UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put RVR600, this IS about playing one set against the other and as a member of a union I find all of this deeply offensive.
As ATCOs we don't need to walk out the door, just stop training! Bigger effect IMO.
As ATCOs we don't need to walk out the door, just stop training! Bigger effect IMO.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is management that are insising on linking MET and the AAVA agreement to the core deal, not the union.
We have spent far too long moaning about dry powder and teh BEC growing a set.
Well, now they have, we are in an amazing bargaining position here. PCS are happy for the MET task to be taken on by ATCOs at night, otherwise we would not be even discussing it with management. Management want the AAVA agreement to be extended.
These two have to be negotiatd together as it would otherwise result in a divisive pay deal, with NERL and NSL getting different amounts.
We as a union have instructed the BEC NOT to negotiate separate deals for NERL and NSL.
It's time that WE as a UNION stood by the BEC and our local reps who perform a thankless task and are doing a damn fine job with these negotiatins.
I've chatted with my rep about this current pay round, and quite frankly, the BEC have done and continue to represent MY interests as a fee paying member, they have my support and deserve the support of each and every member, no matter where you work.
We have spent far too long moaning about dry powder and teh BEC growing a set.
Well, now they have, we are in an amazing bargaining position here. PCS are happy for the MET task to be taken on by ATCOs at night, otherwise we would not be even discussing it with management. Management want the AAVA agreement to be extended.
These two have to be negotiatd together as it would otherwise result in a divisive pay deal, with NERL and NSL getting different amounts.
We as a union have instructed the BEC NOT to negotiate separate deals for NERL and NSL.
It's time that WE as a UNION stood by the BEC and our local reps who perform a thankless task and are doing a damn fine job with these negotiatins.
I've chatted with my rep about this current pay round, and quite frankly, the BEC have done and continue to represent MY interests as a fee paying member, they have my support and deserve the support of each and every member, no matter where you work.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On the sofa usually
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar707,
Your right, you are in a very good place for negotiating a great deal. Unfortunately some PCS members - union incompetence/ATSA lethargy aside - are not in such a good place.
You are also correct that it is management, not the prospect team, that have brought the MET/AAVA issue to the table.
As the fundamental principle of trade unionism is to protect members jobs, pay and working conditions, I am appalled that the PCS leadership have, with NO consultation with its members, taken a stance which not only dilutes the ATSA responsibilities (working conditions) but also places in jeopardy the positions of a large number of ATSA's (jobs). That's 2 of the fundamental principles it's meant to protect. The other (pay) has already been eroded through previous pay negotiations, the pension debacle and badly negotiated working practice/roster agreements.
Now, it's not the fault of Prospect or the ATCO's that we have a bunch of slack backed, working together lackies at PCS central level and a bunch of fat, dumb and happy ATSA's, who have only just woken to the fact that Damocles is about to drop his hardware on them.
However, there is something that Prospect can do if it values its TU roots and the principle of not negotiating for benefits based on taking on a colleagues duties (contingency or otherwise). Refuse point blank to discuss MET in any form. That gives those ATSA's who have only recently woken up the opportunity to give PCS a reality check about what their responsibilities to its members are.
Or, we can do nothing, the ATSA grade gets even closer to extinction, and the only silver lining is that a better pay/AAVA agreement came about, due possibly, to some skillful negotiating using MET as leverage.
Even at this late stage, I think the PCS members can make a difference to the outcome, but only if they act immediately. Prospect members could also help, but with important pay and AAVA deals imminent, are they willing to?
Your right, you are in a very good place for negotiating a great deal. Unfortunately some PCS members - union incompetence/ATSA lethargy aside - are not in such a good place.
You are also correct that it is management, not the prospect team, that have brought the MET/AAVA issue to the table.
As the fundamental principle of trade unionism is to protect members jobs, pay and working conditions, I am appalled that the PCS leadership have, with NO consultation with its members, taken a stance which not only dilutes the ATSA responsibilities (working conditions) but also places in jeopardy the positions of a large number of ATSA's (jobs). That's 2 of the fundamental principles it's meant to protect. The other (pay) has already been eroded through previous pay negotiations, the pension debacle and badly negotiated working practice/roster agreements.
Now, it's not the fault of Prospect or the ATCO's that we have a bunch of slack backed, working together lackies at PCS central level and a bunch of fat, dumb and happy ATSA's, who have only just woken to the fact that Damocles is about to drop his hardware on them.
However, there is something that Prospect can do if it values its TU roots and the principle of not negotiating for benefits based on taking on a colleagues duties (contingency or otherwise). Refuse point blank to discuss MET in any form. That gives those ATSA's who have only recently woken up the opportunity to give PCS a reality check about what their responsibilities to its members are.
Or, we can do nothing, the ATSA grade gets even closer to extinction, and the only silver lining is that a better pay/AAVA agreement came about, due possibly, to some skillful negotiating using MET as leverage.
Even at this late stage, I think the PCS members can make a difference to the outcome, but only if they act immediately. Prospect members could also help, but with important pay and AAVA deals imminent, are they willing to?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems us "lowly" ATCOs on the shop floor have (well, in my opinion, anyway), is that there is no way for us to know what is happening at the "nitty gritty" level of pay (AAVA, pension, MET, redundancy etc etc) negotiations.
All we seem to get is a two paragraph wishy washy summary of the latest meeting every few weeks from the BEC, which to be honest doesn't really tell us anything important, like what stage negotiations are at, how far apart we are, what we are being asked to do/give up, or even how emotive things are acros the table between the negotiating teams.
So, it is really difficult to know what to think in regards to the pay claim.
I have already attempted to discuss the current pay claim with my local rep, but I simply get the response that the rep is not on the pay team so doesn't have any information, plus any ongoing negotiations are not for general consumption anyway.
How then am I supposed to make informed decisions without any information.
I have written a two page letter to the BEC regarding my thoughts on what I want from these pay talks, but how much difference that will make (none, I suspect), I have no idea.
Currently, the BEC is doing what it has done so well in the past, left the members uninformed, and presents them with a fate acompli (sp)
All we seem to get is a two paragraph wishy washy summary of the latest meeting every few weeks from the BEC, which to be honest doesn't really tell us anything important, like what stage negotiations are at, how far apart we are, what we are being asked to do/give up, or even how emotive things are acros the table between the negotiating teams.
So, it is really difficult to know what to think in regards to the pay claim.
I have already attempted to discuss the current pay claim with my local rep, but I simply get the response that the rep is not on the pay team so doesn't have any information, plus any ongoing negotiations are not for general consumption anyway.
How then am I supposed to make informed decisions without any information.
I have written a two page letter to the BEC regarding my thoughts on what I want from these pay talks, but how much difference that will make (none, I suspect), I have no idea.
Currently, the BEC is doing what it has done so well in the past, left the members uninformed, and presents them with a fate acompli (sp)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently, the BEC is doing what it has done so well in the past, left the members uninformed, and presents them with a fate acompli (sp)
So as and when current negotiations end and something is put to the members to vote on... be it to accept or decline a deal or accept or decline a start to some form of industrial action, then if the former do as you see fit. If the latter it'll be time to see if we really are ready to stand up and be counted.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roffa,
With you 100% There are too may members of the union who do not think for themselves, then blame the union. When it comes to a ballot these people (if they can be bothered to vote) just vote the way the union recommends.
The union is there to work for the members, not the other way round. The union is fully aware of this but is only as strong as its membership. If the majority vote against the unions recommendation, then the union will carry out the wishes of the membership.
The union have given 'yes' recommendations in the past because they believe the proposal is the best they can get... without recourse to industrial action. The union are in the best position to make this assumption, but that does not mean that as a union member, if you think the deal is rubbish (and you have to be realistic with your expectations here), then you do not have to follow the union lead.
The union will do what its membership ask of it. The past 4 or 5 years are littered with ballots that have followed the union recommendation, only for the membership (who voted it in) to then whinge about it 6 months down the line
With you 100% There are too may members of the union who do not think for themselves, then blame the union. When it comes to a ballot these people (if they can be bothered to vote) just vote the way the union recommends.
The union is there to work for the members, not the other way round. The union is fully aware of this but is only as strong as its membership. If the majority vote against the unions recommendation, then the union will carry out the wishes of the membership.
The union have given 'yes' recommendations in the past because they believe the proposal is the best they can get... without recourse to industrial action. The union are in the best position to make this assumption, but that does not mean that as a union member, if you think the deal is rubbish (and you have to be realistic with your expectations here), then you do not have to follow the union lead.
The union will do what its membership ask of it. The past 4 or 5 years are littered with ballots that have followed the union recommendation, only for the membership (who voted it in) to then whinge about it 6 months down the line
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Historically we all say we are not going to vote "YES", I've heard it so many times over the years, and the vote is always a "YES". Everybody then says "Well, I didn't vote for it!".
If everyone voted "No" following a union recommendation, and the union went back to the members and balloted for industrial action and the vote was a "NO", where does that leave the members and the unions?? Nowhere I suspect....
The majority will vote "YES" for whatever is offered. If they vote "NO" and then balloted on industrial action, I would anticipate a close vote, but a "NO" never the less....
I would loved to be proved wrong....
On the ATSA front... Once we're gone (as is NATS intention), who do you think will be next???
If everyone voted "No" following a union recommendation, and the union went back to the members and balloted for industrial action and the vote was a "NO", where does that leave the members and the unions?? Nowhere I suspect....
The majority will vote "YES" for whatever is offered. If they vote "NO" and then balloted on industrial action, I would anticipate a close vote, but a "NO" never the less....
I would loved to be proved wrong....
On the ATSA front... Once we're gone (as is NATS intention), who do you think will be next???
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems us "lowly" ATCOs on the shop floor have (well, in my opinion, anyway), is that there is no way for us to know what is happening at the "nitty gritty" level of pay (AAVA, pension, MET, redundancy etc etc) negotiations.
All we seem to get is a two paragraph wishy washy summary of the latest meeting every few weeks from the BEC, which to be honest doesn't really tell us anything important, like what stage negotiations are at, how far apart we are, what we are being asked to do/give up, or even how emotive things are acros the table between the negotiating teams.
So, it is really difficult to know what to think in regards to the pay claim.
I have already attempted to discuss the current pay claim with my local rep, but I simply get the response that the rep is not on the pay team so doesn't have any information, plus any ongoing negotiations are not for general consumption anyway.
How then am I supposed to make informed decisions without any information.
So, it is really difficult to know what to think in regards to the pay claim.
I have already attempted to discuss the current pay claim with my local rep, but I simply get the response that the rep is not on the pay team so doesn't have any information, plus any ongoing negotiations are not for general consumption anyway.
How then am I supposed to make informed decisions without any information.
I know it's frustrating but come on... As members we elect an executive, give them some directives on how we want them to represent us but we can't expect a weekly referendum on every action.
The reps are fully aware that there is no chance they could sell a ~2% deal to members. I think they would quite like it made formal so they can put it to vote and achieve a resounding "NO!". Management appear to be willing to play a long game and we all have to keep our cool, stick together and not swallow another pile of manure about how tough times these are.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they would quite like it made formal so they can put it to vote and achieve a resounding "NO!".
The step after that is for the union to vote for industrial action (a 'yes' vote). How many people are willing to vote 'no' to the offer, then 'yes' to industrial action, because a 'no' then a 'no' is pointless if you are not happy with the pay offer.
The Union membership has, within recent history, been weak with extremely poor turnouts for the last few ballots. Management know this and they play on it.
I would not be surprised if Management gave a derisory first offer knowing full well it would not be accepted, then hiked up the second offer with caveats.
It would not surprise me if they were betting on the ability to divide the workforce and also if they were betting on the likelihood that members won't have the bottle to strike over a headline pay rise which is (supposedly) somewhere near 5%.
Management can offer a better pay rise based on projected savings if MET is taken on by ATCOs and if the AAVA agreement is signed in perpetuity.
However, before this offer they had stated that they would give 0.5% on top of any basic pay offer if we signed the AAVA agreement in perpetuity. That leaves a gulf of 3% - there is no way the MET savings are 3% so the sums do not add up.
Senior management ae not stupid and they are definitley media savvy. I think that the way they have played this is very clever if they are banking on the union membership (not the union reps) of displaying the usual apathy.
Everyone talks about the powder being dry etc... it is not the Union reps job to spark the ignition, it is the memberships.
Whatever way you vote in the upcoming ballot, remember that it has implications on the strength of the union
A few thoughts;
while I'm happy to reject pay offer and vote for industrial action, I see no reason why that would ever become a strike. Letting the present AAVA agreement lapse (in the autumn?) would have a massive effect on the company. All projects would have to be put on hold -iFACTS, EFD, Olympics, etc.
A training ban would be hugely damaging too, especially with the olympics looming.
By threatening to let the present AAVA agreement lapse we already have management over a barrel.
Remember the last pay round? Every month we were emailed figures showing the decline in traffic, how the recession was affecting us centre by centre, airfield by airfield. All that doom and gloom preceded the financial report showing record profits, several millions in management bonuses and a huge dividend.
Why are the traffic levels no longer freely available?
Why do our senior management have other European ANSP's traffic growth figures at their fingertips but can't give NATS traffic figures when quizzed at a recent presentation?
I only hope a deal isn't rushed through and voted on before the annual report is published in June again.
while I'm happy to reject pay offer and vote for industrial action, I see no reason why that would ever become a strike. Letting the present AAVA agreement lapse (in the autumn?) would have a massive effect on the company. All projects would have to be put on hold -iFACTS, EFD, Olympics, etc.
A training ban would be hugely damaging too, especially with the olympics looming.
By threatening to let the present AAVA agreement lapse we already have management over a barrel.
Remember the last pay round? Every month we were emailed figures showing the decline in traffic, how the recession was affecting us centre by centre, airfield by airfield. All that doom and gloom preceded the financial report showing record profits, several millions in management bonuses and a huge dividend.
Why are the traffic levels no longer freely available?
Why do our senior management have other European ANSP's traffic growth figures at their fingertips but can't give NATS traffic figures when quizzed at a recent presentation?
I only hope a deal isn't rushed through and voted on before the annual report is published in June again.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we will soon see what happens come the Final pay meeting on Thursday, followed two weeks later by the cessation of the AAVA agreement (which I am still not convinced will happen).
It will be interesting to see what line the BEC takes come April 29th
It will be interesting to see what line the BEC takes come April 29th
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can honestly empathise with the frustrations of people like @Disillusioned, and can only assume that the more recent posts come from either some of the more myopic members of our fraternity, or union reps who think they've been doing a great job for the last couple of years and feel it necessary to defend their actions on here.
As I've said on here before, the low turnout in recent ballots is no measurement of membership apathy - it could be a measurement of membership confusion, membership anger, but apathy - no. I'm not sure how some people on here can defend the actions of a union that in recent times has recommended acceptance of a pay deal a matter of days before the announcement of record profits, as well as been hoodwinked into recommending wholesale pension reform at a time when a depressed stock market made the situation seem artificially bad. Under those circumstances, what's most surprising is that only 3 in every 10 members opted not to vote.
Actually, it's quite likely that those who "whinge" about it are those who, like me, voted NO in both of the ballots mentioned above and feel more than a little let down by the advice (or more particularly, the timing of the advice) from the union. And I'm pretty sure the membership did not ask for pension reform...
As it stands, the union are showing all the signs of rolling over for management again. Taking a cynical view this is no surprise given that so many senior union members hold company management positions. There is no real sign of the union actually withdrawing from the AAVA agreement, so this was just another empty threat like so many communiques before it. The rumours are that the union are worried of the legal repercussions of such a move - I stress that these are rumours because as @Disillusioned said, we're never actually told anything on the shop floor until it's too late. There is a real opportunity here for the union to show some teeth as summer traffic begins to kick in. They have given three months' notice, and it was management who attempted to circumvent the agreement (several times) in the first place - from a legal standpoint, I don't see what the risk is.
Ooooooh, a video blog would be lovely! In the absence of that, regular updates would be nice given that a lot of people at the biggest unit in the country have been hearing news second-, third- or fourth-hand in the past few months. And are you seriously saying that membership only deserve to be informed when it's decision time? With that attitude, you must actually be a Swanwick rep. No, if you want your membership to show less apathy, you keep them regularly informed of developments, and try and cut out the deal we deserve.
LTP
As I've said on here before, the low turnout in recent ballots is no measurement of membership apathy - it could be a measurement of membership confusion, membership anger, but apathy - no. I'm not sure how some people on here can defend the actions of a union that in recent times has recommended acceptance of a pay deal a matter of days before the announcement of record profits, as well as been hoodwinked into recommending wholesale pension reform at a time when a depressed stock market made the situation seem artificially bad. Under those circumstances, what's most surprising is that only 3 in every 10 members opted not to vote.
The union will do what its membership ask of it. The past 4 or 5 years are littered with ballots that have followed the union recommendation, only for the membership (who voted it in) to then whinge about it 6 months down the line
As it stands, the union are showing all the signs of rolling over for management again. Taking a cynical view this is no surprise given that so many senior union members hold company management positions. There is no real sign of the union actually withdrawing from the AAVA agreement, so this was just another empty threat like so many communiques before it. The rumours are that the union are worried of the legal repercussions of such a move - I stress that these are rumours because as @Disillusioned said, we're never actually told anything on the shop floor until it's too late. There is a real opportunity here for the union to show some teeth as summer traffic begins to kick in. They have given three months' notice, and it was management who attempted to circumvent the agreement (several times) in the first place - from a legal standpoint, I don't see what the risk is.
What, exactly, do you expect? A video blog from the negotiating team updated daily? You aren't furnished with all the details with which to make a decision yet as there isn't yet a decision to be made! When your vote is requested then you'll have the details of what you are voting on laid out before you.
LTP
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 5116N00044W
Age: 76
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are the traffic levels no longer freely available?
Why do our senior management have other European ANSP's traffic growth figures at their fingertips but can't give NATS traffic figures when quizzed at a recent presentation?
Why do our senior management have other European ANSP's traffic growth figures at their fingertips but can't give NATS traffic figures when quizzed at a recent presentation?
Service unit forecasts | EUROCONTROL
(this site used to give monthly updates of actual chargeable units but I can't find it on the current site)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTP;
I think you might be including me in your comments however I can assure I am not myopic. I was unhappy with the union and the way it has performed for about the last seven years. I was also unhappy with the lack of communication.
What did I do about it? I wrote a letter resigning with the reasons why.
You think the membership (at least a significant part of it) is not apathetic? So why could almost 40% of them not be a**ed to even return a postal ballot regarding pensions?
Why are there so many people so happy too moan about the union yet continue to pay their subs each month?
Apathy (or the fact that they like to moan about things).
Maybe the actions of the union in the past have led to this apathy, however if you continue to pay subs then the union will think that everything is rosy.
I am happy to say that in my opinion the union seems to have stepped up a gear both in taking on management and not just believing them, and also in improving communication, therefore I am rejoining the fold.
So you think the union was hoodwinked into recommending a 'yes' vote over the pensions? Why should that stop the members, supposedly of higher average intelligence than other union membership in different industries/professions, from voting the way they wanted to vote, or from voting at all?
I assume, LTP, that desite your dissatisfaction with the union, you still pay your subs each month? Why? You can gain as much professional protection via GATCO for a fraction of the cost. Yet you still pay them money each month? I'm afraid I can get my mind round that one as it seems to me that you think you get nothing for your money!
As for updates it seems to me, and I am still a sceptic, that the union has recently kept us up to date. The 2 or 3 paragraphs is more than enough, or do you and others want a transcript of the meetings?
Where exactly do you get this notion from?
Again, where do you get this notion from? The union told management that it would not be renewing the AAVA agreement i.e. it would be withdrawing from it. Legally the union could not do this until 28th April as they had signed a legal agreement that stated the AAVA agreement would be in place until then. 2 weeks on Thursday the agreement runs out. There is no plan to renew it. I think you do not understand what 'withdrawing from the agreement' actually entails.
Del Prado,
Traffic figures are readily available on the intranet. No conspiracy there I'm afraid. Maybe they are not advertised as much as they used to be, but they are there.
Also, you say we should let the AAVA agreement run out as a means to getting a pay rise. You are saying we should do exactly what management want us to do, i.e. tie AAVAs to the CORE PAY talks.
It is a totally seperate issue and should remain that way.
CORE PAY is exactly that. No added bells and whistles, just a settlement on the basic pay and allowances we get.
Management shoud be told that until the core pay deal is settled, other Ts and Cs (which means AAVAs etc) will not be discussed. Selling ourselves out for an extra half a percent (or whatever) for a permanent AAVA deal at the current rate is not the way to go.
I think you might be including me in your comments however I can assure I am not myopic. I was unhappy with the union and the way it has performed for about the last seven years. I was also unhappy with the lack of communication.
What did I do about it? I wrote a letter resigning with the reasons why.
You think the membership (at least a significant part of it) is not apathetic? So why could almost 40% of them not be a**ed to even return a postal ballot regarding pensions?
Why are there so many people so happy too moan about the union yet continue to pay their subs each month?
Apathy (or the fact that they like to moan about things).
Maybe the actions of the union in the past have led to this apathy, however if you continue to pay subs then the union will think that everything is rosy.
I am happy to say that in my opinion the union seems to have stepped up a gear both in taking on management and not just believing them, and also in improving communication, therefore I am rejoining the fold.
So you think the union was hoodwinked into recommending a 'yes' vote over the pensions? Why should that stop the members, supposedly of higher average intelligence than other union membership in different industries/professions, from voting the way they wanted to vote, or from voting at all?
I assume, LTP, that desite your dissatisfaction with the union, you still pay your subs each month? Why? You can gain as much professional protection via GATCO for a fraction of the cost. Yet you still pay them money each month? I'm afraid I can get my mind round that one as it seems to me that you think you get nothing for your money!
As for updates it seems to me, and I am still a sceptic, that the union has recently kept us up to date. The 2 or 3 paragraphs is more than enough, or do you and others want a transcript of the meetings?
As it stands, the union are showing all the signs of rolling over for management again...
There is no real sign of the union actually withdrawing from the AAVA agreement, so this was just another empty threat like so many communiques before it.
Del Prado,
Traffic figures are readily available on the intranet. No conspiracy there I'm afraid. Maybe they are not advertised as much as they used to be, but they are there.
Also, you say we should let the AAVA agreement run out as a means to getting a pay rise. You are saying we should do exactly what management want us to do, i.e. tie AAVAs to the CORE PAY talks.
It is a totally seperate issue and should remain that way.
CORE PAY is exactly that. No added bells and whistles, just a settlement on the basic pay and allowances we get.
Management shoud be told that until the core pay deal is settled, other Ts and Cs (which means AAVAs etc) will not be discussed. Selling ourselves out for an extra half a percent (or whatever) for a permanent AAVA deal at the current rate is not the way to go.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On the sofa usually
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What NATS has become really good at in the past few years, is creating a level of spin that would make the likes of Mr Mandleson feel all warm and gooey inside. Unsustainable pension scheme; a looming financial crisis if we don't make huge cost savings (staff cuts); and airlines that are on the verge of pulling out of the airline partnership thingy if we don't start making savings immediately.
The fact is, the management have lied about the financial (and pension) situation for several years now, as became apparent after the publication of the last two financial reports, and we (union and members) have fallen for it. Or more likely, scared into believing it when told of the dreadful repercussions if we don't agree to the party line.
There is a saying, 'fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me'. If we're going to fall for the same old sh!te this time around, then shame on us.
The fact is, the management have lied about the financial (and pension) situation for several years now, as became apparent after the publication of the last two financial reports, and we (union and members) have fallen for it. Or more likely, scared into believing it when told of the dreadful repercussions if we don't agree to the party line.
There is a saying, 'fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me'. If we're going to fall for the same old sh!te this time around, then shame on us.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: behind the fruit
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You think the membership (at least a significant part of it) is not apathetic? So why could almost 40% of them not be a**ed to even return a postal ballot regarding pensions?
I know it seems such a stupid reason but it does happen..
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I see. So you only want to be a member when there are ballot forms to fill in and the potential for you to be warming your hands round a brazier? I'm not really sure you're in a position to criticise what you view as apathy...
Yes, I am and always have been a union member. In the current climate I would like to think that the reasons for that are obvious and I don't count apathy as a reason.
Pensions are clearly a complicated subject - something on which the membership required coherent guidance when it was put to the vote. Sidestepping the issue of whether you think members of our profession are more intelligent than those of any other (?!), what were they supposed to think when the union advised a 'yes' vote when, at the time in the financial cycle, it was wholly inappropriate? As I stated before, it's hardly surprising that 30-40% of people opt not to vote under these circumstances. And don't even get me started on whether it's appropriate that a senior member of watch management, who also happens to hold a senior position in the union, browbeats his watch into voting one way or the other. Conflicts of interest of this magnitude should not be allowed to occur.
The AAVA agreement is actually up for renewal towards the end of the year - the union gave management three months' notice that they were pulling out of the agreement (early) because management had contravened its terms at several sites. So, I understand exactly where we are with respect to AAVAs - question is, do you? As @Disillusioned has said, we will see how fiercely the union is willing to bare it teeth at the end of the month.
At last, something on which we are agreed. But as I said before, the rumour is that the union are worried about NATS management taking legal action because a refusal to discuss AAVAs just because the core pay deal hasn't been settled could be viewed as deliberate obstruction. Emphasis on rumour because the union have chosen not to inform the membership of discussions in this area. And you think communication has improved and that the union are more likely to take on management?!
LTP
Yes, I am and always have been a union member. In the current climate I would like to think that the reasons for that are obvious and I don't count apathy as a reason.
Pensions are clearly a complicated subject - something on which the membership required coherent guidance when it was put to the vote. Sidestepping the issue of whether you think members of our profession are more intelligent than those of any other (?!), what were they supposed to think when the union advised a 'yes' vote when, at the time in the financial cycle, it was wholly inappropriate? As I stated before, it's hardly surprising that 30-40% of people opt not to vote under these circumstances. And don't even get me started on whether it's appropriate that a senior member of watch management, who also happens to hold a senior position in the union, browbeats his watch into voting one way or the other. Conflicts of interest of this magnitude should not be allowed to occur.
The AAVA agreement is actually up for renewal towards the end of the year - the union gave management three months' notice that they were pulling out of the agreement (early) because management had contravened its terms at several sites. So, I understand exactly where we are with respect to AAVAs - question is, do you? As @Disillusioned has said, we will see how fiercely the union is willing to bare it teeth at the end of the month.
Management shoud be told that until the core pay deal is settled, other Ts and Cs (which means AAVAs etc) will not be discussed. Selling ourselves out for an extra half a percent (or whatever) for a permanent AAVA deal at the current rate is not the way to go.
LTP
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
I only hope a deal isn't rushed through and voted on before the annual report is published in June again.
I suspect however that HR Director and Senior Management would much rather agree something miniscule now before the scale of fat cat rewards and company profits comes to light. Barron taught them well.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a coincidence that the departure of the HR Director was announced today?
Does that pave the way for a log-jam breaking offer later this week that the Union can then recommend to the members before the Annual Report is published?
Does that pave the way for a log-jam breaking offer later this week that the Union can then recommend to the members before the Annual Report is published?