civil controllers - gatco or union?

[dot to dot]

If your were to chose membership or either gatco or prospect which would it be?

I have been in the union for many years now but do not believe it gives any value whatsoever. Fair enough if you are based at one of NATS "important" units they are likely to be helpful, but to those at the minority, bottom banding units I cannot really see the benefits - they couldn't even find the time to come and explain the in's and out's of the recent pay deal, meaning it's members were voting for something they did not understand.
The only thing we receive for membership is a magazine about how nuclear workers won an award for good housekeeping or how scientists got new lab coats from their employers. Great for them but no interest to me as an ATCO

Obviously if you were to do something to put your job on the line the union may help, but as I see it both gatco and prospect will help out financially with any legal fees etc.

any thoughts?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

GATCO is not a union so has nothing to do with negotiating pay, etc. Prospect is the union which negotiates pay and conditions. Having been an ATCO for 31 years in the CAA before I retired and a union member all that time I'd say that your union did a pretty fine job for you in the last couple of years. Wish I'd been around to enjoy the pay deals!

[dot to dot]

Absolutely - gatco is not a union so takes no part in pay deals.

NATS as a company is spending a fortune on teamwork courses to help us all work together, yet the union has managed to divide the workforce more than ever with the pay bands. Teamwork my ass!
The pay bands have been carefully worked out so the majority of the workforce are in the top 2 bands, meaning that as long as the union table an offer which pleases those at the top, it neither matters what is offered to the rest or what we think as our votes will not make a blind bit of difference.
The fact that out paid representatives cannot make the effort to come out to the units and explain the paydeals to us really makes me question why I am still a member.

I am not complaining in any way about what I am paid but purely wish to know other peoples opinions about union membership.....or not

[flower]

What you need to ask is would you have got a better deal had you not been represented by a union.
I like many feel as if the regionals have been well and truly shafted these last few years by the banding, however as I understand it NATS management intended it to happen it didn't come from the union ? ( prepared to be corrected here).
With issues about pensions coming to the forefront , see NATS section, it is vitally important that we have a strong union working together to ensure we don't get sent down the river.

Equally if you should have a personal issue the Union has been a godsend to many.

Prospect is far from perfect and really needs to realise that the lower banded units deserve equal representation which many lower band units do not feel they are getting, but without it where would we be ?

[ukatco_535]

I work at TC, a Band 5 unit, and I think I earn every penny I get.

HOWEVER - I believe there are some other units that have been shafted by banding.

Regardless of the above - The union do try to do a good job in difficult circumstances (not a great job, but a good one all things considered) - if you are not happy, why don't you volunteer to do it?

I believe the real reason behind our many predicaments is the governement decision to sell our skies (which came from a party that we (the democratic majority) voted in - a political party which had vehemently opposed privatisation when the Tories were in power).

I, like Flower believe that we need a strong Union now, more so than ever, especially with the Pensions coming under scrutiny in March - just see how BA etc were shafted by their employers.

[BEXIL160]

NATS as a company is spending a fortune on teamwork courses to help us all work together
NATS as a company is also thinking of tampering with OUR pension scheme. :mad: :mad: :mad:

NTUS (Prospect and PCS) are challenging NATS about their "plans". Make sure they have your support.

A very pissed off
BEX.

[GT3]

Stick with the union we need to stick together over what Barron is going to try and do to OUR pension scheme.

[band 1 pond life]

I don't have much faith in either but we are going to need the union very soon.

[ukatco_535]

Bexil,

with you there 110% - we can spend millions on TRM, 'teaching' common sense (could have save at least half the cost if it had been run in house),

But we can't afford to give us pensions

[throw a dyce]

What the odds of any pension changes being placed on new entrants,and NSL Airport staff first.
Would Prospect protect the Lower Band units.Would the Higher Band units be prepared to help.I don't think so somehow.:mad: :
Never got anything out of Gatco,apart from it was tax deductable.Prospect costs about £170pa.Got shafted by them 3 times now.Band 2 unit doing a Band 4 job:} Maybe £170 would be better spent at the Bookies.At least I might get something in return.

[BEXIL160]

What the odds of any pension changes being placed on new entrants,and NSL Airport staff first.


EXACTLY what NATS would like, which really is "divide and conquer" and exactly why the NTUS is against it.

Perhaps if we all become united on the pensions issue, the banding structure could be more easily revisited by PROSPECT when they next talk to management about it? The union would certainly be weilding a bigger stick in any banding negotiations with management.

The Pension concerns everyones future. It is nothing to do with banding, so please try put your issues about that to one side for the moment, and concentrate on retaining your hard won pension entitlement.

The baddies here aren't the union(s).

Best rgds
BEX.

[BOBBLEHAT]

Mr Dyce,

NATS is already proposing that the pension scheme closes to new entrants.

NATS has also proposed that the airports pay is negotiated seperately from NERL - PROSPECT said no. So that's easily got your 170 quid back.

Forget about the unit banding and everyone examine how much their basic pensionable pay has risen in 5 years.

Prospect may not be perfect but you're doing better because of them.

This is a time to stick together - your pension is now far more at risk than ever before.

Get involved - if you don't see the value in the union - why not get come along and give up your time instead of complaining.

[dot to dot]

"This is a time to stick together"
getting off topic here but you are correct that we need to stick together to protect our pensions. However until now the lower banded units' voices have not been heard, why should they be?.

In a possible situation where the band 4/5 (the majority) pensions were guaranteed and band 1-3 given reduced provisions how would those at the band 4/5 (the majority) units vote?
Whatever those really affected (bands 1-3) think might not matter as they are only in the regional minority and would the union really stand up and fight it, or would they simply issue yet another ballot paper, going round the higher band units explaining the situation and completely ignoring the rest of us (sound familiar?)

Is it still time to stick together???

Lets hope for everyones sake this just forum talk.
If they want to save some money, leave our pensions and get rid of the majority of those paperpushers hiding within our company

simple!

[BEXIL160]

Dot to Dot.

No, your scenario on pensions is not acceptable to ANY unit, regardless of their banding.

Why? It DIVIDES the pension scheme. Read the NTUS circular about what would undoubtedly happen if NATS was allowed to do this. ALL people at all units would suffer.

Once more for emaphsis, this is not about banding, that is a separate issue.(and one that I agree needs attending to)

It is very, very much about EVERYONE's hard won pension rights. Unchallenged every NATS employee will be worse off.(perhaps not certain managers though:* )

Make your views known to your rep, AND your Unit manager.

Best rgds
BEX

[throw a dyce]

Mr Bobble,
I have been to just about every Union meeting here over god knows how many years,which equates to considerably more than the current reps.I would have gone to see them this time if Prospect could be bothered turning up.
I agree that we should stick together.However it's fine to say that if you never been effected by the agreements of Prospect.Here they have done a lot of damage over issues,none of which touched Atco 2,Band 4/5 units.
I reckon it's naive to think that Prospect could stop changes to pensions,especially if it concerns NSL staff and new entrants.Easy target especially the lower paid units.The higher ones ain't going to care.I'm alright Jack

[BEXIL160]

DYCE...

See above, this will affect all units equally, big and small, busy and less busy.

Rgds BEX

[ukatco_535]

Dot to Dot

Get it into your head - this is not a banding issue; it will affect everyone.

If you want to make a banding issue out of it then think of this... we at the band 5 units will lose out more than guys at band 1 or 2 units because our pension is bigger as it stands at the moment.

Legally, the company could not change pension rights based on banding; believe me, it is against employment law to divide that way.

Legally; they can change pension rights for new joiners - it is a T&C that you sign up to when you join.

If we allow that now, then in 20 yrs time as todays main workforce approach retirement, the people who have joined up on reduced pension will be in the majority. They could vote down our rights.

Despite talks about 'pots of money' it is the people who are working now are paying for the pensions of those who have retired - fact. That is why the governement is in the poo with pensions - the current workforce is reducing in numbers compared to retirees.

If we allow ourselves to be divided on this issue and sell people down the river, they are not gong to be willing to fund out pension when we retire.

We need to have the backbone to take industrial action if it comes to it.

Banding is a totally separate issue and should be treated as such - it should no even be mentioned on this thread - it is irrelevant.

[Stupendous Man]

A couple of things

1. They cannot change the pension you receive according to the unit you work at. It is 1 scheme for all staff in it - regardless of grade.

2. I think if we are going to carry on discussing pensions then move it to the NATS forum where there is already a thread about it and not discuss it in public.

[siam]

Your pension changing is not a possibilty it is inevitable. NATS will not be able to finance such an expensive pension scheme the same as every other company in the UK cannot. British Airways owes its pension scheme around 1.5 billion pounds.

No doubt you will spend the next few years arguing about it but believe me new entrants to NATS will not get the same pension as present members it is simply not possible. Get used to it and save yourself the stress of arguing about it and think yourselves lucky you have the pension benifits you have.

Save your union membership fees they wont be able to do anything about it. Stick with GATCO much better value for money.

[Stupendous Man]

Your pension changing is not a possibilty it is inevitable.....
Get used to it and save yourself the stress of arguing about it and think yourselves lucky you have the pension benifits you have.
Save your union membership fees they wont be able to do anything about it. Stick with GATCO much better value for money.

Not a great attitude Siam - don't know if you are NATS or not. I don't intend to roll over and let them do away with my pension, that I have invested in. If they change the pension any benefits we have had will be gone.

And what do GATCO offer for their monthly payments that is better value for money?

[siam]

They wont do away with your pension. They will probably change it like reducing benifits or raising contributions for some members. But they will stop new employees entering the scheme at some time in the future that is 100% certain. Your pension scheme in unsustainable for a private company and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Pension schemes cost a lot of money and somebody has to pay for them and the sooner society realises this the better.

[flower]

Nothing is inevitable at all.

Please to all those guys like myself at lower banded units take the banding equation out of this, we all know we have been dealt a bum deal. A strong union is needed now and a strong union successfully dealing with the pension issue will as has already been said be in a better position to help us sort out the mess that is banding at the lower scales.
Since the re banding has come in many of our colleagues at higher banded units have become aware of just how badly it was dealt with.

I, when the banding came in was ready to throw in the towel with Prospect but decided that it was better to be in than out, this isn't just about your annual pay rise, but all issues concerning shifts WP etc. We have people running the company who want to run us purely on a commercial basis they are trying to reduce costs left right and centre and of course the highest cost factor within our company is us. If they wish to succeed they want a disjointed workforce, if we are to win we have to stand as one and show that we wont just be steamrollered.

It is absolutely right that PROSPECT is made aware that they must represent everyone and even if they say they do the perception is they don't. However we do really need to stand firm on this and the union is the best way forward to look after our financial future with Pensions

[BEXIL160]

Ahem, SIAM,
Your pension scheme in unsustainable for a private company and there is nothing anyone can do about it

Says who? Chapter and Verse please.

The CAAPS is actually in VERY good order, and can easily cover it's pension obligations.

I believe this has a lot more to do with certain management individuals in NATS spying opportunities to reduce costs (NATS payments to CAAPS).

Other pension schemes are not quite as healthy as CAAPS. NATS mangement is seeking, quite wrongly, to encourage the view that in common with these other schemes, CAAPS needs to be tampered with. It does not.

This "mis direction" alone makes my blood boil.

The only people to gain from this will be NATS managers. DOn't let them get away with it. Question EVERYTHING they say on the matter.

Best rgds
BEX

[ukatco_535]

Siam

I do not know who you are or who you work for (are you some management mole?), but please do not treat us like imbeciles. We know that it costs money to run a pension pot.

As Flower says NATS as a company is becoming more and more penny pinching. This is understandable in a business sense, however, woe betide them if they screw us about much more. Banding is already in, and is not a good thing. Conditions are being chipped away all the time whilst we are expected to work harder - look at this years traffic figures.

A lot of us are of the opinion that although conditions are not great, at least once we stop working our collective nads off, we will have a good pension to retire on.

The company has already taken several 'pension breaks' and each time they said that it was because the pot was overfull and that doing so would in no way affect our pension. Now it appears they were either lying to us then or are doing so now.

If they continue to make the workforce unhappy, there is going to be an incident because people will not be concentrating properly.

It is about time we stood as one and if that means industrial action then so be it. We are a commodity to the company but unlike the management, we are not easily replaceable.

We, as a united group, have a huge powerbase. The time to use it may have come. Our European counterparts strike at the drop of a hat, we have more justification over this issue.

[Stupendous Man]

[QUOTE=ukatco_535]Siam
I do not know who you are or who you work for (are you some management mole?), but please do not treat us like imbeciles. QUOTE]

Precisely why this discussion should be continued on the NATS Forum.

This was originally about the perceived benefits if GATCO Vs Union - not the NATS Pension.

[PPRuNe Radar]

As well as BA and NATS, bmi are also about to have an attack made on their pension scheme.

Must be an 'Airline Group' thing ?? :yuk:

It's definitely not a 'banding' issue, it's one that affects everyone. I thought the staff were all employed by NATS (as the holding company), whose costs were then met by NERL and NSL for the individual units ?? That most definitely puts us all in the same boat.

Our pension scheme is in good order with a healthy surplus at the last report. With good management by the trustees, there is no reason for that to change. It's more a case of current NATS management trying to spend less on pensions, making more profit, and reducing the benefits (and thus costs) to staff in the long run.

The only people that will let them get away with that are NATS staff who don't fight it.

[siam]

Very few if any UK companies are able to offer final salary pension schemes local councils are in the process of stopping them for new employees. So if the government and some of the largest most sucessful companies in the world cannot finance them what makes you think NATS will be able to do it. You have been cocooned in the public sector for too long welcome to the private sector where you are no longer subsidised by the British tax payer.

NATS WILL stop new entrants from entering the scheme at some time in the future and no amount of moaning and feet stomping from you will stop them. Pension financing is a problem for everyone in the western world, whilst I realise ATCO's think they one step away from god, it WILL be a problem for you to get used to it.

[Stupendous Man]

You have been cocooned in the public sector for too long welcome to the private sector where you are no longer subsidised by the British tax payer......whilst I realise ATCO's think they one step away from god, it WILL be a problem for you to get used to it.


Good argument Siam. Well constructed and put together.

[BEXIL160]

welcome to the private sector where you are no longer subsidised by the British tax payer.


SIAM, you appear to know very little about NATS, or it's history.

The British taxpayer stopped contributing many years ago, well before NATS was SEMI- privatised. Indeed one of the arguments when NATS was earmarked for sale was that it was NOT a drain on the British Taxpayer as it was completely self financing and recieved NOTHING from the treasury.

NATS was sold to fill a hole in Gordon Browns Budget. No other reason.

NATS WILL stop new entrants from entering the scheme at some time in the future and no amount of moaning and feet stomping from you will stop them.

You, no doubt, will be VERY surprised at just how hard we can stomp our feet.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for chapter and verse on why you think CAAPS, specifically, cannot continue.

Best rgds
BEX:ok:

[siam]

Bexil I fully understand NATS history and as you correctly point out the tax payer no longer contributes which is why at some point in the future NATS will have problems financing its pension scheme.

Unless of course it intends to dramatically raise its charges to the airlines and airports.

Now correct me if I am wrong Bexil but dont some of the airlines own part of NATS? I doubt they would be interested in paying higher charges to pay NEW controllers a pension they are unable to pay their own staff.

I have no doubt this matter will cause feathers to be ruffled for many months and years to come, all I am saying is save yourselves the stress. Its a fact of life that final salary pension schemes are unsustainable.

However if NATS have found a way of doing it will they please let the rest of the world know how it is done and meybe they could sell their secrets and everyone could retire at 40!

Happy stomping Bexil.

[throw a dyce]

Although it isn't directly a Banding argument,this could be the first REAL issue that would rustle the Big Boys Feathers.Unless you have been at a small unit,at the receiving end of some of Nats/Prospect's ''Deals'',then you have never been effected.This could be the first time that Band4/5 units get shafted.
Don't dismiss people who mention Banding.They have been effected by Nats/Prospect having got away with it,and no-one else giving a stuff.Well it could be coming to us all.What I'm saying is that they may find a way to test the water with new entrants and NSL staff.If they get away with it then watch out.Because they have succeeded over the years carving away at the smaller units with Prospect's agreement,only gives Nats more scope to have a go at everyone else.It's just at this Band 2 unit,we're kinda used to it now:E

[Stupendous Man]

Throw A Dyce - They cannot do anything to the pension that would only affect the NSL Staff. They can't. The statement put out was with regard to how the company will be meeting some of the costs assocoated with the pension.

I agree that the Union has let down a lot of the Units when it comes to Banding - Band 4 Units were shafted too - Thames Radar getting paid more than Scottish TMA / Stafa controllers??? But we cannot let banding cloud what is and is going to be the most important issue (imho) in the near future.

The statement put out by management is not very clear as to its meaning with regard to NSL/NERL
Look Here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=212235)

We need some clarification in plain english - from both Union and Management

[BEXIL160]

SIAM,
I'm still waiting for your full explanation as to why CAAPS can't continue which you still fail to provide.

Just beacuse other schemes may have problems, there's no reason to assume CAAPS faces the same issues. It doesn't.

There is no doubt that some schemes are overextended. CAAPS isn't one of them. Other's problems are wrongly being cited by NATS Management (and yourself) as to why CAAPS can't continue as is.

at some point in the future NATS will have problems financing its pension scheme.

A HUGE assumption, with no basis in fact
Its a fact of life that final salary pension schemes are unsustainable.

Is it? Just because some schemes are in trouble, it doesn't mean they ALL are does it?

It's just this sort of claptrap that management of NATS (and other employers) is using to fiddle with perfectly good pension schemes for their companies benefit. Not the employees.

Your arguments don't add up, fortunately our Pension Scheme does and I, and my colleagues will defend it.

Rgds BEX

[TATC]

unsutainable or not I wonder what reaction would be received a days industrial action was announced at Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester at the same time - or staggered so that flights that were departing Mancheter for the South got delayed in the morning by Action at London and then couldnt leave due to action in Manchester in the afternoon.

I am pretty sure that the disruption to business and expenses incurred by airlines would get a few people twitchy.

[DC10RealMan]

TATC,

What a wonderful idea!. I would back such an action 100%, however will we be given leadership by our unions for such an act?, or are we still "keeping our powder dry"

[Stupendous Man]

unsutainable or not I wonder what reaction would be received a days industrial action was announced at Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester at the same time


Why just these 3?
People will fly from SS/GW/LC. It has to be a unified action - airfields and centres then nothing moves apart from what would be forced onto the mil.
Remember if the guys at Oceanic don't come to work not a lot will be moving across the pond either.

That would make them take notice.


I wouldn't strike over pay - Nurses and teachers and the like have a much better case for striking than £75K a year ATCOs that have about half the year off. But as far as the pension goes......

Our powder has been dry for too long.

[ToweringCu]

There's a definate lack of consistency in the companies actions. As part of the last pay deal they offered BUPA and reduced pension contributions for managers. So who is meeting these costs? Who wanted BUPA? If our pension scheme is so costly why reduce contributions for those most able to afford them? Something doesn't smell right and they can't get away with it.

[BOBBLEHAT]

Those fortunate enough to have reduced pension contributions have the cost met by NATS - not by the pension fund.

What would our french colleagues do?

I might start tomorrow.

[ukatco_535]

If and when the time comes, I hope that the Union, and it's memebers. has the backbone to strike.

Siam

We as a group of employees are in a position not held by that many people - firemen strike, the armed forces take over etc etc.

If we strike, no one can take over and run the show. That is not an empty egotistical statement, it is fact. ATCOs cannot be drafted in from somewhere else to do the job - each unit is too individual in its operations to enable that to happen.

We do not think we are Gods - that is a crass staement from someone who obviously has no idea of what our job entails (once again that brings me to the question - are you management)

TATC

Staggered striking by units is a halfway house and is a sign of weakness. If we were to strike we should do it to cause the maximum disruption, not just as a show of discontent.

I hope it does not come to it because we have a very good record as ATCOs in the UK, however that is another string to our bow.... we do not strike at the drop of a hat unlike some of our higher paid, better quality of life European colleagues, therefore if and when we do, people will know that it is serious.

If we do strike, we will need a good union behind us that puts out very good press releases to keep the public informed.

Stupendous Man

You are entirely correct about nurses versus (some) ATCOs 75k wages (hell my cousin is a nurse at a huge newly built hospital - the hospital trust makes her and her colleagues pay to park at work, around a tenner a day!)


However, although not the issue at stake; we are not overpaid by any means and certainly not just because other professions are underpaid.

One workforce, one pension

[DC10RealMan]

I dont think our salaries and terms and conditions will come in to it in the minds of the public. I think that we will get their support. I think that many people today feel powerless in the face of autocratic governments, self-serving MPs, Multi-national companies. How many times do we see or read about managers or people in the city walking off with multi million pound pay-offs having destroyed companies and ruined and stolen pension funds and there is nothing that ordinary people like you or I can do about it. Legal it may be, moral it is not. If we stood up to NATS and threatened to strike in support of "our pension fund" I think most people would support us having seen how other people have been treated. I do not think that it would come to strike action, the threat would be enough for NATS to back down.

[Stupendous Man]

UKATCO 535

The point I was half making was that I would have trouble justifying to myself striking over a pay deal (unles it was a paycut in real terms) - plus we would have zero public support. However if it came to conditions, a safety issue or our pension, then I have no problem walking out - and as DC10 says, I think we would have some support from the public.

I agree any industrial action cannot be half hearted/staggered. This happened before in the 80s (before my time) and I believe that the airfields went 1 day and the centres the next. It has to be 1 out all out at the same time.

The Union needs to start addressing this now (maybe they are) and firing a couple of shots across managements bows and stop this thing dead in the water.

[siam]

UKATCO535 no I am not management just a lowly ATCO and I do understand your job o great and mighty one. Whilst ATCO's are about as indispensable as an employee can be. Nobody in this world is totally indispensable Ronald Regan showed his ATCO's that.

DC10 are you seriously telling me you think it would appropriate to strike over the rights of future employees and you expect the public to back you? If you think the public would back the industrial action of group of people on 75k plus a year, who in the process of striking would ruin everyone's holidays, you are a fool and living in the blinkered unrealistic world that many ATCO's I have met seem to.

[niknak]

Back to the original post, I'm a member of both, as are the majority of ATCOs at our place.
The concensus is that while Prospect represent us well in the work place, if we ever really needed specialist professional assistance, GATCO would be the best people to do it.

Another £6 per month, but worth it if the worst ever happened.

[DC10RealMan]

Siam,

I would strike unhesitatingly!. Our salaries do not come into it. We are striking to protect our pension and our present and future colleagues. If it ruins other peoples holidays, so be it!, we would not be the first or last to do that. On a personal note I retire shortly and it actually does not affect me, however I would happily take the financial penalty of strike action to guarantee my colleagues future pension. I am sure that this proposal is the first of many actions to destroy our pension scheme and it is in my interest to defend it as I am sure that having retired it may still affect my future benefits.

[Ringa-Bel?]

Clearly SIAM is kind of mangement lacky, if not I trust he asked not to take the "pay and conditions" deal in order to save the company money!

As previous posts have pointed out, many final salary schemes are in trouble because they are in deficit, CAAPS is not. If you want to see how schemes work in the public sector maybe you should try MPs - 1/40th X years, not our 1/59th! I bet their scheme keeps going.

We are all in the scheme together and as such should take action together to maintain the conditions and pensions we signed up for.

[ukatco_535]

UKATCO535 no I am not management just a lowly ATCO and I do understand your job o great and mighty one.

Siam, you truly know how to win friends and influence people.

You obviously cannot be bothered to read.

The pay is not an issue, it is the pension.

Peoples holidays or my pension?? I know which one I care more about. The same one as my colleagues. I don't give a monkeys about spoiling peples holidays to secure my future.

Firemen strike - peoples lives or pay and conditions?? they have no qualms about taking action.

It is not just the new joiners who would suffer. Anyone who joined after April 2001 would be in serious danger, anyone joining before would still be right to worry.

Voting to allow this change will screw us up in future years. You are either management or non NATS. If that is not the case, you need to take a long hard look at how the pension works and how well it is funded, because you are seriously mis informed.

If the company feels it wants to take a pension break, as it has in the past and if the fund managers say that that is fine, then that is another matter. Changing the pension is not an option as far as I and many others are concerned.

They have told us in the recent past that the fund is very healthy, hence they have taken payment breaks while we continue to contribute. They have been lying to us in the past or are now.


Tha management are totally untrustworthy nowadays IMHO.

[Number2]

IMHO the strike by firemen didn't win them many friends. I can't imagine a strike by controllers would either.

I didn't see much concern for future employees when the vote agreed to halve their pay (and, therefore, reduce pension contributions).

Judging by the turnout for the vote, do people really think a strike is a realistic proposition?!

Just my thoughts, for what it's worth....

[SilentHandover]

I always get the impression that Joe Public think we are always on strike at the moment as they fail to realise that it is the rest of Europes ATCO's that strike so regularly, so what have we got to lose.

[BEXIL160]

Judging by the turnout for the vote, do people really think a strike is a realistic proposition?!

Yes. I do.

BEX

[siam]

ATCO 535 no I am not mis informed I am just aware of what is hapening in the real world not the Utopia you think you live in. Try reading a paper and have a look at what is happening to eveyone else in the world.

The firemen did strike and it got them no where, in fact if you speak to a fireman I think you will find they are now worse off as a result of their industrial action ie. they followed the unrealistic mis informed advice of their ridiculous union. Which brings us back to the original topic union or gatco. Gatco as far as I am concerned I dont see the point of financing a bunch of militant dinosaurs who refuse to acept the realities of life in the 21st century.

As you are due for retirement soon you are lucky but the rest of the world has a pension problem and will have to deal with it hopefully sooner rather that later. Blinkered fools like you threatening industrial action do not help matters.

Enjoy your unsustainable retirement benefits and think yourself lucky.

[flower]

Siam,
if you are NATS perhaps you should take a look at the NATS section and the news reports on pensions and how much we can lose if taken out of final salary pension schemes.
As one of those who would be worse off excuse me if I would strike over my future security.

We do live in the real world that is why we know we have to do what we can to protect our future, you may choose not to be a member of PROSPECT that is fine but do not deride those of us who are and will go the extra mile to ensure we can retire in comfort not penury.

[TATC]

If you read the projections for when the world oil reserves are going to run out you find some pretty interesting figures.

The most pessimistic one I read is that the world's KNOWN oil reserves will be gone in 41 years. That would put all of us out of a job in 41 years unless they find some radical new aviation fuel. So there will be no-one employed to worry about the pension anyway.

[siam]

Flower I know how much would be lost by coming out of the scheme I am not suggesting any body should consider such a thing. I am merely saying that at some time in the not to distant future the final salary pension scheme will be closed to new employees like in every other industry in our country, whether you like it or not they are too expensive get used to it.

[ukatco_535]

Oh sorry Siam,

I did not realise that what you meant was that as you are already in the company you do not give a monkeys about new joiners. Must be great to work with you.

Flower I know how much would be lost by coming out of the scheme I am not suggesting any body should consider such a thing

If we allow this to go through, in a few years time, the new joiners, who will be in the majority, will be enticed by management to vote away our penson rights for a slightly better deal - get real! You will end up coming out of the scheme whether you want to or not if this management ploy works.

I do not live in Utopia - I have done other jobs before this one and am very worldly wise.

I am not near retirment - I have not said anything to indicate that I am in any of my posts, it is becoming obvious that your ability to grasp facts is lacking.

I assume we cannot rely on you to provide a unified front.

It is you - not everyone on here who is saying they will strike, that is shortsighted.

You strike me as the type of person who is happy to sit back and take all the benefits, without doing anything to gain them.

Just because other pension funds have failed due to mis management does not mean ours has to - it is very healthy at the moment. In fact healthy enough that the company is subsidising ATCO 1s' pension.

[TATC]

Flower I know how much would be lost by coming out of the scheme I am not suggesting any body should consider such a thing. I am merely saying that at some time in the not to distant future the final salary pension scheme will be closed to new employees like in every other industry in our country, whether you like it or not they are too expensive get used to it.

Is that why British Aerospace announced in the past couple of days that they have no plans to close their final salary scheme to new employees, that is despite it being in a worse position than CAAPS. it is only innevitable if the workforce believes the management.

It was that long ago that we were being told the pension scheme was in such good shape that management could take a payment holiday - no they are bitching about their contribution rising from 12% tp 30%, which I believe it was at shortly before their payment holiday.

I think that managemtn are jumping on the pension bandwagon and using at a means to try and cut costs.

If you jump on the bandwagon you can get taken to places you dont want to be (like band camp)

[siam]

ATCO535 the last part of my last reply regading retiring soon was meant for DC10 I do apologise for my slackness.

As far as grasping the facts goes I think you are the one with the problem I do not believe I have ever suggested anybody takes industrial action I am saying it would be ridiculous to do so. Please correct me if I am wrong o very worldly wise one.

I am simply making a prediction that at some time in the near future NATS will close the pension scheme to new joiners at which time the union will stir up a load of trouble trying to protect a scheme that the rest of the world are finding impossible to provide. Which is one of the reasons I would say GATCO not union which was the original thread at some time was it not?

Worldy wise ATCO535 I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the meaning of life I am looking for guidance maybe you can help?

[250 kts]

siam,

I really can't believe you are a NATS employee. GATCO has ,and never will, have any say or input into our conditions of service. What do you actually get for your subs anyway-a glossy magazine where you can read about ex valid controllers living it up in Rhodes or wherever the next conference happens to be.
Just to prove you are what you say you are I would suggest that you go to the NATS forum and continue the pensions debate there. I also suspect that you have absolutely no idea about the history of the paension fund or it's present state. I look forward to seeing you in "another place"-your inability or reluctance to do so will enable people here to decide your status to comment on OUR pension scheme-almost certainly,I suspect, not yours.

[PPRuNe Radar]

GATCO is a body concerned with professional issues in ATC, such as national policy, airspace, etc. It is not a union.

Prospect is a union, concerned with terms and conditions of employment and renumeration. It does so collectively, as well as providing support for personal cases.

So, back to the original query, if you want to be part of an organisation which protects what you earn and are likely to earn in the future (employed or retired), then only one of the named organisations will do that for you.

Or join neither and let everyone else fight your battles, although you can join in the canteen debates and pretend you are a member anyway ;)

[BEXIL160]

PPrUne RADAR has answered the orignal query rather nicely.

The OTHER question, about Pensions, has not been addressed at all by SIAM.

I am still waiting any explanation as to why CAAPS is unsustainable. ALL the evidence (already alluded to) points to the fact that it is in good health and will remain so. Apparently much to the annoyance of people like SIAM and NATS management.

When the EVIDENCE that CAAPS can't continue is presented by SIAM I will take his minority opinions more seriously. Until then I might suggest that the rest of us remain in the real world, defending OUR pension scheme.

Rgds BEX

[250 kts]

Where is siam-still no sign of him/her in the NATS forum. I guess he really doesn't work for us after all.:ok: :ok:

[ukatco_535]

Where is siam-still no sign of him/her in the NATS forum. I guess he really doesn't work for us after all


I just knew he was NATS management!!!

[Dances with Boffins]

Managers can post in the NATS forum too.... I wonder who he/she is? Got it in for both the Guild and Prospect?

[siam]

Dances with wolves I dont have it in for the Guild, but being one of Thatchers children I do have it in for unions and deluded fools like bexil atco535 and 250kts who insist on stamping their feet whilst sticking their heads in the sand.

Britains final salary schemes, recently analysed by two leading economists, are showing a shortfall of about 160billion. Which means they will have to put between 10-40 billion a year into the schemes for the next ten years if they want to fill the gap. These companies have been operating in the private sector for decades NATS only a few years. Nobody said the NATS scheme was in trouble but some time in the future it probably will be.

If British companies are to carry the burden of these expensive schemes, the cost will reduce the amount of investment they are able to make therefore harming their competitiveness in the international market place.

Deloitte and Touche estimate the black hole in the FTSE 100 firms was 75billion meaning many staff are facing the prospect of retiring on less than they hoped. Until recently many firms have closed their funds to new members but allowed existing members to carry on. However a number of large companies such as Rentokil and the CO OP have announced they are to close their schemes to existing members as well.

The reason for these funds falling into the red is simple we are living longer.
This coupled with falling returns in investments and Gordon Brown removing tax relief on dividends means these final salary pension schems are too costly no matter what job you ATCO or burger flipper. Unless of course, as has been previously pointed out, you are an MP and in which case your pension scheme is sacrosanct.

NATS or non NATS, management or lacky, it dosn't matter its a fact life the whole country has a pension problem and talk of strikes and unrealistic demands of companies aint gonna solve it. I sincerely hope the NATS pension scheme carries on for many years to come. But something tells me I will be back on PPRUNE at some time in the future saying I told you so.

I am off to the sun for a few weeks bye bye.

[ukatco_535]

Enjoy the sun Siam

I know that if we roll over we will all lose our pension as it stands at the moment - it will creep.

I am not a union lackey - far from it, but i have spent tens of thousands buying back years in this pension scheme - I am not going to sit by and let my money that I invested over and above my pension payment, (more money than an ATCO 1* earns in over a year) get de-valued without a fight.

Especially when the Personal Contract Group get their pension contribution subsidised by the company.

[BEXIL160]

Siam, I am far from "deluded" as you would have me and my erstwhile colleagues.

It is you who are avoiding the issue. To quote you...

Nobody said the NATS scheme was in trouble but some time in the future it probably will be. An assumption, based on what? Certainly not on any examination of CAAPS, it's assets or obligations.

These companies have been operating in the private sector for decades NATS only a few years NATS is not a "true" private setor company, as you of course know.

If British companies are to carry the burden of these expensive schemes, the cost will reduce the amount of investment they are able to make therefore harming their competitiveness in the international market place.
More assumption. Do not "foreign" companies face the same burdens? Does NATS need to internationally competative? It has a monopoly on UK Area services and seems to have little difficulty in attractive UK aerodrome contracts.

The reason for these funds falling into the red is simple we are living longer.
Over simplification. The are many other reasons that other schemes aren't doing so well.

This coupled with falling returns in investments and Gordon Brown removing tax relief on dividends means these final salary pension schems are too costly no matter what job you ATCO or burger flipper
You don't seem to understand much about CAAPS investments. Income is not solely from dividends.

Just because other schemes may be in difficulty is not evidence that CAAPS is, or indeed will be in trouble. You make no comment about the suspicion that the real reason could be NATS management wanting to save money,and using other scheme problems as an excuse to tinker with CAAPS.

As before I await your detailed reasons as to why CAAPS specifically can't continue. Until then it remains apparent that you have some agenda to spread mis-information. The question bears an answer. Why?

Best wishes
BEX

[dot to dot]

And here we are with the union recommending we accept this pitiful offer for removing HTD allowances.

why?

Maybe they are happy to take our money each month but roll over to the demands of NATS management.

I intend to be around for more than 3 years so why would I vote yes?


As usual we have been given a pathetic "explanation" from prospect about cost savings. If the company wants to save money I will be more than happy to sit down with management and recommend several areas costs can be reduced.
Including themselves.

Come on prospect - why do you give in so easily to these dumb ideas?

Does everyone REALLY believe they are acting in OUR ,the staffs', best interest and that they will support us with the potential pension crisis??

[BEXIL160]

Does everyone REALLY believe they are acting in OUR ,the staffs', best interest and that they will support us with the potential pension crisis??

Can't speak for EVERYONE, but yes, I do think "they" are acting in our best interest.

rgds BEX

[ukatco_535]

I am torn two ways about the HTD.

I think it is a bit sneaky the way it has been mentioned after the pay deal went through.

I have more than 3 years to go but also realise that the company is hell bent on making savings (it kinda has to after being privatised by a governement that lambasted the Tories for privatising companies, and at the same time saddled us with hundreds of millions in debt).

Although I would love to keep my HTD, I would rather give it up and let the management realise that we are reasonable people, but when it comes to our pension (the next thing we will be asked to vote on), we will not allow any degradation.

I think that on a whole, the Union do a damned good job in what is a thankless task.

[AGEDMIL]

As a Past President of GATCO - be a member of both! They each have different roles to play - and are not an either/or choice - they are complimentary. The Union is extremely important in the pay/terms of service aspect of the job of a controller. GATCO's volunteers play a very important role within IFATCA in expressing the views of controllers within the various extremely important european policy formulating committees. Indeed to all controllers out there - NATS or non-NATS - the Guild is always needing volunteers to assist it in this very important task. In conclusion - the Union and GATCO operate together to try and make the task of the controller easier.