UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours

[Inverted81]

I fully agree with the long term way of thinking. However, i am full of dread that MANY wont see the full picture and carry on as is. Proof, as i'm sure has been said before, was during the pension discussions....
Is there any way at all that the union/union members can share the way of thinking to desuade the "money grabbers"...
Dont get me wrong, i'm still creeping up the payscale and the very occasional AAVA that is offered makes quite a difference to me, but I am more than willing to not do them if it makes things better for the future.

[Disillusioned]

Absolutely. It's all about educating members to look beyond this months pay packet, and into the (realstically, not too distant) future.

Easier said than done though. But hopefully the enhanced AAVA rate ending in 3 weeks time might do a lot to deter people.

[Smoggie]

Whilst some units/sectors depend heavily on AAVA's for manning, others either don't benefit, infrequently benefit, or due to SRATCOH limitations are unable to benefit from working AAVA's.

Hopefully the long term view which will benefit the majority will be taken.

[FUNKYATCO]

i wish people would stop being all mopey about the future.
yes nats is going to get very tough... but so what!

all valid atcos are an extremely valuable commodity, costing a huge amount to train. none of us are tied to nats in any way, other than through reliance on the standard of living we have chosen for ourselves.

we are reasonably well paid, but not enough. the atco is not given the right amount of respect, being referred to as a resource personally busts my nuts!

the union work very hard to try and get the best for the atco workforce, yet they are met with whinging over the pettiest of matters. everyone needs to take a step back and think what they can do to help shape their own futures.

atcos love to complain, no doubt.
but as the title states, its time we all manned up (or ladied up...of course), and let our union reps know exactly what is acceptable.

the labour we provide nats with is priceless, maybe that should be tested.
nats are not in a position where they can just go to a temp agency and ask for a few hundred controllers to keep things going if god forbid, atco labour was withdrawn.

atcos have too many times just rolled over, and usually for not a substantial financial gain. atcos whinge like hell over the slightest thing, and then when a real issue is voted on, we all vote yes ....WTF?

in reality we are a self-perpetuating workforce. we hold specific validations, which we then pass on through ojt training. without this ojt training the system falls apart. training is a voluntary process, no one is made to train, and certainly the reward for training is insulting. only the goodwill of the atco and the almost pity we feel towards trainees is what keeps the wheel turning.
trainees have an extremely tough time and deserve better....and no i am not a trainee (valid 5+years now).

so the future does not have to be as bad as portrayed, we just need to act now to secure a better future for all of us and our families!!
FUNKYATCO OUT!

[alfie1999]

Feb RPI: 5.5% (up from 5.1% Jan)

[On the beach]

No less than us pensioners deserve. :ok:

[DC10RealMan]

I would add that we pensioners have paid into, fought hard to protect and are now taking our dues. These benefits were hard won and perhaps there is a lesson there for the younger members of staff still working.

[250 kts]

time to ballot for strike action, starting at the easter weekend

Based on what??

The fact that negotiations continue?

Can't see you getting a resounding vote for action based on that, can you?:ugh::ugh:

[Avoiding_Action]

As far as I'm aware there are no ongoing negotiations. The union should set a date for them to make an official offer which can then be rejected if NATS are going to continue to stand by their offensive 2% offer.

[Disillusioned]

As there are no further negotiations taking place, and (assuming) the 2% offer is the only offer on the table, the union should now ballot members with this derisory 2% as managements offer, with a view to industrial action (not necessarilly strike, just industrial action) should the vote be NO.

[RVR600]

I'm in the camp which thinks we should wait for the annual financial report to be published.

Managements claims of there not being enough money in the coffer's will hold a lot less credibility if it transpires their remuneration package's are similar to previous years.

[Disillusioned]

When is the report due?

[45 before POL]

annual report normally comes out in June, at the same time they dish out another dividend.(they will). Traffic is up on last year, and with route charges based on rpi, management imo, will be keen to get the pay deal resolved before its published.

[Avoiding_Action]

They can hardly say they have no cash, with two share dividends being paid in the last year already, record profits and a share price which has risen by 40%.

[Rocket_Science]

The annual report we are all waiting for may show a big reduction in profits. Remember the volcano and BA strikes. However, a 2% cut in corporation tax...now that is interesting!

[anotherthing]

Remember the volcano and BA strikes.
I think it will reflect in the Annual results, however to use your name, it doesn't take rocket science to work out how much the profit would have been if you average the other months and assume the same yield for the couple of lean months due to external influences.

Remember, NATS have stated before (to keep pay awards down) that one-off profits (EGLL tower sale to name but one) should not be used as an indication of underlying profits...

The exact same can be used the other way - one off events that reduce profits should not be used to try to claim the company is not doing so well. I'm sure the union are well on top of this.

As an aside, we often hear of our customers and how they are finding it hard. I believe (from another source) that BAA and Virgin have recently given good pay awards to their workforce...

[edinv]

The annual pension adjustment effective from 1 April 2011 in the main category is therefore 5.5% in line with the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to February 2011.
- Read this today from an official source. For the benefit of NATS, CAA and also HIAL Pensioners.

[PeltonLevel]

See:
Sustaining Improvements in NATS? Performance and Financial Resilience into the Future | Aviation | Transport (http://www.govtoday.co.uk/Transport/Aviation/sustaining-improvements-in-nats-performance-and-financial-resilience-into-the-future.html)

(or if you've got lots of patience:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/5/ergdocs/20101210NERLDecision.pdf)

[132.3]

Best paid jobs: A guide to UK salaries and wages 2010 | This is Money (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/best-paid-jobs)

evidently the ONS believe we have had an 11.2% pay cut in the last year, hopefully any rise will be enough to cover that!

[Me Me Me Me]

I had heard whispers that Gatwick (GIP) were getting a pretty good pay deal... I've just read a union newsbrief stating that the result of their 2011-2013 pay ballot came back as:

Yes: 100%
No: 0%

Must've been good then!

[7000]

@132.3 With a skill for misrepresenting information like that you should get a job advising the Labour front benches - I'm sure their TU funders could offer you a reasonable pay deal!

[Geffen]

Anyone know what happened at the meeting on the 4th April? seems to have gone quiet again.

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

Some union members working for NSL had a circular last week regarding "conditions" attached to a pay deal. For conditions read ATCOs doing Met obs.

The briefing from the branch chair basically stated that the company still want to put an offer on the table that would involve the members accepting the extra responsibilities. Up until now the BEC has had the mandate that the pay deal should just be that - and that they will not accept anything that involves such significant changes to the way we work - a pay deal is a pay deal.

This circular was asking the membership if this is still the way they feel, stating that if it was the union would take this line, however it would make forward negotiations very difficult (for the entire company pay rise). They were asking for members views back, via reps, for a branch meeting some time this week. I assume nothing will move on a pay deal until that union meeting takes place.

Reading between the lines, there is an improved offer, it involves NSL accepting Met Obs, and the union are coming round to this idea and want to know if the NSL membership would accept. Despite their previous statements that they will reject such offers out of hand.

Still keeping my powder dry, will probably use it for a big firework display on my retirement, doubt I'll need it before then :ok:

[rumouroid]

If we can't negotiate a 2 or 3 year deal of at least RPI every year, using probably the strongest position we have ever had with the AAVA deal, Olypmics, EFD and iFACTS as negotiating tools, then we are finished.

[Disillusioned]

Watch this space. The AAVA agreement will not be pulled on April 28th. The union will cave before then, and the current AAVA will carry on as normal "for the good of the company".

Despite having, what appear to be, a lot of bargaining chips, the union seem to be reluctant to actually use any of them, for any sort of betterment for its members.

Not impressed with anything the union has done for its members over the past 3 years.

[Flybywyre]

This circular was asking the membership if this is still the way they feel, stating that if it was the union would take this line, however it would make forward negotiations very difficult (for the entire company pay rise).

If we can't negotiate a 2 or 3 year deal of at least RPI every year, using probably the strongest position we have ever had with the AAVA deal, Olypmics, EFD and iFACTS as negotiating tools, then we are finished.


Despite having, what appear to be, a lot of bargaining chips, the union seem to be reluctant to actually use any of them, for any sort of betterment for its members.]

Take a look at some of the Union reps.

Some are clearly management lackeys.
Others are doing their best to fight what is increasingly looking like a losing battle.

Some Prospect reps are being blatantly courted by NATS management.

Some PCS reps are purely out to raise their own profile to management in the hope that they may be considered more leniently when the axe falls.

When one PCS rep was recently asked why an influx of ATSA’s from AC into the TC ops room would be a problem, his response was that it would dilute the amount of overtime available to existing TC ATSA’s.

Given that level of self interest, along with all the other divisions that have been created, is it any wonder that management are having such an easy time running rings around the workforce?

[DC10RealMan]

I may be considered old fashioned and out of date but I would have thought that it is quite unethical for one group of employees to voluntarily offer to do another employees jobs to allow the management to make the latter group redundant.
To take on those duties for a pittance and with the connivance of the unions when the end result will be greater profits for the shareholders and bonuses for the management borders on ludicrous.

[Pheasant Plucker]

DC10RealMan - If there was a 'Like' button, I would have pressed it for your last comment:)

[Mantovani]

There are two parts to the pay deal; the core deal and the sectional deals.

The Unions can not allow sectional issues to pay any part in the core offer. That would set a terrible president and would mean all NATS employees would be held to ransom on a yearly basis while one set of staff’s working practices/conditions were targeted.

[marble bar]

I thought George W Bush was a terrible president.

[Glamdring]

I may be considered old fashioned and out of date but I would have thought that it is quite unethical for one group of employees to voluntarily offer to do another employees jobs to allow the management to make the latter group redundant.
To take on those duties for a pittance and with the connivance of the unions when the end result will be greater profits for the shareholders and bonuses for the management borders on ludicrous.

Glamdring Likes This :ok:

[RVR600]

DC10RealMan - Well said :D

Negotiating to take on the responsibilities of another colleague in order to secure a better pay deal is abhorrent.

It is ironic, that when I hear the rationale for negotiating more money for taking on met, it is usually by those same people who have a go at management for leaching as much money for themselves as they can.

Pot, kettle, and black spring to mind.

[Avoiding_Action]

A letter that was floating around today was that the union had rejected the managements offer due to the changes to working practices that they insist on including in the pay deal. And management have requested one final meeting on the 14th April.

[jonny B good]

This was sent out yesterday from the ATCOS’ Branch.

ATCO PAY TALKS REACH IMPASSE!

Dear Colleague,

The Prospect ATCOs’ Branch pay team met Management again today. After prolonged discussions we have reached an impasse. We have rejected the offer made to us as it again falls short of our aspirations. Management insist any deal must deliver items including an open ended AAVA agreement and MET provision. Our views as to the value of these items differ significantly.

Management have requested a final meeting with the ATCOs’ Branch on 14th of next week. They will also meet with the other constituent parts of the NTUS who are also far from agreement.

We have made it clear that this will conclude negotiations on pay 2011. We will communicate immediately following this meeting.

ATCOs’ Branch Executive


With regards to ATCOs negotiating a better pay rise by volunteering to take on a task done by another group, what if that other group had already given up that task and its’ members were already leaving the company on voluntary redundancy?
As far as I understand it, at no time has the ATCO team offered to take the job of any other trade group. Quite the opposite in fact; Both Prospect and PCS have told management that any transfer or sharing of a task can only be done if BOTH parties agree to it. If in doubt, see the quote referring to the PCS Aviation Section meeting.

“At the meeting it was AGREED that the way forward was to protect as many ATSA jobs as we could at airports and one way we could achieve that was ensuring that the task of MET Observation was a core task of ATSAs during the day but that we would look at the task being undertaken by ATCOs at night, and as a contingency during the day (when no ATSA cover could be found and only as a last resort) at airports. That was the AGREED PCS line then, it is still the PCS line now.”

###### (name omitted), PCS Assistant Secretary, Operational


I hope those that read and contribute to this forum are very conscious of the fact that ‘Managers’ post here too. Not everything you read is true and for the best and most up to date info just speak with either the Prospect BEC or PCS GEC.

The last thing we want to do when we approach such a critical stage is to be fooled into becoming a split workforce.
Management are wary of our combined strength and will try to exploit any weakness, real or perceived. Surely we are wiser than to give them an open door by giving credence to rumour and non truths.

We are ALL at a critical stage and events could begin to move quickly. This is the time for all union and staff members to stand firmly behind their respective unions and provide a strong and united position. We have asked our Reps to take a stand, now is the time for us to stand with them.
:ok::ok:

[250 kts]

jonny B good,

Thank you for that clarification.

That explanation is very enlightening. It is good to see a considered and factual reply for a change.

[RVR600]

<<With regards to ATCOs negotiating a better pay rise by volunteering to take on a task done by another group, what if that other group had already given up that task and its’ members were already leaving the company on voluntary redundancy?>>

At my unit only 2 have taken VR, and for reasons other than 'giving up the task'. No sign of the others legging it through the terminal with wheelbarrows full of cash.

<<As far as I understand it, at no time has the ATCO team offered to take the job of any other trade group.>>

To quote the letter you posted: Management insist any deal must deliver items including an open ended AAVA agreement and MET provision. Our views as to the value of these items differ significantly.

In other words, show us a decent amount of cash and we'll consider it.

<<If in doubt, see the quote referring to the PCS Aviation Section meeting.

“At the meeting it was AGREED that the way forward was to protect as many ATSA jobs as we could at airports and one way we could achieve that was ensuring that the task of MET Observation was a core task of ATSAs during the day but that we would look at the task being undertaken by ATCOs at night, and as a contingency during the day (when no ATSA cover could be found and only as a last resort) ”>>

With the changes in ORO and rostering, that contingency and 'last resort', will become more of a 'norm' before you know it. The sure fire way of protecting the remaining ATSA positions is not to enter into any form of negotiation with regards to covering MET, simples.

<<The last thing we want to do when we approach such a critical stage is to be fooled into becoming a split workforce.>>

Oop's, too late.

[wickedsheep]

RVR600

I’m sorry, but you’re either NATS management trying to split the work force or you’re naive enough to do the job for them with your comments. :ugh:

The Prospect ATCOs’ Branch wouldn’t touch MET if PCS wouldn’t agree to let them do so. There may not be a high uptake at your unit to take VR but at some of the other units the desire for VR amongst the ATSAs has actually outstripped the availability. Quite a few of them realise as well that in a few years’ time most of their jobs, especially at EFPS equipped airport units, will be replaced by fully automated MET systems anyway and they are happy to take the extra money whilst it’s still available.

I know that most of the ATCOs are not exactly jumping up and down to take on MET but with the above in mind, if we ATCOs are going to do it we might as well try to get the best possible deal out of it whilst the task hasn’t been fully automated yet and there is still a need for NATS to pay someone for it. Be under no illusion, the ATSA job at airports is going whether we like it or not. NATS have already started recruiting contractors at some airports to cover for the ATSA VR but this won’t be a long-term solution and they’ll be gone when technology permits.

Anyway, instead of directing all this anger and frustration towards each other and the union I think we should support them during these difficult negotiations. There have been people in the past on this forum complaining about the union keeping their powder dry. Well, as said before we have asked our reps to take a stand, now is the time for us to stand with them and show management we’re united and ready to take them on! :ok:

[Fenella]

To quote the letter you posted:

Management insist any deal must deliver items including an open ended AAVA agreement and MET provision. Our views as to the value of these items differ significantly.

In other words, show us a decent amount of cash and we'll consider it.

Am I wrong or is that what ATSAs have done consistently since VR was offered? As far as I see it, the ATCOs branch have done nothing to the detriment of their PCS colleagues. If they had, the NTUS would have disbanded.

Your comments are therefore spurious.

[nats]

A lot of smoke and mirrors. Let the AAVA agreement fall when due, there should be no movement on this, as it has nothing to do with a NTUS pay claim, just as Met is a sectional issue. There are a lot of new managers in our organisation who, think we are overstaffed in the operational areas, who have got used to staffing up with AAVA's and O/T for the respective grades, who think that we will roll over and do their will. Well, we have the power in our own hands to prove otherwise, it's not about splitting open the keg and lighting the powder. This is negotiation from days gone by, where principal and rights are being discussed, yes albeit to get extra money in our pockets, but also to defend our very existence and integrity as a united workforce.

[Me Me Me Me]

As has been said, the real way to break the impasse is for AAVAs to stop, ATCOs to say 'we are happy to do them again, once you give us an acceptable pay deal for all... Until then I'll enjoy my extra days off!'

Sadly we all know there are some for whom self interest outweighs any solidarity towards a better long-term outcome.

[Disillusioned]

Absolutely.

The Union should simply say to management, we will happily work out a new AAVA agreement with you, but not until after our current pay claim is resolved in full.

Then there would be some movement on the pay issue.

[Flybywyre]

The two posts above are absolutely spot on :ok:

I cannot understand why the NTUS do not take this approach :confused:

[jonny B good]

I agree completely with the comments about the value of an AAVA agreement to NATS. Unfortunately, the withdrawal from any agreement and linking it to pay negotiations can be construed as industrial action and would leave any union open to legal action.
The AAVA agreement was withdrawn due to continued breaches by managers.
If the union needs to link industrial action to pay then a ballot will ensue. That is why we need to be clear on what we are doing, why we are doing it and most importantly, to stand united and not do Senior Managements work for them.
If you really want to know what is happening and why certain things are/are not being done maybe now is the time to speak with BEC/GEC members. Put the rumours to rest and find out the facts!!:ok:

[BAND4ALL]

Or the Union can put THE FACTS to the menbership to read :ok:

[Del Prado]

Jonny B Good,

As you stated, Prospect cannot withraw from the present agreement in order to extract a larger pay settlement. They are on notice to withdraw due to management breaches of the agreement.

However the present AAVA agreement is coming to an end. (date anyone?)
Prospect are well within their rights to not extend or renew it.
IMHO the AAVA agreement is hugely valueable to management, this is the biggest bargaining chip we have.

[anotherthing]

There is no need to withold the AAVA agreement as part of industrial action, the fact of the matter is we are negotiating for a CORE PAY DEAL. AAVA's, Met Obs and anything else are not core pay issues, unless we (foolishly) decide to make them so.

give us a decent pay award based on company performance (the same way that executives get measured), and bearing in mind last years pay freeze.

Then and only then should there be any negotiations on AAVAs etc. They are seperate issues

[Disillusioned]

Precisely. You (the union) are not linking any Pay deal with any new/re-instated AAVA agreement, the union should simply say that they will resolve the pay deal first and then resolve the AAVA agreement second.

The sooner the pay deal gets sorted, the sooner an AAVA agreement can be done.

No industial action. No linking, simply a sequence of events.

And as far as I can see, it is not the union that apear to want to link a pay deal and an AAVA agreement, it is management that appear to be insisting on the two being linked (along with MET provisions).

Management insist any deal must deliver items including an open ended AAVA agreement and MET provision. Our views as to the value of these items differ significantly

[Mantovani]

IMHO NATS’s Management have badly overplayed their hand. Offering less than half the rate of inflation after paying out millions in Management bonuses and tens of millions in dividends was comical and if it results in industrial action I expect some of them to be quietly replaced.

As Paul Barron proved with his Pension reforms it takes a lot to get to get ATCOs to seriously consider industrial action, it's taken the current management less than a year.

[RVR600]

<<I’m sorry, but you’re either NATS management trying to split the work force or you’re naive enough to do the job for them with your comments. :ugh:>>

Yep, I'm management and I'm typing this from a grassy knoll somewhere Sherlock. :ugh:
FFS, this is not about splitting the workforce; it's about fighting for the best possible outcome for those who are not taking VR, who rely on their jobs to put food on the table, pay the mortgage, and keep the kids in school uniforms. It should be about knowing you have the support of your colleagues, irrespective of what they think the future of the ATSA grade is.

As for those who are now calling for solidarity, and for everyone to get behind their respective unions and kick some management a$$. Too little, too late, the damage is done, you should have been waving your banners at least a couple of years ago.

[Rocket_Science]

Take a look at some of the Union reps.

Some are clearly management lackeys.

I think your right - PC's finest PCS reps have just been promoted to a grade that doesn't exist (ATSA4+ !!!).

Never forget there is an I in union!!!

[BAND4ALL]

Well put RVR600, this IS about playing one set against the other and as a member of a union I find all of this deeply offensive.

As ATCOs we don't need to walk out the door, just stop training! Bigger effect IMO.

[radar707]

It is management that are insising on linking MET and the AAVA agreement to the core deal, not the union.
We have spent far too long moaning about dry powder and teh BEC growing a set.

Well, now they have, we are in an amazing bargaining position here. PCS are happy for the MET task to be taken on by ATCOs at night, otherwise we would not be even discussing it with management. Management want the AAVA agreement to be extended.

These two have to be negotiatd together as it would otherwise result in a divisive pay deal, with NERL and NSL getting different amounts.

We as a union have instructed the BEC NOT to negotiate separate deals for NERL and NSL.

It's time that WE as a UNION stood by the BEC and our local reps who perform a thankless task and are doing a damn fine job with these negotiatins.

I've chatted with my rep about this current pay round, and quite frankly, the BEC have done and continue to represent MY interests as a fee paying member, they have my support and deserve the support of each and every member, no matter where you work.

[Roffa]

Well said radar707.

[RVR600]

Radar707,

Your right, you are in a very good place for negotiating a great deal. Unfortunately some PCS members - union incompetence/ATSA lethargy aside - are not in such a good place.

You are also correct that it is management, not the prospect team, that have brought the MET/AAVA issue to the table.

As the fundamental principle of trade unionism is to protect members jobs, pay and working conditions, I am appalled that the PCS leadership have, with NO consultation with its members, taken a stance which not only dilutes the ATSA responsibilities (working conditions) but also places in jeopardy the positions of a large number of ATSA's (jobs). That's 2 of the fundamental principles it's meant to protect. The other (pay) has already been eroded through previous pay negotiations, the pension debacle and badly negotiated working practice/roster agreements.

Now, it's not the fault of Prospect or the ATCO's that we have a bunch of slack backed, working together lackies at PCS central level and a bunch of fat, dumb and happy ATSA's, who have only just woken to the fact that Damocles is about to drop his hardware on them.
However, there is something that Prospect can do if it values its TU roots and the principle of not negotiating for benefits based on taking on a colleagues duties (contingency or otherwise). Refuse point blank to discuss MET in any form. That gives those ATSA's who have only recently woken up the opportunity to give PCS a reality check about what their responsibilities to its members are.

Or, we can do nothing, the ATSA grade gets even closer to extinction, and the only silver lining is that a better pay/AAVA agreement came about, due possibly, to some skillful negotiating using MET as leverage.

Even at this late stage, I think the PCS members can make a difference to the outcome, but only if they act immediately. Prospect members could also help, but with important pay and AAVA deals imminent, are they willing to?

[Disillusioned]

One of the problems us "lowly" ATCOs on the shop floor have (well, in my opinion, anyway), is that there is no way for us to know what is happening at the "nitty gritty" level of pay (AAVA, pension, MET, redundancy etc etc) negotiations.

All we seem to get is a two paragraph wishy washy summary of the latest meeting every few weeks from the BEC, which to be honest doesn't really tell us anything important, like what stage negotiations are at, how far apart we are, what we are being asked to do/give up, or even how emotive things are acros the table between the negotiating teams.

So, it is really difficult to know what to think in regards to the pay claim.

I have already attempted to discuss the current pay claim with my local rep, but I simply get the response that the rep is not on the pay team so doesn't have any information, plus any ongoing negotiations are not for general consumption anyway.

How then am I supposed to make informed decisions without any information.

I have written a two page letter to the BEC regarding my thoughts on what I want from these pay talks, but how much difference that will make (none, I suspect), I have no idea.

Currently, the BEC is doing what it has done so well in the past, left the members uninformed, and presents them with a fate acompli (sp)

[Roffa]

Currently, the BEC is doing what it has done so well in the past, left the members uninformed, and presents them with a fate acompli (sp)

Nothing is a fait accompli. If you're not happy with what has happened in the recent past don't blame the BEC, blame the union members. Irrespective of any recommendation from the negotiators it is the union members who ultimately say yes or no and the members who then haven't had the bottle to put up any fight in the past.

So as and when current negotiations end and something is put to the members to vote on... be it to accept or decline a deal or accept or decline a start to some form of industrial action, then if the former do as you see fit. If the latter it'll be time to see if we really are ready to stand up and be counted.

[anotherthing]

Roffa,

With you 100% There are too may members of the union who do not think for themselves, then blame the union. When it comes to a ballot these people (if they can be bothered to vote) just vote the way the union recommends.

The union is there to work for the members, not the other way round. The union is fully aware of this but is only as strong as its membership. If the majority vote against the unions recommendation, then the union will carry out the wishes of the membership.

The union have given 'yes' recommendations in the past because they believe the proposal is the best they can get... without recourse to industrial action. The union are in the best position to make this assumption, but that does not mean that as a union member, if you think the deal is rubbish (and you have to be realistic with your expectations here), then you do not have to follow the union lead.

The union will do what its membership ask of it. The past 4 or 5 years are littered with ballots that have followed the union recommendation, only for the membership (who voted it in) to then whinge about it 6 months down the line :ugh:

[ATSA_Grunt]

Historically we all say we are not going to vote "YES", I've heard it so many times over the years, and the vote is always a "YES". Everybody then says "Well, I didn't vote for it!".

If everyone voted "No" following a union recommendation, and the union went back to the members and balloted for industrial action and the vote was a "NO", where does that leave the members and the unions?? Nowhere I suspect....

The majority will vote "YES" for whatever is offered. If they vote "NO" and then balloted on industrial action, I would anticipate a close vote, but a "NO" never the less....

I would loved to be proved wrong....

On the ATSA front... Once we're gone (as is NATS intention), who do you think will be next???

[Me Me Me Me]

One of the problems us "lowly" ATCOs on the shop floor have (well, in my opinion, anyway), is that there is no way for us to know what is happening at the "nitty gritty" level of pay (AAVA, pension, MET, redundancy etc etc) negotiations.

You could become a rep and get involved. These are not paid negotiators, they are people who also hold down a job in the company. As a member you are entitled to put yourself up to replace them if you believe you are up to it.

All we seem to get is a two paragraph wishy washy summary of the latest meeting every few weeks from the BEC, which to be honest doesn't really tell us anything important, like what stage negotiations are at, how far apart we are, what we are being asked to do/give up, or even how emotive things are acros the table between the negotiating teams.

So, it is really difficult to know what to think in regards to the pay claim.

I have already attempted to discuss the current pay claim with my local rep, but I simply get the response that the rep is not on the pay team so doesn't have any information, plus any ongoing negotiations are not for general consumption anyway.

How then am I supposed to make informed decisions without any information.

What, exactly, do you expect? A video blog from the negotiating team updated daily? You aren't furnished with all the details with which to make a decision yet as there isn't yet a decision to be made! When your vote is requested then you'll have the details of what you are voting on laid out before you.

I know it's frustrating but come on... As members we elect an executive, give them some directives on how we want them to represent us but we can't expect a weekly referendum on every action.

The reps are fully aware that there is no chance they could sell a ~2% deal to members. I think they would quite like it made formal so they can put it to vote and achieve a resounding "NO!". Management appear to be willing to play a long game and we all have to keep our cool, stick together and not swallow another pile of manure about how tough times these are. :ok:

[anotherthing]

I think they would quite like it made formal so they can put it to vote and achieve a resounding "NO!".
If, as seems likely, talks will fail on Thursday the next step will be for the Union to ballot members on the offer, with the Union recomending a 'no' vote.

The step after that is for the union to vote for industrial action (a 'yes' vote). How many people are willing to vote 'no' to the offer, then 'yes' to industrial action, because a 'no' then a 'no' is pointless if you are not happy with the pay offer.

The Union membership has, within recent history, been weak with extremely poor turnouts for the last few ballots. Management know this and they play on it.

I would not be surprised if Management gave a derisory first offer knowing full well it would not be accepted, then hiked up the second offer with caveats.

It would not surprise me if they were betting on the ability to divide the workforce and also if they were betting on the likelihood that members won't have the bottle to strike over a headline pay rise which is (supposedly) somewhere near 5%.

Management can offer a better pay rise based on projected savings if MET is taken on by ATCOs and if the AAVA agreement is signed in perpetuity.

However, before this offer they had stated that they would give 0.5% on top of any basic pay offer if we signed the AAVA agreement in perpetuity. That leaves a gulf of 3% - there is no way the MET savings are 3% so the sums do not add up.

Senior management ae not stupid and they are definitley media savvy. I think that the way they have played this is very clever if they are banking on the union membership (not the union reps) of displaying the usual apathy.

Everyone talks about the powder being dry etc... it is not the Union reps job to spark the ignition, it is the memberships.

Whatever way you vote in the upcoming ballot, remember that it has implications on the strength of the union

[Del Prado]

A few thoughts;

while I'm happy to reject pay offer and vote for industrial action, I see no reason why that would ever become a strike. Letting the present AAVA agreement lapse (in the autumn?) would have a massive effect on the company. All projects would have to be put on hold -iFACTS, EFD, Olympics, etc.

A training ban would be hugely damaging too, especially with the olympics looming.

By threatening to let the present AAVA agreement lapse we already have management over a barrel.



Remember the last pay round? Every month we were emailed figures showing the decline in traffic, how the recession was affecting us centre by centre, airfield by airfield. All that doom and gloom preceded the financial report showing record profits, several millions in management bonuses and a huge dividend.

Why are the traffic levels no longer freely available?
Why do our senior management have other European ANSP's traffic growth figures at their fingertips but can't give NATS traffic figures when quizzed at a recent presentation?

I only hope a deal isn't rushed through and voted on before the annual report is published in June again.

[Disillusioned]

Well, we will soon see what happens come the Final pay meeting on Thursday, followed two weeks later by the cessation of the AAVA agreement (which I am still not convinced will happen).

It will be interesting to see what line the BEC takes come April 29th

[LostThePicture]

I can honestly empathise with the frustrations of people like @Disillusioned, and can only assume that the more recent posts come from either some of the more myopic members of our fraternity, or union reps who think they've been doing a great job for the last couple of years and feel it necessary to defend their actions on here.

As I've said on here before, the low turnout in recent ballots is no measurement of membership apathy - it could be a measurement of membership confusion, membership anger, but apathy - no. I'm not sure how some people on here can defend the actions of a union that in recent times has recommended acceptance of a pay deal a matter of days before the announcement of record profits, as well as been hoodwinked into recommending wholesale pension reform at a time when a depressed stock market made the situation seem artificially bad. Under those circumstances, what's most surprising is that only 3 in every 10 members opted not to vote.

The union will do what its membership ask of it. The past 4 or 5 years are littered with ballots that have followed the union recommendation, only for the membership (who voted it in) to then whinge about it 6 months down the line
Actually, it's quite likely that those who "whinge" about it are those who, like me, voted NO in both of the ballots mentioned above and feel more than a little let down by the advice (or more particularly, the timing of the advice) from the union. And I'm pretty sure the membership did not ask for pension reform...

As it stands, the union are showing all the signs of rolling over for management again. Taking a cynical view this is no surprise given that so many senior union members hold company management positions. There is no real sign of the union actually withdrawing from the AAVA agreement, so this was just another empty threat like so many communiques before it. The rumours are that the union are worried of the legal repercussions of such a move - I stress that these are rumours because as @Disillusioned said, we're never actually told anything on the shop floor until it's too late. There is a real opportunity here for the union to show some teeth as summer traffic begins to kick in. They have given three months' notice, and it was management who attempted to circumvent the agreement (several times) in the first place - from a legal standpoint, I don't see what the risk is.

What, exactly, do you expect? A video blog from the negotiating team updated daily? You aren't furnished with all the details with which to make a decision yet as there isn't yet a decision to be made! When your vote is requested then you'll have the details of what you are voting on laid out before you.
Ooooooh, a video blog would be lovely! In the absence of that, regular updates would be nice given that a lot of people at the biggest unit in the country have been hearing news second-, third- or fourth-hand in the past few months. And are you seriously saying that membership only deserve to be informed when it's decision time? With that attitude, you must actually be a Swanwick rep. No, if you want your membership to show less apathy, you keep them regularly informed of developments, and try and cut out the deal we deserve.

LTP

[PeltonLevel]

Why are the traffic levels no longer freely available?
Why do our senior management have other European ANSP's traffic growth figures at their fingertips but can't give NATS traffic figures when quizzed at a recent presentation?You could always look them up yourself:
Service unit forecasts | EUROCONTROL (http://www.eurocontrol.int/services/service-unit-forecasts)
(this site used to give monthly updates of actual chargeable units but I can't find it on the current site)

[anotherthing]

LTP;

I think you might be including me in your comments however I can assure I am not myopic. I was unhappy with the union and the way it has performed for about the last seven years. I was also unhappy with the lack of communication.

What did I do about it? I wrote a letter resigning with the reasons why.

You think the membership (at least a significant part of it) is not apathetic? So why could almost 40% of them not be a**ed to even return a postal ballot regarding pensions?

Why are there so many people so happy too moan about the union yet continue to pay their subs each month?

Apathy (or the fact that they like to moan about things).

Maybe the actions of the union in the past have led to this apathy, however if you continue to pay subs then the union will think that everything is rosy.

I am happy to say that in my opinion the union seems to have stepped up a gear both in taking on management and not just believing them, and also in improving communication, therefore I am rejoining the fold.

So you think the union was hoodwinked into recommending a 'yes' vote over the pensions? Why should that stop the members, supposedly of higher average intelligence than other union membership in different industries/professions, from voting the way they wanted to vote, or from voting at all?

I assume, LTP, that desite your dissatisfaction with the union, you still pay your subs each month? Why? You can gain as much professional protection via GATCO for a fraction of the cost. Yet you still pay them money each month? I'm afraid I can get my mind round that one as it seems to me that you think you get nothing for your money!

As for updates it seems to me, and I am still a sceptic, that the union has recently kept us up to date. The 2 or 3 paragraphs is more than enough, or do you and others want a transcript of the meetings?


As it stands, the union are showing all the signs of rolling over for management again...
Where exactly do you get this notion from?


There is no real sign of the union actually withdrawing from the AAVA agreement, so this was just another empty threat like so many communiques before it.
Again, where do you get this notion from? The union told management that it would not be renewing the AAVA agreement i.e. it would be withdrawing from it. Legally the union could not do this until 28th April as they had signed a legal agreement that stated the AAVA agreement would be in place until then. 2 weeks on Thursday the agreement runs out. There is no plan to renew it. I think you do not understand what 'withdrawing from the agreement' actually entails.

Del Prado,

Traffic figures are readily available on the intranet. No conspiracy there I'm afraid. Maybe they are not advertised as much as they used to be, but they are there.

Also, you say we should let the AAVA agreement run out as a means to getting a pay rise. You are saying we should do exactly what management want us to do, i.e. tie AAVAs to the CORE PAY talks.
It is a totally seperate issue and should remain that way.
CORE PAY is exactly that. No added bells and whistles, just a settlement on the basic pay and allowances we get.

Management shoud be told that until the core pay deal is settled, other Ts and Cs (which means AAVAs etc) will not be discussed. Selling ourselves out for an extra half a percent (or whatever) for a permanent AAVA deal at the current rate is not the way to go.

[RVR600]

What NATS has become really good at in the past few years, is creating a level of spin that would make the likes of Mr Mandleson feel all warm and gooey inside. Unsustainable pension scheme; a looming financial crisis if we don't make huge cost savings (staff cuts); and airlines that are on the verge of pulling out of the airline partnership thingy if we don't start making savings immediately.

The fact is, the management have lied about the financial (and pension) situation for several years now, as became apparent after the publication of the last two financial reports, and we (union and members) have fallen for it. Or more likely, scared into believing it when told of the dreadful repercussions if we don't agree to the party line.

There is a saying, 'fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me'. If we're going to fall for the same old sh!te this time around, then shame on us.

[LEGAL TENDER]

You think the membership (at least a significant part of it) is not apathetic? So why could almost 40% of them not be a**ed to even return a postal ballot regarding pensions?

I know of former course mates that still get their union mail delivered to somewhere in Bournemouth, addresses are not up to date etc etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the ballot papers never even got to the members in first place.
I know it seems such a stupid reason but it does happen..

[LostThePicture]

Oh, I see. So you only want to be a member when there are ballot forms to fill in and the potential for you to be warming your hands round a brazier? I'm not really sure you're in a position to criticise what you view as apathy...

Yes, I am and always have been a union member. In the current climate I would like to think that the reasons for that are obvious and I don't count apathy as a reason.

Pensions are clearly a complicated subject - something on which the membership required coherent guidance when it was put to the vote. Sidestepping the issue of whether you think members of our profession are more intelligent than those of any other (?!), what were they supposed to think when the union advised a 'yes' vote when, at the time in the financial cycle, it was wholly inappropriate? As I stated before, it's hardly surprising that 30-40% of people opt not to vote under these circumstances. And don't even get me started on whether it's appropriate that a senior member of watch management, who also happens to hold a senior position in the union, browbeats his watch into voting one way or the other. Conflicts of interest of this magnitude should not be allowed to occur.

The AAVA agreement is actually up for renewal towards the end of the year - the union gave management three months' notice that they were pulling out of the agreement (early) because management had contravened its terms at several sites. So, I understand exactly where we are with respect to AAVAs - question is, do you? As @Disillusioned has said, we will see how fiercely the union is willing to bare it teeth at the end of the month.

Management shoud be told that until the core pay deal is settled, other Ts and Cs (which means AAVAs etc) will not be discussed. Selling ourselves out for an extra half a percent (or whatever) for a permanent AAVA deal at the current rate is not the way to go.
At last, something on which we are agreed. But as I said before, the rumour is that the union are worried about NATS management taking legal action because a refusal to discuss AAVAs just because the core pay deal hasn't been settled could be viewed as deliberate obstruction. Emphasis on rumour because the union have chosen not to inform the membership of discussions in this area. And you think communication has improved and that the union are more likely to take on management?!

LTP

[10W]

I only hope a deal isn't rushed through and voted on before the annual report is published in June again.

After publication of the Annual Report seems an ideal time for the Union and Management to agree a figure for any pay rise. We'll know how the company is performing and how much the senior management got in terms of rises and bonuses, so we can then be entitled to negotiate a sum which takes both the NATS enumeration policy and the Government RPI/CPI type figures in to account.

I suspect however that HR Director and Senior Management would much rather agree something miniscule now before the scale of fat cat rewards and company profits comes to light. Barron taught them well. :mad:

[Mantovani]

Is it a coincidence that the departure of the HR Director was announced today?

Does that pave the way for a log-jam breaking offer later this week that the Union can then recommend to the members before the Annual Report is published?

[5milesbaby]

If he has gone, does that mean we may also get a car scheme finalised too? Or is that still too much to ask for??

[250 kts]

I know of former course mates that still get their union mail delivered to somewhere in Bournemouth, addresses are not up to date etc etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the ballot papers never even got to the members in first place.

And just whose responsibility do you think it is to advise Prospect of any address change?

Oh yes those very same people who whinge they didn't get a vote. Those very same people who are supposed to be in the top 10% of intelligent people in the country.

Maybe you should send a list to Prospect so they can pop round and wipe their a**es as well.

Unbelievable:ugh::ugh:

[terrain safe]

Is anyone else worried that the new HR direct is an expert in managing change? His or ours I don't know but I have a really bad feeling about this.

[5milesbaby]

Surely there can't be a replacement worse than the last one can there?

[ZOOKER]

Allegedly the outgoing HR Director "joined NATS in 1990 to set up an HR planning function". :}
That was 21 of your Earth Years ago.
So where the bloody hell is it?

[Disillusioned]

I wonder how today's concluding pay meeting went?

[King Pokey]

I heard a rumour a couple of hours ago that they are still going! Hopefully some resolution tonight. Either there will be a deal we can vote on, recommended by the BEC or we will be in dispute. As I understand it they are the only two possible outcomes. If the result is dispute then we will see how the grumbling masses really feel. The membership have taken our union to task in recent years for rolling over too easily. If, as it seems they have grown pair then it will be our turn.
It's one thing to whine about all the unions failings but it will be quite another thing if it comes to a fight.
I hope that there will be a suitable offer on the table today but somehow I doubt it.
If there is a dispute or an offer that gets a no vote then it will get nasty very quickly.
It sounds corny but it is true. United we stand, divided we fall. NATS are past masters at divide and conquer so lets buckle up for a bumpy ride.

[Roffa]

This just in...

The ATCOs’ Branch pay team met today in what was accepted as the final meeting with management in a protracted set of pay negotiations.

Having started the day at an impasse, discussions continued due to recognising the severity of the situation.

Management are considering their position overnight as a result of discussions that took place today. They will report to us tomorrow morning. Whatever the result of that conversation, the pay team will report to the BEC at an emergency meeting Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.

We also meet as an NTUS tomorrow and there will be further communications following that meeting.

We share our members’ frustrations but request that you bear with us during this delicate stage of the pay negotiations.

[radar707]

Let's hope that management gave spent the night very carefully considering their position

[Mantovani]

NATS management are instructed by the Board. If the Board want a settlement there will be one. If the Board want a dispute there will be one.

What will a dispute do to the short term price of NATS shares?

[Me Me Me Me]

What will a dispute do to the short term price of NATS shares?

Nothing... As the shares are not publicly listed. Even if they were, it's one of the quirks of share trading that sometimes a company taking on its staff over pay can increase the price due to investors seeing a 'strong management' and potentially increased dividends due to minimising increases in staff costs.

As I recall the shares are valued twice a year and the valuation based on a standard set of measures. The next-but-one valuation at the end of the calendar year could potentially see a dip if we'd had industrial action during the summer that affected revenue.

Hopefully they'll pull an acceptable offer out of the bag. I doubt it though and I really, really hope that the membership stand up to be counted. Both management AND the union exec need to be shown we can collectively act and not just whinge.

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

I don't give a **** what it might do to the price of NATS shares. What I do give a **** about is protecting my income & terms and conditions until retirement and also protecting my pension that I have been diligently contributing to EVERY month since I started working for the company.

I don't want this to end up in a dispute, but if that's what it takes to reverse the despicable way we have been manipulated & lied to over the last few years then so be it.

5% unconditional pay rise is the very least we deserve just to try to reverse the effects of inflation. Without this it is clear that management have no real interest in maintaining a co-operative, motivated workforce.

We have delivered massive efficiencies over recent years. So much so that we rarely work anything less than our rostered hours. 2 hours on, half an hour off is the norm. Positions are frequently unmanned regardless of traffic demand as staff numbers have been reduced to the point where there is virtually no spare capacity at all. There are so few ATSAs that it is virtually impossible to cover absences which means that ATCOs can & do get left totally unsupported for a whole shift. Ask yourself, what have we seen in return for these efficiencies? Management scare stories about how the world was about to end if we didn't accept their brilliant plan to change the pension scheme that would cost them less and reduce our potential benefits. A 2 year pay deal where they did us such a huge favour based again on doom & gloom fairy stories about how we were facing a significant period of negative inflation. Well that didn't happen either did it?

And now they want me to do the met as well as AIR/GMC combined in LVP's?

Bugger off!

5% unconditional, then and only then we can start talking sensibly about anything else you want us to do.

[anotherthing]

:sad: Looks like we are not going to get an amicable agreement



Important update on ATCO pay negotiations

Posted on April 15, 2011 in BEC (http://atcos.co.uk/category/bec), Featured (http://atcos.co.uk/category/featured), Salary & Structure (http://atcos.co.uk/category/sub-sections/salary-structure) | 0 Comment (http://atcos.co.uk/featured/important-update-on-atco-pay-negotiations.html#respond)
The ATCOs’ Branch pay team and NATS’ Management remain unable to reach agreement on the proposal as laid out by NATS’ this morning. NATS’ requests for changes to ATCOs’ Terms and Conditions are simply not adequately compensated by the financial package on offer.

Throughout this process we have tried time and time again to achieve the pay increase that our members’ aspire to and deserve while also meeting the requirements of the business. We have made numerous counter proposals, suggested a multitude of ways ahead and have been willing to compromise. We have maintained a position which is right for you, our members, and which reflects your professionalism, your contribution to the company and your expectations on a reasonable pay offer.

We are holding an Emergency BEC meeting next week at which the way ahead for the Branch will be discussed. Further communications will follow at that stage.

[radar707]

Time for us all to stand united behind the BEC.

[hold at SATAN]

Prospect members, please ensure that your contact details are correct. All changes can easily be made online at Prospect (http://www.prospect.org.uk)

If you haven't registered already, you need your membership number, surname and the postcode for your last registered address. Really quick and simple to make changes

Or speak to your local rep.

We can't afford to mess this one up. Time to stand up and be counted

[250 kts]

So I guess the time has now arrived for all of us who come on here and whinge about the union growing some balls have to grow some too.

I suspect it will be an interesting few weeks as people make their excuses about having to do overtime because they can't afford to shop at Waitrose any more or that they have a 4th holiday of the year to pay for.

This is a real opportunity for the workforce to let management know just how much they rely on individuals doing stuff over and above that which is necessary as well as showing some real solidarity towards the guys and girls who have been negotiating for the last 9 months.

No doubt plenty will have been doing the maths about what a Sunday or bank holiday overtime duty is worth-well remember it only feels good for about 10 seconds after you open the pay check. Just give it some thought beyond that moment of glee to where the workforce will be if they don't keep a strong support.


Think hard about it when the ORO call or you are approached by the Watch Sup to do those extra duties. Think hard about doing those extra sectors to help them out so much. Think hard about the amount of flexibility you are prepared to give when it comes to introducing major technological changes.

This could be the defining few weeks of the future of terms and conditions of the operational staff in NATS and it is up to us to collectively to ensure we get the reward we deserve for providing a massively safe, historically expeditious and unfortunately under the present management, hugely profitable ATC service.

Is a pay rise that keeps up with inflation really too much to ask?

[Flybywyre]

We are holding an Emergency BEC meeting next week at which the way ahead for the Branch will be discussed. Further communications will follow at that stage.

WHY ?? :confused:
Can't be much of an emergency meeting if it can wait until next week.
The ballot process should have been put in progress as soon as this "concluding" pay meeting was finished FFS!! :ugh:

NO MORE TALKS
NO MORE MEETINGS
BALLOT NOW

[250 kts]

WHY ??
Can't be much of an emergency meeting if it can wait until next week.

Maybe it's because the BEC is made up of reps from all over the country and that is the earliest they can all be brought together.

Maybe some need to be released to attend?

And do you actully know the offer on the table or are you willing to ballot blind?

Let the BEC take the time required to come to a considered and fully debated decision.

[Flybywyre]

"Maybe"

What do you not understand about the term "concluding pay meeting" ?

Let the BEC take the time required to come to a considered and fully debated decision.

You mean like what they have been doing for the last three months ?

Could you imagine someone like Bob Crow being led down so many garden paths?

I am not a great fan of BC but he does achieve results.
London Underground have already offered a 4% unconditional pay rise for all and inflation plus 0.25% for the next four years.

Presumably the NTUS has already rejected such a derisory offer :D

[250 kts]

concluding pay meeting

Which according to the notices put out happened today. And I suspect nobody knew what the outcome of that meeting was until it ended??

Therefore it would appear that an emergency BEC has now been called next week. Maybe you think it should have been happening tonight??

There has to be a conclusion to negotiations and that is where we appear to be right now-or earlier today.

Maybe you should become a rep to help speed things along somewhat. I for one am content with the pace, consideration and sensible debate that appears to be occurring amongst the union heirarchy.

[eglnyt]

It is very important that everything happens in precisely the right order and the process is followed exactly with all the meetings called as required with the right people present at them. The alternative is doing it all again when the ballot result is thrown out by the court as invalid. In this case more haste does mean less speed.

[Flybywyre]

Which according to the notices put out happened today. And I suspect nobody knew what the outcome of that meeting was until it ended??

And when "the concluding pay meeting" did end there were only two possible outcomes.

1) The NTUS agrees the deal and recommends it to the members.
2) The NTUS rejects the deal and ballots the members with a view to applying pressure to further negotiations.

Somehow the NTUS has found a third option of yet another meeting :ugh:

I for one am content with the pace, consideration and sensible debate that appears to be occurring amongst the union heirarchy.

And I for one am certainly NOT content with the pace and the very cosy relationship that seems to exist between the NTUS and the NATS management.

consideration and sensible debate that appears to be occurring amongst the union heirarchy.

Perhaps the "Union Heirarchy" would like to share that sensible debate with the members?

Maybe you should become a rep to help speed things along somewhat.

When I was a Union rep at West Drayton we achieved some pretty good deals from Richard everitt.

[250 kts]

When I was a Union rep at West Drayton we achieved some pretty good deals from Richard everitt

And I assume you did that single-handed did you-or did you, as a union rep recognise that there needs to be due process, just as there is now.

[Mantovani]

Now is the time for cool heads. Everything has to be done strictly by the book, let's not forget some members of the Airline Group have been successful in taking trade unions to the courts.

We need to remember we will be in dispute with the NATS Board not with the flying public. We shouldn't even think of disrupting traffic until we have exhausted all possibilities of getting a realistic offer from the Airline Group.

[Conspiracy Theories]

i have read quite a few pages now of information and thought maybe its time to put something on myelf.
one thing i will get out of the way is the fact that maybe the union didn't do us any favour 2 years ago or even 1 year ago but i honestly believe that they thought that it was the best thing that could have been achieved. from another point of view the members........where were they? its all good saying "well i voted no" or say the usual i never got a ballot.....well get a move on and make sure you personal details are updated. if you do not get a magazine every so often, then they do not have the correct details for you so change them and then stop whinging and get your say.

all this talk about lets ballot now....lets give the union time to set themselves and do it properly and not do it the wrong way so that it gets thrown out as mentioned. i am quite happy to be patient as i am sure this will all be back dated anyway.

one thing to bare in mind though (i think), not sure how it works at other units but in AC swanwick, (with iFACTS) we were not allowed to put in for any leave in May of this year because of the ifacts training roster so from the point of view of people needing to plan holidays, weddings, etc in particular families wanting to go away so that they can get the tickets cheaper well they couldn't........then it gets delayed a little and we can't put in for leave again during the winter until the ifacts training roster comes out and when it does, i find out i cannot take specific days off because of it. i know of some controllers that have other obligations and need those days off....i'm not too sure if this has been mentioned at all during the negotiations.

its time now that everyone made sure they got a vote albeit 90%+ YES or 90%+ NO but at least that will show that the union has got the ears of 90%+ of its members listening and management will then hopefully start bricking it after the union starts recommending NO.

[reynoldsno1]

It seems to be the "modern" way of pay negotiations - any pay 'rise' offered by management has to be offset by an erosion of terms & conditions - those T&C not affecting the management of course.

[5milesbaby]

Anyone heard if the AAVA agreement has been reinstated?

[not a scooby]

I take it "keeping the business viable" as per the latest union communication basically means AAVA's are back! Hope the rate was boosted.
Still good on the negoitiators, movement from an immovable object, I wonder if someone's recent departure from the scene has had an effect?

[Mantovani]

The AAVA agreement is a huge bargaining chip, I hope it has not been given up without a similarly huge movement by the Board/Airline Group.

[anotherthing]

I have not seen any communication stating that the AAVA agreement is back in place, but I am not at work and the Prospect website is eerily quiet.

However if the agreement has been reinstated then I disagree with the above posts.

The AAVA agreement should never have been part of the negotiation on CORE pay in the first place.

We are due a decent pay rise without having to prostitute ourselves by giving other things away (met, AAVA etc).

Withdrawing from the AAVA agreement was a totally seperate issue from the pay talks.

I assume because the AAVA agreement was withdrawn prematurely due to management non conformance, it is within the right of the Union to reinstate it unilaterallly if they feel that the management will adhere to the rules?

When the AAVA agreement reaches its natural end then negotiations on that should take place, to include an increase in the rate which has stayed flat for years.

In agreement with Mantovani - By acknowledging the business need, whilst ensuring management conform, the Union have shown that they are not hell bent on ruining NATS. This can only go in our favour. It actually gives us more power when it comes to sticking out for a decent pay rise with no reduction in Ts&Cs.

The Union have proved that they are reasonable, now lets stick this out and get the pay rise the members deserve, without the distraction of side issues.

5.5% is reasonable...

1657: edited to add - just read an e-mail from Prospect. It had better be a significant betterment in offer from management for Prospect to be talking about recommending the offer - this is a huge U turn from what the union were putting about the past few weeks (stating they were miles apart).

This had better not be another cave-in by the Union - we've been hoodwinked enough over the past 3 or 4 ballots. Of course we will never know what the 'final offer' from last week was (apart from the many rumours), so we will never know if it is a cave-in :hmm:.

August 2010 RPI was 4.7%. Considering in the recent past we have had a below average pay rise (and a pay freeze), and considering the NATS Board pay awards, dividends and company performance during this time, 5.5% with no strings is not unreasonable.

[Mantovani]

Anything less than RPI without strings is a cave in imho.

[anotherthing]

... which is still a reduction in living standards over the past 3 years when you consider the pay freeze we had whilst we paid out millions in dividends, golden goodbyes and Board pay deals...

I understand there are 3 seperate offers on the table, one for Prospect ATCO, one for Prospect ATSS, one for PCS. Divide and conquer :mad:

[notatthecollege]

We must have facts. What was on offer, what has changed and is now on offer? This would give some credibility to the whole process. Prospect please note. I'm all for a no vote unless there is evidence it's a good and fair deal (for all affected).

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

When the AAVA agreement reaches its natural end then negotiations on that should take place, to include an increase in the rate which has stayed flat for years

Or just a flat rate for all ATCOs in NATS? Setting aside the banding can of worms, AAVA is going to work on your rest or leave periods. Why should one persons free time be more valuable than anothers? Or maybe I should just get back to my big wooden spoon :E

[anotherthing]

notatthecollege

There will probably be a confidentiality or 'gentlemans' agreement in place that means the only offer we get to see is the final one (quite ususal during negotiations). We probably won't be told what was on offer when the possibility of Met/AAVAs and whatever else was being pursued by management.Therefore very difficult to see if there is any climb down. Interesting change in stance though from being miles apart a week ago to the prospect (sic) of the union recommending the offer tomorrow...

Prospect did state on their own website in Feb that members are suffering due lack of cost of living rises. That's a minimum of 4.75% this year to just stay even, never mind the pay freeze the year before.

The ATSA community have not been offered that...

[fisbangwollop]

Just seen the deal I am being offered....they can go take a running fcuk as far as I am concerned....and as far as O/T is concerned that will go the same way.....going to enjoy some days off for a change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Disillusioned]

Put us out of our misery...Details!!!

[terrain safe]

I've seen the deal as well (I can't say what it is as I promised the person who told me that I wouldn't and I still want to be their friend), and when it comes out tomorrow I think overall the union have done a good job. I don't agree with all of it but overall I don't see how it could have been bettered. Any who think that shooting their mouth off or thinking of industrial action should think, will we get any more? I suspect that the pips are squeaking and we may disagree with it but that's the best offer around. Apparently it is substantively better that was on the table previously. But please wait until tomorrow, sit down, count to 20 and think could we do better. I think not.

Before people think "Oh you must be management or high up in the union" I am neither and I often don't agree with both of them but this time I can't see us getting any better. Don't forget that say a 4.5% deal also has an extra cost of 37% for the pension. That will really hurt NATS. So think for a while before spouting off please.

Now a deep breath....

[Disillusioned]

So, it's less than 4.5% then :)

That's a no vote from me if it is. None of this, "could we do better", or "for the good of the company" nonesense.

Do you think these management big wigs think about "the good of the company" as they depart with their 7 figure golden handshake payments, no I don't think so, so why should I. I am concerned about the "good of me (and my fellow ATCOs)".

Yes, maybe it was the best that the union could get by negotiation, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. A membership No vote would send them all back to the table.

I certainly don't want any of this short term clawback usage rubbish, or MET included in the offer. All I want is a reasonable pay offer, nothing more, nothing less, based on how much profit the company is making, and with no strings.

If they want any of these "extras", then they should pay for them to the individuals that are directly affected by them, not giving a pay rise to everyone, but being paid for in part by extra tasks being done by some. That's immorral, and totally unfair, and I hope that the union see that otherwise they are not representing their members, they are simply representing the majority group.

I await tomorrow's announcement, but I am not holding my breath.

[Mantovani]

When does the Annual Report come out?

Let's have any vote on this offer the week after we see how well the company is doing.

[Disillusioned]

That's the thing. I don't believe the annual report comes out until June, so (as far as management is concerned) this is perfectly timed.

We will no doubt end up with a similar situation to our last pay deal. Shafted over bleatings of the company going under, company being skint, recession, and then after accepting a miserly, strings laden pay deal, they announce £100m+ profits in June...AGAIN!!

We seem to fall for managements sob story every time.

[Pheasant Plucker]

Extra 37% cost for the pension??!

If they hadn't taken a fecking pension holiday (remember that), then they wouldn't have to pay so much now!

[eastern wiseguy]

Rumour (told to us from a place far far away) is a TWO year deal with approx 5% per annum.....no indication if this is true...or what additional constraints have been placed on it...anyone out there care to comment?:confused::confused:

[beaver liquor]

Is it a core pay deal i.e. same % for all NATS...

or have management succeeded in divide & conquer i.e. sectional deals

???:=

[fisbangwollop]

The thing that pisses me off big time is the fact that NATS is cash rich as far as its share holders are concerned, they did very nicely thank-you....and also Mr Barron legged it up the road with his suit case brimming with notes as was his golden hand shake......Say what you like but based on those points alone my view is still go take a running fcuk!!!!!!!

[Krait]

I have heard a little pay gossip. That you read it Fishbangwallop narrows you down and I'm very disappointed in your response. I think in today's climate it's a great deal. Particularly considering where negotiations started and the pay deals the rest of the country are accepting. As a two year deal it's a good figure. Maybe we are being asked to give a little too much but the prospect of industrial action would not have been in our favor. We would have looked very mercenary turning this down. All in all this Atco2 is happy. Looking forward to the back dated pay.

[Me Me Me Me]

Not bad figures... but one deal for one group and a lesser deal for the rest is a very dark path to start down.

[flyingwingofjazzdestiny]

Quote :
"one deal for one group and a lesser deal for the rest is a very dark path to start down."

Hmmmmmm.....I think we started down that dark path a long time ago with pay banding.

[vespasia]

IMHO, anything less than 5% without strings effectively says that NATS thinks I'm worth less than I was before, despite the management bleating about valuing its staff. In what way is this supposed to make me feel valued?:ugh:

[Me Me Me Me]

Hmmmmmm.....I think we started down that dark path a long time ago with pay banding.

With respect - and I say that as someone who isn't affected by banding - I know it's an emotive issue. Banding is (agree with it or not) an extension of grading in so far as it is a judgement of what the correct remuneration is for the job that you do.

Annual % pay increases are intended to react to increased cost of living and reward for good company performance. They are a percentage hike in your remuneration but not a judgement on the respective value or importance of different jobs within the company.

The former is divisive by it's very nature and there's no way for it not to be. The latter should never be so.

[anotherthing]

Lets put banding to bed for once and for all because it has nothing to do with core pay talks.

As me x4 states anyways, banding has been around for ages, with the 'busier' units historically progressing further up the same pay scale than 'less busy' units.

The bands as they are set out now just make this more simple to see.

A difference in pay for different units is fair IMHO... time to validate and validation rates bear this out.

Whether a band 5 ATCO is 'worth' £30k more than a band 1 ATCO is a totally different argument... again outside the scope of these latest talks and offers

[TALLOWAY]

Spoken as only a Band 5 ATCO can :ok:

[Disillusioned]

A difference in pay for different units is fair IMHO... time to validate and validation rates bear this out.

Hmmm, lets see. I currently hold 12 validations and it took 5 years to get these. Offers management an immense amount of flexibilty in rostering.

How many validations do you hold again?

[9th Dan Vectors]

Too right it is. It is not a fair judgement, or a transparent one.

If you take the time to dig into the NATSAG57 document on the intranet, coupled with a spreadsheet the union issued at the time and try to work out how the final numbers were arrived at; you'd be pretty emotional for 7 years at the nature of the unfairness. I'll try to explain this using the NERL model.

Please bear with me on this and don't be too quick to dismiss me as a banding whinger - I am certain I have a valid point.

All data from the union powerpoint "ATCO Unit Grading"

The Total Scores were as follows:

LACC 1202
LTCC 1255
MACC 421
OACC 271
ScACC 355

Total Score was calculated by multiplying Traffic Score by a combined complexity and OR (operational requirement or plainly number of controllers) factor.

Traffic score was calculated by multiplying the average day busy hour total (actual traffic element in the busiest hour of the average day) by a volume profile score (sustained traffic element). Actual values below of average day busy hour total, then volume profile and then the Traffic Score:

LACC 302 x 2.93 = 886
LTCC 272 x 2.93 = 798
MACC 98 x 2.93 = 289
OACC 80 x 2.13 = 170
ScACC 111 x 2.80 = 309

The second part of the calculation involves adding together OR factor, traffic mix (weighted 0.5) and complexity factor (taken from eurocontrol, then taken as a logarithm and then divided by 3- scaling to allow proportionate affect [sic], although the manner of this scaling is only 'explained' in NATSAG57)

The values for OR, complexity factor and (non jet % divided by 2 for weighting) traffic mix are as follows:

LACC 330 0.401 (8.3%/2) 0.0415
LTCC 281 0.554 (10.1%/2) 0.0505
MACC 110 0.456 (21.4%/2) 0.107
OACC 50 0.000! (0.7%/2) 0.0035
ScACC 145 0.280 (20.8%/2) 0.104
As Oceanic complexity was not calculated by Eurocontrol the people 'constructing this' deemed the value to be a nominal 1 (hence log 1=0).

It can be seen by adding these numbers together OR would be a big factor. However what is done to OR to arrive at the OR factor is the key to the real flaw in this dreadful calculation.

OR factor is: average busy hour total divided by OR

There is a flow chart showing the 'calculation' in NATS AG57 with the detail of average day busy hour only appearing in the Traffic Score side (it is a traffic term). The important usage of it appearing in the OR Factor (the non-traffic side) is conspicuous (is this the right word to use in model that seems deliberately opaque?) by its absence and it is not adequately explained why in the NATSAG57 document.

What does this mean then?

Total Score actually is:

Average day busy hour total squared divided by OR

plus

Average day busy hour total multiplied by Complexity factor

plus

Average day busy hour total multiplied by Weighted Traffic mix

all multiplied by Voulume Profile Score

Whats more there has been no mechanism for for the unit bandings to changed depending on a change in unit circumstances. Unsuprising when the exponential effect of average day busy hour total being used in both sides of the multiplication.

MACC Total Score was 421, LACC Total Score was 1202

Lets assume MACC had to get 1202 for Band 5

OR would have to reduce from 110 down to around 28 with the same traffic
Traffic would have to increase by 82% for the same staff numbers

Or lets assume LACC had to get 421 for Band 4

OR would have to increase from 330 to around 8000 with the same traffic
Traffic would have to decrease by 48% for the same staff numbers

As an aside if LTCC had an infinite number of ATCOs their total score would only come down to around 482.

I suspect the airports model has the similar flaw in it although I am ashamed to say I have never took the time to check. With airport ORs being closer together the basis of traffic being the driver in the calculations would mean it is more proportinate (yet clearly wrong).

I've made motions to conference, spoken to BEC members, spoken to the Red Barron and every GM I've had about this to no avail.

I don't expect to be paid more or the same as Swanwick. Cost of living on the South coast is probably more than at Prestwick. What I object to is the gap increasing year on year after every pay round and the justification for that gap is based on this disgrace of a flawed model (by accident or design - either way appalling but I suspect the latter).

Whatever the deal is I'll be voting no (as always) because in my mind I'm voting for a continuation of a flawed model which incorrectly states I'm a second rate controller.

[Ceannairceach]

It's a no vote from me. If the ATSAs and PCS say no, and the engineers say no, they we should also say no. It's as simple as that.

And if you think otherwise you're exactly where NATS management want you, bent over their desk, looking teasingly over your shoulder.

Who will be left when they come for us....

[Hootin an a roarin]

If it is 5% then on the face of it it is a good offer. However I believe nsl must do the met so there are strings attached.

The guy who stated that "this atco 2 is happy" also sums this up. We have been divided and conquered. For nerl who will get the same pay deal as certain nsl units for them to carry out extra duties and nerl none is poor to say the very least.

We are going to have 2 votes, one for nerl and one for nsl as promised by prospect. However what we have been lied to about by prospect is that only units carrying out met will be voting on the deal. The whole of nsl will not be doing this. Therefore a couple of units down south who will not be doing met can stitch the regional airports up again with a no strings attached deal whilst we are forced into carrying out extra duties that we feel is unsafe.

I also feel we were on the brink here to flexing our muscles finally. Nsl cannot afford any sniff of industrial action due to the Spanish and Swedish contracts we are in for so we should have stuck it out. I am afraid the bec is made up of too many nerl guys who have got a good rise for themselves and again nsl is the poor relation. The union is there to look after the minority and supposedly prevent this.

Stitched up again but to be honest my complete lack of faith in the BEC makes this not really unsurprising.

[fisbangwollop]

Krait....That you read it Fishbangwallop narrows you down and I'm very disappointed in your response.

I really dont give 2 Flying Fishes what you think....as an ATSA I once again have been shafted!!!!

[The Fat Controller]

Yahoo, you obviously have NOT been to PC lately.

Our ATSAs are stretched to the limit as so many were paid off in the belief that EFD would be in service by now !

FIS spends his time at work either with a headset on doing FISO duties or taking all the :mad: at the DTS desk.

[radar707]

To: All Prospect ATCO Branch Members
ATCO Pay Offer
We have today concluded the final details of the proposed new pay
arrangement and associated agreements for ATCOs and are now able to
recommend it for acceptance.
The detail of the offer made by management is as follows:
RPI + 0.5% (backdated to Jan 1st2011) on pay and related
allowances. This equates to 5.2% based on August 2010 RPI figure
of 4.7%;RPI capped at a maximum 5% from Jan 1st2012 (August 2011 RPI
figure) on basic pay only;
For those in receipt of the Met contingency payment on April 1st
2011, 12 months lump sum buyout (12 months of the rate they
were being paid at the time).
In consideration of this payment, we have agreed the following:
A new ATCO Additional Voluntary Attendance agreement. This is
significantly different to the previous agreement, with new limits
set, no agreement end date in place and is far simpler to
implement;
A new deal on Met Observation and Residual tasks in NSL.
We are planning a series of briefings and will visit each unit at least twice
between now and the ballot opening. We would encourage as many of you
as possible to attend the briefings, as these are detailed agreements that
we should all fully understand before casting our vote. In particular with
regard to the Met agreement there appears to be many
misunderstandings and we would encourage a proper and full debate on
these issues.


In addition to the briefings we will be producing a comprehensive briefing
pack in the next few days. The ballot will run from May 27thuntil June 21st.
We are committed to our mandate to ballot NSL on the issue of Met which
is a fundamental part of the current pay deal. As such we intend to ballot
solely on pay, with a count of the papers from NSL members separately in
the first instance. If this result is positive we will then include the NERL
ballot papers and carry out an additional count to provide the overall
result. As always the count will be carried out and audited by Prospect HQ
staff and the result communicated as soon as possible after the closing
date.
This has been a difficult negotiation, and a long drawn out process. Thank
you for your patience. It has also been difficult with regard to the NTUS
claim and the politics of how this sits with the other members of the
NTUS. We are meeting next week to talk about how we progress this with
regard to the other groups.
Please look out for notice boards and www.atcos.co.uk (http://www.atcos.co.uk/)for further updates
and details over the next days and weeks.
We look forward to seeing you all soon at a briefing.
ATCOs’ Branch Executive
21stApril 2011

[alfie1999]

:eek: Would you like to borrow my tin hat?

[Arty-Ziff]

Being sent home after a couple of hours? Library? ANO?! Again we must be talking about the culture gulf which exists between Swanwick and Prestwick...

I can only talk for PC, but sector's aren't bandboxed to facilitate early gos. They're bandboxed to facilitate people getting breaks. So let's not tar everyone with the same brush. An EG once every 4 cycles is just about as good as it gets for some of us at the moment...

[eastern wiseguy]

So for doing the Met...and helping to reduce the ATSA complement I will be paid 412 quid(after tax). No doubt someone in NERL will be along to tell me why this is a good deal.:hmm:

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

So we've got the offer.

Does it even need discussing any further on here? It will be a yes. NERL will vote yes. NSL have the met issue to contend with, however there are very sizeable units in NSL that this won't affect, so they'll vote yes. That leaves the affected NSL units. After the union have "encouraged proper and full debate" on the issue (for that read a joint presentation with management to tell us why the why the world will end if we don't accept), enough people will vote yes, ensuring that the NSL vote on the whole is a yes. Job done.

I note that the Engineer and ATSA sections are not recommending their deal (its worse than the ATCOs), and the imbalance between NSL/NERL.

Divide and rule - they have - they've won.

[Disillusioned]

So, is this two separate pay offers on the table? The ATCO offer and the ATSA/Engineers offer?

If the ATSAs vote No, can the ATCO offer be accepted? or vice versa. Or have both offers got to be accepted for the entire pay deal to be implemented.

I take it that during the balloting process, the "pulled" AAVA agreement will be re-instated under it's current conditions, not the re-negotiated conditions (whatever they are)? And the "all new & improved" AAVA agreement won't come into effect until after the ballot is complete, and only then if it is a yes vote?

[beaver liquor]

Mills and Reid must be laughing their **** off reading this tonight - job done, workforce divided, 4% for pcs and Prospect ATSS, and 5.2% for ATCOs.
:ugh:

[Shermanator]

The ballot runs until June 21st, anybody know when the annual reports are out? Day after the ballot? No union can be that wet behind the ears can it?

[BAND4ALL]

Well if it is two separate pay offers, I'll be voting No.
I am prob at one of the NSL units that does not affect the ATSAs but I find all this truly awful.
After my vote I will be opting out of the Union they can stick it. :=

[SensibleATCO]

Yahoo said:
have a little think about that later on then when your on your umpteenth tea break, or reading your novel whilst "assisting"
Assisting ?:confused:

You are clearly getting confused with what is a standard shift for a SS/GW approach controller at Swanwick.

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

I still think there's some way to go before this can be considered a good deal for anyone other than management.

5.2% this year which just about keeps pace with current inflation, but does nothing to rectify the last below inflation pay deal. Hang on, you want me to do the met as well for that? Bugger off.

RPI capped at 5% next year ON BASIC PAY ONLY ? Bugger off. I don't care whether RPI is or is not likely to be higher than 5%. What I do care about is this is just a way to present you with a headline figure that sounds reasonable, but which in reality on your actual take home pay will be significantly less than that. (Unless you don't qualify for any allowances.)

No mention of an increase to the AAVA rates. Hmmmm sounds suspiciously like another bugger off to come from me then.

Closing date just ahead of the publication of the annual report? Bugger off. We're not falling for that one again are we?

[Ceannairceach]

After giving this some more thought I'm even more disgusted with Prospect for even considering this. It's a disgrace to contemplate three deals.

What happened to solidarity?

And as for those of you on here who are even contemplating voting yes - you disgust me too for the same reason. Chuck a bit of money at you and you're anyone's. I guess that this is the moment that we ATCOs live up to our greedy reputation once and for all. Screw the ATSAs and Engineers as long as we get our 5% and nice big juicy £800 AAVAs.

We're not so much "working together" but working to shaft our colleagues it would seem. And helping management do it too.

[fisbangwollop]

Back to the good old days then.....Them and us....the carrot has been dangled and I am sure Prospect will accept......after all very soon the memories of ATSA's will be a thing of the past so why should they care....as for me I am disgusted at how NATS have managed to split the work force......and even more disgusted at how Prospect are happy with that.

I know PC are depending on ATSA O/T this Summer to keep the cogs turning.....time will tell!!!!!!!!

[novation]

Does anyone know exactly what the ava tie in is to this agreement?

[fisbangwollop]

Fat C.....Our ATSAs are stretched to the limit as so many were paid off in the belief that EFD would be in service by now !

FIS spends his time at work either with a headset on doing FISO duties or taking all the at the DTS desk.

Thanks for your kind comments and support....yes it is appreciated but I still feel like I have been shafted....but guess no suprise there!!!

[Scuzi]

I see the slagging has started before most have even heard of this offer.

In isolation, I consider the ATCO offer to be very reasonable from a real world perspective, maybe not so much from a Nats fairlyland "been too long in this cushty number to know how the real world works" viewpoint. However, I don't care for the apparent management tactics that seem to be a recurring theme of late. I do wonder if the roles were reversed, if the engineers or the ATSAs would turn down this offer if the ATCOs were getting the raw end of it?

I haven't had enough time to think it over but I won't automatically shout "NO! AND SCREW YOU FOR THINKING YES" like a vocal few on here who have done and will do. I think the offer is worth some consideration.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

[fisbangwollop]

Scuzi.....maybe it is a good deal, maybe the ATSA deal is a good one to but sadly old boy that is not the point.......we all work together do we not so why should one group take a better deal than the other...simple. Can you start to imagine how the atmosphere will be at work if you guys accept and the ATSA and Tels guys get shafted???

Also wait and see how rosy our books are at the annual report despite managements constant drivel about how tough things really are!!

If you want to bend over and take it up your anus well please continue!!!

[Bagheera]

Got to love the irony of it concluding this disgusting, divisive deal on Maundy Thursday, the anniversary of the Last Supper.

"Before this night is out one of you will betray me"

30 pieces of silver anyone?

[southoftheborder]

I have been quite surprised to read some of the more recent posts on here. After months of many atcos saying how they will not accept, a little bit of money is thrown your way and all bloody morals go right out of the window. It may be a decent offer, but what about that of the ATSA'S and engineers? Why should they be rewarded with less of a payrise than atcos? Atcos cannot do their job successfully without the assistance of ATSA's and engineers. It just seems time and time again, management know exactly which buttons to press in order for the atco community to cater to their every whim, in this case it seems to be a stroking of the already over inflated atcos ego.. by offering us more they are effectively saying we are more valuable, again something i disagree with strongly. Everyone deserves a pay rise which is at least in line with inflation. i do understand peoples points on here about the real world and such.... However, we are in a very fortunate position in that we hold a job in a PROFIT MAKING company!!!!! We all work bloody hard, and it is quite frankly disgusting for separate offers to be handed out and not only that but conditions such as met provision etc be attached. I strongly urge everyone to really consider their motivations whilst voting on this, remember, by agreeing you are shafting some of your colleagues and FRIENDS!
Just bloody well vote no, let the annual report come out, and then lets see what can really be offered to EVERYONE. ONE NATS right? Lets stand together and show management that we are a force to be reckoned with, and that we cant be bought so easily, why do conditions need to be attached? Its a core pay deal only, leave it at that!
Oh just to clarify, i am an ATCO, and i am NERL, and i am down south..... just for you guys out there who have bees in your bonnet saying that all band 5 atcos in nerl will vote this through.......

[BAND4ALL]

Good post SOTB :ok:

[Rocket_Science]

The big surprise for me is that it took management so long to use this tactic. But for prospect to sell NTUS out for what can only be described as a lukewarm deal at best, is an even bigger surprise. Maybe if the rumours on Natsnet about 7% pay rises were true, then Prospect would have had no option but to recommend acceptance - but RPI +0.5% followed by a capped deal with strings...c'mon guys! Together we're strong, divided we are nothing! Management will love watching the three unions of the NTUS tear each other apart in gladiatorial combat!

[BOBBLEHAT]

The reason the ATCO's have a higher offer than others is because they are selling their AAVA agreement - not the ATSA's or the engineer's - why should they benefit? What if we had sold 6 days annual leave - would you like to have split that with all the other trade groups too? a few years ago we negotiated seperately for one deal which was voted through - so there is precedent for this.

For me - year 1 looks ok, year 2 should be looking the same (rpi+0.5%).......

[beaver liquor]

Bobblehat,

The point is, AAVA or Met shouldnt be part of a core pay deal. The NTUS should agree a core deal with NATS, then each Union could submit a sectional pay claim based on allowances, overtime, whatever.

The fact that NATS have insisted that the base pay deal should come with strings attached re. elements such as AAVAs is the biggest issue.

Don't get me wrong, this is management's doing, but Prospect ATCOs branch are acquiescing by going down this road.

[fisbangwollop]

Bobblehat....AAVA's I wish!!! I still get paid O/T at plain time rate!!!!!!

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

Bobblehat, you say you think the offer for year 1 looks ok. Can I just ask if you are at a unit where you will be one of those affected by taking on the ATSA tasks on top of your controlling responsibilities?

[southoftheborder]

BAND4ALL - Thank you :O

Bobblehat - I appreciate what you are saying, so my question to you now is this...... Why on earth are we negotiating on AAVA's anyway? Particurlarly for a measly 0.5% this year, and nothing next year. The pay deal should be just that.... a core pay deal. The AAVA agreement should be a separate entity. By voting this through we are giving up one of our main bargaining tools for such a small amount. Granted most of us enjoy the fact that we can bump up our salary for the year by doing AAVA's, and so therefore would like where we can to keep them in, but do we not have more pride and more fight in us than this? Management are exploiting the fact that we all do like to do the occasional AAVA, well lets get a pay deal - one that is the same for ATCO's, ATSA's and engineers through, and then negotiate on AAVA's. At the end of the day, although nice to have for us, management like this agreement as it means they dont have to pay an extra unspecified amount of ATCO salaries for the year, the AAVA agreement is a saving to them, and a good grace on our part that we work extra shifts to cover their lack of employees. Surely this is worth more than 0.5% for one year? I certainly think so.

IMHO, a no vote is the only way to stand up to management and show them we have bloody balls! At the end of the day, NATS is making profits based on the work ATCO's, engineers and assistants do, we should be rewarded as a whole for this! Lets stand united and be counted, this is the only way we are going to get the recompense we all deserve!

[Mantovani]

Looking at the figures there is no core pay offer because the core element of these offers is very very small. The money on offer is almost entirely for agreeing to the strings.

Take out the Met deal and factor in the in perpetuity AAVA deal and what do you think the offer would be?

The threat of the AAVA deal lapsing at the end of the month has concentrated Management’s minds. They can go on their Easter hols knowing the sheep are safely back in their pen, in perpetuity.

[LateStay]

"The threat of the AAVA deal lapsing at the end of the month has concentrated Management’s minds."

Which is why many people will be wondering why the union have negotiated an AAVA at the old (some would say very old ) rate :ugh:, rather than look to increase the payment.

SOTB posts hit the nail on the head :ok:.

[RPIplus1]

So, the ATCO branch membership will vote to accept their pay deal.

The ATSS branch will probably vote to accept their [worse] pay deal, even if it isn't recommended by their BEC.

The PCS union may be the only branch whose membership may have 'a pair' this year - which is surprising!
('cause everyone thinks that the ATCOs are the most militant)


Management have won again... all because we couldn't stick together under the NTUS. We could have avoided this so easily but again we have been rolled over.

[southoftheborder]

Latestay - Thank you very much, i aim to please!

RPIplus1 - This is the kind of cynicism and division that management are hoping to get! If you have been reading this thread then you will see that there are some people like myself who do not agree with this whole thing! Speaking for myself and some of my colleagues, i know that we will certainly be a no vote for this deal. Fingers crossed we can get the 51% to reject this offer.

It has seemed for the last few weeks that the union has finally grown a pair, however, with yesterdays revelations, i am surprised at how quickly they lost that pair. A 5.2% increase on pay is nothing if we factor in met provision and in perpetuity AAVA! And so really, in my opinion, all they have done is once again fail their members at managements request. They should NOT be recommending this deal to the ATCO community. But, unfortunately they have. It is now up to us as a community to vote no and make sure this deal does not go through!

Over the last 10 years or so, we have slowly been getting rid of any of our 'benefits' for the price of a small lump sum here and there. The AAVA deal is really the last straw, let us not allow management to win, think of the bigger picture..... as ATCO's we are trained to do exactly this, so why on earth, when off radar, do many ATCO's not seem to be able to do it? Just food for thought.....

[055166k]

Great deal. So those on £100,000 get roughly £5000; those on £50,000 get roughly £2500; those on £25,000 get roughly £1250. Should get the vote no problem......the majority of voters being at Band 5 units earning top dollar for very little work. Between October and March most sectors closed due drop in traffic resulting in an early-go bonanza.......obscene overtime rates towards £1000 a day.......units like the College where the greatest risk of losing a licence [for those who have one] is a low flying dry marker! Pity the poor aerodromes who yet again take the wooden spoon.....why?.....well they alone operate outside the money-printing monopoly that is NERL.
Time to reflect the possibility of a separate negotiating body to represent those below the "Elite Line". Just remember that a box of Cornflakes costs the same whichever band you're in.......Band 5's obviously need more Cornflakes.

[oneowl]

What a post!!

The silence from that educated and passionate posting is deafening. Maybe the penny has finally dropped as to why lesser banded units have been so cheezed off with it for so long. Very few throw downs from the high and mighties since the post or could they not be bothered to read the flawed banding formula when presented so well ! O.K. so maybe it isn't totally related to the core pay deal, agreed, but what it does highlight is the way that managment can manipulate a workforce and more to the point GET AWAY WITH IT!!:ugh: The highlighted point by 9th Dan which really brings it home for me was the fact that with every core pay award the gap between the bandings just becomes larger. I urge everyone to vote no !! Please just take a second to think why. It's not ATCO's being greedy wanting more, it's to prove to our bullish management that we've been divided before but not again. One deal for one workforce with NO strings := A couple of earlier comments really concerned me. It's not about whether 5% is a descent offer or not it's the fact that we the workforce asked the union for 1 basic paydeal for all with no strings. Once again they have failed with their negotiations so far so go to the meetings and tell them that. This is after all the first offer only! Previous discussions didn't even amount to an offer.
We are a company thriving in tough times. We are a workforce that have worked extremely hard through these tough times when management pleaded with us that the company was struggling. Need I remind people of the over and above the line of duty. We are a workforce still sewing our rings up after years as Assf***ing by our management. Say no and give them somthing to think about. Vote yes and they'll be laughing at us for a long time to come.

[RPIplus1]

...oh, and BTW... our healthy company is set to pay out millions more in dividends soon.

Probably after we've all been bent over and spanked!

[southoftheborder]

Latestay - thank you, i aim to please!

RPIplus1 - this is exactly the kind of cynicism and division management are hoping to achieve! Speaking for myself and some of my colleagues, i know that for us, there is only one way to vote, and that is NO! Lets just hope 51% of us can be convinced that this is not a good deal! There should most certainly not be any differences in offers, we all have the same increased living costs.... and there should certainly be no conditions attached to the pay deal. As atco's we are taught to look at the bigger picture, but in reality, off the radar, most atco's seem very uncapable of doing this. For years now we have been slowly but surely selling off all of our benefits for only small lump sum amounts, well surely the AAVA agreement is one too many? Lets grow a pair and get what we deserve - a common payrise for ALL, in line with inflation, and then negotiations on all the other conditions can begin.

I had really started to believe that the union had finally grown a pair, and then yesterdays revelation just proved otherwise! We all work to achieve the same end, and we should all be rewarded the same for this. The union has recommended this deal to the atco community, appalling! It is now up to us, we know what we need to do.....

[Mantovani]

For years now we have been slowly but surely selling off all of our benefits for only small lump sum amounts, well surely the AAVA agreement is one too many?

Come next summer when the Union sits down with Management to discuss the 2013 deal what will we have left to sell? Annual leave?

[southoftheborder]

MANTOVANI - My point exactly. I thought the writing in of an in perptuity AAVA agreement would raise a lot more heartrates than it has. So what, we write in an AAVA agreement for such a small margin on our pay deal, and then we have nothing to bargain with, except perhaps Annual leave. Surely this is not acceptable? Let us not get to such a weak position. We are in a very strong position right now, what with Olympics next year, IFACTS, EFD. If we wanted we could have management exactly where we want them. But we can only do this by showing a united front. Please colleagues, think of the BIGGER PICTURE!!!!

[beaver liquor]

Sadly, a few Prospect ATCO reps at Swanwick, who are either ex-management, or career wannabees, have lost all context of what trades unionism is about.

But to be dispassionate about it, as we should, we were in a position where it seemed we were going to be strong, and for literally a very small sum, we are being divided.

[Westenders]

Not a fan. Despite first year RPI plus 0.5% the restrictions in second year (cap / rise in core pay only not asap etc.) mean there is a real chance this will be a below cost of living increase. Given that the company continues to be financially strong (interim dividends) and we are potentially in a very strong negotiating position with an aava agreement which was due to end and a significant demand for overtime due to projects such as ifacts I feel we're selling ourselves a little short giving so much (aava AND met) for comparatively little.
We will not have this situation again during the next pay talks (during which I assume we'd hope again to get a cost of living increase but may not have much to sell)
If we feel we can't achieve cost of living increases without eroding ts & cs at at time when the company is making good profits then I worry for us going forward.

[Krait]

There are so many things to correct.

1. AAVA rates are NOT negotiated by Prospect. They are set by management using basic supply and demand economics. :ugh:

2. If NSL vote NO. The NERL votes won't even be counted. :ooh:

However, Atcos 5.2% + RPI for two years is a good deal. Ask the rest of the hard working non apathetic country.

[Conspiracy Theories]

To all on here (particularly SOTB and RPI+1)

I would like to thank you and some other guys to put it into perspective, i was considering voting yes but having read all your posts, i have changed mind to a definite no. i believe in one company and everyone getting the same deal. ATCOs are needed to do the job, yes, but without ATSAs and engineers, then what would be the point of an ATCO. why is management trying to divide us? so far as i understand, i haven't gone to work today but all i ever hear about it our deal, and unless its word of mouth, i don't hear what anyone else is getting, so to me, my deal is for lack of a better word, "OK". having seen what the rest of you albeit, engineers, ATSAs or NSL, you have my vote.
i only hope that you can convince more of the rest of us ATCOs to stick together and get a GOOD deal for all, not just an OK one.

As for the comment a few pages ago about EGs.......well i will have you know i maybe get one once every 2 months. your mate wouldn't happen to be on a specific watch the colour of liverpool would they?

thanks everyone for the enlightenment.

[southoftheborder]

Krait,
I do not believe that anyone on here is denying that 10.2% is a decent offer. What people are hacked off about is the fact we only have this offer based on the fact that we are eroding terms and conditions, and so in all real terms, the actual offer would be very low if you were to take away those t & c's, we should be getting that offer without an open ended aava agreement being written in, or met provision. And furthermore, our colleagues have been offered something lower.... this is not a fair, working together system. We should all be getting the same offer.

The problem we have with the votes, as you pointed out, if NSL vote NO, then the NERL votes will not be counted, however, given that there are more airports which will not be affected by the MET provision, and those airports are the bigger units on the whole in NSL, then worries are that the vote may still go through due to the apparent greed (that has been shown time and time again) of ATCOS. Something which management are most certainly exploiting to their upmost here!

And just as a further point, yes, the rest of the country may not be in as good a position as ourselves, i know of many people who will not get pay rises, or indeed, who are looking at taking pay cuts, however, this is a mute point in this debate, given that we work for a company who are making profits year on year due to the hard work and good will of its workforce. Surely, we should be the ones to reap some of the benefits of this profit..... without losing our pride and face by giving away so much!

[hold at SATAN]

Krait,

er no! 5.2% 0ver one year, then a maximum of 5% (less if RPI takes a dip) in year 2 on basic salary only and not ASAP which means less than the headline year 2 rate across total year's salary.

The lower your salary, the smaller your net year 2 payrise as ASAP makes up a larger proportion of your total take home

if year 2 RPI hit govt target of around 2-3%, then that's what we'll get next year on our basic salary only, and 0% on ASAP

[oneowl]

There we are folks. Can't be arsed but hey, you're alright aren't you. Too many folks like you out there and that's why it will get a yes vote:ugh:
Can't tell you how that post makes me feel.:yuk:

[southoftheborder]

Conspiracy theories,

Thank you! I only hope that all those others have a read and hopefully come to the conclusion that we just cannot let this happen! It does raise ones spirits slightly though..... :D

[hold at SATAN]

given that there are more airports which will not be affected by the MET provision, and those airports are the bigger units on the whole in NSL, then worries are that the vote may still go through due to the apparent greed (that has been shown time and time again) of ATCOS

any NSL guys thinking they're getting free money for someone else doing met is misled. You will be giving up the right in future to negotiate a settlement if management want you to take up met tasks

I think that the recommendation from the union is their way of showing management that they are not being obstructive. WE as the membership are well within our rights to say NO and give the Union a renewed mandate to go back to the table having guaged the feeling of the membership

[LEGAL TENDER]

Would much rather take 4% with no strings attached than a 5.2% with strings. That's why I will vote NO.

A pay offer should be exactly that: a PAY offer. Not blackmail over terms and condition in return of an extra 1% (which in my band 2 world equates to about 20 quid a month difference!)

[LateStay]

It is not a 10.2% pay rise, it is a 5.2% pay rise for year one, year 2 will be RPI for August 2011 (capped at 5%) on basic pay only.

I'm sure Prospect will try and "dress" it up as a 10.2% rise at the forthcoming briefings.

[GT3]

Just a question for those who say the "big NSL units down south" will vote this in as they don't do met.

Met units (I think these will be eligible for Met)
Birmingham
Manchester
Luton
Cardiff
Southampton
Bristol
Farnborough
London City
Stansted
Aberdeen
Glasgow
Belfast
Edinburgh

Non-met units
Heathrow
Gatwick
Gibraltar?

Do the bottom 3 really have more members than the list at the top?

[Westenders]

It isn't 10.2% !!
We need to stop referring to it as such. Most people get shift or non op pay so a large proportion of your salary will see no increase in year 2. You'll need to get your calculators out to calculate your real rise but it can't mathematically be 10.2%.
That figure sounds good though doesn't it? All depends how things are presented I suppose. Same deal could be described as one which may be less than the cost of living increase at a time of continuing profits. So we may be about to trade met and aava for another below inflation pay deal. Brilliant.
And that's without even considering the guys who'll lose their 2% allowance at the airports.

Last week felt things were finally going to change and as a trade union we were going to fight for our rights. What happened in a week? What were the significant changes?
You may now enlighten me.

[pikman]

I am getting more and more annoyed by the minute by everbody referring to the crux of this matter as "doing the MET"!

This is about reducing ATSA numbers at NSL regionals to the point that there will be no ATSA on the nightshift.

This is not just about MET. This is about operational plugged in ATCOs having to answer incoming calls from the public with noise complaints, UFO sightings, wrong numbers for Pizza delivery, bomb threats et al. Sending NOTAMs and SNOTAMS, formulating ATIS broadcasts, sorting out stand allocation problems and everything else (including help when there is an emergency) that the ATSA staff do now and seems to be overlooked.

To NSL management this is about saving money and I'm sure they would even pay a bit more to achieve their goal.

To NSL regional ATCOs it is about providing a safe service without being lumbered with a raft of additional tasks (otherwise known as operational distractions!!!)

That is why I will be voting NO and will vote NO regardless of percentage points so long as "MET" is part of the deal.:mad:

[Not Long Now]

This is all very well lambasting all the band 5 roll overs etc, but let's just remember one thing. An AAVA is still voluntary, so if you're not happy about it, don't do it. So basically one of the big 'strings' attached is that if I don't want to do overtime in perpetuity, I don't have to. No too stringy for me.

[Mantovani]

An engineer told me last night there was absolutely no chance of their offer being accepted. He said it wasn’t so much as an offer as an assault on their T&Cs with the NSL engineers being particularly targeted and he doubted it would even be put to a ballot.

[LateStay]

"What happened in a week? "

Prospect caved in............again :mad: .

[man friday]

GT3

Gibraltar's "NSL" staff doesnt qualify for any UK pay Deal or T&C's.

Prospects and PCS negotiated a 9% over 3 year deal for us. When the members rejected the unions view was take it or leave it.

[GT3]

Yeah I wasn't sure about Gib, hence the ? after it

[Roffa]

100% no vote here and very disappointed with my union.

[ZOOKER]

Amazed to see that yet again, the votes will be counted by Prospect,
at Prospect HQ, probably behind closed doors.
As with any election the votes should be counted only by independent scrutineers.
Then, and only then, should the results of this ballot be accepted.
Thanks again to 9th Dan for the detailed banding explanation.
Good points from pikman too, more Ops room distractions for NSL ATCOs certainly.
Definitely a NO from me.

[OurSoul]

Maybe the powder is being kept dry(!!!!!), but Prospect have caved in again...

Utterly spineless

I'm voting NO

ps....anyone know why the rosters were late out(with union agreement)?????

[anotherthing]

As an aside if LTCC had an infinite number of ATCOs their total score would only come down to around 482.

Just as I've always thought.

I'm now incandescent with rage not only over this pay offer, but all that has gone before. Clearly TC should be band 10 :E

[radarman]

man friday's post shows that Gib has already been shafted by its caring, sharing unions. But it raises a point. Is it mandatory to reach an agreed settlement? If there is a 'No' vote, could Management/Prospect/PCS just tell everybody 'We made you an offer, you turned it down. Tough. See you next year.'

[10W]

Very disappointed in the BEC for caving in and allowing non core pay issues to be included in the deal. I guess the track record with the pensions should have been ample warning that they are not a million miles away from NATS Management on most issues, and we, as members, never seem to learn that defeat is usually always grasped from the jaws of victory.

The deal should have been solely about core pay, across the whole of NATS as a single workforce, and the BEC should have been pushing for a deal which at least matches inflation and compensates for the real term pay reduction we have effectively had over the last few years. No strings attached.

As others have said, don't be fooled by the headline 10+% over 2 years. It's only a guaranteed 5.2% for this year. It could be a very small increase next year depending on the financial performance of the country. Alternatively, if the country goes to the dogs and inflation jumps up over 5%, we could be tied to a less than RPI increase, or an effective pay cut. Smoke and mirrors again, and all the hallmarks of the pension briefings and that sellout to NATS Management.

The AAVA agreement should have been kept as a totally separate issue, and one which should only be up for debate when the existing agreement ends at the end of this year (albeit currently suspended - I expect a cave in on this too by the end of the month). Why do the BEC want to renew it anyway ? I would rather have correct numbers of staff in place than have to rely on people giving their time up for the Kings Shilling to bail out the ineptitude of NATS Management. If they do want to renew it, why make it a perpetual agreement at a rate which was set about 5 years ago and has never risen ? Maybe their thinking is to make the agreement unattractive to members so that no one does any ? If that's the case, they have underestimated the attraction of a few quid to a lot of members, some of whom would sell their grandmothers to the devil. NATS Management will of course be rubbing their hands in glee at the bargain basement cover they have negotiated once again with our 'Working Together' BEC. Cheap ATCO labour on tap = a big bonus for the executives.

MET should also play no part in this deal. That should be a sectional pay claim matter for those staff affected, done on an individual unit basis if need be, to keep it fair. It's nothing to do with NERL or the bigger NSL units (for the moment) so why are we getting a vote on it ?

If you can't tell by now ... I'm a NO !!

[The Fat Controller]

Apparently, the only "across the board" offer that was ever on the table was 2% !

PCS were the only group that were originally asking for a sectional settlement, but you will have to ask your reps exactly what that was and why.

The final offers were from management with the strings attached for each section.

Granted, they have been very clever in doing this and as radarman says, if any section votes "no" who is to say what the outcome would be.

10W, an interim AAVA agreement is back in, slightly modified regarding number of shifts per month, shift length etc.

The new proposed AAVA agreement is rumoured to be maximum of 12 per year, more negotiable for big simulations etc and the rate remains as per the current agreement.

[LateStay]

10W - I have heard this afternoon that an AAVA agreement is back in place, with a few changes to the previous and is called an "interim agreement", this is to cover the period until the result of the ballot is known. The changes involve the number of days an individual is able to do, times of the shifts,and the withdrawal of the half AAVAs.

[10W]

Thanks guys, why am I not surprised ? :bored:

The original was pulled because of numerous flagrant breaches of the agreement by NATS Management. What exactly have they promised the BEC to give them yet another try at adhering to it ?

[LateStay]

"What exactly have they promised the BEC to give them yet another try at adhering to it ? "

A maximum of 0.5% increase in pay ;););).

[not a scooby]

10w et al, Well said,
For the weak-minded amongst us, go with the recommendation, for the rest of us,let's give OUR Union a bargaining tool, by saying no.
I don't suppose there is any chance of having a unit by unit breakdown of the voting, just to confirm or otherwise, the perception of Band 5 shagging everyone else, purely for self interest.

[Topjet]

Personally I think what's on the cards is a pretty good offer for the ATCO's, but maybe I'm still too enthusiastic about it all being someone who's bottom of the ATCO payscale?

However, out of principle, I'll be voting NO on the basis that a payrise should be given to ALL in NATS and not just for the ATCO's!! Pretty disgraceful if you ask me!

[Krait]

There are a lot of it's NOT 10.2%s on here.

True.

But the suggestion it will be hugely different.

Unlikely.

Next years RPI increase is this coming Augusts RPI. As in 4 months time. RPI currently 5.3%. Forecast for August 4.9%.

[The Fat Controller]

Assuming 5.2% in year 1 and 5% on base salary only in year 2 with no extra duties (OJTI/LCE etc)

ATCO2 at top of Band 4, overall rise = 10.1%

ATCO on base salary of £50,000, overall rise = 9.93%

ATCO on base salary of £35,000, overall rise = 9.74%

If the second year HAD been on allowances as well that would have been an overall rise of 10.46%

[Westenders]

And won't be paid on allowances regardless of the figure. So no not 10.2%

[Westenders]

And what about a newly posted trainee what percentage is it for them. This is like a differential deal via the back door.

[ToweringCu]

A lot of negative responses on here, which doesn't seem to reflect the reaction at work today. 5.2% this year is more than anyone actually expected and RPI next year isn't to be sniffed at either. Other than Met observations at airports (which will be voted on by those effected) there aren't any real strings attached to this. Prospect have done well to up an offer from 2 to 5.2%. Anyone who thinks this isn't a good increase needs to rejoin the real world.
As for the assistants, well they will get to decide when they vote for themselves, although I'd be very surprised if they voted no.
The AAVA agreement may be a permanent feature but the AAVA rate will increase when controllers decide their days off are more valuable.

Prospect members will accept this offer by a landslide.

[Ceannairceach]

Krait, ever thought of a career in spin?

The deal is not quite as simplistic a 10.2% rise. Please stop spouting the spin; to paraphrase Ed the Red - it's hurting and it isn't working - so stop.

[Krait]

Spin? It's not spin. As I said it won't be exactly 10.2 but it won't be far off.

I know it's a rumor site but there is more crap posted than rumor. Just trying to cut some of it. Losing battle no doubt. But for now it's amusing me. General feeling amongst the real people from my NERL circus has been good. But we will see. It is now in the hands of the members.

[LateStay]

The figures posted by The Fat controller are a maximum, nobody knows what the August rpi figure will be.

[fisbangwollop]

It would be good to see PCS give a big NO vote...that will prove at least one of our union's has balls and prepaired to fight for a better future.....too many people only think of the present and their own self interest and less of the future!!

[southoftheborder]

I am not entirely sure that Prospect members will accept this by a Landslide, TCU.
Krait, really? The general feeling i have been getting from my fellow NERL colleagues is that whilst it is a half decent offer, they are disgusted by the fact that we have been offered more than the ATSA's and engineers, but take out the terms and conditions and is it really a half decent offer? Krait, you seem to be good at putting a positive spin on the figures.... tell us just exactly how much of a rise we will get if we take out all the terms and conditions they are proposing! I doubt it will be all that much.
It really surprises me the lack of passion, the lack of self-respect, the lack of pride but above all THE LACK OF TEAM SPIRIT some of you guys have on here. We really do need to stick together, but the prospect of an offer of 1% more cash and the greedy ATCOs have divided the workforce. Yes, it is management who set the wheels in motion, but it is always the greedy ATCO's that actually cause the division.
Sometimes, it makes me damn bloody ashamed to be an ATCO. There is no fight, no fire. I used to think that the ATCOs were a strong group of formidable people, who faced with anything would stay strong, stick together and fight. We now seem to be in an era where we are nothing but wimps. This is our first published offer, management can improve on it! Where was the actual publication saying that they had offered 2%? Propaganda to make you all believe how good our offer now is, so then the weak minded in you will vote it through, with little regard for the people who fix the radars/ tels or people who pass estimates or put out the strips, people who run around at our beck and call..... people, who, without them, we could not do our jobs!

I can now only hope that the conversations i have had with people, are an indication of actual reality, in that people are not happy with this, and will vote no.

[RPIplus1]

SOTB - I agree with everything you are saying, plus the sentiment.

One minor point fyi... the 2% pay offer was communicated to all employees by the NTUS on 28th Feb 2011. It states:
"The current offer on the table to the NTUS remains unchanged at 2% although there have been indications that this would be improved on delivery of numerous cost savings and changes to current terms and conditions of employment."
I think that this may have been the final core offer, after which management were only wanting to hold sectional meetings - which the negotiating teams [eventually] accepted.

My previous post was somewhat cynical. However, if it stokes up the fire a little then maybe I'll have helped.

I was hoping that the ATCO offer from management would not be recommended by the ATCO branch BEC. I was greatly dissappointed to see that they had instead recommended it. This looks like the first nail in the coffin.
How can they be doing this when the offer is plainly not a good one???
A reduction in the ATCO Ts&Cs for an increase in line with the cost of living!!

A 'good' offer would be an increase in line with the cost of living without any strings.


Hopefully all three branches can stick together under the NTUS for future negotiations.

[southoftheborder]

RPIplus1 - Thanks for the correction :bored:

Ok, so there was an offer of 2% made, and the union rejected it, too bloody right. And yes, i would agree that had the offer that we have now, have come with no strings, then yes, it would be a good offer. However, it has come with strings, and it has come at a higher offer than our colleagues, so all in all, it will be a resounding NO from me (if anyone had not guessed this by now!), and i agree, that i was very surprised that the union had recommended this. Just another example of the union eating out of managements pocket. At the point where management started attaching strings, the union should have asked for higher. At the point where it became clear there were going to be separate deals, the union should have said no! I believe that the initial offer of 2% was made so that we would get to the point now where we are being offered 5.2% and straight away people would vote yes as it seems like such a good deal in comparison, forget about all the terms and conditions. Management are very good at manipulating their weak minded workforce, and hey presto, here we are with people spouting off about how good an offer it is! Exactly what the suits were hoping for :ugh:

[Hootin an a roarin]

What i would like to know from prospect is what is the pay rise on offer for nsl controllers.

We were told that they would not accept any difference in pay for nerl and nsl. Also only those units carrying out met will get the extra % pay rise as recompense.

So is nsl being offered 3% as core pay and 2% for met, or 5% and cock all for the met? Either way we have been blatantly lied to by the BEC. It really winds me up reading the few nerl controllers being self centered on here and stating this is a good deal for them and bugger anyone else. I would like to see a separate union for nsl and nerl as I am fed up with getting the scraps of any deal every single time. The union always looks after the big boys, mainly because the BEC is made up of nerl or band 5 controllers, and the minority are forever trodden on.

I can only hope that the unhappiness with the AAVA agreement sinks this deal. There will be units in nsl that will be voting on the met duties who will not have to carry out those duties, heathrow being one of them.

This is the final nail in the atsa coffin at the airports and a vital source of information, safety net, good friends and an essential part of the air traffic team will be lost forever.

[GM WAN TO BE]

'The Retail Prices Index (RPI) is the most familiar general purpose domestic measure of inflation in the United Kingdom.'

I'm a bit confused here! Am I right in thinking that if we takeaway the 2xRPI increases, then the pay rise in real terms over 2 years is actually 0.5% far all the add on stuff from a company performing well dishing out dividends?

[Westenders]

GM WAN 2 BE afraid you are wrong. It'll be less than that since as had been said year 2 is below RPI since allowances not included so assuming you're watch keeping shift pay won't gi up with cost of living. And we're relying on RPI coming down - think it's 5.3% at present.

[No Speed]

100% no vote from me and yet again very disappointed with my union :mad:

[hold at SATAN]

Hootin:
There will be units in nsl that will be voting on the met duties who will not have to carry out those duties, heathrow being one of them.

actually, whilst it may not may not hit us in the short term, we will be affected by losing the right to seek recompense if we are to do met in future

GM wan to be:
We have already been taking pay cuts in real terms. In fact the year 2 offer (RPI capped at 5%) will yield a pay cut in real terms if RPI remains above 5%. And as the year 2 increase is not applied to ASAP NOS etc then you our overall take home, in any case, will be cut in real terms

Vote NO to give the BEC the ammo to go back and express our feelings to management. In the mean time I would suggest that we impose our own AAVA ban until this matter is resolved to mimic the effect of having no AAVA agreement in place

[hangten]

To reiterate something that was mentioned earlier, remember that this ballot is reliant on being passed by NSL first, with NERL votes only being counted if the NSL result is favourable. This is a significant twist.

[Pheasant Plucker]

Must be a piece of p!ss if you are in management and are 'negotiating' with Prospect - especially if you have been a controller - Paul Reid must be crying with laughter reading this thread.

[RPIplus1]

Better get used to it... this will be happening at each and every negotiation from now on.

You'll get a cost of living increase and have to give up more and more Ts&Cs.

After a short number of years you'll have no decent Ts&Cs left.


The only way to stop the rot is to reject this deal now!

[alfie1999]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the NSL guys vote 'no' as much in protest at banding and the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that negotiations and settlements are conducted and agreed primarily in the interests of the Band 5 atco's.

It's a rare opportunity for them to make their voice heard.

[Purbeck10]

The reason for voting NO regardless of the offer (to ATCO's) being good or bad is a simple one, the entire workforce should be offered the same as has already been mentioned, the discussion about whether the offer is good or not shouldn't even come in to it at this point, Prospect should be recommending a no vote in support of the Engineer, ATSA & other support staff community, not sneaking around behind our respective unions backs doing deals on behalf of just a percentage of the workforce. As an ATSA I'm hugely disappointed by the antics of the Prospect negotiating team in the last week, effectively jumping into bed with the Co Management, they have let the rest of the NATS workforce down badly !

[anotherthing]

the entire workforce should be offered the same as has already been mentioned

Considering the offers, why do you feel as an ATSA that you should be given the same rise as everyone else?

Like it or not, the Union (all 3 sections) has allowed terms and conditions to be included as part of the pay deal. These terms and conditions are worth different amounts.

That you should receive at least an RPI raise is one argument and is fair enough and one that can't be argued with, however once you (or your union) start negotiating Ts&Cs as part of what should be a core pay deal, then the ability to call for equal terms becomes moot.

We have differing contracts because of slightly different Ts&Cs... when you start changing them, then there will always be a disparity.

Moving away from making this a core pay deal (something that started a while ago) muddies the water. For example, if the ATSA community were offerd 4% with no strings and the ATCOs were offered 5% but had to take on extra duties for this, would you still be saying that you should be getting the same rise?

Anyways, why blame Prospect? I've heard it said that PCS was the first to actually talk about individual deals. Now that may be a scurrilous rumour, but it's no more pie in the sky than some of the other rubbish written on here.
Only those on the negotiating teams know the whole story regarding the offers over the past 11 months etc. We, the great unwashed, will never get to know all these details, therefore everything else is speculation.

The cold facts of the matter are the 3 pay offers. They have to be looked at individually. The best way to do that is against RPI (after all, this is the figure management always use). Then look at the other things you are compromising on... the 3 sections have different compromises to agree. Then you have to vote the way you feel you should according to the offer has been made for your section.

Any chance of an equal pay offer across the board was blown out of the water when this went from a core pay deal to a pay deal with a trade off in Ts&Cs... It's very easy (and lazy) to blame Prospect or Band 5 ATCOs... in the absence of cold hard facts, instead of the usual rhetoric maybe you should look more closely at your negotiating team first...

[9th Dan Vectors]

As I stated in a previous post I'll be voting no essentially for what is a continuation of a 7 year old flawed (deliberately in my view) banding model.

I believe the divergence in % difference in annual salary between bands (above and below me) increasingly unfair.

The potential percentage increases involved in this pay round, even in the best case don't seem to cover the deal on AAVAs. That AAVA agreement is obviously the key aim in their negotiations, especially ensuring a long term/infinite term arrangement). They should never have been on any table. As has been mentioned before they should not be part of a core deal.

Neither should MET. I find it abhorrant that my NERL colleagues and I get a say in a matter we have no right to dictate. Wasn't there a motion passed to ensure this wouldn't happen?

And didn't conference agree (again) to close the gap between bands?

Whilst understanding the BEC would need some autonomy to act in these negotiations, their past performance with management in collusion (banding), close alignment (pensions - yes, a difficult matter, but NATS did take a pensions holiday), getting the timing/numbers wrong (the last pay round with regards to the RPI deal) and going immediately for multi year deals without added reward (or member remit); makes me particularly uneasy that they have steamed straight into another bad deal.

Plus further alienating us from our engineer and ATSA friends.

No from me. Again.

[anotherthing]

Neither should MET. I find it abhorrant that my NERL colleagues and I get a say in a matter we have no right to dictate. Wasn't there a motion passed to ensure this wouldn't happen?

As explained extremely clearly in Union communication, NSL votes will be counted first; this satisfies the sectional issue of Met. If it is a 'no' vote, then the whole ATCO offer will be rejected without any recourse to what NERL voted.

If it is a 'yes' vote from NSL then and only then will the votes from NERL be added to get an overall result. This way of counting the votes means that the sectional issues i.e. Met will be dealt with first.

To try to think you have a sway over the Met question is a misunderstanding of the vote count process and could get you into a bit of a moral dilemma, if you are indeed trying to take the moral high ground.

If 51% of NSL are happy with the Met being carried out by them, then voting 'no' as a NERL employee in order to 'help out your NSL colleagues' is a total farce... You'd actually be voting against the wishes of the majority (albeit 2% majority in this example) of the people it is going to affect. Like it or lump it, that 2% majority is what counts, this is a democratic process.

The Met question will be answered by those if affects. NERL employees can vote based on what they think of their deal, irrespective of Met. (And if that means they vote 'no' in support of ATSAs or Engineers then that's up to them and totally different from the NSL issue). You should vote the way you think you should vote for the deal as it effects you, the way the count is being done means that it is an efficient way of sorting out the sectional issue, an issue which does not affect NERL.

NSL have the ability to blow the deal out of the water if they are concerned about Met.


I find it abhorrant that my NERL colleagues and I get a say...
I find it abhorrent that an intelligent workforce doesn't understand how the ballot will be counted and the ramifications of the process, and because of that they will vote 'tactically' over something that they freely admit has nothing to do with them. By doing so, they could actually be voting against the wishes of the majority of NSL, just because they think they are helping them out!

[Purbeck10]

" Considering the offers, why do you feel as an ATSA that you should be given the same rise as everyone else? "

Point taken, however the point I way trying to make perhaps badly was / is this, the Core offer across the Company should be the same, the T & C's argument I take on board, RPI (minimum) should be the same across the company though and then T & C's on top, I'm not clear how the ATCO T & C changes can be worth 1.2% more than the rest of the Co. Prospect nor any of the other Unions (if PCS did) should not have gone back to the management on their own. When Management approached Prospect with a better offer earlier this week and Prospect agreed to talk this was the moment in my opinion when they let the rest of us down, sticking together may well have got you the better AAVA deal many of you are still after as well, they should have said no and stuck together with the other Unions as I'm sure you would like to think PCS etc would if this had happened the other way round. The general feeling was that the Unions had management on the ropes to a large extent for the first time in a long time, Prospect let them off them.

Lastly to reply to the 4 / 5% comment, we haven't been offered 4% no strings, we have an offer which changes our working week extending it by half an hour, doesn't sound much until you multiply it up, in very simplistic terms that's another 26 hours a year or 3 more days at work for no more money possibly ! We are being asked to give up our current overtime agreement (for a bung) for a fixed payment one that for me at least is worse than the terms I'm on now, even more importantly the new overtime agreement is also non pensionable, our current one is.

[anotherthing]

Purbeck,

the 4/5% was an example (turning things totally on their head) to illustrate my point about the difficulty of asking for an equal pay rise when we are selling Ts and Cs. I know the ATSA offer inside out, and think that you are the ones being asked to give away the most.

I agree with you entirely, this should only ever have been a pay deal regarding core pay.

As soon as you start trading Ts and Cs it muddies the water.

RPI with no strings is the minimum any sections should have been offered. Had it stayed a no strings deal across the board then we should all have been offered the same.

I personally find this deal difficult to understand as there is no real value attached to each erosion of working condition. Therefore we don't really know what the core deal was for each section before the extra was added for the Ts&Cs. I find it hard to believe the core deal was the same given how much the ATSA community is being asked to give away.

This series of offers has set a bad precedent. It should only ever have been about core pay, and as such RPI minimum was deserved by all the workforce.

[band2drone]

Lassie - you're hoping for a bit much there I'm afraid.

I won't be surprised if it goes through and our chance to face down the new CEOs disappears forever. As for NTUS unity, well that's gone too.
I wonder what excuse my local Prospect rep comes up with for all of this.

[9th Dan Vectors]

Okay anotherthing, I accept on the issue of NERL voting on MET I was wrong. When I was at a union briefing a few weeks ago, that was what I was told might happen. Did you read my post on unit grading?

As I said a few days ago my no vote isn't tactical at all. It is a no vote against a continuation of a shabby pay scheme with no closing of gaps or no justification for pay disparity.

Back to the current vote:

What would be the next move if NSL said "No?" Bearing in mind it can't be acertained whether the rejection was for the MET or the pay. Are the other votes counted? How can the BEC formulate a strategy for negotiation if they can't be sure why NSL have rejected the proposal?

[notatthecollege]

If it's a no vote then I suspect we will be offered an extra pound in LV's....that normally clinches it!

I'm a no vote by the way. This sucks on so many different counts.

[Mantovani]

There is a meeting next week to decide how Prospect & PCS are going to move forward from here.

PCS & the ATSS section are not recommending the offers to their members. The big question is is the ATCO section going to break ranks and accept a deal while PCS & the ATSS reject their offers?

Judging by the fact the ATCO section negotiated and recommended an offer while they knew PCS & ATSS had rejected their's I'd say we are heading for some very bitter days.

[RPIplus1]

I've heard that this is the first time since the early 1980's that the ATSS branch and PCS will be recommending to reject the offer from management.

Their union negotiators and BEC seem to have the right attitude to managements offer. Time will tell if their members are in the same place.

We need to bear in mind that the offer to each of the branches is not the fault of the union negotiators; they have to try to persuade management to increase their offer but if this is not forthcoming then there is little that they can do. They are doing a difficult job under difficult circumstances.
That said, I still wonder why they allowed management to dictate the course of events, forcing them into sectional talks.

However, you have to ask some questions of the ATCO BEC - the membership and the reps should be asking them why they are recommending the offer. Was it a close BEC vote to recommend the offer?

The rest is up to us - the membership. Vote to reject the pay offer.


If you are REALLY unhappy about the offer then do something about it - get involved... become a rep and take on the status quo of the existing ATCO branch (stand for a position on the BEC maybe??).

[On the beach]

Why doesn't one of you create a poll? That way you, management and your union would get a clear quantified indication of how you may vote for real.

On the beach

[Mantovani]

If you are REALLY unhappy about the offer then do something about it - get involved... become a rep and take on the status quo of the existing ATCO branch (stand for a position on the BEC maybe??).

Or simply ask your Rep what T&Cs they intend to sell in the next pay negotiations.

The cupboard is looking extremely bare.

[Use the Force]

Hey Guys,

Welcome to the private sector!
Moan about about Met, guess what? Most controllers out side of NATS do met.

Some units have controllers that have to take on assistants duties, outside of normal working hours.

Contracted airport controllers in the private sector are given pay rises annually based on the airport operators contract with the supplying contractor. This is usually done in an advance with may I suggest with little influence from RPI or CPI.

Stop complaining, realise this is no longer 1980 and you have a good deal.

If you want more money, get off your arse and get a better job, validation, e.t.c.:E:E:E:E:E

[Mantovani]

Contracted airport controllers in the private sector are given pay rises annually based on the airport operators contract with the supplying contractor. This is usually done in an advance with may I suggest with little influence from RPI or CPI.

Good. NATS made fantastic profits last year, the shareholders were got great dividends and departing managers were also fantastically rewarded. We'll have double RPI then.

[ZOOKER]

In 1980,
'Met', (Meteorology), was done by Meteorologists, and Air Traffic Control, (ATC), was done by Air Traffic Control Officers, Assistants and Engineers.
It worked well.
And not a 'Manager' in sight.

P.S.
Dentists do not routinely perform liver-transplants. :ok:

[The Fat Controller]

To all of those in PCS, you should also be asking why your union group were the only one originally looking for a sectional settlement !

Perhaps this gave the management negotiating team the idea for their final cunning plan of 3 offers.

[Flybywyre]

As far as I am aware that is not true, just a rumour :=
PCS do not have enough bargaining muscle to go it alone.

[The Fat Controller]

Flybywyre, suggest you ask someone in the know, as I did, you may get a surprise.

It would appear PCS did have an agenda that included more than basic pay, although I do not know the details.

I am in no way saying they were wrong trying to protect their members from further savage cuts, the ATSAs where I work have certainly had the sh***y end of the stick for a considerable time now.

[Flybywyre]

Unfortunately I am not in for a few weeks, otherwise I would go and see CR in his office and ask him directly.
Perhaps someone at Swanwick could clear this one up for us?
Get a definitive answer and post it on here :ok:

[Hootin an a roarin]

I don't want to patronise but you can't compare the duties outside of nats to those inside as most of the airports are far busier than non state airports.

We feel it is dangerous having a controller answer outside calls, undertake met obs etc whilst controlling. Also safety surveys etc are not failsafe and is not the solution to this that prospect thinks it is. There is always somebody stupid enough to sign things off for management.

We need atsa's, end of story.

[Krait]

This is obviously a very emotive topic and feelings rightly run high.

The three Trade Unions have come up with three offers. That is the way it is. There is no need for one offer :ugh:. If any of the three Unions dont like their offer (even if its just because its less than the other Unions) then vote NO. Or look at the deal in its individuality. Its not divide and conquer. The workforce is already divided. Into three Trade Unions and on and on and on.

The Prospect Atco's branch has presented a deal which is RPI + .5% on basic pay. On your basic pay it is a pay rise VS RPI. The add ons in the second year, the UHP, OJTI LCE etc dont go up. However, if this really pisses you off do something. If OJTI now doesnt pay you enough, give it up. If LCE doesnt now pay you enough, three months notice today. But your basic pay will go up with this offer by RPI + 0.5 %.

NSL have the power with regards to MET. Quite rightly. If taking on MET isn't worth RPI + 0.5%, vote NO. Without MET and AAVA you can expect an offer of 2%.

NERL could pay a higher core offer, say 3 -3.5% because financially they are under a lot less pressure than many of the aiport contracts within NSL. However with AAVA and they are vital to projects, RPI + 0.5% was available.

I know this is a little Rant-like but I am living in the real world. So NATS pays dividends. So what. Thats not unusual. An RPI pay deal is tho! Very unusual. My other half has a 0% deal this year. The rest of the country is averaging between 2-3 %. NATS is doubling this but with strings. The strings this time round sit with NSL predominantly but in the future it will be with NERL.

NSL and NERL need to stick together on this, but do it with our eyes open.:rolleyes:

[Westenders]

RPI deals may be rare but do happen. Otherwise everyone would get poorer as time went by which wouldn't be sustainable.
Believe tube drivers just turned down a deal which would give them 0.25 % ABOVE RPI for next 4 years. Think they'd have to take a hit in the first year and so they don't like it but I'd swap it for our deal in a heartbeat. And deal included concessions from the company not the staff.

A business involving public transport the disruption of which would cause chaos, especially with the Olympics next year. Why does that sound familiar?

[anotherthing]

Krait,

you are not quite correct about what goes up in the second year.


The add ons in the second year, the UHP, OJTI LCE etc dont go up.
UHP does not go up, the other 2 do.

OJTI payment is percentage-based on your basic pay. The LCE scale is a basic pay scale when it comes to pay increases and if you are active, then it is a percentage as an hourly rate.

If your basic pay goes up, then obviously anything that is a percentage of that pay i.e. OJTI hourly payment and quarterly payment, goes up as well!!!

[Krait]

Another thing Ta.

Sentiment still remains. Actual pay rise is better than I noted down then!!

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

So after the pay cuts we have suffered over the last 2 years what we are really talking about is an actual real terms rise of LESS THAN 0.5% on your whole pay over 2 years in return for taking on all those extra ATSA duties on top of our current tasks, and an AAVA deal signed in perpetuity at the same rate that hasn't changed since its introduction.

Anybody who doesn't see that as getting stiffed when the company is making big payouts to managers and shareholders is just kidding themselves.

Just consider this...At what point do you think your pay is going to recover from these repeated attacks? Or are you content to just watch it all disappear down the toilet?

Until we show management that we are deadly serious about this they will always keep screwing us forever more.

Make no mistake though, if we do make a stand this time we will need to show a strong resolve in order to acheive what we want, and that resolve must be carried forward year on year to avoid losing it all again afterwards.

In a successful, profitable company it is not unreasonable to expect pay to keep pace with inflation year on year without having to accept reductions in other terms & conditions.

[The Fat Controller]

Mad : No operational staff had a PAY CUT !

We just have not had a pay rise since January 2009 when we got 3%

Tax and National Insurance are taking a bigger chunk as of this month for higher rate tax payers, so your net pay will be less, but that is nothing to do with NATS.

[hangten]

an AAVA deal signed in perpetuity at the same rate that hasn't changed since its introduction

Has anyone seen this written down anywhere? I don't recall it being stated that the AAVA agreement that forms part of this pay offer is definitely at the old rates. The interim agreement certainly is, but this is just a stop gap solution whilst the ballot takes place.

Frankly, even though I've asked the question, it doesn't matter a great deal to me since this is the least critical factor in the deal anyway.

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

Mr Fat Controller, if pay doesn't keep pace with inflation year on year then in real terms that is a pay cut.

What was inflation when we got 3%?
What has inflation been in the 2 years since then?

I'm pretty sure that the communications would have at least mentioned any increase in the AAVA rate if there was going to be one.

[The Fat Controller]

For those that have forgotten, here are the pay rises that ATCOs have had in recent years since the change to January deals rather than April.

The previous August RPI is shown in brackets as this is the one used by NATS/Unions in their negotiations.

Jan 2002 2.2% on all, Oct 2002 2.0% on base salary only (2.1%)

Jan 2003 3.8% on all, Dec 2003 1.8% on base salary only (1.4%)

Jan 2004 3.4% plus half spine point (2.9%)

Jan 2005 3.8% plus half spine point (3.2%)

Jan 2006 2.8%, Apr 2006 one spine point (2.8%)

Jan 2007 3.4% plus 0.65% spine point (3.4%)

Jan 2008 4.1% (4.1%)

Jan 2009 3% (4.8%)

By the time we got the January 2009 rise, RPI had fallen to -0.5%

The data can be found here

National Statistics Online - Product (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=9413)

As for the new AAVA deal, looks like it will be at the current rate, limited to 12 every year with extras negotiated for large simulation/training requirements.

[BOBBLEHAT]

The interim AAVA deal rate remains as was. New rates will be in the new AAVA deal (if there is to be one!) however Prospect has often said that it is more interested in pensionable pay rather than throwing money into an overtime agreement that is voluntary.......

I have a genuine question for the NSL girls and guys - what do you think is going to happen if there is a no vote on the NSL ballot?

I would be interestered in your opinions, personally I can see only 4 options.....

1. Nats withdraws the whole offer.
2. Nats says original offer still stands for NERL employees.
3. Nats offers more money.
4. The residual tasks element is dropped.

I think we all know 3 is unlikely......as is 4.

What are the ramifications of 1 & 2....?

Discuss.

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

Bobblehat... I can't help feeling you have a vested interest in seeing this deal accepted after a divisive & scaremongering post like that.

The way i see it is that the union has a clear mandate that no differential pay offer will be accepted, and so assuming a rejection of the offer by NSL staff, would not be in a position to recommend an offer to NERL staff alone.

[The Fat Controller]

Having had an unofficial mini-briefing from someone who knows the in and outs of the met issue, it would appear there are very limited circumstances under which met would be undertaken by ATCOs where they do not already do it.

Also, the task is likely to disappear in a couple of years time anyway when SAMOS is introduced, so taking a "bung" now may not be the worst thing to do.

As for the new AAVA agreement, do not hold you breath for any change in the rate-per-shift !

[1985]

I think "2. Nats says original offer still stands for NERL employees." is what will happen.....and as sure as eggs are eggs, NERL ATCO's will accept.


I haven't spoken to anyone who thinks that giving away a permanent overtime AAVA agreement is a good idea yet, everyone i speak to says they will vote no.

NERL ATCO