Vlad,
So we have done well in the past nine years
(have we really) - is that reason enough to roll over and start taking a degradation in our Ts and Cs?
As far as ATCOs are concerned (and I know this is about so much more than just ATCOs before anyone bleats on) - NATS ATCOs are now paid at or about the going rate, so what has happened over the nine years you allude to?
We have been brought up from being poorly paid compared to other ATCOs to being paid a market rate wage. So yes, we have done well (via the union) to drag us up to market rate, but it's nothing special, we've not been given OTT salaries.
As for being realistic - pensions are long term investments. For years now, pensions have been underperforming - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this - I remember one of the biggies quite a few years ago now was Scottish Widows.
The writing has been on the wall for ages in respect that things have needed to be done to secure the future of a pension scheme.
Yet even whilst other pension schemes were failing, NATS decided to skim the cream off our fund by taking pension breaks and reduced contributions.
All the while, other pension schemecs were closing yet we were promised ours would not be affected by the companies actions.
What we should have been doing, is exactly what the CAA are doing now i.e. maintaining the contribution level to help protect the pension (and thus reduce the possible future shortfall).
BDiONU
You say 3 years ago the pension scheme wasn't in the predicted state it is now.... the current market should not be used to predict the pension future - in fact if anything the current market helps it because any stocks and bonds we buy are going to increase in value dramatically once this cyclical downturn is over.
You state the figure 3 years - are you saying that we were unable to see a possible problem that was only 3 years round the corner?
That is extremely poor forecasting of a long term investment.
Remember, todays current financial climate has little to do with the pension fund - a point stressed by the actuaries at the briefings. Therefore 3 years ago, whilst NATS was happily making reduced contributions, the signs were available that it was not prudent to do so.
Unless of course we are saying that the fund managers were grossly incompetent.
It comes as no surprise that one of the management team who wanted to
reduce the contributions, also happensto be on the pensions board... a conflict of interests methinks.