Working Together

[MrJones]

Working Together has certainly been a highly successful policy for NATS’s management; the NTUS were mandated by their members to maintain all the existing pension benefits, yet now, just a matter of months later, the Unions themselves are recommending closing the existing NATS pension to new employees and reducing the benefits to existing members.

In anyone’s language that is a spectacular result. How has it been achieved?

The criticism of Working Together has ranged from the Stockholm syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Syndrome) to the altogether much more sinister. This thread is for the expression of any concerns NATS staff have about Working Together.


I think this thread should not be moved to the NATS forum as staff are much more likely to express their reservations of Working Together if they don’t have to use a login they might have used from their NATS computer.

[throw a dyce]

Well how many ex union reps are now in middle management? Nudge Nudge :ok::ok: know what I mean.

[BDiONU]

the NTUS were mandated by their members to maintain all the existing pension benefits, yet now, just a matter of months later, the Unions themselves are recommending closing the existing NATS pension to new employees and reducing the benefits to existing members.

Perhaps (and I know this is a bit of a radical idea) when everyone has been to the joint briefings and heard both sides of the story there might (just a possibility I know) be some glimmer of understanding as to how the current situation was arrived at.
Personally I would want to listen and understand before pronouncing immediate and outright condemnation of the NTUS. But I'm a bit weird in not going straight into kneejerk reactions :rolleyes:

BD

[MrJones]

BDiONU (http://www.pprune.org/members/27981-bdionu) this thread is not about pensions it is about Working Together

[tank3]

Is there any truth that management wanted this to be named "working for us". as an ex union member i'm not in the least surprised at the turn of events.

[eglnyt]

I suspect that this thread wasn't started to debate this but I'll have a go.

In the pre-Thatcher era of industrial relations there was inherent mistrust between management and workforce. Negotiations started with both sides making outrageous demands with no real substance and eventually after much time and usually some form of industrial action they would meet somewhere in the middle with a settlement that neither side was really happy with.

More modern enlightened thinking says that actually both sides want the best solution and, if there can be sufficient trust for both sides to put all their cards on the table, it is possible to get a much quicker and better solution for all concerned.

For management there are no real risks in this approach. Provided they are honest it will usually provide a solution that is acceptable to them and worse case the outcome will be only the same as if the old confrontation method was adopted.

The risks are all on the union side. If their membership don't trust management or worse, don't trust their union representatives, then the union will find it difficult to carry their membership however good the agreed solution and the effect on the union can be disastrous.

[121decimal375]

The union had no mandate to discuss pension changes with the company, working together or not they should not have entered into the negotiations without first getting a mandate.

I understand that around the company signitures are being collected to force the unit to call a "special meeting" to discuss this exact issue!

I too will wait for the briefings but I'm positive my feelings cannot be changed on the issue!

[Me Me Me Me]

Working Together in principle is a good idea. The intention is that it avoids the old fashioned butting of heads that Management v Union meetings were... By being fully involved in the process, union reps are ready to buy into the result, rather than wait for a management plan to be presented then just say "no"

On the current pension example... It's difficult. I know and have worked for over a decade with some of those reps who have been involved in this process. I know with certainty the level of integrity and deep-rooted union beliefs that those I know have. I am sure that, if they have accepted this deal, its because they considered it the best option available.

However, I am still not happy that they went down this path in the first place. Union reps are just that - representatives. Their authority is based on the approval of members. By entering in to confidential negotiations where they were not able to consult with members on their path, they have over-stepped their authority in my view.

Realistically there may be no alternative to this plan... I will wait and see... but, if we back down and accept this deal then I think the TUs can just pack up and go home. All authority and influence in future negotiations will be lost.

I hate to say 'I told you so' but I voiced by concerns over the path they took right at the outset.... I told you so.

[DEUCHARSIPA]

Ian Hall was the ATCOs Branch SEc for many years.

[ayrprox]

we 'worked together' during the privatisation process, we also 'worked together' when the banding issue came to light.

forgive me if i feel slightly sceptical about any future 'working together' particularly when it involves my pension and future pay

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/grrrrrr.gif

[BOBBLEHAT]

Come on then smart Alecs what's the alternative to working togther?

Some of you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Working together is one element of the way the trade unions liase with management. In essence it means no surprises from each side. Just because working together is banded about (forgive the pun)doesn't mean it replaces good old fashioned negotiation. Certain aspects of communicating are appropriate for certain tasks - for example the move of TC to Swanwick, working together there solved lot's of problems and meant nobody was in the dark about what was happening - those moving from MACC should benefit from it as it is being used as an example of what can be achieved from 'working together' in the lessons learnt from the move - which is yet another form of the working together process.

If you think that the union wants to be in this position with pensions you need your head examining. What do you think NATS would have done if they hadn't been forced to negotiate or work together on this way forward? You should have seen what they wanted to do to your pension - and they could have - they can alter any of your conditions with 6 months notice.

So call it whatever you want but remember that if the union doesn't talk/negotiate with management then you'll be in stalemate and if you think that works then go back to 1973 and the 3 day week or the winter of discontent in 1978 - wasn't that a fabulous time for trade unionism and a refusal to negotiate.

[barstewards]

You should have seen what they wanted to do to your pension - and they could have - they can alter any of your conditions with 6 months notice.
And we can leave with 3 months notice - controllers are in short supply worldwide....

This "Not for profit" making organisation made over £50 million last year
Our Chief Executive earned £600 thousand this year (not to mention a rather expensive car)

Do these figures really show a company that cannot afford to reward their loyal hardworking staff with a real final salary pension scheme - not some watered down RPI + 0.5% nonsense?????

[Caesartheboogeyman]

You should have seen what they wanted to do to your pension - and they could have - they can alter any of your conditions with 6 months notice.



there is a lot more we could do with 6 months notice. go back to minimum unit requirement. give up ojti, lce, stop bandboxing on nights. no shortcuts, no high speed etc

oh yes, i nearly forgot....we could organise a cracking tea party at the front gate. all invited. bring a donkey jacket and your own oil drum

[jonny B good]

Lots of comments about what the union should and shouldn't have done.
Instead of whinging on a website, why not get up and do something about it?
The union is made up of it's members. The branch executive is elected by those members to represent them. They act as an executive and do not consult and ballot on every issue. They have done nothing different here.
If so many people think they know a better why to conduct industrial relations, stand for election and show the rest of us how it should be done.:sad:

[expediteoff]

Yeah,

"The Branch executive is elected by it's members to represent them...." Correct!

Last thing they told me was " One Nats , one pension". No members kicked up a stink when told that was the policy, because thats what the membership wanted.

VOTE NO

[eyeinthesky]

QUOTE
there is a lot more we could do with 6 months notice. go back to minimum unit requirement. give up ojti, lce, stop bandboxing on nights. no shortcuts, no high speed etc
UNQUOTE

Absolutely right. Of course the other things stopped would be:

No short notice leave approvals after roster publication
No 1/2 days AL/DIL
Everyone staying for the whole shift all the time
No release for meetings/medicals/need to see the au-pair etc
ATSAs on overtime being sent home when the number of sectors reduces to the number which can be met by the the core shift and only paid for the hours worked

By the way, what's the point about 'not bandboxing on nights'? The standard night configuration in AC is not a concession.

[expediteoff]

Hey Eyeinthesky mate!

With the exception of the ATSA O/T remark - all your list of "negatives" already happen at my "significant" Unit - and have done for quite a while.

They are coming your way anyway!

VOTE NO

[ayrprox]

No 1/2 days AL/DIL
no problem, we struggle to use DIL as it is. also means that projects involving those staff accruing DIL may also fall behind schedule, as they stop attending meetings outside of their rostered hours.
Everyone staying for the whole shift all the time
do that 90% of the time anyway. wouldn't miss it much
No release for meetings/medicals/need to see the au-pair etc
once again no problem. people should not attend those meetings unless they occur when they are at work. I'll do my medical during work hours.

Long term the things you mention may come to really annoy people,yes however, the measures suggested by caesar will, long term , cause more problems for management than they expect. I don't think they realise how much is done in this company through shear goodwill and people doing things in their own time.
:ok:

[radar707]

I think that management are aware of the amount of goodwill that keeps the units going, however they choose to accept it as the norm and have come to rely on this goodwill (and on occasions abusing it).

Giving up anything other than MUR will only serve to cause problems at the centres as sadly us at the airports operate to MUR.

No training, no more coming in on days off for meetings, insisting that mediacals are undertaken during working hours, making sure that (and this is for us at the airport radar units) we are logged in to the OPM when sitting around waiting for traffic as director, no more making it work when we are short staffed, no more doing that extra few minutes because the WM has cocked up the break plan. Insisting on having a full 1/2 hour break after doing anything work related following a session on console.

All these things will serve well to get the message across to management that we have been carrying this company for far to long and for once we are going to stand up and fight for those terms and conditions that we currently enjoy and to protect those terms (including the pension that I signed up for, not the one they want me to have now).

Failing that then I and the vast majority of my colleagues are prepared to walk.

As has been said many many times before, the powder is dry, and protecting our pension scheme is something that I and the overwhelming majority of my colleagues are willing to light the blue touch paper and stand well back behind lighted oil drum, carrying placards for .

[brummbrumm]

Interesting this concept of working together.

Our Union rep was supposed to be attending a briefing on the pensions scenario this Wednesday, gave the boss plenty of notice and still hasn't been released from nights to attend. Too late now then!!

[Cuddles]

Working together is what we, the staff must do now. NATS has used divide and rule for a long time now, so if we can all put our differences (Perceived and real) to one side until this is all sorted out it will really help our cause.

For one thing, a member of NATS management / the journalistic community, or the public reading these boards may come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly that we bicker, and nit pick like spoiled children.

Together we stand, divided we fall.

[DC10RealMan]

In my opinion the "problem" of Working Together is one of perception. The aims are very laudable however when one sees union representatives meeting mangement overnight in fancy hotels for dinner and drinks and then as a union member you ask what was said and agreed only to have your request turned down due to confidentiality and our other issues it does make one wonder what is going on.
In the late 1940s George Orwell wrote a book called Animal Farm which was a critique of the Soviet Union under Stalinism in which the leaders of the revolution the pigs ran the farm for the benefit of all the workers. I would suggest that it might required reading for all union members.

[MrJones]

DC10RealMan (http://www.pprune.org/members/72210-dc10realman)



In my opinion the "problem" of Working Together is one of perception. The aims are very laudable however when one sees union representatives meeting mangement overnight in fancy hotels for dinner and drinks and then as a union member you ask what was said and agreed only to have your request turned down due to confidentiality and our other issues it does make one wonder what is going on.Are records kept of this Hospitality?

[DON GIVACHIT]

"Keeping our powder dry for the really big issues". This phrase has been bandied about on various forums along with, "Lines in the sand", "non negotiable" for as long as I have been in the company (6 and a half years).

As a Union member I am sickened and furious at the conduct of the "team" or "cabal" that have been speaking to the company without a mandate from the membership.

Regardless of their intentions, they entered into talks with the company who then gag them with a confidentiality clause so they are then unable to furnish the members with full disclosure of the nature of the discussion.

We are then presented with a briefing attended by an HR rep along with the Union delegation.

When asked awkward questions by our staff the HR rep giggles and is saved by the Union guys answering the question. That is taking "working together" to the extreme IMHO.

Who is working for us if the Union are rolling over and taking one for the team or management? If this is a negotiation where is the negotiating?

This as far as I am aware is the first proposal to come our way, and we are asked to endorse it. That is not negotiation as I understand it, or am I being naive?

We are being railroaded into accepting a proposal based on a few weeks study that has taken a team of "specialists" a couple of years to work out.

Have the Union got ANY powder to keep dry? There has been nothing from the Executive regarding the taking of any action at all to combat the Company position, whether industrial or work to rule. Indeed it would appear that, as far as the union are concerned, this is it, take it or leave... it or the company.

I feel completely disillusioned, betrayed, and let down by the Union. If they do nothing in the face of all the opposition out there, they should be bl:mad:dy ashamed.

Here's a news flash, the members I have spoken to do not want this proposal. Start representing us. Lets have some transparency in the dealings with the company. Stop treating us like the big wheels treat us.

And before any Union reps have a go at me hiding behind an anonymous forum, I hope to attend the conference in November where I will ask the questions raised here, in public. If my mum (or WM) will let me go.

[eglnyt]

I don't feel betrayed or let down by the union. My representatives had the mandate to negotiate with the company on a wide range of issues from the moment I elected them, or in my case as with most union members, from the moment I couldn't be bothered to go to the meeting and instead let those who did decide who should represent me.

Of course nobody wants this proposal but we live in the real world and sometimes the nasty world breaks into our idyllic existence. When it does I expect my union representatives to do the best they can and I've no reason to believe they haven't in this case. You can believe all the conspiracy theories or you can trust your representatives. If you don't trust your representatives why did you elect them in the first place ?

[MNT]

This is the first proposal the staff have seen but probably not the first the negoiators have seen. This is what they are there to negoiate on our behalf they then present it to the membership to vote as I see it they have done exactly what you expect. It doesn't mean that everybody will like the answer.

[DON GIVACHIT]

It's not a case of not trusting my representatives. My Unit reps (who I do trust and did elect) did not know what the negotiating team were proposing until we ALL found out!

I am not so foolish to believe that the world is a place of fairy tales but I do expect the Union to come to us as a stand alone entity and not do a joint presentation with company reps and then do a separate briefing to the Union members.

The company should be left to carry out it's own half ar:mad:ed brief, show their own ignorance, and not let the Union team bail them out. Let the staff see how much they think of us.

Then the Union can try to sell it to the members. Or was it the case that they knew what reaction this would bring?

[eglnyt]

So you voted for a rep who in turn helped appoint a committee which in turn appointed a negotiating team. That's what we call democracy in this country. Just how seriously do you think the company would take the union if it had to refer every last suggestion to the entire membership ?

And if the solution is jointly agreed as the best possible solution why shouldn't both parties present it ? Surely both sides should be prepared to stand behind the solution they've reached.

And if NATS puts up people not up to the task then perhaps the union has to step in to save them. The alternative might see the best solution overall being rejected because of management incompetence and that may not be in the interest of union members.

[DON GIVACHIT]

I do know that for years the Union stance has been one of, "the pension is not up for discussion". Do you think then that it is ok to then enter into discussion and negotiation without informing or consulting with the unit reps or membership?

Do you not think that the unit reps have a right to feel aggrieved that this has happened. Are you in fact a union member?

The line in the sand seems to be even more movable than I feared.

The Union should NOT be helping the company to sell this, unless this is the Union's idea.

The company obviously have no respect for the staff or they would have made a better effort to engage the us without resorting to the scaremongering that is going on at the moment.

Sending a HR rep who can't or won't answer a question regarding finance issues is not going to endear them to the workforce. How can you respect the statements of people who are not fully prepared before setting out. If we as ATCOs are not fully briefed before duty we are negligent when it goes Pete Tong. Same rules apply here.

Having your act together at that level is surely not too much to ask from management.

I appreciate that things are going to have to change in due course. All I am saying is that I am not impressed with the way the Union have gone about things, and am not the only one.

NO mandate, NO consultation with reps or membership. Is that too much to ask?

It's nothing more than good manners and good practice.

Don't p*ss on me and tell me it's only rain!

[eglnyt]

We were definitely informed that negotiation was happening. There's been a whole stream of letters and e-mails from both NATS and NTUS over the last year which made it quite clear that negotiation was ongoing. And we are being consulted now that the negotiation has concluded which surely is the only realistic time to consult the membership.

As I said before I see no reason why both sides shouldn't sell the idea if they are convinced that it is the best possible solution. Sometimes your union reps will have to make the best from a bad situation and they won't always be able to bring you only good news. It is to their credit that they are prepared to stand behind what they have negotiated. The reaction from you and the almost libelous reaction from others elsewhere on this board was probably predictable and it would have been far easier to walk away and let the company get on with it. Personally I'm glad they didn't because, as I've said elsewhere, some of us have bigger concerns than just our pensions and this may actually be the best solution.

It's not up to me to defend NATS management but I wouldn't expect an HR person to be able to answer finance questions.

[eastern wiseguy]

It's not up to me to defend NATS management but I wouldn't expect an HR person to be able to answer finance questions


Sorry but if they are there as the representatives of the management side then that is EXACTLY what they should be able to answer.

[mr.777]

I actually think that the Union, on this particular issue, have had their fingers burnt as far as "Working Together is concerned. Whilst I still intend to vote no, I can appreciate the fact that they have a put a lot of effrot into trying to sell this to us, only for a certain person in management (no prizes for guessing who :rolleyes:) to start running their mouth off about how this is a vote on industrial action and not on the pension, because this proposal is coming in regardless. The reps I spoke to the other day were NOT happy....maybe they've learnt a lesson.

[DON GIVACHIT]

EGLNYT

I take all your comments on board, but the simple fact remains that this IS and always has been, about the pension scheme and I am disappointed in the way it has been handled. This is not a knee jerk reaction.

I have been considering my words carefully and as far as I am concerned have not said anything libelous. No mentions of promotions, backhanders or the like because I don't believe that would have been countenenced by the people involved.

I am curious about your comment that you have bigger concerns than the pension, please expand.

The only other concern that I have is the fact that the Company has already been divided into 2 separate divisions ready for a potential sell off.

No doubt NERL will be safe under the NATS umbrella, essential to the economy and all that.

NSL however, are probably screwed. If they find someone to buy us then all bets are off for those like myself who joined after July 2001. At my interview I was told that I would be a part of the CAAPS scheme and subsequently find out that I am not covered by the Promise so there is no obligation on any future owner to honour that pension for me.

I left the mil early because the T's and C's in NATS were so good, and up to now it has been the best move I ever made. However if the pension scheme is messed with to the extent that is proposed then NATS is no better than any other service provider to my mind.

The only reason I am at ABZ is that was the only offer on the table when I crossed to the dark side. Ideally I would have liked to be 400 miles south of here. If the pension is altered and the company split and sold then I will definitely be looking to leave unless, as a mobile grade, NATS post me south, gotta be warmer than here!

I think that MR777 is correct in that the Union have had their fingers burned here.

They have obviously put a lot of effort into the negotiation but the CEO has got what he wanted after all, a divided membership. He said at his first barstool session at ABZ that he thought we as ATCO's were paid 20% over the odds. He also denied wanting to go after the pension scheme but look where we are now. :ugh:

[Hooligan Bill]

DON GIVACHIT wrote:

He said at his first barstool session at ABZ that he thought we as ATCO's were paid 20% over the odds. He also denied wanting to go after the pension scheme but look where we are now.

Given that the company is obviously short of ATCOs, which is reflected in the number of AAVAs going, I would say that we are probably worth at least 20% more. After all we are always being spun the line that to get quality CEOs, managers etc you have to pay the big bucks. As the company show by having aptitude tests, not everyone can be an ATCO, however, judging by some of the c**p I have come across both inside and outside the world of ATC, anyone can be a manager.

That's not to say I haven't worked with some very good ones.

[pelagic]

"As the company show by having aptitude tests, not everyone can be an ATCO, however, judging by some of the c**p I have come across both inside and outside the world of ATC, anyone can be a manager."

and judging by some of the comments I have heard over the years by ATCOs about other ATCOs, it would also appear that your aptitude test is not infallible!

[Hooligan Bill]

pelagic wrote:

and judging by some of the comments I have heard over the years by ATCOs about other ATCOs, it would also appear that your aptitude test is not infallible!

Which just proves the point that not everyone can be an ATCO!

[AntiDistinctlyMinty]

The problem is not with working together. Our problem is that we're with the wrong union. Prospect is a public service union. Our management is now well versed in private sector management techniques - where did the Red Baron come from after all.

We (the operational staff at least) need to recognise that we need a more aggressive union, which can recognise the power available to us if we could stand together and decide to kick some management butt.

The new ethos for all negotiations with the management should be "it's not what you're worth, it's what you can get". It's the private sector way.

[DC10RealMan]

I have a couple of colleagues at Swanwick who were both train drivers before joining NATS as atcos and they have expressed astonishment at the antics of all our unions compared to ASLEF which they were formally menbers of.

[Hooligan Bill]

AntiDistinctlyMinty wrote:

The problem is not with working together. Our problem is that we're with the wrong union. Prospect is a public service union. Our management is now well versed in private sector management techniques - where did the Red Baron come from after all.

We (the operational staff at least) need to recognise that we need a more aggressive union, which can recognise the power available to us if we could stand together and decide to kick some management butt.

It would not make an ounce of difference what "Union" we belonged to, the problem would still be there because the Branch is me, you and our colleagues. We are the people who dictate the policy and it does not matter if that is with afflilation to Prospect, TGWU, UNISON etc, that will remain the same.

Our problem is that we as a group have been selling ourselves short since the CAA days, taking a bung here and a bung there as our T & C's are slowly eroded. Do you really think our European colleagues would have sold off something like Home to Duty for the price of a DFS sofa? This is what management perceive as the weakness.

The simple fact is, to you and anyone else that does not like what is going on, get off your backside, get involved in YOUR UNION, and convince your colleagues that your way is the right way. I have.

[AntiDistinctlyMinty]

Sorry Hooligan Bill, I disagree. It does matter which union we are with. What I want from my union is that it is offers leadship whilst obeying the directions that we give it via branch policy. Prospect and the BEC has chosen (for dubious reasons?) to disregard the branch policy on negotiating about the pensions which was clearly laid down a couple of years ago. Paraphrasing and not wishing to teach you to suck eggs - any approach from management about the pension would result in an immediate ballot for industrial action and any mention of a seperate pension for new entrants would result in the pulling of the AAVA agreement.
(Which reminds me, why do I have to listen to my colleagues who come in an AAVAs whinging on and on about the pension situation - they're obviously not that upset as to refuse to do AAVAs in protest!)

I fully agree that we have been selling ourselves short over T & Cs but once again that is because we've had poor leadership from the current union. We used to be told that this was the best agreement that could be obtained through negotation and if you wanted more then industrial action would be required (being spineless we never rose to the challenge). Now it appears to be a coupe de grace. Take it or .........., we'll get you to vote again until we get the answer we want.

How can we support a union which has said during the pension briefings that even if they get a 100% no vote on a 100% turn out then they would probably not support us and so any industrial action would be illegal. So much for democracy. It may also mean that a no vote is worthless.

As for getting off my back side and getting involved, good idea, I look forward to meeting you at the next union conference (maybe ASLEF, maybe RMT, anyone for BALPA?)

[anotherthing]

AntiDistinctlyMinty

(Which reminds me, why do I have to listen to my colleagues who come in an AAVAs whinging on and on about the pension situation - they're obviously not that upset as to refuse to do AAVAs in protest!)

To my mind, there is absolutely no point in refusing to do AAVA's or any other extraneous duty until such a time as it becomes a notified part of industrial action.

Any type of industrial action needs to be notified for it to have any impact. If people just start refusing to do AAVA's the management will not know that it is in protest over pensions (they might guess it is, but it does not have the same impact as a concerted policy). It's a small thing, but someone i.e. the Union, needs to stand up first and say "If you refuse to change your stance, we will ballot for industrial action - the first stage of which will be withdrawal of the AVA agreement".

It is only by going through this process and giving notice, that maagement will truly understand why things are happening and the impact it can have.

People keep talking about the powder being kept dry etc - if something is going to be done, don't do it half baked, do it properly!!

[Hooligan Bill]

AntiDistinctlyMinty wrote:

Sorry Hooligan Bill, I disagree. It does matter which union we are with. What I want from my union is that it is offers leadship whilst obeying the directions that we give it via branch policy. Prospect and the BEC has chosen (for dubious reasons?) to disregard the branch policy on negotiating about the pensions which was clearly laid down a couple of years ago. Paraphrasing and not wishing to teach you to suck eggs - any approach from management about the pension would result in an immediate ballot for industrial action and any mention of a seperate pension for new entrants would result in the pulling of the AAVA agreement.

Ok then, do you really think that the outcome would have been any different had we belonged to a different Union? It would have been the same people, with the exception of the full time officials, conducting the negotiations. The bottom line is if you do not like the direction the BEC are taking then exercise your democratic right to vote them out of office and elect people you think will represent you how you want. At the same time it would also help if we stopped coming up with contradictory branch policy. While you quite rightly point out the policy of withdrawl of the AAVA agreement, the same section states that:- "The BEC shall use all possible means to protect the CAA Pension Fund and the pension rights of its members". This can be interpreted any which way and could be used to justify the course of action that they have taken.

It's is our union and it is up to us the members to point it in the right direction.

I fully agree that we have been selling ourselves short over T & Cs but once again that is because we've had poor leadership from the current union. We used to be told that this was the best agreement that could be obtained through negotation and if you wanted more then industrial action would be required (being spineless we never rose to the challenge). Now it appears to be a coupe de grace. Take it or .........., we'll get you to vote again until we get the answer we want.

The "Union" is only as strong as its members. The likes of Bob Crow and the RMT go into negotiations knowing that the membership will be fully behind them and industrial action will follow if necessary. Our negotiators go in knowing that if the bung is big enough most people will settle, and sadly, management know this too. It takes a change of mindset to alter that, not a change of the banner you march under.:eek:

How can we support a union which has said during the pension briefings that even if they get a 100% no vote on a 100% turn out then they would probably not support us and so any industrial action would be illegal. So much for democracy. It may also mean that a no vote is worthless.

I do not completely believe that. If we were to vote no and back that vote up with legitimate arguments and reasons, then I think that nationally they would have to give us some backing, however much of a PR disaster that may seem to them. If however we vote no on the basis we just want a fight with management then we will get no support.

As for getting off my back side and getting involved, good idea, I look forward to meeting you at the next union conference (maybe ASLEF, maybe RMT, anyone for BALPA?)

Would this be the same BALPA that tried to close its Final Salary Pension Scheme to its employees?http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif