Monday Pay Talks Deadline.......
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Vatican City
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Findo, well said.
Not everyone will share your views, but the history behind former wage rises is fascinating.
I think the work the negotiators put in to bring to a ballot a 10% rise must be commended, especially against a back drop of a huge re-agjustment within the airline industry.
In a former private sector life I had part responsibility for negotiating, or rather protecting existing terms and conditions. It was always a massive task even attempting to negotiate a near inflation matching award (Profits are for shareholders, not staff!).
With inflation so low and the current business in turmoil, I personally think they have done a good deal with very few attached 'strings'.
The big negotiations however will start in ernest once management and Prospect start talking WPP. The terms and conditions enjoyed by NATS employees are generally the envy of most non NATS units. They must be protected at all cost. As Findo said, there are ways of reducing costs on paper which reap financial rewards for staff without them having to give much away in return.
Personally I am far more concerned that via WPP negotiations, my T's & C's are not compramised, and very worried about the future of such a fine final salary pension scheme which is the flagship of all ATC pensions within the UK!
The question I now have to ask myself is, am I prepared to go on strike with this offer on the table?
Not everyone will share your views, but the history behind former wage rises is fascinating.
I think the work the negotiators put in to bring to a ballot a 10% rise must be commended, especially against a back drop of a huge re-agjustment within the airline industry.
In a former private sector life I had part responsibility for negotiating, or rather protecting existing terms and conditions. It was always a massive task even attempting to negotiate a near inflation matching award (Profits are for shareholders, not staff!).
With inflation so low and the current business in turmoil, I personally think they have done a good deal with very few attached 'strings'.
The big negotiations however will start in ernest once management and Prospect start talking WPP. The terms and conditions enjoyed by NATS employees are generally the envy of most non NATS units. They must be protected at all cost. As Findo said, there are ways of reducing costs on paper which reap financial rewards for staff without them having to give much away in return.
Personally I am far more concerned that via WPP negotiations, my T's & C's are not compramised, and very worried about the future of such a fine final salary pension scheme which is the flagship of all ATC pensions within the UK!
The question I now have to ask myself is, am I prepared to go on strike with this offer on the table?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone from the NO vote camp please give me a proper reason why I should follow them. So far I have heard opinions, we're worth more, I want more, I'm not doing that and I'm not accepting that pile of !
Opinions are fine, but without subtance can damage our cause. I want to see facts and information that back up your opinions, and that will let me make up my own mind.
However, compare the NO's to the Yes's, the YES camp are able to put forward an intelligent and well thought out argument for accepting the offer.
Our job may not be rocket science but we're all intelligent people and deserve intelligent arguments from both sides.
Just an unofficial observation from my tower!
Opinions are fine, but without subtance can damage our cause. I want to see facts and information that back up your opinions, and that will let me make up my own mind.
However, compare the NO's to the Yes's, the YES camp are able to put forward an intelligent and well thought out argument for accepting the offer.
Our job may not be rocket science but we're all intelligent people and deserve intelligent arguments from both sides.
Just an unofficial observation from my tower!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reasons to be cheerful...or not
Apologies to Ian Dury & the Blockheads for stealing their line.
I will be voting no & here are my reasons.
1... the deal is NOT 10%. the extra money is on spine points only & does not include other allowances.
2... 1.8% of the money will not be seen until December 2003. I believe this is just a ploy to undermine the next round of pay negotiations.
3...I don't know about the centres, but management at airports will do anything rather than pay £500 for an overtime shift. The extra financial disincentive will mean watch managers being put under even more pressure than they are now to operate understaffed & bandbox or close positions. (Of course it's perfectly safe & obviously it would be all my fault if I had an incident as a result.)
4...This is not just a one-off increase I am seeking. I want to see my salary increase in the long term above inflation. I do not think that 5% on pay AND related allowances year on year for the next few years is too much to ask. I had hoped for more than that, but that is the absolute minimum I had decided I was prepared to accept. This deal is significantly short of that AND with strings attached re overtime & extra shifts.
5...Extra operational duties. I don't know the details of this so please forgive me. But as I see it a shift that "may" be converted to an operational duty = a shift that WILL be.
I do thank the union negotiators who have made some progress over the initial offer. However as in diplomacy sometimes talking can only get you so far & you have to weild the big stick. I feel it is important that we do not back down now until we have a deal that a large majority of the staff feel they can back. This is important for the present, and also signals our determination as a workforce to be taken seriously in the future.
Thanks for listening.
I will be voting no & here are my reasons.
1... the deal is NOT 10%. the extra money is on spine points only & does not include other allowances.
2... 1.8% of the money will not be seen until December 2003. I believe this is just a ploy to undermine the next round of pay negotiations.
3...I don't know about the centres, but management at airports will do anything rather than pay £500 for an overtime shift. The extra financial disincentive will mean watch managers being put under even more pressure than they are now to operate understaffed & bandbox or close positions. (Of course it's perfectly safe & obviously it would be all my fault if I had an incident as a result.)
4...This is not just a one-off increase I am seeking. I want to see my salary increase in the long term above inflation. I do not think that 5% on pay AND related allowances year on year for the next few years is too much to ask. I had hoped for more than that, but that is the absolute minimum I had decided I was prepared to accept. This deal is significantly short of that AND with strings attached re overtime & extra shifts.
5...Extra operational duties. I don't know the details of this so please forgive me. But as I see it a shift that "may" be converted to an operational duty = a shift that WILL be.
I do thank the union negotiators who have made some progress over the initial offer. However as in diplomacy sometimes talking can only get you so far & you have to weild the big stick. I feel it is important that we do not back down now until we have a deal that a large majority of the staff feel they can back. This is important for the present, and also signals our determination as a workforce to be taken seriously in the future.
Thanks for listening.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: manchester
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh findo findo fido
understand the post
that was your speach to get you to your mighty status.
so by spouting very uninspiring stats you get to the management level.
you obviously have no thought for your troops at all, good nats man!
i've only had twelvev-thirteen years in this shambles but the craick is always the same (wait we've got them the next time)
i'm affriad this time i've had enough and feel udersold by management union and the likes of yourself alike.
be assured pcs and the engineers will never be in a union team with ourselves again.
prospect hav let all of us down and nats management are rubbing there hands once more
understand the post
that was your speach to get you to your mighty status.
so by spouting very uninspiring stats you get to the management level.
you obviously have no thought for your troops at all, good nats man!
i've only had twelvev-thirteen years in this shambles but the craick is always the same (wait we've got them the next time)
i'm affriad this time i've had enough and feel udersold by management union and the likes of yourself alike.
be assured pcs and the engineers will never be in a union team with ourselves again.
prospect hav let all of us down and nats management are rubbing there hands once more
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are undesireables to this offer, sure, but it is not unreasonable, all things considered. Yes I do believe we are seriously undervalued by our managment and there does need to be an equally serious adjustment to the pay. However I think it might be unreasonable to expect to get that all in one go. Provided that this imbalance is corrected progressively over a short period of time then I can accept it. (I most strongly assert that the 1.8% in December next year must in no way be allowed to hold back the award for January 2004)
In the mean time let each of us ensure that we are not taking on more than we should be.
Point 4
In the mean time let each of us ensure that we are not taking on more than we should be.
Point 4
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hants
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many unhappy bunnies out in Union Land. NATS say no more money, NO vote wins, increased pay offer to ATCOs only!
You ATCO types do damn fine job. But unity needed with all branches and unions.
Often asked how does increase of pay reduce workload / stress? and according to press: average 181 shifts of 7 hours p.a. by some simple sums that equates to 25ish hrs per week.
Don't shoot messenger!
You ATCO types do damn fine job. But unity needed with all branches and unions.
Often asked how does increase of pay reduce workload / stress? and according to press: average 181 shifts of 7 hours p.a. by some simple sums that equates to 25ish hrs per week.
Don't shoot messenger!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Jockland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Members of the BEC:
Why do you positively support a 3 year pay deal (for that is what it is), when the membership said they wanted a 1 year deal?
Why are you supporting the re-hire of retired staff? (and how much would they be paid)? Most controllers in their mid to late 50s claim that they shouldn't be working on radar at their age. Shouldn't we be working towards lowering the retirement age??
Why are you supporting overtime when it could ultimately lead to an increase in controller hours across the board and a rethink of CRATCOH? (if controllers are seen to be volunteering for more work despite claiming to be overworked and stressed enough as it is - should we not be trying to reduce the number of hours worked??).
Why is it that the only information that we have had about the deal has come via unit management and not directly from the union? (and why are the watch and unit reps as in the dark as everyone else is about what is going on)?
Why draw a line in the sand and then let management **** all over it?
We are also wanting to know what the union's thoughts are concerning the relocation of the North Sea sector and Sector 7, north of the border.
Are ScATCC controllers expected to work these sectors for 10% less than what our counterparts at NERC are getting for the same job?? (when they are open)!
My watch at ScATCC are totally against this deal.
Any answers?
P.S. - g m c - your spelling is s^!+e
Why do you positively support a 3 year pay deal (for that is what it is), when the membership said they wanted a 1 year deal?
Why are you supporting the re-hire of retired staff? (and how much would they be paid)? Most controllers in their mid to late 50s claim that they shouldn't be working on radar at their age. Shouldn't we be working towards lowering the retirement age??
Why are you supporting overtime when it could ultimately lead to an increase in controller hours across the board and a rethink of CRATCOH? (if controllers are seen to be volunteering for more work despite claiming to be overworked and stressed enough as it is - should we not be trying to reduce the number of hours worked??).
Why is it that the only information that we have had about the deal has come via unit management and not directly from the union? (and why are the watch and unit reps as in the dark as everyone else is about what is going on)?
Why draw a line in the sand and then let management **** all over it?
We are also wanting to know what the union's thoughts are concerning the relocation of the North Sea sector and Sector 7, north of the border.
Are ScATCC controllers expected to work these sectors for 10% less than what our counterparts at NERC are getting for the same job?? (when they are open)!
My watch at ScATCC are totally against this deal.
Any answers?
P.S. - g m c - your spelling is s^!+e
Last edited by Pheasant Plucker; 22nd Jul 2002 at 23:05.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Vatican City
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 year deal, even me, with my bad maths cannot calculate it into a 36 month period.
Right, so what do the no votes actually want strike action to achieve? Come on, I am very curious, If I vote NO, what do I anticipate getting at the end of industrial action? 15-20% over 2 years, please tell me, for if I vote YES, I know what my salary will be post Xmas 2003 and prior to pay and related issues being negotiated from Jan 2004?.
So if I go on strike, will I be better off forsaking the offer on the table?
I have no intention of asking for extra shifts, so I ignore the short term over time kind offer to NERC.
If I go on strike will NATS finally pull their interest in the excellent pension scheme? (You bet they will consider all options).
I am however, prepared to stand up and defend my T's & C's and my pension.
Still yet to decide which way to vote though!
Right, so what do the no votes actually want strike action to achieve? Come on, I am very curious, If I vote NO, what do I anticipate getting at the end of industrial action? 15-20% over 2 years, please tell me, for if I vote YES, I know what my salary will be post Xmas 2003 and prior to pay and related issues being negotiated from Jan 2004?.
So if I go on strike, will I be better off forsaking the offer on the table?
I have no intention of asking for extra shifts, so I ignore the short term over time kind offer to NERC.
If I go on strike will NATS finally pull their interest in the excellent pension scheme? (You bet they will consider all options).
I am however, prepared to stand up and defend my T's & C's and my pension.
Still yet to decide which way to vote though!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A small village just a wee way away
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pheasant Plucker
I agree with Orson here. This is a 24 month deal. It is up to the union to ensure that the 1.8% in December next year doesn't effect the deal in January.
And as for your comment re. North Sea and Scottish I should get back in your box if I were you. TC has taken on more and more of LACC's airspace for the past 6 or so years for no extra money and with very few extra staff. You are the last in a long line of ATCOs deserving more money for taking on more airspace (MACC and S29 would be in front of you in the queue, for example) and no-one will get it for the forseeable future.
You want more money for working harder - come down to the south east or south coast and earn it.
Sorry.
SS.
I agree with Orson here. This is a 24 month deal. It is up to the union to ensure that the 1.8% in December next year doesn't effect the deal in January.
And as for your comment re. North Sea and Scottish I should get back in your box if I were you. TC has taken on more and more of LACC's airspace for the past 6 or so years for no extra money and with very few extra staff. You are the last in a long line of ATCOs deserving more money for taking on more airspace (MACC and S29 would be in front of you in the queue, for example) and no-one will get it for the forseeable future.
You want more money for working harder - come down to the south east or south coast and earn it.
Sorry.
SS.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard Speed:
"TC has taken on more and more of LACC's airspace for the past 6 or so years for no extra money and with very few extra staff."
Why?
If you're too busy down there why not volunteer for a posting north of the border - it's nice and wet this time of year.
Unfortunately I didn't have a choice.
"TC has taken on more and more of LACC's airspace for the past 6 or so years for no extra money and with very few extra staff."
Why?
If you're too busy down there why not volunteer for a posting north of the border - it's nice and wet this time of year.
Unfortunately I didn't have a choice.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Surrey, Uk
Age: 72
Posts: 1,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crappy Headset
You have my sympathy. I too was sent north against my wishes.
Many years ago after Northern Radar closed. I had to endure 4 years, 6 months, 5 days and 10 hours (apx). Hated every min.
Hope you escape soon.
Mr G.
You have my sympathy. I too was sent north against my wishes.
Many years ago after Northern Radar closed. I had to endure 4 years, 6 months, 5 days and 10 hours (apx). Hated every min.
Hope you escape soon.
Mr G.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all let me say that management are running a VERY cute campaign at LACC by letting it be known that the rest of the country is in favour of this c**p offer. However reading this leads me to think tht this is not the case!
I too thank the negotiators for what must have been a very difficult task, BUT, The offer on the table gives up just too many conditions for it to be acceptable. In fact I understand that the BEC recommended this without a full BEC meeting to thrash the arguments out. WHY?????
For this to be a true 2 year deal(something I am strongly against) shouldn't all the pay rises be back-dated to Jan2001?. NATS are already holding on to the money but if it were to be back-dated then that would at least make it more palatable.
On the issue of TOIL. A rate was set at LACC last year for the buy back of TOIL and now the BEC are prepared to recommend a rate that is around 30% of what was offered last year-WHY??
The rate to be paid for Annual Leave is double that of TOIL. Does this mean that time spent on a day off at a meeting/on OCT.etc is less valuable than a days' AL??
Management are fully aware of the size of this problem and we should not be doing anything to help them out of the mess-certainly nothing under last years' agreed rate anyway. What is the point of working hard to set a precedent one year and throwing it all away 6 months later??
Not sure of the impact of reducing the shift length for part-timers-but I suspect it could lead to additional attendances if it is not carefully written.
The conversion of a TRUCE day into an operational duty is nothing short of a DISGRACE!!!!!!
The rehire of retired ATCOs. Well how is this for reducing the ability to be promoted. i can't wait to see the first ones brought back to sit in the LAS/GS positions drawing salary and pensions. This really is the start of the slipppery slope to getting rid of ATCO jobs. We already have a number of LASs who are no longer planner valid and this opens the door to exacerbate this problem.
So we will now have a policy which has the Flexible Retirement Scheme. This took YEARS to negotiate and bring to fruition for all ATCOs in NATS. The BEC also now want an incentive scheme to deter people from retiring early. What are those incentives and how do the two policies marry together???
We were led to believe that the sectional claim would be addressing things like OJTI payments not giving away many of the hard won policies.
I urge you all to ask whether this offer,with all the strings attached,is really an improvement over the original one which was so overwhelmingly turned down-I THINK NOT.
The unit reps must talk to one another to gague the feeling at the individual units-the BEC do not appear to be prepared to
want to do this.
I too thank the negotiators for what must have been a very difficult task, BUT, The offer on the table gives up just too many conditions for it to be acceptable. In fact I understand that the BEC recommended this without a full BEC meeting to thrash the arguments out. WHY?????
For this to be a true 2 year deal(something I am strongly against) shouldn't all the pay rises be back-dated to Jan2001?. NATS are already holding on to the money but if it were to be back-dated then that would at least make it more palatable.
On the issue of TOIL. A rate was set at LACC last year for the buy back of TOIL and now the BEC are prepared to recommend a rate that is around 30% of what was offered last year-WHY??
The rate to be paid for Annual Leave is double that of TOIL. Does this mean that time spent on a day off at a meeting/on OCT.etc is less valuable than a days' AL??
Management are fully aware of the size of this problem and we should not be doing anything to help them out of the mess-certainly nothing under last years' agreed rate anyway. What is the point of working hard to set a precedent one year and throwing it all away 6 months later??
Not sure of the impact of reducing the shift length for part-timers-but I suspect it could lead to additional attendances if it is not carefully written.
The conversion of a TRUCE day into an operational duty is nothing short of a DISGRACE!!!!!!
The rehire of retired ATCOs. Well how is this for reducing the ability to be promoted. i can't wait to see the first ones brought back to sit in the LAS/GS positions drawing salary and pensions. This really is the start of the slipppery slope to getting rid of ATCO jobs. We already have a number of LASs who are no longer planner valid and this opens the door to exacerbate this problem.
So we will now have a policy which has the Flexible Retirement Scheme. This took YEARS to negotiate and bring to fruition for all ATCOs in NATS. The BEC also now want an incentive scheme to deter people from retiring early. What are those incentives and how do the two policies marry together???
We were led to believe that the sectional claim would be addressing things like OJTI payments not giving away many of the hard won policies.
I urge you all to ask whether this offer,with all the strings attached,is really an improvement over the original one which was so overwhelmingly turned down-I THINK NOT.
The unit reps must talk to one another to gague the feeling at the individual units-the BEC do not appear to be prepared to
want to do this.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Deepest Englandshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RogerOut,
From my understanding of the deal offered, those at the top of scale will be getting 9.7% over the two years.
Those who are still moving up the scale may appear to be getting more, but spine point increases should not be included in salary increase calculations so effectively all ATCOs are being offered 9.7%.
Yello
From my understanding of the deal offered, those at the top of scale will be getting 9.7% over the two years.
Those who are still moving up the scale may appear to be getting more, but spine point increases should not be included in salary increase calculations so effectively all ATCOs are being offered 9.7%.
Yello
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ecosse
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be careful with your figures. The beauty of 2 year deals, especially with staggered increments, is that the bean-counters can sell them a hundred different ways to a hundred different people. i.e. a 1.8% increase in month 24 may be good, but it doesn't equate to a 1.8% increase in overall salary. But, this does mean 2004 increases start at a 1.8% higher launch position than they would do otherwise! (Confused? Exactly the reason why 2 year deals should be avoided!!!)
My own calculations: (for what they're worth).
Year 1 = 2.7% increase in gross annual salary (compared with year 1 gross annual salary without any deal)
Year 2 = 5.4% increase in gross annual salary (compared to year 1 gross annual salary with deal)
HOWEVER! Those NOT at the top of the scale will get a greater overall increase in year 2's gross annual salary compared to year 1's (with deal) as they get the approx 4% increase in April due the extra scale point, giving a year 2 on year 1 increase in gross annual salary of approximately 9.6%.
(Do the sums just by taking gross monthly salary Jan '02 and apply the deal to it. See if you like the colour of YOUR money by end '03. But be careful...one man's 9.6% is another's 5.4%!)
What ticks me off most is the fact that we're having to do this kind of mathematical jiggery-pokery in the first place just to try to find out exactly whats on offer.
All I wanted was a ONE YEAR deal with a 5% increase in basic pay and allowances and WITHOUT STRINGS! The percentage aside, those, like me, who attended the TU meetings at ScOACC made it perfectly clear to the reps that we were not going to accept a two year deal. The reasons being as outlined above, uncertainty over traffic projections and the fact that if we did it once, this would then become how things would be done in future...every deal a 2 year deal!
Now what do I have? Another two year deal, like the one I rejected last time, but now with some clever accounting tricks to add a % here and there and a heap of strings to do with over-time/time-off-in-leui/annual leave/claw-back days/buy-back days/opm etc.etc.etc.
What a complete and utter ****ing can of worms!!!
SO PROSPECT, WHAT WAS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT NEGOTIATING A 1 YEAR DEAL WITH A 5% INCREASE EFFECTIVE 01 JAN, WITHOUT STRINGS?
Now, will I hold my breath, or not...
My own calculations: (for what they're worth).
Year 1 = 2.7% increase in gross annual salary (compared with year 1 gross annual salary without any deal)
Year 2 = 5.4% increase in gross annual salary (compared to year 1 gross annual salary with deal)
HOWEVER! Those NOT at the top of the scale will get a greater overall increase in year 2's gross annual salary compared to year 1's (with deal) as they get the approx 4% increase in April due the extra scale point, giving a year 2 on year 1 increase in gross annual salary of approximately 9.6%.
(Do the sums just by taking gross monthly salary Jan '02 and apply the deal to it. See if you like the colour of YOUR money by end '03. But be careful...one man's 9.6% is another's 5.4%!)
What ticks me off most is the fact that we're having to do this kind of mathematical jiggery-pokery in the first place just to try to find out exactly whats on offer.
All I wanted was a ONE YEAR deal with a 5% increase in basic pay and allowances and WITHOUT STRINGS! The percentage aside, those, like me, who attended the TU meetings at ScOACC made it perfectly clear to the reps that we were not going to accept a two year deal. The reasons being as outlined above, uncertainty over traffic projections and the fact that if we did it once, this would then become how things would be done in future...every deal a 2 year deal!
Now what do I have? Another two year deal, like the one I rejected last time, but now with some clever accounting tricks to add a % here and there and a heap of strings to do with over-time/time-off-in-leui/annual leave/claw-back days/buy-back days/opm etc.etc.etc.
What a complete and utter ****ing can of worms!!!
SO PROSPECT, WHAT WAS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT NEGOTIATING A 1 YEAR DEAL WITH A 5% INCREASE EFFECTIVE 01 JAN, WITHOUT STRINGS?
Now, will I hold my breath, or not...
Last edited by fish food; 23rd Jul 2002 at 13:41.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Deepest Englandshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some more calculations:-
Year 1 start salary=X (which we're all agreed is not enough)
Jan02 increase salary=X+2.2%X
Oct02 increase salary=X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X)
Jan03 increase
salary=X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X)+3.7%(X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X))
Still with me?
Dec03 increase
salary=X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X)+3.7%(X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X))+1.8%(X+ 2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X)+3.7%(X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X)))
So there you have it!
I agree with fishfood that the 1.8% is not really a salary increase, however at the end of the 24 month period the above shows how much your salary will have gone up by. And no doubt it will stay at that level for a few months while the next pay round drags on.
Those of you who are still travelling up the ladder will have to change your Xs to Ys in year one after April and the Ys to Zeds in year 2!
Year 1 start salary=X (which we're all agreed is not enough)
Jan02 increase salary=X+2.2%X
Oct02 increase salary=X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X)
Jan03 increase
salary=X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X)+3.7%(X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X))
Still with me?
Dec03 increase
salary=X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X)+3.7%(X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X))+1.8%(X+ 2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X)+3.7%(X+2.2%X+2%(X+2.2%X)))
So there you have it!
I agree with fishfood that the 1.8% is not really a salary increase, however at the end of the 24 month period the above shows how much your salary will have gone up by. And no doubt it will stay at that level for a few months while the next pay round drags on.
Those of you who are still travelling up the ladder will have to change your Xs to Ys in year one after April and the Ys to Zeds in year 2!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CostsRus - If we had a 25 hour week that would be some improvement !!! Unfortunately the minimum shift length is 7 hours. Maximum shift length is 10.
We also have a net hours deal so every rostered hour is a working hour. All in all the average around the country is near the maximum - about 39 hours.
We also have a net hours deal so every rostered hour is a working hour. All in all the average around the country is near the maximum - about 39 hours.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Findo
fascinatimg to read the historical detail but did atcos not receive their biggest pay deal due to the revolving strike action i.e Heathrow on morning strike, West Drayton on afternoon strike, Satccc on night strike. etc ? or are you taking a clasic marxist revisonist stance ?
fascinatimg to read the historical detail but did atcos not receive their biggest pay deal due to the revolving strike action i.e Heathrow on morning strike, West Drayton on afternoon strike, Satccc on night strike. etc ? or are you taking a clasic marxist revisonist stance ?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The strike in the 80s was a general Civil Service strike caused by the Thatcher Government abandoning the Pay Research Unit ; the PRU being an independant and fair way of keeping Civil Service pay in line with outside bodies.
The Union are rewriting history by making us believe it was an ATC strike - it was not. We did not receive any benefit as a result of that industrial action.
Also watch those calculations.
As mentioned elsewhere , UHP is not included in the sectional offer.
The Union are rewriting history by making us believe it was an ATC strike - it was not. We did not receive any benefit as a result of that industrial action.
Also watch those calculations.
As mentioned elsewhere , UHP is not included in the sectional offer.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vercingetorix - Nope. The revolving strikes were the only ones we have ever taken nationally. That was 1981 and the action as partly successful as I said previously. The main objective was the restoration of the PRU but the compromise settlement was a slightly larger pay offer and a complete loss on the Revue Body.
PooDon was shouting your line but hasn't yet come up with figures. My little potted history was done from memory so the actual fugure may be slightly different. However the clear history shows that when we have a strong negotiating hand we gain greater than all other times. We have never had a stronger hand than now. All we need is the negotiation as this pay round has shown. Major objectives are not won in one short battle. Lets be clear what the long term objectives are and give the negotiators the mandate to return with a fair offer in exchange for what we are prepared to give.
Despite the personal comments about myself and others who see merit in accepting this offer, I am happy to go with the democratic majority. Speaking as one of the few who has been involved in both official and unnoficial strike action in ATC I have never found it productive to slag off colleagues who are honest enough to express their opinions or spend time working on my behalf without reward. The picket line can be a lonely place.
PooDon was shouting your line but hasn't yet come up with figures. My little potted history was done from memory so the actual fugure may be slightly different. However the clear history shows that when we have a strong negotiating hand we gain greater than all other times.
We have never had a stronger hand than now. All we need is the negotiation as this pay round has shown. Major objectives are not won in one short battle. Lets be clear what the long term objectives are and give the negotiators the mandate to return with a fair offer in exchange for what we are prepared to give.Despite the personal comments about myself and others who see merit in accepting this offer, I am happy to go with the democratic majority. Speaking as one of the few who has been involved in both official and unnoficial strike action in ATC I have never found it productive to slag off colleagues who are honest enough to express their opinions or spend time working on my behalf without reward. The picket line can be a lonely place.