As I stated in a previous post I'll be voting no essentially for what is a continuation of a 7 year old flawed (deliberately in my view) banding model.
I believe the divergence in % difference in annual salary between bands (above and below me) increasingly unfair.
The potential percentage increases involved in this pay round, even in the best case don't seem to cover the deal on AAVAs. That AAVA agreement is obviously the key aim in their negotiations, especially ensuring a long term/infinite term arrangement). They should never have been on any table. As has been mentioned before they should not be part of a core deal.
Neither should MET. I find it abhorrant that my NERL colleagues and I get a say in a matter we have no right to dictate. Wasn't there a motion passed to ensure this wouldn't happen?
And didn't conference agree (again) to close the gap between bands?
Whilst understanding the BEC would need some autonomy to act in these negotiations, their past performance with management in collusion (banding), close alignment (pensions - yes, a difficult matter, but NATS did take a pensions holiday), getting the timing/numbers wrong (the last pay round with regards to the RPI deal) and going immediately for multi year deals without added reward (or member remit); makes me particularly uneasy that they have steamed straight into another bad deal.
Plus further alienating us from our engineer and ATSA friends.
No from me. Again.
Last edited by 9th Dan Vectors; 23rd April 2011 at 13:42.
Reason: Spelling