Threat to Pension
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Threat to Pension
Following links may be of interest :
http://www.alstomdeferredpensioners.org.uk/adp/
It could happen to you? Who was in charge?
http://www.nats.co.uk/news/docs/nats...rch2005ara.pdf
Page 32 says, "I'm allright Jack".
Let's fight any moves to dilute/alter our pension all the way.
Edited to show NATS interest only. The first link may interest anyone
with a pension.
http://www.alstomdeferredpensioners.org.uk/adp/
It could happen to you? Who was in charge?
http://www.nats.co.uk/news/docs/nats...rch2005ara.pdf
Page 32 says, "I'm allright Jack".
Let's fight any moves to dilute/alter our pension all the way.
Edited to show NATS interest only. The first link may interest anyone
with a pension.
Last edited by TacoBell73; 13th Mar 2006 at 08:30.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume you mean page 32 of the pdf, and not page 32 as shown on the published document?
I have just skim read the documents so far however it is nice to see Mr Barron got renumeration for his 'loss' of pension from Alstom whilst the workers lost a lot of their pension rights.
It fills my heart with joy that I go into work with increased traffic, safe in the knowledge that the directors are being well looked after.
One pension for all
I have just skim read the documents so far however it is nice to see Mr Barron got renumeration for his 'loss' of pension from Alstom whilst the workers lost a lot of their pension rights.
It fills my heart with joy that I go into work with increased traffic, safe in the knowledge that the directors are being well looked after.
One pension for all
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wimborne
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PENSIONS
NATS staff can't fanny about any more. The Company needs to be made aware of our feelings now. A ballot for industrial action must be taken now not tomorrow now. The powder has been kept dry for too dam long
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our company keeps telling us we need to keep costs down and trim back expenditure.
Well lets not mess around here - we all need to protect our pensions
If they want to cut costs, according to that doccument from the link above, the famous five cost £1309k last year - WHAT!!!!!!
An average of £261000 each (including Richard Everitt's "pitiful" £78k)
What human being is worth that amount per year?
And they may decide to tamper with our pensions. Any goodwill I have towards the company is rapidly disappearing
Well lets not mess around here - we all need to protect our pensions
If they want to cut costs, according to that doccument from the link above, the famous five cost £1309k last year - WHAT!!!!!!
An average of £261000 each (including Richard Everitt's "pitiful" £78k)
What human being is worth that amount per year?
And they may decide to tamper with our pensions. Any goodwill I have towards the company is rapidly disappearing
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
couldn't agree more. the union needs to get its collective @ss in gear and organise what they want from the membership. do they want us to bombard people with emails, stop doing aava's, or as has happened in the past just sit with our thumbs up our butts while the much vaunted powder is blown in our faces by the management.
we need a clear and concise message sent now. you want to discuss the pension?, fine here's the discussion THE PENSION IS NON NEGOTIABLE end of discussion
we need a clear and concise message sent now. you want to discuss the pension?, fine here's the discussion THE PENSION IS NON NEGOTIABLE end of discussion
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Makes for interesting reading:
PARLIAMENTARY PENSION SCHEME
Taxpayers will be contributing an extra £25m over the next three years to make up the shortfall in the pension fund for MPs. As with hundreds of company pension schemes the drop in the stock market has blown a hole in the fund and it needs to be filled up. But instead of the scheme members paying extra, the Treasury is to treble payments to the Parliamentary Pension Scheme from 8% to 24% of MPs salaries to meet the gap. Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrats work and pensions spokesman, said the move "does not look right" at a time when constituents' private pensions are doing so badly.
Ben Bradshaw, the Commons deputy leader, said part of the rise in contributions was necessary to meet a deficit in the Parliamentary Pension Scheme of £25m. In 2002 MPs voted themselves an enhanced pension deal, with a rise from one fiftieth to one fortieth of their annual £55,000 salary to be paid per year of service. They argued that the precarious nature of the average Parliamentary career means they deserve a better pension deal. The move, which is likely to infuriate pensioners' groups unable to rely on large hand-outs from the Exchequer, was blamed by the Government yesterday on the stock market. But it also conceded that the more generous pension package for MPs approved by the Commons last year had contributed to the deficit.
He said the main reason for the huge increase was the decision to end the contributions holiday enjoyed by the Treasury for the last 13 years and "disappointing investment returns". He added, "The surplus on the scheme has now been exhausted in this way and Exchequer contributions must revert to a level reflecting the long-run costs." The Commons agreed better pension packages last year, although they might be reflected in the next review of MPs' salaries. David Willetts, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said the pension fund had "come down to earth with a bump". He said it was "mirroring the experience" of many schemes which faced higher contributions because of stock market losses and higher taxes on pension funds.
Mr Webb said, "I think that we as MPs should have no better, no worse position when this sort of thing happens, as our constituents in private sector funds. What's happening to them is that in some cases, workers are having to put more in or are seeing their benefits reduced as well as employers putting more money in. What's happening for us is the whole of the amount of the shortfall is being met by the taxpayer. All I am saying is, at a time when our own constituents' pension funds - particularly in the private sector - are doing very, very badly and Parliament arguably has failed to address that problem urgently enough, it simply doesn't look right for us to expect the taxpayer to meet all of our deficit without us putting anything extra in at all."
Mr Webb said he believed the government was concerned that the MPs "wouldn't wear" being asked to make up the full cost themselves. "I think the same thing has happened again this year," he said. David Willetts, shadow work and pensions secretary, said, "The fund is mirroring the experience of many funded pension schemes, which are seeing increased contributions to make up for the cost of the Chancellor's £5bn a year tax imposed on pension funds in 1997 through the abolition of the dividend tax."
PARLIAMENTARY PENSION SCHEME
Taxpayers will be contributing an extra £25m over the next three years to make up the shortfall in the pension fund for MPs. As with hundreds of company pension schemes the drop in the stock market has blown a hole in the fund and it needs to be filled up. But instead of the scheme members paying extra, the Treasury is to treble payments to the Parliamentary Pension Scheme from 8% to 24% of MPs salaries to meet the gap. Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrats work and pensions spokesman, said the move "does not look right" at a time when constituents' private pensions are doing so badly.
Ben Bradshaw, the Commons deputy leader, said part of the rise in contributions was necessary to meet a deficit in the Parliamentary Pension Scheme of £25m. In 2002 MPs voted themselves an enhanced pension deal, with a rise from one fiftieth to one fortieth of their annual £55,000 salary to be paid per year of service. They argued that the precarious nature of the average Parliamentary career means they deserve a better pension deal. The move, which is likely to infuriate pensioners' groups unable to rely on large hand-outs from the Exchequer, was blamed by the Government yesterday on the stock market. But it also conceded that the more generous pension package for MPs approved by the Commons last year had contributed to the deficit.
He said the main reason for the huge increase was the decision to end the contributions holiday enjoyed by the Treasury for the last 13 years and "disappointing investment returns". He added, "The surplus on the scheme has now been exhausted in this way and Exchequer contributions must revert to a level reflecting the long-run costs." The Commons agreed better pension packages last year, although they might be reflected in the next review of MPs' salaries. David Willetts, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said the pension fund had "come down to earth with a bump". He said it was "mirroring the experience" of many schemes which faced higher contributions because of stock market losses and higher taxes on pension funds.
Mr Webb said, "I think that we as MPs should have no better, no worse position when this sort of thing happens, as our constituents in private sector funds. What's happening to them is that in some cases, workers are having to put more in or are seeing their benefits reduced as well as employers putting more money in. What's happening for us is the whole of the amount of the shortfall is being met by the taxpayer. All I am saying is, at a time when our own constituents' pension funds - particularly in the private sector - are doing very, very badly and Parliament arguably has failed to address that problem urgently enough, it simply doesn't look right for us to expect the taxpayer to meet all of our deficit without us putting anything extra in at all."
Mr Webb said he believed the government was concerned that the MPs "wouldn't wear" being asked to make up the full cost themselves. "I think the same thing has happened again this year," he said. David Willetts, shadow work and pensions secretary, said, "The fund is mirroring the experience of many funded pension schemes, which are seeing increased contributions to make up for the cost of the Chancellor's £5bn a year tax imposed on pension funds in 1997 through the abolition of the dividend tax."
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: at home
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parliament would appear to have learnt absolutely nothing about the day-to-day views and concerns of ordinary people since 1661, and if it has, then it has a bl**dy poor way of expressing it. We vote them in, and what do they do? - they look only after themselves, and rip us off in the process. Wars we dont want, political correctness gone mad, NHS down the toilet, more undesirables in the UK than ever - including home grown types!, prices for everything higher here than virtually anywhere else in the world thanks to RipOff Britain. And we pay for it all ! You're not even free from them when you're dead! WTF is going on here?
And they wonder why we F*****G HATE them with a passion! Useless bunch of C S - the whole godforsaken lot of them.
(whooaa -- where's me blood pressure pills?)
You're not even free from them when you're dead! WTF is going on here?And they wonder why we F*****G HATE them with a passion! Useless bunch of C
S - the whole godforsaken lot of them.(whooaa -- where's me blood pressure pills?)
Last edited by White Hart; 16th Mar 2006 at 14:42.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a saying that "The rich get justice, the poor get the law". In my view that sentence tipifies the pensions scene. The managers, MPs, Lawyers, etc get the lions share, the workers whose money it is have it stolen. You cannot blame "Robber" Baron and his fellow travellers for this, that is what managers get paid for, ie: to line their own pockets and their shareholders and screw the workers. I blame the respective unions for jumping into bed with management with overtime agreements and other aspects of "working together". Will we as CAAPS and union members be strong enough to resist the Siren call of management about only affecting new members, or only affecting non-Prospect members as was put around Swanwick recently, or ATCOs can retain their rights whilst others lose theirs, etc, etc. If we do not then we deserve everything we get. There is also another saying that "We all hang together or hang separately" I hope that for once the unions look after the members interest as their primary objective without compromise.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ayrprox wrote
"couldn't agree more. the union needs to get its collective @ss in gear and organise what they want from the membership. do they want us to bombard people with emails, stop doing aava's, or as has happened in the past just sit with our thumbs up our butts while the much vaunted powder is blown in our faces by the management."
If you are a union member then you ARE its "collective @ss". So what are you doing - e-mailing your rep, notifying your management you will no longer do AVAAs or are you "sitting around with your thumb up your butt" waiting for somebody else to do it for you? More then ever the Union needs to know how you feel on this issue, they won't consider a ballot for industrial action unless they know that it will be overwhelmingly supported. So don't wait for the Union to come to you, go to them, tell them how you feel and what you are prepared to do. Then ask to help, particually if you've never been involved with the Union before. Isn't your Pension worth a bit of effort on your part?
Apologies to ayrprox for using your quote, this is not intended as a direct reply to you as an individual or as an attack on your opinions specifically.
"couldn't agree more. the union needs to get its collective @ss in gear and organise what they want from the membership. do they want us to bombard people with emails, stop doing aava's, or as has happened in the past just sit with our thumbs up our butts while the much vaunted powder is blown in our faces by the management."
If you are a union member then you ARE its "collective @ss". So what are you doing - e-mailing your rep, notifying your management you will no longer do AVAAs or are you "sitting around with your thumb up your butt" waiting for somebody else to do it for you? More then ever the Union needs to know how you feel on this issue, they won't consider a ballot for industrial action unless they know that it will be overwhelmingly supported. So don't wait for the Union to come to you, go to them, tell them how you feel and what you are prepared to do. Then ask to help, particually if you've never been involved with the Union before. Isn't your Pension worth a bit of effort on your part?
Apologies to ayrprox for using your quote, this is not intended as a direct reply to you as an individual or as an attack on your opinions specifically.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: at home
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC10RM wrote.."or only affecting non-Prospect members as was put around Swanwick recently, or ATCOs can retain their rights whilst others lose theirs, etc, etc."
And so the "ATCO/everybody else" divide begins once again
Its all very well saying "lets stick together over the pensions issue - united we stand blah blah blah..", but, and here's the $64000 question - will the ATCOs stick with the rest of us if the going gets tough, or will they cut and run?
Rumours such as the ones quoted above by DC10 do not endear me with confidence. I'm not completely convinced that we will all join together in a concerted effort to resist pension change. Maybe initially, but I reckon if NATS were to dangle a suitable pension 'carrot' in front of Prospect members alone, then it will be taken. Therefore, (and also based on our previous joint-Union co-operation
), I have serious doubts about a concerted joint battle going to the finish line.
Prove me wrong, guys..
And so the "ATCO/everybody else" divide begins once again
Its all very well saying "lets stick together over the pensions issue - united we stand blah blah blah..", but, and here's the $64000 question - will the ATCOs stick with the rest of us if the going gets tough, or will they cut and run?
Rumours such as the ones quoted above by DC10 do not endear me with confidence. I'm not completely convinced that we will all join together in a concerted effort to resist pension change. Maybe initially, but I reckon if NATS were to dangle a suitable pension 'carrot' in front of Prospect members alone, then it will be taken. Therefore, (and also based on our previous joint-Union co-operation
), I have serious doubts about a concerted joint battle going to the finish line. Prove me wrong, guys..
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can certainly appreciate and understand White Harts concerns, however allowing for atcos greed and self-interest even they can see that if they "cut" a separate deal and sacrifice the rest of their colleagues it will only be a matter of time before the management goes after them again. They will surely not be that naive or greedy, OR WILL THEY?.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Hart
I think DC10Realman was alluding to the usual canteen gossip that happens during such issues.
What we need is the facts, then we can devise a strategy.
I understand your concerns, but you are the one that is talking about an ATCO/ATSA divide starting again.
Why not wait to hear the facts before getting peoples backs up? Comments such as yours do not endear yourself or your colleagues to anyone.
You want a united front, then stop jumping down peoples throats at the first opportunity.
I care about my pension, to tell the truth I don't really care about your personal arrangement - hell I don't know you.
But, I also know that ultimately in this scenario it is in my best interest to keep a united front on the pensions so that is what I will do, and in my opinion that is what everyone should do. This is unlike any other issue that has gone before, whereby all of us are set to lose out, not just some of us.
Regardless of what are quite rightly strong feelings about banding etc, this is one issue that has no real distinction between ATSA and ATCO, Area or Airports. It will affect everyone in the same way.
The way people vote should be a 'no brainer'. The divide and conquer tactics of management should prove useless here.
To do otherwise would be to stitch yourself up, never mind your colleagues.
Just as an aside, do you claim HTD?? If not which way are you voting in the ballot? I do hope you are voting against abolishing it (and therefore not just looking for your own personal gain which is what you seem to accuse others of) so that the guys with more than 2 years to go who do claim it do not lose out.
The only way to deal with the pension is to stick together; it is a whole new issue.
All other issues should be put aside, including the injustices of the banding system etc etc. This is a separate fight, don't do the managements work for them by creating a divide through inane comments.
I think DC10Realman was alluding to the usual canteen gossip that happens during such issues.
What we need is the facts, then we can devise a strategy.
I understand your concerns, but you are the one that is talking about an ATCO/ATSA divide starting again.
Why not wait to hear the facts before getting peoples backs up? Comments such as yours do not endear yourself or your colleagues to anyone.
You want a united front, then stop jumping down peoples throats at the first opportunity.
I care about my pension, to tell the truth I don't really care about your personal arrangement - hell I don't know you.
But, I also know that ultimately in this scenario it is in my best interest to keep a united front on the pensions so that is what I will do, and in my opinion that is what everyone should do. This is unlike any other issue that has gone before, whereby all of us are set to lose out, not just some of us.
Regardless of what are quite rightly strong feelings about banding etc, this is one issue that has no real distinction between ATSA and ATCO, Area or Airports. It will affect everyone in the same way.
The way people vote should be a 'no brainer'. The divide and conquer tactics of management should prove useless here.
To do otherwise would be to stitch yourself up, never mind your colleagues.
Just as an aside, do you claim HTD?? If not which way are you voting in the ballot? I do hope you are voting against abolishing it (and therefore not just looking for your own personal gain which is what you seem to accuse others of) so that the guys with more than 2 years to go who do claim it do not lose out.
The only way to deal with the pension is to stick together; it is a whole new issue.
All other issues should be put aside, including the injustices of the banding system etc etc. This is a separate fight, don't do the managements work for them by creating a divide through inane comments.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arkady,
in response to your reply no offense taken.
HD: i never have done aava's dont agree with them, my point was aimed at those that do. i wrote letters when privatisation was on the cards and hey we still got privatised. i have let my rep know my feelings on this point which has been taken on board.
my point was that other than to read the union messages saying its a bad situation and we need to stick together, there has been no direction from them as to a way to proceed.
in response to your reply no offense taken.
HD: i never have done aava's dont agree with them, my point was aimed at those that do. i wrote letters when privatisation was on the cards and hey we still got privatised. i have let my rep know my feelings on this point which has been taken on board.
my point was that other than to read the union messages saying its a bad situation and we need to stick together, there has been no direction from them as to a way to proceed.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ayrprox
I believe the union are waiting until they have had a meeting with the management; sometime soon.
To be fair to them (the Union), I think that other than the scant information they have given us, it would not be prudent for them to say much else until they have had the chat with management to find out exactly what is going on.
After that chat, i would expect a full and frank briefing.
What does concern me is that although we have had fairly scant info so far, already there is a difference in 3 months over the date given for the deed of promise. Management quote April 2001, the Union July 2001.
Although I think this deed of promise is a red herring anyway and that it will not amount to a lot in future years if we give in to management issues, I find it rather worrying that there can be such a disparity over such a simple fact.
I hope when it comes to it, the union has its act together.
I believe the union are waiting until they have had a meeting with the management; sometime soon.
To be fair to them (the Union), I think that other than the scant information they have given us, it would not be prudent for them to say much else until they have had the chat with management to find out exactly what is going on.
After that chat, i would expect a full and frank briefing.
What does concern me is that although we have had fairly scant info so far, already there is a difference in 3 months over the date given for the deed of promise. Management quote April 2001, the Union July 2001.
Although I think this deed of promise is a red herring anyway and that it will not amount to a lot in future years if we give in to management issues, I find it rather worrying that there can be such a disparity over such a simple fact.
I hope when it comes to it, the union has its act together.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So thince we embarked on our own railway journey 
its been a strategy of our most senior managers to divide an conquer. The main thrust of this has been to pay ATCO's a great deal more money, and others less in comparison.
So then, its NOW that we all pull together is it! The next step may well be a different pension scheme 'future' for different grades. Then what happens!
its been a strategy of our most senior managers to divide an conquer. The main thrust of this has been to pay ATCO's a great deal more money, and others less in comparison.So then, its NOW that we all pull together is it! The next step may well be a different pension scheme 'future' for different grades. Then what happens!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REBUTAL TO MANAGEMANT ASSUMPTIONS ON PENSIONS
I am a lowly rep in the south but have prepared a rebutal to every point management have made regarding the need to alter pension arrangments. The data used is taken directly from easily available NATS documentation and also ERG's CP2 Propasals and the Airlines response to them. Some additional economic data is from leading Investment managers, including companies who look after massive amounts of our pension funds. I hope to have all this data out to all the reps (union willing, of course) so the planned 'meetings' with P Barron can at least take place on a level playing field. If NATS is shown to be in error/at fault at every roadshow, perhaps they wont think we are as ignorent and as starved of accurate information as they believe. When it's all complete I'll try my best to put all the details on Pprune also, but in the NATS Section!
Please, instead of having having any jibes at the union, force them to do what you want. If you don't like how you're being representated, get rid of whoever it is, vote of no confidence or whatever works, and put in place someone who will accurately represent you.
Cheers, JBG
I am a lowly rep in the south but have prepared a rebutal to every point management have made regarding the need to alter pension arrangments. The data used is taken directly from easily available NATS documentation and also ERG's CP2 Propasals and the Airlines response to them. Some additional economic data is from leading Investment managers, including companies who look after massive amounts of our pension funds. I hope to have all this data out to all the reps (union willing, of course) so the planned 'meetings' with P Barron can at least take place on a level playing field. If NATS is shown to be in error/at fault at every roadshow, perhaps they wont think we are as ignorent and as starved of accurate information as they believe. When it's all complete I'll try my best to put all the details on Pprune also, but in the NATS Section!
Please, instead of having having any jibes at the union, force them to do what you want. If you don't like how you're being representated, get rid of whoever it is, vote of no confidence or whatever works, and put in place someone who will accurately represent you.
Cheers, JBG
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: at home
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK535 said..
"Why not wait to hear the facts before getting peoples backs up? Comments such as yours do not endear yourself or your colleagues to anyone...You want a united front, then stop jumping down peoples throats at the first opportunity...."
535 - I dont think anybody's 'backs are up' (except yours, maybe), and if you think that this is me 'jumping down peoples' throats', then my therapy must (finally) be working! I also don't remember saying I wanted a 'united front'. It would be nice to think we could rally as one to the cause, but it will only happen as long as the issue remains the same for all. Any introduction of incentives to a particular group will scupper joint Union 'all for one, and one for all' policy completely.
"Just as an aside, do you claim HTD?? If not which way are you voting in the ballot? I do hope you are voting against abolishing it (and therefore not just looking for your own personal gain which is what you seem to accuse others of) so that the guys with more than 2 years to go who do claim it do not lose out."
I'm not 'accusing' anybody - merely making an observation of what happens in real life. Yes, I do claim HTD. I also have more than 2 years to go. Yes, I am voting to take the money now - a lump sum is of more use to me than a small amount each month. It's a personal decision/vote based on what is best for me, and me alone - (its actually going into my kids' Uni fund). And it's taken with a similar outlook on this particular matter as you yourself have demonstrated about the pension issue, which I have quoted below..
"I care about my pension, to tell the truth I don't really care about your personal arrangement - hell I don't know you."
This is what it will all come down to, and is the key point in your reply - you don't know nor care about me, and I presume this comment could be expanded to include everybody else within NATS whom you don't know. Once extra cash becomes an issue in any scenario, it's everybody for themselves. Always has been - always will be. By the same token, you would be very naive to think that anybody who doesn't know you will put your interests in front of their own - I certainly wouldn't. That's why I have voted to take the HTD offer - it's better for me.
I am sure that NATS will look at the possibility of a split scheme akin to that mentioned above by minesapint if they cannot railroad their current plans through without opposition - they will try anything to save money. And once there's something extra on the table for some but not for all, then all the yak about 'sticking together' will go straight out of the window.
Being realistic, it matters not one jot what you, I, or anyone else says on this forum - that's why I'm not fussed or concerned about endearing myself to anybody. We will influence nobody at work - it's purely personal opinion being aired here. All the time that the pensions issue remains on a level field for all NATS staff, then I, and everybody else, will go with the flow. But, you can be totally assured that, if the pension situation changes in favour of some but not all, then we will all forget about 'unity', and follow the course which we see as best for us as individuals. I know that's what I'm going to do, and I bet that's what you will do, too.
Just like you said yourself, "I care about my pension, to tell the truth I don't really care about your personal arrangement - hell I don't know you."
Such is life...
"Why not wait to hear the facts before getting peoples backs up? Comments such as yours do not endear yourself or your colleagues to anyone...You want a united front, then stop jumping down peoples throats at the first opportunity...."
535 - I dont think anybody's 'backs are up' (except yours, maybe), and if you think that this is me 'jumping down peoples' throats', then my therapy must (finally) be working! I also don't remember saying I wanted a 'united front'. It would be nice to think we could rally as one to the cause, but it will only happen as long as the issue remains the same for all. Any introduction of incentives to a particular group will scupper joint Union 'all for one, and one for all' policy completely.
"Just as an aside, do you claim HTD?? If not which way are you voting in the ballot? I do hope you are voting against abolishing it (and therefore not just looking for your own personal gain which is what you seem to accuse others of) so that the guys with more than 2 years to go who do claim it do not lose out."
I'm not 'accusing' anybody - merely making an observation of what happens in real life. Yes, I do claim HTD. I also have more than 2 years to go. Yes, I am voting to take the money now - a lump sum is of more use to me than a small amount each month. It's a personal decision/vote based on what is best for me, and me alone - (its actually going into my kids' Uni fund). And it's taken with a similar outlook on this particular matter as you yourself have demonstrated about the pension issue, which I have quoted below..
"I care about my pension, to tell the truth I don't really care about your personal arrangement - hell I don't know you."
This is what it will all come down to, and is the key point in your reply - you don't know nor care about me, and I presume this comment could be expanded to include everybody else within NATS whom you don't know. Once extra cash becomes an issue in any scenario, it's everybody for themselves. Always has been - always will be. By the same token, you would be very naive to think that anybody who doesn't know you will put your interests in front of their own - I certainly wouldn't. That's why I have voted to take the HTD offer - it's better for me.
I am sure that NATS will look at the possibility of a split scheme akin to that mentioned above by minesapint if they cannot railroad their current plans through without opposition - they will try anything to save money. And once there's something extra on the table for some but not for all, then all the yak about 'sticking together' will go straight out of the window.
Being realistic, it matters not one jot what you, I, or anyone else says on this forum - that's why I'm not fussed or concerned about endearing myself to anybody. We will influence nobody at work - it's purely personal opinion being aired here. All the time that the pensions issue remains on a level field for all NATS staff, then I, and everybody else, will go with the flow. But, you can be totally assured that, if the pension situation changes in favour of some but not all, then we will all forget about 'unity', and follow the course which we see as best for us as individuals. I know that's what I'm going to do, and I bet that's what you will do, too.
Just like you said yourself, "I care about my pension, to tell the truth I don't really care about your personal arrangement - hell I don't know you."
Such is life...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whitehart
You have just proven my point. In all your posts you talk about an ATCO/ATSA divide. This divide comes about because to paraphrase you 'ATCOS look out for themselves'.
You also show great distrust and a fair bit of resentment towards ATCOS and people who have looked out for themselves.
Yet you fully admit that you will be voting for the lump sum in the HTD vote because
as you say, it suits you. So please do not go on about the injustices of the system when it comes to other issues.
Unfortunately when push comes to shove, we all look out for number one. No one is going to vote for something that is detrimental to them - it's human nature.
The management are fully aware of this.
And that is exactly the point I was making. I will vote against any change to the pension. Not for the greater good, but because I know that despite assurances from the management, if we allow this to go through, there will come a time when the new entrants on a lower pension will be given the chance to vote away our rights so that they can get a slightly enhanced pension - and they will be in the majority.
There may also come a time when the management link any advancement to accepting a new pension - it's easy enough for them to do so with a personal contract.
It is in every individuals interest in this case to vote no to any pension changes. This is not like any issue that has gone before.
As for your decision to take the HTD lump sum - you have very valid reasons as to why your personal gain now means more than getting £500 a year for the rest of your career. As a reasonable individual, I for one would not deride you for making that decision.
You have just proven my point. In all your posts you talk about an ATCO/ATSA divide. This divide comes about because to paraphrase you 'ATCOS look out for themselves'.
You also show great distrust and a fair bit of resentment towards ATCOS and people who have looked out for themselves.
Yet you fully admit that you will be voting for the lump sum in the HTD vote because
Yes, I am voting to take the money now - a lump sum is of more use to me than a small amount each month. It's a personal decision/vote based on what is best for me,
Unfortunately when push comes to shove, we all look out for number one. No one is going to vote for something that is detrimental to them - it's human nature.
The management are fully aware of this.
And that is exactly the point I was making. I will vote against any change to the pension. Not for the greater good, but because I know that despite assurances from the management, if we allow this to go through, there will come a time when the new entrants on a lower pension will be given the chance to vote away our rights so that they can get a slightly enhanced pension - and they will be in the majority.
There may also come a time when the management link any advancement to accepting a new pension - it's easy enough for them to do so with a personal contract.
It is in every individuals interest in this case to vote no to any pension changes. This is not like any issue that has gone before.
As for your decision to take the HTD lump sum - you have very valid reasons as to why your personal gain now means more than getting £500 a year for the rest of your career. As a reasonable individual, I for one would not deride you for making that decision.