NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)

[DotMac]

intherealworld,

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think it's ok for me to cross a picket line - however, I can't speak for others, and if they do then that's something between them and their conscience.

The "but if it's on my watch you certainly keep your head down! " comment is just unnecessary. Just because you can't think of many reasons to cross the line (neither can I), it doesn't mean there aren't any.

It is absolutely right that we all feel free to voice our opinions on this matter - this is probably the most important issue that any of us will face in our professional careers.

I just hope this discussion is hypothetical and it doesn't come to strike action at all. I don't wish for anyone to be faced with that dilemma.

[terrain safe]

I have to say that if you are in the union and a vote is taken, and that vote is for strike action, then unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances, you will go go on strike with the rest of your colleagues, unless you leave the union. Otherwise why bother. You might as well cash your pension in now so that the vote will then mean nothing to you. You might as well not work as a team and yes TRM will be well and truly blown out of the water. It would be a great way of divide and conquer. We must stand together on this or just give up now.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by intherealworld

I don't know where you people who think it's ok to cross the picket line work but if it's on my watch you certainly keep your head down!

That sounds very much like a threat and I would suggest that if anyone needs to keep their head down its you. Harassment = bullying = not tolerated in the workplace.

BD

[ZOOKER]

intherealworld.
'on your watch?'
ZOOT ALLORS!!

[G-OFUK]

How about the college students / validating students? They cant afford to take the cut, union member or not.

As an example: 10% of not very much = not a lot at all.

The current trainees don't receive a respectable salary, they take a big risk in the hope that three years down the line they'll be valid and they'll have a means of paying off all their debts. The other main carrot for us is the pension, and ours is at most risk because there are so many years before we claim it for management to ultimately have their wicked way.

I will strike given the opportunity because no matter what they take away from me today I'm already financially f****d. The only reason I'm happy to put up with less than I could get in most McJobs is what the future potentially has to offer me if I succeed.

So am I and other trainees happy to sit and have someone take that away from us because we can't afford to pay our rent?

No. We are not.

Any trainee joining the company on or after course 207 has already been shafted; we will not let it happen to us again.

[intherealworld]

Who have I harassed exactly? And why do I need to keep my head down? You have a very strange interpretation of a threat. And I don't need to be lectured on what is or isn't bullying, I'm quite capable of taking responsibility for my own actions

My point is I speak openly about what I believe is right, whether it is or isn't and then I am open to others viewpoints. I've yet to hear anyone say they won't be striking if necessary and thats because there is nobody or they haven't the strength of character to say it, and I don't know any of the latter.

[eastern wiseguy]

Like you fought for their pay cut?

No ..like we fought for the conditions they will enjoy once they become productive members of NATS.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by intherealworld

I've yet to hear anyone say they won't be striking if necessary and thats because there is nobody or they haven't the strength of character to say it, and I don't know any of the latter.

Perhaps because:
a) There has been no ballot and call to strike.
and
b) There has been no statement from the union as to exactly what they'd be calling a strike about.

Perhaps some people like to hear all the facts and weigh things up before huffing and puffing.

BD

[CAP493]

Was anyone around in previous strikes?

I've been reading this thread with interest and increasing amazement as some of the posters seem to be winding themselves up like mini water spouts...

I was around when the last NATS ATCO strike took place - so long ago that I'd only just started shaving and most of you guys were still on the 'drawing board'; and it achieved bu**er all except to sour relationships on watches and between watches.

Setting aside the issue of what's considered to be a fair pay rise and the future of the NATS section of CAAPS, anyone planning to call a strike ballot or to go on strike needs to take account of some unpalatable 'home truths'.

1. ATCOs and particularly NATS ATCOs are not perceived by Joe Public to be under-paid over-worked employees who are being exploited by their Employer.
2. ATCOs and particularly NATS ATCOs are not held in the same regard by Joe Public as under-paid over-worked staff such as teachers, nurses, social workers or junior 'house' doctors.
3. The state of the UK (and Continental European) economy with an almost certain recession on the cards has already seen several airlines go out of business and any action by NATS ATCOs that pushes a few more over the edge is certainly not going to endear the workforce to Joe Public (have a chat with a few stranded Zoom passengers or Alitalia shareholders to gauge their view of what might be a fair pay rise for folk annually earning in excess of £60K - £70K a year...)
4. HMG still owns 49% of NATS and the airlines + BAA a sizeable chunk.
5. Politicians (and especially the current government lot who are unquestionably, a 'busted flush') are extremely sensitive to public opinion. The sight of large numbers of highly-paid ATCOs camping out in the car parks at Swanwick, Prestwick and other higher-profile airport locations will not create sympathy amongst Joe Public especially if the disruption causes more airline failures.
6. It would then only take the stroke of a politician's pen to open up the NERL en-route market as any 'approved' provider is now eligible; and to sell-off NSL to the highest bidder.
7. Whilst it's entirely true that the rank-and-file operational workforce would still be needed (and that many of their managers and admin staff would not), only your salary is protected by TUPE - pension arrangements are not. Therefore, the short-term effect would be to end the 'final salary' pension scheme for all employees (not simply new recruits) and the medium-term effect on salaries would not be the outcome desired.

There were plenty of hard-nosed bullish ATCOs working in the US before the ATCA strike and we all know what happened there without public support and in the face of a determined government.

Please understand that I'm not venturing to suggest what is or isn't a fair pay rise or whether or not the NATS pension should cease to be 'final salary' for new employees: I'm merely seeking to put the discussion and some of the more extreme views into the context of a crumbling economy, airlines having gone bust or tottering on the brink, UK unemployment likely to reach 2 million by next year, house reposessions increasing, businesses creaking and a government that's run out of ideas, innovation and cash but which remains desperate to be re-elected and so would welcome the opportunity to prove it's still in control (especially if Joe Public was like-minded).

[BDiONU]

CAP493 well said, about time some real truths were written. One thing thats also worth mentioning is that NATS will be hit by huge penalties for delays if there were a strike (although no one knows what they might be striking about yet!) Possibly enough to push the company into bankruptcy (all income is revenue there is no pot of gold making interest), where would the pension fund be then? Hardly surprising that senior management are concerned about a strike as its not in their best interest to have the company go to wall, despite the assertions in this thread that their entire motivation for joining NATS is to rape and pillage. To date I've seen absolutely no evidence that this is the case, in fact I see them trying to establish the company as a proper business, make it more focussed and efficient and more profitable (shock horror! a business that makes money, who'd have thought!)
The issue of pension and pay are two entirely separate issues, as is the CEOs pay he's on a contract and negotiates with the board for himself.

BD

[StillDark&Hungry]

Intherealworld

You obviously aren't living as your name suggests if within 2 hours you can say

I don't know where you people who think it's ok to cross the picket line work but if it's on my watch you certainly keep your head down!

which is a threat, then

You have a very strange interpretation of a threat.

I say again, as I, and others, have said before. A person has a right to cross a picket line if they so wish - I wouldn't, but I respect their rights.
To have them then hide under a table for the rest of their career because of the likes of you makes me sick. You remind me of someone I knew at school.

[250 kts]

CAP493.

I understand all of that.

So it can hardly be a good move for NATS to take a "non negotiable" stance at such a difficult time. It is in everyone's interest for this to be resolved by negotiation and a sensible resolution to be found.

Previous action did in fact lead to all manner of improvements not just to pay but across the board including SRATCOH and traffic management as it strengthened the hand of the staff.

I don't think public opinion really comes into this-they will be just as much against Barron and the board who have form on taking peoples' pensions and leaving them in the lurch as he did at Alstom. He has managed to accrue a pot of £1.8m in just 4 years at NATS-more than anyone would accrue in 40 years in the company, and there are plenty of those.

Not too sure I feel sorry for Alitalia shareholders either-the Italian govt have bailed them out against EU law for years.

I believe this is the time for us all to take stock. NATS should shelve their pension plans and concentrate on making up their "holiday shortfall" and then we'll get a proper picture of the true situation. The market is down so they should be able to pick up some bargains shares and property for long term growth.

From a staff position I would also shelve the 2009 pay rise as a sign of "goodwill" which will hopefully strengthen their position in 2010 with a view to resolving pensions first.

[MrJones]

From a staff position I would also shelve the 2009 pay rise as a sign of "goodwill" which will hopefully strengthen their position in 2010 with a view to resolving pensions first.

I will take the same rise as Paul

If we do strike it won't be over pay it'll be over Pensions. I think we will get public sympathy, I think the public is sick to back teeth of managers like wot we 'ave.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by 250 kts

NATS should shelve their pension plans

As the union themselves have agreed, doing nothing is not an option.

BD

[intherealworld]

Just for those very few posters who unaware of what a threat is;

Dictionary: threat

(thrĕt)


n.

1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

tr.v. Archaic., threat·ed, threat·ing, threats.

StillDark&Hungry:

which is a threat, then

So that's not a threat then!

My point being, I don't think it's ok to not stick together and implying that if there are people around who think this is ok than they seem to keep their head down, I am not saying they NEED to keep their head down! This is also a moot point as everyone I know happily speaks up as being more than happy to strike over such an important issue.

You remind me of someone I knew at school.

I'd love to reply to this but don't want to be accused of bullying.

[250 kts]

As the union themselves have agreed, doing nothing is not an option.

So NATS paying in their fair share following the "holiday" with subsequent interest would "not be doing nothing". Indeed it would be doing the "right" thing and may just start to persuade people that they are prepared to shift a little on this issue.

People need to remember that many staff potentially affected by this have been in the company for 30 years+ and many will have no time to react to any potential changes.

The fact of the matter is that the staff just don't trust this present management on any of their promises regarding the pension and the security of it even for those of us who are supposedly protected by legislation.

Remember above everything-Barron has form.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by 250 kts

So NATS paying in their fair share following the "holiday" with subsequent interest would "not be doing nothing".

At the time NATS requested the 'holiday' the fund was in very large surplus, vastly more than was needed to pay pensions. Now, due to the market situation, the surplus is only just over whats needed to pay pensions but the market is still going down, hence action is needed. At the time of the 'holiday' it seemed (to me anyway) that it was perfectly justified because you can't predict the future.

BD

[Caesartheboogeyman]

management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert

if not management now, certainly someone who is scrabbling up the greasy pole.

I have got to a point in this discussion where I feel i can't express myself anymore coherently or politely. I may have to withdraw and just read. I can feel my chest tightening now. Put that down to poor vocabulary or something else, i just don't know.
I'm going to drink beer in the sun and relax.

[mr.777]

With you 100% Caesar...no doubt you'll be the 1st through the picket line BDiONU

[eastern wiseguy]

1st through the picket line BDiONU

I doubt he is operational.......paper doesn't shuffle itself!