NATS ageism ruling
. Pilot doubt it. "not to. taxing at my age."
I retired as a controller at 60 +; I could have stayed on as long as I passed the medical and LCE checks, and I was quite happy I was retaining competency. Gaining competency at this age is another matter, although I was able to do it easily on two new sectors which were opened due to having 34 years of experience behind me.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolute lunacy. If an employer doesn't feel an investment is likely to lead to an adequate return, why on earth should they be made to make that investment?
It may well be the case that you will struggle to do the job if you start older than 35 but NATS has so far failed to prove that point probably because it can't. The problem with any published age limit is the 34 versus 36 argument put forward by GLA-LAX for which reason almost any tribunal is going to reject a fixed limit as arbitary.
The simplest thing to do is to remove the limit and see what happens. If those over 35 apply we'll get to see how well they fare and gather some evidence to see whether or not the age limit was justified.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it, whatever your views on the subject, this is another monumental NATS cock up. To have an on-line recruitment system that actually tells people they are not suitable on the basis of age, given the legislation, is just asking for trouble.
There is plenty of scope in the recruitment process to reject people legally.
There is plenty of scope in the recruitment process to reject people legally.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 51
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following this thread and a similar one on NATSNET as i've just started the college at the age of 35. Similarily, a fair percentage of my fellow students are above the age of 30. I feel i've passed all the assessments, medical and interviews on merit and that i have a lot to offer the ATC community in life experience. It is a challenge, but i'm hoping for the support of validated atco's, as are my colleagues, not the impression that we're too old to do the job.
You're input in the debate is most welcome. I would agree though that NATS is a business and as such maximum return on their investment is desirable. However, a point was made that a young trained atco can still leave the company for greener pastures. Surely this is the risk a company takes when training new staff be them young or old?
You're input in the debate is most welcome. I would agree though that NATS is a business and as such maximum return on their investment is desirable. However, a point was made that a young trained atco can still leave the company for greener pastures. Surely this is the risk a company takes when training new staff be them young or old?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a challenge, but i'm hoping for the support of validated atco's, as are my colleagues, not the impression that we're too old to do the job.
It comes down to the basic cost of an ATCO. I heard it costs somewhere in the region of £250K to train one from starting at the college to validation. If they are recruited at 50 after taking 3 years to get vaild then you might get 5/6 years before they retire, so that costs the company £50K ish a year of useful work plus wages, hardly the most attractive course of action for a company that bleats on about how poor it is.
I'm not a NATS lackey and don't agree with the way they are going on about being short of money and the economic downturn etc etc, but we have to act like a business. I can't think of another company that pays you to be a drain on resources for 3 years before you start contributing, it makes sense that you can potentially work for them for the longest possible amount of time.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However i do think that there needs to be an age limit on new recruits.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very interesting. Anybody else see the possibility of employment 'bonds' past validation over the horizon?
I remember being pretty surprised on application to learn that should I validate I could effectively hand in my resignation the next day and leave with a (once validated) license. Five years valid with said license and I'm still hanging around though - apart from the Middle East (thanks, but no thanks) where could I earn more money, or receive better benefits? Let's not get too much into a discussion on human nature but money will always the best way to keep workers if they're in demand/short supply... (hint hint, nudge nudge, ongoing negotiations, say no more, say no more).
How do other organisations deal with this problem? Airlines are usually a good comparison for our workforce; or the RAF perhaps, and other military applicants?
I remember being pretty surprised on application to learn that should I validate I could effectively hand in my resignation the next day and leave with a (once validated) license. Five years valid with said license and I'm still hanging around though - apart from the Middle East (thanks, but no thanks) where could I earn more money, or receive better benefits? Let's not get too much into a discussion on human nature but money will always the best way to keep workers if they're in demand/short supply... (hint hint, nudge nudge, ongoing negotiations, say no more, say no more).
How do other organisations deal with this problem? Airlines are usually a good comparison for our workforce; or the RAF perhaps, and other military applicants?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what should it be and how do you overcome the "why does one extra year make a difference" question ?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GLA-LAX stated that "after expending considerable amounts of time and taxpayers’ money on a new set-up"
NATS does not use tax payers money, the money comes from the Travelling public.
NATS does not use tax payers money, the money comes from the Travelling public.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could be 40 or it could be 50 depending on if NATS thinks it is cost effective.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eglnyt
Unfortunately (or not) the basic recruitment tests are not really affected by age - they are designed to see if a subjects brain works in a particular way.
Whether the brain is good spatially or not etc is something that to a huge extent, is determined at birth. The tests are designed not to be finished in the time limit given - to add a bit of pressure (in part to check accuracy under duress), and because some of the tests could be done by anyne, given unlimited time.
The age part comes into play when you send someone to the college and they have to assimilate new information everyday - and apply it practically. This becomes even more of an issue at a unit.
NATS, quite rightly, tries to recruit people that can potentially validate at any of its units.
It is a known fact, not just in ATC but in any walk of life, that as age increases, the ability to learn new, complicated things decreases.
It is a very difficult thing to say exactly what age that starts to take effect. You can be more specific when you tie it to specific tasks, such as ATCO training for example, but the age will still vary from individual to individual.
So should NATS be forced to train people (and pay them whilst doing so), at extreme ages??
Do you know how long it takes to chop someone from live training in todays tree-hugging environment, even if it is 100% the correct course of action?
Do you think that if the individual in this report was employed by NATS, they would not take every issue that cropped up as ageism?
The UK is fast becoming a claim-culture like the USA. A cynic would say that some people actively go on the lookout for cases such as this to try to gain something for nothing.
If a 40, 50 or 60 year old ended up at the unit I work at, they would get exactly the same treatment - there would be no discrimination... if you're good enough, you're good enough. But NATS should have a policy in place - it is a safety orientated business first and foremost (for those who may forget the fact), and it has business interests (foisted on it by Labour), to take care of.
Unfortunately (or not) the basic recruitment tests are not really affected by age - they are designed to see if a subjects brain works in a particular way.
Whether the brain is good spatially or not etc is something that to a huge extent, is determined at birth. The tests are designed not to be finished in the time limit given - to add a bit of pressure (in part to check accuracy under duress), and because some of the tests could be done by anyne, given unlimited time.
The age part comes into play when you send someone to the college and they have to assimilate new information everyday - and apply it practically. This becomes even more of an issue at a unit.
NATS, quite rightly, tries to recruit people that can potentially validate at any of its units.
It is a known fact, not just in ATC but in any walk of life, that as age increases, the ability to learn new, complicated things decreases.
It is a very difficult thing to say exactly what age that starts to take effect. You can be more specific when you tie it to specific tasks, such as ATCO training for example, but the age will still vary from individual to individual.
So should NATS be forced to train people (and pay them whilst doing so), at extreme ages??
Do you know how long it takes to chop someone from live training in todays tree-hugging environment, even if it is 100% the correct course of action?
Do you think that if the individual in this report was employed by NATS, they would not take every issue that cropped up as ageism?
The UK is fast becoming a claim-culture like the USA. A cynic would say that some people actively go on the lookout for cases such as this to try to gain something for nothing.
If a 40, 50 or 60 year old ended up at the unit I work at, they would get exactly the same treatment - there would be no discrimination... if you're good enough, you're good enough. But NATS should have a policy in place - it is a safety orientated business first and foremost (for those who may forget the fact), and it has business interests (foisted on it by Labour), to take care of.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's no good explaining to me why the legislation is bad. I know the legislation is bad. Quite apart from anything it robbed me of some pension benefits and a very nice redundancy agreement. It is however the legislation within which NATS has to work and you would have expected HR and Legal Department to know that.
All the things you say are probably right they just aren't allowed to form any part of the decision. You can rule out people on ability but not age. NATS assumed it could play the safety card and get away with it without being challenged, unfortunately it was. It can still play the safety card as long as it applies to the likely future performance of each individual and doesn't just use an arbitary age limit.
All the things you say are probably right they just aren't allowed to form any part of the decision. You can rule out people on ability but not age. NATS assumed it could play the safety card and get away with it without being challenged, unfortunately it was. It can still play the safety card as long as it applies to the likely future performance of each individual and doesn't just use an arbitary age limit.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eglnyt,
And I'm sure they did (hence the period immediately prior to the legislation's introduction where there was no age limit), but IMHO I also think that they believed they had enough independent research to back up their argument for an exception. Evidently the tribunal decided otherwise.
It is however the legislation within which NATS has to work and you would have expected HR and Legal Department to know that.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: swanwick
Age: 43
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
legislation
One of the things NATS, both NERL and NSL must consider when deciding and formulating any of it's policies, guidelines or rules with regards to emloyment, employee relations and decisions regarding the former is legislation.
There are many aspects of NATS edicts which are not legally tested which, if they were, may be proved to be either not lawful or untenable in a court of law.
This has proved to be just one example, others may (I stress may) be the same. These may include;
It's mobile grade policy and it's application,
It's known habit of restricting postings out of certain units'
The filling of vacancies with a dubious regard for the correct procedure (the Course Manager positions at the college have been seen by some as a 'done deal' before the VN's were sent out),
Its habit of changing terms of posting, position or timescales after candidates have been succesful at VN or assessment (and been notified as such) to suit the prevalent 'business need',
The controversial banding system.
All of these 'policies' (whilst pursued by the upper echelons) which are used on an everyday basis throughout NATS may not actually be lawful. Decisions taken on an arbitrary basis by everyday managers are often moaned about but are rarely challenged. There is a possibility (as has been proven in this case) that these decisions, if challenged in a court of law, may indeed be unlawful and unusable.
Who's to say that the examples above, if challenged, may be proven to be unlawful?
If this were to be the case, where does that leave NATS and the aftermath of their decision making?
Where would it leave those affected by, for example, the mobile grade (those undergoing a forced move) 'clause' or those affected byt the banding issues?
I would suggest that NATS needs to have a very serious rethink and re-assessment of these policies to ensure that they are in fact compliant with both UK and European law and not just assume because 'we say so' that they are before they are either;
Legally challenged or
Subjected to a court case by a (or many) disgruntled employees.
NATS are not above the law, if they believe they are then this well and truly has been a very timely wake up call to all of the decision makers within the company who may be showing a disregard for legislation when
making arbitrary decisions regarding employees.
It may also serve as encouragement for those who feel that decisions made by NATS are not beyond legal challenge if it is felt that those decisions are dubious in a legal sense where protection of rights is sought.
There are many aspects of NATS edicts which are not legally tested which, if they were, may be proved to be either not lawful or untenable in a court of law.
This has proved to be just one example, others may (I stress may) be the same. These may include;
It's mobile grade policy and it's application,
It's known habit of restricting postings out of certain units'
The filling of vacancies with a dubious regard for the correct procedure (the Course Manager positions at the college have been seen by some as a 'done deal' before the VN's were sent out),
Its habit of changing terms of posting, position or timescales after candidates have been succesful at VN or assessment (and been notified as such) to suit the prevalent 'business need',
The controversial banding system.
All of these 'policies' (whilst pursued by the upper echelons) which are used on an everyday basis throughout NATS may not actually be lawful. Decisions taken on an arbitrary basis by everyday managers are often moaned about but are rarely challenged. There is a possibility (as has been proven in this case) that these decisions, if challenged in a court of law, may indeed be unlawful and unusable.
Who's to say that the examples above, if challenged, may be proven to be unlawful?
If this were to be the case, where does that leave NATS and the aftermath of their decision making?
Where would it leave those affected by, for example, the mobile grade (those undergoing a forced move) 'clause' or those affected byt the banding issues?
I would suggest that NATS needs to have a very serious rethink and re-assessment of these policies to ensure that they are in fact compliant with both UK and European law and not just assume because 'we say so' that they are before they are either;
Legally challenged or
Subjected to a court case by a (or many) disgruntled employees.
NATS are not above the law, if they believe they are then this well and truly has been a very timely wake up call to all of the decision makers within the company who may be showing a disregard for legislation when
making arbitrary decisions regarding employees.
It may also serve as encouragement for those who feel that decisions made by NATS are not beyond legal challenge if it is felt that those decisions are dubious in a legal sense where protection of rights is sought.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's mobile grade policy and it's application,
As to the rest well most UK legislation is almost deliberately ambiguous and the same tests of reasonable tend to apply. Most avenues of challenge are either expensive or require you to resign or be dismissed before they apply. Given the poor record of Tribunals on defending employee rights and the small amount of redress normally available it is not surprising that most people put up with it rather than resigning in order to become the test case.