I think they would quite like it made formal so they can put it to vote and achieve a resounding "NO!".
If, as seems likely, talks will fail on Thursday the next step will be for the Union to ballot members on the offer, with the Union recomending a 'no' vote.
The step after that is for the union to vote for industrial action (a 'yes' vote). How many people are willing to vote 'no' to the offer, then 'yes' to industrial action, because a 'no' then a 'no' is pointless if you are not happy with the pay offer.
The Union membership has, within recent history, been weak with extremely poor turnouts for the last few ballots. Management know this and they play on it.
I would not be surprised if Management gave a derisory first offer knowing full well it would not be accepted, then hiked up the second offer with caveats.
It would not surprise me if they were betting on the ability to divide the workforce and also if they were betting on the likelihood that members won't have the bottle to strike over a headline pay rise which is (supposedly) somewhere near 5%.
Management can offer a better pay rise based on projected savings if MET is taken on by ATCOs and if the AAVA agreement is signed in perpetuity.
However, before this offer they had stated that they would give 0.5% on top of any basic pay offer if we signed the AAVA agreement in perpetuity. That leaves a gulf of 3% - there is no way the MET savings are 3% so the sums do not add up.
Senior management ae not stupid and they are definitley media savvy. I think that the way they have played this is very clever if they are banking on the union membership (not the union reps) of displaying the usual apathy.
Everyone talks about the powder being dry etc... it is not the Union reps job to spark the ignition, it is the memberships.
Whatever way you vote in the upcoming ballot, remember that it has implications on the strength of the union