were held before.
As for early go's I'm with Yahoo - I don't really care about them - they are a nice to have item but at the end of the day we are paid to work certain hours. It makes sense to let people go if sectors are legitimately bandboxing, and to tell the truth the company will not gain anything by keeping ATCOs/ATSAs back. Keeping sectors open for the hell of it won't conjure up traffic that just doesn't exist at those times!!
Personally I get hacked off with a lot of people who whinge about early go's and seem to see them as a right, not a privilege. If I had my way, I'd run the Ops room for a month with no early gos, then revert to normal practices... at least then people might appreciate them for what they are - a perk.
I honestly don't see any benefit for management in stopping early go's - maybe some watches need to be told to be more sensible about it, but that's by the by.
The problem management might find - and the Union should be stressing this extremely loudly - is that if they take away little perks like early go's (which have no impact on the business), then people might turn around and stop doing all the things that they do for nothing over and above their contract. For example, extra sectors above MUR.
Around 85%+ of ATCOs in the TC Ops room do extra sectors for no reward. The Ops room would not run without it. Management need to be very careful about how they approach things.