UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Today, the ATCO Pay Negotiators as part of the Joint NTUS Pay Team, met with NATS with regards to an offer on Core Pay. At this meeting, NATS made their ‘best and final’ offer which involved using a blended RPI based on a combined Aug 2008 and Aug 2009 RPI figure. This is a different way of doing a pay deal and takes account of the rapidly changing economic environment we have found ourselves in.
The offer on the table does not involve any changes to our current T’s & C’s and has been the culmination of months of difficult negotiations.
The next step is for the ATCO Pay Team to present the NATS offer to the ATCO Branch Executive, at which point the BEC will endorse or reject the offer. It is hoped to make this presentation to the BEC by 22nd April. After the offer has been presented to all constituents of the NTUS, full details will be communicated to all members along with the recommendation of the BEC. This will be followed by a ballot of the members as soon as practicable."
Forecast RPI for Aug 09 is about minus 0.7%
This presumably would give us about 4% over 2 years
. The industry average for this year is 2.6%
NB. UK RPI for July 09 is forecast to fall to minus 1.2%
This sounds like management w*nk speak to me
and is loaded on managements side . If it's so rapidly changing how can they possibly ensure we dont end up with next to SFA next year unless they have agreed to accept nothing less than 4 % over two years ?
The offer on the table does not involve any changes to our current T’s & C’s and has been the culmination of months of difficult negotiations.
The next step is for the ATCO Pay Team to present the NATS offer to the ATCO Branch Executive, at which point the BEC will endorse or reject the offer. It is hoped to make this presentation to the BEC by 22nd April. After the offer has been presented to all constituents of the NTUS, full details will be communicated to all members along with the recommendation of the BEC. This will be followed by a ballot of the members as soon as practicable."
Forecast RPI for Aug 09 is about minus 0.7%
This presumably would give us about 4% over 2 years
. The industry average for this year is 2.6%NB. UK RPI for July 09 is forecast to fall to minus 1.2%
This is a different way of doing a pay deal and takes account of the rapidly changing economic environment we have found ourselves in
This sounds like management w*nk speak to me
and is loaded on managements side . If it's so rapidly changing how can they possibly ensure we dont end up with next to SFA next year unless they have agreed to accept nothing less than 4 % over two years ?
Last edited by Vote NO; 18th Apr 2009 at 09:01.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How the hell can we even contemplate a pay rise based on forcasted RPI figures? They are mostly (educated?) guesses at best and may bear no resemblence to future RPI - indeed, fuel prices are currently shooting up faster than the rate at this time last year - so there is no guarantee that RPi will be negative, come Aug 2009.
Prices have already gone up by AUG 08 RPI - we have already fallen behind the curve. An AUG08 RPI payrise will simply bring our salaries up to the equivalent pre-Aug08 prices. Anything less is a pay cut FFS!
If it is their best and final offer, I suggest we stick two fingers up at NATS management, pull the AAVA agreement and other extraneous tasks, and see what happens when NATS attribitutable delays shoot up - yep, those fines are gonna be hefty!
Prices have already gone up by AUG 08 RPI - we have already fallen behind the curve. An AUG08 RPI payrise will simply bring our salaries up to the equivalent pre-Aug08 prices. Anything less is a pay cut FFS!
If it is their best and final offer, I suggest we stick two fingers up at NATS management, pull the AAVA agreement and other extraneous tasks, and see what happens when NATS attribitutable delays shoot up - yep, those fines are gonna be hefty!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would still like the AAVA agreement to be pulled no matter what the pay result.
Management are simply taking the mick, as every time any negotiation re staffing is involved, their stock answer is, "we'll staff it with AAVAs".
The AAVA agreement seems to be the only leverage we have aginst management at the moment, and by pulling it, it would at least make them sit up and stop their relentless onslaught.
I so hope the SDC next week results in it being pulled. I really do.
Management are simply taking the mick, as every time any negotiation re staffing is involved, their stock answer is, "we'll staff it with AAVAs".
The AAVA agreement seems to be the only leverage we have aginst management at the moment, and by pulling it, it would at least make them sit up and stop their relentless onslaught.
I so hope the SDC next week results in it being pulled. I really do.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is total nonsense. Blended RPI this year will mean about 2.5% which is a PAY CUT OF 2.3% !!! Meanwhile, his Lordship gets 9%. What part of this picture is wrong. I also overheard yesterday that it's not the payrise we should be worried about, but our pensions!!! HOW????!!!
I'm not taking any more cut in my pay, real or otherwise. I now stand by for the usual management lackeys, who by the way have been suspiciously quiet so far on this thread, to tell me why
1) I deserve a 2.3% pay cut
2) why PB is worth 6.5% more of a payrise than I am
3) why I should take a further cut in my pension.
Since they haven't yet taken up my original challenge of defending PB's payrise, I won't hold my breath for an answer.
Oh, and £5 says the Prospect BEC bend over and accept this piece of sh*t anyway, and then recommend we accept it
I'm not taking any more cut in my pay, real or otherwise. I now stand by for the usual management lackeys, who by the way have been suspiciously quiet so far on this thread, to tell me why
1) I deserve a 2.3% pay cut
2) why PB is worth 6.5% more of a payrise than I am
3) why I should take a further cut in my pension.
Since they haven't yet taken up my original challenge of defending PB's payrise, I won't hold my breath for an answer.
Oh, and £5 says the Prospect BEC bend over and accept this piece of sh*t anyway, and then recommend we accept it
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: here
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With that tw#t Barron having a year left before he goes, does he really have a stomach for a fight with us? He will go with a big bonus no matter what and hopefully take his five a side team of arse lickers with him. We should go for a one year pay deal at Aug 08 RPI. Anything less is a pay cut remember. Then we will worry about next years deal next year with a new boss when the flights start picking up again.
This pay deal is already 4 months late. My pension has already been got at. Staff morale is at an all time low. Stick together and demand a fair pay deal.
This pay deal is already 4 months late. My pension has already been got at. Staff morale is at an all time low. Stick together and demand a fair pay deal.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr777
Far be it for me to defend the Union - I think they have been poor in some areas - but the way it works is this:
Union negotiates with management - how hard they push, how much management flannel they swallow is another point entirely.
Management will always get to a point that they claim is a final offer - how far that is below their real 'keep it between ourselves' final offer is known only to them.
The Union take it to the membership for a vote.
Here's where it can go one of two ways.
The Union can give a recommendation of how they think we should vote - i.e. they will present us with the management offer and will state (not the words they will use but along these lines)
"We believe this is/is not an acceptable offer - we urge you to think carefully and vote accordingly"
It is then up to the membership - that's us - to vote in favour of acceptance or to reject it.
If we say yes, then negotiations are complete.
If we say no, then we go back to the table...
The Union will try to renegotiate, however management have already stated it is their final offer. This is a negotiation tactic that is not unique to NATS.
The point where it becomes unique to an individual company, dependant on the management is when they make their next move. They either budge a little in the hope of getting a yes vote to accept the new revised deal (having been seen to improve their 'final offer'), or they play hardball and take a gamble.
The gamble they take is the fact that if they do not budge, the next move for the Union is to ballot for industrial action. There is no other move the Union can take because members had already voted not to accept the offer.
Management would be gambling on the belief that we would not vote to take industrial action. Unfortunately that vote is our - the members - 'put up or shut up' point. If we don't vote to take industrial action, we are actually voting to accept the offer.
The question is (and the Union will have considered this as well - they have to as part of their negotiating strategy), how strong is the membership?
Considering that with the pensions issue over 30% of people could not even be bothered to vote in the first and only ballot, management are at this moment going to be pretty confident.
We did not even make them go back to the negotiating table as a result of the ballot because we (collectively) voted in favour of the proposals. We didn't even have the balls to vote no to see if we could push management a little harder.
Management now know that not only were we unwilling to push on the pensions issue - which actually has far bigger financial implications on the individual worker than the odd 1% here or there in this years pay award - but in fact 30% of us couldn't be bothered (some people were unable) to vote.
It is the same people who are making the most noise on this thread that did so on the pensions issue (myself included). At the end of the day, where did that lead? Nowhere.
I'm not saying that people will roll over on this issue, but management would, to be fair to them, be stupid not to take the gamble given our recent history.
Now I truly believe the Union have been shocking in their communications, particularly over the pensions. I also believe that they are too close to management on 'Working Together'
However, at the end of the day they, the Union, have to work on what they think the members will do (prior to any ballots). Given that we voted to accept the pension issue straight off, and 30% of us didn't even vote, we sent a wrong, and very weak message to the Union. If we, the members, are seen to be weak (which we are), then the Union is also weak.
Oh, and £5 says the Prospect BEC bend over and accept this piece of sh*t anyway, and then recommend we accept it
Union negotiates with management - how hard they push, how much management flannel they swallow is another point entirely.
Management will always get to a point that they claim is a final offer - how far that is below their real 'keep it between ourselves' final offer is known only to them.
The Union take it to the membership for a vote.
Here's where it can go one of two ways.
The Union can give a recommendation of how they think we should vote - i.e. they will present us with the management offer and will state (not the words they will use but along these lines)
"We believe this is/is not an acceptable offer - we urge you to think carefully and vote accordingly"
It is then up to the membership - that's us - to vote in favour of acceptance or to reject it.
If we say yes, then negotiations are complete.
If we say no, then we go back to the table...
The Union will try to renegotiate, however management have already stated it is their final offer. This is a negotiation tactic that is not unique to NATS.
The point where it becomes unique to an individual company, dependant on the management is when they make their next move. They either budge a little in the hope of getting a yes vote to accept the new revised deal (having been seen to improve their 'final offer'), or they play hardball and take a gamble.
The gamble they take is the fact that if they do not budge, the next move for the Union is to ballot for industrial action. There is no other move the Union can take because members had already voted not to accept the offer.
Management would be gambling on the belief that we would not vote to take industrial action. Unfortunately that vote is our - the members - 'put up or shut up' point. If we don't vote to take industrial action, we are actually voting to accept the offer.
The question is (and the Union will have considered this as well - they have to as part of their negotiating strategy), how strong is the membership?
Considering that with the pensions issue over 30% of people could not even be bothered to vote in the first and only ballot, management are at this moment going to be pretty confident.
We did not even make them go back to the negotiating table as a result of the ballot because we (collectively) voted in favour of the proposals. We didn't even have the balls to vote no to see if we could push management a little harder.
Management now know that not only were we unwilling to push on the pensions issue - which actually has far bigger financial implications on the individual worker than the odd 1% here or there in this years pay award - but in fact 30% of us couldn't be bothered (some people were unable) to vote.
It is the same people who are making the most noise on this thread that did so on the pensions issue (myself included). At the end of the day, where did that lead? Nowhere.
I'm not saying that people will roll over on this issue, but management would, to be fair to them, be stupid not to take the gamble given our recent history.
Now I truly believe the Union have been shocking in their communications, particularly over the pensions. I also believe that they are too close to management on 'Working Together'
Oh, and £5 says the Prospect BEC bend over and accept this piece of sh*t anyway, and then recommend we accept it
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roidster
We should definitely not go for a one year deal.
It should be 2 years, a good rise this year based on AUG08 RPI and the strong profits we, the workers, generated for NATS. Next year a few percent to keep the wolves from the door - say an agreement of a flat 2.5% or RPI+1.5%, whichever is the greater amount (thus a minimum of a 2.5% payrise, when it is expected to be a negative RPI years - see the post from Vote NO above).
If we negotiate one year at a time we will get nothing next year whatsoever.
Unfortunately because of the excellent pension negotiations, that will mean that just one year into the new pension agreement, we are already losing out on pensionable pay... cannot be avoided in low RPI years because of what we voted to accept
We should definitely not go for a one year deal.
It should be 2 years, a good rise this year based on AUG08 RPI and the strong profits we, the workers, generated for NATS. Next year a few percent to keep the wolves from the door - say an agreement of a flat 2.5% or RPI+1.5%, whichever is the greater amount (thus a minimum of a 2.5% payrise, when it is expected to be a negative RPI years - see the post from Vote NO above).
If we negotiate one year at a time we will get nothing next year whatsoever.
Unfortunately because of the excellent pension negotiations, that will mean that just one year into the new pension agreement, we are already losing out on pensionable pay... cannot be avoided in low RPI years because of what we voted to accept
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with much of what you say. The pension issue has certainly paved the way for another shafting.
I was under the impression that the Union would ballot for industrial action if they didn't get an acceptable offer from management, so the flip side of that would be that they recommend the offer.
Am I right in thinking then that the offer gets put forward...
Prospect recommend the offer/don't recommend it...
We vote yes/no...
Yes means it gets implemented and no means they're back at the drawing board?
If this is the case, the fact remains that they will at some point have to say to us "we recommend you accept this offer"...which is what I was alluding to (albeit, not so eloquently
).
I do agree with you that it is incumbent on us to refuse it but, as you correctly say, when a large part of the members couldn't even be bothered to vote on the pension, what chance have we got?
I was under the impression that the Union would ballot for industrial action if they didn't get an acceptable offer from management, so the flip side of that would be that they recommend the offer.
Am I right in thinking then that the offer gets put forward...
Prospect recommend the offer/don't recommend it...
We vote yes/no...
Yes means it gets implemented and no means they're back at the drawing board?
If this is the case, the fact remains that they will at some point have to say to us "we recommend you accept this offer"...which is what I was alluding to (albeit, not so eloquently
).I do agree with you that it is incumbent on us to refuse it but, as you correctly say, when a large part of the members couldn't even be bothered to vote on the pension, what chance have we got?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr777,
That's what I was trying to say (badly) with the statement
However it is dressed up, and whether the Union recommend it or not, it is down to us, the members, to vote for what we want.
The Union recommendation will be based, to a degree, on what they believe would be the result of a ballot on industrial action i.e. a feeling in the water of what we will vote for.
They (The Union) don't want to drag this on forever (quite rightly).
It will slightly defeat any logical reasoning if we vote no, the Management don't budge, then we we roll over on the ballot for industrail action i.e. vote yes to accept the same pay deal instead of striking.
This has happened before with the ATCO branch... a very strong vote to throw out the deal, then when the same deal came back, no one had the balls to actually strike and the vote was reversed with an equally strong vote the other way
Unfortunately, even though we have an above averag intelligence within NATS compared to 'normal' companies (this has been acknowledged by PB), people are still too scared to vote for what they know makes sense and will blindly believe management.
The Union, to be fair to them, need to wrap up negotitations - hell, we are whingeing about how long it is taking - the Union are stuck in the middle of a hard-nosed management and a weak but increasingly angry memebrship. The Union has to make a recommendation taking this into account and taking into account the many calls from people who are whingeing about how late the pay deal is.
At the end of the day, the best bet would be to go to ballot now, and for people to vote on the proposals for what they think, not for what anyone else thinks or recommends.
We have a weak membership, both the Union and the management know this. It actually makes the Unions job of negotiating harder!
...If this is the case, the fact remains that they will at some point have to say to us "we recommend you accept this offer"...which...
"We believe this is/is not an acceptable offer - we urge you to think carefully and vote accordingly"
The Union recommendation will be based, to a degree, on what they believe would be the result of a ballot on industrial action i.e. a feeling in the water of what we will vote for.
They (The Union) don't want to drag this on forever (quite rightly).
It will slightly defeat any logical reasoning if we vote no, the Management don't budge, then we we roll over on the ballot for industrail action i.e. vote yes to accept the same pay deal instead of striking.
This has happened before with the ATCO branch... a very strong vote to throw out the deal, then when the same deal came back, no one had the balls to actually strike and the vote was reversed with an equally strong vote the other way
Unfortunately, even though we have an above averag intelligence within NATS compared to 'normal' companies (this has been acknowledged by PB), people are still too scared to vote for what they know makes sense and will blindly believe management.
The Union, to be fair to them, need to wrap up negotitations - hell, we are whingeing about how long it is taking - the Union are stuck in the middle of a hard-nosed management and a weak but increasingly angry memebrship. The Union has to make a recommendation taking this into account and taking into account the many calls from people who are whingeing about how late the pay deal is.
At the end of the day, the best bet would be to go to ballot now, and for people to vote on the proposals for what they think, not for what anyone else thinks or recommends.
We have a weak membership, both the Union and the management know this. It actually makes the Unions job of negotiating harder!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does blended RPI affect pensionable pay? My understanding is that the MOU refers to a cap at RPI +.5%, and that any change to the base measurement system for payrises has to be agreed. Blended RPI seems to be still mostly based on RPI, but how will you know whats pensionable if the second half of the 'blend' isnt known?
and my tuppence on AAVA's, they should be priced at a figure which strongly encourages the company not to rely on them - ie, probably £650+ after tax, or an amount which works out to more than a top of scale ATCO2 gets for a days work. They should be to cover temporary unavoidable shortage of staff, not a way for the company to save on paying all the associated costs of actually employing the right number of people. (as for linking it to where you are on the scale, thats daft!)
and my tuppence on AAVA's, they should be priced at a figure which strongly encourages the company not to rely on them - ie, probably £650+ after tax, or an amount which works out to more than a top of scale ATCO2 gets for a days work. They should be to cover temporary unavoidable shortage of staff, not a way for the company to save on paying all the associated costs of actually employing the right number of people. (as for linking it to where you are on the scale, thats daft!)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: swanlake
Age: 54
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vote no....did the market oracle graph get used on the intranet?...on leave so not seen this message. If so it should be noted that this is Nov08 data used, secondly this has not factored in the fuel inflation that has occurred in April so far rising above last years trends. Also on market oracle although graph not been updated yet, further comments made about inflation to pick up in the latter part of the year. ....quite happy to take an average of 2008 which is 4.5%and average of this year likely to be in the positive territory. works out more than what management want to offer......wheres our 9%????
secondly....does anyone know if nats route charges based on RPI or RPI-x(excluding mortgage payments) if rpi-x this was 2.5% in Feb, up from 2.4% in Jan even though rpi was 0.
secondly....does anyone know if nats route charges based on RPI or RPI-x(excluding mortgage payments) if rpi-x this was 2.5% in Feb, up from 2.4% in Jan even though rpi was 0.
Last edited by 45 before POL; 18th Apr 2009 at 14:21.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: way down south
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jonny B good
"Just for info - the ATCO reps are not paid in any shape or form"
But Full time Officers are aren't they? Surely they are paid to sort the needs of union members from the monthly payments made..and reps try to put these needs across.
So what are the Full Time Officers doing???
AAVAs and any overtime should be stopped as they only help management make their cuts and can undermine the pay/staff deals the union is trying to make. (I use the term "Trying" very loosely)
"Just for info - the ATCO reps are not paid in any shape or form"
But Full time Officers are aren't they? Surely they are paid to sort the needs of union members from the monthly payments made..and reps try to put these needs across.
So what are the Full Time Officers doing???
AAVAs and any overtime should be stopped as they only help management make their cuts and can undermine the pay/staff deals the union is trying to make. (I use the term "Trying" very loosely)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kats-I has hit the nail on the head, I believe (you should become a rep )
The reps who do it voluntarily canonly go on the info the paid officers give them, and are very much restricted by the upper echelons of the Union.
)The reps who do it voluntarily canonly go on the info the paid officers give them, and are very much restricted by the upper echelons of the Union.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand to be corrected but I believe there is only one "Full Time Officer" in the ATCOs branch. He/she is the "National Officer" and is effectively an advisor to the BEC on the practicalities and legalities of Union activity. He/she has no say in policy and is not privy to any information unknown to the BEC. The National Officer would never meet with management without other members of the ATCOs branch and has a passive role in these situations (ie a listening brief). Every other member of the ATCOs Branch (Reps, observers, SOC, BEC) are NATS ATCOs and are unpaid volunteers voted for by the membership. The ATCOs Branch is the part of Prospect that represents us to mangement. The organisation "Prospect" provides practical support and legitamacy to the ATCOs Branch in these representations.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAVAs
(as for linking it to where you are on the scale, thats (sic) daft!)
But anyway ... playing Devil's Advocate..... if you get paid (for example) £300 salary at the bottom of the payscale for a days shift, and £600 at the top.... why should an extra days AAVA work be double time for one set of workers but not for the other .. ? Surely that is age discrimination ?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "final offer" will be put to members with a recommendation to accept. The majority - as always - will do as they are told.
AAVAs will continue unhindered. Lets face it, the vast majority of those that do them like the pots of gold too much to stop.
Our workforce and our union lost the leverage they once had. The pension vote was the final line in the sand and we all - collectively - capitulated with barely a whimper. There is no point rattling sabres now... We take what we're given or leave.
2 things that should come from this though:
1. Union reps need to be held properly accountable for their positioning closer to management than to the people they are elected to represent. Withdrawal from Working Together is a priority in order to restore some faith.
2. PPRuners will hopefully see the light that this site houses only a tiny vocal minority. Views here are not even close to being representative of the whole workforce.
It was more than 9%
AAVAs will continue unhindered. Lets face it, the vast majority of those that do them like the pots of gold too much to stop.
Our workforce and our union lost the leverage they once had. The pension vote was the final line in the sand and we all - collectively - capitulated with barely a whimper. There is no point rattling sabres now... We take what we're given or leave.
2 things that should come from this though:
1. Union reps need to be held properly accountable for their positioning closer to management than to the people they are elected to represent. Withdrawal from Working Together is a priority in order to restore some faith.
2. PPRuners will hopefully see the light that this site houses only a tiny vocal minority. Views here are not even close to being representative of the whole workforce.
It was more than 9%