Prospect ATCOs Pay ballot [Archive]

Arkady

8th Mar 2004, 23:00

In the run up to the vote it was often said that the issue was not the money but the principle behind the banding.

It seems that for the majority the money WAS the issue and how the final sum was arrived at was not so important.

27% is a significant minority and should not be ignored. However, if many of those who voted "No" leave Prospect as they have threatened to do, the need to address their issues reduces in significance with each resignation. No one has done badly out of this deal and the majority find it acceptable. The only way to influence future deals is to be involved in Prospect.

All that said, have we reached a point where the current structure of the ATCOs branch does not effectively allow proper representation? Specifically, should we be considering splitting the Area ATCOs and Aerodrome ATCOs into seperate branches within Prospect? Or do we need some form of sub-Branch that can deal with Airport issues seperately and on which Area units have no say? If we did have a seperate Airports ATCOs branch would non-NATS units want to be involved?

Seven months to conference and twenty one months to the next pay deal!!

dvdr

8th Mar 2004, 23:24

A yes vote doesnt prove it was correct. The threat of losing 6.2 million pounds a year off our pay budget might have put a few more yes votes in.
Special conference must be held as the model is wrong and whoever constructed the model must be removed from this role and have nothing further to do with it. The lack of knowledge in its construction is scary.

Where r these results coming from???

HounslowHarry

8th Mar 2004, 23:25

From a hot off the press circular that should be hitting all your units shortly.

Now hopefully we can all be constructive with what is said and done
point 7 -You are not helping anyones cause with your attitude - try to come up with a view point that helps all your colleagues move on from this - HH

To: All Prospect ATCO Members 8 March 2004

Dear Colleague

ATCO PAY AND STRUCTURE BALLOT RESULT

The ATCOs’ Branch ballot on pay, structure, and working practices concluded at 12 noon today (8 March).
The ballot has resulted in a vote in favour of accepting the proposals. The result is as follows:-

Number of ballot papers distributed 1830
Number of ballot papers returned 1488
Number found to be spoilt 8
Thus number of valid votes counted 1480 (81% of distributed ballot papers)

Number voting YES 1077 (73% of valid vote)
Number voting NO 403 (27% of valid vote)

TOTAL 1480 (81% of valid vote)

The ballot papers were counted and validated by two independent Prospect scrutineers.

With the clear mandate to accept the package on pay, structure, and working practices, Prospect has today informed NATS of our acceptance of the proposals.

During the course of the ballot a number of individual members requested a suspension of the ballot process but after consideration and consultation with the General Secretary it was not believed to be appropriate. We also received just under 100 letters by the close of the ballot calling for a Special Delegate Conference, against 170 letters that are required. The BEC debated whether to call an SDC anyway, but after considerable discussion decided to call a series of special representative and membership workshops at ScOACC and Manchester AC to further discuss the concerns that have been expressed and review the Branch organisation and communications in the light of some of the criticisms that have been made. The provisional arrangements for the workshops are as follows:

Scottish and Oceanic Centre 20 April
Manchester Centre 21 April

Prospect ATCOs’ Branch recognises the strongly expressed views and concerns about the structure proposals particularly at ScOACC, Manchester AC and at some airports.

The National Secretary, Branch officers and BEC members will be present at both meetings.

Can we take this opportunity to remind members that motions for the next ATCOs’ Branch Delegate Conference, where many of these issues can be debated and, if carried, incorporated into Branch policy and action, must be submitted no later than noon on 24 September 2004, and the Conference will be held on 19/21 November. The calling notice for the conference will be issued on 30 July.

Further information on the remaining issues of structure, including details of the proposed approach to structure `part 2` will be circulated to members separately.

Would you please bring this circular to the attention of all ATCOs at your Unit.

Yours sincerely

DAVID LUXTON

National Secretary

Findo

8th Mar 2004, 23:40

We also received just under 100 letters by the close of the ballot calling for a Special Delegate Conference, against 170 letters that are required.

Where in the Branch rules does it define the timescale for calling a Special Delegate Conference ?

I didn't send my letter because I was waiting for the ballot result. Nice of Mr Luxton to tell me I now need 69 fellow signatories to get the magic number :ok:

dvdr

8th Mar 2004, 23:41

All letters not in yet surely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rules are guidelines apparently if 170 letters appear in total over the next few weeks they must have a conference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr Chips

8th Mar 2004, 23:45

Where r these results coming from???

Am I missing something? Democratic Process. A clear majority of ATCOs have voted to accept the pay deal.

1830 ballot papers sent out, only 403 voted against....

1830 members (I assume!) only 100 requested a special conference.....

I guess it wasn't as major an issue as we were told!
I'm not bothered to be honest as I am not personally affected, but the results don't seem to support what was said......

JuniorX

9th Mar 2004, 02:51

It does seem strange that following all the teeth gnashing, chest beating and general uproar expressed on the 41 page thread that accompanied the initial pay proposals that the deal has been democratically accepted by a significant majority.

Several contributors told us that their unit would be voting no, and that it was only us southern units (LACC,LTCC,LL etc) that would be voting yes, and in the process selling everyone else down the river!

This result clearly shows that many of the people at units away from the south also see this deal to be a good one for NATS ATCOs, and as such have voted for it.

I suspect that despite the fact that people said the main issue wasn't money, and who would be getting more than them , when push came to shove a lot of people realised how much better off they would be, even if they were not getting band 5 money.

Just my thoughts anyway,

Cheers

JuniorX

mainecoon

9th Mar 2004, 03:56

junior

do you have the stats as to how many prospect members you have in the south
and have you then done the stats as far as the % goes

strange though that prospect choose to count such a vote by themselves:mad:

Arran's view

9th Mar 2004, 04:08

It seems that there is a view that some of us did not vote against because of the money on offer. Don't think from anyone i spoke to at my unit that was the issue. As was said here agaian and again there are big problems with locking us into a structure which does not have the majority acceptance. I doubt if many of those in Band 5 even botherd to read the explanation of the structure but were happy with the result of the negotiations.

I think a conference to discuss the whole thing before setting out on the next part of the structure negotiations makes lots of sense. :O

250 kts

9th Mar 2004, 04:09

mainecoon,

Surely you're not suggesting that the fact that Prospect did the count meant the vote was rigged????????? Maybe possible over a couple of % you could be suspicious, but over 23%????-get real. The membership have voted significantly in favour of the deal. Now let's all get on with building NATS into a successful ATC business.

tug3

9th Mar 2004, 04:17

OK, so nearly 59% of the total Branch membership voted in favour. What I now want is to know what % on a unit basis voted to accept. The envelopes were colour-coded, (Magic marker on bottom of the envelope in case you failed to spot it), and the fact that a numbered ballot paper can be linked to the address to which it was sent means this process would be pretty straightforward.

I am not alone in thinking that if management and the TU are only interested in keeping the 'majority' at certain (other) units sweet and to hell with the rest, then this is not a situation/organisation in which I wish to remain.

The only way to sort this out once and for all is for the TU to be up front about what units went which way.

Oh, and before anyone starts lambasting me about 'divisive' processes then I'm afraid I've just witnessed one and Pandora's Box wasn't opened by me!!!

Rgds
T3

Chip Dyson

9th Mar 2004, 04:27

Special conference must be held as the model is wrong and whoever constructed the model must be removed from this role and have nothing further to do with it. The lack of knowledge in its construction is scary.

dvdr

I'm sorry but there has been a special conference (held last year in June), it was hotly debated at conference in Nov, all unit reps/units have been briefed, and plenty of paperwork has been flying around since.

I will agree the model is not yet perfect, but it is a good base to work from. It is a vast improvement on the current structure with more to come from part 2.

In the absence of any viable alternatives (which nobody against the deal seem to have), I am glad that we have voted for a bloody good deal.

JuniorX

9th Mar 2004, 04:53

I'm a little confused by what people are saying here. If the opposition to this pay deal is as great as is being made out by people, why was the vote not much closer?

If people at non band 5 units really felt this deal was that bad why didn't they all vote against it and get the offer rejected? For those complaining that they have been let down by their union I think you have to bear in mind that many of the people who have voted for this deal will be working next to you on the radar/in the tower tomorrow!

And before people start saying "well my unit voted against it..etc" look at the figures again and think, can the band 5 units really account for the 73% that said yes to the deal?

Junior X

p.s Mainecoon, I think implying that the vote was rigged because it wasn't the one you wanted is a bit wide of the mark!

250 kts

9th Mar 2004, 05:19

tug3,

The question of the colours on the envelopes was raised at my unit. Apparently the Engineers were involved in a ballot at the same time and this differentiated the ATCOs from the Engineers. Just so you can check,my envelope had a mark from a yellow highlighter at LACC-what did yours have-and an honest answer please!

How does knowing how the units voted help? It may just prove that many of the units that thought they were going to get a major "no" vote got only a small majority voting "no". It really is irrelevant because if you go down that route most of the SE units have been voted down over the last few years and not once have bleated about rigged ballots or the process being undemocratic. The result is the result-accept it but fight for change at the annual conference.

tug3

9th Mar 2004, 05:45

250kts - In answer to your question, I believe mine was also yellow, so thanks for the explanation. However, the means to I-D the unit remains possible through a process of linking ballot paper numbers to addressees. (If someone can disprove that then please do - I mean that sincerely!).

I accept the result but remain concerned by a feeling I have, (shared by others), of being shafted for the geater good of the 'majority'. I also pay a premium to be represented and feel entitled to expect that such representation is carried out in my best interests. If the TU wants to dispell this feeling it should publish the unit results and people like myself could then have their fears (hopefully) allayed.

I suspect that it will never happen but the fact that the BEC is planning to visit ScOACC and MACC gives me some incling that the BEC is concerned at these unit's results.

I look forward to that meeting!!!

Rgds
T3

PS Can anyone tally up the total number of ATCOs now at Band 5 units?

Ali Bongo

9th Mar 2004, 15:54

I never thought I would hear the day I'd agree with 250kts on this, but you are pretty much right on this.

The vote is so overwhelming in favour it speaks for itself really, and yes we should not be bleating we were beaten fairly and squarely. And it is quite refreshing to see only 1 or 2 idiots have been on here rubbing our noses in it, to be honest I expected more.

There were plenty of people at Macc who voted yes (I didn't), I can think of a dozen off the top off my head who freely admitted it, as they accepted the " money now argument". Fair enough they are entitled to a view as much as the rest of us. So that was no doubt repeated elsewhere, hence the margin of defeat. I think calling for (not that you would get them anyway) Unit by Unit results would only open another can of worms and show just how many people at Macc and other Units did vote yes!

As far as I'm concerned I have now drawn a line under the whole sorry mess that this caused and hopefully we can all move on. I have no intention of leaving Prospect unlike some of my colleagues. How can I change anything if I'm not in the Union to vote, or go to meetings to express my opinion? :\

055166k

9th Mar 2004, 16:25

A winning vote would have been 50% plus "one". The actual result was overwhelming . A loud minority was unable to persuade a sensible majority by force of expletives. I doubt very much that the workforce is merely vote-fodder, or even shallow enough to consider only financial reward. Anyone I have spoken to knew exactly what the deal meant.....good and bad. I want to thank the union for the detailed presentations, and to their on-going commitment to us all. Even without the banding issues this is a good deal......and a ratio of three-to-one recognised this.

flower

9th Mar 2004, 17:34

I never expected the vote to be anything but a yes vote, however I did expect it to be closer IE about 60/40.
Too much money was on the table and to many threats being bandied around ( yes they were).
So what do we do now, will the union honour what they said about addressing all the problems with re-grading.
Some of you out there thought we were throwing our toys out the pram because we did not accept this re-grading as fair, We wanted to get a fair system in place prior to voting it in as we all know full well that there is little likelihood now of getting it changed. I shall be putting motions forward to conference to look at all the issues I raised validly at the union meeting but to which I only got aggressive answers.
Yes we all got a decent pay rise I fully accept that, but my worth has been considerably lessened due to the massive pay differential now between Band 5 units and the majority of airport units on Band 2.
I shall be giving the union a limited amount of time to prove to me that I am getting the same representation as those at band 5 units.
The majority of the pay deal was excellent, they have brought in many good points but i still feel the re-grading issue was hurried and ill thought.

ayrprox

9th Mar 2004, 17:53

I have to say that i'm very disappointed by the ratio of yes/no votes, and have to say to those who are at those units so vehemently against the deal, that voted yes that, although you are well entitled to your view, I hope that you do not complain in the future as the gap between the 4 and 5 units gets bigger and bigger in the future(which i am sure we will be assured won't happen).. i am not blaming the union reps who put in a lot of their personal time but those in the membership who voted with their wallets.What will it take for you to vote no on a deal?
you are all entitled to vote how you wish but I am also allowed my own views. I have never been involved with a union before, but I am at the moment deeply disillusioned with the union system, because i can see no point in being involved in any future negotiations, for as long as a deal which keeps the band 5 units happy is agreed, then it will not matter what i think or whether my unit is being royally sh@fted because we will just be outvoted, I know its a democracy, but that doesn't mean it doesnt suck when you lose:( .
All I will say to those at now band 5 units is, dont be be like point 7 (who by all accounts appears to be an @rse), be magnanomous in victory like save my bacon and the others here like that.
--------------------------------------
ayrprox ( diillusioned now band 4 atco ) :(

Jumbo56

9th Mar 2004, 18:25

Morning all, just want to put my view in answer to all those (reasonable)views on both sides.
I'm a LACC ATCO and just want to say to all the so called 'northern ATCOs' referred to by our 'delightful' colleague P7; We are not all ignorant bigots like that so please try to ignore such comments, they're not worth the effort of getting worked up about.
I think the bitching from some members is insulting and unnecessary... if you don't like what you got it's about time you learnt that in a democracy the majority rules and you can never please everyone! The union reps worked bloody hard for this deal (no, i'm not one of them) and if you're not happy then perhaps you should stand for election yourself...NO? then shut up, grow up and live with the result. And if you're that worried then make sure you get involved with the Union's attempt to address concerns in the coming months.
Firstly I can sympathise with the impression perceived by some at the lower banded units...when I first read the details I was extremely worried that it was unfair...HOWEVER, I attended the union briefing and was very satisfied by the end that it was worked out in a fair manner and that this was the way to go.
After all if it's just money you want then please feel free to apply for your posting to a higher band unit today!! I know many people who would love to move to a lower banded unit (for a whole host of reasons) and have had their posting requests in for YEARS with no joy...There is no denying that for many of us the attraction of a quieter life(I'm not talking just ATC here) AND better quality of the latter is huge. So perhaps those of you who accused higher band unit staff of voting with their pockets you might withdraw such comments...you've probably got a far better chance of getting out of your unit than we have if that's what you want.

dvdr

9th Mar 2004, 18:40

Chip Dyson
The model is wrong fullstop. An alternative has been given and we will now see if the BEC is true to their word and the model is sorted out, provided some individuals are booted out of the process. Their arrogance and lack of knowledge is not acceptable.
I will certainly be expecting a motion to conference for the removal of union bloke
poor guidance and direction to the BEC
ignoring conference direction
ignoring BEC promises to members to keep management happy

Point Seven

9th Mar 2004, 19:42

Right kids

First things first. Calling me an arse on here really doesn't bother me.

Secondly, the chap above me makes the best point - THE MONEY IS THERE TO BE HAD BY ALL. Get out of your Eames leather armchair in your castle and get your application in for a move to band 5 unit. Easy ain't it? And before you all start giving me the line of crap about how you'd never live where I do blah, blah - well, therein lies the problem. Why should others get it when I can't?

I'll tell you all something else too. Band 5 ATCOs aren't all happy either. I mean let's face it, there are some Band 5ers who do a substantial amount less planes than others so they can claim this discrimination too.

This place used to be a great forum for chewing the fat with other ATCOs. Now it has just turned into a place where people go to whine.

P7 (R.I.P)

Rage

10th Mar 2004, 01:34

Well said Jumbo 56.

Until now I've stayed out of the great pay debate in this forum but would willingly move to a lower band unit (if this were possible) as I now recognise that my health is starting to suffer at my Band 5.

I (and many colleagues) are also of the opinion that there is a better model than that drawn up by the union. It's called 'individual unit pay negotiation' and I suspect that there will be a motion put to the next Union Conference proposing the adoption of this.

250 kts

10th Mar 2004, 02:54

dvdr,

You are completely out of order calling for someone to be out of a job by name when you hide behind an alias and please can you clarify what the last 3 lines of your ramblings are all about?

Chip Dyson

10th Mar 2004, 04:11

Hear! Hear! 250kts.

Rage, "individual unit negotiation" is exactly what management want. "Collective" negotiation has to put us in a stronger position.

dvdr, I am really looking forward to seeing what the alternative is.
Has it been worked on for over a year?
Will it be fair for all?
Will it be acceptable to the majority?
Is there a perfect solution?
Will you still be a union member next year?

dvdr

10th Mar 2004, 07:31

Point noted on the name now edited.
Conference stated without question this should have been a one year deal. No feedback to unit reps on the two year and the opinions of the members before going further.
Poor handling of this pay deal has to stop at his door.
The way it was presented was poor, better guidance should have been given.
It was stated that the model didnt really mean anything in the voting papers, then why were bandings based on it???????
The vote itself was not following union rules. Reply, rules are guidelines(since when????????) 30 day rule not followed. Who counted the vote??voting slips not standard???

After the roadshow north of the border BEC members said they would look into the model and the faults picked up by one individual before going any further. The individual went on the wednesday of the following week to talk about the model and its faults but on the Monday of that week union bloke put out a joint statement with management stating that the meeting would not change anything. Who give him the power to over rule the BEC and members???????????????????????? He has not been voted in by the members of this branch but he can be shown the door.
There will always be unhappy people but when major points are missed out of the model because it doesnt happen at the big units is not acceptable. The model was not fair and I will say it again, it was produced by people who have a lack of knowledge in ATC across the whole of NATS. Will it change the order maybe! Will everyone be happy, no!! Is it closer to the truth, yes!

As for being completely out of order, maybe a bit, not completely. But he has been completely out of order. Of course money wise the pay deal was ok but and its a BIG BUT. Over four hundred people voted NO to such a rise because of the attachments and disrespect shown to them. They were prepared to take the fight on for a fair system, not take the money and run.
One thing we have all learnt from this is being fair and acceptable to the majority is two different things.

055166k

10th Mar 2004, 14:57

I am looking forward to meeting new friends down at Swanwick. For the first time ever it will be genuinely attractive as a posting. Did you realise that with only a dozen or so more controllers the amount of extra capacity will be enormous? Great prospects for promotion too; did you know that only 37% of the controllers at Swanwick actually control traffic. You really can have your cake and eat it too. As they used to say on the TV game show..."Come on down!".

Don't Tell Him Pike

10th Mar 2004, 16:31

To all the "Come on down" brigade, people up north HAVE been putting in for transfers down south, but aren't being releasedby their units. How many times do you need to be told?

I'm not up for moving though, I don't think a Roller and a castle would go with my image:ok:

Chip Dyson

10th Mar 2004, 16:44

dvdr,

I say again, what is the alternative?

Rage

10th Mar 2004, 21:30

Don't tell him Pike

My car is seven years old. I can't afford a new one having had to pay a fortune in mortgage costs to buy myself out of the one roomed galleried home I started with.

The real reason your not for moving is that the odd few thousand (even less after tax etc.) doesn't make it attractive enough.

dvdr

10th Mar 2004, 21:55

dont say again to me you :mad: .
The alternative is simple put the correct figures into the model couldnt be more simple. But because it changes the order there no change for the vote which has gone through. Band 5 will need to have more members or one unit wont like being relegated. The formula is wrong too if tc and lacc had a million ATCO's each they still score higher than the rest.

tug3

11th Mar 2004, 04:38

C'mon all you number-crunchers out there, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me of the 1830 members in the Branch, how many (including students) are currently posted at what are now Band 5 units?????

Somebody must know - please speak up!!!

Rgds
T3

Chip Dyson

11th Mar 2004, 16:44

dvdr,

as I said before the model is not perfect but let's work on it. Our colleagues must believe in this or otherwise the vote would have been closer. You must also believe this in part, as you want to put figures into the model, if not a suitable alternative must be presented.

VectorLine

11th Mar 2004, 19:25

Well, I'll tell you this much..

I'm not looking forward to 0530 starts.

I was considering moving further away from Swanwick, but even my current half hour drive means getting up very early to get ready for the shift.

DangerousD

11th Mar 2004, 21:27

The result was not surprising for many at the units which were unhappy with the whole ballot. I must say i was a little surprised by the margin until i looked at just the staffing figures at some of the units. If you consider macc area at approx 100 controllers, scatc at approx 200 (inc oceanic) and possibly pf and ph at approx 100 (?) . Now i'm not saying 100% voted against at these units (i know for a fact that for some here at macc the 10% will go nicely into retirement/canada plans) but you get the picture. Now if you consider lacc (300+), tc(300+) LL,SS,BB and the college (well over200) then you can start to see why the result was never going to be in doubt. I for one have now accepted the result because i have to but i really need to stress that this was NEVER about wanting more money, just look at the facts i now have a ten% pay rise over 2 years, 2 spine points to look forward to (8%) and if people become ojti's then on paper it seems incredulous that anyone would vote no but we did because we could see that the banding/wpp was rushed, flawed and has INCREASED resentment everywhere. At macc and scatc there is now a real band 4 band 5 them and us mentality and i'm guessing those at lacc/tc will continue to see us as numpti's for not backing them over the whole re structuring.

I shall be trying my hardest to join the best paid units in the south but not because of the money (i've been trying for 2+ yrs already) but because moral at what was one of the best places to work is now shot to peices. Perhaps one of you lot bleeting about the quiet life at units up north should make you're voices heard and then perhaps we could swap!!

rant over.

5milesbaby

11th Mar 2004, 23:01

According to our pay briefing, not ONE application for a move to Swanwick has been presented to the management's desk within the last 12 months. If you THINK you have applied, then you want to get onto your immediate management to find out why they are blocking your potential move.

DangerousD dont speculate or approximate staffing figures, like the 'model', numbers can be manipulated to say just what you want. Likewise, dont leave out any stations, what about EGGW/EGFF/EGPF (known to be grumbling), and EGCC tower? Or EGLC/EGSS Tower/EGKK Tower/EGPD/EGLF...need I ask for more. They all get a vote, they all can throw a deal either way. The figures you have seen, are they for Employees or actual union members? The college may have "well over 200" but how many of these are students? A good proportion of students wait until they get to unit before joining so cannot vote. I hardly think that "becoming an ojti" added to the pay deal makes it 'more attractive', OJTI payments etc are part of the WPP 2nd round. Then it might make it worth it.

A select few need to swallow what has happenned and accept it, move on, and look to making adjustments/improvements in the forthcoming negotiations, rather than rant and rage aimlessly and helplessly on here.

As for support, where was ours 2 years ago, 4 years ago........... :ouch:

mainecoon

12th Mar 2004, 01:28

5miles

we spoke to to your ex boss mr lewis

he told us that postings were handled by hr
he only got involved when there were special circumstances were involved

so it seems it is yourselves that have been missled in your brief in this occasion

5milesbaby

12th Mar 2004, 02:41

I somehow doubt that hr deal with man movement souly, management WILL HAVE to get involved so they can play with their precious numbers.

Arkady

12th Mar 2004, 02:48

Maine

I would trust our new bosses' word evey hour of every day ahead of our old boss.

250 kts

12th Mar 2004, 05:25

maine,

Think about what he is saying-that he doesn't get to see a posting request before HR-absolute tosh. He will be acutely aware of the fact that people want to leave but it is in his and other managers on the unit best interest for requests not to leave the unit.

If people really want to get out why don't they approach the potential accepting unit directly then maybe the scale of the problem will be in the open.

Ali Bongo

12th Mar 2004, 19:34

I'm sure the issue of moving to Swanwick was raised at the Prospect briefing at MACC. The Union said that they were aware of "applications" being blocked and with the new structure in place they would then start to look hard at any that were as there would now be pay implications.

It is worth noting that a couple of people are shortly to leave here for the College but none that I know of have a sniff of a start date at NERC despite anything up to 10 posting applications being submitted (some quite some time ago). Hopefully, Prospect will be as good as their word and start "unblocking" the system ..so to speak:ok:

250 kts

13th Mar 2004, 03:34

I can't believe anyone with a real intention of moving would leave a request to move for more than a couple of months before chasing it up.

I accept a manager won't want to go below the level needed to run the unit but surely an application to move within the company is better to be dealt with agreeably knowing the attrition rate we have with Canada at present.

Pheasant Plucker

13th Mar 2004, 21:14

This whole thing about "... if you want more money then move south, come and join us!" is a red herring.

If the gradings were reversed: LACC/TC were band 4 units, ScACC/MACC band 5, how many controllers currently at LACC/TC, living settled existences, kids at school etc BUT without any connections to Scotland/NW England, would willingly upsticks and move, purely for the extra money??

As far as I can see, the only ones to have voluntarily moved to my unit from LACC/TC over the past few years are ones with strong Scottish connections/ family reasons (I doubt this is just self fulfilling i.e. there are a huge number applying, but the majority don't get through because they don't have compassionate reasons, therefore we don't see any others up here).

mainecoon

14th Mar 2004, 10:14

250 again you seem to miss the point

my boss was talking about when he was your boss

to spell it out the boss at lacc would not deal with requests of people to be posted in
:{

Arkady

14th Mar 2004, 10:37

Lewis wouldn't when he was the boss. There was a lot he wouldn't deal with when he was the boss.

Call Paul Louden and tell him you have put in an application to LACC and that you want his help to effect the transfer. What harm can it do? If he knows that there are people keen enough to contact him direct he knows it will be worth his while fighting their corner.

Anyone who just writes a letter and gives up when some clerk in HR sends it back marked "refused" really doesn't want to move.

DangerousD

16th Mar 2004, 19:55

With regard to requests for transfers, their is no defined system in place at the moment but the procedure is that any request will go to you're line/unit manager and he will acknowledge you're request and no doubt as in my case seem to be positive and talk about time scales and manpower issues etc, and come up with a nominal date in the future when they think they will have enough staff to release you. Unfortunately any unforseen cicumstances (ie people leaving for canada, people saying they will take early retirement rather than move to prestwick, etc) rather put these tentative and non binding timescales to pot.

With regard to whoever having not seen any requests at southern units is that they will not get sent to them until the line/unit manager sends them to him/her when he can release you. Oh and it's no good contacting you're preferred unit directly as they will not get involed with ANY direct requests for transfers.

5miles baby...... sorry if my grammer put you off of my main thread in my last posting but what i was trying to say was the total number of controllers/instructers at LL + SS + BB + Hurn would be in excess of 200 and did not include any students. The point I was trying to make was that the total number of controllers at the perceived pro units as to the anti units was approx 70ish to 30 ish, and those that hadn't been seen to be one way or the other would in all honestly probably vote in the same percentages or perhaps have more non voters...just a guess and nothing for you to get so animated over.T**T