UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over the years I have been continually frustrated at the complete lack of balls Prospect has. If this hadn't had serious implications for NSL atco's and our PCS team mates it would be another comedy roadshow.
Apparantley there is a finite amount of money in the pot, yet PCS stand firm, issue a NO recommendation to it's members and immediately get a better offer.
For f*cks sake Prospect when are you going to finally wake up and understand how to negotiate with bullish managers?
Pathetic yet again.
Apparantley there is a finite amount of money in the pot, yet PCS stand firm, issue a NO recommendation to it's members and immediately get a better offer.
For f*cks sake Prospect when are you going to finally wake up and understand how to negotiate with bullish managers?
Pathetic yet again.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prospect ATSS branch have issued a no recommendation to its members.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that having already delivered cost savings the engineers in ATSS are miffed their offer is lower than the ATCO offer and comes with strings that would screw the NSL engineers.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Deakin's Dungeon
Age: 16
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that having already delivered cost savings the engineers in ATSS are miffed their offer is lower than the ATCO offer and comes with strings that would screw the NSL engineers.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Deakin's Dungeon
Age: 16
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not apathy, it's realism. The majority usually go with a recommendation from the union, not against. And since 30% never bothered to cast their vote in the last couple of ballots, then this time we'll be at the mercy of those who'll benefit from no change in their working practices but will still benefit from the pay rise.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: swanlake
Age: 54
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Band 2 Drone...the vote based on the Met issue is down to the NSL vote.....if you vote No. its a no. Nerl vote is not included in the numbers until you have your say. If Nsl vote yes then the Nerl vote is included.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem being, conspiracy theories aside, there will be people voting from NSL who will not have to carry out these duties and so it is free money and stitches up the rest.
The Union think that they have been really clever as they think that the safety surveys will mean that we will not have to carry out Met whilst plugged in which is our main concern. Bulls*t
And herein lies the problem.
The pay negotiators are so far removed from a band 1/2/3 regional airport that they do not realise/understand how things work in the sticks.
I am sure EFD training for instance at PC was carried out with loads of money thrown at it in the way of 'super AAVA's' etc and is still not fit for purpose. EFPS however was not fit, is still not fit for purpose in approach, but we are stuck with it. The training was a joke, totally under resourced with no extra cash and more importantly no spare staff.
We had absoultely no Union backing and had to train whilst on standby for a position or do without FIN. Only Nats HF saved us by insisting we needed a break before going from electronic strips back to paper again. Safety survey?
Sorry to waffle but this is what it is like in the regions. Last time we had WP negotiations the union again sent someone to help us. He was from Swanwick and again was as much use as Fernando Torres and stated he didn't understand airport working's. Feckin' pointless
We all pay subs for representation but the Prospect atcos branch hierachy is made up of too many NERL controllers or if not guys from the higher band airports i.e. London.
What would be fairer is for a pay negotiating team made up of equal representations from all bands so no one has a majority. It always seems as corrupt as MP's voting for their own pay deal as management know they just have to please Swanwick, PC and possibly Heathrow.
To clarfiy, I have no ill feelings for my NERL colleagues, just Prospect for continually putting us in this situation by lining their own pockets and recommending deals that screw the minnows.
This is a totally unfair, divisive proposal that should not have been even negotiated never mind presented around units by Prospect in the forthcoming roadshows. If management will not budge then fine. Call the bluff, threaten industrial action and watch NSL cave in as we lose contracts and the proposed Spanish deal. Can you imagine LHR closed for even an hour?
The Union think that they have been really clever as they think that the safety surveys will mean that we will not have to carry out Met whilst plugged in which is our main concern. Bulls*t
And herein lies the problem.
The pay negotiators are so far removed from a band 1/2/3 regional airport that they do not realise/understand how things work in the sticks.
I am sure EFD training for instance at PC was carried out with loads of money thrown at it in the way of 'super AAVA's' etc and is still not fit for purpose. EFPS however was not fit, is still not fit for purpose in approach, but we are stuck with it. The training was a joke, totally under resourced with no extra cash and more importantly no spare staff.
We had absoultely no Union backing and had to train whilst on standby for a position or do without FIN. Only Nats HF saved us by insisting we needed a break before going from electronic strips back to paper again. Safety survey?
Sorry to waffle but this is what it is like in the regions. Last time we had WP negotiations the union again sent someone to help us. He was from Swanwick and again was as much use as Fernando Torres and stated he didn't understand airport working's. Feckin' pointless
We all pay subs for representation but the Prospect atcos branch hierachy is made up of too many NERL controllers or if not guys from the higher band airports i.e. London.
What would be fairer is for a pay negotiating team made up of equal representations from all bands so no one has a majority. It always seems as corrupt as MP's voting for their own pay deal as management know they just have to please Swanwick, PC and possibly Heathrow.
To clarfiy, I have no ill feelings for my NERL colleagues, just Prospect for continually putting us in this situation by lining their own pockets and recommending deals that screw the minnows.
This is a totally unfair, divisive proposal that should not have been even negotiated never mind presented around units by Prospect in the forthcoming roadshows. If management will not budge then fine. Call the bluff, threaten industrial action and watch NSL cave in as we lose contracts and the proposed Spanish deal. Can you imagine LHR closed for even an hour?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Down South
Age: 53
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all of us who are at NSL units which 'aren't affected' will be voting yes. I'm firmly in the no camp, for 2 reasons...(1) It's not a fair deal and (2) Just because we aren't affected now we are still setting ourselves up to be affected whenever management snap their fingers.
If anyone at the 3 'unaffected' units thinks they are ok, think again. It's only a matter of time. We may not be affected this year, but we are voting yes for sometime in the future and my guess is it will be sometime soon....
If anyone at the 3 'unaffected' units thinks they are ok, think again. It's only a matter of time. We may not be affected this year, but we are voting yes for sometime in the future and my guess is it will be sometime soon....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Deakin's Dungeon
Age: 16
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
notatthecollege - if rumour is to be believed, there will be an all singing all dancing son of SAMOS in place before long, if that's the case, then the "3 unaffected units" don't have anything to worry about, it'll be free money to them.
I would dearly love it to be a 'no' vote from NSL on this, but I fear it won't be. For the record, I'm a 'no'.
I would dearly love it to be a 'no' vote from NSL on this, but I fear it won't be. For the record, I'm a 'no'.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Union are supposed to be looking after all, not just the bigger units and preventing any divisive pay offers. If this offer suits NERL,the majority, at the expense of NSL then the Union have supposedly passed mandates to prevent this.
The scandal is that they do not seem to have done this and are now trailing around the airports to sell it.
And again the guys selling it will be either NERL controllers or London ATCO2's who will see little effect.
The percentage pay is a fair offer in my eyes, just drop the MET and I will sign up.
The scandal is that they do not seem to have done this and are now trailing around the airports to sell it.
And again the guys selling it will be either NERL controllers or London ATCO2's who will see little effect.
The percentage pay is a fair offer in my eyes, just drop the MET and I will sign up.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And again the guys selling it will be either NERL controllers or London ATCO2's who will see little effect.
If you don't want to 'buy' it, then don't. Doesn't matter who tries to 'sell' it.
If you are affected by the issue then do some of your own homework (if you don't already understand the implications of SAMOS, which I would suspect is highly unlikely).
Seems to me from a post by The Fat Controller (post 2062) that those giving the briefing aren't exactly au faix with SAMOS. If those giving the briefings don't understand the implications then that is a major failing by the Union, however it is not an excuse for those receiving the briefings not to get an understanding fr0m elsewhere.
We ae supposed to be ATCOs, people who are paid to think for themselves. People have been sucker punched by union briefings before and followed like sheep. Do your own homework, then vote the way you feel is right. It is a simple deal, why anyone needs a 'briefing' to explain it is beyond me... it is a selling exercise, nothing more, nothing less.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a simple deal, why anyone needs a 'briefing' to explain it is beyond me... it is a selling exercise, nothing more, nothing less.
We are ATCO's able to think for ourselves. We can make decisions. I have made MY decision.
That'll be a no then.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I Wish I Knew
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, having had a read through the draft agreement I have to say my gut feeling has been more than confirmed. There is nothing in there that gives me any confidence whatsoever that ATCO's will be protected by it.
In my experience the hazard analysis process is so blatantly skewed to give the (management) desired outcomes that it's a total farce. This is the only process in the proposal that is supposed to guarantee the safety of taking on all of the ATSA tasks.
In the past I've been repeatedly pressured (unsuccessfully) to agree to "mitigations" to allow a procedure which I've felt was fundamentally wrong, and I've seen management picking & choosing who to involve in the hazard analysis process so as to avoid those who might be likely to raise difficult issues.
Why should I have any reason to think that the hazard analysis for taking on the ATSA tasks will be any different?
The draft agreement has holes in it big enough to drive a bus through, and anyone who thinks management isn't planning to do exactly that needs to get a reality check.
It already includes a classic contradiction where in one part it says that
"Met observations are ancillary to the core operational task, and must not detract from that task."
followed by the very next paragraph that says
"A judgement will be made at the time whether to delay a met observation due to traffic, or to delay traffic in order to complete a met observation."
There's only one sensible way to vote on this deal & it's a big fat NO on the basis of the ATSA residual tasks issue alone. Never mind that there are so many other reasons why I don't think it's a good offer.
Anyone who thinks that piling extra administrative tasks onto tower controllers is a clever idea needs to read this:
Comair Flight 191 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This part in particular:
"In April 2007, the NTSB made four further recommendations, three measures to avoid fatigue affecting the performance of air traffic controllers, and one to prevent controllers from carrying out non-essential administrative tasks while aircraft are taxiing under their control"
In my experience the hazard analysis process is so blatantly skewed to give the (management) desired outcomes that it's a total farce. This is the only process in the proposal that is supposed to guarantee the safety of taking on all of the ATSA tasks.
In the past I've been repeatedly pressured (unsuccessfully) to agree to "mitigations" to allow a procedure which I've felt was fundamentally wrong, and I've seen management picking & choosing who to involve in the hazard analysis process so as to avoid those who might be likely to raise difficult issues.
Why should I have any reason to think that the hazard analysis for taking on the ATSA tasks will be any different?
The draft agreement has holes in it big enough to drive a bus through, and anyone who thinks management isn't planning to do exactly that needs to get a reality check.
It already includes a classic contradiction where in one part it says that
"Met observations are ancillary to the core operational task, and must not detract from that task."
followed by the very next paragraph that says
"A judgement will be made at the time whether to delay a met observation due to traffic, or to delay traffic in order to complete a met observation."
There's only one sensible way to vote on this deal & it's a big fat NO on the basis of the ATSA residual tasks issue alone. Never mind that there are so many other reasons why I don't think it's a good offer.
Anyone who thinks that piling extra administrative tasks onto tower controllers is a clever idea needs to read this:
Comair Flight 191 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This part in particular:
"In April 2007, the NTSB made four further recommendations, three measures to avoid fatigue affecting the performance of air traffic controllers, and one to prevent controllers from carrying out non-essential administrative tasks while aircraft are taxiing under their control"
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In the middle
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't agree more! Lets trim down some of the managerial 'Non-essentials', and leave the core workers to get on with the job safely, whilst still earning the company a heathy profit!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know there's a smiley there but comments like that still annoy me.
If there was no CTC with the back up staff there you, assuming you are a controller, would not be able to carry out your job.
We need to get away from this atcos are everything mind set which Prospect for its part with this pay deal is promoting.
Next time you have a technical problem with your VCCS or radar, don't call for the engineering back up, try fixing it yourself
I get more and more pissed off every day with this divisive pay deal, some of my colleagues and my union.
If there was no CTC with the back up staff there you, assuming you are a controller, would not be able to carry out your job.
We need to get away from this atcos are everything mind set which Prospect for its part with this pay deal is promoting.
Next time you have a technical problem with your VCCS or radar, don't call for the engineering back up, try fixing it yourself
I get more and more pissed off every day with this divisive pay deal, some of my colleagues and my union.
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next time you have a technical problem with your VCCS or radar, don't call for the engineering back up, try fixing it yourself