UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: wimborne
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simplistic!
My comments on 5milesbaby's post were relating to the rambling and incoherent nature of it rather than the content.
I do not believe that NATS is responsible for sheltering us from tax rises. HOWEVER- when the government increases VAT on goods and services it has a direct result on the rpi. The price of those goods and services increase and therefore so does the rpi. I do not appreciate being called simplistic or naive so would suggest union reps and those higher up in the union stop assuming the membership is of a lower intellect than themselves. An argument could be quite easily made that those who seek these posts do so for their own self advancement within NATS rather than any kind of altruistic desire to help the workforce. ( not in all cases I may add but we can all name many individuals who fit this profile) .
I do not believe that NATS is responsible for sheltering us from tax rises. HOWEVER- when the government increases VAT on goods and services it has a direct result on the rpi. The price of those goods and services increase and therefore so does the rpi. I do not appreciate being called simplistic or naive so would suggest union reps and those higher up in the union stop assuming the membership is of a lower intellect than themselves. An argument could be quite easily made that those who seek these posts do so for their own self advancement within NATS rather than any kind of altruistic desire to help the workforce. ( not in all cases I may add but we can all name many individuals who fit this profile) .
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Winchester.Hants.England
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me x 4
Really ?
Where did you see that little gem written down, or did you just make it up
The negotiated pay rise takes into account a lot of factors including the cost of living and how well the company is doing.
It also consists of a lot of horse trading concerning T & C's.
To think that the negotiated pay increase is purely a "cost-of-living" increase really is being simplistic and naive.
Anyway it doesn't matter what it consists of or what it is called.
To make things easy I will settle on the same criteria that Baron and the other spivs used in 2009/10 to award their own pay rises.
The negotiated pay increase is a cost-of-living increase.
Where did you see that little gem written down, or did you just make it up
The negotiated pay rise takes into account a lot of factors including the cost of living and how well the company is doing.
It also consists of a lot of horse trading concerning T & C's.
To think that the negotiated pay increase is purely a "cost-of-living" increase really is being simplistic and naive.
Anyway it doesn't matter what it consists of or what it is called.
To make things easy I will settle on the same criteria that Baron and the other spivs used in 2009/10 to award their own pay rises.
Last edited by Flybywyre; 7th Mar 2011 at 17:02.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really ?
Where did you see that little gem written down, or did you just make it up
The negotiated pay rise takes into account a lot of factors including the cost of living and how well the company is doing.
It also consists of a lot of horse trading concerning T & C's.
To think that the negotiated pay increase is purely a "cost-of-living" increase really is being simplistic and naive.
Anyway it doesn't matter what it consists of or what it is called.
To make things easy I will settle on the same criteria that Baron and the other spivs used in 2009/10 to award their own pay rises.
Where did you see that little gem written down, or did you just make it up
The negotiated pay rise takes into account a lot of factors including the cost of living and how well the company is doing.
It also consists of a lot of horse trading concerning T & C's.
To think that the negotiated pay increase is purely a "cost-of-living" increase really is being simplistic and naive.
Anyway it doesn't matter what it consists of or what it is called.
To make things easy I will settle on the same criteria that Baron and the other spivs used in 2009/10 to award their own pay rises.
The whole reason that we are arguing 2% or more than 2% with strings is unacceptable is because 2% doesn't match the increase we've all felt in the cost of things. The fact the company has made large profits, paid large dividends and given out golden wheelbarrows are all good additional arguments - but RPI is the fundemental one.
Is that enough for you, or would you like to dig out your contract of employment too?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Winchester.Hants.England
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any payment increase that is calculated as a multiplyer of RPI is in essence a cost-of-living related activity. Our pensionable pay increases are capped at a cost-of-living multiplyer limit. There is no mechanism to formally include any other factors, such as the level of profit the company made in the calculation... It becomes involved simply as a negotiation tool. Ts & Cs have also only become part of that negotiation due to the company not being willing to meet the cost-of-living rises without attaching strings.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any increase up to and including RPI is not a pay rise as such - but merely an increase to reflect the cost of living.
Only an increase above RPI is a pay rise.
And bear in mind that last year we got nothing at all.
Virgin, I believe are balloting their pilots on 15% rise. They wanted 20%.
louby
Only an increase above RPI is a pay rise.
And bear in mind that last year we got nothing at all.
Virgin, I believe are balloting their pilots on 15% rise. They wanted 20%.
louby
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are reasons to be cheerful at the current persistence of below-inflation pay awards. This is according to Sunday Times Economics Editor David Smith. The headline pay award continues to fall further behind elevated inflation in 2011. But, Smith argues, if workers are "patient", then the current "misery will be replaced by happiness."
In a very interesting piece in the latest Sunday Times (20 February 2011), Smith contends that while below-inflation pay awards are having harsh consequences for UK workers' purchasing power in 2011, there are also some significant upsides. These are as follows:
•Subdued pay awards mean unemployment is lower than might have been expected given the severity of the recession. Smith says: "Wage restraint has enabled the labour market to share out jobs among a larger number of people than would be the norm in recession and early recovery in Britain. It is the other side of the pay squeeze coin."
•Persistent record-low interest rates of 0.5% are partly enabled by the ongoing weakness of pay awards, thereby preventing "a rise in interest rates [which] would intensify the squeeze on household incomes." As we have recently noted, the extent to which the current elevated inflation might feed through into public inflation expectations and in turn drive up pay settlements is of crucial importance to the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee's (MPC) decision as to when and if interest rates should be raised.
Smith argues that the optimum outcome for the wider economy and for UK workers' pay packets is for inflation to fall back (as the February 2011 Bank of England Inflation Report predicts it will, once "temporary" factors such as "increases in the standard rate of VAT; higher energy prices; and higher import prices" fall out of inflation data), while both interest rates and pay awards rise gradually. Smith sets out his view of this ideal scenario as follows:
Falling inflation should cross over with gently rising pay settlements, at least in the private sector, to produce the return of rising real pay. In this Micawberite economy, misery will be replaced by happiness. As long as people are patient.
Citing latest evidence on trends in whole economy pay awards from the XpertHR pay databank, Smith says that there is reason to suggest that this vision could become reality:
What happens to pay and the income squeeze from now on? Evidence is starting to build of modestly higher pay settlements. XpertHR, the old Industrial Relations Services [IRS], reported that while median pay settlements remained at 2% in the three months to January, the median for those in the top 25% rose from 2.3% to 3%, and nearly 70% of settlements were higher than last time."
In a very interesting piece in the latest Sunday Times (20 February 2011), Smith contends that while below-inflation pay awards are having harsh consequences for UK workers' purchasing power in 2011, there are also some significant upsides. These are as follows:
•Subdued pay awards mean unemployment is lower than might have been expected given the severity of the recession. Smith says: "Wage restraint has enabled the labour market to share out jobs among a larger number of people than would be the norm in recession and early recovery in Britain. It is the other side of the pay squeeze coin."
•Persistent record-low interest rates of 0.5% are partly enabled by the ongoing weakness of pay awards, thereby preventing "a rise in interest rates [which] would intensify the squeeze on household incomes." As we have recently noted, the extent to which the current elevated inflation might feed through into public inflation expectations and in turn drive up pay settlements is of crucial importance to the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee's (MPC) decision as to when and if interest rates should be raised.
Smith argues that the optimum outcome for the wider economy and for UK workers' pay packets is for inflation to fall back (as the February 2011 Bank of England Inflation Report predicts it will, once "temporary" factors such as "increases in the standard rate of VAT; higher energy prices; and higher import prices" fall out of inflation data), while both interest rates and pay awards rise gradually. Smith sets out his view of this ideal scenario as follows:
Falling inflation should cross over with gently rising pay settlements, at least in the private sector, to produce the return of rising real pay. In this Micawberite economy, misery will be replaced by happiness. As long as people are patient.
Citing latest evidence on trends in whole economy pay awards from the XpertHR pay databank, Smith says that there is reason to suggest that this vision could become reality:
What happens to pay and the income squeeze from now on? Evidence is starting to build of modestly higher pay settlements. XpertHR, the old Industrial Relations Services [IRS], reported that while median pay settlements remained at 2% in the three months to January, the median for those in the top 25% rose from 2.3% to 3%, and nearly 70% of settlements were higher than last time."
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers FBW...
See also: Median pay settlement rises sharply to 2.8%
(Try here if above link playing up)
See also: Median pay settlement rises sharply to 2.8%
(Try here if above link playing up)
Last edited by rab-k; 9th Mar 2011 at 10:48.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You clearly took the transition from chief script writer for the popular TV sitcom "Yes Minister" to your present position on the NTUS with aplomb and vigour.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: upstairs
Age: 78
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the AAVA agreement. In a recent Prospect briefing it was suggested that it would be re-instated, at the same rate. Their reasoning was that they wanted more money for the core pay negotiations and so didn't want to ask for more for AAVAs. In fact the S&S rep even stated that if they were to get more for AAVAs it wouldn't be much more than a tenner anyway. We were told that as it was voluntary we can choose to do them or not and, once a successful end was brought to the pay talks if not enough bodies were willing to do the extra shifts to keep the company afloat then management would have to look at the rate again to make it more attractive.
Don't think this is working...
And just to let you guys south of the border know- we've been told up north that you actually want the agreement re-instated as was. Can anyone shed any light on that? The feeling up here is there's no way we should be signing up in perpetuity to an agreement that was due to end this year- and definitely not at the same rate.
Don't think this is working...
And just to let you guys south of the border know- we've been told up north that you actually want the agreement re-instated as was. Can anyone shed any light on that? The feeling up here is there's no way we should be signing up in perpetuity to an agreement that was due to end this year- and definitely not at the same rate.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, with AAVA's you have to think medium/long term, otherwise you simply end up worse off after a very short space of time.
It's safe to say that there is a finite amount of cash available for any monetary increases, be it core pay, AAVA's, sectional claims, whatever. There is a finite amount available.
Increase the AAVA rate, and the core pay won't rise as much.
I think it is infinitely preferable to put ALL the available cash into the core pay, that way, it is pensionable, everyone gets it, and it stays with you forever.
Then, if people could sit and think a few months down the line rather than this month's pay packet, the obvious thing to do would be take a few months of a hit and simply don't do ANY AAVA's.
OK, you might miss out on a couple of £1,000 over say 3 months, but when management come to the union asking why they cannot man their sectors, have horrendous delays and no one is doing any AAVA's, the simple answer is, they are not paying enough for them, and consequently management will have no choice but to up the rate to entice people into doing them again, but you will already have had your maximum core pay rise, so you win on both scores.
But, it does need members to see the slightly longer plan, and be prepared to hold off on those short term AAVA gains for a few months.
That's what I believe the union are saying, and I fully understand it, and agree with it.
Obviously, some people won't, and if enough people are happy enough to go ahead and do AAVA's at the current rate if they are re-instated at that, then that will simply just play into managements hands, and they won't have any need to increase the rate.
If this scenario comes into play, it is up to the members (who in effect ARE the union) to realise this, and do their part by not giving in to short term gain, that in the end will help no-one, including themselves.
It's safe to say that there is a finite amount of cash available for any monetary increases, be it core pay, AAVA's, sectional claims, whatever. There is a finite amount available.
Increase the AAVA rate, and the core pay won't rise as much.
I think it is infinitely preferable to put ALL the available cash into the core pay, that way, it is pensionable, everyone gets it, and it stays with you forever.
Then, if people could sit and think a few months down the line rather than this month's pay packet, the obvious thing to do would be take a few months of a hit and simply don't do ANY AAVA's.
OK, you might miss out on a couple of £1,000 over say 3 months, but when management come to the union asking why they cannot man their sectors, have horrendous delays and no one is doing any AAVA's, the simple answer is, they are not paying enough for them, and consequently management will have no choice but to up the rate to entice people into doing them again, but you will already have had your maximum core pay rise, so you win on both scores.
But, it does need members to see the slightly longer plan, and be prepared to hold off on those short term AAVA gains for a few months.
That's what I believe the union are saying, and I fully understand it, and agree with it.
Obviously, some people won't, and if enough people are happy enough to go ahead and do AAVA's at the current rate if they are re-instated at that, then that will simply just play into managements hands, and they won't have any need to increase the rate.
If this scenario comes into play, it is up to the members (who in effect ARE the union) to realise this, and do their part by not giving in to short term gain, that in the end will help no-one, including themselves.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On a radial
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully agree with the long term way of thinking. However, i am full of dread that MANY wont see the full picture and carry on as is. Proof, as i'm sure has been said before, was during the pension discussions....
Is there any way at all that the union/union members can share the way of thinking to desuade the "money grabbers"...
Dont get me wrong, i'm still creeping up the payscale and the very occasional AAVA that is offered makes quite a difference to me, but I am more than willing to not do them if it makes things better for the future.
Is there any way at all that the union/union members can share the way of thinking to desuade the "money grabbers"...
Dont get me wrong, i'm still creeping up the payscale and the very occasional AAVA that is offered makes quite a difference to me, but I am more than willing to not do them if it makes things better for the future.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely. It's all about educating members to look beyond this months pay packet, and into the (realstically, not too distant) future.
Easier said than done though. But hopefully the enhanced AAVA rate ending in 3 weeks time might do a lot to deter people.
Easier said than done though. But hopefully the enhanced AAVA rate ending in 3 weeks time might do a lot to deter people.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst some units/sectors depend heavily on AAVA's for manning, others either don't benefit, infrequently benefit, or due to SRATCOH limitations are unable to benefit from working AAVA's.
Hopefully the long term view which will benefit the majority will be taken.
Hopefully the long term view which will benefit the majority will be taken.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: bonnie caledonia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
think about it ????
i wish people would stop being all mopey about the future.
yes nats is going to get very tough... but so what!
all valid atcos are an extremely valuable commodity, costing a huge amount to train. none of us are tied to nats in any way, other than through reliance on the standard of living we have chosen for ourselves.
we are reasonably well paid, but not enough. the atco is not given the right amount of respect, being referred to as a resource personally busts my nuts!
the union work very hard to try and get the best for the atco workforce, yet they are met with whinging over the pettiest of matters. everyone needs to take a step back and think what they can do to help shape their own futures.
atcos love to complain, no doubt.
but as the title states, its time we all manned up (or ladied up...of course), and let our union reps know exactly what is acceptable.
the labour we provide nats with is priceless, maybe that should be tested.
nats are not in a position where they can just go to a temp agency and ask for a few hundred controllers to keep things going if god forbid, atco labour was withdrawn.
atcos have too many times just rolled over, and usually for not a substantial financial gain. atcos whinge like hell over the slightest thing, and then when a real issue is voted on, we all vote yes ....WTF?
in reality we are a self-perpetuating workforce. we hold specific validations, which we then pass on through ojt training. without this ojt training the system falls apart. training is a voluntary process, no one is made to train, and certainly the reward for training is insulting. only the goodwill of the atco and the almost pity we feel towards trainees is what keeps the wheel turning.
trainees have an extremely tough time and deserve better....and no i am not a trainee (valid 5+years now).
so the future does not have to be as bad as portrayed, we just need to act now to secure a better future for all of us and our families!!
FUNKYATCO OUT!
yes nats is going to get very tough... but so what!
all valid atcos are an extremely valuable commodity, costing a huge amount to train. none of us are tied to nats in any way, other than through reliance on the standard of living we have chosen for ourselves.
we are reasonably well paid, but not enough. the atco is not given the right amount of respect, being referred to as a resource personally busts my nuts!
the union work very hard to try and get the best for the atco workforce, yet they are met with whinging over the pettiest of matters. everyone needs to take a step back and think what they can do to help shape their own futures.
atcos love to complain, no doubt.
but as the title states, its time we all manned up (or ladied up...of course), and let our union reps know exactly what is acceptable.
the labour we provide nats with is priceless, maybe that should be tested.
nats are not in a position where they can just go to a temp agency and ask for a few hundred controllers to keep things going if god forbid, atco labour was withdrawn.
atcos have too many times just rolled over, and usually for not a substantial financial gain. atcos whinge like hell over the slightest thing, and then when a real issue is voted on, we all vote yes ....WTF?
in reality we are a self-perpetuating workforce. we hold specific validations, which we then pass on through ojt training. without this ojt training the system falls apart. training is a voluntary process, no one is made to train, and certainly the reward for training is insulting. only the goodwill of the atco and the almost pity we feel towards trainees is what keeps the wheel turning.
trainees have an extremely tough time and deserve better....and no i am not a trainee (valid 5+years now).
so the future does not have to be as bad as portrayed, we just need to act now to secure a better future for all of us and our families!!
FUNKYATCO OUT!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would add that we pensioners have paid into, fought hard to protect and are now taking our dues. These benefits were hard won and perhaps there is a lesson there for the younger members of staff still working.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
time to ballot for strike action, starting at the easter weekend
The fact that negotiations continue?
Can't see you getting a resounding vote for action based on that, can you?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Down south and up north
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm aware there are no ongoing negotiations. The union should set a date for them to make an official offer which can then be rejected if NATS are going to continue to stand by their offensive 2% offer.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As there are no further negotiations taking place, and (assuming) the 2% offer is the only offer on the table, the union should now ballot members with this derisory 2% as managements offer, with a view to industrial action (not necessarilly strike, just industrial action) should the vote be NO.