NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)

[BAND4ALL]

the union won't have the negotiators they once did as they'll have resigned after your no vote.

Having been "modded" earlier in response to Fenellas 1st ever post I just am wondering where she gets the above idea that this will happen however I am in total agreement with this outcome :ok::E

Still a big fat No from me, who did go in with ears open and brain in gear to the Union Management Xmas Panto
"Oh yes I did"

[Vote NO]

Watch out those Mods are..........BEHIND YOU :)

They seem to be very active :suspect: lately on this thread :E

Some of us :O will have to speak in" tongues" to avoid having posts removed :p, a bit like on NATS intranet :ooh:

[BAND4ALL]

They certainly work faster than the BBC :E

[Vote NO]

:ok:
Maybe we can just use icons :E to communicate on here :}

Mind you I wouldnt mind Jonathan's salary,:) nearly as much as :E:E:E:E :E:E:E:E:E:E earns ;)

just found out you can only use 15 images in a post!!

[BAND4ALL]

If the mods are here is there any way we can have some polls set up on this site?
I know not very accurate but hey would be interesting non the less:ok:

[Vote NO]

yea, come on MODS give us a yes/no vote poll :O :E

We could always set up our own web site with a poll :ok:

Hope my "location" is not too offensive :oh:

If I get booted, I will return with a "girly" name and know I will be safe :)

[alfie1999]

eglnyt

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.



I searched the site and nowhere was it suggesting that employees in their 20s and 30s should be looking at a 1/2 final salary scheme or much worse.

The Railway Pension Scheme isn't proposing to take potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds of deferred pay from employees.



Two things which might be of interest. First the protection for their pensions in privatisation legislation was far stronger than ours.

Is this where the 'doomsday' scenario rears its discredited head again?

We've established now that the management line about losing pensions in the event of NATS going to the wall is far LESS likely than losing them under present proposals.



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.


It's good to see that your example shows that NATS going back under HMG control will not result in employees losing their pensions.

And indeed your highlighting that an increase in contribution rates as an alternative is a creditable one rather than the hidden snatch of hundreds of thousands of pounds of employees money.



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.


Absolutely, it's good to see clear proposals which may involve an increase of contributions without the scheme being reduced to 1/2 final salary or much worse.

Management and unions working together to avoid staff having hundreds of thousands of pounds of deferred pay being removed from their pension schemes.

[alfie1999]

If the mods are here is there any way we can have some polls set up on this site?

I know not very accurate but hey would be interesting non the less


Nice idea, especially if the voting could be further broken down to individual unions.

[BAND4ALL]

http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

[Vote NO]

Come on MODS, give us a poll :ok:

[eglnyt]

We've established now that the management line about losing pensions in the event of NATS going to the wall is far LESS likely than losing them under present proposals.

We've established nothing of the sort, far from it. Just repeating speculation about what might happen does not make that outcome any more likely. We know the worse that can happen because that's enshrined in legislation, the Trust Deed and the Trust of Promise. Nobody knows what will actually happen.

[Vote NO]

Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

Its official we have a poll :ok: and you cannot vote repeatedly. :}

VOTE NO

nice one band4all (http://www.pprune.org/members/159315-band4all)

[PPRuNe Radar]

There's already a poll in the NATS private Forum. Any poll here would be open to anyone voting and so could be very very inaccurate.

What if the 200,000 odd daily viewers to PPRuNe all voted YES or NO ?? Would this give us an accurate picture of how NATS staff are actually going to vote ?? Nope, it wouldn't.

[alfie1999]

eglnyt

We've established nothing of the sort, far from it. Just repeating speculation about what might happen does not make that outcome any more likely. We know the worse that can happen because that's enshrined in legislation, the Trust Deed and the Trust of Promise. Nobody knows what will actually happen.


Again I am in agreement with you.

We know that in the event of NATS failing then our pension schemes assets are protected. Nobody will lose money from the scheme in this case unlike the impact of potentially losing hundreds of thousands of pounds from voting 'yes'.

I also agree that scaremongering speculation about loss of pensions if management don't secure themselves a 'yes' vote is irresponsible and misleading.

[eglnyt]

It's good to see that your example shows that NATS going back under HMG control will not result in employees losing their pensions.

By no means guaranteed. In our case the Trust of Promise dies if NATS goes into administration that was not the case for the Railway workers whose protection was written to survive that circumstance.

And indeed your highlighting that an increase in contribution rates as an alternative is a creditable one rather than the hidden snatch of hundreds of thousands of pounds of employees money.

It's never been in doubt that increasing contribution rates would allow our current scheme to continue for existing members. The problem is that NATS says it can't afford to pay all the potential increase and the no decrement clause means we can't. Even if we could I can't see many NATS staff being happy to pay the extra 10% that would be required.

[Vote NO]

There's already a poll in the NATS private Forum. Any poll here would be open to anyone voting and so could be very very inaccurate

I think we are just having a laugh :)

Looking good though NO100% 7YES0% 0

[alfie1999]

eglnyt

It's never been in doubt that increasing contribution rates would allow our current scheme to continue for existing members. The problem is that NATS says it can't afford to pay all the potential increase and the no decrement clause means we can't. Even if we could I can't see many NATS staff being happy to pay the extra 10% that would be required.



So are you saying that if the trustees, management and employees all agree to increased contributions the 'no decrement' clause couldn't be set aside?

Why haven't employees been given the choice of increasing contributions instead of having their pension slashed when they come to retire?

Can you show us how your calculations that produced the requirement for employees to pay an extra 10%.

NATS say they can't afford it, where is the evidence? How much profit would have been made this year without repaying loan notes, fees for early repayment, exceptionals for moving from WD?

[eglnyt]

We know that in the event of NATS failing then our pension schemes assets are protected. Nobody will lose money from the scheme in this case unlike the impact of potentially losing hundreds of thousands of pounds from voting 'yes'.

Not quite accurate. If the scheme is taken over by the new employer then all stays as it currently is except of course the new employer will have the same funding problem as NATS and will still have to do something.

If the scheme is not taken on by the new employer and wound up there are two scenarios. If it is not in deficit then your current earned benefits will be protected but they'll be frozen and increase only at RPI until you retire. If it is in deficit then it may have to refer to the protection fund in which case you will get less than your current earned benefits. In both cases you will then need to make new provision for your continuing pension and I doubt if you'll get anywhere near as good as the revised scheme when you do that. The effect of that will depend upon how long you have to go to retirement but is likely to be much bigger than the cap for most of us.

[eglnyt]

So are you saying that if the trustees, management and employees all agree to increased contributions the 'no decrement' clause couldn't be set aside? Why haven't employees been given the choice of increasing contributions instead of having their pension slashed when they come to retire?

This was also covered in the briefings. The legal interpretation of the protection for the Trust Deed contained in the Transport Act is that every single member of the scheme has to agree before it can be changed. If one single person says no then the change can't happen. Neither the Union or NATS believes they could ever get that total agreement so it's a non starter.

[alfie1999]

eglnyt


Not quite accurate. If the scheme is taken over by the new employer then all stays as it currently is except of course the new employer will have the same funding problem as NATS and will still have to do something.


So my statement 'in the event of NATS failing our pension scheme assets are protected' is exactly right.

In the event of HMG re-taking control of NATS are you saying that they will have a funding problem?

Are you also suggesting that the government would risk industrial action affecting millions of voters for the sake of £60m or so quid a year?


If the scheme is not taken on by the new employer and wound up there are two scenarios. If it is not in deficit then your current earned benefits will be protected but they'll be frozen and increase only at RPI until you retire.


So getting a quick resolution either way now is to the benefit of employees.

The government continued to fund railtrack employee pensions when they took that company over.




If it is in deficit then it may have to refer to the protection fund in which case you will get less than your current earned benefits. In both cases you will then need to make new provision for your continuing pension and I doubt if you'll get anywhere near as good as the revised scheme when you do that. The effect of that will depend upon how long you have to go to retirement but is likely to be much bigger than the cap for most of us.

The government did not do this to railtrack employees so again I ask you to stop scaremongering with wild claims and back up your statements with facts.

[Vote NO]

alfie1999 ,

No one will listen

As in my previous post :ugh:

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:

[eglnyt]

Can you show us how your calculations that produced the requirement for employees to pay an extra 10%.

That's a ball park wild arsed guess based on the difference between the maximum amount that NATS said at the briefing it could pay, roughly 30%, and the funding figure without the propsal which it says it can't afford which was 42% at the briefing I went to. It could be less, could be more and the danger with this approach is that we shift some of the obligation to underwrite the scheme from NATS to us and once we do that we'll struggle to give it back if there's another crisis in the future.

NATS say they can't afford it, where is the evidence? How much profit would have been made this year without repaying loan notes, fees for early repayment, exceptionals for moving from WD?

I refer the gentleman to the many answers I've previously given but would prefer him to go and ask the Union negotiators why they believe NATS when it says it can't pay 42%.

[mr.777]

NATSnet today is positively boasting about NATS has an AAA credit rating. So how does that tie in with us losing money hand over fist, and being days away from going bust??

[Vote NO]

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll :)

Poll Results (http://www.snappoll.com/view_results.php?poll_id=301858) latest


NO ....82%....69 :ok:

YES....18%....15 :(

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction !

Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

[ivory tower]

I so hope your scientific poll is accurate. Incidentally, I know of at least one senior union rep (PCS) who is privately planning to vote no, despite being involved in the 'vote yes or our company will go under, there will be plagues of locusts and the moon will turn to blood' presentations.

I wonder how many other clost no voters there are among our union Quislings...;)

[Fenella]

Wow, I sparked up the fire of debate there, didn't I?

I will admit that my first ever paragraph on pprune was ill thought, and therefore apologise to anyone who took offence, but there are posts on here based on pure supposition (I'm sure some will accuse mine of being one of them).

However, at no point did I make any personal attack on anyone (I feel my post was very vague in that respect) yet in return have been directly accused of being gullible, ignorant and at one point of being a man with a woman's name to hide my true identity(???). I assure you I am neither gullible nor ignorant, but very guilty of being a pprune virgin.

This is the most significant issue I have ever experienced in NATS having joined post PPP, which is why I sought the opinion of an independent pension specialist. I agree wholeheartedly that the union has handled this woefully, but I would still rather keep my powder dry for ATCO job losses ie failure of NSL contracts leading to redundancies, which I think is more likely after a no vote.

Feel free to swarm around my post, but leave the sting out please :(

[Mr A Tis]

At long last, my Lib Dem MP has replied to me re NATS:

I'm sure you will be aware but at the time the Government made the decision about privatising, the Liberal Democrats were adamantly against privatising NATS. Our main concern was one of safety, and that privatisation would distract from the primary role the NATS have - to ensure safety. We were also concerned that employees would not be treated fairly once the service had been privatised. I am therefore very worried to hear about the current developments in NATS, you quite rightly say that employees who have worked for NATS for years should be treated better.

Your point about the pension plan is also a concern, especially considering, as you rightly say that the Government assured us that existing employees would be entitled to remain in the CAAPS. It seems to me that the changes you describe go against the spirit of that promise. I am writing to the Secretary of State for Transport to raise these issues.......

Yea I know we are not being forced out of CAAPS, but the gist is, we are not being kept in CAAPS in the spirit that was promised.
I joined this Company when it was the CAA & the CAA current employees seem to be doing very well in CAAPS.

What a shame the Unions did not mount a political campaign FIRST, BEFORE getting into bed with the RB.
This is why the Unions are in for a shock when the votes come in, me thinks:(

[Radarspod]

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll

Poll Results latest

Not a very scientific poll, the result should be 100% yes to the question posed "Will you be voting yes or no to the pension proposals". I doubt that the ballot will have a "maybe" or "don't know" option :}

Unless you don't vote at all, maybe that is a No? :bored:

Back to my Starbucks latte, methinks :ok:

RS

p.s. Vote Yes!

[AFFLECK]

A question to those people who are considering a Yes vote in the ballot - What do you think is realistically going to happen in the event of a No vote?

It seems very unlikely that management and unions will accept that as a final decision and simply forget the entire matter until NATS may or may not face financial problems.

The probable outcome is another round of talks, during which the Union can go back and do it properly. If you think, as the Union and Management claim that this is the best deal possible, consider this - ask management for an extra £10 Xmas bonus this year in return for a guaranteed Yes vote, they'd bite our hands off.

Yes it's a stupid example, but the point is that this isn't the best deal possible, it's simply the best deal that our Union have manage to negotiate so far.

Send them back in there with a strong No vote in the ballot, the full backing of the membership and stop overtime (officially, by suspending the overtime agreement as per the mandate), see how long before Management magically come up with a better offer. If the original Union negotiators feel they can't go back, there are plenty of people I can think of who would have a go.

I'm not saying it will be vastly better than we have now, but this is a long term problem, we have nothing to gain by leaping at the first offer.
:=

Think about it before committing yourselves to a 15 year deal, once you vote Yes, there's no way back.

[Del Prado]

That's a ball park wild arsed guess based on the difference between the maximum amount that NATS said at the briefing it could pay, roughly 30%, and the funding figure without the propsal which it says it can't afford which was 42% at the briefing I went to.

Is that true? I've never heard NATS state they could afford to pay 30%.
Remind me again what their contribution rate will be if and when the proposed changes happen?

[anotherthing]

AFFLECK

Valid point - how many people (either 'yes' or 'no' voters - it matters not) honestly believe that management do not have at least one fall back position?

For all that I dislike what management are doing to NATS, I don't accuse them of being stupid or reckless. They are good at achieving what they are trying to do for NATS as a profit making business (closing the pension is one such business aim); they are not stupid enoughto go into this with their eyes shut and say and say "this is the only solution available to us".

This is the solution hammered out between the unions and NATS. Remember, it is a deal both parties are happy with.

The union believed it had done enough to satisfy its members - the vote will tell whether that is true or not... NATS will have other options up its sleeve in the event that the union has read its members feelings over pensions wrong.

Anyone who believes that management have not left themselves any manoeuvring room is effectively saying that management are dumb.

Strange, considering that some 'yes' voters are trying to claim that people voting 'no' are doing so because they don't trust the ability of maanagement, but then they themselves obviously don't understand how management work if they don't believe/trust that management has fallback plans.

People who are saying a 'no' vote means re-nationalisation - do you honestly think that such a high powered and allegedley capable management team would gamble everything on an all or nothing strategy? :ugh:

[PeltonLevel]

Following the Pre-Budget Report, I think that anyone who believes that the government will take on the best part of £1billion in additional debt by renationalising NATS ought to seriously consider changing their therapist!

[Fenella]

"The probable outcome is another round of talks, during which the Union can go back and do it properly"



The "union" were advised during the SDC on Friday to resign subject to a no vote though. As I said in my ill thought first post, these people won't be there to go back to the table. Who's there to take their place? I'm truly worried about that.

[AFFLECK]

At the briefing I attended, someone suggested transferring NATS property ownership into the pension scheme to cover the deficit, as M&S had done to solve their problems. Apparently we can't do that as all NATS property is secured with loans.

What about asking the Government to transfer their share of ownership into the pension scheme. I'm sure, with the appropriate paperwork, that they can keep rights to it and it would still keep the actuaries happy.

Has this already been considered?

[eglnyt]

So exactly why do you think the Government would have any interest in bailing out your pension ?

[AFFLECK]

Imagine the headline-

GORDON BROWN STEPS IN AT LAST MINUTE TO PREVENT AIR TRAFFIC STRIKE, TRAFFIC CHAOS NARROWLY AVERTED.

eglynt - There's your answer, he could do with the good press at the moment.

[brummbrumm]

The "union" were advised during the SDC on Friday to resign subject to a no vote though.

Not exactly true, the BEC were asked to consider their positions should there be a NO Vote.

They were also asked by delegates to strongly consider remaining in position as the delegates to conference believed that they were the best people to do the difficult job of negotiating on our behalf.

[Vote NO]

It used to be the case that a pearl handled revolver and a bottle of brandy were issued to such individuals in order for them to be seen to do the honourable thing.
They have fallen from grace, the trust has gone, and its time to bite the bullet. :(

[BAND4ALL]

Good friend of mine works for the NAT WEST & knows a bit about these things.
First thing he said was that the need for a new scheme was probable but not at the cost of current members FINAL SALARY scheme the current proposals end all of that naming the cap as the key ingredient. He could not imagine us voting yes for this, especially if you are already in.

Funnily enough he said "you'd have them over a barrel if you walked out anyway wouldn't you?" But we won't go into that will we :ugh:

Still a NO

Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php :E

[Vote NO]

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Poll Results (http://www.snappoll.com/view_results.php?poll_id=301858) latest


NO ....83%....82 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

YES....17%....17 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!

Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

[mr.777]

Lovin' it, lovin'it, lovin' it............VOTE NO:ok:

[eyeinthesky]

Text of latest Union newsletter:
QUOTE
Prospect ATCOs’ Branch held a Special Delegates Conference on the 22nd November, prior to the Annual Delegates Conference, in order to allow a full and proper discussion and debate to take place on the issue of pensions. One of the main points of discussion was the package of measures which had been negotiated with management and the conduct of the Pensions Negotiating Team during these discussions.
A very thorough examination of the issues took place during the full and frank debate, with comments and opinions given by delegates from all units. It was recognised by the BEC that issues such as communications and conflicting mandates could have been dealt with better and lessons need to be learnt for the future. The BEC would like members to be aware that it acknowledges its failings with regard to communications, and over the coming weeks will publish a report on how they will be improved in the future. On the substantive issue however, and after a full and proper debate, the Special Delegates Conference voted unanimously to support the position of the Branch Executive to recommend the pensions package to members.
Over the next few days you will be receiving your ballot paper. The Prospect ATCO Branch Executive, the ATCO Special Delegates Conference and the ATCO Annual Delegates Conference have all voted to recommend that members vote in favour of the proposals. This is a key issue and it is important that you are given the opportunity to take an informed view. AdditionalTrade Union Briefings are detailed below, please endeavour to attend a briefing if you have not already done so. If you have any questions about these briefings you should approach your unit Rep or a member of the BEC.
UNQUOTE

Seems clear enough to me. No need to argue about it any more on here, then!;)

[Vote NO]

Indeed , that's it then, game over. Do we actually still need a ballot now?:E

[Min Stack]

1 validation given up by me this week and no more AAVA's :)

[Vote NO]

Good on you mate :ok:

[Del Prado]

Eglnyt,

reposting for clarification.


Quote:
That's a ball park wild arsed guess based on the difference between the maximum amount that NATS said at the briefing it could pay, roughly 30%, and the funding figure without the propsal which it says it can't afford which was 42% at the briefing I went to.


Is that true? I've never heard NATS state they could afford to pay 30%.
Remind me again what their contribution rate will be if and when the proposed changes happen?

[Gonzo]

Interesting to note that the poll in the NATS forum, where only NATS employees are permitted, the results are 60/40 in favour of a 'no', rather than 83/17 in favour of a 'no' in the public vote........

[Vote NO]

The average of both then is about 71/29 in favour of NO

[eglnyt]

Del Prado

Some of the briefing material includes predictions by Mercer of the likely underlying rate with the proposals in place. I don't have access to that material right now to quote the exact rate but it is up at about the 30% which is 10% more than present. It stays quite high for quite a long time and then slowly starts to come down as the balance between people on the two schemes changes.

[Roffa]

What interested me from the Prospect circular was that after all the stuff coming down the grapevine about our colleagues north of the border being in open revolt following their calls for the SDC, it was a unanimous vote in favour of the position negotiated by the BEC.

[BAND4ALL]

Roffa
Think there is a lot of politics attached to the unanimous vote for the BEC. There is a lot going on up North right now and it was a case of damage limitation mate.
Think a lot of reps there will still be voting NO.

[mr.777]

According to Barron's blog, he had a meeting with Hoon and Fitzpatrick today...hmmm...wonder what that was about? Doesn't matter though does it as "it's not a matter for the government"...tw*ts:rolleyes:

[PeltonLevel]

The average of both then is about 71/29 in favour of NO
And exactly what are you averaging?

[Vote NO]

NATS forum, where only NATS employees are permitted, the results are 60/40 in favour of a 'no', rather than 83/17 in favour of a 'no' in the public vote........

Very basic maths gives an ave. of 71/29 aprox. in favour of NO :)

I thought it was rather obvious, sorry if you were confused

[eglnyt]

Very basic maths gives an ave. of 71/29 aprox. in favour of NO

Only if exactly 100 people have voted in both polls.

[Vote NO]

Incorrect, I am averaging the percentages of the votes, not the number who actually voted.

I thought that was obvious :bored:

60+40 =100 , 83+17 = 100 , 71+29 .......wait for it = 100 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

I know you like detail, so just for you, to prevent any more confusion :rolleyes:

In mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics), a percentage is a way of expressing a number as a fraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction) of 100 (per cent meaning "per hundred"). It is often denoted using the percent sign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent_sign), "%". For example, 45% (read as "forty-five percent") is equal to 45 / 100, or 0.45.
Percentages are used to express how large one quantity is relative to another quantity. The first quantity usually represents a part of, or a change in, the second quantity, which should be greater than zero. For example, an increase of $ 0.15 on a price of $ 2.50 is an increase by a fraction of 0.15 / 2.50 = 0.06. Expressed as a percentage, this is therefore a 6% increase.
Although percentages are usually used to express numbers between zero and one, any dimensionless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless) proportionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)) can be expressed as a percentage. For instance, 111% is 1.11 and −0.35% is −0.0035.

[250 kts]

There is a lot going on up North right now and it was a case of damage limitation mate.

Damage limitation for who?

I thought there was a general feeling on this site that the BEC had done a poor job and it was time to go. If the feeling on here is reflected nationwide, then why would the most vociferous unit and critics do anything other than push for what is, supposedly, the majority feeling?

I would have thought they would have canvassed hard for additional support and pushed the "no confidence" option. Maybe I'm missing something here?

[anotherthing]

As the Pension thread on NATSNET has been squirelled away to a small box, the following may have been missed by people.

An interesting link, posted on the intranet thread, worth a read... dated 2001!!

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/15153-nats-pension-danger.html

So, it seems although actuaries have not as yet managed to do a good job of looking into the future as far as our pension is concerned, others painted a pretty close picture of todays events...

Also on the intranet - the following... on the new Q&A site

What has the RPI pay increase been over the past 15 years?
< Back
What has the RPI pay increase been over the past 15 years?
Pay has not always been RPI related – it is only in the last few years when we have agreed multi-year pay deals that RPI has been referred to regularly. In addition, the level of rise has been different for different groups with some getting rises in excess of RPI+0.5% in some years and others not. Therefore there is no one figure that provides a useful guide. Also, past increases are not a guide to future rises – clearly overall deals are related to the health of the company and to productivity improvements.


Strange how our money experts seem unable to work out the average RPI and pay rise over the past 15 years to give a straight answer... an answer that will show that a cap of RPI+0.5% will make a huge difference to the ratio of our 'final salary' pension... 50% final salary or less, anyone??

Obviously a straight and honest answer would indicate clearly what the cap will do to us, and is therefore deemed not suitable by the management.

These same money experts who cannot do basic arithmetical sums and a little bit of digging for historical data, are the ones who are ruining our fund!!

[PeltonLevel]

Incorrect, I am averaging the percentages of the votes, not the number who actually voted.
I thought that was obviousIt's only obvious to people who are not particularly numerate.
An average of two percentages is only meaningful if weighted according to their respective sample sizes. It seemed pretty obvious what had been done, but not obvious what inference could be drawn from this bit of arbitrary arithmetic.
:ugh:
:ugh:
:ugh:

[Vote NO]

I apologise, I incorrectly considered all on here to have a grasp of very basic maths and common sense. :ok:
You can infer from this bit of arbitrary arithmetic that there is a good chance that the vote will go in favour of the NO VOTE. I thought that was obvious too :E

It's only obvious to people who are not particularly numerate.

I think you mean It's only obvious to people who are particularly numerate

[BAND4ALL]

Damage limitation for who?

May I suggest you ask any BEC members at your unit what went on at the SDC and they can fill you in with all the details.
Unless they signed up to another confidentiality clause after conference!

[eglnyt]

Strange how our money experts seem unable to work out the average RPI and pay rise over the past 15 years to give a straight answer...

Actually it's bloody hard because I've tried it. As soon as you go back past 6 years you run into a whole series of staggered payrises and non pensionable add ons which make it almost impossible to calculate. It's also questionable whether or not you should include wage rises pre PPP as representative of future settlements although my figures suggest they were generally worse than since.

For ATCE, STAR, MSG and in most years ATSA grades I think the most recent figures going back are RPI + 0.25, RPI, 2.8% + £500 non pensionable (representative RPI for that year was 3.4%), RPI + 0.6, RPI + 0.6

[alfie1999]

What has the RPI pay increase been over the past 15 years?

Pay has not always been RPI related – it is only in the last few years when we have agreed multi-year pay deals that RPI has been referred to regularly. In addition, the level of rise has been different for different groups with some getting rises in excess of RPI+0.5% in some years and others not. Therefore there is no one figure that provides a useful guide. Also, past increases are not a guide to future rises – clearly overall deals are related to the health of the company and to productivity improvements.


If anything summarises the tactics of those trying to secure a 'yes' vote then this does.

Why not produce all the pay settlement figures and the attendant RPI numbers so we can assess the historical impact of the cap for ourselves?

We know the reason and that's the fear of the 'yes' side that staff will realise their pensions are going to be crippled by this cap and in many cases will reduce the final benefits to 1/2 salary or worse.

Even the modeller itself doesn't show the continuing huge impact of the cap after the 15 year period assuming it is scrapped at that point.

Staff are looking at losing tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of pounds but aren't being told this.

[Fenella]

"We know the reason and that's the fear of the 'yes' side that staff will realise their pensions are going to be crippled by this cap and in many cases will reduce the final benefits to 1/2 salary or worse."


That's on the assumption that we would have got RPI+1.5% pensionable pay for the next 15 years though, isn't it?

[alfie1999]

Fenella


That's on the assumption that we would have got RPI+1.5% pensionable pay for the next 15 years though, isn't it?


Is this meant to be humorous?

[Fenella]

Yes, sorry. Just making sure I wasn't being ignored.... This site is like dipping a toe in the North Sea in Feb if you're considering "not voting no" :O

[PeltonLevel]

I apologise, I incorrectly considered all on here to have a grasp of very basic maths I can see that, if either of these polls is representative of voting intentions of the membership as a whole, the the noes have it by a fair margin.

The problem is, there is a difference between very basic maths and statistics.
I know that the arithmetic mean of 83 and 60 is 71 and the arithmetic mean of 40 and 17 is 29 (both rounded). But, not knowing the size of either sample, or whether anyone has voted in both polls, it is not possible to combine the results in any meaningful fashion.
:ugh:
:ugh:
:ugh:
:confused::confused::confused:
:ugh:
:ugh:
:ugh:

[alfie1999]

Fenella

Yes, sorry. Just making sure I wasn't being ignored....


After your first post, not likely. :ok:

[alfie1999]

eglnyt,

Can I be forward enough to ask your (rough) age and how long you've been with NATS? Fair enough if you don't want to answer.

(I'm mid-30s with 14 years in the scheme btw).

[Radarspod]

Superb work everyone! Only another 150 posts or so, plumped up by mathematical debate, and this will soon be the biggest thread in the ATC forum :ok:

RS

[alfie1999]

wtf is the biggest one about then? :eek:

[Fenella]

Luncheon vouchers

[alfie1999]

A-ha...that'd be the sticky a couple of threads up then. :}

[Radarspod]

Luncheon vouchers

What were they? Never got any of those :}

RS

[PeltonLevel]

Luncheon vouchers?
A taxable benefit (non-pensionable) in lieu of a subsidised restaurant/canteen.

[Radarspod]

Clearly wasn't sarcastic enough...... not all NATS locations got them.:uhoh:

[Fenella]

"Others" get Aramark :ok:

[alfie1999]

I've heard good things about 'Aramark'.











Or was it Primark.

[The Many Tentacles]

It would've been Primark, cheap and good value. Aramark is cheapish and there the similarity ends - although they do a good line in slop.

[Min Stack]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1297/1163838970_085d27272e.jpg?v=0

Not welcome here! :sad:

[PeltonLevel]

Clearly wasn't sarcastic enough...... not all NATS locations got them.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/worry.gif
At least I managed to keep my input relevant to this thread!

[Vote NO]

.................:)

[Radarspod]

I think I've given up trying to post things relevent to the thread as no-one wants to listen and my head can't take being banged against a brick wall any more :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Anyway, we can't really complain about posting off subject on here - just about every NATSNET non-pension related news item and even the picture of the day have been hijacked by the pension issue grumblers:}

RS

p.s. VOTE YES

[Dan Dare]

NO!

Mine has been handed back to the Royal Mail for delivery to Chertsey by tomorrow. Interesting that they request votes ASAP, but have brain-washing sessions for another fortnight.

[mr.777]

Just returned my NO vote. The final straw was all the bullsh*t that came with it this morning, "please, pretty please vote yes"...no chance.

VOTE NO:ok:

[BAND4ALL]

My NO is on the way too.
Did anyone else notice that the envelopes were printed upside down so they open at the bottom:D

happy days :ok:

[mr.777]

I noticed that too...says it all really doesnt it?!

[VulcanPrincess]

luncheon vouchers .... ah heathrow tower.. in the good old days

[Me Me Me Me]

If anything summarises the tactics of those trying to secure a 'yes' vote then this does.

Why not produce all the pay settlement figures and the attendant RPI numbers so we can assess the historical impact of the cap for ourselves?

We know the reason and that's the fear of the 'yes' side that staff will realise their pensions are going to be crippled by this cap and in many cases will reduce the final benefits to 1/2 salary or worse.

Even the modeller itself doesn't show the continuing huge impact of the cap after the 15 year period assuming it is scrapped at that point.

Staff are looking at losing tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of pounds but aren't being told this.

Part of the reason they don't provide that info is that they know (sadly) it'll be mis-used to produce all kinds of fantastic scenarios one way or the other. But the information is available, you just need to actually look for it.

See the post above yours for example:

For ATCE, STAR, MSG and in most years ATSA grades I think the most recent figures going back are RPI + 0.25, RPI, 2.8% + £500 non pensionable (representative RPI for that year was 3.4%), RPI + 0.6, RPI + 0.6

So.. That's 3 years under the cap and 2 years at 0.1% above it. This isn't exactly proving the point that the modeller (1% over the cap) gives an accurate indication of the hit you're going to take is it?

I returned my No vote today... I don't support the proposal but I do tire of the reactionary and sensationalist arguments against some of it. The reasons to oppose are strong enough without exaggerating them.

P.S. Luncheon Vouchers.... Get em.... Hate em. Give me the money instead please!

[privatesandwiches]

my NO is crossed and will be winging its way to Chertsey today.

[Radarspod]

My YES is crossed and on it's way to Chertsey also!

I noticed they are branch ballots as suspected, not an all-in-one count - should make the results interesting.

Now what shall we find to debate about now? :)

RS

[Vote NO]

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Poll Results (http://www.snappoll.com/view_results.php?poll_id=301858) latest


NO ....81%....86 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

YES....19%....20 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!
If you vote yes, you are a turkey voting for XMAS
http://toons.artie.com/thanksgiving/arg-turkey-strut-url.gifhttp://artie.com/20001014/arg-turkey-ch0p-url.gif


Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

VOTE NO :ok::ok::ok::ok:

MERRY XMAS

[Hial Flyer]

My NOvote is also on its way today.

[BOBBLEHAT]

Some of you lot would make me laugh if this wasn't such a serious issue.......

Empty barrels make the most noise.

Let folks vote as they see fit without you trying to coerce them with big colourful letters.

It's nobody else's business which way you voted..... just be sure that when you place the cross that you know the ramifications of your actions.

[PeltonLevel]

Now what shall we find to debate about now?
Don't give up yet - the ballot hasn't closed and when we know the results from the three sections we will be able to debate the consequences!:O

[mr.777]

Let folks vote as they see fit without you trying to coerce them

Yes, coz the Union bullsh*t that arrived with my ballot paper this morning was IN NO WAY attempting to coerce me to vote YES was it now??

Vote NO, loving your work mate....have you considered a career in graphic design? Good pension I hear.....:}

[Vote NO]

Funny you should mention the propaganda that arrived with the ballot paper..... I too threw the lot in the rubbish bin :}.
Quite frankly the Union speel was embarassing and a last ditch pathetic attempt to save their shoddy positions:mad:

[opnot]

I am a NATS atco who is over 18. I can make my own mind up over which way to vote without the rantings which go on from certain people on this thread. Vote No did you read it before it went in the bin,and when are you putting yourself up for a union rep as everybody else seems to be doing a bad job

[Vote NO]

I didn't read it, at least not fully. I don't wish to represent anyone as a rep, but thanks for your support :ok:, and I agree with your comment that "everyone else is doing such a bad job" :{

[opnot]

vote no
you did not read it and you do not wish to represent anybody you are talking Bull****

[Vote NO]

There is no need for such foul language, how unprofessional of you. :E . And no, really, I do not wish to represent anyone, and I am sorry to let you down, but again thanks for your support:ok:

[BAND4ALL]

Good grief haven't people worked out that voting no will get you no worse a deal than voting yes if all the bull:mad:t is true :ugh:and there is no more on the table!!??????:ok:

[Scot Cabin]

In the post today, voted no.

[knobcheese]

No vote posted back today to Prospect HQ. Who's running this vote? Robert Mugabe?

[alfie1999]

'No' vote sent.

[Fenella]

How can the paperwork be called propaganda!! FFS calm yourselves......

[alfie1999]

Propaganda

Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people...


Propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda)










Would you like to borrow my tin foil hat?


http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200709/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799A20B06C8.jpg

[PeltonLevel]

Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, contrasted to an appeal to intellect. also from Propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda)

Well there wouldn't be much point in appealing to the latter, would there?

However, I'm not convinced that any (or all) of the actuarial assumptions have changed enough in the last year to cause such a large jump in the underlying rate
"WHAT DO YOU GET IF YOU MULTIPLY SIX BY NINE?"
see: Douglas Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams)but I believe that, in the medium to long term, no organisation will be willing or able to support a scheme as expensive as ours.

[Min Stack]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/images/2007/04/16/mooncover.gif

[Vote NO]

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Poll Results (http://www.snappoll.com/view_results.php?poll_id=301858) latest http://www.drfun.com/breaknnews.gif


NO ....81%....87 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

YES....19%....20 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!
If you vote yes, you are a turkey voting for XMAS
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii270/mkalert/Turkey.jpg


Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

VOTE NO http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

MERRY XMAS

[50 PENCE]

NO in the post

[FDP_Walla]

“Air traffic is projected to grow from 740 million passengers last year to one billion in 2015, and double today's levels by 2025, the FAA said.”

Quote above from recent article on thread ref Satellite Navigation.

Not all long term doom and gloom then if you believe that the same will happen in the UK?

Therefore, surely we would be foolish to sell ourselves short during a short-term recession.

[anotherthing]

Did anyone else notice that the envelopes were printed upside down so they open at the bottom
At least you got an envelope with your voting form. A mate of mine didn't, though the letter from the union was in there :ugh:

[250 kts]

Therefore, surely we would be foolish to sell ourselves short during a short-term recession.

Sorry but you really will have to remind us what the recession has to do with the pension proposals?

If you have been to a briefing it should have been made very clear that this is about the on-going underlying rate that NATS will have to pay ie. around 42%. If it wasn't made clear there it has been plenty of times on here. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Not Long Now]

Although traffic has sharply dropped off lately, the summer was getting towards max capacity for a lot of the time. As all the redevelopment plans seem to have been dropped, and significant increase in demand will mean nothing as there's no roo for it in the sky.

[alfie1999]

250 kts

Sorry but you really will have to remind us what the recession has to do with the pension proposals?

If you have been to a briefing it should have been made very clear that this is about the on-going underlying rate that NATS will have to pay ie. around 42%. If it wasn't made clear there it has been plenty of times on here. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument.


The facts are that last years figures show that if NATS hadn't:

1) Repaid loans when they didn't have to;

2) Paid early repayment charges when they didn't have to;

and,

3) Discounting the exceptionals that will generate even more profit in future years...


...then NATS can afford to pay even their worst case underlying rate.


They just don't want to use that profit for pensions when it can be used to improve the bottom line even further.



That said, if you can afford to hand over tens of thousands and in many cases hundreds of thousands of pounds from your pension so that NATS profitability can be increased then by all means vote 'Yes'.

[FDP_Walla]

250

You say remind 'us'. So you claim to speak for the whole forum then?
Do I think that there is a connection between the proposals and the current set-backs? Yes, I do, hence my post. Yes, I did go to a brief and as for facts, then I did not take everything that was briefed as fact(s). Did you?

[eglnyt]

The facts are that last years figures show that...

Again you're trying to represent your speculation and interpretation of a small part of a complex financial picture as fact when it is nothing of the sort. There was 39 million spent last year on exceptionals so at best there was that extra money available to fund other things. That doesn't come near to paying the extra likely to be required to fund the pension even if you assume that amount will be available every year and that the exceptionals are discretionary spending.

[eglnyt]

Do I think that there is a connection between the proposals and the current set-backs? Yes, I do

As NATS and the unions have been negotiating for close on two years if this has much to do with the current recession they must have been psychic.

[alfie1999]

eglnyt


Again you're trying to represent your speculation and interpretation of a small part of a complex financial picture as fact when it is nothing of the sort.


And again I notice you attack the poster rather then the post.

Are the 3 points I made factually correct, Yes or No?

The forum is wise to your dissembling and spinning now.

[eglnyt]

And again I notice you attack the poster rather then the post.
Nothing of the sort. What you call dissembling and spinning is actually debate. If you are going to debate a subject you have to be prepared to have your argument challenged and an alternative point of view advanced.

I know you only like Yes or No and I apologise that there are no Yes or No answers because this is complex but let's examine your three points.

1) Repaid loans when they didn't have to

These were perpetual loans so there was nobody knocking at the door demanding that they be settled. Indeed if I was the lender and getting a 12% return with that sort of risk I'd be very happy for them to remain outstanding for as long as possible. However this sort of lending comes with all sorts of conditions and that often inhibits the ability of managers to manage the business. You get rid of preferential loan notes as soon as possible so on that basis NATS probably had to repay those loans as soon as it had the means to do so.

2) Paid early repayment charges when they didn't have to

There was always going to be some repayment penalty with settling these loans. These were loans advanced on very advantageous terms for the lender at a time when NATS had no choice but to accept. NATS always had to pay that penalty it was just a question of when. The sooner you take the hit the better the chance of covering that cost with savings so again NATS had to pay those charges as soon as it could.

3) Discounting the exceptionals that will generate even more profit in future years....then NATS can afford to pay even their worst case underlying rate.

NATS and the union financial experts disagree with you on that point. I'd argue that they are probably better qualified. NATS might spin the figures but I don't see why the union experts would and as there are PCS members in NATS finance and this is their pension too I think it unlikely that the truth would not out.

They just don't want to use that profit for pensions when it can be used to improve the bottom line even further.

As we've covered several times previously that profit would only be available to fund your pension if the regulator agrees.

[alfie1999]

eglnyt


Ok, let's try again to get a straight answer out of you.


If we take NATS profits for the year and add...

1) c£65m loan note repayment

2) c£15m early repayment charges

3) c£23m exceptionals for the WD move


...would NATS be able to pay their worst case underlying contribution rate and still make a profit?

Just a 'yes' or 'no' will do so that those of us who don't understand the extremely complex issues can be informed by someone like yourself who obviously does have an excellent grasp.





Oh, and out of interest did you answer the rough age/years in scheme question I asked? As I said at the time, it's fair enough if you don't want to answer.

[FDP_Walla]

"As NATS and the unions have been negotiating for close on two years if this has much to do with the current recession they must have been psychic."

Another smarta***e comment. Negotiations may have been going on for two years but I remember the One_NATS_ONE_Pension website which was still active only a few months ago. Im suggesting that recent events may have influenced the recent announcements.

[eglnyt]

1) c£65m loan note repayment

Can't include this as it seems to have been financed from additional borrowing rather than cash.

2) c£15m early repayment charges 3) c£23m exceptionals for the WD move

These are in the £39 million exceptionals. Even if you consider this to be discretionary spending and all available to fund the pension it's not enough to fund the worse case based on the figures that have been quoted.

Oh, and out of interest did you answer the rough age/years in scheme question I asked? As I said at the time, it's fair enough if you don't want to answer.

Sorry I pop in and out of here and if it get's a bit heated you can often miss little posts that quickly slip a few pages back. You'll understand why I won't answer exactly but I've been with NATS a few years more than you and have a corresponding bit extra in the pension fund. Like you I still have a long time to go, longer since the 40 year rule was abolished, but I do have slightly less years to go than I've paid in.

[Vote NO]

Any truth in the rumour that most of Swanwick will vote yes for BAND 6 ?

Also rumoured PB will go in March 09 to his next victim.

And rumoured that if No vote prevails a cap of RPI +1% will be offered with a few other additional sweeteners in return for "certain conditions":confused:

[anotherthing]

Any truth in the rumour that most of Swanwick will vote yes for BAND 6 ?
Don't know where you got that from - certainly not being mooted at Swanwick.

Be very wary of dis-information - from either side.

A friend of mine told me today that Scottish are of the belief that it will be a 'yes' vote from Swanwick. This belief is because they were told by a Union Bod (last week), that the majority of people at Swanwick are going to vote 'YES'. (edited for mistake)

Not only is this quite possibly untrue, it is totally out of order for a Union person to voice this in an attempt to get Scottish to either change their vote, or to not bothering vote because they think it's not worth it as Swanwick (the biggest unit) will be voting 'yes' en masse.

Do not believe all you hear - make sure you vote as this is the most important issue to hit us for ages.

Vote for what you believe is the correct course of action, then lets see how the cards fall.

[Vote NO]

Thanks mate :ok:

[PeltonLevel]

Im suggesting that recent events may have influenced the recent announcements.And it's possible that the Deloitte report was the recent event in question!

[Min Stack]

Interesting snippet from 2003:

Workers strike over company pensions scheme

A new era in British industrial relations began on Friday 18 July 2003 as workers at the French-owned company Rhodia walked out in protest at the closure of the company’s final salary pension scheme to new members.
Over 600 workers at the company’s chemical manufacturing plants in the West Midlands and Cheshire are striking in a dispute over changes to Rhodia’s pension arrangements.
The strike, organised jointly by Amicus and the GMB, is the first time that British workers have gone on strike to defend final salary company pension schemes. BAE Systems and Rolls Royce have previously backed down over proposed benefits reductions following the threat of strikes.
Unions are angry that Rhodia is closing its final salary scheme to new entrants and claim the company took a partial "pensions holiday" over the last three years.
GMB leader Kevin Curran, said: "GMB members know that closing the scheme to new entrants puts the long term viability of the scheme at risk. Their security in retirement is being put in jeopardy by the decisions being made by the company now."
Rhodia denies endangering the company’s pension scheme, arguing that union claims that the company took a contributions holiday are "unfounded." After taking over Albright & Wilson in March 2000, Rhodia claims it increased the level of employer contributions for former staff, and made large cash injections to correct the pensions deficit it inherited.
Rhodia’s UK HR Director, Bob Tyler argued that closing the company’s pension scheme "does not affect the pension provision of current employees in any way."
He added: "We are closing the final salary scheme to new members to protect the interests and benefits of current Rhodia employees and ensure the future security of the fund."
Unions are planning further strike action at the company’s plants in Oldbury and Widnes for dates in August and September.
The Rhodia strike is the first time since the collapse of the stock market that British workers have walked out in protest at changes to their pension scheme.
It comes after thousand of French workers went on strike in June over reforms that would increase the pension contribution period for all workers to 41 years by 2012. And in May, Austrian workers staged the first general strike in decades at government plans to extend the period of pension contributions from 40 to 45 years and reduce benefits.
Many in the UK union movement believe pensions will be a growing issue of contention in coming years. In a recent survey, 90% of Amicus members said they would be prepared to take industrial action if their employer stopped contributing to their pension.
Emily Thomas, spokesperson for the GMB, commented: "Our members are becoming more aware of this issue, and it is becoming an integral part of negotiations on terms and conditions."
"Lots of companies took pension contribution holidays. Some are now putting in double to make up for it. Others are using the stock market as an excuse, and are saying that putting more into pension schemes is not sustainable."
Some in the union movement are calling on the government to bring in tighter regulation to ensure companies contribute to final salary pension schemes.
The government announced proposals in June, following consultations on the Pensions Green Paper, to safeguard the rights of workers with occupational pensions schemes. These included funds to protect pension rights when a company goes bankrupt, and the full buy out of pension scheme members when a company chooses to wind up its scheme.
Critics argue such measures are not enough. Lee Whitehill, spokesperson for Amicus said: ’the Government should make it compulsory that employers make pension scheme contributions."
He added: "We would like pension schemes to be seen as a form of deferred payment. It is money you have worked for. And we believe workers should get the same rights as other creditors if a company goes bankrupt."
Emily Thomas of GMB agrees. She believes the UK needs: "mandatory standards for pension schemes. Companies keep reducing contributions and then blame problems on the stock-market. Pensions are a three-way responsibility: government, individuals and companies. Workers will only get security if everyone contributes what they should."

[eglnyt]

So did they manage to stop the company closing their pension scheme to new entrants?

[PeltonLevel]

If we take NATS profits for the year and add...

1) c£65m loan note repayment
2) c£15m early repayment chargesI think that there's a bit of double counting here.:confused:
The actual hit on last years profit was from the redemption charge. If you can face trawling through the annual report, you will see that the high fixed interest loans were replaced by variable interest loans at the going rate - about half the fixed rate. If the rates charged go no higher than those current at the end of the FY (and the Bank of England's recent actions:ok:, together with the company's A rating:ok:, make this seem quite likely), the penalty will be money well spent within five years.
:ugh:
:ugh:
:ugh:
Sorry -just noticed that eglnyt has said much the same.

[alfie1999]

eglnyt,

Useful information, thanks.



Pelton,

Your age seems to have disappeared off your posts (unless my laptop is playing up).

[PeltonLevel]

So did they manage to stop the company closing their pension scheme to new entrants?Well, not quite!
The deal was finalised late on Thursday (4 September 2003) and will see the French-owned firm guarantee to keep the scheme open to existing employees until at least 2012, although it will be closed to new staff members.
BBC NEWS | Business | Pension strike called off (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3083230.stm)

[Emma1974]

Maybe I am being a little suspicious,but could someone answer the following for me...................

When asked previously to vote for certain issues(pay round and HTD spring to mind) I am certain that the ballot papers were returned to an independent body,or at least had some mention of them on the literature to ensure fairness and transparency.

Has this been the case this time?I have put mine in the recycling and returned the NO vote so cant check.

Thanks
:hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:

[Vote NO]

I think the union guys check all of them :confused:

The Prospect count will in theory be "checked/watched" by an ATCO. However I don't believe this will actually be done in practice (slightly awkward and embarassing), but how do you prove otherwise ? :confused:

[alfie1999]

Come on guys, I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next person but not for one moment do I think that the count will be anything other than scrupulous.

In the meantime you can borrow my tin foil hat from the last page. :}

[ZOOKER]

I believe, historically, this type of 'count' was carried out under the supervision of "independent scrutineers".
It may be worth contacting the union to find out if this is still the case, especially with their present emphasis on "Working Together".

[Fenella]

As far as I know the count will be done by Prospect staff. Bearing in mind this is their full time career, it would surely be a sad indictment on our part if we went down the road of insisting ATCOs were there for the count. I'm not surprised it was voted down at the SDC... and by the way, I've been told that the reps do the voting at conferences, not the BEC.

[Vote NO]

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Poll Results (http://www.snappoll.com/view_results.php?poll_id=301858) latest http://www.drfun.com/breaknnews.gif


NO ....81%....96http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

YES....19%....22 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!

If you vote yes, you are a turkey voting for XMAS

http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii270/mkalert/Turkey.jpg


Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

VOTE NO http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

MERRY XMAS

[250 kts]

250

You say remind 'us'. So you claim to speak for the whole forum then?
Do I think that there is a connection between the proposals and the current set-backs? Yes, I do, hence my post. Yes, I did go to a brief and as for facts, then I did not take everything that was briefed as fact(s). Did you?

I think Paranoia is setting in. I was referring to "us" as a collective forum.

I just can't believe the level of mis trust shown on here.eg.

1) The figures presented at the briefings and verified by independant actuaries

2) The fact that discussions have been taking place since well before the present financial downturn.

3) And most bizarrely the way the count will take place.

I presume you have the same concerns about the count in PCS as well??

But in the same thread there are already rumours about what NATS may offer in the event of a "no".

Vote no is obviously very close to the top Managment or the unions if he is hearing rumours like these. Any chance of enlightening us (sorry me) of the "certain conditions"?

[anotherthing]

250Kts

you are correct, there are limits to conspiracy - not trusting the count maybe going a bit far, but to answer two of your points..


1) The figures presented at the briefings and verified by independant actuaries
The figures prove the pension will need more money thrown at it to keep it viable. No one disputes that fact. It's the ability or not (or willingness) of NATS to cover the extra cost which is the whole point of the ballot.


2) The fact that discussions have been taking place since well before the present financial downturn.
Again, correct... but it was only after the latest valuation (bearing in mind the downturn started at the end of last summer) that the Unions got rid of the OneNATSOnePension stance (without communicating the fact to the members). Therefore the goalposts did not move until the downturn began.

[MrJones]

The ballot forms are to be returned to Prospect who have not exactly been unbiased in this matter and the forms have an individual serial number on them.

The question is why aren't we using an independent body.

And what guarantee do we have that there won't be a list of NO voters compiled.

[Flybywyre]

Someone asked a few posts ago if the ballot was being run by Robert Mugabwe, which I thought very funny and a joke.

Now I am not sure it was a joke :confused:

I will not get my ballot paper until I go home tomorrow. In the meantime
Am I right in thinking that our Unions, who are fighting in the managements vote yes corner, are:

1) Enclosing vote yes propaganda with the ballot form
2) Counting the votes themselves
3) Have marked each ballot paper so that it identifies the voter :eek:

If so it all seems very unusual. (IMHO)

[250 kts]

and by the way, I've been told that the reps do the voting at conferences, not the BEC.

No change there then. And without wishing to be provocative if people think it is any other way then they have a lot to learn about how the process works. Conference is about the members being represented by delegates that the members choose to represent them and it is these, and only these people who get to vote.

The ballot forms are to be returned to Prospect who have not exactly been unbiased in this matter

I owld suggest it is rare for any ballot to be held without a recommendation to accept. Otherwise it is an admission that the negotiators think there is further to go. This situation is absolutely no different.

The Prospect count will in theory be "checked/watched" by an ATCO. However I don't believe this will actually be done in practice

Why an ATCO-because we are so special compared to the other grades?

I'll ask again are you also unhappy with the PCS process as well?

[PPRuNe Radar]

The Prospect vote will have an observer, whose long family history of trade union involvement and reputation as someone above reproach speak for themselves. He has my confidence to see that fair play takes place.

And what guarantee do we have that there won't be a list of NO voters compiled.

I couldn't care less if the union know how I voted and decide to list me one way or another. What exactly are the BEC then going to do with that information ?? Give it to NATS Management as part of 'Shafting Staff Together' ? Sorry, I meant 'Working Together'. Or perhaps get the BEC Chairman (who is after all deemed part of the NATS Management team due to his workplace post and grade) to write me another condescending note ? In either case, they can't stop me voting the way I wish, nor can they stop me taking appropriate 'work to rule' type action on a personal basis if the vote doesn't go the way I would like it to. By doing so I emphasise that I will be complying with my NATS contracted hours and meeting all unit minimum validation requirements. I'll just be doing absolutely nothing extra such as AAVAs, attending things on rostered days off, continuing to hold validations over the MUR, and running a sector with less controllers than that agreed in the Working Practices.

[PeltonLevel]

3) Have marked each ballot paper so that it identifies the voterIt's not a bad idea to have some sort of security mechanism, although I would be happier if the serial number, if that is the approach taken, was on the back, as it is in UK elections.
I don't want someone who has a strongly held view (either way) to print their own ballot papers and do some ballot stuffing.
Ballot stuffing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_stuffing)

[eglnyt]

1) Enclosing vote yes propaganda with the ballot form

The package contains a letter from the Union National Secretary and one from your Branch Chairman outlining why the Union is recommending a particular vote. That's been normal in any ballot I've ever received forms for.

2) Counting the votes themselves

Some ballots have more stringent requirements prescribed by law. If this one doesn't why would you go to the extra expense ?

3) Have marked each ballot paper so that it identifies the voter

The forms have been individually and rather crudely numbered with a hand stamp. There has to be some basic security to stop you photocopying 200 votes and sending them in.

[eglnyt]

I emphasise that I will be complying with my NATS contracted hours and meeting all unit minimum validation requirements. I'll just be doing absolutely nothing extra such as AAVAs, attending things on rostered days off, continuing to hold validations over the MUR, and running a sector with less controllers than that agreed in the Working Practices.

I would suggest that anybody thinking of similar action takes expert advice from the union or elsewhere before doing so. Mrs Thatcher's legislation isn't very specific about what constitutes industrial action and taking any action that may be defined as unofficial industrial action would be very unwise.

[Nimmer]

EGLYNT,

Your last post just shows how little you actually know about ATC working practices!!!!

To do the MUR is all any ATCO is required to do, anything else is done as 'goodwill', something that may be lacking in the ops room in the future!!!!

Or may I suggest when asked to do anything extra the words ' HOW MUCH?' are spoken, after all we may need to boost our 'non-pensionable' pay!!!

Which manager are you EGLYNT????

[eglnyt]

To do the MUR is all any ATCO is required to do, anything else is done as 'goodwill',

I'm no manager nor am I a lawyer specialising in industrial law but since the Thatcherite anti union legislation your rights to withdraw your goodwill have been severely curtailed. You can withdraw those things at any time as long as you don't do so in the context of industrial action. And that's the problem because unless you tell NATS why you are withdawing that goodwill it doesn't achieve much and as soon as you tell them it could be considered industrial action.

This is a very complex area of the law and you need to be very careful. If you don't believe me go off and research it yourself. DIRECT.GOV.UK is often a useful start.

[Nimmer]

EGLYNT

In reply I withdraw etc etc 'ON SAFETY GROUNDS', job done.

[alfie1999]

I emphasise that I will be complying with my NATS contracted hours and meeting all unit minimum validation requirements. I'll just be doing absolutely nothing extra such as AAVAs, attending things on rostered days off, continuing to hold validations over the MUR, and running a sector with less controllers than that agreed in the Working Practices.




eglnyt

I would suggest that anybody thinking of similar action takes expert advice from the union or elsewhere before doing so. Mrs Thatcher's legislation isn't very specific about what constitutes industrial action and taking any action that may be defined as unofficial industrial action would be very unwise.




I suspect you've overstepped the mark there.

[eglnyt]

I suspect you've overstepped the mark there.

In what way ? As far as I can see I've pointed out to a fellow poster on this forum why his proposed action may have repercussions he may not have thought of. I may be wrong in which case challenge what I'm saying. I might be right in which case it would be common sense to take what I said on board.

[mr.777]

I agree. Its one thing Eglnyt for you to promote the YES vote ( and don't say that you aren't, because that sh*t won't wash), quite another for you to lecture valid ATCOs on what they can and can't do.

FACT...if you are valid on a core sector at Swanwick, you are NOT required to be valid on another sector. Therefore, there is no problem with you saying you don't want to do that particular sector any more.

FACT...things like Working Groups are "extra-curricular" activities and do NOT form part of your terms and conditions as an ATCO. Therefore, again, no problem giving them up.

[alfie1999]

eglnyt

In what way ? As far as I can see I've pointed out to a fellow poster on this forum why his proposed action may have repercussions he may not have thought of. I may be wrong in which case challenge what I'm saying. I might be right in which case it would be common sense to take what I said on board.


I don't know how other people interpreted your post but it read to me like a management warning dressed up as 'friendly advice'.

A sign of things to come I suspect.

[Roffa]

Irrespective of whichever way I've voted personally I'll respect the result and, if required, would take part in any official action that may follow. That's the way the democratic process works.

However are some on here saying that if the vote goes against their opinion and the way they personally voted, rather than accept due process they'll throw their toys out of their pram in further protest?

Very grown up.

[mr.777]

Why, exactly, is giving up validations above MUR and packing in working groups etc throwing your toys out of the pram? Maybe you can enlighten me as I am obviously too childish and not grown up enough to understand :ugh:

[eglnyt]

If you read what I wrote you'd see I'm suggesting you take some time to check out whether what you think is fact actually happens to be the case. It's up to you whther or not you do that but even if you think I'm a management plant it might be prudent to do so. Anything done by the union from this point in will be done with expert legal advice for very good reason and I certainly wouldn't take individual action without similar advice.

[mr.777]

I would suggest that YOU re-read what I said.....YOU CAN GIVE UP A 2ND SECTOR VALIDATION ABOVE MUR WHENVER YOU WANT FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU WANT:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I am not condoning this or suggesting people do it, but your attitude is starting to get right up my nose now eglnyt. You lecture people 24/7 on here about this, that and the other but when proven wrong, you don't seem to have the good grace to accept this fact.

[Roffa]

Why, exactly, is giving up validations above MUR and packing in working groups etc throwing your toys out of the pram? Maybe you can enlighten me as I am obviously too childish and not grown up enough to understand

Generically...

If you're no voter and it's a no vote will you be giving up validations etc?

If you're a no voter and it's a yes vote will you be giving up validations etc?

In both cases due democratic process is followed, why should one result cause you to take further 'action' on a personal level?

Surely, if one accepts the democratic process, one goes with the result without further 'I don't like the result on a personal level so I'm going to drop my Midlands ticket' or such like action?

If the population at large acted like that after a general election the country would soon cease to function (more so than it is anyway at the moment that is).

[anotherthing]

However are some on here saying that if the vote goes against their opinion and the way they personally voted, rather than accept due process they'll throw their toys out of their pram in further protest?


You are getting confused Roffa.

Lets take the case of someone who wants to vote no as an example.

The majority of people vote 'yes' - the changes come in.

The person in question has to accept the vote - they cannot strike, they cannot take any industrial action whatsoever.

They can give up extra validations, stop doing AAVA's/overtime, stop doing extra curricular activities (meetings etc).

That is not industrial action per se. It is not 'throwing their toys out of the pram'. It is that person saying that they will no longer assist a company that has drastically reduced their potential pension (deferred pay), by doing things for nothing.

All the activities I have listed above are done on 'goodwill', even to an extent AAVA's which are actually, if you are on or near top of the scale, not even time and a half.

They save the company money. How much do you think the company saves by having people do AAVA's and extra sectors? I can bet you it is several million pounds per year.

This is a dog eat dog world nowadays, why should anyone give precious spare time to a company for nothing??

Working to the letter of your contract is not 'throwing your toys out of the pram'.

Expecting financial reward for doing work over and above your contract is not 'throwing your toys out of the pram'.

It's not rocket science! :ugh::ugh:

[Roffa]

Fair enough.

I look forward then to the first person who withdraws their goodwill having a whinge about not being allowed to go on an EG, or get that extra column's leave at a weekend that is over and above the requirement in the WPP etc. If you want to effectively work to rule then it's not unreasonable to assume the company will play the same game.

It's a two way street.

[alfie1999]

Roffa

I look forward then to the first person who withdraws their goodwill having a whinge about not being allowed to go on an EG, or get that extra column's leave over and above the requirement in the WPP etc.

It's a two way street.



You've stomped right in to a minefield there mate. :eek:

[eglnyt]

YOU CAN GIVE UP A 2ND SECTOR VALIDATION ABOVE MUR WHENVER YOU WANT

Yes if you read my post 1699 I said that

FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU WANT

Yes but if it could be considered as industrial action there are a number of pre-requisites including a properly constituted ballot for that action to be official. If it's unofficial you can still do it but you won't enjoy any of the protections that come with the official tag.

That is not industrial action per se.

Actually it might be. The relevant legislation is not very specific as to what constitutes industrial action so without very detailed knowledge of previous cases and perhaps a court judgement you won't know

[mr.777]

I think you'll find that working your full hours (no EGs etc) and other such things, are things that people would be prepared to sacrifice. I certainly would be. As you, correctly point out, it IS a 2 way street.

[Vote NO]

eglnyt

I would suggest that anybody thinking of similar action takes expert advice from the union or elsewhere before doing so. Mrs Thatcher's legislation isn't very specific about what constitutes industrial action and taking any action that may be defined as unofficial industrial action would be very unwise.
I think most of us old timers would agree that NATS is not the company it was since PB took "control".
Basically we dont like what has happened to NATS over the past few years, and as such it is preferable to take our well earned days off, instead of coming in to meetings and keeping the company afloat by doing AAVA/ overtime. Make no mistake, NATS would flounder if ATCO/ATSA did not man the sectors on our days off. NATS can no longer operate efficiently, in profit, without goodwill/aava/overtime.
If we choose not to come in on our days off, then that is our right and legal choice. We are not in the Military and are therefore not bound by Military legislation. The "ball breaker" is the Pension loss.

[anotherthing]

Roffa

Having had a career before NATS, I can assure you giving up the odd half hour early-go is not a hardship. Maybe to some molly coddled people it will be.

Early Go's are a privilege, not a right. As for an extra leave column... doesn't happen at my unit

[alfie1999]

eglnyt,

Please provide evidence to back up your suggestions that withdrawing from a purely voluntary individual arrangement could be in any way construed as industrial action.

If you'd been voluntarily helping out the company by working to 1730 (extra time unpaid) for a few months but then decided to start finishing at your contracted time of 1700 would this be construed as unofficial industrial action?

[PPRuNe Radar]

No objection to working full hours, it happens 99% of the time now anyway, so it's no skin off my nose. But also expect no leeway on the minor duty over runs and enhanced hours/SRATCOH busts which I experience from time to time. It can most definitely become a two way street, with the full backing of legislation to report such instances on my part.

I would suggest that anybody thinking of similar action takes expert advice from the union or elsewhere before doing so. Mrs Thatcher's legislation isn't very specific about what constitutes industrial action and taking any action that may be defined as unofficial industrial action would be very unwise.

The AAVA agreement is voluntary ... therefore if I withdraw my participation, what will I be charged with in legislation ?

Attending meetings or projects on my rostered days off are not compulsory ... therefore if I withdraw my participation, what will I be charged with in legislation ?

Holding validations over the MUR, which I do not require to hold since they are not compulsory, might present competency maintenance issues for me and in accordance with the Local Competency Scheme agreed with the Regulator I am quite entitled as a licence holder to restrict my competencies to the MUR ... therefore if I withdraw my extra validations, what will I be charged with in legislation ?

Deciding that a sector must be either adequately manned or alternatively has an appropriate regulation put in place to contain traffic to a safe single person operating traffic volume is not only wise, but also well within my rights to expect as a licence holder ... or for me to expect to provide to my staff if I am carrying out supervisor duties. Therefore if I insist on agreed staffing measures, which have presumably been put in place for safety reasons, what will I be charged with in legislation ?

I can't wait for my local management to threaten me with something all because I am abiding by the detail of my working contract and rules and procedures which have been agreed with SRG.

That is not industrial action per se. It is not 'throwing their toys out of the pram'. It is that person saying that they will no longer assist a company that has drastically reduced their potential pension (deferred pay), by doing things for nothing.


That's exactly my philosophy in a nutshell. I'll abide by the majority vote, whatever that may be, and live with the pension decisions and the next steps which occur. But if I end up being penalised in the long run, then I see no need to continue to go the extra mile to help out and continue to provide the bonuses and give an easy ride to those in the company who see fit to make my terms and conditions worse. They have had many many years of the benefits due to NATS staff goodwill, meaning that the drastic staff shortages and resource issues have been papered over with relatively cheap labour and no impetus on them to resolve the underlying issues. And now they expect me to continue to help them out of that hole for the odd crumb while they screw around with something which is a major long term benefit of working for NATS ? Find someone else who is gullible :ok:

[PeltonLevel]

Not wishing to be picky, but:
Work-to-rule is an industrial action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_action)
Wikipedia

[eglnyt]

Please provide evidence to back up your suggestions that withdrawing from a purely voluntary individual arrangement could be in any way construed as industrial action. If you'd been voluntarily helping out the company by working to 1730 (extra time unpaid) for a few months but then decided to start finishing at your contracted time of 1700 would this be construed as unofficial industrial action?

As evidence I can only point you to the relevant legislation of which there is a great deal. It is not specific about what is industrial action but there is no doubt that action short of a strike, what we used to call working to rule, is. What counts as action short of a strike is open to interpretation.

In your example if you give up for purely personal reasons then it isn't industrial action. However if you and your colleagues give up and tell NATS that you are doing so in support of a grievance then it almost certainly is. If you carry out that action without following the prescribed path then it's unofficial action. There's a whole range of options between those two points that only expert legal opinion can give advice on. It's a difficult call if for instance if you give up for personal reasons against a background of industrial unrest.

Unofficial action is not illegal but taking unofficial action removes a lot of the protection you enjoy as an employee. You lose most of your unfair dismissal protection and could be sued by customers for subsequent loss. If this ends up as a dispute then it's in every body's interests to act as directed by the union and ensure that any action is official. That is the point I was trying to make with my first post.

I am surprised at the number of people posting here who think that UK law is logical, fair or that you have rights. I'm afraid that isn't often the case. Often when legislation talks about the rights of the worker it's actually really a limit. For example your right to be consulted on industrial action is the part of the legislation that sets very specific ballot requirements which actually act to limit your ability to withdraw your labour.

I seem to be in a time warp. My last post at 17:24 is shown as 09:15

[alfie1999]

Pelton,

Can you provide a reference that we can use to confirm your claim that not doing voluntary aava's or not holding extra unpaid voluntary validations is classed as 'working-to-rule' and as such industrial action.

In the abscence of any facts could you give us some of your reasoning.

[alfie1999]

eglnyt

In your example if you give up for purely personal reasons then it isn't industrial action.

Thank you.

[PeltonLevel]

alfie1999 (http://www.pprune.org/members/55608-alfie1999)
I guess that if you do it before there is a dispute, you may be OK (and however heated the discussion on this thread is getting, we aren't yet in dispute, and won't be until management decide to impose a change without any agreement).
I was wondering whether industrial action in support of people who haven't yet joined would be legal. Any suggestions?

[alfie1999]

PL,

I agree with you that talking about industrial action is unnecessarily inflaming an already tetchy thread.

As for your second point I can't say i've given it too much thought; I think that the RPI cap is the real burning issue for most staff from conversations i've had rather than the pension change for new joiners. Others may have different priorities of course.

As for my own views on industrial action, it's something that i'd want to avoid at all reasonable costs.

[eglnyt]

There are a number of ongoing industrial disputes including the University of Sussex which would suggest that action against a proposal to close the scheme to new joiners can be legal and official.

[Track Jitter]

It is not mandatory to work overtime or any other form of additional attendance.

[JuniorX]

Just a point on giving up validations above MUR. If you work at TC (as I do) and you decide that, for example, you no longer wish to hold TC North and Capital and wish to revert to MUR, management would surely have to accept your wish. However operational reasons may dictate that your Capital validation is more vital and would rather you drop North. This would mean that you would now be below MUR and required to train on another sector to get back to the MUR you have to hold.

I know this won't always be the case, but I do think it is something management may do, and I think it's something that they would legally able to do? After all, it's their job to get the correct validations in the room as far as possible.

[Northerner]

Just to confirm that I believe Junior X has it spot on, certainly for TC, and I think for AC too. You can decide that you no longer wish to hold extra validations, but it is then up to the management to decide what it is that you drop.

Cheers,
N

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

[Vote NO]

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Poll Results (http://www.snappoll.com/view_results.php?poll_id=301858) latest http://www.drfun.com/breaknnews.gif


NO ....82%....98 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

YES....18%....22 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!

Ask yourself, how safe will my job be if this deal goes through and NATS is sold off ?

If you vote yes, you are a turkey voting for XMAS

http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii270/mkalert/Turkey.jpg


Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

VOTE NO http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

MERRY XMAS

[anotherthing]

Northerner/Junior X

Valid comments - however as we have to AAVA to fill WPP for all sectors, it would just be a case of management massaging validations to reduce the shortrfall in some sectors.

The fact of the matter is, The 3 core sectors need the people they have at the moment, and more, to fulfill WPP. So apart from a buggeration factor, their would in actual fact, be no real gain in manpower.

Sure, during the next year/18 months whilst traffic levels recover (and they will recover and go beyond the previous peak), it might work, but long term, the shortfall is still there.

Of course, that would mean looking at manpower issues long term, which of course we know NATS is not particularly adept at!!

[JuniorX]

Anotherthing,

Completely agree, but my point is that saying you are going to give up extra validations is not as straightforward as it may seem. Some people who intend to do this need to be aware that by doing so they are potentially putting themselves in danger of having to retrain. Like I said in my post earlier, it's something to bear in my mind before people make knee jerk reactions if the vote doesn't go the way they hope.

[45 before POL]

Bottom line is that this is probably the most important benefit that people work for. Closing the scheme i believe was inevitable but one step too far with the cap which unless payrises stay below rpi+.5 then we stand to lose out. This has left people with the good will and effort that they have put in ie extra sectors, meetings/working groups as a kick in the teeth and inevitably the withdrawal of this by some individuals inevitable if a yes vote. Also the union are probably aware of the possibility of potential subscription cancellations as a result of how strongly some feel. Yes working to rule is a form industrial action, but people who decide their rostered time off is now more important to them, than a working group meeting it is very difficult to pin on anyone.
As for the vote myself either way it goes i will respect the majority, even if I feel we have lost the hold on the dearest thing to most of us.

[TALLOWAY]

I'm sure that all postees originally applied to NATS for a job, and not NERL/NSL.

Nope, some of us applied and joined the CAA. Some probably did so with some government department which managed ATC even before that.

Sorry to add to this, but I feel that if the vote is no, the ultimate result will be that NSL employees lose their jobs. How will you all feel about that?

Nice emotional blackmail attempt .. vote yes or everyone in NSL loses their job !!

The fact is, that regardless of the vote result, then most of us would expect to join our comrades in the union in whatever balloted action is required to save jobs throughout the company should NATS use the result as an excuse to sack people. So, I would hope most of us would stand by our colleagues in NSL, even taking appropriate industrial action in NERL if that is what is needed. Who knows, maybe our national Prospect officer would even feel able to support us in taking industrial action ... as long as we weren't fighting for something which gets us something better than Prospect have got for anyone else, in which case there's no way he could stand up and defend us ... if you believe what he said at the Pensions briefings.

NSL are also in some way falling victim to a corporate management who seem to always want to negotiate an airport contract at a going rate which is less than it actually costs the company (allegedely). How can anyone survive in business if everything you sell is a loss leader ??

There are still staff shortages in NERL at all the ACC units, which cannot operate efficiently without AAVAs and staff goodwill. I'm sure that any NSL staff would be assured a warm welcome to NERL to help us attain our agreed operational strength if their posts disappeared at any particular airport.

[eglnyt]

NSL are also in some way falling victim to a corporate management who seem to always want to negotiate an airport contract at a going rate which is less than it actually costs the company (allegedely). How can anyone survive in business if everything you sell is a loss leader ??

But how do you survive in business if you always bid more than the opposition ?

[ZOOKER]

The same way as BMW sell cars costing more than average.
Discerning customers will usually go for a quality product.

[fly bhoy]

Fenella

Sorry to add to this, but I feel that if the vote is no, the ultimate result will be that NSL employees lose their jobs. How will you all feel about that?

I'm sorry to point out, but I feel that if the vote is yes, the ultimate result will be no NSL at all!! As was stated at my briefing, the union see it as highly likely that NSL will start giving up "loss making contracts" once the deal goes through, and when asked what's to stop them giving up ALL of their contracts and effectivly selling off NSL, their reply was that "yes, that is entriely possible"!!!

Voting yes for this deal makes the company much more financially attractive to any potential buyers and as soon as the deal goes through, an attempt to sell off the whole NSL section will quite possibly happen and where will all your NSL colleagues jobs (and indeed pensions!!) be then?!? It certainly seems a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation, but its a situation of management's making and they can damn well sort it out themselves!!

FB:ok:

[anotherthing]

Fenella


Sorry to add to this, but I feel that if the vote is no, the ultimate result will be that NSL employees lose their jobs.
Why would people who worked at an airport that NATS suddenly lost it's contract for lose their jobs?

Will the airport close for 2 years or so while people are recruited and trained?? Of course not.

The employees may well find future Ts and Cs changed, but you cant just draft in some ATCOs from Poland and start doing the job... who would train them?

The fact of the matter is, NATS has long term loss making contracts at several airports - the reason they have negotiated those contracts in that manner is known only to the management people.

To put it another way - why should I lose out on my pension because NATS chooses to lose money on its contracts?

The fact of the matter is, I believe that NATS will only ever be 'A World Leader In ATM' if it continues to have controllers/ATSAs/ATCEs at Area and Airfield units... it would be a sad day if we started shedding too many contracts.

However a 'yes' vote makes the sale of NSL even more realistic as it reduces the pension liability to any future buyer.

I suggest anyone who has any doubts about the possibiility of the sale of NSL or part of it, need to look at Mr Barrons previous employment history.

He specialises in taking large companies, splitting them into smaller entities, then selling off the bits he does not want. He then closes the pension scheme of the parts of the company he holds on to.

He has a proven track record of this, he is very good at it. Maybe looking at it purely as business, you have to agree that what he is doing makes sense... (but not in a way that would maintain our standing as a good ANSP).


Oh, and once he has done the hatchet job, he leaves the company, negotiates a golden 'hello' in the form of a lump sum (to cover loss of pension contributions), then transfers his pension into the new company (before changes to his old pension take hold).

[Del Prado]

During the recent Irish dispute the IAA threatened to take the union to court because staff were not accepting overtime. The jist of the argument being that although it was a voluntary agreement, management had a right to expect overtime attendances because that had become normal working practise.

I can't find the reference but the thread's here (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/310303-atc-voluntary-overtime-ban-dublin-flights-delayed-25th-january.html)

[Cuddles]

Another thing to consider that the only bit of NATS business that is ringfenced and subject to economic regulation is the Area functions, provided from the centres (Including TC), and services to North Sea helis, provided by both Area and Approach rated controllers up here in the frozen (Although less so today) north.

That is the only bit of the business that is subject to the price cap, NSL can charge what they like, as long as people are willing to pay the price (Ie not Manchester)

As I understand it, any new business, be it Area or Approach based that NATS goes after and subsequently provides will have to fall under the NSL banner.

Ergo, the only way we can pull ourselved out of the current mongolian clusteryouknowtherest is by growing the NSL side of the business.

And they can't do that if NSL is sold off.

I'm leaning towards a no at the mo, and I am one of a peculiar bunch of miscreants who have a foot in both the NERL and the NSL camp. And as a unit we're making a profit at the moment.

[ProM]

Much has been talked previously about how NATS is essential to running of country etc. Something that occurred to me over the weekend...if in the worst case scenario NATS do go on strike, how much non-UK air traffic would be impact?

Presumably a fair amount of trans-atlantic flights that are not to or from UK are controlled by NATS at some point. If NATS is 'off air' is there a fallback plan for these?

[anotherthing]

ProM

Majority of European transatlantic traffic would be affected, inbound and outbound flights.

If they managed to get round the 'not flying through UK airspace' issue (possible), it could incur huge costs in extra fuel.

Upshot would be either a huge loss in profit for the airlines, or a big increase in ticket prices for those days. That in turn would mean less people would fly because of the hike in cost...

Because of the position of the UK and it's airspace, any closure not just of the major airports in the UK but the airspace itself, would have an enormous knock-on effect for mainland continental Europe and US/Canada.

The UK is a major hub, in both terms of airports and airspace.

Cuddles

there are many reasons why NATS should keep NSL and maintain a very strong presence in airports... your point is on of the more important ones. Unfortunately, NATS has quite a few loss making contracts on its books - I suppose it's a fine balance of getting contracts or making money.

I for one would happily see the company lose some money in some areas if we made an overall profit - it it meant that NATS could continue to be a 'leader in ATM'.

As soon as NATS stops or drastically reduces the number of coal face workers it has at either an airport or area unit the knowlwedge will go, and we could no longer be the expert we aim/claim to be.

If we don't have people doing the job on the coal face at airports, how can we convince customers that we are knowledgeable in the field, and therefore why would they come to us for other services borne out of experience of actually doing the job?

The sale of NSL would be a great mistake, I honestly believe that reducing pension liability i.e. voting 'yes' is one step further down the road to doing that.

[BAND4ALL]

Cuddles
Ergo, the only way we can pull ourselved out of the current mongolian clusteryouknowtherest is by growing the NSL side of the business.

And they can't do that if NSL is sold off.

Well what if just the unprofitable parts are dispensed with then?

[Me Me Me Me]

I understand NSL are having some success in seeking to re-negotiate some of their more challenging contracts.
I'm afraid you can't hang the emotional blackmail of suggesting that if we vote no and insist on NSL paying 42% pens conts, people will lose their jobs. These contracts have been loss-making in some cases while NSL has been paying 12% contributions.... So the fault is not with the pension.

I don't want to see anybody lose their job.

[Del Prado]

Eglnyt said,

Some of the briefing material includes predictions by Mercer of the likely underlying rate with the proposals in place. I don't have access to that material right now to quote the exact rate but it is up at about the 30% which is 10% more than present. It stays quite high for quite a long time and then slowly starts to come down as the balance between people on the two schemes changes.


I thought the current contribution rate was 12.2%. If NATS can afford 30% contribution rate and they've wanted to address the underlying rate for several years then why haven't they been paying 30% since they discovered there was a problem?

Surely not to run down the scheme until we were forced into accepting changes?

[anotherthing]

Del Prado,

come now, behave.

That would imply that Barron et al have been very clever in this affair

What would someone who gets bonuses based on the financial health of NATS gain from closing down an expensive pension scheme and replacing it with a cheaper one?!! :}

[Del Prado]

anotherthing, at least we're safe in the knowledge they haven't been able to make the pension look even worse by changing life expectancy assumptions used to calculate future liabilities.:suspect:

For that they'd need to have NATS board members on the board of trustees.:eek:


I wonder what life expectancy is being used to calculate future liabilities and how that compares to other pension schemes.

[anotherthing]

Del Prado

I know what you mean :ok:

I know this is not just about ATCO's - I know NATS is about a hell of a lot more than just ATCO's.

However it is a fact that shift workers - ATCOs/ATSAs/ATCEs, have a lower than average life expectancy.

However that life expectancy has risen since records began, along with the life expectancy of everyone else in the developed world.

It worries me that the 'experts' only just stumbled across the fact in the past 18 months. Of course the fact that it helps strengthen the 'we can't afford the pension' case is a coincidence :suspect:.

Also, if they had taken account of the fact several years ago, the underlying rate that NATS should have been paying (but haven't been) would have been slightly higher, meaning that the difference between that rate and the new anticipated rate would not have been as large.

However, that would not have the same impact, so wasn't to the benefit of NATS!

Mind you, I'm also a bit disconcerted that our money 'experts' within NATS have only just heard about SMART pensions...

I'm not really into conspiracy theories, I don't give a damn who does the vote count and I don't give a damn about the numbered voting sheets... however I do believe that NATS have manoeuvred the company into this position deliberately.

We were being pushed into this scenario, it was a case of 'when', not 'if'.

[250 kts]

However that life expectancy has risen since records began, along with the life expectancy of everyone else in the developed world.

It worries me that the 'experts' only just stumbled across the fact in the past 18 months. Of course the fact that it helps strengthen the 'we can't afford the pension' case is a coincidence .

But maybe it's not about the life expectancy of us old wrinklies but about the life expectancy of today's 20 year olds, many of whom would still hope to be ATCOs in 40 years time-unlike many other businesses.

[eglnyt]

Del Prado

NATS paid 12.2% up until April when it started paying 20%.

[eglnyt]

A quick look at the guidance from the Pensions Regulator will show that the Trustees have very little choice in what life expectancy figures they use regardless of who is on the panel of Trustees.

[Del Prado]

Eglnyt, re: 20% contributions, thanks for clearing that up.

do you have a reference for your other point?

[eglnyt]

The Pensions Regulator has published Mortality Assumptions Guidance which you can find on its website.

[PeltonLevel]

eglnyt
NATS paid 12.2% up until April when it started paying 20%.Nearly right - actually 22.6% until the end of 2008, then 20%. This gives an average of 20% for the whole of 2008.
See: https://www.caaps.co.uk/axiseinternet/pdfs/Nats_Schedule_of_Contributions.pdf
(you can open this without logging in to the CAAPS website).
Others may choose to comment on the actuary's statement!

[anotherthing]

250Kts

But maybe it's not about the life expectancy of us old wrinklies but about the life expectancy of today's 20 year olds, many of whom would still hope to be ATCOs in 40 years time-unlike many other businesses.

It doesn't matter whose extended life expectancy we are talking about. The fact is it has been rising since records began in the developed worlds - and therefore there is going to be a continued slight increase year on year on any pension fund.

We have and always will need to employ people - that's a known fact along with the known fact that they would be eligible for a pension. Your statement, if indicative of how the pension fund had been run, indicates a lack of long term planning.

Eglnyt

Pensions regulator/Actuaries/whoever. The fact is, life expectancy has increased for years - only slightly year on year, but always an increase.

I know it's possibly a moot point, but surely this long established fact should have been factored into pension funds earlier??

[eglnyt]

Pensions regulator/Actuaries/whoever. The fact is, life expectancy has increased for years - only slightly year on year, but always an increase. I know it's possibly a moot point, but surely this long established fact should have been factored into pension funds earlier??

The assumptions have always factored in an increase in life expectancy the problem is that in the last few years that increase has accelerated far greater than anybody anticipated.

[Fenella]

"Why would people who worked at an airport that NATS suddenly lost it's contract for lose their jobs?"


Because at the union conference Mr Barron apparently said that he would be worried about massive redundancy payouts if NATS lost the contract at EGCC... Doesn't sound like he wants to keep them, does it? If NATS start walking away from NSL contracts, what do you think they will do with the staff? A surplus of tower controllers... no job for them! Hello redundancy package.
Am I the only one that sees this? These are colleagues for "Eff's sake".

[anotherthing]

If NATS start walking away from NSL contracts, what do you think they will do with the staff? A surplus of tower controllers
What do you think will happen to them Fenella??

The same as happens whenever a change of service provider happens at an airfield... the winner of the new contract takes on the old staff.

Or do you think that new controllers can be drafted in and be qualified to work at whichever airport is concerned the day after the contract changes hands?

Who do you think will do the training Fenella?

Barron has a track history of breaking up companies and selling off the non performing parts. He has a history of closing pension schemes.

His management staff have just recently refused to deny that NSL will be put up for sale, regardless of what happens with pensions.

Our pension is viable - it is the willingness of NATS to maintain it that is in question.

NSL is safer from buy out if the more expensive pension is kept in place.

Make NSL cheaper to run, make it easier to sell. It's not rocket science

[eglnyt]

Our pension is viable - it is the willingness of NATS to maintain it that is in question.

Do you really think a pension with a 42% underlying rate is viable ? Most of those which have already been restructured had much lower underlying rates. Even 30% is considered very expensive.

[throw a dyce]

Anotherthing,
Well the last time NATS lost a contract (Prestwick) I don't think there were many takers to go to PIK.The new controllers were sitting with airbands listening to what was going on ready for day one.:\
I would like to think that NATS would give the option to people to move,after all we are a mobile grade:D and a valuable highly skilled resource in world wide demand.
There is also TUPE for people who wish to stay put.I think changing ATC suppliers at the busier units is almost impossible nowdays with SRG and all the rules that apply.
In fact even a small reduction in the number of staff at the smaller units,can have a drastic affect on the service provided.Any newcomers would have to be pinched from other units,but since NATS will have got rid of the good pension,then where are they coming from?
You just have to look at the ads in Flight and there are lots of jobs for Approach,Approach Radar and Tower qualified ATCOs.
But then NSL isn't up for sale.The management say so.:suspect:

[anotherthing]

TAD

I really hope NATS do not sell NSL - it would be a very poor decision as far as being a 'World Leader in ATM' is concerned.

If they did, I would hope they offered jobs within th ecompany for those who wished to stay with NATS - we are short of ATCOs after all, temporary economic downturn or not.

I just don't understand how Fenella can say that all the ATCOs at say EGCC would be jobless if NATS lost the contract :ugh:.

A good bit of scaremongering there.

[throw a dyce]

Well personally if our unit lost it contract,then I would take the redundancy package and then sit back.The new contractor would be desperate to employ people with the validations,so it's name your price.The alternative is that the airport would be closed.:hmm:
Then again NATS could come up with a package to keep it's valuable staff.:hmm:

[Me Me Me Me]

Because at the union conference Mr Barron apparently said that he would be worried about massive redundancy payouts if NATS lost the contract at EGCC... Doesn't sound like he wants to keep them, does it? If NATS start walking away from NSL contracts, what do you think they will do with the staff? A surplus of tower controllers... no job for them! Hello redundancy package.
Am I the only one that sees this? These are colleagues for "Eff's sake".

Fenella... I'm pretty sure every redundancy offered in NATS is over-subscribed. It's less about NATS wanting rid of people than people itching to put their hand up to take the money. Barron's "Fear" is that everybody wants redundancy and NATS ends up having to pay it. They would far rather retain staff and avoid that huge outlay.

[ProM]

Not sure what barron is referring to all the people directly involved in any contract that is lost, he can pass on to the winner under the TUPE regulations so he wouldn't have to pay redundancy

I guess there might be a few central admin jobs that he would have to cut but which he cannot justify are directly involved in the particular contract. Not much though

This also means ATCOs need not fear such redundancy (unless the new contract owner believes it needs fewer ATCOs which sounds unlikely)

[anotherthing]

TAD

Nail on the head there. Without wanting to sound like we (collective) are up our own backside (for anyone who is not in the ATC business), ATCOS, ATSA's and, to a slightly lesser extent (though local knowledge of systems etc is extremely important), ATCE's are fairly unique in that if they were to down tools, you could not get someone else just to walk in and take over (like the firemens strike for instance).

Even qualified ATCOs/ATSAs would need to be trained (and pass the exam board), to work at a specific unit. Who would do the training and examining - oh, that would be the people who currently worked there!

ProM,

In reply to your statement - I'll admit that the way some outfits run airports, there could be a perceived reduction in manpower requirements - if they really went for it, any contract winner could possibly shave one or two off the staff list, it would be uncomfortable for those that remained, but could be achieved within the framework of working hour laws.

However, there is such a shortage of ATCO's that anyone who has been valid at a 'busy'ish unit should be able to walk into another job fairly easily.

If I was an NSL employee, I would not be worried about being laid off, as per Fenellas incorrect statements (it won't happen to the vast majority of staff, those that may find themselves in that position could walk into another job easily).

I would be worried about leaving the employ of a large company that is to be fair, still damned good to work for compared to a real job! However, it would take a brave person to bet against the statement that NATS will try to sell of all or part of NSL, especially if they manage to force a lower cost pension through.

... And although I stated ...still damned good to work for compared to a real job...above, that does not mean we should allow any reduction in our Ts and Cs.

In any career or company, having above average Ts&Cs or an above average Pension Scheme is not an acceptable excuse to erode it - it should actually be protected more zealously.

[fly bhoy]

Does anyone else find it quite interesting that the document which PeltonLevel has linked to in post #1756 points out that not only are the company paying far less than the required underlying rate at present (which we already knew), but that the percentage they ARE paying is due to decrease next year until 2013!!!

Does anyone else also find it quite interesting that this document was signed by Nigel Fotherby, the finance director, in March THIS YEAR...which, according to the manager at my briefing, was about 5 years after NATS realised the scheme was in trouble, and about 2 years after commencing negotiations with the union to change the scheme on the basis that the underlying rate was too expensive!!

Finally, does anyone else think that this is not exactly what you would call a prudent course of action for a management team which apparently have the best interests of our scheme, and the workforce in general, at heart?!? What an absolute joke!!

Every one of these presentations has been based on the fact that an underlying rate of 25% is what they're aiming for, and is what is affordable, but yet again they're STILL going to be paying less than they should be, and, indeed, less than they are currently!!! And what do you think is going to happen in about 2011-2012, when they've been underpaying for another 3 years?!? I'm not a gambling man (;)) but if I was, my money would be on them coming cap in hand again asking us to change the supposedly "longterm viable" scheme that was foolishly agreed to in 2008!!

They are trying to pull a fast one on us, colleagues...lets not let them and regret it for the rest of our careers!! As soon as we vote yes for this deal, we can forget any possible negotiating power for any subsequent changes to the pension scheme in a few years time!!

FB:ok:

[eglnyt]

Not sure about the CAAPS document but NATS in both it's 2008 Annual Report (page 30) and in the information it's recently published seems to think it's been paying 20% since April.

[PeltonLevel]

the percentage they ARE paying is due to decrease next year until 2013see my update to post #1756 which might explain the decrease.
(Assuming that the salary bill is constant for the whole year, 12.2% for the first 3 months then 22.6% for 9 averages out at 20% over the whole of 2008)
Those with a 'grasp of very basic maths' should note that the result is not 17.4%! (I used Excel)

[Vote NO]

Has anyone heard anything about PBhttp://www.mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/action1.gif going in March 09 to his next victims ?

[ZOOKER]

PB will be staying on until nPC opens.
He was appointed to deliver the "Two-Centre Strategy", and deliver it he will, (On time and on cost)!
Allegedly, he has already purchased a tartan bow-tie for the opening ceremony. :E

[anotherthing]

I had heard he wasn't long to retirement - whether thats in entirety or just from NATS I don't know.

Either way, just as in his last employ, you can bet that once his hatchet job is complete, he will drive off into the sunset (and probably get a bung towards his pension fund, like he did when he moved to NATS, to boot).

Although he harps on about the fact that he has a NATS pension, he has recently had a whopping well above RPI pay rise (fully pensionable, of course) and will leave before his fund is damaged in any way.

Zooker - it will be nice to see him wear a tie for a change. Call me old fashioned but I am not at ease with the trend of very senior managers thinking it is OK to go about just in suit trousers and open necked shirt.

It's all part of the bolleaux he is trying to pull on us, along with his blogs, to try to endear himself to us, to make us think he is one of the people.

It aint working!! Wear a tie, and as for the blogs, do I give a **** about knowing what you got up to at the weekend??? NO!!

Our unit managers and their underlings manage to wear ties and look a hell of a lot smarter for it.

Rant over... I feel better for that

[Fenella]

andanotherthing


I think you've misunderstood me. Would you like to be "TUPEd"? The ATCOs I know are fully aware that a new company taking them over only has to match Ts and Cs for a certain amount of time... then they claim they can't afford it and offer a much worse deal knowing that said ATCOs will have to accept it or go elsewhere. I would never be as obtuse as to speak for everyone, but the tower ATCOs I know applied to NATS for a job, not the unit they ended up working at. And now some are being knocked back for training at NERL units because the training depts are only accepting them if NSL pay for the training. Hmmm....
So, if PB walks away from a load of contracts and 80% of the staff involved insist on staying with NATS, he WILL have a case of too many tower controllers, not enough jobs. Take the TUPE or eff off, surely?

I know you'll prove me wrong somehow ;)

[Fenella]

And another thing, andanotherthing,

"The same as happens whenever a change of service provider happens at an airfield... the winner of the new contract takes on the old staff.

Or do you think that new controllers can be drafted in and be qualified to work at whichever airport is concerned the day after the contract changes hands?

Who do you think will do the training Fenella?"

I do have a couple of brain cells :ouch:

What if they don't have an OJTI ticket yet?What if they don't want to stay and train? What if they ask to be relocated to another NATS unit and are told they'll have to move to the opposite side of the country? (Sorry to any Manch area readers about that one). Nice options....

BTW I haven't got enough brain cells to work out how to "quote" properly though.

[Flybywyre]

Dearest Fenella..........
A glance at the time of your posts, combined with the content of said posts, clearly indicates that you have just got back from a very good night out :ok:
A "Bloody Mary" when you get up is the best way to recovery, especially when combined with a full English including bubble and Squeak and Black Pudding :8
Regards,
FBW

[Fenella]

FBW, you appear to be online too. I take it that's your personal remedy for the morning? I worked til 11pm... sorry about the insomnia, but I'm quite offended that you think I am some kind of lush. I would suggest you acquired some manners.

[TALLOWAY]

He was appointed to deliver the "Two-Centre Strategy", and deliver it he will, (On time and on cost)!

Allegedly, he has already purchased a tartan bow-tie for the opening ceremony.

That's probably why there is the big rush to move Oceanic across the road, so that he can trumpet that the new Centre is officially open. Even although there will be no presence from Scottish and Manchester at that point.

There's a couple of things our esteemed leader seems to have overlooked - firstly, he has no clear idea about how many MACC folks will be coming up the road, and therefore how viable it will be to make that part of the Ops Room operational. Secondly, he (through his management) seems to think that everyone at Scottish will be falling over themselves to give their rostered days off up and come in for OCT for some time in lieu (wow, what an offer, how can we refuse) or maybe a few hundred pounds bung (non Op AAVAs = cheap labour). We're almost in the planned year of opening and the management still haven't come to the unions to put all this to them formally (and be told to get stuffed I bet) or to publicise their great master plan of how they are going to lead the horse to the water and make him drink.

You can expect a lot of resistance to any poor OCT 'deal'. There is precedent with Swanwick and TC regarding appropriate remuneration. Something similar for us or forget it on days off. Alternatively they could try and take half of the staff out of the Ops Room on each rostered day and fill the blanks with AAVAs. Again, one would hope that they would find a lot of difficulty filling those spaces up, not only because we are selling ourselves cheaply if we do, but because many folks might be approaching their AAVA limit by then anyway. The final alternative is to accept massive delays and a hit on the managements bonuses ... but we couldn't possibly have that happen could we ??

There could be trouble ahead ..... and a late opening of the full Prestwick Centre capability.

[Vote NO]

This highlights the crisis that Management have created for themselves. It could be a long hot summer :E

[Roffa]

TALLOWAY, what do you think up there that the 'OCT' deal that TC got was and that you will use as a precedent?

[TALLOWAY]

I understand our local union reps have copies of the 'agreements' and so expect them to be going in to ask for something similar.

I bet AC didn't move for a paltry non Op AAVA here and there, and although I concede that the OCT for TC was probably very limited since they were going with like for like kit, I am sure they didn't do it for nothing either.

For the benefit of us all, you could always tell us what you got ;)

[Roffa]

From memory, nothing.

[Vote NO]

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Poll Results (http://www.snappoll.com/view_results.php?poll_id=301858) latest http://www.drfun.com/breaknnews.gif


NO ....83%....105 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

YES....17%....22 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif


Remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!

Ask yourself, how safe will my job be if this deal goes through and NATS is sold off ?

If you vote yes, you are a turkey voting for XMAS

http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii270/mkalert/Turkey.jpg


Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

VOTE NO http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

MERRY XMAS

[anotherthing]

Talloway,

it's people like you who stir up ill feeling between units amongst those who are easily led.

There is precedent with Swanwick and TC regarding appropriate remunerationProof? TC received nothing for moving, mind you it seems TC is the only area unit that accepts it is a mobile grade...:ugh:


although I concede that the OCT for TC was probably very limited since they were going with like for like kit, I am sure they didn't do it for nothing either.



A few things about your assumption.

1. The kit isn't 'like for like' - in fact we still have lots of issues with the VCCS more than a yeardown the line, we had training on days off for the new kit before we moved. Unpaid, covered by clawback.

2. TC got nothing, nada, zip for the move over and above the normal relocation package.

We just got on with it... the usual attitude that TC has about most things.

It's totally incorrect 'statements' like yours that divide the company and cause ill feeling between units, when there is in actual fact, no basis for it.

Fenella

You need to be a bit more consistent - you are the one that waded in with the emotional blackmail, stating that airport workers would be laid off if NSL was sold. The inference you gave was of many redundancies as well.
I for one don't want to see them made redundant.

if the vote is no, the ultimate result will be that NSL employees lose their jobs. How will you all feel about that?

Because at the union conference Mr Barron apparently said that he would be worried about massive redundancy payouts if NATS lost the contract at EGCC... Doesn't sound like he wants to keep them, does it? If NATS start walking away from NSL contracts, what do you think they will do with the staff?

I think you've misunderstood me.
I think I understood your earlier posts exactly.

I know you'll prove me wrong somehowYou're the one that's changing your statements...

What if they don't want to stay and train? What if they ask to be relocated to another NATS unit and are told they'll have to move to the opposite side of the country? (Sorry to any Manch area readers about that one). Nice options....
So, now you are saying that they will lose their jobs because they choose not to stay and train.

You are saying that staying within NATS and retaining NATS benefits(which is what you say you want for them), is not worth relocating for?

Fenella,

If you look back at my posts, you will see consistency.

I have said all along that I do not want NATS to sell of any part of NSL. I have also stated that I believe that making the pension costs cheaper (accepting the proposal), is a great incentive to any future buyer of NSL.

I will not be blackmailed by someone who states one day that people will lose their jobs if a 'no' vote goes through, then amends it to 'people might not want to stay with any new contract owner'.

I have said all along in this, people should vote for what they believe is right. I have not tried to emotionally blackmail anyone. Even when I have said that NSL is a better propostion for sale if the pension proposals happen, I have clearly made it understood that that is my belief, not a definite like the first few of your posts infer.

However I will tell you what is definite... That's Mr Barrons previous history of taking large companies, breaking departments into seperate subsiduary companies, closing the pension schemes, then selling off the loss making parts.

Am I the only one who does not see similarities or a possible trend??

[TALLOWAY]

Thank you Roffa and anotherthing for clearing up the TC lack of reward. As I say, our union reps have some paperwork regarding various other NERL moves, OCT, etc, and I expect that will be the basis of any local claim. No one is asking for anything over what other people in the past have got, just some parity, whatever that may be prove to be.

1. The kit isn't 'like for like' - in fact we still have lots of issues with the VCCS more than a yeardown the line, we had training on days off for the new kit before we moved. Unpaid, covered by clawback.

So did you move in to a centre using the kit you had at the old one and had been trained for, or was the new VCCS not introduced in to service at West Drayton ?? You also had no need to train on the NODE system. Scottish controllers are going in to a Centre where every piece of equipment is new to them, including a retrograde step to a radar system which seems to have been designed with making everything as difficult and as cumbersome as it could be possible to do, with an unclear picture and some possible safety issues, at least when compared to our current 1970's style one touch equipment.

Unpaid, covered by clawback.

It's a different kettle of fish then. You obviously owed the comapny time and they took it back. No one here could complain about that either. Our difference is that the clawback days will have already been used for other training which is day to day stuff not connected with Prestwick Centre going operational. So, they will need us to come in for around 5 days of our own time if they want us trained up to move 100 yards across the car park.

I am not giving up 5 days of my time for TOIL which I can't burn off anyway and especially not when I would like to. It's given ad hoc and dependent on staffing, which is probably only possible in the winter months, not the summer or autumn months when they want us to attend. And they have to somehow find that amount of time off for 130 + other colleagues as well in the same time period. No thanks, keeping my days off as per the roster suits me better !!

I am also not willing to forfeit 5 days off for a non op AAVA payment. It certainly isn't voluntary as far as I'm concerned and they have a cheek if they expect me to attend in my own time for a paltry £300 per day before tax (a pay rate which was set years ago and is worth a hell of a lot less in real terms now than when it was agreed). The emphasis is on voluntary. I'm not volunteering for pennies.

I work a 6 day on, 4 day off cycle. Fitting my training in to that is what I would like to do if they are only going to give me a ridiculous and derisory offer to do it in my own time. And I'm not alone in thinking like that.

It's totally incorrect 'statements' like yours that divide the company and cause ill feeling between units, when there is in actual fact, no basis for it.

OK, let's put TC to one side (I'll vote for you to get Band 6 BTW), what did AC and Heathrow get then ??

[Vote NO]

anotherthing

However I will tell you what is definite... That's Mr Barrons previous history of taking large companies, breaking departments into seperate subsiduary companies, closing the pension schemes, then selling off the loss making parts.

Am I the only one who can see similarities or a possible trend?? (I corrected your error!)

You are definitely not alone, and I understand your frustration at the naiveity displayed by those less able to grasp what is about to take place in the near future....if the "Pension deal" goes through

:ok:

[Vote NO]

Management would relish selling off NSL and integrating EGLL into NERL, I don't know if it is possible though:confused:

I am sure our resident :E expert will quote chapter and verse extolling the whys and wherefores ;)

[anotherthing]

Talloway

Sorry if I seemed a bit off hand - suffering (valiantly) from man flu.

Not sure about either EGLL or LAC - the fact of the matter is, I would fully support any unit getting paid proper AAVA rate for training on new kit - unless of course that training could be covered on normal rostered watch days and hours, without an impact on service delivery - but we all know that you can't pull the staff out of the ops environment without that impact - ergo you should pay them.

Our VCCS was introdued on 'O' date for TC Swanwick, training was several months before on simulator kit at West Drayton. As it was 'only' VCCS, it was covered either by one of the days clawback (instead of being feed or assessor for TRUCE, or by individual release from a working day.

The scale of training required by yourselves and LAC is/was of course much larger.

I honestly don't know what AC got, nor EGLL... and to be fair any other unit that moved to electronic strips (EGLL was not the first)... I don't know enough about what was all encompassed in the EGLL 'move' (of a few hundred yards) to comment.

I don't think it should be a jealously guarded secret though - if we are upfront with these things, then hopefully everyone would get dealt with equally.

But if management want to progress large scale moves and equipment changes, they need to allow for training and proper renumeration.

Wasn't needed for TC, different kettle of fish for other units. Of course that would mean management being willing to plan ahead and not do things on the cheap (when money is thrown away elsewhere).

As for Band 6 for TC - unless something is done to differentiate the different tasks/units in the room, we couldn't justify it - no way could it be a blanket rate across the room...

and to tell the truth, although my validations would be included in the ones that would be awarded Band 6 (if it was ever introduced, purely speculative based on your comment) and I wouldn't turn it down if it was offered to me (as long as it meant no detrimental effect on other units in the country), I'd rather see the likes of Farnborough or Aberdeen (to name just 2 worthy causes), being given a slightly better deal

Vote NO

Thanks for fixing my error... my excuse is I've got man flu:yuk: (a lesser person would've died by now, I'm sure of it)

[Vote NO]

I remember the days when we used to go in to work and soldier on with flu :eek:. I wouldn't and couldn't for that matter do it now :} Hope you get well soon :ok:

[anotherthing]

Vote No - I did yesterday... today's my sleep day... I arrange my flu to coincide with my rostered days off - that's dedication for you!!

[BAND4ALL]

FFS this gov are underwriting peoples mortgages now for two years, they can damn well underwrite my pension too.:mad:s

[Gonzo]

EGLL's training was achieved by releasing people from the operation on their rostered days and compensating by calling in AAVAs.

[250 kts]

I understand our local union reps have copies of the 'agreements' and so expect them to be going in to ask for something similar.

I bet AC didn't move for a paltry non Op AAVA here and there, and although I concede that the OCT for TC was probably very limited since they were going with like for like kit, I am sure they didn't do it for nothing either.

For the benefit of us all, you could always tell us what you got

So not a single mention of pensions here. One for the moderators to move to its' own thread please.

[250 kts]

FFS this gov are underwriting peoples mortgages now for two years, they can damn well underwrite my pension too.s

Better give Gordon a call then.

Now how will the conversation go?

Yeah well, I'm avery special ATCO with a 100% guarantee of keeping my job. I earn around £90k/year ( band allowing of course) with the chance to do a bit of voluntary overtime to boost the salary if I get a bit short.

The management want to restrict one of the very few un-affected final salary pensions but only if I get a pay rise (which I expect every year) more than RPI+0.5%.

Oh yes, I only work about 180 days a year as well.

I really am a special case-please help.

Love Band4all.

I'll bet he won't be able to hold back the smile, and he doesn't do that often as we all know.

[BAND4ALL]

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

[anotherthing]

250Kts

Saying that we only work 'about' 180 days a year is a bit misleading.

a - its more
b - if you count hours worked we work in the mid 30's per week... much tha same as anyone else!

Gonzo

As I stated, I did not know what the Heathrow case was. Did EGLL receive anything for when the tower moved??

As I said in my previous post, I'm more than supportive of it, but if these things are out in the open it does a couple of things...

a. Stops the rumour mill and gets the facts out there... there is nothing like a rumour or two to foster ill feeling between units, more often than not ill-founded (as per when Talloway thought TC received some payment for either training on new kit and/or our move).

b. It might help others in a similar situation secure some payment :ok:

[Gonzo]

Did EGLL receive anything for when the tower moved??

Yes, we got a coffee, tea and soup vending machine that is now free to use, as opposed to 10-15p a pop.

:}

[alfie1999]

250 kts

Better give Gordon a call then.

Now how will the conversation go?


Brown:

"WTF? Millions of voters getting their summer holidays ruined for the sake of £50m pa?"



The government is admitting net borrowing will be £118bn in 2009/10 so does anyone really believe that those millions of votes would be put at risk in an election year for the sake of such a relatively tiny sum?

The idea is utterly ludicrous!!!! :ugh:

[BDiONU]

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll
Whats 'scientific' about a poll anyone who has access to the Wide World Internet Web Thingie (nearly the whole world) can vote on?

BD

[Vote NO]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vote NO http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/344589-nats-pensions-split-pay-2009-thread-90.html#post4569468)
Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll


BDionu


Whats 'scientific' about a poll anyone who has access to the Wide World Internet Web Thingie (nearly the whole world) can vote on?

BD



Old chap :rolleyes: I honestly think you have no sense of humour. Not everything on this" rumour" site is for real:). Lighten up, unless of course the poll is worrying you? :E Poll Results (http://www.snappoll.com/view_results.php?poll_id=301858) latest

PS I keep getting you mixed up with eglnyt

PPS It's actually quite worrying that you think the "poll" was intended to be scientific:8 and not just a bit of fun :ok:

MERRY XMAS

[250 kts]

Saying that we only work 'about' 180 days a year is a bit misleading.

a - its more

Ok how about 181 attendances for a 24 hour unit? Close enough?

[alfie1999]

BDiONU

Whats 'scientific' about a poll anyone who has access to the Wide World Internet Web Thingie (nearly the whole world) can vote on?

BD


True enough BD.

The NATS forum poll however, whilst subject to the vagaries of sampling size, still shows around 2-1 against the proposal.