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