Sector 8

Haven't heard from you for a while, thought you were away at learning to speak sense college, ahhh well we live in hope.

ASG - you really have a chip on your shoulder about ATCOs don't you? To recap, the first vote for ATCOs, ATCEs and ATSAs was carried out simultaneously - we are all given freewill at birth - to explain, that gives us the right to make our own decisions. ATCOs voted against the deal - (not against ATSAs and ATCEs) - if you are suggesting that we are guilty of some kind of treason, then I think you are living in the 1970s.

S8D - 'reneged on the originally agreed offer' .......? In the words of Miss Olive Actory of Chewing the Fat .... 'I can definitely smell *****'

It's not agreed until it's voted on ... other wise WHY DO WE HAVE A VOTE. Go and buy a dictionary - then learn to read it. :p

As I understand it... the 3 branches that comprises the Central trade union Side all agreed to recommend the offer. Somewhere between the CTUS meeting and the ATCO's BEC meeting there was a change of heart and they (the ATCOs) decided to reccommend a No vote.

Is that incorrect??

If not, then who can blame PCS and the ATCE/Prospect for going back and recommending a Yes???

The whole thing is a bloody mess, and the sooner that all three branches become one, in the same union, the better. But I guess the ATCO's wont have that.......

(Edited for ambiguous and generally ****e grammar)

You've got to love a weak mind. Always reverting to personal insults cos they can't grasp what a proper discussion involves.

To recap Aunt: I don't have a chip on my shoulder about ATCOs, I don't hate ATCOs and I think most ATCOs are very decent human beings. Obviously there are exceptions, as there are in all walks of life. We seem to find most of the exceptions ppruning.

Now back to the story. Us OPERATIONAL people deserve a decent pay rise. To that I think we all agree. What seems to be the bigger issue here is that the rest of us want parity with the ATCOs after there was a little struggle for power in the lower ranks of the company. Fair enough. ATCOs win every time no doubt. What the problem is, all you blind ATCOs who can't see the ATSA past the end of their nose as they tilt their head upwards (not all ATCOs by any means - as I said 95% of them are very decent nice people) is the way the other ranks are VALUED (remember that word? Was thrown about a bit a while ago). The other OPERATIONAL grades in the company feel very undervauled. For a start we have a management system everyone knows only too well do not love us mere foot soldiers. Then we have the "gods" who look down on us. Do you know how much hard work the rest of the company actually puts in so Mr. and Mrs ATCO can come into work, sit down and chat to planes all day long? Sure you have pressure and a hard job, but so do the rest of us. Now imagine, if you will, our friends the Managers who want to reward the ATCOs for whinging (Fair play to you - it worked), and kick the rest of us in the short and fuzzies and make us all feel like not actually working hard any more. All we want is a little recognition for the job we do. Just like you. We may be sheep at times when it comes to saying yes, but don't go getting excited and upset when we say no once in a while. Let us have our fight and see what happens. You've had ours and you won.

I'm afraid sector8 is right... sorry if that doesn't fit into the "ATCOs always right" world...

When the original deal was done, all TU parties INCLUDING ATCO branch agreed to recommend a "yes" vote to their members. The engineers and PCS stood by their word. The ATCO branch bottled it when their members obviously gave them an earful and went back on their word. That's the facts.

Now... the ATCOs then vote no, as is their right. It's not fair to say that all were lied to by management and the ATCOs saw through it as the reality is there is no money there to pay for this improved deal. So it wasn't a lie. The money will be found by going to the banks and begging for more loans, with the assurance that the conditions of the deal will bring cost savings.

So in effect, rather than "flexing muscle" and gaining a victory, the ATCOs rejection has got us into a situation of trading off our terms and conditions for a few extra quid.

As to the legality of the engineers and PCS now rejecting the original offer... If you read the small print on the ballot form, this was clearly seen as a condition of the vote. So perhaps a bit of credit should go to those who predicted such a shambles may occur.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. The ATCOs have got their pound of flesh... but will have to wait until the rest have been satisfied before getting a sniff of the readies.

Let's just hope that this concentration on short term gain doesn't end up with us selling out some of our future security, I for one, wouldn't think it's worth it.

Actually Undercover both you and sector8 are wrong.:eek:

At the conclusion of the CTUS pay negotiations the negotiating teams, including the ATCO one, agreed to recommend to their own BEC`s that the deal on offer was the best that could be achieved by negotiation. No more, no less.

The ATCO BEC, after discussions, decided to recomend rejection and make it perfectly clear that industrial action would be a distinct possibility if the members voted no.

It is the ATCO membership who rejected the deal very conclusively.:)

Just my own opinions but.......

I'm sorry if the assistants and engineers feel that they have been let down but this has been caused by the union negotiators and not the atco's themselves. They were wrong to come out of the original meeting with an agreement to recomend acceptance and then change their minds, I suspect they did this because they soon realised that the atco's would reject anyway as we are not sheep and are allowed to vote with our own free will and so wanted to save face. I think that the result of the improved ballot (approx 60-40) shows that just because the union recomends acceptance you still have the right to make up you're own mind. I personaly still voted no due to the strings attached but will accept with good grace the democratic result.

What I cannot understand on these forums is the fact that I have now said the above I will be seen by people to be anti engineer or assistant which I most definately am not. Good luck to them if they manage to get any more money out of the company and, I, for one will not mind not getting my back pay for a little while yet ( I've lasted 9 months already without it). Just don't expect me to fighting you're corner too vigorously as I beleive after you've already voted yes you can count yourself lucky to get any more!

ATSA's should all think carefully about the can of worms they may be opening by demanding more cash. If management need to save money long term, they may look at squeezing the ATSAs hard to get their money's worth. At the moment there is a shortage of ATCOs which is costing NATS a s**tload of cash- so more money for ATCOs is probably a long term investment for management. However (and I think this is very wrong) management don't value ATSAs the same way.

There is no comparable shortage of ATSAs to lend weight to your pay claim, so although you may get a comparable offer now, you can look forward to being made to work for every penny. ATSAs currently enjoy a fairly relaxed life most of the time- reading the paper, regular breaks and early goes. You may find yourselves working the 3 1/2 hour maximum I believe you can work before getting a 30 min break, staying later, no 1/2 days leave etc.

I happen to think this would be dreadful if it happened, and agree ATSAs and engineers deserve more respect from both ATCOs and management, but perhaps PCS should think long and hard about where it wants to take its members following its F**k up over pay this year.

A little pedantic Big Nose... ? ;)

Whatever the diplomatic wording, all of the TU negotiators agreed to go back to their respective BEC with a positive message that this was the best they were going to get.

No matter who said what, the outcome and the current situation remain the same.

Have my fingers crossed that management now make an acceptable offer and we can all get our money without having to take strike action... who wants to do overtime to land these pigs?? :rolleyes:

I am on leave what is the current state of play, do we have to vote again?
I thought once the pay offer was accepted that was that.
I do not want to insult ATSAs & ATCE but this constant sniping will backfire on you badly, management will look at any excuse to further deplete your diminishing ranks.
It is your union negotiators you should be having ago at not atcos.

WINTERMUTE

You say that there's no shortage of ATSAs - not so.

Sectors are routinely closed (not opened) at Swanwick because there are not enough ATSAs.

Pedantic, no i don`t think so Undercover. Just pointing out that the ATCO`s decided to take the risk of industrial action and the ATSA`s and Engineers didn`t.

Quite happy to agree that we are in a mess, personally not bothered about my back pay or the introduction of overtime.

As you don`t tell us from your profile what you do in NATS i can`t coment on your final point:D

As soon as I work out exactly what it is I do, I'll be sure and let you know. :D

Zerouali,
No windup, I am on leave all I know is from what I see here on PPrune and the Prospect website , which says that the ballot result was that of acceptance.
I did do a night duty overtime last night, and asked what was going on and was told that afurther 2% had been offered to ATSA's and ATCE's .Nobody could offer me further insight as to what is happening.

As an aside I didn't vote to accept and stood up at a meeting and said it is quite wrong that this has all happened.
But I must abide by the majority vote ,right or wrong, thats democracy.

flower

This is all getting very tiresome .....
I normally prefer to read rather than contribute.

These issues seem to be doing a pretty good job of dividing NATS staff into opposed camps. Not good new for starters.

We (NATS) are allegedly a "company". We all work for the same people. We all have colleagues who are ATSA, ATCO, ATCE plus all the other grades who hardly seem to get a mention.

I see far too many posts here that imply that there are only certain members of the "company" who deserve a pay rise of X. I guess I must be old fashioned. If a group of people have collectively done a bloody good job of handling more traffic against the odds then surely that group of people collectively deserve to be rewarded for it ???

I am neither ATCO, ATCE or ATSA (but I used to be one) I am merely classed in statistics as "other". I believe I work every bit as hard as my colleagues across NATS. I work long hours, sometimes I bring my work home .... and no my In Tray is never empty and always waiting for me on a Monday morning. Oh yes ... and half an hour for lunch !

I believe that we should all be rewarded for the hard work we are faced with. However we appear to be in danger of tearing ourselves apart from the inside with all this inter-unit bickering.

Lets all hope it is sorted out soon so we can get the money and get on with it

There is a passage in the Bible about workers who had agreed to one Dinarius for a day's work. Other workers also agreed to a Dinarius but for only half a day's work. When the accounting came the first lot, having seen the second lot get a Dinarius for half a day's work expected to get more than they had agreed to but were rebuked by the landowner who stuck to the agreement they had made. They went away grumbling but had not been mistreated.

When the original vote went through some agreed to a deal. Others were not satisfied and negotiated a different one. However, out of jealousy, some of the first group now want to go back on their word and in so doing will hold up the payment for everybody. That seems rather self motivated to me. All sections had the chance to negotiate on the same terms. Why be envious of those who were prepared to take a risk and did better? That is not honourable.



Point 4






:)

Thanks for the biblical lesson .4...

just one small detail....

It was a conditional acceptance. The improved offer to others invoked that condition. So it did it's job.

Just don't like the shoe being on the other foot I reckon.

Da Silva... well said. Quite why the higher earners among us are grumbling about the lower earners getting a fair share of an increase is beyond me... well, actually it's not. I can see exactly why... but as my mother always told me; "If you can't find anything nice to say, say nothing at all" :p

da silva

An erudite post. You should contribute more often, although your calming words will probably have little effect on the more polarised opinions in this particular thread. Pity, because the venom here displayed is starting to worry quite a lot of us who would simply like to see a fair award to all emplyees of our fair company.

Maybe there's hope for us after all!

As a certain Mancunian monkey man used to sing, "Love Spreads"



...can't we all just.... get along... ? :D

Undercover:

"It was a conditional acceptance..." Which means what exactly?

Do you mean that you were satisfied with the deal... unless others weren't... in which case you wouldn't be satisfied either? It was up to each individual to assess the offer on its merit. Having done that and expressed your satisfaction by ballot you have no such right of recall just because others weren't. Either the deal was fair to you or is wasn't and if you thought not, you should have had the courage to say so. The truth is that under the current circumstances the deal was not fair to the ATCOs and they expressed that view.


The Bible quote is appropriate.

Point 4



:)

I dont know about the engineers.. but as far as PCS are concerned, acceptance was recommended on the basis that there was no more money available and the offer was the best one could hope for under the circumstances. It was also made clear (BEFORE the vote) that if it suddenly turned out that there *was* more money on the table.. (i.e. the ATCO's alone got an improved pay offer) then the pcs vote would be set aside.
I think that was a perfectly fair stance to take.

Why should a (already more highly paid) section of staff get a bigger PERCENTAGE rise than the rest? I've still not seen a satisfactory answer to that one. The increase in cost of living is pretty much the same for all of us.

BB

we need now to follow one of two options...

1, ATCOs, ATSAs and ATCEs join together to form one singular negotiating team, or;

2, ATSAs, ATCEs and ATCOs split totally and negotiate for themselves.

Because basically this pay round has been a fiasco from the beginning and totally unacceptable to all the union members.

All for one and one for...you get my drift.

roger

Prospect was also told that there was no more money on the table. Would you expect the management to say that there was?

If PCS were satisfied with the offer before the vote why is that same offer somehow not satisfactory now? What is the motivation here?

Perhaps the PCS members need to question their leadership as to how these circumstances have arisen but as things currently stand, each section has voted yes to the final offer made to it and that should be the end of the matter.

You win some you lose some. PCS made its own choice and that is not the ATCOs' fault.

Point 4
:)

"If PCS were satisfied with the offer before the vote why is that same offer somehow not satisfactory now? "

See my post above :confused:

I say again: "acceptance was recommended on the basis that there was no more money available and the offer was the best one could hope for under the circumstances. It was also made clear (BEFORE the vote) that if it suddenly turned out that there *was* more money on the table.. (i.e. the ATCO's alone got an improved pay offer) then the PCS vote would be set aside.
I think that was a perfectly fair stance to take. "

Given the "alleged" financial problems witin NATS, the statement that there was 'no more money' on the table, the fact that of one of a number of things possibly kicking off round the world (another Al Qaaeda incident, India v Pakistan, USA v Iraq) would cause another downturn in air travel, it was more than reasonable to suggest that the offer was the best we could hope for.

I would be far more concerned if PCS negotiators were to stand by and accept the ATCO's getting a larger %age rise and do nothing. Would the ATCO's have done so if it was the other way round? you bet they wouldnt. and neither should they.

Part of the problem, is that the ATCO's have used pay as a stick with which to beat Management due to general poor morale and not just over pay levels.


Roger, I felt that your option (1) above was necessary before PPP... it's even more so now... though I believe that if such a proposal was put forward, the ATCO branch of Prospect wouldnt wear it for a moment...

Edited for crappy typing

BB

Ballot Results
 

I have been reading this forum for the last couple weeks and I think this may have been pointed out before but here goes again the initial pay offer was REJECTED:rolleyes:

All three branches of Prospect must say YES:rolleyes: ATCO branch rejected the offer thus that offer was rejected by ALL three branches.

Thus the point raised by 102.4 about voting YES does not stand, add to this that the ATSS and PCS sections have put the initial votes aside as is there want under the circumstances and which they are well within their rights to do so:p

As for question being asked of the reps for ATSS and PCS I whole heartedly agree, but what about the most senior officials of Prospect and there actions in bringing this situation about.

Strength in unity seems like a winner to me, maybe we should all learn from this debacle. Lets be one NATS under one PROSPECT.

Then I may be misunderstanding something and if that is the case I apologise.

After the initial vote, when NATS and Prospect entered into fresh discussions, why were PCS not involved in that (or were they?). Why did NATS only make an improved offer to Prospect? Presumably because PCS had signalled their satisfaction and so had no mandate?

If the negotiating rules permit you to put the initial vote aside if Prospect secured better and all 3 sections have to vote yes to accept, what was the point in PCS recommending acceptance if Prospect didn't? Shouldn't PCS have sided with the ATCOs in the first place? THAT was where the division started.

The point still stands that all members were told there was no more money on the table (as one might expect them to say). It was up to each section to accept that or not.

May I finally add that I have no difficulty whatsoever with ATCAs an ATCEs receiving the same offer. We are all essential parts of the system. My point is that if you are going to change sides because another section negotiates better than you do you should have taken your lead from it in the first place and then we wouldn't still be waiting for the money.

Point 4


:)

Okay, but why did PCS not align itself with Prospect in the first place if that is what it would subsequently do anyway?? (Remember, Prospect had also been told there was no more money.) It seems to me that the split started when PCS leaders recommended acceptance.

We have to negotiate as ONE if we want to move forward as one.

Point 4

:)

Well... I've now seen the "improved" offer to all non-ATCOs... and it is better... but still less than the ATCOs were offered on basic, with a few bits and pieces added to throw a few bungs at those making the most noise. :rolleyes:

Going briefly back to point 4's angle on why PCS didn't align with Prospect... I genuinely don't think it was a case of PCS being duped by management and the ATCOs calling their bluff. Management were being honest when they said there was no more money available... the ATCOs just decided to ignore reality and ask their reps to go dig up a money tree. All credit to them for forcing management to get the begging bowl out and now we'll all end up with more. But we're not getting more of the money that was in the pot - they'll just take out another loan with the banks - balanced off by promises of more job cuts to follow.

If this offer is accepted now (don't count on it) then I hope we can all learn from the farce caused by this and stick together from now on. We all need each other to get our jobs done in this company. We have different jobs and command different salaries... but we all deserve fair and equal treatment.

Absolutely right.

Point 4

:)

At the risk of stirring it up further, I would ask whether the 2% extra that ATSAs and ATCEs were offered w.e.f. Dec 2003 was on basic salary only or on UHP and London Weighting as well (if eligible). If it was the latter, then it is a much better offer than the ATCOs 1.8% on BASIC ONLY at the same time.;)

What happened in the early days....
 

Guys,

my understanding of how we started this debacles is as follows, if I am wrong please chip in...

All three sets of negotiators left the discussions to present to their respective Branch Executive Councils (BEC's) the 6% offer. I am led to believe general concensus was that they would all likely accept the offer.:rolleyes:

The PCS and ATSS BEC's recommended acceptance whilst the ATCO BEC recommended rejection.

It would appear that there was/is a break down in comms or process between the three branches after the branches made their recommendations. Particularly when the strongest branch (and the one with clout) rejects the deal!!!!:mad:

Maybe something for a new topic? Voluntary Severance scheme, what is it? Will this undermine the present redundancy terms. Add to this the proposed changes to Staff Surpluses agreement (what are they Prospect):mad: we may be adding ingredients together that do not make an apple pie for the staff.

F7F

I, for one, hope the Voluntary Severance scheme is good enough to dump this, once great company to work, for and get the hell out............

Blah Blah Blah

Yawn Yawn

Snooze Snooze

:D :D :D

Thank you for your very constructive and team building comments Sector8Dear.

Bev Bevan, I don't think that, under the current negotiation system we have, the "(already more highly paid) section of staff get a bigger PERCENTAGE rise than the rest? " should get a bigger pay rise, as it is a joint negatiation, so one for all etc....... However, I do believe the '(already more highly paid)' are so for very good reason, and personally do not think its still enough. Reason??? Who's liable.

Beating management with a stick is wanted to be done for so many reasons, it just happenned this time as its one reason sorely thought about by many, and breaking point is closer than ever.

Your union is only there as a guide, reading the tramlines in a bat and ball game is never easy.

The "voluntary severence scheme" is an interesting one... since we already have screeds of agreements relating to redundancy, retirement, resignation etc.

My guess is that this is aimed at the many workers who are on mobile grades and whose jobs are moving to the Solent Business park in the near future... but don't wish to go. At present you either move or you resign. If they're now going to offer pay-offs of some kind to these people then I think they've got a winning formula for many in PCS at least.

5mb,

For the record... I do not begrudge a single penny that ATCO's recieve, for the reasons you give, you all deserve it.
I'm just saying it's wrong that there is a differential in the percentage increase. Cost of living is high for everyone, especially here in the south.

As for the new offer to PCS.. at least management have gone some way towards redressing the imbalance and under the circumstances I am reasonably satisfied with that.


Now... how do we stop this ever happening again??!

How would the ATCO's as a whole feel about the idea of creating a single section within Prospect for ATCOs, ATSAs and ATCEs?

That would strengthen the operational side as a whole, and put an end to any future management attempts to divide and conquer.

Can anyone find any holes in that argument?

BB

Interesting one Bev. You may have played for one of the greatest rock bands of all time but I'm not sure that many ATCO's would agree with you.

Word on the street is that ATCO's should ditch their ties with PCS and go it alone. After all, PCS are just holding us back, right?

I feel that PCS should be ditched totally and yes, all ATCO's and ATSA/ATCE's belong to one union, Prospect. If we are going to continue joint negotiations, then only one union should be involved, fighting for the STAFF, not sections of it. As I said before, I believe ATCO's should get more than they do, but this does not mean I think we shouldn't all get the same annual pay rise. Over the last two years, ALL at Swanwick have worked their butts off to get everything toward smooth (as close as is possible in the current climate), and all deserve the same rewards. Likewise, all ajoining units have had to cope with some total drivel as Swanwick gets to terms with the new system, and attempts to still get up to speed (or full manning), bearing the brunt when things go t!t$ up.

Should the unions no longer join together in negotiating for future rises, I think it will just lead to staff splits when one group gets more than the other, obviously killing more morale on the shop floor. But maybe........................................

5milesbaby - spot on.

Part of the problem with PCS is that it doesnt just represent the ATSAs... but all the admin staff as well. hence my argument that the operational grades should be all represented by one section within Prospect.

Of course, PCS should continue to represent the admin grades.

Any union leaders reading this?

BB

I have no problem with a combined section for all operational staff. As I was trying to say in my earlier posts this whole problem came about because PCS made a recommendation out of line with a section whose lead (by their own admission) they were always going to follow if it decided to fight. How can one now take PCS seriously? If you are going to dump your own leaders' recommendations and ballot when another section makes a stand then what on earth is the point of PCS being involved in the negotiations and why bother with a vote?

If we are to remain separate then you must fight your own fight and not climb on the ATCOs' bandwaggon and that means standing by your own vote. (I am amazed NATS recognised your change of position.) Personally I would rather we were one and stood together, better for all.

Point 4
:)