NATS Pay Ballot (The only vote that counts)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Down South
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again I'm very worried. All this talk about splitting unions and the like. How long ago did the attitude of "them and us" come along? Don't we all have the same purpose in this little company of ours? To shift big lumps of tin about in the sky without denting each other. I think all us "workers", both Ops, non-ops and others need to come together at a time like this as if we are split then it makes it easier to slowly chip away at our rewards for the job in hand. Please people, please get rid of this "them and us" attitude. We are all, at the end of the day, about to be shafted together, but if we are together and as one then we stand a much better chance of getting something done about the situation.
I agree that engineers do roll over and play dead when it comes to such matters - I don't know why and wouldn't like to comment, but we need to stand up together and be counted. I'm still not sure which way I'll vote on this pay deal. What does a vote of No mean? Do we all walk out? Do we work to rule? I know what a vote of Yes means....
I agree that engineers do roll over and play dead when it comes to such matters - I don't know why and wouldn't like to comment, but we need to stand up together and be counted. I'm still not sure which way I'll vote on this pay deal. What does a vote of No mean? Do we all walk out? Do we work to rule? I know what a vote of Yes means....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really had to think about it when the ballot paper arrived this morning. If they had been offering us a one year deal at 2.2%, then start again in January (when hopefully the oceanic situation will have improved) I would have given management the benefit of the doubt and agreed. But two years - no way; I voted no.
I have to say, however, that I am unsure as to what we hope to achieve here as I can't see how we can take any practical form of industrial action. Have Prospect thought about this? I certainly hope so.
A discussion on our night shift yesterday ended when we got to the idea of a training ban. For that to be effective, it would surely have to include LCE duties. Am I prepared to (potentially) sacrifice my validations over pay? Nope. And beyond that - what, exactly? An all-out national strike? I don't think so. Rolling stoppages? Perhaps. We'd have to have at least three people in at our unit for emergency cover; do they get paid? Are they scabs? Who chooses them?
There has been a great deal of talk on this forum over the last eighteen months-or-so about keeping powder dry. I'm starting to worry about playing with fire now, for fear of blowing myself up. Melodramatic, maybe. I haven't worked for NATS for that long, so I'm prepared to go along with what is obviously a majority opinion among my more experienced colleagues. But I sure as hell hope you know what you're doing.
I have to say, however, that I am unsure as to what we hope to achieve here as I can't see how we can take any practical form of industrial action. Have Prospect thought about this? I certainly hope so.
A discussion on our night shift yesterday ended when we got to the idea of a training ban. For that to be effective, it would surely have to include LCE duties. Am I prepared to (potentially) sacrifice my validations over pay? Nope. And beyond that - what, exactly? An all-out national strike? I don't think so. Rolling stoppages? Perhaps. We'd have to have at least three people in at our unit for emergency cover; do they get paid? Are they scabs? Who chooses them?
There has been a great deal of talk on this forum over the last eighteen months-or-so about keeping powder dry. I'm starting to worry about playing with fire now, for fear of blowing myself up. Melodramatic, maybe. I haven't worked for NATS for that long, so I'm prepared to go along with what is obviously a majority opinion among my more experienced colleagues. But I sure as hell hope you know what you're doing.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't consider the big ussue here to be the 2.2 % this year but the fact that for too many years now we as ATCO's have paid with good will to bail the company out of one crisis or another.
We have operated beyond our requirements in areas such as secondary validations secondary duties - projects research etc etc. for NO extra pay often working in our own time for 'time in lieu' which we can't use because of a lack of staff.
All this in a attempt to help the company provide the service WE want to be proud of.
For years we have 'kept the powder dry' and 'waited for the big claim next year' and seen nothing to bring us back in line with the industry slipping slowly down the slope of recognition in terms of pay.
I'm sorry now Richard but my bank of good will is overdrawn - TAG stopped investing in my future pension to the tune of about 6% last year - we did not object (as it was within your rights) but now you offer me the 6% back as a pay rise - over 2 years! and expect me to be greatful. I am insulted
The bottom line is the pay burden for NATS will the the same in 2 years time as it was a year ago and WE are paying again with Good Will.
All this when NATS have just paid in excess of 60 Million in compensation and millions in legal fees for an out of court settlement with Lockhead and EDS.
We need to be brought back in line with our industry. It's bad luck that TAG have just taken over but let us also remember that it was the Governemnt that screwed us for years and they are still majority share holders - 2.2% is OK for TAG's half - where is the governments half !
We have operated beyond our requirements in areas such as secondary validations secondary duties - projects research etc etc. for NO extra pay often working in our own time for 'time in lieu' which we can't use because of a lack of staff.
All this in a attempt to help the company provide the service WE want to be proud of.
For years we have 'kept the powder dry' and 'waited for the big claim next year' and seen nothing to bring us back in line with the industry slipping slowly down the slope of recognition in terms of pay.
I'm sorry now Richard but my bank of good will is overdrawn - TAG stopped investing in my future pension to the tune of about 6% last year - we did not object (as it was within your rights) but now you offer me the 6% back as a pay rise - over 2 years! and expect me to be greatful. I am insulted
The bottom line is the pay burden for NATS will the the same in 2 years time as it was a year ago and WE are paying again with Good Will.
All this when NATS have just paid in excess of 60 Million in compensation and millions in legal fees for an out of court settlement with Lockhead and EDS.
We need to be brought back in line with our industry. It's bad luck that TAG have just taken over but let us also remember that it was the Governemnt that screwed us for years and they are still majority share holders - 2.2% is OK for TAG's half - where is the governments half !
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa del CYYZ
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear Notfunny,
You completely miss the point...........
I was not saying we should get pay related to amount of aircraft worked, but the fact is:
Traffic levels (and hence workload) have risen far ahead of reward (pay).
Why should that be acceptable, I mean if your workload had risen by around 8% a year and your pay had not......would you be happy ?
Name me any other sector of industry where the workforce would accept a year on year increase in workload of 8% with a pay rise of 3%?
Looking back at your first post in this thread, I am wondering what your motives were for posting........I mean tell the whole World you voted yes.........who cares, you won't be the only one.
Why did you feel the need to have a pop at ATCOs though?
In all threads here you will see how supportive and appreciative ATCOs are of the engineers, it is just a shame that people like you choose to pick on division rather than unity.
You obviously do not understand the arguments ATCOs have, so I'm not sure why you feel qualified to stick you oar in. You are not an ATCO, you do not have to handle the reality of operational traffic, so who on Earth do you think we are to tell us what we should settle for in the pay claim?
Have you seen ATCOs telling the engineers how to vote?
You made your choice, you capitulated.......thats up to you, but leave others alone who have higher aspirations than you do.
Oh and undercover, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however how many ATCOs have started threads here saying I am voting no, and then having a pop at the engineers?
All systems go, I agree unity is a far better option than division, however that has been taken out of our hands by the fact that the engineers branch and pcs have supported acceptance......
1261........There is no way management could afford to hold out over an ATCO strike. If fincances are as strained as management would have us believe, a one day strike would be almost enough to obliterate the company......if we went out for a sustained period it would blow the company and a fair few UK airlines out of business.........a situation that will never be allowed to happen.........when push comes to shove management will find the extra money.
A no vote is a vote to send a message to management that they cannot continue to treat us like s**t and are going to have to realise that ATCO pay must rise ahead of what it has been in the past.
You completely miss the point...........
I was not saying we should get pay related to amount of aircraft worked, but the fact is:
Traffic levels (and hence workload) have risen far ahead of reward (pay).
Why should that be acceptable, I mean if your workload had risen by around 8% a year and your pay had not......would you be happy ?
Name me any other sector of industry where the workforce would accept a year on year increase in workload of 8% with a pay rise of 3%?
Looking back at your first post in this thread, I am wondering what your motives were for posting........I mean tell the whole World you voted yes.........who cares, you won't be the only one.
Why did you feel the need to have a pop at ATCOs though?
In all threads here you will see how supportive and appreciative ATCOs are of the engineers, it is just a shame that people like you choose to pick on division rather than unity.
You obviously do not understand the arguments ATCOs have, so I'm not sure why you feel qualified to stick you oar in. You are not an ATCO, you do not have to handle the reality of operational traffic, so who on Earth do you think we are to tell us what we should settle for in the pay claim?
Have you seen ATCOs telling the engineers how to vote?
You made your choice, you capitulated.......thats up to you, but leave others alone who have higher aspirations than you do.
Oh and undercover, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however how many ATCOs have started threads here saying I am voting no, and then having a pop at the engineers?
All systems go, I agree unity is a far better option than division, however that has been taken out of our hands by the fact that the engineers branch and pcs have supported acceptance......
1261........There is no way management could afford to hold out over an ATCO strike. If fincances are as strained as management would have us believe, a one day strike would be almost enough to obliterate the company......if we went out for a sustained period it would blow the company and a fair few UK airlines out of business.........a situation that will never be allowed to happen.........when push comes to shove management will find the extra money.
A no vote is a vote to send a message to management that they cannot continue to treat us like s**t and are going to have to realise that ATCO pay must rise ahead of what it has been in the past.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A small village just a wee way away
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having received ballot form am now considering my options. For those that believe Management will back down in the face of threats of industrial action - beware - they might not. When the Cabin Crew from BA took strike action over pay the management took them on and won. Any action ahs to be unilateral and I'm not too sure that it would be on this issue.
I wholeheartedly support a drive for better pay increases and conditions. I just don't want the union to be defeated over this and impotent for the rest of the decade.
Enjoy placing your Cross!
I wholeheartedly support a drive for better pay increases and conditions. I just don't want the union to be defeated over this and impotent for the rest of the decade.
Enjoy placing your Cross!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa del CYYZ
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard Speeds,
I fully appreciate your concern, nobody at all wants to go on strike.....I mean it's just not a pleasant thing to have to do.
I am certainly not militant and hate the idea of going out, but I just feel now that things have gone too far, and we need to make a stand NOW for our future.
Yes we are gambling, however look how the cards are stacked in our favour:
1. The most obvious thing is that we cannot be replaced easily, so if TAG sacked us, where the hell would that leave them?
Ask yourself is that really a likely outcome.........what seriously will happen, delegate airspace to the MIL? Is it likely? How long before almost every UK airline goes out of business with the skies closed day after day?
2. Think of the financial implications for TAG if we went out........think of the amount of lost revenue, how long could they sustain those kind of gigantic losses?
3. Think of the airlines..........BA is losing money hand over fist.......how long could they sustain the grounding of the entire fleet?
4. The Govt, with its obligations under ICAO to provide services, especially over the Atlantic, how long could they politically allow us to be out, especially given the chaotic state of transport already?
I cannot seriously imagine that TAG will let us go out, if they do it will not take more than a day or two for the company to go belly up, and it will likely take a few UK airlines with it too.........
The risk to them is far greater than the risk to us..........the alternative is we accept this...make the Union look totally stupid and frankly we can kiss goodbye to ever getting a decent pay rise in the future. And to be honest we can forget about attracting capable people into the job in the future, because the pay 10 years from now will suck........where will we be then?
BEX as usual talking sense.........no disrespect at all to Cabin Crew, but what is easier to replace pilots, or cabin crew? BA knew that taking on the cabin crew would not cripple the airline (more than one union represent cabin crew if I remember correctly), but the pilots were a different proposition.
Think carefully how you are going to vote.......and remember the BEC have advised rejecting this offer.....that is not something they would have done lightly........what happens if we vote yes on this deal, the union's position becomes pretty much untenable, what then?
As far as I am concerned the worst future is represented by voting yes. By voting no, the short term may be worse, but the long term will certainly be much better.
I fully appreciate your concern, nobody at all wants to go on strike.....I mean it's just not a pleasant thing to have to do.
I am certainly not militant and hate the idea of going out, but I just feel now that things have gone too far, and we need to make a stand NOW for our future.
Yes we are gambling, however look how the cards are stacked in our favour:
1. The most obvious thing is that we cannot be replaced easily, so if TAG sacked us, where the hell would that leave them?
Ask yourself is that really a likely outcome.........what seriously will happen, delegate airspace to the MIL? Is it likely? How long before almost every UK airline goes out of business with the skies closed day after day?
2. Think of the financial implications for TAG if we went out........think of the amount of lost revenue, how long could they sustain those kind of gigantic losses?
3. Think of the airlines..........BA is losing money hand over fist.......how long could they sustain the grounding of the entire fleet?
4. The Govt, with its obligations under ICAO to provide services, especially over the Atlantic, how long could they politically allow us to be out, especially given the chaotic state of transport already?
I cannot seriously imagine that TAG will let us go out, if they do it will not take more than a day or two for the company to go belly up, and it will likely take a few UK airlines with it too.........
The risk to them is far greater than the risk to us..........the alternative is we accept this...make the Union look totally stupid and frankly we can kiss goodbye to ever getting a decent pay rise in the future. And to be honest we can forget about attracting capable people into the job in the future, because the pay 10 years from now will suck........where will we be then?
BEX as usual talking sense.........no disrespect at all to Cabin Crew, but what is easier to replace pilots, or cabin crew? BA knew that taking on the cabin crew would not cripple the airline (more than one union represent cabin crew if I remember correctly), but the pilots were a different proposition.
Think carefully how you are going to vote.......and remember the BEC have advised rejecting this offer.....that is not something they would have done lightly........what happens if we vote yes on this deal, the union's position becomes pretty much untenable, what then?
As far as I am concerned the worst future is represented by voting yes. By voting no, the short term may be worse, but the long term will certainly be much better.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to help clarify a couple of points.
Reference delegating traffic to the mil. In the 1977 strike BMI/BA and a few others sneaked up the North Sea working Eastern / Northern / Border. After a few days of this we were told not to work them. Something to do with insurance / licencing.
I am a support person. If traffic levels rise by 5% it does not affect me, engineering or management - it affects frontline ATC staff that are already naffed off. I have been there so I do understand.
I still think we should stick together, take this deal, allow the aviation world to recover then take them to the cleaners. Let them know that its coming too!
As far as splitting unions goes - a single union is the way forward - no "ATCO's branch" and "Engineering branch" or PC(bl00dy)S. Just one big powerful ATC union for everyone.
As we are we are devided as a workforce before we start.........
Reference delegating traffic to the mil. In the 1977 strike BMI/BA and a few others sneaked up the North Sea working Eastern / Northern / Border. After a few days of this we were told not to work them. Something to do with insurance / licencing.
I am a support person. If traffic levels rise by 5% it does not affect me, engineering or management - it affects frontline ATC staff that are already naffed off. I have been there so I do understand.
I still think we should stick together, take this deal, allow the aviation world to recover then take them to the cleaners. Let them know that its coming too!
As far as splitting unions goes - a single union is the way forward - no "ATCO's branch" and "Engineering branch" or PC(bl00dy)S. Just one big powerful ATC union for everyone.
As we are we are devided as a workforce before we start.........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr NotFunny,
I have to totally agree with expeditedescent on this one, you are indeed a gullable fool that management love. I feel that your team is very small and ours very big, I'm sure that you will thank us one day, when you have a nice pension because we achieved decent pay rises at last.
I have to totally agree with expeditedescent on this one, you are indeed a gullable fool that management love. I feel that your team is very small and ours very big, I'm sure that you will thank us one day, when you have a nice pension because we achieved decent pay rises at last.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expeditedescent
Oh dear Notfunny,
You completely miss the point...........
I was not saying we should get pay related to amount of aircraft worked, but the fact is...
You obviously do not understand the arguments ATCOs have, so I'm not sure why you feel qualified to stick you oar in. You are not an ATCO, you do not have to handle the reality of operational traffic, so who on Earth do you think we are to tell us what we should settle for in the pay claim?
Why the link between traffic levels and pay then?
I do understand that the arguments, I also understand the current economic situation. I understand that NATS gets it's income from airlines, many of whom have a financial investment in NATS. I have always said that the important issue is not what we settle for in this years pay round, it's what will happen to ALL of us over the next few years as the TAG management turns the financial screws.
If you'd like to tell us all the qualifications required to have an opinion on this issue feel free.
Route BIG-KOK and Night Shift, thank you for your well thought out constructive comments on my personality
I live in the real world, why not come over and visit.
Oh dear Notfunny,
You completely miss the point...........
I was not saying we should get pay related to amount of aircraft worked, but the fact is...
You obviously do not understand the arguments ATCOs have, so I'm not sure why you feel qualified to stick you oar in. You are not an ATCO, you do not have to handle the reality of operational traffic, so who on Earth do you think we are to tell us what we should settle for in the pay claim?
I do understand that the arguments, I also understand the current economic situation. I understand that NATS gets it's income from airlines, many of whom have a financial investment in NATS. I have always said that the important issue is not what we settle for in this years pay round, it's what will happen to ALL of us over the next few years as the TAG management turns the financial screws.
If you'd like to tell us all the qualifications required to have an opinion on this issue feel free.
Route BIG-KOK and Night Shift, thank you for your well thought out constructive comments on my personality
I live in the real world, why not come over and visit.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 607
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatcontroller
Nats stops paying in 12% not 6% into your pension so this payrise for the next 2 years is being paid for in just 6 months. This gives them a massive amount of money being saved.
As a side issue does anyone know is the pension fund was calculated on the new FRS17 rules or on the old rules. Only asking as since everyone else is using the new rules they semm to be getting out of final salary pensions faster than a manager out of the ops room.
Nats stops paying in 12% not 6% into your pension so this payrise for the next 2 years is being paid for in just 6 months. This gives them a massive amount of money being saved.
As a side issue does anyone know is the pension fund was calculated on the new FRS17 rules or on the old rules. Only asking as since everyone else is using the new rules they semm to be getting out of final salary pensions faster than a manager out of the ops room.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South east
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stopp the climb..................
For your information:
Rubbish 
No
Off to put some ointment on me "farmers".............
All that sitting around "GS'ing" caused them to play up a bit
For your information:
I would be interested in your views on my suggestion in the NATS
Does it pass the common sense test
Off to put some ointment on me "farmers".............
All that sitting around "GS'ing" caused them to play up a bit
Last edited by Diggo; 24th May 2002 at 08:25.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa del CYYZ
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh for crying out load notfunny...............
The link between traffic levels and pay is your spin.
Our WORKLOAD has risen by around 8% year on year, and that obviously relates to increasing traffic.
WORKLOAD, how hard one is working do you get the idea yet???
The amount of exra work we are doing on shift has risen far ahead of how we are rewarded. It's really simple to work out......
How about answering some of my other questions, or do you simply wish to skip around anything you don't want to deal with?
With respect you have no idea about the ATCO arguments........you are not an ATCO, all you know is the engineers side, and seemingly you have swallowed the management line pretty meekly. But do not insult ATCOs by claiming you know where we are coming from on this.
You can have an opinion on anything, however ill-informed it may be.......I would love to know why you feel so qualified to spout at length on issues affecting ATCOs only?
You are the one who brought ATCOs into it with your so intelligently worded first post.
ATCOs don't tell you how to vote, so why do you feel qualified to tell us how to vote.
It may interest you to know that the ATCOs BEC have advised rejection of this offer.............do you have anything to say to that?
The link between traffic levels and pay is your spin.
Our WORKLOAD has risen by around 8% year on year, and that obviously relates to increasing traffic.
WORKLOAD, how hard one is working do you get the idea yet???
The amount of exra work we are doing on shift has risen far ahead of how we are rewarded. It's really simple to work out......
How about answering some of my other questions, or do you simply wish to skip around anything you don't want to deal with?
With respect you have no idea about the ATCO arguments........you are not an ATCO, all you know is the engineers side, and seemingly you have swallowed the management line pretty meekly. But do not insult ATCOs by claiming you know where we are coming from on this.
You can have an opinion on anything, however ill-informed it may be.......I would love to know why you feel so qualified to spout at length on issues affecting ATCOs only?
You are the one who brought ATCOs into it with your so intelligently worded first post.
ATCOs don't tell you how to vote, so why do you feel qualified to tell us how to vote.
It may interest you to know that the ATCOs BEC have advised rejection of this offer.............do you have anything to say to that?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terrain Safe
Thanks for the update on the 12% issue - now I'm more dissapointed.
Mr Not Funny
Sorry I just don't understand your view.
1) You must appreciate that where you are a 3 bed Terrace does not cost £250,000 and a 4 bed £420,000 +
2) The sectors where you are may be a bit slower especially with the lack of oceanic traffic but believe me we are working our socks off down here in TC
3) you can't believe the stats produced by Management ( or by anyone for that matter) they WILL say whatever they want them to stats always do
4) Many airlines that suffered post 9/11 are back to full strength and if not already they are at least recruiting again.
5) There never is any more money on the table thats what negotiotiation is all about - it's just we have not been very good at it before
6) if we keep going as we are it will become very viable to take a career change into a job with little responcibility and suffer only minor losses in return. Boring I know but why train for X years and hold a license when you dont have to.
7) Going 'cap in hand' to the government ? They own more that half of our compnay they must pay up.
8) Pricing policy is not my concern - any other company would be able to increase charges in relation to costs but we are limited by GOVERNMENT legislation (ERG ) - they must sort it out - we should not have to - they managed to find 60 million to pay off EDS and Lockhead and millions in legal fees ! (out of court)
9) We have never been in a stronger possition - the airlines are still weak and TAG would never let us go out on strike - in a few years with rapid growth as predicted they may well be stronger and able to withstand our efforts more effectively
I am sorry that you have been taken in so convincingly by all you have heard from our leaders - you almost sound like one - hope you recover soon
Thanks for the update on the 12% issue - now I'm more dissapointed.
Mr Not Funny
Sorry I just don't understand your view.
1) You must appreciate that where you are a 3 bed Terrace does not cost £250,000 and a 4 bed £420,000 +
2) The sectors where you are may be a bit slower especially with the lack of oceanic traffic but believe me we are working our socks off down here in TC
3) you can't believe the stats produced by Management ( or by anyone for that matter) they WILL say whatever they want them to stats always do
4) Many airlines that suffered post 9/11 are back to full strength and if not already they are at least recruiting again.
5) There never is any more money on the table thats what negotiotiation is all about - it's just we have not been very good at it before
6) if we keep going as we are it will become very viable to take a career change into a job with little responcibility and suffer only minor losses in return. Boring I know but why train for X years and hold a license when you dont have to.
7) Going 'cap in hand' to the government ? They own more that half of our compnay they must pay up.
8) Pricing policy is not my concern - any other company would be able to increase charges in relation to costs but we are limited by GOVERNMENT legislation (ERG ) - they must sort it out - we should not have to - they managed to find 60 million to pay off EDS and Lockhead and millions in legal fees ! (out of court)
9) We have never been in a stronger possition - the airlines are still weak and TAG would never let us go out on strike - in a few years with rapid growth as predicted they may well be stronger and able to withstand our efforts more effectively
I am sorry that you have been taken in so convincingly by all you have heard from our leaders - you almost sound like one - hope you recover soon
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Down South
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know what we can realistically hold out for by voting no? Not in the actions that might have to be taken, but what are the realistic aims of voting no? Are you ATC types looking for a pay rise in line with traffic growth, or 5%, or what? Its all fine and well saying your going to reject the current offer, but what is good enough? I'm quickly going over to the No camp in this vote (my 1/3 of the union seems to like the quiet life - they didn't ask me when they said they recommend a Yes vote. Suppose that what's these ballots are all about) as I agree totally with most of the comments in this thread - we deserve more. I'm not saying I deserve as much as an ATCO in the form of a pay rise, but I think my efforts over the past year, including moving down south and enduring almost constant courses so I can fix the wonderful systems we find at Swanwick are worth a little more than 2.2% this year and 3.7% next.
As a side i love the way people in favour of this pay deal always say 6% over 2 years. Give me such a warm fuzzy feeling inside...
Back to the point. I'm not sure what my efforts over the past year have deserved. I know my cost of living has remained the same after moving from West London to Portsmouth, yet I've lost my London weighting. What are your good selves ideas of a good % that we might be able to vote Yes on?
As a side i love the way people in favour of this pay deal always say 6% over 2 years. Give me such a warm fuzzy feeling inside...
Back to the point. I'm not sure what my efforts over the past year have deserved. I know my cost of living has remained the same after moving from West London to Portsmouth, yet I've lost my London weighting. What are your good selves ideas of a good % that we might be able to vote Yes on?