As per my post yesterday, here in full is the e-mail that my colleague received. They did not want to post it themselves because their PPRuNe moniker is known to some of their workmates and they wanted to afford themselves of some anonymity.
They are unhappy that the union has taken this step and have stated that instead of convincing them to vote in favour of the proposals, it has actually made them more convinced to vote no.
Any grammatical mistakes in the text are made entirely by the original authors.
PCS
November 2008
Dear Member,
We are writing to you because we are concerned that all PCS members may not have taken the opportunity to attend one of the NTUS briefings which have been tagged on to the joint NTUS/NATS briefings on the pensions proposals.
This issue is probably the most important we have faced as employees of NATS, certainly since PPP and for that reason we believe that prior to casting your vote in the upcoming ballot you are fully aware of the potential consequences of a no vote.
Over the last 18 months we have been working as part of the NTUS team looking at our pension scheme and the ability of NATS to continue to meet their contributions as they are required.
As recently as our annual delegate conference in May this year we were firmly of the belief that closing the scheme to new entrants was not an option for PCS. However since then we have had the final result of the triennial evaluation and also the annual report by the scheme actuary.
The figures revealed by these evaluations have caused the Group Executive to rethink their position and to seriously challenge whether or not NATS could not continue to pay the level of contributions required to provide for our future pensions benefits.
We believe that our ultimate responsibility as your representatives, above all other considerations, is to protect the interests of all members. In order to do this we believe that, having examined all other options available, we have no choice but to recommend acceptance of the joint proposal.
We pose you the questions; how many MSG and ATSA jobs would survive a 42-43% on cost to cover pensions? How many contracts in NSL could stand such charges? Within NERL, for those jobs left, what could the company afford to pay in future pay rises if they were paying this underlying rate, and what attack would be made on our other terms and conditions?
In reaching this conclusion we examined the possibility that should NATS be unable to pay their pensions contribution they could go into administration.
This raised the question of whether or not re-nationalisation would be the best way to protect our members’ jobs, pay and pensions. It is our view that, should this scenario come to fruition, and in recognition that our pension scheme had effectively bankrupt a monopoly provider the administrator would have little choice but to close that pension scheme.
If we were re-nationalised, we would encourage you to look at the pay rates in the Civil Service, look at the pay cap in the Civil Service (2% including increments). PCS colleagues who are employed by the government are in continual dispute with their employer as they seek to remove a pay cap which is effectively cutting their standard of living.
As stated earlier we have been involved in these discussions for 18 months, and we are asking you to believe us when we say we think we have explored all the options. The current joint proposal is the best way to protect all our pensions. Indeed, if we believed that there were any alternatives then we would not be balloting now on this proposal.
Both of us have been very active in the Labour Party and the Trade Union for a number of years, and if for one moment we believed that re-nationalisation was the answer, we would be leading the campaign for this to happen.
We want to ensure your pension is safe, regardless of whether you are 64 or 18 or anything in between. We are 100% convinced voting YES is the best way to protect your pension now and into the future.
Voting no is a massive gamble which may put your future financial security at risk and we would ask that you take this into account when you get your ballot paper and before you cast your vote.
Yours fraternally and in a personal capacity.
Tweedle Dum Tweedle Dee
Hmm - lets see...
This issue is probably the most important we have faced as employees of NATS, certainly since PPP and for that reason we believe that prior to casting your vote in the upcoming ballot you are fully aware of the potential consequences of a no vote.
Based on our following letter that only states our position and beliefs – hardly a balanced document to use to make an informed decision.
We pose you the questions; how many MSG and ATSA jobs would survive a 42-43% on cost to cover pensions? How many contracts in NSL could stand such charges? Within NERL, for those jobs left, what could the company afford to pay in future pay rises if they were paying this underlying rate, and what attack would be made on our other terms and conditions?
Scare mongering and pure speculation, especially the phrase:
Within NERL, for those jobs left
There is a very strong argument that says closing the pension scheme will cause job losses if and when NSL is sold off, as the NATS support infrastructure for those contracts will be removed, as they will be surplus to requirements.
In reaching this conclusion we examined the possibility that should NATS be unable to pay their pensions contribution they could go into administration.
Speculation, based on management tactics?? Similarly, it may well not go into liquidation. 
This raised the question of whether or not re-nationalisation would be the best way to protect our members’ jobs, pay and pensions. It is our view that, should this scenario come to fruition, and in recognition that our pension scheme had effectively bankrupt a monopoly provider the administrator would have little choice but to close that pension scheme.
Pure speculation
As stated earlier we have been involved in these discussions for 18 months, and we are asking you to believe us when we say we think we have explored all the options. The current joint proposal is the best way to protect all our pensions.
Indeed, if we believed that there were any alternatives then we would not be balloting now on this proposal.
So you ‘think’ you have explored all the options… that’s comforting…
Both of us have been very active in the Labour Party and the Trade Union for a number of years, and if for one moment we believed that re-nationalisation was the answer, we would be leading the campaign for this to happen.
Labour Party – what is the relevance and indeed is it even wise to mention membership? This is the Labour Party that promised us ‘Our skies are not for sale’ as part of their election campaign. The subsequent PPP of NATS (by Labour) saddled the company with huge debts.
Also, this is the same Labour Party who are the employer mentioned during arguments about re-nationalisation -
If we were re-nationalised, we would encourage you to look at the pay rates in the Civil Service, look at the pay cap in the Civil Service (2% including increments). PCS colleagues who are employed by the government are in continual dispute with their employer as they seek to remove a pay cap which is effectively cutting their standard of living.
So personally, I don’t think being members of the Labour party is something to be harping on about considering the arguments you are trying to make!!
Voting no is a massive gamble which may put your future financial security at risk and we would ask that you take this into account when you get your ballot paper and before you cast your vote.
Double speculation… Voting yes is also a gamble – even NATS admit that it only mitigates some risk. Any fund that relies on investments in stocks and shares is a risk… if it wasn’t a risk, we’d all have personal portfolios and we’d all be rich!!