Nah, Paxo's throwing a moody at the minute, make it John Humphreys instead.:E

I can not believe those who are suggesting student ATCOs or those with new-borns could be considered as almost exempt from strike action due to their financial situation. It is these people who have the most to lose. I am totally inept when it comes to any knowledge of pension matters but I`m not so stupid that I don`t know that it these very people who need to take the very short term financial hit to secure their long term future. I`m not even in the Nats scheme at the minute but I felt the need to comment

Thats right...keep working and let the rest of us fight for your future...:ugh::ugh:

All this "brothers & sisters" tripe is galling.

I joined the union simply to protect myself.I am fully prepared to walk out if it happened.I know that some people would elect to cross a picket line and still expect to benefit from the action.That is their fundamental RIGHT.I will stand on that picket line FULLY AWARE.Thats fine for me.

As for the people saying that they should be called scab etc etc.What planet are you on?How unprofessional could you possibly be?Whatever happened to TRM? You do realise you would end up being accused of BULLYING and HARRASSMENT?

Exactly, if people aren't prepared to stick together as a team then they can expect bad feeling towards them. This is historical due to other people having to fight for the rights of all workers. They have a right not to strike, I have a right to think they're a scab!

Agree with Emma on this one.

Believe me I would be one of the first to walk out of the door (I also have a young baby and a huge mortgage!) but it is an individual's right to choose.

ITRW

yes, you do;

But you do not have the right to say it to their face or to anyone else for that matter.

joining the union to protect yourself. Sounds like you are expecting to be having airmisses all over the place on a regular basis and will need their protection. And from your grip on reality, it sounds like you are a bit of a space cadet too. I have met many people like you over the years and i normally amuse myself listening to their ramblings when they are standing outside shopping centres shouting at buses
It is very scary when you meet them in air traffic though.
It is your right to break a picket line if you want to be known as a scab. SCAB SCAB SCAB.
Nothing to do with being unprofessional, its all about sticking together as a union.
I wonder what union means...............wheres that dictionary gone.

I find it almost impossible to fathom why someone would join the union then not abide to what ever action the union decides to take and the majority agree with. You might as well save yourself the monthly subscription. At least that way you could argue that you weren't in the union and would have to go into work.

Being part of the union but expecting others to fight your battles and then reap those rewards is beyond me.

It seems quite clear to me. If we don't put up some kind of fight against this tinkering of our T & Cs, then it will just continue until there is nothing left. The pension has to be about the biggest thing to stand up and protect. If we are seen to let it be taken away from us, then there will be no stopping management from continuing with everything else, knowing we are a push over. Would our colleagues in France, Spain or Italy let it happen? I think not.

I, too, am with Emma on this one... I personally would be out on the picket line with everyone else, but the issue of "do you cross the line, or not" is a matter of an individual's conscience.

Yes, in order to succeed on this issue, we will need to show a level of unity that I've never seen in NATS for the last 18 years that I have been employed by them, but all of this "scab" nonsense is beyond me.

It reminds me of the Miners strike. Have we really not come forward in 20 years?

Anyone who DOES cross a picket line will be under an awful lot of pressure from their peers and from others (work related and non-work related), and will do so for their own reasons. They may well have personal reasons (and not just big mortgages or debts) for doing so that neither I, nor anyone else has a right to know about.

I'm not saying that anyone who crosses the line should be supported by those out on strike, but neither should they be bullied nor harassed. Indeed, the union should stand up for ANYONE being treated in this way, and I'm sure NATS management would too.

Personal attacks and bullying other members of staff would hardly ease relations during any such strike action, in fact it would probably cause a breakdown of the unity of those out on strike. I for one, and I'm sure there are MANY others, would support strike action to save our pensions, but WOULD NOT support ANYONE who bullied or attacked someone in this way.

You could easily find yourself accused of gross misconduct and be sacked without any support from the union, nor ANY pension rights.

I dont think any bullying harrassment policy could be applied on an official picket line, which would be outwith NATS property and not whilst in NATS official employment duties ? I do agree though distasteful comments (SCAB) don't help things. :)

Like you fought for their pay cut?

DotMac

That's exactly what I was trying to say, but you put it a lot more eloquently than I ever could.:cool::cool:

Others

Leave her alone! I've looked back on this thread and at no point did Emma say she wasn't going to strike - she was just saying what at least 3 of us have now said that individuals have the right to choose.

Yes, last I heard Britain was still a democracy comrades. Bullying and harassment are totally out of order and, as amply posted about in another thread, will be stamped on in the workplace.

BD

I agree that bullying should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

However should it ever get to the situation of strike action, and I hope sincerely that it doesn't, it is imperative that management don't try to wave fists full of fivers under people's noses to encourage them to go into work. It will be easy for this to occur and potentially lead to an even more divided workforce after the action is over.

TRM will not know what's hit it should this situation ever occur. There is no one and I mean no one who can't afford to lose a couple of days pay to protect the jewel in the crown.

JonG-I assume you mean the students? Well just have a look what an individual earns over the curse of their career if they validate. More than before the "pay cut". It was just not sensible to have a trainee in the system for upto 4 years on nearly £30k a year and potentially never get a days productivity out of them. Or was that OK??

The trainee pay cut was a disgrace. To put a few extra pennies on top of the scale that was not needed.
The problem with wasted money on trainees was not the length of the course. It was the length of time that their training was continued. The "chop" needed ot happen at the college, there were many people who got out of that place with no hope of validating.
Very strong opinions on the topic of striking from everyone on here.
Was anyone around in previous strikes? what is your relationship like with scabs from back then today?
If you would rather not say on here, any chance of a pm?

I have no intention of bullying or harassing anyone, and never have done! I will make my feelings clear and will happily speak out on such matters, as I know will many of my colleagues and as is our right! I don't know where you people who think it's ok to cross the picket line work but if it's on my watch you certainly keep your head down! I can't think of many reasons to cross the line, we all have commitments to keep and I am sure those not in the union could join at the last minute if they actually care about the pension.

intherealworld,

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think it's ok for me to cross a picket line - however, I can't speak for others, and if they do then that's something between them and their conscience.

The "but if it's on my watch you certainly keep your head down! " comment is just unnecessary. Just because you can't think of many reasons to cross the line (neither can I), it doesn't mean there aren't any.

It is absolutely right that we all feel free to voice our opinions on this matter - this is probably the most important issue that any of us will face in our professional careers.

I just hope this discussion is hypothetical and it doesn't come to strike action at all. I don't wish for anyone to be faced with that dilemma.

I have to say that if you are in the union and a vote is taken, and that vote is for strike action, then unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances, you will go go on strike with the rest of your colleagues, unless you leave the union. Otherwise why bother. You might as well cash your pension in now so that the vote will then mean nothing to you. You might as well not work as a team and yes TRM will be well and truly blown out of the water. It would be a great way of divide and conquer. We must stand together on this or just give up now.

That sounds very much like a threat and I would suggest that if anyone needs to keep their head down its you. Harassment = bullying = not tolerated in the workplace.

BD

As an example: 10% of not very much = not a lot at all.

The current trainees don't receive a respectable salary, they take a big risk in the hope that three years down the line they'll be valid and they'll have a means of paying off all their debts. The other main carrot for us is the pension, and ours is at most risk because there are so many years before we claim it for management to ultimately have their wicked way.

I will strike given the opportunity because no matter what they take away from me today I'm already financially f****d. The only reason I'm happy to put up with less than I could get in most McJobs is what the future potentially has to offer me if I succeed.

So am I and other trainees happy to sit and have someone take that away from us because we can't afford to pay our rent?

No. We are not.

Any trainee joining the company on or after course 207 has already been shafted; we will not let it happen to us again.

Who have I harassed exactly? And why do I need to keep my head down? You have a very strange interpretation of a threat. And I don't need to be lectured on what is or isn't bullying, I'm quite capable of taking responsibility for my own actions

My point is I speak openly about what I believe is right, whether it is or isn't and then I am open to others viewpoints. I've yet to hear anyone say they won't be striking if necessary and thats because there is nobody or they haven't the strength of character to say it, and I don't know any of the latter.

No ..like we fought for the conditions they will enjoy once they become productive members of NATS.

Perhaps because:
a) There has been no ballot and call to strike.
and
b) There has been no statement from the union as to exactly what they'd be calling a strike about.

Perhaps some people like to hear all the facts and weigh things up before huffing and puffing.

BD

I've been reading this thread with interest and increasing amazement as some of the posters seem to be winding themselves up like mini water spouts...

I was around when the last NATS ATCO strike took place - so long ago that I'd only just started shaving and most of you guys were still on the 'drawing board'; and it achieved bu**er all except to sour relationships on watches and between watches.

Setting aside the issue of what's considered to be a fair pay rise and the future of the NATS section of CAAPS, anyone planning to call a strike ballot or to go on strike needs to take account of some unpalatable 'home truths'.

1. ATCOs and particularly NATS ATCOs are not perceived by Joe Public to be under-paid over-worked employees who are being exploited by their Employer.
2. ATCOs and particularly NATS ATCOs are not held in the same regard by Joe Public as under-paid over-worked staff such as teachers, nurses, social workers or junior 'house' doctors.
3. The state of the UK (and Continental European) economy with an almost certain recession on the cards has already seen several airlines go out of business and any action by NATS ATCOs that pushes a few more over the edge is certainly not going to endear the workforce to Joe Public (have a chat with a few stranded Zoom passengers or Alitalia shareholders to gauge their view of what might be a fair pay rise for folk annually earning in excess of £60K - £70K a year...)
4. HMG still owns 49% of NATS and the airlines + BAA a sizeable chunk.
5. Politicians (and especially the current government lot who are unquestionably, a 'busted flush') are extremely sensitive to public opinion. The sight of large numbers of highly-paid ATCOs camping out in the car parks at Swanwick, Prestwick and other higher-profile airport locations will not create sympathy amongst Joe Public especially if the disruption causes more airline failures.
6. It would then only take the stroke of a politician's pen to open up the NERL en-route market as any 'approved' provider is now eligible; and to sell-off NSL to the highest bidder.
7. Whilst it's entirely true that the rank-and-file operational workforce would still be needed (and that many of their managers and admin staff would not), only your salary is protected by TUPE - pension arrangements are not. Therefore, the short-term effect would be to end the 'final salary' pension scheme for all employees (not simply new recruits) and the medium-term effect on salaries would not be the outcome desired.

There were plenty of hard-nosed bullish ATCOs working in the US before the ATCA strike and we all know what happened there without public support and in the face of a determined government.

Please understand that I'm not venturing to suggest what is or isn't a fair pay rise or whether or not the NATS pension should cease to be 'final salary' for new employees: I'm merely seeking to put the discussion and some of the more extreme views into the context of a crumbling economy, airlines having gone bust or tottering on the brink, UK unemployment likely to reach 2 million by next year, house reposessions increasing, businesses creaking and a government that's run out of ideas, innovation and cash but which remains desperate to be re-elected and so would welcome the opportunity to prove it's still in control (especially if Joe Public was like-minded). :(

CAP493 well said, about time some real truths were written. One thing thats also worth mentioning is that NATS will be hit by huge penalties for delays if there were a strike (although no one knows what they might be striking about yet!) Possibly enough to push the company into bankruptcy (all income is revenue there is no pot of gold making interest), where would the pension fund be then? Hardly surprising that senior management are concerned about a strike as its not in their best interest to have the company go to wall, despite the assertions in this thread that their entire motivation for joining NATS is to rape and pillage. To date I've seen absolutely no evidence that this is the case, in fact I see them trying to establish the company as a proper business, make it more focussed and efficient and more profitable (shock horror! a business that makes money, who'd have thought!)
The issue of pension and pay are two entirely separate issues, as is the CEOs pay he's on a contract and negotiates with the board for himself.

BD

Intherealworld

You obviously aren't living as your name suggests if within 2 hours you can say

which is a threat, then

I say again, as I, and others, have said before. A person has a right to cross a picket line if they so wish - I wouldn't, but I respect their rights.
To have them then hide under a table for the rest of their career because of the likes of you makes me sick. You remind me of someone I knew at school.

CAP493.

I understand all of that.

So it can hardly be a good move for NATS to take a "non negotiable" stance at such a difficult time. It is in everyone's interest for this to be resolved by negotiation and a sensible resolution to be found.

Previous action did in fact lead to all manner of improvements not just to pay but across the board including SRATCOH and traffic management as it strengthened the hand of the staff.

I don't think public opinion really comes into this-they will be just as much against Barron and the board who have form on taking peoples' pensions and leaving them in the lurch as he did at Alstom. He has managed to accrue a pot of £1.8m in just 4 years at NATS-more than anyone would accrue in 40 years in the company, and there are plenty of those.

Not too sure I feel sorry for Alitalia shareholders either-the Italian govt have bailed them out against EU law for years.

I believe this is the time for us all to take stock. NATS should shelve their pension plans and concentrate on making up their "holiday shortfall" and then we'll get a proper picture of the true situation. The market is down so they should be able to pick up some bargains shares and property for long term growth.

From a staff position I would also shelve the 2009 pay rise as a sign of "goodwill" which will hopefully strengthen their position in 2010 with a view to resolving pensions first.

I will take the same rise as Paul :8

If we do strike it won't be over pay it'll be over Pensions. I think we will get public sympathy, I think the public is sick to back teeth of managers like wot we 'ave.

As the union themselves have agreed, doing nothing is not an option.

BD

Just for those very few posters who unaware of what a threat is;

Dictionary: threat

(thrĕt) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif


n.

1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

tr.v. Archaic., threat·ed, threat·ing, threats.

StillDark&Hungry:


So that's not a threat then!

My point being, I don't think it's ok to not stick together and implying that if there are people around who think this is ok than they seem to keep their head down, I am not saying they NEED to keep their head down! This is also a moot point as everyone I know happily speaks up as being more than happy to strike over such an important issue.


I'd love to reply to this but don't want to be accused of bullying.

So NATS paying in their fair share following the "holiday" with subsequent interest would "not be doing nothing". Indeed it would be doing the "right" thing and may just start to persuade people that they are prepared to shift a little on this issue.

People need to remember that many staff potentially affected by this have been in the company for 30 years+ and many will have no time to react to any potential changes.

The fact of the matter is that the staff just don't trust this present management on any of their promises regarding the pension and the security of it even for those of us who are supposedly protected by legislation.

Remember above everything-Barron has form.

At the time NATS requested the 'holiday' the fund was in very large surplus, vastly more than was needed to pay pensions. Now, due to the market situation, the surplus is only just over whats needed to pay pensions but the market is still going down, hence action is needed. At the time of the 'holiday' it seemed (to me anyway) that it was perfectly justified because you can't predict the future.

BD

management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert

if not management now, certainly someone who is scrabbling up the greasy pole.

I have got to a point in this discussion where I feel i can't express myself anymore coherently or politely. I may have to withdraw and just read. I can feel my chest tightening now. Put that down to poor vocabulary or something else, i just don't know.
I'm going to drink beer in the sun and relax.

With you 100% Caesar...no doubt you'll be the 1st through the picket line BDiONU :ugh:

I doubt he is operational.......paper doesn't shuffle itself!

LOL! You guys make me laugh :} No dissent allowed, anyone with a different POV is obviously a lickspittle management lackey :ok:

BD

BDiONU says: "At the time of the 'holiday' it seemed (to me anyway) that it was perfectly justified because you can't predict the future."



It's exactly because you can't predict the future that such a "holiday" should not have been allowed. Without the "holiday" the fund would be far healthier.

The options are straightforward-
Strike to save YOUR pension.
Don't strike to lose YOUR pension.

The solution is down to the backbone and resolve of the only staff who can realistically make any difference- the OPERATIONAL workers.

this is not the first thread that bdionu has bummed management. got a nice corner office with a view over the lake?

If the cap fits, BD, if the cap fits..:ok:

You can't really be so supprised though, as at least here, your personal point of view (which you are welcome to) always appears that of a NATS management apologist.

Perhaps it's time for you to respect others opinions, who do not hold NATS senior management in such high regard? Just a thought old chum...

BEX