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?