NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)

[LTN ATCO]

No, but i heard it was "stale mate" in the NATS-union pension talks!

[MrJones]

If the Pension is upsetting NATS' management then they aren't going to be too happy with an RPI of 4.6% and rising.

The next figures due on 12th August and some analysts are predicting over 7% by the end of the year.

[kinglouis]

I have an idea to help with the stalemate. Everyone at area centres who are above MUR ( which is the majority) gives up the extra validations they do for free to help out watches,unit, COMPANY.
Certain sectors will grind to a complete halt, as long as the short sighted dont all go scrambling for the AAVA's to cover it. Management seem to forget our 'good will' so very easily....

[2.5 miles]

Dont hold your breath, as the conductor of the night bus in Harry Potter says "Clench your buttocks and hold on tight, we're in for a bumpy ride"! Talk to you local rep.

[AREA52]

Hi all,

Having spoken to a couple of our local reps, it is true that management are trying to link the pay negotiations with the pension debate. My understanding is that they would like to make some of the percentage increase pensionable and some of it would not be pensionable. In the long term, this could have a serious impact on what you walk away with at retirement time.

Also, it means that you would have set a precedent for management to use as a starting point to chip away at next time round. It is a bit like the pensionable pay vs bonus payments situation we had at West Drayton, and look what happened there.

Regarding the pension contribution issue, management claim that future employer contributions will become unsustainable and that the scheme and company could be put at risk. They also think that it is unreasonable for our customers to be expected to pay the bill for a final salary scheme.

Lets look at what has actually happened. Post 9/11 and PPP, which lets face it, we could have done without both of them. NATS management, knowing there was a considerable surplus in the pension scheme, asked the trustees of the pension if they could "as a short term measure" reduce contributions into the scheme in order to assist the struggling airlines and reduce our charges to them. Seemed reasonable at the time as the last thing NATS needed was for some airlines to go bankrupt and the resultant effect on route charges.

By 2004/5, things were starting to get back to normal and NATS and the airlines finances were getting back into shape. However, only recently have NATS increased there contribution rate into the scheme and not even to the normal amount.

This is a cost which the CAA currently allows us to pass onto the airlines(some of which are our emploters anyway)! Why have NATS not been paying in at the full rate for the last three or four years when our Chief Executive claims to be so aware of problems with the scheme looming on the horizon, and the company has been bragging about its profits and how well we are doing. They cannot have it both ways!

Why has this problem only been addressed in the last 12 months or so?, because management were in no rush to maintain an expensive scheme which would not be attractive to a buyer when they come to sell of the rest of the company.

So next time you buy an airline ticket or anything for that matter, make sure you give yourself a discount and bank the difference, as it would be unreasonable to expect you to pay for someone elses pension! According to NATS anyway.

Also, you have the reassurance from Mr Barron that he "is in the same boat" and has transferred his 30 years or so from his previous company into the NATS scheme, and he only got 14 or 15 years for it (boo hoo). That will be because you are earning so much more now and it is obviously worth your while doing it as you know you will walk away with a massive sume in the next two or three years when the scheme is still viable!

DEEP BREATH

rant over:mad::mad::mad:

[anotherthing]

Area52 - there are numerous ways to lower the burden on NATS to keep the pension scheme as it is.

As you mentioned, making only part of a pay rise pensionable is one of those... unlike you, I don't think that's a horrendous idea (neither do all the Reps I know) - think how much pension a leaver gets today then add a little each year, it's still a good pension... it might actually be unfeasible to ask for a pay rise of RPI then expect all of it to be pensionable!!

The company can also take pension contributions out before paying us, thus saving employer PAYE contributions on that part of our salary. The end result is the same amount of money goes into the pot, just not double taxed; unfortunately NATS are not too happy to do this as they know it makes the pension extremely viable.

A smaller increase in pensionable salary with an extra bit non pensionable is not too bad - what we do not want is a closure of the scheme as that could cause problems later on. Anything we can do to keep the scheme as it is needs to be done.

However, the unions do need to be strong, as the pension at the moment is in a very healthy state... it can be bolstered by having NATS pay the correct full contribution.

As for customers paying for our pension - that's bull. It's a very weak argument by NATS. Every company pension scheme is paid for by that companies customer... it's one of the differences between Gross and Nett profit FFS!

[kinglouis]

i agree with pretty much all of the above. management will seemingly do anything to get rid of the pension.... if there is a bung, it would have to be in the region of £100k plus which im not holding my breath for.
when they offer as a crap payout we need not to take it, just think a £10k bung now is very nice, but its not even a years pension. we need to think and tread carefully but if the company start to take the piss im sure there will be lots of long lines at the watch supervisors desks handing in excess validations, ojti and LCE endorsements... they would be royally screwed.

[oneowl]

"Long live the King" I think the queue has already started!

[mr.777]

No pension...no work....its as simple as that. As for pay rise, there is no way we will get RPI. I think we'll be doing well to get 2%!

[beaver liquor]

I'm more worried about what I'm hearing about the pension negotiations. Rumour mill suggests that the NTUS has accepted that there must be changes to the scheme, and all they're on about is how poor the new entrants' scheme will be. Not sure what else there is to keep your powder dry for, when you give up the family silver for nothing :(

[anotherthing]

Beaver

there has been an announcement released - saw it in work today... it does not look good, though there is still a long way to go. Next announcement on or just after 14th August, I believe.

Yahoo,

I would like 12% - never going to happen.. however nice dream. I honestly think that if we don't sort the pension first and properly, then we will lose a hell of a lot more money in the long run.

[beaver liquor]

Anotherthing

Thanks for that, I'm on leave at the mo so wasnt aware it was out. Is there any mention of "incentivisation"? This rather delightful word means that whilst you may stay in the old scheme, any future promotions you apply for, taking the job might be dependent on you joining the new scheme. Likewise with future pay negotiations: you could have 2%, but if you join Son of Caaps you can have 10% - I kid you not.

This for me is the real issue. Any negotiators out there care to deny this is on the table?

[anotherthing]

Beaver

The notice just says that both the union and NATS are in agreement that the pension fund might have some difficult times ahead.

It goes on to state that there is a lot of work to be done to bring both sides to agreement and that there is still a big divide between the two camps.

It then goes on to say that the next meeting is 14th Aug, and more info will be available after that.

As for all you say in your post, you are correct. A two tier pay award will definately be the way things go if we close the pension scheme to new joiners.

Any promotion jobs, even GS/LAS will involve joining the new pension scheme.

Any bung to vote for a change would need to be hefty - circa £200-£300k - that's what we could easily lose.

What the stance of the Union is is unknown to me... I know a few union reps who state they are still trying to keep the scheme viable, but it may mean several measures need to take place - such as future pay rises may not be 100% pensionable i.e. the pay award is for 4% but only 2% counts towards pensionable salary etc etc.

I don't believe it's a lost cause, a lot of reps want to fight it, but we may have to accept that in it's present form it will not survive so to keep it open for all, we may have to compromise to some degree.

Closing the pension scheme to new joiners should not even be contemplated unless current members wish to have a very high risk of losing out in the future.

Thisis the management team that claimed that pensions would not be affected when they took contribution breaks... we can only speculate what damage having so much less money in the pot to invest since late 2001 because we helped the company has done.

[250 kts]

And this management team can make all the promises it likes medium term, but it will almost certainly not be the one in charge in 7 years when those in any new scheme out number those in the present scheme.

If any change is not fought now by the members then you can wave good bye to any decent pay rises in the next 10 years. We ain't going to fight over the odd couple of % if we don't fight over this-and management know it only too well. There are more things more important than next months' pay cheque. So every single person who does AAVAs should start thinking very carefully about if they should be doing them in the near future. This is not a call for industrial action, just a plea that intelligent people think hard about the long term.

[MrJones]

Reading this thread one thing stands out and it was said by 250 kts (http://www.pprune.org/forums/members/19392-250-kts) about the Pension Scheme


If any change is not fought now by the members then you can wave good bye to any decent pay rises in the next 10 years. We ain't going to fight over the odd couple of % if we don't fight over this-and management know it only too well. There are more things more important than next months' pay cheque. So every single person who does AAVAs should start thinking very carefully about if they should be doing them in the near future. This is not a call for industrial action, just a plea that intelligent people think hard about the long term.

[beaver liquor]

Agree with anotherthing's last post. Quite often, the biggest whingers are the ones who would never bother to be a rep. Because they are the "me me me" type.

I believe the current wages are fair for pretty much everyone - at Swanwick. As for other units, well the banding issue is divisive and unfair, in my opinion.

Also, AAVA's are divisive. Some choose not to do them, others embarrass themselves by congregating like flies round **** when the girl from the resource office brings in her AAVA Wishlist, falling over themselves to remind her that they are on leave soon, but not going away. Others do the odd one here and there. To unite and choose not to do them would be difficult, though the resulting staff regulations and delays to our customers would generate a lot of heat for NATS. Also, be aware when talking of work to contract, that means staying to the end of every shift... be careful what you wish for.

Lets keep our eyes on the prize here, that's the pension. Since the pension is a NTUS negotiation, every ATCO, ATSA, ATCE, STAR and MSG should inform their local rep that they do not want a change to the pension scheme. Then NTUS must reflect our views. Though it seems like NTUS have already accepted that new entrants will join a new scheme, and negotiations are about the quality of that scheme. I find that unacceptable.

[AREA52]

STEVEBBH

Why would you want to cap the pension at 35k, substantially less than the max pension at the moment for a top of the scale ATCO?

Also, please do get started on AAVA's, as I would like to hear why you don't approve of a voluntary agreement? Provided there is no adverse affect on long term T&C's and the pension of course as I stated in my last post.

Regards

AREA52

[anotherthing]

Beaver Liquor's last paragraph in his last post (#85) is very salient. Everyone should heed it. The union is, at the end of the day, only as strong as its members.

If we as members pussyfoot around and whinge in the background, how are our Reps supposed to know the strength of feeling. It doesn't take much, just go to you rep and tell them that you are not willing to change the pension scheme... it's numbers that count - in every other issue the union are left to get on with it... we need to show them how strongly all of us feel... though they do have a damned good idea already as they as individuals have the same worries/doubts as us.

[Loxley]

Genuine question:

When Barron was doing his bar-stool sessions last Summer, he went to great pains (certainly at our unit) to emphasise the point that even if he wanted to change our pensions, to do so would require 100% approval of the membership in any ballot.

So why the hell is the Union even bothering with discussions?

Our pension (so we've been led to believe) was protected by law at the time of PPP!

[Emma1974]

Would anyone be happier with a proper professional fulltime Union Representation.(obviously would cost a bit more)

I would much prefer a Union that had both eyes on OUR interests,and not one on "promotion".

[Standard Noise]

Having been a union rep in two different unions (Unison & Amicus/MSF) during my sojourn from NATS, I know only too well that it's a thankless task. But as I always said to the guys I represented, 'you need to tell me what you want before I go banging on the management's door. No good bitching that what we ended up with wasn't what you wanted.'

At my last unit, they had a habit of promoting the union reps to positions where they had to give the union job up. Still, I'm sure NATS has figured out that having a poacher wearing the gamekeeper's jacket is a handy thing for them.

[ZOOKER]

Emma,
Why should you pay extra for full time representation?
Surely that is what the "union" is all about. If the union does not represent your interests, then you should be talking to Trading Standards.
An analogy for you:-
If, when moving house, you employed a solicitor who cared about the other party's interests more than yours, you would be extremely unhappy.

The French controller's union has testicles, one reason why their standard of living is better than yours.
In France:-
Changing Le Pension? - NON!
Fermature Le ATC Centre d' Aix-en-Provence, se déplacer 300 km du nord avec Cartus? - NON!
Le PPP? - ZOOT ALLORS!!!
Qui est La Barron Rouge?

Do you know any UK ATC Staff who have retired and moved to France? - OUI :ok:
Do you know any French ATC Staff who have retired and moved to the UK? - NON :}!

[intherealworld]

Actually full time representation makes good sense, especially if you mean a Non nats person doing our negotiating. How much would that cost each member roughly?

[ZOOKER]

What, like Luxton :}:}.

[intherealworld]

I've no idea what you're on about zooker, nor do i wish to. And your analogies are rubbish! I doubt you'd be even be able to pay someone to help you keep whatever job you do!

[DC10RealMan]

At Swanwick the pension situation has been top of the canteen talk agenda for some time and a couple of very pertinent points have been brought up. It has been suggested that the privatisation "trust of promise" only covers employees in post prior to 2001 and that any vote to change the pension arrangements would have to be agreed by the majority of employees of NATS.
I would like to suggest that if this is so then we "oldsters" are either in the minority already or will be very shortly if you include the many adminisrators and other non ATC staff in post at Swanwick and the CTC. This will be compounded by "oldsters" who the changes do not affect voting for the proposed changes to receive the inevitable "bung" which goes with these "improvements" to our pension fund.

[anotherthing]

As has been correctly pointed out, any 'working to rule' would mean that we would have to forego any possible early go's.

Are people so precious about 30-40 minutes at the end of one shift in 6 that they would not be willing to do this?

Any working to rule would hurt the company far more than it would hurt us. Things to be considered as doable would be:

a. Dropping sectors above the MUR.
b. If not the above, insisting that if we are required (for staffing purposes) to move from one sector to the other - we ensure we get half an hour break before we do so and not move immediately from one seat to the other (safety implication).
c. No AAVAs
d. Training - ensure that we are fully happy that we have enough continuity before training someone
e. Splitting sectors every way they can be split more often (Safety again, after all, are you really in a fit state of mind to work sectors bandboxed when you are worried about what is happening to your pension? Is it worth the risk?)
f. Refuse to do the secondary duites that you do not get paid for i.e. writing the roster or attending workshops for new procedures etc

I'm sure there are many other instances os goodwill that we could refuse to carry out, safety is always a good reason, no one can pick you up on it.

As for early go's - I for one advocate that we have 2 cycles whereby no one gets an early go. The reason I say this is that some pathetic idiots (certainly on my watch) think it's a right, not a privilege, and whinge all the time about it.
These people have never worked in jobs where early go's are unheard off... a bit of a reality check would do them good every now and again!!

REVOLUTION,

Your post about pay rises and MUR is a valid one, but I have one concern - there are a few ATCO's who are near to retirement who have had a productive career and are now finding it a bit difficult to work the core sectors... Do you not feel that there should be some discretion for these people?

I fully agree though that someone who is in the early stages of their career should have an MUR to receive full benefits.

If they are not good enough to hold MUR, they should not be on the unit. There are a few people around who are in this position (having been trained on a non core sector after SVC/TVC, and then unable to cross over through inability), yet their course mates who failed to validate on a core sector after SVC/TVC get chopped, sometimes not even being given a second chance at another unit.

I know life is not fair, but why if we bin people who cannot do a core sector from the offing, do we hold onto people who through luck get to train on a non core sector instead of a core one, then do nothing else?

[AREA52]

An AAVA is paid at a flat rate for the shift, the rate is dependant on the banding of the unit and obviously is of more relative value to the junior ATCO's.

Thanks for joining the debate again, I appreciate both arguments for and against AAVA's, but some of the alternatives to a voluntary agreement may be even less appealling!

I look forward to hearing your views:)

[121decimal375]

:DFirstly we need to be pushing the union to commission another valuation of our pension scheme using the amounts NATS should have been paying. Then we can see where the pension surplus really should be. I’m sure everyone will agree that the figures would be a lot healthier.

This would help in a number of ways….firstly it shifts the “blame” for the reduction of the surplus to NATS management and not an unsustainable scheme/economic downturn etc etc etc

This would also be essential to present as evidence to bolster public support in the event of strike action!

[AREA52]

121.375

I agree entirely.

As I said before, would we even be asking these questions now had NATS been coughing up what they should have been paying into the scheme.

Even now the trustees are still allowing them to get away with a reduced rate, whilst posting profits and paying dividends. WTF is going on?:mad:

[Me Me Me Me]

On pensions - I would expect to see the tone of messages coming from the TU to alter soon.... in order to show a clear distance between the negotiating sides. Gridlock.

On pay - We may well end up getting something around the expected RPI + 0.5 - 1% but I very much doubt it will all come as part of a 'core' pay offer. Rather, I'd expect to see a core offer under RPI with a multitude of agreements on efficiencies and trimming of costs paying for the rest. The message coming from NATS is 'whatever payrise you get has to be paid for with savings for us'. But thats been the case in recent years.

On a general note - reading these NATS discussions I think it's often forgotten that there are people who work for NATS, doing 40-50 hours a week and supporting a family on £20-£25k. They are also most often the ones who are made to work harder and longer to cover for job cuts made to fund increases. No, they don't wear a headset - but their gas went up by the same 35%, their petrol costs just as much - they just don't have the Ferrari to put it in :)

[anotherthing]

Me me me me

your last paragraph is a very valid and well put point :ok:

[MrJones]

The past year has been an extremely volatile time for the Markets in which our pension scheme invests so much of our funds.

I don't think it'd be wise to make any long term decisions based on this period.

We should also be wary of any statistics bandied about as we all know with a little bit of skill and a little bit of spin they can be made to prove anything.

[Roffa]

What hope standing together over the pension issue, I ask myself...

[CharlieFoxtrotZulu]

The most important thing here is that the different types of employee stick together. ATCO, Engineer, Scientist, ATSA should be united. NATS senior management will try to divide and rule. We want no separate pay deals, no separate pension deals!. My faith in the union leadership to defend our iinterests is at an all time low. We should demand the company increases its contribution to the pension fund to take it FURTHER into surplus. Also we should go back to single year pay deals and settle for nothing less than RPI + 1. It is clear the company wants to weaken the Pension in order to close the scheme and split up NATS. NSL would almost certainly be sold first. The answer is simple...defend the Pension Scheme and get a decent pay rise for all and the company is less attractive for a potential buyer...which is what we want. Secure your pension, more pay and one whole NATS sounds simple to me. We just need some sort of gutsy leadership from TUs. Failing that the Union risks wildcat action by disgruntled ATCOs & other staff.

[Me Me Me Me]

Call a strike on pay? No...

Call a strike on pension? Yes.

On the question about MACC getting band 5... erm... no mention I know of. Have heard some ridiculous demands from a few of those having to move though.

[kinglouis]

goldfrog,

i dont envy you working those ours at all.
there will always be a divide between ops staff and the other, many aspects of the company. the majority of it stems from high above and we always play into their hands. the main point here is pay and pensions, the latter should be none negotiable for all of us. regardless of hours worked in any given week, that is our job, whatever it may be. NATS has indeed lost its way since PPP and is now a business run by externally drafted types who have no clue about providing a safe service, let alone actual ATC but are near wholly concerned with profit and delays.
if we let the company take it easy on pay and pensions this time round, it will not be remembered by the company in 3 to 7 years and they will stiff our pensions for good then. THEY were allowed to take a payment holiday by ALL of us who voted. its time they made it up and admitted responsibility for their actions. if they have to use some of their 'record profits' for the last year and get the pension fund sorted. so be it.

[Hootin an a roarin]

MNT

Watch the exodus when the pension goes. I come to work everyday because I love my job, not the company, managers or new initiative makers wasting precious money on things like destinations and 'Lost Horizons'.

I am not a company man and believe this company has gone far too commercial. Air traffic should not be handled like this as everything comes down to cost and profit rather than safety. I appreciate we need some backroom staff and if you actually read my post I was talking about the numerous administrators and manager this that and the other that we are brimming with. They are just mainly based at CTC. I count engineering as front line staff and the guys at my unit are well respected and part of the team. I do not feel however that I am part of the HR team etc or vice versa and the only thing in common is we work for NATS.

[intherealworld]

any news on today's union meeting?

[Air.Farce.1]

Top secret apparently :confused:

[DC10RealMan]

Call me picky, but are they not discussing the future of my pension. Do I not have a right to know????

[Air.Farce.1]

I am told we will know on Monday, but who knows ?

I saw a union rep today and he did not look happy, but I might be reading it all wrong:confused:

[anotherthing]

So a union rep looks unhappy - not a great sign possibly, if related to pensions - however it has to go to ballot. I don't care how unhappy or happy a union rep looks, I will vote to walk out the door if the company tries to sell my pension down the river.

Hopefully others will feel the same.

The union can and may advise its members to accept something, but it cannot make them. They are Reps - i.e. they represent us. They do not unilaterally decide for us.

[MrJones]

sr562 (http://www.pprune.org/members/56736-sr562)

To get back on thread though, we all have to stick together regardless of what position we hold in the company, otherwise the barron will be like a dog with multiple dicks, and we may as well all bend over, as our pay and pension will be f****d Exactly and Pensions is the first battleground.

I am amazed the Union has agreed something has to be done about Pensions when all we have to go on is a censored Management commissioned report.

We need an fully published Independent report on the state of the Pension fund and we need that report to answer some questions, like what state would the fund be in if NATS hadn't had a reduced contribution since 2001.

[Co ordination unaffected]

Not industrial action per -se, but in the event of workforce displeasure, those staff who have shares could sell as many as they can, NATS has to pay you £2.85 or whatever the current price per share is*, and then as no one apart from the employees are allowed to hold them, they get re allocated. Straight back to you. Money, AND most of your shares back again.

*I'm at home atm, so can't check the actual price

[intherealworld]

That is so true CU. Everyone who has the early tranche of shares should be selling them. Share price is up and is unlikely to get higher while in an economic downturn. Plus then they all get reallocated, so as said above you get them back! People who say they're going to hold onto them are clueless!

[slip and turn]

MrJones, just a small comment there - if an independent report came back and said our pension was in complete meltdown it would make little difference to me. My pension is mine, legally and morally .... Are you completely sure about how safe those funds are?

*As in all things, divide and rule is the game that gets played by the ruthless. First, if you have not yet retired, then you are a second class pension scheme member until the day you start drawing your pension or accept a first class transfer deal into another good scheme (if you can ever arrange such a thing without resigning). If anything goes wrong with your bit of the NATS bit of the CAAPS before you actually take the money out then the retired members feeding off of your bit get first pickings. As a still contributing member, when your (sub-)scheme t|ts have gone up, you only get allocated a proportionate share of the (crumbs?) left over. irrespective of any numbers you have seen to date.

... and I'll see a certain company down the pan before I give it up. Oh which company will that be and how will that help you? Employer companies do not have to go down the pan in order for defined benefit pension schemes to be scuppered.

As for sticking together, how many in NATS are willing to do that????Very good question. The tone of posts in this thread does not bode well...(See * above)

[Air.Farce.1]

Of course it is entirely possible or perhaps probable that the pension scheme will be rescued short term, in order to make NATS a viable proposition, (£2 Billion in either GB's or DC's treasure chest) if and when we are sold off to, dare I say it....SERCO......:eek:. in the next two years.
I fear we have kept our "powder" dry for far too long for short term gain. I see death by a "thousand cuts" every single day at work. Time alas is running out:sad:

[anotherthing]

well,

according to the union communication that came out yesterday regarding the pension, currently the actuarial assumption is that pay incresaes by RPI+1.5%

Therefore when it come to the pay talks, we should go in asking for more than RPI+1.5%, and accept nothing less than it :ok:

[DAL208]

Not been at work for couple of days...would be interested to hear what latest Union update was...if people dont want to divulge on here with non-NATS people, a PM would be appreciated.

Thanks

[ayrprox]

is it me?, this reads like 'oh look at the poor company, we are so poor help us out, we have no money'

maybe before they herald record profits in pravda, i mean pulse, they should spare a thought to those people who have created a major portion of those profits and perhaps reward them , rather than saying sorry chaps and chapesses we havent got any money...
As far as them having to contribute at 20% , well if they had been contributing when they should have, rather than taking an extended payment holiday , they wouldn't be in such a position.
Capping future pensionable pay rises?? ok as long as i can cap the red barrons rises. If he's worth over 10% why arent i?
The bit that worries me is where they talk seriously about a second pension scheme, and ensuring any new scheme provides similar benefits, and this would protect against a two tier feeling. What happened to one NATS one pension???
I feel a cave in coming..

[slip and turn]

Any pension arrangements for new entrants must be free of risk from their perspective.Well that's the killer isn't it?

It looks very much like the same old divide and rule.

Say ok to any deal including that and you are straight on to the slippery slope.

Then it will be revised retirement ages denying another tranche of fifty-somethings the chance to get close to 38/38ths by extending ...

No doubt a sale is very much on the horizon and the sellers have been told this is essential to get sold.

No doubt some of you are expecting to get sold and others not. Those that are are no doubt split into the expect-to-haves and the expect-to-have-nots. Slice and dice, if not divide and rule ...

Sounds like clichés? You bet.

I hate accountants. Did I ever say that before?

There's certainly some novel stuff offered up as options but is it worth your detailed attention? We all know the stock market is in a mess at the moment so unless you know that 'the detail' was based on a valuation and projection as of yesterday rather than as of 3 or 6 months ago or whenever Deloittes figures were valid then surely the figures are already out of date.

That 42.1% is horrible burden for any business, but if you deserve it, then tell them to bash ERG to allow you to double ATC charges to start filling the holes. They let BAA double parking charges over the last 5 years (at least). Not sure what their excuse was. As a frequent flyer when I plan my trips, I worry far more about parking charges than anything I ever pay an airline or what my airline needs to pay the ANSPs. That can't be right, surely? The airline can take care of itself, but you guys? Not sure. Seems the airlines will take real good care of you given half a chance :}

Whilst NATS too are still effectively a monopoly, they might as well act like one and redress some balances :p. Better in your pension funds now than in SERCO's coffers later.

Far too easy for me to say of course.

What do you reckon your shares might be worth versus your pension post-sale (if a sale occurs?). Well you'll get offered a firm price for the first, but the second will thereafter sit on shifting sands, won't it? :hmm:

Decisions decisions ...

[kinglouis]

one nats one pension, otherwise i am voting no.

one nats one pension, otherwise its industrial action.

apparantly a strike was mentioned to management during the last talks and they are ****ting themselves.

[DAL208]

this does not bode well....

Sounds like union are resigned to two tier pension scheme...but am i right in thinking that this sounds a lot like...'new employeees will have a new ****e...i mean riskless pension, AND the current pension will change too?!


ayrporx
well if they had been contributing when they should have, rather than taking an extended payment holiday , they wouldn't be in such a position.



Nail on the ******* head.

Someone i know high up in union told me yesterday that we can expect something to come out fairly soon...something along the lines of an extremely good pay offer in return for changing pension. Whether that meant current and new pension for newbies or just new one for newbies...i dont know. However, that is where the battle is going to be faught and won/lost isnt it? Much like last pay deal 'here, have a couple of extra grand....theres no catch at all...oh, except we are going to gove new trainees nothing...but you dont care about them...they know what they are getting before they apply so dont worry...'

Management know what they are doing (oi! im serious...stop laughing), they will have been preparing for these negotiations for years, they will have plan after plan to get what they want.

[45 before POL]

As said before ....they took a payment holiday....so pay that back(part of last 5 years of profit should have provided for that easily) Then we can see what the standing is. Secondly there are many final salary schemes where the employer has raised costs to cover it....post office was one as they went to the regulator to change their policy.....same should be done to CAA. Thirdly, why are share dividends being paid when the pension is such an issue??
Mentions in the union statement of capping pension rpi+1% for current members....well based on bottom of scale that makes for quite a bit less 25 years down line.(if i got sums right, correct me if wrong).
Overall a two tier pension will divide workforce which management would love....next 2 tier pay claims etc. A larger pay rise for next year?? well that woulld be selling us down the river with no gains at all, just less to look forward to on retirement.....and they would have saved millions the process.
I feel that the bag of coal and oil drum may finally become useful!

[mr.777]

Unless the aforementioned payrise/bung has 5 zeros at the end of it, I'm not interested and they can shove it where they see fit.
I agree that we have been guilty in the past of accepting the odd grand here or there as a bung but this is a completely different issue. do the management actually have the slightest idea of how we feel about this? Chucking us a few grand on another payrise, which shouldnt be connected to the pension issue anyway, is just asking for a strike.

[Caesartheboogeyman]

I completely agree with mr 777, The management are taking the P*SS out of us with these negotiations. The pension should not be linked to pay talks.
They can take the pension off me right now if they give me 500K tax free to invest in my own pension as i see fit. That is the minimum we will be losing if you look at recent retirees forecasts.
Don't try and sugarcoat it and screw us over on the cheap. I will gladly bend over for 500K.
But I will also give up ojti/aavas/my second non core sector.
If money is an issue, RENATIONALISE.
RAISE route charges.
STOP spunking money money pointless get togethers/projects that will never reach fruition.

[slip and turn]

Quoting from the July statement jointly from NATS and NTUS following the meeting Pensions Committee at the end of June:

• The Actuary’s report showed that the assets of the NATS Section as at 31 December 2007 were £2,983.7m, compared with £2,785.3m as at 31 December 2006. This includes the value of money purchase additional voluntary contribution (AVC) funds invested separately.
• The Actuary’s report showed that the liabilities of the NATS Section as at 31 December 2007 were £2,923.4m, compared with £2,489.1m as at 31 December 2006.
• The Actuary’s report showed that there was a surplus of £60.3m as at 31 December 2007, compared with £296.2m as at 31 December 2006. This represents a reduction of £235.9m. This is equivalent to a funding level of 102%, compared with 112% as at 31 December 2006.
• The Actuary’s report showed that the underlying cost of the Scheme (future service cost) to the employer has risen to 42.1% of pensionable payroll, compared with 37.3% as at 31 December 2006.

So sadly the numbers being used in current negotiations do look rather out of date already.

Not knowing how well insulated the funds are from the likes of the FTSE100 plummet of some 10%? in the last few months (worst case -10% of £3bn is -£300m) I might nevertheless surmise that the scheme may already be in deficit at this moment.

Does anyone know if the Additional Voluntary Contribution funds are significant? If they were. it might be putting a too rosy blur on the health of the main defined benefits part of the scheme.

And does anyone know if the 42.1% is the total funding requirement and includes the 6% employee contribution? When I read a 2006/7? presentation from NATS which mentioned the old 37.3% number I gained the impression that 37.3% was the total estimated requirement at that time.

It's just that the surplus reported at December 2007 had already become quite marginal, and the continuing 'holiday' from full funding looks like it is already a very big 'runaway' type percentage deficit during current surely very adverse investment conditions.

Though I am not such a person, I am sure I am not much different to the average NATS ATCO member when it comes to trying to make sense of the numbers.

So it was agreed in April to make the net 2008 employer contribution 20%? Adding 6% from employees gives 26% of payroll for 2008 not 42.1% or any higher figure.

One assumes the only reason for actual funding not being higher is some continuing agreement to let the surplus subsidise the employer contribution until the day that surplus is used up or has been seen to have done so?

Wouldn't be surprised to hear that day may already have passed - now what?

Begins to look like you all need parachutes as well as powder ...

[DC10RealMan]

Call me cynical but as one who has worked for the CAA and nats for the past thirty years just bear with me. There may be other factors that are not obvious.
1) There is a way to break bad news and that is to give VERY bad news first and then when the truth is known it seems like good news.
2) There are a lot of very senior people who if they stay after 8th April 2010 will be obliged to stay until the age of 55, however if you suggest that they may be problems with the pension fund then rather than take the risk they will leave voluntarily and that would save nats enhanced retirement and salary costs.
3) This is no criticism of the respective union reps, but if the unions have no influence over Mr Barron or the management then let them be honest and say so and then we can make up our own minds as to where our personal interests lay and then we can plan accordingly.
In conclusion these MAY be factors in the managements plans particularly No2

[barstewards]

Does anyone have any links/more info regarding the guarantee that was made at the time of privatisation. As in - what is covered by it - nothing/everything invested to date/everything until retirement??

NATS runs on the goodwill of it's staff. If OUR pension is tampered with then I will not do any additional duties, instructing or ava's. It may cost me a little each month but if they do not care about their staffs future then I will not care about the companies..

The first step MUST be for the company to look into smart pension investments.
After that - stop wasting money on awards ceremonies etc.

IF NATS IS SO STRAPPED FOR CASH THEN STOP TELLING US HOW MUCH MONEY YOU ARE MAKING ETC ETC

[121decimal375]

This may and probably will sound daft but excuse im ignorance....

How can a company take a "holiday" from paying into the pension? would that not mean that as employees we should be entitled to the same holiday entitlement, so maybe what we should have been saying to the company is for the % of the correct amount of funding the company is paying less then as employees we should be entitled to do the same! We live in a land of so called equal opportunity!!!!!

Basically im my opion we would not even be discussing this if the company paid what the should have been doing the whole time....and since we are meant to be a non profit making company then the pension pot is where any profits should be going!

:ugh:

[eastern wiseguy]

non profit making company

Can't quite remember where I saw it but I believe that Barron stated that "he didn't sign up for that"

Mind you he also told me personally at a bar stool session that he would preserve the pension as "I have transferred into it"

EW less than eight years to go...and concerned.

[250 kts]

Given the very significant impact of our proposals and efforts we had taken to seek to address
issues of cost and risk, whilst at the same time providing and protecting high quality pension
arrangements for our members, we had hoped for a positive outcome from discussions with
management. However, management have now set out a fundamental principle which they describe
as “non negotiable”. Any pension arrangements for new entrants must be free of risk from their
perspective.

This is a direct quote from the statement. I thought the whole purpose of Working Together was to get to a position which broadly suited both sides.

If they really mean "non-negotiable" then I see that as the end of WT and Prospect should advise management of that immediately and it is effectively the end of recent Industrial Relations as we know them.

Pay demand should be RPI+5%-non negotiable or we ballot for industrial action. It works both ways.

[Dublinborn]

As management have now decided that aspects of a NEW pension are "non-negotiable" perhaps it's time that the union informed management that their repayment of the money owing to the pension fund from their payment holiday is now NON-NEGOTIABLE including interest that would have accrued over the 6/7 years that this money remained unpaid.Then we can look again in 12 months time and see how healthy the pension scheme will then suddenly look.
I know this is a naive outlook but this should be the starting point of ANY union negotiations not immediately suggesting a 2-tier pension scheme straight away as in the union announcement.

[barstewards]

250kts said: If they really mean "non-negotiable" then I see that as the end of WT and Prospect should advise management of that immediately and it is effectively the end of recent Industrial Relations as we know them.

Pay demand should be RPI+5%-non negotiable or we ballot for industrial action. It works both ways.WELL SAID!!

Unless the company pays back ALL the money they saved through pension 'holidays', reduced contributions and lost interest I will vote NO to ANY pension reforms.

We are members of the CAAPS not NATS pension scheme. What are the other members (non-NATS) of CAAPS currently being told about the scheme???

[MrJones]

250 kts (http://www.pprune.org/members/19392-250-kts)


I see that as the end of WT and Prospect should advise management of that immediately and it is effectively the end of recent Industrial Relations as we know them.I have long thought that Prospect had a far too cosy a relationship with NATS' management and believed they should have been less understanding of the their problems and more understanding of its fee paying members' problems.

For us to agree to the company drastically reducing its Pension contribution and then them turning around and doing this is a grave breach of trust and I don't see how Prospect can ever work with the present management again.

[250 kts]

Taking no action is really not an option. If the staff choose to roll over on this subject just where do you think that leaves us for the foreseeable future? Shafted I would suggest. Management will rub their hands in glee knowing that a couple of %, if we're lucky each year, will have the effect of shutting us up.

If we don't fight for this there is no hope left for our other terms and conditions.

[fisbangwollop]

Barstewards makes a good point...Quote"
We are members of the CAAPS not NATS pension scheme. What are the other members (non-NATS) of CAAPS currently being told about the scheme???"

I to would like to hear the response to that to....what about our mates "SRG" etc.that never had to move over to NATS, how is their pension going to fair????

If we give up on this battle we may all as well get a job down the jam butty mines as we will all be well and truly shafted for ever!!!

[DC10RealMan]

This show of unity is encouraging, however just supposing we did go out on strike even for a day I can guarantee that some atcos would still come into work if the management made it attractive enough.
The younger ones who would sell their souls for double overtime and are in so much debt they have to, particularly in the present economic climate.
The older ones approaching retirement who are not affected by the pension changes and could do with extra money to top up their retirement fund.
I have never underestimated the greed of atcos and I hope that I am wrong but it has happened before admittedly not recently but if the management make it worthwhile we all might be sorely disappointed with some of our colleagues actions.

[Min Stack]

Going on strike would be a last resort - we would get absolutely no sympathy whatsoever from the public.

With less than 4 years to go for me, I'm naturally worried about the future of my pension - after giving nearly 30 years good service to CAA/NATS I'm resentful that after putting in all the effort for this company they've now repaid me by putting me in the position of being concerned about my future retirement situation.

Giving up extra sectors, OJTI and AAVA's will be effective enough provided we ALL do it together.

[Air.Farce.1]

Giving up extra sectors, OJTI and AAVA's will be effective enough provided we ALL do it together.

Absolutely correct Min Stack .

There is no need to strike

[45 before POL]

The CAA aspect of the CAAPs are watching with interest with these negotiations. The concencus is though that if Nats close the scheme to new entrants then they will inevitably follow suit. One Nats, One Pension!:hmm:

[barstewards]

Min Stack said Giving up extra sectors, OJTI and AAVA's will be effective enough provided we ALL do it together.This is the problem.Everybody needs to be on board - time to talk to colleagues and explain to them that taking a short term loss will lead to a long term gain.Selling your soul today for a few extra pounds will cost you tens of thousands in the future.


It also applies to non-operational staff - no overtime (if that exists), stick rigidly to your contracted hours - if your work cannot be completed within that timeframe then it goes unfinished.

Finally, most of us have gone into work when not 100%. Maybe a small cold, possibly lack of sleep the night before due to an ill child or partner. If management goes ahead with their proposals do not turn up for work unless you are 100% fit to be there.

[250 kts]

Former Alstom workers have pension hopes dashed again
[B]
London, May 16 /PRNewswire/ --

Workers at the former Alstom plant in Lincoln have learnt from a company website that they face further swingeing pension cuts.

Despite assurances from Alstom, who sold the gas turbine site to Siemans last month, workers have discovered through a letter from David Curtis, Alstoms' International Director of Pensions, posted on the company's website that workers applying for early retirement faced a further 20% cut in their pensions.

Workers who retire before 65 already face pension losses of 30% and have been kept totally in the dark over the new plans.

Joint General Secretary Derek Simpson said:

"Workers are justifiably angry about their shrinking pensions packages and the fact that they have had no opportunity to be involved in negotiations on the future of their pension arrangements. Alstom have treated their former employees very shoddily."

The changes came into effect on 1st May and were discovered on the Alstom intranet pension website on 8th May 2003.

Only 5% of the 2,300 workers at the site carry on working until the age of 65 so these changes will make a massive difference to workers' pensions.

Siemans have said they are committed to working with Alstom and workers at the plant to find a solution to the scheme.

A delegation of six shop stewards from Lincoln are travelling to London on Monday to the office of the Alstom Pension Actuary, in the hope of talking to Alstom Trustees who are attending a meeting there.


I just found the above reference to Barrons' previous company posted in 2003. I can't believe he wasn't a member of this scheme and will benefit from it and then joined NATS where he will no doubt do exactly the same again.

Barron has form on taking the benefits and then doing a runner

[Del Prado]

Finally, most of us have gone into work when not 100%. Maybe a small cold, possibly lack of sleep the night before due to an ill child or partner. If management goes ahead with their proposals do not turn up for work unless you are 100% fit to be there.

Or attend work but make it quite clear you're unfit for operational duties.

[250 kts]

Or losing sleep worrying about what you thought was a cast iron safe pension and retirement.

[slip and turn]

250 that's an extremely lateral and exquisite piece of research you have come up with there a few posts back - it lifts the lid - congratulations. Was he a pension scheme trustee at Alstom perchance?

NATS March 2005 accounts yield up some interesting info:

http://www.nats.co.uk/uploads/natsholdingsmarch2005ara.pdf

Paul Barron was appointed on 18 June 2004. Included within benefits is an amount of £100,000 received as compensation for the loss of retirement benefits which Paul in July 2004 was entitled to receive from his former employer, Alstom, with whom he served for 37 years. During the year the company provided pension benefits of £56,000 through a funded unapproved retirements benefits scheme in respect of earnings above the earnings cap. These benefits are not included in the pensions table below.

and

On joining NATS, Paul Barron transferred into the pension scheme accrued benefits of £708,000 earned from his 37 years of service with his previous employer, Alstom.

The figure shown for the increase in transfer value in the year excludes the increase in benefits resulting from the benefits transferred from his former employer's pension scheme in the year.

Oh and another gem:
In addition, CAAPS targeted provision, in relation to salary above the earnings cap, is made through the NATS Supplementary
Pension Scheme (the Funded Unapproved Retirement Benefits Scheme) on behalf of senior managers who joined NATS post-1989.
As at 31 March 2005, two of the executive directors (Messrs Barron and Fotherby) were members of this Scheme.

One NATS, one pension?? With tweaks like that?? You must be joking :rolleyes:

Oh and this one takes the biscuit:
During the year NATS purchased consultancy advice from Human Alchemy for £57,000 (excluding VAT). A director of this company,
Paul Barron, is closely related to a Director of Human Alchemy, Dawn Caswell. The transaction is considered material to Human Alchemy.
The transaction was conducted on arms length terms and no balances are outstanding as at 31 March 2005.

Pure Magic :yuk:

[ImnotanERIC]

If we were to ever vote for strike action and then find ourselves standing outside with oil drums and donkey jackets I would be extremely annoyed at anyone who broke this picket line. Strike action does not go on forever, and when it was resolved how could these people expect ANY kind of courtesy or help EVER again from ANYONE.
There is nothing the management could do to make me come in if we were on strike. I have a big mortgage, a kid on the way so now i need money more than ever but there is nothing attractive enough to make me break a picket line.
As for public opinion on a strike,I agree it would be 0% approval (ish). But i couldnt care less. they are more than welcome to fly away on their hols without any form of air traffic control, as long as they dont fly over my house. I dont want aircraft wreckage on my rockery.
:}

[DC10RealMan]

Interesting point from Eric, In the late 1970s the atsas went on strike at West Drayton and some atcos who were on their days off came in to do the atsa task. Thirty years later some of those individuals are still around and the "atmosphere" is still very palpable between them and the strikers. Fortunately we are all in the same boat this time.

[mr.777]

To coin a well known phrase...Mr Barron, you can have my pension when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Anymore news...nothing heard this morning at work.

[Stupendous Man]

Going on strike would be a last resort - we would get absolutely no sympathy whatsoever from the public.


I don't need the publics sympathy on this one.
This is my money - that I've paid in already.

And we're nearing the last resort - management have said that their terms are non-negotiable - and they want us to take a future reduction in pensionable earnings.

Not doing the odd AAVA isn't going to work. No AAVAs will cause delays for sure - but not enough to bother the Barron and his cronies. Only the threat of BA and the rest of the airlines (our shareholders remember) losing a whole days flying (plus the knock on effect of aircraft and crews being out of positon) will do. And that means we all walk out the door - together.

With less than 4 years to go for me, I'm naturally worried about the future of my pension

I would say that you are in a relatively safe position. You will be receiving your pension when the rest of us with 20+ years to go are working with a 2 tier divided workforce. With different T&Cs/pension will come divide and conquer. The new pension scheme will get offered decent pay rises. Those of us on the original will get RPI (if we're lucky).

[VectorLine]

standing outside with oil drums and donkey jackets

ha ha ha ha

At Swanwick it will be more like Patio Heaters and Diesel Jackets! :ouch:

I can just see the BBC coverage showing Swanwick ATCOs (and some ATSAs) pitching up to join the picket line in Porches, Range Rovers, TVRs, Jags and the odd 350Z - public support, zero.

[LateStay]

Don't forget the outside caterers :O:O:O.

[ZOOKER]

Vector Line, not sure I agree with you.
At a certain workplace oop north, some members of the public actually turn up just to photograph the employee's cars!
Said employees do not have the safety accountabilities you folks have. Their employment involves the repetitive and monotonous propulsion of a small air-filled leather bag from one side of a grass surface to the other. For this worthwhile activity they allegedly receive an ATCO's annual salary every week!

[mr.777]

No outside catering if its provided by Aramark thank you very much :yuk:

[MrJones]

I have to disagree about 0% sympathy from the public.

Many many people have had their pensions disappear from in front of their noses when they thought or were promised they were safe.

Let's not forget we contribute to our pensions and NATS hasn't been paying their full whack for many years.

I think the public are fed up with being ripped off and I think we'll get quite a bit of support.

[ImnotanERIC]

a good chunk of the population are very selfishly minded. as soon as a holiday gets messed around with Im sure they would moan.a lot.
Which in some ways is fair enough as they may have saved up for quite a while to go on holiday and could have been looking forward to it for months. Strike action is a last resort when negotiations break down. It would not be that we want to mess up peoples hols.
We are not like the french. They support their workers in times of industrial action. but they also smell of cheese and wine

[DAL208]

We will not get ANY support from the public...in fact we will get -% support, we will get lynched!
But...who cares? The reason why public support has been important in previous big strikes such as Firemen or Civil Service is because they were up against a stubborn govt...who rely on public support. Did teh Shell Tankers care bout public opinion? nah...neither do i.

[kinglouis]

just for the record for all you old boys here moaning about us young ones who apparantly dont care about pensions.... we do and we will strike. ive been here 5 years or so and my pension that is a long way off is one of the most important things in the long term to me and us. the day i started paying into my pension was the day i gave a ****. the company can take us on if they want, i will strike and i could do with the extra time on my xbox on my 42" plasma tv... the only decision is which room i play it in :E

if we ever stand together as a union/company and units we need to do it now or we are seriously f****d.

KL

[ZOOKER]

VectorLine,
Reading your post again;-
I'm not sure why anyone at Swanwick would need a Range Rover either.
Is there a speed-hump on the access road? :}

[anotherthing]

Actually Zooker,

there are several speed humps throughout the site at Swanwick that can't be avoided even just driving to and from the car park...

Add to that the building site that is "Swanwick Towers" on the access road and you will find that a Range Rover (Vogue or TDI Sport at the very least) is needed. In act one has virtually hardly driven the other car (the sporty number) to work since moving from West Drayton :}

[ZOOKER]

Shouldn't you be acting responsibly? :E
Ever used the 'Hill Descent Control'?
Of course you haven't.
There aren't any! :}:}:}

[anotherthing]

I am - if one was to drive the sports car, one would damage the front skirt as it crossed the speed humps. The resultant pollution caused by fixing and respraying far outweighs the diesel my Chelsea Tractor uses... after all, I only live 2 miles form work so my Range Rover does not cause too much pollution

[ZOOKER]

Deafening silence while 'anotherthing' looks up 'Hill Descent Control' on Google.
- Obviously KIA's are not equipped with this feature. :E

[Buster the Bear]

Trust what 250kts is saying.

10 years ago, the T&G members at Luton airport (security, admin, terminal staff) accepted new Terms & Conditions for new starters whilst retaining their own conditions. A hatchet man was employed to attack all T's & C's, he and his henchmen did their 'dirty work' then bu@@ered off to do it again for another business elsewhere in the UK.

9 years later, only a handful of 'Old Terms & Conditions' staff remain on the payroll. Staff turn over in manual grades is higher than in ATC, but for those ATCOs with 10 years or less service currently, by the time they reach their late 40's, they will be a minority work force and as such powerless against what the 'majority' want or are forced to have!

Please, please please trust what 250kts is saying.

Personally, I get delayed regularly by the European ATCOs going on strike. Good on em' if they can retain what they have.

If it takes strike action, I will back you guys all the way!

I am an ex union branch chair of a 'sister trade union'.

[VectorLine]

they will be a minority work force and as such powerless against what the 'majority' want or are forced to have!

I don't understand this - can you give an example please?

I'm not taking the piss, I just don't get it.

VL

PS, Zooker;
I'm not sure why anyone at Swanwick would need a Range Rover

Because you can take out more of the ducks with a bigger car and you don't feel the horrible squashing...

[ZOOKER]

Yahoo!
We are all 'tools', and like 'tools' we are being used to do a job.
Enjoy your pay rise and your pension.

[250 kts]

Listen to Buster,

He's right-I am right.........:D:D

......and Zooker is a tosser.:ugh::ugh:

[ZOOKER]

Knots,
Do you mean TOSR?

[chris_tivver]

Do all these troubles affect the other staff within NATS, for example the engineers maintaining your equipment?

I assume they are part of a different union. Will you expect them to strike and/or work to rule as well?

Could make a major difference

[250 kts]

Yes and yes!

[DTY/LKS]

Wouldn't it be interesting for Barron to do his bar-stool sessions at the moment??

[Air.Farce.1]

I was never taken in with that bar "stool" crap (no pun intended :) ). He will try and shaft us, take a shed load of dosh and move on to his next victim.
A lot of people have been sucked in by his style of leadership, I am not one of them :}.
Who is responsible for losing the £120 million over the Spanish fiasco? No doubt they left for "family reasons" :* or worse still they are still "active" in CTC or whatever it is called

[Emma1974]

A few things.
1)I was just thinking today why The Barron hasnt been doing his bar stool sessions recently.
2)Public support is neither here nor there.We would strike irrespective anyway.
3)The people saying they would be offended and disgusted that people might break the picket line.Who the h3ll do you think you are?We live in a democracy where we have the RIGHT to STRIKE and the RIGHT to WORK.The reason someone comes into work is nobody elses business(Whats wrong with having a big TV!)
I am sure I would strike,however I dont think anyone of us has a right to BULLY others pre-strike(or post strike):=

4)Lastly,I think strike action would be worth it.If only to read/hear the rantings at RyanTowers!!:mad:

[bratbaak]

Emma, you are right, we do live in a democracy and people do have a choice, but if it comes to strike action will those who choose not to strike happily accept their wages and protected pension, (if strike action is successful), whilst those who fought to protect those rights are out of pocket? What if it requires prolonged strike action and people end up seriously out of pocket, (as you tend to spend what you earn), will they think of assisting (financially) those whose actions they will benefit from? If your answer is that they will take their money and pension and suffer no loss of income themselves then that is where people are entitled to feel bitter.

[Emma1974]

Nobody is making anybody strike and nobody will make anyone work.
If someone chooses to strike,then they take the financial hit.If they want to waste their time feeling bitter towards people thats their perogative.

What happens if the non strikers are not members of the union?

I really thought we had moved beyond this working class "scab" attitude.

[mr.777]

Let's see if you still feel the same in 10 years time when we wont be able to even negotiate an extended tea break because a people decided it wasnt worth striking this time around over something as important as pensions.
If you feel that strongly about it then I suggest you follow your own example and come into work.
Nobody is calling anybody a "scab" but people need to be made to realise the importance over what is going to happen over the coming months. If they choose not to participate then fine...just dont moan in the future about it beacuse you will get zero sympathy.

[MrJones]

I am puzzled.

NATS management must know how dearly we hold our pension and how weak their argument is after all the years of their underpayment.

By saying their position is non negotiable they are setting themselves on a collision course with one of the most strategically powerful group of workers in the country.

The tanker drivers got a 14% pay rise after a couple of days strike action.

NATS management must know that after a couple of days of strikes, their owners – the airlines – will be screaming out for a solution to be found and found fast.

So NATS management must either be banking on us not having the balls to strike over our pensions or they must perversely want to find other employment.

Or, they must know something we don’t. Like CTC is so stuffed with Here Today Gone Tomorrow staff who will vote 'Yes Please' for any £1,000 that we are already doomed to lose any ballot.

[Data Dad]

Mr Jones wrote:

By saying their position is non negotiable they are setting themselves on a collision course with one of the most strategically powerful group of workers in the country.I am not entirely sure that "their" position relating to pay/current pension scheme members is non-negotiable. Below is what the NTUS statement says:

However, management have now set out a fundamental principle which they describe as “non negotiable”. Any pension arrangements for new entrants must be free of risk from their perspective.Now that can be read in several ways - I think it says that the non-negotiable stance is that pension arrangements for new entrants must be free of risk or in other words apart from that, everything is still negotiable but am open to correction on that.

DD

[throw a dyce]

Mr Jones,
The tanker drivers were small fry compared with the North Sea divers.They wanted about 40% rise,and within 4 days got it.If you shut down the entire North Sea Oil industry,it gets their attention.Enough said.

[Caesartheboogeyman]

Emma, are you serious in your posts?
The only excuse for breaking a picket line is if you are not a member of the union.
Any other picket line breaker should be known as "scab" in place of their first name for the rest of their days.
The point made in reply to your post about enjoying benefits and resolved terms of employment whilst not having the balls to stand up for it is very true.
scabs should be made to negotiate their own terms and conditions. See how far you get in an army of one.
Its not as if we would be on strike for a month or more. I can't imagine any strike would be longer than 24 hours action at a time. not exactly breaking the bank for us is it, when you consider how much impact it would have and how important the pension is. It is the most important part of our contract in my opinion. If we don't stand up to protect it we might aswell kill ourselves now to save a slow and painful death from getting rogered in the future.

on a separate note i heard a rumour that the red barron was bought a db9 from the company recently? is this true? that fits well with vision 2011 and is a waste of money that could be put into pension fund.

[slip and turn]

I think it says that the non-negotiable stance is that pension arrangements for new entrants must be free of risk or in other words apart from that, everything is still negotiable but am open to correction on that. Yes DD, and that means ? ... come on, keep up!

Let me describe a thin end of a wedge - I am just going to introduce it to the side of your head - a slightly cold feeling, but you hardly feel it do you? Still comfortable? Why am I doing it? Oh don't worry about that. Now then, you may have seen me pick up this hammer before ... no need to flinch :uhoh:

[barstewards]

Management say a new scheme will not impact on those of us in the current final salary scheme.....

At present all staff are paying into OUR scheme. Some of this money is paying towards the (well deserved) pensions of retired colleagues.If the scheme is closed to new entrants funding from younger staff will stop. When the staff who are currently in their 20's/30's come to retire there will be very little left (if anything) in the pot to pay our pension as the scheme is no longer being funded by the 'new' staff. Where do we collect our pensions from? The 'new' staff won't care, the public won't care and the shareholders in nats will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Any pension scheme must be properly funded or it will run out of money - I doubt people in any 'new' scheme would vote yes to subsidising our pension.

NATS 'borrowed' money from the scheme and have never paid it back.
NATS is not paying in as much money as it could into the scheme
NATS has made massive profits over the last few years due to the HARD WORK or ALL staff - office, engineers, atsa, atco's.

This is a very serious matter - join you union today. Lets stick together and tell senior 'management' what we ALL think. No pension = no NATS.

We will lose some money in the short term if it comes to strike action. Prepare for it now and put a little aside now to cover any shortfall in income in the coming months.
Sell out now and you can kiss goodbye to future pay rises, expect yet more erosion to your terms and conditions, less annual leave and longer working hours.

Please don't kid yourselves that this is not a problem. NATS does not exist without us - shareholders make no money and the airlines will be shafted. YOU do the hard work so stand up and be counted so YOU get the pension that YOU deserve.

[055166k]

Maybe management have been looking into what happened last time. Strike breakers sneaking in via obscure routes, calling in sick, panic leave requests, frantic scrutiny of duty roster hoping that it's a day off, any office numpty and/or manager with anything close to a validation anywhere being used to fill a seat.
It can come as no surprise that anyone showing competence in union activities can be promoted "on side", placing them in a tricky personal position.
Withdrawing goodwill or some other pathetic wishy-washy proposal is nothing, absolutely nothing!
I'll make my mind up when I've been briefed on all the facts by my union representative, and not before. Anybody else out there got "unauthorised absence" on their personal file......that is the measure of commitment you may be asked to make?

[Caesartheboogeyman]

aewaite17, Yes i would include validating and college students in this aswell as families with a newborn.
If you are in the union, they negotiate on your behalf. if the union ballots its members and it comes back as a yes to industrial action then this is what should occur.
college students wouldnt (or shouldn't) have any instructors on site to teach them anything as they should be at the gate.
same goes for validating students, their instructors should be at the gate.

There will be people it would hit more, newborn families, big mortgage families etc but it is not going to be a massive hit. As i have said before, i dont think think that we would be on strike for such a significant length of time as to really make a difference to a pay packet?
three 24 hour strikes over a period of 4-6 weeks similar to recent strikes by tube staff etc would cause a lot of disruption to airlines, aircraft and crews in wrong positions, delays, cancellations, angry customers in terminals both here and abroad ( see zoom x 100)
I would guess that a full 24 hour day of action would disrupt the aviation world in this country for at least 3 or 4 days??
surely our customers, the airlines, would put pressure on nats to sit down and negotiate a resolution very speedily.
I don't like the idea of strike action, it is messy and can impact directly on many peoples lives causing stress, worry and frustration. But this is the biggest issue to affect me in my 16.5 years since leaving the college. It is a must that we at least negotiate very hard with management and make it clear that our pension is here to stay. at NO RISK to us.

[DAL208]

Does this include everyone??

Not advocating either side of this, but would you put a family with a newborn in this group?

How about the college students / validating students? They cant afford to take the cut, union member or not.

Just playing Devils Advocate here...



As a recently validated atco, trying to pay off debts, i cannot afford to strike.
However, i am part of the union and if a strike was called, i would not cross a picket line. When you join a Union, you do not join just to get the benefits you undoubtedly aquire through being part of a strong team...you are part of a team, and you need to work together in that team...through good days and bad. If you cant then you shouldnt be part of union. Thats how i see it anyway...i do feel sorry for any atcos with newborns in particular, however, we are not particularly poorly paid in long term, a small hit wont kill anyone.

[Caesartheboogeyman]

well said that man:ok::ok::ok:

[Dad30]

I personally would rather not go on strike and as an ATSA I believe that NATS will try to get rid of me way before I retire (got to get there first!) but I am a member of the union and the union is only as strong as its members. The unions have negotiated very good terms and conditions for ATSAs and ATCOs and I benefit from the unions strength so therefore I will back whatever the decision of any industrial action ballot.

[Standard Noise]

Sorry, but I don't see the relevance of 'families with a newborn'. Are we assuming that all ATCOs with newborn children are at the bottom of the scale or potless? Anyhoo, any pay lost is relative to the salary, ie if you're nearer the bottom of the scale or at a lower banded unit then you will lose less money.
Can I afford to lose two or three days money over six weeks if we were to strike, well in the short term, no. In the long term where my pension is affected, a couple of days' pay is small change compared to what we will lose. I've already lost by transferring my old CAAPS pot (and other pension pots) into the NATS section pension when Brizzel came into NATS. Many of my colleagues transferred their pensions in as well and are looking at having less years than they would have in their old scheme, when retirement comes around.

All out brothers...............oh, and sisters!

SN,
ex union rep

[ZOOKER]

If you folks did walk out an hour/shift or whatever, it would be worth the annual licence fee to see The Red Barron enjoying a 'Bar Stool Session' with Mr Paxman. :E
"Now here's your starter":- "Our air is not for sale". C'mon, C'mon. :}:}

[Standard Noise]

Nah, Paxo's throwing a moody at the minute, make it John Humphreys instead.:E

[BookEm]

I can not believe those who are suggesting student ATCOs or those with new-borns could be considered as almost exempt from strike action due to their financial situation. It is these people who have the most to lose. I am totally inept when it comes to any knowledge of pension matters but I`m not so stupid that I don`t know that it these very people who need to take the very short term financial hit to secure their long term future. I`m not even in the Nats scheme at the minute but I felt the need to comment

[eastern wiseguy]

student ATCOs or those with new-borns

Thats right...keep working and let the rest of us fight for your future...:ugh::ugh:

[Emma1974]

All this "brothers & sisters" tripe is galling.

I joined the union simply to protect myself.I am fully prepared to walk out if it happened.I know that some people would elect to cross a picket line and still expect to benefit from the action.That is their fundamental RIGHT.I will stand on that picket line FULLY AWARE.Thats fine for me.

As for the people saying that they should be called scab etc etc.What planet are you on?How unprofessional could you possibly be?Whatever happened to TRM? You do realise you would end up being accused of BULLYING and HARRASSMENT?

[intherealworld]

Whatever happened to TRM

Exactly, if people aren't prepared to stick together as a team then they can expect bad feeling towards them. This is historical due to other people having to fight for the rights of all workers. They have a right not to strike, I have a right to think they're a scab!

[StillDark&Hungry]

Agree with Emma on this one.

Believe me I would be one of the first to walk out of the door (I also have a young baby and a huge mortgage!) but it is an individual's right to choose.

ITRW

yes, you do;

I have a right to think they're a scab!

But you do not have the right to say it to their face or to anyone else for that matter.

[Caesartheboogeyman]

joining the union to protect yourself. Sounds like you are expecting to be having airmisses all over the place on a regular basis and will need their protection. And from your grip on reality, it sounds like you are a bit of a space cadet too. I have met many people like you over the years and i normally amuse myself listening to their ramblings when they are standing outside shopping centres shouting at buses
It is very scary when you meet them in air traffic though.
It is your right to break a picket line if you want to be known as a scab. SCAB SCAB SCAB.
Nothing to do with being unprofessional, its all about sticking together as a union.
I wonder what union means...............wheres that dictionary gone.

[Traffic is...]

I find it almost impossible to fathom why someone would join the union then not abide to what ever action the union decides to take and the majority agree with. You might as well save yourself the monthly subscription. At least that way you could argue that you weren't in the union and would have to go into work.

Being part of the union but expecting others to fight your battles and then reap those rewards is beyond me.

It seems quite clear to me. If we don't put up some kind of fight against this tinkering of our T & Cs, then it will just continue until there is nothing left. The pension has to be about the biggest thing to stand up and protect. If we are seen to let it be taken away from us, then there will be no stopping management from continuing with everything else, knowing we are a push over. Would our colleagues in France, Spain or Italy let it happen? I think not.

[DotMac]

I, too, am with Emma on this one... I personally would be out on the picket line with everyone else, but the issue of "do you cross the line, or not" is a matter of an individual's conscience.

Yes, in order to succeed on this issue, we will need to show a level of unity that I've never seen in NATS for the last 18 years that I have been employed by them, but all of this "scab" nonsense is beyond me.

It reminds me of the Miners strike. Have we really not come forward in 20 years?

Anyone who DOES cross a picket line will be under an awful lot of pressure from their peers and from others (work related and non-work related), and will do so for their own reasons. They may well have personal reasons (and not just big mortgages or debts) for doing so that neither I, nor anyone else has a right to know about.

I'm not saying that anyone who crosses the line should be supported by those out on strike, but neither should they be bullied nor harassed. Indeed, the union should stand up for ANYONE being treated in this way, and I'm sure NATS management would too.

Personal attacks and bullying other members of staff would hardly ease relations during any such strike action, in fact it would probably cause a breakdown of the unity of those out on strike. I for one, and I'm sure there are MANY others, would support strike action to save our pensions, but WOULD NOT support ANYONE who bullied or attacked someone in this way.

You could easily find yourself accused of gross misconduct and be sacked without any support from the union, nor ANY pension rights.

[Air.Farce.1]

Emma1974

As for the people saying that they should be called scab etc etc.What planet are you on?How unprofessional could you possibly be?Whatever happened to TRM? You do realise you would end up being accused of BULLYING and HARRASSMENT?
http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=4361310)

I dont think any bullying harrassment policy could be applied on an official picket line, which would be outwith NATS property and not whilst in NATS official employment duties ? I do agree though distasteful comments (SCAB) don't help things. :)

[JonG]

Thats right...keep working and let the rest of us fight for your future...Like you fought for their pay cut?

[StillDark&Hungry]

DotMac

That's exactly what I was trying to say, but you put it a lot more eloquently than I ever could.:cool::cool:

Others

Leave her alone! I've looked back on this thread and at no point did Emma say she wasn't going to strike - she was just saying what at least 3 of us have now said that individuals have the right to choose.

[BDiONU]

she was just saying what at least 3 of us have now said that individuals have the right to choose.
Yes, last I heard Britain was still a democracy comrades. Bullying and harassment are totally out of order and, as amply posted about in another thread, will be stamped on in the workplace.

BD

[250 kts]

I agree that bullying should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

However should it ever get to the situation of strike action, and I hope sincerely that it doesn't, it is imperative that management don't try to wave fists full of fivers under people's noses to encourage them to go into work. It will be easy for this to occur and potentially lead to an even more divided workforce after the action is over.

TRM will not know what's hit it should this situation ever occur. There is no one and I mean no one who can't afford to lose a couple of days pay to protect the jewel in the crown.

JonG-I assume you mean the students? Well just have a look what an individual earns over the curse of their career if they validate. More than before the "pay cut". It was just not sensible to have a trainee in the system for upto 4 years on nearly £30k a year and potentially never get a days productivity out of them. Or was that OK??

[ImnotanERIC]

The trainee pay cut was a disgrace. To put a few extra pennies on top of the scale that was not needed.
The problem with wasted money on trainees was not the length of the course. It was the length of time that their training was continued. The "chop" needed ot happen at the college, there were many people who got out of that place with no hope of validating.
Very strong opinions on the topic of striking from everyone on here.
Was anyone around in previous strikes? what is your relationship like with scabs from back then today?
If you would rather not say on here, any chance of a pm?

[intherealworld]

I have no intention of bullying or harassing anyone, and never have done! I will make my feelings clear and will happily speak out on such matters, as I know will many of my colleagues and as is our right! I don't know where you people who think it's ok to cross the picket line work but if it's on my watch you certainly keep your head down! I can't think of many reasons to cross the line, we all have commitments to keep and I am sure those not in the union could join at the last minute if they actually care about the pension.

[DotMac]

intherealworld,

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think it's ok for me to cross a picket line - however, I can't speak for others, and if they do then that's something between them and their conscience.

The "but if it's on my watch you certainly keep your head down! " comment is just unnecessary. Just because you can't think of many reasons to cross the line (neither can I), it doesn't mean there aren't any.

It is absolutely right that we all feel free to voice our opinions on this matter - this is probably the most important issue that any of us will face in our professional careers.

I just hope this discussion is hypothetical and it doesn't come to strike action at all. I don't wish for anyone to be faced with that dilemma.

[terrain safe]

I have to say that if you are in the union and a vote is taken, and that vote is for strike action, then unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances, you will go go on strike with the rest of your colleagues, unless you leave the union. Otherwise why bother. You might as well cash your pension in now so that the vote will then mean nothing to you. You might as well not work as a team and yes TRM will be well and truly blown out of the water. It would be a great way of divide and conquer. We must stand together on this or just give up now.

[BDiONU]

I don't know where you people who think it's ok to cross the picket line work but if it's on my watch you certainly keep your head down!
That sounds very much like a threat and I would suggest that if anyone needs to keep their head down its you. Harassment = bullying = not tolerated in the workplace.

BD

[ZOOKER]

intherealworld.
'on your watch?'
ZOOT ALLORS!!

[G-OFUK]

How about the college students / validating students? They cant afford to take the cut, union member or not. As an example: 10% of not very much = not a lot at all.

The current trainees don't receive a respectable salary, they take a big risk in the hope that three years down the line they'll be valid and they'll have a means of paying off all their debts. The other main carrot for us is the pension, and ours is at most risk because there are so many years before we claim it for management to ultimately have their wicked way.

I will strike given the opportunity because no matter what they take away from me today I'm already financially f****d. The only reason I'm happy to put up with less than I could get in most McJobs is what the future potentially has to offer me if I succeed.

So am I and other trainees happy to sit and have someone take that away from us because we can't afford to pay our rent?

No. We are not.

Any trainee joining the company on or after course 207 has already been shafted; we will not let it happen to us again.

[intherealworld]

Who have I harassed exactly? And why do I need to keep my head down? You have a very strange interpretation of a threat. And I don't need to be lectured on what is or isn't bullying, I'm quite capable of taking responsibility for my own actions

My point is I speak openly about what I believe is right, whether it is or isn't and then I am open to others viewpoints. I've yet to hear anyone say they won't be striking if necessary and thats because there is nobody or they haven't the strength of character to say it, and I don't know any of the latter.

[eastern wiseguy]

Like you fought for their pay cut?

No ..like we fought for the conditions they will enjoy once they become productive members of NATS.

[BDiONU]

I've yet to hear anyone say they won't be striking if necessary and thats because there is nobody or they haven't the strength of character to say it, and I don't know any of the latter.
Perhaps because:
a) There has been no ballot and call to strike.
and
b) There has been no statement from the union as to exactly what they'd be calling a strike about.

Perhaps some people like to hear all the facts and weigh things up before huffing and puffing.

BD

[CAP493]

Was anyone around in previous strikes?
I've been reading this thread with interest and increasing amazement as some of the posters seem to be winding themselves up like mini water spouts...

I was around when the last NATS ATCO strike took place - so long ago that I'd only just started shaving and most of you guys were still on the 'drawing board'; and it achieved bu**er all except to sour relationships on watches and between watches.

Setting aside the issue of what's considered to be a fair pay rise and the future of the NATS section of CAAPS, anyone planning to call a strike ballot or to go on strike needs to take account of some unpalatable 'home truths'.

1. ATCOs and particularly NATS ATCOs are not perceived by Joe Public to be under-paid over-worked employees who are being exploited by their Employer.
2. ATCOs and particularly NATS ATCOs are not held in the same regard by Joe Public as under-paid over-worked staff such as teachers, nurses, social workers or junior 'house' doctors.
3. The state of the UK (and Continental European) economy with an almost certain recession on the cards has already seen several airlines go out of business and any action by NATS ATCOs that pushes a few more over the edge is certainly not going to endear the workforce to Joe Public (have a chat with a few stranded Zoom passengers or Alitalia shareholders to gauge their view of what might be a fair pay rise for folk annually earning in excess of £60K - £70K a year...)
4. HMG still owns 49% of NATS and the airlines + BAA a sizeable chunk.
5. Politicians (and especially the current government lot who are unquestionably, a 'busted flush') are extremely sensitive to public opinion. The sight of large numbers of highly-paid ATCOs camping out in the car parks at Swanwick, Prestwick and other higher-profile airport locations will not create sympathy amongst Joe Public especially if the disruption causes more airline failures.
6. It would then only take the stroke of a politician's pen to open up the NERL en-route market as any 'approved' provider is now eligible; and to sell-off NSL to the highest bidder.
7. Whilst it's entirely true that the rank-and-file operational workforce would still be needed (and that many of their managers and admin staff would not), only your salary is protected by TUPE - pension arrangements are not. Therefore, the short-term effect would be to end the 'final salary' pension scheme for all employees (not simply new recruits) and the medium-term effect on salaries would not be the outcome desired.

There were plenty of hard-nosed bullish ATCOs working in the US before the ATCA strike and we all know what happened there without public support and in the face of a determined government.

Please understand that I'm not venturing to suggest what is or isn't a fair pay rise or whether or not the NATS pension should cease to be 'final salary' for new employees: I'm merely seeking to put the discussion and some of the more extreme views into the context of a crumbling economy, airlines having gone bust or tottering on the brink, UK unemployment likely to reach 2 million by next year, house reposessions increasing, businesses creaking and a government that's run out of ideas, innovation and cash but which remains desperate to be re-elected and so would welcome the opportunity to prove it's still in control (especially if Joe Public was like-minded). :(

[BDiONU]

CAP493 well said, about time some real truths were written. One thing thats also worth mentioning is that NATS will be hit by huge penalties for delays if there were a strike (although no one knows what they might be striking about yet!) Possibly enough to push the company into bankruptcy (all income is revenue there is no pot of gold making interest), where would the pension fund be then? Hardly surprising that senior management are concerned about a strike as its not in their best interest to have the company go to wall, despite the assertions in this thread that their entire motivation for joining NATS is to rape and pillage. To date I've seen absolutely no evidence that this is the case, in fact I see them trying to establish the company as a proper business, make it more focussed and efficient and more profitable (shock horror! a business that makes money, who'd have thought!)
The issue of pension and pay are two entirely separate issues, as is the CEOs pay he's on a contract and negotiates with the board for himself.

BD

[StillDark&Hungry]

Intherealworld

You obviously aren't living as your name suggests if within 2 hours you can say

I don't know where you people who think it's ok to cross the picket line work but if it's on my watch you certainly keep your head down!

which is a threat, then

You have a very strange interpretation of a threat.

I say again, as I, and others, have said before. A person has a right to cross a picket line if they so wish - I wouldn't, but I respect their rights.
To have them then hide under a table for the rest of their career because of the likes of you makes me sick. You remind me of someone I knew at school.

[250 kts]

CAP493.

I understand all of that.

So it can hardly be a good move for NATS to take a "non negotiable" stance at such a difficult time. It is in everyone's interest for this to be resolved by negotiation and a sensible resolution to be found.

Previous action did in fact lead to all manner of improvements not just to pay but across the board including SRATCOH and traffic management as it strengthened the hand of the staff.

I don't think public opinion really comes into this-they will be just as much against Barron and the board who have form on taking peoples' pensions and leaving them in the lurch as he did at Alstom. He has managed to accrue a pot of £1.8m in just 4 years at NATS-more than anyone would accrue in 40 years in the company, and there are plenty of those.

Not too sure I feel sorry for Alitalia shareholders either-the Italian govt have bailed them out against EU law for years.

I believe this is the time for us all to take stock. NATS should shelve their pension plans and concentrate on making up their "holiday shortfall" and then we'll get a proper picture of the true situation. The market is down so they should be able to pick up some bargains shares and property for long term growth.

From a staff position I would also shelve the 2009 pay rise as a sign of "goodwill" which will hopefully strengthen their position in 2010 with a view to resolving pensions first.

[MrJones]

From a staff position I would also shelve the 2009 pay rise as a sign of "goodwill" which will hopefully strengthen their position in 2010 with a view to resolving pensions first.I will take the same rise as Paul :8

If we do strike it won't be over pay it'll be over Pensions. I think we will get public sympathy, I think the public is sick to back teeth of managers like wot we 'ave.

[BDiONU]

NATS should shelve their pension plans
As the union themselves have agreed, doing nothing is not an option.

BD

[intherealworld]

Just for those very few posters who unaware of what a threat is;

Dictionary: (http://www.answers.com/library/Dictionary-cid-83528) threat

(thrĕt) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif


n.
An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
An indication of impending danger or harm.
One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.tr.v. Archaic., threat·ed, threat·ing, threats.

StillDark&Hungry:


I don't know where you people who think it's ok to cross the picket line work but if it's on my watch you certainly keep your head down!

which is a threat, then

So that's not a threat then!

My point being, I don't think it's ok to not stick together and implying that if there are people around who think this is ok than they seem to keep their head down, I am not saying they NEED to keep their head down! This is also a moot point as everyone I know happily speaks up as being more than happy to strike over such an important issue.


You remind me of someone I knew at school.I'd love to reply to this but don't want to be accused of bullying.

[250 kts]

As the union themselves have agreed, doing nothing is not an option.


So NATS paying in their fair share following the "holiday" with subsequent interest would "not be doing nothing". Indeed it would be doing the "right" thing and may just start to persuade people that they are prepared to shift a little on this issue.

People need to remember that many staff potentially affected by this have been in the company for 30 years+ and many will have no time to react to any potential changes.

The fact of the matter is that the staff just don't trust this present management on any of their promises regarding the pension and the security of it even for those of us who are supposedly protected by legislation.

Remember above everything-Barron has form.

[BDiONU]

So NATS paying in their fair share following the "holiday" with subsequent interest would "not be doing nothing".
At the time NATS requested the 'holiday' the fund was in very large surplus, vastly more than was needed to pay pensions. Now, due to the market situation, the surplus is only just over whats needed to pay pensions but the market is still going down, hence action is needed. At the time of the 'holiday' it seemed (to me anyway) that it was perfectly justified because you can't predict the future.

BD

[Caesartheboogeyman]

management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert
management alert management alert

if not management now, certainly someone who is scrabbling up the greasy pole.

I have got to a point in this discussion where I feel i can't express myself anymore coherently or politely. I may have to withdraw and just read. I can feel my chest tightening now. Put that down to poor vocabulary or something else, i just don't know.
I'm going to drink beer in the sun and relax.

[mr.777]

With you 100% Caesar...no doubt you'll be the 1st through the picket line BDiONU :ugh:

[eastern wiseguy]

1st through the picket line BDiONU

I doubt he is operational.......paper doesn't shuffle itself!

[BDiONU]

LOL! You guys make me laugh :} No dissent allowed, anyone with a different POV is obviously a lickspittle management lackey :ok:

BD

[expediteoff]

BDiONU says: "At the time of the 'holiday' it seemed (to me anyway) that it was perfectly justified because you can't predict the future."



It's exactly because you can't predict the future that such a "holiday" should not have been allowed. Without the "holiday" the fund would be far healthier.

The options are straightforward-
Strike to save YOUR pension.
Don't strike to lose YOUR pension.

The solution is down to the backbone and resolve of the only staff who can realistically make any difference- the OPERATIONAL workers.

[Caesartheboogeyman]

this is not the first thread that bdionu has bummed management. got a nice corner office with a view over the lake?

[BEXIL160]

management lackey

If the cap fits, BD, if the cap fits..:ok:

You can't really be so supprised though, as at least here, your personal point of view (which you are welcome to) always appears that of a NATS management apologist.

Perhaps it's time for you to respect others opinions, who do not hold NATS senior management in such high regard? Just a thought old chum...

BEX

[mr.777]

Yes BD, everybody is entitled to their point of view but I find it astounding that any employee, operational or otherwise, can defend the current management position, with regards to pension, to ANY degree....unless they ARE management or simply don't give a toss about the pension.
I stand by for you, no doubt, to enlighten me otherwise...:rolleyes:

[BDiONU]

Wow! Scud, biff, take that you bounder! How dare I express a viewpoint which isn't 'One out all out brothers!' The options are not that clear and I'd much rather wait to hear the outcome of discussions than post in here beating my chest :rolleyes:
None of you appear to have an idea what I do in NATS and I actually don't see its relevant, one brother one vote isn't it?

BD

[JonG]

But surely the view that "when the pension is healthy stop paying into it and when it's not as healthy get rid of it" is not the way a pension should be run?

[DC10RealMan]

There are a lot of ex-raf people at swanwick who having retired from the mil on friday reappear as a nats employee on monday due to the "old boy network" (although they will deny it of course)
They are already on a military pension as well as earning a salary and so the affairs of the caaps are really of no interest to them, perhaps Bdiou is one of them???

[Gonzo]

Yeah, I'm sure all the ex-mil NATS employees really couldn't care less what happens to their NATS pension... :rolleyes:

We need to see what the proposals are. I'm sure the union reps who are discussing the matter with NATS are quite aware of the strength of feeling.

[BDiONU]

Yeah, I'm sure all the ex-mil NATS employees really couldn't care less what happens to their NATS pension... :rolleyes:
Which are worth considerably more than an MoD pension for the equivalent number of years.
We need to see what the proposals are.
Here here :) Then we might be able rather than huff and puff and make ourselves look just a little bit silly.

BD

[BDiONU]

perhaps Bdiou is one of them???
Have a read of my profile, its not a secret, I don't hide like a lot of posters do and my identity is well known throughout Swanwick (where I worked for over 8 years, a couple of years before 'O' date which gives you a clue to my job) and CTC (which I've recently moved to).

BD

[BDiONU]

It's exactly because you can't predict the future that such a "holiday" should not have been allowed. Without the "holiday" the fund would be far healthier.
The fund is still healthy, still in surplus but PREDICTED not to be if action wasn't taken. What would happen to the surplus IF the market hadn't declined? It couldn't be distributed amongst the people paying into the pot.
Not forgetting NATS was still troubled by the drop in revenue from 9/11, which had triggered additional loans of some £60 million. It seems to me (obvious ass kissing management lackey that I am :8) that NATS behaved like any business would in similar circumstances, it tightened its belt. Just as it is now with the economic downturn looming and recruitment of paper shuffling office workers curtailed and contractors let go.

BD

[PPRuNe Radar]

BDiONU is absolutely within his rights to voice his opinions, and civil argued responses are what should be used to rebuff them if you don't agree with them.

To my mind, if NATS took some excess out of the pension fund, which in effect is what they did when they took their holiday, then they can damn well apply it the other way and put their hands in their pockets and make up any shortfall if it comes to pass.

You can't have it both ways.

[intherealworld]

PPRadar hitting the nail on the head. A company which valued it's employees and their goodwill exercised to date would be putting it's hand in it's pockets from the start, and we would be all saying how nice it is to work for such a company. Instead they choose to demonstrate how much the only thing that matters to them is bottom line.

[fisbangwollop]

What's all this talk about not getting the public's sympathy??....Do our French friends ever care????...who gives a stuff......having paid into this pension for 30 years I don't now want to see Mr Barron legging it up the street with it in his back pocket!!! Lets hope the NATS "Working Together" iniciative this time really works and we all see this through to a successful end!! If we fall over now we will be stuffed for ever.

[BDiONU]

BDiONU is absolutely within his rights to voice his opinions, and civil argued responses are what should be used to rebuff them if you don't agree with them.
Nah ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks on those viewed as potential 'scabs' and bum licking management lackies are easy targets for some :rolleyes: Its quite a good way of sorting the men from the potential bully boys though.

Lets say that NATS were prepared to pay some money in (although I don't know where it would come from as the projected revenues are already spent in the books on future projects, maybe we could stop Prestwick Centre, or iFACTS or iTEC or AMAN or DMAN or Near Real Time Weather Radar or nSIS or MSP or the RSS programme etc?) What sums would you be thinking of?

Bum lickin' Beadie

[250 kts]

or iFACTS

So what's the cost of iFACTS so far?

I heard a figure of £100m+ and the much lauded increase in safety is minimal to say the least. And I still have to have anyone convince me that the capacity gains are anywhere over about 15%-and 15% of what-today 2009 or 2011 when it just may be introduced.

What a shame no one in management had the balls to stop this project rather than the balls to take on the staff. Or would that be too much of a face losing exercise?

BD-as you are in the know about costs-just how much does the company save in the medium term once we are down to 2 centres?

Barron will shaft the pension, sell the company and ride off into the sunset-probably via the Palace where he gets a sword tapped on his shoulder.

[Caesartheboogeyman]

iFacts, EFD, and near real time weather could all be shelved.

[PPRuNe Radar]

We could start by stopping nonsense like 'Visions' (a Mrs Barron spectacular, although her husband did at least declare his vested interest in giving his wifes company a cushy number supplying NATS with its latest fad - no doubt to be replaced with some other 'vision' next year at appropriate cost by someone in outside industry ... related to the CEO again probably) , halting Awards ceremonies for people just doing their jobs, stopping the endless 'away days' and 'love-ins' where management and various departments spend a shed load of NATS money to come up with the latest wacky ideas and plan their next fun outings, and finally by having a good long hard look at everything we do and whether it provides value for money and an actual return which helps us move air traffic. If we find areas or departments in the company which don't give us anything tangible or move aircraft, then let's scrap it and use the resource somewhere where it will actually help us.

Europe does plenty of R&D work as well, yet we never seem to let them do it for us. Why not ?? We are entitled to as Eurocontrol members surely.

It's also only a few years ago that NATS wanted to claim it was going down the COTS line and so everything would be cheaper. But everything we buy off the shelf then needs to be picked apart and 'adapted' by NATS since it 'wasn't invented here' and our airspace is far more complex and busier than the rest of the world, so the product couldn't possibly work without NATS input and improvement. Which is why NATS is continually operating with kit and facilities which are way behind those found in a lot of other places throughout the world who buy the kit and then make it work, warts and all. We spend years and years wasting time and having meeting after meeting to reinvent wheels which go round perfectly well.

We need to start accelerating the collaboration with industry and other States and stop continually blocking things just because they don't suit NATS. Or maybe it's protecting an empire or two ?? We're not the only ATS company in Europe, and we're not always the best at getting things done, or have the best solution.

Don't misunderstand me, we do a lot of very worthwhile and world beating things, but we need to spread the risk and the costs with other people in this industry and stop building Rolls Royce standards when we can do quite well with mid market products.

We also need to call in the Governments commitment to NATS and start getting them to provide funding and assets in line with someone who is a 49% owner of the company. If they own that much, then they should be contributing something in line with that level of ownership. And that includes funding pensions, which they seem to do well enough for their own MP staff, don't they ? If not, then they should perhaps sell up and get out.

[pelagic]

Quote "....could all be shelved"

and AFPEX. :yuk:

[ZOOKER]

Real-time weather is available via the Met Office website, as are TAFs and METARs, satellite data and pressure forecasts. All the things ATCO's need. - And it's all free!
Arise Sir Paul, a Barron and a Knight (is this a 'first')?? :D
Sorry, nearly forgot that 60s comedy act 'The Barron Knights'. :}:}

[BDiONU]

I'm not attempting to justify or defend any current or future project, just making the point that there is no pot of gold. The 'holiday' was approved by the fund trustees, and I think all of us can agree that they're impartial and not NATS ass kissing management lackeys, as they felt it was safe at the time. Hindsight is a great thing though.

I said it before when this subject came up over a year ago and I repeat it now. I find it presumptious of us to attempt to decide the pay and conditions for people who have not yet joined the company and who will be joining with their own eyes open. Provided sufficient guarantess can be given (and proven) that our pensions are ringfenced then newcomers should join on different terms.

Now I've got a busy week ahead and I'm out of here so its fairly pointless posting more attacks on me, I won't be back until the weekend.

BD

[mr.777]

Don't disagree with you on that, but the "guarantees "would most definitely have to be in writing and 110% legally airtight in order to avoid us having this conversation again in 10 years time. Is this something that the management would go for?

[CAP493]

...don't think public opinion really comes into this-they will be just as much against Barron and the board who have form on taking peoples' pensions and leaving them in the lurch as he did at Alstom
I'm afraid that you're living in even more of a fantasy world than some of the managers who posters here seem to enjoy maligning. It was one G. Brown MP who bugg***d-up the UK pensions industry by changing the tax regime, not the likes of Paul Barron or anyone else (although I'm not defending the short-termism concept of "contribution holidays", etc.)

What's all this talk about not getting the public's sympathy??.......who gives a stuff......

Sadly, you've missed the point. It's irrelevant whether you or I or anyone else in NATS "gives a stuff" about public opinion. It's HMG that cares about it, and the plain truth is that at a time when the Government's rapidly losing control (not to mention its mind) the old political adage arises ~ cause a diversion and focus the public's gaze on something less sensitive.

Since we couldn't now muster enough military hardware or personnel to mount a parade in Whitehall, an old-fashioned military campaign's out of the question, so something closer to home would better suit.

Thus, if NATS operational staff take industrial action that causes disruption and inconvenience to thousands of travellers and pushes some of the weaker airlines over the brink, the tabloid press will catistigate us, the public will criticise us and the 49% Shareholder that just happens to be HMG, will shaft us. Don't forget also, the current lot in power is a supposedly worker-centric LABOUR lot; the alternative is the temporarily "touchy-feely" TORY lot: once back in power and sitting with a comfortable majority, they'll have even less sympathy for a highly-paid workforce like ours than Knackered Labour.

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences... ;)

Oh, and by the way, SRATCOH did not come about because of industrial action (please file in the library under "Fiction"...).

During the strike of the early eighties, many NATS units were in fact, already working a SRATCOH-compliant five-watch roster anyway, and SRATCOH came in purely for safety reasons, in 1989 following a two-year cross-industry review involving a Committee that included IPMS, GATCO, NATS, the CAA, the AOA, NALGO, the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine and the DTI to name but a few. :8

[Geffen]

Whether public support is necessary maybe a moot point, however, the good ol' press are unlikely to support us. The press in this country carry a lot of weight when it comes to painting a picture of good or evil. I feel we will certainly fall on the later in their eyes. This is not to say that a stance should not be taken. More of a realization that strikes often work best when you are not vilified by all and sundry.

[Del Prado]

Not forgetting NATS was still troubled by the drop in revenue from 9/11, which had triggered additional loans of some £60 million. It seems to me (obvious ass kissing management lackey that I am ) that NATS behaved like any business would in similar circumstances, it tightened its belt. Just as it is now with the economic downturn looming and recruitment of paper shuffling office workers curtailed and contractors let go.


That's all very well but when is the company ever going to 'loosen it's belt"?

bad times = sorry boys but we've got to cut costs.
good times = look at all the profits we've made.

[MrJones]

CAP493 (http://www.pprune.org/members/123863-cap493) have you forgotten only a few months ago the Tanker Drivers won a 14% pay rise by holding the entire country to ransom for a couple of days.

We would be fighting for our Pensions.

I can not recall anyone ever been criticised for fighting for their Pension.

[Standard Noise]

I doubt the shareholders will be on our side, and that includes HMG.
A relative of mine worked for a company set up in Belfast (and Dublin) in the 70s as a joint venture between HMG, the ROI govt and a well known chemical company. Six or seven years ago, he was a couple of months off retirement after 30 0dd years service, when the company was wound up as was the pension scheme, and here's the rub, the ROI govt guaranteed the pension for it's nationals, the chemical company walked away saying that the local company went bust and couldn't pay out on pensions, then the bombshell, HMG turned it's back on the pensioners as well saying it wasn't their problem.
Let's not rely on them doing anything, they have form despite certain guarantees having been given to former nationalised industries on the pensions issue.

[Geffen]

Mr Jones,

The Tanker drivers did indeed get a 14% rise, however I don't recall the country being held to ransom or any real disruption to my daily life. The press on the other hand certainly took the union leader to task.

[barstewards]

BDiONU said:
I find it presumptious of us to attempt to decide the pay and conditions for people who have not yet joined the company and who will be joining with their own eyes open. Provided sufficient guarantess can be given (and proven) that our pensions are ringfenced then newcomers should join on different terms.A pension is a long term investment and has to see through both good times and bad. A good company should make provision to pay what is due through thick and thin.
The UK is not in good shape now but 5,10,20,50 years it will be a different story (one way or another).

If 'newcomers' join a new scheme then funding to our scheme effectively reduces from the day it is 'voted' in... As time goes by more staff retire so the scheme has more liabilities. The level of funding into the scheme is in ever decreasing circles. In 20 years time most of the current staff have retired but there are still some people paying into the 'old' scheme. There is no surplus - in fact there is no money left in the scheme whatsoever as some shortsighted staff voted the 'old' scheme out. 'Newcomers' are ok as they are funding the 'new' scheme.

Tell me -BDiONU - where exactly does the money come from to pay for your younger colleagues pension - maybe you helped to vote the scheme out but if there is no money the pensions cannot be paid. FORTY years of loyal service do receive c*ck all back.....

A healthy pension scheme must always have money coming into it -

example - every member of your family pays money into a bank account each month to pay for medicine for older family members. Each month the interest and a small % of the capital is taken out to pay for said medication. A family argument errupts and people stop paying into the account. Medication still must be paid for but each month the interest and an increasing % of the capital is removed. At some stage the medicine will cost more than is in the account. How does your elderly relative get his medication? The younger members don't care as they have their own problems????

To change the funding of OUR scheme will impact on your colleagues in a big way.



The scheme is still in surplus yet the company has taken payment holidays and I believe they do not pay the maximum in each month. They should be delighted that they are part of such a well run scheme. We are not staring into a big black hole - pay back what was saved during 'holiday' season (+ interest), pay in what should be paid. (They can afford it as management do like to brag about how much money our 'not for profit' making company makes each year.


Stop paying shareholders such big dividends and look after your staff. They are the single most important asset you have.


My single most important asset is my future pension and I will not allow that to be taken from me.

[mr.777]

Surley its up to the union to ensure the facts are made known to both the press and public...the facts being that Mr Barron has recently had a 13% payrise, will be on for an even bigger bonus as reward for destroying our penison...oh, and dont forget the Aston Martin.

[Geffen]

Now wouldn't it be nice to be given a DB9 as part of a pay deal :)

[Standard Noise]

A DB9 eh? Mid life crisis is it?

[DC10RealMan]

Posters here on pprune discuss such issues as to whether we would or would not have public sympathy and other esoteric and philosophical issues. I would encourage everyone to visit the CAAPS website and look at your personal details in which it shows not only how much you would get in retirement but also how much money you have in your pension pot. I have served 30 years in the CAA and Nats and my personal "pot" is worth nearly TWICE the current value of my home. These are the amounts of money we are trying to defend from theft by mr barron and his "yes men" in the management and government.

[Caesartheboogeyman]

Council for Aboriginal Alcohol Program Services?????




CAAPS


:confused::confused::confused:

[DC10RealMan]

CAAPS-Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme in which NATS employees are members

[ProM]

Tabloid newspaper reports on NATS strike:


We spoke to one employee named DC10RealMan who stated "I don't give a damn what the public think about us or whether it is fair, my pension has wads of cash in it so its important I don't lose any. If that means that a nurse who has saved up her money for 3 years to afford a holiday spending it on the floor of Gatwick then so be it"


I'm not saying that your cause (I am not NATS) is not fair, justifiable or anything, but that is how the media will portray comments like the one you made up there. Yes I am being harsh but the media don't always behave in a pink and fluffy way either

[MrJones]

Geffen (http://www.pprune.org/members/80245-geffen) you must have a selective memory.

There was no petrol or diesel to be had in London or the South East. I can't recalled the Union Leader getting vilified by the Press but I imagine his members (the ones who pay his wages) were very grateful for his backbone.

[DC10RealMan]

ProM

Yes, I think that it is a very fair assessment of my opinion and I am afraid I make no apologies for it. I do not read the Sun anyway!

[ProM]

DC10. I may disagree with you but I admire your candour and lack of hypocrisy

[DAL208]

We will have absolutely no public sympathy at all...in fact, those on picket lines should probably start thinking about hiring some kind of protection, especially those like myself in tower units...holiday makers who have spent £x00 on their holiday find out they cant go due to atco's strike over more money (which is how it will be spun)...will not go down well...i for one will be fearful from publics reaction we will get LYNCHED.

On the other side of the coin, we dont need to care about public opinion. PruneRadar (i think it was) mentioned that the govt would probably get involved due to their shareholding...if anything, i think the govt in their current state of affairs would rather keep 100 miles away, and they will do believe me. Strikes such as miners/firemen etc involved the govt, and both sides were battling for public opinion because the govt needed it. NATS dont need it, and neither do we. We will get villified (sp) but so be it, it wont affect our standing, and it wont affect NATS standing..what will do is the airlines losing a lot of money putting pressure on NATS. That is the true battlefield...

[kinglouis]

and with fingers crossed it will be the immense pressure from the airlines on NATS that will either force them to negotiate at the 12th hour or get the strike done and dusted in 1 day to put a halt on the millions that will be lost in a day.
NATS will probably loose more in a day if we strike than 10 years pension contributions.
Pay back the money they took a holiday on.
oh, and im waiting on my next bar stool session please mister barron...... i think my local sports hall takes bookings. that should fit most people in at my unit.

[FDP_Walla]

It makes me sick when we get non-NATS nosey buggers sticking in refs to Nurses. Nurses have never been well paid. The wads of cash that DC10 refers to are his wads. Is it OK to steal from the rich? Politics of envy (so rife in this country) sadden me. The issue is about fairness PrOM not greed.

I left the union a couple of years ago but will be looking to rejoin now if a fight for fairness is on.

[Norma Stitz]

So at what point do we do away with all this uncertainty over pensions by what surely could be a simple move....if The Airline Group wants to reduce its liability, and the pension fund is so huge we in NATS are actually a pension fund with a tiny ATC company attached to it, why not ballot all the staff and and agree to simply buy the non-public part of the PPP organisation?

No Airline Group, no pressure on the current management = problem solved? We take the risk, but we work for that risk.

I know things are never entirely simple, but surely that's a possibility? Please tell me if I'm being 'blonde'!

[ProM]

FDP - read what I said. The sentiment was not mine, i was portraying how I thought the media would represent DC10s views.

I accept it is not my position to suggest either way what you guys do which is why I did not state any opinion on that score and I was open and honest that I am not NATS.

Good job you don't want public support

[Gonzo]

So here's a question.........

The company decided to pay the money they saved by taking the 'holiday', which helped guard against the downturn in the market.

However, three years down the line the fund was looking just as bad as it is now.

What then? Would most still expect the company to up its contributions?

[MrJones]

ProM (http://www.pprune.org/members/271862-prom) tell us the last time The Sun or The Daily Mirror or the Daily Mail vilified a group of workers fighting for their pension?

[BEXIL160]

three years down the line the fund was looking just as bad as it is now.

Do we know for definite that it really looks so bad right now? I don't think so.

Mr.Barron doesn't want the company to continue paying into pension scheme even at the reduced level the company does now.

He is unwilling to support the continuance of what is an excellent scheme, not becasue it's impossible for the comapany to do so, but because it has an impact on PROFIT and the future saleability of the company.

When directly questioned "why the company had quietly become a profit making company, rather than a not for profit service", Mr. Barron replied "that's not what I signed up for" . That is a direct quote.

If the company were to operate on a "not for profit" basis, and the government weren't looking to offload the remainder of the company for the biggest amount, then the company finances would look considerably different.

BEX

[Geffen]

How much of an increase in personal contributions would people be willing to tolerate? I was once told by a financial advisor that if asked to increase to 12% to say yes. Purely on the quality of the scheme. Should we increase contributions to help maintain the viability of the scheme, which so many rightly say is ours, or does it all have to come from the employer?

Mr Jones,

Some areas may have run dry but all I said was I didn't experience disruption to my daily routine. Unlike when the refineries were blockaded a few years ago.

The following article is an indication of how the press can construct an article to begin a backlash.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026514/Revealed-Fuel-strike-leader-earns-thousands-union-members---hell-50-000-win.html

Certainly not an attack but shows how the seeds can be placed to turn an article either way dependent on how the editor's perceive public opinion.

[MrJones]

Geffen (http://www.pprune.org/members/80245-geffen) How on earth is a newspaper editor going to portray workers fighting to save their pensions fund in a bad light?

Every employee in the country in a pension scheme will empathise us.

And when Michael O'Leary opens his mouth to give his opinion we will feel a huge surge of Love :8

[Geffen]

As someone else has eluded, all the poor workers who have saved for holidays etc, who can't go anywhere because we are striking. Not saying it is right but that is the sort of thing prospect will have to work hard at to put across the right message. PR being the all important weapon. Don't for a second believe that management won't be employing the same tactics against the workers.

[slip and turn]

As you know, I am only interested in the NATS pension case from afar - just an interested observer in the possible demise of one of the last remaining excellent schemes for 'ordinary exployees' in the private sector (well sort of).

I hope you don't mind too much me offering my two-pennorth from time to time as this is the non-private ATCO forum ...

In the interests of encouraging free debate of both sides of the argument for maintaining the scheme and promise unchanged, I have bitten my lip for some days and not typed.

But you surely can't let Beadie get away with the suggestion that the Trustees are all impartial. Two of them at least are executive board directors of some ilk! One is the Finance Director is he not?!

Now you might think they are just two votes on a whole board of trustees, but have any of you ever occupied a place on a board with voting colleagues as powerful as that? Do you think less powerful voices are easily heard and decisions reflect balanced debate corresponding to voting rights? If so, get real :p

[Gonzo]

Very easily, MrJones.

What's that you say? basic of 60k? 70k? 80k?

<cue much comparison to soldiers, nurses etc>

ASAP of 5k? Oh, but it's not really a shift payment is it, as the non-op staff get NOS of the same value....

And a quarterly payment for training?

And an hourly payment for training?

Oh, and you work 6 on 4 off?

And get 33 days leave?

You get 8 PHs a year, whether you work them or not?

<Editor scrambling for a headline....Rich ATCOs Actually Work For Less Than Half The Year!!!..........And They Want To Spoil Your Yearly Holiday!!!!>

Health insurance?

Subsidised canteen/Luncheon vouchers?

A day's overtime is £550?

[Geffen]

Gonzo,

Well said.

[Del Prado]

Gonzo, Shhhh!

You don't know who's listening.:eek:

[MrJones]

Gonzo (http://www.pprune.org/members/10776-gonzo) you assume every NATS employee is a controller.

I am not saying we don't need some PR. We very definitely have to get our side across - Fighting to stop out pension scheme being close - but I think there has been enough outrage at pension schemes being crippled for us to do OK as far as the Press goes.

[Gonzo]

MrJones,

No, I don't assume that, but the ATCOs are the sector of the workforce the media will concentrate on.

[Geffen]

Yes the salary and AAVA are that of the dreaded band 5, but again the media WILL focus on the largest numbers. It is the way it works and there is no way that the media will turn around at look at the band 1 guys as, unfortunately, the numbers don't look as impressive. It doesn't matter to them what you are paid. All the ATCO's will be put in the same light. You never know a salary band might be mentioned. But then again doesn't NATS advertise ATCO salary over £85,000. The biggest salary is the one the media will focus on.

[eastern wiseguy]

the media WILL focus on the largest numbers

It matters not a jot, The only people we need to focus on the matter in hand is NATS management.

[Gonzo]

Read the posts before you jump the gun, Yahoo.....I was describing the facts a newspaper article would focus on. Not my own assumptions. :ugh:

[throw a dyce]

Gonzo,
On the other hand,
Basic isn't £60K top of the scale,not here.
Compare that to pilots.
ASAP 5K.You want to fly on hols on New Years day?
Training payments.Compared to a training captain.when we can kill 500 people?
6 on 4 off.Well it's more like 7 on 3 off.If you want to fly in the middle of the night etc.
33 days leave.Try 28:=
8 PH.ok we will take them on the days then.:E Want to fly on holiday on a Bank holiday.:D
Atco work for less than half the year.What about teachers,or MPs then.
Health insurance.Isn't worth the paper it's written on,in my case.
LV.;)Well no meal break in the roster,and security screen any food.That's if I get a chance to eat it.
OT £550.Try £230 after tax.My dentist makes that in 2 hours.

Let the papers say that.NATS couldn't afford to even contemplate industrial action.They are a very minor company,compared to the amount of money that the country would lose even for one day.Play it back to them about Barron's pay rise and Aston company van.

[Caesartheboogeyman]

I'm slightly confused over that last post. were you comparing it all to a pilot or just the first couple of bits. If you were explaining more about atco details, i mostly agree with you except its 28days hols unless you have been with the company 8 years then you get a couple more days, after 10? or 12? years you get another 3 making it 33 plus 8 in lieu of bank holidays. Your assessment of bank holidays and nights shifts are A1. I would happily take xmas, easter, nyd off every year. but like you say........no flying.
And the teachers/mp thing is true also. 6 weeks in the summer, 2 at easter and xmas. what a job! if it wasnt working with kids it would be a perfect job. MP's are a law unto themselves with all their benefits. make the red barron look like a pauper.

[ifaxu]

Why all the debate about public support? It matters not a jot other than to make members feel uncomfortable. The outcome of the strike , if it were to happen , would be decided in airline boardrooms and government meeting rooms. Maybe the average member of the public would feel some animosity towards Nats employees for a short time but most people in this country have the attention span of sparrows. Two days after the strike is over, won or lost , and they will be worrying about whatever the great british press tell them to worry about next. Focus on the real issues. Do we want to come out of this with our pensions intact or not.

[ebenezer]

deja vu....???

Strike Tactic Is Discounted By New Air Controller Union - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE2DA153FF93BA15752C0A96E948260&scp=9&sq=air%20traffic%20controllers%20strike&st=cse) :confused: :uhoh: :mad:

[mr.777]

So what you're saying then (those of you that are worried about your image, that is) is that its ok to lose our pensions, just so long as we look good on TV?? :ugh:

[DC10RealMan]

I think that the comparision with PATCO in the US is misleading. I believe that they were not allowed either by law or by temporary Presidential decree from striking and they did and unfortunately Reagan sacked them.
If we were to strike then provided that the unions had fulfilled all the legal requirements of voting, consultation, period of notice, then we have a legal and moral obligation to strike.

[Me Me Me Me]

The fact we (NATS) have people earning well under £30k as well isn't something the media would be interested in.

An unsympathetic media would contrast an ATCO at Swanwick, on £90k a year... driving into work in his Porsche to do an extra shift for £550 on top and then threatening to ruin your holiday plans because he wants his gold-plated pension scheme to be paid for by customers - which then passes on through the airlines to passengers - against a background of credit crunch, meteoric fuel price rises etc etc.

However, that doesn't mean to say the decision to strike wouldn't be right and justified... the trick is to communicate why it is so.

[250 kts]

driving into work in his Porsche to do an extra shift for £550 on top and then threatening to ruin your holiday plans because he wants his gold-plated pension scheme to be paid for by customers - which then passes on through the airlines to

Ah, but if said ATCOs hadn't been doing the AAVAs in the first place then said public may well have had their holiday ruined anyway by the excessive delays the airlines would have had due to the under staffing. In fact the unit has been running on AAVAs for months, keeping delays down and potentially saving NATS £££ fined by the regulator.

It is all about how the story is put across. NATS values an extra day at Swanwick at £550 which is less than £70 an hour-cheap compared to how much a "professional" in other areas would charge. £200 an hour for a decent solicitor down here, and we are supposed to be the best in the world. NATS have continuously failed to sort out it's man power issues and there is no sign of that improving in the medium term. AAVAs are a cheap way for NATS to staff the ops room.

[BEXIL160]

A few points

What the media writes / broadcasts has nothing to do with the truth, or indeed public opinion. Does what the media "say" really matter? No, thought not. (One Mr. O'Learly certainly doesn't bother much with the media's pieces, doesn't seem to have done him much harm)

ANY industrial action will damage NATS. Perhaps irrepairably.

The management, who are directly responsible for this sorry state of affairs need to recognise that fact, and start thinking a little more about ways to keep the CAAPS as healthy as possible, rather than concentrating on profits and the sale of NATS for the best price.

NATS staff have some very dry powder. Time to point out to management that it only needs a small spark to set it off, with consequences that can't be good for them.

BEX

[Air.Farce.1]

Geffen
As someone else has eluded, all the poor workers who have saved for holidays etc, who can't go anywhere because we are striking. Not saying it is right but that is the sort of thing prospect will have to work hard at to put across the right message. PR being the all important weapon. Don't for a second believe that management won't be employing the same tactics against the workers.


We don't need to strike. Stop AAVAs/overtime and coming in on days off. It really is that simple, or am I missing something here ? :confused:
If "management" ask, just say we need our days off due stress related Pension issues.
No need for public sympathy, NATS would go the same way as ZOOM :} without Government intervention if we just turned up and did our job which is moving aircraft safely and expeditiously. And what is wrong with that I ask?
Unfortunately some types have jumped on this nauseating Barron "three wheels on my wagon" band wagon. :yuk:

[MrJones]

I find the whole idea that a bad Press/Public opinion could work against us quite farcical.

We are fighting for our pensions. Management are looking to optimise profits.

It's a no brainer no matter what the Management Lackeys here say.

Bring it on , we have nothing to lose.

[250 kts]

As this is a rumour page...... I heard that NATS have set aside £1m for the PR fight. shame they can't just start bunging it into the pension to help make up that "holiday fund" they owe.

[5milesbaby]

So the NTUS published (from what I heard, totally out of turn and against principles/wishes of the management) a report that said the group would meet again last Friday to continue negotiations. Why haven't we heard anything since about that meeting? If the unions are being silenced then they have lost power already. A report/minutes should be made available about EVERY meeting that takes place, so, has anyone heard anything, seen any reports?

[250 kts]

Another meeting planned for the 5th I believe from the notice put out last week.

[intherealworld]

Someone a few threads back wondered how the CAA part of the CAAPS was performing?

According to minutes of an Aviation Group meeting I happened to come across today they declared it was performing well ( as is ours) and they will be keeping it open to all new entrants.

[Standard Noise]

But here's the rub, no one brought a hatchet man in to fatten the CAA up for sale to the highest bidder.

Sorry, I wasn't cynical in my last job.:}

[2.5 miles]

Quote:
According to minutes of an Aviation Group meeting I happened to come across today they declared it was performing well ( as is ours) and they will be keeping it open to all new entrants.

Apart from the need for NATS to reduce its overhead, one of the main reasons for them attacking the pensions is due to our customers being unhappy with their route charges supporting such a costly scheme. (statement, not necessarily my view). Why then are they, and indeed NATS, not challenging the Regulator to reduce its costs similarly?:( The CAA are remaining mute and watching with interest.
When NATS do close the scheme, watch the junior stafff chase the money and vote with their feet to sunnier climes. What staffing problem?

2.5

[Traffic is...]

Quite right. Allegedly the CAA don't think it's right that NATS are passing the pension costs onto the customer (isn't that how these things work in every other industry though?), yet the sole aviation regulator for the UK can continue to fund its own pension by passing its own costs on to the very people it is regulating and telling to trim costs!

[slip and turn]

The problem, anotherthing, IIRC, is that ERG has allowed airlines to criticise NATS pensions costs one or more times in the past, and by 'allowed' I mean they have not corrected the notion.

I think you might have to wade through old minutes of ERG meetings, and written submissions by airlines to get a good feeling for it, but basically I'd say the die was cast years not months ago.

It requires a complete reversal of sentiment by NATS executive and ERG for the pension to survive 'as is' and for them to condone passing on the costs to the airlines...


But I am still not actually convinced by the bleak projections by 'the actuaries'. Can a £3,000,000,000 fund be so vulnerable? Part of me cannot help but think the warnings about upping contributions may be an elaborate smoke screen / red herring affair.

At any rate, I sincerely hope you don't get done up like kippers :}

[DC10RealMan]

I was lead to believe that there was a further pensions meeting with the management yesterday, if so has anyone any news?

[Caesartheboogeyman]

if that is the case that makes 3?? further meetings since the union announcement that was floating about the briefing room, WHY NO FURTHER NEWS??

[Air.Farce.1]

No news means "Working together" :* which I believe is only in the interest of Management and Union types seeking promotion :yuk:

[Roffa]

Resign from the union and go and negotiate your own deal then if that's the amount of faith you have in them.

[Air.Farce.1]

I did, years ago :ok:

[Roffa]

Jolly good. If it comes down to it do give me a wave whilst you cross the picket line as I and my Prospect colleagues defend our own T&Cs as well as yours.

Just have the good grace not to denigrate those that are acting on all our, yes even your, behalf.

[Air.Farce.1]

I rejoined ten years ago also :) but I don't agree with this "working together" stuff. I don't think its in the interest of your average punter like me.

[Roffa]

What would you suggest in its place then?

[DC10RealMan]

Roffa,

I think that "Working together" has been compromised in the minds of the workforce. We can still have meetings with the management to discuss "stuff" that affects us, however it should be in a more formal enviroment with minutes taken of what was said etc.
I freely admit to being old fashioned and wonder if the union representatives themselves feel comfortable with informal "get togethers" with management in overnight stays in hotels with management personnel, including confidential briefings that they are not allowed to tell the union membership.
Rightly or wrongly the union membership feel that under "Working Together" their representatives are being compromised by their position hence some of the complaints/observations being voiced on this website.

[Air.Farce.1]

Roffa

What would you suggest in its place then?


Not working together :)

[Air.Farce.1]

I agree entirely DC10RealMan, "Working together" can only be beneficial to management. Overnight hotel stays plying reps with booze is not healthy (excuse the pun) for the workforce, and sends out the wrong signals. A more formal gathering would send the message we mean business and give a psychological advantage

[Spamcan defender]

Missed this thread for a few days now and have just caught up.......

Firstly I completely agree that public opinion matters not one jot, I cant really see why it would TBH. If its so important to some then I reckon we should all buy sub-£1k motors and use them for work which would, at a stroke, negate any arguement about us driving flash cars.
HOWEVER, how I wish to spend my money is MY business. If I want to but an Aston or Lambo then I will, I wont be pressurised NOT to in case some non-NATS employee takes the hump.

Secondly, knowing how the media like to sh1t-stir I have no doubt they would portray us in the worst light (unless, of course the editor has ATC connections). I strongly believe that the union should invest in a PROPER PR company to oversee things should things start to go down the strike road.

Thirdly, I sreally believe that the withdrawal of goodwill i.e no AAVA's, second sector work etc will produce the goods if carried out for a sustained period of time. This alone will have the desired effect going by what folks have said regarding staffing issues in their area of the business.

Spamcan

[CAP493]

I really believe that the withdrawal of goodwill i.e no AAVA's, second sector work etc You're 100% right in what you say, Spamcan defender, but please don't refer to AAVAs as "goodwill" - being paid £350 to £500 a shot (depending on your unit) to come in for an additional duty has bug**r all to do with "goodwill"; it's simply down to economics i.e. it's cheaper for NATS to pay the AAVA rates than to pick up the bill for the likely delays, and it puts a not inconsiderable amount of additional cash (even after tax at 40%...) in the ATCO's pocket - which is a perfectly reasonable financial arrangement.

As for comparisons with the US ATCO strike and the current situation, one of the biggest differences is that back then, there were plenty of young recruits available to "join up" and eventually replace the guys who'd been fired. Nowadays (and it's the same throughout Europe) we're in the middle of a massive retirement bulge that's not due to peak until around 2013 by which time it's estimated that there could be roughly a 25% shortfall of controllers across Europe. Against that background, even the most right-wing administration and management would baulk at a "mass sacking" option.

[Yellow Snow]

As an ex US controller told me out here in the desert the other day, the US strike was illegal as FAA employees weren't/aren't allowed to strike ISTBC.

As no such legislation exists in the UK, and providing due industrial dispute process is followed, then a similar outcome would be highly unlikely!

Best wishes, on behalf of the ex NATS boys in Dubai.

[Air.Farce.1]

Now you are talking ! :ok: