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.
we all need to vote no.... and to be honest, the feeling at our large and influential unit is that anyone voting yes had better had some thick damn skin and keep their heads down.
well said dances with boffins. I will happily provide king louis with my home address via private e-mail and he can come down and try to intimidate me if i decide to vote yes! think he may get more than he bargained for though. Weasel!
Delving deep in the Nats annual report and accounts linky reveals some interesting facts and figures.
1.Profits were reduced by the repayment of £65Million in high interest (11.5%) perpetual shareholder loan notes financed in part by the group’s strong
operating cash flows. The repayment incurred an early
redemption charge of £15.8Million!...in other words a healthy profit for shareholders without actually being seen as 'profit'!.
2. At 31 March 2008, measured under international accounting
standards, the pension scheme had a surplus of assets over
liabilities of £413.5m compared with a surplus of £238.6m
at 31 March 2007. This varies greatly from the figures being spouted as to why the pension scheme is at risk.
and to be honest, the feeling at our large and influential unit is that anyone voting yes had better had some thick damn skin and keep their heads down.
what unit is this?
At my large and influential unit, most people I spoke to are disgusted by this proposal but I have heard nothing of people being gunned down mid opinion etc?
There was a petition for special conference doing the rounds at MACC and ScOACC that basically went along the lines of the negotiating team is not to agree to anything on the pension front without first consulting the membership.
It should also be coming out at the southern units too in the next few days. Ask your reps.
It needs 170 signatures but at least twice that number should be possible.
Quote:
There was a petition for special conference doing the rounds at MACC and ScOACC that basically went along the lines of the negotiating team is not to agree to anything on the pension front without first consulting the membership.
It should also be coming out at the southern units too in the next few days. Ask your reps.
It needs 170 signatures but at least twice that number should be possible
There's a copy of the MACC/ScOACC signup sheet been faxed over to PH for signatures, and we'd heard that it'd been faxed to PF as well.
2. At 31 March 2008, measured under international accounting
standards, the pension scheme had a surplus of assets over
liabilities of £413.5m compared with a surplus of £238.6m
at 31 March 2007.
Airways B. Where did you find this? I can't
I think it'd make interesting reading around the ops room
"the negotiating team is not to agree to anything on the pension front without first consulting the membership."
I may be a little bit slow here but isn't that exactly what is happening. Nobody has agreed anything yet and nobody will until the membership has been consulted and there's been a ballot. Are you seriously suggesting that the union representatives should consult on every suggestion at every meeting, and if so do you honestly think that could ever work ?
Callyoushortly, it's on page 20 of the 2008 NATS Annual Report. Before you get too excited you need to read on a few sentences because the next paragraph contains the 112% figure and the triennial review. There was an explanation for this difference on NATSNET shortly after the report was published so it isn't new information.
"the negotiating team is not to agree to anything on the pension front without first consulting the membership."
I may be a little bit slow here but isn't that exactly what is happening.
Quite right eglnyt, however the fact remains that the NTUS have negotiated without a mandate to do so, therefore a special conference neds to be called to either give them a mandat to negotiate or tell them to stop immediately and start again ith speciic goals to negotiate.
Callyoushortly, it's on page 20 of the 2008 NATS Annual Report. Before you get too excited you need to read on a few sentences because the next paragraph contains the 112% figure and the triennial review. There was an explanation for this difference on NATSNET shortly after the report was published so it isn't new information.
eglnyt, I'm sure it was a typo but I think you mean page 30 of the Annual Report.
For those interested, the relevant paragraphs read as follows:
Pensions
At 31 March 2008, measured under international accounting standards, the pension scheme had a surplus of assets over liabilities of £413.5m compared with a surplus of £238.6m at 31 March 2007. The £174.9m increase in the surplus is due mainly to a decrease in the present value of the obligations arising from an increase in the prescribed discount rate from 5.2% to 6.2%. The scheme’s assets increased by just £13.1m or 0.5% to £2,846.2m in the year.
The group made cash contributions to the scheme of 12.2% (2007: 12.2%) of pensionable pay during the year giving a cash cost of £37.7m (2007: £32.6m). From 1 April 2008, cash contributions to the scheme will be paid at an annual effective rate of 20.0% of pensionable pay. This follows the outcome of the triennial valuation performed as of 31 December 2006, which reported a surplus of assets over liabilities of 112% and an increase in the future service cost to 37.3% of pensionable pay (from 26.8% at 31 December 2003).
The group is currently engaged in discussions with its Trades Unions on proposals to reduce the cost and risk of future pension provision.
NATS employees are unfortunately enduring the now-frequent concerted attack on employee pension provision by a company anxious to be seen trying to protect its future contribution liability. In one corporate sense, this is understandable but if fundamental changes are to be made, then they have to be convincingly and honestly put and appraised. There is little point in securing corporate financial benefits in a service industry if you totally p*ss off your workforce in the process.
As an outsider (but one who has witnessed similar shenanigans from his own one-time employer), I have great sympathy with what you are trying to protect. IMHO, you need to have union representation singing from the same hymn-sheet and whom you trust, together with (more importantly) specialist pension advisers who can see through the smokescreen that the employer will inevitably put up, in order to try and secure an advantageous agreement.
Having seen similar situations, therefore, my humble advice to you would be to nail your Prospect Reps to the path you wish them to follow and ensure you/they have the best possible pension advice to enable you to make an informed decision before any ballot takes place.
Sorry if I am intruding - sorry also if I am stating the bl**ding obvious - but I feel extremely strongly about such raids on employee benefits by commercial managers who, as their first priority, have their own agendas to follow. We always used to tag them with Peter Carrington's phrase, "Duplicitous B*stards" - until or unless proved otherwise, of course ...
I thought that the BEC had a mandate to negotiate on our behalf due to the very fact that we voted them in. Do they need to ask fo a mandate every time they talk to management? Correct me if I'm wrong but I agree with eglnyt. The union has been involved in high level discussions and on our behalf has negotiated the best position that they think achievable. They will now spend the next few weeks briefing each unit individually, explaining their position so that you can make an informed decision and vote as you wish. There is no need for a special conference. Total RED HERRING.
Many people seem to be missing the point that there are 3 constituent unions involved. How will a Special Conference, say, for the ATCOs have any effect on the other 2 groups-it won't.
All 3 of the Executives have seen fit to come to a decision to recommend this deal to the members. If that weren't the case I think we should all be deeply suspicious.
The fact that all 3 are in this position makes me suggest that we should all stop jumping the gun and be prepared to ask some very tough questions at the briefings as there must be a compelling case for the proposed changes.
I am no more in favour of changes than anyone else but am prepared to listen to the case.
I have heard in a long time.
Linear Mode
