Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
IMPACT are at it again...
Options
Comments
-
Times have changed though. Most public servants had been due payrises but are not getting them (quite the opposite). I could understand them trying to maintain their current payrates but looking for payrises when everyone else is getting cut is a bit much.
I see you've ignored both my questions.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »I see you've ignored both my questions.
To answer your question i have no idea how many are on 160K, my point was they are well paid and now is not a great time to be looking for payrises.0 -
The quick answer is none of them are paid 160k...or any where near it!!! The reason you can't find the salary scales is because if the IAA published them, they wouldn't be able to lie about them.It's a made-up figure which includes things like overtime to prop up mis-managed and understaffed rosters, mandatory working on bank holidays, (which includes Christmas Day for example), the figure the Authority pays in PRSI, which no employee of ANY company ever gets as "remuneration" etc.
This dispute is about Air Traffic Controllers being unilaterally suspended by their semi-state employers (NOTE: NOT the civil service)... NOT for refusing to control air traffic... but for withdrawing from a technology project. Read the statements from the IAA carefully.... you'll never see them saying the suspended staff refused to be air traffic controllers. Point in fact, the balance of the air traffic controllers who engaged in a legally sanctioned work stoppage today, were docked a full days pay, which is illegal by the way under the Payment of Wages Act. So what do you do when your company refuses to pay for work you're doing.... you stop doing it, right?? Not in this case.... these "selfish" controllers worked free for the day so the flying public would not be further discommoded. The spin on this story is that this dispute is about wages and pensions. Seriously!!!... Does no-one remember Orson Wells and what happens when you blindly believe what you hear on the Radio..???The truth is this dispute is about 14 Air Traffic Controllers (and the clue here is in their title/job description) who have been suspended without pay, by a semi-state body acting outside all the norms of conventional industrial relations, for not doing their computer homework!!!! And the Minister who is the only shareholder in the this semi-state company, is letting them do it... which should put everyone in fear for the continued existence of any legal protections for employees in this state.
If that's a State you fancy bringing up your kids in, then grab some Tomatoes and head on out to your local picket line. That is,of course, unless they are working for free again, so the Irish public doesn't have to wait an extra day to fly off on the holidays none of us can supposedly afford.
Thanks for reading.
Paul0 -
What's the starting salary after the training period is over?
Were the individuals being asked to do this work out of hours and without remuneration because I've never heard of a contract of employment which didn't include a clause along the lines of "and any related duties which you may be asked to do" etc. Even if this was technically absent from a contract how on earth can anyone consider themselves as having done an honest days work if they're refusing to perform tasks that're being asked of them?0 -
eagleriver wrote: »The quick answer is none of them are paid 160k...or any where near it!!! The reason you can't find the salary scales is because if the IAA published them, they wouldn't be able to lie about them.It's a made-up figure which includes things like overtime to prop up mis-managed and understaffed rosters, mandatory working on bank holidays, (which includes Christmas Day for example), the figure the Authority pays in PRSI, which no employee of ANY company ever gets as "remuneration" etc.
This dispute is about Air Traffic Controllers being unilaterally suspended by their semi-state employers (NOTE: NOT the civil service)... NOT for refusing to control air traffic... but for withdrawing from a technology project. Read the statements from the IAA carefully.... you'll never see them saying the suspended staff refused to be air traffic controllers. Point in fact, the balance of the air traffic controllers who engaged in a legally sanctioned work stoppage today, were docked a full days pay, which is illegal by the way under the Payment of Wages Act. So what do you do when your company refuses to pay for work you're doing.... you stop doing it, right?? Not in this case.... these "selfish" controllers worked free for the day so the flying public would not be further discommoded. The spin on this story is that this dispute is about wages and pensions. Seriously!!!... Does no-one remember Orson Wells and what happens when you blindly believe what you hear on the Radio..???The truth is this dispute is about 14 Air Traffic Controllers (and the clue here is in their title/job description) who have been suspended without pay, by a semi-state body acting outside all the norms of conventional industrial relations, for not doing their computer homework!!!! And the Minister who is the only shareholder in the this semi-state company, is letting them do it... which should put everyone in fear for the continued existence of any legal protections for employees in this state.
If that's a State you fancy bringing up your kids in, then grab some Tomatoes and head on out to your local picket line. That is,of course, unless they are working for free again, so the Irish public doesn't have to wait an extra day to fly off on the holidays none of us can supposedly afford.
Thanks for reading.
Paul
What exactly is a "legally sanctioned work stoppage" ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Well said I have always been amazed that some employees expect a reward for making small changes to how they do their work. However I think this dispute was about 14 ATC being suspended for refusing to cooperate with the change in technology because they were being asked for a pension contribution, and their pay raise wasnt being paid. I dont think they actually expected money for using the new technology in fairness to them, their actions are still disgraceful though.What's the starting salary after the training period is over?
Were the individuals being asked to do this work out of hours and without remuneration because I've never heard of a contract of employment which didn't include a clause along the lines of "and any related duties which you may be asked to do" etc. Even if this was technically absent from a contract how on earth can anyone consider themselves as having done an honest days work if they're refusing to perform tasks that're being asked of them?0 -
-
So why don't IMPACT refute them then? Why would they let us believe all of this if it's not remotely true?eagleriver wrote: »The quick answer is none of them are paid 160k...or any where near it!!! The reason you can't find the salary scales is because if the IAA published them, they wouldn't be able to lie about them.
And why did they withdraw? We've seen nothing at all that would seem to defend their refusal to adapt to new working practices. Why should they get to sanction every thing they do in their job? Surely IMPACT could - at least - explain why their ATC members refused to take on the new technologies in a bid to share some sympathy. In the absent of that, it makes their members look stubborn and greedy - looking for compensation for changes that other professions often deal with on a daily basis. If it's more than that, tell us. I know I certainly don't feel the right, nor does anyone I know, to refuse to changes in my job nor should I.This dispute is about Air Traffic Controllers being unilaterally suspended by their semi-state employers (NOTE: NOT the civil service)... NOT for refusing to control air traffic... but for withdrawing from a technology project.0 -
Well, I'm not paid anything near their reported salaries and am working in a position where I don't need to be 'switched on' for the entire work day.TCP/IP_King wrote: »I hope that the air traffic controllers are not sitting in work browsing boards.ie instead of keeping us safe in our seats !!
Where I'm working I'm paid to do the tasks that are assigned to me, I do them, I wait for the next task. I browse boards while waiting. You get lulls in implementation when users have to come back to you with feedback etc. My employer doesn't mind that I do this, my boss does similar things during his down periods and why you think it counteracts my argument is beyond me.0 -
115k after 20 years is still WAY too much to be paying ATCOs.
My GF's sister is an ATCO in Munich. Her jaw dropped when she heard the 115k figure. She says she'll never earn that, nor would she expect to, and Munich is NOT a cheap city, it is as expensive as Dublin for accomodation for a start.0 -
Advertisement
-
eagleriver wrote: »The quick answer is none of them are paid 160k...or any where near it!!!
The 160k includes pension payments I believe.eagleriver wrote: »The reason you can't find the salary scales is because if the IAA published them, they wouldn't be able to lie about them.It's a made-up figure which includes things like overtime to prop up mis-managed and understaffed rosters, mandatory working on bank holidays, (which includes Christmas Day for example), the figure the Authority pays in PRSI, which no employee of ANY company ever gets as "remuneration" etc.
Plenty of other 24/7 services work similar arrangements, you are far from unique there.
What do you want? All Bank Holidays off and close down the country?[/QUOTE]eagleriver wrote: »This dispute is about Air Traffic Controllers being unilaterally suspended by their semi-state employers (NOTE: NOT the civil service)... NOT for refusing to control air traffic... but for withdrawing from a technology project. Read the statements from the IAA carefully.... you'll never see them saying the suspended staff refused to be air traffic controllers. Point in fact, the balance of the air traffic controllers who engaged in a legally sanctioned work stoppage today, were docked a full days pay, which is illegal by the way under the Payment of Wages Act. So what do you do when your company refuses to pay for work you're doing.... you stop doing it, right?? Not in this case.... these "selfish" controllers worked free for the day so the flying public would not be further discommoded. The spin on this story is that this dispute is about wages and pensions. Seriously!!!... Does no-one remember Orson Wells and what happens when you blindly believe what you hear on the Radio..???The truth is this dispute is about 14 Air Traffic Controllers (and the clue here is in their title/job description) who have been suspended without pay, by a semi-state body acting outside all the norms of conventional industrial relations, for not doing their computer homework!!!! And the Minister who is the only shareholder in the this semi-state company, is letting them do it... which should put everyone in fear for the continued existence of any legal protections for employees in this state.
All I can say to that is I'm almost in tears:rolleyes:eagleriver wrote: »If that's a State you fancy bringing up your kids in, then grab some Tomatoes and head on out to your local picket line. That is,of course, unless they are working for free again, so the Irish public doesn't have to wait an extra day to fly off on the holidays none of us can supposedly afford.
Thanks for reading.
Paul
A little melodramatic don't you think?
To be honest, the travelling public and the ordinary Joe is a bit pissed off with this over the top approach.
Who do you guys think you are fooling.
You do a difficult job, get good pay and pension,good conditions,cop on to yourselves and recognise you have zero support from the public,particularly the travelling public.0 -
You do a difficult job, get good pay and pension,good conditions,cop on to yourselves and recognise you have zero support from the public,particularly the travelling public.
+10 -
It's not that difficult, at least according to my GF's sister (and her boyfriend who does the same job). According to the two of them, their system makes it theoretically impossible to direct an aircraft to crash into another one, or into something else. Maybe that's because their predecessors cooperated with the introduction of new technology though.....hmmmm. Food for thought.0
-
So why don't IMPACT refute them then? Why would they let us believe all of this if it's not remotely true?
They have done, read any article in which an IMPACT rep has been interviewed. Seems as if it wasn't mentioned in the op extra information about these 'disputes' is just not sought out by people here.0 -
Really? I can't see it on IMPACT's site. I'm not referring to the nature of the dispute. I'm asking why don't they discuss why the ATCs won't adapt the new technology if it's deemed so unreasonable by them and why don't they talk about how their ATCs are actually much poorer than the 160k figures being bandied about if it's not true.brianthebard wrote: »They have done, read any article in which an IMPACT rep has been interviewed. Seems as if it wasn't mentioned in the op extra information about these 'disputes' is just not sought out by people here.0 -
Really? I can't see it on IMPACT's site. I'm not referring to the nature of the dispute. I'm asking why don't they discuss why the ATCs won't adapt the new technology if it's deemed so unreasonable by them and why don't they talk about how their ATCs are actually much poorer than the 160k figures being bandied about if it's not true.
Well where are these figures coming from at all? They aren't mentioned in the op's link afaik, nor in the Irish Times article from yesterday http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0120/1224262715081.html It was someone on the first page who said 130k and that was blindly accepted and now you're saying 160k (perhaps by mistake) so really it seems to be a case of boards chinese whispers, so I doubt the union is going to dispute it since it should not be important. If you read the Times article you'll see some of the key reasons for not adopting the technology mentioned.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Well where are these figures coming from at all? They aren't mentioned in the op's link afaik, nor in the Irish Times article from yesterday http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0120/1224262715081.html It was someone on the first page who said 130k and that was blindly accepted and now you're saying 160k (perhaps by mistake) so really it seems to be a case of boards chinese whispers, so I doubt the union is going to dispute it since it should not be important. If you read the Times article you'll see some of the key reasons for not adopting the technology mentioned.
The only reason I see quoted is:The changes would be more complex, mentally demanding and more stressful for controllers, he said.
In my job, if we are given instructions to use a new system or technology we do so or choose to find another job... It's that simple.:mad:0 -
Ok, this dispute is about either one of two things.
1) Introduction of new technology, that controllers refused to take part in. I've worked in places where we've introduced new systems. Do you think we demanded more money to use them? No. Do you think I refused to be trained in the new system, or use the new system? No. Why? Because it's my job, that's what I'm paid to do. In actual fact, if I were to refuse to use a new system that my company were bringing in, I wouldn't expect to be suspended, I would expect to be fired.
2) Increase in pay (probably the more likely of the scenarios). I posted a link on the first page to the IAA website where salaries and benefits are discussed:"These are very well paid staff," Kavanagh continues. "Yes, they do highly important work - and accordingly we pay them very well. A Controller will typically earn a basic salary of over €112,000. When you include PRSI and the pension contribution of 30.5% of salary that the IAA pays, this gives a total package of almost €160,000. When you contrast that with other public sector staff - teachers, nurses, gardai, all of whom are paying a pension levy, these are very well paid staff, with a gold-plated defined-benefits pension scheme. "
"These Controllers work a 35 hour week," says Kavanagh. "They are entitled to a break of 30 minutes for every two hours worked. They work five days and then get three days off. They work 182 days a year, they have 137 rest days, and 36 days holidays, in addition to 10 public holidays"
The airlines cannot afford to pay any increases in this climate.
Link here again in case you missed it on the first page: http://www.iaa.ie/index.jsp?p=93&n=96&a=830
Nothing about "you have to work 20 years to get to that salary, just the typical (which I take to mean average) salary. Also, a 35 hour week, 7 weeks holidays a year, in addition to public holidays. You'd have to look very hard to find another profession that rewards staff like that, and you certainly won't find it in the private sector. Then there is the addition of a defined benefit pension scheme (again, rare in the private sector) which they contribute nothing towards!!!!
I think it just boils down to pure greed. And I don't think they, or any group for that matter, should have the power to bring the country to its knees in the way they have done. It's an absolute disgrace, and I think the majority of the public feel the same way.
The last part, which I put in bold, is the most important part. The state does not pay, the airlines do through charges. They then have to try pass this onto the consumer. But the airline industry is in such bad shape at the moment, they are reluctant to raise prices in case it discourages travellers.0 -
In my job, if we are given instructions to use a new system or technology we do so or choose to find another job... It's that simple.:mad:
I can't believe that people here don't realise that not all jobs are the same, or that not all workers are expected to be mute. The IAA was more than happy to bring the workers in on the project more than two years ago as should be patently clear to anyone reading this thread or following this dispute, and now you are complaining that it is the workers who have made this horrifying demand?
I think it just boils down to pure greed. And I don't think they, or any group for that matter, should have the power to bring the country to its knees in the way they have done. It's an absolute disgrace, and I think the majority of the public feel the same way.
The last part, which I put in bold, is the most important part. The state does not pay, the airlines do through charges. They then have to try pass this onto the consumer. But the airline industry is in such bad shape at the moment, they are reluctant to raise prices in case it discourages travellers.
I love how your own link shows that the IAA is wilfully trying to break their own contracts and you make it out to be greed on the part of Impact/Atc's which is causing this dispute.
Your link also creates a massive strawman, in that Impact want to have the suspended workers reinstated and want to work that issue out without preconditions, but the IAA are insisting on discussing all issues together, even the pay increase, which they are so generously asking Impact to defer in that link.
Anyone that would believe such blatant propaganda has already made up their mind before they ever opened the webpage.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »I can't believe that people here don't realise that not all jobs are the same, or that not all workers are expected to be mute.
I don't except that. It's simple. You have a job and your employer pays you an agreed rate for that job. In return you are expected to perform your duties. Advances in technology and work practise will always happen. As i always say, if you don't like it, start typing up your CV.
This is like the same crap the train drivers tried to pull a few years ago when the new trains were introduced and some extra capacity added to commuter routes.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't except that. It's simple. You have a job and your employer pays you an agreed rate for that job. In return you are expected to perform your duties. Advances in technology and work practise will always happen. As i always say, if you don't like it, start typing up your CV.
This completely ignores the reality that as part of their jobs the ATC's were asked to help with implementing new technology.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »This completely ignores the reality that as part of their jobs the ATC's were asked to help with implementing new technology.
And what is unreasonable about that request?0 -
So do you believe new technologies should pass the approval of the workers? Is this in all cases or those that have a massive fundamental change? Should I get it - IT is constantly evolving and I've had to adapt, and learn, to many new technologies in four years which has increased my workload.brianthebard wrote: »I can't believe that people here don't realise that not all jobs are the same, or that not all workers are expected to be mute. The IAA was more than happy to bring the workers in on the project more than two years ago as should be patently clear to anyone reading this thread or following this dispute, and now you are complaining that it is the workers who have made this horrifying demand?
Which workers should stay mute - should we all rise up against the evil overlords and demand that we get to inspect all their decisions even if we're not best placed for an understanding of them? Why does their new use of technology have to get referred to the LRC when very few other companies do - is there really a valid reason or is it just typical union refusal to adapt or do anything they don't have to?0 -
techdiver and ixoy, you're both leaning pretty heavily on rhetoric at the expense of any detail about the situation. I'm not going to deal with everything in your posts, but I will say that it is the IAA's fault that the LRC is involved not Impact. The case was referred to the LRC because the IAA refused to pay the 6% pay increase which they were told to do by the body below the LRC. (I don't have access to the article I was reading earlier, but that's not important)0
Advertisement