NERC "bung"

[daft fader]

Any takers for the bribe?

No doubt this subject will attract the ire of many non latcc and /or non NATS people. However, a lot of Latcc people are pissed off with the insulting offer before them.

Should people really be expected to sell their days off so that management can get the training in?

[bill]

one point to remember, the "bung" offered was unfair because not everyone would get the headline figure but, more importantly than buying time-in-lieu, it was also buying our agreement to significant changes such as accepting single sector validations.

[Hedge End Estate Agent]

What's the issuing with single sector validations ?? What other working practices are being cahnged ??

I understand IPMS have rejected the Management proposal and there is to be another meeting on Monday.

[Asda]

I would love to be a fly on the wall for THAT meeting!

[Hedge End Estate Agent]

So - what was the outcome of the meeting on Monday ?????????

[Asda]

My understanding is, and I prepare to be corrected, that the 'bung' or demotivational package will not be recommended for acceptance by the negotiating committee. However, and I'm not sure why, it will still be put to the ballot.( So maybe here's a chance to see just how 'rebellious' those naughty controllers at LATCC actually feel these days, it will be interesting to see.)

I haven't seen a detailed explanation of the deal yet and there are lots of unanswered questions that everyone seems to be just guessing the answers to. I'm not sure if even the negotiating team are aware of all the permutations of situations there might be, though I may be doing them an injustice. Personally I see this package as being highly divisive and actually extremely unfair all round.

[250 kts]

Under law the offer has to be put to the membership despite the local committee rejecting it.
The offer still doesn't come up to the expectations in that management called it a motivational package, but as you say there is nothing here to motivate the people involved.
NATS NEED us to sell back dil and also to attend more often. I suspect many will sell back the dil(especially travel days) however anyone who is also interested in additional attendances, especially in 2001, whilst OCT is happening, more commuting, less staff at LATCC and higher traffic levels, must be
out of their heads.
The ballot starts this week and end mid/late Jan. Let's hope for another resounding NO vote from the LATCC AC jury.

[Hedge End Estate Agent]

I understand that there are many more issues than just the size of the 'bung' - for instance, the issue surrounding single-sector validations, which I still don't comprehend; can anyone enlighten me?

[Numpo-Nigit]

HEEA

There are various issues related to "Single Sector Validations", and I will attempt to enlighten you. It is often described as de-skilling the profession, which is true but simplistic.

In a historical context, "two sectors" (or, more correctly, sector suites) has always been the initial validation standard at LATCC. However, it was always regarded as an initial phase, and, after a period of consolidation, the aim was to extend all (or most) controllers to a "bank" (north or south) which could involve four or five sectors. In the current era, such a multiplicity of sector validations has long been unrealistic, but the current, experienced, ATCO pool normally has three or four.

The initial aim of a two sector standard achieved several things. It was a reasonably representative test of the overall ability of the controller concerned, and the vast majority of them successfully extended onto other sectors in the future. It also prevented the boredom factor, both during training and after validation, and gave the overall watch-rostering a certain flexibility.

Now, let us introduce a (so far) hypothetical "single sector" controller. He or she can only work on that one sector, regardless of the demands or shortages elsewhere. Initially, the pressure to "make the system work" involves the more-qualified controllers having to move to other, busier sectors. As the number of single-sector controllers increases, this pressure on the remainder increases as well. In some cases it will mean that controllers with several sector validations will be unable to keep all their validities current, both because they are always needed somewhere else and because the relevant sector is always full with controllers unqualified to work elsewhere.

At present the flexibility of the multi-sector environment allows staff to move around as demand dictates. For example, a controller valid on sectors A and B can provide fatigue breaks for both the incumbent controllers (three controllers for two positions). If all the staff concerned are single-sector then it now takes four controllers to achieve the same result (hardly a plus for the bean-counters in a privatised ATC system, incidentally).

Ah, you may say, surely these controllers will extend to other sectors in the natural course of events, just as before. Well, maybe, but having only been required to demonstrate a standard on one sector initially, it is very likely that a greater percentage will fail to adapt successfully to further sectors - and, indeed, what is their motivation? They're already being paid the job-rate, so why bother? And what of the controllers already multi-sector valid? If they're getting the same remuneration as the single-sector guys and gals, why shouldn't they join the clamour to reduce the number of sectors on their licence? Thus, the flexibilty in the system further diminishes. Don't believe me? Remember that morning a couple of months ago when there were barely enough radar controllers to open one of the six sectors on "the west end"? That day at least one controller was sent home as surplus because he was valid on another two sectors already replete with staff, and nobody there was suitably qualified to move to where the action was.

So, for a variety of reasons it is seen as a bad idea - for the existing staff, for the incoming staff, but, above all, for the ATC system as a whole. In simple terms - de-skilling the profession.

I'm sure somebody will point out something that I've forgotten to mention.........

[daft fader]

Well, the ballot forms are now available from your watch reps.

I`ve voted (vote early , vote often). No need to wait for the watch briefings, the offer is not enough and divisive.

If our managers want oct to run properly they are going to have to try harder.

[Numpo-Nigit]

"If our managers want oct to run properly..."

Well, perhaps they do - that's what they say.
Then again, perhaps they don't. Maybe they know it can't, and would just love something to force it off the rails. Then they'd try to pass the buck to somebody else for the failure of NERC to open on-time (oh, I forgot, it already didn't do that already, several times).

That said, it should make no difference to the way we vote. I've yet to see the details of this wonderful offer, but, if it's as bad as I'm led to believe, then it will be "NO" from me.

The prospect of management whining about how those nasty controllers messed up their brilliant plan to get NERC operational a mere six years late worries me not a jot. Most of them will be out of a job soon anyway, won't they? "Total failure at NATS" doesn't sound too promising on a CV, does it?

[Hedge End Estate Agent]

Numpo

Thanks for that excellent explanation - what I don't understand is that if single-sector validations are accepted, then as you say, staffing will become a bigger problem than it is now. Surely NATS Management recognise that too - it's not rocket-science.

[Asda]

As NATS management stumble from one crisis to another, its just a case of putting bums on seats and single sector validities, in the short term, would. And thats all they want to know.

Numpo, an excellent explanation if I may say so.

[overload]

Apologies to non-latcc Atco’s, you’ll find this very boring.

Regarding the Nerc bung, here are the choices:

Vote yes: Take the money for the OCT days in lieu, choose whether or not you want to work voluntary overtime, which will probably just be a deduction from annual leave rather than specific extra shifts.

Vote no 1: We’ve got them by the short and curlies lets get some extra dosh.
Hmmm possibly, but I would say unlikely.

Vote no 2: Management withdraws offer, bites the bullet on days in lieu, Airlines take the hit, but left in no doubts who is causing their pain.

Vote no: Management withdraw offer, and try and interpret present working practises to their advantage, promising us Dil’s at some unspecified date in the future, with a menacing “any ATCO not attending will be considered in breach of contract”. We either bite bullet for no extra dosh, or take unauthorised days off/industrial action, then see above “Airlines take the hit, but left in no doubt who is causing their pain.”

Most Atco’s I've spoken to don’t seem to have a problem with the Nerc OCT bung, just for the one year, but find the voluntary overtime “the thin edge of the wedge” especially with PPP approaching. I personally can’t see the point of making an issue of it now, particularly considering that any agreements secured before PPP can be scrubbed easily afterwards.

I’m minded, (but still listening to arguments for both sides), to vote yes, but not do voluntary attendance’s, and if after PPP overtime is made compulsory, them take appropriate action.

Am I being naïve?

PS Message to management who is undoubtedly reading these pages.
I’m almost certain that it’s going to be a resounding no vote. I think you could easily get a yes vote just on the Nerc Dil’s Oct issue, if you scrubbed the overtime bit, better than nothing?

[Asda]

No you're probabaly not being naive but look at this another way...

this deal is SOOOOO good that the negotiating team can't bring themselves to recommend it. Now what sort of comment is that about what is being offered. And if you want to talk about consequences, what happens the next time the LATCC negotiating team goes to work if controllers accept this deal. Management will simply laugh in their faces when they say they represent the workforce. An acceptance now would hardly be a ringing endorcement of 'our' team at the table would it.

This deal is 'final' because it suits management to say so. There is no more money because it suits management to say so. If the negotiating team believe that this is not a good deal, I believe that we have to support them and by doing so strengthen their, and therefore our, bargaining positions.

[Numpo-Nigit]

Overload

I'm not "having a go" because you are perfectly entitled to believe, and vote for, whatever you wish. However, you do seem to be in a tiny minority this time around. It seems to me that almost everybody is voting "NO" as fast as they can get their hands on a ballot paper, and they are even inviting their colleagues to witness their vote. That is something I have never seen before in any ballot, so I guess it says a lot about the depth of feeling on the issue.

I also think that your predicted consequences of a NO vote are rather pessimistic. You may well be correct when you say that there will be no further money forthcoming, but most people are basing their vote on wider issues than simply money. Affected in the outcome of this ballot are matters such as "single-sector validations" and "planner-only validations". These are issues which will still be issues well after the projected three-year span of the potential "bung" payments.

As regards your possible outcomes, again I don't believe that even NATS management would be stupid enough to make serious threats of action against staff allegedly in breach of contract over this issue. Today's employment legislation gives workers so many rights with regard to the "status quo" that it would tie everybody up in litigation for longer than OCT!!!

The most realistic option for management is, as you say, to "bite the bullet" over days in lieu, and attempt to denude the LATCC operation. Do you honestly believe that the airlines will blame anybody except NATS management for causing such a cock-up?

I think that the most likely result of a NO vote is that management will re-schedule the OCT to obviate the requirement for "buying back" days-in-lieu, etc. The pressure from the airlines, and probably "Two Jags" too (if he's still there by then), will not permit too drastic a reduction in LATCC service delivery. What will then give way is the January 2002 O-date for NERC, which is probably not achievable anyway.

The most likely casualty of that result would be "Man at C&A" (old CC himself) who is ideally-placed to be the political fall-guy, if one is needed.

[250 kts]

Well NN, it's been the same on our watch- not a single "yes" has been seen, with many voting openly "NO". Time to wake up Colin- you've got a problem brewing!!!