11 thoughts on
“Prospect ATSS view on Pay email From Martin Rolfe”

  1. I think it is pertinent that in order to pass through the national insurance costs NATS are currently challenging the deed of promise to protect our pensions from detriment after PPP.

    Compounding the attack on the promises made they then have the audacity to claim they will “protect” us… from NATS???? For taking a frankly insulting bung???

    That is an insult to staff intelligence.

  3. I agree the time to make a stand is now, otherwise there will never be any more proper consolidated pay rises.

    Also, we all know RPI which takes account of Mortgage interest is a more real bench mark on the living expenses of members which are never going to go down.

  4. Thanks for this information and you raise some good points. The offer currently as it stands is unacceptable as Kathy has mentioned, but I feel even more insulted by the 75 share contfetti being thrown to accept this offer.

  5. The pay negotiations over recent years (and also the changes to the pension) have revolved around the ability of the business to fund any increase. Those excuses have run out, and revealed managements underlying intentions. I share your sentiments and support the unions line.

  6. At the mandatory management pay brief I attended, the presenter gave me to understand that the underlying Union negotiated process for determining pay increases was CPI. Perhaps the way I heard/misheard the explanation, but is this correct?

    • Chas,
      I am not sure what was said at the mandatory management briefing you attended but I will try to shed some light on the point you have highlighted.

      Management were pushing hard to link pay to CPI and made an incorrect observation that “this is the way pay negotiations have been done in the past”.
      We pointed out that the only people who knew about pay negotiations in the past, between the two negotiating teams, were those on the TU side – and that management’s assertion regarding the use of CPI was incorrect.

      The NTUS made it clear throughout the pay discussions that, in the past, RPI was used “to inform” pay talks. However pay was never directly linked to this index.

      We did ask management that, hypothetically, if CPI was 5% would management offer a 5% pay rise. The answer was that they could not agree to that.

      Hope this answers your query on the point of CPI.

  7. Thank you for the reflection on martins email.
    It is clear from this pay discussion and previous ones that management want to squeeze pay while profits grow as long as we let them.
    I will support the unions intention to reject this offer.

  8. Thanks for the comments regarding Martin’s email, certainly shows things in a different light to the management “spin” version.
    It was also inferred at the mandatory management pay brief I attended, that an agreement was reached at ACAS and “Shaken On” then the Union went back on that agreement. I know this isn’t how it happened, but some less well informed members maybe taken in by it.

    • Peter,
      Your point is understood and we will look to clarify the “hand shake at ACAS” when we roll out the briefings.

      In the mean time, for those who would like to know what happened: the very small NTUS team that met with ACAS, agreed to take management’s proposal to each of the three TU executives and to speak about the merits of the offer. After very careful consideration, weighing up all the issues, the combined position of the NTUS was to reject the offer. The reasons for rejection were made clear to management both verbally and in writing. Obviously these procedings were part of the negotiations and would not normally be communicated beyond the negotiating teams and the various execs including the employer. However here we see that NATS has decided to firstly cherry pick points to communicate to staff and secondly put such a spin on the facts so as to make them false facts. I feel that management are doing themselves no favours.

Leave a Reply