I’m just back from the pension briefing at Prestwick centre; I went with an open mind although from everything I had previously read I was more likely to be a NO voter!
I’m still a NO. I understand that something needs to be done but cannot be convinced by the weak argument that this is the best or indeed the only was forward
It has been a while since I have felt so annoyed at being spoken to at times like a naughty child. The NATS rep was patronising and evasive of the difficult questions, like a well rehearsed politician. The union rep followed the company line and nodded appropriately at the correct times.
The figures presented yes they are worrying; I want the company to be as secure as the next. A secure company should mean a secure pension. But the figures are no different to what I have already read. We are still in economic turmoil so why make rash decisions at this time. They mention that if the actuaries were really worried then they would request for the next valuation to be brought forward….Does this not say it all?
The question session had a good buzz (I would guess about 100 members were present). I got a real feeling that the majority of the other members were of a like minded opinion to me.
A few questions and answers that stood out (when I can remember more ill post them)
What is the status of the CAA pension scheme?
No problem with theirs at the minute, they are well in surplus, however and here is the good bit, because of the large surplus the CAA have been offered a payment holiday…but they have decided not to take it! They are less effected because the majority of their investments are in long term low risk funds. Where as our fund is majority invested in high risk funds which are more volatile – especially in this economic downturn.
NATS pension holiday?
NATS pension holiday has no effect on the underlying rate in which NATS will have to fund the scheme. It is the aim of the actuaries to have the scheme 100% funded not more or less. Fair enough, however more money in the pot, more investments = more return and therefore means less NATS needs to put in? Or is this just to close to common sense?
Preparing NATS for sale?
Well avoided question, no real answer
The NATS rep was questioned at length concerning the (now removed) entry on the NATS net advertising consultancy services which included “moving civil service pensions to private pensions and managing TU expectations”. The reply was; It was a shock to everyone involved and was a senior manager trying to make a name for themselves. Several members asked for a written apology from the company and action to be taken against the individual but this was laughed off.
The pension briefing ended rather abruptly to make way for the TU briefing leaving a lot of unanswered questions.
It was in the TU briefing that I was 100% committed to oppose this pension change. I was never under any illusion that we were back by a strong TU, since we have been keeping our power dry for so long. Well I can certainly say that the power has now gone, not used up but now wet and useless.
Mandates – The union had a mandate to protect our pension therefore nothing else matters. It didn’t matter if we had a mandate of industrial action for even talking about pensions. That also includes the AAVA agreement being removed, as “this would not be appropriate”.
Now for the killer blow. Neither Prospect nor PCS believe that we will strike, or more importantly that the national trade union would give us the backing to strike.
What chance have we got when our union has lost all fight. When the going gets touch Prospect gives up!