ATC IssuesA 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.
FOR ALL PROSPECT MEMBERS IN ATCO AND ATSS BRANCHES 24 September 2008
ATCO & ATSS
Branch B r i e f i n g
NATS PENSION
PROPOSAL UPDATE
I last wrote to you on the 20
August in order to update
you on the discussions
taking place between NATS
management, Prospect and
PCS on the issue of pensions.
Since that date, further intensive
discussions and negotiations
have been taking place and
the purpose of this circular is
to update you on the outcome
to those discussions and next
steps.
As you will know, for over a
year, Prospect and PCS have
been involved in detailed
discussions with NATS
management. As part of that
we have been seeking to gain
a common understanding
with regard to the funding
requirement of NATS section of
CAAPS (The Scheme) and the
ability of NATS as a business to
support its pension obligations.
As part of this, Deloitte were
engaged jointly by both
management and the unions to
assist in an analysis of the likely
funding requirements of The
Scheme going forward and the
ability of NATS to support The
Scheme.
Unfortunately, the conclusion
which both Prospect and PCS
has had to reach is that ‘doing
nothing’ and the ‘status quo’ is
not an option. All the evidence
points to the fact that despite
the employer’s contributions
having increased to effectively
20% of pensionable payroll that
the Scheme surplus continues
to erode and the ‘underlying’
rate continues to rise. There is
a real danger that at the next
valuation that the employer
will be forced to contribute
at the underlying rate (which
most recent calculations put
at around 42.1% of payroll).
Added to this, these longer term
trends have been exacerbated
by recent market conditions
and were these conditions to be
replicated at the next valuation
that would mean there is a real
risk that the employer would
have to contribute significantly
in excess of the ‘underlying
rate’ to make good any deficit
in the fund over a number of
years.
From a Prospect and PCS
perspective NATS having to pay
at the ‘underlying rate’ for The
Scheme has moved from being
a theoretical possibility to a
potential stark reality. Against
that backdrop, the unions
have had to consider what
mitigating actions would be
both acceptable and effective
in order to protect the interests
of current and future members.
Our views and approach has
been informed by a number of
key principles which include:
Protecting the interests
of existing members of The
Scheme;
Ensuring that any revised
arrangements are robust and
flexible in order to stand the test
of time;
Ensuring for ‘new entrants’
that NATS continues to
provide high quality pension
arrangements.
As a result of the above,
exhaustive discussions have
taken place with management
to seek to agree a joint way
forward. These discussions
and negotiations have been
extremely difficult and the trade
unions have sought to strike
an effective balance between
protecting existing members
as much as possible whilst at
the same time ensuring the
interests of future members
published by Prospect Chertsey GG/afc/09/08
are taken into account and all
members are provided with high
quality pension provision going
forward.
As a result of these difficult
discussions, management have
put to the unions a package of
measures. The intention of these
measures is to seek to agree
arrangements which will both
protect the interests of current
members of The Scheme and
provide high quality pension
arrangements to new entrants.
The ATCO and ATSS Branch
Executives of Prospect alongside
PCS have met to consider
management`s final proposals.
Our view is the proposals
put forward, as a result of long
and detailed negotiations are
the best achievable. Both the
ATSS Branch, ATCO Branch
and PCS are committed to
balloting members on these
proposals. Over the coming
weeks a number of NATS and
NTUS Briefings will be taking
place around the country, being
followed by union member
only sessions. We realise the
proposals we are putting to you
will be controversial and that
you are likely to have a number
of questions. It is important
that an informed debate and
discussion is allowed to take
place before members are
asked to vote. It is important
that you attend the Briefings so
we can answer your questions
and provide you with our
perspective.
The Proposal
Protections
It is proposed that NATS
and the NTUS put in place
a MOU (Memorandum Of
Understanding) from 1 January
2009 for a period of 15 years.
This MOU would put in place
a number arrangements set
out below as well as provide
crucial protections, including
contractual protections for staff
going forward.
Cap on future
pensionable pay
increases
It is proposed that future
pensionable pay increases
be capped at RPI (inflation)
plus 0.5% for members of the
current CAAPS scheme for a
period of 15 years and subject
to review thereafter. For clarity,
promotional pay increases
and annual incremental
progression will not be subject
to the cap. The intention of
the proposed cap is not to
cap pay, but to constrain the
effect of pensionable pay
increases above this level on
your pension scheme. As things
stand, a 1% increase to paybill
equates to about £3 million
but adds an additional liability
to the pension scheme, where
pensionable of around £20
million.
SMART Pensions
SMART pensions is a more
efficient way of paying pension
contributions and reduces
the National Insurance
contributions for both the
employee and employer. More
detailed information will be
provided but the effect will be
an increase to net take home
pay whilst providing a saving
to the employer which will
help NATS meet their pension
obligations.
A new pension scheme
for new entrants
It is proposed that from April
2009 a new pension scheme
will be introduced for new
entrants. This will be a defined
contribution scheme where
NATS will match employee
contributions on a 2:1 ratio with
a matched employee/employer
contribution rate to a maximum
of 9%:18%.
This is undoubtedly one of the
most controversial elements of
the package for new entrants.
Against the backdrop of the
above, unfortunately the trade
unions have had to conclude
that keeping the NATS section
of CAAPS open to new entrants
or opening a new defined
benefit scheme is not viable and
potentially puts the benefits of
existing members in jeopardy.
The proposal of a matched and
maximum contribution rate
of 9%:18% is unparalleled in
the research which we have
undertaken and even based on a
prudent and cautious investment
strategy would provide new
recruits with a high quality
pension.
Conclusion
We will be writing to you again
shortly to provide you with
further detail and the proposed
timescale for briefings and
balloting. These proposals are
the result of a huge amount
of hard work and detailed
negotiations and discussions.
We recognise that many of the
proposals will not be welcomed
by members but the steps we
have taken have been in order
to seek to protect your interests
and your pension.
Garry Graham
National Secretary
(garry.graham@prospect.org.uk)
I just wonder how many employees in there mid fifties will jump ship before XMAS ?
I understand also we will be ballotted on any potential industrial action.
"Me thinks" a clearout of deadwood managers lurking in offices pretending to be ATCOS is called for, although I suspect they will jump ship before they are pushed overboard.
Now what would happen if we were re- Nationalised 100% again......... it could happen
do i believe its reasonable to pass on the costs??
you're damn right i do!! if this was a manufacturing plant, and the main costs were electricity and maintenance of the machinery, then our increased costs would justifyably be passed on to the consumer.
Unfortunately the main cost for this company is PEOPLE. It is The PEOPLE in this company that ensure the safe running of day to day operations. It is the PEOPLE in this company that try to minimize delays to the consumer, it is the PEOPLE of this company that for so many years have 'helped out' by survivng on goodwill. It is the PEOPLE of this company that help ensure any future profits that this company will produce.
So i have one question.
Why do you seem to want to P!SS the PEOPLE OFF so much?
Evenually we will pay off the burden of debt left to us by this government(). After that the profits of the company will soar. How about you invest in the future profits of the company and ensure that the PEOPLE continue to want to work for this company. We struggle as it is to get enough quality people to the operational end of this profession, How do you you expect to attract people when you continually cut back and cut back on the benefits . The Pension is one of the most attractive benefits of this job, and please dont people start saying about how we cannot expect to maintain a final salary scheme when everybody else is closing theirs. I'm not interested in other companies scheme's.
If this company had been paying the amount it was required to pay at the beginning, we would not be in the situation we are now. Mr barron has been put in this company for one reason in my opinion, to close the current pension scheme, reduce the liability of the company so it can be sold off and he can ride away with a huge bonus and massive personal pension fund to whatever company he wants to screw over next, as i believe allegedly happened at alstom ( i stand to be corrected by the way). i'm sure he's a nice guy but thats my opinion.
As someone whose knowledge of pensions is somewhat limited, firstly I take my hat off to those of you who take the time on here to explain much of what is spouted by NATS/NTUS et al and put it into plain english. It really helps my understanding of what is obviously a very complex subject.
Now I have a couple of questions if I may... (and please note these are purely hypothetical)
For those of us who joined the company after the 2001 deed of trust, would we automatically still be considered members of an "old scheme" if the proposed new scheme were to come into force for the newbies? I personally would not wish to be hoodwinked into voting my own pension out of existence simply by virtue of my start date with the company....
Also, if said new scheme were to come online for new staff, is there no way that present members benefits can be ringfenced, to prevent any future ballots (say, er, in 15 years time?? ) allowing new scheme members to vote on old scheme members benefits?
These questions are of course as I said purely hypothetical and I am not advocating a yes vote on an "i'm alright Jack" basis and screw anyone who joins after Jan, but for someone who doesn't really understand the finer points of pension law, I would be interested to know the answers.
WRT passing the costs of the scheme on I agree with ayrprox on this one. In fact, for those staff employed before privatisation NATS CAN pass on the costs of the scheme as part of its licence.
If we accept these proposals it's the end of the final salary scheme (due to the 0.5% above RPI cap)
I want to see what Pay 2009 looks like too. Should we prepare ourselves for another shafting? TUs should be insisting any deal (and it needs to be a good one) is implemented on 31st Dec 2008 at the latest to ensure the pension restrictions are applied after the next rise.
Not sure I like the sound of the SMART pensions either...... I quite like the idea of my money going into my scheme, rather than relying on the company paying it.. or am I just being over cynical here?????
I dont mind having a compromise and I think the capping of pensionable pay rises may be tolerable.
HOWEVER,how many times have we told our TU reps "ONE NATS,ONE PENSION"? Then they come back with this tripe?Next they will be telling us to keep our powder dry for 15 years!
I for one will vote a resounding NO if given the chance.I will also be calling for the TU "negotiating" team to resign with immediate effect if they so much as try to talk me round!
Also,I wouldnt be surprised if they come back with a below inflation pay offer
until it is an official tactic of the union to stop doing aavas, i personally will still do them if and when i feel like it. Not everyone is top of the scale and an aava here and there goes a long way.
aavas are much more appealing for people still climbing the scale.
I wonder if it was ever brought into question the legality of a pay scale like ours would it hold up. atc could be said to be a young mans game.
with increased traffic levels and having been trained in a busier environment some of the newer guys at my unit are very good indeed. Us fuddies, whilst still competent of course, get paid tens of thousands of pounds more than them because we have been in the company longer. Is our experience worth that much more when you are sitting doing t&p for each other oin the same airspace at the same time?
maybe if everyone earned top of the scale money aava volunteering would dwindle in numbers.Its not very often i can do them, mostly due to the ball and chain but thats another story.i love shopping honest. but if i wa son less money with a massive mortgage i might do more of the ones i am offered
Nice to see our union reps doing us proud again!!!!!!!!!!!
As has been said before, Prospect has been very vocal about "One Nats, one pension". What are they playing at?
If this is the best they can come up with I'm stopping my contibutions until we can get a decent union and decent representatives.
There are a worrying amount of our union reps who are middle to senior management. I don't think that the very people who are involved in making company decisions should be the ones who are representing us, as they will always be putting company first.
so we all voting a big fat NO then???
there is no mention of the big ol' payment holiday they took either... how convenient.
and in 15 years, are we going to be screwed by the newbies on the lesser pension?
once again, the union in bed with the company.... i will go see tomorrow if my union rep is still wearing his 'one nats one pension' pass holder around his neck!!!!
we need to protect our pension and show this to the company. this is the first offer, if we all vote no will they come back with something better???
I think we all need to have some time to digest this announcement. Having spoken to a rep today it would appear that the pension is already in deficit and it is the actuaries who seem to be driving the timescales.
Apparently they would be insisting on a contribution rate of up to around 60% in the near future if no guarantees could be given on the present scheme. I don't think any size of organisation could even consider that as a sensible or achievable goal.
As always, it will no doubt, have been a very difficult negotiation. And remember that is just what it is. You don't always get exactly what you want when it comes to negotiations.
I will wait to see what the rationale is from the union before I decide the course of action I will take. Certainly resigning will not change things one iota at the moment nor at this time will talk of getting rid of leading union figures. After all there is hardly a queue of people volunteering to be even local reps never mind taking on higher office.
The next few weeks will be a time for every one of us to be prepared to learn a bit more about pensions generally before we take knee jerk action. It would appear that the guarantees are in place for the existing scheme members and that new scheme would be significantly better than NATS originally offered.
I think my main concerns at the moment are about:
1) Guarantees if NATS has new owners.
2) Guarantees that the old scheme can not be "out voted" in a few years.
3) Does this really provide the protection NATS are looking for risk wise or will they just come back for more later.
All very worrying but maybe a sign of the economic times we now live in.
All very worrying but maybe a sign of the economic times we now live in.
But isn't this the point of the financial markets and economies in general? They're always going in peaks and troughs. At the moment we're in a trough. And we've been in troughs before. Things always recover.
That being said, I think 250kts makes some very pertinent points that have thrown up some questions that have markedly been avoided in the 2 statements issued today.
250kts - really good and level headed post - I agree - kneejerk reaction will be "no" (It certainly is my kneejerk reaction), but then we're faced with the "what is the alternative?" question.
The questions you raise are really fundamental to whether the offer really is acceptable or not.
I'm genuinely surprised that there is no big "carrot" to encourage acceptance - I would really like to see the pay proposals along side the pension debate and to try and ensure that whatever the pay deal is for 09 that it is delivered prior to the changes to the pension coming into force.
Stop doing bloody overtime and coming in on your days off sucking up to management.
I'm sorry, but why should people stop doing AAVAs?
The pensions affect almost everyone in the company, yet you are asking the minority to take a course of action to protect the future of the pension for all. The only way that management will wake up and see what the feeling of the workforce actually is, will be for everyone to take action and I suspect the only way this would happen is the threat ( and follow through if necessary) of strike action.
I, like Caesartheboogeyman will continue doing AAVAs until the union say that we should stop doing them.
I understand you being wary over 'Smart Pensions' but the company should have been doing them years ago.
I think it's actually criminally negligent that they have taken until now to do it... as a shareholder I'm not happy that they have been wasting my money for years by not using Smart Pensions!!
). After that the profits of the company will soar. How about you invest in the future profits of the company and ensure that the PEOPLE continue to want to work for this company. We struggle as it is to get enough quality people to the operational end of this profession, How do you you expect to attract people when you continually cut back and cut back on the benefits . The Pension is one of the most attractive benefits of this job, and please dont people start saying about how we cannot expect to maintain a final salary scheme when everybody else is closing theirs. I'm not interested in other companies scheme's.
) allowing new scheme members to vote on old scheme members benefits?
Linear Mode
