UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought that there is an ethical dimension to this as well (agreeing to do additional responsibilities to allow the management to make colleagues redundant and make even more profit)
Last edited by DC10RealMan; 14th Feb 2011 at 16:49.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't a new tactic. When home to duty payments were up for scrapping the ploy was that if there was a vote to agree to end the payments, every employee would receive a backhander.
Of course those who did not qualify for such payments were obviously going to vote 'yes' to scrapping, as they would receive money for nothing!
Of course those who did not qualify for such payments were obviously going to vote 'yes' to scrapping, as they would receive money for nothing!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our union?.....thats right....would never happen.....dry powder.....everybody out or roll over and tickle our tummies.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Word on the street is that the new offer is a sigificant increase on the 2% offered previously....But one person's significant is another person's derisory.
If they have come back with a 3-3.5% offer, then I'll be voting NO to that (and hopefully 51% of others will too), and we can see how NATS stew without AAVA's this Summer.
I won't be voting yes to any pay offer less than 5%, and even then it depends on the strings attached.
If they have come back with a 3-3.5% offer, then I'll be voting NO to that (and hopefully 51% of others will too), and we can see how NATS stew without AAVA's this Summer.
I won't be voting yes to any pay offer less than 5%, and even then it depends on the strings attached.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t know if the threat of fewer people being willing to work AAVAs will get us a proper pay offer but certainly talking doesn’t seem to be getting us anywhere.
Maybe we need to look across the Channel for some guidance in effective negotiations.
The money is there, the company are making fantastic profits
Maybe we need to look across the Channel for some guidance in effective negotiations.
The money is there, the company are making fantastic profits
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Unions need to get the workers in on the bonuses thing too.
Think about it and you'll see how unsustainable it would be.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely if a controller has an overload, those responsible for flow control, er, sorry, 'flow management' (ooh, no, it's now network management), would be held responsible.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controller's fault for not seeing it coming and applying short term measures to protect himself. Bound to be. No blame culture mind you, so definitely no blame attached to flow, or management.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An overload is not necessarily related to traffic levels, monitor values, or whatever. Go and read the definition.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So just on what basis would you consider a bonus appropriate in the operational world? Not having an incident, not filing an overload or no delays on your sector?
NATS has targets to meet, if it makes them company wide bonus. If it doesn't no bonus.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
250 knots
And that should prevent me from having an opinion for what reason?
That's a bit rich coming from someone at a unit that cant manage to get itself a union representative.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would it have to be narrowed down to such a level?
NATS has targets to meet, if it makes them company wide bonus. If it doesn't no bonus.
NATS has targets to meet, if it makes them company wide bonus. If it doesn't no bonus.
We also went down this route with pay deals in the past, having lump sums tied to wishy-washy company-wide targets and it was generally agreed it was a disaster and we shouldn't go there again.
Be careful what you wish for.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't wish for a bonus as part of a pay deal, I was just pointing out that one needn't bore down too deep (as in, for example, to sector level) to see how any bonus might be calculated.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For comment please
From a reliable source.
I thought that at the last conference we passed 2 motions (it wasn't the curry), 51 and eighty something, which basically stated that if NATS attached any additional tasks for NSL controllers such as undertaking Met Tasks to any pay deal then we would immediately ballot for industrial action or words to that effect.
Whilst we have again knocked the offer back the majority of the union delegation, mainly band 4/5 atcos, allegedly found the offer on the table quite appealing even with the tasks attached. There was also allegedly more percentage pay on offer to band 4/5 atcos even though the majority would not be undertaking these tasks in NERL but who would have the capability of voting this through with a yes vote. Let's face it management aren't stupid.
Why are we even sitting down whilst we have all these strings attached?
If the union wants to keep any credibility or integrity that it may have, it needs to stick to it's own guidelines.
Draw a line in the dry powder now please and stop fa*nying about.
From a reliable source.
I thought that at the last conference we passed 2 motions (it wasn't the curry), 51 and eighty something, which basically stated that if NATS attached any additional tasks for NSL controllers such as undertaking Met Tasks to any pay deal then we would immediately ballot for industrial action or words to that effect.
Whilst we have again knocked the offer back the majority of the union delegation, mainly band 4/5 atcos, allegedly found the offer on the table quite appealing even with the tasks attached. There was also allegedly more percentage pay on offer to band 4/5 atcos even though the majority would not be undertaking these tasks in NERL but who would have the capability of voting this through with a yes vote. Let's face it management aren't stupid.
Why are we even sitting down whilst we have all these strings attached?
If the union wants to keep any credibility or integrity that it may have, it needs to stick to it's own guidelines.
Draw a line in the dry powder now please and stop fa*nying about.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was also allegedly more percentage pay on offer to band 4/5 atcos even though the majority would not be undertaking these tasks in NERL but who would have the capability of voting this through with a yes vote.
No that would never happen. We are one NATS.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...the majority of the union delegation, mainly band 4/5 atcos, allegedly found the offer on the table quite appealing even with the tasks attached. There was also allegedly more percentage pay on offer to band 4/5 atcos...