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.
The problem is that both the management and Unions did not think that this would be a large NO vote...they probably thought that , at worst, it would be a close run thing. Until about 4 weeks ago I would have agreed with them, but the way that subsequent briefings have been handled coupled with rock-bottom morale and general p*ssed off-ness with Barron and his cronies means that this only going to go one way.
Radarspod, no this is not a Vote NO forum...but neither is it a Vote Yes forum mate. You can argue that eglnyt has brought reasoned argument from your side (yes, we all know what side your bread is buttered...nothing wrong with that, merely observation)...others would say that it is blind defence of an indefensible proposition. You may, of course, say the same about "our" standpoint...democracy in action
Vote NO ( not telling anyone how to vote or influence anyone, just signing off with my name, and when "eglnyt" quotes me he actually has to say Vote NO)
SATAN, I believe you're misunderstanding the set up of a defined benefit scheme. Any 'surplus' is just that, a surplus, i.e. not needed. The sum of money that is left over after current and all future liabilities of the scheme are taken into account. The surplus isn't used to pay future benefits. The trustees ensure that the pension fund has enough money to cover current and future liabilities. Therefore, from a financial point of view, the fund being closed to new joiners should have no detrimental effect on the health of the scheme.
But someone please tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.
Ben Doonigan The former Railtrack - now Network Rail - has 2 pension funds - a defined benefit scheme for staff already in the Railway Pension Scheme (the pension accounting deficit rose to £617m at 30 September (£370m at 31 March 2008)) and a defined contribution scheme. The 2008 Annual Report states: "The Balance sheet liability, which represents the Company’s share (60 per cent) of the deficit of the Network Rail section of the Railway Pension Scheme (RPS), increased by nearly 50 per cent from £248m to £370m. The main driver for the increase in the accounting deficit has been an assumed increase in longevity in the consultation proposals for the actuarial funding valuation which reports the overall position of the scheme." Members of the defined benefit scheme were contributing 10.8% in 2006!
Last edited by PeltonLevel : 21st November 2008 at 23:07.
It would seem my earlier post elicited some responses I was not expecting but then emotions seem to be running at an all time high.
Mr777 Perhaps i didn't choose the right words. No where have I seen a written statement that clearly proves that the Barron will get any bonus/car solely from the passing of this pensions deal. His contract like most others in senior management affords him a bonus based on performance. Something I do not agree with, especially when it is people like you and I that bear the brunt of it.
I also stand to lose similar amounts to you, but I have not yet stated which way I will vote. So lets not jump to conclusions that I am a yes man.
Finally I do not think I compared the pensions debate to the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict. I just remarked that my T&C's along with pay and pension are much better than many other people. I used the Armed Forces as an example as I have first hand experience, having served my time. There will always be people better off and many more worse off. I just happen to think we currently have a bloody good deal and not much worthy of complaining about, I would feel very guilty to be complaining of my lot in life to the friends who currently serve and those families whose other halfs have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Anotherthing
I understand what you are saying about the pension break, but it is not the sole reason in my opinion why the pension fund is in the state it is. Not paying the underlying rate has also contributed to the situation, however management were only committed to ensuring the fund was 100% funded, which it would appear was the reason the actuaries let them pay less into it.
There are no doubt other reasons for the pension defecit, so lets not just focus on a couple of contributing factors, if we want reasoned debate we need to accept all points of view.
DEE MAC
Perhaps my choice of words offended you, If so then I apologise. The choice of phrase never offended me when I donned my uniform and served my time. I have nothing but respect for the armed forces and have many friends who still serve, who I know would not take offence.
I too stand to lose the same as youand many others on this forum if the deal goes through. However dont assume I am a yes man because of the comments I have posted. I feel we need to leave the emotion and various rumours out of the debate and focus only on the information that can be supported by fact.
Also I wished you had read on as your logic regarding my as then single post on this forum. I fail to see any arguement that states 1 post = Union/Management, perhaps you could expand. Especially as my penultimate sentance quite clearly stated I am neither management or union.
If this logic is being used to make your decision in the pension ballot, then I do hope you read it carefully before making your mark, I would hate you to make a mistake.
As I have intimated before lets leave our like/dislike of the CEO out of it. Lets focus on fact and not wild rumour, we can speculate all we want about a NATS/NSL/NERL sell off or about bonus agreements or what car someone drives and how it was paid for. None of them have any baring on the pension deal we stand to lose and the two new schemes that have been proposed.
I would still like a pot to P$$$ in when I retire. Unless something is done I don't think anyone will be getting anything.
P.s. 2 posts does that make me senior management now
You seem suprised by the responses, so here is how ifelt when reading you post.
“Having studied Maths” Appear to start off on a Pedestal. Don’t need to study maths in my humble opinion, rather politics, business and history.
“Yes it will have affected the pension but not on the scale some people are saying.”
Quite possible to reduce our pension from 2/3 to ½ in >10 years even given an average of RPI +/- 0% in that time. If you havnt figured that one out then PM me or see my previous post.
“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.”
Contributed to the deficit and the paying back of loans early show the respect MGT have fro the fund.
“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.”
In the last 3 years my pay rise has been .25% above RPI. For that I do the work of 3 people and work 85 miles away from my kids. This is the norm in my dept. You call this greed and then expect people not to be upset. This at a time of record growth in the industry.
“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” This one really gets my goat. Other low paid worker eh! Was this same argument put to PB fro his recent 14% rise? I was in the forces and it is not low paid.
“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. “
And we are free to comment. Don’t like the use of the word ‘refrain’.
“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.”
Like railtrack employees did eh!. People are standing up fro what was been promised years ago and accepted by our part-owners, probably before you joined.
“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.”
Barons car is a symbol of the greed of modern day MGRS who will raid whatever there is to feather there own nest. I suspect most of the people posting on here were in NATS before PB and will be in NATS post PB. If they don’t like personally, then that is only related to his role as CEO and how it affects them. I would risk a larger slice of my pension rather than lie down and have my belly tickled fro Execs to ‘improve the financial health’ of the company which equates to futher my own financial health. That is a personal opinion.
Barons car is a symbol of the greed of modern day MGRS who will raid whatever there is to feather there own nest.
A bit like modern day atcos in the recent past who have feathered their own pay deals at the expense of, for example, student atcos salary. I would never trust the atcos as a group to turn down a deal that worked for them but screwed another part of the company workforce. Witness some of the comments on this and other threads about our non-ops company colleagues. Pot, kettle etc.
But whatever, the debate on PPRuNe has pretty much run its course as views are entrenched and then, when it descends to the level of insult as offered up by Yahoo, it is also meaningless as well. If that's the best that can be offered
Sorry for late reply, but birthday and guinness will always take priority!!
Fit to Burst
No i'm not saying I would accept a 15 year deal either...what I said was that it would make it look a lot more appealing to the membership as your entire pay cheque is then pensionable. If I was told choose one or the other, i'd probably choose the 15 year pay deal yes, especially in the current climate where we're being told to expect nothing better than RPI for the foreseeable future, so again obviously RPI+0.5 becomes around about half a percent more appealing!!! The point I was making was that management spout on about having our best interests at heart, when it is blatantly obvious they don't...why would they, they've got everything to gain and nothing to lose from offering the cap instead of the pay deal!!
And Gonzo
AFAIK The management cannot be told what to do by the trustees unless the scheme is in deficit, they can only be advised. And the advice when the scheme is in surplus (as we've heard before) is to pay less. Now when it becomes apparent that there may be a problem in the future (as happened in about 2004/05) and even though the scheme is in surplus (hence the trustees will still "advise" that they can pay less if they want because of this surplus) I would say its extremely poor management to actually take this advice! They could have turned round and said, "I understand you're advising me that I can pay less, but as it's going to be in trouble we'll pay what we should". I've also said both at my briefing and on here that that probably wouldn't have made much difference to the position we're in now but it has two effects:-
1) it makes the difference in the amount required to pay a lot less (i.e. if the company are used to paying 30% (which equates to about £90m if my maths are correct) then going up to paying 40% means they only have to find an extra £30m, rather than having to go from 20% to 40% and the £60m+ we're told now, and
2) it makes it look to the staff that at least the management have made some sort of effort to save the scheme as well and hence makes the staff a bit more on side when our union say this is the only way forward. I'm sorry, but one other "way forward" is for the company to pay what the scheme says they should be, and not what the trustees advise they should be!
A bit like modern day atcos in the recent past who have feathered their own pay deals at the expense of, for example, student atcos salary
The exact reason why I voted NO (spot a pattern anyone!!) for the last pay deal. Again, yes I really appreciate the efforts put in by the union in getting a fantastic payrise, but if its at anyone else's expense (other than senior management who could afford to be paid less, and certainly NOT at the expense of students as I know I could not have afforded to join this brilliant career on the wage they have now!!) then i'm not going to vote for it. Don't make broad brushed accusations like that please.
As for the abuse and insults point, totally agree. It's a very good debate with good points (good work eglnyt!) being made on both sides and we don't need to be lowering ourselves to insulting our colleagues!!
Which Forces were you in, American? I did 25 years in the RAF and it wasn't high pay. Particularly in comparison to NATS.
BD
A Senior Aircraftsman can now earn up to £27,599 and a Warrant Officer up to £44,588 so the RAF more than holds its own against the median wage in the UK (£479pw).
A Flight Lieutenant can earn up to £43,002 without ever having to challenge a promotion board so I would challenge your assertion that the RAF isn't well paid. If you can produce the average and median wage for NATS employees to back up your other claims i'd certainly be interested in having a look.
The RAF complained about pay pre-79 but as you'll know Thatcher gave the armed forces massive pay rises and certainly by the late 80s and early 90s pay wasn't an issue of complaint with anybody I worked with.
Don't make broad brushed accusations like that please.
I thought broad brush accusations were de rigeur around here given that anyone who dares disagree or offer a differing opinion from that of the more vociferous no voters are either management stooges or <insert today's choice insult here>?
Very grown up. This isn't a lion's den, it's more akin to a pre-school playground much of the time.
I suspect this whole debate has now run its course, and the vast majority have already made their minds up. That's why we are all going off on irrelevant tangents ( me included .) I don't imagine the extra briefing sessions and Bar "stools" coming your way will make any difference either. Lets hope whatever prevails will benefit all of us in the long term
Oh and before I forget, Aston Martins are fairly common where I live (2 in my street) and both owners have had nothing but trouble with them, and agree they are a waste of money which would have been better spent on a BMW 6 series or Merc SL .............There I go, off on another tangent
Last edited by Vote NO : 22nd November 2008 at 12:16.
I tend to agree with your earlier post that the discussion has run its course but I will ask two questions about the output from the modeller because only you know what your figures say.
First what % above RPI did you use to get 8K ? Second how does the figure you get compare with 27K pension which is the best you'll get if the worst happens and NATS goes under and the fund has to refer to the Pension Protection Fund ?
By the way I have no problem with people getting upset. Just because somebody has decided to vote Yes does not mean they are happy with the situation we find ourselves in. We may even be more upset because we've accepted that we're stuffed and there's nothing we can do about it and that frustration adds to the anger.
Apologies for offense caused by the language. It's hard not to get emotional when your faced with losing 8 grand a year of your pension and that eglnyt made me angry with his arrogant patronising comments.I'll make my own choice it will be a no vote. "Vote No" why would you say i'm not an ATCO? If you were an ATCO or ATSA in the Ops room you would know that many ATCOs, GSs, LASs even watch managers swear on occsasion
I never swear in the ops room, and certainly not at the radar when I've asked somebody to do something for the umpteenth time and they still don't comply
eglnyt
I too used the modeller and was approx £7k a year out of pocket, using RPI +1.5%....which is what all the management guff is based upon. Its their own fault for using this figure...you can't now say "well hold on, what guarantee is there that we'll get a payrise of RPI +1.5%". They have used +1.5% as an example, they can't now take it back and say "we don't think you'll lose that much".
I await,as ever, a convoluted and overly verbose reply from your good self explaining the error of my ways
I tend to agree with your earlier post that the discussion has run its course but I will ask two questions about the output from the modeller because only you know what your figures say.
First what % above RPI did you use to get 8K ? Second how does the figure you get compare with 27K pension which is the best you'll get if the worst happens and NATS goes under and the fund has to refer to the Pension Protection Fund
0.55% = 0.5K loss 0.625% = 1K loss 0.75% = 2K loss 1% = 4K loss 1.5% = 8K loss 2.5% (LAST 10 year ave.) 16k loss
If NATS goes under,here we go again HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension, otherwise we will go on strike! Remember NATS is crucial to the infrastrucure of UK security,safety,economy. NATS must continue to operate at full efficiency. The country would collapse with no aviation, no food, no tourism, no business! I think any level headed individual would agree NATS can not "go under" if the private side fails, why do you think HMG has the major stake? Here we go again UK SAFETY, ECONOMY, SECURITY.
That is why HMG retain the major share
I also, await, as ever, a convoluted and overly verbose reply from your good self explaining the error of my ways.
yours sincerely
Vote No
Last edited by Vote NO : 22nd November 2008 at 14:25.
The point I was making was that management spout on about having our best interests at heart, when it is blatantly obvious they don't...why would they, they've got everything to gain and nothing to lose from offering the cap instead of the pay deal!!
They could have turned round and said, "I understand you're advising me that I can pay less, but as it's going to be in trouble we'll pay what we should". I've also said both at my briefing and on here that that probably wouldn't have made much difference to the position we're in now but it has two effects:-
.)
coming your way will make any difference either.
swear on occsasion
Linear Mode
