Pensions?????????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: God's Country
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pensions?????????
Dear All,
I've read some threads recently where people have talked about the diminishing benefits of ATCO's, including the pension benefits.
Does anyone know if NATS are still offering their new employees the opportunity to join the pension that pays final salary? (and yes i know its not really final salary). Also what are the benefits that seem to be being reduced/scrapped?
Many thanks for any responses.
I've read some threads recently where people have talked about the diminishing benefits of ATCO's, including the pension benefits.
Does anyone know if NATS are still offering their new employees the opportunity to join the pension that pays final salary? (and yes i know its not really final salary). Also what are the benefits that seem to be being reduced/scrapped?
Many thanks for any responses.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be very surprised if it is not. Maybe it is split hairs, based on average of last three years or best of last five or something. Still defined benefit rather than defined contribution though? Try www.onenatsonepension.com
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very nice too - great incentive in this day and age to start at the bottom and work to earn something quite valuable so long as the rug doesn't get pulled when least expected ... would make sense for NATS to work hard to help their biggest customers through this oil price hike if they can, but not at the expense of winding up the pension surely? That'd be terribly short-termist ...
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It is - or was - based on the highest figure earned during your last five years.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading more carefully what morgstar wrote,
I am inclined to believe that what he meant by
was that you don't ghet your full salary - but a percentage based on your final salary, with the added criteria of the 'last 5 years part' alluded to by HD.
S&T - NATS are trying to close the scheme off (although it is very healthy) regardless of the oil prices - don't give them another excuse to use!!
I am inclined to believe that what he meant by
...to join the pension that pays final salary? (and yes i know its not really final salary).
S&T - NATS are trying to close the scheme off (although it is very healthy) regardless of the oil prices - don't give them another excuse to use!!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think all so-called final salary pensions are fractional at best i.e. have long been restricted by pensions law to something like 40/60ths (2/3) max of final salary. I think some or all NATS members are on 56ths but not more than 37/56ths max I would imagine.
The point is that NATS scheme is currently one of the best in the country and long may it remain so courtesy of strong lobbying for the "right thing" through thick and thin by right thinking members and citizens, anotherthing
The day it gets sold down the river (frozen or closed to new entrants or wound up in favour of a cheaper scheme) by the trustees/directors and/or ERG at CAA will be a sad day indeed. I'd rather see ATC charges doubled before that day, but I'd worry about where the extra money might actually end up ... and that is sadder still, I suppose.
The point is that NATS scheme is currently one of the best in the country and long may it remain so courtesy of strong lobbying for the "right thing" through thick and thin by right thinking members and citizens, anotherthing
The day it gets sold down the river (frozen or closed to new entrants or wound up in favour of a cheaper scheme) by the trustees/directors and/or ERG at CAA will be a sad day indeed. I'd rather see ATC charges doubled before that day, but I'd worry about where the extra money might actually end up ... and that is sadder still, I suppose.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: london
Age: 60
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sad day indeed....I can assure you management are as determined as ever to close the cheme to new members, and have already seized with relish on latest actuarial valuation showing surplus draining away with the stock market.
They're playing a long game, waiting for BAA to close their final salary scheme to new members, so they can use that as a precedent. New scheme will be a very good (in relative terms) money purchase scheme.
I have it on good authority the union membership are pretty much on board with management now on this issue - the big challenge is to persuade us mortals to accept the change (hence the new number appearing on our payslips showing how much NATS have contributed to CAAPs - all part of a propaganda campaign to make us feel grateful). No doubt we can look forward to large bungs....
They're playing a long game, waiting for BAA to close their final salary scheme to new members, so they can use that as a precedent. New scheme will be a very good (in relative terms) money purchase scheme.
I have it on good authority the union membership are pretty much on board with management now on this issue - the big challenge is to persuade us mortals to accept the change (hence the new number appearing on our payslips showing how much NATS have contributed to CAAPs - all part of a propaganda campaign to make us feel grateful). No doubt we can look forward to large bungs....
surplus draining away with the stock market.
I thought the figures had been skewed to show higher liabilities and that was why the surplus had reduced?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
poi098
"New scheme will be very good". This ridiculous statement, coupled with "union membership are pretty much on board with management", and use of the word "challenges" and other such bullsh*t phraseology, identifies a member of management!
Tell us, is it true that the controller's union is run by managers or management wannabes?
This is odd.
I thought that the whole idea of a trade union was to protect workers from unscrupulous 'managers'.
"New scheme will be very good". This ridiculous statement, coupled with "union membership are pretty much on board with management", and use of the word "challenges" and other such bullsh*t phraseology, identifies a member of management!
Tell us, is it true that the controller's union is run by managers or management wannabes?
This is odd.
I thought that the whole idea of a trade union was to protect workers from unscrupulous 'managers'.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 2nd Jul 2008 at 23:39.
quote- I have it on good authority the union membership are pretty much on board with management now on this issue
err... I don't think so, unless TC are an exception!
err... I don't think so, unless TC are an exception!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the union bods I have spoken to are against any plans to close the scheme.
NATS as a company have taken payment breaks and reduced contributions, getting the agreement of the fund members (employees), by promising at the time when they needed help, that the fund would not suffer.
How much impact has these reduced/non payments had on the fund??
NATS refuse to employ schemes whereby pension money is paid out of a pot and the employee receives a slightly lower wage...
For example (figures entirely fictional and simplified to explain the point) - if you're wage is £50k a year, you and NATS pay NI contributions on this, and you also pay insurance and pension. NATS pay a percentage towards pension as well.
If the employees pension contribution on this wage was £2k per annum, what NATS can do (other companies worldwide do this) is pay the employee a salary of £48k and put the other £2k straight into the pension fund.
The result is exactly the same resultant salary for the employee, and NATS would save money because their NI contributions would be based on a smaller employee salary.
Overall, this would be a big saving for NATS. When confronted and asked by accountants why NATS did not do this, the reply was that there was no benefit to the company - i.e. NATS sees no benefit in employing smart methods which makes the pension scheme more viable.
More people are retiring, and living longer after retirement - that is the main issue with the pension fund - obviously if we do not increase contributions (employer and/or employee) then faced with more outgoings per year, of course the fund 'pot' will start to dwindle... the fact is, the fund as it stands is doing very well and is very well managed - something needs to be done to counter the fact people live for longer after retirement - closing the fund is not needed if NATS starts paying full contributions...
It may mean that employeee contributions need to increase slightly as well (1 or 2%), but better that than risk losing a good pension.
Any 'bung' would need to be in the region of hundreds of thousands per employee, not tens of thousands, because if we close the scheme, we will lose hundreds of thousands pounds in benefits in a new scheme.
Look at the private sector schemes that have closed and compare the old scheme to the new ones - my other half showed me the figures for her company the other day - the difference is drastic.
NATS as a company have taken payment breaks and reduced contributions, getting the agreement of the fund members (employees), by promising at the time when they needed help, that the fund would not suffer.
How much impact has these reduced/non payments had on the fund??
NATS refuse to employ schemes whereby pension money is paid out of a pot and the employee receives a slightly lower wage...
For example (figures entirely fictional and simplified to explain the point) - if you're wage is £50k a year, you and NATS pay NI contributions on this, and you also pay insurance and pension. NATS pay a percentage towards pension as well.
If the employees pension contribution on this wage was £2k per annum, what NATS can do (other companies worldwide do this) is pay the employee a salary of £48k and put the other £2k straight into the pension fund.
The result is exactly the same resultant salary for the employee, and NATS would save money because their NI contributions would be based on a smaller employee salary.
Overall, this would be a big saving for NATS. When confronted and asked by accountants why NATS did not do this, the reply was that there was no benefit to the company - i.e. NATS sees no benefit in employing smart methods which makes the pension scheme more viable.
More people are retiring, and living longer after retirement - that is the main issue with the pension fund - obviously if we do not increase contributions (employer and/or employee) then faced with more outgoings per year, of course the fund 'pot' will start to dwindle... the fact is, the fund as it stands is doing very well and is very well managed - something needs to be done to counter the fact people live for longer after retirement - closing the fund is not needed if NATS starts paying full contributions...
It may mean that employeee contributions need to increase slightly as well (1 or 2%), but better that than risk losing a good pension.
Any 'bung' would need to be in the region of hundreds of thousands per employee, not tens of thousands, because if we close the scheme, we will lose hundreds of thousands pounds in benefits in a new scheme.
Look at the private sector schemes that have closed and compare the old scheme to the new ones - my other half showed me the figures for her company the other day - the difference is drastic.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: my house
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
poi098,
I speak as a Union Rep, there is no wish amongst Prospect or the members I have spoken to to close the scheme to new entrants and therefore eventually weaken the current scheme.
No money purchase scheme will replicate the benefits of the currents NATS pension, a point of view backed up by anybody you speak to involved in the pension world.
The decision to put the employers contribution on the payslips was to show everybody just how much it is worth to the individual and not to go ' aaah, poor old Nats having to pay so much'.
You take your large bung if you so wish, a foolish decision in my opinion
I question your " good authority "
I speak as a Union Rep, there is no wish amongst Prospect or the members I have spoken to to close the scheme to new entrants and therefore eventually weaken the current scheme.
No money purchase scheme will replicate the benefits of the currents NATS pension, a point of view backed up by anybody you speak to involved in the pension world.
The decision to put the employers contribution on the payslips was to show everybody just how much it is worth to the individual and not to go ' aaah, poor old Nats having to pay so much'.
You take your large bung if you so wish, a foolish decision in my opinion
I question your " good authority "
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: LACC
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it NATS is worried about it's contributions or costs towards the pension scheme, why not save a few quid and stop having stupid NATS Awards nights - here you go, you did your job well as you're supposed to, have an award! Anyone want to hazard a guess at how much a Central London venue with drinks and food laid on costs? And what about this community fund that exists? Thats £100k or so straight away to go in the pot every year! Then we could save a few quid by not building solar panels which have a very long repayment period. The list could go on forever! These things are all well and good if we have money to burn a la some big London companies but if costs of a pension are worrying them it's time to prioritise and I know what comes first for the people who generate or help generate the revenue of the company!