UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours

[Minesapint]

Independence for Scotland = yes (I am English and don't like subsidising Scotland/Wales N Ireland).

Pay offer = a resounding NO


HOWEVER! the "yes please sir" crowd will vote yes to the payrise. Scottish MP's in the house of commons will need to go for the other. Maybe we can have an MP like expenses system? That will do, my dog needs an operation

[Hial Flyer]

Being a postal vote it is bound to be a YES vote. Always is. Convieniently for the union and management many people don't get a ballot paper and then i'm sure a few go astray in the post on their return.

Tended to be a much higher voting turn out when you posted your ballot in a box in the ops room. Suppose that is why it isn't done anymore.

[kats-I]

Hial Flyer.

I have said that before on here..glad I'm not the only one to think this way. Have they said its a postal or ballot box vote yet? Should be black box and we should have to sign for our ballot paper!!

[Evil Lord Ham]

So the union manages not to send papers to people who are going to vote no, and the Royal Mail somehow lose only no votes as well. How does that work then?

[Vote NO]

The problem is we have a proportion who are a weak compliant workforce who are content mostly to take what they get. If we all took that attitude then you can imagine what our salaries and conditions would be, and the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer......
NATS can afford to pay its staff well, dont be fooled otherwise.
Just wait till you see the profits next month, one week after the ballot closes
If you don't want a decent payrise, vote yes, otherwise ........Vote No then you can always give it back when you do get one

[hold at SATAN]

Postal voting around christmas time, as the pension vote was, was a disaster, in my opinion as the higher workload and pressure on royal mail capacity meant that, inevitibly, mail got lost - I'm still waiting for my xmas card from my aunt which contained a £50 note, sent in december 2008!

Was that vote monititored by individual scrutineers? whilst we don't live in Mugabe's Zimbabwe, I have no faith in management to play fair and the union to be able to keep an eye on them (insert conspiracy theory here).

I think it should be a sealed box vote done at units, collated and counted by an independand agency at a central location.

Hell if I'm being paranoid then so be it - and for those management suck-asses who will no doubt poo-poo my suggestion, what's the harm in mitigating a potential bone of contention?

[kats-I]

Ballots should be done in an open way for ALL to see; Individuals sign to receive paper and sealed boxes in ops rooms/work areas to put them in.. Something as important as this should not be dependant on the reliability of the Royal Mail deliveries. That in itself is almost non-existant.

[Hooligan Bill]

kats-I wrote:

Something as important as this should not be dependant on the reliability of the Royal Mail deliveries.

It will be fine with the Royal Mail after PPP, honest. After all NATS is a shining example of how brilliant the policy is.

[Quincy M.E.]

Originally Posted by Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me

If they didn't, I wouldn't be here to answer you.

One person amongst many; my point holds.

There's no such thing as aviation accountancy.

Well I only plucked that out of thin air as an example but if you want to get pedantic I am sure that there are accountants out there who specialise in aviation just like there are insurers.

Any way, all of that is nothing to do with the original point I was trying to make which was that it is no good complaining that you/we shouted about voting no and that the office bods ignored us when they probably didnt even read it.

[Me Me Me Me]

Any way, all of that is nothing to do with the original point I was trying to make which was that it is no good complaining that you/we shouted about voting no and that the office bods ignored us when they probably didnt even read it.

I know... I wasn't really picking you up on your main point though.. more on the apparently dismissive attitude to fellow employees who happen to perform different tasks.

The ATCOs, ATSAs and Engineers all voted Yes too. As I've said previously.. Anyone who posts on here and thinks that the views on PPRuNe are representative, are very naive. This has been proven time and time again.

[kats-I]

Me Me Me Me,

Ease up ..not all ATCOs/ATSAs &Engineers voted yes for the pension debacle..I certainly didn't neither did a lot of colleagues. and won't be voting yes for the pay!!

[hold at SATAN]

Have the ballot papers been sent out yet?

I've got a big fat X ready to go into the NO box

[anotherthing]

on the very slim chance of it being a 'no' vote...

Anyone who has read the threads on PPRuNe will know which way I'm going to vote... but a quick question to get you thinking about consequences.

If the vote comes back as 'no', what do you expect to happen?

There is a chance that by the time negotiations start again, the Aug RPI is going to be published. Chances are it will be hugely negative.

Management would quite probably withdraw the offer that stands and replace it with a worse one having seen the poor RPI...

I think we all know that the offer as it stands is 2% over 2 years. No one expects to get any increments based on a higher RPI. That's why management have thrown that bit in.

I think management have played this very well... they will get away with a 2% payrise, they fully expect not to have to pay any increments based on AUG 09 RPI.

But they know that on the off chance that we get a 'no' vote, they will wait for the new RPI then downgrade the pay offer citing the poorer economy.

Lets face it, the next ballot would be to accept the new pay offer or start industrial action... in which case a lot of the previous 'no' voters would change.

Management have used the timing of this deal to their full advantage... it leaves us with some very unsavoury choices.

Accept a crap deal, or gamble on them giving us something better once the Aug RPI is published. I'm happy I've got a job and not impressed with 2% over 2 years - relatively it doesn't equate to much if I don't get it... so I think I'll take the gamble...

[stressed]

Just for once we have to stand up and say NO with a strong voice. The result may indeed lead us to industrial action, but lets cross that bridge when it happens. Don't forget the last thing the airlines want is looming strike with summer approaching. The pressure they would apply to PB and his minions will be considerable.
Lets get that dry powder out and use it, or at least threaten to use it.

2% is unacceptable unless PB and every manager is getting the same, which they wont.

I can only say that where I work its a pretty much solid no vote.

[kats-I]

anotherthing,

I was getting worried there for a mo..I thought you were beginning to waiver!!

[hold at SATAN]

I think the NO vote is worth the gamble. I doubt very much that management will pull the current offer if in the unlikely event actual RPI is worse. I would like to make an informed choice based on actual not predicted figures.

Like anotherthing said, it's not about purely economic numbers - the threat of industrial action is one that will make the airline sit up and listen .

The alternative is that a pissed of bunch of ATCOs ATCE ATSA etc will become highly demotivated and give up extraneous duties and not give that extra mile that we all give as a matter of professional pride and a few hundred thousand pounds' fines should cause managements ears to prick up. I for one am getting more and more pissed off with NATS management as time goes by. The pay is their final chance at redemption (in my opinion)

[250 kts]

2% is unacceptable unless PB and every manager is getting the same, which they wont.

So it is acceptable if PB has the same rise?

Stop looking over your shoulder to see what others are getting. We have no idea what is written into the contracts of our beloved leaders. We would be the first to moan if they tried to do someting outside our contracts eg stopping all incremental rises.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree for one minute that they should be taking such larger rises if the company is going to be in the mess they predict.

I happen to think that 2% is just about acceptable in view of the overall situation-but I'm not happy, I'd much prefer 10%.

The result may indeed lead us to industrial action,

Really? Over maybe 1% if we're lucky and another protracted negotiation? I very much doubt it.

[hold at SATAN]

Stop looking over your shoulder to see what others are getting

But isn't that in effect what the people who are supporting the offer saying/insinuating: "people in the "real world" are getting crap/no payrises or losing their jobs, so we should be happy to get the crumbs that are being thrown at us"

I say (my opinion) that we should vote no. If nothing else, the deal will be delayed until more concrete figures come out in respect of directors' remuneration, company profits and updated economic data. It's not like we are going to get a huge backdated wad of cash if we rush this through, are we?

[kats-I]

250kts

Behave yourself!!!
Use your vote wisely ..and yes we do need to be looking over our shoulders!

[Quincy M.E.]

Originally Posted by Me, Me, ME

Anyone who posts on here and thinks that the views on PPRuNe are representative, are very naive. This has been proven time and time again.

Affirm!