A Vision - Part 3

The Second Certified Shafting Meeting has been held, it's done and dusted.  

No timetables for progression, still, no offer from the employer, still, a vague concept of topics to talk about next time.

The Vision Document (which isn't the claim) has been received by the members as an euphony (imagine sounds of Champaign corks popping).  The employer had very little to say about it, was it a claim, what's its status, apparently their brief interpretation is:

Beneficial to the employees.

More burdensome to the employer.

"Holy shit Batman", you'd never have thought, a union wanted to improve the conditions of employment of their members.

The profit last year was, remind us again please, yes that's right $106.7 M; and so far we are making about $7M more in revenue each month than last year.  We are on track for $120M profit this financial year; obviously we can't afford to pay you plebs more.

Think of the Future, the Forecasts, Peak oil, Oil prices, Global down-turn, SARS, Possible airline collapses, International pressures, Inflation, Government policy, Bargaining framework, Fair return on assets, Share Holders desires and there are many more.

Geoff Dixon has just said crisis and 'won't negotiate' with his LAMEs they earn $130K per year, 37% payrise since XXXX, it's classic tactics, expect no less from our employer.

If you want things to change fast and pressure brought to bare on the CEO and the Board and get a decent offer, the time is now, enjoy your days off and ensure that full contingency procedures are implemented when your short staffed.  You deserve a break at least once every two hours, make sure it happens.

A Vision - Part 2

Where were we?  

SDE, the biggest waste of ATC resources any of our team can recall; and that includes all those years training on NAS and TAAATS.

Some work groups have been effectively isolated from SDE, if you work in a regional tower you may have had a switch in management, but effectively, same old same old.  

If however, if you work in Brisbane or Melbourne Centre, with the exception of the TMAs you will have noticed (although TMA controllers may have also noticed) what SDE has done to the sector groups.  Losing portions of airspace by tinkering with boundaries, or moving parts of a sector to another group, splitting levels so now there is Regional Services (low) and East Coast Services (high) doing what was once a single sector.

Some of the splits have ignored 10+ years (maybe 30 years) of efficiencies in the previous system, the reasons why boundaries were where they were, including the vertical ones, reduced co-ordination, traffic management, reduction in complexity etc.

We have seen regional airspace becoming largely DTI sectors, with some controlled airspace abutting those areas.  We've seen multiple examples of 5-6 sectors open when previously there would have been 3 open; because of the rating mixes or 'facilities' issues; you can't put the roles together for technical reasons.  

So now we need more ATCs working the coal face than before, based on an efficiency argument?  What?  That's right, we're better able to adjust...

Then at the same time we duplicated resources required, we removed close to 80 people from Team Leader roles who held traffic ratings and put in the ALM structure where the new managers can't work effectively with those that they manage so they don't. (Well except for dozens of ALMs who still hold operational ratings and work operational shifts).

We have seen an almost complete dereliction of other non operational roles such as Training College Instructors , Projects, GTS, Safety, Check and Standardisation etc.  All to improve our flexibility going forward.

We have recruited about 1/4 of the Global Recruits (20.5 coming online) we sought to recruit and are claiming it a success; but we aren't seeking to recruit more in that manner.  

Read, there is no way you are getting more 457 Visa's; recruit Australians first and then when those stocks are depleted come back and ask again.

We are aggressively increasing our general ATC recruiting drive and the numbers we take; yet there is no evidence of this campaign.  We are remodelling our training "ACADEMY" to be better focused on education not Air Traffic Control, what a ravingly stupid idea, we need practical ATCs who can move aircraft, not educated ones.  

Stop gap measures may include instructors in ATC theory that have never even held a rating; great, but they did the abinitio course that counts right?

Then after all those remodelled business improvements (cost cutting) we still get shit flung at us by the folks on the Civil Air forum and those responsible for Certified Shafting. Philistines!

And now it's apparent that we have "an over reliance on overtime", solution, make it harder for them to go sick, done, idiots, why do we have Level 3s, holy crap there's another million per annum, wow, that must look attractive a flatter business model etc.

We have also just learnt that the employer is still 3 weeks away from making an offer, why, well this is what we predicted in early May   http://certifiedshafting.blogspot.com/2008/05/ding-ding.html

WAYPOINT 2008 is where they announce to industry what the 5 year charging plan will be.  This is what they will then use to justify their inability to open up the purse strings and reach inside; because they will be returning all but a modest profit back to the industry.  And they will clearly factor in a modest ATC wages growth that will be 'locked in' after this announcement.  Therefore in their minds the only other way to get more money in your pocket will be to surrender your valuable conditions (which hamper their business) for that extra productivity.

Time will tell if we are on or off the money, "wanta bet?"

A Vision - Part 1

We applaud loudly the effort made by the representatives of the staff.  We boo loudly the lip service, attitude and general demeanour displayed by the employers representatives at the first meeting of the parties.

The first meeting, held approximately 3 weeks late, usually a scoping and planning meeting, reached no outcomes or even a timetable for progress.

One thing is clear to us at the Shafters, Airservices will scurry hide and be loose with the truth when it comes to negotiating in good faith.  No doubt we will be ‘surfaced’ as an example of why the union isn’t acting in good faith.  We'll say it again, we have no ties to the union, or any of the unions elected delegates.

We are few of number, but we are passionate in our beliefs. We believe that enterprise bargaining matters, that sharing profits is the best measure of and ultimately the beast means toward affordability of pay rises.

We firmly believe that there is no true mechanism for working out ATC productivity.  More traffic moved and less bodies doing it is one measure, safety outcomes another, costs vs revenue another, available work hours, amount of TIBA/TRA use; We're sure there are many others. 

All productivity measures are a balance or ratio of staff to traffic; too few staff will greatly effect the available work hours and safety outcomes and the amount or TIBA/TRA, too many staff will effect the traffic vs bodies argument and cost vs revenue.

But how do management decisions adversely effect productivity?  We have seen the most significant change to the ATC structure in the last 3 years since Sir Winston Churchill said “Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never. Never -- in anything great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense”.   

All this under the tutelage of Greg Russell CEO.  This is the restructure “that we had to have”.  To position ourselves as a viable business in the future, to be able to adapt to new technology and to better organise the management to staff ratios and improve communication, remember we asked for it, to improve morale.  Don’t be fooled, a “bloody good pay rise” will do nothing for morale.

The repositioning was underpinned by the cornerstone called SDE.  It had an accompanying management structure comprising the ALM (AWA) process.  This has led to multiple redundancies at a time when we are ‘critically’ short staffed.  Management has argued that the redundancies were ‘unforeseeable’, despite alleged internal legal advice saying they would have to pay redundancies, despite the union and vocal employees stating that you will trigger redundancy pay-outs in this restructure.  

There is a case currently before AIRC, with a decision pending and imminent, where by more Air Traffic Controllers are seeking redundancy due to not being offered suitable redeployment caused by this management restructure again, all at a time when we are ‘critically short’.

We have now learned that in attempt to better control absenteeism which is ‘escalating’ that admin staff are now longer to take the calls of controllers calling in sick.  You will be redirected (or call directly when they move the phone) to the Operations Director, who presumably, will be able to tell if you are or aren’t genuinely sick, from that phone call, or perhaps you will just be too intimidated to call in sick if the Operations Director takes the call.

Then if you do manage to call in sick, you brave soldier you, you will be called by your ALM to ensure that there is nothing more that can be done to get you on your feet quicker; did someone say unreasonable intimidation?  Perhaps this strategy will have an adverse effect and make you feel worse or actually make you seek medical advice and take a few extra days than you otherwise would have had, on the direction of that medical advice.

Back to SDE, well a more rushed half arsed product you will never find.  Multiple resources absorbed into effectively duplicating roles and duties; cutting edges on maps, realigning sector boundaries with great aplomb, positioning ourselves to be better able to adapt to new technology.  When is this new technology going to be available?  Why rush into SDE?  Why waste resources right now; well it suited the political ideology at the time.

Were there warning signs that the pace was too fast, well you'd have to be blind Freddy not to have noticed.  Did this information get put to the Main War Room, of course it did, proceed plebs get on with it was the message from the Master don't bring us problems bring us solutions.

The cost, bad, bad, bad PR and a devastating effect on morale. 

99 out of 100 operational controllers in our quick survey, see no benefit in SDE right now, or in the next 2 years; only 17 saw a benefit of some description after 5 years (if all the technology works).  So why rush, because we could and we did.

3 Card Monty?

Well last time we blogged we congratulated, the CEO Greg Russell for approving pay advancements to those with previous experience.

But wait, we now have learnt that the "one off" adjustments, are at management approval as per the normal advanced progression process.  So individual managers will be (or not) recommending those deserving advancements.  Why no central HR process?

APPARENTLY, IT WAS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE!

The catch(es), well first up, it's only for those who have been recruited in the last 5 years.  If you have been here 6 years and meet all the other elements, whoops bad luck chump! People joining from your previous employer are now getting more than you and they've only been in 6 months, so what if you have more time in ATC, obviously you're a chump and don't deserve it.

Second, the concept is that you get 'advanced' to Level 6 or Level 10; depending on your 'management assessed worth' and total years of experience.  So it's not quite parity with the Global Recruits, is it?  Even though that was the trigger point for the amendment.

Third, if you have recently been advanced, then you get squat, because you're a chump! There is "no duplication of advancements" to be had; so got that single increment earlier this year, you miss the possible 4 jumps this time?  You know it makes sense.

Why make it so hard?  Why wouldn't you just advance everyone, as a sign of good will and an attempt to improve morale, publish that you've done it and get some kudos; this way all it's going to take is one person getting the stick and you know how the rumour mill and process from here goes; it's another potential detriment, no matter how many people you advance.

Why wouldn't you just pay people the level as it compares to their experience in years; assuming that's upwards.  ie You have been in ATC (here, the services, OS) for 8 years, pay them at level 8, 12 years in ATC then pay them at level 12?

Talk about a typical bureaucratic way to stuff it up, why are we continually surprised, we know their form.

We have been reliably informed that some individuals have said "Give me LVL 13 or I'm going OS", and we have confirmed (so far) at least two individuals getting that advancements from said discussions.  

Our advice if you're not on the top increment, get out there and look for a better deal; it gives you bargaining power.  Additionally, we suggest you write to your local member of parliament and advise that you are getting paid less by your employer than those working under the Visa 457 program, even though you have more ATC experience, you know it will look bad.  Contact a TV current affairs program too; they'll love beating it up.

Then if you go cause enough is enough (or you get dumped for squealing in the media, ingrate) or you don't get what you want, then the rest of us have increased bargaining power too. 

A Win?

Recently Airservices Australia recruited Global Recruits.  

These candidates almost universally were not Australian Citizens, with a few exceptions.  As part of the recruiting campaign undertaken to attempt to address the staffing crisis Airservices Australia utilised VISA 457s and sponsored the employment of non Australian citizens.

To help entice these non residents to the corporation Airservices paid people either at a premium to their current wage, assisting in relocation costs or a wage that was equal to the persons years of service.  Well done Airservices this is how to get staff!

But what of the Australian Citizens not recruited through this campaign, those already employed or about to enter 'Abinitio' courses with similar or better experience than some of those harvested in the Global Recruitment campaign.

Well in their infinate wisdom there was no recognition of previous experience to the Australian citizens, it was a different recruitment campaign after-all.  Ex RAAF controllers or ex Civil Controllers returning to the ATC workforce were paid at levels equivalent to abinitio entries or something similar but certainly not commensurate with their experience.

Until now,  The shafters now understand that those above mentioned folk have across the board had a pay adjustment and Airservices should be commended for attempting to fix the problem they created; even if they haven't fully recognised true pay levels.

So, Greg, well done. It would have made for horrible media we guess, but what ever the motivation, from all here at Certified Shafting, Well done.  

We hope Airservices can bring this type 'good faith' to the table and not lock us in to a battle that we all don't want to have, but we promise not to hold our breath.

Ding Ding

Well on points, the first round has gone to Civil Air. There were certainly no knock-out blows landed.

The employer postulated about all the reasons why a 'bloody good pay rise' would not be forthcoming unless 'trade offs' were utilised to increase the productivity.

We have seen speculation that a cap on sick leave is absolutely required and that PORs are an unreasonable restriction on our business.

But most interesting of all is that despite the first meeting being 3+ weeks late, the employer isn't in a position to make an offer yet, because they don't know what their staff want!

Well we say, why the hell don't you know that?

We have more managers than ever in an effort to increase communication (see justification for ALM structure) yet now we are all (both ways) less informed than ever.

The employer has advised that crucial information will be included in the WAYPOINT 2008 presentation; of which a copy will be provided after the event. 

WAYPOINT 2008 is where they announce to industry what the 5 year charging plan will be.  This is what they will then use to justify their inability to open up the purse strings and reach inside; because they will be returning all but a modest profit back to the industry.  And they will clearly factor in a modest ATC wages growth that will be 'locked in' after this announcement.  Therefore in their minds the only other way to get more money in your pocket will be to surrender your valuable conditions (which hamper their business) for that extra productivity.

MARK OUR WORDS, we won't be getting a 'bloody good pay rise' unless we fight for it.

We are particularly interested in the commentary of "FOCUS GROUPS" these have been referred to in the past as "FUCK US GROUPS" and rightly so.  These are utilised to justify that Civil Air doesn't represent the views of the membership.  They are about dividing and conquering.

Despite the explanations that Civil Air has 90%+ coverage of ATCs; they still think that Civil Air is the voice of the vocal minority and everyone else is either a sheep or too afraid to stand-up to the national executive (or individual members of it).  

Thus the logic, we have a right to talk to our staff and when we do we find they don't reflect the same views that Civil Air puts to us; thus we can't trust anything that Civil Air says because they don't represent their members.

From our reading of events; this meeting was about getting beyond WAYPOINT 2008 without making any commitments and then being able to say, "well this is what we have told industry and the ACCC has approved it sorry that's all we can do also this is in line with Federal Government Bargaining Framework".

Hell they have stated that they won't be able to make us an offer for 4 or 5 weeks, that's two months after the meetings were supposed to start.  Its about getting beyond a time when the figures are "locked in".

What can you do to help bring things to ahead?  Spread the word that the employer has shown clear signals of not being prepared to bargain in good faith again.  Spread the word about this blog.

Then ask yourself "Do I enjoy my days off?"

Meeting 1 - 12 May 2008

Today marked the centre bounce, the first whistle of the contest that is the Certified Agreement.

White line fever was apparent.

Both parties stood arm in arm, geeing each other up, confirming the game plan,  before taking to the field of battle.

One side with the unabridged support of the workforce the other the with the support and ideology of the previous governments managers still active and in control of the corporation.

On side asking for something fair and reasonable given the history, events, and profits achieved by the recent past.  The other denying the legitimacy of the request based on the global downturn, price of oil, future forecast, pricing agreements and government intentions about subduing wages growth to fight the genie that is out of the bottle.

So what actually happened?  If you know please feel free to post a comment.

Happy Mothers Day

To all the mums out there:

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY 2008

Monday marks the first day of the negotiations in earnest.

We anticipate one party presenting a thorough document with a non ambit claim supporting the wishes and desires of those behind the document.  

The other side will postulate, make outrageous claims and start us on the path to the expiration of the current agreement with a view to industrial action to be taken over the Christmas/New Year period, such is the expiry date of the agreement.

Only trouble is, gee whiz, is that the evil empire run by TFN will be stalling and blaming everyone else why a 'descent pay-rise' isn't possible.  Even though he truly believes we deserve it.

There will be little press until it gets to the business end of negotiations.  Well except for the occasional public bashing of those 'contriving' the events causing the closing of airspace or reductions in service.

The last PR man was escorted from the building after locking himself in his office after getting the news about him getting the 'bone'.  They have advertised nationally for his replacement, offering substantially more pay than the average ATC, well why not, you need to pay for quality in a competitive employment market.

Pity that last bit won't be used as an excuse when saying why ATCs won't get a fair, globally competitive deal.

Psychic us or what?

Yesterday we blogged about what will happen to those ALMs on AWAs now that the industrial framework has been amended by the current Federal Government.

Non AWA ALMs have now received an email from the "General Manager" ATC; clearly written by some underling.

They have two choices as we understand it:

1) Be part of a "Collective" to form an agreement, or 

2) Have Civil Air negotiate a "Collective Agreement" on their behalf.

This still begs the question as we typed yesterday, what becomes of those on AWA after their nominal expiry date?  Should they have any input into these negotiations?

AWAs - Line Managers

About 12 months ago, Airservices successfully divided the Air Traffic Controllers into two groups. Group one, Operational ATCs. Group two, Line Managers.

Group One:

ATCs will commence negotiating with their employer 3 weeks after the 'deadline' to do so contained in their certified agreement.  

This period of negotiating hopefully will be concluded prior to 21 December 2008, the end of the current agreement.  Hopefully there will be no need to divide the workforce further from the corporate culture than it already is.

Hopefully the negotiators for the workforce, made up of the members of Civil Air, will convince the employer that they do truly represent the workers and that a fair and reasonable offer is more than deserved.

Group Two:

Air Traffic Controllers, who previously were team leaders or operational supervisors, traffic managers, or in some cases Unit tower managers.  Most of these people accepted AWAs that were offered.  Some of these people have already moved on into retirement with all the higher benefits obtained by increasing their superannuation salary.

Some of the above mentioned supervisors received Voluntary Redundancy due to the employer not offering them suitable like type employment; others who didn't apply or accept ALM jobs also wanted Voluntary Redundancy.  The employer has claimed that they have been offered 'reasonable' other employment and there for they are not entitled to VR.

You can read the hearing transcript here: 

Day 1 www.airc.gov.au/documents/Transcripts/170308c20073792.htm

and here:

Day 2 www.airc.gov.au/documents/Transcripts/180308c20073792.htm

We still eagerly await the outcome of the hearing, held almost 2 months ago, such is life when dealing with the AIRC and any court/tribunal/arbitration processes.

Whatever the outcome, Airservices has removed around 10% of the workforce from the Certified Agreement to individual AWAs; this cannot be good in the longer term employment relationship.  There has been an ideological desire to separate managers from workers.  We still don't get why?  Because you can't supervise unless you aren't "one of the boys"?  Or you won't supervise properly unless your manager has the right to threaten your hard earned if you don't perform in your duties?

The employer looking to replace the ever departing ALM folk can no longer make an AWA with the new ALM, thanks to the new federal government, so what employment instrument can be made?

The employer has recently published "What it means for us..." article about "Workplace relations".

Essentially this 'advice' says that employees on or entitled to be on "AWAs" will be able to join a "Collective Agreement", after the nominal expiry date occurs on their current AWA.  In the fine print is that People in Management roles will transfer to a common law contract.

Remember that the employer had no desire to have a "Collective Agreement".  Management considers these positions to be Management; see above ideology.

There is scope within the current Workplace Relations laws to have a "Individual Employment Instrument" but these won't be use for employees of Airservices Australia as the government, the owner, doesn't believe in them.

So this then begs the question, will ALMs be considered Managers and moved to individual Common Law Contracts, or will they be pooled into a Collective Agreement.

If it's the latter then who is going to negotiate such a deal; is it to be part of or an addendum to the ATS Certified Agreement?  If so, are the members of Civil Air prepared to take industrial action to support those now on AWAs to get a deal that is worthwhile for the same individuals who chose to leave the fold and take the extra money on offer?

Management Style

Since the last "Certified (Shafting) Agreement" we have seen the management restructures, business department amendments and supervisory realignments. 

ATC was essentially immune from the majority of these restructures; well for the first few years of 'fiddling'.

Team Leaders became operational supervisors.  Operational Supervisors have since become Air Traffic Controller Line Managers or ALMs for short, well except for the majority of Regional Towers where the Unit Tower Managers jobs still 'exist'.

We all acknowledge that there are not enough ATCs manning operational positions, this gives the workforce a significant bargaining advantage if we chose to utilise that point.

At a time of short staffing, brought about by ongoing insufficient staff planning, SDE wastage/duplication of duties, we then implement the ALM structure to further deplete the operational ATC resource.

Approximately 90 ALMs are now performing supervisory and management roles; a significant increase in management when compared to the OS structure.  Of these 90 or so people over 65% came from the previous operational staffing pool, thus we have reduced our console coverage by about another 50 people.

Lets leave out the manner in which the ALMs were employed; that's a whole separate topic.

The are at least 7 people that have left or who are leaving the company that didn't apply for ALM jobs; previously they were Operational Supervisors; they are entitled to Voluntary Redundancy.  There are another group currently fighting for Voluntary Redundancy instead of being redeployed back to the boards or other non operational roles that they argue are not the same type of job (what not doing ATC, supervising ATC staff, not working shift work, not working weekends etc. fair enough difference in roles one would think).

So we could end up with 15 or so people leave the organisation, with pay-outs, because of the ideologies of the individuals involved in proceeding with the structure; even though they may have had advice that Voluntary Redundancy "was likely" for anyone wishing to pursue that option.

We have seen 'fraud' allegations and disciplinary action taken against individuals for leaving 30 minutes early with permission from their immediate supervisors (ie no substantive cost).  Yet when management waste potentially millions of dollars because of ideology, then it's called a business decision, not fraud.