View Poll Results: My reaction to the NATS pay proposal is:
Great !! Well done to NATS for finding money for a small, responsible award.
6
2.55%
Times are hard, so this is the best we could have hoped for.
21
8.94%
I'm not happy, but we must push for a better award next year.
16
6.81%
I'm totally opposed to this so-called rise. Given a vote, I'd favour industrial action.
192
81.70%
Voters: 235. This poll is closed
NATS pay offer
NATS pay offer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help wondering whether the votes cast for the 'industrial action' option aren't tongue in cheek.
The offer is no worse than previous years and as ever it's not the most important thing. The danger of SirCo buying part of NATS, and the general lack of investment and progress are more worrying than the annual pay round.
Keeping powder dry etc etc apart, we have never 'gone out' before over the odd half percent and whatever people think, 9/11 DID hit the avaition community and NATS hard.
Probably NATS should not be in the private sector in the first place but presumably the powder was wet at the time so it happened!
Perhaps the time has come to separate ATCO pay from the rest of NATS, don't know, but don't get into the destructive realms of industrial action and taking sides against colleagues over this. Trust me, I've been there, it's not good.....and the damage lasts for ever!
(No smilies this is serious)
The offer is no worse than previous years and as ever it's not the most important thing. The danger of SirCo buying part of NATS, and the general lack of investment and progress are more worrying than the annual pay round.
Keeping powder dry etc etc apart, we have never 'gone out' before over the odd half percent and whatever people think, 9/11 DID hit the avaition community and NATS hard.
Probably NATS should not be in the private sector in the first place but presumably the powder was wet at the time so it happened!
Perhaps the time has come to separate ATCO pay from the rest of NATS, don't know, but don't get into the destructive realms of industrial action and taking sides against colleagues over this. Trust me, I've been there, it's not good.....and the damage lasts for ever!
(No smilies this is serious)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: london
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sector8
C'mon, to quote the phrase, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS.
Anyone who has any respect for themselves and their job will have researched the terms and conditions of fellow colleagues in Europe.
This is not an issue over the odd half of one percent.
This is about the systematic erosion of our pay scale and conditions and the constant promise of "We'll hit them next year with a whopping demand."
I'll hide behind the parapet after saying this and say that part of the problem has been caused by our representation which has constantly told us to keep our gunpowder dry. Like lemmings, we have followed, much to the delight of NATS management.
New Management have gone into these negotiations knowing we have a reputation for letting pay enhancement opportunities pass us by.
Serco is NOT a danger. There is no question that we have inherited the lesser of 2 evils. Have no doubt SERCO, this will NOT provide you with a back door entry to NATS; the staff will simply not allow that to happen, no matter how bad it seems now.
With respect, I would say that now is THE most important time for us to stand up for what we believe we are worth; anything less, and we are starting a precedent for negotiations and the pay and welfare of all our colleagues in the future.
STAND FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE WORTH AND BE COUNTED.
Please please vote with your convictions in 160's poll.
C'mon, to quote the phrase, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS.
Anyone who has any respect for themselves and their job will have researched the terms and conditions of fellow colleagues in Europe.
This is not an issue over the odd half of one percent.
This is about the systematic erosion of our pay scale and conditions and the constant promise of "We'll hit them next year with a whopping demand."
I'll hide behind the parapet after saying this and say that part of the problem has been caused by our representation which has constantly told us to keep our gunpowder dry. Like lemmings, we have followed, much to the delight of NATS management.
New Management have gone into these negotiations knowing we have a reputation for letting pay enhancement opportunities pass us by.
Serco is NOT a danger. There is no question that we have inherited the lesser of 2 evils. Have no doubt SERCO, this will NOT provide you with a back door entry to NATS; the staff will simply not allow that to happen, no matter how bad it seems now.
With respect, I would say that now is THE most important time for us to stand up for what we believe we are worth; anything less, and we are starting a precedent for negotiations and the pay and welfare of all our colleagues in the future.
STAND FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE WORTH AND BE COUNTED.
Please please vote with your convictions in 160's poll.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All...
I like to think that I have moderate views when it comes to pay and conditions, and admittedly fairly strong ones when it comes to technical matters
HOWEVER....
Enough is enough. Our Pay as professionals has been systematically eroded over the past few years and NOW is the time to stop the rot.
This pay increase is to cover the NEXT two years, not the last. What has happened then is not relevant. We are being paid for the hard work we will have to do in the future, not the past.
If this comes to industrial action I would suggest that the cutting of OJTI, LCE and other additional duties is not the way to go. We need to ensure that the management see this as a SERIOUS dispute in which we intend to get SERIOUS results. The quickest way to achieve that is shutting down each unit on a random basis. (I think you have to give a certain amount of warning, but lets make it the MINIMUM).
Is your future worth ONE days pay? I think so.
The costs to the airlines would be MASSIVE and certainly far greater than our paltry pay claim. Since we are supposed to be operating in the big, bad, commercial world giving us a rise would make ECONOMIC sense.
I note elsewhere that the cost of ONE B744 is £120m, and BA has more than a few. What would be the cost of meeting our pay claim? Peanuts in comparison. More importantly, what would be the costs in NOT MEETING it?
Go Figure
BEX
I like to think that I have moderate views when it comes to pay and conditions, and admittedly fairly strong ones when it comes to technical matters
HOWEVER....
Enough is enough. Our Pay as professionals has been systematically eroded over the past few years and NOW is the time to stop the rot.
This pay increase is to cover the NEXT two years, not the last. What has happened then is not relevant. We are being paid for the hard work we will have to do in the future, not the past.
If this comes to industrial action I would suggest that the cutting of OJTI, LCE and other additional duties is not the way to go. We need to ensure that the management see this as a SERIOUS dispute in which we intend to get SERIOUS results. The quickest way to achieve that is shutting down each unit on a random basis. (I think you have to give a certain amount of warning, but lets make it the MINIMUM).
Is your future worth ONE days pay? I think so.
The costs to the airlines would be MASSIVE and certainly far greater than our paltry pay claim. Since we are supposed to be operating in the big, bad, commercial world giving us a rise would make ECONOMIC sense.
I note elsewhere that the cost of ONE B744 is £120m, and BA has more than a few. What would be the cost of meeting our pay claim? Peanuts in comparison. More importantly, what would be the costs in NOT MEETING it?
Go Figure
BEX
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South east
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sector8dear
I'm with you on this one, seems pretty fair to me, after all we are paid pretty well anyway (compared to joe public).
We should be grateful, look at the poor nurses and teachers.
Regards
Diggo
I'm with you on this one, seems pretty fair to me, after all we are paid pretty well anyway (compared to joe public).
We should be grateful, look at the poor nurses and teachers.
Regards
Diggo
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: london
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diggo
Such a broad sweeping statement.
Please tell us all exactly what jobs and professions you would put yourself alongside in comparison.
Oh the poor nurses and teachers; are you a reporter for the Mirror ??
If you claim to be an ATCO and are satisfied with your and pay and conditions, please do enlighten us all as to why; from here, I see my unit to be almost unanimously and resolutely against this pay cut.
Be the ostrich; keep your head in the sand and your arse exposed to the shafting they are proposing. I, for one, find it too painful to accept.
Am I in a minority ??? I think not.
Such a broad sweeping statement.
Please tell us all exactly what jobs and professions you would put yourself alongside in comparison.
Oh the poor nurses and teachers; are you a reporter for the Mirror ??
If you claim to be an ATCO and are satisfied with your and pay and conditions, please do enlighten us all as to why; from here, I see my unit to be almost unanimously and resolutely against this pay cut.
Be the ostrich; keep your head in the sand and your arse exposed to the shafting they are proposing. I, for one, find it too painful to accept.
Am I in a minority ??? I think not.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bermuda Shorts and Cessna Caravans
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diggo, I have serious doubts that you are an ATCO.
Why am I rejecting this deal ??
Because, after 14 years at NATS, my partner who is a CSD for the world's favourite, works less hours than me (although she is away more often than I would like) , and consistently brings home more than me.
Even she is bemused by this fact.
Despite 9/11, I am working harder, handling more aircraft, working busier sectors and doing far more with "goodwill" than I would like.
I am not greedy. However, I look around and see that my pay, my conditions and my lifestyle have gradually been eroded, despite climbing the scale.
Raffling hits the nail on the head; it all depends on what you compare the ATCO scale to. I am not a taxi driver, I am not a teacher (although I am an underpaid OJTI), I am not a bin man.
They do not compare themselves to my profession, so why should I lower my standards, my expectations, and compare myself to them ?
My neighbours, my friends, my family are solicitors, pilots, doctors, IT specialists. Once upon a time, I was on the same tier as them; these days, I am the very poor relation.
So please, if you are going to compare job for job, atleast compare more pertinent examples.
For the record, I voted with the majority on this. I have never, ever voted for industrial action before, but by God, this time I certainly will.
160
Why am I rejecting this deal ??
Because, after 14 years at NATS, my partner who is a CSD for the world's favourite, works less hours than me (although she is away more often than I would like) , and consistently brings home more than me.
Even she is bemused by this fact.
Despite 9/11, I am working harder, handling more aircraft, working busier sectors and doing far more with "goodwill" than I would like.
I am not greedy. However, I look around and see that my pay, my conditions and my lifestyle have gradually been eroded, despite climbing the scale.
Raffling hits the nail on the head; it all depends on what you compare the ATCO scale to. I am not a taxi driver, I am not a teacher (although I am an underpaid OJTI), I am not a bin man.
They do not compare themselves to my profession, so why should I lower my standards, my expectations, and compare myself to them ?
My neighbours, my friends, my family are solicitors, pilots, doctors, IT specialists. Once upon a time, I was on the same tier as them; these days, I am the very poor relation.
So please, if you are going to compare job for job, atleast compare more pertinent examples.
For the record, I voted with the majority on this. I have never, ever voted for industrial action before, but by God, this time I certainly will.
160
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: home
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just to add some fuel to the fire, some US Congress quotes:
ATC Pay Raises Eyebrows
A number of congressional eyebrows went up markedly during DOT inspector general Kenneth Mead’s testimony on runway incursions when it was revealed that an air traffic controller in the Kansas City area is making $174,000 a year under the five-year contract that the FAA signed with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association in 1998.
“That’s a better job than this one,” quipped Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), the chairman of the transportation appropriations subcommittee, who makes about $145,100 a year in base salary. It also was pointed out that it far exceeds the $133,700 pay of members of the senior executive service, which are the highly placed, non-appointed department heads and professional researchers such as FAA associate administrators.
Pressed by Rogers on the controller’s salary breakdown, Mead explained that the individual’s base salary is $125,000, with the remainder made up of overtime and incentive pay, as well as night and Sunday differentials.
"According to the panel, the average controller will be paid $135,000 in the coming year, and that equates to 93 percent of what FAA Administrator Jane Garvey is paid. Next year, more than 9,500 controllers will have salaries exceeding $100,000."
from:
http://www.ainonline.com/Departments...hington01.html
ATC Pay Raises Eyebrows
A number of congressional eyebrows went up markedly during DOT inspector general Kenneth Mead’s testimony on runway incursions when it was revealed that an air traffic controller in the Kansas City area is making $174,000 a year under the five-year contract that the FAA signed with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association in 1998.
“That’s a better job than this one,” quipped Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), the chairman of the transportation appropriations subcommittee, who makes about $145,100 a year in base salary. It also was pointed out that it far exceeds the $133,700 pay of members of the senior executive service, which are the highly placed, non-appointed department heads and professional researchers such as FAA associate administrators.
Pressed by Rogers on the controller’s salary breakdown, Mead explained that the individual’s base salary is $125,000, with the remainder made up of overtime and incentive pay, as well as night and Sunday differentials.
"According to the panel, the average controller will be paid $135,000 in the coming year, and that equates to 93 percent of what FAA Administrator Jane Garvey is paid. Next year, more than 9,500 controllers will have salaries exceeding $100,000."
from:
http://www.ainonline.com/Departments...hington01.html
Last edited by alloneword; 20th Apr 2002 at 23:07.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, those pay numbers are a bit high for an average. The $125,000 base pay that they are quoting is on the HIGH side. I work at an ATC-12 facility ( that's the highest that we have in the US right now. ) the likes of DFW, ORD, ATL etc... I transitioned at the step 9 level (very high seniority ) of which there were only 10 steps. After four years of pay reclass, I now make $125,000 as a base pay. It is a very good salary, but probably only about 10% of our facilities are at the ATC 12 level, and of those controllers, only about 15% to 20% are at my seniority level. Most facilities make less and quite a bit less as most towers and approach controls are not nearly as busy (yes we get paid by the aircraft <G>).
There are some facilities and controllers that they quoted who are always short staffed and are ATC 12 facilities. These facilities have a few senior controllers who work a LOT of overtime. Those are the ones who are making the BIG BUCKS! Are they earning it working six day weeks? You bet they are and there are a lot of folks who are getting tired doing it. But I guess that we are going to get a break. The FAA is way over budget due to the money going out for security issues. We have been told that there is not any money left for overtime per se... It's going to be an interesting summer...
regards
There are some facilities and controllers that they quoted who are always short staffed and are ATC 12 facilities. These facilities have a few senior controllers who work a LOT of overtime. Those are the ones who are making the BIG BUCKS! Are they earning it working six day weeks? You bet they are and there are a lot of folks who are getting tired doing it. But I guess that we are going to get a break. The FAA is way over budget due to the money going out for security issues. We have been told that there is not any money left for overtime per se... It's going to be an interesting summer...
regards
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bermuda Shorts and Cessna Caravans
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, if the poll up to now isn't a clear, simple message to Prospect and NATS management, I don't know what is.
If the people who voted for number 1 really are NATS ATCOs, I'd be intrigued and fascinated to read why they chose to vote that way; but that would negate the anonymity of the poll
160
If the people who voted for number 1 really are NATS ATCOs, I'd be intrigued and fascinated to read why they chose to vote that way; but that would negate the anonymity of the poll
160
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: London
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely now is the best time to push for a better and fairer pay rise!
All the ops staff are always being praised for helping out and coping when things go wrong, by the management, so now is the time to show how much they REALLY do appreciate the staff.
As for the pay being reasonable already, whether you want to compare yourself to other jobs or not, you may be surprised to find that ops staff are not that well paid in comparison.
Also lets not forget, the pay deal is for 2 years, so theoretically the traffic levels could increase dramatically, but the unions would not be able to negotiate until a specified time in 2004.
All the ops staff are always being praised for helping out and coping when things go wrong, by the management, so now is the time to show how much they REALLY do appreciate the staff.
As for the pay being reasonable already, whether you want to compare yourself to other jobs or not, you may be surprised to find that ops staff are not that well paid in comparison.
Also lets not forget, the pay deal is for 2 years, so theoretically the traffic levels could increase dramatically, but the unions would not be able to negotiate until a specified time in 2004.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A small village just a wee way away
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confusion reigns...
There are many problems with a two year pay deal, not least Contact London's point re. traffic increasing above and beyond pay.
I am sure that every one in NATS can understand the financial pressures which the company, through no fault of its own (New Labour must bear the brunt of the blame) now finds itself with.
However, put aside all beautiful feelings of loyalty for one second and consider this:
2.2% this year, with inflation already at 2.3% equals a 0.1% pay cut in real terms.
Next year, government forcasts are for inflation to be around 2.4%, if not a little higher. That reduces a seemingly favourable pay rise from 3.7% to 1.3%. Knock off 1% for your increased Income Tax, sorry National Insurance (because they are oh so different aren't they President Blair?!) and you are left with a 0.3% pay rise in 2003.
Not so attractive. Consider also that whilst inflation may be 2.3%, some goods such as petrol, utility bills and Council Tax all have a habit of increasing faster than the base rate of inflation.
Oh! and any increase in interest rates, or any activity on the anti-terrorist missions being brokered by Presidents Bush and Blair could see inflation rocketing.
Yes, the deal is far, far better than we were ever led to believe that we might be given; a good bit of spin doctoring by someone, perhaps?
Just the thoughts of a typical ATCO...
Last edited by Standard Speeds; 23rd Apr 2002 at 15:50.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In happier times (i.e. pre- privatisation) I would have perhaps settled for roughly whats on offer, as I'd have the companies best interests at heart.
However, since privitisation it has become obvious that 'they' don't give a s*i* about me, so I'd like to be able to return the favour
Roll on one day rolling strikes.....
Maybe I'll be calmer tomorrow.......then again, maybe not
However, since privitisation it has become obvious that 'they' don't give a s*i* about me, so I'd like to be able to return the favour
Roll on one day rolling strikes.....
Maybe I'll be calmer tomorrow.......then again, maybe not
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't affect the anonymity I believe, but at least 2 of those who voted for No.1 are (assuming you believe their profiles and previous stances on NATS issues) not even employed by the company. 
I'm sure we can start a new one in the NATS Forum when people are on board without the usual suspects who always declare they have no interest in NATS pitching in on every NATS topic under the sun
I'm sure we can start a new one in the NATS Forum when people are on board without the usual suspects who always declare they have no interest in NATS pitching in on every NATS topic under the sun
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ayr
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS Privatisation
Are we, NATS ATCO's being mislead by our trade union Prospect ?
During the anti privatisation campaign I clearly remember being told, at an ATCO/IPMS meeting, that we could not take strike action to demonstrate our disapproval of the proposed privatisation. This we were clearly told by the IPMS headquarters officer and by the Chair of the ATCO's branch.
Imagine how surprised I was to see, earlier this month, the Naval dockyard workers (civilian) on Clydeside on a one day strike against the proposed privatisation of the Clydeside Naval dockyards. Guess who their trade union is...PROSPECT !!!
HOW COULD THEY DO IT AND NOT US??? ARE THERE SOME COSY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MR BLAIR AND MR NOON ???
Ayrmis.
During the anti privatisation campaign I clearly remember being told, at an ATCO/IPMS meeting, that we could not take strike action to demonstrate our disapproval of the proposed privatisation. This we were clearly told by the IPMS headquarters officer and by the Chair of the ATCO's branch.
Imagine how surprised I was to see, earlier this month, the Naval dockyard workers (civilian) on Clydeside on a one day strike against the proposed privatisation of the Clydeside Naval dockyards. Guess who their trade union is...PROSPECT !!!
HOW COULD THEY DO IT AND NOT US??? ARE THERE SOME COSY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MR BLAIR AND MR NOON ???
Ayrmis.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atlantic: Glad I'm not the only one who was surprised to see others do what we were told/advised we could not.
Standard Speed: Looking again at the figures from management it seems unclear as to what year 2 is likely to be -
"the November 2002 RPI + 1%; or 3.7%. The November 2002 RPI used would be either the underlying or headline rate (whichever is higher) as published in December 2002"
I read that to mean that if the headline rate is 1.4% and the underlying rate 2.4% then our settlement will be either 3.4% (larger RPI + 1%) or 3.7%.
No prizes for guessing which "or" will be awarded then!
Is it that the 3.7% should be regarded as a maximum? Can anyone (esp. IPMS reps) enlighten me?
Could we be looking at 2.2% this and not exceeding 3.7% next?
Standard Speed: Looking again at the figures from management it seems unclear as to what year 2 is likely to be -
"the November 2002 RPI + 1%; or 3.7%. The November 2002 RPI used would be either the underlying or headline rate (whichever is higher) as published in December 2002"
I read that to mean that if the headline rate is 1.4% and the underlying rate 2.4% then our settlement will be either 3.4% (larger RPI + 1%) or 3.7%.
No prizes for guessing which "or" will be awarded then!
Is it that the 3.7% should be regarded as a maximum? Can anyone (esp. IPMS reps) enlighten me?
Could we be looking at 2.2% this and not exceeding 3.7% next?