Eglnyt...

Congratulations on defending PB...I knew somebody would try sooner or later, and it could only be yourself or one other person. Still, fair play for sticking to your guns...even if you are defending the indefensible :ugh:

Given that the total staff costs for 2007/08 were £409m and that subsequent head count reduction probably just about compensates for the 2008 pay settlement, I think that 4.5% would be a bit closer (pension and social security costs rise pro-rata with salaries)!

By the way, it appears that some volume reduction shared risk factor has kicked in on the en-route unit charge - my calculations indicate that the 2009 sterling unit charge rate has gone up by about 8.5% - would anyone like to check this?

Things seem to be looking up - service units for March were only 10.8% down on last year, compared to February's 14.0% (although Feb 2008 had an extra day?).

I think most of us would settle for 4.5% :) .

yep, I'd take that :ok:

Dear Mr. Union Rep...Please can you fix it for me......

Bearing in mind that the 'windfall' from CTB sale was just that, a one-off, this year only, if we did get it as a pay rise this year, you'd all be happy to take take a 4.5% drop next year then?:}

How long has it been decided that we would be given a dividend and how much it was worth?

PB states it will hit our April pay packets which means the decision, and the amount, was known well before he announced it in order to make the deadline for April pay run.

Gonzo, Now you're being silly!

Management: Keep the money from the sale of the CTB. Give no shareholders a dividend this year (after all, I personally would prefer a higher pay award that was permanent and pensionable instead of a one-off dividend). Stop pleading poverty if you're gonna give money away.

(Obviously too late now as they have done the deed)

Yahoo

Keeping the CTB is a ridiculous idea. Who would want to rent office space in one of the UKs prime locations? :}

NATS have obviously thought it through and dismissed the idea and therefore decided that the best way forward for NATS is to sell the building off and give the money away.

Any employee who thinks NATS should keep a source of regular income that is only going to appreciate in value is off their rocker. It just does not fit in with NATS policy of pleading poverty one the one hand and frittering money away on the other.

I personally think we should have given the building away, then paid for the option of renting out some rooms in the CTB at a vastly inflated price on the off chance we might need them in the future.

You can never have enough meeting rooms...:bored:

SDC and Workforce Unity
 

According to the website

ATCOs.co.uk -

The SDC has given a strong message in the debates about whether to stay united or to allow NERL and NSL to go seperately.

It has been decided that any degradation in pension, Ts&Cs etc would be robustly opposed.

They have also indicated that the option of NATS making a 3rd subsiduary company outside of NERL/NSL in orsder to get small tower contracts (i.e. end up with more division than we already have) should be opposed.

The motions

The vote

Obviously this is just for incorporation into BEC policy, it still means that we would have to fight against management if they wanted to do the opposite.

Also, quite interestingly as NATS are always talking about partnerships and the benefits, and the entry into foregin ATC contracts, the following quote from the report: (my bold)

Maybe we should go back to what we are good at, ATC and stop trying to be a major player in a closed market...

As it should be:ok::ok:

Had they kept CTB, I can just imagine the posts:

Selling off an unneeded asset so that management can concentrate on more important business is standard and sensible business practice. Whether the money should have been kept inside the company for investment is another matter

ProM

I actually agree with you re the sale of the CTB. To keep it on would have been costly and it would have taken years to realise the £45M through lease.

As you say though, keeping the money in hand for a rainy day... no brainer in my book.

E-W

Now that those motions have been incorporated into the BEC handbook, we just need to make sure that the Union actually fights for them when it comes to it, and that the membership votes that way as well.

It's all very well having a set of codes which lay down what we would like to happen, but following it through with a robust stance, and a robust backing vote, is another matter entirely.

Remember, it was Union policy a few months ago to keep the pension as it was and, to parahrase the Union, 'consider all measures including industrial action should management tried to change the terms'.

That policy quickly changed when management started pension talks, the Union stating that costs meant it was impossible to keep the pension if we wnated to safeguard NATS.

How long before the same line is trotted out about one of the motions voted in remains to be seen. Hopefully, it will never happen.

anotherthing

By that I suppose I will be second out of the door at Swanwick only to you should there be a real threat to NSL terms and conditions.

i agree with the post relating to what was previously written in the handbook about pensions. The BEC completely ignored that and instead decided to negotiate what they considered to be a good deal because they were doing so, using the reasoning that never mind what the book says , we are looking out for your best interests. If they had come to us at the early stage when this was suggested then we could have given them 'guidance' but nooo, cant upset the delicate balance of negotiations. So why should now be any different.
That decision has tainted my view of the decision making processes made high up in the union on our behalf. As a consequence i , and probably management will think of these as idle threats, and will think that, as in past occasions that those motions are just for guidance.

Ayrprox,
I think genuine lessons have been learned by the BEC over the pensions fiasco.

There will be an opportunity to talk to them and the local section shortly.

You will be able to meet with BEC members at Scottish on the following dates and times.

At ScOACC between 1300 and 1500 on both 5th and 6th May.

During the evening of the 5th and 6th May at 2000 hrs at the Parkstone Hotel, Prestwick. (Upstairs bar/function room)

This will be a great opportunity to meet with the members of Branch Executive and tell them what you think.
At the Parkstone Hotel, the local section will also give a brief presentation on some issues, including OCT, PC ops structure, Working Together, the recent SDC. This will be followed by an open debate, with the BEC, for the members to ask questions.

I would encourage everyone to come along. The BEC (and local reps) can only represent staff accurately if their views are known - this is your chance.

250 Kts & Anotherthing - hopefully you won't be the only ones walking out the door if it comes to that. But there is a real fear that people at LAC / LL feel they are untouchable and what happens to the outer peripheries of NATS won't affect them.
I hope I am wrong and stand by to be corrected.

250Kts/Stupendous Man

I think that what has happened to the direction of NATS since PPP is a disgrace. I also think that if we allow management to screw NSL, then we are further weakening NATS as an ATC provider.

I will vote in favour of keeping NSL equal, and would take industrial action to try to ensure the same. To do otherwise would be ridiculous, LAC/LL are not immune and would be next on the list.

Hopefully people at LAC/LL will realise this after what management have done to us recently. If for no other reason than being selfish and thinking of self preservation, LAC/LL staff need to ensure that NSL do not get shafted!

Of course, I am merely taking a simplistic view of wanting NATS to be the best ATC provider it can be.
This does not fit in with managements business plan, but I personally don't give a monkeys and any operational person should be the same. Being the best in the business and having some pride is what we should be about - and we shold be looked after/remunerated for being so as well.

'..If for no other reason than being selfish and thinking of self preservation,..'

unfortunately, this is exactly how the vast majority of us think - and vote! The current economic situation and the divided, divisive, self-obsessed culture that is today's NATS workfarce only exacerbates our desire for self-protection at any cost, or at anybody else's expense.

Like I've said before - there won't be any 'action' (no balls). At least not until the petty squabbling and infighting is resolved, and the workforce is represented by a single Union with one aim - all of us working together to protect the interests of each and every one of its members, and not just the 'chosen few'.

(and, like Zooker's last comment, the above paragraph would probably be better placed in a 'Complete Fantasy and Utterly Unbelievable' section of pprune.)

With regard to LAC/LL members view of any "shafting of NSL", take a look at some of the Emergency Motions at the SDC.

I realise "talk is cheap", however EM 8 shows that Heathrow members would support a withdrawl from the AAVA agreement - it must ,however, be done on a united front, not peicemeal by individuals, and with LEADERSHIP from our Union.

I would say that this is certainly NOT the case amongst TC ATCOs, not on my watch anyway. I think most of us feel that if PB and chums go after NSL then its only a matter of time before they get to us. I would like to think that in the event of any action being taken, the majority of people would be right be behind you. Now all we need is the Union to get behind us.

Here here... long live NSL, go f:mad::mad:k yourself Barron!!!!

Private Sarnies (Band 5 Swanwick ATCO)