UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: LACC - the Premier Centre
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I believe that we are all doomed since we voted yes to the dodgy pension proposal that the unions should never even have entered negotiations on, let alone recommended, and we are still waiting for the MOU to be signed, I will not be handing in my Prospect membership. The reason being that if all the "no" voters leave the union because they don't think it's worth being a member any more, guess who's left? Answer - all the "yes" voters and that's too scary to comprehend, I still want a vote and a voice even if I'm in the 40% minority.
I just wish that all the "yes" voters hadn't been so short-sighted as to think that all we were voting on was the pension. Management used the pension vote as a "dip test" to check out whether we would crumble if they tried to reduce the benefit that we said we would never let them touch. Now they have seen that we fell at the first fence, they will be brimming with confidence that they can do anything to us with enough scare-mongering and threats, and to be honest it disappoints me to believe that they probably can.
T&Cs R.I.P.
I just wish that all the "yes" voters hadn't been so short-sighted as to think that all we were voting on was the pension. Management used the pension vote as a "dip test" to check out whether we would crumble if they tried to reduce the benefit that we said we would never let them touch. Now they have seen that we fell at the first fence, they will be brimming with confidence that they can do anything to us with enough scare-mongering and threats, and to be honest it disappoints me to believe that they probably can.
T&Cs R.I.P.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: at home
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumouroid's comments reflect exactly why the staff at NATS will no longer have even an equal starting status in any future negotiations, let alone be in a position of holding the upper hand. The Unions gave advice on the pensions issue, and a large enough proportion of the staff felt obliged to accept it - not because it made sense, but because its better to have something (ie a reduced pension) rather than run the risk of having nothing (no pension/no Company - the scaremongering tactic), or even just be out of pocket for taking a stand (loss of a few days wages). The same will now happen with the wages negotiations.
Both Unions no longer carry any credibility in the negotiating arena. They won't 'win' anything - they'll accept what is offered - even if its nothing! - and tell you 'its the best deal we could get'. And even if they did take the hard line, and say 'enough is enough', then the hard stance would fall flat on its face once the votes were counted, 'cos too many staff have too much to lose, and will vote on the same 'personal' basis as they did over the pension issue.
Best just to keep your membership going so's you can call on the independent solicitors' half-hour free advice available to Union members, and to have a witness present at your 1-2-1 chats with the local big-wigs.
Both Unions no longer carry any credibility in the negotiating arena. They won't 'win' anything - they'll accept what is offered - even if its nothing! - and tell you 'its the best deal we could get'. And even if they did take the hard line, and say 'enough is enough', then the hard stance would fall flat on its face once the votes were counted, 'cos too many staff have too much to lose, and will vote on the same 'personal' basis as they did over the pension issue.
Best just to keep your membership going so's you can call on the independent solicitors' half-hour free advice available to Union members, and to have a witness present at your 1-2-1 chats with the local big-wigs.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfortunately the scaremongering tactic will be used again. They are already saying the new pension is all but unaffordable... 2 months after it was voted in. If they can't even plan financially 2 months ahead, the scaremongering may be correct, because such poor planning ability will cause this company to fail...
We do well in normal times because of the virtual monopoly we have, but when it comes to running NATS properly, like a savvy business, our management don't have a clue.
Still sending large groups of people on 2 day junkets to expensive hotels, yet bleating about the finances - it's not rocket science, i'm just surprised so many staff and the union are taken in by it.
Never mind, the Union is 'exasperated' - maybe by December we will have managed to get management to agree to discuss pay, obviously the dates of those discussions will need to be finalised... sometime in 2010???
We do well in normal times because of the virtual monopoly we have, but when it comes to running NATS properly, like a savvy business, our management don't have a clue.
Still sending large groups of people on 2 day junkets to expensive hotels, yet bleating about the finances - it's not rocket science, i'm just surprised so many staff and the union are taken in by it.
Never mind, the Union is 'exasperated' - maybe by December we will have managed to get management to agree to discuss pay, obviously the dates of those discussions will need to be finalised... sometime in 2010???
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Winchester.Hants.England
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe by December we will have managed to get management to agree to discuss pay, obviously the dates of those discussions will need to be finalised... sometime in 2010???
The reason they can take this stance is because they do not have any tangible opposition to their plans. The NTUS is a spent force that has been completely outwitted and outmanoeuvred by NATS management.
The existing NTUS should be replaced immediately. We have some very able reps in TC/AC who are more than capable of stepping into their shoes.
FBW
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: at home
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2-Union representation, plus the scaremongering will also mean that, pay issues aside, the ATCOs will not stand up to help save the operational support staff, even if they truly believe that we are neccessary to keep things running, or for contingency etc. As for the ATSAs themselves standing up - 
!! at LL we've just experienced a perfect example of Central PCS' strength in standing up for its members - 
Come back, Chiglet - we need someone to wave the PCS Union flag! (and put wood/SAMOS guides/paper strips in the picketline's brazier)
like I said, just keeping ourselves in a job is going to be the target for most of us this year
!! at LL we've just experienced a perfect example of Central PCS' strength in standing up for its members - Come back, Chiglet - we need someone to wave the PCS Union flag! (and put wood/SAMOS guides/paper strips in the picketline's brazier)like I said, just keeping ourselves in a job is going to be the target for most of us this year
Last edited by White Hart; 19th Feb 2009 at 16:54.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HANTS
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should first of all say that I have complete sympathy with the ATSA grades and the predicament facing them....I was one myself for several years albeit an ATCA then.
I am also totally in agreement with the view that one workforce/two unions reduces our strength to support any of our grades in difficult circumstances however....
...some years ago I remember joint pay negotiations with a final offer tabled by management.Rejected by ATCOs branch,accepted by ATSAS/ATEs.We later accepted a revised offer (a better one of course) and were subjected to an awful lot of recrimination from the grades who prematurely (in my view) accepted the earlier offer....
I find it a little rich to be subject to the view that I would not stand up for the ATSA grade....you have to do it yourselves with strong PCS representation...as and when PROSPECT are involved you will have my unqualified support.
I am also totally in agreement with the view that one workforce/two unions reduces our strength to support any of our grades in difficult circumstances however....
...some years ago I remember joint pay negotiations with a final offer tabled by management.Rejected by ATCOs branch,accepted by ATSAS/ATEs.We later accepted a revised offer (a better one of course) and were subjected to an awful lot of recrimination from the grades who prematurely (in my view) accepted the earlier offer....
I find it a little rich to be subject to the view that I would not stand up for the ATSA grade....you have to do it yourselves with strong PCS representation...as and when PROSPECT are involved you will have my unqualified support.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: at home
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...some years ago I remember joint pay negotiations - 'X' - with a final offer tabled by management.Rejected by ATCOs branch,accepted by ATSAS/ATEs.We later accepted a revised offer (a better one of course) and were subjected to an awful lot of recrimination from the grades who prematurely (in my view) accepted the earlier offer...."
you missed a bit out at the point I have marked 'X' above. let me refresh your memory...
..with an agreement in place between the two Unions that, if one Union voted 'yes', but the other voted 'no', then it was back to the table for both Unions and their members. It was also mooted (but possibly not officially agreed) that the percentage pay rise offer should be the same for all - not X% for the ATCOs and a lesser Y% for the rest. As it turned out, PCS voted 'yes', Prospect voted 'no', so it should have been back to the table for both parties. But it didn't work out like that, did it? No - Prospect went back to the table on their own and without recourse to PCS, who once they found out about Prospect's sleight of hand, promptly rejected the accepted offer as per the 2-Union agreement...
so much for Unions working together in agreement that is where the recrimination stems from!
Gapster, thank you for your 'sympathy' for the lower ranks. I shall put your 'lapse of memory' down to having done 20+ years within NATS, (which is sufficient to addle anybody's brains), and which you must have done if you were once an ATCA.
As for it being 'a little rich to be subject to the view that I would not stand up for the ATSA grade', neither Prospect nor its membership have officially stood up for us before or since - and even though we all hear the ATCO blah about how 'invaluable' and 'essential' we are, I shall not be expecting the majority of them to change their ways in the future, and certainly not whilst the 2-Union arrangement exists.
you missed a bit out at the point I have marked 'X' above. let me refresh your memory...
..with an agreement in place between the two Unions that, if one Union voted 'yes', but the other voted 'no', then it was back to the table for both Unions and their members. It was also mooted (but possibly not officially agreed) that the percentage pay rise offer should be the same for all - not X% for the ATCOs and a lesser Y% for the rest. As it turned out, PCS voted 'yes', Prospect voted 'no', so it should have been back to the table for both parties. But it didn't work out like that, did it? No - Prospect went back to the table on their own and without recourse to PCS, who once they found out about Prospect's sleight of hand, promptly rejected the accepted offer as per the 2-Union agreement...
so much for Unions working together in agreement
that is where the recrimination stems from! Gapster, thank you for your 'sympathy' for the lower ranks. I shall put your 'lapse of memory' down to having done 20+ years within NATS, (which is sufficient to addle anybody's brains), and which you must have done if you were once an ATCA.
As for it being 'a little rich to be subject to the view that I would not stand up for the ATSA grade', neither Prospect nor its membership have officially stood up for us before or since - and even though we all hear the ATCO blah about how 'invaluable' and 'essential' we are, I shall not be expecting the majority of them to change their ways in the future, and certainly not whilst the 2-Union arrangement exists.
Last edited by White Hart; 19th Feb 2009 at 17:59.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Hart...et al
I am still an active Union member,(BEC) [tho' with less than 18 months to 65
, I am cooling it, a bit] We do have some "young turks" at Manch, but as you know, time is not on our side.
Take care, out there...
wh pm on way
I am still an active Union member,(BEC) [tho' with less than 18 months to 65
, I am cooling it, a bit] We do have some "young turks" at Manch, but as you know, time is not on our side. Take care, out there...
wh pm on way
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: at home
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM for you too, Chiglet.
I reckon there's a better than average chance that we'll see both Prospect and PCS unrepresented at LL local level before too long. (who is the Prospect rep at LL?) Still, it won't affect the Heathrow 2-Union 'working together' ethos, will it?
No 'young turks' at LL, I'm afraid to say - only 'old turkeys' wearing suits.
BTW - has anybody been released under the current VR offer at LACC?
I reckon there's a better than average chance that we'll see both Prospect and PCS unrepresented at LL local level before too long. (who is the Prospect rep at LL?) Still, it won't affect the Heathrow 2-Union 'working together' ethos, will it?
No 'young turks' at LL, I'm afraid to say - only 'old turkeys' wearing suits.
BTW - has anybody been released under the current VR offer at LACC?
Last edited by White Hart; 20th Feb 2009 at 17:10.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prospect takes action.
Another ‘draft report’ from Prospects communications department for Profile magazine perhaps??
the above is not real, before anyone gets all worked up
Prospect ATCOs Branch have today taken the unprecedented step of escalating relations with NATS management in a bid to speed up the stalled pay talks.
Prospect have taken the unusual step of moving from ‘feeling exasperated’ to being ‘mightily peeved’.
The annual pay awards, which are traditionally due on the 1st Jan, have never been brought in on time, however even by usual standards the current situation is fast becoming a farce.
A Union spokesperson said today:
This is the strongest action that Prospect have taken since the much maligned PPP. They have never, in their history been ‘extremely miffed’ with NATS Management.
The spokesperson went on to say
NATS Management have so far declined to comment on the Unions action.
Prospect have taken the unusual step of moving from ‘feeling exasperated’ to being ‘mightily peeved’.
The annual pay awards, which are traditionally due on the 1st Jan, have never been brought in on time, however even by usual standards the current situation is fast becoming a farce.
A Union spokesperson said today:
“We have tried working together with NATS Management but to no avail. We have been left with no option but to indicate that we are now officially, ‘mightily peeved’.
The reason we have taken this robust course of action is twofold. Firstly we want to send a clear, unambiguous message to Management and secondly we want our members to feel they are getting value for money.
We believe that this escalation will bring the NATS Board to the table to start discussing the pay award issue.
We have also indicated to Management that if they do not enter discussions with us soon, we will consider the unprecedented step of becoming 'extremely miffed'.
We are giving management a shot across the bows, and urge them to enter into talks to prevent us escalating things further. If there is no sign of movement from management by lets say November, we will officially become ‘extremely miffed’.”
The reason we have taken this robust course of action is twofold. Firstly we want to send a clear, unambiguous message to Management and secondly we want our members to feel they are getting value for money.
We believe that this escalation will bring the NATS Board to the table to start discussing the pay award issue.
We have also indicated to Management that if they do not enter discussions with us soon, we will consider the unprecedented step of becoming 'extremely miffed'.
We are giving management a shot across the bows, and urge them to enter into talks to prevent us escalating things further. If there is no sign of movement from management by lets say November, we will officially become ‘extremely miffed’.”
The spokesperson went on to say
“We really do not wish to go down this route, especially as we have been so good with Management in ‘Working Together’. However we feel that we have no option as all other avenues have failed.
We believe that the use of the words 'mightily' and 'peeved', coupled with the possible future utterance of the words 'miffed' and 'extremely' will send shivers down Managements spines”
We believe that the use of the words 'mightily' and 'peeved', coupled with the possible future utterance of the words 'miffed' and 'extremely' will send shivers down Managements spines”
Last edited by anotherthing; 24th Feb 2009 at 16:12.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this a "wind up" ? They had better get their bloody act together soon.
NATS no doubt will reveal next month another profit busting financial year amongst the "temporary decline in winter traffic". Their long term business plan is in place for a 3% annual growth in traffic levels for the next twenty years. So we are well financially placed, are we not ? Or maybe they have got it wrong 
They had better get their bloody act together soon.NATS no doubt will reveal next month another profit busting financial year amongst the "temporary decline in winter traffic". Their long term business plan is in place for a 3% annual growth in traffic levels for the next twenty years. So we are well financially placed, are we not ?
Or maybe they have got it wrong
Last edited by Vote NO; 24th Feb 2009 at 15:52.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dorset
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure for a company that is doing so well, his shouldn't be a problem !
The PPP was much criticised - was it a success?
The PPP, or Public Private Partnership, was established in July 2001 and strengthened in 2003 following a financial restructuring prompted by the financial downturn following 9/11. NATS is now owned 49% by the Government; 42% by The Airline Group, a consortium of UK airlines; 4% by BAA and 5% by an Employee Share Trust. The company has just reported its fifth successive year of profit.
In the last year we have continued to maintain our strong safety record, whilst handling record numbers of flights. NATS-attributable delays have been reduced from more than two minutes at the time of the PPP to less than 27 seconds this year.
The company has a 10-year, £1bn investment programme. Within 10 years of the PPP (2011) we will have achieved our two-centre strategy and delivered the majority of our £1bn investment programme, due for completion in 2013.
The PPP, or Public Private Partnership, was established in July 2001 and strengthened in 2003 following a financial restructuring prompted by the financial downturn following 9/11. NATS is now owned 49% by the Government; 42% by The Airline Group, a consortium of UK airlines; 4% by BAA and 5% by an Employee Share Trust. The company has just reported its fifth successive year of profit.
In the last year we have continued to maintain our strong safety record, whilst handling record numbers of flights. NATS-attributable delays have been reduced from more than two minutes at the time of the PPP to less than 27 seconds this year.
The company has a 10-year, £1bn investment programme. Within 10 years of the PPP (2011) we will have achieved our two-centre strategy and delivered the majority of our £1bn investment programme, due for completion in 2013.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hotel CTC
Age: 54
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They say 'we follow' America?
Reading his speech, hopefully we are not looking at a similar path in the UK for pilots or controllers?
Hero Pilot 'Sully' to Congress: My Pay Has Been Cut, Pension Terminated | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet
Reading his speech, hopefully we are not looking at a similar path in the UK for pilots or controllers?
Hero Pilot 'Sully' to Congress: My Pay Has Been Cut, Pension Terminated | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cuddles
Are you alluding to well founded rumours of profits in excess of £100million, with a £50million dividend to the airlines, perchance?
When do the figures get published? Anyone know??
Are you alluding to well founded rumours of profits in excess of £100million, with a £50million dividend to the airlines, perchance?
When do the figures get published? Anyone know??
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
End of financial year I think. So have we all completed talkback yet? The response will be damning but 'they' will tell us that its 'understandable' and that we are in a 'bad place' but things will get better. Sure they will! Ballot for industrial action please - and one union for NATS at the same time. 
Ballot for industrial action please - and one union for NATS at the same time.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at last years financial report 
published in June 2008 , so we may have to wait 4 months. This will play into managements hands as they won't reveal the massive profits before the "pay rise " is negotiated, and plead poverty till then
Finance Director Nigel Fotherby
http://www.nats.co.uk/uploads/user/N...rch%202008.pdf
published in June 2008 , so we may have to wait 4 months. This will play into managements hands as they won't reveal the massive profits before the "pay rise " is negotiated, and plead poverty till thenThe financial statements were approved by the Board of directors on 26 June 2008 and signed on its behalf by
Chairman John Devaney
Chairman John Devaney
Finance Director Nigel Fotherby
NATS (En Route) plc
Financial statements
for the year ended 31 March 2008
Company Number: 4129273Financial statements
for the year ended 31 March 2008
http://www.nats.co.uk/uploads/user/N...rch%202008.pdf
Last edited by Vote NO; 25th Feb 2009 at 20:52.
Disappointed
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How rather wasteful the two centre strategy seems now too. How poorly sighted and quite frankly, wasteful.
An outlay of £23.6m to the "Prestwick/Manchester programme" from those latest accounting figures....second only to current software systems in terms of capital expenditure.
Hardly a vital business expense really is it? Was it absolutely necessary to commit to nPC I wonder? Perhaps with hindsight it'll become a project management would rather not undertake, certainly financially.
And lo, is that a profit of £47.1m I see before my eyes?
An outlay of £23.6m to the "Prestwick/Manchester programme" from those latest accounting figures....second only to current software systems in terms of capital expenditure.
Hardly a vital business expense really is it? Was it absolutely necessary to commit to nPC I wonder? Perhaps with hindsight it'll become a project management would rather not undertake, certainly financially.
And lo, is that a profit of £47.1m I see before my eyes?