Strike?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sunday Herald - www.sundayherald.com 11 February 2001
Pilots back off privatisation battle. Air traffic control public-private partnership plan is no longer 'totally opposed' by pilots' union.
Britain's airline pilots have abandoned their hard-line opposition to the privatisation of the air-traffic control system. The pilots, who initially branded privatisation as a "Railtrack of the skies", now say they are not totally opposed to the plans. The change is likely to dismay air-traffic controllers - who believe that travellers face a chaotic "battle of Britain" this spring unless the government changes its mind.
The controllers' union - the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists - has already voted to ballot for a strike if the government refuses to cut any profit element from the privatisation scheme.
Transport Secretary Lord Macdonald met the air-traffic controllers last Wednesday. The meeting appeared not to have influenced the government's determination to press ahead with the public-private partnership (PPP) scheme. A Department of Transport source said: "There is no change to the government's plans. And, following the selection of our preferred strategic partner, we hope to have concluded the process before the end of March." A spokesman for the British Air Line Pilots Association said it too was "in the process of holding sensitive discussions with the government". He told the Sunday Herald yesterday: "It would not be correct to say we are totally opposed to privatisation." The abandonment of Balpa's total opposition to the sell-off will give heart to both Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and Lord Macdonald but will be a severe let-down for the controllers.
Last week, a representative from Balpa attended the annual IPMS conference. The pilots' solidarity with the controllers was described by one source as "crucial" in convincing the government that there was a united front against the part- privatisation of National Air Traffic Services (NATS). Balpa may be trying to win a similar formula to that of the London Underground, taking into account the government's U-turn on earlier plans to privatise the Tube. London Mayor Ken Livingstone and his appointed transport chief, Bob Kiley, succeeded in winning what they called "the crucial argument of unified management". However, the Balpa spokesman would not discuss any details of the new negotiations with the government. Nevertheless, a DETR source said that no change in the government’s plans was envisaged and that the bidding from three companies aiming to take a 46% stake in NATS (valued at around £310 million) was proceeding. The controllers' union, unlike the pilots', now seems resigned to industrial action, probably in the spring. IPMS national officer Iain Findlay said: "Air traffic controllers are not militant by nature and we don't make decisions such as that made at our conference without carefully considering the consequences." The controllers' last industrial dispute was in 1981. "That was over pay. This is different," said Findlay. He added: "The government's proposals will put the profit motive to the fore and, as the disastrous results of rail privatisation have shown, where profit and safety are in direct conflict, safety will always be the loser."
Findlay and the IPMS believe the sale of NATS is one of Labour's broken promises from the 1997 manifesto. He said: "The statement 'Our air is not for sale' was made by the then shadow transport minister Andrew Smith at Labour's party conference in 1996. This means they have reneged on a pre-election pledge."
Under the part sell-off, the government will retain 49% of NATS, with employees holding the remaining the 5% in non-tradable shares. However, the IPMS is sceptical that the government will continue to hold on to the 49% "golden share". Despite last week's meeting with Lord Macdonald, Findlay said that the government was still refusing to discuss alternatives to PPP, such as an independent publicly owned corporation that would be non-profit-making. Part-privatisation, say the controllers, will lead to a "gradual reduction in air-traffic control safety standards throughout the UK. It would also make the UK the first country in Europe to privatise its skies. "Whatever the outcome," said Findlay, "it seems this spring might see the start of a second 'battle of Britain' - if not in the air, then on the political battle front in the run-up to a general election. Given the arguments against the privatisation, this might be a battle better avoided by this government rather than face the prospects of being shot down in flames."
Pilots back off privatisation battle. Air traffic control public-private partnership plan is no longer 'totally opposed' by pilots' union.
Britain's airline pilots have abandoned their hard-line opposition to the privatisation of the air-traffic control system. The pilots, who initially branded privatisation as a "Railtrack of the skies", now say they are not totally opposed to the plans. The change is likely to dismay air-traffic controllers - who believe that travellers face a chaotic "battle of Britain" this spring unless the government changes its mind.
The controllers' union - the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists - has already voted to ballot for a strike if the government refuses to cut any profit element from the privatisation scheme.
Transport Secretary Lord Macdonald met the air-traffic controllers last Wednesday. The meeting appeared not to have influenced the government's determination to press ahead with the public-private partnership (PPP) scheme. A Department of Transport source said: "There is no change to the government's plans. And, following the selection of our preferred strategic partner, we hope to have concluded the process before the end of March." A spokesman for the British Air Line Pilots Association said it too was "in the process of holding sensitive discussions with the government". He told the Sunday Herald yesterday: "It would not be correct to say we are totally opposed to privatisation." The abandonment of Balpa's total opposition to the sell-off will give heart to both Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and Lord Macdonald but will be a severe let-down for the controllers.
Last week, a representative from Balpa attended the annual IPMS conference. The pilots' solidarity with the controllers was described by one source as "crucial" in convincing the government that there was a united front against the part- privatisation of National Air Traffic Services (NATS). Balpa may be trying to win a similar formula to that of the London Underground, taking into account the government's U-turn on earlier plans to privatise the Tube. London Mayor Ken Livingstone and his appointed transport chief, Bob Kiley, succeeded in winning what they called "the crucial argument of unified management". However, the Balpa spokesman would not discuss any details of the new negotiations with the government. Nevertheless, a DETR source said that no change in the government’s plans was envisaged and that the bidding from three companies aiming to take a 46% stake in NATS (valued at around £310 million) was proceeding. The controllers' union, unlike the pilots', now seems resigned to industrial action, probably in the spring. IPMS national officer Iain Findlay said: "Air traffic controllers are not militant by nature and we don't make decisions such as that made at our conference without carefully considering the consequences." The controllers' last industrial dispute was in 1981. "That was over pay. This is different," said Findlay. He added: "The government's proposals will put the profit motive to the fore and, as the disastrous results of rail privatisation have shown, where profit and safety are in direct conflict, safety will always be the loser."
Findlay and the IPMS believe the sale of NATS is one of Labour's broken promises from the 1997 manifesto. He said: "The statement 'Our air is not for sale' was made by the then shadow transport minister Andrew Smith at Labour's party conference in 1996. This means they have reneged on a pre-election pledge."
Under the part sell-off, the government will retain 49% of NATS, with employees holding the remaining the 5% in non-tradable shares. However, the IPMS is sceptical that the government will continue to hold on to the 49% "golden share". Despite last week's meeting with Lord Macdonald, Findlay said that the government was still refusing to discuss alternatives to PPP, such as an independent publicly owned corporation that would be non-profit-making. Part-privatisation, say the controllers, will lead to a "gradual reduction in air-traffic control safety standards throughout the UK. It would also make the UK the first country in Europe to privatise its skies. "Whatever the outcome," said Findlay, "it seems this spring might see the start of a second 'battle of Britain' - if not in the air, then on the political battle front in the run-up to a general election. Given the arguments against the privatisation, this might be a battle better avoided by this government rather than face the prospects of being shot down in flames."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes it is. The BALPA chairman at conference gave NO hint at all that they were not in total support of IPMS. Thie could well be the start of the government campaign to try to put pressure on the public and employees not to take action. Well as far as I'm concerned the action can't come soon enough. Let's take the kid gloves off and do our damndest to make sure SERCO don't want to go anywhere near this contract.
It'll be no good moaning in 6 months time - we all have the opportunity to make our feelings known now - let's not blow it.
It'll be no good moaning in 6 months time - we all have the opportunity to make our feelings known now - let's not blow it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
So why will industrial action make Serco want to ditch the contract? Loads of profit for their shareholders which is demanded of thier board and minimal impact long-term on thier investment. Are you prepared to strike without pay for weeks on end? Not many will!
Serco are proven infrastructure providers well versed at removing old aged terms and conditions from government departments. My problem with any industrial action is the fact that it could be taken on safety. Are Serco an unsafe ATC provider? Whatt facts can anyone prove that by reducing terms and conditions and sacking staff will be unsafe.
One could argue that the threat of the sack will make staff focus upon thier ability to do thier job and keep thier salary.
Please do not get me wrong, the operation of ATC for no profit is utopia. The time to stike has passed, no threat of industrial action will frighten Serco off!
What is more important, you mortgage, or priciples, a question all of us will have to answer.
[This message has been edited by OrsonCart (edited 13 February 2001).]
Serco are proven infrastructure providers well versed at removing old aged terms and conditions from government departments. My problem with any industrial action is the fact that it could be taken on safety. Are Serco an unsafe ATC provider? Whatt facts can anyone prove that by reducing terms and conditions and sacking staff will be unsafe.
One could argue that the threat of the sack will make staff focus upon thier ability to do thier job and keep thier salary.
Please do not get me wrong, the operation of ATC for no profit is utopia. The time to stike has passed, no threat of industrial action will frighten Serco off!
What is more important, you mortgage, or priciples, a question all of us will have to answer.
[This message has been edited by OrsonCart (edited 13 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Orson...Do you really think If we staged a once/twice a week strike in different area's ie, AC / TC / Airports that the airlines and their (note the spelling of their) revenues would find this acceptable ?
Will the government be able to sustain such a disruption so close to a general election with us shouting from the pickets "you said our air is not for sale and that was your last election promise" or "avoid a paddington disaster of the skies - NATS is not for profit" ?
Its time to play call my bluff. IPMS/BALPA/PCS together we can all still bring about a u-turn on this one, but we need to be more vocal, we need keep reminding the public what its all about!
As for Serco, well how many employee's do you know who would prefer to work for NATS than that incompetent bunch, I could start a whole new thread of them.
When the ballot comes, vote for selective striking, it can and will work if you hold your nerve and believe in the resultant principals and not the bottom line on your wage packet.
Will the government be able to sustain such a disruption so close to a general election with us shouting from the pickets "you said our air is not for sale and that was your last election promise" or "avoid a paddington disaster of the skies - NATS is not for profit" ?
Its time to play call my bluff. IPMS/BALPA/PCS together we can all still bring about a u-turn on this one, but we need to be more vocal, we need keep reminding the public what its all about!
As for Serco, well how many employee's do you know who would prefer to work for NATS than that incompetent bunch, I could start a whole new thread of them.
When the ballot comes, vote for selective striking, it can and will work if you hold your nerve and believe in the resultant principals and not the bottom line on your wage packet.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ENGLISH PATIENT
I'm with you all the way on this. I just hope many more of our colleagues can see the potential mess with terms and conditions, pensions, rosters that lie ahead if SERCO get their grubby hands on them
'Marching on together' as they say in Leeds
I'm with you all the way on this. I just hope many more of our colleagues can see the potential mess with terms and conditions, pensions, rosters that lie ahead if SERCO get their grubby hands on them
'Marching on together' as they say in Leeds
Guest
Posts: n/a
Orson, are you so naive that you believe that if SERCO take over NATS then nothing will change:
1. The resultant job losses amongst assistants, engineers and admin staff will result in increased workload for the ATCO's.
2. The forecast increase in traffic levels will result in an increased workload for the ATCO's.
3. The lack of investment in new technology (outside swanwick and McNerc?) will result in increased workload for the ATCO's
4. Working for an organiation that puts profit before everything else will result in an increased workload for the ATCO's.
Couple all of these with the SERCO reputation for profiteering and sacking people who don't meet their specific targets then there is a safety related case to answer.
I don't want to strike, but I'm damn sure that I will to make sure that the great British public knows exactly what they're letting themselves in for whe they board an aircraft under the direction of a SERCO employee.
PPP is inevitable but if we stick together then we can make it a NOT FOR PROFIT organisation, thus ensuring that the safety standards we set today will not be compromised. If that means SERCO pull out, then so be it!!!
------------------
Turn left heading 230, close from the left, report established
1. The resultant job losses amongst assistants, engineers and admin staff will result in increased workload for the ATCO's.
2. The forecast increase in traffic levels will result in an increased workload for the ATCO's.
3. The lack of investment in new technology (outside swanwick and McNerc?) will result in increased workload for the ATCO's
4. Working for an organiation that puts profit before everything else will result in an increased workload for the ATCO's.
Couple all of these with the SERCO reputation for profiteering and sacking people who don't meet their specific targets then there is a safety related case to answer.
I don't want to strike, but I'm damn sure that I will to make sure that the great British public knows exactly what they're letting themselves in for whe they board an aircraft under the direction of a SERCO employee.
PPP is inevitable but if we stick together then we can make it a NOT FOR PROFIT organisation, thus ensuring that the safety standards we set today will not be compromised. If that means SERCO pull out, then so be it!!!
------------------
Turn left heading 230, close from the left, report established
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a new pprune I probably shouldn't stick my head over the parapet, but here goes...
although I'm not in favour of PPP, what do you think any form of industrial action will achieve? We came close to getting the thing thrown out by the Lords, but the government want this to happen, so it will. With the deadline rapidly approaching I feel defeat is certain.
Don't want to get into long debates over this, it's just how I feel.
although I'm not in favour of PPP, what do you think any form of industrial action will achieve? We came close to getting the thing thrown out by the Lords, but the government want this to happen, so it will. With the deadline rapidly approaching I feel defeat is certain.
Don't want to get into long debates over this, it's just how I feel.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am glad to see my post has stirred people up, because one thing is for sure, post April 1st life within NATS will be very different and decisions taken now by the government and the unions will affect the future
I still maintain that if ATCO's are offered a 'deal', they will find it very hard not to accept even though this opens up the flood gates for efficiencies elsewhere.
I will very very shocked if the current ballot does not give a massive majority for any future industrial action.
Now if I was the preffered bidder knowing the result of the ballot, what would I do to prevent any action from impacting on the business. Do a deal with the key employees?
I think any action that can be taken prior to PPP becoming effective is very worth while, this is why every MP within the UK has been e-mailed many times over this single issue by me.
I still maintain that if ATCO's are offered a 'deal', they will find it very hard not to accept even though this opens up the flood gates for efficiencies elsewhere.
I will very very shocked if the current ballot does not give a massive majority for any future industrial action.
Now if I was the preffered bidder knowing the result of the ballot, what would I do to prevent any action from impacting on the business. Do a deal with the key employees?
I think any action that can be taken prior to PPP becoming effective is very worth while, this is why every MP within the UK has been e-mailed many times over this single issue by me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OrsonCart..
Do a deal with the "key" employees? And everyone else can go to hell I suppose? There was me thinking this was about safety, and maintaining a service thats already bloody good, but obviously as long as you get offered a few quid PPP can go ahead in any fashion the government wants and the British public can have a Railtrack 2. Silly me, I forgot that as long as you've got ATCOs you don't need engineers to keep your equipment serviceable, ATSAs to support you or admin to count your (hopefully for you) growing salary.
When you emailed every MP, what did you tell them? That PPP was bad, or where to send the brown envelope? I find your attitude disappointing and hope it's not reflective of most NATS ATCOs, who, lets face it, would expect everyone else to go out if they were on strike.
Do a deal with the "key" employees? And everyone else can go to hell I suppose? There was me thinking this was about safety, and maintaining a service thats already bloody good, but obviously as long as you get offered a few quid PPP can go ahead in any fashion the government wants and the British public can have a Railtrack 2. Silly me, I forgot that as long as you've got ATCOs you don't need engineers to keep your equipment serviceable, ATSAs to support you or admin to count your (hopefully for you) growing salary.
When you emailed every MP, what did you tell them? That PPP was bad, or where to send the brown envelope? I find your attitude disappointing and hope it's not reflective of most NATS ATCOs, who, lets face it, would expect everyone else to go out if they were on strike.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Despite EG's obvious disappointment, there is a reality here. If I'm speaking out of turn then I apologise but the differences between the jobs of ATCO's and "the rest" highlight the fact that there is an opportunity for any incoming partner to create a divide (assuming one doesn't already exist) and by offering a "nice deal" to ATCO's they would effectively ensure their continued (albeit reluctant) co-operation. The bigger picture here is that if that were to happen and the assistants et al get shafted, then the ATCO's too would be indirectly shafted by heavier workload, less canteen time, more working on the wings etc, whatever their reward might be. Everybody needs to speak as one here which is why there should be greater synergies between the two unions. The assistants etc are definitely more vulnerable but there's more of them. The ATCO's are in a stronger negotiating position but they can't do it alone. As someone else previously pointed out, the fight is external, not internal!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have read all the contributions to this thread from fellow pruners, and I can see sense in just about all of them. I understand the desire to take industrial action, particularly to demonstrate objection to what is bascically a hostile takeover (if SERCO win !), but I really don't see how any type of action will dissuade the government from selling us, or SERCO from buying us. All it will achieve is to give our new partner a long list of names of 'agitators' - people who will also appear on the list of ' to be sacked'. If you think this is paranoid, you're wrong. A list of people 'likely to be anti change/PPP etc' already exists. I've seen it. In principle, I'd love to join any appropriate industrial action, but in reality I simply can't afford to. I can't afford to lose income, and I don't want to present myself as a target to our new partner. If I sound defeatist, I'm sorry, but that's reality. I have a home and family to support, and I can't do that by standing on a picket line, however much I might want to. What ever action each individual decides to take, good luck to us all.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unfortunately that will be the reaction of many. I don't think the Government can be disuaded from selling but they can possibly be disuaded from the particlar PPP route they have chosen (there are alternatives) and they might be disuaded from selecting SERCO (there are much better alternatives). As to paranoia, that's real but if EVERY name were on the list it wouldn't be much use to anyone. As for loss of income, the effect of an ALL OUT strike would be so great that it probably wouldn't take very long! Imagine the pressure from the airlines on the Government just prior to an election! I'm being a bit idealistic perhaps but the option you put forward, although understood, means you may as well cancel your union subs, roll over and play dead.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps we're all looking at this the wrong way....will industrial action stop PPP ? No. The government has already comitted the proceeds from the sale of NATS during its last budget, so the sale must go ahead. What attracts potential partners to buy into NATS ? Profits. How do we make NATS so unattractive that no-one would want to buy us? Stop making profit... make a loss !How ? Stop handling so many aircraft. Fewer aircraft means fewer profits. So the answer lies in that most reviled of perversions (sorry FMP) - Flow Control. Reduce the sector capacities of ALL UK sectors by 50%. Perfectly justifiable on safety grounds. Start tomorrow, and by April 1st we won't see SERCO and their like for dust. Sorted.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Changing the subject slightly, I just found this in the US - a couple of SERCO ATC folk discussing why the FAA pays less for SERCO run facilities than FAA run facilities....message....less staff!
"It costs the FAA less money if we got all the pay and benefits that FAA controllers get. The reason is because we use 1/3 to 1/2 the controller workforce. So before you give up and turn negative without the facts just sit back and relax and save your negativity for something else."
"It costs the FAA less money if we got all the pay and benefits that FAA controllers get. The reason is because we use 1/3 to 1/2 the controller workforce. So before you give up and turn negative without the facts just sit back and relax and save your negativity for something else."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another excerpt that compares FAA with Contract ATC..parallels can of course be drawn between CAA and SERCO...
"There is also the issue of equal pay for equal work. My airport is seven miles as the crow flies from our FAA "virtual twin". The average hourly wage there is $31.35 per hour for essentially the same traffic, airspace, and equipment, with twice to three times the amount of people. All of us, as "contract controllers", work at half or less the manning levels and at essentially half to two thirds the wage. Are we not in effect, "paying" for the privilege to work in our chosen field through low pay? I propose this is unfair, unjust, and quite frankly, un-American. Don't get me wrong, I believe most FAA facilities are overmanned but how much blood should we give to keep the FAA money side up? I for one have no more to give; I was dried up long ago."
"There is also the issue of equal pay for equal work. My airport is seven miles as the crow flies from our FAA "virtual twin". The average hourly wage there is $31.35 per hour for essentially the same traffic, airspace, and equipment, with twice to three times the amount of people. All of us, as "contract controllers", work at half or less the manning levels and at essentially half to two thirds the wage. Are we not in effect, "paying" for the privilege to work in our chosen field through low pay? I propose this is unfair, unjust, and quite frankly, un-American. Don't get me wrong, I believe most FAA facilities are overmanned but how much blood should we give to keep the FAA money side up? I for one have no more to give; I was dried up long ago."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well Father Jack has nailed his colours to the mast...can't believe anyone in ATC could not afford to give up one days pay for the cause..what a sad case ...when they cut your salary and time off ...how will you cope then Father Jack ?you will still have your family and kids to support plus that mortgage.What about those without a job?This is a fight for all,i agree privatisation is probably a dead duck as the Government will never change course but I feel we can persuade them to go for a deal that is politically friendly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Looking at what SERCO have done in the US, I'd have thought that low or no pay for a few days was a better option than low pay forever.
I think everyone should take the time to look around the US serco ATCers site...it's definitely an eye opener...check the messages section but don't join, or they will block you.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/sercoatcers
I think everyone should take the time to look around the US serco ATCers site...it's definitely an eye opener...check the messages section but don't join, or they will block you.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/sercoatcers
Guest
Posts: n/a
FatherJack,
For the want of a day or two on strike, you are willing to risk the chance of SERCO getting the contract and shafting your colleagues and maybe even you (in that "cupboard" you've "been hiding in for years" - see the Bung thread).
I hope for your sake that we are successful in averting the SERCO threat. There are plenty of people who are willing to walk who are less financially secure than you.
I hope you can sleep at night when folks are on industrial action for your benefit.
INS
For the want of a day or two on strike, you are willing to risk the chance of SERCO getting the contract and shafting your colleagues and maybe even you (in that "cupboard" you've "been hiding in for years" - see the Bung thread).
I hope for your sake that we are successful in averting the SERCO threat. There are plenty of people who are willing to walk who are less financially secure than you.
I hope you can sleep at night when folks are on industrial action for your benefit.
INS
Guest
Posts: n/a
slurp, identnospeed,
I heartily agree.
Much as I would not want to take action, now we're going down this road we have to carry it through. If we don't, well it's open season for whoever wins the contract.....
I'm a union member, I'll go with the majority vote, I just hope there isn't a majority of FatherJacks'
WF.
I heartily agree.
Much as I would not want to take action, now we're going down this road we have to carry it through. If we don't, well it's open season for whoever wins the contract.....
I'm a union member, I'll go with the majority vote, I just hope there isn't a majority of FatherJacks'
WF.