NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)

[Gonzo]

Mr Jones, BA are not a regulated monopoly.

[Vote NO]

BA and Virgin are both part of the Airline Group who own 42% of NATS. Both of them have managers facing jail terms. Nice owners eh?:}
But we don't like talking about these things do we? :rolleyes:
Office of Fair Trading charges British Airways executives with price-fixing - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4478325.ece)

Four past and present executives of British Airways will appear in court next month in a criminal price-fixing prosecution brought by the Office of Fair Trading (http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2008/93-08) (OFT), the regulator confirmed today.
A spokesman for the City of London Magistrates court said the four have been listed to appear before a judge on September 24.
In only the second criminal prosecution of its kind in the UK, the OFT has accused the four BA executives of conspiring with their counterparts at Virgin Atlantic to fix the price of fuel surcharges on long-haul flights.
Price-fixing — which was made a specific criminal offence, called the cartel offence, in 2002 — carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and unlimited fines.
BA has been fined £270 million for its role in the cartel after a joint investigation by the OFT and the US Department of Justice. Virgin Atlantic avoided a fine after it approached the regulators to blow the whistle on the cartel.
The two airlines have also settled a £100 million class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of passengers who were overcharged because of the cartel.

These fines alone are half of what TAG paid for their share of NATS
The Govt received £765m from the Airline Group for its share of NATS, but it had allowed the Group to borrow £700 million of that, so immediately on being PPP'd, NATS was saddled with this debt and its interest payments.Financial & Business - NATS (http://www.nats.co.uk/text/48/financial_and_business.html)

[MrJones]

I know they are not a regulated monopoly.

My post was about what costs get passed on to customers. BA passes on its fines to its customers but we are told we can not fund our pension from ours.

We need to get it sorted.

[BAND4ALL]

DEE QUOTE
I'll accept nothing less than my pension as it currently stands.
I'm willing to strike and stay on strike until I have that.
I am not open to offers and I don't have a price.

VOTE NO.

I'm with you mate:ok:

:mad: off my pension

[ImnotanERIC]

I would vote yes for smart pensions, and a cap, but not a different pension for new employees. that doesn't work in anones interests

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

I accept that something needs to be done. But I'll be voting no as in my opinion the something that needs to be done is that NATS need to pay the extra required to return the fund to 100% (at least) funding after under contributing and causing the current situation.

They caused the problem. They can fix it. I'm not losing out to fund their bonus payments. It's time to make a stand to protect ALL of our terms and conditions.

NATS wants to be a world leader? It can start with world leading terms & conditions for staff.

NO NO NO NO NO

[BAND4ALL]

If it does go YES then.........

YouTube - Strawbs - Part of the union 1973 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KdOCWUgwiWs)

VOTE NO :ok:

[eglnyt]

There is a hole in your Cost Pass Trough argument.

On the contrary the hole is in your choice of example. BA has already decided that it can't pass the cost of it's pension arrangements onto customers and taken far more drastic steps than NATS to reduce its pension costs.

With regard to the fines if you look at the BA accounts you'll see that BA has made provision in its accounts for those and has effectively reduced its profit by that amount. Technically that means the shareholders have taken that hit because it reduces the amount available for dividends and reduces the amount re-invested and re-investment is usually to the benefit of shareholders. You are right of course that ultimately anything BA pays comes from money paid by its customers and they could put up fares to recover that lost money. Whether or not they do will depend upon how cost sensitive their ticket sales are.

BA is considerably larger than NATS and can absorb much larger financial shocks without recourse to its shareholders. The two companies are far from comparable in many ways.

The Airline Group is a shareholder in a limited company just as I and many others are. If we are going to worry about the provenence of shareholders presumably we'll have to assess all members of staff to decide whether they are right and proper to hold shares.

They caused the problem. They can fix it

Even if that were true nobody has yet explained quite where the money to fix it would come from. There is no pot of cash and the regulator won't increase the charges so how exactly do you expect it to be fixed ?

[ZOOKER]

Radical pruning of 'CTC' would seem to be a good place to start.
How did the CAA pension fund survive the economic slowdowns of both the late 1970s and the early 1990s?
Why have people suddenly started to live longer since The Red Barron has been in charge of NATS? Perhaps he should be made the head of the NHS?
Er, maybe not.

[kinglouis]

if this ballot has been put back i will be having a 'chat' with our union rep when i am back in this weekend... and not in a good way.
maybe a boycott of these 'extra' brainwash pension briefings is in order so they get the message.... NO ONE TURN UP!!!!!

[250 kts]

maybe a boycott of these 'extra' brainwash pension briefings is in order so they get the message.... NO ONE TURN UP!!!!!

So as well as wanting a "no" vote you also want to deprive those people who have not been able to attend a briefing the opportunity of making an informed decision. Unbelievable.

[alfie1999]

250 kts

So as well as wanting a "no" vote you also want to deprive those people who have not been able to attend a briefing the opportunity of making an informed decision. Unbelievable.

I'd be reluctant to describe them as 'briefings'.

Think more...'sales pitch'.

[fly bhoy]

eglnyt

the regulator won't increase the charges

According to the management woman at my breifing...negotiations between NERL and the regulator are actually due to start around about now and key to the negotiations is us getting cost pass through

And here we were led to believe that this is completely not an option!! This is management telling us that it is still a posibility, so which is it? Simply saying that "the regulator probably wont let us pass on the costs" isn't convincing enough for me to vote yes i'm afraid. How about the management approach the regulator and say "you don't know the depth of feeling about this issue, our staff are prepared to go on strike over this so we absolutely have to pass at least some of the costs through"?!? Surely that would focus the regulaor's mind??:confused:

As this whole deal is based on assumptions and possibilities, let me make some...We sign up to this deal...the regulator actually does allow cost pass through and next year NATS posts record profits (ok this one IS a bit far fetched i'll grant you:})...they become even more profitable, take home even larger bonuses for "improving the financial health of the company"(or whatever b:mad:llocks speak it was the Barron used on NATSNET!!) meanwhile we've signed away a very, very good pension scheme and have set the company up to be sold off to the highest (or lowest!!) bidder, which, according to the union guys, is also very possible!!

Vote no (SD&H...no capital letters or bright colours:E)

FB:ok:

[mr.777]

Your 2nd paragraph FlyBhoy is why I am a firm NO. You can just see it can't you? This gets pushed through and somehow the company ends up getting fat off it. Does any of this then get passed back to us, the workforce (ATCOS/ATSAs/Engineers/CTC)? Does it f***. More record bonuses, Barron gets an upgrade to a DBS and we get nothing.

I'm also interested in your comments about discussions taking place about cost pass through because at my briefing we were told it was a definite "no chance", and that was by the Union. There is so much inconsistency in what people are being told, how anybody can possibly vote this in on the strength of these briefings, the word of Mr Barron and a glossy pamphlet, is beyond me.

VOTE NO.

[General_Kirby]

Just got the latest Prospect ATCO newsletter, nothing more than a last minute plea to vote yes, oh go on please, pretty please....

VOTE NO!

[mr.777]

ATCOs’ Branch The newsletter of the Prospect ATCOs’ Branch
November 2008
Use your vote
The ballot of Trade Union
members on the proposed
changes to the Pension Scheme
will commence on 27th November,
closing on 16th December. The
result will be announced late
December.
It is imperative that members use
their vote wisely on what is the
most fundamental issue to affect
us all in many years. It is essential
that we all vote solely on the issue
of pensions. It is deeply
concerning that many have been
quoted as intending to vote No as
a protest against NATS, the BEC or
even Paul Barron. We cannot
emphasise strongly enough that
we must not gamble our pensions
on proving a point, however
strongly we may feel on that
subject.
We have seen high levels of
attendance at the briefings, with
some particularly well educated
debate. Our plea would be to those
still considering a No vote that you
attend one of the remaining
briefings to be absolutely clear of
the consequences we may face
and the action you want your
Branch to take on your behalf if
the vote is not carried.
Finally we must again clarify that
after considerable work and time,
this deal is being recommended by
the BEC simply because it is the
best way to safeguard our
pensions.

Vote still set for December it seems then. The rest, I'll let you decide upon.

[anotherthing]

It is deeply
concerning that many have been
quoted as intending to vote No as
a protest against NATS, the BEC or
even Paul Barron.


So the Union does not understand that people will vote 'NO' if they believe that is in the best interests for the pension fund.

Does the Union really think so little of its members that it believes a 'NO' vote will be based on petty things such as whether we like Barron etc?

The Union (and management) appear to be of the opinion that anyone who votes 'NO' is petty and of a childish persuasion.

Get it through your thick skulls that people will vote 'NO' (or 'YES') because that is what they believe is the correct vote for the pension fund. If a 'YES' vote is really the only true way of keeping a half decent pension scheme viable, then surely the Union and Management must not be too stupid to realise that the reason people are thinking of voting 'NO' is because they, the Union and Management, have by their actions and dealings over this matter, created a deep seated feeling of mistrust and have done a poor job in the briefings.

If the briefings were done differently and not perceived to be such a hard sell of one option only, then maybe a 'YES' vote would prevail. As it is, do management really think people are stupid enough to vote 'YES' i.e. believe what they are being force fed, considering the level of morale and mistrust over so many issues since PPP?

A 'YES' vote not only says you agree with the proposals, but it says you trust and believe that NATS have done the best for the pension scheme over the recent years!!

Voting 'NO' does not mean that this is some playground tactic because we do not like Barron or whatever. Management are the immature ones if they believe a 'NO' vote is all due to some childish spat. :ugh:

If a 'NO' vote prevails, what are management going to do? Run off to mummy crying 'the workforce doesn't like us'?

DO NOT (continue to) patronise your workforce, we are an above average intelligence demographic. We are voting on the pension scheme, not on the popularity or not of the Management.

[StillDark&Hungry]

Anotherthing

So the Union does not understand that people will vote 'NO' if they believe that is in the best interests for the pension fund.


Can someone please explain why voting No is in the best interest of the fund?
And I don't mean individuals benefits, but the fund as a whole?

Kinglouis

and stilldarkandhungry, if you want more constructive attitudes, can you pass that on to management as they are clearly taking the piss out of us, phil james is proving this (see above)

Just because I may be contemplating a Yes vote doesn't mean I'm in direct contact with management by the way. :=:=

[BAND4ALL]

I just love this from the branch....


Our plea would be to those
still considering a No vote that you
attend one of the remaining
briefings to be absolutely clear of
the consequences we may face
and the action you want your
Branch to take on your behalf if
the vote is not carried.

Well we don't bloody well know do we because we are / were being told at briefings that industrial action has been ruled out! W@nkers:ugh:

[ImnotanERIC]

250kts:

So as well as wanting a "no" vote you also want to deprive those people who have not been able to attend a briefing the opportunity of making an informed decision. Unbelievable.

i do not believe that anybody was not able to go to at least one of the briefings available to us so far.
if people haven't been yet, they obviously don't care enough or are just going to vote from hearsay.

[anotherthing]

Still Dark and Hungy
Anotherthing


Quote:
So the Union does not understand that people will vote 'NO' if they believe that is in the best interests for the pension fund.
Can someone please explain why voting No is in the best interest of the fund?
And I don't mean individuals benefits, but the fund as a whole?


Could someone please explain to me why voting yes is the best thing for the fund... briefings haecertainly not convinced me that. Voting yes helps alleviate pressure on the fund and is the best solution for management.

There are probably quite a few different ways that the fund could be made viable - however NATS as a business wants to implement the one that has the smallest burden on NATS (which means a bigger burden on the employees)

A 'NO' voter is saying thet they believe that NATS (who have enjoyed contribution breaks/reduced contribution levels when our fund has performed well) should dig deeper into their pockets now that the fund is not doing as well.

The size of the deficit is directly related to the contribution break and reduced contribution levels. Therefoe NATS should be more inclined to bolster the fund out of its own pockets.

[anotherthing]

Band4All/Mr777

I have just received a copy of an e-mail sent to a colleague of mine, in which the union are virtually imploring with him to vote yes.

Not only is it an indication of how worried they are, but I believe it is totally out of oder as it is trying to influence the way a union member should vote in what is a free, supposedly democratic, ballot.

I only have a paper copy, so will type it our in full (and post it tomorrow) and let others see what they think of how the union (PCS) is behaving... I personally think they are overstepping the mark and trying to employ strong arm tactics.

[mr.777]

That is shocking. We all know where this going now....NO. And the management and the Unions have got absolutely nobody to blame but themselves if it does. The handling of this highly sensitive and emotive issue has, at best, been hamfisted...I'd prefer to call it inept.
NATS and the Unions deserve everything they get out of this vote.

[Vote NO]

As far as I know there is currently some sort of investigation by senior managers into "falsehoods" perpetrated by someone at Union or Management level in order to strengthen the YES vote.
I can't expand on this as I don't know any more detail, and wouldn't on here anyway.
( I am wearing my serious hat here, and not trying to wind anyone up, and would not post this if untrue despite my obvious voting intention!)

[eglnyt]

There are probably quite a few different ways that the fund could be made viable

If there are post them here and we can see if they are any better than the NATS/NTUS proposal.

The size of the deficit is directly related to the contribution break and reduced contribution levels.

Sorry that is just not true. Throughout the contribution break and any time at which NATS paid less than the underlying rate the scheme remained fully funded. It will almost certainly currently be in deficit at the moment because of the fall in shares but this is the first time and it is not any current deficit which is the problem. The problem is the future liability which could go up by an amount NATS says it can't afford to fund. The three main factors expected to cause that increase in liability are increased life expectancy, an increase in forecast inflation rates and a reduction in the expected rate of return on investments.

[Vote NO]

Eglnyt::
The three main factors expected to cause that increase in liability are increased life expectancy, an increase in forecast inflation rates and a reduction in the expected rate of return on investments

Why were these three factors not taken into account before we arrived at where we are now?
They seem fairly obvious and could they not have been rectified some time ago ?

http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif An increase in life expectancy has continued since time began, so no surprises here.

http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif Forecast inflation rates always vary, and the worst case scenario should have been factored in to future plans, or at least they should have erred on the side of caution.

http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif Investments should be wise with little risk attached.

I still feel things have been badly managed, and it is wrong for all the staff to be penalised for their incompetence.

[anotherthing]

Eglynt:
The size of the deficit is directly related to the contribution break and reduced contribution levels. Sorry that is just not true.Sorry that is just not true.


So are you saying that if NATS did not take a contribution break and paid full contribution levels when the fund was in surplus, the deficit would be the same as it is today?

Of course it wouldn't, the deficit would be smaller - therefore:

The size of the deficit is directly related to the contribution break and reduced contribution levels!

[eglnyt]

Why were these three factors not taken into account before we arrived at where we are now? They seem fairly obvious and could they not have been rectified some time ago ?

Are they obvious ? Given the size of the financial industry that relies on these figures it seems pretty unlikely that somebody wouldn't have noticed if it was. Remember the only way to measure life expectancy is to see when people die. That unfortunately tells you when that cohort died and until the end of the 80s was a pretty good guide to the next cohort but the figures suddenly shot up after that. There are a number of imponderables here. For example is some of this increased lifespan due to the fact that much of this cohort had quite an austere lifestyle at the start of their lives and if it is what will be the effect of the less austere beginning on the cohorts to come ? Remember also that a fair proportion of the fitter members of some recent cohorts never made it out of their twenties.

Investments should be wise with little risk attached.

But until very recently shares were giving high returns with seemingly little risk so why wouldn't you invest in them. If it was as obvious as you think how come so many people had shares in the banks when they went into freefall ? Now it is clear that shares aren't so risk free pension funds are moving to less risky investments but these have lower returns so the underlying rate goes up.

[Slider57]

Having studied Maths, I am struggling to see the arguement about the NATS management pension break. Yes it will have affected the pension but not on the scale some people are saying.

If however you have proof that the pension holiday has led to the huge defecit we now seem to have then please post it on NATSNET for all to see. As yet no one has shown me numbers that seem to add up.

Also everyone seems to forget all the nice pay rises that have been negotiated that all add to the underlying cost of the pension. Our own greed it would seem has also contributed to the current situation.

We also seem to have the odd rant about our T& C's, compared to nurses/police/armed forces and hundreds of other lower paid workers out there, we have got a pretty good deal overall. Perhaps some of the people who only work 18 days a month (me included) and work in a very controlled environment that ensures you are not overworked and get more than enough time off should swap places with some of the boys and girls in Afghanistan or Iraq. You might then appreciate how good a deal you have.

As for the comments about Barron and his Aston/bonuses. I hate the bonus culture NATS has for management, but until someone provides me with proof that Barron has these written into his contract I think we should refrain from making comment. It is after all a free country and he can buy whatever car he wants with his salary/allowances.

We have a well paid job with plenty of time off and you can hardly complain about being overworked for 8 hours a day. How many people think we will get public sympathy for going on strike over a reasonably good pension deal. Sure we all stand to lose a little but I personally think it is better than losing the lot.

I am not management or involved with the union, just someone who would like a pot to P$$$ in when I retire. I think we should vote on the issue not Barrons bonus/car or whether we like him as a CEO.

[Vote NO]

eglnyt

I'm sorry,I feel you are trying to defend the indefensible.

[eglnyt]

The size of the deficit is directly related to the contribution break and reduced contribution levels!

Given that the scheme was fully funded prior to the recent hiatus in the stock market the size of the deficit, if we assume there is one, is related to the funds exposure to shares and the recent fall in value of those shares.

Any deficit will be tackled by an improvement plan agreed between the Trustees and NATS and not the underlying rate. Provided that shares recover it will add to the problem but only short term. The underlying rate is driven by the other factors and it is that which concerns NATS and that which the proposal addresses.

[anotherthing]

Sorry, you're talking double dutch now. The rate NATS pays in has everything to do with the health of the fund at any given time along with predicted liabilities. That is how NATS managed to reduce contributions when the fund was in surplus.

This surplus, with 'predicted' trends etc is what actuaries use to predict required funding. If that is not the case, then all that NATS has done before (and that you have written) is false.

If the fund was at 150% today (as a for instance), then regardless of what the markets are doing now, the underlying rate for NATS in the future (to keep/bring the fund to 100% would be less than is being promulgated at these talks).


Any deficit will be tackled by an improvement plan agreed between the Trustees and NATS and not the underlying rate. Provided that shares recover it will add to the problem but only short term.
Exactly what people on here and the intranet are saying, yet management are using the current financial markets to cast a gloomy picture over everything.

NATS can afford to pay more than they propose under the agreement, they just don't want to.

[eglnyt]

I'm sorry,I feel you are trying to defend the indefensible.

I'm just pointing out the possible flaws in the simplistic argument you are making.
Defending the proposal is up to NATS and NTUS and they did a pretty good job when it was subjected to a detailed examination at the briefing I went to. So far I don't think the No argument has come up with anything that stands up to the same scrutiny.

[Vote NO]

But surely you must realise if this pension deal goes through, NATS will likely be sold off to the preferred bidder. I also feel you have too much unwarranted trust in Management, and its this trust which is clouding your judgement. If and when we are sold off the whole face of NATS will likely change for the worse, job losses, conditions etc. Agreeing to this deal merely opens the flood gates. If you wear a headset your job is safe, if you don't it is not so safe, it's a chance we all have to take

[throw a dyce]

Slider 57,
Studied Maths eh.Well on a 10 day cycle doing doggos(nights) then you are at work for 7 days in that period.Also with a random selection of my watch roster then in Nov2008,doing 2 sets of nights I work 20 days out of 30.A mon-fri 9-5 works 20 days as well.:confused.
I don't see many 9-5 workers working Christmas day,New Year's day and night shifts as well.:suspect:Our hours are limited by law for safety.

Anyway I have part of my pension deferred in CAA section of CAAPS.They seem to be doing OK at looking after my hard earned money.Yet NATS section is making a pigs ear of it.How come? The pension review brochure is exactly the same,bar the figures,so it's basically the same scheme.As they say ''Taking care of business,TAKING GOOD CARE OF YOUR FUTURE''.Or in NATS case Taking holidays from business,Selling you down the river.

[Gonzo]

Slider57, good post.

[eglnyt]

Anotherthing

I will try to explain this but I would urge you to go to a briefing because the actuary at ours explained it far better and more accurately than I can and, as somebody else pointed out, she was also much cuter than me.

The pension scheme has current liabilities based on the benefits people have already amassed and the current pension pot should be big enough to fund those liabilities. The scheme is in surplus or deficit depending upon whether or not it is predicted to meet the current liabilities.

The scheme also has predicted future liabilities caused by the further benefits its members are expected to earn before they retire. The underlying rate is the contribution rate required to ensure that these added benefits are sufficiently funded as they are amassed.

The underlying rate depends upon those future liabilities and doesn't change with surplus or deficit. However if there is a surplus NATS can pay less tha the underlying rate until the surplus is reduced to the level agreed between NATS and the Trustees.

Changes to assumptions have an effect on both current and future liabilities but, because of the timescales involved, are likely to have a far bigger effect on the future liabilities thus driving the underlying rate.

A deficit is addressed in a different way. That requires a restoration plan whereby NATS will pay the deficit over an agreed period of time. Ten years seems to be figure regarded as normal. The deficit is not addressed by increasing the underlying rate.

[terrain safe]

Why are talking about a 15 year deal? If Nats can't afford it now fair enough, but in 3/5/10 years time what then? Why can't we have a review in 5 years to see what exactly is needed to be done. If we are deeper in the doodoo then we can try and fix it earlier, if it is all roses and sunshine then restore it to it's present level, with a small loss for most of us but at least a small loss, instead of a potentially larger one. Quite honestly I'll vote no for the above and some of my previous reasons. This is totally a personal vote and is totally selfish, because lets face it, I've been very selfish and greedy in taking all those massive pay rises and obviously it's all my fault.

[NIFTY SO AND SO]

Throw a Dyce...

...excuse my spelling, is the term 'assonance' appropriate to your poetry? Rita said to her prof (Micheal Caine), in Educating Rita, "the poet got the rhyme wrong!!!!!".

Assonanace (or however it is spelt) it may be...

MESSAGE PERFECT.

Cheers

NIF. (I'm not naff!)

PS Gonzo, could'nt disagree with you more.:yuk:

[eglnyt]

But surely you must realise if this pension deal goes through, NATS will likely be sold off to the preferred bidder

Exactly how do you come to that conclusion. The proposal changes a very expensive pension scheme into an expensive one. I'll accept that makes it more attractive but it's still a long way short of making any difference.

And exactly who is this preferred bidder and what are they going to buy ? We know from the experience of 2001 that NATS can't support any more borrowing so whoever buys will have to pay cash. Even if you value NATS at the bottom end of the scale that probably rules out most of the usual suspects.

Would they buy the Government's share ? Seems unlikely as they wouldn't get control of the company. Would they buy the Airline Group's share ? Possibly but all the member airlines would have to agree and it's widely believed that last time there was any interest at least one of the airlines was not prepared to sell.

[NIFTY SO AND SO]

....I would like to move from NATS to Alstom, as I hear you made a better job at the employees' pension than you are struggling with, as my present employer, at NATS. Is this all true? Would my pension be better at Alstom than NATS? Only you would know. I like to keep in with people 'in the know'. There are lots of nasty people around me that keep telling me that you are destroying a perfectly good scheme. Surely with all those nice people in the unions agreeing with you then it must be alright? Only you can tell me whether I would be a naughty employee or not if I withdrew my labour to protect what some of the people around me call 'Ts & Cs'. Are they bullies?

I know you read this Paul, so please help me with my investments.:ok:

SO AND SO.

PS were you popular at Alstom?

[Gonzo]

Nifty so and so,

My heart bleeds. :hmm:

Note that I didn't say that I agreed with it.

I thought it was a good, reasoned post that added to the debate here, rather than being an emotive post wrapped up in pejorative terms.

[ImnotanERIC]

eglnyt
Exactly how do you come to that conclusion. The proposal changes a very expensive pension scheme into an expensive one. I'll accept that makes it more attractive but it's still a long way short of making any difference.

And exactly who is this preferred bidder and what are they going to buy ?


please take me up on my offer of odds of 25/1 that nsl will NOT be sold by 2015. i accept paypal or personal cheque (allow 5 days to clear)

[Vote NO]

Quote: Vote NO
But surely you must realise if this pension deal goes through, NATS will likely be sold off to the preferred bidder
eglnyt : Exactly how do you come to that conclusion. The proposal changes a very expensive pension scheme into an expensive one. I'll accept that makes it more attractive but it's still a long way short of making any difference.


I come to that conclusion based on common sense. I think you would have to be extremely naive not to consider that NATS is being prepared for a sell off. Once the incumbent management have done their best (and worse for us over the past few years) the logical outcome is sell for profit, it's a fact of life.


eglnyt: And exactly who is this preferred bidder and what are they going to buy ? We know from the experience of 2001 that NATS can't support any more borrowing so whoever buys will have to pay cash. Even if you value NATS at the bottom end of the scale that probably rules out most of the usual suspects.

The preferred bidder could be anyone. NSL and or NERL could be bought

eglnyt: Would they buy the Government's share ? Seems unlikely as they wouldn't get control of the company. Would they buy the Airline Group's share ? Possibly but all the member airlines would have to agree and it's widely believed that last time there was any interest at least one of the airlines was not prepared to sell

The Government must retain 25% leaving 70% for sale. (5% retained by staff)
The airline group cannot sell until NPC goes live, then they will sell as they wished to do so before. I am not so sure all the airlines would have to agree, some have a bigger stake than others and would have the final say. In the current downward trend of aviation movements and Airlines going bust (probably another 25 worldwide this winter "Willie Walsh" ) the revenue generated by selling NATS shares could be a lifeline to any airline in TAG. Remember BA and Virgin, part owners of NATS, have legal fines and costs amounting to £365 Million to pay soon, now where could they possibly get some cash from to pay for their dishonest deeds ??
BAA own 4% of NATS and are in financial trouble following the delay of T5 and their Spanish part owners can't finance the £12 billion loan they acquired recently (bad timing!)

I think some of us need to remove those "rose tinted specs" and wake up to what is about to happen to NATS if this Pension deal goes through, and almost certainly it won't benefit the staff !

[mr.777]

As for the comments about Barron and his Aston/bonuses. I hate the bonus culture NATS has for management, but until someone provides me with proof that Barron has these written into his contract I think we should refrain from making comment

Last year he earned something like £450k with a bonus of £200k, that is a FACT. The figures are available somewhere and have been mentioned as much several times on this thread already.

How many people think we will get public sympathy for going on strike over a reasonably good pension deal. Sure we all stand to lose a little but I personally think it is better than losing the lot.

In the event of industiral action, public sympathy has NOTHING to do with going on strike. I would say losing between £5-10k PER YEAR on my pension, which may I remind you is deferred salary, is more than losing a little.

[Vote NO]

ImnotanERIC
please take me up on my offer of odds of 25/1 that nsl will NOT be sold by 2015. i accept paypal or personal cheque (allow 5 days to clear)


Like I said before, you must be an ERIC if you think that :)

[eglnyt]

please take me up on my offer of odds of 25/1 that nsl will NOT be sold by 2015. i accept paypal or personal cheque (allow 5 days to clear)

We were talking about a sale of NATS. Selling off NSL is a different matter. NSL is already effectively a separate company and increasingly it will separate from the rest of the group. It has to do that because unless it starts to make inroads into its costs it will soon reach a point where it isn't competitive because you can't make a profit on many airport contracts with NATS terms and conditions. Whether or not the shares are sold to somebody else or retained by NATS is largely irrelevant because the drivers on the business will be the same.

[alfie1999]

25/1 nsl NOT being sold by 2015?

Sounds about right.

Although eglnyt may have some bad news about the betting regulator not allowing punters to profit beyond the return of their original investment which of course means the underlying betting odds are unsustainable at somewhere around evens especially considering the life expectancy of nsl.

[alfie1999]

I perhaps should have added one of those wink thingies to show my last post was meant as a (weak) attempt at humour.

:ok: I think that's the one.

[terrain safe]

We were talking about a sale of NATS. Selling off NSL is a different matter

Is this the sound of frantic backpedalling?? :D:D

[anotherthing]

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. :ugh:


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!!

[anotherthing]

eglnyt


We were talking about a sale of NATS. Selling off NSL is a different matter.
That is pure management speak and complete twaddle. I bet the employees of NSL are all comforted by that statement.

Furthermore, I bet all the staff at CTC etc who support NSL must be comforted by that statement... do you think if we sold off NSL we would keep anywhere near as many support jobs?

egnlyt - you seem remarkably well informed when it comes to finances, however the trend of your posts seems to indicate that you have a vested interest (beyond being a pension fund member) in gaining NATS a yes vote.

Your arguments are unravelling - you talk of possible job losses if we vote no then come out with the likes of the above :ugh:

Slider57


Having studied Maths, I am struggling to see the arguement about the NATS management pension break. Yes it will have affected the pension but not on the scale some people are saying.

If however you have proof that the pension holiday has led to the huge defecit we now seem to have then please post it on NATSNET for all to see. As yet no one has shown me numbers that seem to add up.
You may have studied maths, however you need to read peoples posts more carefully.

The FACT of the matter is, if NATS had not taken the pension holiday and paid in reduced contributins after that time, the deficit would not be as large as it is today. That's not even Maths, its basic primary school arithmetic.

What people are saying is if contributions had been kept up, then the deficit would not be as large... we are not saying that there would be no deficit :ugh:

as for

We also seem to have the odd rant about our T& C's, compared to nurses/police/armed forces and hundreds of other lower paid workers out there, we have got a pretty good deal overall.Not a valid argument - if you want to throw that into the pot, then I put it to you that compared to professional footballers/basketball players we have a pretty poor deal.

Just because Nurses get paid a woeful wage does not mean we need to accept degradation in our Ts & Cs - it's a totally separate argument.

swap places with some of the boys and girls in Afghanistan or Iraq. You might then appreciate how good a deal you have.Again, completely irrelevant. Have you served in the armed forces? I have, I spent many years in the UK armed Forces before starting a second career with NATS. I have many friends who are still in and who are on active duty in all the different theatres.

I moved my ringfenced military penson into NATS to buy back years - if this proposal goes ahead, those years I have bought back (by my very service you are usingas an argument) will be worth less than if I had left them in my military pension. Please keep the argument relative. Comparison of different wages, conditions etc is irrelevant, because we can easily claim to be either seen off, or better off, depending how you massage the statistics and what profession(s) you use for comparison.

[Vote NO]

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.


They are obviously New Labour Capitalists

It is "Old Labour" which favours re nationalisation, and is currently the way to go in this Global financial crisis

Where would our Banks be now if the Government had not Nationalised them ? Any takers on this question ??

Also, remember we are only part privatised and the majority, 49%, is owned by HMG, making the change to 100% all that bit easier

[ImnotanERIC]

Well I reckon that some if not all of NSL will be sold by 2010.What's do you reckon the odds are? Evens http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/cool.gif


If anyone does NOT think nsl will be sold by 2015 i will pay odds of 25/1 on any stake.
It WILL be sold. That is not a scaremongering statement and I am willing to back it up with ericbrokes bookmakers of swanwick, circa 2008.
also offering odds of 1/10 that Nats makes a profit next year after a yes vote on the pension of at least 60 million.
If enough of you place a stake with me, I may not need a pension.:)

[Fit_to_burst]

What i really don't understand is, having been a bystander on this forum for a while, is why you don't believe the union reps that WE have democratically elected, that have pensions as well, that have friends in the pension scheme and futures to protect would not have gone through every option available to them and would not have negotiated the best possible deal for us? Surely they would want to protect THEIR best interests as well as OURS?

I find it quite interesting that some of you believe that because they are recommending something that it must be wrong or they must be 'in bed with management'. I pay my monthly subs and choose not to get involved as a union rep but those guys do get involved and I believe represent me in the best possible way and wouldn't ask me to vote yes to something that wasn't what they thought was the best they could possibly get.

I don't think the letter, that I think has been sent to all PCS members, is that well written and yes I do think they are worried BUT maybe they are worried because people aren't listening, i get the impression they have spent months coming to this (said at briefing) and truely believe it's the best thing for their pension as well as ours. I will vote YES, to me it's a no brainer.:ok:

[anotherthing]

Fit to burst

A very short answer to your very valid question. I know several union reps, the majority of the younger ones (that I know) with more than 15 years to go, believe that the proposal is a crock of sh!t.

The older ones (that I know) are split about 50/50.

What you need to remember is only a handful of people (counting both Union and management) have the full picture available to them because of the confidentiality clause that was signed (you can count the number of people on your fingers).

The union reps etc, have had to rely on briefings from the select few from managment and the Union who were privy to the confidential material.

As a Union rep, it is your duty once a decision has been made by the executive, to pass that message on - that's the function of the reps. The union reps are doing this in their official capacity, howerve as I stated above, privately they do not all (by a long stretch) agree with it.

[mr.777]

Eglnyt

So far all you have done is nit pick the NO argument to within an inch of its life. You ask us for evidence that voting no is the way forward, yet you don't actually pose any solutions yourself. I want YOU to tell ME why I should vote yes...show me YOUR evidence that a YES vote is the way forward. As for you saying you were talking about a NATS sell-off ,not NSL, that does indeed sound like back-pedalling. If this goes through, NSL is GONE.....which makes the remainder of NATS (ie NERL) much more attractive to any buyers.

[Fit_to_burst]

Ok, so are we saying then that the reps that WE elect don't trust the GECs/BECs that THEY elect? i find this interesting as they elect those that they feel are the best and right people to go and negotiate for all of us and then when they do and it's not what we like or want to hear we say they're wrong and we could have got something better and yet no-one as yet has come up with what better is!

I assume that all the No voters will be standing as Union reps when elections come up and that all union reps who are voting NO will be standing for whatever exec they fall under.....???

[anotherthing]

Fit to burst

I think we are getting into the realms of semantics here - trust does not necessarily come into it.

A select few members of the Union and Management have been privy to the confidential documment.

The Union has tabled a joint proposal based on an agreement after negotiation. That proposal is what managemnt claim they can afford.

The union believe that that is the best deal they can get. That does not mean they believe that is all NATS can afford.

That is the first part of the process.

Part 2 is the ballot.

People who vote 'NO' believe and think that NATS can actually afford to dig deeper.
This belief is borne out by the fact that although the union claims not to have a clue about what to do for a plan B or Plan C, management almost certainly have - and in fact this was alluded to by management on the intranet/at some briefings when asked (I believe Phillip James may be one person who said this) who have said that what happens next depends on the extent of the 'NO' vote.

i.e. if there is a 'NO' vote but it's a slim majority, then the proposals will get pushed through anyways (because it's not p!$$ing off a huge amount of people ). If the vote is a larger majority, then management will go to plan B.

It is not necessarily a lack of trust on the side of the Union, it is a lack of belief from fund members that a company that happily takes from the fund when the sun shines, and spends millions on unnecessary costs yet still posts a good profit, cannot dig deeper into it's own pockets.

[Dan Dare]

Ok, so are we saying then that the reps that WE elect don't trust the GECs/BECs that THEY elect? i find this interesting as they elect those that they feel are the best and right people to go and negotiate for all of us and then when they do and it's not what we like or want to hear we say they're wrong

Much like the "democratically" elected politicians, elected on a mandate (eg our skies are not for sale), which turns out to be sidelined as an inconvenience. Is it any wonder that trust is lost along the way?

Just becuse I have someone else representing me does not mean I put absolute faith in their every decision. Sometimes they are wrong. If they are wrong too often then they get replaced whether thay are my MP, Union, BEC, rep, employer or friend.

[eglnyt]

I bet the employees of NSL are all comforted by that statement.

I'd be very surprised if most of them did not already consider a separation from the rest of NATS more rather than less likely.

Furthermore, I bet all the staff at CTC etc who support NSL must be comforted by that statement... do you think if we sold off NSL we would keep anywhere near as many support jobs?

Two points to make. First you'll find very few jobs in CTC supporting NSL. For some time they've been going their own way. There is a lot of work done in CTC which is sold through NSL because that's how NATS has been bidding for external work. That work will go on as long as the expertise in CTC is valued and it seems to be at the moment. Second you'll find that most people in CTC are very aware of how vulnerable their jobs are. Many of them are actually contractors and those that aren't have spent the last seven years subject to the normal commercial pressures of working for a commercial company, pressures which most controllers within NERL are completely protected from and have no idea about. The Airline Group came through the door in 2001 with a business plan which cut support staff by 30% in Control Period 1 and a further 30% in Control Period 2. The fact that we still have most of the engineering jobs they thought they would cut has a lot to do with how important that expertise is to the business but we had to prove that and have to keep proving that every year.

If the company can't afford to pay you it doesn't matter how important your job is. The current threats to CTC jobs are the current downturn, pension payments that NATS can't afford and possible industrial action. Longer term the threat is RPI-X because that -X equates to much greater than -X for support departments because NATS is actually increasing ATC costs by recruiting staff.

the trend of your posts seems to indicate that you have a vested interest (beyond being a pension fund member) in gaining NATS a yes vote.

I hope that I've been pretty consistent with my posts. I have two vested interests in a Yes vote. First as a member of a support department in NATS I want the company to be financially stable for as long as possible because that protects my job. Second as a member of the pension fund with a sizeable stake built up I want the pension scheme protected for as long as possible and hopefully long enough to benefit from it.

you don't actually pose any solutions yourself. I want YOU to tell ME why I should vote yes

I don't need to pose any solution. NATS and NTUS have proposed a solution. I think that is probably the best solution we will get so I'm not going to propose another. I'm not going to tell anyone how to vote because it's your decision not mine. I will correct you if I think you are wrong because I think it would be wrong for anybody else to make a decison based on incorrect posts.

[Fit_to_burst]

I think that the Unions do believe that this is the most that NATS can afford in fact i think they find it hard to believe that NATS can afford it as it is so expensive.

Why would the union have a plan B or C - if they did what makes you think they wouldn't be tabling it?? It's ridiculous to think that the union would be sat there thinking 'well if the members vote no we'll suggest this'. I really don't believe they have brought this to us with 'something in their back pocket in case it's a no vote' they would bring what's in their back pocket as they want the best possible deal for all of us!

If it's a no vote something will get implemented. A new scheme will be imposed. Management have not spent months trying to work out a solution to just go 'oh well never mind they didn't like it'. At our briefing they said if it's a no vote a new scheme will be imposed but the new scheme probably (yes i know probably could mean it is as good - but really??) wouldn't be as good as the one on offer now and we wouldn't have the protections to our T&C's written into it. So i guess we'd have to use industrial action to fight the imposed new scheme and get protection for our T&Cs.

I don't want my pension scheme to change but if for the sake of an RPI +0.5% cap which is all that really effects me means my pension is sustainable why wouldn't i vote yes?

Dan Dare - I assume you will be standing as Union Rep next time then or for the GEC/BEC if you're a rep already, so that you can ensure that you and your friends/colleagues are represented to your liking or if you don't want to be a rep that you will be finding someone who is prepared to stand that you feel will accurately represent your views?

[mr.777]

I will correct you if I think you are wrong because I think it would be wrong for anybody else to make a decison based on incorrect posts.

And does that include posts that you yourself have made, or do you think that everything you have said is unequivocally correct???

At our briefing they said if it's a no vote a new scheme will be imposed but the new scheme probably (yes i know probably could mean it is as good - but really??) wouldn't be as good as the one on offer now and we wouldn't have the protections to our T&C's written into it. So i guess we'd have to use industrial action to fight the imposed new scheme and get protection for our T&Cs.

Fit To Burst, i cannot believe you are buying 100% into what was told to you at your briefing. If only one thing is certain, it is that these posts have shown the complete lack of consistency about what people are being told at various units, and even at the same unit from briefing to briefing.

[eglnyt]

do you think that everything you have said is unequivocally correct???

I have been very careful in my posts to differentiate between, facts, speculation, possibility and my own opinion. I would only claim that I believe where I have stated fact that it is correct. I wouldn't claim it is unequivocally correct because any post however well crafted can still leave ambiguity in the mind of the reader. Speculation, possibility and opinion is just that and of course I wouldn't make any claim as to correctness.

[Fit_to_burst]

I think that it is impossible to remember exactly what is said at briefings and to recall it accurately on this forum - i think that is why there is inconsistency.

So what do you think will happen then?

[Fit_to_burst]

Also,

why wouldn't i buy into what the unions are saying to me. I have excellent T&C's, I have had brilliant pay rises, i've got really good WP and I believe am well represented. They have never before lead me to question that they aren't doing what they believe is in my absolute best interest. So now because this is a really difficult subject and it's a really difficult decision everyone thinks we shouldn't trust what they are saying or that they aren't representing our best interests, on what basis?? It's just crazy.

[Dee Mac]

Slider57 said
We also seem to have the odd rant about our T& C's, compared to nurses/police/armed forces and hundreds of other lower paid workers out there, we have got a pretty good deal overall. Perhaps some of the people who only work 18 days a month (me included) and work in a very controlled environment that ensures you are not overworked and get more than enough time off should swap places with some of the boys and girls in Afghanistan or Iraq. You might then appreciate how good a deal you have.

What a load of bollocks. BTW It's men and women in Afghanistan or Iraq you patronising :mad:. Oh and my good deal that I obviously don't appreciate - is that the one I'm expected to vote in favour of losing? 1st post mmmm - what are you - management or union?

VOTE NO

[055166k]

NATS PENSIONS UNDER THREAT

Members campaigning against plans to close the existing National Air Traffic Services pension scheme to new members have launched a website.
The joint initiative by PCS and Prospect members is the latest stage in the campaign against the proposal, which could lead to a ballot for industrial action.

At the time of the NATS public-private partnership privatisation in 2001 the unions won assurances about the future commercialisation of the company and the protection of important conditions of service, including pensions.

Management appears determined to renege on these and is making clear it wishes to close the scheme to new members despite it being significantly in surplus and the company making a small contribution.

Ian McNiell, chair of the NATS trade union side pension committee, said :"A three-yearly valuation has just been carried out and we expect it will again show a significant surplus in the scheme. This website is an important part of the campaign to stop this attack on our members' terms and conditions."
Visit www.onenatsonepension.com for the campaign website.

[copied as accurately as possible from the original]
I wish I was French......never again will they be called Cheese eating surrender monkeys......at least not by me.......I have seen,heard and read the ultimate in betrayal.

[mr.777]

I think comparing the pension situation with the conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq is, to put it mildly, extremely foolish. What on earth does that have to do with voting NO??:ugh:

[Vote NO]

One NATS One Pension Campaign (http://pcs.live.poptech.coop/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=907876)

Management have indicated to the Trade Unions in NATS that they wish to close the existing pension scheme to new members and to establish a new scheme for all new staff. PCS and Prospect are as one in their opposition to this proposal and have informed management that they will resist any attempt to do this.
The current scheme is well funded, well run and in surplus. Were the existing scheme to be in any difficulty at all then the Unions would be seeking to address these problems with management but this is not the case.
Management have said that the existing scheme would be safe and yet in December last year they made a unilateral change to the existing scheme in respect of both the 40-year rule and the non-ATCO flex that demonstrated that this is not the case.

How times and loyalties have changed :\

[Fit_to_burst]

I'm sorry but i will have to continue my support of the union here -

'How times and loyalties have changed'

'i seen, heard and read the ultimate in betrayal'

What on earth do you mean?? Loyalties of union reps who like you and me pay their subs and instead of just expecting someone to do the work for them actually do it themselves. If their 'loyalty' has changed its changed to themselves as well as you!! Can you be disloyal to yourself or betray yourself and would you willingly and knowingly do so?

I assume that as the whole onenatsonepension thing has been posted again that you actually asked why their position had changed at your briefing, if you didn't maybe you should go and find one of the Reps or go to a briefing and ask them.

[Vote NO]

'How times and loyalties have changed'


I would have thought it was rather obvious :confused:

Anyway I am not going to start bashing Union reps who have signed confidentiality clauses, and can't tell members whats really going on because its sensitive "business information" and they will go to jail :{ if the break that confidentiality

They can wrestle with their own consciences

[eglnyt]

Management have said that the existing scheme would be safe and yet in December last year they made a unilateral change to the existing scheme in respect of both the 40-year rule and the non-ATCO flex that demonstrated that this is not the case.

As somebody who was affected by both those changes I took a very close interest in that and having researched it very thoroughly I can tell you that NATS had no choice but to make those changes. The person to blame for that change to our pension was Gordon Brown who headed up the Government that brought in the age discrimination legislation.

[Me Me Me Me]

After reading the mail from PCS... which I must admit, made me more inclined to vote NO just because I hate feeling I'm being "persuaded" by a biased argument. The TUs should not be pushing people to vote either way, just informing of facts and leaving us to our own free decision.

However.... one thing I think it's important to mention. That's 18 months of discussions between a team of senior managers, including highly experienced accountants and negotiators, with a support team of professional pensions analysts... taking on a team of union officials that are actually office workers, controllers, engineers etc etc. Not to say the guys in the TU who sit on the pensions committees aren't intelligent and well informed... but the professional experience and the qualifications to speak with authority on these subjects is heavily weighted on one side. It's not surprising in such a position, that people can be persuaded in to an opinion they would previously have recoiled in horror from.

[ayrprox]

fit to burst,

your posts seem to infer that anyone voting no should either stand as a union rep, or else, not post any dissenting view on the negotiations that took place.
Why should any no voter have to stand to be a union rep. I did not join NATS to be a Union Rep, I joined to be an AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER. I have the utmost respect for the union reps, who do a hard job in difficult circumstances, but that does not mean i cant tell them that , in my opinion, that i think the deal they negotiated is a tub of sh1t .

I dont see why the deal needs to be over 15 years, that is way too long. A lot can happen in 15 years, you can go through an entire cycle of boom and bust in 15 years.
I dont see why closing the pension to new members is a good thing . a closed scheme is a dying scheme. surely you need new people in at the bottom of the fund contributing to ensure the financial future of those near to retirement about to draw their pension.If the scheme is closed to new members, then the pot of money within that fund will start to dwindle, and if the fund is only funded to 100% of its liabilities, then there is no margin to account for sudden downturns like we are seeing now. Thats another thing, i dont see why funding the pension to just 100% of its liabilities is a good thing, and the 'its best practise' argument is just horsesh1t!!! thats like saying ' oh well everybody else is jumping of the cliff, so we should too..' look whats happened to all those other pensions that have been closed to new members, aren't they all doing well. err... no.
Now i know that last argument isnt to do with the pension negotiations per se, but it does make me question the people that are meant to be looking after our interests and that includes the trustees who i think have some questions to answer as well.
As you can probably guess from the subtle tone of my post, its still a no for me i'm afraid.

[anotherthing]

eglnyt:


Furthermore, I bet all the staff at CTC etc who support NSL must be comforted by that statement... do you think if we sold off NSL we would keep anywhere near as many support jobs? Two points to make. First you'll find very few jobs in CTC supporting NSL. For some time they've been going their own way. There is a lot of work done in CTC which is sold through NSL because that's how NATS has been bidding for external work. That work will go on as long as the expertise in CTC is valued
How long do you think external customers will value a service that is related to something we don't do front line?

Sell NSL, lose a huge area of expertise. NATS is so good at what it does (coal face ATC in case anyone has forgotten what NATS is about), because it does it for real at some of the busiets airports and in some of the most congested/complex airspace in the world.

Stop doing the job at the coalface, and the 'expertise' soon withers in the backrooms.

Putting it bluntly - if we are not doing it for ourselves, we can't maintain our expertise in it; ergo the CTC jobs will wither and die, not immediately, but progressively after any sale of NSL.

[eglnyt]

How times and loyalties have changed

Times have certainly changed but loyalty ? Are you suggesting that the NTUS reps are acting dishonestly ? If so I think you either need to withdraw the accusation or find some evidence to support it.

Certainly the NTUS has modified its approach, sometimes you have to amend your demands when they are shown to be unrealistic, but to describe that as betrayal is ridiculous unless you can prove that they are acting in anything other than what they believe to be the best interests of the membership as a whole.

[anotherthing]

I will correct you if I think you are wrong because I think it would be wrong for anybody else to make a decison based on incorrect posts.

what an arrogant statement to make... you are saying that other people are wrong, but you are correct!

[anotherthing]

Fit to Burst


I'm sorry but i will have to continue my support of the union here -
I don't agree with some of what you are saying, but that does not mean that you, nor anyone else needs to apologise for what they believe.

The same however goes for people who you are telling to become union reps, just because they believe in this issue, that the union has got it wrong. They are entitled to believe that, it does not mean that they have to become union reps - it's called democracy!

One thing I think the union will admit, either publicly or more likely in private - this matter has not been dealt with in the best manner - if it had been done differently, there might not be such a vociferous 'NO' lobby.

It's a shame because as you quite rightly say, the Union has done us well in the past, but going from a well advertised ('you should read this' - from the union) website proclaiming "OneNATSOnePension", to silence, then to see the website meekly change without advertising the fact shows how poorly managed this has been.

[Vote NO]

Quote:
Management have said that the existing scheme would be safe and yet in December last year they made a unilateral change to the existing scheme in respect of both the 40-year rule and the non-ATCO flex that demonstrated that this is not the case.

eglnyt


As somebody who was affected by both those changes I took a very close interest in that and having researched it very thoroughly I can tell you that NATS had no choice but to make those changes. The person to blame for that change to our pension was Gordon Brown who headed up the Government that brought in the age discrimination legislation.

The above quote was made by the Union, so is Management to blame or the Government? If it's the Government then this quote from the Union is incorrect !


Times have certainly changed but loyalty ? Are you suggesting that the NTUS reps are acting dishonestly ? If so I think you either need to withdraw the accusation or find some evidence to support it.

Certainly the NTUS has modified its approach, sometimes you have to amend your demands when they are shown to be unrealistic, but to describe that as betrayal is ridiculous unless you can prove that they are acting in anything other than what they believe to be the best interests of the membership as a whole.


eglnyt "old boy" :)

I think you are losing the plot here, it is you who are suggesting that I am suggesting that NTUS reps are acting dishonestly!

I have not described anything as betrayal (you are mixing up posts here:))

Take a well deserved break and compose yourself and stop flogging a dead horse :)

Vote NO

[eglnyt]

what an arrogant statement to make... you are saying that other people are wrong, but you are correct!

I'm saying exactly what I wrote. If I think you are wrong I will correct you. If it is arrogant for somebody with access to the correct facts to question incorrect ones or arrogant to suggest an alternative point of view possible with the same evidence then I admit to arrogance.

[mr.777]

I am sure that the Union DID work their backsides off for 18months, nobody is disputing that fact. However, just because they spent that amount of time on it doesn't make it a reasonable proposal.
How can you defend a proposal that, for every single pension briefing, is presented to you in a different manner....as, more importantly, are the consequences of voting NO and other such gems like why cost pass through to the airlines is prohibited?! Is it just me that finds this odd?!

[eglnyt]

Vote No

The change was unilateral in that NATS made the change without agreement from the Union. The change had to be made because legal advice was that those benefits became illegal once the age discrimination legislation came into effect.

I've no doubt that NATS management must have thought Christmas had come several times at once because it allowed them to make changes to pension benefits and the redundancy scheme that they would never ever have been able to make previously but it would be wrong to suggest that this is evidence that NATS was targetting the pension scheme and renegading on previous promises.

[anotherthing]

I'm saying exactly what I wrote. If I think you are wrong I will correct you. If it is arrogant for somebody with access to the correct facts to question incorrect ones or arrogant to suggest an alternative point of view possible with the same evidence then I admit to arrogance
Then you need to re-phrase it because grammatically, what you are saying is twofold... you think they are wrong (infers they might not be), but you will correct them (even though you only think they might be wrong.

Whatever, the way you have written it implies arrogance and a belief that you know better, whether you do or not. The same arrogant attitude that keeps telling people to attend a brief etc just because they see the statistics differently from you.

As for ...access to the correct facts...where is the provenance in that statement, apart from merely taking your word for it? Or are you happy for people to believe you at your word, but not anyone else?

You might not be arrogant at all, but that is how you come across to me - I doubt I'm alone.

[mr.777]

it would be wrong to suggest that this is evidence that NATS was targetting the pension scheme and renegading on previous promises.

WRONG. This may not be evidence but Mr Barron and the management have been after the pension from day 1 of his tenure. The Union went to see Barron to discuss SMART pensions. He wanted £50million saved through pension cuts, at a time when the pension was healthy, they said "No chance", he said "No SMART pension discussion then".

[Ben Doonigan]

Anyone seen what Motions have been put for Special Conference ? Any news from the battlefront ?

[Fit_to_burst]

I haven't told anyone to become a Union rep - i have asked if you are going to become one as clearly you don't like what the reps have negotiated and think there is a better alternative which i assume you feel you could negotiate?

I guess what I am asking is if this is a no vote will you be the person that goes and negotiates what you feel is the right thing for everyone, or will you wait for whatever happens next and throw stones at that?

You can post all the dissenting views you like, i just find it a little sad that you are willing to union bash your own colleagues, on a public forum, who fight for your best interests but aren't prepared to be a rep yourself. I guess i just think that someone who feels so strongly about how bad the union are and the 'tub of sh1t' they've negotiated might have the balls to stand up, become and rep and deliver something better but as you say you didn't join to be a rep you joined to be an ATCO just like all those guys who are trying to do what's best for you and them.

[hold at SATAN]

The way I see it, here is how it goes:

:)The underlying cost is what it will cost NATS to provide future benefits to all members if there wasno surplus (i.e.100% funded)

:)100% funding means that there is enough going in to meet CURRENT outgoings from the fund paid in at a particular rate(lets call this rate value F%)


If there is a surplus, there is more being paid in than going out, to meet current commitments, and a deficit means the opposite.

What NATS have done over the last few years is made it their aim to bring value of the down to 100% funding (i.e paid in=paid out), so instead of paying F%, they have paid in less and alowed the surplus make up the difference and thus causing it to dwindle down (now looking like a deficit)

Here's my biggest problem with the way the fund is portrayed:

Why the heck are we aiming for 100% funding when the underlying cost is what needs to be paid to ensure future liabilities are met?

100% funding rate will ALWAYS be much lower than the underlying rate, simply because future outgoings are going to bemuch higher than current outgoings.

NATS management are feeding us crap about the underlying rate being so high, yet base their contributions on the current funding :ugh:

This means that the underlying costs will continue to go up every year as NATS will always be paying in less than what is required to keep the fund viable in the future.

so bloody NATS got us into this mess because they were paying in much less than the underlying rate (future obligations), indeed, were paying in less than what is required to meet current obligations, using the surplus to make up the difference :mad::mad: 100% funding is a load of crock and is merely the actuaries equivalent od rose tinted specs:

In the form of a play

NATS:"hey, we have enough money to pay our current commitments and we will pay in just the right amount to maintain this. Aren't we great?"

LITTLE TIMMY: "but what about the future?"

NATS:" yeah, erm, well... erm, oh dear we haven't been paying enough to meet future needs. We'd better tell everybody that we need to pay in a lot more just so that we have enough money in the pot to pay future pensioners"

LITTLE TIMMY:"but you paid less in than what you needed to ensure there was enough cash in the pot to pay future pensioners. Isn't it your fault?"

NATS:"well...yes, erm..we can afford to pay it but we don't want to. We're just going to have to scare everyone into taking less when they retire and so we won;t need to have such a big pot of cash in the future"

THE END

[Fit_to_burst]

Mr 777 - I am amazed, you must be really tired, exhausted even, having been to EVERY SINGLE BRIEFING to make such a statement on how each and everyone has been presented differently.

[anotherthing]

Fit to Burst

if you say that my democratic right (otherwise, why have a ballot), to vote 'NO' because I believe that NATS can afford to do more than the proposal will entail i.e. I think that the Union could get a better deal is Union bashing, then I'll admit it.

However I can't see how my opinion that NATS can afford to cough up more, can in anyway be misconstrued as to be union bashing.:ugh:

And I think you'll find that although you are answering me directly, the phrase you are saying I used (and are using to imply my feelings) - (the phrase shown in red taken from a quote of your last post) - I guess i just think that someone who feels so strongly about how bad the union are and the 'tub of sh1t' was not written by me, but by Ayrprox.

If you are going to sling accusations, get it right. Do keep up :ugh:

[mr.777]

I'd pay to watch the full length version of that SATAN:}

[eglnyt]

Mr 777 I didn't say that NATS didn't want to reduce pension costs, I've can only speculate about what they may want or desire. I said it would be wrong to portray the 40 year rule and flex termination as evidence of what they want.

[mr.777]

Mr 777 - I am amazed, you must be really tired, exhausted even, having been to EVERY SINGLE BRIEFING to make such a statement on how each and everyone has been presented differently.

The fact that only ONE briefing was different to my own shows inconsistency, you pedant.:ugh: Problem for you is you can't argue that one can you????

Secondly, in one breath you're saying "I'm not telling everyone to join the Union" then "if you vote NO you should join the Union and do a better job yourself"...which is effectively telling EVERYBODY who votes NO to join the Union...see, I can be pedantic too. So which is it then??

[hold at SATAN]

Mr. 777

I believe the producers are looking at some funding options for the sequel :}

[mr.777]

I'd advise them to ask NATS...they seem to have pots of cash.:rolleyes:

[eglnyt]

Hold at Satan

Until very recently the contribution rate was always greater than the actual rate. That was because Actuaries always used pessimistic assumptions and real life was never worse case. As a result time after time the fund was in surplus. The current problem arises because after years and years of that being the case real life has changed and suddenly those assumptions aren't pessimistic they are optimistic. The Actuaries don't have rose tinted specs they tend to have a gloomy outlook so they've gone out and got new pessimistic assumptions. Unfortunately those new assumptions greatly increase the cost of any defined benefit scheme and that's why generally the UK can't afford defined benefit schemes any more.

[Fit_to_burst]

Mr 777, i'm not saying you should become a union rep if you vote no i'm asking if you will?? Also, i assume then that you have been to more than 1 briefing to state what you have as fact, if so fair enough...

Anotherthing - i was kinda answering two posts in one that's why i hadn't put your name to it in reply, so yes you're right the last bit wasn't for you and wasn't your words.

[anotherthing]

tongue in cheek, but because the actuaries have stopped taking happy pills (which incidentally allowed NATS to rape the fund) and are now on Prozac - NATS wants to change the scheme.

I can see it now -

Actuaries - "we are pessimists, you need to contribute this amount... oh we were wrong."

NATS - "That's alright, we'll pillage the fund."

7 years later

Actuaries - "now we're optimistic... bugger"

NATS - "That's alright, we'll shaft our employees."


?? years later


Actuaries - "guess what, we were wrong; the fund was manageable after all"

NATS - "never mind, we've gained during good and bad times, and we managed to get rid of the airports... thanks!!"
I'm not buying into that :=



Fit to Burst

No worries - becomes clear now :ok:

[mr.777]

Fit To Burst

2 reasons I won't be a Union rep. 2 guys on my watch have only very recently stepped up to the plate to do the job.

Secondly, as you may be able to tell, I don't really have the temperament for peaceful negotiation (not with the management anyway!) :E

The rest of your points I take on board in the spirit in which they were intended.

[fly bhoy]

Ben Doonigan

There are (or at least were last time I saw it!) two motions on the table:-

1) the members support the BEC to continue negotiations with the management over the issue of pensions, and

2) the members DO NOT support the BEC to continue negotiations with the management over the issues of pensions.

Can't remember the exact wording but that was the basic gist of it and as far as I can interpret it, it effectively amounts to a vote of no-confidence.

Personally I would defintely vote for 1 because, if it does come back as a NO vote, I can't think of anyone better placed to go back to the table to continue negotiations on our behalf. I fully support the union and do think that, based on the information given by management, they have negotiated the best deal available. The key phrase there though is "based on the information given by the management" and that being said, i'm still voting NO because I don't believe management have been totally honest in their dealings with the union and have been bordering on negligent in their handling of it by paying less than required, regardless of trustees advice!!

And all the yes voters who are asking for alternatives...here's one...rather than a pensionable earnings cap, what about a 15 year paydeal of RPI+0.5%??? Would you vote for this?!? It has the exact same effect as the pensionable earnings cap in terms of letting actuaries more accurately calculate underlying rates, and apparently the union have repeatedly asked the management for this instead (because obviously it would make the deal much more appealing to the membership as then everything gained in any payrise will be pensionable!!) The management, however, know that this would ultimately not be as cost-efficient for them and therefore may impact on the profits and, ultimately, the financial-health-of-the-company-related bonuses that they are due to receive upon completion of this deal!! This deal (instead of the cap) would certainly make it look more appealing to me, but that being said, i'd still vote NO because I honestly don't believe that the cap is the most important issue here...it's closing the scheme to new entrants which really worries me, and we all seem to have been sidetracked by something which everyone agrees isn't going to have a major impact on us!!:ooh:

I would say their refusal of this offer is yet another indication of how the management have got nothing like our best interests at heart, because if that was the case, they'd snap up this 15 year pay offer, reduce the underlying cost and leave our entire salary pensionable and not the (potentially) less than final salary scheme on offer.

As for becoming a union rep...I am giving it serious consideration!! Not because I think I could a better job mind, but because I want to take a more active interest in what's going on that affects my colleagues and I!! That and I personally just like a good argument!!!:}

FB:ok:

[hold at SATAN]

eglnyt
Until very recently the contribution rate was always greater than the actual rate

2003 valuation stated underlying rate: 26.8%
2006: 37.3%

NATS have never paid anyting near those amounts; only enough to maintain CURRENT requirements, indeed, stock markets gains above expectations caused the surplus.

Yes the Actuaries' assumptions have caused some of the increase, but much of it would have been offset if NATS didn't go chasing 100% funding (i.e meet current pension outgoings) but actually put something infor the future pensioners' outgoings.

NATS is using the best parts of a flawed accounting method to paint a rosy picture of their own contributions to date (paid sufficiently to meet current costs); and used the worst part to show the dire position of the fund (can't meet future costs)

[Ben Doonigan]

1 - Trust. This could refer to the Trust of a Promise, Deed of Trust or "do you trust management".

I cannot believe that the proposal is an unavoidable and 'best we can do' solution to solve the pension 'problem'. The first FACT that makes me DIStrust what I am told was NATS Business Services boasting on NATS website, selling its expertise (to other ANSPs) in "transferring public sector pensions into the private sector" and of "managing union expectations throughout the change". (not surprisingly this little gem was very quickly removed by NATS management - but I think it merely proves the management thinking and deception that is going on behind the scenes)

I find it hard to believe that no-one has seen fit to raise this issue, and that the unions have been completely silent on this - perhaps they are too embarassed at the "you've been had" implications of it ?

2 - "Vote Yes" advocates (and there are some eloquent arguments hidden in amongst the drivel) argue that "this is the best we can get' and "we are getting a better deal than nurses/teachers etc.."

I'm sorry, but that is no argument. ie. "You're getting stuffed but stuffed less than others." There is a worldwide shortage of ATCOs, and forecast to get worse when 10,000 (out of 14,000) USA ATCOs become elligible to retire over the next 5 years - yes, you heard that right - ten thousand. When pay rates at Dubai are up to £8000 a month (tax free), do you not think that NATS management will have thought about the upward forces on ATCO pay rates after the recession ? The union playing your pay expectations down is pretty shameful IMHO. Anyway, it comes back to that 'trust' word and 'promise'. My pension is deferred pay. I bought in to that pension on the basis of my projected final salary. I made financial plans based on my contract and that promise. I will not allow my employer to squirm out of that responsibility that easily.

3 - When Railtrack announce today that they are putting up fares by 6% to cover 'massive investment', (and I believe Railtrack employees pensions ARE protected) it seems equally perverse that NATS cannot raise fees, are pegged by RPI-X during a period of massive investment, and that all the cutting cost measures are directed at our T+Cs.

4 - Leadership? Forget the thousands of pounds wasted (I like the oft-used phrase "spunked away") on pointless CTC/management initiatives and away-days. What about the responsible leadership of NOT deliberately running the pension down to the bare legal minimum ? We have been totally failed by our 'leaders' who see the workforce (except themselves) as a cost and not an asset. Perhaps an apology (a la Royal Bank of Scotland) is beneath them?

5 - The Government. They caused the problem with a totally inappropriately funded PPP package (evidenced when investigated by HoC). Govt are a 49% shareholder, they MUST accept responsibility or be brought to account. Labour Party (ha ha ha) rhetoric at the time of PPP was that no employee or pensioner would financially suffer, and if evidence was forthcoming - they (the Govt) would act. Well, it's time to live up to that rhetoric.

Has no-one in management or Union asked them to act or get involved? Or are our Labour Party Union lackeys looking for some sneaky backhander for giving the Govt an easy ride and doing their dirty work? I think in this case being a Labour Party member is at odds with representing union members - a complete conflict of interest - you cannot serve 2 masters.

If the only way to get the Govt to sit up and notice is threaten industrial action - then, so be it.

[ImnotanERIC]

You can post all the dissenting views you like, i just find it a little sad that you are willing to union bash your own colleagues, on a public forum, who fight for your best interests but aren't prepared to be a rep yourself. I guess i just think that someone who feels so strongly about how bad the union are and the 'tub of sh1t' they've negotiated might have the balls to stand up, become and rep and deliver something better

my mp is a ****, gordon brown is a ****, so is jim fitzpatrick.
i don't want to do any of their jobs thanks.
Does that mean I have to take the view that their **** doesn't stink and that everything they say and do is marvellous?

[anotherthing]

FlyBhoy


And all the yes voters who are asking for alternatives...here's one...rather than a pensionable earnings cap, what about a 15 year paydeal of RPI+0.5%??? Would you vote for this?!? It has the exact same effect as the pensionable earnings cap in terms of letting actuaries more accurately calculate underlying rates, and apparently the union have repeatedly asked the management for this instead
if this is true, then it adds even more to the 'NO' argument; butit should come as no surprise that NATS would want to be obstructive!

I think what NATS want to do is screw the pension, then try to give us poor pay deals on top - otherwise as you say, a 15 year pay deal of RPI+0.5% (or in these days of credit crunch best say a pay deal of either 0.5% or RPI+0.5%, whichever is greater), with it all being pensionable, is quite attractive.

[hold at SATAN]

When Jim Fitzpatrick came to visit the new Heathrow Tower, he didn't once make any effort to speak to ATCOs or ATSAs. He came across like an arrogant little tw*t, up his own narcissitic ar$e.(dear moderators I am being fair and objective in my observation, unfortunately :ouch:)


Ministers are usually not fussed about where they are now, but where they want to be next. One special exception was Ms. Dunwoody, God rest her soul

[hold at SATAN]

FB

The reason NATS won't go for that is that they'll be bound for 15 years and will have no pay deal "incentive" :ok: to offer staff for making more cutbacks

Yet, they are quite happy to tie us into a 0.5% cap "deal" :eek: for 15 years

In any case given the global demand for our skill, we'd be underselling ourselves. If others (I'm thinking UAE, et al) can throw money to attract and retain staff, it can only but improve our bargaining positions.

[Fit_to_burst]

fly bhoy: So let's get this straight you would take a 15 year pay cap at RPI +0.5% and you would be happy with that because all of it would be pensionable. You won't however accept a 15 year pensionable pay cap that allows you salary to rise by more but your pensionable bit to remain capped at RPI + 0.5%. Are you sure about that?? or is it that you just want a guaranteed pay rise for the next 15 years??

[mr.777]

When Jim Fitzpatrick came to visit the new Heathrow Tower, he didn't once make any effort to speak to ATCOs or ATSAs. He came across like an arrogant little tw*t, up his own narcissitic ar$e.(dear moderators I am being fair and objective in my observation, unfortunately )

He was on TV yesterday discussing Labours latest plans for taxing the great British motorist...he came across exactly the way you have just described SATAN.

As replies have shown from those who have written to their MPs (those who have received replies anyway...still waiting for mine), the Govt and Geoff Buff-hoon want nothing to do with this particular hot potato...not, that is, until we take industrial action when their indifference will come back to bite them on the arse in a rather large and public way. I do not understand how a 51% shareholder in a major company has no interest in whether their workforce strike or not, which this could come down to. The Union were asked at our briefing whether they had approached the Govt. They had but the Govt were, apparently, not interested...."not a matter for them" allegedly.

[Gonzo]

FB,

I don't believe management have been totally honest in their dealings with the union and have been bordering on negligent in their handling of it by paying less than required, regardless of trustees advice!!

I'm not sure that's quite correct.....NATS pay what the Trustees tell them to pay. I don't believe the Trustees have ever advised anything different to what has actually occurred. When NATS took the 'holiday', that was agreed between NATS, Trustees and Unions.

[mr.777]

So let's get this straight you would take a 15 year pay cap at RPI +0.5% and you would be happy with that because all of it would be pensionable. You won't however accept a 15 year pensionable pay cap that allows you salary to rise by more but your pensionable bit to remain capped at RPI + 0.5%. Are you sure about that?? or is it that you just want a guaranteed pay rise for the next 15 years??

I'm not sure that was what FlyBhoy's post alluded to, but I'll let him make his own reply.

[alfie1999]

Fit_to_burst

You won't however accept a 15 year pensionable pay cap that allows you salary to rise by more but your pensionable bit to remain capped at RPI + 0.5%. Are you sure about that??


The impact of the R+.5% cap on the final benefits of members in their 20s and 30s is huge.

The modeller doesn't really show the reality of a 15 year cap being compounded over a 38 year career, and that's assuming the cap is eventually removed.

The actuary accepted that is was easily conceivable that guys in their 20s and 30s will end up with at best a 1/2 final pensionable salary scheme on retirement and quite possibly much worse!

I've noticed that the Unions and management have chosen not to frame the question as...

"will you agree to a likely 1/2 salary scheme rather than a 2/3rds?"

[Weirdo Earthtorch]

The Actuaries don't have rose tinted specs they tend to have a gloomy outlook so they've gone out and got new pessimistic assumptions. Unfortunately those new assumptions greatly increase the cost of any defined benefit scheme and that's why generally the UK can't afford defined benefit schemes any more.

Not the ones who prepared the pension part of this year's NATS annual report. (£400m+ surplus compared to the deficit that was briefly glimpsed on that month-by-month valuation slide at the briefing).

College of Knowledge, Day 1, Lesson 1:

"Assumption is the mother of all fcuk-ups".

For me it is the difference between that annual report valuation and all the other valuations that kills it. I can't take it seriously where there is a difference of 15%+ between different valuations (yes I know there are different rules etc etc). It just seems that we use the most appropriate valuation and assumptions that suit our needs ('can't afford pension' vs. 'oooh look, shareholders, how much of a surplus there is in our fund'.

I would like to see retrospective valuations using the assumptions from 2001, 2003 and 2006, and vice versa, then I can draw my own conclusions.

It will be very interesting to see the valuation presented in next years's set of accounts.

[ZOOKER]

Sir Winston Churchill said... "the further back you look, the further forward you can see"! :ok:

[hold at SATAN]

From 2007/08 NATS annual report:

At 31 March 2008, measured under international accounting
standards, the pension scheme had a surplus of assets over
liabilities of £413.5m compared with a surplus of £238.6m
at 31 March 2007. The £174.9m increase in the surplus is
due mainly to a decrease in the present value of the
obligations arising from an increase in the prescribed
discount rate from 5.2% to 6.2%. The scheme’s assets
increased by just £13.1m or 0.5% to £2,846.2m in the year.

The group made cash contributions to the scheme of 12.2%
(2007: 12.2%) of pensionable pay during the year giving a
cash cost of £37.7m (2007: £32.6m). From 1 April 2008,
cash contributions to the scheme will be paid at an annual
effective rate of 20.0% of pensionable pay. This follows the
outcome of the triennial valuation performed as of 31
December 2006, which reported a surplus of assets over
liabilities of 112% and an increase in the future service cost
to 37.3% of pensionable pay (from 26.8% at 31 December
2003).

The group is currently engaged in discussions with its Trades
Unions on proposals to reduce the cost and risk of future
pension provision.

12.2%<26.8% n'est pas?

[eglnyt]

The impact of the R+.5% cap on the final benefits of members in their 20s and 30s is huge.

Is it ? Nobody knows what the impact is. It could be nil, it could be half. How big you think it will be depends upon how optimistic you are about future pay rises. I'm still slightly amused that those who think NATS management is out to screw them at every opportunity then put large pay rises into the modeller. For the benefit of the controllers who apparently got an average of RPI+2.5 over recent years (the union figure from the briefings which I haven't checked) those of us in other grades got between RPI+0.2 and RPI+0.6 apart from 2006 when we got less than RPI but made up to about RPI with a non pensionable cash bonus. I'll let you decide which is most likely in the future.

[eglnyt]

12.2%<26.8% n'est pas?

It is but 12.2% plus the amount of surplus run down over that period is approximately equal to 26.8%. In the absence of any surplus the NATS contribution rate will have to equal underlying rate.

[Vote NO]

Am I getting paronoid :eek: or does anyone else think NATS have planted "someone" :rolleyes: on this forum to counter the No Vote, and to continue to spread the Yes vote propaganda ?
Its a full time job keeping up with said "polite" person, full marks for consistency and determination though :)
Management apparently gauge the outcome of said vote with this forum as the one on Nats intranet is policed and we cant express our real views on it:oh:

[mr.777]

Nobody knows what the impact is. It could be nil, it could be half.

THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT...NOBODY KNOWS!!!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

HOW CAN YOU VOTE YES FOR SOMETHING WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINAL OUTCOME IS????? (Capital lettering intended to show utter exasperation at a certain poster)>

[Vote NO]

I wonder what reply you are going to get this time :E

[eglnyt]

How can I vote Yes? I'll explain my thinking:-

I might vote Yes if I think there is a risk to my pension if nothing happens and the NATS/NTUS proposal is the only thing anybody is offering which might mitigate some of that risk.

I understand in voting Yes that I might lose some of my pension, although my estimate is not much, and that it is quite possible that another pension crisis will happen between now and then. I take the view that worrying about the next crisis is no reason for not agreeing to this proposal in an attempt to stave of the potential crisis we can already see.

The NTUS have checked the figures and I've taken a look and potentially there is a risk to my pension because NATS could be made insolvent by its pension costs. I can also see that the proposal might mitigate that risk albeit at some cost to me.

But I also have to consider the No option.

I might vote No if I think there is no risk to my pension and this is all a conspiracy by NATS to reduce our pension benefits.

I can't see why NTUS haven't seen through this if it is the case and my checking of the figures supports the view that this is for real.

I might vote No if I think NATS is lying when it says it can't afford our pensions. Again I've looked at the figures and I don't think NATS could afford a big rise in pension costs.

I might vote No if I think there is a better proposal available. So far nobody has a better proposal. The agreed long term wage deal of RPI +0.5 is the best of those I've seen and has some potential but I can't see either side agreeing to that and the proposal has to be acceptable to both sides.

I might vote No if I think NATS can be pushed further. Again I believe my NTUS reps that this is the best deal NATS will agree to because I have no reason to doubt them.

I don't consider whose fault any of this is because that doesn't affect the need for something to be done and doesn't change any of the possibilities.

I don't consider selling NATS or NSL because that is a possibility in the future whatever happens and this doesn't actually make it very much more likely.

Based on all this I have to discard the No option and end up with Vote Yes

Others may not agree with my reasoning and as I've said before I'm not telling anybody how to vote.

[Gonzo]

I'd just like to compliment some members of this forum for the level of debate generated.

However, I'm quite embarrassed to read some of the posts.

I ask myself whether some here really do work for NATS? As, apart from the rarest of exceptions, all those colleagues I've met, no matter where in the company they work, are rational, eloquent and above all intelligent people.

Eglynt, I commend you for your determination.

Vote No, in what way is the intranet thread 'policed'? Any details?

[mr.777]

apart from the rarest of exceptions

Spill the beans Gonzo, the mood needs lightening!:)

Although I have to agree the Intranet is most certainly policed. Case in point...certain comments made about the inane "Photo of the Day", purely for a laugh. Next thing, said posters dragged into Watch Managers office for a talking to.

[Gonzo]

Oh my dear chap, couldn't possibly say in the clear!:ok:

Although I have to agree the Intranet is most certainly policed.

Not really surprising though, is it? It's their ball, they can choose the rules.

Although an over-reaction there I think!

[mr.777]

Agreed, on both counts.

[hold at SATAN]

It is but 12.2% plus the amount of surplus run down over that period is approximately equal to 26.8%. In the absence of any surplus the NATS contribution rate will have to equal underlying rate.

My point exactly. NATS should NOThave run down the surplus. The actual surplus is a red herring as it only refers to CURRENT :ugh: pension commitments. The surplus is irrelevant. NATS needed to keep paying at the UNDERLYING RATE to ensure that there will be enough funds to meet future Pensioners' needs. Naturally a surplus will build up as the funds will be required at a later date! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

If NATS paid more than the underlaying rate, then yes, future underlying costs would drop and this fabled surplus might be 80% or more.

But as long as people live longer, and/or fewer people pay into the scheme (staff cuts/no new joiners) and/or inflation stays high (will it?) then the future underlying costs will keep increasing.


NATS are telling us of the huge increase in underlying costs, yet they have paid only just enough to make current pensioners' payments

..I hope I won't need to write another play... surely eglnyt can see...I'll keep my script writing hat on standby :ok:

[Vote NO]

You beat me to it chaps. Also certain grades can't post "no vote" comments on the Pension intranet site.
I am not sure if they can post any comments, and they have been told (dragged into the office) to refrain from any input :oh:

[hold at SATAN]

I reckon NATS' inside man/men has/have a hidden agenda.... he/they plant fear and doubt oor wind people up that the stress brings an early death. no more pensions payout (except lump and spouse) and underlying costs decrease.

Maybe NATS should be secretly poisoning staff as they reach retirement :oh:

Beware the newly installed water fountain.......:uhoh:
Vote no :ok:

[mr.777]

Maybe NATS should be secretly poisoning staff as they reach retirement

I would suggest that this is already happening SATAN...3 words...Aramark Canteen Swanwick.

[Vote NO]

............:ok:

[alfie1999]

eglnyt


Is it ? Nobody knows what the impact is. It could be nil, it could be half.


Well I used the figures suggested by your management colleagues to justify the imposition of the cap.

Are you now saying that those figures shouldn't be used if they're inconvenient for the 'Yes' argument?

I'm afraid you can't have it both ways, either we all use the same figures or we don't.

Which is it going to be?

[MrJones]

All this argument is going nowhere.

From my totally unscientific survey it is going to be a large NO vote.

The question we should be discussing is where do NTUS, NATS Management and NATS Employees go from a No vote.

NATS management can always say.... "we are right but the staff have a completely entrenched opinion"

But what can the NTUS say? A NO vote would seem to be massive vote of no confidence in them.

New Reps or new a Union?

Do we need to ditch the Public Sector Unions and bring in Unions more experienced in negotiating with Private Sector management?

[Vote NO]

Looking back 2 years and talks of "unleashing our powder" :uhoh: is interesting to compare today and then(Nov 06)

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/251589-nats-pensions.html

[mr.777]

The problem is that both the management and Unions did not think that this would be a large NO vote...they probably thought that , at worst, it would be a close run thing. Until about 4 weeks ago I would have agreed with them, but the way that subsequent briefings have been handled coupled with rock-bottom morale and general p*ssed off-ness with Barron and his cronies means that this only going to go one way.

Radarspod, no this is not a Vote NO forum...but neither is it a Vote Yes forum mate. You can argue that eglnyt has brought reasoned argument from your side (yes, we all know what side your bread is buttered...nothing wrong with that, merely observation)...others would say that it is blind defence of an indefensible proposition. You may, of course, say the same about "our" standpoint...democracy in action:)

[Vote NO]

On that healthy note ...........goodnight :ok:

Vote NO ( not telling anyone how to vote or influence anyone, just signing off with my name, and when "eglnyt" quotes me he actually has to say Vote NO:))

[Gonzo]

SATAN, I believe you're misunderstanding the set up of a defined benefit scheme. Any 'surplus' is just that, a surplus, i.e. not needed. The sum of money that is left over after current and all future liabilities of the scheme are taken into account. The surplus isn't used to pay future benefits. The trustees ensure that the pension fund has enough money to cover current and future liabilities. Therefore, from a financial point of view, the fund being closed to new joiners should have no detrimental effect on the health of the scheme.

But someone please tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

[PeltonLevel]

Ben Doonigan (http://www.pprune.org/members/83638-ben-doonigan)
The former Railtrack - now Network Rail - has 2 pension funds - a defined benefit scheme for staff already in the Railway Pension Scheme (the pension accounting deficit rose to £617m at 30 September (£370m at 31 March 2008)) and a defined contribution scheme.
The 2008 Annual Report states: "The Balance sheet liability, which represents the Company’s share (60 per cent) of the deficit of the Network Rail section of the Railway Pension Scheme (RPS), increased by nearly 50 per cent from £248m to £370m. The main driver for the increase in the accounting deficit has been an assumed increase in longevity in the consultation proposals for the actuarial funding valuation which reports the overall position of the scheme."
Members of the defined benefit scheme were contributing 10.8% in 2006!:ugh:

[alfie1999]

Would that be the same Railtrack that was taken back under government control via a Railway Administration Order?

[PeltonLevel]

Got it in one!
And they are still subject to the regulation regime hat was set up for Railtrack.

[Slider57]

It would seem my earlier post elicited some responses I was not expecting but then emotions seem to be running at an all time high.

Mr777
Perhaps i didn't choose the right words.
No where have I seen a written statement that clearly proves that the Barron will get any bonus/car solely from the passing of this pensions deal. His contract like most others in senior management affords him a bonus based on performance. Something I do not agree with, especially when it is people like you and I that bear the brunt of it.

I also stand to lose similar amounts to you, but I have not yet stated which way I will vote. So lets not jump to conclusions that I am a yes man.

Finally I do not think I compared the pensions debate to the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict. I just remarked that my T&C's along with pay and pension are much better than many other people. I used the Armed Forces as an example as I have first hand experience, having served my time. There will always be people better off and many more worse off. I just happen to think we currently have a bloody good deal and not much worthy of complaining about, I would feel very guilty to be complaining of my lot in life to the friends who currently serve and those families whose other halfs have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Anotherthing

I understand what you are saying about the pension break, but it is not the sole reason in my opinion why the pension fund is in the state it is. Not paying the underlying rate has also contributed to the situation, however management were only committed to ensuring the fund was 100% funded, which it would appear was the reason the actuaries let them pay less into it.

There are no doubt other reasons for the pension defecit, so lets not just focus on a couple of contributing factors, if we want reasoned debate we need to accept all points of view.

DEE MAC

Perhaps my choice of words offended you, If so then I apologise. The choice of phrase never offended me when I donned my uniform and served my time. I have nothing but respect for the armed forces and have many friends who still serve, who I know would not take offence.

I too stand to lose the same as youand many others on this forum if the deal goes through. However dont assume I am a yes man because of the comments I have posted. I feel we need to leave the emotion and various rumours out of the debate and focus only on the information that can be supported by fact.

Also I wished you had read on as your logic regarding my as then single post on this forum. I fail to see any arguement that states 1 post = Union/Management, perhaps you could expand. Especially as my penultimate sentance quite clearly stated I am neither management or union.

If this logic is being used to make your decision in the pension ballot, then I do hope you read it carefully before making your mark, I would hate you to make a mistake.

As I have intimated before lets leave our like/dislike of the CEO out of it. Lets focus on fact and not wild rumour, we can speculate all we want about a NATS/NSL/NERL sell off or about bonus agreements or what car someone drives and how it was paid for. None of them have any baring on the pension deal we stand to lose and the two new schemes that have been proposed.

I would still like a pot to P$$$ in when I retire. Unless something is done I don't think anyone will be getting anything.

P.s. 2 posts does that make me senior management now :ok:

[FDP_Walla]

Slider.

You seem suprised by the responses, so here is how ifelt when reading you post.


“Having studied Maths”
Appear to start off on a Pedestal. Don’t need to study maths in my humble opinion, rather politics, business and history.

“Yes it will have affected the pension but not on the scale some people are saying.”

Quite possible to reduce our pension from 2/3 to ½ in >10 years even given an average of RPI +/- 0% in that time. If you havnt figured that one out then PM me or see my previous post.

“If however you have proof that the pension holiday has led to the huge defecit we now seem to have then please post it on NATSNET for all to see. As yet no one has shown me numbers that seem to add up.”

Contributed to the deficit and the paying back of loans early show the respect MGT have fro the fund.

“Also everyone seems to forget all the nice pay rises that have been negotiated that all add to the underlying cost of the pension. Our own greed it would seem has also contributed to the current situation.”

In the last 3 years my pay rise has been .25% above RPI. For that I do the work of 3 people and work 85 miles away from my kids. This is the norm in my dept. You call this greed and then expect people not to be upset. This at a time of record growth in the industry.

“We also seem to have the odd rant about our T& C's, compared to nurses/police/armed forces and hundreds of other lower paid workers out there”
This one really gets my goat. Other low paid worker eh! Was this same argument put to PB fro his recent 14% rise? I was in the forces and it is not low paid.

“As for the comments about Barron and his Aston/bonuses. I hate the bonus culture NATS has for management, but until someone provides me with proof that Barron has these written into his contract I think we should refrain from making comment. It is after all a free country and he can buy whatever car he wants with his salary/allowances. “

And we are free to comment. Don’t like the use of the word ‘refrain’.

“We have a well paid job with plenty of time off and you can hardly complain about being overworked for 8 hours a day. How many people think we will get public sympathy for going on strike over a reasonably good pension deal. Sure we all stand to lose a little but I personally think it is better than losing the lot.”

Like railtrack employees did eh!. People are standing up fro what was been promised years ago and accepted by our part-owners, probably before you joined.

“I am not management or involved with the union, just someone who would like a pot to P$$$ in when I retire. I think we should vote on the issue not Barrons bonus/car or whether we like him as a CEO.”

Barons car is a symbol of the greed of modern day MGRS who will raid whatever there is to feather there own nest. I suspect most of the people posting on here were in NATS before PB and will be in NATS post PB. If they don’t like personally, then that is only related to his role as CEO and how it affects them. I would risk a larger slice of my pension rather than lie down and have my belly tickled fro Execs to ‘improve the financial health’ of the company which equates to futher my own financial health. That is a personal opinion.

[BDiONU]

I was in the forces and it is not low paid.
Which Forces were you in, American? I did 25 years in the RAF and it wasn't high pay. Particularly in comparison to NATS.

BD

[Roffa]

Barons car is a symbol of the greed of modern day MGRS who will raid whatever there is to feather there own nest.

A bit like modern day atcos in the recent past who have feathered their own pay deals at the expense of, for example, student atcos salary. I would never trust the atcos as a group to turn down a deal that worked for them but screwed another part of the company workforce. Witness some of the comments on this and other threads about our non-ops company colleagues. Pot, kettle etc.

But whatever, the debate on PPRuNe has pretty much run its course as views are entrenched and then, when it descends to the level of insult as offered up by Yahoo, it is also meaningless as well. If that's the best that can be offered :rolleyes:

I await the outcome of the ballot with interest.

[fly bhoy]

Sorry for late reply, but birthday and guinness will always take priority!!;):yuk:

Fit to Burst

No i'm not saying I would accept a 15 year deal either...what I said was that it would make it look a lot more appealing to the membership as your entire pay cheque is then pensionable. If I was told choose one or the other, i'd probably choose the 15 year pay deal yes, especially in the current climate where we're being told to expect nothing better than RPI for the foreseeable future, so again obviously RPI+0.5 becomes around about half a percent more appealing!!!:} The point I was making was that management spout on about having our best interests at heart, when it is blatantly obvious they don't...why would they, they've got everything to gain and nothing to lose from offering the cap instead of the pay deal!!

And Gonzo

AFAIK The management cannot be told what to do by the trustees unless the scheme is in deficit, they can only be advised. And the advice when the scheme is in surplus (as we've heard before) is to pay less. Now when it becomes apparent that there may be a problem in the future (as happened in about 2004/05) and even though the scheme is in surplus (hence the trustees will still "advise" that they can pay less if they want because of this surplus) I would say its extremely poor management to actually take this advice!:= They could have turned round and said, "I understand you're advising me that I can pay less, but as it's going to be in trouble we'll pay what we should". I've also said both at my briefing and on here that that probably wouldn't have made much difference to the position we're in now but it has two effects:-

1) it makes the difference in the amount required to pay a lot less (i.e. if the company are used to paying 30% (which equates to about £90m if my maths are correct) then going up to paying 40% means they only have to find an extra £30m, rather than having to go from 20% to 40% and the £60m+ we're told now, and

2) it makes it look to the staff that at least the management have made some sort of effort to save the scheme as well and hence makes the staff a bit more on side when our union say this is the only way forward. I'm sorry, but one other "way forward" is for the company to pay what the scheme says they should be, and not what the trustees advise they should be!:=

Anyway, pub opens in 30 mins so i'm off!!:}

FB:ok:

[fly bhoy]

Roffa

A bit like modern day atcos in the recent past who have feathered their own pay deals at the expense of, for example, student atcos salary

The exact reason why I voted NO (spot a pattern anyone!!:}) for the last pay deal. Again, yes I really appreciate the efforts put in by the union in getting a fantastic payrise, but if its at anyone else's expense (other than senior management who could afford to be paid less, and certainly NOT at the expense of students as I know I could not have afforded to join this brilliant career on the wage they have now!!) then i'm not going to vote for it. Don't make broad brushed accusations like that please.

As for the abuse and insults point, totally agree. It's a very good debate with good points (good work eglnyt!:ok:) being made on both sides and we don't need to be lowering ourselves to insulting our colleagues!!

Besides...we all know i'm right!!!:};)

FB:ok:

[alfie1999]

BDiONU

Which Forces were you in, American? I did 25 years in the RAF and it wasn't high pay. Particularly in comparison to NATS.

BD



A Senior Aircraftsman can now earn up to £27,599 and a Warrant Officer up to £44,588 so the RAF more than holds its own against the median wage in the UK (£479pw).

A Flight Lieutenant can earn up to £43,002 without ever having to challenge a promotion board so I would challenge your assertion that the RAF isn't well paid. If you can produce the average and median wage for NATS employees to back up your other claims i'd certainly be interested in having a look.

The RAF complained about pay pre-79 but as you'll know Thatcher gave the armed forces massive pay rises and certainly by the late 80s and early 90s pay wasn't an issue of complaint with anybody I worked with.




RAF Community Support | Pay, Pensions & Allowances | Pay / Royal Air Force (http://www.rafcom.co.uk/pay_allowances/pay/2008/raf_air_08.cfm)
RAF Community Support | Pay, Pensions & Allowances | Pay / Royal Air Force (http://www.rafcom.co.uk/pay_allowances/pay/2008/raf_off_08.cfm)

National Statistics Online (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285)

[Roffa]

fly bhoy,

Don't make broad brushed accusations like that please.

I thought broad brush accusations were de rigeur around here given that anyone who dares disagree or offer a differing opinion from that of the more vociferous no voters are either management stooges or <insert today's choice insult here>?

Very grown up. This isn't a lion's den, it's more akin to a pre-school playground much of the time.

[Vote NO]

I suspect this whole debate has now run its course, and the vast majority have already made their minds up.
That's why we are all going off on irrelevant tangents ( me included :bored:.)
I don't imagine the extra briefing sessions and Bar "stools" :ooh: coming your way will make any difference either.
Lets hope whatever prevails will benefit all of us in the long term

Oh and before I forget, Aston Martins are fairly common where I live (2 in my street) and both owners have had nothing but trouble with them, and agree they are a waste of money which would have been better spent on a BMW 6 series or Merc SL :).............There I go, off on another tangent:\

[Vote NO]

You, like me will also lose a whack on your lump sum also! Probably about £32k in todays terms ( 4 X your 8k Loss):{

Stay positive though, and vote negative :}

Vote NO

[eglnyt]

Vote NO

I tend to agree with your earlier post that the discussion has run its course but I will ask two questions about the output from the modeller because only you know what your figures say.

First what % above RPI did you use to get 8K ? Second how does the figure you get compare with 27K pension which is the best you'll get if the worst happens and NATS goes under and the fund has to refer to the Pension Protection Fund ?

By the way I have no problem with people getting upset. Just because somebody has decided to vote Yes does not mean they are happy with the situation we find ourselves in. We may even be more upset because we've accepted that we're stuffed and there's nothing we can do about it and that frustration adds to the anger.

[mr.777]

I never swear in the ops room, and certainly not at the radar when I've asked somebody to do something for the umpteenth time and they still don't comply:E

eglnyt

I too used the modeller and was approx £7k a year out of pocket, using RPI +1.5%....which is what all the management guff is based upon. Its their own fault for using this figure...you can't now say "well hold on, what guarantee is there that we'll get a payrise of RPI +1.5%". They have used +1.5% as an example, they can't now take it back and say "we don't think you'll lose that much".

I await,as ever, a convoluted and overly verbose reply from your good self explaining the error of my ways :)

[Vote NO]

eglnyt

Vote NO

I tend to agree with your earlier post that the discussion has run its course but I will ask two questions about the output from the modeller because only you know what your figures say.

First what % above RPI did you use to get 8K ? Second how does the figure you get compare with 27K pension which is the best you'll get if the worst happens and NATS goes under and the fund has to refer to the Pension Protection Fund

0.55% = 0.5K loss :)
0.625% = 1K loss
0.75% = 2K loss
1% = 4K loss
1.5% = 8K loss
2.5% (LAST 10 year ave.) 16k loss

If NATS goes under,here we go again:ugh: HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension, otherwise we will go on strike! Remember NATS is crucial to the infrastrucure of UK security,safety,economy. NATS must continue to operate at full efficiency. The country would collapse with no aviation, no food, no tourism, no business!
I think any level headed individual would agree NATS can not "go under" if the private side fails, why do you think HMG has the major stake? Here we go again :ugh:UK SAFETY, ECONOMY, SECURITY.

That is why HMG retain the major share :ugh:

I also, await, as ever, a convoluted and overly verbose reply from your good self explaining the error of my ways.

yours sincerely

Vote No :)

[eglnyt]

It's the nature of my profession to lay down the entire argument when making a case so I'm trained to be verbose and convoluted. I accept that may be a problem when dealing with those who are trained to get a lot of information over in as few words as possible. (I only added this bit so as not to disapppoint you http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif
:) )

You can chose 1.5% if you think that is what you'll get. As that is the figure the Actuary uses and I believe them to be pessimistic I've gone for a lower figure especially based on my recent pay rises. I asked the question just to see what people were using because some have posted figures of greater than £12K worse off.

[mr.777]

The longer you have until retirement, the greater the deficit will be. I have 25 years left and joined NATS quite late on (for an ATCO anyway) so my deficit is lower. There are guys I work with who are in their mid/late 20s who stand to lose in excess of £10k per year using the same figures I have used.

[BDiONU]

A Senior Aircraftsman can now earn up to £27,599
How does that compare to an ATSA1 in NATS? About the same except that the NATS employee isn't expected (or required) to risk their life in hot & sandy places.
and a Warrant Officer up to £44,588
Takes many years to reach that rank with a lot of associated hard work to climb the pyramid. Its not like being NATS staff with yearly spine point increases without lifting a finger in doing stuff over and above your day job.
A Flight Lieutenant can earn up to £43,002 without ever having to challenge a promotion board
And your average ATCO in NATS (bearing in mind that the number in area vastly outweighs aerodrome) earns a bit more (plus shift pay) without any promotion board either.
so I would challenge your assertion that the RAF isn't well paid.
When I left the RAF in Jan 2000 as a Flight Sergeant I earned £26845.75. I was an ATCO in LJAO, so fairly closely equivalent to a civil AC ATCO. I started work as an APS for NATS on £28,768 plus shift pay of nearly £4000 with no secondary duties, responsible for no one working for me, no possibility of being sent to dangerous places and no possibility of welding a couple of aircraft together. Thats my comparison.
If you can produce the average and median wage for NATS employees to back up your other claims i'd certainly be interested in having a look.
NATS pay isn't in the public domain and I can't be fagged to work them out.
The RAF complained about pay pre-79 but as you'll know Thatcher gave the armed forces massive pay rises and certainly by the late 80s and early 90s pay wasn't an issue of complaint with anybody I worked with.
I joined up in October 74 and am aware of the pay issues then. If you served with people who weren't complaining about pay you must have been very lucky!

Thanks for producing the stats to back up your response though :ok:

BD

[anotherthing]

Alfie1999

I'm ex forces, now a NATS ATCO. I have to concur with BDiONU.

As an Officer, I had numerous (unpaid and un-volunteered for) secondary duties, was moved from pillar to post (NATS staff don't really know what a mobile grade can mean!); was responsible (without extra pay) for the career advancement and pastoral care of junior officers/rankers below me; was eligible for postings to less salubrious area where I could get shot at.

And the pay, as an Officer (can't remember what my salary was when I left in 2001), was nowhere near as good as I get now as an ATCO (taking into consideration subsequent pay rises after I left) and I'm not anywhere near the top of scale yet)

The two are just not even remotely comparable when you take everything into consideration!

Trying to compare salaries is a non starter whatever jobs you compare, unless you are talking a direct like for like i.e. shelf stacking at Sainsburys compared to shelf stacking at Tescos etc

[Vote NO]

eglnyt

I am astounded you have not picked my post http://www.pprune.org/4547587-post1459.html

to pieces yet, is there any chance, however small, you might actually agree with a miniscule part of my account of what will likely happen ? :)

If NATS goes under,here we go again:ugh: HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension, otherwise we will go on strike! Remember NATS is crucial to the infrastrucure of UK security,safety,economy. NATS must continue to operate at full efficiency. The country would collapse with no aviation, no food, no tourism, no business!
I think any level headed individual would agree NATS can not "go under" if the private side fails, why do you think HMG has the major stake? Here we go again :ugh:UK SAFETY, ECONOMY, SECURITY.

That is why HMG retain the major share :ugh:

[eastern wiseguy]

HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension

I hear this a an argument for a "safety net". Please show me where it states that the status quo would apply.

Do you trust them?

[Vote NO]

If HMG wants NATS to operate, I would gamble in HMG maintaining the status quo. Politics aside, I would rather we were back with HMG 100% , but the capitalists amongst you may beg to differ :)
Like I said, if NATS private part failed, HMG would continue the Pension status quo, because if they didn't they would have a strike on their hands. A 2 hour NAS glitch brings aviation to a standstill, a strike could not even be contemplated, and that is why I would gamble :)

[eglnyt]

I am astounded you have not picked my post to pieces yet, is there any chance, however small, you might actually agree with a miniscule part of my account of what will likely happen ?

As this ground was covered several hundred posts ago I didn't think there was any point. Nobody knows what would happen in that circumstance so your post is as possible as any that I could make. I know what the legislation says and that is contained in the previous posts but what will actually happen will depend upon what the Government decides to do and anybody who claims to know that is only guessing.

I accept that the industrial action option might be attractive for controllers. For others I think it would be a different matter and many of us would lose our jobs. That has a far worse effect on my pension than even the most optimistic RPI + pay rise in the modeller.

My opinion is that the Government has turned NATS staff over several times since 1997 so I'm not relying on them to save my pension or my job.

[Gonzo]

I wonder what the PATCO members thought before they went on strike in the USA back in 1981?

[Vote NO]

I dont think you can compare Reagan with HMG :)

Different country, different era, and different legislation governing strike action by employees and Governmental actions.

So not an option:ok:

[PeltonLevel]

"If you are a member of an eligible scheme, and you have reached the scheme's normal pension age, we will generally pay you 100 per cent compensation for what you should have received at the time your employer went bust. We will also generally pay 100 per cent compensation to those who have retired on legitimate ill-health grounds, regardless of age, and to those receiving a pension in relation to someone who has died. These payments are not subject to the compensation cap set out below.
If you have retired but have not yet reached the normal pension age of your scheme, we will pay you up to 90 per cent compensation. The same applies if you are yet to start receiving pension payments. This level of compensation is subject to an overall cap which is recalculated each year. Between April 2008 and March 2009, the cap at the age of 65 equates to £27,770.72 (once account was taken of the 90 per cent level of compensation).
In all cases, increases in future payments won't be as much as expected.":(

[landedoutagain]

Another point to consider - is it fair that two people who do the same job for the same company, who get paid the same, retire on the same day with full pension entitlement (38 and a bit years) in a defined benefit scheme, receive a different amount per year in their pension? Surely this is no longer a defined benefit scheme anymore??

This is very likely with a cap on pensionable earnings. The fixed pay deal sounds a much better option (not necessarily a good one though!) as it removes any chance of such a strange situation occuring.

[ImnotanERIC]

Another point to consider - is it fair that two people who do the same job for the same company, who get paid the same


if only that were true.:p

[eglnyt]

Landed Out Again

Explain how you think that could happen any more than currently.

There are a number of ways in which your pensionable pay can be calculated and if either of the two's pensionable pay was more beneficial calculated by one of those alternatives then they might get more at present.

[landedoutagain]

eglnyt - you cant agree with anything can you!

I'll try to make it more obvious for you though - it is very likely that two people who have had careers identical in every respect except for a 'join' date, who have had the same salary for the last 20 years +, who at no point have had any differences to pensionable pay, could receive a different pension under this proposal even if they retire on the same day, and have accrued the maximum 2/3rds pension.

Its morally wrong - and it wouldnt be a defined benefit scheme. If you cant tell me what % of my final salary i will receive on retirement, you cannot call this a DB scheme any more.


ERIC, not biting on that one :}

[PeltonLevel]

Sorry to be obvious, but if two people join on different days and retire on the same day,their careers have not been identical!

[landedoutagain]

thats why it says EXCEPT for that one point :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

isnt it reasonable that if you and I make the same now, both work for the next five years, making the same during that time, and then retire together with maximum entitlement, that we should receive the same?

How much clearer do I need to be?

[eglnyt]

Landed Out

I didn't disagree, I asked you why you think that is the case because I'm trying to understand the point you are making. And although you think you've made it clear I still don't quite understand how they have different pensionable pay at the point they retire.

[PeltonLevel]

Where is the evidence that pensions are ever fair? If I work for 10 years in the same grade and someone else in a lower grade for the first six years gets promoted twice in the last four years, who do you think will get the higher pension? Who will have paid most into the scheme?

[alfie1999]

anotherthing




Alfie1999

I'm ex forces, now a NATS ATCO. I have to concur with BDiONU.

As an Officer, I had numerous (unpaid and un-volunteered for) secondary duties, was moved from pillar to post (NATS staff don't really know what a mobile grade can mean!); was responsible (without extra pay) for the career advancement and pastoral care of junior officers/rankers below me; was eligible for postings to less salubrious area where I could get shot at.

And the pay, as an Officer (can't remember what my salary was when I left in 2001), was nowhere near as good as I get now as an ATCO (taking into consideration subsequent pay rises after I left) and I'm not anywhere near the top of scale yet)

The two are just not even remotely comparable when you take everything into consideration!

Trying to compare salaries is a non starter whatever jobs you compare, unless you are talking a direct like for like i.e. shelf stacking at Sainsburys compared to shelf stacking at Tescos etc


anotherthing,


BDIONU made a claim about the how well (or otherwise) the armed forces are paid and I replied with comparisons to the average national wage.

BDIONU then chose to answer points that hadn't been made using spurious comparisons he created himself but avoided answering the one inconvenient question I did ask.

I'm sure we're all familiar with these debating methods on this thread by now.

[BDiONU]

BDIONU made a claim about the how well (or otherwise) the armed forces are paid and I replied with comparisons to the average national wage.
BDIONU then chose to answer points that hadn't been made using spurious comparisons he created himself but avoided answering the one inconvenient question I did ask.
I gave you a very specific example of myself and how generous the pay I received when I first started working for NATS in a pseudo controller role as opposed to being a military controller. What more do you need, copies of my pay statements (I do have them available)?

BD

[Vote NO]

Anyway, getting back to the vote on our Pension .........:oh:

[landedoutagain]

eglnyt, it would likely be based on when a scheme member reaches maximum accrual for the benefits. If we both retired in 2 years on same pay, and ive worked for 41 years and you have for 39, I could take home more than you. This is wrong. And, the benefit is no longer definable. The fixed rise suggestion is better because the benefit IS still defined relative to salary.

I'm beginning to think that the proposal's implications have not been fully thought through. Would it help if I said I can see a scenario whereby an ATCO who started in 1996 could potentially bypass (legitimately!) the effect that this cap may have on everyone else? I'll let you or someone else work that one out!

I agree with some of the principles behind the proposals, but I think there are too many flaws with it as it stands.

[alfie1999]

BDiONU

I gave you a very specific example of myself and how generous the pay I received when I first started working for NATS in a pseudo controller role as opposed to being a military controller. What more do you need, copies of my pay statements (I do have them available)?

As I said you made a claim about how well (or otherwise) the armed forces are paid and I replied with comparisons to the national wage.

You chose to then make comparisons with NATS employees and start rebutting points I hadn't actually made.

It's a common debating technique that you see at most pmq's usually employed by one of the nu-liebour stooges.

Not that i'm accusing you of being a NL voter!!!!!!

[BDiONU]

As I said you made a claim about how well (or otherwise) the armed forces are paid and I replied with comparisons to the national wage.
But this thread is about NATs staff
You chose to then make comparisons with NATS employees and start rebutting points I hadn't actually made.
You set up your points, I quoted them in each response I made to your points. Anotherthing responded similarly.
Not that i'm accusing you of being a NL voter!!!!!!
Phew! Thank goodness for that, or I'd have had to call you out ;)

BD

[alfie1999]

Scheme members who have less than 10 years to go can vote yes in the knowledge that the cap and its attendant compounding affect probably won't take too much out of their final benefits.

However, for those in their mid-40s or younger the issue is far more complicated as they are the ones who will bear the brunt of these proposals and be faced with a possible 1/2 final salary scheme (or worse).

[fisbangwollop]

Must have been a quiet day on the sectors today with 3 pages of slagging i one day....what all you guys going to do on your breaks once all this is sorted???

That sad its still a geat big NO from me

[hold at SATAN]

Gonzo

The sum of money that is left over after current and all future liabilities of the scheme are taken into account

Negative Captain! Surplus is current commitments vs pension contributions. The future pension benfiits are what the underlying rate is about. And if NATS had paid the underlying rate then a surplus would always exist as future pension outgoings, higher than currently, will need to be met, assuming the number of pensioners increases (i.e longevity) and/or pay is above inflation.


In december 2003 there was a surplus of £296.2m realtive to the technical provisions

Technical provisions - actives (excluding any reserve for future expenses)

[hold at SATAN]

Imagine if NATS had 1 current pensioner(A) who is drawing a pension and 1future pensioner (B) who retires in 10 years.

100% funding means that NATS have enough money going into the fund to meet the liabilities of paying out for the current pensioner A.

The underlying rate is how much you need to put in so that in 10 years time when the second pensioner B retires, there will be enough in the pot to pay for both A and B until they are assumed to kick their respective buckets

so, here's the issue....

scenario 1: if NATS only pays in enough to maintain 100% funding (i.e. paying for current pensioner A then in 10 years time when future pensioner B retires, NATS will need to put in a big wad of cash to enable future pensioner B to be paid out.

scenario 2: if NATS pay the underlying rate, the ongoing pot will pay the current pensioner and have a surplus for future pensioner which will continue to grow until 10 years elapse and future pensioner retires. At that time the surplus will slowly reduce, and will be sufficient to pay the two pensioners, until their assumed life expectancy.


In summary, NATS have paid in less than the rate (R) needed to maintain 100% funding as they saw that there was a surplus, which could be whittled down, to make up the difference to meet the rate (R) need for 100% funding

:ok: I think that clears that up, children...I wonder if this thread will reach a hundred pages?

[hold at SATAN]

As I understand it, the Pension Trustees can only force NATS to make up the shortfall in 100% funding - i.e if the fund is in deficit- and thats where the "recovery plan"* comes in. The deficit occurs when values of assets go down (as they have in recent financial turmoil) and when contributions are low (just like what NATS have been doing). The trustees will not demand 37% for underlying costs but enough for the fund to be able to contnue paying out for current pensioners (and not future pensioners)

*recovery plan: a document summarising a plan of action for correcting a shortfall over an agreed period - source: 2006 Triennial Valuation

[PeltonLevel]

landedoutagain
If we both retired in 2 years on same pay, and ive worked for 41 years and you have for 39, I could take home more than you. This is wrong.
Why is this, in particular, wrong? If you stopped contributing 2 years ago, your saved contributions have been earning for an extra two years (or losing in bad years?)

And, the benefit is no longer definable.
Isn't that the subtle difference between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? In fact, at the point of retirement, the benefit is definable - it's just not predictable.

[PeltonLevel]

(http://www.pprune.org/members/106218-hold-at-satan)hold at SATAN (http://www.pprune.org/members/106218-hold-at-satan)
The trustees will not demand 37% for underlying costs but enough for the fund to be able to continue paying out for current pensioners (and not future pensioners)
No - they will try to ensure that, at any time, the fund is able to cover current liabilities, which includes payments to current pensioners and all future pensions earned to date. (In a year's time, the current pensioners will have changed and the earned future pensions will also have changed.)
The current liabilities for an ATCO about to retire will be about £1million, for a 20-year-old MSG7 with one month in the scheme about £500 but they will both need to be covered by the scheme's assets - if the scheme is closed to everyone now, it will have to be able to cover the rights that both have earned.

[landedoutagain]

Pelton, its wrong because it makes a mockery of the phrase ' defined benefit '. And, as you correctly point out, I would be even better off because I had stopped contributing. So a double whammy for you. Still think thats fair?!


"Isn't that the subtle difference between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? In fact, at the point of retirement, the benefit is definable - it's just not predictable."

On your date of retirement, you will find out how much you get under either scheme... A DB scheme you will KNOW what %age of pay you get beforehand - ie, its defined. Under a DC scheme you do not know. (I feel like i am saying the same thing again tho! sry!)

[AFFLECK]

Does any one know what happened at the special delegates conference?

[fly bhoy]

Affleck

They voted in favour of number one, to support the BEC to continue negotiating with the management.

FB:ok:

[AFFLECK]

I assume some one came up with a good argument to go for option 1, seems like a good opportunity to stop this madness wasted.

Looking on the bright side, at least we can get on with voting NO to get our message across.

[Vote NO]

Anything controversial that they did not vote for?

[PeltonLevel]

landedoutagain (http://www.pprune.org/members/27548-landedoutagain)
it's wrong because it makes a mockery of the phrase ' defined benefit '. And, as you correctly point out, I would be even better off because I had stopped contributing. So a double whammy for you. Still think thats fair?!
Well you would have been contributing to the scheme at a time when every penny counted, rather than late in life when you probably have spare cash..
BUT I don't think pensions are ever fair - see my post about late promotions under the current scheme!
I don't know whether you've read the conditions of the current scheme for times of falling RPI. Someone retiring last year whose pension has been indexed up can have it indexed down (at least as far as its original level). Someone retiring this year whose pension is based on a final salary indexed up by RPI can't have their pension indexed down below the higher level awarded this year. Is this fair?
I can find lots of anomalies in the current scheme (but I am not an advocate of DC schemes, they just seem to be inevitable - the view of one of my daughter's friends who is a trainee actuary).

[AFFLECK]

If the union reps attending the special delegates conference were supposed to be representing the common member (the majority of whose views looking through this thread seem pretty clear), how did option 1 get voted in?

I'd encourage people to ask their local reps whether they were voting for their personal views or those of the people they represent. :ugh:

[eglnyt]

the majority of whose views looking through this thread seem pretty clear

All you can gauge from this thread is the views of the small number of people that post on it. That's a very small number compared to the total union membership.

[AFFLECK]

There's been a good response to this thread, the sample size to membership ratio whilst not great is probably enough to give a valid prediction of the population as a whole.

[mr.777]

All you can gauge from this thread is the views of the small number of people that post on it.

I would suggest that you don't get around the units much...Vote No is gathering HUGE momentum with every day that passes. 5 weeks ago I'd have said the vote would be close...I'm not sure now.

[Gonzo]

AFFLECK,

Your local Union committee would have held a meeting to discuss how the delegates should be advised to vote, and at that meeting the watch reps would have put across the views of each watch.

At least that's what happens at LL.

[AFFLECK]

GONZO

No such meeting at Scottish, but our union reps are very approachable and definitely pass on our views, I believe it was the Scottish reps who petitioned for the SDC so our views could be heard. It's a shame they couldn't get the support they needed, but I'd like to thank them for trying.

[Airways B]

From a Prospect Branch Briefing dated July 2006. (It helps to have a tidy up once in a while!)..,,

The spectre of a potential sell off only brings into sharper focus the issue of pensions and the need for strong and effective trade union representation within NATS. I am aware that many of you will have been along to management briefings on this issue and it is important that you understand and support the position being taken
by the unions. Prospect held a pensions seminar on the 23 June led by
our pensions expert at Head Office, Fiona Draper, to ensure that key Prospect and PCS representatives were aware of the facts and understood our position.
The reality is that NATS pays a relatively low level of employers' contributions to the pension scheme, (12.2%), in contrast to organisations in other areas of the economy which have defined benefits pension schemes (including the civil service). The fact that the contribution rates by the employer have remained at relatively modest and affordable levels is a tribute to the careful stewardship of the pension scheme by the Trustees on your behalf.

The arguments put forward by the Unions are simple but not simplistic.
We believe that the pension scheme is:
♦viewed by members as a key term and condition of employment which assists NATS in the recruitment and retention of highly skilled and motivated
should not be seen by the employer as simply a burden.
♦the interests of existing and future beneficiaries of the scheme are best served and protected by the scheme remaining open to all.
♦some of the comparisons made to the position of pension schemes
elsewhere are not valid due to the careful and effective stewardship of the NATS scheme.
♦any discussions with regard to pensions should be evidence led and based on empirical fact.
♦pensions are a long-term investment and should be viewed as such.
It is important that members are aware of the fact that the unions are not 'burying our heads in the sand' with regard to this issue and that we are seeking to effectively promote what we believe is in the best long term interests of members in NATS. Pensions are a long term investment and viewed by members as effectively 'deferred wages'. The unions have not been seeking to avoid a dialogue with management on the issue of pensions, but our starting point is that we wish to ensure that the current scheme remains open to all and has a long-term sustainable future.

On the most recent professional advice we have had we believe that the current scheme is well funded and sustainable for the future.

The pension scheme is due for its triennial review at the end of this year. Given that the scheme was in surplus almost two and a half years ago and given improvements in terms of equities we would expect that the outcome will show the scheme to be in surplus again. Against that backdrop we believe it is precipitate and premature for the employer to seek to take forward any work with regard to the future of the scheme until the triennial valuation has taken place and the Trustees allowed to consider the outcome.
Pensions are a key issue which affect all Trade Union scheme members across NATS. We have made robust representations to the employer and have also raised the issue with the Secretary of State for Transport. We will also be raising the issue with the Regulator and Airline Stakeholders to ensure that they understand how seriously the unions consider this issue and the potential impact if a dispute arose.

Conclusion
Given the challenges we face on issues such as pensions and ownership - there never has been a more important time to be a union member. The more members we have and the more we work together, the more effective we can be on your behalf. I hope to be doing a tour of airports and centres over the coming months and look forward to the opportunity to meeting with you. If in the interim you should have any issues of concern - please raise them with your local representative.

Garry Graham National Secretary

..A lot of bones to pick out of that, 2 years on, my, how things have changed. Just makes me deeply suspicious.

[Vote NO]

Vote No is gathering HUGE momentum with every day that passes

Good news for me then :)

[Gonzo]

AFFLECK, surely your local union committee have regular meetings? It would have been discussed at the last one I would imagine.

[AFFLECK]

GONZO

I'll look into it. I know they have union meetings between the reps, but not had a local member to rep meeting that I can remember. Info tends to be exchanged on an informal basis with your rep rather than through meetings, but seems to work well up here.
:)

[Not Long Now]

I must have missed something at work then. I've only heard 2 people definitely voting no, and 1 of those freely admits he votes no on principle to everything, and doesn't seem to care, as 'it's only 1 vote so it doesn't matter".

[AFFLECK]

NOT LONG NOW

Must vary a lot unit by unit, I'm yet to meet a person up at Scottish who openly is a yes voter, no shortage of vocal support for a no vote.

[055166k]

Good stuff.....how soon we forget....or more accurately.....how conveniently the union chooses to forget. We are witness to the death of a union and its transformation into a management lapdog staff association. All the evidence is there, from the joint glossy brochure attack, emails, and joint union/management presentations through to the on-duty pprune thread monitors.
Two opposing sides, and what happens:- "Deloitte were engaged jointly by both management and the unions....." ...that says it all!!
Right now my union membership hangs by a thread......someone convince me that the subscription is money well spent.

[throw a dyce]

The ONLY reason I'm still in the union is just in case something nasty happens.This is because we are required to work in Class G airspace,providing service to airliners taking shortcuts,when perfectly good CAS exists.I have seen too many close calls with the military.
As far as what the union has done.Well it has helped erode terms and conditions at the lower Band units,until half the tasks we do,we don't get paid for.This pension issue is just another beauty,and after 15 years of it they expect me to smile and say thank you so much for sh:mad:fting me again.I don't think so.:suspect:

[Radarspod]

Lots of Yes voters at CTC, or so I hear when sitting around Starbucks all day drinking lattes :} It would be interesting to see ballot stats per site rather than per branch.

RS

p.s Vote YES

[AFFLECK]

The Union genuinely seem to think what they are doing is for the best, so I can't fault them too much for that (I'm sure many will disagree). However, from the briefing I attended, they indicated that they may not support us on taking further action in the case of a no vote.

If the vote form the membership is for a no vote, that stance is unacceptable from a Union who we pay for and should be there to support us.
:*

[AFFLECK]

RADARSPOD

Which Union are the majority of people at CTC a part of, or are they from a mix of memberships?

[Radarspod]

I assume a varied mix. There is a large number of non-ops engineers at CTC following the closures of Spectrum House, West Drayton and Kemble street - a significant portion of the ATSS branch of Prospect. Very few ATCOs. The majority of non-Prospect union membership (MSGs, etc) I assume are in PCS.

RS

[Radarspod]

Just out of interest, what is the legal position of industrial action if not the union's way forward? Take a (likely) example that the vote is close and ever so slightly more on the NO side. Does the union have to go back and try to re-negotiate as was more than 50% against, or can they still state that union stance is to accept the deal, effectively meaning any industrial action is not lead by the recognised union bodies - is this action legal?

I'm only asking as quite a few on this thread see that as the way to go, but what if the ballot is so close the unions do not support that action?

RS

[Flybywyre]

through to the on-duty PPRuNe thread monitors................

What is that :confused:

[mr.777]

Makes no difference at all what the CTC ers are voting....although it comes as no surprise to me that they would vote yes and sell us down the river. If rumours are to be believed, Scottish and Manch will vote NO en masse, the airports I assume would vote NO to protect themselves from being sold and Swanwick is probably veering towards NO if anything. Happy days:)

[Radarspod]

It could make a HUGE difference depending on how the ballot is organised.

If it is done by branch, then the fact that just about every Prospect member ATCO says NO will only result in a NO result for that branch. The ATSS branch could have a completely different result, as could PCS (not just ATSAs in PCS).

So what would the NTUS do if they had big fat 99% NO from ATCO branch but YES from ATSS branch and PCS members? :confused:

Just keeping the debate going :E

RS

[BAND4ALL]

Mr 777

I think not all airports will be a No vote, the union seem to have done a job on mine, I would say about 50/50 at the mo.
They, that is the younger element seem to have been persuaded by the brief.
A history lesson of PPP has not been fully digested.

I am still a NO main reason being tied in for 15yrs on the cap.
Wonder how many people who tied their mortgage in for a long deal are happy with that now eh, see anything can happen sounds good at the time though I suppose.

[Vote NO]

It could make a HUGE difference depending on how the ballot is organised.

If it is done by branch, then the fact that just about every Prospect member ATCO says NO will only result in a NO result for that branch. The ATSS branch could have a completely different result, as could PCS (not just ATSAs in PCS).

So what would the NTUS do if they had big fat 99% NO from ATCO branch but YES from ATSS branch and PCS members



As far as I know, if any of the following three .......ATCO, ATCE, or PCS return a majority no vote, then its a no vote for all members in those three groups

[Min Stack]

From Red Barron's blog today:

Thank you for your comments in which you raise a number of issues that I will try to deal with as follows.

As you can imagine, we have talked to the Government about what was said around the time of the PPP and the guarantees regarding the pension related to the Trust of a Promise. This guarantees that employees at that time would have continued membership of CAAPS, or the same benefits as if they had been in CAAPS. If the company is in financial distress then it says that we should use “best endeavours” to provide those benefits. Ian, if the company became insolvent, the Government would appoint an administrator whose role it would be to keep Air Traffic operating but also to refinance the organisation. It is highly unlikely that this would be achieved if the administrator kept in place the very vehicle that brought the company down in the first place, namely the pension scheme.

Whilst I was not around at the time, I can fully understand your frustration that the Government made a guarantee that they now appear to be reneging on. This is in fact not the case. The proposal still maintains your membership of the scheme so the Governments Trust of a promise is still in place. The amount and type of pensionable salary were always the employer’s decision and outside of the guarantee. What I know is that we are members of the best protected scheme in the UK, but unfortunately the protections cannot deal with the underlying cost which the company has to pick up. It is this cost that will in fact bring down the company together with the scheme and its protections if we do not do something about it.

In terms of your suggestion that investments will go up and down so why not wait, the answer is quite straightforward. We know that the underlying cost is going to be with us for years irrespective of what happens to the markets in the short to mid term and we have to deal with that threat now. I have been telling people on my roadshow that I am also a member of this scheme and in fact put my entire pension from my previous employment into CAAPS so, like you, I am worried about its future and desperate to protect it.

As the Chief Executive, my sole purpose is not to destroy the scheme, it is to maintain the health of the company which is in fact the only way we can protect our pension scheme.

Be in no doubt that if we had not generated profits in the last four years, which we have largely ploughed back into the refinancing of the company and the paying down of expensive loan notes (11%) set up after 9/11, then we would not be in the shape we are today to tackle both the threat of the pension scheme and the fall in revenues as a result of traffic downturn. The senior management of this company are also hard working and dedicated professionals who are as desperate to save this scheme as you are and the proposal that you have before you, which has taken 18 months to negotiate with the unions, is the best that either side can find to do just that.

With regard to the CP3 pass through, we have no guarantee that the regulator will allow existing pass through which I am sure you know only currently applies to those employees in the company before 1 January 2006 and it does not include the proportion of employees employed by NSL. We estimate that by 2010 almost 40% of our employees (not the employees themselves but the cost of them to the company) will not be covered by any potential pass through.

I am not sure about the scenario we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I agree, we are certainly damned if we don’t, but capping pensionable pay at rpi +0.5% and starting a new scheme for new employees to protect a final salary scheme with only a 6% employee contribution would not, I imagine, for most people in the country be viewed as being damned.
,
Neither the management nor trade unions want to be in this place, but we all recognise that the best way we can protect our scheme is to make the changes we have proposed. This is why, for the sake of all of our pensions, we hope that you will support the joint proposals.

[anotherthing]

The Cap is just one issue and people seem to be getting side tracked by it.

Closing the pension scheme to new entrants is THE BIG ISSUE. Close the scheme and it will wither and die.

Having said that, if the proposal goes ahead, then I personally don't consider what we will have left as a Defined Benefit Scheme, as the percentage of final salary will depend on the outcome of every pay rise for the next 15 years. Every fraction of % pay rise above RPI+0.5% will further degrade the ratio of the scheme. People with a lot of years to go will quite possibly find themselves retiring on 50% final salary or less :eek:

That leaves a lot to chance and isn't a very solid definition, as far as I am concerned.

[Vote NO]

Looks like the grooming has now started, one last final push from the CEO to get this deal through so he can set us up for a sell off.
If this goes through, our new owners will have us on a 50% final salary pension scheme as opposed to the 2/3 we have now.

if the company became insolvent, the Government would appoint an administrator whose role it would be to keep Air Traffic operating but also to refinance the organisation. It is highly unlikely that this would be achieved if the administrator kept in place the very vehicle that brought the company down in the first place, namely the pension scheme.

How arrogant !

Its the financial incompetence of him and his cronies that are the vehicle that is bringing the company down :mad: He is only concerned about his big fat pay off.
How would an administrator keep NATS operating if ATC staff went on strike because their pensions were being :mad: screwed

As in my previous post

If NATS goes under,here we go again:ugh: HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension, otherwise we will go on strike! Remember NATS is crucial to the infrastrucure of UK security,safety,economy. NATS must continue to operate at full efficiency. The country would collapse with no aviation, no food, no tourism, no business!
I think any level headed individual would agree NATS can not "go under" if the private side fails, why do you think HMG has the major stake? Here we go again :ugh:UK SAFETY, ECONOMY, SECURITY.

That is why HMG retain the major share :ugh:


VOTE NO

[anotherthing]

Vote No

I don't think for one minute we are in this position because of financial incompetence - management want us to be in this position as having a cheaper-to-run pension scheme is in their interests (whether that be for sell off or to garner better profits is open for debate).
To that end, they have been very financially astute, taking money from the pot when it was in surplus, even though looking ahead, they could have forecast these problems.

Remember, the CAA section of CAAPS is doing very well, yet despite actuaries telling the CAA that they could pay reduced contributions, they have decide to maintain the underlying rate to ensure the viability of the scheme... a totally different attitude compared to that of NATS.

From Reds' Blog:
We know that the underlying cost is going to be with us for years irrespective of what happens to the markets in the short to mid term and we have to deal with that threat now
If you know that, why has NATS acted in such a short term outlook when it decided to reduce its contributions? Why was the pensions problem not forecast prior to now (if you can make such a bold statment about knowing the future (above)), and why did NATS not act in a manner that the CAA has done to protect the pension?

Increased longevity etc is not something that has just sprung up over the past 5 years... SMART pensions are not a new concept.

NATS could have done more to protect the pension... what people have to ask themselves is why NATS did not, and do they trust NATS to protect the future proposed pension if it is voted in.

A 'YES' vote may well indicate to management that although we think more could have been done by them to protect the pension in the past, we are happy to let management rob the pension, then degrade our benefits.

If that's the message NATS receive, what will stop them in 5 years time coming back and saying they need to change the deal for the worst again?

The 15 year MOU is not worth the paper it will be written on... after all, the promises made at PPPThis guarantees that employees at that time would have continued membership of CAAPS, or the same benefits as if they had been in CAAPS.

Are being torn asunder because allegedly NATS is in trouble (though Red uses the fact that we are still in CAAPS to refute that the promise is being broken, and that the promise did not actually mention what the benefits would be... maybe true, but proof that we have been led down the garden path from the outset)


If the company is in financial distress then it says that we should use “best endeavours” to provide those benefits
Something that can be used again in future years. This is the NATS that Red talks about if the company became insolvent(a nice bit of scaremongering), but NATS have in the very recent past made numerous claims about how well we are doing, have boasted about the improvement in our credit rating, have paid off loans early etc.

Finally, Red says - I have been telling people on my roadshow that I am also a member of this scheme and in fact put my entire pension from my previous employment into CAAPS I think I am correct in saying Red received a nice big amount of money as compensation for having to leave his old pension scheme.

Also, I believe Red recently got a substantial pay rise... which will of course be fully pensionable (nice work to get that well-above RPI rise in before you push the cap through... nice manoeuvre Red)

And I also believe Red does not have too long to go to retirement... probably before any cap gives any real degradation on his pension.

[Vote NO]

I agree its not financial incompetence, its astute financial manoeuvering at the expense of our Pension scheme

[mr.777]

Did you also read on his blog about the NSL watch manager he spoke to about pensions? He said that the NSL guy "like most people" just wanted the pension issue to go away. Actually Mr Barron, people just want you to go away I think.

I think I am correct in saying Red received a nice big amount of money as compensation for having to leave his old pension scheme.

Also, I believe Red recently got a substantial pay rise... which will of course be fully pensionable (nice work to get that well-above RPI rise in before you push the cap through... nice manoeuvre Red)

And I also believe Red does not have too long to go to retirement... probably before any cap gives any real degradation on his pension.

Absolutely right. You just KNOW that there is no way he will come out of this NOT smelling of roses financially speaking. I console myself with the fact that the Chancellor has at least given him a bloody nose by hking his income tax up to 45%:)

[Vote NO]

Watch managers can't comment on NATS intranet or to the staff concerning Pensions. But its ok for Barron to spread rumours about watch managers to boost his propaganda machine !

[Radarspod]

I console myself with the fact that the Chancellor has at least given him a bloody nose by hiking his income tax up to 45%

Now come on, there must be some ATCOs in NATS that get hit by that new rate - there certainly aren't any engineers :}

[mr.777]

If there are, I want a transfer to their unit!

[Min Stack]

"I console myself with the fact that the Chancellor has at least given him a bloody nose by hiking his income tax up to 45%"

45% rate doesn't come in until 2011 - Red Barron will be driving off into the sunset by then with his swag.

(Can't work out how to do quotes!) :bored:

[mr.777]

In the words of James May..."Oh, cock!" :}

[Vote NO]

2011 - Red Barron will be driving off into the sunset by then with his swag.


Me too with any luck !!! Providing the missus allows it :\

[Vote NO]

Minstack , click the
http://static.pprune.org/images/editor/quote.gif icon and paste your text that you have copied in the middle :ok:

[PeltonLevel]

Aren't the CAA still on 59ths?

[Min Stack]

Minstack , click the
http://static.pprune.org/images/editor/quote.gif icon and paste your text that you have copied in the middle

Vote No - you mean like this? :bored:

[eglnyt]

Just out of interest, what is the legal position of industrial action if not the union's way forward?

That's an interesting question. Hopefully somebody who isn't boycotting the last few briefings can ask the Union reps. For industrial action to be official and enjoy the legal protection that goes with that label there must be a ballot for that action and the ballot must be called by the union. I've been able to find cases where unions wouldn't sanction action even though there was a positive vote (usually because the vote was too close) but not where the union wouldn't ballot for action in the first place.

[PeltonLevel]

CTC probably has a high proportion of non-members. The union-only briefing I attended probably lost about a third of those attending the open session. If you look at the early posts in the natsnet pensions area, you will see a lot of complaints about ineligibility to vote. Legally, the non-members' involvement ends with the 'consultation'. The bulk of the members will be Prospect ATSS and PCS. Both may have a different view to the ATCO's branch because they see more of the company than just the Ops Rooms.

[Mr A Tis]

I agree its not financial incompetence, its astute financial manoeuvering at the expense of our Pension scheme

I could not agree more.!!!

[Not Long Now]

Vote No, should the worst happen and HMG end up back in charge, what makes you think that NATS would not be subject to a no-strike clause as part of the rescue package? The armed forces, the prison service, the police are all tied in to one, why not NATS, being 'vital to the country's infrastructure.

[Vote NO]

HMG were in charge before 2001 and strike action did take place before.
I have not heard of any new legislation to prevent strike action, however our powder is so dry it has almost evaporated! However if the majority want to roll over and die, so be it. I think the French have the right idea:ok:

[mr.777]

The French DO have the right idea. None of this poncing around "working together" cr*p....no negotiation...you don't wanna play ball? Fine, we're on strike then.

Either that or we join ASLEF. As a former member of said Union, those guys strike at the drop of a hat. They don't get f***ed about by management and they don't take "no" for an answer. Barron wouldn't stand a chance if he was in the railway industry up against these guys. Wishful thinking....

[Vote NO]

:) Vote No,
should the worst happen and HMG end up back in charge, what makes you think that NATS would not be subject to a no-strike clause as part of the rescue package? The armed forces, the prison service, the police are all tied in to one, why not NATS, being 'vital to the country's infrastructure.


Well, if this deal goes through we could all end up wearing "SERCO" uniforms on a half final salary pension scheme, with no one to blame but those who voted yes.
By that time most ATC staff will have gone elsewhere leaving CTC HQ to separate traffic :{
And dont rule out NATS failing in the next 2 years due the recession/depression:uhoh:

[mr.777]

By that time most ATC staff will have gone elsewhere leaving CTC HQ to separate traffic

Route direct Starbucks....report visual with photo of the day:}

[anotherthing]

PeltonLevel

Not sure what proportion CAA are still on, however a cap (though I still maintain this is a side issue) will quickly take our scheme below a 2/3rds of 1/59th scheme.

It won't take many pay rises just above RPI+0.5% for the difference to be reversed, especially as while our pensionable pay would be getting capped, the CAAs' would be growing

[Radarspod]

Route direct Starbucks....report visual with photo of the day

:}:}:}:}:}:}:}:}

[Fenella]

Having just spent over an hour reading through these posts, I've come to the conclusion that sadly a lot of you either haven't been to the briefings or went with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut.
For a start, if HMG have to get involved, that will mean that NATS have gone into administration and our pension scheme will have been frozen. HMG will have no intention of keeping NSL going, and will hand the contracts over to the highest bidder.. anyone working at these units will have no "trust of a promise" or anything else to protect their Ts&Cs because NATS is in administration so all bets are off. Whoever's left will get an extremely reduced package and they'll have to accept it because the union won't have the negotiators they once did as they'll have resigned after your no vote.
Just remember that these people are the same negotiators that achieved our great Ts & Cs in the first place. They don't like the deal either, but they're running with it. I say vote yes, swallow the bitter pill, and get angry about something else.

[anotherthing]

Fenella

NATS will not go into administration.

Like the Government is doing at this very moment, if we need to, we can borrow our way out of any temporary situation (after all, as we keep getting told by management, our credit rating gets better and better every year and we are in great shape), and this 'credit crunch' is temporary.

In fact this credit crunch has nothing to do with our situation - they even stress that at the beginning of the briefing (then put a slide up halfway through saying how the downturn is hutring our portfolio :ugh::ugh:)

NATS are scaremongering in order to get what they want, which is a cheaper to run pension scheme.

Having a cheaper to run scheme is in the interests of any 'for profit' company (even though at PPP we were told NATS would be 'not for profit').

It makes great business sense for NATS to close the scheme and reduce the benefits to existing members, however that does not mean it is necessarily required to keep the company afloat, it is just a way to cut costs.

NATS could have done as the CAA are doing i.e. continued to pay the underlying rate into the pension scheme even when it was in surplus, but it chose not to because it suited them, even though in doing so it would harm the pension. (This should be taken into context considering Phillip James, in answer to someone on the intranet wrote '85% of pension schemes have closed sdue to lack of money over the past 10 years'... If thats the case why did NATS think it was acceptable to effectively take money from the scheme?)

You should not believe every thing that management tell you, there is a bigger picture.

Do you honestly think NSL will not be sold off if this deal goes through? What about the Ts & Cs then?

This is a company that has added layers of management when it could have stripped them out; this is a company that could have saved itself and employees some money by using SMART pensions years ago, but chose not to.

This is a company that now claims it can forsee the future and the future is not good, therefore we need to close the scheme - yet the company was unable to see this future (conveniently), when it wanted to take money from the scheme.

This is a company relying on actuaries who only now seem to have realised that year on year since records began, people have lived longer into retirement, thus increasing burden on pension schemes.

[anotherthing]

ProM

Band4All has a salient point though - just over an hour to read and digest this thread???!!!

Fenella
Just remember that these people are the same negotiators that achieved our great Ts & Cs in the first place. They don't like the deal either, but they're running with it. I say vote yes, swallow the bitter pill, and get angry about something else
Just because our Union (and some personnel have changed) have managed to do well in the past, it does not mean that they continue to do well or that they will do well in everything into the future. People slip up from time to time.

The Union has done a very poor job of keeping people informed during the middle of negotiations. In fact the Union started off with 'OneNATSOnePension' emblazoned on a website, and told us to visit it frequently for updates. Those updates failed to arrive and the 'OneNATSonePension' logo was quietly (without fanfare or notice) removed.

The union has done well in the past, but in this instance it has not covered itself in glory. That does not mean we have to bin them, but it might mean that they have to go back to management and admit they misread members feelings over this issue, and renegotiate.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Management have 2 or 3 fall back positions... do you honestly think this is as much as they can offer us??

[Vote NO]

Thanks anotherthing .

I get fed up preaching to those that think they know better ;)

[ProM]

I made no comment one way or another on saliency, merely that in my view a newcomer should be afforded a little leeway and welcome, especially in a case such as this where she(?) is a colleague of yours.

In fact since her post only applied to comments made since the briefings, then I believe that if I had dedicated time I could skim read most of those in a little over an hour. Were they printed off I think i could comfortably skim the whole thread. Since so much is repeated I would certainly elicit enough information to draw a conclusion such as Fenella posted. This is not to say that i agree with Fenella, I am not in a position to agree or not.

[anotherthing]

ProM

Nowhere in Fenellas post does she say she only read the posts written since the briefings started!

She mentions the briefings in passing inferring that anyone who is contemplating voting no I've come to the conclusion that sadly a lot of you either haven't been to the briefings or went with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut.
Now, that's a very bold statement to make, just because some people obviously want to vote in a manner that does not sit with Finellas point of view.

Has Fenella been to every briefing to ne able to make such a bold statement?

I'm all for the right for people to vote as they believe is in their or the schemes best interest, however at least I have not resorted to inferring people who have a differing opinion to me have so because they have failed to attend a brief or just did not listen...

If we are going to be overly sensitiveabout this (as we seem to be about everything in tis day and age), although her welcome from Band4all may not have been overly welcoming, I think conversely it was not exactly the best 'first post' in history either and not the way to endear oneself to the masses!!

Personally, I couldn't care either way, as long as when people quote or write with regard from others' posts, they do it with a modicum of accuracy!!

[Me Me Me Me]

Having just spent over an hour reading through these posts, I've come to the conclusion that sadly a lot of you either haven't been to the briefings or went with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut.
For a start, if HMG have to get involved, that will mean that NATS have gone into administration and our pension scheme will have been frozen. HMG will have no intention of keeping NSL going, and will hand the contracts over to the highest bidder.. anyone working at these units will have no "trust of a promise" or anything else to protect their Ts&Cs because NATS is in administration so all bets are off. Whoever's left will get an extremely reduced package and they'll have to accept it because the union won't have the negotiators they once did as they'll have resigned after your no vote.
Just remember that these people are the same negotiators that achieved our great Ts & Cs in the first place. They don't like the deal either, but they're running with it. I say vote yes, swallow the bitter pill, and get angry about something else.

Nothing betrays ignorance quite like forming an opinion and then expressing dismay that everyone else didn't follow suit!

I do agree that falling back on HMG would be a bad thing. Hundreds of people would lose their jobs, costs would be slashed, working conditions would suffer etc etc. Not happy times.

Yes, they are the same negotiators who got the great T&Cs we are all on.. but those were negotiated with a management of civil service mentality who had pots of money they needed to dispose of. It was hardly a difficult task for many years. Got a bit more tricky since PPP, but their negotiating strength was founded on an implied threat of their ability to call us all out in the event of an attack on any key issue. Whether this vote is yes or no, they have lost that strength. They have shown the "dry powder" has grown mouldy in storage and there's no spark can light it.

I attended a briefing, I asked a number of questions. Only some of those were answered. The failure to address a couple of the key points I challenged on is why I will happily vote no.

You may believe many of us paid no attention and didnt get it... We all may similarly suggest you to be a tad gullible. each to their own.

To the interesting point of the legality of industrial action in the event of a No vote... We have - through our unions - a mandate for industrial action, should NATS seek to force a closure of the pension scheme. Whether the TU executive agree or not is irrelevant to the legal case. It weakens the campaigh, but it doesn't prevent it. I would fully expect some, if not all, of them to resign their posts if this happened.

[eglnyt]

To the interesting point of the legality of industrial action in the event of a No vote... We have - through our unions - a mandate for industrial action, should NATS seek to force a closure of the pension scheme.

Do you ? A motion passed at conference falls far short of what the law would consider to be a mandate for industrial action. By law there will have to be a ballot meeting all the requirements of the relevant legislation before there can be any official industrial action. Only then will there be a mandate for industrial action.

[eglnyt]

Nothing betrays ignorance quite like forming an opinion and then expressing dismay that everyone else didn't follow suit!

An interesting test to apply to some of the posts made by the more ardent No supporters.

[alfie1999]

Fenella

Having just spent over an hour reading through these posts, I've come to the conclusion that sadly a lot of you either haven't been to the briefings or went with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut.


Nice start.

Unfortunately the 'briefing' you went to was in fact a 'sales pitch' designed solely to produce the voting result desired by Unions/Management.

I don't doubt that the pitch has been very effective in scaring and confusing attendees.



For a start, if HMG have to get involved, that will mean that NATS have gone into administration and our pension scheme will have been frozen.

Initially the Administrator would secure all benefits accrued in the pension scheme.

When Railtrack were subject of a 'Railway Administration Order' under the Railways Act and the employees continued to accrue their pension benefits after coming back under the control of HMG.

This 'end of the world' scenario from the management is at best disingenuous scaremongering and isn't supported by precedent imo.



HMG will have no intention of keeping NSL going, and will hand the contracts over to the highest bidder.. anyone working at these units will have no "trust of a promise" or anything else to protect their Ts&Cs because NATS is in administration so all bets are off.

Evidence please, thanks.



Whoever's left will get an extremely reduced package and they'll have to accept it because the union won't have the negotiators they once did as they'll have resigned after your no vote.



Evidence please, thanks.




Just remember that these people are the same negotiators that achieved our great Ts & Cs in the first place. They don't like the deal either, but they're running with it. I say vote yes, swallow the bitter pill, and get angry about something else.



Union negotiators have done an excellent job over pay negotiations.

However, at the age I am I do not wish to end up with a 1/2 final salary scheme or indeed much worse.

The company is trying to take 6 figures of deferred pay off me without proving the case.

[landedoutagain]

However, at the age I am I do not wish to end up with a 1/2 final salary scheme or indeed much worse.

The company is trying to take 6 figures of deferred pay off me without proving the case.

I agree completely. If they offered me a pay rise of 66% now, (and further rises as per negotiated deals), then I could be persuaded to leave the scheme completely! ;)

[eglnyt]

When Railtrack were subject of a 'Railway Administration Order' under the Railways Act and the employees continued to accrue their pension benefits after coming back under the control of HMG.

It's interesting that you chose Railtrack. That scheme has similar problems to ours. If you google Railway Pensions Commission you'll find a whole lot of information that looks very familiar. Two things which might be of interest. First the protection for their pensions in privatisation legislation was far stronger than ours. Second since coming back under HMG control the Network Rail part of the scheme has been closed to new members, members contribution rates have increased (over 11% from January 2009) and those who didn't have the protection in the privatisation legislation will probably end up with lower benefits and an increased retirement age.

I would recommend a look at the Railway Pensions Commission site for anybody who still thinks this is a NATS conspiracy. Railway Companies and the Unions working together to solve the pensions problem.