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.
So a union rep looks unhappy - not a great sign possibly, if related to pensions - however it has to go to ballot. I don't care how unhappy or happy a union rep looks, I will vote to walk out the door if the company tries to sell my pension down the river.
Hopefully others will feel the same.
The union can and may advise its members to accept something, but it cannot make them. They are Reps - i.e. they represent us. They do not unilaterally decide for us.
To get back on thread though, we all have to stick together regardless of what position we hold in the company, otherwise the barron will be like a dog with multiple dicks, and we may as well all bend over, as our pay and pension will be f****d
Exactly and Pensions is the first battleground.
I am amazed the Union has agreed something has to be done about Pensions when all we have to go on is a censored Management commissioned report.
We need an fully published Independent report on the state of the Pension fund and we need that report to answer some questions, like what state would the fund be in if NATS hadn't had a reduced contribution since 2001.
Not industrial action per -se, but in the event of workforce displeasure, those staff who have shares could sell as many as they can, NATS has to pay you £2.85 or whatever the current price per share is*, and then as no one apart from the employees are allowed to hold them, they get re allocated. Straight back to you. Money, AND most of your shares back again.
That is so true CU. Everyone who has the early tranche of shares should be selling them. Share price is up and is unlikely to get higher while in an economic downturn. Plus then they all get reallocated, so as said above you get them back! People who say they're going to hold onto them are clueless!
MrJones, just a small comment there - if an independent report came back and said our pension was in complete meltdown it would make little difference to me. My pension is mine, legally and morally ....
Are you completely sure about how safe those funds are?
*As in all things, divide and rule is the game that gets played by the ruthless. First, if you have not yet retired, then you are a second class pension scheme member until the day you start drawing your pension or accept a first class transfer deal into another good scheme (if you can ever arrange such a thing without resigning). If anything goes wrong with your bit of the NATS bit of the CAAPS before you actually take the money out then the retired members feeding off of your bit get first pickings. As a still contributing member, when your (sub-)scheme t|ts have gone up, you only get allocated a proportionate share of the (crumbs?) left over. irrespective of any numbers you have seen to date.
Quote:
... and I'll see a certain company down the pan before I give it up.
Oh which company will that be and how will that help you? Employer companies do not have to go down the pan in order for defined benefit pension schemes to be scuppered.
Quote:
As for sticking together, how many in NATS are willing to do that????
Very good question. The tone of posts in this thread does not bode well...(See * above)
Of course it is entirely possible or perhaps probable that the pension scheme will be rescued short term, in order to make NATS a viable proposition, (£2 Billion in either GB's or DC's treasure chest) if and when we are sold off to, dare I say it....SERCO....... in the next two years.
I fear we have kept our "powder" dry for far too long for short term gain. I see death by a "thousand cuts" every single day at work. Time alas is running out
Last edited by Air.Farce.1 : 17th August 2008 at 16:49.
Not been at work for couple of days...would be interested to hear what latest Union update was...if people dont want to divulge on here with non-NATS people, a PM would be appreciated.
here's the statement. None of this is top secret so read away:
NTUS PENSION UPDATE
20th August 2008
Dear Colleague,
The purpose of this circular is to update you on where the trade unions believe that we are in terms
of our discussions with management on the issue of pensions within NATS. As you will know, we
embarked on this piece of work jointly with management over a year ago. Over that period we have
been working together in order to reach a common understanding with regard to the funding
requirement of NATS Section of CAAPS (herein after referred to as The Scheme), the ability of
NATS as a business to support its current pension obligations and, against the backdrop of that
common understanding, to agree a joint way forward.
It has always been made clear by both Prospect and PCS that any potential changes would have to
be the subject of membership discussion, consultation and ultimately a ballot and that any unilateral
action by the employer on the issue of pension would trigger a ballot for industrial action.
At the beginning of this process both parties agreed to enter into these discussions in the spirit of
good faith with no preconceptions. A firm of consultants, Deloitte, were engaged jointly by the
unions and management in order to assist an analysis of the likely funding requirements of The
Scheme going forward and the ability of NATS to support the scheme. This was a very useful piece
of work in assisting us jointly in understanding both the potential challenges which exist as well as
a range of potential mitigating actions.
The key conclusion that the NTUS has had to reach as part of this piece of work is that “doing
nothing” and the status quo is not an option. All the evidence continues to point to the fact that
despite the employers contributions having increased to effectively 20%, the scheme surplus
continues to erode and there is a real danger at the next valuation of the scheme that the employer is
forced to contribute at or near the scheme’s “underlying” rate which most recent calculations put at
around 42.1% of paybill. NATS having to pay near the underlying rate for The Scheme, has we
believe, moved beyond being a theoretical possibility and against that backdrop the unions have had
to consider what mitigating actions would be both effective and acceptable in order to protect the
interests of current and future members.
As part of this, we have sought to explore with NATS a package of measures which we believe may
be acceptable to the membership and would both mitigate and reduce risk and volatility within
NATS pension arrangements and constrain and contain escalating costs.
Our key priorities have been to:
• Protect the interests of existing members of The Scheme
• Ensure for “new entrants” that NATS continues to provide high quality pension
arrangements on a similar (though not necessarily identical) basis to current arrangements
• Ensure that any revised arrangements are robust and flexible in order to stand the test of
time
Of course, any final proposals ultimately would be put to a ballot of the membership. The revised
proposals we have put to NATS management include a package of measures which would include
the following key features:
• A “cap” on future pensionable pay increases of RPI + 0.5%- subject to review and linked to
the health of the pension fund. Currently the actuarial assumption is that pay increases by
RPI + 1.5%. This has a dramatic impact upon the cost of the scheme. Currently a 1%
increase to the underlying rate equates to a £3 million increase to NATS pay bill and leads
to an increase of £20 million in terms of Scheme liabilities.
• New pension arrangements for new entrants which would include broadly the same range of
benefits but calculated on a “career average” (CARE) basis.
• Revised pension contribution rate for new entrants of 9%
• SMART pensions (effectively an administrative change which saves money).
The NTUS believe that the above range of proposals significantly addresses issues of cost, risk and
volatility related to current and future pension arrangements. These proposals would continue to
provide high quality pension arrangements which individuals could rely upon, mitigating against
the pressures and difficulties associated with a “two tier” workforce. Pensions are a long term
investment and based upon actuarial advice the above package of measures have an “Underlying
Rate” of 25% after 15 years and ultimately 17.1%.
Given the very significant impact of our proposals and efforts we had taken to seek to address
issues of cost and risk, whilst at the same time providing and protecting high quality pension
arrangements for our members, we had hoped for a positive outcome from discussions with
management. However, management have now set out a fundamental principle which they describe
as “non negotiable”. Any pension arrangements for new entrants must be free of risk from their
perspective.
Management also require the cap on future pensionable pay for existing members.
Their position on risk, in combination with their currently suggested contribution rate, produces a
scheme for new entrants which is not acceptable to the NTUS.
We will be meeting with NATS on Friday 22nd August, when they will table a new proposal.
is it me?, this reads like 'oh look at the poor company, we are so poor help us out, we have no money'
maybe before they herald record profits in pravda, i mean pulse, they should spare a thought to those people who have created a major portion of those profits and perhaps reward them , rather than saying sorry chaps and chapesses we havent got any money...
As far as them having to contribute at 20% , well if they had been contributing when they should have, rather than taking an extended payment holiday , they wouldn't be in such a position.
Capping future pensionable pay rises?? ok as long as i can cap the red barrons rises. If he's worth over 10% why arent i?
The bit that worries me is where they talk seriously about a second pension scheme, and ensuring any new scheme provides similar benefits, and this would protect against a two tier feeling. What happened to one NATS one pension???
I feel a cave in coming..
Any pension arrangements for new entrants must be free of risk from their perspective.
Well that's the killer isn't it?
It looks very much like the same old divide and rule.
Say ok to any deal including that and you are straight on to the slippery slope.
Then it will be revised retirement ages denying another tranche of fifty-somethings the chance to get close to 38/38ths by extending ...
No doubt a sale is very much on the horizon and the sellers have been told this is essential to get sold.
No doubt some of you are expecting to get sold and others not. Those that are are no doubt split into the expect-to-haves and the expect-to-have-nots. Slice and dice, if not divide and rule ...
Sounds like clichés? You bet.
I hate accountants. Did I ever say that before?
There's certainly some novel stuff offered up as options but is it worth your detailed attention? We all know the stock market is in a mess at the moment so unless you know that 'the detail' was based on a valuation and projection as of yesterday rather than as of 3 or 6 months ago or whenever Deloittes figures were valid then surely the figures are already out of date.
That 42.1% is horrible burden for any business, but if you deserve it, then tell them to bash ERG to allow you to double ATC charges to start filling the holes. They let BAA double parking charges over the last 5 years (at least). Not sure what their excuse was. As a frequent flyer when I plan my trips, I worry far more about parking charges than anything I ever pay an airline or what my airline needs to pay the ANSPs. That can't be right, surely? The airline can take care of itself, but you guys? Not sure. Seems the airlines will take real good care of you given half a chance
Whilst NATS too are still effectively a monopoly, they might as well act like one and redress some balances . Better in your pension funds now than in SERCO's coffers later.
Far too easy for me to say of course.
What do you reckon your shares might be worth versus your pension post-sale (if a sale occurs?). Well you'll get offered a firm price for the first, but the second will thereafter sit on shifting sands, won't it?
Sounds like union are resigned to two tier pension scheme...but am i right in thinking that this sounds a lot like...'new employeees will have a new shite...i mean riskless pension, AND the current pension will change too?!
Quote:
ayrporx
well if they had been contributing when they should have, rather than taking an extended payment holiday , they wouldn't be in such a position.
Nail on the ******* head.
Someone i know high up in union told me yesterday that we can expect something to come out fairly soon...something along the lines of an extremely good pay offer in return for changing pension. Whether that meant current and new pension for newbies or just new one for newbies...i dont know. However, that is where the battle is going to be faught and won/lost isnt it? Much like last pay deal 'here, have a couple of extra grand....theres no catch at all...oh, except we are going to gove new trainees nothing...but you dont care about them...they know what they are getting before they apply so dont worry...'
Management know what they are doing (oi! im serious...stop laughing), they will have been preparing for these negotiations for years, they will have plan after plan to get what they want.
As said before ....they took a payment holiday....so pay that back(part of last 5 years of profit should have provided for that easily) Then we can see what the standing is. Secondly there are many final salary schemes where the employer has raised costs to cover it....post office was one as they went to the regulator to change their policy.....same should be done to CAA. Thirdly, why are share dividends being paid when the pension is such an issue??
Mentions in the union statement of capping pension rpi+1% for current members....well based on bottom of scale that makes for quite a bit less 25 years down line.(if i got sums right, correct me if wrong).
Overall a two tier pension will divide workforce which management would love....next 2 tier pay claims etc. A larger pay rise for next year?? well that woulld be selling us down the river with no gains at all, just less to look forward to on retirement.....and they would have saved millions the process.
I feel that the bag of coal and oil drum may finally become useful!
Unless the aforementioned payrise/bung has 5 zeros at the end of it, I'm not interested and they can shove it where they see fit.
I agree that we have been guilty in the past of accepting the odd grand here or there as a bung but this is a completely different issue. do the management actually have the slightest idea of how we feel about this? Chucking us a few grand on another payrise, which shouldnt be connected to the pension issue anyway, is just asking for a strike.
I completely agree with mr 777, The management are taking the P*SS out of us with these negotiations. The pension should not be linked to pay talks.
They can take the pension off me right now if they give me 500K tax free to invest in my own pension as i see fit. That is the minimum we will be losing if you look at recent retirees forecasts.
Don't try and sugarcoat it and screw us over on the cheap. I will gladly bend over for 500K.
But I will also give up ojti/aavas/my second non core sector.
If money is an issue, RENATIONALISE.
RAISE route charges.
STOP spunking money money pointless get togethers/projects that will never reach fruition.
Quoting from the July statement jointly from NATS and NTUS following the meeting Pensions Committee at the end of June:
• The Actuary’s report showed that the assets of the NATS Section as at 31 December 2007 were £2,983.7m, compared with £2,785.3m as at 31 December 2006. This includes the value of money purchase additional voluntary contribution (AVC) funds invested separately.
• The Actuary’s report showed that the liabilities of the NATS Section as at 31 December 2007 were £2,923.4m, compared with £2,489.1m as at 31 December 2006.
• The Actuary’s report showed that there was a surplus of £60.3m as at 31 December 2007, compared with £296.2m as at 31 December 2006. This represents a reduction of £235.9m. This is equivalent to a funding level of 102%, compared with 112% as at 31 December 2006.
• The Actuary’s report showed that the underlying cost of the Scheme (future service cost) to the employer has risen to 42.1% of pensionable payroll, compared with 37.3% as at 31 December 2006.
So sadly the numbers being used in current negotiations do look rather out of date already.
Not knowing how well insulated the funds are from the likes of the FTSE100 plummet of some 10%? in the last few months (worst case -10% of £3bn is -£300m) I might nevertheless surmise that the scheme may already be in deficit at this moment.
Does anyone know if the Additional Voluntary Contribution funds are significant? If they were. it might be putting a too rosy blur on the health of the main defined benefits part of the scheme.
And does anyone know if the 42.1% is the total funding requirement and includes the 6% employee contribution? When I read a 2006/7? presentation from NATS which mentioned the old 37.3% number I gained the impression that 37.3% was the total estimated requirement at that time.
It's just that the surplus reported at December 2007 had already become quite marginal, and the continuing 'holiday' from full funding looks like it is already a very big 'runaway' type percentage deficit during current surely very adverse investment conditions.
Though I am not such a person, I am sure I am not much different to the average NATS ATCO member when it comes to trying to make sense of the numbers.
So it was agreed in April to make the net 2008 employer contribution 20%? Adding 6% from employees gives 26% of payroll for 2008 not 42.1% or any higher figure.
One assumes the only reason for actual funding not being higher is some continuing agreement to let the surplus subsidise the employer contribution until the day that surplus is used up or has been seen to have done so?
Wouldn't be surprised to hear that day may already have passed - now what?
Begins to look like you all need parachutes as well as powder ...
Last edited by slip and turn : 22nd August 2008 at 17:46.
Call me cynical but as one who has worked for the CAA and nats for the past thirty years just bear with me. There may be other factors that are not obvious.
1) There is a way to break bad news and that is to give VERY bad news first and then when the truth is known it seems like good news.
2) There are a lot of very senior people who if they stay after 8th April 2010 will be obliged to stay until the age of 55, however if you suggest that they may be problems with the pension fund then rather than take the risk they will leave voluntarily and that would save nats enhanced retirement and salary costs.
3) This is no criticism of the respective union reps, but if the unions have no influence over Mr Barron or the management then let them be honest and say so and then we can make up our own minds as to where our personal interests lay and then we can plan accordingly.
In conclusion these MAY be factors in the managements plans particularly No2
. in the next two years.
. Better in your pension funds now than in SERCO's coffers later.
Linear Mode
