I'm fairly new to this rumour thing but i'm going to start with the pension deal. What was the point if for the next 15 years, the MOU which is supposed to be a legal document as opposed to trust of deeds or something like that, why not call it the same thing. i cannot help but wonder why change the name.
ooh wait a minute, maybe i can. Whats the reason for changing the whole ATSOCA phraseology? for legal reasons or insurance reasons or something like that. So a Flight Information Service is now going to be a Basic Service. A Traffic Service is now basically going to be a RIS and of course our favourite....Deconfliction Service is i think, basically a RAS. I would think its in the interest of the company hence the same for the above.
i went to the pension brief and i was very confused/worried with what was being said. Worried if the company went bust and very confused how if this is such a great pension deal, why wasn't it brought to our attention before hand. Some things were not explained very clearly and when asked if what we have signed lasts for the next 15 years, the answer was NO. eerrrrr, so whats the point in signing it? can i assume that after what we have agreed which is this MOU which lasts for a period of 15 years, (and the economy is better) we revert back to the original pension scheme after that?
with regards to the pay rise......i'm very disappointd to hear that there are a few staff that have/are going to receive a 13% payrise (i'm just going on what i have read here). Furthermore, all these developments and projects going on (which some are very costly and never see fruition).....what will these people do when all the projects are complete or not complete (e.g. ScottishACC) and there will be no more projects to do. Will job titles be invented for them. i think there are a lot of job titles already that in all honestly, i have not a clue what is their responsibility.
Another worrying rumour that i'm very concerned about is this 3 week non-payed leave. Can anyone elaborate on this please? Will everyone be able to take it at the same time? maybe in the summer/winter?
One last note, i really dont think the union went out to deceive us on the pensions, i would have liked it if they would have given us a better understanding if the vote was a NO vote. i felt that there was a certain amount of pressure to get people to vote YES and tell us what would happen if it was a YES vote. All there was about the NO vote was that the company will go bust and that this wasn't an option. Is this difinite or was it based on figures? maybe there are other places were the company could cut costs and not just the pension fund.
