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.
In 5 years time when everything is rosy again and we ar ein a boom period they will not revert to old terms and conditions will they? of course not. because it wont even be mentioned by management.
Of course they won't, they'll be to busy looking for more cuts to make the business more profitable and increase bonuses. We have to make the stand now.
Quote:
allegedly the only thing that stopped that happening after 9/11 was the pensions holiday
when the company was going to the wall a new investor was sought and found in the shape of BAA. I see no reason that wouldn't happen again.
yes a new investor was found in the shape of the BAA. but that was not enough to save us. thats what the pension holiday did. would you invest in a company with the burden of our pension scheme. Most of us have shares in varous companies. look at why you invested in them and wether they have final salary pension schemes. The very reasons that makes them attractive to you as an investor are the same reasons we need to be attractive to investors. Not by getting rid of the scheme, thank god , but by making the costs known and controllable. I hate this more than anyone but it is the cold hard facts of modern economics. we should have fought harder against privatisation. that was a battle we may have been able to win. this , in my humble opinion , is not.
its all very well saying things will improve in the financial markets given time. which they will. but it will all be a bit late if Nats has gone bust and our pension scheme wound up. and be under no illusion, any new buyer or government bail out will not honour our pension rights. If nats goes bust so will our pensions.
I'm still not sure we should be so concerned with nats going bust that we should give away our pension rights. If we were making a loss this may be a concern but we've made a PROFIT for the last five years. Plus I don't think it would be in the governments interest to let us go bust (voters flights cancelled / airline and airport jobs lost / failure to provide ATC over UK as agreed with ICAO).
If nats is in a situation where we're losing money maybe the (government owned) regulator would consider raising charges rather than expecting unrealistic year on year below inflation rate price increases.
I'll be voting no to any voluntary worsening of my protected pension scheme. Ask me again next financial year if we aren't celebrating six years of profits and have made a loss taking us into the red.
[we should have fought harder against privatisation. that was a battle we may have been able to win.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet.
Care to Guess what happened to those who had pensions when RailTrack was re nationalised following financial failure? The Government continued to pay contributions.....
Network Rail btw, which is the governmemnt run replacement for RailTrack,
Quote:
has featured in the latest three successive editions of ‘Britain’s Top Employers’ – a guide to the best companies to work for in the UK,
Two more than NATS, a semi private company. Some things ARE better run by the state.
I work at a unit which could probably be described as one of those that could end up being at risk. However, I still think that voting 'no' is the way forward. Looking at what seems to be on offer and if we just accept is straight off, then it just sets a precedent that we are willing to accept anything that is thrown at us. Future pay rises and further amendments to terms and conditions will all be under the total control of management. They will know that we won't stand up for anything.
I'm willing to be proven wrong by the union roadshow thingy-me-bobs but the figures that people have been putting on here look worrying to me.
News Releases: National NETWORK RAIL TO LAUNCH NEW PENSION SCHEME
Thursday 14 February 2008 11:00 A third pension scheme, widening the choice for its 34,000 employees, was unveiled today by Network Rail.
The pension scheme will be a defined benefit arrangement, based on the average of an employees earnings, known as Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE). This new pension gives Network Rail employees a wide choice of pension options - the best in the rail industry. Employees will be able to choose from:
A defined contribution scheme - a type of private pension plan with employee contributions being flexible (from 0 to 4%)
The new defined benefit scheme based on average earnings with employee contributions of around 6%
The existing defined benefit scheme (Railway Pensions Scheme - RPS) based on final salary with employee contributions presently around 11% of pensionable pay
The move to introduce a new pension scheme follows a recent report from the Railway Pensions Commission that concluded that the existing industry wide defined benefit scheme could become unaffordable for all parties in the future and recommended that railway companies should seek to provide a more affordable defined benefit scheme.
Iain Coucher, Chief Executive, said: "This is about providing our employees with the very best options when making those difficult financial planning decisions. Pensions are very important to our people and we want to provide great pension choices that balance cost and benefits, enabling employees to make informed decisions about their future.
"Our new CARE scheme will give everyone another option when making retirement planning decisions, an option that is a good balance between cost to the individual and the benefits it pays out."
Notes to Editors:
Details of the scheme:
• The CARE scheme is a shared cost defined benefit scheme, with 60%of the cost met by the employer and 40% by employees
• Employee pension contributions are expected to be around 6% of basic pay. (The defined contribution scheme is between 0 and 4%, while the final salary scheme is currently 10.8% of pensionable pay, rising to 11.36% from January 2009
• The CARE scheme offers life assurance of 4x pensionable pay and dependants pensions on death in service, together with ill-health retirement benefits
• Benefits will be based on 1.25% of basic pay for each year in the scheme
• An employee paying into the scheme over a 40 year career could achieve a pension of 50% of their average basic salary from the age of 65
• The CARE scheme will be open to new employees from day one. Existing employees will have the option to switch to the CARE scheme
Railway Pensions Commission:
The results of the 2004 valuation of the Railway Pension Scheme created real concerns across the rail industry that costs were too high and becoming unsustainable. All parties (employers and trade unions) agreed that something had to be done and as a result the Railway Pensions Commission was set up jointly in September 2006.
The Commission's remit was to consider, against a background of rising costs of pension provision, what, if any, alternative means of long term pension provision might be available that would be fair and affordable for both employees and employers.
Sometimes the full picture isn't so rosey as a headline!
Network Rail announced its new defined benefit scheme for its 34,000 employees, based on the average of an employee's earnings.
The Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE) scheme will see 60% of the cost met by the employer and 40% by employees.
Iain Coucher, chief executive of Network Rail, said: "Our new CARE scheme will give everyone another option when making retirement planning decisions, an option that is a good balance between cost to the individual and the benefits it pays out."
However, Bob Crow, the general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT), said: "This isn't about widening choice, it's about undermining the existing final-salary scheme and a cynical attempt to undermine the Railway Pensions Commission before anyone has had a chance to discuss its findings.
"I am in no doubt that if the company persists in imposing a worse pension scheme there will be a national rail strike."
Just one more point. How much would a one day shutdown cost UK PLC? More than enough to fund CAAPS for a LONG time. Perhaps it's time NATS was run properly as a not for profit company (as is only true and right) and the Government protected the pension.
Can I just reiterate my thoughts from a previous post....
"Legal Status and Ownership
NATS Holdings Ltd is the holding company for NATS Group. It owns NATS Ltd, which in turn owns two operating subsidiaries: NATS (En-Route) plc (NERL) and NATS (Services) Ltd (NSL). The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9%, BAA plc 4.2%; and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd 5%.
The Government is the major shareholder (48.9%) and NATS cannot go into administration. There is a good reason why they still part own it... because NATS is essential to the UK both economically and from a safety and security aspect, thus NATS will not be allowed to go into administration -even if it could."
Bearing the above in mind, since the Government owns 48.9% which belongs to the Public sector, perhaps we are attacking this from the wrong angle. Has anyone lobbied their local MP ? NATS is predominantly owned by the Government not the private shareholders above.
Please bear these facts in mind and try and steer away from any attempts to have your minds changed by the faint hearted who post management and dare I say Union "working together" opinions on this forum.
Consider this also, the meer threat of a one day strike would not be tolerated by the Public, never mind an actual ATC strike. We know the effects from a 3 hour computer glitch - headline news and major delays.
Do not underestimate the skills you have which this Government and the public cannot do without
Last edited by Air.Farce.1 : 28th September 2008 at 23:14.
National Rail do have a defined benefit scheme open to all
HOWEVER
You can only join it after 5 years of service (reducing the benefits) and its cost is shared 60% by the employer and 40% by the employee. As it becomes more expensive, the employee contribution rate will rise, already being at 11% now.
Add to this that it is not a final salary scheme but an average salary scheme.
Add to this that it doesn't pay out even 2/3rds of average salary but somewhere between 33% and 60% after 40yrs service, depending on salary.
They also have a Defined Contribution scheme which every new member of staff must join for at least 5yrs.
The point is that even in the renationalised world, there are no securities or guarantees and our scheme is head and shoulders above the Network Rail Pension (in benefits and in cost).
Before people make decisions, however emotive the subject, do the research, even if you don't attend any briefings, and make an informed decision. At the end of the day, the members and not the 'leadership' of the union will decide. No matter what the result of the ballot, YES or NO, I would hope everyone is able to make an informed decision on such an important subject.
As for the union stepping down, the union is the members. If they are unhappy with the way the union is doing business, then elect different 'leaders'. There are many people complaining but it seems very few willing to step up to the mark and do a better job. If you think you can, it looks like you'll have the support of a lot of people on here.
no not management or working together points of view. dont be so patronising and pompous. just a different view to yours! we will all have the full facts soon. hopefully! lets wait and see what we all think then. I sincerely hope I am wrong and that the pension proves to be sustainable in its present form. Its much easier to take the easy opinion that we can strike and everything will be ok again. In my opinion it is too late for that. those that think differently cant be dismissed by accusations of being management lackeys or weak union reps. It would actually have been much easier for the union to come out and say that maybe we could keep things the same. they have made themselves extremely unpopular over this and you have to ask yourself why. Maybe because they have seen all the facts and made a considered judgement based on those facts. Please refrain from the old accusations that they are just wannabe managers so suck up to management. dont you think they have pensions too. some of them with more invested in them than the two year veterans that seem to populate the knee jerk reactionary corner. I dont include all people that believe we should strike and there have been some very interesting posts from both sides. but please lets get away from this idea that because the news that is coming out is bad that it must be lies made up by some kind of management and union cartel. presumably the pension trustees are liars too!
I am sure our reps can do the job, but not the job they are doing at the moment for management.
All we ask is that they step back from "working together" and start working for the members.
Last edited by Air.Farce.1 : 29th September 2008 at 10:20.
You will note from the Railway Pension website that ex BR employees were and indeed are still COMPLETELY protected and continue to enjoy a Final Salary scheme. Indeed the employer is REQUIRED by law to maintain the scheme for those protected staff.
two year veterans that seem to populate the knee jerk reactionary corner.
That would be me then, with a mere 25+ years service.
NEVER forget. NATS management (or management of any private company) don't have the employees best interests t heart. Their prime task is to run a profit making company and return dividends. In other words, they will always be biased.
One more thing. Deloitte, who were involved in advising NATS about CAAPS have been taken to court over the bad advice they gave to a company, whih subsequently went into liquidation because of their inaccurate report. So, probably NOT the best advisors then
ifaxu wrote .... its all very well saying things will improve in the financial markets given time. which they will. but it will all be a bit late if Nats has gone bust and our pension scheme wound up. and be under no illusion, any new buyer or government bail out will not honour our pension rights.
will any new buyer buy a company when the workforce won't work for them without their current Ts n Cs??? I think not. Will the government allow no flights over uk airspace??? ditto
we only need to stick together and fight this constant undermining of our Ts n Cs
Nats has made profits of X amount of million over the past few years how much of this is due to management starving our pension sceme?
first it was one pension, then it was two but no cange to our Ts and Cs, now well, if we do nothing we may as well start the search for different jobs! because in a few years it will be RPI - 0.5% then rpi - 1% until we are all on the new scheme because it will be better financially
each agreement management take something from us lets just let it keep happening eh??????
If we have to we stick up for ourselves I know I will, my belief is it will never get that far!
It is also possible for us as union members to call for a special conference to be convened to discuss the pensions issue.
If what has been said above is true then MACC and ScACC are already doing this, just write to the union requesting a special conference, include your name and membership number.
Alternatively ask your local rep to produce the letter and get everyone on the unit who wants to sign it, then send it off.
If I remember rightly there needs to be about 170 signatures in total for a request for a special conference.
If one is convened, you can then tell your rep what you want and the matter can be debated.
The union have negotiated this deal without any mandate to do so. At the very least a special conference should be called even if it is to give the union a mandate to negotiate on our behalf and discuss what exactly WE want from these negotiations.
I may just speak to my rep when I'm back in and get him to do this.
There seems to be a large number of people against the proposed changes to the NATS pension but with both NATS management and the NTUS proposing a YES vote for these changes who is going to marshal the NO vote?
It certainly needs organising and organising fast.
I think it should also have the same privileges as the YES vote; time off for meetings, company website space, notice board space, access to staff data lists, internal mail facilities etc etc etc.
There are 3 main sections of NATS – Controllers, Admin and Engineers and they all need to be onboard.
There are 3 main sections of NATS – Controllers, Admin and Engineers and they all need to be onboard.
Wot about the ATSA grades, ATSA 1-4, DSS, ATC T&S (C-A)? Strictly speaking the sections are:
ATCO
ATSA
ATCE
STAR (SCIENCE, TECHNICAL, ANALYTICAL & RESEARCH GROUP)
&
MSG (MANAGERIAL AND SUPPORT GROUP)
Linear Mode
