UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: way down south
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Play nicely children.,
ImnotanEric.you really shouldn't slag off the support staff.
People in glass-houses etc!!! How are you perceived??
When do the lightening strikes start folks? Work to rule? When is P.B on his hols?
ImnotanEric.you really shouldn't slag off the support staff.
People in glass-houses etc!!! How are you perceived??
When do the lightening strikes start folks? Work to rule? When is P.B on his hols?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: swanwick carp lake
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kats 1, i wasnt slagging off support staff, if you check my earlier posts, i was saying that some atsas are nothing short of brilliant. but some are rubbish. I then got into a slanging match with mr hart. and won.
to get back on track:
rpi +1%
to get back on track:
rpi +1%
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: way down south
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just ploughed though the last 20 pages of the pension thread..yes I know its all old hat now!! Short on something to read...not too impressed with the punchline or unhappy ending.
I am surprised that no-one queried or retaliated that the lack of votes was not down to "Can't be bothered"!! But may have been due to the fact that a large amount were lost in the abyss with the christmas post and may still be floating around mail rooms ....as PB expected them to.
We all know that when management want something to go through its a postal vote. If they aren't losing anything its a piece of paper in a box somewhere in the ops room. Strange old thing!
I have been with Nats(CAA) a long time and we know this is how they always work so if there is to be a vote on a paydeal lets not let it be one with deals attached or a postal one!!
Unless its an outstanding one...not much hope there eh? Ballot box it is then.??
I am surprised that no-one queried or retaliated that the lack of votes was not down to "Can't be bothered"!! But may have been due to the fact that a large amount were lost in the abyss with the christmas post and may still be floating around mail rooms ....as PB expected them to.
We all know that when management want something to go through its a postal vote. If they aren't losing anything its a piece of paper in a box somewhere in the ops room. Strange old thing!
I have been with Nats(CAA) a long time and we know this is how they always work so if there is to be a vote on a paydeal lets not let it be one with deals attached or a postal one!!
Unless its an outstanding one...not much hope there eh? Ballot box it is then.??
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
written on another ATC thread in early december...
Not too far off the mark
Point 1 was obvious.
Point 2 ...
Point 3 linked to point 2 in current pay talks
Point 4 Getting there
Point 5 New contract at Manchester anyone?
Point 6 Please, please, please
Point 7 About to start happening
Point 8 Already started
Point 9 Central Airspace party in April... E-mails from management at Swanwick trumpeting removal of managers from certain posts - neglects to mention in the same e-mail that some of those managers are moving sideways to new positions and that their old position is being filled by someone new...
Not too far off the mark
Quote:
So what happens now?
1. The pension changes happen.
2. Management will play hard ball on the pay talks (we've asked for Aug RPI+1%) - expect rumours of a pay freeze.
3. Expect further cuts in Ts & Cs
4. At least 5% staff cuts over next 6 to 18 months
5. NSL will undergo some changes...
6. Mr Barron will leave with a nice golden handshake within 18 months.
7. New joiners will be on a different pension scheme - which is the biggest issue by the way - and this 2 tier scheme will be used in the medium to long term future to cause more rifts in the workforce.
8. Expect NATS to come cap in hand well before the 15 year period is up, claiming they can't afford the pension...
9. Money will continue to be wasted on lavish awards ceremonies/projects/new management posts that duplicate work already being carried out
So what happens now?
1. The pension changes happen.
2. Management will play hard ball on the pay talks (we've asked for Aug RPI+1%) - expect rumours of a pay freeze.
3. Expect further cuts in Ts & Cs
4. At least 5% staff cuts over next 6 to 18 months
5. NSL will undergo some changes...
6. Mr Barron will leave with a nice golden handshake within 18 months.
7. New joiners will be on a different pension scheme - which is the biggest issue by the way - and this 2 tier scheme will be used in the medium to long term future to cause more rifts in the workforce.
8. Expect NATS to come cap in hand well before the 15 year period is up, claiming they can't afford the pension...
9. Money will continue to be wasted on lavish awards ceremonies/projects/new management posts that duplicate work already being carried out
Point 2 ...
Point 3 linked to point 2 in current pay talks
Point 4 Getting there
Point 5 New contract at Manchester anyone?
Point 6 Please, please, please
Point 7 About to start happening
Point 8 Already started
Point 9 Central Airspace party in April... E-mails from management at Swanwick trumpeting removal of managers from certain posts - neglects to mention in the same e-mail that some of those managers are moving sideways to new positions and that their old position is being filled by someone new...
Last edited by anotherthing; 1st Apr 2009 at 15:31. Reason: Missed the 'T' in ATC
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: milky way
Age: 54
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nats pay
Perhaps someone could point out the flaw in this thinking.
When the approach function for the London airports was transferred to West Drayton and then the seaside, at a stroke ATCOS at these units recieved the same pay for doing half the job, very nice if you cant get it, so why do these ATCOS recieve band 5 pay?, How come the whole banding issue is not looked at again.
When the approach function for the London airports was transferred to West Drayton and then the seaside, at a stroke ATCOS at these units recieved the same pay for doing half the job, very nice if you cant get it, so why do these ATCOS recieve band 5 pay?, How come the whole banding issue is not looked at again.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people would argue that it would be a very sensible move for Thames radar function to move to Farnborough.
In a business sense:
No more band 5 for Thames (though LF deserve a higher banding than they are on, especially if the move happened)
In a practical sense:
Farnborough LARS covers most of Thames area anyways.
Farnborough are good at their job.
Don't know who Luton Radar could be farmed out to though...
In a business sense:
No more band 5 for Thames (though LF deserve a higher banding than they are on, especially if the move happened)
In a practical sense:
Farnborough LARS covers most of Thames area anyways.
Farnborough are good at their job.
Don't know who Luton Radar could be farmed out to though...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know who Luton Radar could be farmed out to though...
But seriously totally agree with your previous point about when radar moved to WD some staff moved to ATCO2, as it was then, when those who stayed behind got left on ATCO3. Really unfair as most of those who were left behind had no choice in the matter. Banding is very divisive especially give the diffence between top of scale.
Band 1 > Band 2 = approx £1500 difference at the top
Band 2 > Band 3 = approx £1500 difference at the top
Band 3 > Band 4 = approx £12000 difference at the top
Band 4 > Band 5 = approx £15000 difference at the top
Please note that these are from memory so If I'm slightly wrong please don't shoot me. The principle is the important thing.
Those who say so what NSL is screwed, need to remember that a lot of NSL is paying more than is required for support services due to the poor way things are set up. Also NSL is the only part that is supposed to make a profit, so while NERL has had a very long golden period, it is at an end now, and they are going through the period of trying to make a lean operation that NSL went through a couple of years ago.
Those who seek to have differential pay awards need to really think it through.
But I'd still like Augusts' RPI +1%.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aniotherthing,
I was more than happy to work at Heathrow Airport doing aerodrome control, tower supervising, and Thames Radar and SVFR. I did not particularly want to be posted to West Drayton in 2003. The majority of Thames Radar controllers are either valid, or cross training onto other approach sectors, including Heathrow, so how do you work out what banding they should be on if there is to be a differential at TC?
I was more than happy to work at Heathrow Airport doing aerodrome control, tower supervising, and Thames Radar and SVFR. I did not particularly want to be posted to West Drayton in 2003. The majority of Thames Radar controllers are either valid, or cross training onto other approach sectors, including Heathrow, so how do you work out what banding they should be on if there is to be a differential at TC?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCO2
Do you honestly believe that someone doing Luton or Thames is a Band 5 controller?
Do you honestly think that someone doing Luton and Thames is worthy of more money than say someone from Scottish or Manchester ACC?
The fact is a lot of what goes on in the TC Ops room is unfair on outside units... heck there's a huge disparity in the room - do you honestly think Thames or Luton equates to the same as someone doing North or South plus another sector?
The fact is when the units moved there should have been a differentiation between tasks - How fair is it to Luton only tower guys who wanted to move to WD but couldn't??
Unfortunately we are stuck with the system, even though the likes of Aberdeen or Farnborough are shafted. There is no way you can claim that Thames/Luton is worth more than Aberdeen or Farnborough, yet the difference is tens of thousands.
There should be a banding system, but it should not have such a huge differential. The banding system should also be run so that there is a more realistic set of rules, and not run on the lines of paying everyone in the same huge Ops room the same money because they happen to be in one room.
WRT people who came kicking and screaming to WD from Heathrow, then it is fair enough in some respects that those people were kept on the higher banding, but people coming into the job today certainly should not.
The way you work it out is find out which App functions really are Band 5 level. Then you have to do one of those to get Band 5 pay.
It's happening in the TMA - the days of controllers doing both East and Capital but no core sector (to most TMA controllers way of thinking, not MUR level) are numbered (with the exception of people who are getting towards retirement), the idea now is that every new TMA controller must have a proper core sector (i.e. satisfy MUR) as well as possibly doing a secondary one (the vast majority do).
Unfortunately we are too far down the road now for the Union to agree to re-visit individual App functions within TC.
But that's all right, we have one watch in TC where the vast majority of Thames controllers are Thames only and are not as yet cross training... as long as they continue to get Band 5 pay, screw everyone else eh?
Anyone who is not honest enough to admit there is a huge disparity both within the room and also between App functions and external units is frankly delusional.
It will be interesting if the Thames function does move to Farnborough... will Farnborough be given a banding change, and will the Thames only valid people be able to validate on a different App function (2 actually to get MUR unless it is EGLL) in the TC Ops room?
One is spectacularly failing to do so at the moment... on what is universally accepted as being the easiest App sector in the room.
Edited to say:
I'm not saying that there is an easy fix for Banding, and certainly not saying that whatever you did, everyone would be happy. But at the moment there are huge flaws in the system.
Do you honestly believe that someone doing Luton or Thames is a Band 5 controller?
Do you honestly think that someone doing Luton and Thames is worthy of more money than say someone from Scottish or Manchester ACC?
The fact is a lot of what goes on in the TC Ops room is unfair on outside units... heck there's a huge disparity in the room - do you honestly think Thames or Luton equates to the same as someone doing North or South plus another sector?
The fact is when the units moved there should have been a differentiation between tasks - How fair is it to Luton only tower guys who wanted to move to WD but couldn't??
Unfortunately we are stuck with the system, even though the likes of Aberdeen or Farnborough are shafted. There is no way you can claim that Thames/Luton is worth more than Aberdeen or Farnborough, yet the difference is tens of thousands.
There should be a banding system, but it should not have such a huge differential. The banding system should also be run so that there is a more realistic set of rules, and not run on the lines of paying everyone in the same huge Ops room the same money because they happen to be in one room.
WRT people who came kicking and screaming to WD from Heathrow, then it is fair enough in some respects that those people were kept on the higher banding, but people coming into the job today certainly should not.
The majority of Thames Radar controllers are either valid, or cross training onto other approach sectors, including Heathrow, so how do you work out what banding they should be on if there is to be a differential at TC?
It's happening in the TMA - the days of controllers doing both East and Capital but no core sector (to most TMA controllers way of thinking, not MUR level) are numbered (with the exception of people who are getting towards retirement), the idea now is that every new TMA controller must have a proper core sector (i.e. satisfy MUR) as well as possibly doing a secondary one (the vast majority do).
Unfortunately we are too far down the road now for the Union to agree to re-visit individual App functions within TC.
But that's all right, we have one watch in TC where the vast majority of Thames controllers are Thames only and are not as yet cross training... as long as they continue to get Band 5 pay, screw everyone else eh?
Anyone who is not honest enough to admit there is a huge disparity both within the room and also between App functions and external units is frankly delusional.
It will be interesting if the Thames function does move to Farnborough... will Farnborough be given a banding change, and will the Thames only valid people be able to validate on a different App function (2 actually to get MUR unless it is EGLL) in the TC Ops room?
One is spectacularly failing to do so at the moment... on what is universally accepted as being the easiest App sector in the room.
Edited to say:
I'm not saying that there is an easy fix for Banding, and certainly not saying that whatever you did, everyone would be happy. But at the moment there are huge flaws in the system.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South of the border
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2nd Round of Redundancies
It's just been announced that there will be a second round of redundancies in Autumn this year (it wasn't stated if these would be voluntary, though I would guess that they would be).
Slightly off topic, but this may have an impact on the pay negotiations.
Slightly off topic, but this may have an impact on the pay negotiations.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North of Birmingham by a lot
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not in work today, anyone any more details on the newly announced redundancies? More redundancies would seem to strengthen the managements arguements for a miniscule pay offer. Bet the union negotiators are a bit stressed now!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South of the border
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2nd Round of Redundancies
It was announced at the leadership conference. Both PB and IM were there.
I've no idea at the moment if this is limited to a particular area of the business, but I doubt it.
I've no idea at the moment if this is limited to a particular area of the business, but I doubt it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In keeping with the management agreement with the unions it will be VR. Like many companies, NATS is taking the opportunity to shed staff to show the world that we are a leaner and definately MEANER 
company. If NATS reports a high profit as expected, the airlines will want a slice too. I look forward to taking a long look at the business brief when announced. Talking of support staff, many are ex/current ATCO's as well as ATSA (T&S) grades. There has been a great deal of 'slash and burn' in some areas of systems development. 
I understand that the last VR round was over subscribed so there is scope already. I also expect VR to be offered in areas not previously touched. Even some nonop ATCO's may be offered a wheel barrrow!
Maybe the promotion ban (was that negiotiated with the union? why didn't the union let staff know? 
) will be lifted!
company. If NATS reports a high profit as expected, the airlines will want a slice too. I look forward to taking a long look at the business brief when announced. Talking of support staff, many are ex/current ATCO's as well as ATSA (T&S) grades. There has been a great deal of 'slash and burn' in some areas of systems development. I understand that the last VR round was over subscribed so there is scope already. I also expect VR to be offered in areas not previously touched. Even some nonop ATCO's may be offered a wheel barrrow!
Maybe the promotion ban (was that negiotiated with the union? why didn't the union let staff know? ) will be lifted!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing:
I agree with you 100%. However, I asked to corss-train on LL and was given Thames. ...so you have to at least give people the opportunity to try and validate on LL (which, lets face it, is probably the only Band 5 App sector in the room).
The way you work it out is find out which App functions really are Band 5 level. Then you have to do one of those to get Band 5 pay
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr 777.
I agree that LL App is probably the only true Band 5 App function in the room.
App is different from TMA, it's not my trainset so not my place to grant it, but I would be more lenient on Approach controllers than the TMA (probably because I am a TMA controller)... I don't agree with people holding Capital and East being regarded as fulfilling MUR, and that mindset is changing. I don't think that as an App controller you would need to be given at least a chance to do LL to be considered band 5 as per your post(see below).
I think that EGKK/EGSS although not band 5/core validations per se, if they were coupled with any other function, including Luton, that would be enough to satisfy MUR.
Luton and Thames together does not, in my mind, satisfy MUR the same as Cap and East doesn't.
I would group the room as follows:
True core sectors
North
South
Heathrow
No need to do another sector (there is no requirement at the moment), but most people would (most TMA controllers do)... the only reason so few EGLL people do it is because of a shortage of EGLL controllers to enable release to train and maintain another validation.
Next group
Midlands
EGKK
EGSS
Although Mids is a core sector I don't class it the same as North or South, I think most TMA people would agree. Therefore it would be expected that if you held one of the above 3 you would need another validation to hit MUR.
Any other validation would do the trick.
The extras
Capital
East
Thames
Luton
These 4 would be supplementary validations, holding 2 of the 4 would not count as MUR.
People in the room were paid accordingly, i.e. band 5 once they meet MUR as laid out above.
You could have an interim payscale for those who didn't start with a core sector... they would stay on the interim scale and then go onto true band 5 pay as and when they met MUR.
This band 5 pay and the pay spines would be backdated to the point they would normally go onto Band 5 at the moment i.e. 2 years after leaving college, or 3 years after joining NATS (whatever the criteria is nowadays). Thus they would not be penalised for being put onto a non core sector initially, or for delays in training on a second sector.
(We would bin the current ridiculous practice of backdating peoples pay if they have failed elsewhere - that is rewarding failure. The fact they still have a job should be reward enough and is very relevant now, when we see people being given P45's when they have failed on the hardest sectors in the room, without being given the option of training elsewhere).
Those doing extra sectors over and above what is classed as MUR within the above criteria would be rewarded for it.
As I say, not my trainset so I can't make the rules. I think the above would be pretty fair though, purely from a Band 5 perspective.
I'm sure the same exercise could be carried out within AC identifying and classifying sectors.
It doesn't, of course, solve the other Banding issues for other units i.e. the huge disparity or the possible 'under-banding' of units such as EGLF & EGPE (Edited after Eastern Wiseguys post - I don't really mean Inverness).
That took longer to type than it did to think up - I'm sure there's some holes in it, but not many I would say. Unfortunately it would take balls for the union and management to do something like this.
Of course, as we are primarily concerned with safety (at least the operational amongst us), there would be scope for people to do quieter sectors if they felt the need as they approached retirment age... a sensible approach to this could be easily found.
I agree that LL App is probably the only true Band 5 App function in the room.
App is different from TMA, it's not my trainset so not my place to grant it, but I would be more lenient on Approach controllers than the TMA (probably because I am a TMA controller)... I don't agree with people holding Capital and East being regarded as fulfilling MUR, and that mindset is changing. I don't think that as an App controller you would need to be given at least a chance to do LL to be considered band 5 as per your post(see below).
I think that EGKK/EGSS although not band 5/core validations per se, if they were coupled with any other function, including Luton, that would be enough to satisfy MUR.
Luton and Thames together does not, in my mind, satisfy MUR the same as Cap and East doesn't.
I would group the room as follows:
True core sectors
North
South
Heathrow
No need to do another sector (there is no requirement at the moment), but most people would (most TMA controllers do)... the only reason so few EGLL people do it is because of a shortage of EGLL controllers to enable release to train and maintain another validation.
Next group
Midlands
EGKK
EGSS
Although Mids is a core sector I don't class it the same as North or South, I think most TMA people would agree. Therefore it would be expected that if you held one of the above 3 you would need another validation to hit MUR.
Any other validation would do the trick.
The extras
Capital
East
Thames
Luton
These 4 would be supplementary validations, holding 2 of the 4 would not count as MUR.
People in the room were paid accordingly, i.e. band 5 once they meet MUR as laid out above.
You could have an interim payscale for those who didn't start with a core sector... they would stay on the interim scale and then go onto true band 5 pay as and when they met MUR.
This band 5 pay and the pay spines would be backdated to the point they would normally go onto Band 5 at the moment i.e. 2 years after leaving college, or 3 years after joining NATS (whatever the criteria is nowadays). Thus they would not be penalised for being put onto a non core sector initially, or for delays in training on a second sector.
(We would bin the current ridiculous practice of backdating peoples pay if they have failed elsewhere - that is rewarding failure
. The fact they still have a job should be reward enough and is very relevant now, when we see people being given P45's when they have failed on the hardest sectors in the room, without being given the option of training elsewhere).Those doing extra sectors over and above what is classed as MUR within the above criteria would be rewarded for it.
As I say, not my trainset so I can't make the rules. I think the above would be pretty fair though, purely from a Band 5 perspective.
I'm sure the same exercise could be carried out within AC identifying and classifying sectors.
It doesn't, of course, solve the other Banding issues for other units i.e. the huge disparity or the possible 'under-banding' of units such as EGLF & EGPE (Edited after Eastern Wiseguys post - I don't really mean Inverness).
That took longer to type than it did to think up - I'm sure there's some holes in it, but not many I would say. Unfortunately it would take balls for the union and management to do something like this.
Of course, as we are primarily concerned with safety (at least the operational amongst us), there would be scope for people to do quieter sectors if they felt the need as they approached retirment age... a sensible approach to this could be easily found.
Last edited by anotherthing; 2nd Apr 2009 at 15:40.