Or they could say that they won't buy your electronic (off the shelf) data system if you keep poaching our controllers - oh, they've already done that one. Or they could make approaches to the adjacent UACC urging them not to keep recruiting LACC valid controllers - ah, it can't be more than a decade since they did that. Not sure what pressure they can put on the sandpit, but you can be sure they'll do something in the background to stem the flow long before they every consider the market value of their staff.

The minimum experience for the sandpit was 4 to 5 years.If Nats bonded people,then their bond period would probably be over by the time Serco might be interested.
Nats can't retain people if they are not interested in staying,for whatever reason.Controllers are leaving from other stations to go to the sandpit,not just Hounslow aerodrome.Would they get any incentive not to leave.I doubt it.

anotherthing
 

Fair point....I did not give up training as a protest against the pension issue,nor because I don't really want to do it anymore.I have had for a long time a growing sense of disillusionment with the company for whom we work.You and I both know what I mean by this....Destinations,Vision 2011...just read the AMAN thread on Natsnet for a classic example of management speak...the growing lack of recognition of ATC as our "core business",and the aggressive stance taken by all tiers of management towards operational staff.Frankly after nigh on 30 years here I have had about enough and made the decision that it was time to withdraw from certain voluntary tasks.No big deal as far as I am concerned,and maybe I am taking a stance....but if more of us did perhaps we might make a little more progress as a body.I do strongly believe that there is a responsibility on us as individuals to take action as well as via the union.

Gapster -

Thanks for the reply! I agree with your regarding taking a stance, but feel that it needs to be done en-masse.

Totally agree wrt to the way the company is going - I have been reading both the AMAN and Vision2011 threads on NATSNET with interest.

I find it unbelievable that some people in the CTC actually think this bullsh!t bingo that has crept into our communications is a good thing. We have a perfectly acceptable and useable language (English).

If they spent more time on getting projects right, and less on trying to fit as many OK-ya phrases into everyday speech, then we would be onto a winner.

There are obviously some very clever people in our company - their time and effort should be diverted from thinking up new sh!t phrases to ironing out huge problems elsewhere!!

A campaign for a return to plain English within NATS is one initiative I would 'buy into'(:yuk:)and 'take ownership'(:yuk:) of...

:suspect: Good point! Lets have a 1:1 and have a 'conversation' about that. :E

But who would your "stakeholders" be???? :yuk:

The one that annoys me is being referred to as a customer of the IT department or a customer of the training department. I am NOT a f:mad:king customer, I'm a colleague. I'm a customer of the canteen as I pay them money for the service they allegedly provide, but I can't recall paying our training department to train me.

Management bollocks really winds me up. To be honest I couldn't give a flying rats arse about Vision 2011 or that Destinations crap, I want to move planes. I like doing that, I like working with the people around me and I don't like the way the insidious management bullsh:mad:t has started sneaking, actually I'll use the word barreling, into the Ops Room.

As regards pay, I feel anything less than RPI and the Union isn't doing their job properly. I fully expect them to come back to us, based on their last outing, and tell us that management offered RPI and that they have managed to beat them down to RPI -1% because they felt sorry for them or some similar sob story

The Dirham is linked to the US dollar.At the moment Dirhams to Pounds is a very good deal.

I wonder if anyone would consider changing the direction slightly on the negotiation and look to take a lower than august rpi increase but ask for the calculated difference to be added to trainees pay at all levels. Trainee pay scales have not been increased for about 4 years (except those at college affected by minimum wage changes). As this is a year on year decrease, many are suffering. Not all trainees are 18, single and with no responsibilities, many are supporting families and paying mortgages etc. I realise it's a choice to be a trainee etc, but they are the future of the company, so maybe it would be a generous show of support by their valid controller colleagues?

Yes I'll take a pay cut (less than RPI) to ensure trainees, including those not even yet in the company can be paid more. If it saves the company paying the extra cash, I'm right up for it. Any more great ideas Sherlock?

Maybe those who have already got through college and are working their way to validation see themselves as part of the company. It was a suggestion, and maybe a way of pointing out that those at the bottom of the ladder already in the company are probably being hit just as hard as those at the top, and maybe by extending a supporting hand, there might be some much needed improvement in morale. I'll bow out now as I've obviously touched a raw nerve.

A bond could only be applied to somebody newly posted, not to somone who has been valid for over a decade, unless they plonked down a wodge of crisp fifty pound notes in lieu of s minimum time commitment to NATS.... hold on! thats a retainer!

Take heed NATS management, we liked working for "old" NATS. "New" NATS seems to be going the same way as the NHS - more managers than workers - and willing to screw everyone over.... and we ain't got not loyalty to any of you.! :\

what low morale.....
 

I hope NATS management actually read some of these threads because it is quite clear reading that people are not happy...

Its a very interesting situation at the moment with NATS and controllers looking to go overseas. ive read and heard it said a couple of times that NATS are aware and are going to do something about it.......

interesting that so far their response has been to screw us on the pension, extend a very dissappointing pay deal (so far...im sure it'll get worse!) and bring things into the ops room (while patting eachother on the back) which dont work and cause a higher workload.

then you hear the record profits and that they are paying money to the airlines.......

morale is at an all time low and its getting worse by the day.........

I'd suggest that PB and probably others of the executive don't really care a great deal that morale is low. I always get the feeling that he sees it as some kind of personal mission to 'take on the ATCOs' and get what he can. I might be wrong of course. Can't see anything changing soon though.

It was reported on todays news that the vast majority of UK companies are intending to close their final salary pension schemes to EXISTING employees with the next five years. I would like to suggest that the unwritten Memorandum of Understanding needs to be watertight.

Up the tower raises a good point. Were there to be a pay freeze, and like everybody else I hope there won't be, it would affect lower paid members of staff far greater than those higher up the scale. The response whilst predictable shows a lack of compassion that I hope doesn't extend to all those fortunate enough to be better paid.

Dc D10 Realman ...the memorandum is supposed to be written into the contracts, but like the trust of promise and transport act they seem to have skirted round , i won't be surprised if they pull a fast one in the years to come.... hope you enjoying your retirement and season ticket:}

DC10Realman,

At the pensions briefings I asked a senior member of the NATS management the question about how watertight the memorandum on the pensions agreement is going to be. Basically it is not. There is nothing to stop the Company coming back to us in 2 years and saying 'sorry chaps, this isn't working we need to re-negotiate the whole thing'. Their rationale is that the Company can't be allowed to risk going bust just to support our pensions. Enjoy!!

Regards ADIS

Theres no surprise about the MOU not being worth the paper it (still has to be) written on.

I, along with others, stated this during the debate on PPRuNe during the pension 'consultation'.

The fact that people were willing to vote 'Yes' before the MOU was even written made no sense to me whatsoever - they were basically agreeing to Ts&Cs yet to be decided. Do you honestly think management will roll over on it?

There is no consultation on the MOU, we have already agreed to it, in whatever form it takes. It is a 'negotiation' between our union and management - we've seen how well those go recently...

NATS managment will be back well before the 15 years is up, cap in hand. In fact, I would be surprised if there is not a proviso within the MOU that states that NATS has 'the right to re-negotiate at any time before the 15 year period if finances dictate'.

And finances 'will dictate' because NATS have some very clever, well paid money men who know how to siphon off certain profits in ways that mean they cannot be used for pension funds or pay negotiations.

The reports about companies closing their schemes cited the current financial climate and interest rates as well as longevity, as being the reasons.

This is depsite the fact that pension funds are long term investments that will see good economic times and bad, and despite the fact we were implicitly told at briefings that the current downturn had no real bearing on the fund and was not an issue we should focus on.

The fact is, companies are in part, using the downturn to close schemes whether they are viable or not. It is very easy for companies in this current temporary climate, to scaremoneger workforces.

The fact is the MOU is now a complete irrelevance.
Management got their way with the pension issue, the one that we voted to accept, and therefore they can write anything they want into the MOU with impunity.
If we do not like it then that is tough as there is nothing we can do about it. As far as I can see the only course of action open would be not to sign it.
That would leave the MOU in a state of indefinite abeyance which the union, who got us into this position, are powerless to do anything about.
I should imagine that the managements stance is you either sign it or you don’t.
It makes no difference to them either way.

So The MOU of understanding is not going to be worth the paper it is written on, and we basically have signed away our final pension scheme!!!

PROSPECT negotiators you must be proud.

Our union is a waste of space, and most definitely a waste of 15 quid a month.