Originally Posted by
120.4
BDiONU
Forgive my ignorance in this matter and explain if you can...
I'm just giving my viewpoint based on everything I've heard and read. Not just what NATS are saying but everything we're all exposed to in the media and from friends employed in other companies. I do not profess to be any sort of 'expert', just a bloke with a slightly different opinion to the 'One out all out brothers!' type of post which seems prevalent.
Firstly: I have heard on a number of occasions that if new pensions terms are given to new employees then when their number exceeds those on existing terms a vote could be taken to close down the existing scheme. Is that correct? Surely, if new employees join a different scheme they cannot then vote in matters relating to the old scheme, it would be none of their business?
I concur with your conclusion. No one can 'interfere' with the current CAAPS scheme unless the law is changed.
Secondly: I have spoken directly with one of the IPMS team working on this and have been advised that the start-up costs for any new scheme would be significant, both to NATS and the "new" employees. Therefore, why is that still more attractive to NATS than continuing the current arrangements, which go a very long way towards keeping NATS' ATCOs quiet? In other words, why kick up a huge stink over something that is not going to be much cheaper (certainly in the short term).
.4
If what you say is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it but the 'new' pension scheme details aren't being announced until March/April next year) then the key bit is that costs will be significant to the 'new' employees. Also the company are looking at the long term view. If you joined the company at 20 you could be employed for 40 years, so if they close the existing scheme now it'll be about 20 years until the 'new' scheme members begin to be greater than the 'old' ones. Bear in mind that CAAPS will still be paying out pensions until everyone in the scheme dies which could be a very long time for some of us.
BD