UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours [Archive] - Page 4

privatesandwiches

8th Apr 2009, 21:59

The priorities are all wrong.
They should be taking care of the staff FIRST, then with anything left in the pot they can do with what they wish. Barron says the airlines will be getting in excess of £50million as a dividend with the same crap excuse as above. I dont care they only have been getting 1% or whatever, I think it totals around £9million over the last 6 years or so...... they can get that for a little longer then as NATS has so many in house issues to sort out first.
You cannot tell any workforce you have no money for them, give yourself a 9% payrise, pay your vipers nest of managers tidy bonus sums and give tens of millions as a divedend. Why dont the times come into the ops room and do a proper bloody article and see if PB comes out smelling of roses.
I think then BA can lower their ticket prices by 50% and then if they make any profit the staff can have that. They wouldnt be too impressed.
And Barron wonders why he got ****e feedback in the talkback survey...... what a total muppet!!!

Quincy M.E.

9th Apr 2009, 07:08

When I say "Troops" I do include Pen-Pushers as well..so no offensive remarks from that quarter please.

As opposed to tin-pushers?! :ok:

(ps that does not constitute an offensive remark :})

Loxley

9th Apr 2009, 07:41

Meanwhile, we still wait to hear officially from the Union exactly what the Special Delegates Conference is about. How long has it been? 6 weeks?

Considering the Union promised us that communications would improve, they're doing a pi$$poor job of it so far.

Working Together is getting beyond a joke. I understand the need to try and have cordial relations with management to an extent, but we've helped them out with the pensions, many of us are doing extra tasks we aren't being paid for which is keeping the business going and what do we get in return? A Union who have made no effort to speak to their members about what they would like to see from a pay deal, a union having cosy confidential meetings with management, thus conveniantly meaning we are being kept in the dark, and a management who are giving the Union such a runaround that it's now April and we are still no closer to having a pay offer.

If the Union were or are negotiating hard, that's fine, but, as usual, they're not communicating anything to the members. Do they ever learn?

At what stage do we as a collective decide that enough is enough and think sod Prospect, let's go for a different Union. One that truly represents its members, one that isn't scared to stand up to management and one that communicates with its members, instead of keeping them in the dark about the issues that really affect them.

I've been a Union rep but I gave it up. I became so disillusioned with the sheer ineptitude of the way it was run and the fact that it's so dominated by the 'big' unit(s) I decided enough was enough. However, I still pay my dues as I believe completely in the Unions as they were originally created. Unfortunately, ours seem to have forgotten who they're representing and this years pay deal is make or break for me with regards to whether or not I continue paying my Union dues. And I know that I'm in the majority, at my unit at least.

mr.777

9th Apr 2009, 07:45

Re communication....I e-mailed Garry Graham about 6 weeks ago (may have been longer...it was so long ago I can't remember) regarding pay negotiation issues. I was told by his secretary (who, to be fair, was very prompt) that he was busy but would get back to me straight away, addressing my concerns.

6 weeks later, no response. Says it all really.

On a serious note, how would we theoretically go about getting a new Union to represent us? I'm not advocating this course of action, just interested in the mechanics of it.

Any news on yesterday's (alleged) final pay meeting? Or was it cancelled.....again:rolleyes:

anotherthing

9th Apr 2009, 08:15

Roffa linked to this article

Story here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7935373.stm)

in another thread – it does have a bearing here though because monetary issues are what is holding up pay talks, with management already stating that it will be difficult to pay pension costs, asking us to take a pay rise that is non pensionable (only 4 months after the pension agreement was finally sorted), and claiming the company needs to tighten its belt in these difficult times.

Airlines want a bigger dividend – tough.

Airlines need to start realising that part of the dividend they get will not be cold hard cash, but through reduced fuel burns etc through the constant tweaking and changing of procedures that we as NATS carry out to make things more efficient. These tweaks etc cost money, for new equipment (AMAN etc), and to push airspace design through.

When times are difficult, such as they are supposed to be just now, they should be given a choice – continued improvements to what is already one of the best services available, or cash.

Not both.

Airlines are constantly given shortcuts, more optimum cruising levels etc when the airspace capacity is available.

It’s about time management realised that provision of an efficient service, and all the costs that this entails to keep it at the forefront of new technology is a dividend in itself – a bloody big one. Unfortunately management seem to have lost sight of what ATC is about and therefore does not realise that the service it provides gives a dividend in itself.

Barron can’t have it both ways.

He’s bleating on about the fact that it will be difficult to sustain the newly reduced pension.

His team have already tried to sell us a miserly pay deal, which to cap it all, would not even be pensionable.

They do this by talking about the "difficult challenges NATS faces financially".

Well, Mr Barron – how on Earth does the frequently repeated statement above lend itself to the other statement of (paraphrased)

“they (the airlines) want a big dividend and we will give it to them because they have only been getting 1% which totals around £9million over the last 6 years or so.”???

You are supposed to be a good businessman – God knows you’ve used enough press coverage (bending the facts when you wanted to – some would call it being dishonest), to blow sunshine up your own backside.

If you’re that good a businessmen you will realise that if times are challenging we tell our shareholders that to ensure the continued integrity of the company, they will be getting no dividend at all this year.

A barely competent businessman would understand that so why should a supposed big shot not grasp the fundamental?

It's not difficult FFS - to quote a famous meerkat - "Simples"

autothrottle

9th Apr 2009, 09:15

Anyone noticed on NOBS if we got a spine point increase or not?

mr.777

9th Apr 2009, 09:32

I'm assuming we did as it forms part of our t & c...and as we haven't been notified so far of any change in said t & c....

I stand to be corrected though.

anotherthing

9th Apr 2009, 09:46

Autothrottle,

Spine points will be paid, you will see it in your April pay packet.

privatesandwiches

9th Apr 2009, 10:15

Good, I need those spine points...... Mrs Sandwiches will be happy with the impending wedding on the horizon :ok:

ivory tower

9th Apr 2009, 10:37

Just a couple of bits of info, both of which will piss most of us off if we get SFA:

1. RB's promised to pay the airlines the whole of the sale proceeds of the Heathrow Control tower - think that's about £50M - as a dividend.

2. Oh, and his pay rise is more than 9%.

Doesn't it make you proud to work for NATS :yuk:

privatesandwiches

9th Apr 2009, 10:44

If thats true, what a C:mad::mad:T.

I think i would rather be re-nationalised than this. Cheers for all you who voted yes.... you opened the flood gates for this.

Maybe its a good idea Mister PB lives in Yorkshire or where ever he hails from.... imagine bumping into him in Southampton on a day off.... or worse, a watch drinking day!!!!

Me Me Me Me

9th Apr 2009, 11:08

Lincolnshire I think?

Yep.. he can honestly tell everyone the rumoured 9% is untrue... :sad:

Info on how the money that could have gone to a decent payrise is instead being given to the very people who saddled the company with massive debts will be around soon... April was when the decision was deferred to.

I said at the start - I will accept a complete freeze on my pay.. Provided no dividends are paid, no senior management accept bonuses and everybody gets the same.

None of those 3 conditions is going to be met - So they can insert their pay freeze in the same cavity as their heads are currently located.

privatesandwiches

9th Apr 2009, 11:22

Not that ATCOs' are poor, nor many other staff (as its about all of us, not only ATCOs'). But it seems a case of the rich getting richer and the poor being shafted. Barron should become an MP....
He needs to get his arse into an ops room and come face the music..... LIVID!!!
Working together is utter bollocks.
NATS management is utter bollocks.
Pay talks are utter bollocks.

The union need to get something out next week to the tune of:
' We are a very profitable company, we have made so much money Scrooge Mcduck would be jealous. Therefore, our leader will get a massive payrise, full set of bonuses and shave his head to reveal a neat little 666 cluster on the upper left cranium. Full bonuses have been paid to management who ride the backs of the staff who actually work their nuts and tits off and we have gotten you a 5.8% payrise. NSL is safe and an all inclusive party will be thrown at the savoy for ops staff to make up for having to just look at the ones in Pulse. To ice the cake, we are reverting back to the old pension for all'

ImnotanERIC

9th Apr 2009, 11:23

It's not difficult FFS - to quote a famous meerkat - "Simples"

I LOVE that advert. always makes me laugh. how easily amused am i?

Standard Noise

9th Apr 2009, 11:37

Great advert but it's a bit depressing to think that a CGI meerkat has more intelligence than some managers.

privatesandwiches

9th Apr 2009, 11:39

What I just released into the toilet has more intelligence...

mr.777

9th Apr 2009, 11:50

I think he should get his barstool back out so we can let him know exactly what we think.

Then again, there's always NATSNET I suppose....if i fancied getting hauled into the office for daring to have an opinion on something.

ayrprox

9th Apr 2009, 11:54

You're getting married soon private? congratulations.
Maybe you should get NATS to do the reception?. i hear they do a real good lavish party.

anotherthing

9th Apr 2009, 12:00

ImnotanERIC

Have you visited the website Compare the Meerkat (http://www.comparethemeerkat.com) ?? It's brill - you need sound to get the full benefit.

As an aside - I am not in work for a while - what's this about the talkback results? Not great then?? And that survey was taken before the Barrons pay rise.

Not that he cares about popularity with the lower ranks, he has his bonus-collecting sycophants to lick his jacksie, and he has tame reporters (such as the one who did his last article), who are willing to listen to him and write down his drivel verbatim without checking for factual correctness.

The last press piece was nothing short of bare-faced lies about the company to self promote.

Privatesandwiches - you could save some money and have your wedding at Swanwick. You could have the reception at the hut by the lake. Very photogenic. I'm sure Aramark will do the catering if you ask... And Barron is so fricking brilliant, he's probably licensed to conduct marriages as well... Who says there are no perks to be had for the little people?

We could have a free vend on the coffee machines for an hour to celebrate your betrothal.

mr.777

9th Apr 2009, 12:07

Or free Dominos like last weekend in the Ops room...Mr & mrs Sandwiches are partial to a bit of Dominos!

privatesandwiches

9th Apr 2009, 12:11

Anyone want to give that chap at the times a bell?
Martin Waller: 020-7782 5000

Maybe he can come to LATCC and do a 'proper' story, ie... no managers!!!

Vote NO

9th Apr 2009, 12:39

Or just send this page to him from one of your private anonymous email addresses :}

[email protected]

I can see the headlines.... "Contrails in Crisis" "Chaos in the skies above" :eek:

ProM

9th Apr 2009, 12:55

Haven't seen this article in the Times. Anyone have a link?

kats-I

9th Apr 2009, 13:03

Heard 2.5% with conditions but pensionable ..from someone elses conversation this A.M. ..Not that I was eavesdropping.. just passing by . Anyone else heard anything? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/cwm13.gif:bored:

anotherthing

9th Apr 2009, 13:03

Well, if rumours of a greater than 9% rise are true I know what I would do if I was on the pay negotiating team for the Union:

I'd find out exactly what his pay rise percentage was (it has to be available).

I'd find out the date it is applicable from.

I'd check to see when his last pay rise was implemented.

I'd scour the intranet for one of the many quotes from Mr Barron stating that NATS is facing a financially testing time and would need to tighten it's belt.

I'd find out exactly how much the Airlines were getting as a dividend.

I'd find out how many people we have made redundant or not renewed contracts with.

I'd open a Word document and I would type out the quote about tightening belts on the first line, typed as a quote with Mr Barron as the source.

I would then type out the pay rise %age that Mr Barron is receiving on the next line.

I'd type out the amount of dividend being paid to the Airlines on the next.

I'd type out the number of redundancies and un-renewed contracts, with quantifying text explaining that the management reasoning for same was cost cutting.

I'd once again type out the exact %age that Mr Barron has received.

I'd finish by once again typing out the quote about belt tightening.

I would print off x amount of copies, x being equal to the number of people who were to be present at the meeting.

I would hand one sheet to each of the people on the management side - the Union guys would already have theirs.

I would state that in light of the paper in front of them, we want a sensible offer made to us.

I would say nothing else and see what they came out with. Simple, easy, fairly powerful.

Of course, that would not be deemed to be working together, so it would never happen. it would also require the union to show a bit of backbone and hardnosed negotiating.

I bet, however, that Mr Barrons nice pay rise will never even be mentioned in negotiations.

anotherthing

9th Apr 2009, 13:07

ProM

Here ya go

I Love Me (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/support_services/article5870149.ece)

kats-I

9th Apr 2009, 13:24

Taken from times interview with PB

Does money motivate you?
My most important motivator is being recognised for doing a good job. Money is a great compensation for hard work and long hours and, yes, it is satisfying to have achieved my earning level from where I started as an apprentice earning £5 a week ...

Obviously doesn't practice what he preaches..or does it only apply to him.Our hard work isnt recognised then? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

kats-I

9th Apr 2009, 13:27

anotherthing

You could still do those things..you don't have to be on the negotiating team to put something forward do you! :E

anotherthing

9th Apr 2009, 13:57

kats-I

do I know you?

Gonna wring your neck!! :E

mr.777

9th Apr 2009, 14:31

2.5% with conditions?? Does Barron get 9% with f***ing conditions? probably does actually, the condition being that he is a robbing ******* who screws over his own workforce for a fast buck.

Anotherthing, I like your approach...unfortunately I think it is far too simple for the Union :ugh:

anotherthing

9th Apr 2009, 14:35

Heard 2.5% with conditions but pensionable...
I heard the same deal, but 3 weeks ago after a previous meeting.

If that's what is still on offer, not exactly moving along, are we?

When will the union

a) Tell us anything
b) Ballot members

or are we going to trundle along for another 4 months?

kats-I

9th Apr 2009, 14:38

anotherthing

No and WHY?? I'm being serious ..or am I making you think about it?

Vote NO

9th Apr 2009, 14:39

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00500/Air_500038a.jpg

"Paul Barron's talent for management was evident early on - he organised nights out for his friends, then he became a union rep and a supervisor. The poker fan says that his real skill is that he can read people and situations well"

PB obviously fancies himself as " The Mentalist" :}

IMDb Video: Card Tables (http://www.imdb.com/video/cbs/vi4150001689/)

kats-I

9th Apr 2009, 14:48

Your list is great but dont just hand it to all those at the meeting..stick it on all notice boards and get a copy to all. ..Seriously :ok::E

kats-I

9th Apr 2009, 14:51

Vote NO
Very apt.. and oh so true ..:D

Vote NO

9th Apr 2009, 15:00

"Paul Barron's talent for management was evident early on - he organised nights out for his friends, then he became a union rep and a supervisor. The poker fan says that his real skill is that he can read people and situations well"

Maybe this gave him the idea of "Working Together" :mad:

ProM

9th Apr 2009, 15:03

Thanks @anotherthing

DC10RealMan

9th Apr 2009, 15:42

Mr Barron was a union rep and supervisor, maybe he is now the role model for some of the younger prospect reps that I saw giving the pensions brief late last year. They certainly dressed like and used the management buzz-words like candidates from the Apprentice.

BDiONU

9th Apr 2009, 15:42

I'd find out how many people we have made redundant or not renewed contracts with.
270 I believe.

BD

mr.777

9th Apr 2009, 15:51

If that figure is true, then a 9% payrise is, frankly, obscene.:yuk:

ProM

9th Apr 2009, 16:10

Surely that depends 777. If he has found ways of reducing back room staff and thus saving money without affecting performance isn't that good? ATCOS on here are always saying there are too many non ops staff

I'm not saying he has, I don't know who has gone, but I'd bet its not ATCOs

Vote NO

9th Apr 2009, 16:21

So is 2.5% pay "rise":rolleyes: and no E G's all we can go on at the moment?

mr.777

9th Apr 2009, 16:37

ProM

I hear what you're saying. I just think 9% in the current climate is a p*ss-take, regardless of cost-cuts.

And, no it won't be ATCOs going...there aren't enough of us as it is!

kats-I

9th Apr 2009, 16:44

mr.777

Watch this space..already talking about non-op GSs..hopefully as most are young they won't get sweet-talked into giving up their licence daft if they do!! :eek:

anotherthing

9th Apr 2009, 17:58

non op GSs??

What a ridiculous idea.

We are allowed one per watch at the moment and that's enough. GS's need to be current to be any good at, well GS'ing.

I would go completely the other way - give all the middle managers the paperwork that they have passed down to Gs's/LASs - at least that way they (middle managers) will then be gainfully employed instead of scrabbling about for things to do... Yes, I mean you lot Safety and Training managers etc!!.

Then approach suitable controllers (by suitable I mean common sense decisions to approach people who are diligent and not just lazy feckwits), with say 5 years or more operational experience, and ask them if they want to go on the GS/LAS roster.

The more the merrier and the GS position then becomes just another role rostered on the monthly watchbill, volunteers would do it maybe 2 or 3 times a month at the most.

Give said volunteers half a pay spine for doing it.

The result - more diligent supervisors who give a monkeys about what is going on around them, instead of having supervisors at the moment who are so weighed down by extraneous duties that they are not giving the GS primary role (which should be assisting controllers run the sectors in their sector group) the attention it should have.

Lazy Gss will soon be rumbled - as it stands we have some supervisors who aren't valid in all roles, and/or that are more concerned with their social life than with being proactive in keeping coordinators informed etc.

ProM

I have always been an advocate for cutting superfluous staff if it was done properly. i.e. a study carried out and those roles that are overstaffed get trimmed. Unfortunately I don't think the redundancies have been done that way.

Also, why did it take an economic downturn for Barron to decide to 'cut the fat', if that is indeed what has happened? Surely a good businessman would aim to run a lean organisation all the time? The Times article I pointed your way lays claims from Barron that he has revolutionised NATS in his tenure... not very well if that's the case.

He can't say he has been running a lean organisation if he is saying that the roles that have just been cut/amalgamated were superfluous. He can't have it both ways!!

Truth be told, I actually think our management team have been lazy and downright negligent with regards to manpower. While the economy is good, many companies get away with poor business practices and overstaffing; especially those with a monopoly.

When the economy turns bad and they start scrambling around to make savings, you soon see how slack the reins were held before.

As for early go's I'm with Yahoo - I don't really care about them - they are a nice to have item but at the end of the day we are paid to work certain hours. It makes sense to let people go if sectors are legitimately bandboxing, and to tell the truth the company will not gain anything by keeping ATCOs/ATSAs back. Keeping sectors open for the hell of it won't conjure up traffic that just doesn't exist at those times!!

Personally I get hacked off with a lot of people who whinge about early go's and seem to see them as a right, not a privilege. If I had my way, I'd run the Ops room for a month with no early gos, then revert to normal practices... at least then people might appreciate them for what they are - a perk.

I honestly don't see any benefit for management in stopping early go's - maybe some watches need to be told to be more sensible about it, but that's by the by.

The problem management might find - and the Union should be stressing this extremely loudly - is that if they take away little perks like early go's (which have no impact on the business), then people might turn around and stop doing all the things that they do for nothing over and above their contract. For example, extra sectors above MUR.

Around 85%+ of ATCOs in the TC Ops room do extra sectors for no reward. The Ops room would not run without it. Management need to be very careful about how they approach things.

kats-I

9th Apr 2009, 18:16

anotherthing

YES!!! thats what I'm talking about ..Go Get 'em.. See you are just the person:ok::ok:

hold at SATAN

9th Apr 2009, 18:59

Whats Jasper Carrot doing, sitting on the consoles in the picture above?
Someone needs to adjust the verticle hold on that shirt. And didn't anybody tell him that stripes clash with twats

FDP_Walla

9th Apr 2009, 20:16

My understanding is that MGT have not budged from the 'derisory' offer and that the last couple of meetings have been short lived as a result. Union (of which I am not currently a member) wont or rather can not ballot the members until MGT have made the offer a full and final one which is not the case.
So, it seems like the unions are playing hardball, but unfortunately this could go on for some time. Got this from bumping into an old colleague who is one of the negotiators this morning.
Any comments on union membership fine if PMed or on a seperate thread.

Radarspod

9th Apr 2009, 20:19

This thread cracks me up! Keep it up! :}:ok:

just wish the subject was funnier......

Arch Stanton

9th Apr 2009, 20:27

Why do the union agree to keep all talks confidential until concluded? It benefits nobody apart from management.

You can bet the management team go away and discuss any deal they are negotiating with whoever they feel like, while our union guys get browbeaten without the chance of getting feedback and support from the members.

Track Jitter

9th Apr 2009, 21:21

The poker fan says that his real skill is that he can read people and situations well (post 822)

He did not do that well when he played poker with some of the ATCE's at Prestwick, he was first out I believe.:D

BDiONU

10th Apr 2009, 06:20

Why exactly does it 'crack you up'?
It does me too. Never read so much macho, testosterone fuelled BS in one thread. But it reminds me of chickens with their breasts all puffed up strutting around the chicken coup, clucking away.
The internet warriors in their full glory cluck, cluck, cluck!

BD

DC10RealMan

10th Apr 2009, 07:31

Today is a "Red Letter Day" as much to my astonishment I have to agree with BDiONU. There is much determination on this website to make sure that you get a few percentage points on your salary even if it is non-pensionable OR ELSE!!!
You and your representatives allowed the management to change the terms and conditions of your pension scheme without a fight, changes that in the not too distant future will cost you all potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds. I know that you have a memorandum of understanding, but in my opinion it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Despite all the posturing on this website you and your union representatives will do nothing and the management know it.[/RIGHT][/LEFT][/RIGHT]

Vote NO

10th Apr 2009, 07:56

Those of us who are still employed by NATS and or who are union members might dissagree with the above two posts :=

mr.777

10th Apr 2009, 08:22

DC10....some of us voted "no" to the pension, remember.

BD...why do you even bother??:ugh:

DC10RealMan

10th Apr 2009, 08:23

Vote No.

I did say that I was surprised to be in agreement with BDiONU and you are right that I am not employed by nats anymore, however one of the primary reasons amongst others that I decided to retire from nats was the fear for the future of my pension fund and in my opinion the unwillingness and/or inability of the unions and its members to defend THEIR pension and its benefits. I would suggest that my path will be trod more frequently as more and more of your older colleagues follow my example due to concerns about the managements intentions and employees commitment to their pension and its excellent financial benefits.

BDiONU

10th Apr 2009, 08:44

Today is a "Red Letter Day" as much to my astonishment I have to agree with BDiONU.
Aaawww mate! I love you too :-) but in a manly sort of way you understand ;-)

BD

anotherthing

10th Apr 2009, 08:53

DC10RealMan

You had the option of being of the age that retirement would work for you without too much of a penalty,

Please bear in mind (considering your stance and posts during the pension debate) that many of the people you are berating are not of the age that early retirement is feasible. The fact we stay with the company does not make us people who have no backbone to take action like you did - we have no real choice.

We said exactly the same things as you did, and voted 'No'. Unfortunately we are stuck with it, even though many of us believe that the MOU is not worth the paper it is written on.

Amongst many of the predictions I made before the 'yes' vote went through were: (copied from the thread titled "What happens within NATS after the pension results are in??")

Prediction 1.

'The Vote'

62% Yes
38% No

Prediction 2.

Swiftly followed by a complete shafting on the annual pay award (I reckon 3% - which would be less than RPI)...

Prediction 3.

3-5% overall reduction in NATS staff by Jul 009.

Prediction 4.

Departure of Mr Barron within 18 months of changing the pension scheme.

Prediction 5.

Break up and shelving of some NSL contracts within 60 months of pension scheme change.

Also earlier talk that the MOU was not worth the paper it was written on given the track history of NATS.

So, prediction 3 was a bit on the lean side as it turns out, prediction 4 might be a pipe dream, prediction 5 - wait to see what happens at the Special Delegates Conference.

Enjoy your retirement, for what it's worth I think you made entirely the correct decision to go early for the very reasons you state.

The reason some of us spout of on this forum is because it is the only way to get opinions across to people outside of our normal circle. Exactly what you were doing 4 or 5 months ago.

If people (as is their right) ignore certain points of view, then there's nowt much else that can be done.

It's quite telling that very few of those who spouted off "Vote yes save jobs" - who also spout off "get in the real world you can't expect a pay rise" have gone quiet and have nothing to say about redundancies and the Barrons pay rise.

These are the people that are happy to bend over and be shafted... unfortunately they sem to be in the majority.

mr.777

10th Apr 2009, 09:01

It's quite telling that very few of those who spouted off "Vote yes save jobs" - who also spout off "get in the real world you can't expect a pay rise" have gone quiet and have nothing to say about redundancies and the Barrons pay rise.

Spot on, anotherthing. I'd like to see them (and that includes NON UNION MEMEBERS TOO) try and defend a 9% payrise......well, come on then, here's your chance.

DC10RealMan

10th Apr 2009, 09:07

Anotherthing.

Yes you are quite right and I apologise unreservedly to those who voted no and are too young to retire and are stuck with it. I served for nearly thirty years in the CAA and nats at various units and to see colleagues and friends, some of whom I have worked with for years and care deeply about being royally shafted by "flybynights" such as Mr Barron and his friend Mr Bliar really annoys me and sometimes I get a bit carried away.
I cant even get any comfort from watching the world-famous Northwich Victoria F.C. nowadays!!!

Vote NO

10th Apr 2009, 10:22

Quote:
It's quite telling that very few of those who spouted off "Vote yes save jobs" - who also spout off "get in the real world you can't expect a pay rise" have gone quiet and have nothing to say about redundancies and the Barrons pay rise.

mr.777

Spot on, anotherthing. I'd like to see them (and that includes NON UNION MEMBERS TOO) try and defend a 9% payrise......well, come on then, here's your chance.

http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:5Cea8Luq7vUqiM::condalmo.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ear.jpg ...................Silence :}

FDP_Walla

10th Apr 2009, 10:59

So everyone who is not in the Union is Barron follower eh!

I dont defend his reputed rise, neither did I his 14% last year and I did stand up at his CTC Bar stool session and ask him to justify it.

I was in the Union for 15 years but resigned 3 years ago as I was not happy with the way things were going. So no moaning, just voted with my feet/wallet.

I now have my application form to rejoin subject to them making a stance over the pay awards and I sincereley hope that they do.

IMHO there are too many people who are poor performers and take union membership as a kind of insurance policy. Do you believe that these people would stand up for anything because again IMHO they will take whatever they can and be thankful.

mr.777

10th Apr 2009, 11:04

FDP,

Of course not all non-Union members are pro-management. But there are one or two who see fit to tell Union members to take a pro-management stance in order to meet their own needs.

Anyway, as Vote No has so subtley put it, SILENCE. Come on, I'm sure even you pro-management can find some kind of BS justification for a 9% payrise for PB.

Track Jitter

10th Apr 2009, 11:50

PCG's are not getting any rise I hear but that will be reviewed in September.

TCAS FAN

10th Apr 2009, 12:01

Track Jitter

Okay no pay rise, but are they also giving up bonuses?

Vote NO

10th Apr 2009, 12:10

Aren't some of them "giving up" their jobs and taking a shed load of money when they go this year? :eek:

Disillusioned

10th Apr 2009, 12:22

Yes. Big list of people announced yesterday.

No idea as to how much money is involved, but managers saying, they made me an offer I couldn't refuse, kinda says it all.

Vote NO

10th Apr 2009, 12:29

My mate up north reckons all five Watch "Managers":rolleyes: at Scottish are going this year. They must have finished ticking the boxes:yuk:

Disillusioned

10th Apr 2009, 12:41

3 (from airways), leaving next March.

Track Jitter

10th Apr 2009, 12:52

Vote No
My mate up north reckons all five Watch "Managers":rolleyes: at Scottish are going this year. They must have finished ticking the boxeshttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif

I heard that one is too important to go!

TCAS FANOkay no pay rise, but are they also giving up bonuses?
I'm sure they will have earned them :hmm:

eglnyt

10th Apr 2009, 13:27

Okay no pay rise, but are they also giving up bonuses?

I'm not PCG but exactly why should they give up their bonus ? If a proportion of your pay is based on meeting particular targets and you meet them why shouldn't you get that money ? The bonuses aren't extra money, they are part of their pay. If you are fortunate enough to get ALL your pay regardless of performance why are you so jealous of those who aren't so lucky ? As an engineering grade I had a small amount of my pay subject to meeting three targets. Having met those targets I would have been rightly annoyed if the money hadn't been paid and would think the PCGs would have similar views, especially as some of their targets are likely to be subjective rather than objective so they never really stand a chance of getting all of it. You can't compare PCG bonuses with our payrise. The only thing you can compare is their payrise and it looks as though they won't be getting one.

I'm sure even you pro-management can find some kind of BS justification for a 9% payrise for PB

As I've said before you won't find me defending his salary because like many others I don't buy the need to pay for quality line and think it's an obscene amount of money that can't possibly be justified. However 9% must be pretty close to what a controller with 5 years service not yet at top of scale would be expecting with spine point + RPI.

Aren't some of them "giving up" their jobs and taking a shed load of money when they go this year?

Can't comment for the ATC side but at CTC a lot of those who have gone or are going seem to have accepted offers which are much lower than the published VR terms. If the VR terms are shed loads of money then you have the union to thank for that.

Vote NO

10th Apr 2009, 14:04

:rolleyes:.................................................. ............................................................ .................................................... :rolleyes:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/412680876_cdb6319cef_o.png

This elephant is a bull.... fill in the missing word, S - -T
:E

kats-I

10th Apr 2009, 14:34

eglnyt

Surely a lot of PCGs targets are met by the staff they "manage" working together to keep everything running smoothly..keeping down delays etc. So perhaps goodwill needs a sweetner to keep it just that ..goodwill.!! :hmm:

Hey! Perhaps no payrise until all staff that are going have gone ...don't want to pay them more than they have to??:sad:

fisbangwollop

10th Apr 2009, 15:12

PB is doing what he is good at.....the following an extract from the Times in 2003.............
THE stricken Anglo-French industrial giant Alstom is to cut its UK staff from 10,000 to 5,000 and reduce the status of operations here from an exporting base to a “service” centre.
Most of the workers will be transferred to new employers, but about 1,100 jobs will go at Washwood Heath, Alstom’s train factory in Birmingham. Unions said last week that they feared 2,000 British jobs would eventually be lost in the restructuring. As part of a €3.4 billion (£2.4 billion) refinancing package, the French state has taken a one-third stake in the company, and underwritten a bond issue.

Senior executives said yesterday they had received no support from British ministers in their attempts to keep train-building and power-export contracts in Britain. Only last week the company’s plea for a £30m export credit to support a power-station contract in Malaysia was turned down.

Assistance would have brought a £100m contract to the company’s Manchester power operations. “Their letters basically said they would not support us because the market (for credit guarantees) was not that difficult,” said Paul Barron, Alstom’s senior UK executive.

I would have thought if he has got a 9% bonus its money well spent..........saved NATS a fortune on future pensions cost's and saving even more by paying us bugger all of a pay rise.....I guess once he has destroyed NATS as he did to Alstom he will move on to pastures new!!!!:(

landedoutagain

10th Apr 2009, 15:17

He doesnt seem to like manchester though, closing down everything he's managed there... Watch out City and United!

beaver liquor

10th Apr 2009, 16:13

Just wait til Ian Mills is in charge. Thats when we really need to be afraid :uhoh:

BDiONU

10th Apr 2009, 16:26

Just wait til Ian Mills is in charge. Thats when we really need to be afraid :uhoh:
Effectively he already is, everything (almost literally) goes through him. PB is essentially a figurehead.

BD

anotherthing

10th Apr 2009, 18:01

BD,

I think I misheard you, I thought for one minute you said PB was a figurehead

ImnotanERIC

12th Apr 2009, 21:15

BBC NEWS | England | Wiltshire | Strike considered over pay freeze (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7994758.stm)

just seen this.
represented by prospect. who are outraged apparently. I can't imagine they would be outraged if we were getting a pay freeze. slightly miffed, a little disappointed maybe, never outraged.

Standard Noise

12th Apr 2009, 21:41

Ah well, you are talking about the union which successfully fought off privatisation.

Of VOSA.

PeltonLevel

13th Apr 2009, 10:04

A belated response to Loxley's suggestion and Mr777's question on 9th.April

On a serious note, how would we theoretically go about getting a new Union to represent us? I outlined the process in my post on 30th March:
There are three main grounds for derecognition (see http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1074439033): (http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1074439033%29:)
the employer no longer employs 21 or more workers
the union no longer has enough support from workers in the bargaining unit - the group of workers the union represents
union membership in the bargaining unit falls below 50 per centPresumably we are considering the second case here

Derecognition owing to lack of support - worker application
A worker (or workers) from the bargaining unit can apply to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) for derecognition - but only where no such similar application has been made in the past three years. If the CAC accepts the application as valid, it will try to help the workers, union and employer reach an agreement on derecognition. If an agreement is not reached, the CAC will arrange a secret ballot to test worker support for derecognition. However, it will do this only if it believes that:
- at least 10 per cent of the workers in the bargaining unit favour derecognition, and
- a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to favour derecognition
A union will be derecognised as a result of the ballot if a majority of those voting and at least 40 per cent of those entitled to vote favour derecognition.

anotherthing

13th Apr 2009, 10:05

And privatisation of the Post Office is being robustly fought - of course the Post Office is such a safety orientated organisation that privatisation would not be a good idea.

ATC on the other hand... :ugh:

Expect a 3.4% 2 year pay deal to be motioned (after the special delegate conference where NSL will get screwed).

Around 2.5% this year and 0.9% the year after...

Me Me Me Me

14th Apr 2009, 10:14

Whoever told you PCG pay rises were cancelled.... was wrong.

Me Me Me Me

14th Apr 2009, 14:26

On another note...

Announcement due imminently... watch your intranet browser with interest :ok:

Not sure whether to be outraged or delighted... possibly both. :suspect:

anotherthing

14th Apr 2009, 14:33

me me me me

Some of us are not in work for a while - any chance of a precis either here or in the NATS private forum??

It's not the announcement that Mr Barron is leaving, is it? That's the only one of my pre-pension vote predictions that is still to come true...

DotMac

14th Apr 2009, 15:08

Oooh... go on, you can't leave a cliff hanger like that. Just logged in using Home Access to see if anything's on email or natsnet, but nothing yet....

DotMac

Vote NO

14th Apr 2009, 15:41

Its not the announcement that the airline group :mad: are getting tens of millions at our expense is it ?? :confused:
And we are getting a decent pay rise ??!! :eek:

This could be the sweetener to restore morale ...

You heard it here first :E

terrain safe

14th Apr 2009, 16:08

Around 2.5% this year and 0.9% the year after...

Shurley you forgot the RPI+ in front :ok::ok::ok: .

Would have to be on leave this week as well. If NSL get screwed that is the end of the union in NSL. the big question is who do we get?

anotherthing

14th Apr 2009, 16:12

t-s

Shurley you forgot the RPI+ in front
not a chance, unfortunately. The only people getting double figure annual pay rises this year are management.

ZOOKER

14th Apr 2009, 16:36

NEW PRESTWICK CENTRE UNEXEPECTEDLY HIT BY METEORITE ! :ok::ok::E:E:}:}

Vote NO

14th Apr 2009, 16:43

More chance of that than anyone from Manch going there :}

250 kts

14th Apr 2009, 17:49

Expect a 3.4% 2 year pay deal to be motioned (after the special delegate conference where NSL will get screwed).

Around 2.5% this year and 0.9% the year after...

And maybe this is just the reason that negotiations are kept under wraps. I asked my rep yesterday if he knew about this and the answer was a firm "no".

But no doubt the hares are running now over this figure. One that I have to say I would be fairly happy with

Just let the negotiators do what they have to do.

PS. Zooker, which planet are you on-unfortunately not the one you suggest has just been hit.

Track Jitter

14th Apr 2009, 19:33

MeMeMe
Whoever told you PCG pay rises were cancelled.... was wrong.

Not cancelled, will be reviewed in September.
I posted
PCG's are not getting any rise I hear but that will be reviewed in September.

Two PCG's told us that so it must be true? :rolleyes:
They would not try and mislead us, would they?

kats-I

14th Apr 2009, 19:43

Why Not??? Everyone else in management tries it!!:eek:

Track Jitter

14th Apr 2009, 19:50

Tongue was in cheek ;)

No "news" from work today.

Disillusioned

15th Apr 2009, 08:47

£50million dividend back to the airlines. 9% pay rise to PB, yet apparantly we are too skint to give the workforce a half decent pay offer.

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.

This company is walking all over anyone and everyone, and doing exactly whatever they want.

They appear to have absolutely no fear of the Union anymore....Wonder why that is!

Me Me Me Me

15th Apr 2009, 09:51

Not deferred till September.... deferred till.... April pay day.

Perhaps some areas are different, but all that I've seen...

kats-I

15th Apr 2009, 10:05

Probably has something to do with the fact that the guy running the show."The Ring Master" doesn't give a toss about the staff or the company. As long as HE looks good sod the rest of us!

The unoin guys have seen the whites of his eyes and instead of taking the chance to shoot have turned tail and ran. Too many management lackies.

Me Me Me Me

15th Apr 2009, 10:35

Let's face the reality of the situation:

A substantial dividend is going to be paid to shareholders
Performance bonuses will be paid
Senior managers will get significant pay rises

And we'll get offered a modest increase... 2.5% rumour sounds quite likely to me.

If you look at that from the outside what you see is a successful company, making good profits. That's fine... So long as they stop bleating about how poor we are and how tough times are going to be.

Del Prado

15th Apr 2009, 15:38

And we'll get offered a modest increase... 2.5% rumour sounds quite likely to me.

unfortunately that's a 2.3% cut in real terms.

mhk77

16th Apr 2009, 10:56

Just about sums up our Union and their promise to improve communications:

ATCOs.co.uk (http://www.atcos.co.uk)

privatesandwiches

16th Apr 2009, 12:13

Note the date on the website.... will most likely be 6 months late like our payrise and not be what we expected.
Prospect, we only keep our expectations low so you may have a chance to impress us....:ok:

anotherthing

16th Apr 2009, 14:17

I notice on the intranet that PB has declared on the intranet that he is leaving next April... another prediction of mine (see earlier posts in pensions thread) that's come to fruition...

I wonder what damage he can inflict before he goes.

Nice to see he gets a whopping pay rise again before he departs though - nice to top up his pension fund :mad::mad:

Flybywyre

16th Apr 2009, 15:15

BBC NEWS | Business | The end of final-salary pensions? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8000152.stm)

kats-I

16th Apr 2009, 16:09

For 'kin Hell ..What the hell is going on.?? We got shafted with a yes vote on pensions and now looks like we will loose Final salary as well.:ugh::ugh:

Our union better start working now and do what they put themselves up for doing...looking after the workers.

aaaabbbbcccc1111

16th Apr 2009, 16:36

What are the major dis advantages for not being in the union. I genuinely dont see where my money goes each month. I know its only £15 or so, but I feel I may aswell save that £15 each month and blow it all on the grand national each year. If I win, I get my own little pay rise. I have never been in a union before, I only joined prospect recently to get my no vote for the pension ballot in. All I feel is that being in prospect gives me peace of mind if I have a very bad day at work, but could GATCO provide me with just as much peace of mind.
Most CVs I read (not that I read many), but PB mentioned it in his, is that most senior/middle manager were union reps in the past, and I am thinking wether some reps(not all) are using there position of reps to further their own career. You scratch my back etc etc. I hope I am wrong.

Standard Noise

16th Apr 2009, 17:05

The phrase a senior manager told me was 'poacher turned gamekeeper'.

Minesapint

16th Apr 2009, 17:11

I am told that our airline customers, by that I mean airline execs that will also get a fat payrise and a fatter bonus for shedding staff, think it "INSANE" to award NATS staff a payrise! We are awarding the execs a payrise by giving them a huge dividend!

The unions have lost the plot completely and are being comprehensively outmanaged. Maybe it's time for a joint ATC union of ATCO's, ATSA's, engineers and ATC specialists. :mad:

privatesandwiches

16th Apr 2009, 17:29

I'm a shareholder and I think its 'INASNE' to award shareholders, noteably the airlines a dividend when NATS has so many in house issues to resolve.

A union for ATCO's, ATSA and Engineers..... I second that :ok:

Flybywyre

16th Apr 2009, 18:32

I have said it before on this thread and I will repeat it.

The NTUS are are spent force. They have been completely outwitted and out manoeuvred by NATS management.

It would be great to get a vote of no confidence in the bunch of :mad: and get someone in there that can negotiate effectively and COMMUNICATEwith their members. Unfortunately it is to late. Irreversible damage has been done.

The phrase a senior manager told me was 'poacher turned gamekeeper'.

And there is no better example than Brenda Dean.
She used to be the leader of SOGAT the one time millitant Fleet Street print union that ruled the world of newspapers and Fleet Street.
Now she is a Baroness and sits on the board of NATS !!

Murdoch hoodwinked her the same way as Baron has hoodwinked our lot!!
(or was she really on his side all along ?)

Jungle Jingle Jim

16th Apr 2009, 20:50

So what do we know?

PB pay rise allegedly 9%
PCG grades to be paid bonus
Airline Group to be paid £50 million dividend
Staff who work rather hard to get shafted!

No wonder capitalism is fooked up!

I AM NOT QUITE READY TO BE SHAFTED BY MANAGEMENT!

kats-I

16th Apr 2009, 21:45

Minesapint.

ATCOs and ATSAs used to be together if you remember but ATCOs broke away to get a better deal...in hindsight.. should have stayed together..looks like chickens are coming home to roost.!!:*

The unions are a shambles, and as has been said many times "Too many management people" ATCOs and ATSAs who are only interested in getting what they want (to be on other side of fence) and sod the rest of us.

Maybe we should do as Macedonia has done??:hmm:

Disillusioned

16th Apr 2009, 22:06

I am just so unimpressed with the union right now (so much so that I purposely didn't use a captal 'u' for union).

I honestly can't think of anything they can do now to undo all of the damage and undermining of the general workforce (whom they are supposed to represent, and in fact are paid to represent).

And I still think that what we are experiencing now is only the tip of the iceberg....I'm sure worse is to follow. That's how little faith I have in the union protecting us from being walked all over.

They aren't even telling us what is going on any more. When was the last official union announcement (about anything)? After the first "derisory" management pay offer. Wasn't that over a month ago?

Thanks union for fulfilling your own promise of keeping your members informed.

Standard Noise

17th Apr 2009, 08:46

what we are experiencing now is only the tip of the iceberg....I'm sure worse is to follow
It is and it will. But here's the thing, everyone at a Band 5 unit used to think they were untouchable. The pension vote showed that they weren't and the management know that. Next week we will find out what the management have planned for NSL and we all know it isn't going to be good. The bigger units need to realise that once it happens to us in the small insignificant units, they're gonna come for you! We need to stick together, we can't afford to be inward looking and live in a "I'm alright, Jack" bubble. There are going to be 550+ ATCOs (and god knows how many ATSAs, engineers and other staff) in NSL who will need more support from their union and fellow ATCOs etc in NERL than ever before. If it doesn't come then we're all f**ked, eventually. If you care, phone, email or text your Prospect rep and tell them to support your colleagues in NSL come what may rather than accepting the management's pleadings of poverty (quite frankly, I wouldn't put it past PB and LH to appear in the intranet in sackcloth and ashes doing a turn as Oliver Twist 'please sirs, can we have some more?').

If you don't, then what do you fancy, pay freeze for the next three years, a cut in wages? New rosters that can fulfil the company's needs but with 20% less staff? Cuts in ASAP unless you work every nightshift in a year? Take your pick, I'm sure the management have many more ideas up their sleeves.

Roll on Tuesday! Can't wait.:rolleyes:

AREA52

17th Apr 2009, 09:27

What exact relevance does the pension vote have to your stereotypical view that "everyone at a Band 5 unit used to think they were untouchable".

I work at a band 5 unit and voted no for the pension. Do I think my unit is untouchable, no.

You talk about sticking together, having a go at higher banded units is hardly going to help your cause, whatever band they are!

I genuinely feel sorry for those that work in the NSL units, but without leadership from the top of the union, there is not a lot that people at any unit can do.

kats-I

17th Apr 2009, 10:53

ATSAs have had their hours changed already and apparently Branch officers were involved but the changes were management driven and it was a "tell" not a negotiation..so members were not balloted!!! A definite case of "sod you and get on with it"! :mad:

Standard Noise

17th Apr 2009, 10:57

OK then, for 'Band 5' read 'NERL'. Happy?

White Hart

17th Apr 2009, 11:19

"ATCOs and ATSAs used to be together if you remember but ATCOs broke away to get a better deal"

be careful what you say - you'll be accused of having a chip on your shoulder! :rolleyes:

Many of the NSL staff should now be looking for their personal lifeboats before the ship goes down - and no matter how long it takes, be certain that there's no help (or fight) coming from the Unions.

Vote NO

17th Apr 2009, 11:22

I really think it's about time we all withdrew goodwill and AAVA/ OT. NATS can't operate efficiently without our co- operation. Some may ask what good will this do? Well it will send a message to our glorious managers that we are no longer willing to accept what they throw at us and that we, the staff are the ones which keep the company afloat and the aircraft in the air. I feel its the only weapon we have, as our unions are obviously not capable of putting up a fight.
It is time the worm turned :ok:

kats-I

17th Apr 2009, 12:48

White Hart

Sorry didn't mean it to sound that way but if unions had stayed together we may have been stronger now..Just an observation ..honest.:sad:

White Hart

17th Apr 2009, 14:56

Kats-I

FWIW, I don't actually remember a time in the last 20 years where the Unions were ever really together (if at all), and that is a big part of the current problem.

all of what's going on now is a result of circumstances coming together. The current economic/financial situation; a Management team that has completely re-invented our Company as a potential money making machine and not much else; frightened - yes, frightened - staff members, unable to think beyond personal circumstances and possible hardships ahead, and finally, ineffective Union support with a weak-willed membership.

We all have our own ideas about what should be done, but apart from the sabre-rattlers on here and the odd one or two in the workplace, there's no stomach for a fight out on the front line. Quite understandably, we are all too conscious of our own personal situations to risk pushing the issue to the limit even for ourselves, let alone for anyone else.

Therefore, each of us needs to be looking at our own positions within this crisis, and work out the best way forward for ourselves. We are not going to resolve this collectively (ie - via the Unions), because we've already been found out to be weak and ineffective as a coherent workforce in the negotiating arena. The forthcoming meeting concerning the future of NSL will be the final chance for the Unions to flex their muscle.

Will they take it? More importantly, if the Union resolve is for all members to stand together to save the smaller fish, will those who consider themselves to be in the safer jobs/areas of the Company stand up to support those who have their backs to the wall?

Personally, I don't think so, but we shall all just have to wait and see.

anotherthing

17th Apr 2009, 15:07

A work colleague (I would say friend but he's an ATSA and I'm an ATCO - the two really shouldn't mix) told me today that the ATSAs in TC have lost a leave column.

What this means in simple terms is that the ATSAs left in TC after the redundancies cannot take their full allocation of leave each year as there are not enough days available to do so.

This has been done with the full knowledge of the ATSA branch of the Union. The way management can get around the issue is simple, if not a little devious and dishonest.

There are enough days in the leave columns for ATSAs to take their annual leave allocation, but not enough for them to be able to take their bank holiday entitlement or TOIL -this does not constitute a breach of Ts and Cs.

ATSA 4s (the 5 that are left) have the discretion to give ATSAs the day off when it is anticipated to be quiet, say a Saturday afternoon shift.

Not really fair on the ATSAs, or the ATSA 4 who has to make the call. Particularly not fair considering how much of a cull there was for TC ATSAs - we now have 3 on a night shift.

The leave will have to be carried over - but when will they be able to take it?!!

This is just one example of how the Unions are 'working Together'. As Standard Noise says, if we do not stand together now, irrespective of NERL or NSL, irrespective of Banding, irrespective of Operational or Office worker, we will get shafted.

This is probably our last chance to show some balls - we flunked the pension issue - more by the lack of turnout to vote than the actual result - we really can't afford to do it again. Does anyone think PB gives any care beyond his next 12 months at NATS?

He is fat dumb and happy with a nicely secured pension - courtesy of some nice golden hellos and goodbyes along the way (I believe he was compensated when he joined NATS to make up for some pension loss in previous employment).

PB has bull$h1tted his way through the pension debacle, claiming it was as much in his interest as a pension fund member as it was in ours, when in reality he has managed to get big payrises into effect before the RPI pension cap took effect.

If you believe the spin that these guys are giving, you deserve to be shafted. It's not just management we have to convince that we are serious, it's also the Union.

PH-UKU

17th Apr 2009, 15:55

I think the AAVA agreeement should be binned - NATS have now come to rely on it as 'standard practice'.

It is divisive, it pays over the 'going rate' for those at the bottom of scale, and only pays a normal days pay for those at the top. You will always get individuals who don't see the corrosive long-term effect it has on us all and will continue to trouser the cash but I would hope they will get less and less as the worth of it reduces and the 'goodwill' dries up.

I would further suggest if the Union don't have the balls for an out and out scrapping of the scheme, that they propose pro-rata rates (depending where you are on the payscale) to management. Hey, they could even propose it on the basis it saves management money :E

Top of scale to get the usual £500/£600 pre-tax payment - what they would get for a normal shift.
Bottom of scale gets 50% of that - also, what they would get for a normal shift.

Let's see how soon the system grinds to a halt.

Out of interest - to those that do AAVAs. Don't you feel you are being got on the cheap ? Do you ever wonder how many £000s your AAVA attendance actually saves NATS (in fines) in the short term?

45 before POL

17th Apr 2009, 16:39

The AAVA's also save 000's in pension payments being "non-pensionable" If overtime was taken as per the staff handbook ...a different matter:}

jonny B good

17th Apr 2009, 17:02

Just for info - the ATCO reps are not paid in any shape or form. They are all full time ATCOs with 'day' jobs controlling who give up their own time to represent the members the best they can. They are elected each year and can easily be removed if that is what the majority of members wish :bored:

Equally, the door is always open if any wishes to become more active in the union. Instead of simplying saying 'the union' is crap, why not lead from the front? (and yes, we all joined the company to control, not be be union reps, but someone has to do it!)

On a slightly different note, the website ATCOs.co.uk - (http://atcos.co.uk) is now up and running. Although in its infancy, it will continue to be added to and kept current. So much so that I believe there is something coming out tonight regarding the Pay Meeting which took place today :ok:

Just taking a step back now to make room for the complaints :E

TALLOWAY

17th Apr 2009, 17:07

I pledged not to do another AAVA when the pension saga began ... and I'm keeping my word.

The vast majority of our Watch also have a gentlemans/ladies agreement not to do them either ... and with a couple of individual exceptions, we don't.

The unit is finding it hard to find AAVAs to cover the normal shortfall and those created by management ineptitude. That is a good thing and we need to put even more pressure on our colleagues not to help NATS out. They have shafted us over pensions, they will shaft us over pay. Non op staff have been attacked and cut back. NSL is next, then it will be an assault on everyones T&C's. Yet some people can't see beyond the paltry bag of money which will be thrown at them and get NATS management out of the mire again and again ... at their own and their colleagues long term expense.

The AAVA rate is not even worth what it was when it first came in. In addition to there being no annual increase to match RPI, National Insurance increases also mean you get less in your hand than you did when it first came in.

Stop fannying about Prospect, stop aiding and abetting the management, pull the agreement now and let NATS come up with a solution or a substantially increased price for our goodwill and sacrifice.

:mad::mad::mad:

anotherthing

17th Apr 2009, 17:35

Just had a quick peek at the website ATCOs.co.uk (http://atcos.co.uk/) - looks good.

On the pay update it talks about a blended RPI. I think most people will, however reluctantly, agree that this is inevitable - how far the blending goes in favour of management is another argument.

However, this blended RPI had better not be forgotten when we are faced with the reverse situation we are in now i.e. when the times comes that we have a low Aug RPI and pay negotiations begin whilst costs are rising.

Management should be left in no doubt that in that circumstance, we would not be willing to accept the low offer and thatblending would need to take place.

However, knowing how they work any pay deal will be quickly hammered out during low RPI years - much to the benefit of management.

Minesapint

17th Apr 2009, 17:57

KATS-I

I have been around loing enough to remember that. I don't blame ATCO's for getting a better deal, the trouble is it has been and will be used to divide ATC staff. So what happens is engineers are offered 4.8% and ATCO's 1.3%? RB (Robbing B$%£"&^D? :D :suspect: is often quoted as stating that ATCO's are great, but paid way too much. I think that is on the rich side coming from him :mad: The sooner this particular fatcat is gone the better :yuk:. I wonder how big his golden wheelbarrow(s) will be? I think I will measure how much he 'acquires' in ATSA's, £ are so passe.

We should have a single union, so how the hell do we go about it?? :E

autothrottle

17th Apr 2009, 18:54

As the employees "own " part of NATS, can we ask for an extraordinary general meeting for a vote of no confidence in PB? I know the answer is most probably no, but just a thought. My life boat is being prepared.

Ballstroker

17th Apr 2009, 19:01

Any shareholder can propose an EGM, but you'll need to show that you have significant support to get one called. I doubt if HMG or the Airline Group will add their support to us little shareholders.

Jungle Jingle Jim

17th Apr 2009, 20:41

PCS are suffering from 'in-fighting' just before their annual pilgrimage to Brighton. The pension issue is ripping them apart (desjavous)! Add to that the culling of engineers and ATSAs.

Meanwhile Prospect seem to have created a divided membership without even trying!

No wonder PB is on a 9% (alleged) pay rise!

A UNITED front is required right now!

SHAFTED I am not (yet)!

ZOOKER

17th Apr 2009, 21:04

Scot,
The current trade-mark is a 'thinner' version of the 1970's logo which was slightly fatter and had a delta-winged 'widget' to the right. This logo was also shared with the newly-created CAA.
Allegedly the Wolff-Olins re-branding company was paid £1.2m for the "new' logo and Chipperfield's circus stripes.
P.S. Are you related to Uncle Tom? :E

kats-I

17th Apr 2009, 22:12

Minesapint

Sorry don't know the anwer to that one (yet)
But I do know there are several people out there that could sort management if the unions joined forces. ("anotherthing" are you reading this?..I hope so):ok:

Vote NO

17th Apr 2009, 22:17

"Today, the ATCO Pay Negotiators as part of the Joint NTUS Pay Team, met with NATS with regards to an offer on Core Pay. At this meeting, NATS made their ‘best and final’ offer which involved using a blended RPI based on a combined Aug 2008 and Aug 2009 RPI figure. This is a different way of doing a pay deal and takes account of the rapidly changing economic environment we have found ourselves in.

The offer on the table does not involve any changes to our current T’s & C’s and has been the culmination of months of difficult negotiations.

The next step is for the ATCO Pay Team to present the NATS offer to the ATCO Branch Executive, at which point the BEC will endorse or reject the offer. It is hoped to make this presentation to the BEC by 22nd April. After the offer has been presented to all constituents of the NTUS, full details will be communicated to all members along with the recommendation of the BEC. This will be followed by a ballot of the members as soon as practicable."

Forecast RPI for Aug 09 is about minus 0.7% :\

This presumably would give us about 4% over 2 years :confused:. The industry average for this year is 2.6%

NB. UK RPI for July 09 is forecast to fall to minus 1.2% :eek:

This is a different way of doing a pay deal and takes account of the rapidly changing economic environment we have found ourselves in :mad:

This sounds like management w*nk speak to me :suspect: and is loaded on managements side :mad: . If it's so rapidly changing how can they possibly ensure we dont end up with next to SFA next year unless they have agreed to accept nothing less than 4 % over two years ?

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2008/uk-inflation-forecast-2009-dec08.gif

hold at SATAN

17th Apr 2009, 23:07

How the hell can we even contemplate a pay rise based on forcasted RPI figures? They are mostly (educated?) guesses at best and may bear no resemblence to future RPI - indeed, fuel prices are currently shooting up faster than the rate at this time last year - so there is no guarantee that RPi will be negative, come Aug 2009.

Prices have already gone up by AUG 08 RPI - we have already fallen behind the curve. An AUG08 RPI payrise will simply bring our salaries up to the equivalent pre-Aug08 prices. Anything less is a pay cut FFS!

If it is their best and final offer, I suggest we stick two fingers up at NATS management, pull the AAVA agreement and other extraneous tasks, and see what happens when NATS attribitutable delays shoot up - yep, those fines are gonna be hefty!

kats-I

17th Apr 2009, 23:14

Like your style:ok::D

Disillusioned

17th Apr 2009, 23:51

I would still like the AAVA agreement to be pulled no matter what the pay result.

Management are simply taking the mick, as every time any negotiation re staffing is involved, their stock answer is, "we'll staff it with AAVAs".

The AAVA agreement seems to be the only leverage we have aginst management at the moment, and by pulling it, it would at least make them sit up and stop their relentless onslaught.

I so hope the SDC next week results in it being pulled. I really do.

mr.777

18th Apr 2009, 08:20

This is total nonsense. Blended RPI this year will mean about 2.5% which is a PAY CUT OF 2.3% !!! Meanwhile, his Lordship gets 9%. What part of this picture is wrong. I also overheard yesterday that it's not the payrise we should be worried about, but our pensions!!! HOW????!!!

I'm not taking any more cut in my pay, real or otherwise. I now stand by for the usual management lackeys, who by the way have been suspiciously quiet so far on this thread, to tell me why

1) I deserve a 2.3% pay cut
2) why PB is worth 6.5% more of a payrise than I am
3) why I should take a further cut in my pension.

Since they haven't yet taken up my original challenge of defending PB's payrise, I won't hold my breath for an answer.

Oh, and £5 says the Prospect BEC bend over and accept this piece of sh*t anyway, and then recommend we accept it :rolleyes:

roidster

18th Apr 2009, 09:02

With that tw#t Barron having a year left before he goes, does he really have a stomach for a fight with us? He will go with a big bonus no matter what and hopefully take his five a side team of arse lickers with him. We should go for a one year pay deal at Aug 08 RPI. Anything less is a pay cut remember. Then we will worry about next years deal next year with a new boss when the flights start picking up again.

This pay deal is already 4 months late. My pension has already been got at. Staff morale is at an all time low. Stick together and demand a fair pay deal.

anotherthing

18th Apr 2009, 09:08

Mr777

Oh, and £5 says the Prospect BEC bend over and accept this piece of sh*t anyway, and then recommend we accept it
Far be it for me to defend the Union - I think they have been poor in some areas - but the way it works is this:

Union negotiates with management - how hard they push, how much management flannel they swallow is another point entirely.

Management will always get to a point that they claim is a final offer - how far that is below their real 'keep it between ourselves' final offer is known only to them.

The Union take it to the membership for a vote.

Here's where it can go one of two ways.

The Union can give a recommendation of how they think we should vote - i.e. they will present us with the management offer and will state (not the words they will use but along these lines)

"We believe this is/is not an acceptable offer - we urge you to think carefully and vote accordingly"

It is then up to the membership - that's us - to vote in favour of acceptance or to reject it.

If we say yes, then negotiations are complete.

If we say no, then we go back to the table...

The Union will try to renegotiate, however management have already stated it is their final offer. This is a negotiation tactic that is not unique to NATS.

The point where it becomes unique to an individual company, dependant on the management is when they make their next move. They either budge a little in the hope of getting a yes vote to accept the new revised deal (having been seen to improve their 'final offer'), or they play hardball and take a gamble.

The gamble they take is the fact that if they do not budge, the next move for the Union is to ballot for industrial action. There is no other move the Union can take because members had already voted not to accept the offer.

Management would be gambling on the belief that we would not vote to take industrial action. Unfortunately that vote is our - the members - 'put up or shut up' point. If we don't vote to take industrial action, we are actually voting to accept the offer.

The question is (and the Union will have considered this as well - they have to as part of their negotiating strategy), how strong is the membership?

Considering that with the pensions issue over 30% of people could not even be bothered to vote in the first and only ballot, management are at this moment going to be pretty confident.

We did not even make them go back to the negotiating table as a result of the ballot because we (collectively) voted in favour of the proposals. We didn't even have the balls to vote no to see if we could push management a little harder.

Management now know that not only were we unwilling to push on the pensions issue - which actually has far bigger financial implications on the individual worker than the odd 1% here or there in this years pay award - but in fact 30% of us couldn't be bothered (some people were unable) to vote.

It is the same people who are making the most noise on this thread that did so on the pensions issue (myself included). At the end of the day, where did that lead? Nowhere.

I'm not saying that people will roll over on this issue, but management would, to be fair to them, be stupid not to take the gamble given our recent history.

Now I truly believe the Union have been shocking in their communications, particularly over the pensions. I also believe that they are too close to management on 'Working Together'
Oh, and £5 says the Prospect BEC bend over and accept this piece of sh*t anyway, and then recommend we accept it
However, at the end of the day they, the Union, have to work on what they think the members will do (prior to any ballots). Given that we voted to accept the pension issue straight off, and 30% of us didn't even vote, we sent a wrong, and very weak message to the Union. If we, the members, are seen to be weak (which we are), then the Union is also weak.

anotherthing

18th Apr 2009, 09:18

Roidster

We should definitely not go for a one year deal.

It should be 2 years, a good rise this year based on AUG08 RPI and the strong profits we, the workers, generated for NATS. Next year a few percent to keep the wolves from the door - say an agreement of a flat 2.5% or RPI+1.5%, whichever is the greater amount (thus a minimum of a 2.5% payrise, when it is expected to be a negative RPI years - see the post from Vote NO above).

If we negotiate one year at a time we will get nothing next year whatsoever.

Unfortunately because of the excellent pension negotiations, that will mean that just one year into the new pension agreement, we are already losing out on pensionable pay... cannot be avoided in low RPI years because of what we voted to accept :ugh:

mr.777

18th Apr 2009, 09:25

I agree with much of what you say. The pension issue has certainly paved the way for another shafting.

I was under the impression that the Union would ballot for industrial action if they didn't get an acceptable offer from management, so the flip side of that would be that they recommend the offer.

Am I right in thinking then that the offer gets put forward...

Prospect recommend the offer/don't recommend it...
We vote yes/no...
Yes means it gets implemented and no means they're back at the drawing board?

If this is the case, the fact remains that they will at some point have to say to us "we recommend you accept this offer"...which is what I was alluding to (albeit, not so eloquently :E).

I do agree with you that it is incumbent on us to refuse it but, as you correctly say, when a large part of the members couldn't even be bothered to vote on the pension, what chance have we got?

anotherthing

18th Apr 2009, 09:39

Mr777,

...If this is the case, the fact remains that they will at some point have to say to us "we recommend you accept this offer"...which... That's what I was trying to say (badly) with the statement

"We believe this is/is not an acceptable offer - we urge you to think carefully and vote accordingly"

However it is dressed up, and whether the Union recommend it or not, it is down to us, the members, to vote for what we want.
The Union recommendation will be based, to a degree, on what they believe would be the result of a ballot on industrial action i.e. a feeling in the water of what we will vote for.

They (The Union) don't want to drag this on forever (quite rightly).

It will slightly defeat any logical reasoning if we vote no, the Management don't budge, then we we roll over on the ballot for industrail action i.e. vote yes to accept the same pay deal instead of striking.

This has happened before with the ATCO branch... a very strong vote to throw out the deal, then when the same deal came back, no one had the balls to actually strike and the vote was reversed with an equally strong vote the other way :ugh:

Unfortunately, even though we have an above averag intelligence within NATS compared to 'normal' companies (this has been acknowledged by PB), people are still too scared to vote for what they know makes sense and will blindly believe management.

The Union, to be fair to them, need to wrap up negotitations - hell, we are whingeing about how long it is taking - the Union are stuck in the middle of a hard-nosed management and a weak but increasingly angry memebrship. The Union has to make a recommendation taking this into account and taking into account the many calls from people who are whingeing about how late the pay deal is.

At the end of the day, the best bet would be to go to ballot now, and for people to vote on the proposals for what they think, not for what anyone else thinks or recommends.

We have a weak membership, both the Union and the management know this. It actually makes the Unions job of negotiating harder!

landedoutagain

18th Apr 2009, 12:11

How does blended RPI affect pensionable pay? My understanding is that the MOU refers to a cap at RPI +.5%, and that any change to the base measurement system for payrises has to be agreed. Blended RPI seems to be still mostly based on RPI, but how will you know whats pensionable if the second half of the 'blend' isnt known?

and my tuppence on AAVA's, they should be priced at a figure which strongly encourages the company not to rely on them - ie, probably £650+ after tax, or an amount which works out to more than a top of scale ATCO2 gets for a days work. They should be to cover temporary unavoidable shortage of staff, not a way for the company to save on paying all the associated costs of actually employing the right number of people. (as for linking it to where you are on the scale, thats daft!)

45 before POL

18th Apr 2009, 14:10

Vote no....did the market oracle graph get used on the intranet?...on leave so not seen this message. If so it should be noted that this is Nov08 data used, secondly this has not factored in the fuel inflation that has occurred in April so far rising above last years trends. Also on market oracle although graph not been updated yet, further comments made about inflation to pick up in the latter part of the year. ....quite happy to take an average of 2008 which is 4.5%and average of this year likely to be in the positive territory. works out more than what management want to offer......wheres our 9%????:}:} secondly....does anyone know if nats route charges based on RPI or RPI-x(excluding mortgage payments) if rpi-x this was 2.5% in Feb, up from 2.4% in Jan even though rpi was 0.

Vote NO

18th Apr 2009, 16:51

No I got it here
UK CPI Inflation, RPI Deflation Forecast 2009 :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article8004.html)

kats-I

18th Apr 2009, 16:54

jonny B good

"Just for info - the ATCO reps are not paid in any shape or form"

But Full time Officers are aren't they? Surely they are paid to sort the needs of union members from the monthly payments made..and reps try to put these needs across.:confused:
So what are the Full Time Officers doing???

AAVAs and any overtime should be stopped as they only help management make their cuts and can undermine the pay/staff deals the union is trying to make. (I use the term "Trying" very loosely) :( :ugh:

anotherthing

19th Apr 2009, 10:55

Kats-I has hit the nail on the head, I believe (you should become a rep :})

The reps who do it voluntarily canonly go on the info the paid officers give them, and are very much restricted by the upper echelons of the Union.

PeltonLevel

19th Apr 2009, 11:15

http://dilbert.com/dyn_file/str_strip/49207/gif/strip.print/ (http://dilbert.com/strips/)

kats-I

19th Apr 2009, 11:36

anotherthing

No No! I volunteered you first..you are that man!:cool:

Actually been there done that..T-shirt now in bin.:O:p

Arkady

19th Apr 2009, 13:38

I stand to be corrected but I believe there is only one "Full Time Officer" in the ATCOs branch. He/she is the "National Officer" and is effectively an advisor to the BEC on the practicalities and legalities of Union activity. He/she has no say in policy and is not privy to any information unknown to the BEC. The National Officer would never meet with management without other members of the ATCOs branch and has a passive role in these situations (ie a listening brief). Every other member of the ATCOs Branch (Reps, observers, SOC, BEC) are NATS ATCOs and are unpaid volunteers voted for by the membership. The ATCOs Branch is the part of Prospect that represents us to mangement. The organisation "Prospect" provides practical support and legitamacy to the ATCOs Branch in these representations.

PH-UKU

19th Apr 2009, 20:57

(as for linking it to where you are on the scale, thats (sic) daft!)

Not if you want to make them unattractive. Maybe the subtlety was lost on you ... ? :hmm:

But anyway ... playing Devil's Advocate..... if you get paid (for example) £300 salary at the bottom of the payscale for a days shift, and £600 at the top.... why should an extra days AAVA work be double time for one set of workers but not for the other .. ? Surely that is age discrimination ? :E

Me Me Me Me

20th Apr 2009, 09:30

The "final offer" will be put to members with a recommendation to accept. The majority - as always - will do as they are told.

AAVAs will continue unhindered. Lets face it, the vast majority of those that do them like the pots of gold too much to stop.

Our workforce and our union lost the leverage they once had. The pension vote was the final line in the sand and we all - collectively - capitulated with barely a whimper. There is no point rattling sabres now... We take what we're given or leave.

2 things that should come from this though:

1. Union reps need to be held properly accountable for their positioning closer to management than to the people they are elected to represent. Withdrawal from Working Together is a priority in order to restore some faith.

2. PPRuners will hopefully see the light that this site houses only a tiny vocal minority. Views here are not even close to being representative of the whole workforce.

It was more than 9%

BDiONU

20th Apr 2009, 10:17

Update from PB in the NATS thread (http://www.pprune.org/nats/370721-pb-update.html#post4873267)

BD

ImnotanERIC

20th Apr 2009, 10:21

AAVAs will continue unhindered. Lets face it, the vast majority of those that do them like the pots of gold too much to stop.

Whilst i agree with everything else you have said, this statement is a bit narrow minded.
I have no qualms about taking aavas if they are offered to me. I'm in the bottom third of the pay scale and as such sit next to some people doing exactly the same job but in some cases for almost half the pay.
An aava is a nice boost to my wages.
I, like many people in my "area" of the pay scale bought my house for stupid money within the last 5 years. This is by far my biggest expense. I wish i had had the opportunity to buy my house for 50 pence in the eighties or earlier like many people did.
As it stands, I do like the pot of gold, but it's not because I am greedy. It's a good bonus for a few hours work.

anotherthing

20th Apr 2009, 10:22

Spoke to a couple of friends who are reps yesterday - a bit of info gleaned re their thoughts on NSL and the SDC etc - not looking good for NATS as an ATC provider to tell the truth (nor NSL).

One of them even admited that he thought that the Unions were far too cosy with management and that he disagreed with a lot of what was going on. However as a rep, although you can voice your concerns at meetings etc, you have to toe the party line when it comes to official statements.

Bad times ahead in the next 2 weeks.

And for those wondering when they will see any payrise - don't expect it until at least July pay packets even if an agreement is made and accepted by end of May - NATS are having to draft in a specialist company to work out the back pay etc due to SMART pensions etc. It won't happen overnight.

As for AAVAs - not doing them is not the answer - the answer is the Union negotiating new, increased rates. The rates have been static for years, keeping the rates as they are only encourages management to skimp on operational manpower as AAVAS are cheaper than employing the correct amount of people.

As for PBs post - redundancies and cost cutting.

We have had a lot of redundancies/non renewal of contracts. In TC about half the assistants who are taking VR have gone, the rest go over the next couple of months.

Since the first lot have gone, we have started bringing more ATSAs in for overtime than previously, to make up for shortfall.

NATS - a World Leader in Mis-management of Manpower.

Me Me Me Me

20th Apr 2009, 10:40

Whilst i agree with everything else you have said, this statement is a bit narrow minded.
I have no qualms about taking aavas if they are offered to me. I'm in the bottom third of the pay scale and as such sit next to some people doing exactly the same job but in some cases for almost half the pay.
An aava is a nice boost to my wages.
I, like many people in my "area" of the pay scale bought my house for stupid money within the last 5 years. This is by far my biggest expense. I wish i had had the opportunity to buy my house for 50 pence in the eighties or earlier like many people did.
As it stands, I do like the pot of gold, but it's not because I am greedy. It's a good bonus for a few hours work.

You said "greedy", I didn't. I said you liked the pot of gold, you agreed. So what is narrow-minded?

ImnotanERIC

20th Apr 2009, 11:09

mr.777

20th Apr 2009, 11:13

A precis of PB's message for those of you who don't have access to the NATS forum....

The Airline Group are getting a dividend because they deserve it. People on PCG contracts will continue to get overinflated bonuses and payrises whilst the rest of us get a paltry 2.5% or whatever the pathetic, blended RPI figure will be. And no mention/defence/rebuttal of his 9% payrise. In short, nothing we didnt already know.

Me Me Me Me

20th Apr 2009, 12:26

The way i read it made it appear to me as if you were talking with disdain towards people who do aavas. I assumed you are in a position higher up the pay scale than I and that the pot of gold does not appear as large to you?
i may have read the "tone" wrong, as can often happen on these pages.

Agreed, not always easy to accurately read the intended tone :ok:

I have no issue at all with anyone who chooses to do AAVAs, or people who choose to not do them. How you, or anyone else, chooses to earn the money to keep a roof over your head is more your business than mine! My point was more that it's a waste of time to suggest some form of AAVA boycott protest... because it simply wouldn't happen.

anotherthing

20th Apr 2009, 13:08

Me Me Me Me

correct - there will always be people who do AAVAs - we would not even be able to get agreeemtn across the board to stop doing them out of protest.

The only sensible solution is to change the rates - i.e. bring them up to date. Maybe then management might look to staff operational tasks appropriately and not through AAVAs.

But of course, the Union won't have the balls, nor the gumption, to re-negotiate AAVAs - that would take time and effort and it seems that doing the minumum is what goes nowadays.

Pensions and pay deal has to be negotiated, otherwise no doubt they would just be left to rune their course as well.

REVOLUTION

20th Apr 2009, 14:09

There is a lot of chat about AAVA's but I cannot remember the last time someone did one in TC.

anotherthing

20th Apr 2009, 14:32

Tonight and tomorrow night - 1*AAVA for TMA North.

250 kts

20th Apr 2009, 15:53

the answer is the Union negotiating new, increased rates.

They are voluntary-if you don't like the rate don't do them-simple.

If an increased rate were to be negotiated then this will inevitably come out of the overall "pot" of money available and would then have an impact on every member of staff.

Surely it is sensible to keep the rate as it is in order for more to be available for any pensionable rise that may be offered?

Why should someone who has never done an AAVA-and there are plenty of them, potentially suffer in order to increase the rate for those who do?

anotherthing

20th Apr 2009, 16:07

bit of a circular argument there, 250Kts

Why should someone who has never done an AAVA-and there are plenty of them, potentially suffer in order to increase the rate for those who do?

They are voluntary...
And it's personal choice not to do them as well...

So, to counter that, why should someone who does choose to do them suffer a stagnant rate, just because some people choose not to do them? :}

The issue is not whether or not people choose to do them, the issue is the fact that as they stand, management use them as a cheap way of manning the Ops room.

A different slant on the argument - if enroute did not insist on having T&P present whenever a sector is open, even when a tactical could do it on their own, manpower statistics would look better, less AAVAs would be needed, more money would be available for pensionable rises.

An equally valid argument, but like your above, has little meaning in real life.

250 kts

20th Apr 2009, 16:37

if enroute did not insist on having T&P present whenever a sector is open,

We don't-the Method of Operation on which LACC was designed and built demands it. End of. The regulations that would have to be put on for single manning during the day would far outweigh the benefit gained anyway. Pop in and try controlling as well as managing the electronics on a separate screen and also operating 2 data bases.

management use them as a cheap way of manning the Ops room.

I may agree with that if we weren't recruiting and training as fast as we possibly can. It is true that the use of them improves the service to the customers though.

So, to counter that, why should someone who does choose to do them suffer a stagnant rate

Because it is voluntary as to whether you accept the rate or not. It is not voluntary to attend on the other occasions we attend and therefore the emphasis should be put on pensionable pay. After all it is this consolidated pay that eventually is built upon to achieve long term salary increases.

And surely it is best to keep it at a rate so people don't come to rely on it. Remember, the agreement ceases in 2 years anyway.

PH-UKU

20th Apr 2009, 16:52

So, to counter that, why should someone who does choose to do them suffer a stagnant rate, just because some people choose not to do them?

Because in the long term it sells EVERYONE short if you do AAVAs... everyone except management. Just like selling of annual leave ... but don't even get me started on that .... :ugh:

I say we should scrap AAVAs or make it at such a paltry rate that
a) management will jump at the 'chance' to employ us even cheaper
when
b) in reality, no-one (except the grubbiest of sectorwh*res ;) will actually do it).

Phantom99

20th Apr 2009, 17:07

1. I choose to do AAVAs when it suits me and not to help the 'company' - I realise it does but I'm not too bothered about that really, I just quite like an extra 10% of my wage for 8ish hours work...it's handy for paying for the wedding and moving house!

Then again, I haven't done one since November, and even last summer it was on average one every two months - mainly because we were the watch that needed AAVAs the most - I thought one guy had joined our watch permanently last year the number of overtime shifts he did with us.

2. Talking to an AC ATSA today about how many are leaving in the next few weeks, and today on East/North we were short as usual, yet three of those that were in will be leaving...I'm sure there is a grand plan to cover that?

kats-I

20th Apr 2009, 17:32

250 kts

Being professionals obviously you want to give customers a good service. They always will get that whether there are AAVAs in or not because thats the nature of the game. Perhaps if it wasn't so good they (the airlines) might think about giving up some of their dividends to ensure they get it!! And look into the obscene amounts given to those at the top at the cost of those providing the service...ATCOs ATSAs Engineers:{ yeah ..I know its a pipe dream:mad:

anotherthing

20th Apr 2009, 17:42

250Kts

I never once intimated that the controllers were the ones that demanded T&P in position all the time!

Pop in and try controlling as well as managing the electronics on a separate screen and also operating 2 data bases
Therein lies the great flaw in the system. I know for a fact that some of your sectors benefit greatly from the electronics, but that on the other hand, some sectors would work equally well without it.

Despite the fact that it does not suit the TC method of operation, it looks increasingly likely that we will go to EFD and a paperless environment.

It also looks like to do so succesfully we may have to man and boy every sector - akin to T&P. A completely retrograde step that will cost NATS more in the long run.

AAVAs are a legitimate source of cheap labour, if people want to do them, then good luck to them. Until the Union says we will not do them as a matter of course, then you can't moan at people for doing it.

Phantom99 - In TC we've not lost all the assistants we are going to yet, but we are already getting ATSAs in for overtime when previously there was no need - I think AC will be the same!!!

landedoutagain

20th Apr 2009, 17:52

Not if you want to make them unattractive. Maybe the subtlety was lost on you ... ?

But anyway ... playing Devil's Advocate..... if you get paid (for example) £300 salary at the bottom of the payscale for a days shift, and £600 at the top.... why should an extra days AAVA work be double time for one set of workers but not for the other .. ? Surely that is age discrimination ?

It depends on who you want to make an AAVA unattractive to. They should be unattractive to management by virtue of being more expensive to them than employing the correct number of staff (as anotherthing also said).

also playing devils advocate... is the whole spine point system not age discrimination too then?... or why should a newly valid, but at MUR, get paid less for a days overtime than someone who doesnt meet the MUR but who happens to be 3 or 4 points up the scale? They already earn almost twice as much but are less useful. I would suggest that as an AAVA you are only an extra number to get to that required on the day, therefore experience is irrelevant, and hence its a fixed rate. (plus, it would make the system for offering them much more complicated too if how much they earn comes into it! :) )

P.S.

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' (please feel free to use these if i miss anymore out!)

250 kts

20th Apr 2009, 18:40

Therein lies the great flaw in the system. I know for a fact that some of your sectors benefit greatly from the electronics, but that on the other hand, some sectors would work equally well without it.

Well I have to say I can't think of any-but hey I only work there!

if enroute did not insist on having T&P present whenever a sector is open,

Your quote

It does sound as if you meant the controllers insisted on T&P

Until the Union says we will not do them as a matter of course, then you can't moan at people for doing it.

I didn't moan. I just pointed out the case not to increase the rate.

anotherthing

20th Apr 2009, 19:29

So notwithstanding electronics, every sector in AC needs 2 controllers and an assistant?

So no sectors (forget the electronics were talking about controlling here) in AC could run with one controller yet in TC they all can and often do, (or maybe have one controller sharing a coordinator with 2 or 3 other controllers).

I'm not getting into a willy waving contest, all I'm saying is that electronics have necessitated an increase in manpower resources. Unfortunately it looks like TC might be going down the same backward path (certainly backward for TC).

250 kts

20th Apr 2009, 19:46

So no sectors (forget the electronics were talking about controlling here)

Sorry but the electronics are an integral part of the "controlling" environment, like it or not. Of course if it is only the talking to planes that is the issue then some could run with just one person at certain times.

You may think it's a step backward to have 2 people on the sectors but I can't ever remember having to wait in excess of 30 seconds to get an answer to a phone call in AC. Common in TC with no dedicated co-ordinator.

Is it backward in terms of safety?

Min Stack

20th Apr 2009, 20:43

Eric

I, like many people in my "area" of the pay scale bought my house for stupid money within the last 5 years. This is by far my biggest expense. I wish i had had the opportunity to buy my house for 50 pence in the eighties or earlier like many people did.

When I bought my house in the 80's, "50 pence" was a lot of money then AND took up a big chunk of my salary AND mortgage rates went up to 15% AND endowments were being mis-sold to us all AND there were no AAVA's so don't bleat about being hard up just because you were stupid enough to take out a 120% mortgage on a house that you can't realistically afford, sonny.

And another thing - I'm only 4 years away from retirement so I don't suppose my pension will be affected but I voted no for all you youngsters' pensions and I stopped doing AAVA's, not because I don't need the money (with 2 kids at university and my missus just made redundant I could still do with some extra dosh) but because I didn't want to lift a finger for NATS more than I had to after the pensions debacle and it annoys me to see the same folk coming in to do AAVAs all the time and most of those folk are youngsters whose pensions will be affected so I think to myself why did I bother, I'm alright Jack. If everyone stopped doing AAVAs for only a couple of months even, this place would probably grind to a halt.

Rant over. :hmm:

kats-I

20th Apr 2009, 21:20

Phantom99.

Regarding the ATSA shortage..don't be suprised if in a month or so you see those that have gone on VR wondering around the ops room having been brought back in on casual labour/local recruitment to fill the shortfall... no pension payments to make!!!:ugh::suspect::suspect:

terrain safe

20th Apr 2009, 21:52

For all those thinking that AAVAs should be tied to your salary, why not do overtime instead, that's based on how much you get paid.

Oh, unless you do it on Christmas day, it's less than an AAVA would be.

Working in NSL, what's an AAVA? We do shift swaps instead (stupid huh?).

White Hart

20th Apr 2009, 22:02

Min Stack

bang on the money :ok:

PH-UKU

20th Apr 2009, 22:06

Min Stack - :D :D :D

5milesbaby

20th Apr 2009, 22:27

T & P equals safer operation equals more traffic moved equals far less delays equals MOL not threatening to sue us again for delaying his flights. I don't know any sector I work where the dedicated planner hasn't been the saviour at some point. In the unpredictable environment we work in, sods law will be running it all from the T position and then needing a P thats scoffing some half baked Lasagna in the canteen.

Personally I found Min Stack's response quite offensive, glad to see TRM working in full effect - hope you don't call someone "sonny" on the radar or phoneline.

Today is not a good day to try buying a house and getting onto the market. Neither was it last year, or 3 years ago. I'd prefer to not rent all my life, nor do I want to buy in an area where I have a 50% chance that my car toured the city while I was sleeping and was then turned into a bonfire. Well there is that AAVA agreement that can add £4000 extra a year to the deposit fund if I do one a month..........

Or should I abstain like my peers tell me to, see the company struggle and maybe break, watch the pension fund collapse and then retire with nothing.

What a wonderful world of narrow minded people we live with. I really appreciated you voting in the T&D scale and thinking about the "youngsters" then.

privatesandwiches

20th Apr 2009, 22:29

So there is potential for TC to go to 2 ATCO,s per position..... brilliant.

Gone then will be the days of running round like a blue arse fly for 5 positions on a core sector..... I may have to start bringing a book to work and some slippers for putting my feet up and looking after only one position.

As for AAVA's, do them if you want or dont do them if you dont want to. There is always going to be someone who needs the money, is a tight arse and loves every penny, or just doesnt give a monkeys. An endless and generally pointless discussion until the unions backbone comes in the post........

Next week I hear the union are organising a new event for us...... getting drunk in a brewery :suspect:

kats-I

20th Apr 2009, 22:36

Good time to go teetotal eh? :* Bound to forget the corkSCREW

Min Stack

21st Apr 2009, 05:21

5milesbaby - you're absolutely right, I was out of order using the word "sonny" - it was done in the heat of the moment. I don't call anybody sonny at work as I know what it's like, having some old duffer throw a strip at me in the old days saying "catch this laddy", or mentors standing behind me while I'm training laughing at my mistakes - old RAF/civil service mentality, etc, etc.

When Mr B sees you guys keep coming in on your days off for extra cash he's going to think "hmm, these ATCO's obviously don't need all this time off, lets start reducing their leave" and you'll just lay back and let him do that will you because you "don't want to see the company struggle and maybe break, watch the pension fund collapse and then retire with nothing"? Because that's what he'll try and do next. I might as well start doing AAVA's again then if you boys don't appreciate me and keep NATS afloat with my cheap labour so that Mr B can afford to shaft you even more.

So you carry on doing the AAVA's to keep paying for my nice pension and I'll think of you from time to time while I'm lazing on my yacht in Monte Carlo harbour. Good luck in your career. :ok:

mr.777

21st Apr 2009, 06:30

Min Stack,

Sorry, but I find your comments a bit patronizing to be honest. I see your location is Scotland, so no doubt your house did only cost you 50p...or maybe you even had some change from that.

Those of us who worked at West Drayton had the misfortune to have to re-locate to Swanwick at a time when the housing market peaked in price. Since I have been down here (approx 18 months), I have seen approx £35-40k wiped off the value of my house, which was basically all my equity. So no, I didnt have a 120% mortgage....and this is the reason some people are still doing AAVAs. And why shouldn't they? If the Union gets their act together and puts forward an AAVA ban then I will galdly stop doing them but until then, if I get offered one then I'm doing it.

Minesapint

21st Apr 2009, 07:11

Just a thought - so 'management' want ALL valid ATCO's back in the ops rooms "where possible". Especially valid ATCO's flying a desk for most of the time. I understand that there are two reasons for that; 1) salary costs 2) AAVA costs. Next step flexible rostering = no AAVA's. If the union organises an AAVA ban will that be partly doing exactly what they want? :=

BAND4ALL

21st Apr 2009, 07:17

Min Stack I'm with you all the way, except the "Sonny" bit I suppose!

B777 and 5 Miles, I too in the 80's was a victim of neg equity and was upset at that fact, but someone in the ops room reminded me that I had the choice to buy, nobody forced my hand into getting on the property ladder.
I have remembered that day ever since.
Eventually I bought myself out of the situation because of my excellent T&C's that had been fought hard for me by the Union in the past.
I'm not convinced of the unions job over the last few years however you can check my posts. I have been a rep too before you ask.
At the moment yours and my T&C's are going down the river every year it seems, so bear that in mind and fight to retain them as hard as possible if that means stopping AAVAs if asked to by the union then do it.
Not keeping hold of current T&C's means "in my opinion" having neg-eq for a long longer than I ever did.
Only my two pence worth. Now back to pay.

TALLOWAY

21st Apr 2009, 08:42

5milesbaby

Or should I abstain like my peers tell me to, see the company struggle and maybe break, watch the pension fund collapse and then retire with nothing.

Why not just come in and work for food ? It'll save NATS a fortune and you'll be helping them out a lot. Robber Barron might even let you carry his barstool for him, whilst telling you how wonderful he is and what an honour it must be for you to work for him. ;)

privatesandwiches

As for AAVA's, do them if you want or dont do them if you dont want to. There is always going to be someone who needs the money, is a tight arse and loves every penny, or just doesnt give a monkeys. An endless and generally pointless discussion until the unions backbone comes in the post........

This hits the nail on the head. Everyone has different principles, and some people like just to think of themselves or the moment, not their colleagues or the long term. Unless the union make a policy decision, then it's left to individual choice and not everyone will have the same opinion on doing AAVAs as everyone else.

Min Stack

When Mr B sees you guys keep coming in on your days off for extra cash he's going to think "hmm, these ATCO's obviously don't need all this time off, lets start reducing their leave" and you'll just lay back and let him do that will you because you "don't want to see the company struggle and maybe break, watch the pension fund collapse and then retire with nothing"? Because that's what he'll try and do next. I might as well start doing AAVA's again then if you boys don't appreciate me and keep NATS afloat with my cheap labour so that Mr B can afford to shaft you even more.

That's the long term, and it WILL happen, simply because we've already proven what an impotent lot we are, as well as being a greedy lot who only think of grabbing money today, even if it is selling ourselves short or shafting other people. Cheap labour (AAVAs), freely given goodwill, and professional pride in making the system work (in spite of chronic manpower shortages and incompetent management) all play their part in Robber Barron and his management team taking us for everything they can. We don't show backbone and say enough is enough. We don't force the issue by making management face up to the state they have got us in to. Instead some of us continue to pull them out the mire, some of us moan and winge, some of us grab a fast buck without thinking about the effects.

Every unit has an operational requirement. Almost without exception, every unit is short of the number of staff required to provide it. The requirement is agreed with SRG and is part of the 'licence' held by the unit. Yet we get by, simply because we let it happen, by running short, by going the extra mile, by bringing in cheap labour, by exercising professionalism. And who gets the benefit of this ?? The bonus management leeches. Who gets put under pressure or scrutiny when it all goes 'Pete Tong' ? Not the management that's for sure. You don't see them for dust, except for them trying to get operational people to justify their decisions, whilst bleating about the poor state of the company and trying to place guilt on us. The Ops Room folks get left to pick up the pieces again and again.

The sad fact is that it will be like this because we let it happen. We don't demand the correct staffing is in place, or put on all the flow measures that we should be if it isn't. Until we change our own culture and become hard nosed bastards like Robber Barron, we'll remain in this state and be beaten down day after day, year after year. Even sadder is that we don't even need to step outside our T&C's to do so. All we need is for everyone to do only what they have been paid for and to operate sectors only as per the procedures. It will be painful on our customers initially, but then who has managed us in to the situation ?? Who deserves the wrath of the public ?? It can't be the 'staff' since they are doing what they are being paid to do. Nothing more and nothing less. It should be those who have got us in to this situation, through their actions, or lack of them. The unions should also be prepared to brief the public on what is needed to allow the system to work. Adequate staff and management who care not about their next bonus or Aston Martin, but care about NATS being one of the best providers of ATS in the world, run efficiently and safely not for profit, with adequate rewards for staff who don't grow on trees.

Mr777

Sorry, but I find your comments a bit patronizing to be honest. I see your location is Scotland, so no doubt your house did only cost you 50p...or maybe you even had some change from that.

Congratulations, you've 'top trumped' him. You are patronising ... and hypocritical :ok:

fisbangwollop

21st Apr 2009, 08:43

Mr 777..Sorry, but I find your comments a bit patronizing to be honest. I see your location is Scotland, so no doubt your house did only cost you 50p...or maybe you even had some change from that.

No actually I paid 25p for mine but I think you will find living up here in Scotland we actually have a life and dont live with our heads up are arse's like I guess you folk do making comments like that!!!!!!!!!:=

Me Me Me Me

21st Apr 2009, 08:57

777

Hello Mr Pot. Mr Kettle's over there --> :hmm:

ImnotanERIC

21st Apr 2009, 09:45

No actually I paid 25p for mine but I think you will find living up here in Scotland we actually have a life and dont live with our heads up are arse's like I guess you folk do making comments like that!!!!!!!!!:=

sounds like a great life, running around getting heart disease in the rain.
how do i sign up? oops.....too late, i validated at my first attempt.

anotherthing

21st Apr 2009, 10:14

It's been proved before but once again the previous few posts have shown exactly how divided a workforce we are.

Instead of waving willys around and bickering we should be getting ready for the next and last chance to show management that we

a). Are united, at least over major issues

and

b). Have some balls.

Today and tomorrow there is the small matter of an SDC to discuss NSL. Chances are our airport workmates are going to see a few changes in Ts&Cs, or even see some airports walk away from NATS.

Then once NSL is screwed we will get the chance to vote in a paltry pay offer.

This company is going to ratsh!t as far as the number one priority (in managements minds) being ATC is concerned.

I've just read a response on the intranet to PBs long communication about dividends etc - seems to hit the nail on the head, talking about the demise of NATS as we know it and the banality of pleading poverty yet paying huge dividends.

We have a Chief Executive that thinks that we will sit by and let him tell us he can't afford to give us a decent pay rise, yet he can afford to give away a huge chunk of our profit to the Airlines. The worrying thing is, he may well be correct - he might get away with it bearing in mind all this pathetic bickering and lack of backbone.

Wake up and smell the coffee, this isn't about antagonising the haggis munchers or whatever, it's about your future, or what's left since PPP.

Anotherthing - Scottish ATCO who validated first attempt in TC, who has a negative equity house in Hampshire, who lost lots of money in property in the last housing decline, who has a while to go before drawing a pension that will be worth a fraction of what he signed up for... any more boxes I should tick? FFS

White Hart

21st Apr 2009, 10:35

"Then once NSL is screwed we will get the chance to vote in a paltry pay offer."

so are you already of the opinion that all or parts of NSL and its Union membership are a lost cause? (not exactly going to encourage solidarity, is it?) Aren't the Unions going to try to oppose any move to split the Company up further?

Vortex5090

21st Apr 2009, 10:43

On the subject of unions. Ours no longer seems to represent us, deals seem to done behind closed doors and by the time we get to hear of it it a done deal take it or leave it' or to coin a phrase "We recommend acceptance." Perhaps as a workforce we should vote with our feet put a motion of no confidence forward to the BEC and join the TGWU?

privatesandwiches

21st Apr 2009, 10:57

So how would we do that?

When will the union do some briefings to us members? They must be aware that many are unhappy with a variety of issues of how they are conducting themselves over the last 6 months or so, and would be a good way of venting opinions and getting some answers.
I would like to tell the higher up 'working together' types that they need to get their act together and start listening to what our opinions are rather than seemingly negotiating away in secret rooms and holding hands with management.

I am back into work in the morning, will start to pester my rep!

anotherthing

21st Apr 2009, 11:02

White Hart,

To be frank, yes I think it (NSL) is a lost cause, as we know it. If the union has the balls to stand up for NSL and fight to retain Ts&Cs, then I know a few reps that believe that some airports are ready to walk away from NATS at contract renewal time.

That is what I mean by NSL being screwed. Either the Ts ad Cs get changed or some airports walk away.

I do not want to see people working on different Ts and Cs, but at the same time, I don't want them to drop out of NATS by default. I think that NSL has been manoeuvred into a horrible corner. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I think this is the enactment of what has been inevitable since PPP.

Would I fight to keep NATS as it is, or rather to return to concentrating on doing what we do best i.e. ATC and not on trying to turn a profit and pleasing shareholders? Hell yes!!

Do I think the union will give me that chance to fight for my NSL colleagues? Hell no :(

Stupendous Man

21st Apr 2009, 11:05

Not posted on here for a while, but one note on AAVAs and those who say the union should negotiate a better rate.

Why would management want to negotiate a better rate when people are coming in to do them for £300+ (after tax)?
If the union walked in and said we want more money then management will say "why? People are happy doing them at the current rate."
If no one does them then management will be forced to pay the going rate - the airlines have said they won't accept delays this summer due to staff shortages.

So it's very shortsighted to say you'll do them to pay for whatever.
If people stop doing them then management will be forced to accept that the current rate is too low. Or - shock horror - get the right amount of staff in.

And as for the willy waving - I'm not gonna get involved.
What happens to NSL over the next few months will soon come knocking at NERLs door. And if you believe that just because you work at a Band 4 or 5 unit that you're safe, then think again. Divide and conquer is the oldest strategy in the book - and it looks like its working.

Once again we need to stand together and support each other - ATCOs, ATSAs & Engineers alike.

SM

privatesandwiches

21st Apr 2009, 11:42

For what its worth, or maybe not. With the new atos.co.uk site up and running, it may be worth posting coments on there as it has that function and maybe, prospect may take some notice at least.

White Hart

21st Apr 2009, 12:25

anotherthing

'Do I think the union will give me that chance to fight for my NSL colleagues? Hell no'

I would expect that the Union will give you an option to fight for NSL, but it will probably not be what they advise you to accept. Also, as I have said previously, people will vote for personal reasons, and not for the reasons required if a Union stance against the Company's policies is going to be effective.

Also, having two Unions is killing any chance of unity and mutual support across the board. It allows 'divide and conquer' tactics to work, and on many occasions, the Unions are actually doing the Mgmts dirty work for them!We've got to get rid of the 2-Union setup before there's any hope of being successful at the negotiating table.

It would be interesting to see how many staff would really be willing to support such a move, because there would have to be some massive changes in peoples' perception of each other, and their roles within the Company before it could be achieved.

The motivation to work in each others interests (which wasn't particularly strong in the first place, to be honest) has completely evaporated. I see this as the biggest problem the workforce faces, and any situation cannot be changed to our benefit while it lasts.

Roadrunner Once

21st Apr 2009, 12:26

With the new atos.co.uk site up and running
I was just looking at that. The SDC Motions (http://atcos.co.uk/docs/SDCMotions.pdf) make some interesting reading indeed. :ouch:

anotherthing

21st Apr 2009, 12:48

WH

You are correct, a lot of people would have to change their perceptions, but the only way to have a NATS that is based on the premise of being the best ATC provider is to have a strong NERL and NSL and for operational types to have the backup and support of backroom staff.

Unfortunately, I think the idea of NATS being run to be the best ATC provider it possibly can has taken a backseat to profit.

Roadrunner one

The motions are just both sides of the argument of a few different subjects. Depending which motion carries the day will dictate the union stance and will be incorporated into the handbook.

Obviously, if people want NATS to stay as it is and to protect all members equally, there is a clear path to follow on the motions. There is nothing sneaky in the motions for consideration, merely it raises the topics to be discussed and the possible stances - there has to be argument and counter argument even just to debate, so that delegates understand the implications of all options.

It is the debate and then the agreement of a particular motion that will be telling - hopefully it will not end up with the Unions selling NSL down the river. SDC1 should be a no brainer to be incorporated...

Roadrunner Once

21st Apr 2009, 13:44

Yeah, I can see the structure of the motions and the choices on offer. It just seems quite starkly polarised between policies of bloody-minded (and that is the way some of the wording comes across) non-cooperation with management on one hand, and complete capitulation to management's wish-list on the other.

eastern wiseguy

21st Apr 2009, 14:03

SDC 8 COMMON DEBATE WITH SDC9 Conference instructs the BEC to consider members within NATS as a single workforce and to resist any attempts to differentiate between the terms and conditions of those within NSL and NERL.

However if that FAILS well then.........

Conference recognises the differing commercial pressures between NSL and NERL. Conference instructs the BEC to consider differing National Agreements, including pay and working practices, for NSL and NERL if this is in the best interest of the members.

What the **** are the union up to?? ........

Gonzo

21st Apr 2009, 14:08

EW, it's called a debate.

The debate will end with one motion, or the other, being voted in; either the Union is to 'consider members within NATS as a single workforce and to resist any attempts to differentiate between the terms and conditions of those within NSL and NERL' or it is to 'consider differing National Agreements, including pay and working practices, for NSL and NERL if this is in the best interest of the members'

(My bolding).

It's either one or the other, surely. There is no 3rd option.

anotherthing

21st Apr 2009, 14:17

zactly....

eastern wiseguy

21st Apr 2009, 14:34

OK...but as someone at a Band 2 NSL unit I don't think there should be anything other than OPTION 1. Full stop underline and place in CAPS!

We await with interest.

mr.777

21st Apr 2009, 14:44

Instead of waving willys around

I wasn't waving mine around but I'm not going to sit here and take a lesson in 80s economics from somebody who i don't know and who thinks its my own stupid fault for wanting to do AAVAs because I have 120% mortgage when,actually, I don't.

And the 50p thing was, FFS, a joke. :ugh:

TALLOWAY

21st Apr 2009, 14:45

I think unfortunately NSL are already shafted due to the DAS* bias in our union and BEC.

(*Doesn't Affect Swanwick)

We've seen it over many big issues in the past. They have the votes to override everyone else and if they are not getting something from the pie, then they don't really care about anyone else.

Note this is not aimed at Swanwick individuals, but based on the past collective voting performances of their reps at Annual Delegate Conferences, etc. Their record speaks for itself, and their track record on standing up for the little guy is almost non existent.

Mr777

And the 50p thing was, FFS, a joke.

It's an internet forum and we can't tell what tone of voice you are 'talking in' simply from the written word. If you'd put a smiley or something similar, or a textspeak comment like 'lol', then maybe we'd have guessed you weren't being serious. Reading your post as read, you come across as being serious and your words (at face value) indicate a critical and condescending manner.

eastern wiseguy

21st Apr 2009, 14:54

Talloway.....thats exactly the feeling we have.

mr.777

21st Apr 2009, 14:59

Talloway,

Point taken. Now just because Scotland only got 2 players in the Lions squad, theres no need to take it out on the Southern softies :)

PPRuNe Radar

21st Apr 2009, 15:08

:ok: peace breaks out ... whatever next :}:p

mr.777

21st Apr 2009, 15:10

Just in the nick of time judging by your timely presence :}

Vote NO

21st Apr 2009, 15:35

Those were the days :ok:

http://rlv.zazzle.co.uk/peace_love_flower_power_bumper_sticker_bumpersticker-p12851982597654072083h9_325.jpg

Disillusioned

21st Apr 2009, 15:39

All we need now is some actual news....such as, what the final offer from management was? Not that I expect it to be any better than a shade north of derisory.

anotherthing

21st Apr 2009, 15:44

Disillusioned

The final derisory offer still has to be taken to the ATSA and ATCE branch for final acceptance, before it hits the street with the inevitable 'recommendation to accept' :yuk:

Then is has to go to ballot so don't expect a result till end of May. If it is a yes vote, then expect a few weeks to sort out the backpay - looking at July or Aug paypackets before it takes effect.

Disillusioned

21st Apr 2009, 15:51

According to the new ATCOS site, the offer was/is going to be presented to the BEC by the 22nd (I assume in time for the SDC). I just thought that someone might actually know what the offer was by now.

anotherthing

21st Apr 2009, 15:56

Was just going on the info passed to me by a couple of tame reps. 'Twas them that mentioned the timescale for payment as well. Allegedly NATS are drafting in a specialist company to sort out backpayment because it is too complicated for our legion of accountants, what with SMART pensions etc.

So that'll be another consultancy fee that could've been avoided... wonder if Mrs PB has an interest in that company as well as the fimbles agency...

kats-I

21st Apr 2009, 17:29

Seen on another thread ..thought it quite apt

"Too many people (management and lackies) have their hands in the pie while the operational staff have to live off the crust"!! :sad::bored:

Disillusioned

21st Apr 2009, 18:34

So, officially announced now. £43.5 million paid out in dividends by NATS.

At least the ATCO Branch has concerns, so everything is OK :ugh:

kats-I

21st Apr 2009, 18:39

Even the £3.5 million would have given us something..its a drop in the ocean to the airlines..greedy piggies could have made do with 40 million surely??:(:(:mad:

For "piggies" read Barstewards.

Vote NO

21st Apr 2009, 19:06

£6,000,000 would give all NATS staff a 3% payrise :eek:

Still I suppose the £43.5 million will help BA and Virgin, part of the elite Airline Group and major NATS shareholders, since they were fined £338 million for fixing fuel surcharge prices and their managers are in jail:mad:.
But we must not talk about such things Paul :suspect:, must we ?? It is not good for the business, poor BA had to set aside £350 million.........crooked gits:mad:

"The Times added that the settlement brings BA's total payout for conspiring to fix fuel surcharges to 338 million pounds -- 12 million short of the total set aside for such penalties. UPDATE 1-BA, Virgin settle U.S. fuel surcharge claims | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/UK_SMALLCAPSRPT/idUKL1587964220080215)

BA therefore have 12 million more than they thought and still they rob us :mad:

Me thinks this once great company I was proud to work for is going down the toilet fast.............

http://www.nancysuemain.com/Grave_RIP_with_Flowers.gif
NATS

Jungle Jingle Jim

21st Apr 2009, 21:01

Personally I was shocked at PB's recent announcement via the intranet.

Aggressive, paranoid and far from conciliatory (in my opinion)?

I hope this was published after our unions had got to him last week over the pay negotiations? RPI minus -3.5 this coming August? Mystic Meg now working for PB?

I was seriously shocked at PB's tone, we are now witnessing his uglier side, so get in there 'our unions', expose this manipulator.

Hats off to PB, whoever is running his 'show' up until recently' has put on a good sham. Sadly for his PR team, the aggressive words within his recent intranet broadcast revealed his inner thoughts!

We all work hard, so why give away nearly £50 million to bale out BA and Virgin for their gross errors?

Sadly PB is just another puppet with someone else's hand up his @***, controlling his words!

Would I consider industrial action?

Too damned right I would! I work within a company with an open and just reporting culture.....only that does not include certain folk whom I describe as manipulators!

PB 9%
PCG Bonus
£50m Airline Group
Staff Nothing

THAT JUST AIN'T RIGHT!

If NATS wish to give away £50m, SUPERB, but don't exclude staff from NATS success please! After all, we all earned it for PB to give away!

eglnyt

21st Apr 2009, 22:30

£50m Airline Group
Staff Nothing

I think your figures are a little inaccurate. If the total dividend payment is £43.5 Million then the Airline Group's share will be £18.27 Million. The staff will get up to £2.175 Million (it's not clear how many staff are still shareholders or what happens to the dividend due on the shares currently held by the trust). Gordon Brown will walk off with £21.35 Million and BAA will get £1.74 Million.

Flybywyre

21st Apr 2009, 22:46

And your point is ?

eglnyt

21st Apr 2009, 22:57

Two points

First if I had to guess which of the shareholders wanted a dividend to be paid my money wouldn't necessarily be on the Airline Group. Second the staff are getting something so aren't being excluded.

Vote NO

22nd Apr 2009, 08:13

eglynt

I think your figures are a little inaccurate. If the total dividend payment is £43.5 Million then the Airline Group's share will be £18.27 Million. The staff will get up to £2.175 Million (it's not clear how many staff are still shareholders or what happens to the dividend due on the shares currently held by the trust). Gordon Brown will walk off with £21.35 Million and BAA will get £1.74 Million.
http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=4877319)

Oddly enough,£18,27 Million would give all NATS staff a 9% payrise, which is the same as PB by all accounts? Yes, they are entitled to dividends but all major companies have been warned not to pay out these dividends if their Pension scheme is "causing difficulties".
Frankly sir, you are trying to defend the indefensible :=

No wonder people get angry. NATS management listen to the pensions regulator only when it suits them. They screw down our pension whilst at the same time fork out squillions to shareholders :ugh:

Last month, the Pensions Regulator warned companies not to keep on paying dividends to their shareholders if they thought they were having trouble affording the required level of pension contributions.

BBC NEWS | Business | Pension fund deficits at new high (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7935373.stm)