The result of the LATCC jury.......

[250 kts]

Turnout--89%
For--2%
Against--98%

HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Asda]

Of all the people that I spoke to about this vote, nobody said to me, I'm voting against because of the money. (I will be totally honest and qualify this, those ATCOs who would not have gained monetarily, because they wouldn't have enough days in lieu, about 30% of all area ATCOs, I believe, complained a lot that the deal was unfair to them and that everyone should be treated the same, so they were complaining about the money but only that they were missing out.) Let me say that again, people were not saying it's not enough money, I want more.

Most people were very worried about the introduction of overtime and said they felt this as a first and very strong step towards compulsary or non negotiable overtime imposed by whatever management we end up with. We all know we are short of staff, there's no relief from this in the immediate future and management will have to try everything to get more controllers in seats, for longer. It's hardly surprising they want to throw money at the problem. I think people were also aggrieved that their days off, which are being mucked around, with notice, but still mucked around, all this year to help with NERC training, were theirs by right to keep and have away from work because they had earned them. I know the sale of days back is voluntary, but the perception was, 'I've been mucked around for years over this project, working harder and harder with increased traffic, training etc., management have totally screwed up the staffing numbers and now they expect me to work even more to clear up their mess.' And once you start working more you're probably never going to work less again.

Then there was the 'three year deal' section. Why not just one year? It's guessing but by going for three years perhaps they feel that overtime will become commonplace and more acceptable by the next negotiation. Don't expect the rates to go up then either because if we do accept this people will do this once, twice and then not be able to afford to give it up when they want, so management will pay whatever they think is reasonable and a little less. I digress - that's the next negotiation.

Basically what I'm waffling on about is that the money is nice, yes, who doesn't want more money, but it's the extension of management control into our lives and days off that has unsettled everyone (well me) so much. We all know how much we enjoy coming in for those extra three attendances for ECT, management want up to 10 days sold and even more attendances than that! But in the summer (when all the extra attendances will be required) I feel exhausted if I don't get the full three days off. I don't want to feel like that or for that matter sit next to someone who does. I don't care about the money, I don't want and don't need to work any more than I do now.

Anyone else feel the same? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif ? Sorry for the waffle.

[250 kts]

You're absolutely right ASDA, this was about much more than cash. We all NEED those days off in the summer to try to recover from the pasting we all get- especially now as most people are actually working 95% of their rostered hours.
I agree that we should go for a deal only upto O date, and if they still need extra attendances after that then £350 per day will look like chicken feed .
I think all the LATCC en route cttee deserve a vote of thanks for judging the local feeling correctly and not giving into NATS or IPMS HQ who wanted a reccommendation of this offer.
Well Colin you said there's no morale problem and no shortage of staff - WRONG and WRONG again.

[Postman Pat]

Well said ASDA. I agree with everything you say. I believe that they can muddle along until O date by simply not allowing people to take owed DIL's. What they really wanted from this package is the agreement for "planner only" validations at NERC. Without this then even the arrogant NATS management know they have a problem. There must be at least 50 CSC's who are going to NERC who currently do not do radar.

PP

[Numpo-Nigit]

I sincerely echo all the previous sentiments. Whilst the vote is an excellent result, we must do everything in our power to ensure that management do not portray this vote, or any of its consequences, as simply a matter of money (ie greed). The issues of single-sector and planner-only validations are far more important in the longer term. I was rather disappointed that they received little emphasis in the IPMS paperwork associated with the ballot, but I trust our representatives will ensure full coverage of these important issues when the implications of management's failure become public.

[G:RUFF]

Numpo - Regarding the coverage of issues by IPMS. I am worried that although they work hard for us (especially the local reps), the voice of IPMS is not loud enough. I saw Mr Noon the other day on local news, he made some good points but didnt get the point across. Is this coverage really strong enough for us.
Mr Pat - You make a very good point, but if we work to rule etc, then we are entitled to our D.I.L within 3 months (I think this is right??), remember we havent agreed to to accept the idea of "saving" our D.I.L for future years, yet! So dont think we/the management could manage through OCT.
We have a long way to go yet, lets hope it is in the right direction. :rolleyes:

[Big Nose1]

An excellent result which will give management a lot to think about. Will the ATCO`s on the 4 of 5 watches that have not allocated the appropriate DIL from OCT in Feb know go to their desk staff and insist on taking DIL now, rather than banking them. This is the only way to keep the pressure on, congrats to B watch desk for having the guts to bite the bullet.

[Numpo-Nigit]

On the subject of when those days-in-lieu have to be given under our current terms and conditions, I believe the agreement states "within a reasonable period", or words to that effect. I'm sure that legal opinions will be sought by both sides, but what do YOU regard as a reasonable period? Whilst I'll hazard a guess that management will consider a vague promise of "as soon as we can" as meeting the criteria, my own personal opinion is that I need that day-in-lieu within one cycle (ie plus or minus ten days). I feel a difference of opinion coming on........

[250 kts]

Not sure that applies to the travel days though as they're supposed to be to stop fatigue. I believe they should be taken at the rate of 1/month. It's up to those people who've already banked some to INSIST that they be given them at the 1st opportunity.

[2 six 4]

The rest of the country watches with intense interest.