Pay ballot result
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know about the engineers.. but as far as PCS are concerned, acceptance was recommended on the basis that there was no more money available and the offer was the best one could hope for under the circumstances. It was also made clear (BEFORE the vote) that if it suddenly turned out that there *was* more money on the table.. (i.e. the ATCO's alone got an improved pay offer) then the pcs vote would be set aside.
I think that was a perfectly fair stance to take.
Why should a (already more highly paid) section of staff get a bigger PERCENTAGE rise than the rest? I've still not seen a satisfactory answer to that one. The increase in cost of living is pretty much the same for all of us.
BB
I think that was a perfectly fair stance to take.
Why should a (already more highly paid) section of staff get a bigger PERCENTAGE rise than the rest? I've still not seen a satisfactory answer to that one. The increase in cost of living is pretty much the same for all of us.
BB
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: swanwick
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we need now to follow one of two options...
1, ATCOs, ATSAs and ATCEs join together to form one singular negotiating team, or;
2, ATSAs, ATCEs and ATCOs split totally and negotiate for themselves.
Because basically this pay round has been a fiasco from the beginning and totally unacceptable to all the union members.
All for one and one for...you get my drift.
roger
1, ATCOs, ATSAs and ATCEs join together to form one singular negotiating team, or;
2, ATSAs, ATCEs and ATCOs split totally and negotiate for themselves.
Because basically this pay round has been a fiasco from the beginning and totally unacceptable to all the union members.
All for one and one for...you get my drift.
roger
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prospect was also told that there was no more money on the table. Would you expect the management to say that there was?
If PCS were satisfied with the offer before the vote why is that same offer somehow not satisfactory now? What is the motivation here?
Perhaps the PCS members need to question their leadership as to how these circumstances have arisen but as things currently stand, each section has voted yes to the final offer made to it and that should be the end of the matter.
You win some you lose some. PCS made its own choice and that is not the ATCOs' fault.
Point 4
If PCS were satisfied with the offer before the vote why is that same offer somehow not satisfactory now? What is the motivation here?
Perhaps the PCS members need to question their leadership as to how these circumstances have arisen but as things currently stand, each section has voted yes to the final offer made to it and that should be the end of the matter.
You win some you lose some. PCS made its own choice and that is not the ATCOs' fault.
Point 4
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If PCS were satisfied with the offer before the vote why is that same offer somehow not satisfactory now? "
See my post above
I say again: "acceptance was recommended on the basis that there was no more money available and the offer was the best one could hope for under the circumstances. It was also made clear (BEFORE the vote) that if it suddenly turned out that there *was* more money on the table.. (i.e. the ATCO's alone got an improved pay offer) then the PCS vote would be set aside.
I think that was a perfectly fair stance to take. "
Given the "alleged" financial problems witin NATS, the statement that there was 'no more money' on the table, the fact that of one of a number of things possibly kicking off round the world (another Al Qaaeda incident, India v Pakistan, USA v Iraq) would cause another downturn in air travel, it was more than reasonable to suggest that the offer was the best we could hope for.
I would be far more concerned if PCS negotiators were to stand by and accept the ATCO's getting a larger %age rise and do nothing. Would the ATCO's have done so if it was the other way round? you bet they wouldnt. and neither should they.
Part of the problem, is that the ATCO's have used pay as a stick with which to beat Management due to general poor morale and not just over pay levels.
Roger, I felt that your option (1) above was necessary before PPP... it's even more so now... though I believe that if such a proposal was put forward, the ATCO branch of Prospect wouldnt wear it for a moment...
Edited for crappy typing
BB
See my post above
I say again: "acceptance was recommended on the basis that there was no more money available and the offer was the best one could hope for under the circumstances. It was also made clear (BEFORE the vote) that if it suddenly turned out that there *was* more money on the table.. (i.e. the ATCO's alone got an improved pay offer) then the PCS vote would be set aside.
I think that was a perfectly fair stance to take. "
Given the "alleged" financial problems witin NATS, the statement that there was 'no more money' on the table, the fact that of one of a number of things possibly kicking off round the world (another Al Qaaeda incident, India v Pakistan, USA v Iraq) would cause another downturn in air travel, it was more than reasonable to suggest that the offer was the best we could hope for.
I would be far more concerned if PCS negotiators were to stand by and accept the ATCO's getting a larger %age rise and do nothing. Would the ATCO's have done so if it was the other way round? you bet they wouldnt. and neither should they.
Part of the problem, is that the ATCO's have used pay as a stick with which to beat Management due to general poor morale and not just over pay levels.
Roger, I felt that your option (1) above was necessary before PPP... it's even more so now... though I believe that if such a proposal was put forward, the ATCO branch of Prospect wouldnt wear it for a moment...
Edited for crappy typing
BB
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ballot Results
I have been reading this forum for the last couple weeks and I think this may have been pointed out before but here goes again the initial pay offer was REJECTED
All three branches of Prospect must say YES ATCO branch rejected the offer thus that offer was rejected by ALL three branches.
Thus the point raised by 102.4 about voting YES does not stand, add to this that the ATSS and PCS sections have put the initial votes aside as is there want under the circumstances and which they are well within their rights to do so
As for question being asked of the reps for ATSS and PCS I whole heartedly agree, but what about the most senior officials of Prospect and there actions in bringing this situation about.
Strength in unity seems like a winner to me, maybe we should all learn from this debacle. Lets be one NATS under one PROSPECT.
All three branches of Prospect must say YES
ATCO branch rejected the offer thus that offer was rejected by ALL three branches.Thus the point raised by 102.4 about voting YES does not stand, add to this that the ATSS and PCS sections have put the initial votes aside as is there want under the circumstances and which they are well within their rights to do so
As for question being asked of the reps for ATSS and PCS I whole heartedly agree, but what about the most senior officials of Prospect and there actions in bringing this situation about.
Strength in unity seems like a winner to me, maybe we should all learn from this debacle. Lets be one NATS under one PROSPECT.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then I may be misunderstanding something and if that is the case I apologise.
After the initial vote, when NATS and Prospect entered into fresh discussions, why were PCS not involved in that (or were they?). Why did NATS only make an improved offer to Prospect? Presumably because PCS had signalled their satisfaction and so had no mandate?
If the negotiating rules permit you to put the initial vote aside if Prospect secured better and all 3 sections have to vote yes to accept, what was the point in PCS recommending acceptance if Prospect didn't? Shouldn't PCS have sided with the ATCOs in the first place? THAT was where the division started.
The point still stands that all members were told there was no more money on the table (as one might expect them to say). It was up to each section to accept that or not.
May I finally add that I have no difficulty whatsoever with ATCAs an ATCEs receiving the same offer. We are all essential parts of the system. My point is that if you are going to change sides because another section negotiates better than you do you should have taken your lead from it in the first place and then we wouldn't still be waiting for the money.
Point 4
After the initial vote, when NATS and Prospect entered into fresh discussions, why were PCS not involved in that (or were they?). Why did NATS only make an improved offer to Prospect? Presumably because PCS had signalled their satisfaction and so had no mandate?
If the negotiating rules permit you to put the initial vote aside if Prospect secured better and all 3 sections have to vote yes to accept, what was the point in PCS recommending acceptance if Prospect didn't? Shouldn't PCS have sided with the ATCOs in the first place? THAT was where the division started.
The point still stands that all members were told there was no more money on the table (as one might expect them to say). It was up to each section to accept that or not.
May I finally add that I have no difficulty whatsoever with ATCAs an ATCEs receiving the same offer. We are all essential parts of the system. My point is that if you are going to change sides because another section negotiates better than you do you should have taken your lead from it in the first place and then we wouldn't still be waiting for the money.
Point 4
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, but why did PCS not align itself with Prospect in the first place if that is what it would subsequently do anyway?? (Remember, Prospect had also been told there was no more money.) It seems to me that the split started when PCS leaders recommended acceptance.
We have to negotiate as ONE if we want to move forward as one.
Point 4
We have to negotiate as ONE if we want to move forward as one.
Point 4
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here to Eternity
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well... I've now seen the "improved" offer to all non-ATCOs... and it is better... but still less than the ATCOs were offered on basic, with a few bits and pieces added to throw a few bungs at those making the most noise.
Going briefly back to point 4's angle on why PCS didn't align with Prospect... I genuinely don't think it was a case of PCS being duped by management and the ATCOs calling their bluff. Management were being honest when they said there was no more money available... the ATCOs just decided to ignore reality and ask their reps to go dig up a money tree. All credit to them for forcing management to get the begging bowl out and now we'll all end up with more. But we're not getting more of the money that was in the pot - they'll just take out another loan with the banks - balanced off by promises of more job cuts to follow.
If this offer is accepted now (don't count on it) then I hope we can all learn from the farce caused by this and stick together from now on. We all need each other to get our jobs done in this company. We have different jobs and command different salaries... but we all deserve fair and equal treatment.
Going briefly back to point 4's angle on why PCS didn't align with Prospect... I genuinely don't think it was a case of PCS being duped by management and the ATCOs calling their bluff. Management were being honest when they said there was no more money available... the ATCOs just decided to ignore reality and ask their reps to go dig up a money tree. All credit to them for forcing management to get the begging bowl out and now we'll all end up with more. But we're not getting more of the money that was in the pot - they'll just take out another loan with the banks - balanced off by promises of more job cuts to follow.
If this offer is accepted now (don't count on it) then I hope we can all learn from the farce caused by this and stick together from now on. We all need each other to get our jobs done in this company. We have different jobs and command different salaries... but we all deserve fair and equal treatment.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of stirring it up further, I would ask whether the 2% extra that ATSAs and ATCEs were offered w.e.f. Dec 2003 was on basic salary only or on UHP and London Weighting as well (if eligible). If it was the latter, then it is a much better offer than the ATCOs 1.8% on BASIC ONLY at the same time.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened in the early days....
Parity on basic pay and no strings attached please....
Guys,
my understanding of how we started this debacles is as follows, if I am wrong please chip in...
All three sets of negotiators left the discussions to present to their respective Branch Executive Councils (BEC's) the 6% offer. I am led to believe general concensus was that they would all likely accept the offer.
The PCS and ATSS BEC's recommended acceptance whilst the ATCO BEC recommended rejection.
It would appear that there was/is a break down in comms or process between the three branches after the branches made their recommendations. Particularly when the strongest branch (and the one with clout) rejects the deal!!!!
Maybe something for a new topic? Voluntary Severance scheme, what is it? Will this undermine the present redundancy terms. Add to this the proposed changes to Staff Surpluses agreement (what are they Prospect)
we may be adding ingredients together that do not make an apple pie for the staff.F7F
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your very constructive and team building comments Sector8Dear.
Bev Bevan, I don't think that, under the current negotiation system we have, the "(already more highly paid) section of staff get a bigger PERCENTAGE rise than the rest? " should get a bigger pay rise, as it is a joint negatiation, so one for all etc....... However, I do believe the '(already more highly paid)' are so for very good reason, and personally do not think its still enough. Reason??? Who's liable.
Beating management with a stick is wanted to be done for so many reasons, it just happenned this time as its one reason sorely thought about by many, and breaking point is closer than ever.
Your union is only there as a guide, reading the tramlines in a bat and ball game is never easy.
Bev Bevan, I don't think that, under the current negotiation system we have, the "(already more highly paid) section of staff get a bigger PERCENTAGE rise than the rest? " should get a bigger pay rise, as it is a joint negatiation, so one for all etc....... However, I do believe the '(already more highly paid)' are so for very good reason, and personally do not think its still enough. Reason??? Who's liable.
Beating management with a stick is wanted to be done for so many reasons, it just happenned this time as its one reason sorely thought about by many, and breaking point is closer than ever.
Your union is only there as a guide, reading the tramlines in a bat and ball game is never easy.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here to Eternity
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "voluntary severence scheme" is an interesting one... since we already have screeds of agreements relating to redundancy, retirement, resignation etc.
My guess is that this is aimed at the many workers who are on mobile grades and whose jobs are moving to the Solent Business park in the near future... but don't wish to go. At present you either move or you resign. If they're now going to offer pay-offs of some kind to these people then I think they've got a winning formula for many in PCS at least.
My guess is that this is aimed at the many workers who are on mobile grades and whose jobs are moving to the Solent Business park in the near future... but don't wish to go. At present you either move or you resign. If they're now going to offer pay-offs of some kind to these people then I think they've got a winning formula for many in PCS at least.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5mb,
For the record... I do not begrudge a single penny that ATCO's recieve, for the reasons you give, you all deserve it.
I'm just saying it's wrong that there is a differential in the percentage increase. Cost of living is high for everyone, especially here in the south.
As for the new offer to PCS.. at least management have gone some way towards redressing the imbalance and under the circumstances I am reasonably satisfied with that.
Now... how do we stop this ever happening again??!
How would the ATCO's as a whole feel about the idea of creating a single section within Prospect for ATCOs, ATSAs and ATCEs?
That would strengthen the operational side as a whole, and put an end to any future management attempts to divide and conquer.
Can anyone find any holes in that argument?
BB
For the record... I do not begrudge a single penny that ATCO's recieve, for the reasons you give, you all deserve it.
I'm just saying it's wrong that there is a differential in the percentage increase. Cost of living is high for everyone, especially here in the south.
As for the new offer to PCS.. at least management have gone some way towards redressing the imbalance and under the circumstances I am reasonably satisfied with that.
Now... how do we stop this ever happening again??!
How would the ATCO's as a whole feel about the idea of creating a single section within Prospect for ATCOs, ATSAs and ATCEs?
That would strengthen the operational side as a whole, and put an end to any future management attempts to divide and conquer.
Can anyone find any holes in that argument?
BB
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting one Bev. You may have played for one of the greatest rock bands of all time but I'm not sure that many ATCO's would agree with you.
Word on the street is that ATCO's should ditch their ties with PCS and go it alone. After all, PCS are just holding us back, right?
Word on the street is that ATCO's should ditch their ties with PCS and go it alone. After all, PCS are just holding us back, right?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel that PCS should be ditched totally and yes, all ATCO's and ATSA/ATCE's belong to one union, Prospect. If we are going to continue joint negotiations, then only one union should be involved, fighting for the STAFF, not sections of it. As I said before, I believe ATCO's should get more than they do, but this does not mean I think we shouldn't all get the same annual pay rise. Over the last two years, ALL at Swanwick have worked their butts off to get everything toward smooth (as close as is possible in the current climate), and all deserve the same rewards. Likewise, all ajoining units have had to cope with some total drivel as Swanwick gets to terms with the new system, and attempts to still get up to speed (or full manning), bearing the brunt when things go t!t$ up.
Should the unions no longer join together in negotiating for future rises, I think it will just lead to staff splits when one group gets more than the other, obviously killing more morale on the shop floor. But maybe........................................
Should the unions no longer join together in negotiating for future rises, I think it will just lead to staff splits when one group gets more than the other, obviously killing more morale on the shop floor. But maybe........................................
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5milesbaby - spot on.
Part of the problem with PCS is that it doesnt just represent the ATSAs... but all the admin staff as well. hence my argument that the operational grades should be all represented by one section within Prospect.
Of course, PCS should continue to represent the admin grades.
Any union leaders reading this?
BB
Part of the problem with PCS is that it doesnt just represent the ATSAs... but all the admin staff as well. hence my argument that the operational grades should be all represented by one section within Prospect.
Of course, PCS should continue to represent the admin grades.
Any union leaders reading this?
BB
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problem with a combined section for all operational staff. As I was trying to say in my earlier posts this whole problem came about because PCS made a recommendation out of line with a section whose lead (by their own admission) they were always going to follow if it decided to fight. How can one now take PCS seriously? If you are going to dump your own leaders' recommendations and ballot when another section makes a stand then what on earth is the point of PCS being involved in the negotiations and why bother with a vote?
If we are to remain separate then you must fight your own fight and not climb on the ATCOs' bandwaggon and that means standing by your own vote. (I am amazed NATS recognised your change of position.) Personally I would rather we were one and stood together, better for all.
Point 4
If we are to remain separate then you must fight your own fight and not climb on the ATCOs' bandwaggon and that means standing by your own vote. (I am amazed NATS recognised your change of position.) Personally I would rather we were one and stood together, better for all.
Point 4