UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hootin:
actually, whilst it may not may not hit us in the short term, we will be affected by losing the right to seek recompense if we are to do met in future
GM wan to be:
We have already been taking pay cuts in real terms. In fact the year 2 offer (RPI capped at 5%) will yield a pay cut in real terms if RPI remains above 5%. And as the year 2 increase is not applied to ASAP NOS etc then you our overall take home, in any case, will be cut in real terms
Vote NO to give the BEC the ammo to go back and express our feelings to management. In the mean time I would suggest that we impose our own AAVA ban until this matter is resolved to mimic the effect of having no AAVA agreement in place
There will be units in nsl that will be voting on the met duties who will not have to carry out those duties, heathrow being one of them.
GM wan to be:
We have already been taking pay cuts in real terms. In fact the year 2 offer (RPI capped at 5%) will yield a pay cut in real terms if RPI remains above 5%. And as the year 2 increase is not applied to ASAP NOS etc then you our overall take home, in any case, will be cut in real terms
Vote NO to give the BEC the ammo to go back and express our feelings to management. In the mean time I would suggest that we impose our own AAVA ban until this matter is resolved to mimic the effect of having no AAVA agreement in place
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To reiterate something that was mentioned earlier, remember that this ballot is reliant on being passed by NSL first, with NERL votes only being counted if the NSL result is favourable. This is a significant twist.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Jockland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be a piece of p!ss if you are in management and are 'negotiating' with Prospect - especially if you have been a controller - Paul Reid must be crying with laughter reading this thread.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South of the border
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future...
Better get used to it... this will be happening at each and every negotiation from now on.
You'll get a cost of living increase and have to give up more and more Ts&Cs.
After a short number of years you'll have no decent Ts&Cs left.
The only way to stop the rot is to reject this deal now!
You'll get a cost of living increase and have to give up more and more Ts&Cs.
After a short number of years you'll have no decent Ts&Cs left.
The only way to stop the rot is to reject this deal now!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be surprised to see the NSL guys vote 'no' as much in protest at banding and the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that negotiations and settlements are conducted and agreed primarily in the interests of the Band 5 atco's.
It's a rare opportunity for them to make their voice heard.
It's a rare opportunity for them to make their voice heard.
Last edited by alfie1999; 23rd Apr 2011 at 12:03. Reason: Learnt to spell under New Labour.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for voting NO regardless of the offer (to ATCO's) being good or bad is a simple one, the entire workforce should be offered the same as has already been mentioned, the discussion about whether the offer is good or not shouldn't even come in to it at this point, Prospect should be recommending a no vote in support of the Engineer, ATSA & other support staff community, not sneaking around behind our respective unions backs doing deals on behalf of just a percentage of the workforce. As an ATSA I'm hugely disappointed by the antics of the Prospect negotiating team in the last week, effectively jumping into bed with the Co Management, they have let the rest of the NATS workforce down badly !
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the entire workforce should be offered the same as has already been mentioned
Like it or not, the Union (all 3 sections) has allowed terms and conditions to be included as part of the pay deal. These terms and conditions are worth different amounts.
That you should receive at least an RPI raise is one argument and is fair enough and one that can't be argued with, however once you (or your union) start negotiating Ts&Cs as part of what should be a core pay deal, then the ability to call for equal terms becomes moot.
We have differing contracts because of slightly different Ts&Cs... when you start changing them, then there will always be a disparity.
Moving away from making this a core pay deal (something that started a while ago) muddies the water. For example, if the ATSA community were offerd 4% with no strings and the ATCOs were offered 5% but had to take on extra duties for this, would you still be saying that you should be getting the same rise?
Anyways, why blame Prospect? I've heard it said that PCS was the first to actually talk about individual deals. Now that may be a scurrilous rumour, but it's no more pie in the sky than some of the other rubbish written on here.
Only those on the negotiating teams know the whole story regarding the offers over the past 11 months etc. We, the great unwashed, will never get to know all these details, therefore everything else is speculation.
The cold facts of the matter are the 3 pay offers. They have to be looked at individually. The best way to do that is against RPI (after all, this is the figure management always use). Then look at the other things you are compromising on... the 3 sections have different compromises to agree. Then you have to vote the way you feel you should according to the offer has been made for your section.
Any chance of an equal pay offer across the board was blown out of the water when this went from a core pay deal to a pay deal with a trade off in Ts&Cs... It's very easy (and lazy) to blame Prospect or Band 5 ATCOs... in the absence of cold hard facts, instead of the usual rhetoric maybe you should look more closely at your negotiating team first...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I stated in a previous post I'll be voting no essentially for what is a continuation of a 7 year old flawed (deliberately in my view) banding model.
I believe the divergence in % difference in annual salary between bands (above and below me) increasingly unfair.
The potential percentage increases involved in this pay round, even in the best case don't seem to cover the deal on AAVAs. That AAVA agreement is obviously the key aim in their negotiations, especially ensuring a long term/infinite term arrangement). They should never have been on any table. As has been mentioned before they should not be part of a core deal.
Neither should MET. I find it abhorrant that my NERL colleagues and I get a say in a matter we have no right to dictate. Wasn't there a motion passed to ensure this wouldn't happen?
And didn't conference agree (again) to close the gap between bands?
Whilst understanding the BEC would need some autonomy to act in these negotiations, their past performance with management in collusion (banding), close alignment (pensions - yes, a difficult matter, but NATS did take a pensions holiday), getting the timing/numbers wrong (the last pay round with regards to the RPI deal) and going immediately for multi year deals without added reward (or member remit); makes me particularly uneasy that they have steamed straight into another bad deal.
Plus further alienating us from our engineer and ATSA friends.
No from me. Again.
I believe the divergence in % difference in annual salary between bands (above and below me) increasingly unfair.
The potential percentage increases involved in this pay round, even in the best case don't seem to cover the deal on AAVAs. That AAVA agreement is obviously the key aim in their negotiations, especially ensuring a long term/infinite term arrangement). They should never have been on any table. As has been mentioned before they should not be part of a core deal.
Neither should MET. I find it abhorrant that my NERL colleagues and I get a say in a matter we have no right to dictate. Wasn't there a motion passed to ensure this wouldn't happen?
And didn't conference agree (again) to close the gap between bands?
Whilst understanding the BEC would need some autonomy to act in these negotiations, their past performance with management in collusion (banding), close alignment (pensions - yes, a difficult matter, but NATS did take a pensions holiday), getting the timing/numbers wrong (the last pay round with regards to the RPI deal) and going immediately for multi year deals without added reward (or member remit); makes me particularly uneasy that they have steamed straight into another bad deal.
Plus further alienating us from our engineer and ATSA friends.
No from me. Again.
Last edited by 9th Dan Vectors; 23rd Apr 2011 at 13:42. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither should MET. I find it abhorrant that my NERL colleagues and I get a say in a matter we have no right to dictate. Wasn't there a motion passed to ensure this wouldn't happen?
If it is a 'yes' vote from NSL then and only then will the votes from NERL be added to get an overall result. This way of counting the votes means that the sectional issues i.e. Met will be dealt with first.
To try to think you have a sway over the Met question is a misunderstanding of the vote count process and could get you into a bit of a moral dilemma, if you are indeed trying to take the moral high ground.
If 51% of NSL are happy with the Met being carried out by them, then voting 'no' as a NERL employee in order to 'help out your NSL colleagues' is a total farce... You'd actually be voting against the wishes of the majority (albeit 2% majority in this example) of the people it is going to affect. Like it or lump it, that 2% majority is what counts, this is a democratic process.
The Met question will be answered by those if affects. NERL employees can vote based on what they think of their deal, irrespective of Met. (And if that means they vote 'no' in support of ATSAs or Engineers then that's up to them and totally different from the NSL issue). You should vote the way you think you should vote for the deal as it effects you, the way the count is being done means that it is an efficient way of sorting out the sectional issue, an issue which does not affect NERL.
NSL have the ability to blow the deal out of the water if they are concerned about Met.
I find it abhorrant that my NERL colleagues and I get a say...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" Considering the offers, why do you feel as an ATSA that you should be given the same rise as everyone else? "
Point taken, however the point I way trying to make perhaps badly was / is this, the Core offer across the Company should be the same, the T & C's argument I take on board, RPI (minimum) should be the same across the company though and then T & C's on top, I'm not clear how the ATCO T & C changes can be worth 1.2% more than the rest of the Co. Prospect nor any of the other Unions (if PCS did) should not have gone back to the management on their own. When Management approached Prospect with a better offer earlier this week and Prospect agreed to talk this was the moment in my opinion when they let the rest of us down, sticking together may well have got you the better AAVA deal many of you are still after as well, they should have said no and stuck together with the other Unions as I'm sure you would like to think PCS etc would if this had happened the other way round. The general feeling was that the Unions had management on the ropes to a large extent for the first time in a long time, Prospect let them off them.
Lastly to reply to the 4 / 5% comment, we haven't been offered 4% no strings, we have an offer which changes our working week extending it by half an hour, doesn't sound much until you multiply it up, in very simplistic terms that's another 26 hours a year or 3 more days at work for no more money possibly ! We are being asked to give up our current overtime agreement (for a bung) for a fixed payment one that for me at least is worse than the terms I'm on now, even more importantly the new overtime agreement is also non pensionable, our current one is.
Point taken, however the point I way trying to make perhaps badly was / is this, the Core offer across the Company should be the same, the T & C's argument I take on board, RPI (minimum) should be the same across the company though and then T & C's on top, I'm not clear how the ATCO T & C changes can be worth 1.2% more than the rest of the Co. Prospect nor any of the other Unions (if PCS did) should not have gone back to the management on their own. When Management approached Prospect with a better offer earlier this week and Prospect agreed to talk this was the moment in my opinion when they let the rest of us down, sticking together may well have got you the better AAVA deal many of you are still after as well, they should have said no and stuck together with the other Unions as I'm sure you would like to think PCS etc would if this had happened the other way round. The general feeling was that the Unions had management on the ropes to a large extent for the first time in a long time, Prospect let them off them.
Lastly to reply to the 4 / 5% comment, we haven't been offered 4% no strings, we have an offer which changes our working week extending it by half an hour, doesn't sound much until you multiply it up, in very simplistic terms that's another 26 hours a year or 3 more days at work for no more money possibly ! We are being asked to give up our current overtime agreement (for a bung) for a fixed payment one that for me at least is worse than the terms I'm on now, even more importantly the new overtime agreement is also non pensionable, our current one is.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Purbeck,
the 4/5% was an example (turning things totally on their head) to illustrate my point about the difficulty of asking for an equal pay rise when we are selling Ts and Cs. I know the ATSA offer inside out, and think that you are the ones being asked to give away the most.
I agree with you entirely, this should only ever have been a pay deal regarding core pay.
As soon as you start trading Ts and Cs it muddies the water.
RPI with no strings is the minimum any sections should have been offered. Had it stayed a no strings deal across the board then we should all have been offered the same.
I personally find this deal difficult to understand as there is no real value attached to each erosion of working condition. Therefore we don't really know what the core deal was for each section before the extra was added for the Ts&Cs. I find it hard to believe the core deal was the same given how much the ATSA community is being asked to give away.
This series of offers has set a bad precedent. It should only ever have been about core pay, and as such RPI minimum was deserved by all the workforce.
the 4/5% was an example (turning things totally on their head) to illustrate my point about the difficulty of asking for an equal pay rise when we are selling Ts and Cs. I know the ATSA offer inside out, and think that you are the ones being asked to give away the most.
I agree with you entirely, this should only ever have been a pay deal regarding core pay.
As soon as you start trading Ts and Cs it muddies the water.
RPI with no strings is the minimum any sections should have been offered. Had it stayed a no strings deal across the board then we should all have been offered the same.
I personally find this deal difficult to understand as there is no real value attached to each erosion of working condition. Therefore we don't really know what the core deal was for each section before the extra was added for the Ts&Cs. I find it hard to believe the core deal was the same given how much the ATSA community is being asked to give away.
This series of offers has set a bad precedent. It should only ever have been about core pay, and as such RPI minimum was deserved by all the workforce.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Deakin's Dungeon
Age: 16
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lassie - you're hoping for a bit much there I'm afraid.
I won't be surprised if it goes through and our chance to face down the new CEOs disappears forever. As for NTUS unity, well that's gone too.
I wonder what excuse my local Prospect rep comes up with for all of this.
I won't be surprised if it goes through and our chance to face down the new CEOs disappears forever. As for NTUS unity, well that's gone too.
I wonder what excuse my local Prospect rep comes up with for all of this.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay anotherthing, I accept on the issue of NERL voting on MET I was wrong. When I was at a union briefing a few weeks ago, that was what I was told might happen. Did you read my post on unit grading?
As I said a few days ago my no vote isn't tactical at all. It is a no vote against a continuation of a shabby pay scheme with no closing of gaps or no justification for pay disparity.
Back to the current vote:
What would be the next move if NSL said "No?" Bearing in mind it can't be acertained whether the rejection was for the MET or the pay. Are the other votes counted? How can the BEC formulate a strategy for negotiation if they can't be sure why NSL have rejected the proposal?
As I said a few days ago my no vote isn't tactical at all. It is a no vote against a continuation of a shabby pay scheme with no closing of gaps or no justification for pay disparity.
Back to the current vote:
What would be the next move if NSL said "No?" Bearing in mind it can't be acertained whether the rejection was for the MET or the pay. Are the other votes counted? How can the BEC formulate a strategy for negotiation if they can't be sure why NSL have rejected the proposal?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Down South
Age: 53
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's a no vote then I suspect we will be offered an extra pound in LV's....that normally clinches it!
I'm a no vote by the way. This sucks on so many different counts.
I'm a no vote by the way. This sucks on so many different counts.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a meeting next week to decide how Prospect & PCS are going to move forward from here.
PCS & the ATSS section are not recommending the offers to their members. The big question is is the ATCO section going to break ranks and accept a deal while PCS & the ATSS reject their offers?
Judging by the fact the ATCO section negotiated and recommended an offer while they knew PCS & ATSS had rejected their's I'd say we are heading for some very bitter days.
PCS & the ATSS section are not recommending the offers to their members. The big question is is the ATCO section going to break ranks and accept a deal while PCS & the ATSS reject their offers?
Judging by the fact the ATCO section negotiated and recommended an offer while they knew PCS & ATSS had rejected their's I'd say we are heading for some very bitter days.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South of the border
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard that this is the first time since the early 1980's that the ATSS branch and PCS will be recommending to reject the offer from management.
Their union negotiators and BEC seem to have the right attitude to managements offer. Time will tell if their members are in the same place.
We need to bear in mind that the offer to each of the branches is not the fault of the union negotiators; they have to try to persuade management to increase their offer but if this is not forthcoming then there is little that they can do. They are doing a difficult job under difficult circumstances.
That said, I still wonder why they allowed management to dictate the course of events, forcing them into sectional talks.
However, you have to ask some questions of the ATCO BEC - the membership and the reps should be asking them why they are recommending the offer. Was it a close BEC vote to recommend the offer?
The rest is up to us - the membership. Vote to reject the pay offer.
If you are REALLY unhappy about the offer then do something about it - get involved... become a rep and take on the status quo of the existing ATCO branch (stand for a position on the BEC maybe??).
Their union negotiators and BEC seem to have the right attitude to managements offer. Time will tell if their members are in the same place.
We need to bear in mind that the offer to each of the branches is not the fault of the union negotiators; they have to try to persuade management to increase their offer but if this is not forthcoming then there is little that they can do. They are doing a difficult job under difficult circumstances.
That said, I still wonder why they allowed management to dictate the course of events, forcing them into sectional talks.
However, you have to ask some questions of the ATCO BEC - the membership and the reps should be asking them why they are recommending the offer. Was it a close BEC vote to recommend the offer?
The rest is up to us - the membership. Vote to reject the pay offer.
If you are REALLY unhappy about the offer then do something about it - get involved... become a rep and take on the status quo of the existing ATCO branch (stand for a position on the BEC maybe??).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why doesn't one of you create a poll? That way you, management and your union would get a clear quantified indication of how you may vote for real.
On the beach
On the beach
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are REALLY unhappy about the offer then do something about it - get involved... become a rep and take on the status quo of the existing ATCO branch (stand for a position on the BEC maybe??).
The cupboard is looking extremely bare.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here and There
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys,
Welcome to the private sector!
Moan about about Met, guess what? Most controllers out side of NATS do met.
Some units have controllers that have to take on assistants duties, outside of normal working hours.
Contracted airport controllers in the private sector are given pay rises annually based on the airport operators contract with the supplying contractor. This is usually done in an advance with may I suggest with little influence from RPI or CPI.
Stop complaining, realise this is no longer 1980 and you have a good deal.
If you want more money, get off your arse and get a better job, validation, e.t.c.
Welcome to the private sector!
Moan about about Met, guess what? Most controllers out side of NATS do met.
Some units have controllers that have to take on assistants duties, outside of normal working hours.
Contracted airport controllers in the private sector are given pay rises annually based on the airport operators contract with the supplying contractor. This is usually done in an advance with may I suggest with little influence from RPI or CPI.
Stop complaining, realise this is no longer 1980 and you have a good deal.
If you want more money, get off your arse and get a better job, validation, e.t.c.