PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Forgotten your Username/Password?
Register FAQ Calendar Advertise Mark Forums Read

ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 8th September 2008, 12:21   #261 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 486
I want to know when exactly there is going to be anymore news. "Working together" or whatever the hell it is that is going on right now sounds fabulous, but people are FED UP and want to know what is going on NOW.
The lack of information is just serving to crank up the rumour mill and the longer it goes on, the less goodwill (not that there is any) there will be towards any management position.
mr.777 is offline   Reply
Old 8th September 2008, 12:30   #262 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sherwood Forest
Age: 33
Posts: 61
Quote:
Please leave banding out of the pension discussion.
Sorry, but I have to defend my colleague ThrowaDyce here.

The title of this thread is NATS Pay Rise for 2009.

Somehow this thread has skewed off topic onto the important pensions dispute. Might I suggest this thread gets edited and a new thread solely for the Pension 'negotiations' is started?
Loxley is offline   Reply
Old 8th September 2008, 12:37   #263 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Destination 22
Posts: 141
TAD doesn't mention 2009 pay and was referring to the pension in his post - which is what I was replying to.

There is a pension discussion in the NATS forum.
Stupendous Man is offline   Reply
Old 8th September 2008, 12:38   #264 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 486
Or maybe you could start your own thread on unit banding
Pensions are more important than any payrise...fact. This is just the kind of division that Barron and his buddies are counting on. Whingeing on about banding is playing right into their hands....can't you see that???
mr.777 is offline   Reply
Old 8th September 2008, 15:36   #265 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 6
Stupendous Man, is it not a case that any changes to the scheme have to be agreed by a majority decision? In other words, to defend TAD, could there not be a proposal to change those that are elligible to be memebers and put this to the vote of pension members? Would this not be a change to the whole of the pension but one which would only affect some members? I am not saying that if this was the case any proposal would be voted through but I think this is where TAD is coming from with his distrust of the unions and their ability to look after the smaller units.
bratbaak is offline   Reply
Old 8th September 2008, 17:18   #266 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Destination 22
Posts: 141
Bratbaak - as far as I am aware there can be no changes to our current pension scheme except by an act of parliament. In fact this works against us to a certain extent, because if we as emplyees said "lets increase our contributions by x% to help the fund" we couldn't.

Is what you and TaD are alluding to is a new pension for bands 1-3 units i.e close the scheme to new entrants at these units only?
I doubt this could happen as these people would have to be employed on different contracts to Band 4/5 units and when you join NATS you don't know where you are being posted. I'm looking at this purely from an ATCO point of view here.

What could (and probably will) happen if we don't stand together on this, is a new, worse scheme for new entrants (and all those that joined post 2001 - dates might be wrong) will be introduced.
Then any moves / promotions / postings will be dependant on you joining the new scheme.
Plus in X years time when the new-schemies outnumber the old-schemies, any pay deals will be split along the lines of New= RPI+ 5% Old = RPI. Plus I can imagine there will be a bung to buy back 6 days leave - which the new guys will accept and we'll lose out and so on and so on.

So its not just the pension at stake.

Anyway I seem to have gone off topic in my own post! Sorry about the wall of text.


Last edited by Stupendous Man : 8th September 2008 at 22:02.
Stupendous Man is offline   Reply
Old 9th September 2008, 11:47   #267 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 6
Stupendous Man, I will stand corrected then, thanks.
bratbaak is offline   Reply
Old 9th September 2008, 12:24   #268 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 486
Yeah ok Yahoo...you just carry on whining about banding...its so boring mate...as Scuzi said, change the record. The rest of us will carry on worrying about the pension.
I wondered how long it would take before this turned into a Band 5 slagfest..
mr.777 is offline   Reply
Old 9th September 2008, 12:35   #269 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Swindon
Posts: 110
*Dons flameproof suit*


Divide and conquer.


My my management are good aren't they!

Band 5 or not, you are all in this together, yes you... I am not NATS and am amazed at the attitude people are taking not only towards their pensions, but towards each other!

Stop laying into each other and direct your anger towards the people that deserve it... are the band 5 staff wholly and solely responsible for the banding system?
aewaite17 is offline   Reply
Old 11th September 2008, 20:57   #270 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 30
Posts: 3,329
FLB, the Ignore function works wonders to the look of certain threads.
Gonzo is offline   Reply
Old 12th September 2008, 03:12   #271 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Posts: 3
Quote:
Yeah ok Yahoo...you just carry on whining about banding...its so boring mate...as Scuzi said, change the record. The rest of us will carry on worrying about the pension.
I wondered how long it would take before this turned into a Band 5 slagfest..
To suggest this issue is not about banding is ostrich mentality to the extreme. It was even quoted by the independent auditors of the pensions scheme as being a major contributory factor to the reduction in the plans surplus.
To give an example, an ordinary band 5 ATCO retiring today will have paid approximately £10,000 more into the scheme than a colleague retiring from a band 2 unit. They will receive a one off payment £120,000 more than their colleague and expect a pension of nearly £20,000 more per annum!

When I worked at West Drayton, the watch union rep used to tell us that they based their negotiations on the fact that " The average gash, shag ATCO I represent would not only sell his grandmother for an extra spine point but would happily throw in the wife and kids as well" That person is now a very senior figure within the union and I have seen nothing within the last few years to suggest that their negotiating position has changed.

The attitude of the larger units towards their colleagues in union negotiations is finally coming home to roost. It is just a shame that everyone will have to pay the price for their insouciance.

That said I do believe that the current negotiations are part of a wider divide and conquer plan by management to force a NERL/NSL split with a view to a future NSL sell off ( anyone for a ring fenced NSL pension?? )

Last edited by Passepartoute : 12th September 2008 at 03:29.
Passepartoute is offline   Reply
Old 12th September 2008, 09:34   #272 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 1,784
OK,

I'll bite becaase this is after all a thread about pay and not about pension (though some, myself included, believe pension is merely deferred pay).

All those who do not agree with banding out there - do you honestly think that all ATCOs at all the units within NATS should be paid the same?
anotherthing is offline   Reply
Old 12th September 2008, 09:39   #273 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 486
Band 5 Units to blame for pension deficit shocker!!!

You read it here first folks!

Passepartout,
I cannot believe you are trying to pin this on the banding issue. Pathetic.
Please explain to me what the **** EXACTLY banding has to do with Barron and the rest of the NATS management wanting to change our pension.
I see you have olnly made 1 post on PPRuNe...I wouldnt bother making a second one unless you have something sensible to contribute to the discussion.
And before anyone decides to have a pop at the band 5 empolyee i.e ME, as usual with most of these discussions, the issue of banding was not brought up by somebody who works at a Band 5 unit but rather by someone who wishes they did and consequently has a massive chip on their shoulder.
mr.777 is offline   Reply
Old 16th September 2008, 16:43   #274 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 114
Management will be delaying talks until the Global recession is a reality in everyones minds, making a stronger case for another pension holiday
Of this I have no doubt..........watch this space
Air.Farce.1 is offline   Reply
Old 16th September 2008, 22:50   #275 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 272
Air.Farce.1, Well they can Foxtrot Oscar - I'm not agreeing to that!
Bigears is offline   Reply
Old 17th September 2008, 13:28   #276 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 181
Quote:
Management will be delaying talks until the Global recession is a reality in everyones minds, making a stronger case for another pension holiday
Of this I have no doubt..........watch this space
they had a contribution holiday because there was a substantial surplus. as a final salary pension scheme, it is their right to do what they wish with the surplus.

There isn't that surplus now, so there is no option for them to take a contribution holiday. It would be financial suicide - given the already escalating cost of provision.
Me Me Me Me is offline   Reply
Old 22nd September 2008, 09:40   #277 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 114
Arrow

Final meeting on pension talks today, my "source" has indicated it's not "good news"

No surprises there then

But our powder is still dry.. if we can find it

Last edited by Air.Farce.1 : 22nd September 2008 at 14:50.
Air.Farce.1 is offline   Reply
Old 23rd September 2008, 08:42   #278 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 390
Anybody heard anything after yesterdays meeting?
radar707 is offline   Reply
Old 23rd September 2008, 10:26   #279 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lymington
Age: 44
Posts: 74
i heard current pension to be wound up with immedaite effect, and all the money in it to be given to the barron bugatti veyron appreciation society. you read it here first
Caesartheboogeyman is offline   Reply
Old 24th September 2008, 11:40   #280 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 390
Management and the Trade Unions have today issued a joint statement about the proposed way forward on pensions.
Dear Colleague
In May 2007, the NATS Executive and NTUS agreed to take a joint approach to the pensions issue by commissioning an independent report to consider the impact of the pension scheme (the Scheme) on the business. Since that time, NATS and NTUS have been working together to understand fully the findings of the report and its implications for the business.
As a result of this study, NATS and NTUS have become increasingly concerned that NATS will be unable to afford the cost of the Scheme. This would clearly have serious consequences for both NATS and the Scheme and this has led us to agree that urgent action is necessary. Therefore, we have decided that the best solution to address this serious problem is a series of measures which include the capping of future pensionable pay increases of our existing employees and the introduction of a new pension scheme for future employees.
The increasing cost and risk of supporting the NATS Section of CAAPS

NATS offers its employees a defined benefit pension scheme which promises a pension linked to the employee’s earnings close to the time they leave or retire. In common with other companies across the UK, the cost to NATS of providing defined benefit pensions has risen dramatically for a number of reasons outside of our control and in ways that we cannot predict.
This is being evidenced through sharp increases in the underlying cost of our own Scheme. The latest Annual Actuarial Report as at 31 December 2007 showed that the cost to the employer had risen to an alarming 42.1% of pensionable payroll, compared with 26.8% as at 31 December 2003.
Previously, because of the Scheme surplus and in line with normal practice, the Trustees of the Scheme have not required NATS to pay the whole of this underlying cost. However, the surplus has reduced for a number of reasons, most of which have been beyond our control, and so the employer contribution rate has had to increase to compensate, rising from 12.2% of pensionable payroll in January 2005 to an effective rate of 20% from January 2008. In 08/09 this represents employer contributions of around £62m. Now that the surplus has almost gone (as shown in the last Annual Actuarial Report of December 2007), it is very likely that the Trustees will require NATS to pay at least the underlying cost of 42.1% of pensionable payroll in the near future. This would more than double the employer contribution rate of 20% currently agreed with the Trustees and would represent employer contributions of around £125m per year. Incurring these kinds of costs could turn NATS into a loss-making company.
In addition, it could be even worse if the Scheme is in deficit, which given recent financial turbulence could be the case. The Trustees would not be able to wait to see if conditions improve but instead would have to seek increased employer contributions as soon as possible. This would immediately place an unsustainable financial burden on the company.

Unless action is taken, there is a real risk that ultimately NATS will be unable to pay pension contributions as they fall due. The Scheme relies on a financially healthy company. The NATS Executive has a responsibility to ensure that NATS can meet all its financial obligations which includes your pension. This is why, throughout our discussions, the priority of both NATS and NTUS has been to protect the pension benefits of existing employees and it is clear that action to protect the Scheme is required as soon as possible.
Some will say that the cost of our Scheme should be passed on to our customers. However, is it realistic to expect them to bear costs of this magnitude? In NSL where we operate in a competitive environment, our contracts cannot support the increasing cost of pension provision and our customers are already telling us that they are unwilling to pay for these costs. Indeed a number of them have already taken steps to control the cost and risk presented by their own pension schemes. Further, it is likely that the Economic Regulator will continue to require real reductions in the prices we will charge our NERL customers during Control Period 3 which runs from 2011 to 2015.
The options

As a result of this pensions review NATS and NTUS explored a range of options in order to resolve the problem. At times this has involved some very challenging conversations.
As you know, because of the protections offered by the Scheme’s Trust Deed & Rules, we are unable to propose many of the changes that other companies have typically made when addressing the challenges outlined above. For example, we cannot ask members to pay increased contributions, or change the benefits that members will earn in future as set out in the Trust Deed & Rules. The options available to us are therefore extremely limited.
NATS and NTUS joint proposal

As a consequence, NATS will be formally inviting questions and feedback from employees on the proposal that NATS and NTUS believe best addresses the cost and risk presented by the existing Scheme, whilst also providing highly competitive pension benefits for new employees.
To be clear, your defined benefit pension will continue and no change is proposed to the benefits you have earned. However to keep these pension promises, we are proposing a package of measures, the headlines of which are below. We will provide you with more comprehensive information shortly (see the ‘More information and next steps’ section of this letter).
From 1 January 2009

Cap on future pensionable pay increases

Currently, pensionable earnings are linked to any agreed increase in pay and pensionable allowances. In future, your pay will continue to be reviewed each year in the same way as it is currently. However, it is proposed that your annual increase in pensionable earnings will be limited to a maximum of the Retail Prices Index (RPI) plus 0.5%, even if your actual pay review is higher. Promotional pay increases and annual increments will still count in full for pensionable earnings. Any other increases above RPI plus 0.5% will be categorised as non-pensionable earnings.
This cap on future pensionable pay increases would apply only to existing members of the Scheme and for a period of 15 years, with a review thereafter. This agreement would be set out in a joint Memorandum of Understanding between NATS and NTUS.

To be clear, this is not about how much pay increase you get, but about how much counts for pensionable earnings. This change would provide an immediate improvement to the funding position of the Scheme which has been steadily worsening, whilst the underlying cost has been dramatically rising. It would also go some way to controlling costs over the longer term.
Memorandum of Understanding
NATS and NTUS are proposing to put in place a Memorandum of Understanding with effect from 1 January 2009 to last for a period of 15 years. This would incorporate the cap on future pensionable pay increases as mentioned above, as well as some specific protections for existing and future employees.
From 1 April 2009

SMART pensions
SMART pensions is a more cost effective way of paying pension contributions into the Scheme which reduces National Insurance contributions for both the employee and the employer. It would apply to all UK-based employees, both existing and future.
Under SMART pensionsyou don’t pay contributions directly into the Scheme as is currently the case. Instead your pay would be reduced by the same percentage of gross pay that you would otherwise have contributed to the Scheme. In turn, the employer increases its own contributions by the same amount of pay you have given up. In effect, you swap some of your pay for pension contributions.
As a result, the total contribution paid into the Scheme stays exactly the same, but your net take home pay is higher than it would be otherwise. This is because you will no longer pay National Insurance contributions on the part of your pay that funds the pension contributions that the employer now makes on your behalf. The employer also makes National Insurance contribution savings which will help it meet the cost of providing pension benefits.
New type of pension scheme for new employees
A new type of pension scheme is proposed for employees who join NATS on or after 1 April 2009. This new scheme will be on a defined contribution basis where the contributions, rather than the benefits, are fixed. The cost to the employer would be up to a maximum of 18%, with a corresponding cost to new employees of up to a maximum of 9% of earnings.
The default level of cost for new employees joining this scheme would be 6%. However, they would be able to a select a minimum cost of 4% up to a maximum of 9% to meet their own circumstances.
NATS as the employer, would match the cost that each employee selects on a 2:1 basis. NATS and NTUS believe the new defined benefit contribution scheme will be amongst the best in the country of its type and we are confident it will represent a highly competitive and attractive benefit in today’s workplace.
In summary

NATS and NTUS would not have embarked on putting this proposed package of measures to you if we did not think it absolutely necessary to protect your pension benefits. The risk involved in continuing with exactly the same arrangements as we have today threatens the financial stability of NATS and therefore the security of the existing Scheme for all of us.
More information and next steps

We recognise that this is a complex subject and that you may have questions that are not specifically addressed in this letter. NATS and NTUS are putting in place a number of steps to explain the proposals in more detail and you will receive a comprehensive booklet no later than 8 October about the proposal and why we want to take this course of action. Amongst other things, there will also be a series of briefings, a dedicated intranet site which will include a modelling tool to help you assess the potential impact of the proposals on you, and a Helpline to assist you in further understanding the proposal and what it means. We would strongly encourage you to take advantage of these arrangements.
From 8 October to 10 December, NATS will be inviting your questions and comments about the proposed changes. This is formally known as a ‘consultation’ and is legally required before NATS can implement some of the changes. NATS is choosing to consult on all the changes to ensure that employees have a complete picture of the proposals. During this time, we will seek to answer your queries and the NATS Executive will closely monitor your feedback on the proposals. NATS will also continue to meet with NTUS representatives. The outcome of the consultation will be communicated to employees in January 2009. In addition, both Prospect and PCS will hold a full consultation with members culminating in a ballot of all Trade Union members. The results of the ballot will be announced at the end of December.
Finally, if as a result of reading about these proposed changes anyone should be contemplating taking immediate action such as retiring early or taking your pension immediately, we strongly recommend that you take independent financial advice and carefully consider the package of measures we are proposing to put in place to safeguard your pension. NATS and NTUS believe that this proposed package of measures offers the best solution to protect your pension benefits.
Regards
Philip James / Sarah Stacey
Director HR&S / HR Director

Suresh Tewari
NTUS Chair
radar707 is offline   Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Posting Rules
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:12.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7
© 1996-2009 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".