Jonny B good thanks for the work you've put into your replies.


BD

I hope you lovely folk can endulge me this small digression in relation to the article printed in the Guardian and subsequently NATSNET. Just read the article on NATSNET and a posting struck a chord. Somebody wrote that the article could be a NATS ploy to build up the public's antipathy towards us:

"Hey Vera, did you hear about those controllers going on strike? some of them are PART TIME earning £50k per year, you know. And they have time to sit on expensive chairs and read newspapers, and they want more money?"

"Well I never, Betty!"

Another EGLL Production brought to you by Destinations 22, in conjunction with Visions 2020, sponsored by Aston Martin

Seconds away, round 3! DING DING!

My thoughts exactly mate. When I saw the TV interview she did I thought that this is not putting across the right image of our job and making it appear to be a walk in the park everyday.(maybe the west end is?)

Maybe they were told what to say and Barron was stood behind the camera with a gun to their heads but to say that this job isn't stressfull in many ways is just wrong.

Isn't that why we get paid so well? To recompense for the huge responsibility on our shoulders and the shortened life expectancy of shift workers!

As I've said on the other thread about this, there should be a different face to NATS that will tell it like it is without a plum in their mouths!

Back to the pensions, briefing this Friday, undecided as yet!

It is fact of life that most companies would choose someone who is photogenic for such things, irrespective of how representative she (usually) is. But surely there are people on here who know her?

Can I as an interested outsider, confirm my understanding:
The offer on the table is not acceptable to most of the posters on here. How representative that is of NATS in general I cannot say

If you vote no, the management cannot impose it. What per cent do management need? 50%? or do they need more to impose it on everyone?

Therefore surely the Union is right not to endorse a strike if you vote no - there would be no need for one. You strike to achieve a new deal, not the package you will have if you do nothing

Therefore it would be down to the management to make the next move (new offer, approach government, whatever)

What happened to the engineering redundancies? That seems to have been forgotten

"What happened to the engineering redundancies? That seems to have been forgotten"

as have the ATSA ones.

I expect many will think this has no bearing on the pensions issue - suppose it doesn't - unless you're an engineer or ATSA :hmm:

It has already been said at the briefings that the company does not need a yes vote. In fact Mr Barron has been quoted as saying that the pension changes are coming in on the 1st of January regardless of the vote!

Time to give that man a bloody nose, the more oposition, the less likely he is to leave the company a happy man with a big wad of cash.

Then I am confused decimal. I thought from the other posts that he could not legally do this?

In that case, may I ask when the conference date is that you take a vote (if nothing else I'll try and get all my flying for the year over and done with before then)

Mr Barron has , reportedly, in the last few days claimed that this WILL be going through regardless of HOW we vote, and said that we are basically voting for industrial action because of this fact. He has also been heard to say the words "pay freeze" in relation to subsequent pay talks.
VOTE NO.

Should Mr Barron's reported postion be true, here's some words for him to consider from my own personal point of view:

No more AAVAs

No more doing anything for NATS on rostered days off (which includes Operational Conversion Training for his shiny new Prestwick Centre).

No more carrying extra validations. I will be handing back 3 or 4 to bring me to the published Unit Minimum.

No more running single manned sectors where the PSS states there should be 2 controllers.

No more LCE duties, I'll live with dropping pay a little.



None of the above are 'industrial action'. I will merely be complying with the Terms and Conditions of employment which NATS have contracted me to do. And I suspect I will not be the only one doing this.

You forgot about OJTI.I can live without that.Also any time the phone rings from work,then it will remain unanswered.Caller I.D. is wonderful,unless you want to pay for my telephone line rental of course.
Then we will have more people leave,because NATS has become more unpleasant to work for.Not industrial action,just people voting with their feet.:D

My understanding is that the Barron can close the scheme to new entrants when he likes. It will be their new T&Cs that they sign up to. He cannot implement the pensionable pay cap without a yes vote.

If he imposes the closure of the scheme without "working together" then we can all walk out the door with Prospects backing - this has always been the case.

When Prospect have said that they couldn't support industrial action it is in reference to this proposal i.e we couldn't say " I don't like this offer lets strike"


So Mr Barron - it is not a vote on industrial action - it is a vote on your proposal. And if we say No (hopefully when!) then come up with a better one.
More examples of his bullyboy tactics to get what he wants - the scheme closed and NATS ready for sale.

What Engineering Redundancies?
 

If its the future of ESD engineers you are referring to then as far as I understand it there are no redundancies! At the briefing on the future of ESD that I attended it was stated that there would positions available for all those that have to come off watch. The question you have to ask yourselve is do you want the job offerred but I don't see there being any money for redundancy.

At long long last, after 930 posts someone finally hits the nail on the head.

On 8th Dec the documents will be signed as the END of the consultation.

All NATS legally needed to do is consult! After this ALL the proposed changes will be made.

This vote is bizarre as the union don't support industrial action so what is the point of the vote? There isn't any that I can see.
If it wasn't a joint NTUS/NATS proposal as would normally be the case the vote then has a purpose.

Vote yes - great for Management
Vote No - Thats nice for all to know but doesn't change or prevent the proposal.

Anyway, interesting thread though.

Despite his Barstools and round robin trips around the units, what The Baron & Co, fail to appreciate is is that we are not a company producing gas turbines, where jobs can be outsourced to China or India, nor can we produce more widgets by working day and night!

We are a company of very smart individuals who work bloody hard and have a lot of pride in the safety critical tasks that we all (ATSA, ATCE, ATCO Office Bods, etc) discharge. Our "product" is the outcome of our minds and not quantifiable. By demotivating the staff, there has to be a knock on effect on our "output", whether we do it deliberately or not.

Some, myself included, will give up jobs that we choose to do out of goodwill such as supervising (no extra spine point if also an OJTI), safety cases, HAZOPs etc. as wel us giving up paid jobs such as OJTI, LCE and even AAVAs.

e.g we often bandbox GMC at LHR when it's quiet, which helps staffing, breaks etc. yet if we kept GMC split three ways even if we're twidling our thumbs....

In every industry, even during this credit crunch, the best people are still being rewarded with the big bucks. There is a global shortage of ATC staff, we really shouldn't have to take this crap.

And let's not forget the multitude layers management suckling at the corporate teat of NATS doing what the heck they do.

We have a business support manager at LHR - what the heck is his job that the GM or manager ATC cannot do? and community affairs director? Let's stick to the knitting.

We don't need to diversify, we dont need to take on contracts which make a loss (price our services realistically - if they don't take, they don't take), we just need to do ATC!

If this whole pension thing is already a given, we should ALL VOTE NO as a protest, just to let management know that we aren't going to bend over and take it up the ar$£ as they do as they please. And let them feel the consequences of their bullish behaviour, let NATS pay the fines. LET THEM REAP WHAT THEY SOW!!!!!!!! :mad:

I agree with you 100% SATAN , as do many of my colleagues. There are some however who feel that wanting to pick a fight with management is not reason enough to vote no. I say b******* to that...it may not be the ONLY reason to vote no, but I think it is a perfectly valid one because, as you correctly point out, if we vote this in then we will continue to take it up the a*** from the management, with no vaseline I might add :}, over every subsequent negotiation, and that includes the impending payrise talks....where, surprise surprise, a pay freeze has already been mooted.
Every one is entitled to their own opinion, that just happens to be mine.

Well, I guess its up to the individuals. If there is a resounding NO vote & the company proceed as planned anyway, then surely it spells trouble for the company?
Factor out all the goodwill that keeps this company going, then you do wonder if the new Scottish Centre's opening could be put in jeopardy?
If the membership resoundly votes NO & the Company proceeds, then it surely must also be the end of PCS & Prospect, as they would be no longer representing the views of their members?
Interesting times ahead:eek:

Mr A tis - you are right, if the members vote no, then the entire BEC will have to resign. Then we will have to find union reps to stand in their place to lead the subsequent industrial action/negotiations. I hope that everyone on this site who has very strong feelings will stand and lead...

At LHR, in recent months we've had about 5 validations, yet with departures to sandier climes, our net gain in valid atcos has been 1! Each watch has 2 or 3 trainees, if they don't get trained then with retirements etc. the net figure WILL head south, furthermore many people are on the cusp of deciding whether to start learning arabic. The pension shaft WILL push them towards a one-way ticket to Dubai and beyond.

fewer staff, no AAVAs and other duties, yep £100,000 a day fines WILL become the norm.

And all that at a small provincial airfield to the west of London!

Multiply it throughout the other NATS airports and en-route and pension costs WILL suddenly seem cheap

But to have those effects you will need to have near complete support for what is in effect a work to rule.

Do you honestly feel that you will have such support? Inevitably the most angry people are the ones likely to be posting on here, the shrug shoulders and whatever brigade won't bother to post and will continue to work as now. How many in each camp?

ProM

I know I digress from the threadline but in answer to your question I know the controller in question.

My question back to you is what, or who, would you consider to be a representitive face of an ATCO? We may not all be Mr or Mrs average, the fact was she was chosen and I think did a great job in the article.

still dark, i was merely making an observation about companies attitudes in general. Your colleagues seemed less happy with her performance than you are but I have no view. As I have made clear, I am an outsider, and therefore could not judge how representative she was.

I guess it comes down to the purpose of the interview. If you are trying to recruit then you give a nice happy interview (as this seems to be). Others posters on here seem to feel that the same would be true if the company is trying to undermine their case

Interviews for other purposes may instead try to convey a different impression

"The" Article
 

At a time of tension on the negotiating front, and particularly as the union has conveniently overlooked their mandate from the membership to address the PAY issue in favour of Pensions, this article must have made management roll about laughing.
Jolly Hockey Sticks everyone! Pencil one in for the next promotion board....sorry selection centre or whatever.
Apologies for Thread-creep.

I see on todays intranet that the Red baron is planning some more bar stool sessions over the next month............all dates confirmed except for Scottish.........guess he has to load the coordinates into his gps so as he can find us........whatever I hope he has invested in a good flack jacket!!!

"Bar Stool" suggests a two-way flow. The last lot was a one-sided management presentation......full stop. You can't communicate with a brick....it will always be a brick.
Of course it may be possible to pretend to be one of the "favoured few" and speak to *od directly.....assuming the minders aren't present to block you out.

Truth in the rumour?
 

Anyone know the truth about the rumour that Aston man is on a promise of a K if he pushes this pension rip off through?

Had our biefing this week, went in with a firm NO in mind but came out thinking nearly the opposite.

Cant dispute the figures, something has to give as the current situation is not sustainable.

Option 1 vote Yes and we look ok for the next 15 years although we are almost guaranteed to have to defend our position from here on in, albeit at the expense of those yet to join us.

Option 2 vote no and somehow hope that the Gov or whoever might ride in on a crest of a wave to save us and bail out our expensive pension pot, seems unlikely at best. Worst case scenario is pension frozen and moved to new scheme by whoever and NSL in jeopardy.

Its Hobsons choice for me.:\ Option 1 looks the best of a bad bunch.:(

you forgot to include that nsl is in jeopardy with option one aswell. do not be fooled. it will be sold off if there is a yes vote.

Jobsfortheboys,

Option 3 - those crafty buggers are pulling a fast one by dazzling us with stats and numbers based on questionable assumptions and without fully exploring other options - remember lies, damned lies and statistics!

NSL will be sold, for sure, because if these guys are the hardnosed business gurus that they keep saying they are, NATS will be split. It may not necessarily be a staright forward NSL/NERL division, but a re-alignment and then dump the rest. Barron's reputation precedes him I'm afraid :(

jobsfortheboys

Hold at SATAN has it right - you are looking at things wrongly. Where do you come up with the notion that a no vote will result in I assume this is the line that was spun by the management rep??

Vote yes and will be more likely because the burden of a good pension scheme will be gone, making NSL more saleable :ugh::ugh:


The pension fund needs help - no doubt about it. The options for voting are

1. Vote yes if you believe that there are no other ways to help the pension fund and believe that NATS has investigated all avenues of funding, including sticking it's hands in it's pockets and taking out some of the huge profits it has made, despite shelling out on the WD move and other projects.

2. Vote no because although you agree that the fund needs help, you either believe there may be other funding options available to us that need to be explored or simply you do not trust management have come up with the best solution for everyone, considering they do not explain at theses briefings all the other options they have allegedley considered.

This is a huge financial decision we are being asked to agree to - would you buy a house or a car and accept the first deal a salesman pitched at you, based on trust and the salesmans say-so? That's what we are being asked to do here - we are being presented with one solution and being told that all other solutions are no good - but we are not getting it explained to us why that is the case.

If they did explain things thoroughly and the figures made sense, then people would vote yes, I however am very wary of voting for something so far reaching with regards to my financial well being, without being fully conversant with the facts.

Are management taking this seriously? You have to question that very closely when you hear of the management representatives at some of the briefings being unable or unwilling to answer basic questions (as per previous posts in this thread).

Voting no is not saying we want the company to be re-nationalised, or that we think the pension scheme is fine if left alone - it's saying we do not necessarily believe that this solution - the only one that is being presented to us - is in our best interests and is the only viable one. Why should the employees (apart from senior management) take all the pain when the company posts increasing profits year after year??

There still seem to be people who think that there's a huge pot of profit money sitting there just waiting to be used to fund the pension scheme. If you get somebody with financial knowledge to explain the annual report to you rather than just picking out headline figures you'd realise what happens to those profits.

Apart from a small amount of profit taken out as dividend all the profit made to date has gone into investment. NERL has planned to spend about £130 Million this year on capital projects and has spent similar amounts each year since the investment programme was restarted. That's paid for the new Prestwick Centre, the new TC ops room and equipment, Swanwick workstation and display upgrades, contingency and development facilities at CTC, iFACTS, new Mode S radars, new communications equipment and lots of other small things. If there was no profit that investment would all have to be funded from borrowing and that just wouldn't be possible. The regulator allows NATS to make that profit to fund the investment because it sees that as good for the industry. If NATS was to try to use that profit to fund staff costs the regulator would quickly act to reduce the income accordingly. As it is with the likely drop in income as a result of the oncoming recession the investment programme is already under pressure and those NATS staff working on projects face an uncertain couple of years.

NERL is not allowed to subsidise the NSL operation so even if there were a big pot of profit none of the profit from NERL could be used to pay NSL pension costs.

eglynt

How aboput this - We (NATS) starts being more frugal with the money from profit that it re-invests into the company. Then we dont waste millions on projects that are doomed to fail (due to short sightedness or ridiculously short timescales) such as TC North, Central, AMAN, iFacts etc.

Use a company other than Cartus for the Prestwick move - I can give countless stories where Cartus have been less than diligent witht he WD move, and who picks up the bill?? Yep - NATS. My move alone cost the company over £50k more than it should have because the sale of my house was so mismanaged... I did not lose out, but NATS did. This was despit me advising Cartus of a buyer at the price they offered me for my GSP - they then sold my house for £50k less than the GSP, a year later!!

Money spent on airspace design and capacity improvements can't just be shifted across to pay for the pension though. It is specifically set aside for such projects as part of what NATS put forward to the regulator for costs. I don't think the airlines would be too happy with NATS saying thanks for the cash boys but s*d your capacity gains because we're using it to shore up the pension.

so what you're saying is, the regulator will not allow the present pension arrangements to remain?

There are two different issues here.

Firstly the regulator is determined to control NATS costs. It has agreed an investment plan with NATS and allowed a certain amount of profit to fund that investment but if, in the regulators view, NATS has failed to control costs and instead of investing that money has used it to fund operating costs then in all probability it will take action to stop that.

Second the regulator has little choice but to respect Parliament's wishes and allow pass through of pension costs for those staff covered by the Trust of Promise and probably also has to allow pass through for any staff in post before it indicated that something had to change. However it is not obliged to allow NATS to continue to offer the same pension provision in the future. There is nothing in the Transport Act that requires the regulator to consider the view of NATS staff in it's decisions. The size of the potential costs to customers is such that the regulator may feel that it isn't meeting its obligations under the Transport Act if it doesn't do something. Certainly other regulators have already acted to curtail pension costs and it would be surprising if the CAA hadn't noticed that.

We are a service industry - why can't we, like every other service provider, pass the cost of our pension (an overhead), onto our customer?

We have been PPP'd against the wishes and better judgement of employees, by a political party who swore blind they would not sell us off, and in doing so, we also get screwed for £600+ millions worth of public coffers debt, and at the same time, we capitulate even further by being told we should not be allowed to pass on our legitimate costs to our customers...

Complete and utter horsesh!t!!

We (NATS) are either a business or we aren't, what does Barron want?
If he wants us to be a business, then we should be allowed, like every other business, to pass on costs to our customers. If Barron will not fight the regulator to allow that, then Barrons' ability as a business mogul is seriously in doubt.

Either that or he is Kow-Towing to the regulator as it assists his mandate from Tony Blair, which is to shut the pension scheme down and make parts of NATS (namely NSL) fit for sale.

In normal competitive business you can pass whatever costs you like onto your customer. That's the environment that NSL operates in and it's quite free to pass its pension costs on. Unfortunately that cosy arrangement only works as long as all your competitors do the same. As soon as one reduces its costs the others will usually have to follow suit or go out of business. Airports will pay a premium for the NATS service but there is a limit to that premium especially at the smaller airports.

NERL is effectively a monopoly where a whole different set of rules apply. I'm sure Paul Barron and any other CEO would love to be in charge of an unregulated company with a monopoly and just pass on whatever costs are incurred but it was never going to happen. The Government decided that NATS should be a regulated business and laid down in the Transport Act exactly how the Regulator should regulate. It also laid down an appeals process through the Competition Commission but gave that body very similar guidance. NATS does what it can to influence the regulator's decisions and invests a lot of effort in doing that but there is a limit to that influence however good your Chief Executive.

The Government PPP deal is at the root of all this but we lost that battle some time ago. We are where we are and no amount of dreaming will get us back. Even if NATS does return to the nationalised fold things will never be the same again.

So how should we invest money in the company then? If we don't invest, and invest heavily into projects like you've mentioned - how do we grow and develop the next generation of ATC systems and airspace designs?

These things are bl**dy difficult to do. Every ANSP finds them difficult, and NATS does a lot better with projects than most other ANSPs in the world. There's not a big ATC World type store where you can go and buy these systems from. They take a lot of time, money and effort to develop and put into service. We hear tidbits of the latest system that's gone into x and they have this feature in y and why have we got this crap system in the UK. Don't believe it, there isn't a true COTS system out there that would allow us to replace our systems here. These developments are VERY expensive.

Four words for you...North East Airspace Development. Hundreds of hours of manpower and money wasted on something that doesn't work...hardly world leading.

Also, does investing in the company include spunking more money on pointless award ceremonies that the real workers never see the light of day of? Or pointless initiatives like Vision 2011 that mean absolutely sweet FA in the context of a busy summers day in the ops room?? When I last checked, NATS was still in the business of providing ATC.....though you wouldnt think so these days. Not ranting at you personally DotMac, more of a general rant;)

Add NIBS to the list, tw@ts :ugh: