NATS PENSION - IN DANGER?!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can TUS accept this when we, the members, haven't been consulted or even informed that this is an option?
Don't the members of a pension fund have any say in the running of said fund?
Aren't we as shareholders also entitled to our views to be listened to and can't we call an extraordinary general meeting to discuss this and other burning issues and get Stephen Byers along to see that this could all be going for a ball of chalk?
Or is it going to happen again without us doing anything about it?
PROBABLY..............
{edited for (appall) (apae) bad spelling)
[ 23 November 2001: Message edited by: terrain safe ]
Don't the members of a pension fund have any say in the running of said fund?
Aren't we as shareholders also entitled to our views to be listened to and can't we call an extraordinary general meeting to discuss this and other burning issues and get Stephen Byers along to see that this could all be going for a ball of chalk?
Or is it going to happen again without us doing anything about it?
PROBABLY..............
{edited for (appall) (apae) bad spelling)
[ 23 November 2001: Message edited by: terrain safe ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Muppetsville
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all right people saying how can the union let this happen etc etc...
Unfortunately they don't have to ask our permission to do it anyway it is there right inlaw to do it... they informed the unions I believe you are either with us and talking about it or against us, in the first case we will review it every 6 months to see where we are at, in the latter its happening for six years end of story? (That I believe is basically how it was described to me anyway,may have misunderstood)
Unfortunately they don't have to ask our permission to do it anyway it is there right inlaw to do it... they informed the unions I believe you are either with us and talking about it or against us, in the first case we will review it every 6 months to see where we are at, in the latter its happening for six years end of story? (That I believe is basically how it was described to me anyway,may have misunderstood)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern england
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contact London.
You're quite right to say that they can do it legally but they can also legally say we're going to freeze your pay for three years and you're either with us or against us! In the latter case I doubt reaction would be the same, although the long term financial could be less devastating! I thought that the one issue on which all members were prepared to undertake industrial action was that of our pension provision and so if we wouldn't put up with a pay freeze then why accept this unilateral holiday?
Having seen the TU circular on the issue it's apparent that the Past service Surplus reduced by 40% (from £563.3 million to £322.5 million) all by itself between 31 March and 30 September so why is it considered necessary to give it a further hand?
The TU side also quote the actuary as saying 'the question of future liability is not relevant'. Actuarially this may be correct but this assumes that TAG will honour their liability to make up any future deficit. Given that many large companies are now struggling with their pension burden I would suggest that this is questionable and they would look to closing the scheme to new members at the very least.
I think that the TU side may have seriously misjudged the situation but I hope I'm wrong.
You're quite right to say that they can do it legally but they can also legally say we're going to freeze your pay for three years and you're either with us or against us! In the latter case I doubt reaction would be the same, although the long term financial could be less devastating! I thought that the one issue on which all members were prepared to undertake industrial action was that of our pension provision and so if we wouldn't put up with a pay freeze then why accept this unilateral holiday?
Having seen the TU circular on the issue it's apparent that the Past service Surplus reduced by 40% (from £563.3 million to £322.5 million) all by itself between 31 March and 30 September so why is it considered necessary to give it a further hand?
The TU side also quote the actuary as saying 'the question of future liability is not relevant'. Actuarially this may be correct but this assumes that TAG will honour their liability to make up any future deficit. Given that many large companies are now struggling with their pension burden I would suggest that this is questionable and they would look to closing the scheme to new members at the very least.
I think that the TU side may have seriously misjudged the situation but I hope I'm wrong.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bono Vox,
Whilst Prospect may not have collectively learned the lesson of keeping members informed, some unit reps have - but there's one catch: I can't tell you what I don't know.
When there finally was some communication from the union Jedi Masters, I found it a bit patronising in tone and and did little to settle my fears. Nothing BA (sorry, TAG - I'll get that right one day) does or attempts to do will surprise me - after all, if they got away with something within BA, they'll get away with it with NATS - right?
I became a union rep to do the best for everyone at my unit, and everyone within NATS. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept the "everything's okay, stop behaving like children" e-mail as gospel - I don't like it, end of story. And if being a unit rep JUST means being a mouthpiece for the boys and girls at the top even when you don't agree - as many NATs managers had to be during the PPP run-up - then I resign.
This could run and run and run...
Whilst Prospect may not have collectively learned the lesson of keeping members informed, some unit reps have - but there's one catch: I can't tell you what I don't know.
When there finally was some communication from the union Jedi Masters, I found it a bit patronising in tone and and did little to settle my fears. Nothing BA (sorry, TAG - I'll get that right one day) does or attempts to do will surprise me - after all, if they got away with something within BA, they'll get away with it with NATS - right?
I became a union rep to do the best for everyone at my unit, and everyone within NATS. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept the "everything's okay, stop behaving like children" e-mail as gospel - I don't like it, end of story. And if being a unit rep JUST means being a mouthpiece for the boys and girls at the top even when you don't agree - as many NATs managers had to be during the PPP run-up - then I resign.
This could run and run and run...
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I see a catch 22 situation here. Airlines ( including TAG ) allowed to keep but not use there runway slots, no airlines are being penalised for not using there runway slots. There are other airlines which would like to provide new services but cann't because no one is giving up viable runway slots.NATS revenue is way down because of all this, so TAG uses our pension surplus to save costs.
Why do I feel that TAG is winning both ways.
Why do I feel that TAG is winning both ways.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: On top of the world
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much as it pains me to say this - but the Co is legally entitled to take a pensions holiday, you can't do diddly squat about it. The union has negotiated some benefits to the members, probably as a sweetener - but like I say, can't do anything about a holiday if the acctuaries say the fund can support it today.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right that there is nothing that can be done about the company taking a pension holiday, except the Union could make their opposition to it clear, if that is what they think is the case. Obviously the Union has been negotiating some sweetener for the members but have they told anyone what they are up to? Not as far as I am aware. I for one would rather have been consulted about what is going on than read rumours in Private Eye. If the Trustees are against this (and they have managed the fund perfectly well for some time now) why are the Union so keen to go against their advice?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: far far away
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm
After my last post, I read the memo circulating the ops room about this issue. I began to feel a little more positive..... But now I have had time to think - I'm not so sure.
First. PPP was supposed to bring fresh investment into NATS that the Government weren't prepared to provide. OK September 11th has changed a few things, but if there are to be massive savings from the company paying zero to the pension fund surely they should be making some investment too - not pocketing the savings.
The pension fund is ours too, why can't the pension holiday be shared? Company pays a little, we pay a little.
The improvement to 58ths seems good, but as it has already been said, this might be difficult to sustain. Great for the 'nearly deads' but what about us youngsters, still under 30 - what lies ahead?
I'm still not clear on the Unions view of this. Maybe they are happy. If not then it looks like Management have simply out negotiated the Union again. This begs the question -
"Who is negotiating on behalf of the Union"
If it's ATCO members, then do they really stand a chance negotiating with professional managers?
Just a thought
[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: Goldfish Watcher ]
After my last post, I read the memo circulating the ops room about this issue. I began to feel a little more positive..... But now I have had time to think - I'm not so sure.
First. PPP was supposed to bring fresh investment into NATS that the Government weren't prepared to provide. OK September 11th has changed a few things, but if there are to be massive savings from the company paying zero to the pension fund surely they should be making some investment too - not pocketing the savings.
The pension fund is ours too, why can't the pension holiday be shared? Company pays a little, we pay a little.
The improvement to 58ths seems good, but as it has already been said, this might be difficult to sustain. Great for the 'nearly deads' but what about us youngsters, still under 30 - what lies ahead?
I'm still not clear on the Unions view of this. Maybe they are happy. If not then it looks like Management have simply out negotiated the Union again. This begs the question -
"Who is negotiating on behalf of the Union"
If it's ATCO members, then do they really stand a chance negotiating with professional managers?
Just a thought
[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: Goldfish Watcher ]
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here to Eternity
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the first point has to be that PPP was a terrible idea in the first place. How they argued that it would provide investment when the reality was that the company was landed with massive debts immediately on sale is beyond me. Sept 11th didn't cause these financial problems, only added to them.
As for using the money for investment... the savings they make will probably just about cover the interest payments on the debt!
I don't think the unions are happy with the idea of a pensions holiday - but when there is no way you can stop it what are you supposed to do?! The only thing the unions could do is to try and get as much as possible in return. Those who negotiate these deals are trained negotiators and so, with respect, are better skilled to deal with this than their ATCO members.
P.S. For those still unsure... The contribution holiday it for TAG/NATS only. Members contributions remain unchanged.
As for using the money for investment... the savings they make will probably just about cover the interest payments on the debt!
I don't think the unions are happy with the idea of a pensions holiday - but when there is no way you can stop it what are you supposed to do?! The only thing the unions could do is to try and get as much as possible in return. Those who negotiate these deals are trained negotiators and so, with respect, are better skilled to deal with this than their ATCO members.
P.S. For those still unsure... The contribution holiday it for TAG/NATS only. Members contributions remain unchanged.
Just because there is no legal reason why TAG can't pocket our pension surplus does not make it right!
This is yet another example of our Union ignoring our views. What is going on? Surely they should be our voice and should represent us, not just be nodding dogs for management
This is yet another example of our Union ignoring our views. What is going on? Surely they should be our voice and should represent us, not just be nodding dogs for management
Guest
Posts: n/a
Intersting snippet in the info that the union put out.....
Under previous accounting rules the pension fund would apparently currently be in deficit.
Using the new industry standard (creative?) accounting methods there is apparently a healthy surplus?
WF.
Under previous accounting rules the pension fund would apparently currently be in deficit.
Using the new industry standard (creative?) accounting methods there is apparently a healthy surplus?
WF.
, not us too 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: On top of the world
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does that mean for the art of negotiation!!
If the union had to ask permission of its members all the time to talk about things, we'd still be waiting for the 1990 pay negotiations to finish. Think on - they act under mandate from the members through Conference, give them some credit for ttaking time out to think about things.
Am I a member or not? Not necessarily so!!
If the union had to ask permission of its members all the time to talk about things, we'd still be waiting for the 1990 pay negotiations to finish. Think on - they act under mandate from the members through Conference, give them some credit for ttaking time out to think about things.
Am I a member or not? Not necessarily so!!
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As they say it's a done deal. NATS have a 3 year pensions holiday. The members however keep paying at their usual rates. My fears are that in 3 years time plus the 18 months at the decalared reduced contributions rate for NATS, they will be unable/unwilling to pay their contributions at the required rate [ about 30%]. Then as the member trustees state, they would be obliged to close down the NATS section of the CAAPS and lo & behold staff will be offered by NATS a 'Money-purchase' pension scheme which will be infinitely inferior to the current scheme and definitely lesss costly for the employer. I hope that I am wrong.
The TU reps have obtained some member 'benefit improvements' the principal one of which is a change in the accrual rates from 59th's to 58th's, however if we lose the current pension scheme, in my books 58th's of nothing is no better than 59th's of the same.
I accept that NATS have the legal right to take a pension contributions 'holiday' [ something that has not happened before] but I fail to see why without member consultation and support the TU reps supported management, and I understand went against the advice of their executives and more fundamental ignored the advice of the member trustees. The latter body have ensured that over past years that the fund has remained healthy.
I suspect that the TU reps have been hoodwinked by their new access to NATS senior management and apparent involvement in company policy determination.
However on this issue, after 35 years in IPPCS/IPMS/Prospect, they have got it wrong.
All the external indicators are that the pensions industry is extremely volatile and now is not the time to make changes. Worldwide investment returns are plummeting, the ENRO collapse has cost investors and banks billions. I hope that the pension fund did not have any money invested there.
The TU reps have obtained some member 'benefit improvements' the principal one of which is a change in the accrual rates from 59th's to 58th's, however if we lose the current pension scheme, in my books 58th's of nothing is no better than 59th's of the same.
I accept that NATS have the legal right to take a pension contributions 'holiday' [ something that has not happened before] but I fail to see why without member consultation and support the TU reps supported management, and I understand went against the advice of their executives and more fundamental ignored the advice of the member trustees. The latter body have ensured that over past years that the fund has remained healthy.
I suspect that the TU reps have been hoodwinked by their new access to NATS senior management and apparent involvement in company policy determination.
However on this issue, after 35 years in IPPCS/IPMS/Prospect, they have got it wrong.
All the external indicators are that the pensions industry is extremely volatile and now is not the time to make changes. Worldwide investment returns are plummeting, the ENRO collapse has cost investors and banks billions. I hope that the pension fund did not have any money invested there.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoopla - read my message again. Nothing about wanting to be in on negotiations, just that we should have heard what had been decided from the unions, with their rational - not via the press or management.