Prospect Press Release: NATS Staff Angry

[radar707]

NATS STAFF ANGRY AT PAY DEAL FOR OUTGOING CHIEFS
Prospect, the union representing over 3,000 air traffic controllers, engineers and specialists employed by the national air traffic provider NATS, has described the remuneration packages of two of NATS’ most senior officers as " disgraceful and repugnant".
The comments follow today’s (Friday) publication of NATS’ annual accounts for the year ending March 2010, which showed another year of healthy profits and the payment of dividends to shareholders. The report also shows a year where delays were at an historic low and another impressive year in terms of safety.
Prospect Aviation Officer Garry Graham said: “Our members will be rightly proud yet again in terms of what they have achieved in relation to safety, service delivery and delays. But we believe all profits should be reinvested in staffing, technology and training. Simply stripping money out of the business, particularly at this stage of the economic cycle, makes no sense.”
However Graham reserved his harshest criticism for the remuneration packages of outgoing Chief Executives Paul Barron and Lawrence Hoskins who received nearly £2m and £1.2m respectively.
Describing these sums as "disgraceful and repugnant" Graham said: "In a year when our members have had to endure a pay freeze, and senior management have lectured staff on the need for restraint and to reduce costs, we see two departing Chief Executives choosing to ‘fill their boots’.
"This is another example of the red in tooth and claw impact of partial privatisation – where there is one rule for staff and another for senior executives. It is yet one more reason we believe the further sell-off of NATS should be opposed."
The mood among members in the face of such hypocrisy was, he added, one of extreme anger that will “certainly make for an interesting pay round".
Ends

[man friday]

Do Prospect use all their hot air to keep their powder dry?

[eastern wiseguy]

Naaaah it just blows it away....

[Del Prado]

Anger at bosses pay, fears over further sell off, pension under threat, etc.

what about a day of action? just one day where we don't try too hard.

outbounds left on the SID. no climb till well clear of the stacks. no direct routings. add an extra mile to every spacing. split every sector and if they can't be staffed then get them flowed.

just to show the difference in performance from a highly motivated workforce.

if this was france we'd already be doing it.

[chiglet]

what about a day of action? just one day where we don't try too hard.

Three chances of that happening:- Slim. None and Stuff All
ATSA [Rtd]

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

It is yet one more reason we believe the further sell-off of NATS should be opposed.

I wonder what Prospect's opposition will be. So far I've only seen chatter about writing to politicians. Wow.

I believe in Father Christmas. Doesn't mean there'll be anybody coming down my chimney on 24th December.

[Fargo Boyle]

Just to put this into context, £3m, the Baron and his henchmans' payoff, would pay 300 trainees' annual salaries.... :mad:

[250 kts]

They talk a good fight but when it comes to the crunch they are as weak as a kitten.


I take it from that you are referring to the members?

After all it is the members that make up the union and give it the strength or not that it has.

[BOBBLEHAT]

A day of not trying too hard....

If Prospect were involved they would be sued for unofficial industrial action and NATS would almost certainly have a high court injuction preventing Prospect from doing anything like this.

The law on industrial action (changed in the 1980's by the Thatcher Govt) is extraordinarily complex and designed to make it much harder to do legally. This was demonstrated by BA when they successfully took out high court injuctions against Unite for often the smallest errors in the admin process.

The members of Prospect govern what happens. If 40% of them can't be arsed to vote on a pay rise - what do you expect Prospect to do? How many will be bothered with the subsequent vote on industrial action? If you call for industrial action and you don't get it then you are finished as a union.

To those who want action - why don't you start doing something yourself? ...start by writing to the Chairman of NATS or the CAA. Write to your MP. Write a motion to conference - and give Prospect a mandate for action. Start the swell of employee outrage.......

I suspect it's time for someone to shoot me down in flames as is the way here.

[250 kts]

To those who want action - why don't you start doing something yourself? ...start by writing to the Chairman of NATS or the CAA. Write to your MP. Write a motion to conference - and give Prospect a mandate for action. Start the swell of employee outrage.......

And maybe think a bit harder before volunteering for those additional duties

[ZOOKER]

Is "Prospect" a 'Union' like Unite or the RMT?

[sleeplessnights]

I see our new boss says in his blog that he has spoken to the unions about remuneration and that it is all the past now, and we should all look to the future. Thats easy for him to say.

[jackieofalltrades]

what about a day of action? just one day where we don't try too hard.

outbounds left on the SID. no climb till well clear of the stacks. no direct routings. add an extra mile to every spacing. split every sector and if they can't be staffed then get them flowed.A day of not trying too hard....

If Prospect were involved they would be sued for unofficial industrial action and NATS would almost certainly have a high court injuction preventing Prospect from doing anything like this.

A day of not trying too hard....

If Prospect were involved they would be sued for unofficial industrial action and NATS would almost certainly have a high court injuction preventing Prospect from doing anything like this.


This wouldn't be anything to do with Prospect, and certainly not illegal. Afterall, leaving aircraft on the SID, no climb until clear is safe and by the book. Admitedly not the most expeditious method to control aircraft, but certainly not unlawful.

[ZOOKER]

sleepleenights,
to quote Mike Hugg,
"It's the only thing to look forward to, - the past". :ok:

[5milesbaby]

Industrial action? Nah, never going to happen. Prospect are far too weak for that now.

For those of us like myself though, the desert is sounding far more appealing, and I know there are several more out there like minded. It aint going to be industrial action any more, its going to be arrivederci Nats, thanks for treating me like sh!te :mad:

[Conspiracy Theories]

well, well.....not a surprise that senior management has got another bonus (a substancial one at that). Well how about the unions introduce a bonus scheme for ATCOs?
For every mile we save an aircraft is a £100 bonus
For aircraft we work through our sector £100 bonus.

After all the hard work non-ops and ops room staff have put into direct routeing and night time saving fuel flights to save the airlines more and more money and see that the profits are disappearing into the ether by giving it away as bonus and projects that are far from complete and still needing more funding.

my job includes moving traffic safely and efficiently as i am paid to do. Why don't senior managers get paid a basic wage for the job they have been contracted to do?? that is your wage and you will not get a bonus coz that is the job you are contracted to do!!!!!!!

very annoying for :mad::mad:

[fireflybob]

what about a day of action? just one day where we don't try too hard.

outbounds left on the SID. no climb till well clear of the stacks. no direct routings. add an extra mile to every spacing. split every sector and if they can't be staffed then get them flowed.



You mean like the Spanish have been doing for the last few weeks?

[Tarq57]

Things are likely to get worse. It's fairly likely in this corporate-styled world of new opportunities, and an emphasis on providing a return to the shareholder, that you lot will end up feeling like an avalanche of crap is gathering momentum over and around you.

I used to laugh at the Dilbert cartoons. In a detached, amused way. Now I laugh at them, in a cynical and knowing way. (Still amusing, though.)

Only when you unify, and realize that you are your union, and are so disgusted with the goings-on that you actually agree on a course of action, will this avalanche slow. A little. If you get it right, and you're a bit lucky.

When I see forum posters (apparently) slagging off their own union, I despair a little for the future. Get it together, folks.

[rumouroid]

NATS first pay offer Jan 2011 1.5% (delayed until 1/4/2011 to pay for volcanic ash) then Jan 2012 based on AUG 2011 RPI but capped at 3%. Prospect have released this info in the hope that we are angered by such a derisery amount. I would therefore like to think we can support them to achieve at least RPI for both years with no cap, but without our support they are powerless and we only have ourselves to blame if we end up with less.

[DC10RealMan]

I can understand the frustration of employees regarding these substantial payoffs/bonuses but I might like to suggest that in the world of business and high finance such payments could be justified. Messrs Hoskins and Barron have paid dividends to shareholders whilst having the British Government ie: British Taxpayer underwrite the risk, employees have accepted a below inflation pay increase, employees and unions have been persuaded to voluntarily relinquish their pension rights guaranteed by Parliament and Lord Prescott of Kingston-upon-Hull, increased traffic flows by the use of overtime etc, etc, all under the guise of "Working Together"
I do remember in the 1980s when BT, BA, BAA, and other state owned enterprises were being "liberated" into the private sector at taxpayers expense (again) there were many ATC personnel who were jumping onto the bandwagon buying shares, including making multiple illegal applications for shares in false names and were happy to make a quick buck at the employees expense.
I can now hear the sound of chickens coming home to roost!

[11K-AVML]

I feel vindicated. Those colleauges of mine who are now complaining that we were lied to about the financial state of the company and that's it's 'better to have a pay increase (even if it wasn't in real terms) rather than not have a job' (even though that was never a threat on the table) are the same ones who wouldn't believe the management were manipulating and bulls'ng them last year. I do fear though that history repeats itself because people do have short memories. They need to wake up and see the reality beyond that wool hanging over their face.

How does one convince their colleauges that they do have a choice in these matters and the whole point of a union putting a vote to members is to seek their opinion on matters, not the opinion they've been encouraged to believe through fear?
I'm glad I didn't vote for the pay deal last year, and I feel my judgement on management (albeit without hard facts at the time) was accurate.

That said, I am already looking for a different employer.

[DC10RealMan]

There is a rumour on the Military Aircrew section of Pprune that the tax-free status of Military and Civil Service lump sums will be taxed with effect from 1 April 2011. IF TRUE then I can see a mass exodus of staff in March next year.

[Frank Disclosure]

Today’s ATCOs have been enjoying the T&Cs and benefits that their predecessors of 20 or 30 years ago won for them.

When Paul Barron challenged the willingness today’s of ATCO’s to standup and fight for their T&Cs and benefits he found them to be a bit of a pushover; they couldn’t even organize a half day walk out to save their pensions.

Is it really any wonder he decided to clean out the safe on his way out?


:E

[BDiONU]

There is a rumour on the Military Aircrew section of Pprune that the tax-free status of Military and Civil Service lump sums will be taxed with effect from 1 April 2011. IF TRUE then I can see a mass exodus of staff in March next year.
Why would that affect NATS staff? The NATS pension pot is exactly that, not a constant drain on the public purse like civil service pensions which are only funded through current tax contributions i.e. no pot.

BD

[Minesthechevy]

<<< There is a rumour on the Military Aircrew section of PPRuNe that the tax-free status of Military and Civil Service lump sums will be taxed with effect from 1 April 2011>>>

BDIonU, if you're happy to have your lump sum taxed instead of tax-free, then Oi must be 'considerably poorer than Yow'. Also - are ATCOs subject even in principle to giving one years notice of early gos?

If so, lemme see, July 2010 + 12 months = ....., er = ... D'oh! Too late!

TBH, I am amazed that Gordon and his Gopher didn't try and get their grubby mitts on lump sums years ago.

[mr.777]

When Paul Barron challenged the willingness today’s of ATCO’s to standup and fight for their T&Cs and benefits he found them to be a bit of a pushover; they couldn’t even organize a half day walk out to save their pensions.

Probably had something to do with us wearing long shorts and flip flops eh Frank? BTW, how are you getting on wearing trousers in this heat? ;)

[DC10RealMan]

Historically the CAA recruited the majority of its ATC staff from the military and the tax-free lump sum on retirement from the CAA may have been an extention of the military gratuity to long serving military members. I do know that at one time the CAA Pension Fund would accept time served transfers from military pensions to the CAAPS even though there was no correlation between the two pension schemes in monetary terms.
IF the rumour on the Military website is true I would suggest that it would be politically unacceptable to tax the military gratuity of "Our boys serving in Afghanistan" and yet let "Lazy Civil Servants who ruin your holidays" retain the tax-free benefit (My interpretation of the Daily Mail/Daily Express headlines)
I think that BdIONU misses the point, no one is saying the the CAAPS cannot afford it but what is being said is that why should the hard pressed taxpayer in the form of HMRC make allowances for it. It is after all a "tax free bonus" (again the Daily Mails interpretation)
One further thing is that to accept the atco enhanced early retirement scheme you have to give 12 months notice, however if you wish to resign and claim your pension then you only have to give 3 months notice. Individuals may wish to look at the figures and maybe it is better to take the tax free lump sum and give three months notice than accept the enhanced early retirement and lose 40% in tax. You are quite entitled to resign and only give three months notice that is in the staff handbook although IF this rumour is true and extended to NATS staff the management may try to make you believe you have to give twelve months notice fearing a mass exodus of staff and the knock-on effect on traffic levels due to staff shortages. I also believe that a 12 month notice period is unenforcable under European legislation as it compromises an individuals freedom of association and other "stuff"

[250 kts]

There is a rumour on the Military Aircrew section of Pprune that the tax-free status of Military and Civil Service lump sums will be taxed with effect from 1 April 2011. IF TRUE then I can see a mass exodus of staff in March next year.


If that is true, and I sincerely hope it isn't then NATS may well think it is comfortably staffed at present for iFACTS training and the like but it won't be come April 1st 2011. I can't think there would be anyone over 55 who would even consider taking the risk of it being taxed. Now who knows how many that may be?

[PeltonLevel]

the tax-free lump sum on retirement from the CAA may have been an extention of the military gratuity to long serving military membersNO!! The tax-fee lump sum is available to ALL pension schemes. At present, you can take up to 25% of the actuarial value of your total pot as a tax free lump sum. Foe example, if you are a 60-year-old with a possible pension of £45K, you can take about £200K as a lump sum, leaving a pension of about £34K. You will pay no tax on the lump sum. The justification for making it taxable might be that you didn't pay any tax on the money when it went into the scheme.
Most public sector schemes oblige the members to take the lump sum. In the NATS scheme, it's optional.

[Frank Disclosure]

Probably had something to do with us wearing long shorts and flip flops eh Frank? BTW, how are you getting on wearing trousers in this heat?

Well the guys who won ATCOs such great T&Cs didn't come to work dressed for the beach.

I get on fine wearing trousers to work thanks, have you never noticed Swanwick has air conditioning.

[Frank Disclosure]

If that is true, and I sincerely hope it isn't then NATS may well think it is comfortably staffed at present for iFACTS training and the like but it won't be come April 1st 2011. I can't think there would be anyone over 55 who would even consider taking the risk of it being taxed. Now who knows how many that may be?

You don't have to leave NATS to draw your pension.