Krait
 

There we are folks. Can't be arsed but hey, you're alright aren't you. Too many folks like you out there and that's why it will get a yes vote:ugh:
Can't tell you how that post makes me feel.:yuk:

Conspiracy theories,

Thank you! I only hope that all those others have a read and hopefully come to the conclusion that we just cannot let this happen! It does raise ones spirits slightly though..... :D

any NSL guys thinking they're getting free money for someone else doing met is misled. You will be giving up the right in future to negotiate a settlement if management want you to take up met tasks

I think that the recommendation from the union is their way of showing management that they are not being obstructive. WE as the membership are well within our rights to say NO and give the Union a renewed mandate to go back to the table having guaged the feeling of the membership

Would much rather take 4% with no strings attached than a 5.2% with strings. That's why I will vote NO.

A pay offer should be exactly that: a PAY offer. Not blackmail over terms and condition in return of an extra 1% (which in my band 2 world equates to about 20 quid a month difference!)

It is not a 10.2% pay rise, it is a 5.2% pay rise for year one, year 2 will be RPI for August 2011 (capped at 5%) on basic pay only.

I'm sure Prospect will try and "dress" it up as a 10.2% rise at the forthcoming briefings.

Just a question for those who say the "big NSL units down south" will vote this in as they don't do met.

Met units (I think these will be eligible for Met)
Birmingham
Manchester
Luton
Cardiff
Southampton
Bristol
Farnborough
London City
Stansted
Aberdeen
Glasgow
Belfast
Edinburgh

Non-met units
Heathrow
Gatwick
Gibraltar?

Do the bottom 3 really have more members than the list at the top?

It isn't 10.2% !!
We need to stop referring to it as such. Most people get shift or non op pay so a large proportion of your salary will see no increase in year 2. You'll need to get your calculators out to calculate your real rise but it can't mathematically be 10.2%.
That figure sounds good though doesn't it? All depends how things are presented I suppose. Same deal could be described as one which may be less than the cost of living increase at a time of continuing profits. So we may be about to trade met and aava for another below inflation pay deal. Brilliant.
And that's without even considering the guys who'll lose their 2% allowance at the airports.

Last week felt things were finally going to change and as a trade union we were going to fight for our rights. What happened in a week? What were the significant changes?
You may now enlighten me.

I am getting more and more annoyed by the minute by everbody referring to the crux of this matter as "doing the MET"!

This is about reducing ATSA numbers at NSL regionals to the point that there will be no ATSA on the nightshift.

This is not just about MET. This is about operational plugged in ATCOs having to answer incoming calls from the public with noise complaints, UFO sightings, wrong numbers for Pizza delivery, bomb threats et al. Sending NOTAMs and SNOTAMS, formulating ATIS broadcasts, sorting out stand allocation problems and everything else (including help when there is an emergency) that the ATSA staff do now and seems to be overlooked.

To NSL management this is about saving money and I'm sure they would even pay a bit more to achieve their goal.

To NSL regional ATCOs it is about providing a safe service without being lumbered with a raft of additional tasks (otherwise known as operational distractions!!!)

That is why I will be voting NO and will vote NO regardless of percentage points so long as "MET" is part of the deal.:mad:

This is all very well lambasting all the band 5 roll overs etc, but let's just remember one thing. An AAVA is still voluntary, so if you're not happy about it, don't do it. So basically one of the big 'strings' attached is that if I don't want to do overtime in perpetuity, I don't have to. No too stringy for me.

An engineer told me last night there was absolutely no chance of their offer being accepted. He said it wasn’t so much as an offer as an assault on their T&Cs with the NSL engineers being particularly targeted and he doubted it would even be put to a ballot.

"What happened in a week? "

Prospect caved in............again :mad: .

GT3

Gibraltar's "NSL" staff doesnt qualify for any UK pay Deal or T&C's.

Prospects and PCS negotiated a 9% over 3 year deal for us. When the members rejected the unions view was take it or leave it.

Yeah I wasn't sure about Gib, hence the ? after it

100% no vote here and very disappointed with my union.

Amazed to see that yet again, the votes will be counted by Prospect,
at Prospect HQ, probably behind closed doors.
As with any election the votes should be counted only by independent scrutineers.
Then, and only then, should the results of this ballot be accepted.
Thanks again to 9th Dan for the detailed banding explanation.
Good points from pikman too, more Ops room distractions for NSL ATCOs certainly.
Definitely a NO from me.

Maybe the powder is being kept dry(!!!!!), but Prospect have caved in again...

Utterly spineless

I'm voting NO

ps....anyone know why the rosters were late out(with union agreement)?????

Just as I've always thought.

I'm now incandescent with rage not only over this pay offer, but all that has gone before. Clearly TC should be band 10 :E

man friday's post shows that Gib has already been shafted by its caring, sharing unions. But it raises a point. Is it mandatory to reach an agreed settlement? If there is a 'No' vote, could Management/Prospect/PCS just tell everybody 'We made you an offer, you turned it down. Tough. See you next year.'

Very disappointed in the BEC for caving in and allowing non core pay issues to be included in the deal. I guess the track record with the pensions should have been ample warning that they are not a million miles away from NATS Management on most issues, and we, as members, never seem to learn that defeat is usually always grasped from the jaws of victory.

The deal should have been solely about core pay, across the whole of NATS as a single workforce, and the BEC should have been pushing for a deal which at least matches inflation and compensates for the real term pay reduction we have effectively had over the last few years. No strings attached.

As others have said, don't be fooled by the headline 10+% over 2 years. It's only a guaranteed 5.2% for this year. It could be a very small increase next year depending on the financial performance of the country. Alternatively, if the country goes to the dogs and inflation jumps up over 5%, we could be tied to a less than RPI increase, or an effective pay cut. Smoke and mirrors again, and all the hallmarks of the pension briefings and that sellout to NATS Management.

The AAVA agreement should have been kept as a totally separate issue, and one which should only be up for debate when the existing agreement ends at the end of this year (albeit currently suspended - I expect a cave in on this too by the end of the month). Why do the BEC want to renew it anyway ? I would rather have correct numbers of staff in place than have to rely on people giving their time up for the Kings Shilling to bail out the ineptitude of NATS Management. If they do want to renew it, why make it a perpetual agreement at a rate which was set about 5 years ago and has never risen ? Maybe their thinking is to make the agreement unattractive to members so that no one does any ? If that's the case, they have underestimated the attraction of a few quid to a lot of members, some of whom would sell their grandmothers to the devil. NATS Management will of course be rubbing their hands in glee at the bargain basement cover they have negotiated once again with our 'Working Together' BEC. Cheap ATCO labour on tap = a big bonus for the executives.

MET should also play no part in this deal. That should be a sectional pay claim matter for those staff affected, done on an individual unit basis if need be, to keep it fair. It's nothing to do with NERL or the bigger NSL units (for the moment) so why are we getting a vote on it ?

If you can't tell by now ... I'm a NO !!

Apparently, the only "across the board" offer that was ever on the table was 2% !

PCS were the only group that were originally asking for a sectional settlement, but you will have to ask your reps exactly what that was and why.

The final offers were from management with the strings attached for each section.

Granted, they have been very clever in doing this and as radarman says, if any section votes "no" who is to say what the outcome would be.

10W, an interim AAVA agreement is back in, slightly modified regarding number of shifts per month, shift length etc.

The new proposed AAVA agreement is rumoured to be maximum of 12 per year, more negotiable for big simulations etc and the rate remains as per the current agreement.