OJTI Whingers
Guest
Posts: n/a
An interesting fact - there is potentially a breach of the European laws on Human Rights - two people should not be doing the same job on different pay SCALES (the actual amount is not our gripe) - if we talked about a man and a woman on different pay grades, we'd be up in arms - this is basically the same issue - equality.
===
The FooFighter Is Going To Layeth The Sequence Down On ALL your Candy Asses...
===
The FooFighter Is Going To Layeth The Sequence Down On ALL your Candy Asses...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Foo
The T&D scale may not be popular, but it was originally concieved to stop the inequality of students who fail to validate at ATCO2 units after several years of unproductive work being posted to an ATCO3 unit and earning more than some of the ATCO3's who had been working on their own licence for a considerable period of time. I am even aware of at least one case at our unit when one failure to validate was taking home more than his ATCO2 watch manager!
Now where is the equality in that?
In the old system we used to hear the same arguments. Most ATCO's who were posted to airports would be valid on at least one position by graduation whereas their area counterparts would still be u\t, so the day after graduation the 3's would complain about the area people earning more while not actually putting their own licence on the line.
I would love for there to be a fair system where everyone was happy, but lets face it, whatever sytem is dreamed up, somebody will not like it. There are problems with the T&D scale, but surely it has to be fairer than the previous system.
------------------
To infinity and beyond
The T&D scale may not be popular, but it was originally concieved to stop the inequality of students who fail to validate at ATCO2 units after several years of unproductive work being posted to an ATCO3 unit and earning more than some of the ATCO3's who had been working on their own licence for a considerable period of time. I am even aware of at least one case at our unit when one failure to validate was taking home more than his ATCO2 watch manager!
Now where is the equality in that?
In the old system we used to hear the same arguments. Most ATCO's who were posted to airports would be valid on at least one position by graduation whereas their area counterparts would still be u\t, so the day after graduation the 3's would complain about the area people earning more while not actually putting their own licence on the line.
I would love for there to be a fair system where everyone was happy, but lets face it, whatever sytem is dreamed up, somebody will not like it. There are problems with the T&D scale, but surely it has to be fairer than the previous system.
------------------
To infinity and beyond
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey FOO
I'd love everyone to be paid the same for the same job.
But the fact of life is that that rate would not be the top of the ATCO2 scale.
Everyone, YES everyone, would lose out of an equality system, and the differnce between the men and women argument is that everyone does earn equally over the span of their career. Let's keep it that way.
Also for a company running an incremental scheme, it also poses an incentive for the less experienced staff to stay!
[This message has been edited by HounslowHarry (edited 29 November 2000).]
I'd love everyone to be paid the same for the same job.
But the fact of life is that that rate would not be the top of the ATCO2 scale.
Everyone, YES everyone, would lose out of an equality system, and the differnce between the men and women argument is that everyone does earn equally over the span of their career. Let's keep it that way.
Also for a company running an incremental scheme, it also poses an incentive for the less experienced staff to stay!
[This message has been edited by HounslowHarry (edited 29 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Buzz,
I basically agree with you (you know that) but the existing T&D system is flawed. Even the revamped T&D system (with its new interim point without - as far as I know - a job or scale title - is flawed. The system it replaced was even more flawed. To me that seems a good reason to look to a T&D replacement - only by "continuous improvement " can will a fairer system ever be achieved. My personal opinion is that the recent "agreement" (quotes used as I didn't actually agree with it) was a missed opportunity to find something better. And it has caused some divisions amongst the T&D and ex-T&D ATCOs.
Hounslow Harry, you might have missed the point I was (in part) trying to make - I don't expect to earn the same take home pay as the guys at LHR or TC, and I don't expect to earn the same as my colleagues with more experience (and those poor souls who have been unfortunate enough to be my mentor!). (For me) it isn't about cash in pocket. All I would have liked was to be on the same scale (marking time at the bottom of ATCO3 until whatever date I would have progressed to it under the old T&D system would have been more than fine).
Not comparing ATCO2 v ATCO3 worker bee life time earnings, the recent T&D agreement has actually penalised the "most experienced" T&D-ers due to the failure to back date the agreement to date of first validation - I will try to demonstrate:
The new T&D scale was back dated to 31.03.00, and paid in the recent pay - using very rough figures (all "validations" are FIRST validations):
1. PERSON A validates in late 1998 and progresses through T&D until early 2000 - on 31.03.00 is an ATCO3 (by a month or so). Backdating to 1st validation would have paid about £2.5k (very roughly), but payout is zero, nada.
2. PERSON B validates in early 1999 and on 31.03.00 is on the final T&D rung (£21.5pa), but rises to ATCO3 on 03.04.00 - so is due 3 DAYS backpay at £23.5pa (2k difference). Backdating to date of first validation would have also paid about £2.5k - actual pay out is nearer twenty quid!
3. PERSON C validates in early 2000 and is still on T&D point 2 (£19.5pa) on 31.03.00 and thus gets 6 months of back pay calculated on a 4k difference (so about £2k).
I hope I have explained it properly, but the company seems to have penalised those valid longest under T&D and disproportionately rewarded the more recently valid. Certainly that is the main reason why the new T&D scale is unpopular at my unit amongst those who were on the first courses to be signed up to T&D.
I also don't think the new system is an incentive to stay, at least not for soon-to-be ATCO3s (remember, there are TWO interim scales, once for ATCO3 units, one for ATCO2 units) as there are still non-NATS airports paying significantly more to newly valid ATCOs (long term it isn't a winner - I would earn more with NATS over 15 years, but not over the 5 years).
I wish I knew what the solution was, but I don't. And to finish, a positive thought (I'm not a complete "system-kicker") - even with the disparities that I might think exist, not only do I LIKE my job, I'm also earning a lot more than 98% of my school friends!
Cheers
Foo
===
It's my sequence and I'll speed control if I want to...
I basically agree with you (you know that) but the existing T&D system is flawed. Even the revamped T&D system (with its new interim point without - as far as I know - a job or scale title - is flawed. The system it replaced was even more flawed. To me that seems a good reason to look to a T&D replacement - only by "continuous improvement " can will a fairer system ever be achieved. My personal opinion is that the recent "agreement" (quotes used as I didn't actually agree with it) was a missed opportunity to find something better. And it has caused some divisions amongst the T&D and ex-T&D ATCOs.
Hounslow Harry, you might have missed the point I was (in part) trying to make - I don't expect to earn the same take home pay as the guys at LHR or TC, and I don't expect to earn the same as my colleagues with more experience (and those poor souls who have been unfortunate enough to be my mentor!). (For me) it isn't about cash in pocket. All I would have liked was to be on the same scale (marking time at the bottom of ATCO3 until whatever date I would have progressed to it under the old T&D system would have been more than fine).
Not comparing ATCO2 v ATCO3 worker bee life time earnings, the recent T&D agreement has actually penalised the "most experienced" T&D-ers due to the failure to back date the agreement to date of first validation - I will try to demonstrate:
The new T&D scale was back dated to 31.03.00, and paid in the recent pay - using very rough figures (all "validations" are FIRST validations):
1. PERSON A validates in late 1998 and progresses through T&D until early 2000 - on 31.03.00 is an ATCO3 (by a month or so). Backdating to 1st validation would have paid about £2.5k (very roughly), but payout is zero, nada.
2. PERSON B validates in early 1999 and on 31.03.00 is on the final T&D rung (£21.5pa), but rises to ATCO3 on 03.04.00 - so is due 3 DAYS backpay at £23.5pa (2k difference). Backdating to date of first validation would have also paid about £2.5k - actual pay out is nearer twenty quid!
3. PERSON C validates in early 2000 and is still on T&D point 2 (£19.5pa) on 31.03.00 and thus gets 6 months of back pay calculated on a 4k difference (so about £2k).
I hope I have explained it properly, but the company seems to have penalised those valid longest under T&D and disproportionately rewarded the more recently valid. Certainly that is the main reason why the new T&D scale is unpopular at my unit amongst those who were on the first courses to be signed up to T&D.
I also don't think the new system is an incentive to stay, at least not for soon-to-be ATCO3s (remember, there are TWO interim scales, once for ATCO3 units, one for ATCO2 units) as there are still non-NATS airports paying significantly more to newly valid ATCOs (long term it isn't a winner - I would earn more with NATS over 15 years, but not over the 5 years).
I wish I knew what the solution was, but I don't. And to finish, a positive thought (I'm not a complete "system-kicker") - even with the disparities that I might think exist, not only do I LIKE my job, I'm also earning a lot more than 98% of my school friends!
Cheers
Foo
===
It's my sequence and I'll speed control if I want to...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Foo
Sorry I didn't realise that the figures were working out quite like that. It is very poor that someone who has been valid a considerable time does not get rewarded for that experience. After all is that not what the pay scale system is meant to be all about?
I like your idea of marking time on the bottom of the scale until validation, it makes sense. That is probably why the powers that be have not adopted it! The only pitfall I can see is where on the pay scale would you expect to enter after validation?
If you only increased to the next point then I wonder if you would in actual fact be any better off. The "unfairness" would also continue in some people's eyes. Consider the following two examples:
Person A successfully validates in February. In March pay they have moved up one scale point. In April they will then get the annual increment. So in the 2 months after validation they will have gained two scale points.
Person B successfully validates in March. In April they will move up one scale point but would probably not be given an additional scale point as they were already recieving an increment.
So Person B, although the difference in validation dates could be days,possibly through no fault of their own, will always be a point behind even though they have similar experience. No justice there, I think you will agree.The only consolation would be that, as you said on your original post, that you would be on the same pay scale as the next person doing the same job.
I know it was only an idea, and I am NOT knocking it. You are right that the system should be continuously improved, but look how long it took to settle the pay deal! You will probably be worrying about how much you'll get to retire early before it gets sorted!!Plus ca change mais le meme chose!
(Apologies to french scholars everywhere)
------------------
To infinity and beyond
Sorry I didn't realise that the figures were working out quite like that. It is very poor that someone who has been valid a considerable time does not get rewarded for that experience. After all is that not what the pay scale system is meant to be all about?
I like your idea of marking time on the bottom of the scale until validation, it makes sense. That is probably why the powers that be have not adopted it! The only pitfall I can see is where on the pay scale would you expect to enter after validation?
If you only increased to the next point then I wonder if you would in actual fact be any better off. The "unfairness" would also continue in some people's eyes. Consider the following two examples:
Person A successfully validates in February. In March pay they have moved up one scale point. In April they will then get the annual increment. So in the 2 months after validation they will have gained two scale points.
Person B successfully validates in March. In April they will move up one scale point but would probably not be given an additional scale point as they were already recieving an increment.
So Person B, although the difference in validation dates could be days,possibly through no fault of their own, will always be a point behind even though they have similar experience. No justice there, I think you will agree.The only consolation would be that, as you said on your original post, that you would be on the same pay scale as the next person doing the same job.
I know it was only an idea, and I am NOT knocking it. You are right that the system should be continuously improved, but look how long it took to settle the pay deal! You will probably be worrying about how much you'll get to retire early before it gets sorted!!Plus ca change mais le meme chose!
(Apologies to french scholars everywhere)
------------------
To infinity and beyond
