civil controllers - gatco or union?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dances with wolves I dont have it in for the Guild, but being one of Thatchers children I do have it in for unions and deluded fools like bexil atco535 and 250kts who insist on stamping their feet whilst sticking their heads in the sand.
Britains final salary schemes, recently analysed by two leading economists, are showing a shortfall of about 160billion. Which means they will have to put between 10-40 billion a year into the schemes for the next ten years if they want to fill the gap. These companies have been operating in the private sector for decades NATS only a few years. Nobody said the NATS scheme was in trouble but some time in the future it probably will be.
If British companies are to carry the burden of these expensive schemes, the cost will reduce the amount of investment they are able to make therefore harming their competitiveness in the international market place.
Deloitte and Touche estimate the black hole in the FTSE 100 firms was 75billion meaning many staff are facing the prospect of retiring on less than they hoped. Until recently many firms have closed their funds to new members but allowed existing members to carry on. However a number of large companies such as Rentokil and the CO OP have announced they are to close their schemes to existing members as well.
The reason for these funds falling into the red is simple we are living longer.
This coupled with falling returns in investments and Gordon Brown removing tax relief on dividends means these final salary pension schems are too costly no matter what job you ATCO or burger flipper. Unless of course, as has been previously pointed out, you are an MP and in which case your pension scheme is sacrosanct.
NATS or non NATS, management or lacky, it dosn't matter its a fact life the whole country has a pension problem and talk of strikes and unrealistic demands of companies aint gonna solve it. I sincerely hope the NATS pension scheme carries on for many years to come. But something tells me I will be back on PPRUNE at some time in the future saying I told you so.
I am off to the sun for a few weeks bye bye.
Britains final salary schemes, recently analysed by two leading economists, are showing a shortfall of about 160billion. Which means they will have to put between 10-40 billion a year into the schemes for the next ten years if they want to fill the gap. These companies have been operating in the private sector for decades NATS only a few years. Nobody said the NATS scheme was in trouble but some time in the future it probably will be.
If British companies are to carry the burden of these expensive schemes, the cost will reduce the amount of investment they are able to make therefore harming their competitiveness in the international market place.
Deloitte and Touche estimate the black hole in the FTSE 100 firms was 75billion meaning many staff are facing the prospect of retiring on less than they hoped. Until recently many firms have closed their funds to new members but allowed existing members to carry on. However a number of large companies such as Rentokil and the CO OP have announced they are to close their schemes to existing members as well.
The reason for these funds falling into the red is simple we are living longer.
This coupled with falling returns in investments and Gordon Brown removing tax relief on dividends means these final salary pension schems are too costly no matter what job you ATCO or burger flipper. Unless of course, as has been previously pointed out, you are an MP and in which case your pension scheme is sacrosanct.
NATS or non NATS, management or lacky, it dosn't matter its a fact life the whole country has a pension problem and talk of strikes and unrealistic demands of companies aint gonna solve it. I sincerely hope the NATS pension scheme carries on for many years to come. But something tells me I will be back on PPRUNE at some time in the future saying I told you so.
I am off to the sun for a few weeks bye bye.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enjoy the sun Siam
I know that if we roll over we will all lose our pension as it stands at the moment - it will creep.
I am not a union lackey - far from it, but i have spent tens of thousands buying back years in this pension scheme - I am not going to sit by and let my money that I invested over and above my pension payment, (more money than an ATCO 1* earns in over a year) get de-valued without a fight.
Especially when the Personal Contract Group get their pension contribution subsidised by the company.
I know that if we roll over we will all lose our pension as it stands at the moment - it will creep.
I am not a union lackey - far from it, but i have spent tens of thousands buying back years in this pension scheme - I am not going to sit by and let my money that I invested over and above my pension payment, (more money than an ATCO 1* earns in over a year) get de-valued without a fight.
Especially when the Personal Contract Group get their pension contribution subsidised by the company.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Siam, I am far from "deluded" as you would have me and my erstwhile colleagues.
It is you who are avoiding the issue. To quote you...
An assumption, based on what? Certainly not on any examination of CAAPS, it's assets or obligations.
NATS is not a "true" private setor company, as you of course know.
More assumption. Do not "foreign" companies face the same burdens? Does NATS need to internationally competative? It has a monopoly on UK Area services and seems to have little difficulty in attractive UK aerodrome contracts.
Over simplification. The are many other reasons that other schemes aren't doing so well.
You don't seem to understand much about CAAPS investments. Income is not solely from dividends.
Just because other schemes may be in difficulty is not evidence that CAAPS is, or indeed will be in trouble. You make no comment about the suspicion that the real reason could be NATS management wanting to save money,and using other scheme problems as an excuse to tinker with CAAPS.
As before I await your detailed reasons as to why CAAPS specifically can't continue. Until then it remains apparent that you have some agenda to spread mis-information. The question bears an answer. Why?
Best wishes
BEX
It is you who are avoiding the issue. To quote you...
Nobody said the NATS scheme was in trouble but some time in the future it probably will be.
These companies have been operating in the private sector for decades NATS only a few years
If British companies are to carry the burden of these expensive schemes, the cost will reduce the amount of investment they are able to make therefore harming their competitiveness in the international market place.
The reason for these funds falling into the red is simple we are living longer.
This coupled with falling returns in investments and Gordon Brown removing tax relief on dividends means these final salary pension schems are too costly no matter what job you ATCO or burger flipper
Just because other schemes may be in difficulty is not evidence that CAAPS is, or indeed will be in trouble. You make no comment about the suspicion that the real reason could be NATS management wanting to save money,and using other scheme problems as an excuse to tinker with CAAPS.
As before I await your detailed reasons as to why CAAPS specifically can't continue. Until then it remains apparent that you have some agenda to spread mis-information. The question bears an answer. Why?
Best wishes
BEX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And here we are with the union recommending we accept this pitiful offer for removing HTD allowances.
why?
Maybe they are happy to take our money each month but roll over to the demands of NATS management.
I intend to be around for more than 3 years so why would I vote yes?
As usual we have been given a pathetic "explanation" from prospect about cost savings. If the company wants to save money I will be more than happy to sit down with management and recommend several areas costs can be reduced.
Including themselves.
Come on prospect - why do you give in so easily to these dumb ideas?
Does everyone REALLY believe they are acting in OUR ,the staffs', best interest and that they will support us with the potential pension crisis??
why?
Maybe they are happy to take our money each month but roll over to the demands of NATS management.
I intend to be around for more than 3 years so why would I vote yes?
As usual we have been given a pathetic "explanation" from prospect about cost savings. If the company wants to save money I will be more than happy to sit down with management and recommend several areas costs can be reduced.
Including themselves.
Come on prospect - why do you give in so easily to these dumb ideas?
Does everyone REALLY believe they are acting in OUR ,the staffs', best interest and that they will support us with the potential pension crisis??
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does everyone REALLY believe they are acting in OUR ,the staffs', best interest and that they will support us with the potential pension crisis??
rgds BEX
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am torn two ways about the HTD.
I think it is a bit sneaky the way it has been mentioned after the pay deal went through.
I have more than 3 years to go but also realise that the company is hell bent on making savings (it kinda has to after being privatised by a governement that lambasted the Tories for privatising companies, and at the same time saddled us with hundreds of millions in debt).
Although I would love to keep my HTD, I would rather give it up and let the management realise that we are reasonable people, but when it comes to our pension (the next thing we will be asked to vote on), we will not allow any degradation.
I think that on a whole, the Union do a damned good job in what is a thankless task.
I think it is a bit sneaky the way it has been mentioned after the pay deal went through.
I have more than 3 years to go but also realise that the company is hell bent on making savings (it kinda has to after being privatised by a governement that lambasted the Tories for privatising companies, and at the same time saddled us with hundreds of millions in debt).
Although I would love to keep my HTD, I would rather give it up and let the management realise that we are reasonable people, but when it comes to our pension (the next thing we will be asked to vote on), we will not allow any degradation.
I think that on a whole, the Union do a damned good job in what is a thankless task.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GATCO OR UNION
As a Past President of GATCO - be a member of both! They each have different roles to play - and are not an either/or choice - they are complimentary. The Union is extremely important in the pay/terms of service aspect of the job of a controller. GATCO's volunteers play a very important role within IFATCA in expressing the views of controllers within the various extremely important european policy formulating committees. Indeed to all controllers out there - NATS or non-NATS - the Guild is always needing volunteers to assist it in this very important task. In conclusion - the Union and GATCO operate together to try and make the task of the controller easier.
