On average about 8 hours a day I would suggest. So the same as anyone else but less often.

Vote NO !! http://www.mbworld.org/forums/images...es/action1.gif


:ok:

Sob <sniffle> Why thank you, thats the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on PPrune. To be likened to a writer of cogent, reasoned posts, backed by facts and without appeal to emotion. I'm well chuffed :ok:

BD

This forum would not be as entertaining without you :E

MERRY XMAS :)

Best regards

Vote NO :ok:

ps

the only likeness was you are both a pair of ":mad: yes voters"

Me me me.........What planet do you really live on........who gives a flying fcuk what the average man in the street thinks....our guys earn what they do because they are the best in the buisness, do not even dare to compare them with your average Joe Bloggs that has sponged off the government for the past 20 years because he has an in growing toenail that prevents him leaving his rather posh council house.............I have contributed for over 30 years to this pension scheme and I am not going to be kicked in the bolloks now..!!!!

Me Me Me Me - I don't drive a Porsche, I drive a Ferrari :cool:

http://bayimg.com/image/daglfaabo.jpg

BD

BTW I wasn't a yes voter, I'm not in the TU.

Mr 777 - a point of order, if I may.

'twas I who first introduced the technical term 'spunk' to this thread, several pages ago when I talked about money being wasted on elaborate 'pat on the back functions'.

Spunkage is merely an extension of the word, as you can see below.

Here endeth the lesson in economic language.

Note to PPRuNe Radar - before someone (i.e. 250Kts) says this post is irrelevant to the thread I believe this post has a (very tenuous) link to the pension thread; as I am of the opinion that NATS would be in a better position to pay the money it should into the pension fund, if it did not merrily 'spunk' good money on silly functions etc.

250Kts

If you count the actual attendance hours, divide into an average month it works out a about 8 hours a day for a 5 day week... but as we don't do a 5 day week, we do the same hours in less days per month.

So yes simplistically looking at it we get more days off, but we work the same hours :ugh:

i.e. we work longer working days than Joe or Josephine bloggs (that's if they are not claiming benefits because of an ingrown toe nail)

Cure for Nats pension problem
 

Since nobody deals in money these days and it's all simply a collection of numbers held on a computer, why not just allow every bank/Company to add, say 9 or 10 zeros on to the end of their balance sheet, suddenly they're a few billion in the black again and everybody's happy.:ok:

As we are all on the happy pills eh:E

So folks, how do we reckon the vote will go? :confused:

And when do we find out??

circa 20th DEC I think :confused:

Crimbo is coming early this year then :)

Anotherthing,

Profound apologies for theft of the word "spunkage". Grammar lesson and declension/conjugation of said verb/word most appreciated. I believe they can ALL be applied to NATS and its management :ok:

Count is on the 18th as far as I know. Result promulgated on the 19th?

Before you all get carried away with guilt over your pay packet why not bear in mind that the mean pay for full-time workers in the city of London for 2008 was £82,084* - thats including cleaners, nurses, techers and other essential, but low paid jobs (if you strip women from the figures the mean pay was £98,923). Does the average NATS ATCO earn as much as that? Then surely we have a very average pay packet for doing a quite extraordinary job. Part of that package is the pension I was promissed - not some proportion of it with no meaningful future.

* source - Office for National Statistics

"City of London"? Convenient argument. I find that post risible... unless I haven't been told about the huge amount of nurses and cleaners living and working in the Square Mile. And damn those annoying women that lessen your case for argument, eh? How dare they have the audacity to work in the city for a lesser wage :\ Get them cleaning somewhere else I say

Getting back to my original question :)

So folks, how do we reckon the vote will go? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

The vocal sides of each camp are relatively small in number.

It's the silent (very large) majority who will decide and I have a feeling that those who say nothing are more likely to be 'yes' voters than 'no'.

Don't ask me why I think that, I just do.

(How's that for scientific?) :}

Ask BD ...... :E