UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours [Archive] - Page 5

anotherthing

23rd Apr 2009, 10:30

How long has it been decided that we would be given a dividend and how much it was worth?

PB states it will hit our April pay packets which means the decision, and the amount, was known well before he announced it in order to make the deadline for April pay run.

Gonzo, Now you're being silly!

Management: Keep the money from the sale of the CTB. Give no shareholders a dividend this year (after all, I personally would prefer a higher pay award that was permanent and pensionable instead of a one-off dividend). Stop pleading poverty if you're gonna give money away.

(Obviously too late now as they have done the deed)

Yahoo

Keeping the CTB is a ridiculous idea. Who would want to rent office space in one of the UKs prime locations? :}

NATS have obviously thought it through and dismissed the idea and therefore decided that the best way forward for NATS is to sell the building off and give the money away.

Any employee who thinks NATS should keep a source of regular income that is only going to appreciate in value is off their rocker. It just does not fit in with NATS policy of pleading poverty one the one hand and frittering money away on the other.

I personally think we should have given the building away, then paid for the option of renting out some rooms in the CTB at a vastly inflated price on the off chance we might need them in the future.

You can never have enough meeting rooms...:bored:

anotherthing

23rd Apr 2009, 10:48

According to the website

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

The SDC has given a strong message in the debates about whether to stay united or to allow NERL and NSL to go seperately.

It has been decided that any degradation in pension, Ts&Cs etc would be robustly opposed.

They have also indicated that the option of NATS making a 3rd subsiduary company outside of NERL/NSL in orsder to get small tower contracts (i.e. end up with more division than we already have) should be opposed.

The motions (http://atcos.co.uk/docs/SDCMotions.pdf)

The vote (http://atcos.co.uk/featured/special-delegates-conference-report-21-22-april-2009.html)

Obviously this is just for incorporation into BEC policy, it still means that we would have to fight against management if they wanted to do the opposite.

Also, quite interestingly as NATS are always talking about partnerships and the benefits, and the entry into foregin ATC contracts, the following quote from the report: (my bold)

Laurence informed Delegates that as employees of NATS they were in a very difficult position, being the only privatised, economically regulated ANSP in Europe. In France there is one ANSP with 4000 ATCOs covering 5 centres and 80 airports throughout at the country. In the UK there are 99 different licensed ANSPs. The culture throughout Europe is so different that there is very little chance of NSL being able to take new business in Europe, simply because the business opportunities do not exist. It is clear to the politicians that the FAB agreed between NATS & the Irish ANSP, whilst a political ‘headline’ has in fact achieved very little.

Maybe we should go back to what we are good at, ATC and stop trying to be a major player in a closed market...

eastern wiseguy

23rd Apr 2009, 11:20

Motion SDC 8 - Carried Unanimously
Motion SDC 9 - Lost

The Conference had drawn a line in the sand that we stand shoulder to shoulder as one group of ATCOs working for one NATS.

As it should be:ok::ok:

ProM

23rd Apr 2009, 11:26

Had they kept CTB, I can just imagine the posts:

Wasting money on MORE admin staff to manage the maintainance of CTB

We should stop trying to be a property company and get back to what we are good at: ATC

Selling off an unneeded asset so that management can concentrate on more important business is standard and sensible business practice. Whether the money should have been kept inside the company for investment is another matter

anotherthing

23rd Apr 2009, 13:23

ProM

I actually agree with you re the sale of the CTB. To keep it on would have been costly and it would have taken years to realise the £45M through lease.

As you say though, keeping the money in hand for a rainy day... no brainer in my book.

E-W

Now that those motions have been incorporated into the BEC handbook, we just need to make sure that the Union actually fights for them when it comes to it, and that the membership votes that way as well.

It's all very well having a set of codes which lay down what we would like to happen, but following it through with a robust stance, and a robust backing vote, is another matter entirely.

Remember, it was Union policy a few months ago to keep the pension as it was and, to parahrase the Union, 'consider all measures including industrial action should management tried to change the terms'.

That policy quickly changed when management started pension talks, the Union stating that costs meant it was impossible to keep the pension if we wnated to safeguard NATS.

How long before the same line is trotted out about one of the motions voted in remains to be seen. Hopefully, it will never happen.

250 kts

23rd Apr 2009, 17:36

Now that those motions have been incorporated into the BEC handbook, we just need to make sure that the Union actually fights for them when it comes to it, and that the membership votes that way as well.

anotherthing

By that I suppose I will be second out of the door at Swanwick only to you should there be a real threat to NSL terms and conditions.

ayrprox

23rd Apr 2009, 18:30

i agree with the post relating to what was previously written in the handbook about pensions. The BEC completely ignored that and instead decided to negotiate what they considered to be a good deal because they were doing so, using the reasoning that never mind what the book says , we are looking out for your best interests. If they had come to us at the early stage when this was suggested then we could have given them 'guidance' but nooo, cant upset the delicate balance of negotiations. So why should now be any different.
That decision has tainted my view of the decision making processes made high up in the union on our behalf. As a consequence i , and probably management will think of these as idle threats, and will think that, as in past occasions that those motions are just for guidance.

Stupendous Man

23rd Apr 2009, 19:54

Ayrprox,
I think genuine lessons have been learned by the BEC over the pensions fiasco.

There will be an opportunity to talk to them and the local section shortly.

You will be able to meet with BEC members at Scottish on the following dates and times.

At ScOACC between 1300 and 1500 on both 5th and 6th May.

During the evening of the 5th and 6th May at 2000 hrs at the Parkstone Hotel, Prestwick. (Upstairs bar/function room)

This will be a great opportunity to meet with the members of Branch Executive and tell them what you think.
At the Parkstone Hotel, the local section will also give a brief presentation on some issues, including OCT, PC ops structure, Working Together, the recent SDC. This will be followed by an open debate, with the BEC, for the members to ask questions.

I would encourage everyone to come along. The BEC (and local reps) can only represent staff accurately if their views are known - this is your chance.

Stupendous Man

23rd Apr 2009, 20:00

Quote:
Now that those motions have been incorporated into the BEC handbook, we just need to make sure that the Union actually fights for them when it comes to it, and that the membership votes that way as well.
anotherthing

By that I suppose I will be second out of the door at Swanwick only to you should there be a real threat to NSL terms and conditions.

250 Kts & Anotherthing - hopefully you won't be the only ones walking out the door if it comes to that. But there is a real fear that people at LAC / LL feel they are untouchable and what happens to the outer peripheries of NATS won't affect them.
I hope I am wrong and stand by to be corrected.

anotherthing

23rd Apr 2009, 20:25

250Kts/Stupendous Man

I think that what has happened to the direction of NATS since PPP is a disgrace. I also think that if we allow management to screw NSL, then we are further weakening NATS as an ATC provider.

I will vote in favour of keeping NSL equal, and would take industrial action to try to ensure the same. To do otherwise would be ridiculous, LAC/LL are not immune and would be next on the list.

Hopefully people at LAC/LL will realise this after what management have done to us recently. If for no other reason than being selfish and thinking of self preservation, LAC/LL staff need to ensure that NSL do not get shafted!

Of course, I am merely taking a simplistic view of wanting NATS to be the best ATC provider it can be.
This does not fit in with managements business plan, but I personally don't give a monkeys and any operational person should be the same. Being the best in the business and having some pride is what we should be about - and we shold be looked after/remunerated for being so as well.

ZOOKER

23rd Apr 2009, 20:46

"wanting NATS to be the best ATC provider it can be"
Sadly this statement would probably be more at home on the 'Aviation History and Nostalgia' forum.

White Hart

23rd Apr 2009, 20:59

'..If for no other reason than being selfish and thinking of self preservation,..'

unfortunately, this is exactly how the vast majority of us think - and vote! The current economic situation and the divided, divisive, self-obsessed culture that is today's NATS workfarce only exacerbates our desire for self-protection at any cost, or at anybody else's expense.

Like I've said before - there won't be any 'action' (no balls). At least not until the petty squabbling and infighting is resolved, and the workforce is represented by a single Union with one aim - all of us working together to protect the interests of each and every one of its members, and not just the 'chosen few'.

(and, like Zooker's last comment, the above paragraph would probably be better placed in a 'Complete Fantasy and Utterly Unbelievable' section of pprune.)

expediteoff

24th Apr 2009, 07:45

With regard to LAC/LL members view of any "shafting of NSL", take a look at some of the Emergency Motions at the SDC.

I realise "talk is cheap", however EM 8 shows that Heathrow members would support a withdrawl from the AAVA agreement - it must ,however, be done on a united front, not peicemeal by individuals, and with LEADERSHIP from our Union.

mr.777

24th Apr 2009, 07:45

250 Kts & Anotherthing - hopefully you won't be the only ones walking out the door if it comes to that. But there is a real fear that people at LAC / LL feel they are untouchable and what happens to the outer peripheries of NATS won't affect them.
I hope I am wrong and stand by to be corrected.

I would say that this is certainly NOT the case amongst TC ATCOs, not on my watch anyway. I think most of us feel that if PB and chums go after NSL then its only a matter of time before they get to us. I would like to think that in the event of any action being taken, the majority of people would be right be behind you. Now all we need is the Union to get behind us.

privatesandwiches

24th Apr 2009, 08:17

Here here... long live NSL, go f:mad::mad:k yourself Barron!!!!

Private Sarnies (Band 5 Swanwick ATCO)

anotherthing

24th Apr 2009, 08:52

Mr 777

I'm a TC ATCO - I'm also quite cynical, especially after the pension vote. I personally can't get worked up with how people voted, it is their right to vote either way, even though the vote went against my wishes. What gripped my sh!tter was the fact that 30% didn't vote.

I would hope that people realised that screwing NSL would be the next step to degrading LAC/LL Ts&Cs. If they do, then the chances of them supporting NSL are greater.

Those within LAC/LL who think that what happens to NSL will not concern them will be the architects of their own downfall.

Standard Noise

24th Apr 2009, 09:34

I posted last week along the lines of 'if NSL falls, the rest of you will be next'. Some people didn't seem to agree.
It was heartening to find that at the SDC, the Centre Reps were thinking along the same lines and they have a job on their hands convincing some of their members otherwise. I can only hope they succeed.
The company will try to pick us off group by group, weakest first (which is unfortunately us on the Airports side), then next weakest and so on until they have everyone buttoned down. Any sort of pack mentality will only work if we stand together now. Displaying a pack mentality in smaller groups ie TC/AC/ScOACC thinking 'sod the rest, we'll just defend our own position', shows that the company has won because it's easier for them if we divide ourselves up into smaller groups without them having to lift a finger.

mr.777

24th Apr 2009, 09:42

I would hope that people realised that screwing NSL would be the next step to degrading LAC/LL Ts&Cs. If they do, then the chances of them supporting NSL are greater.

I agree. I think that it is now incumbent upon the Union to get this fact across to their members....because all i've seen so far is a lot of hot air, "exasperation" and not much else to be honest. Hopefully the SDC that was held recently will galvanise them into taking a more robust stand. Part of me fears though that it has gone too far already and its PB that has the initiative now and not the Union.

EastofEcho6

25th Apr 2009, 00:03

Ayrprox, I felt just as angry about the way the pension was handled as you and hundreds of others were. Why should this be different? Wellm partly because of the pension ballsup I signed up to be a rep and I was at the SDC. And what happened at SDC was pretty awesome.

The unity and resolve was incredible and really encouraging. Support from the centres was total. :D "One NATS, one ATCO" is very much alive and well. And here is - at last - the stomach for a fight, right to the very top of Prospect.

Make no mistakes, the BEC KNOW that they cannot play fast and loose with agreed branch policy. That was the whole reason for the SDC, they needed to know what the members wanted them to do. The clear message is that members are not prepared to give way any more, this is the line in the sand.

The task now is for the unit reps to go back and spread the word: Prospect members need to realise that industrial action is a now real consideration. Who is ACTUALLY prepared to man the barricades? Because if NATS Airports try to force things through or try sneak things in by the back door, the BEC has been told to make an immediate response. Hopefully it won't come to that: the support from the centres is vital in that, I don't believe the airports could fight this off alone. That support might be enough to make them forget the whole thing.

Anotherthing, you are bang on: 30% apathy. Heart-breaking.

mr.777, when PB, LH and the rest of the stooges found out what had been agreed at the SDC they probably had "a bit of a shock". And they couldn't wait to find out: a meeting was arranged for the day after SDC ended. I really believe that any initiative they thought they had will now have evaporated.

Have faith in the BEC: Prospect has not been this unified or determined for a LONG time. :ok: We have good reason to be optimistic. I really can't wait to see what happens next. :)

E/E6

Hooligan Bill

25th Apr 2009, 07:09

I too was at the SDC as an Airport Rep. The sense of unity was truly awesome and I feel we will eventually look back on this day and say it was the day the Branch grew the pair of balls that many of the members have been asking for.:D

Anotherthing/Mr777 etc. You know the score, your reps need your help to convince those that still have their heads buried in the sand that this is coming at them as wel,l and unless they stand up tall it's going to hit them right in the backside.

Finally, to our colleagues outside NATS,this affects you as well. Our management claim that they are uncompetative in the airports market and plan to cut our T&Cs to make us, in their opinion, less so. The only effect this will have is to give your management an excuse to cut your T&Cs to maintain their market position. Net result all UK ATCOs in a worse position.

10W

25th Apr 2009, 08:06

I too was at the SDC as an Airport Rep. The sense of unity was truly awesome and I feel we will eventually look back on this day and say it was the day the Branch grew the pair of balls that many of the members have been asking for.

If only they'd done the same for the Pensions issue :ouch:

That said, this is another battle, another fight. It's now time to make that stand as a united workforce and send Barron and his cronies home to think again. They are systematically raping and ruining our company, whilst making sure they get their share of spoils from the trough at the expense of everyone else. They symbolise all that is wrong with the UK (and NATS), where greed, incompetence, and double dealing bring rewards. And they'll clean us out and leave with their piles of money, leaving behind a poor and demoralised staff to pick up the pieces and pay for their mistakes and mistruths.

:mad::mad::mad:

ImnotanERIC

25th Apr 2009, 08:51

And they'll clean us out and leave with their piles of money, leaving behind a poor and demoralised staff to pick up the pieces and pay for their mistakes and mistruths.

that is exactly what will happen. and there is nothing we will do as a workforce to change that. We are gonna get f**ked over again. we might aswell just deal with it.
The fact that people can't even be bothered to vote is pathetic.
There are many things wrong with this company at the moment, many of which have been agreed upon in the past without thinking about the consequences and/or thinking about yourself individually. I don't see that changing anytime soon, despite promises of nats unity etc etc.
I doubt anything will come of this "awesome" prospect unity.
I would like to be proved wrong.

Dee Mac

25th Apr 2009, 09:33

thinking about the consequences and/or thinking about yourself individually

Now that is hilarious coming from mr AAVA! You won't be proved wrong, as long as there are the money grabbers out there willing to do AAVAs your prophecy is self-fulfilling.
Now excuse me while I go out in the rain and work on my heart disease.

ImnotanERIC

25th Apr 2009, 09:59

I was thinking more about the vote that went through to screw all trainees over so that top of the scale could get an extra few quid. way to look after your weakest member.
I think that heart disease has spread to your head. don't forget your band 4 brolly when you go out.

Dee Mac

25th Apr 2009, 10:47

When you understand what integrity means, let me know.

Your talk of banding sounds like boasting to me, along with your bragging about validating at first attempt you are coming across as a bit of a ****. I've no doubt that is exactly what you are.

eastern wiseguy

25th Apr 2009, 11:11

Your talk of banding sounds like boasting to me,

And there we have it. The divisions in NATS are huge, beautifully engineered by Barron.

I recall when it was IPMS (yes I mean IPMS) policy to NOT do overtime. AAVA's(overtime at a piss poor rate) are the oil that Barron needs to keep his empire running.As long as the guys at the centres keep doing them he will point to it and say"system works"

We are split from top to bottom.....the airports WILL be shafted...Prospect have grown balls?.....yeah and my powder is STILL dry.....roll on retirement:confused::(

privatesandwiches

25th Apr 2009, 11:37

Why only the guys and girls at centres getting the flack for AAVA's?
Heathrow tower the last time i checked were being offered them from the resource office in the form of wheeling them in in a wheelbarrow.
Until the union lead from the front AAVA's will continue to be fulfilled by someone.

It's the general shortsightedness of some that seem to also screw us all over in the long term, when will these people stand back and at least attempt to see the biger picture.

ATCO's need to all stick together, I have plenty of friends in NSL and will happily stand on a picket line if they are to be bent over by barron and his team of muppets.

ImnotanERIC

25th Apr 2009, 13:15

Your talk of banding sounds like boasting to me

simply returning your barb.

eastern wiseguy

25th Apr 2009, 15:08

Why only the guys and girls at centres getting the flack for AAVA's?

Because you have the clout:)

hold at SATAN

25th Apr 2009, 17:49

for a minute there i thought peace and solidarity broke out. Listen folks, enough already. We're all in the plop together. United we stand... :ok:

Re: AAVAs - next pay meeting, management don't play ball? - PULL OUT OF THE AAVA agreement - It may just be the shot across the bow that PB and his cronies need! Until then, those who want/need to to AAVAs, it's your choice. Ditto those who don't.

throw a dyce

25th Apr 2009, 19:04

United we stand..eh.:rolleyes:
Prospect are going to have to do some serious recruiting,as a lot of people here left the union.Reason the disgusting treatment of lower band units,to line the pocket of the Band 5 ''stars''.
The AVAAs are a way to claw back some of the £ 25K pay difference.The Union do not have the guts to stand up to management,so at the lower band units we will just have to accept what will happen.The Union will not help us,as they have haven't helped us in the last 17 years.What comes around goes around though,as there are other very subtle ways of throwing spanners in the works.:E

Standard Noise

25th Apr 2009, 19:08

No more AAVAs!? Well we're doing our bit down 'ere in Ciderset. Ain't gonna see one of they buggers round these parts. Any chance someone could rustle a few up, give them a map and send them round to see us?

privatesandwiches

25th Apr 2009, 19:39

Have all the clout? I Havent been offered an AAVA this year :ugh:

Maybe in the summer they will dust off the AAVA phonebook.

Scuzi

25th Apr 2009, 23:12

Have all the clout? I Havent been offered an AAVA this year

Maybe in the summer they will dust off the AAVA phonebook.
I have to echo that. I work a core sector (commonly regarded as short staffed) in TC and haven't had an AAVA offer since July last year.

eastern wiseguy

26th Apr 2009, 09:16

Maybe in the summer they will dust off the AAVA phonebook

You don't get it.......
When they DO start phoning around the answer is NO.
Of course the centres have the clout. Sure we can close Aberdeen /Bristol/Belfast for a morning...will NATS give a stuff? NO.
Close UK airspace for a morning or two......Mondays would be nice, and the howl from Barron would be considerable.

Thats what NSL would consider standing together.

Ali Bongo

26th Apr 2009, 09:16

Prospect are going to have to do some serious recruiting,as a lot of people here left the union

Throw a Dyce looks like that people aren't telling you the truth, merely want they want you to hear?

According to the 293rd BEC minutes from ATCO's.co.uk (very good site by the way fellas):

Minutes - ATCOs.co.uk (http://atcos.co.uk/category/meetings/minutes)

"Despite the concern that members have raised about leaving the union subject to the pension issue, only 12 members have left Prospect"

Don't plan on people leaving in droves then .......:sad:

Ben Doonigan

26th Apr 2009, 11:40

When they DO start phoning around the answer is NO.

EXACTLY !

Folks. Put self interest (and grubby notes) to the side and think long term - PLEASE.

It would also help if our esteemed Union officers would set an example on this and weren't the first to jump at the first chance of extra cash. :=

It may be within Union rules, but no-one forces you to do them - IMHO it now flies in the face of reason. :rolleyes: Time to play hardball - work to rule.

BTW Excellent website from ATCOs Branch. A step in the right direction.

250 kts

26th Apr 2009, 13:57

It would also help if our esteemed Union officers would set an example on this and weren't the first to jump at the first chance of extra cash.

At which unit?

Very few of the reps at LACC appear to do them on a regular basis.

anotherthing

26th Apr 2009, 16:13

Whilst on the subject of extra cash, I received my payslip today.

Inside, as with everyone elses, was a nice very shiny advertisement for Validium, the company NATS employs to look after employees in times of need.

Why was this placed in everyones pay slips when we already know of it's existence?*

What cost to NATS was this insert?*

What extra cash gets put into the pockets of the Directors of Validium when these little cash generators are implemented?*

Is Mrs Barron still a Director of Validium?*

We have a CEO whose ethics are non existent if he ands his ilk gain. He is so low, he could walk under the belly of a rattlesnake, whilst wearing a top hat.

*One of these questions is rhetorical... guess which.

privatesandwiches

26th Apr 2009, 16:39

EasternWiseguy.....
You say I dont get it, but with one hand you seem to attack ATCO's at centres for looking after number one and how selfish we all are. On the other hand you are asking for us to help.
In my mind if someone was asking for help or support, maybe not the best idea to start slagging them off.

Just a thought.

eastern wiseguy

26th Apr 2009, 18:00

Sarnies....I am NOT attacking anyone. I am pointing out how doing AAVA's can work against the interests of ALL ATCO'S.

We in NSL are not asking for "help" .We are asking for ATCO's as a grade to stand united for once.

Do you get that?

privatesandwiches

26th Apr 2009, 18:22

Easternwiseguy.

Stand united, NERL and NSL.....Read my previous posts over the last 3 or 4 pages.

PS:ok:

kats-I

30th Apr 2009, 10:18

Its all very quiet at the mo..What is the very latest? someone please.:confused:

jonny B good

30th Apr 2009, 10:26

see ATCOs.co.uk - (http://www.atcos.co.uk) this afternoon :ok:

anotherthing

30th Apr 2009, 10:54

In advance of any announcement this afternoon, anyone fancy a cyber-wager?

I reckon the pay deal will be as follows (it's complicated).

2.1% this year and 0.9% next year. However next years pay rise will be subject to the Aug 09 RPI. If the Aug 09 RPI is minus 2% or less, no pay rise in Jan 2010

That's my guess, anyone fancy a go? Nearest to the proposed deal gets a virual cup of 'Costa Coffee' (you will have to wait for it to arrive at Swanwick first though).

mr.777

30th Apr 2009, 11:10

It's up.

2% this year and then next year, if RPI is better than -2.8%, we get 0.1% for every 0.1% it is better than the-2.8% figure.....up to a max of 1%.

Make your own minds up....I'm pretty disgusted at it. After a year of negotiation we are taking AT LEAST a paycut of 1.8% in real terms.

anotherthing

30th Apr 2009, 11:18

Mr777, I think you have read it wrong.

We get 2% this year, backdated to Jan 09. Come August when the RPI is announced, we may get up to an extra 1% backdated to Jan 09, if the RPI is -1.8% or better. That pay rise is to see us through to the end of Dec 2010.

No rise in Jan 2010.

I've just just a quick read through so far but it seems to me as if it is a one year pay deal, but applicable for two years i.e. from Jan 2009 to end 2010.

in otherwords, we will get a payrise backdated to Jan 2009 (as we should), and that will be enhanced if Aug 09 RPI is greater than -2.8%.

No pay rise in Jan 2010.

How the hell can we negotiate not to even think about a pay rise in Jan 2010 based on figures we don't even know yet?

Not good enough for that one reason above all others.

in a nutshell from the ATCOS.co.uk website

A consolidated and pensionable increase to pay and pay related allowances for all negotiated grades of 2% backdated to 1 January 2009 for a period to the end of 2010.

If August RPI in 2009 is less negative than –2.8% staff will receive a backdated increase for every 0.1% by which RPI is more favourable up to a maximum of an additional 1%.
In effect this makes it possible for a maximum pay increase at 1 January 2009 of 3%.

It is a condition of the deal that should RPI prove to be as or more negative than -3.5% in August 2009 that NATS and the NTUS will enter into early discussions to seek to address this issue.

Whilst the trade unions had submitted a pay claim in September of last year based on the notion of a one year pay deal it became apparent during negotiations that management would only table a consolidated and pensionable pay increase which might be seen as acceptable by us on the basis that it was a two year pay deal taking us through to the end of 2010.Well, the union got have got that haven't they - a one year deal stretched over 24 months :mad:

Against that backdrop NATS management have raised their severe concerns as to the impact that this will have on prices and income. They have described to the trade unions what they see as a double whammy with the impact of reduced flight volumes and at the same time a reduction in the costs that they are able to charge customersSo concerned they gave away millions in dividends to the very customers they are claiming they are concerned they cannot levy full charges on...:mad:

Whilst the trade unions have been robust in our response...
Robust, miffed or slightly peeved?:mad:

On top of that, we won't even see it until August... that's the Jan 09 payrise we are talking about, 7 months late. A record even for our union and management.

Go on, vote yes - really prove to our management and our unions that we will accept a shafting over everything and that the recent motions agreed in the SDC are not worth the paper they are written on.

ADIS5000

30th Apr 2009, 11:22

777,

I sympathise to a degree with you, but over 2 years it's probably going to ensure that our salary stays roughly aligned with the cost of living. From what the Union says in the web article, it sounds like the Company were trying to hit us big time with degradation of T&Cs and an even lower percentage rise if not pay freeze. With 2.1 million unemployed I think it's an acceptable deal.

Regards, ADIS

mr.777

30th Apr 2009, 11:23

Anotherthing..

Thank you for correcting me...having re-read it, you're absolutely right.

And I agree on your final point too.

ADIS..

I take your points on board about the unemployment rate and the economic situation...so do you think a 9% payrise fair? This may still be only a rumour but I see that nobody has refuted it, not least the Big Man himself.
Also, I have just added the figures up quickly, and the proposed rise does not come close,on a monthly basis, to meeting the increases that I have had this year in my gas/electric/water bills...council tax...food and fuel prices.

aaaabbbbcccc1111

30th Apr 2009, 11:30

I dont even know why we are even bothering to ballot. It will get voted in. Now we just have to wait until the August pay to get the money. I think the whole pay rise talks have been a waste of time. Ever since we lost the pension vote, management have us in their pockets. They have probably been stringing the union along these last few months getting a bit of interest on our backpay. They could have given us a pay freeze and it would have been voted in.

mr.777

30th Apr 2009, 11:37

You're right...it WILL get voted in. After the apathy over the pension, this is a dead cert for getting accepted. I'm still voting no, for all the good it'll do :rolleyes:

anotherthing

30th Apr 2009, 11:47

Bear in mind that this deal is not finalised, even if we accept it, until the August RPI is in.

If the Aug RPI is less than -3.5% (more negative), then the union have agreed to speak to management i.e. the 2% will be under threat.

So, a pay rise that should be based on last years RPI will be reneged if this years RPI is less than -3.5%.

Who is silly enough to give that remit to management by voting yes?

9%+ for Barron, £millions in dividends, but a poor pay rise, possibly getting poorer, because NATS is worried about cash flow. Anyone who thinks management are being fair and 'working together' need their head examined.

bmb7jiw

30th Apr 2009, 12:16

IF we had got 3%, backdated to Jan 2009, and with no restrictions, I would have been satisfied (just) with this, even with it covering the time period to December 2009.

What I am definitely NOT happy with is the fact that Barron is getting 9%. Exactly how can this be justified in the current climate? He say's one thing to the work force and does something totally different.
The divident situation is also absolute crap. As far as I am aware the divident payout was not obligatory. Yes I know that the Airline Group have hardly had no return since PPP, but if the boot was on the other foot I bet they wouldnt be giving US a dividend in the currenct economic climate! £30 million into the Pension fund and £20 million into our pay rise seems to be a much better way of using those funds.
What are the odds that within the year management will be crying foul again over the state of the pension and wanting another change to it even though there was this dividend money that could have been put into it? Will the membership as a whole just turn over and take it up the arse like last time? Answers on a postcard.....

Like has been previously said, this pay "rise" will get voted in unfortunately....

Vote NO

30th Apr 2009, 12:24

If the quantitative easing doesn't work, then the RPI forecast for Aug 09 below will be worse :{
However if the green shoots start to appear we might be in luck:)

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

ImnotanERIC

30th Apr 2009, 12:42

anotherthing

30th Apr 2009, 13:07

So, you guys are going to vote for a 2% pay rise, 3% at best, that will cover the period Jan 2009 to Dec 2010, no rise at all in Jan 2010?

You're not even going to ask for an underpinned deal on the extremely thin chance that economic growth might, just might, happen.

And you are basing this on the ability of NATS and the Union to predict the financial markets - the same financial markets they screwed up so fantastically with regards to the old pension?

In voting yes, you're also going to agree that NATS can open talks to reduce or withdraw the 2% if the Aug 09 RPI is less than -3.5%?

So you are basically voting yes to an agreement inprinciple, not even a firm agreement.

So, the fact that NATS uses the Aug 09 RPI for charges means nothing anymore. Except when it suits NATS.

Do you have credit card bills or loans? do you have savings? So you are happy that we won't even get a sniff of a payrise until August pay packet - and that is still in the balance.

Money that is sitting in NATS accounts accrueing interest when you could have used it to pay credit card bills/loans or accrued your own interest?

No vote from me.

RPIplus1

30th Apr 2009, 13:17

2% or 3%... to me it doesn't matter which it is... it is still a pay CUT.

vote "No" and tell everyone else to vote "No" - that's the only way the offer will get raised!!!

We need to get the unions back to the negotiating table with some idea of how the membership are feeling.

aaaabbbbcccc1111

30th Apr 2009, 13:19

Angrel

30th Apr 2009, 13:27

lets hope the RPI in august is -3.4%. we may only get the 2% but it will be a REAL increase of 5.4%!! :}
aaaabbbbcccc1111 - every ballot counts!

RPIplus1

30th Apr 2009, 13:28

Just flogging a dead horse. It will be voted in. I am not even going to bother to fill my ballot paper in. As far as I am concerned we have already rolled over and had our tummies tickled. We are wide open now for more attacks on our T and C's and squabbling over a few percent here and there is probably the least of our worries.

...and you may be one of the few that actually deserve a pay freeze...

aaaabbbbcccc1111

30th Apr 2009, 13:32

and you may be one of the few that actually deserve a pay freeze...

Some may even say a pay drop

REVOLUTION

30th Apr 2009, 14:06

Whilst it may be argued that 'in the current climate' this is a fair offer, the fact remains if the unions had negotiated the pay deal prior to Jan 2009 when the economy was in a better state I dare say we would have got more!

It would be great if we could 'do a Nats management' with other financial areas. i.e. claw back some of the money we all paid for our homes now they have subsequently dipped in value!

anotherthing

30th Apr 2009, 14:11

Angrel
lets hope the RPI in august is -3.4%. we may only get the 2% but it will be a REAL increase of 5.4%!! http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif
The only major flaw in that is the fact that we only get one pay rise in 2 years - and the RPI was 4.8% when that pay rise should have been negotiated.

RPI or not, fuel prices etc are still rising...

Don't know whenwe will get the pay in our wages, it won't be in time for th eAug pay date as the RPI figure will need to have been published. Then it will take a couple of months for them to work out the pay rise what with SMART pensions etc.

Back pay might be in time for Christmas :cool:

Angrel

30th Apr 2009, 14:21

just trying to lighten the mood with my appalling mathematics! :ok:

hangten

30th Apr 2009, 14:32

Interesting proposal. I'm happy that if the unions are willing to state that:

The trade unions believe that the above settlement is the best achievable by negotiation.

then they genuinely believe this and have negotiated as hard as they could. The implication is, of course, that if we don't like it then we vote no. If the statement then turns out to be true we'll be lighting fires in upturned oil drums.

You're not even going to ask for an underpinned deal on the extremely thin chance that economic growth might, just might, happen.

I'll bet you a month's payrise it doesn't. The outlook is grim, no two ways about it. If we're going to stick by our guns and ask for 4.8% then we'd better be willing to take a 3% pay cut come next January. Frankly, I (and my bank manager) would prefer to see a more stable income than that.

£30 million into the Pension fund and £20 million into our pay rise seems to be a much better way of using those funds.

The difference here is that the dividend is a one off payment. A pay rise is a commitment from now until forever that Mr. Actuary has to take into account, such that putting profits into payrises above RPI is unsustainable. I'm glad I kept my shares. Although of course the dividend doesn't come close to even a 1% rise, when the opportunity to buy more comes along I'll snap them up (based on my reckoning on the future of NATS).

Whilst it may be argued that 'in the current climate' this is a fair offer, the fact remains if the unions had negotiated the pay deal prior to Jan 2009 when the economy was in a better state I dare say we would have got more!

True fact. Our boat sailed late last year when we all got sidetracked with the pensions debate and put off this negotiation. 20/20 hindsight. It is a fair offer; now. While I watch my friends lose their jobs around me (two in the last month), I'll take it, and be glad of it.

Vote NO

30th Apr 2009, 14:34

Is there an option to delay the ballot for as long as possible? This would give us a better idea of Aug 09 RPI and may help the "vote yes now voters" :suspect: to make the correct decision. The union say "The ballot process will commence from the 21 May concluding on the 18 June." If there is no option to delay, do not make a decision till the last possible day.

If anyone is content to accept an unknown offer based on a global financial crisis then I would have to question your judgement.

Let's remind ourselves of some of the murky details........:yuk:

The CEO has had at least a 9% pay rise (until he denies it or until we find out in June) and is going next April.

Dividends of £43.5 Million were paid out to shareholders despite the Pension regulators warning not to pay out if the Pension was "causing difficulties". BA, part owners of NATS are shareholders and had to fork out £350 Million in fines for crooked fuel surcharge price fixing and greedily accepted the cash (£17 Million) along with the rest of TAG.

Management are jumping ship and are leaving in droves with a shed load of dosh before the next financial year, because they know the **** will hit the fan when NSL goes down the toilet, TAG sell their shares, and NERL struggles to cope with Airlines going bust, swine flu, economic downturn, and a rapidly worsening pension scheme.

I apologise for sounding pessimistic, but I am a realist and there is no good news. However I am not prepared to be shafted by greedy NATS managers :mad: who have their noses in the trough whilst spouting off how hard up we are.

My Vote will be NO , surprisingly enough :E

DAL208

30th Apr 2009, 14:42

So...let me get this right...if its voted in, then the actual 'pay rise' will be in our august pay packet...backdated to jan 09. Unless the RPI is worse than expected then it starts all over again?

kats-I

30th Apr 2009, 15:11

After the back lash of the supposed "YES vote" for the pension can anyone seriously vote "YES" for the pay ballot...What the hells wrong with you guys out there?? :confused: Do you feel we are only worth whats on offer while those making the offer sit back and get MORE than their worth!!!:ugh::ugh: Who is it that keeps the planes in the air..makes all the efforts to stop delays for the airlines.?? Not the managers thats for sure.:=

Don't just throw the towel in. Try to make a difference this time. Its your vote don't waste it ..use it!!

mr.777

30th Apr 2009, 15:37

However I am not prepared to be shafted by greedy NATS managers who have their noses in the trough whilst spouting off how hard up we are.

That about sums it up for me. :D:D:D

anotherthing

30th Apr 2009, 15:58

DAL208

Almost correct.

If the RPI is worse than -3.5%, then there will be re-negotiations.

It is a condition of the deal that should RPI prove to be as or more negative than -3.5% in August 2009 that NATS and the NTUS will enter into early discussions to seek to address this issue.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the 2% offer will be withdrawn.

For every 0.1% the the RPI is greater than -3.5% i.e. -3.4%, then we get a 0.1% addition to thebase 2%.

i.e. if RPI is -3.4%, our pay rise is 2.1%, RPI is -3.3% pay rise will be 2.2% etc to a maximum pay rise of 3%... backdated to Jan 09, no new pay rise until at least Jan 2011.

To find out what will happen, we have to wait for the August RPI figure.

Salary runs need to be done by mid month to be included in that months pay packet... I think cut off is the 14th of the month, certainly no later, but I think it could well be earlier.

So we have to wait for the Aug RPI figure to be published.

If it is lower than -3.5%, we start again.

If it is -3.5% or greater, we get the resultant pay, backdated to Jan 09. However, NATS are drafting in a specialist company to work out the back pay as it is seemingly complicated due to the SMART pensions. This will take a bit of time.

The earliest you can reasonably expect to get your pay increase is September pay packet - at a push.

I've been told by a couple of friends who are reps that they believe it may take as long as 2 months to sort the figures out i.e. October/November pay packet...

jonny B good

30th Apr 2009, 16:22

The negotiations do not start again if the Aug 2009 RPI is more negative than -3.5.

What the deal offers is 2% backdated to Jan 2009 paid asap after the ballot finishes. If the ballot finishes on 18th June, then there is no reason why the backdated 2% cannot be in the July pay packet (I think getting it in for 30th June might be a push!). The longer the ballot is delayed, the longer before any money is paid if it is a yes vote.

There is no talk of the 2% being withdrawn, as this is the underpin. If RPI in Aug 2009 is between -1.8% and -2.7%, then there will be more money coming, up to a maximum additional 1%. Again, this will be backdated to Jan 2009 and all the monies will be fully pensionable.

If the Aug 2009 RPI is worse than -3.5%, then all the unions have agreed to do is talk with NATS. They haven't agreed to give anything away or to reduce salaries, simply to talk. That is what unions and management do. Any talks are not about unpicking the deal but about any savings that may need to be made elsewhere (bit i'm sure the rumour mill will still say otherwise).

As has been mentioned, NATS charging is based on the Aug RPI, but this isn't just the 2008 RPI, but also the 2009 RPI. If the Chancellor is forecasting it to be -3.0% in Septmenber, perhaps the union forecasts aren't too far out (again i'm sure some on here will want to spin the ability to forecast!).

At the end of the day, members will need to make a call themselves on whether this is a good deal or not. I have no idea what PB is being paid, and I don't give a flying F@#k either. What I am concerned about is what I get paid and I think that this gives me at least an RPI pay rise over the 2 years with the potential for a bit more depending on how bad the Aug 2009 RPI turns out to be.

Over and out :ugh:

anotherthing

30th Apr 2009, 16:25

Thanks for clearing up what is a fairly poorly worded release...

Dread to think what the 'savings made elsewhere' could entail

Lookatthesky

30th Apr 2009, 17:05

Breaking News...

LDV in trouble
Chrysler filing for bankruptcy
BAE systems to cut 500 jobs
Millions of private sector workers face pay freeze or cuts

Pay freeze looms for millions - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5822223.ece)

NATS ATCO's moan about 2% (potentially 3%) pay rise :ugh: :mad:

Stupendous Man

30th Apr 2009, 19:15

It will be voted in. I am not even going to bother to fill my ballot paper in. As far as I am concerned we have already rolled over and had our tummies tickled. We are wide open now for more attacks on our T and C's and squabbling over a few percent here and there is probably the least of our worries

OMFG!

Its this attitude towards the ballots that cause us problems.
If you think like that then of course its going to get voted in.
If the 30% that didn't vote over the pensions had voted then we may be in a different position now. (I know some people didn't get papers).

Even if you believe that its going to go through at least vote - its a protest vote - then at least management won't think we are totally spineless / don't give a crap. And the Union will too.

As has been said before the union is only as strong as its membership. If you aren't going to bother voting then you only weaken the union. Not management - in fact you empower those feckers.

I agree that our Ts&Cs are next on the agenda - but why not vote on this issue. Pay is a T&C too.

If you don't vote - either way - all you do is weaken the union.
If you agree - then vote yes and let the union & management know they've got it right
If you disagree then vote no and let them know that you are not prepared to be sold short.

Not voting is not an option

Rant over....

aaaabbbbcccc1111

30th Apr 2009, 19:26

point taken thanks.

GM WAN TO BE

30th Apr 2009, 20:15

Just read the details on ATCOs.co.uk.

In the spirit of working together my perception is that Prospect & PCS may have been too complacent!

We want a 1 year deal - what do we get? The rest of the details just depict that at the end of the day, what is in the deal is exactly what management wanted to be in there. Sure the foreplay up to the final offer kept our guys on their toes, probably at the amusement of 'The Management'. The article makes interesting reading, reference to management 22 times, reference to members/membership 7 times. This may seem petty, but its not hard to evaluate who exactly is in the driving seat and by the looks of it, they will be there for the foreseeable future........

kats-I

30th Apr 2009, 21:57

Cointreau.

The union guys do a good job, mostly, and no one says that they do not work hard but sometimes you can't help wondering who they are working for..us, the paying members..management or for themselves. There are always the odd few that want glory no matter how it comes..in all walks of life. The pension was a prime example of the union playing ball with management. :E

Yes we are fortunate to be offered something in this climate, but when the airlines and management have been handed obscene amounts on a plate it doesn't seem right for us to be the poor cousin in all this and to be handed ..or thrown..just the scraps.!!:sad::(

Its your vote to do with as you please. .just asking that you use it wisely because you won't get another chance once the deed is done.:{

fly bhoy

1st May 2009, 08:49

I was wondering what would happen if (and maybe it is a big "if"!!!) the RPI in Aug 09 wasn't quite as bad as all the doom and gloom predictions (or indeed maybe even slightly positive-this MAY be a big if I suppose:}!!)?? What happens if the Aug 09 RPI is -1.7? or -1.0? Or any other higher figure?

Even -1.0 means a blended RPI of 3.8 over the two years, and by my maths, the MAXIMUM possible payrise of 3% being offered therefore means a raise of 0.8% BELOW inflation!!!! Yet again I do fully appreciate all the work put in by the union guys, but this deal is still rubbish. Who decided on the cut off point of -1.8%?!? We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot to vote this in as we surely can't vote on something which may or may not happen!! If this deal was a one year deal then yes, i'd seriously think about voting for it, but stretched over 2 years is also too much to ask for.

I am also thoroughly :mad:ed off by being constantly told by NATSnet that we're "in dire financial trouble" and "facing a bleak outlook", yet they see fit to pay out massive sums in dividends and management payrises (probably the ones who need a payrise the least, what with their already massive salaries, and easily achievable bonuses based on the back of OUR hard work!!!) According to the barron's recent propaganda, paying for staff terms and conditions came first on the list of things our profits went towards, and yet here we are, being offered a measly 1% pa, while watching £44m being given away, purely because the board of directors are all airline group employees!!! I wonder what the dividend will be next year if we post another profit, meanwhile we'd probably be offered a pay freeze and an attack on our pension?!?

I would encourage everyone to use their vote because to be apathetic about it is a waste of a potentially crucial vote. I, for one, am voting No, as are most of my colleagues that I spoke to about it yesterday!!!

The union may say The trade unions believe that the above settlement is the best achievable by negotiation well in that case maybe its time we moved beyond simple negotiation and started "talking" in other ways!!!!!

FB:ok:

Vote NO

1st May 2009, 09:14

To tie us down for 2 years is unacceptable, bearing in mind the unknown future economic climate and the fact that most of the present NATS management will have departed on to their next victims in 11 months time with massive payouts. This is not so much about money for me, more of a principle.

Vote NO :ok:

whatamistaka

1st May 2009, 10:07

Just out of interest, as our OJTI training hours are paid as a percentage of our basic wage per hour, will the increase in salary include backdated OJTI hours? I know it's only peanuts but again, it's the principle!!

Vote NO

1st May 2009, 10:28

So what if Aug 09 RPI is less negative than -1.8% ? Say for example 0% or 1% ? Now I know what the predictions are, however wearing my optimistic hat :), with banking sectors now doing well and possible early signs of green shoots, bearing in mind no one knows what RPI will be in 4 months time, then we will be screwed to 3 % over 2 years whilst NATS reaps the benefit at our expense .

http://atcos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rpi.gif

jonny B good

1st May 2009, 11:09

However if the RPI is actually worse than -2.8%, which ALL forecasts are predicting (the forecast produced by BoE shown on this site was produced in Dec 08 and is already out of date .. see the Chancellors forecast from the budget of -3.0%) , then we have an underpin of 2% pay increase. I'd rather go for the underpin which guarantees me at least 2% pay increase than have it open ended and possibly get nothing. There is more chance of the underpin kicking in than the cap. :ok:

At the end of the day, the offer will either satisfy people or it won't. The most sensible comments on here recently refer to apathy. If you are ok with the offer, then vote yes, if not, then vote no, but whatever you do VOTE!
Not voting sends the signal to management that we don't actually care what they do and it weakens any negotiating power the unions have. If you don't vote then you will always get exactly what you deserve. At the end of the day, the union will act on the result of the ballot, so make your vote count!

Vote NO

1st May 2009, 11:45

I tend to agree, however the same forecasters didnt see the global credit crunch right under their noses only three months away ............... .So I won't be listening to them now :)

anotherthing

1st May 2009, 12:36

The underpin of 2% is hogwash IMHO.

In all previous years of strong economy we have had the first year deal based on the previous Aug RPI (the known RPI) and then the subsequent 1 or 2 years (depending on the length of the agreement) based on a guesstimate of what might happen (often an underpining of RPI+0.5% or something similar).

Now we are getting an underpinned 2% (that's to last us 2 years), based on an AUG RPI of 4.8%.

The extra 1% that we might get is based on the subsequent year.

We have totally reversed the way we negotiate pay with regards to RPI.

Yes, we are in difficult times, but we have just given away a shed load of money in dividends.

Management have stated that NERL needs to make £45M in savings. When challenged about this and the rationale behind giving away our dividend management stated that we needed to make savings of £45M every year, and that the sale of the CTB was a one off so it didn't count.

That's not an answer, the fact is the sale of the CTB covered the savings requirement for the first year, meaning that if we had kept the money, the subsequent years would have been less of a burden as we would have been a year ahead. But no, let them carry on with their poor financial strategy whilst they plead poverty.

I've stated this before during the pension debate, but it I'll say it again. It is my firm belief that management will do everything in their power to cut Ts and Cs and pay and pension, even to th extent of throwing money away in dividends etc if it helps their cause later when they come back, cap in hand and claim 'We can't afford to pay the pension' etc.

Whatever you believe - make sure you vote. As Stupendous man rightly says, not voting only weakens the union, whatever way you want to vote. If management see another 30% 'no show' like they did in the pension vote, they will just assume that union memebrship don't really care.

If you're not going to vote, why even bother paying your union subs? You're just throwing away your money.

fly bhoy

1st May 2009, 13:54

then we will be screwed to 3 % over 2 years whilst NATS reaps the benefit at our expense

Yes...that's what I thought.

And maybe its my mis-reading of the proposal, but if the RPI is less than -3.5% then the whole thing will be re-negotiated anyway, so surely that means there is NO underpinning at 2%?!? And if this DOES happen, that would also suggest to me that any pay rise isn't going to be seen until after the Aug 09 RPI is announced, otherwise they'd have to take all that "lovely" back pay, back from us until any new deal is agreed? Or am I missing something?!?

FB:ok:

anotherthing

1st May 2009, 14:03

Fly bhoy

I was under the same impression - the article released by the Union is not very clearly written.

However Jonny B Good who is involved with the Union has stated on the previous page of this thread that the 2% will be paid upon receipt of a 'yes' vote (though it won't hit pay packets until July as the ballot is on 18th June - why so long I don't know, pension vote was pushed through quicker).

Then any other increment will be backdated once the Aug 09 RPI is known. If the Aug RPI is less than -3.5% than there will be talks about how to make savings elsewhere - which sounds ominous.

As far as I am concerned, this is a pay cut however it is dressed up, with fuel prices recently going up and to do so again in September (after the AUGRPI figure is published). The AUG RPI figure that counts is AUG08.

This is how management have always wanted us to work before.

Roadrunner Once

1st May 2009, 14:07

Genuine question: What if (hypothetically) we got a one-year deal for 2009 of 4.8%, based on the Aug 08 RPI. If the Aug 09 RPI is, as forecast, -3% or worse, what happens then?

Me Me Me Me

1st May 2009, 14:09

My reading of it is that the TU want the 2% paid right away... probably because they feel NATS wont want to go as far as to actually take it back as part of any 're-negotiation'.

My assumption is that this will pass a vote with ease and the 2% will be in June pay. A supplementary will be planned in time for September pay (in the event we end up getting more than 2%) or it will be back to the negotiating table if it's required.

anotherthing

1st May 2009, 14:35

Me Me Me Me

According to Jonny B Good - a Union bod - the ballot finishes 18th Jun. Will not hit pay packet until July in that case as 18th is past the cut off date for the June pay run

Del Prado

1st May 2009, 14:42

When does the ballot open and close? when do NATS publish the annual results?

I reckon most if not all votes will be cast before we hear about the latest (record) profits.

Vote NO

1st May 2009, 14:52

The union say "The ballot process will commence from the 21 May concluding on the 18th June."

NATS financial report.........around 26th June as per last year ! Very convenient for management :mad:. That is why we should delay the vote till after the financial report is published.

"The regulatory accounts were approved by the Board on 26 June 2008 and
signed on its behalf by
Finance Director ______________________ Nigel Fotherby"

Which makes me even more suspicious :suspect: This really is playing into managements hands :mad: Why didn't the unions change the date to finish after the huge profits are published? Let me guess........so you can get your pay "rise" quicker :ugh:

jonny B good

1st May 2009, 15:01

Oh No, my cover is blown!!!! :uhoh:

RPIplus1

1st May 2009, 15:08

hehe - lol

:)

anotherthing

1st May 2009, 15:20

what

Jonny B good is Nigel Fotherby... :eek:

jonny B good

1st May 2009, 15:30

Please, Please, Please, don't even start that rumour :\

Vote NO

1st May 2009, 15:47

:suspect: :suspect: :suspect:

:E

anotherthing

1st May 2009, 16:07

Sorry Nige, erm I mean Paul. :ugh: Jonny, Jonny..I'll get it right eventually :}

Cheers to all the team in the Union for the hard work they put in, whoever they are and regardless of whether I agree with recommendations or not.

I don't think the union position has been helped whatsoever by the apathy of its membership.

Vote NO

1st May 2009, 16:29

DITTO :ok:

kats-I

1st May 2009, 17:31

We did in effect take a pay cut when we first moved down to Swanwick, didn't we, in losing our london weighting and Home-Duty??:confused:
May not have been a lot but it was a saving for the company.

It won't be long before we will be asked to come to work for nothing.. for the sheer joy of our work!!!(not)..any pride or pleasure is slowly but surely being chipped away at and what once was an enviable company to be in will become as mundane and soulless as any other money making one.:ugh::zzz:

Mission complete Mr Barron.:}

Standard Noise

1st May 2009, 17:39

Taken from 'Profile' March 2009........

Government Actuaries Department 2008 payrise - 3.7%
Landmarc Support Services 2008 payrise - 4%
Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland 2008 payrise - 4.5%
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission 2008 payrise - 4.1%
Scottish Prison Service 2008 payrise - 4.25%

So this union stands with us but happily fights for the deals listed above while telling us that 2% now, with a chance of another 1% if August 2009 RPI is in our favour and wants us to accept this over two years, is the best we can achieve by negotiation!!??

4.8% spread over two years maybe I could stomach, but 2% with an outside chance of another 1%? I don't think so.

Vote Yes and we're fecked for the second time in 9 months.
Vote NO and we can take our chances with other forms of persuasion.
I know which one I prefer.

opnot

1st May 2009, 18:25

standardnoise
just to make you figures representive ,what pay rise did we as ATCOS recieve on Jan 1st 2008 I cant remember.

anotherthing

1st May 2009, 19:42

Wel, the ballot closes on Thursday 18th June, the result will be published probably on the following Monday (22nd) with NATS yearly figures presented 2 or 3 days later.

I think I might just vote 'no' and hope that is the general consensus, so that we can wait to see just how big a profit we make in the annual accounts...

Throw that into the pot with the dividend we've foolishly paid, then see what NATS can actually afford to give as a pay rise, not what they want to give us.

Ceannairceach

1st May 2009, 19:45

A definite no for me, without any reservation or doubt.

And I dearly hope we, as a workforce, don't capitulate in the face of immense company propaganda and what amounts to a whole pack of spin and lies.

We rolled over when it came to PPP, we rolled over when it came to working practices, and we even rolled over when it came to our pensions. This is the final stand....

jonny B good

1st May 2009, 21:40

Anotherthing & Vote No

Thank you for your words of support in the job we do. I (dare I say we) appreciate the fact that some at least understand that the union guys (and ladies) try to do the best for the members. I appreciate you do not support the offer, and it is right that you vote as you believe. I hope everyone else takes the time to do the same, whatever the final outcome of the ballot (personally I'm still in the yes camp:oh:)

I probably shouldn't rise to the bait of some on here, but I think the record needs to be set straght for some.

1. The Union reps do this voluntarily, much of it in their own time for no reward (no, we are not paid for it)

2. We all have our normal jobs too which means whatever we agree affects us the same as every other member.

3. If any members are unhappy with how the reps act/perform, then each year they can be removed (if the haven't already quit by then!)

4. If you want to remove them, then someone needs to be willing to step forward and do the job instead. Trust me, we would be happy for volunteers to come forward. Throwing stones from the side is easy when you don't have any responsability!

5. Many are correct about T's & C's constantly being under attack. That is true. The union mistake is having not alerted members to what is happening behind the scenes and communicating what is happening across the company. Hopefully we have learnt a hard lesson after the poor communications around the pension issue and the new website will go some way to rectifying this (ATCOs.co.uk (http://www.atcos.co.uk))

6. Our collective strength comes from the fact that we are a united workforce. Speaking for the ATCO union, the SDC pulled us back together, and believe it or not, made NATS sit up and take notice. Being a collective force means we need to abide by the decisions of the majority, whether we all agree with them or not. This pay deal will be no different, the majority will decide. That is why it is important to vote. Apathy only helps management.

7. I've left the most important bit for last; it is not the unions who have made this offer. The unions simply negotiate the best deal they believe they can through the negotiation process, then put the final decision to members. That is how the negotiating process works. Of course the Unions will have a view on the offer, but so will every member. The 'Union' doesn't have a vote, each and every member does and that is where the power truly lies.

Remember, this is NOT an offer created by the union, the unions don't control NATS finances.This IS the NATS offer to staff, the final offer that NATS were willing to make to the Unions. If you are pi##ed off with the offer, please remember where the offer comes from.. NATS, not the unions

ps. probably going to get a bollocking for this but what the hell, it's a thankless task anyway:E

roidster

2nd May 2009, 08:56

I'm very dissappointed with the deal and the way the company is being torn apart by PB and his Alstrom cronies. Some points to note.

1 PB should not be getting 9% + bonus while we get offered this real terms pay cut.

2 No dividend should be paid, the money should have gone into the pension or pay deal.

3 the vote should be delayed until the accounts are published so that we can realise just how much we are being taken for a ride.

4 if we can just hold out until PB leaves maybe the next guy will understand that when it comes to safety, you can't keep cutting back. Hopefully the company can recover from PB's wrecking of NATS.

I can't believe people are thinking of voting for this deal. If this gets voted through then NSL sale will be next, after that it will be the pension again, then they'll go for NERL and start re banding that. T+Cs down the toilet.

It is time for us all to take a stand. The way the company is being run is not acceptable. Make sure you use your vote to let management know this.

and relax......

BDiONU

2nd May 2009, 09:32

1 PB should not be getting 9% + bonus while we get offered this real terms pay cut.
Seen a lot of rumour on this site but nothing anywhere else, which makes me wonder about just how true this 'fact' is? PCG grade pay rises have been delayed until September.
4 if we can just hold out until PB leaves maybe the next guy will understand that when it comes to safety, you can't keep cutting back.
Can you give an example, any example, of how safety has been compromised in the past couple of years?
Hopefully the company can recover from PB's wrecking of NATS.
Can you give an example of anything which has been 'wrecked' since privatisation?

BD

man friday

2nd May 2009, 09:38

I am still interested to see what rise NSL's Gib staff are offered.Free of Gordon Brown the economy here is still working and RPI is in the region of 4%

as we recieved a lower rise due to Gib's RPI beig lower than the UK's over the last 3 years i am curious to see if all of a sudden we will be "lucky" enough to be awarded the same rise as our UK counterperts.

Bet Serco staff get a decent wage rise this year!

roidster

2nd May 2009, 10:22

BD,

here goes....

Safety is compromised when the controller doesn't have an ATSA there anymore to provide an extra pair of eyes due to cut backs due to lack of money. Safety is compromised when the college courses are not of a sufficient length to provide the best training possible due to financial restraints. Safety is compromised when the college concentrates on getting numbers out the door rather than quality. Safety is compromised when the controller is concerned with his pending relocation, his dwindling pension or the future of the company when they should only be thinking of keeping the planes apart.

What's been wrecked?

The pension and staff morale.

mr.777

2nd May 2009, 10:38

Seen a lot of rumour on this site but nothing anywhere else, which makes me wonder about just how true this 'fact' is?

Hasn't been refuted either...tellingly. As for what has been "wrecked" under the stewardship of PB...please tell me you are having laugh. Either that or you are seriously out of touch with how NATS workforce feel.

fly bhoy

2nd May 2009, 11:19

Jonny

it is not the unions who have made this offer

True, but the union have "recommended" this deal, and as has been mentioned before about the pay deal (and before that, the pension issue) there are a lot of apathetic people who can't be bothered to put in the effort to learn a bit about the facts and figures involved in the deal, so if they see the union "recommending" the deal then they probably think its a good deal and so, will vote yes.

I for one would like to just see the union publish the actual deal on offer and leave us to make up our own minds, without making recommendations as these could lead some people to decide based solely on that, rather than the actual facts and figures involved. Speaking to some colleagues last night, they don't remember these sorts of things ever being "recommended" by the union in the past, so why are they now?!? I have always said that I fully appreciate the hard work that negotiators do on our behalf, but just feel that any fence-sitters could be swayed purely by the recommendation.

And before anyone fires off about "why don't you stand up and be counted"...I have!! I have just become union rep for my watch!!:eek::confused:

FB:ok:

eglnyt

2nd May 2009, 11:39

I for one would like to just see the union publish the actual deal on offer and leave us to make up our own minds, without making recommendations as these could lead some people to decide based solely on that, rather than the actual facts and figures involved.

I haven't had the benefit of attending the negotiations so I want to know more than just the final figure. I personally will always want some indication from the union as to whether or not they think this is really the best deal on the table and why. You can call that a recommendation or something else but I don't think anybody could sensibly make up their mind without it unless the settlement is so bad that you couldn't dream of accepting it even if it is the best you'll ever get.

As long as I can remember the ballot has always come with a note from the union with their recommendation. Unless management have insisted that the offer is put to the members before there is any further negotiation, that recommendation is always likely to be acceptance because the union would keep negotiating if it thought there was any more to be had.

BDiONU

2nd May 2009, 11:54

Hasn't been refuted either...tellingly.
Goodness only knows how long it would take to refute every rumour that goes around :rolleyes:
As for what has been "wrecked" under the stewardship of PB...please tell me you are having laugh. Either that or you are seriously out of touch with how NATS workforce feel.
You mean the loss of the civil service mentality now we're a real company exposed to the real world? Although I do grant that we're very hamstrung in what we're allowed to charge.
I'm very in touch with the workforce, I am one! Also my department has suffered dramatic cuts in staff with no similar lose in demand for resource.

BD

BDiONU

2nd May 2009, 12:03

Safety is compromised when the controller doesn't have an ATSA there anymore to provide an extra pair of eyes due to cut backs due to lack of money.
I dunno if you're NSL or NERL but I can only answer from a NERL perspective. Is your ATSA a qualified and licensed ATCO? If not why are you expecting him/her to fulfill ATCO duties?
Safety is compromised when the college courses are not of a sufficient length to provide the best training possible due to financial restraints. Safety is compromised when the college concentrates on getting numbers out the door rather than quality.
Have we done away with OJTI's now so that ab initio's are controlling solo? Has passing boards become easier such that just any old person can pass one now? I don't believe that to be the case, therefore I don't believe that the perceived 'quality' of ab initio's is compromising safety.
Safety is compromised when the controller is concerned with his pending relocation, his dwindling pension or the future of the company when they should only be thinking of keeping the planes apart.
Hhhmmm, perhaps the controller should be concentrating on the job in hand and saving 'worries' for when they're off console, like professionals do.
What's been wrecked? The pension and staff morale.
Ah yes the pension, the changes which were democratically voted for because some people thought it the best way to save their pension instead of having it wrecked. Yes staff morale isn't great but nor is the economy and at least most of us still have quite well paid jobs.

Cheers
BD

Minesapint

2nd May 2009, 12:15

We have little money to spend on new equipment/technology to keep pace with (soon to be again) high traffic growth. We are losing highly skilled people at an alarming rate - which means that even if we had the money we don't have the people to spend it. Is this important? Hell yes as the BIG ANSP's are not ham strung semi privatised/regulated monopolies and they can spend tax payers money! :ugh:

When PB was put in post I read an internet letter from a GEC employee that had been witness to the 'railway childrens' asset stripping fat cat ways :suspect:. PB is just repeating his actions. The next CE will be different, its how different. Hopefully he / she will have a cull on arrival - then see how much of a payoff this lot gets!:=

If new technology and investment is linked to safety and capacity gains (I believe it is) then this is the link. Concerned CTC pen pusher.

anotherthing

2nd May 2009, 13:31

BDiONU

Savings over safety...

3 cycles ago whilst on a nightshift I was chatting with an engineer who was in the TC Ops room working on the radar displays. (The big tv screens we ATCOs use to seperate aircraft, which unfortnately, keep flickering in TC... rather disconcerting).

The engineer stated that the displays should run with digital cards, but NATS were unwillng to pay out the extra cost and we were using analogue cards instead.
He stated that it was his and all his colleauges (the experts) belief that the problems with the screens would cease immediately with the use of digital cards.

I am only passing on what I was told by a specialist. Now some might say (and it would be management), that "the screens work as they are, but they flicker every now and again, but overall , safety is not compromised so that's good enough".

Since when in a safety critical industry is good enough, good enough?

Particularly when on the other hand management bleat on about the safety risk being 600% higher in TC than in any other unit?

Just one more example of the double standards that management employ, to suit their purposes.

Scuzi

2nd May 2009, 13:36

I dunno if you're NSL or NERL but I can only answer from a NERL perspective. Is your ATSA a qualified and licensed ATCO? If not why are you expecting him/her to fulfill ATCO duties?

Have we done away with OJTI's now so that ab initio's are controlling solo? Has passing boards become easier such that just any old person can pass one now? I don't believe that to be the case, therefore I don't believe that the perceived 'quality' of ab initio's is compromising safety.

Hhhmmm, perhaps the controller should be concentrating on the job in hand and saving 'worries' for when they're off console, like professionals do.

Cheers
BD
I always had time for your perspective on such matters and I'd even go as far as to say I sometimes found it rather refreshing. However, your post displays a level of ignorance beyond comprehension. I was going to reply to your points but I can't help but feel it would go in one ear (eye?) and out the other.

Are you really that ignorant of what an ATCO's job entails or are you playing the devil's advocate?

wiccan

2nd May 2009, 17:04

Is your ATSA a qualified and licensed ATCO?
No I'm not....but.....I've given my ATCO a "nudge" now and again, and got a "thanks, mate" out of it. Part of my job description is to assist the ATCO..... I do that to the best of my ability. If i point out something he/she has missed, we are both happy. If I point out something he/she has seen, guess what? we are both still happy. Why? 'cos we trust each other, that's why.
bb

anotherthing

2nd May 2009, 17:18

I appreciate fully that office workers/CTC staff may not fully understand the job of an ATCO or assistant and the teamwork that is involved.

It is slightly worrying that an 'ATC Expert' who used to be a controller has lost sight of the ATCO/ATSA relationship, just because they now reside at CTC.

Maybe that is indicative of where this company is going wrong, if ex ATCOs are even questioning the ATSA role and significance?

zkdli

2nd May 2009, 17:43

Hi Anotherthing,
600% higher risk in LTC? Isn't that something to do with the 300+ violations of CAS that the unit has suffered in the last twelve months?

What answer did you get about the flickering screens when you filed an MOR?

Ceannairceach

2nd May 2009, 21:59

I dunno if you're NSL or NERL but I can only answer from a NERL perspective. Is your ATSA a qualified and licensed ATCO? If not why are you expecting him/her to fulfill ATCO duties?I don't normally bite, but this time I'll make an exception....have you ever actually worked as a NATS ATCO with an ATSA? Admittedly they're not all the godsends they could be - just like ATCOs for that matter - but I know so many of my colleagues have been "saved" in one way or another by a good ATSA alongside them. Whether it be spotting something, assisting when the sector goes a over t, or bashing a ludicrous route in to HCS. To dispute this isn't big, or clever, it just exposes you as ignorant and out of touch quite frankly.

Safety is compromised when the controller is concerned with his pending relocation, his dwindling pension or the future of the company when they should only be thinking of keeping the planes apart. Hhhmmm, perhaps the controller should be concentrating on the job in hand and saving 'worries' for when they're off console, like professionals do.Are we employing robots all of a sudden?

If you think being worried about something so major as uprooting your whole family and life, or paying your bills, or worrying about whether you'll have a job next week is "unprofessional" then I'm glad you're down at CTC behind a desk, and not sitting next to me or, heaven forfend, managing me.

You cannot, and should not, treat humans like machines. As any human factors/HR bod will gladly tell you. To do so is, frankly, unsafe.

....at least most of us still have quite well paid jobs.That's alright then. Because we've got jobs we should all shut up should we and take whatever is meted out to us?

I tell you something, I bet you'd be the first one whinging and moaning if it was your little piece of the pie being nibbled away at by PB and his poker games with our futures.

I mostly enjoy your input here. You provide a refreshing alternative viewpoint most of the time, and I'm glad someone does. And you usually do it well. However, the above post was not only aggressive, but it was a poor show from you. I'm disappointed.

Standard Noise

2nd May 2009, 22:18

The Union reps do this voluntarily, much of it in their own time for no reward (no, we are not paid for it)

Indeed, we're not paid, we do it for the greater good.

As an aside, I read a section of the PCS mag at work this afternoon and it said much the same thing about negotiating pay deals (as in the Prospect mag) and cited rises in food, fuel, council tax etc as a reason why workers should not be forced to accept poor pay deals..............except for their members at NATS obviously.

BDiONU

3rd May 2009, 13:10

BD is an ex RAF controller.
Correct and I have controlled at ScACC and LJAO so am very aware of the civil way of working.
I must admit, his opinion did surprise me somewhat given his ATC history, especially as he would have been an assistant at one time himself and should know how a good assistant can enhance the safety operation.
I was indeed an ATSA and worked my way up the greasy pole. I note all of the comments from others about my perception of the ATSA role and I stand by it. Increased use of tools in NERL is making some ATSA tasks redundant. For example is it really good use of a person to take strips off a printer, put them in a holder and take them round to the controllers? I don't think so and iFACTS and EFD will remove that requirement (already TC ATSA's don't sit on the sectors and PC will have ATSA's slightly further away than currently). There are very vital jobs for ATSA's to do, ones which are demanding of skill, knowledge and expertise but not ATCO skills etc.

I apologise for the aggressive tone of my post, it was unnecessary. Just as you shouldn't post when drunk you shouldn't post when not feeling great :\

BD

kats-I

3rd May 2009, 15:34

IS that what you think ATSAs do all day long, just put strips in a holder? TC ATSAs have always stood up to work and have never sat along side the controller because they have to service more than one sector at a time which at times can be a bit frustrating with everyone having to relay information or having to shout for amendments to be done rather than being able to turn to someone at your side.
I'm sure in your days as an Assistant your controllers thought more of you than a strip -basher!! :ouch:

Technology is a wonderful thing except that the more advanced we become the less people are required but when it all goes wrong you can't beat human input to correct it but they will all be long gone because some bright spark invented something to replace them!!!:ugh::ugh::bored:

MNT

3rd May 2009, 18:53

Sorry if this come across as agressive but I have following the debate for sometime and I know this is a rumour network but lets have somefacts to back up some of these suggestions:-

roidster stated that "4 if we can just hold out until PB leaves maybe the next guy will understand that when it comes to safety, you can't keep cutting back. Hopefully the company can recover from PB's wrecking of NATS."

Who do you think appoints the next CEO it is the Shareholders as far as I can see they will think PB has done an excellent job since he joined running the company as a commercial organisation.

In profit since he arrived!
Delays down considerably!
Improved safety performance!
Costs being challenged and driven down!

Why would they want to appoint someone with a different view and why do you think it won't be someone already in the comapny being groomed by PB e.g. IM or LH?

The Civil Service mentality has gone the government are not going to come charging over the hill to help the workforce or company out we will sink or swim on our own.

As for the thoughts on other European ANSPs investing money when NATS can't you only have to look as far as the Single European Skies Legislation to see that the days of national service providers are numbered so they will not have deep pockets for very much longer. Also means reduced opportinties for staff in the industry.

If you wnat to challenge the status quo in NATS you need facts & figures not opinions. Where is the evidence that safety is deterioarting and where is the evidence that PB is getting a 9% rise just saying it does not make it true.

ZOOKER

3rd May 2009, 19:04

MNT.
Spelling and grammar, - 2/10.
Wake up & smell the English Language lessons. :}

mr.777

3rd May 2009, 19:45

In profit since he arrived!
Delays down considerably!
Improved safety performance!
Costs being challenged and driven down

1) Yes we are, and everybody is benefitng aren't they? Well, the Airline Group and Manangement anyway...the rest of us are getting shafted.
2)Yes....down to ATCOs/ATSAs/Engineers...and all the other grades that he would rather didn't exist.
3)See above
4)More like money being spent on the cheap on projects that don't work e.g. AMAN. So we've stopped the award ceremonies and stopped publishing Pulse...well whoop-de-doo.:rolleyes:

MNT

4th May 2009, 10:10

Mr 777 said "1) Yes we are, and everybody is benefitng aren't they? Well, the Airline Group and Manangement anyway...the rest of us are getting shafted.
2)Yes....down to ATCOs/ATSAs/Engineers...and all the other grades that he would rather didn't exist.
3)See above
4)More like money being spent on the cheap on projects that don't work e.g. AMAN. So we've stopped the award ceremonies and stopped publishing Pulse...well whoop-de-doo."

You make the points exactly, to the poeple who make the decision on the next CEO he is doing an ecellent job so why would they want to look for anything different in the next appointee.

If you want a differnt approach you need some facts and figures to support the case. So how many staff have left, how many safety incicdents have there been that are down to the changes introduced by PB, it is no good just moaning about our lot someone has to have a case for change supported by data.

Ballstroker

4th May 2009, 12:48

The proof of the pudding will come in five to ten years time when delays are up because capacity improvements never came on stream - all because the people responsible were made redundant to get costs down to boost Mr Barron's 2010 golden handshake.

Me Me Me Me

5th May 2009, 10:12

MNT: If you wnat to challenge the status quo in NATS you need facts & figures not opinions. Where is the evidence that safety is deterioarting and where is the evidence that PB is getting a 9% rise just saying it does not make it true.

On the latter... the evidence will be clearly stated in black and white in next year's statement of accounts. The rumoured amount isn't entirely accurate.

dallas2

5th May 2009, 14:54

Me Me Me Me
What. you mean it could be MORE!!!!!:ok:

Me Me Me Me

6th May 2009, 12:30

.............................................. :D

RPIplus1

6th May 2009, 12:54

Isn't it amazing how management seem to conveniently forget that the forecast for long-term inflation is high... remember being told this when we were given the pension rhetoric??

It suits their needs to conveniently forget this now because we are being told that inflation is going to be negative in August.

Just goes to show that the people who voted "Yes" to the pension changes were 'duped'!

Enough of us were shouting this at the time but people still voted "Yes" ... or even worse did not vote at all!!

Get a grip people... ensure you vote - my recommendation is to Vote_No

Vote NO

6th May 2009, 18:11

............:ok:

Quincy M.E.

7th May 2009, 08:19

Enough of us were shouting this at the time but people still voted "Yes" ... or even worse did not vote at all!!

Where were you shouting it? I would imagine that the majority of NATs staff are non ops and therefore are unlikely to be reading PPRUNE.

hold at SATAN

7th May 2009, 12:13

...and commenting on photo of the day! :}

anotherthing

7th May 2009, 14:09

Is it still gonna be Starbucks at CTC, or are they getting Costa Coffee instead like Swanwick?

Minesapint

7th May 2009, 14:14

I work at CTC - any idea at all what actually goes on there? :ugh: How many breaks (responsibility free) do you get in a shift? Do you always work an entire shift? When was the last time you worked a 12+ hour day? Don't pre judge as you (obviously) have no idea! :=

mr.777

7th May 2009, 14:21

Update from NATSnet. Mr James from HR, or whatever dept it is that he works for, says that he has no idea where the 9% rumour has come from...all PCG payrises/bonuses have been deferred until September 09....no doubt when we will have posted a healthy profit again. :rolleyes:

Lookatthesky

7th May 2009, 16:51

How many breaks (responsibility free) do you get in a shift? Do you always work an entire shift? When was the last time you worked a 12+ hour day?

1.) Enough (unfortunately they are not responsibility free)
2.) Not always but then I'm sure you don't (POETS day anybody??)
3.) We're not able to due to the nature of our job

We can all get involved in Willy waving I'm afraid....

How many night shifts do you work in a year?
Could you (potentially) kill anybody if you make an error at work?

Don't pre-judge etc etc :ugh:

Traffic is...

7th May 2009, 17:26

I concur with Lookatthesky. I would love to have responsibility free breaks, as I keep getting told I should. Yet somehow they are filled up with trainee debriefs, LCE work, MORs (nothing to do with me though!) and various other stuff that needs doing. If it doesn't get done in my breaks, then I'll just end up staying after work.:ugh:

FDP_Walla

7th May 2009, 18:00

Why not create a seperate thread for the constant CTC knocking and banding issues etc. This is supposed to be about pay?

P****ed off CTC worker (still at work) and saddened by the divisions and lack of solidarity amongst our staff in this organisation.

ImnotanERIC

7th May 2009, 18:12

two posts ago, I can't remember who,but, whoever it was talking about mors and trainee debriefs. I think you are meant to include that as work time, then go for your rest break.
And to the P***** off ctc worker....you would probably be home earlier if you weren't on here!

viaEGLL

7th May 2009, 18:37

I understand people do get p##sed off with ATCO's winging and not satisfied with their pay offer. However, my view (for what it is worth) is that some ATCO's would sell there own mother for the price of a mars bar! But for the normally ATCO like me, the reason i think we are slightly different regarding responsibilities is this;
When i plug and are banging the aircraft in 2.5nm apart and having lots of fun everyone is happy:eek::eek:
If i am suddenly caught stroking my balls and HRH suddenly see some aluminum in her front garden! It would be me that is standing up in court awaiting my sentence for manslaughter etc etc.
So the point i am trying to make is we all have responsibilities and accountabilities within NATS but the guy delivering the goods is where the life and death:eek: decisions are made.
As usual i await the ar#e chewing:cool::cool:

Minesapint

7th May 2009, 19:27

Agreed, we all have a part. You may need to understand that a lot of people work very hard to make sure that the kit you have to separate to 2.5Nm on approach is the best that we can give you 'with the money available to us'. So, we are continually working to ensure that your ar$e is NOT chewed! We know its difficult and you can kill people, really we do, we all know, honest we do :suspect: I agree that ATCO's are on the front line but believe me, there is more than one front!

viaEGLL

7th May 2009, 19:52

Yes the equipment is wonderful but the point is still the same 'its me that will end up in jail' if i make a mistake and yes that is what im paid all that money for!
I am not saying anybody does not play their part in the team just stating the worst case. If the radar fails we sort it out and keep the airplanes apart and the engineer will fix the problem and wont go to jail if 2 planes go boom!
Anyway point made enjoy the shi#tty 2 year deal:ok::ok:

ZOOKER

7th May 2009, 21:57

"When I plug in and are banging the aircraft in 2.5 nm apart and having lots of fun everyone is happy :eek::eek:"
I thought that within the UK, the minimum vortex wake spacing requirement on final approach is 3 nautical miles.

PeltonLevel

7th May 2009, 22:01

the engineer will fix the problem and wont go to jail if 2 planes go boom!
If the radar fails and 2 planes go boom, don't worry - you won't be alone in the courtroom!

hold at SATAN

7th May 2009, 22:38

2.5nm is approved with certain conditions, including headwind criteria.

CTC people, erm... are we allowed to use NATS internet access to post on boards such as this?

landedoutagain

7th May 2009, 22:44

If the radar fails and 2 planes go boom, don't worry - you won't be alone in the courtroom!

Mr. Gunson said that the Atco would be the only person at the subsequent board of enquiry.... :ok:

Zooker - never assume, check.

back on thread though. Last august RPI 4.8%, this august RPI possibly -2.8%, end result cost of living theoretically 2% higher (almost). Payrise in this time, 2%... Not quite as bad a deal as it seems, and i do thank the union bods for that. However, I would still like to know what impact this has on pensionable pay, ie, if RPI this year is -2.8%, and we get 0%, does our pensionable pay take a hit of -2.3% ??

As I think i have posted before, i would much rather take a deal of RPI over the two years than whats on offer, even if it equates to the same thing, as it should make buying a house slightly easier later on this year.

(For the mathematically challenged, a payrise of 4.8% followed by a cut of 2.8% doesnt necessarily equate to a rise of 2%!)
100 * 1.048 = 104.8
104.8 / 1.028 = 101.946 or 104.8 * 0.972 = 101.87

And, as others have stated, only those with mortgage repayments will have had their cost of living matched anyway, the rest of us are still losing out by about 3%... :(

PeltonLevel

8th May 2009, 05:44

Mr. Gunson said that the Atco would be the only person at the subsequent board of enquiryA Board of Enquiry can examine anything or anybody it chooses.
Should a manslaughter case be brought, the reasonable man on the jury is hardly likely to ignore a faulty system in his considerations.
I accept, however, that only the ATCO will suffer the stress of the run-up to, and aftermath of, any disaster..

Minesapint

8th May 2009, 07:15

ViaEGLL: Trust me when I say that you would not be alone. If you made a mistake then yes. IF the gear you use was perfect on the day, safety tools had been developed and introduced properly and fit for purpose etc. If not then you would have company!

hold at SATAN

8th May 2009, 07:25

Last august RPI 4.8%, this august RPI possibly -2.8%, end result cost of living theoretically 2% higher (almost). Payrise in this time, 2%... Not quite as bad a deal as it seems, and i do thank the union bods for that

that's assuming AUG RPI will be that poor. also you are looking at RPI over a one year period. i.e. Aug 08 to aug 09. This deal is for 2 years and will also encompass the RPI for Aug 10 which will be positive (so say the commentators) and thus we will definitiely be getting much less than the combined RPI you have described.

The current deal as it stands gives us a below RPI deal, without even considering the Aug 10 RPI, which will make the deal even worse. Next payrise will not be until Jan 2011

and before anybody starts... Yes AUG 2010 RPI should be the baseline for Jan 2011 pay negoitiations but these NATS crooks will most likely try to move the goalposts and seek a different more favourable (to them) inflationary indicator. That coupled with the poor baseline generated by the current proposal and we can all look forward to record NATS profits and $hit pay deals!

We are mad to even consider signing away 2 years of pay rises based on guesses on the future RPI. I would much rather we waited until AUG09 RPI and used definite figures than numbers plucked out of thin air (and believe me I know economists and they do a lot of educated guessing) as well as have the NATS accounts in our hands

VOTE NO

viaEGLL

8th May 2009, 08:47

'IF I make a mistake'! which the point i am trying to make:E
I get paid accordingly but still the buck stops with me:eek:
Anyway i have had enough of repeating myself:ok::ok:

Quincy M.E.

8th May 2009, 09:08

CTC people, erm... are we allowed to use NATS internet access to post on boards such as this?

Why is this this comment addressed only at CTC people? We all have NATS internet access. :}

The site is not blocked and as long as posting doesnt interfere with your job (or something like that) then its fine.

Quincy M.E.

8th May 2009, 09:15

i think the fact that they're non-ops would make them more likely to be reading PPRuNe in between Starbucks breaks.

Why would they even know it exists?

anotherthing

8th May 2009, 09:22

hold at SATAN/landedoutagain

that's assuming AUG RPI will be that poor. also you are looking at RPI over a one year period. i.e. Aug 08 to aug 09. This deal is for 2 years and will also encompass the RPI for Aug 10 which will be positive

Not correct, surely? This deal does not encompass the AUG 2010 RPI.

This pay deal is to cover the 2 year period 1st Jan 09 to 31st Dec 10. The relevant RPIs are the AUG 08 and Aug 09 RPI.

The AUG 10 RPI will be the basis for pay negotiations which should start around September 2010 for implementation on (or more likely after as they are never on time) 1st Jan 2011. This is the way we have always negotiated our pay deals,we can't chop and change to suit us, something people whinge about management doing...

It is only when we do 2 or 3 year deals that we look ahead at the next RPI speculatively (such as the last pay deal that underpinned our pay award depending on the RPI).

As for landedoutagains question about pensionable pay, I would hope that as we are not actually receiving a pay rise in Jan 2010 under this pay offer, the figures used would be the Aug 08 RPI (4.8%) and the pay award we receive (a maximum of 3% if we accept this deal). Thus the whole pay award is pensionable. If an RPI is negative, NATS cannot use this to reduce your pensionable pay!! FFS don't go giving the slimy gits any new ideas on how to run the pension benefits down!!!

This is a 2 year pay deal, but there will be no rise in Jan 2010. One rise backdated to Jan 2009 which will see us through to Jan 2011.

Me Me Me Me

8th May 2009, 10:51

Why would they even know it exists?

Perhaps because they like to be informed? show an interest in the industry in which they work? Form a balanced view on the issues for themselves?

On a more general note (not addressed at the quoted poster)

Yes, being an ATCO is a skilled job with a level of responsibility for the safety of many people. That's why you earn massively over the national average. Nobody has a problem with that. Yes, you have to work night shifts.. but you get a hefty additional payment for that too. Try doing a night shift in a city centre A&E, then come back and tell us you have it tough. While you're there, ask the Docs how many early go's they get. Ask them if they got paid a salary to train... and how many years it took them. Then ask how much they earn.

ATSA, ATCE, STAR, MSG... We all know we play an important role. In spite of the constant dismissive negativity from the drama queens. We work hard and we are good at our jobs (in most cases). We don't need you to tell us so...

For every engineer or support staff at CTC doing a 12 hour day to meet a deadline who rolls their eyes and chuckles at the latest "all you do is sit in starbucks!" from Mr Stereotypical ATCO, before getting on with their job... There is a stereotypical ATCO taking a hissy fit at any suggestion that they don't have the bestest, hardest most brill job in the world.

Or, to cut a long story short: Get over yourselves. :rolleyes:

Quincy M.E.

8th May 2009, 11:00

Perhaps because they like to be informed? show an interest in the industry in which they work? Form a balanced view on the issues for themselves?

So how would they (the ones that would be motivated (and would you look at an accountants forum to get a balanced opinion on aviation accountancy?)) know to look for a discussion about a payrise within an ATC organisation in a forum called 'professional PILOTS rumour network'?!!!!

ffs

jonny B good

8th May 2009, 11:08

Just to make things clear:

1. The offer covers the period Jan 09 to Dec 10. The RPI figures used will be Aug 08 (4.8%) and Aug 09 (forecast between -3.0% to -3.5%).

2. The blended RPI is forecast to be between 1.3% and 1.8% (our underpin is 2%) As it stands the offer will give us at least an RPI deal over 2 years if the Aug 09 RPI is more negative than -1.8%. There are NO forecasts predicting it to be 'better' than this.

3. Whatever the rise turns out to be between 2% to 3% is backdated to Jan 09. It is a pay rise for 2009 but taking into account the RPI figure for Aug 09. This means that as the RPI in Aug 08 was 4.8%, then ALL of the rise offered will be pensionable and within the Pension Agreement.

4. As all of the pay rise is related to Jan 09 and not the period Jan 2010 to Dec 2010, then the Pension Agreement has no effect in 2010 and pay and pensionable pay remains the same for all of 2010.

As I've said before, it is up to everyone to decide for themselves how they will vote but it is important that they do vote and that they understand the offer and not rely on others mistaken interpretations of what they think it means. If anyone is unsure, please speak with one of the team or the reps who were involved in the negotiations. (oh, and vote YES, or no :})

Hope this makes it a bit clearer

landedoutagain

8th May 2009, 11:09

anotherthing - I agree, I read this to be a two year deal (for 09/10) which is based on the rpi from (aug08, aug09). The aug 10 rpi is a red herring here as thats what we wuold expect the next pay deal to be based on!

The only unknown is the figure three and a bit months from now, which is quite close given that it is a two year deal, and there is the 1% buffer built in too.

Im not advocating which way to vote (I dont know myself yet!), but I dont think this deal is as bad as it seems...

ps. apologies for repetition with above post!

ProM

8th May 2009, 12:52

I know this is the off topic bit and I was in two minds as to create a separate threat but....

There is no justification to think that ATCOs would be the only ones in court should an accident arise. Engineers and bosses can be charged as well, because they are the ones that produce and sign off safety cases etc.

How many ATCOs have been charged in UK for safety offences?
Engineers and Management have been charged in other industries (e.g. Rail). there is no reason to think they are exempt just in ATC business

ImnotanERIC

8th May 2009, 13:01

you only need to look at the new comments helpfulness vote on natsnet to see how the ballot will play out.

comments based around a vote yes theme are received with many more positive votes than the vote no themed comments.

I predict 80-20 yes vote.

Me Me Me Me

8th May 2009, 14:04

So how would they (the ones that would be motivated (and would you look at an accountants forum to get a balanced opinion on aviation accountancy?)) know to look for a discussion about a payrise within an ATC organisation in a forum called 'professional PILOTS rumour network'?!!!!

ffs

If they didn't, I wouldn't be here to answer you. There's no such thing as aviation accountancy. Again, the assumption seems to be that nobody else could be as smart as the ATCO.

A balanced opinion is formed by looking at an issue from a number of different perspectives.

Perspective isn't something you tend to see a lot of around here :ok:

Radarspod

8th May 2009, 18:44

____________________________________________________________ ____
1 out of 1 readers found the last post useful
____________________________________________________________ ____

:}

hold at SATAN

8th May 2009, 23:13

that's assuming AUG RPI will be that poor. also you are looking at RPI over a one year period. i.e. Aug 08 to aug 09. This deal is for 2 years and will also encompass the RPI for Aug 10 which will be positive

sorry I wrote it in a rush. What I meant to say was that the latter part of the pay deal (period post-aug 2009* to dec2010) will fall in a period covered by the AUG10 RPI insofar as prices going up (inflation) NOTHING TO DO with the pay offer. i.e We will be tied into a one off 2-3% "deal" for 2 years, during which the average inflation (including aug08 rpi of 4.8%) will markedly higher than the 3% (aroung 1.5% per year) maxiumum offered, especially toward the latter part of the time period. In effect a pay cut in real terms.

(*AUG09 RPI figure will be the historical price data upto that date. subsequent shifts in RPI will be reflected in subsequent RPI data)

Jonny B Good, thank you for the explanation but I am quite happy and familiar with the terms of the pay deal. My post was to simply illustrate that prices will rise sooner and higher than the figures given tend to portray.

There are NO forecasts predicting it to be 'better' than this.

At the moment.

Economist were surpised today by the £50bn injection by the BoE/Govt. into the money supply which WILL have an inflationary effect. None of the forcasters predicted the current climate so I wouldn't gamble my future payrise on their assumptions. The situation is changing on a day to day basis.

The 2% underpinned is a red herring as NATS will renegotiate if RPI is worse that -3.5%: whilst they may not take money back from us (in the very unlikely event of it being that low) any subsequent deals (2011 onwards) will have some clawback (i.e. a smaller increase n pay or additional duties/days)

I for one believe that the deal is a poor one and that we shall be feeling the ramifications of for a long time. NATS will walk away with paying staff 3% over two years and splash the rest out on shareholders, directors etc. whilst inflation climbs and income/charges increase comensurately

I am more than happy to wait until AUG09 RPI figures are out before we vote on the deal - heck we've waited this long! And if it's a neagtive RPI in AUG09 so be it - at least it would be an informed decision.
:ok:
Vote what you like - but i will VOTE NO!

Hooligan Bill

8th May 2009, 23:33

jonny B good wrote:

2. There are NO forecasts predicting it to be 'better' than this.

And of course under slimy and fat boy there was going to be no more boom and bust and trust me I know what I'm doing with the economy. No wonder PB's going in April, his mates are going to be out on their arse in May 2010. Vote SNP! It's the only way.

DC10RealMan

9th May 2009, 08:06

Yes I agree. I am an Englishman living and paying my taxes in England. I would be very happy to vote for the SNP.

kats-I

9th May 2009, 09:30

ImnotanERIC,
Are we reading the same Natsnet site? :confused: I get a strong NO vote theme coming through, also verbally. But having said that .. Thats what seemed to be in the air for the pension and look what happenend there!! :rolleyes:

Voting No:ok:

And if voting SNP means we don't have to subsidise scotland then YES!! SNP all the way!! Not likely though..but thats another thread.

Vote NO

9th May 2009, 13:06

There's one or two "tasty" comments from the No voters on NATS intranet, which is refreshing to see as most folks are scared to speak out on the NATS propaganda website :*. I suspect however most CTC staff who are commenting how lucky they are to even have a job will drag the" ATC" staff down with a Yes vote, as there are so many of them :hmm:

http://www.pacificworlds.com/cnmi/memories/images/vote_no.jpg
Fifth year of profit as NATS reaches half-way point on Strategic Plan - NATS (http://www.nats.co.uk/article/216/234/fifth_year_of_profit_as_nats_reaches_halfway_on_strategic_pl an_.html) for the year ended 31 March 2008.

NERL reported a profit before tax of £62.5m (2007:£86.3m), while NSL’s pre-tax profit of £11.5m (2007: £16.1m) reflected its restructuring costs.
These results were delivered against a background of a three per cent growth in traffic to nearly 2.5m flights for another record year.
More large profits this year too ...........:*

Roffa

9th May 2009, 14:07

And if voting SNP means we don't have to subsidise scotland then YES!! SNP all the way!! Not likely though..but thats another thread.

Bollox (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/03/ireallydontlikeaddressing)

But then like much posted on this and other threads here I suppose.

mr.777

9th May 2009, 15:06

I suspect however most CTC staff who are commenting how lucky they are to even have a job will drag the" ATC" staff down with a Yes vote, as there are so many of them

You know that. Same thing happened with the pension....the brainwashing that goes on in that place could teach the Moonies a thing or two.

kats-I

9th May 2009, 15:30

Roffa,:\

Take a throat sweet..it was said in jest..had to be !!!

Lon More

9th May 2009, 15:59

Economy in a recession, surely you should be getting a reduction?

http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/f/foxhole-emoticon.gif

jonny B good

9th May 2009, 18:04

The Pay Offer is a Core Pay Offer, which applies to all staff across the 3 unions. This means that it has to be accepted by all 3 trade unions (ATCO, ATSS, PCS) for it to go ahead. As a result, contrary to what you have written above, the folks at CTC will not decide the outcome, especially for the ATCO Branch (very few ATCOS based at CTC). This was also the case with the pension vote, with each union holding a seperate ballot and all 3 needing to agree to pass any result.:=

mr.777

9th May 2009, 19:56

That may be...but I'd say that £15 a month entitles me to have my own opinion. Which means a NO vote from me.

Also, if you go back to the pension vote and remove the apathetic 30% who didn't vote, the ATCO branch was rather less favourable (yes, I know it still got voted in) towards the propositions put forward.

Minesapint

10th May 2009, 10:06

Independence for Scotland = yes (I am English and don't like subsidising Scotland/Wales N Ireland). :E

Pay offer = a resounding NO :=

HOWEVER! the "yes please sir" crowd will vote yes to the payrise. Scottish MP's in the house of commons will need to go for the other. :ugh: Maybe we can have an MP like expenses system? That will do, my dog needs an operation :cool:

Hial Flyer

10th May 2009, 12:46

Being a postal vote it is bound to be a YES vote. Always is. Convieniently for the union and management many people don't get a ballot paper and then i'm sure a few go astray in the post on their return.

Tended to be a much higher voting turn out when you posted your ballot in a box in the ops room. Suppose that is why it isn't done anymore.:=

kats-I

10th May 2009, 15:20

Hial Flyer.

I have said that before on here..glad I'm not the only one to think this way.:D Have they said its a postal or ballot box vote yet? Should be black box and we should have to sign for our ballot paper!!

Evil Lord Ham

10th May 2009, 18:18

So the union manages not to send papers to people who are going to vote no, and the Royal Mail somehow lose only no votes as well. How does that work then?

Vote NO

10th May 2009, 18:27

The problem is we have a proportion who are a weak compliant workforce who are content mostly to take what they get. If we all took that attitude then you can imagine what our salaries and conditions would be, and the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer......:(
NATS can afford to pay its staff well, dont be fooled otherwise.
Just wait till you see the profits next month, one week after the ballot closes :mad:
If you don't want a decent payrise, vote yes, otherwise ........Vote No then you can always give it back when you do get one :ok:

hold at SATAN

10th May 2009, 19:28

Postal voting around christmas time, as the pension vote was, was a disaster, in my opinion as the higher workload and pressure on royal mail capacity meant that, inevitibly, mail got lost - I'm still waiting for my xmas card from my aunt which contained a £50 note, sent in december 2008!

Was that vote monititored by individual scrutineers? whilst we don't live in Mugabe's Zimbabwe, I have no faith in management to play fair and the union to be able to keep an eye on them (insert conspiracy theory here).

I think it should be a sealed box vote done at units, collated and counted by an independand agency at a central location.

Hell if I'm being paranoid then so be it - and for those management suck-asses who will no doubt poo-poo my suggestion, what's the harm in mitigating a potential bone of contention?

kats-I

10th May 2009, 20:32

Ballots should be done in an open way for ALL to see; Individuals sign to receive paper and sealed boxes in ops rooms/work areas to put them in.. Something as important as this should not be dependant on the reliability of the Royal Mail deliveries.:=:suspect: That in itself is almost non-existant.:E

Hooligan Bill

10th May 2009, 21:22

kats-I wrote:

Something as important as this should not be dependant on the reliability of the Royal Mail deliveries.

It will be fine with the Royal Mail after PPP, honest. After all NATS is a shining example of how brilliant the policy is.

Quincy M.E.

11th May 2009, 06:56

If they didn't, I wouldn't be here to answer you.

One person amongst many; my point holds.

There's no such thing as aviation accountancy.

Well I only plucked that out of thin air as an example but if you want to get pedantic I am sure that there are accountants out there who specialise in aviation just like there are insurers.

Any way, all of that is nothing to do with the original point I was trying to make which was that it is no good complaining that you/we shouted about voting no and that the office bods ignored us when they probably didnt even read it.

Me Me Me Me

13th May 2009, 15:16

Any way, all of that is nothing to do with the original point I was trying to make which was that it is no good complaining that you/we shouted about voting no and that the office bods ignored us when they probably didnt even read it.

I know... I wasn't really picking you up on your main point though.. more on the apparently dismissive attitude to fellow employees who happen to perform different tasks.

The ATCOs, ATSAs and Engineers all voted Yes too. As I've said previously.. Anyone who posts on here and thinks that the views on PPRuNe are representative, are very naive. This has been proven time and time again.

kats-I

13th May 2009, 16:31

Me Me Me Me,

Ease up ..not all ATCOs/ATSAs &Engineers voted yes for the pension debacle..I certainly didn't neither did a lot of colleagues.:= and won't be voting yes for the pay!!

hold at SATAN

13th May 2009, 16:41

Have the ballot papers been sent out yet?

I've got a big fat X ready to go into the NO box

anotherthing

13th May 2009, 16:52

Anyone who has read the threads on PPRuNe will know which way I'm going to vote... but a quick question to get you thinking about consequences.

If the vote comes back as 'no', what do you expect to happen?

There is a chance that by the time negotiations start again, the Aug RPI is going to be published. Chances are it will be hugely negative.

Management would quite probably withdraw the offer that stands and replace it with a worse one having seen the poor RPI...

I think we all know that the offer as it stands is 2% over 2 years. No one expects to get any increments based on a higher RPI. That's why management have thrown that bit in.

I think management have played this very well... they will get away with a 2% payrise, they fully expect not to have to pay any increments based on AUG 09 RPI.

But they know that on the off chance that we get a 'no' vote, they will wait for the new RPI then downgrade the pay offer citing the poorer economy.

Lets face it, the next ballot would be to accept the new pay offer or start industrial action... in which case a lot of the previous 'no' voters would change.

Management have used the timing of this deal to their full advantage... it leaves us with some very unsavoury choices.

Accept a crap deal, or gamble on them giving us something better once the Aug RPI is published. I'm happy I've got a job and not impressed with 2% over 2 years - relatively it doesn't equate to much if I don't get it... so I think I'll take the gamble...

stressed

13th May 2009, 17:04

Just for once we have to stand up and say NO with a strong voice. The result may indeed lead us to industrial action, but lets cross that bridge when it happens. Don't forget the last thing the airlines want is looming strike with summer approaching. The pressure they would apply to PB and his minions will be considerable.
Lets get that dry powder out and use it, or at least threaten to use it.

2% is unacceptable unless PB and every manager is getting the same, which they wont.

I can only say that where I work its a pretty much solid no vote.

kats-I

13th May 2009, 17:16

anotherthing,

I was getting worried there for a mo..I thought you were beginning to waiver!!:eek::eek:

hold at SATAN

13th May 2009, 20:59

I think the NO vote is worth the gamble. I doubt very much that management will pull the current offer if in the unlikely event actual RPI is worse. I would like to make an informed choice based on actual not predicted figures.

Like anotherthing said, it's not about purely economic numbers - the threat of industrial action is one that will make the airline sit up and listen .

The alternative is that a pissed of bunch of ATCOs ATCE ATSA etc will become highly demotivated and give up extraneous duties and not give that extra mile that we all give as a matter of professional pride and a few hundred thousand pounds' fines should cause managements ears to prick up. I for one am getting more and more pissed off with NATS management as time goes by. The pay is their final chance at redemption (in my opinion)

250 kts

14th May 2009, 08:49

2% is unacceptable unless PB and every manager is getting the same, which they wont.

So it is acceptable if PB has the same rise?

Stop looking over your shoulder to see what others are getting. We have no idea what is written into the contracts of our beloved leaders. We would be the first to moan if they tried to do someting outside our contracts eg stopping all incremental rises.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree for one minute that they should be taking such larger rises if the company is going to be in the mess they predict.

I happen to think that 2% is just about acceptable in view of the overall situation-but I'm not happy, I'd much prefer 10%.

The result may indeed lead us to industrial action,

Really? Over maybe 1% if we're lucky and another protracted negotiation? I very much doubt it.

hold at SATAN

14th May 2009, 09:57

Stop looking over your shoulder to see what others are getting

But isn't that in effect what the people who are supporting the offer saying/insinuating: "people in the "real world" are getting crap/no payrises or losing their jobs, so we should be happy to get the crumbs that are being thrown at us"

I say (my opinion) that we should vote no. If nothing else, the deal will be delayed until more concrete figures come out in respect of directors' remuneration, company profits and updated economic data. It's not like we are going to get a huge backdated wad of cash if we rush this through, are we?

kats-I

14th May 2009, 12:03

250kts

Behave yourself!!!:eek:
Use your vote wisely ..and yes we do need to be looking over our shoulders!

Quincy M.E.

15th May 2009, 12:34

Anyone who posts on here and thinks that the views on PPRuNe are representative, are very naive. This has been proven time and time again.

Affirm! :ok:

Vote NO

15th May 2009, 13:21

Me Me Me Me

The ATCOs, ATSAs and Engineers all voted Yes too. As I've said previously.. Anyone who posts on here and thinks that the views on PPRuNe are representative, are very naive. This has been proven time and time again.

http://www.pacificworlds.com/cnmi/memories/images/vote_no.jpg

VOTE NO :ok:

radar707

15th May 2009, 13:48

Extract from latest NTUS Circular. It's gotta be worth a no vote on pay.

14th May 2009
Mr John Devaney
5th Floor South,
Brettenham House,
Lancaster Place,
London, WC2E 7EN

Dear John,

I am writing on behalf of the Prospect and PCS to express our concerns regarding two significant and high profile issues namely NATS contribution rate to the NATS Section of CAAPS and the decision to pay out £43.5m in dividends to the shareholders. These two issues cause the NTUS and our members real concern and we fail to understand the rationale and decisions made by the board. For clarity I set out our concerns on these two issues below.

Pension contribution
As you will no doubt be aware the NTUS has been engaged with NATS for over two years examining the position of the NATS Section of CAAPS (the Scheme) and the ability of the business to support its obligations to the Scheme. Having considered all the information on the Scheme and its relationship with the business we came to the conclusion that, in order to protect both the Scheme and the business it was necessary to take some action and we agreed jointly, with NATS, a way forward. The NTUS then went about explaining to our members (NATS staff) the need for action and explained the proposed course of action to be taken. The action agreed by our members means the potential risk to the business is reduced. However, this is achieved through our members agreeing to the potential for a reduction in pension growth. Additionally we have agreed to a two tier pension arrangement with the introduction of a new, defined contribution, scheme. This was, for us, a huge leap of faith but something we felt was necessary and therefore required us to act responsibly – which the NTUS and its members have done and continue to do.
Given the current state of the Scheme, as outlined below, it was our expectation that NATS would be increasing the contribution rate immediately (following the interim valuation) to 30% of pensionable pay into the Scheme. Indeed this was one of several figures that were mentioned by NATS, if the Scheme were to be in such a state, whilst we were jointly explaining the proposal to our members.

The December 2008 draft actuarial valuation of the Scheme identified the following:

Without the MoU With the MoU
Funding level: 72% Funding level: 76%
Deficit: £910m Deficit: £700m
Underlying Rate: 44% Underlying Rate: 38%

Indeed as part of NATS consultation process with staff, NATS made it clear that it was their understanding that if the Scheme were no longer in surplus that they would have to pay at least the underlying cost of the Scheme. Against that backdrop we do not consider increasing
the contribution rate simply to 25% to be in the best interests of our members, the Scheme or NATS and therefore this course of action is not acting responsibly. We would urge the Board to reconsider the planned arrangement, to increase the pension contribution rate to 25% for 2009 and then to 30% for 2010, and consider moving to a 30% contribution rate immediately and then increasing the rate to 35% or greater depending on the Employer’s underlying contribution rate.
If following the results of the Triennial Report NATS, in the opinion of the NTUS, do not fulfil the obligations incumbent upon them, and which were made as part of the joint pension briefings (with reference to NATS paying the full underlying rate), the NTUS will have no choice but to consider action (including industrial action) to safeguard the future pension provision of our members.

The above comments are further compounded by the potential level of deficit within the Scheme and what appears to be a lack of urgency with regard to addressing the underlying funding requirements of the Scheme as well as the deficit. I am sure that you are aware of the recent pronouncements of the Pensions Regulator with regard to this issue and in particular that “pension recovery plan(s) should not suffer, for example, in order to enable companies to continue paying dividends to shareholders”.

Shareholder dividend
On this issue the NTUS and our members are incredulous at the dividend payment demanded by the Board for its shareholders. Given the current economic climate and the downturn in traffic together with the £45m costs NERL is looking to take out of the company (based on its strategy for Control Period 3); add to this the state of contracts within NSL and the current state of the NATS Section of CAAPS; then the decision to pay out £43.5m leaves us stunned. We understand the expectation of shareholders to get a return on their investments even though this venture was entered into with a view of not receiving commercial gain. However to extract £43.5m cash out of the business at a time when we are facing the likelihood of a significant negative RPI (and the impact this will have on NERL’s pricing) together with the downturn in traffic does indeed cause the NTUS and our members real concern and as such we have to question the thinking behind the decision by the Board.

I hope you are able to understand the weight these two issues have with the NTUS and our members – we are all stakeholders here and we wish to see a successful NATS – a NATS that is sustainable and provides an excellent service whilst providing good jobs and job security with good pay, terms and conditions and pensions.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Suresh Tewari

CC. Peter Read Chairman Airline Group
Sigurd Reinton Director
Brenda Dean Director

Me Me Me Me

15th May 2009, 14:48

Me Me Me Me,

Ease up ..not all ATCOs/ATSAs &Engineers voted yes for the pension debacle..I certainly didn't neither did a lot of colleagues. and won't be voting yes for the pay!!

By way of majority they all did. I know many here didn't (including me) but that was proving my point exactly... This board is not at all representative.

hold at SATAN

15th May 2009, 16:29

Radar 707,

your posting proves what a bunch of w*nker$ NATS management are and the utter disdain in which they hold the union and NATS staff as a whole. All the board are interested in is how to make a quick buck for themselves and their mates, whilst feathering the nest for their next job.

Barron will f**k off to his next "job" before long so that the next guy can have a go at f**king us over, and use the eternal line: "sorry folks, not my fault. It was like that when I got here"

NTUS needs to understand that they have been completelty out-manoeuvered by a bunch of greedy f**kers who would sooner sell their mothers than look at you. NTUS needs to stop "working together" for the board's agenda and actually grow a pair. It's now or never folks! And all those sycophanths who do nothing but buy the management hyperbole: WTF?

Sorry for expletives but I am :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Vote NO

15th May 2009, 17:19

Exactly.

There is much more at stake here than a 2 or 3 % pay "rise".

It's about standing up for all the hard working professional workforce that keeps NATS afloat, be they in an office or on radar. It's also about having some self respect and pride in what you deliver, and not being shafted by a bunch of greedy tossers :mad: who are jumping ship in 10 months with a shed load of what's left after they unneccessarily dolled out £43.5 million :*

Hial Flyer

15th May 2009, 18:50

It is all very well having this NO campaign on here but we need to get it into the ops rooms.

The union reps are doing a great job brainwashing some of the staff to accept this deal like they did with the pension.

We need to get a NO campaign which is can be seen by all. Not all ATCO, ATSA's etc read pprune.

hold at SATAN

15th May 2009, 21:33

We should start by leaving copies of the NTUS letter copied in radar707's posting and highlight management's subterfuge all over ops rooms, vcrs, rest rooms, CTC and anywhere else that NATS folk are employed.

Let none of us fall for the propaganda. Let's not kid ourselves. The more we give, the more they'll want to take, and not for the benefit of us or the greater good of the company, but for their own selfish needs and those of the non-staff shareholders.

ImnotanERIC

16th May 2009, 08:46

It's all too late for this huffing and puffing. the time for this was 6 months ago over the pension saga as has now been proved by nats not even getting near to paying the underlying rate.
i still predict 80% yes.

kats-I

16th May 2009, 10:18

ImnotanEric.

If you think that its goning to be a landslide "YES" vote but believe it should be a "NO" vote then why aren't you being a bit more positive (about "NO") and trying to let those "YES" voters know why for the sake of all the workers involved below management level that a "NO" vote is the only way to show those carpet-baggers that we still have some fight in us.:ugh::suspect:

kats-I

16th May 2009, 11:14

A lot of the younger/newer staff.. in all areas.. may not be aware of all the previous offers from management over the years that unions have had to fight long and hard for to get the pay and conditions they enjoy now. Some just see money of some sort coming their way but don't think about the long term.
The unions need to be tougher and more truthful with the facts..If they are putting their hands up to a job then they should do it and do it well and not half-arsed for fear of recriminations!! "Working Together"! "My A..e" as Jim Royal would so eloquently put it.

anotherthing

16th May 2009, 14:57

NATS want the ballot to be opened and closed before the annual results are published, the date of the ballot is not a 'lucky coincidence'- this is a FACT confirmed by a very senior Union Bod.

Why do you think NATS wish to do this? Because it will show how well NATS has done over the past year, thanks to the hard work by all the staff.

Of course once the sycophants have voted yes and we get our 2% over two years (does anyone honestly believe we will get any extra increments after the Aug RPI), the PCG pay awards will be done... against the background of a very strong annual report!! Kerching for PCGs.

There has been talk here and on NATSNET about the fact that neighbours etc have lost jobs etc, so what?

Whilst I sympathise with anyone who has been made redundant the fact is NATS has performed well due to its staff. Just because other companies are not doing well does that mean we have to wear sack cloth?

There are plenty of businesses including banking who have awarded well over 2% in pay awards this year... and paid staff bonuses to boot.

I care about NATS and work bloody hard to ensure that it remains a very good ANSP, as do most of the staff. I deserve to be rewarded for this. I don't give a fig about public support - I'd happily man the picket lines, as long as I don't need to use coal braziers... might as well strike in comfort and get a catering agency in. May I suggest these guys for Swanwick Hog Roast, Hog Roast Machine, Hog Roast Machines, Pig Roasts (http://www.hogroastcaterer.co.uk/) ??:}

As I said, I don't care about public support. People should dust down their backbone and use the bloody thing. Fight for yourself, not to appease people who have nothing to do with our company :mad::mad:

One year pay deal please, based on Aug 08 RPI as per the usual way of operating, not some blended RPI based on assumptions made by people who took money from our pension fund when it suited them then refused to bolster funding when it was needed.

hold at SATAN

16th May 2009, 15:13

I had heard that you Swanwick boys enjoyed a good spit roast!

kats-I

16th May 2009, 16:22

anotherthing

Couldn't agree with you more about not worrying about public support..someone elses neighbour isn't going to worry about us, might sound callous but its a-dog-eat-dog world.
Only today in the papers I read that bankers are going to get up to 50% pay rises..50%!!!! and Nats quibbles about 4-5%! :mad::eek:

Perhaps we wouldn't..or shouldn't.. have worked so damn hard for the company if we had known that only the top-bods and airlines were going to be the only ones to really benefit.

It was obvious that Nats was trying to rush this through thinking us poor peasants wouldn't uncover their ruse . :hmm: ("poor" being the operative word if we end up with a paycut/freeze!!)

If a senior union bod has confirmed this little gem are he and his playmates going to do anything about it? Like recommend a "NO" vote if only to drag it out til after annual results published. Suppose that depends who the "Playmates" are eh?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

hold at SATAN

16th May 2009, 18:54

kats-I

you're spot on. I too don't care what others think of our payrise. Whay? Because we earnt the money through hardwork. Whilst I sympathise with those who have lost their jobs, as you point out, there are many who are getting subtantial pay increases (including, it appears, our board) based on their performances.

We did lose our chance 6 months ago in a big way, but we now have a chance to stop slipping down that slippery slope of getting shafted every which way, including loose.

By recommending the deal our Unions have backed themselves into a corner, but with the dividend and soon to be published financial numbers, we have a counter to their no more money argument.

I'm positivethat if we vote NO, NTUS can go back to NATS armed with accounts etc. and say: "sorry our membership say no. What more can you offer? and by the way what the f*** are the dividend and pensions lies about? You people plead poverty and here we are with big profits and you lot flashing the cash? Show me the money! Show me the money!" (dramatised for effect) :}

kats-I

16th May 2009, 21:13

Never mind "Show me the money!"

"GIVE US the money"!!:ok::p NOW

Flybywyre

17th May 2009, 06:28

If a senior union bod has confirmed this little gem are he and his playmates going to do anything about it? Like recommend a "NO" vote if only to drag it out til after annual results published.
No they are not, in fact it is quite the opposite.
The union want us to accept the pay deal, which is why the ballot is being held before the release of the results, which are going to be very good and will include an upbeat statement about the future of NATS.

kats-I

17th May 2009, 10:57

Flybywyre

So what the unions want they get eh? Perhaps not this time ..What about us getting what we want!! They got what they wanted over the pension, Its our turn now or didn't their mothers teach them to share and take turns?? :rolleyes:http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

eglnyt

17th May 2009, 12:13

So what the unions want they get eh? Perhaps not this time ..What about us getting what we want!!

Exactly why do you think the union doesn't have your best interests top of its agenda ? As I wrote on a previous thread from time to time the nasty outside world intrudes on our cosy existence in NATS and when that happens the union has to do the best it can for its members. Sometimes the best it can do falls short of what we would all like but it's still the best it can do. When the union recommends a deal it is not saying that the deal is everything it wanted nor that it is what you deserve, it is saying that following intensive negotiation this is the best deal that can be had.

kats-I

17th May 2009, 14:08

Going to ballot and wanting a "Yes" vote...well It's our vote to do as we please and I will please myself by saying "No" and to all those "Yes" folk out there I will say as I have said before.."USE IT WISELY!! At least let the management know we feel we have a choice. If the return offer is no better so be it but at least it will hold things off til after annual results are published. We may have more ammunition then. :E

eglnyt

17th May 2009, 15:22

If the return offer is no better so be it but at least it will hold things off til after annual results are published. We may have more ammunition then

Exactly what extra ammunition do you think we'll have ? The unions, NATS management and everybody else knows that the last financial year was pretty good mainly because the recession was kind enough to wait until after the summer period to take hold. All the negotiations to date will have been in that context. Having it confirmed won't make any difference.

The problem for both sides is that regardless of what sort of year we had last year any pay rise negotiated will have to be paid for out of this year's income and nobody really knows how bad this summer is going to be. You seem to assume that if we put off negotiations until later we will be in a stronger position but what if that isn't the case ? Do you think the current deal will still be on the table if the summer is worse than predicted and NATS can't afford it ? Remember the August RPI figure is very important because if it is negative it will reduce the income next year even if traffic levels pick up again next summer. At the moment both management and workforce are gambling a bit on what that figure might be and the risk is shared but I think it unlikely that NATS management will be prepared to take any of the hit if we wait until after that RPI figure is known.

jonny B good

17th May 2009, 16:13

Here we go again. The Unions getting cosy with management and agreeing to something when they have not bothered to take any "informal" soundings from the shopfloor.
Going straight to ballot with both the Unions and management wanting a yes vote is a done deal.

Who do you think is producing the information on the Pensions situation, writing the letter to the Board, producing the Newsletters to inform staff and generally telling it as it is rather than what some corporate machine wants you to think?.. Oh, it's the Unions.:ugh:

There is definately no cosy relationship. As for how a pay offer works, read the Q&A on ATCOs.co.uk (http://www.atcos.co.uk). Whilst the Executives of each Union recommend the deal, it is for the individual members to decide for themselves. Each member of the Exec team has one vote, the same as every other member. The unions are attempting to provide as much information through the newsletters and websites etc as possible so members can make as informed a decision as possible. This is far from a done deal, but it will be the members who decide and not the Execs. Just weigh up the options and the implications of a yes or a no vote and make the choice you think correct. We'll all know the outcome soon enough.

ps. If any member doesn't recieve a ballot paper, ploease get straight in touch with your union office who can send a replacement asap.

anotherthing

17th May 2009, 16:38

To add to what Jonny has just said, make sure you bl00dy well vote, whatever box you want to tick.

30% non turn-out on the last ballot was pathetic... why be a member of the union if you can't even be bothered to post a pre paid addressed envelope?

Not voting in large numbers only tells management that the union membership (not the union exec) is weak and potentially a push over.

kats-I

17th May 2009, 18:11

eglnyt.

.If there is money available before August, why wouldn't the same amount still be available after August.? Does it suddenly disappear in a black whole or something. :ugh::confused:Surely it will still be based on Aug08 RPI
How can management suddenly say the money they had set aside has lessened? Surely they can't allot it to some other project. Still say we should take the gamble and vote NO.:}
Only You can decide what to do with your vote..you have obviously made your choice..hope its a good one.!:ooh:

kats-I

17th May 2009, 19:13

Have the ballot papers been sent out???:eek:
WHY isn't it a ballot box in work areas..who decides on it being a postal vote????

Does anyone live near the postal address and could collect everyones vote and deliver it by hand to ensure they get there....yeah I know thats a long shot.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

Hial Flyer

17th May 2009, 19:40

WHY isn't it a ballot box in work areas..who decides on it being a postal vote????

It is a postal vote so that the union and management can get their YES vote. Always is a Yes when it is a postal vote. Turnout is always a lot lower as well.

jonny B good

17th May 2009, 20:12

I think people need to move away from suggesting there is something sinister in a postal ballot.

I can only speak for the ATCO Branch below:

For local ballots, the normal procedure is to have it 'on unit' in a ballot box and the results will be counted by the local rep, with or without an observer.
For national ballots the procedure is to use a postal vote, which is scrutinised by Prospect centrally. The ballots are sent to the address Prospect hold for the member on their records (hence the importance of keeping your details up to date). Once the ballots are returned, they are counted by full-time prospect staff who work for Prospect centrally. They do not work for the ATCO Branch, nor are any of the lay reps (BEC/Execs) involved. NATS do not have any input into our processes at any stage.
The full-time Prospect staff counting the ballots have a professional reputation and conduct to abide by. It is wrong to question their integrity as any sign of them not adhering to laid down rules of conduct for ballots would result in action by Prospect. The Prospect staff sit outside the ATCO reps and will not seek to sway the result in any way.

Rather than insinuating any potential fraudulent behaviour, energy would be better spent in ensuring a strong turn out in the ballot to show NATS Management that we have a strong, engaged membership that is willing to make its voice heard. A high turnout, whatever the result, gives the Unions the confidence to face NATS down, when required, confident in the support of the members.

On a slightly different note, when we stand united, there is very little anyone can force us into. It is when we appear divided that splits and weaknesses can be exploited. Sometimes, what happens within this site does nothing to inform but simply gives the impression of a split workforce that is weak. Surely that is not the impression, even if true (which I would strongly reject), that we should be giving to management. If people wish to change things within the unions, please do so, but do it without weakening them. There are processes in place to make changes. We are going to need the Unions, and need them as strong as possible, in the future. The fight on many issues, in my humble opinion, is far from over! :E

(end of rant ;))

eglnyt

17th May 2009, 20:14

WHY isn't it a ballot box in work areas..who decides on it being a postal vote????

If it were a ballot box in the work area you'd have a number of problems to address. First how to ensure that every union member entitled to vote got a ballot form and anybody not entitled to vote didn't (remember the union may not have a complete list of where in NATS you work). Second what to do about the sizeable number of people in NATS with no fixed workplace. Third how to ensure that there was no intimidation in the area of the ballot box. Fourth how to make sure the ballot box was secure for a prolonged period, shift patterns may mean it's some time before everybody attends their place of work. Finally deciding who should count them and how to get them from the place of work to where they are counted.

Of course it would be better if we went back to the traditional method of mass show of hands or better still standing on a box one at a time and declaring our vote, that would obviously result in a much fairer vote :)

kats-I

17th May 2009, 20:49

eglnyt.

Everyone entitled to vote should have to sign for their ballot paper.

There never seems to be a security/intimidation problem around the ballot box when it is a "local"vote. So why can't all papers be collected and counted on a unit level.
I have no real objection to ballot papers being posted to home addresses...I do have a problem with returning it via outside postal service!!:suspect:

kats-I

17th May 2009, 21:07

jonny B good

show NATS Management that we have a strong, engaged membership
that is willing to make its voice heard.

If we are to make our voice heard will the unions be recommending a "NO" vote.:confused:

ToweringCu

17th May 2009, 21:21

'I do have a problem with returning it via outside postal service!!http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/cwm13.gif'

Why?

Standard Noise

17th May 2009, 21:28

Probably because it is the weak link in the chain due to the fact that it's not always reliable.

Ivor_Novello

17th May 2009, 21:49

An electronic vote via secure internet/intranet connection to go with the individual login number.
You can set up one on a forum like this (or any free internet messaging boards) in less than a minute.

Goes straight to the count, so there's no even need for a "human" counter, and you can see the results in real time as soon as you clicked !

anotherthing

18th May 2009, 09:06

HIAL pay award for 2009:

From another thread running on ATC Issues Hial 1.99% a year for two years plus an anual (sic) bonus of 1.6%
So, still think NATS are giving us a good deal???

kats-I

18th May 2009, 11:37

anotherthing

I too saw that yesterday.. its a darn sight better than what we are expected to accept.
NATS are trying to make fools of us over this paydeal and anyone who says we have an OK deal proves it!!!:ugh::rolleyes:

Ivor Novello.

Great Idea..soooo simple to set up too.:D:ok:

mr.777

18th May 2009, 12:10

I bet HIAL aren't represented by Prospect though are they?:rolleyes:

Radarspod

18th May 2009, 17:04

So, still think NATS are giving us a good deal???

Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think HIAL is a fair comparison. I doubt that HIAL has the overheads that NATS does and I also doubt the staff costs are as high, so maybe they can squeeze a it more out in a pay deal.

anotherthing

18th May 2009, 17:48

Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think HIAL is a fair comparison.
Maybe... but it's a much more relevant comparison than the comparisons some people are trying to make on this thread between NATS, a successful company and some less frugal companies that have made redundancies.

Just because your neighbour has lost their job from Acme construction or whatever does not mean that we should think ourselves lucky we are being offered 2% :=

PeltonLevel

18th May 2009, 21:43

I bet HIAL aren't represented by Prospect though are they?
Is mr777 offering decent odds?
(I sometimes despair of the lack of industry knowledge displayed on this site!)

mr.777

20th May 2009, 08:03

So HIAL are representd by Prospect then are they? That just shows our payrise up for what it is then...doesn't it?

kats-I

20th May 2009, 08:39

Goose, Gander and Sauce comes to mind:hmm:

Also double standards!!!:(:uhoh:

RPIplus1

20th May 2009, 11:41

I've heard rumours that there are some Q's & A's relating to the pay offer on the union website - answering questions such as why there needed to be a 2yr deal.

Anyone know more?

Geffen

20th May 2009, 12:27

RPIplus1,

All on the website atcos.co.uk.

kats-I

20th May 2009, 14:13

When will we receive the money in the event of a ‘yes vote’?

It is hoped that the money would be in July or August pay however this is subject to a number of factors and we’ll update you with exact details when appropriate.

What details and why can't we be informed of them now?..when is appropriate?:suspect:

the offer is no ’strings attached’ in it’s style which offers a basic rise in pay without any changes to working practises or terms and conditions.

The ATSAs working practices have already been changed..without consultation..and thats before pay ballot so whats stopping that from happening across the board.:hmm::suspect:

radar707

20th May 2009, 15:34

Quote:the offer is no ’strings attached’ in it’s style which offers a basic rise in pay without any changes to working practises or terms and conditions.

I was under the impression that a meeting was being held today between Prospect and management to look at possible changes to ATCO working practices

Minesapint

20th May 2009, 18:14

There is (apparently) a target number of ATSA grade staff to go in the next round of VR, I was told 220 with around 150 likely to volunteer. I expect that 'management' will then go for CR and all of this 'standing together' will be for nought and the ATCO's and engineers will not support their ATSA colleagues. That will leave the door propped open for engineering CR followed by any ATCO's that are not performong - and non ops. If we don't stand together on this we will all be shafted, one group at a time.

kats-I

20th May 2009, 18:57

MinesaPint.

Where/when did you hear about ATSA VRs, I know 2or 3 that will be very interested to know. 220 seems a very high number, I don't think CR for ATSAs or ATCOs would come for a long time if at all. Nats has a policy on that doesn't it?
But then I suppose some of their other policies have gone by the wayside.:(

PM me if you don't want to put out on here.:ugh:

White Hart

20th May 2009, 22:17

The policy is to offer VR first (assuming the cash is available in the affected Unit's budget to pay for it), followed by volunteers to relocate (assuming there's a vacancy to go to), followed by compulsory posting under the 'mobile grade' clause in your contract, followed by CR.

Big issue for ATSAs (and others) is the use of compulsory posting (CP) - if you cannot accept a posting for whatever reason, then you are deemed to have resigned. No payoff - straight out the door (with a pension where applicable)

The one saving grace (if you can call it that) is that once the 220 ATSAs have 'done an Elvis', the options for future CP diminish for the survivors, and if out of the 220 required, 150 volunteers come forward for VR, that also takes a bit of pressure off those trying to stay in employment.

However, the options are there for Mgmt manipulation, and I predict that there will still be casualties further along the way :sad:

oh, BTW, just as minesapint pointed out earlier "the ATCO's and engineers will not support their ATSA colleagues"

as if we didn't know... :hmm: