Working Together
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ISZ - not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working together is what we, the staff must do now. NATS has used divide and rule for a long time now, so if we can all put our differences (Perceived and real) to one side until this is all sorted out it will really help our cause.
For one thing, a member of NATS management / the journalistic community, or the public reading these boards may come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly that we bicker, and nit pick like spoiled children.
Together we stand, divided we fall.
For one thing, a member of NATS management / the journalistic community, or the public reading these boards may come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly that we bicker, and nit pick like spoiled children.
Together we stand, divided we fall.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion the "problem" of Working Together is one of perception. The aims are very laudable however when one sees union representatives meeting mangement overnight in fancy hotels for dinner and drinks and then as a union member you ask what was said and agreed only to have your request turned down due to confidentiality and our other issues it does make one wonder what is going on.
In the late 1940s George Orwell wrote a book called Animal Farm which was a critique of the Soviet Union under Stalinism in which the leaders of the revolution the pigs ran the farm for the benefit of all the workers. I would suggest that it might required reading for all union members.
In the late 1940s George Orwell wrote a book called Animal Farm which was a critique of the Soviet Union under Stalinism in which the leaders of the revolution the pigs ran the farm for the benefit of all the workers. I would suggest that it might required reading for all union members.
Last edited by DC10RealMan; 7th Oct 2008 at 12:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South
Age: 64
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC10RealMan
Are records kept of this Hospitality?
In my opinion the "problem" of Working Together is one of perception. The aims are very laudable however when one sees union representatives meeting mangement overnight in fancy hotels for dinner and drinks and then as a union member you ask what was said and agreed only to have your request turned down due to confidentiality and our other issues it does make one wonder what is going on.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ABERDEEN
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Keeping our powder dry for the really big issues". This phrase has been bandied about on various forums along with, "Lines in the sand", "non negotiable" for as long as I have been in the company (6 and a half years).
As a Union member I am sickened and furious at the conduct of the "team" or "cabal" that have been speaking to the company without a mandate from the membership.
Regardless of their intentions, they entered into talks with the company who then gag them with a confidentiality clause so they are then unable to furnish the members with full disclosure of the nature of the discussion.
We are then presented with a briefing attended by an HR rep along with the Union delegation.
When asked awkward questions by our staff the HR rep giggles and is saved by the Union guys answering the question. That is taking "working together" to the extreme IMHO.
Who is working for us if the Union are rolling over and taking one for the team or management? If this is a negotiation where is the negotiating?
This as far as I am aware is the first proposal to come our way, and we are asked to endorse it. That is not negotiation as I understand it, or am I being naive?
We are being railroaded into accepting a proposal based on a few weeks study that has taken a team of "specialists" a couple of years to work out.
Have the Union got ANY powder to keep dry? There has been nothing from the Executive regarding the taking of any action at all to combat the Company position, whether industrial or work to rule. Indeed it would appear that, as far as the union are concerned, this is it, take it or leave... it or the company.
I feel completely disillusioned, betrayed, and let down by the Union. If they do nothing in the face of all the opposition out there, they should be bl
dy ashamed.
Here's a news flash, the members I have spoken to do not want this proposal. Start representing us. Lets have some transparency in the dealings with the company. Stop treating us like the big wheels treat us.
And before any Union reps have a go at me hiding behind an anonymous forum, I hope to attend the conference in November where I will ask the questions raised here, in public. If my mum (or WM) will let me go.
As a Union member I am sickened and furious at the conduct of the "team" or "cabal" that have been speaking to the company without a mandate from the membership.
Regardless of their intentions, they entered into talks with the company who then gag them with a confidentiality clause so they are then unable to furnish the members with full disclosure of the nature of the discussion.
We are then presented with a briefing attended by an HR rep along with the Union delegation.
When asked awkward questions by our staff the HR rep giggles and is saved by the Union guys answering the question. That is taking "working together" to the extreme IMHO.
Who is working for us if the Union are rolling over and taking one for the team or management? If this is a negotiation where is the negotiating?
This as far as I am aware is the first proposal to come our way, and we are asked to endorse it. That is not negotiation as I understand it, or am I being naive?
We are being railroaded into accepting a proposal based on a few weeks study that has taken a team of "specialists" a couple of years to work out.
Have the Union got ANY powder to keep dry? There has been nothing from the Executive regarding the taking of any action at all to combat the Company position, whether industrial or work to rule. Indeed it would appear that, as far as the union are concerned, this is it, take it or leave... it or the company.
I feel completely disillusioned, betrayed, and let down by the Union. If they do nothing in the face of all the opposition out there, they should be bl
dy ashamed.Here's a news flash, the members I have spoken to do not want this proposal. Start representing us. Lets have some transparency in the dealings with the company. Stop treating us like the big wheels treat us.
And before any Union reps have a go at me hiding behind an anonymous forum, I hope to attend the conference in November where I will ask the questions raised here, in public. If my mum (or WM) will let me go.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't feel betrayed or let down by the union. My representatives had the mandate to negotiate with the company on a wide range of issues from the moment I elected them, or in my case as with most union members, from the moment I couldn't be bothered to go to the meeting and instead let those who did decide who should represent me.
Of course nobody wants this proposal but we live in the real world and sometimes the nasty world breaks into our idyllic existence. When it does I expect my union representatives to do the best they can and I've no reason to believe they haven't in this case. You can believe all the conspiracy theories or you can trust your representatives. If you don't trust your representatives why did you elect them in the first place ?
Of course nobody wants this proposal but we live in the real world and sometimes the nasty world breaks into our idyllic existence. When it does I expect my union representatives to do the best they can and I've no reason to believe they haven't in this case. You can believe all the conspiracy theories or you can trust your representatives. If you don't trust your representatives why did you elect them in the first place ?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negoitaion
This is the first proposal the staff have seen but probably not the first the negoiators have seen. This is what they are there to negoiate on our behalf they then present it to the membership to vote as I see it they have done exactly what you expect. It doesn't mean that everybody will like the answer.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ABERDEEN
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a case of not trusting my representatives. My Unit reps (who I do trust and did elect) did not know what the negotiating team were proposing until we ALL found out!
I am not so foolish to believe that the world is a place of fairy tales but I do expect the Union to come to us as a stand alone entity and not do a joint presentation with company reps and then do a separate briefing to the Union members.
The company should be left to carry out it's own half ared brief, show their own ignorance, and not let the Union team bail them out. Let the staff see how much they think of us.
Then the Union can try to sell it to the members. Or was it the case that they knew what reaction this would bring?
I am not so foolish to believe that the world is a place of fairy tales but I do expect the Union to come to us as a stand alone entity and not do a joint presentation with company reps and then do a separate briefing to the Union members.
The company should be left to carry out it's own half ar
ed brief, show their own ignorance, and not let the Union team bail them out. Let the staff see how much they think of us. Then the Union can try to sell it to the members. Or was it the case that they knew what reaction this would bring?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you voted for a rep who in turn helped appoint a committee which in turn appointed a negotiating team. That's what we call democracy in this country. Just how seriously do you think the company would take the union if it had to refer every last suggestion to the entire membership ?
And if the solution is jointly agreed as the best possible solution why shouldn't both parties present it ? Surely both sides should be prepared to stand behind the solution they've reached.
And if NATS puts up people not up to the task then perhaps the union has to step in to save them. The alternative might see the best solution overall being rejected because of management incompetence and that may not be in the interest of union members.
And if the solution is jointly agreed as the best possible solution why shouldn't both parties present it ? Surely both sides should be prepared to stand behind the solution they've reached.
And if NATS puts up people not up to the task then perhaps the union has to step in to save them. The alternative might see the best solution overall being rejected because of management incompetence and that may not be in the interest of union members.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ABERDEEN
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do know that for years the Union stance has been one of, "the pension is not up for discussion". Do you think then that it is ok to then enter into discussion and negotiation without informing or consulting with the unit reps or membership?
Do you not think that the unit reps have a right to feel aggrieved that this has happened. Are you in fact a union member?
The line in the sand seems to be even more movable than I feared.
The Union should NOT be helping the company to sell this, unless this is the Union's idea.
The company obviously have no respect for the staff or they would have made a better effort to engage the us without resorting to the scaremongering that is going on at the moment.
Sending a HR rep who can't or won't answer a question regarding finance issues is not going to endear them to the workforce. How can you respect the statements of people who are not fully prepared before setting out. If we as ATCOs are not fully briefed before duty we are negligent when it goes Pete Tong. Same rules apply here.
Having your act together at that level is surely not too much to ask from management.
I appreciate that things are going to have to change in due course. All I am saying is that I am not impressed with the way the Union have gone about things, and am not the only one.
NO mandate, NO consultation with reps or membership. Is that too much to ask?
It's nothing more than good manners and good practice.
Don't p*ss on me and tell me it's only rain!
Do you not think that the unit reps have a right to feel aggrieved that this has happened. Are you in fact a union member?
The line in the sand seems to be even more movable than I feared.
The Union should NOT be helping the company to sell this, unless this is the Union's idea.
The company obviously have no respect for the staff or they would have made a better effort to engage the us without resorting to the scaremongering that is going on at the moment.
Sending a HR rep who can't or won't answer a question regarding finance issues is not going to endear them to the workforce. How can you respect the statements of people who are not fully prepared before setting out. If we as ATCOs are not fully briefed before duty we are negligent when it goes Pete Tong. Same rules apply here.
Having your act together at that level is surely not too much to ask from management.
I appreciate that things are going to have to change in due course. All I am saying is that I am not impressed with the way the Union have gone about things, and am not the only one.
NO mandate, NO consultation with reps or membership. Is that too much to ask?
It's nothing more than good manners and good practice.
Don't p*ss on me and tell me it's only rain!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were definitely informed that negotiation was happening. There's been a whole stream of letters and e-mails from both NATS and NTUS over the last year which made it quite clear that negotiation was ongoing. And we are being consulted now that the negotiation has concluded which surely is the only realistic time to consult the membership.
As I said before I see no reason why both sides shouldn't sell the idea if they are convinced that it is the best possible solution. Sometimes your union reps will have to make the best from a bad situation and they won't always be able to bring you only good news. It is to their credit that they are prepared to stand behind what they have negotiated. The reaction from you and the almost libelous reaction from others elsewhere on this board was probably predictable and it would have been far easier to walk away and let the company get on with it. Personally I'm glad they didn't because, as I've said elsewhere, some of us have bigger concerns than just our pensions and this may actually be the best solution.
It's not up to me to defend NATS management but I wouldn't expect an HR person to be able to answer finance questions.
As I said before I see no reason why both sides shouldn't sell the idea if they are convinced that it is the best possible solution. Sometimes your union reps will have to make the best from a bad situation and they won't always be able to bring you only good news. It is to their credit that they are prepared to stand behind what they have negotiated. The reaction from you and the almost libelous reaction from others elsewhere on this board was probably predictable and it would have been far easier to walk away and let the company get on with it. Personally I'm glad they didn't because, as I've said elsewhere, some of us have bigger concerns than just our pensions and this may actually be the best solution.
It's not up to me to defend NATS management but I wouldn't expect an HR person to be able to answer finance questions.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not up to me to defend NATS management but I wouldn't expect an HR person to be able to answer finance questions
Sorry but if they are there as the representatives of the management side then that is EXACTLY what they should be able to answer.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually think that the Union, on this particular issue, have had their fingers burnt as far as "Working Together is concerned. Whilst I still intend to vote no, I can appreciate the fact that they have a put a lot of effrot into trying to sell this to us, only for a certain person in management (no prizes for guessing who 
) to start running their mouth off about how this is a vote on industrial action and not on the pension, because this proposal is coming in regardless. The reps I spoke to the other day were NOT happy....maybe they've learnt a lesson.
) to start running their mouth off about how this is a vote on industrial action and not on the pension, because this proposal is coming in regardless. The reps I spoke to the other day were NOT happy....maybe they've learnt a lesson.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ABERDEEN
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGLNYT
I take all your comments on board, but the simple fact remains that this IS and always has been, about the pension scheme and I am disappointed in the way it has been handled. This is not a knee jerk reaction.
I have been considering my words carefully and as far as I am concerned have not said anything libelous. No mentions of promotions, backhanders or the like because I don't believe that would have been countenenced by the people involved.
I am curious about your comment that you have bigger concerns than the pension, please expand.
The only other concern that I have is the fact that the Company has already been divided into 2 separate divisions ready for a potential sell off.
No doubt NERL will be safe under the NATS umbrella, essential to the economy and all that.
NSL however, are probably screwed. If they find someone to buy us then all bets are off for those like myself who joined after July 2001. At my interview I was told that I would be a part of the CAAPS scheme and subsequently find out that I am not covered by the Promise so there is no obligation on any future owner to honour that pension for me.
I left the mil early because the T's and C's in NATS were so good, and up to now it has been the best move I ever made. However if the pension scheme is messed with to the extent that is proposed then NATS is no better than any other service provider to my mind.
The only reason I am at ABZ is that was the only offer on the table when I crossed to the dark side. Ideally I would have liked to be 400 miles south of here. If the pension is altered and the company split and sold then I will definitely be looking to leave unless, as a mobile grade, NATS post me south, gotta be warmer than here!
I think that MR777 is correct in that the Union have had their fingers burned here.
They have obviously put a lot of effort into the negotiation but the CEO has got what he wanted after all, a divided membership. He said at his first barstool session at ABZ that he thought we as ATCO's were paid 20% over the odds. He also denied wanting to go after the pension scheme but look where we are now.
I take all your comments on board, but the simple fact remains that this IS and always has been, about the pension scheme and I am disappointed in the way it has been handled. This is not a knee jerk reaction.
I have been considering my words carefully and as far as I am concerned have not said anything libelous. No mentions of promotions, backhanders or the like because I don't believe that would have been countenenced by the people involved.
I am curious about your comment that you have bigger concerns than the pension, please expand.
The only other concern that I have is the fact that the Company has already been divided into 2 separate divisions ready for a potential sell off.
No doubt NERL will be safe under the NATS umbrella, essential to the economy and all that.
NSL however, are probably screwed. If they find someone to buy us then all bets are off for those like myself who joined after July 2001. At my interview I was told that I would be a part of the CAAPS scheme and subsequently find out that I am not covered by the Promise so there is no obligation on any future owner to honour that pension for me.
I left the mil early because the T's and C's in NATS were so good, and up to now it has been the best move I ever made. However if the pension scheme is messed with to the extent that is proposed then NATS is no better than any other service provider to my mind.
The only reason I am at ABZ is that was the only offer on the table when I crossed to the dark side. Ideally I would have liked to be 400 miles south of here. If the pension is altered and the company split and sold then I will definitely be looking to leave unless, as a mobile grade, NATS post me south, gotta be warmer than here!
I think that MR777 is correct in that the Union have had their fingers burned here.
They have obviously put a lot of effort into the negotiation but the CEO has got what he wanted after all, a divided membership. He said at his first barstool session at ABZ that he thought we as ATCO's were paid 20% over the odds. He also denied wanting to go after the pension scheme but look where we are now.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DON GIVACHIT wrote:
Given that the company is obviously short of ATCOs, which is reflected in the number of AAVAs going, I would say that we are probably worth at least 20% more. After all we are always being spun the line that to get quality CEOs, managers etc you have to pay the big bucks. As the company show by having aptitude tests, not everyone can be an ATCO, however, judging by some of the c**p I have come across both inside and outside the world of ATC, anyone can be a manager.
That's not to say I haven't worked with some very good ones.
He said at his first barstool session at ABZ that he thought we as ATCO's were paid 20% over the odds. He also denied wanting to go after the pension scheme but look where we are now.
That's not to say I haven't worked with some very good ones.
Last edited by Hooligan Bill; 27th Oct 2008 at 14:21. Reason: To acknowledge the decent ones
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london, UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As the company show by having aptitude tests, not everyone can be an ATCO, however, judging by some of the c**p I have come across both inside and outside the world of ATC, anyone can be a manager."
and judging by some of the comments I have heard over the years by ATCOs about other ATCOs, it would also appear that your aptitude test is not infallible!
and judging by some of the comments I have heard over the years by ATCOs about other ATCOs, it would also appear that your aptitude test is not infallible!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pelagic wrote:
Which just proves the point that not everyone can be an ATCO!
and judging by some of the comments I have heard over the years by ATCOs about other ATCOs, it would also appear that your aptitude test is not infallible!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Under the thumb
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is not with working together. Our problem is that we're with the wrong union. Prospect is a public service union. Our management is now well versed in private sector management techniques - where did the Red Baron come from after all.
We (the operational staff at least) need to recognise that we need a more aggressive union, which can recognise the power available to us if we could stand together and decide to kick some management butt.
The new ethos for all negotiations with the management should be "it's not what you're worth, it's what you can get". It's the private sector way.
We (the operational staff at least) need to recognise that we need a more aggressive union, which can recognise the power available to us if we could stand together and decide to kick some management butt.
The new ethos for all negotiations with the management should be "it's not what you're worth, it's what you can get". It's the private sector way.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a couple of colleagues at Swanwick who were both train drivers before joining NATS as atcos and they have expressed astonishment at the antics of all our unions compared to ASLEF which they were formally menbers of.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AntiDistinctlyMinty wrote:
It would not make an ounce of difference what "Union" we belonged to, the problem would still be there because the Branch is me, you and our colleagues. We are the people who dictate the policy and it does not matter if that is with afflilation to Prospect, TGWU, UNISON etc, that will remain the same.
Our problem is that we as a group have been selling ourselves short since the CAA days, taking a bung here and a bung there as our T & C's are slowly eroded. Do you really think our European colleagues would have sold off something like Home to Duty for the price of a DFS sofa? This is what management perceive as the weakness.
The simple fact is, to you and anyone else that does not like what is going on, get off your backside, get involved in YOUR UNION, and convince your colleagues that your way is the right way. I have.
The problem is not with working together. Our problem is that we're with the wrong union. Prospect is a public service union. Our management is now well versed in private sector management techniques - where did the Red Baron come from after all.
We (the operational staff at least) need to recognise that we need a more aggressive union, which can recognise the power available to us if we could stand together and decide to kick some management butt.
We (the operational staff at least) need to recognise that we need a more aggressive union, which can recognise the power available to us if we could stand together and decide to kick some management butt.
Our problem is that we as a group have been selling ourselves short since the CAA days, taking a bung here and a bung there as our T & C's are slowly eroded. Do you really think our European colleagues would have sold off something like Home to Duty for the price of a DFS sofa? This is what management perceive as the weakness.
The simple fact is, to you and anyone else that does not like what is going on, get off your backside, get involved in YOUR UNION, and convince your colleagues that your way is the right way. I have.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Under the thumb
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Hooligan Bill, I disagree. It does matter which union we are with. What I want from my union is that it is offers leadship whilst obeying the directions that we give it via branch policy. Prospect and the BEC has chosen (for dubious reasons?) to disregard the branch policy on negotiating about the pensions which was clearly laid down a couple of years ago. Paraphrasing and not wishing to teach you to suck eggs - any approach from management about the pension would result in an immediate ballot for industrial action and any mention of a seperate pension for new entrants would result in the pulling of the AAVA agreement.
(Which reminds me, why do I have to listen to my colleagues who come in an AAVAs whinging on and on about the pension situation - they're obviously not that upset as to refuse to do AAVAs in protest!)
I fully agree that we have been selling ourselves short over T & Cs but once again that is because we've had poor leadership from the current union. We used to be told that this was the best agreement that could be obtained through negotation and if you wanted more then industrial action would be required (being spineless we never rose to the challenge). Now it appears to be a coupe de grace. Take it or .........., we'll get you to vote again until we get the answer we want.
How can we support a union which has said during the pension briefings that even if they get a 100% no vote on a 100% turn out then they would probably not support us and so any industrial action would be illegal. So much for democracy. It may also mean that a no vote is worthless.
As for getting off my back side and getting involved, good idea, I look forward to meeting you at the next union conference (maybe ASLEF, maybe RMT, anyone for BALPA?)
(Which reminds me, why do I have to listen to my colleagues who come in an AAVAs whinging on and on about the pension situation - they're obviously not that upset as to refuse to do AAVAs in protest!)
I fully agree that we have been selling ourselves short over T & Cs but once again that is because we've had poor leadership from the current union. We used to be told that this was the best agreement that could be obtained through negotation and if you wanted more then industrial action would be required (being spineless we never rose to the challenge). Now it appears to be a coupe de grace. Take it or .........., we'll get you to vote again until we get the answer we want.
How can we support a union which has said during the pension briefings that even if they get a 100% no vote on a 100% turn out then they would probably not support us and so any industrial action would be illegal. So much for democracy. It may also mean that a no vote is worthless.
As for getting off my back side and getting involved, good idea, I look forward to meeting you at the next union conference (maybe ASLEF, maybe RMT, anyone for BALPA?)