Working Together
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South
Age: 64
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working Together
Working Together has certainly been a highly successful policy for NATS’s management; the NTUS were mandated by their members to maintain all the existing pension benefits, yet now, just a matter of months later, the Unions themselves are recommending closing the existing NATS pension to new employees and reducing the benefits to existing members.
In anyone’s language that is a spectacular result. How has it been achieved?
The criticism of Working Together has ranged from the Stockholm syndrome to the altogether much more sinister. This thread is for the expression of any concerns NATS staff have about Working Together.
I think this thread should not be moved to the NATS forum as staff are much more likely to express their reservations of Working Together if they don’t have to use a login they might have used from their NATS computer.
In anyone’s language that is a spectacular result. How has it been achieved?
The criticism of Working Together has ranged from the Stockholm syndrome to the altogether much more sinister. This thread is for the expression of any concerns NATS staff have about Working Together.
I think this thread should not be moved to the NATS forum as staff are much more likely to express their reservations of Working Together if they don’t have to use a login they might have used from their NATS computer.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I would want to listen and understand before pronouncing immediate and outright condemnation of the NTUS. But I'm a bit weird in not going straight into kneejerk reactions
BD
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that this thread wasn't started to debate this but I'll have a go.
In the pre-Thatcher era of industrial relations there was inherent mistrust between management and workforce. Negotiations started with both sides making outrageous demands with no real substance and eventually after much time and usually some form of industrial action they would meet somewhere in the middle with a settlement that neither side was really happy with.
More modern enlightened thinking says that actually both sides want the best solution and, if there can be sufficient trust for both sides to put all their cards on the table, it is possible to get a much quicker and better solution for all concerned.
For management there are no real risks in this approach. Provided they are honest it will usually provide a solution that is acceptable to them and worse case the outcome will be only the same as if the old confrontation method was adopted.
The risks are all on the union side. If their membership don't trust management or worse, don't trust their union representatives, then the union will find it difficult to carry their membership however good the agreed solution and the effect on the union can be disastrous.
In the pre-Thatcher era of industrial relations there was inherent mistrust between management and workforce. Negotiations started with both sides making outrageous demands with no real substance and eventually after much time and usually some form of industrial action they would meet somewhere in the middle with a settlement that neither side was really happy with.
More modern enlightened thinking says that actually both sides want the best solution and, if there can be sufficient trust for both sides to put all their cards on the table, it is possible to get a much quicker and better solution for all concerned.
For management there are no real risks in this approach. Provided they are honest it will usually provide a solution that is acceptable to them and worse case the outcome will be only the same as if the old confrontation method was adopted.
The risks are all on the union side. If their membership don't trust management or worse, don't trust their union representatives, then the union will find it difficult to carry their membership however good the agreed solution and the effect on the union can be disastrous.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Scotland, ATCO
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The union had no mandate to discuss pension changes with the company, working together or not they should not have entered into the negotiations without first getting a mandate.
I understand that around the company signitures are being collected to force the unit to call a "special meeting" to discuss this exact issue!
I too will wait for the briefings but I'm positive my feelings cannot be changed on the issue!
I understand that around the company signitures are being collected to force the unit to call a "special meeting" to discuss this exact issue!
I too will wait for the briefings but I'm positive my feelings cannot be changed on the issue!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working Together in principle is a good idea. The intention is that it avoids the old fashioned butting of heads that Management v Union meetings were... By being fully involved in the process, union reps are ready to buy into the result, rather than wait for a management plan to be presented then just say "no"
On the current pension example... It's difficult. I know and have worked for over a decade with some of those reps who have been involved in this process. I know with certainty the level of integrity and deep-rooted union beliefs that those I know have. I am sure that, if they have accepted this deal, its because they considered it the best option available.
However, I am still not happy that they went down this path in the first place. Union reps are just that - representatives. Their authority is based on the approval of members. By entering in to confidential negotiations where they were not able to consult with members on their path, they have over-stepped their authority in my view.
Realistically there may be no alternative to this plan... I will wait and see... but, if we back down and accept this deal then I think the TUs can just pack up and go home. All authority and influence in future negotiations will be lost.
I hate to say 'I told you so' but I voiced by concerns over the path they took right at the outset.... I told you so.
On the current pension example... It's difficult. I know and have worked for over a decade with some of those reps who have been involved in this process. I know with certainty the level of integrity and deep-rooted union beliefs that those I know have. I am sure that, if they have accepted this deal, its because they considered it the best option available.
However, I am still not happy that they went down this path in the first place. Union reps are just that - representatives. Their authority is based on the approval of members. By entering in to confidential negotiations where they were not able to consult with members on their path, they have over-stepped their authority in my view.
Realistically there may be no alternative to this plan... I will wait and see... but, if we back down and accept this deal then I think the TUs can just pack up and go home. All authority and influence in future negotiations will be lost.
I hate to say 'I told you so' but I voiced by concerns over the path they took right at the outset.... I told you so.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we 'worked together' during the privatisation process, we also 'worked together' when the banding issue came to light.
forgive me if i feel slightly sceptical about any future 'working together' particularly when it involves my pension and future pay
forgive me if i feel slightly sceptical about any future 'working together' particularly when it involves my pension and future pay
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on then smart Alecs what's the alternative to working togther?
Some of you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Working together is one element of the way the trade unions liase with management. In essence it means no surprises from each side. Just because working together is banded about (forgive the pun)doesn't mean it replaces good old fashioned negotiation. Certain aspects of communicating are appropriate for certain tasks - for example the move of TC to Swanwick, working together there solved lot's of problems and meant nobody was in the dark about what was happening - those moving from MACC should benefit from it as it is being used as an example of what can be achieved from 'working together' in the lessons learnt from the move - which is yet another form of the working together process.
If you think that the union wants to be in this position with pensions you need your head examining. What do you think NATS would have done if they hadn't been forced to negotiate or work together on this way forward? You should have seen what they wanted to do to your pension - and they could have - they can alter any of your conditions with 6 months notice.
So call it whatever you want but remember that if the union doesn't talk/negotiate with management then you'll be in stalemate and if you think that works then go back to 1973 and the 3 day week or the winter of discontent in 1978 - wasn't that a fabulous time for trade unionism and a refusal to negotiate.
Some of you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Working together is one element of the way the trade unions liase with management. In essence it means no surprises from each side. Just because working together is banded about (forgive the pun)doesn't mean it replaces good old fashioned negotiation. Certain aspects of communicating are appropriate for certain tasks - for example the move of TC to Swanwick, working together there solved lot's of problems and meant nobody was in the dark about what was happening - those moving from MACC should benefit from it as it is being used as an example of what can be achieved from 'working together' in the lessons learnt from the move - which is yet another form of the working together process.
If you think that the union wants to be in this position with pensions you need your head examining. What do you think NATS would have done if they hadn't been forced to negotiate or work together on this way forward? You should have seen what they wanted to do to your pension - and they could have - they can alter any of your conditions with 6 months notice.
So call it whatever you want but remember that if the union doesn't talk/negotiate with management then you'll be in stalemate and if you think that works then go back to 1973 and the 3 day week or the winter of discontent in 1978 - wasn't that a fabulous time for trade unionism and a refusal to negotiate.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: here
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should have seen what they wanted to do to your pension - and they could have - they can alter any of your conditions with 6 months notice.
This "Not for profit" making organisation made over £50 million last year
Our Chief Executive earned £600 thousand this year (not to mention a rather expensive car)
Do these figures really show a company that cannot afford to reward their loyal hardworking staff with a real final salary pension scheme - not some watered down RPI + 0.5% nonsense?????
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lymington
Age: 59
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should have seen what they wanted to do to your pension - and they could have - they can alter any of your conditions with 6 months notice.
oh yes, i nearly forgot....we could organise a cracking tea party at the front gate. all invited. bring a donkey jacket and your own oil drum
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of comments about what the union should and shouldn't have done.
Instead of whinging on a website, why not get up and do something about it?
The union is made up of it's members. The branch executive is elected by those members to represent them. They act as an executive and do not consult and ballot on every issue. They have done nothing different here.
If so many people think they know a better why to conduct industrial relations, stand for election and show the rest of us how it should be done.
Instead of whinging on a website, why not get up and do something about it?
The union is made up of it's members. The branch executive is elected by those members to represent them. They act as an executive and do not consult and ballot on every issue. They have done nothing different here.
If so many people think they know a better why to conduct industrial relations, stand for election and show the rest of us how it should be done.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah,
"The Branch executive is elected by it's members to represent them...." Correct!
Last thing they told me was " One Nats , one pension". No members kicked up a stink when told that was the policy, because thats what the membership wanted.
VOTE NO
"The Branch executive is elected by it's members to represent them...." Correct!
Last thing they told me was " One Nats , one pension". No members kicked up a stink when told that was the policy, because thats what the membership wanted.
VOTE NO
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE
there is a lot more we could do with 6 months notice. go back to minimum unit requirement. give up ojti, lce, stop bandboxing on nights. no shortcuts, no high speed etc
UNQUOTE
Absolutely right. Of course the other things stopped would be:
No short notice leave approvals after roster publication
No 1/2 days AL/DIL
Everyone staying for the whole shift all the time
No release for meetings/medicals/need to see the au-pair etc
ATSAs on overtime being sent home when the number of sectors reduces to the number which can be met by the the core shift and only paid for the hours worked
By the way, what's the point about 'not bandboxing on nights'? The standard night configuration in AC is not a concession.
there is a lot more we could do with 6 months notice. go back to minimum unit requirement. give up ojti, lce, stop bandboxing on nights. no shortcuts, no high speed etc
UNQUOTE
Absolutely right. Of course the other things stopped would be:
No short notice leave approvals after roster publication
No 1/2 days AL/DIL
Everyone staying for the whole shift all the time
No release for meetings/medicals/need to see the au-pair etc
ATSAs on overtime being sent home when the number of sectors reduces to the number which can be met by the the core shift and only paid for the hours worked
By the way, what's the point about 'not bandboxing on nights'? The standard night configuration in AC is not a concession.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Eyeinthesky mate!
With the exception of the ATSA O/T remark - all your list of "negatives" already happen at my "significant" Unit - and have done for quite a while.
They are coming your way anyway!
VOTE NO
With the exception of the ATSA O/T remark - all your list of "negatives" already happen at my "significant" Unit - and have done for quite a while.
They are coming your way anyway!
VOTE NO
Last edited by expediteoff; 2nd Oct 2008 at 18:55.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No 1/2 days AL/DIL
Everyone staying for the whole shift all the time
No release for meetings/medicals/need to see the au-pair etc
Long term the things you mention may come to really annoy people,yes however, the measures suggested by caesar will, long term , cause more problems for management than they expect. I don't think they realise how much is done in this company through shear goodwill and people doing things in their own time.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that management are aware of the amount of goodwill that keeps the units going, however they choose to accept it as the norm and have come to rely on this goodwill (and on occasions abusing it).
Giving up anything other than MUR will only serve to cause problems at the centres as sadly us at the airports operate to MUR.
No training, no more coming in on days off for meetings, insisting that mediacals are undertaken during working hours, making sure that (and this is for us at the airport radar units) we are logged in to the OPM when sitting around waiting for traffic as director, no more making it work when we are short staffed, no more doing that extra few minutes because the WM has cocked up the break plan. Insisting on having a full 1/2 hour break after doing anything work related following a session on console.
All these things will serve well to get the message across to management that we have been carrying this company for far to long and for once we are going to stand up and fight for those terms and conditions that we currently enjoy and to protect those terms (including the pension that I signed up for, not the one they want me to have now).
Failing that then I and the vast majority of my colleagues are prepared to walk.
As has been said many many times before, the powder is dry, and protecting our pension scheme is something that I and the overwhelming majority of my colleagues are willing to light the blue touch paper and stand well back behind lighted oil drum, carrying placards for .
Giving up anything other than MUR will only serve to cause problems at the centres as sadly us at the airports operate to MUR.
No training, no more coming in on days off for meetings, insisting that mediacals are undertaken during working hours, making sure that (and this is for us at the airport radar units) we are logged in to the OPM when sitting around waiting for traffic as director, no more making it work when we are short staffed, no more doing that extra few minutes because the WM has cocked up the break plan. Insisting on having a full 1/2 hour break after doing anything work related following a session on console.
All these things will serve well to get the message across to management that we have been carrying this company for far to long and for once we are going to stand up and fight for those terms and conditions that we currently enjoy and to protect those terms (including the pension that I signed up for, not the one they want me to have now).
Failing that then I and the vast majority of my colleagues are prepared to walk.
As has been said many many times before, the powder is dry, and protecting our pension scheme is something that I and the overwhelming majority of my colleagues are willing to light the blue touch paper and stand well back behind lighted oil drum, carrying placards for .
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting this concept of working together.
Our Union rep was supposed to be attending a briefing on the pensions scenario this Wednesday, gave the boss plenty of notice and still hasn't been released from nights to attend. Too late now then!!
Our Union rep was supposed to be attending a briefing on the pensions scenario this Wednesday, gave the boss plenty of notice and still hasn't been released from nights to attend. Too late now then!!