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.
ATCOs’ Branch The newsletter of the Prospect ATCOs’ Branch
November 2008
Use your vote
The ballot of Trade Union
members on the proposed
changes to the Pension Scheme
will commence on 27th November,
closing on 16th December. The
result will be announced late
December.
It is imperative that members use
their vote wisely on what is the
most fundamental issue to affect
us all in many years. It is essential
that we all vote solely on the issue
of pensions. It is deeply
concerning that many have been
quoted as intending to vote No as
a protest against NATS, the BEC or
even Paul Barron. We cannot
emphasise strongly enough that
we must not gamble our pensions
on proving a point, however
strongly we may feel on that
subject.
We have seen high levels of
attendance at the briefings, with
some particularly well educated
debate. Our plea would be to those
still considering a No vote that you
attend one of the remaining
briefings to be absolutely clear of
the consequences we may face
and the action you want your
Branch to take on your behalf if
the vote is not carried.
Finally we must again clarify that
after considerable work and time,
this deal is being recommended by
the BEC simply because it is the
best way to safeguard our
pensions.
Vote still set for December it seems then. The rest, I'll let you decide upon.
It is deeply
concerning that many have been
quoted as intending to vote No as
a protest against NATS, the BEC or
even Paul Barron.
So the Union does not understand that people will vote 'NO' if they believe that is in the best interests for the pension fund.
Does the Union really think so little of its members that it believes a 'NO' vote will be based on petty things such as whether we like Barron etc?
The Union (and management) appear to be of the opinion that anyone who votes 'NO' is petty and of a childish persuasion.
Get it through your thick skulls that people will vote 'NO' (or 'YES') because that is what they believe is the correct vote for the pension fund. If a 'YES' vote is really the only true way of keeping a half decent pension scheme viable, then surely the Union and Management must not be too stupid to realise that the reason people are thinking of voting 'NO' is because they, the Union and Management, have by their actions and dealings over this matter, created a deep seated feeling of mistrust and have done a poor job in the briefings.
If the briefings were done differently and not perceived to be such a hard sell of one option only, then maybe a 'YES' vote would prevail. As it is, do management really think people are stupid enough to vote 'YES' i.e. believe what they are being force fed, considering the level of morale and mistrust over so many issues since PPP?
A 'YES' vote not only says you agree with the proposals, but it says you trust and believe that NATS have done the best for the pension scheme over the recent years!!
Voting 'NO' does not mean that this is some playground tactic because we do not like Barron or whatever. Management are the immature ones if they believe a 'NO' vote is all due to some childish spat.
If a 'NO' vote prevails, what are management going to do? Run off to mummy crying 'the workforce doesn't like us'?
DO NOT (continue to) patronise your workforce, we are an above average intelligence demographic. We are voting on the pension scheme, not on the popularity or not of the Management.
So the Union does not understand that people will vote 'NO' if they believe that is in the best interests for the pension fund.
Can someone please explain why voting No is in the best interest of the fund?
And I don't mean individuals benefits, but the fund as a whole?
Kinglouis
Quote:
and stilldarkandhungry, if you want more constructive attitudes, can you pass that on to management as they are clearly taking the piss out of us, phil james is proving this (see above)
Just because I may be contemplating a Yes vote doesn't mean I'm in direct contact with management by the way.
Our plea would be to those
still considering a No vote that you
attend one of the remaining
briefings to be absolutely clear of
the consequences we may face
and the action you want your
Branch to take on your behalf if
the vote is not carried.
Well we don't bloody well know do we because we are / were being told at briefings that industrial action has been ruled out! W@nkers
So as well as wanting a "no" vote you also want to deprive those people who have not been able to attend a briefing the opportunity of making an informed decision. Unbelievable.
i do not believe that anybody was not able to go to at least one of the briefings available to us so far.
if people haven't been yet, they obviously don't care enough or are just going to vote from hearsay.
Quote:
So the Union does not understand that people will vote 'NO' if they believe that is in the best interests for the pension fund.
Can someone please explain why voting No is in the best interest of the fund?
And I don't mean individuals benefits, but the fund as a whole?
Could someone please explain to me why voting yes is the best thing for the fund... briefings haecertainly not convinced me that. Voting yes helps alleviate pressure on the fund and is the best solution for management.
There are probably quite a few different ways that the fund could be made viable - however NATS as a business wants to implement the one that has the smallest burden on NATS (which means a bigger burden on the employees)
A 'NO' voter is saying thet they believe that NATS (who have enjoyed contribution breaks/reduced contribution levels when our fund has performed well) should dig deeper into their pockets now that the fund is not doing as well.
The size of the deficit is directly related to the contribution break and reduced contribution levels. Therefoe NATS should be more inclined to bolster the fund out of its own pockets.
I have just received a copy of an e-mail sent to a colleague of mine, in which the union are virtually imploring with him to vote yes.
Not only is it an indication of how worried they are, but I believe it is totally out of oder as it is trying to influence the way a union member should vote in what is a free, supposedly democratic, ballot.
I only have a paper copy, so will type it our in full (and post it tomorrow) and let others see what they think of how the union (PCS) is behaving... I personally think they are overstepping the mark and trying to employ strong arm tactics.
That is shocking. We all know where this going now....NO. And the management and the Unions have got absolutely nobody to blame but themselves if it does. The handling of this highly sensitive and emotive issue has, at best, been hamfisted...I'd prefer to call it inept.
NATS and the Unions deserve everything they get out of this vote.
As far as I know there is currently some sort of investigation by senior managers into "falsehoods" perpetrated by someone at Union or Management level in order to strengthen the YES vote.
I can't expand on this as I don't know any more detail, and wouldn't on here anyway.
( I am wearing my serious hat here, and not trying to wind anyone up, and would not post this if untrue despite my obvious voting intention!)
Last edited by Vote NO : 20th November 2008 at 19:09.
There are probably quite a few different ways that the fund could be made viable
If there are post them here and we can see if they are any better than the NATS/NTUS proposal.
Quote:
The size of the deficit is directly related to the contribution break and reduced contribution levels.
Sorry that is just not true. Throughout the contribution break and any time at which NATS paid less than the underlying rate the scheme remained fully funded. It will almost certainly currently be in deficit at the moment because of the fall in shares but this is the first time and it is not any current deficit which is the problem. The problem is the future liability which could go up by an amount NATS says it can't afford to fund. The three main factors expected to cause that increase in liability are increased life expectancy, an increase in forecast inflation rates and a reduction in the expected rate of return on investments.
Eglnyt::
The three main factors expected to cause that increase in liability are increased life expectancy, an increase in forecast inflation rates and a reduction in the expected rate of return on investments
Why were these three factors not taken into account before we arrived at where we are now?
They seem fairly obvious and could they not have been rectified some time ago ?
An increase in life expectancy has continued since time began, so no surprises here.
Forecast inflation rates always vary, and the worst case scenario should have been factored in to future plans, or at least they should have erred on the side of caution.
Investments should be wise with little risk attached.
I still feel things have been badly managed, and it is wrong for all the staff to be penalised for their incompetence.
Last edited by Vote NO : 20th November 2008 at 20:58.
The size of the deficit is directly related to the contribution break and reduced contribution levels. Sorry that is just not true.Sorry that is just not true.
So are you saying that if NATS did not take a contribution break and paid full contribution levels when the fund was in surplus, the deficit would be the same as it is today?
Of course it wouldn't, the deficit would be smaller - therefore:
The size of the deficit is directly related to the contribution break and reduced contribution levels!
Why were these three factors not taken into account before we arrived at where we are now? They seem fairly obvious and could they not have been rectified some time ago ?
Are they obvious ? Given the size of the financial industry that relies on these figures it seems pretty unlikely that somebody wouldn't have noticed if it was. Remember the only way to measure life expectancy is to see when people die. That unfortunately tells you when that cohort died and until the end of the 80s was a pretty good guide to the next cohort but the figures suddenly shot up after that. There are a number of imponderables here. For example is some of this increased lifespan due to the fact that much of this cohort had quite an austere lifestyle at the start of their lives and if it is what will be the effect of the less austere beginning on the cohorts to come ? Remember also that a fair proportion of the fitter members of some recent cohorts never made it out of their twenties.
Quote:
Investments should be wise with little risk attached.
But until very recently shares were giving high returns with seemingly little risk so why wouldn't you invest in them. If it was as obvious as you think how come so many people had shares in the banks when they went into freefall ? Now it is clear that shares aren't so risk free pension funds are moving to less risky investments but these have lower returns so the underlying rate goes up.
Having studied Maths, I am struggling to see the arguement about the NATS management pension break. Yes it will have affected the pension but not on the scale some people are saying.
If however you have proof that the pension holiday has led to the huge defecit we now seem to have then please post it on NATSNET for all to see. As yet no one has shown me numbers that seem to add up.
Also everyone seems to forget all the nice pay rises that have been negotiated that all add to the underlying cost of the pension. Our own greed it would seem has also contributed to the current situation.
We also seem to have the odd rant about our T& C's, compared to nurses/police/armed forces and hundreds of other lower paid workers out there, we have got a pretty good deal overall. Perhaps some of the people who only work 18 days a month (me included) and work in a very controlled environment that ensures you are not overworked and get more than enough time off should swap places with some of the boys and girls in Afghanistan or Iraq. You might then appreciate how good a deal you have.
As for the comments about Barron and his Aston/bonuses. I hate the bonus culture NATS has for management, but until someone provides me with proof that Barron has these written into his contract I think we should refrain from making comment. It is after all a free country and he can buy whatever car he wants with his salary/allowances.
We have a well paid job with plenty of time off and you can hardly complain about being overworked for 8 hours a day. How many people think we will get public sympathy for going on strike over a reasonably good pension deal. Sure we all stand to lose a little but I personally think it is better than losing the lot.
I am not management or involved with the union, just someone who would like a pot to P$$$ in when I retire. I think we should vote on the issue not Barrons bonus/car or whether we like him as a CEO.
The size of the deficit is directly related to the contribution break and reduced contribution levels!
Given that the scheme was fully funded prior to the recent hiatus in the stock market the size of the deficit, if we assume there is one, is related to the funds exposure to shares and the recent fall in value of those shares.
Any deficit will be tackled by an improvement plan agreed between the Trustees and NATS and not the underlying rate. Provided that shares recover it will add to the problem but only short term. The underlying rate is driven by the other factors and it is that which concerns NATS and that which the proposal addresses.
Sorry, you're talking double dutch now. The rate NATS pays in has everything to do with the health of the fund at any given time along with predicted liabilities. That is how NATS managed to reduce contributions when the fund was in surplus.
This surplus, with 'predicted' trends etc is what actuaries use to predict required funding. If that is not the case, then all that NATS has done before (and that you have written) is false.
If the fund was at 150% today (as a for instance), then regardless of what the markets are doing now, the underlying rate for NATS in the future (to keep/bring the fund to 100% would be less than is being promulgated at these talks).
Quote:
Any deficit will be tackled by an improvement plan agreed between the Trustees and NATS and not the underlying rate. Provided that shares recover it will add to the problem but only short term.
Exactly what people on here and the intranet are saying, yet management are using the current financial markets to cast a gloomy picture over everything.
NATS can afford to pay more than they propose under the agreement, they just don't want to.
I'm sorry,I feel you are trying to defend the indefensible.
I'm just pointing out the possible flaws in the simplistic argument you are making.
Defending the proposal is up to NATS and NTUS and they did a pretty good job when it was subjected to a detailed examination at the briefing I went to. So far I don't think the No argument has come up with anything that stands up to the same scrutiny.
But surely you must realise if this pension deal goes through, NATS will likely be sold off to the preferred bidder. I also feel you have too much unwarranted trust in Management, and its this trust which is clouding your judgement. If and when we are sold off the whole face of NATS will likely change for the worse, job losses, conditions etc. Agreeing to this deal merely opens the flood gates. If you wear a headset your job is safe, if you don't it is not so safe, it's a chance we all have to take
An increase in life expectancy has continued since time began, so no surprises here.
Linear Mode
