Arthur Scargill

Since a joint statement has been released by NATS/NTUS there doesn't seem to be anyone representing an opposing point of view. As far as I was aware Prospects standpoint was one nats one pension and to resist any worsening of the terms of our pensions. When did the members give their permission for this policy to change?? The charm offensive is well underway with briefings at units / hotels in Southampton etc in the pipeline. With the unions blessing and no opposing voice I fear we may sign up to the memorandum of understanding and sell our pensions down the river. Does anyone know if it would be possible to propose a motion at prospect conference to request that the union doesn't recommend that members accept the changes?? The general feeling seems to be that the union is no longer representing member’s views or best interests. I’m starting to wonder why I’m paying fees to the union just so they can do managements dirty work to ensure our not for profit organisation makes a healthy return and may be easier to sell.

bross_al

Got to love the irony of this

News Story

Dudley Bug

since we let them have a payment holiday with guarantees of "this wouldnt happen", management within nats have been as i hear too busy to deal with the pension problem. Funnily enough Mr Baron and Co. have no problem providing time when share prices plummeted so as to enable them to provide the doom and gloom over our pension. This should have been sorted out earlier is our money for our union wasted?

We have been a profitable company in the past few years how much of this is down to us letting them reduce pension payments or no contributions at all for three years?

I am sorry but for me its a no vote to the pension changes but we need a majority and i am not sure who i trust on counting votes. After our union's last vote was for one pension mandated by us (the people who pay for them) what the hell are they doing.

I am willing to give up a days pay or more and even chance the company going bust and losing my job. Its all wrong we are being beaten down bit by bit, if we let this go ahead what happens at the next pension review? and the next and so on, eventually us dumb idiot frontline staff will have to pay for the privilege of doing our jobs i didnt get into this job with all that tedious training and have all this responsibility to live worse off than some other less difficult jobs pension when and if i reach 60 probably 70 when i get there

p.s. no need to go as far as middle east eurocontrol do a pension equal to ours with international private medical care for life thrown in if our pension changes i am sure i can swap a bit of ale for bagguettes and boulangeries, schnitzels or belgian beer !

p.s. whats the rule on getting a new union? one with a set of (if you read the humour page) FAST EAGLES???

Stupendous Man

There was a petition for special conference doing the rounds at MACC and ScOACC that basically went along the lines of the negotiating team is not to agree to anything on the pension front without first consulting the membership.

I fear that this is too late.

Regardless of the outcome some serious questions need to be asked of the BEC.
As a watch union rep I'm embarrassed and angry - I'll be fighting this all the way.

Caesartheboogeyman

If this proposal is accepted by us we might aswell not bother with any further negotiations for anything and just get on with life. this is the biggest shafting nats employees have faced. they have taken this glitch in the global economy to shaft us good and proper. In 5 years time when everything is rosy again and we ar ein a boom period they will not revert to old terms and conditions will they? of course not. because it wont even be mentioned by management.

ifaxu

its all very well saying things will improve in the financial markets given time. which they will. but it will all be a bit late if Nats has gone bust and our pension scheme wound up. and be under no illusion, any new buyer or government bail out will not honour our pension rights. If nats goes bust so will our pensions. allegedly the only thing that stopped that happening after 9/11 was the pensions holiday which would be better thought of as our pension scheme saving the company to save itself. It is a very emotive subject which we hopefully will hear more details on over the cominmg weeks. I think that if our union thinks it is unsustainable and our trustees are effectively saying the same then maybe we do need to be realistic about things , difficult though that is.

Del Prado

Of course they won't, they'll be to busy looking for more cuts to make the business more profitable and increase bonuses. We have to make the stand now.




when the company was going to the wall a new investor was sought and found in the shape of BAA. I see no reason that wouldn't happen again.

ifaxu

yes a new investor was found in the shape of the BAA. but that was not enough to save us. thats what the pension holiday did. would you invest in a company with the burden of our pension scheme. Most of us have shares in varous companies. look at why you invested in them and wether they have final salary pension schemes. The very reasons that makes them attractive to you as an investor are the same reasons we need to be attractive to investors. Not by getting rid of the scheme, thank god , but by making the costs known and controllable. I hate this more than anyone but it is the cold hard facts of modern economics. we should have fought harder against privatisation. that was a battle we may have been able to win. this , in my humble opinion , is not.

Arthur Scargill

I'm still not sure we should be so concerned with nats going bust that we should give away our pension rights. If we were making a loss this may be a concern but we've made a PROFIT for the last five years. Plus I don't think it would be in the governments interest to let us go bust (voters flights cancelled / airline and airport jobs lost / failure to provide ATC over UK as agreed with ICAO).
If nats is in a situation where we're losing money maybe the (government owned) regulator would consider raising charges rather than expecting unrealistic year on year below inflation rate price increases.

I'll be voting no to any voluntary worsening of my protected pension scheme. Ask me again next financial year if we aren't celebrating six years of profits and have made a loss taking us into the red.

BEXIL160

The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Care to Guess what happened to those who had pensions when RailTrack was re nationalised following financial failure? The Government continued to pay contributions.....

Network Rail btw, which is the governmemnt run replacement for RailTrack,Two more than NATS, a semi private company. Some things ARE better run by the state.

BEX

BAND4ALL

Nice one BEX sock it to em

Traffic is...

I work at a unit which could probably be described as one of those that could end up being at risk. However, I still think that voting 'no' is the way forward. Looking at what seems to be on offer and if we just accept is straight off, then it just sets a precedent that we are willing to accept anything that is thrown at us. Future pay rises and further amendments to terms and conditions will all be under the total control of management. They will know that we won't stand up for anything.

I'm willing to be proven wrong by the union roadshow thingy-me-bobs but the figures that people have been putting on here look worrying to me.

jonny B good

mmmmh!

News Releases: National
NETWORK RAIL TO LAUNCH NEW PENSION SCHEME


Thursday 14 February 2008 11:00
A third pension scheme, widening the choice for its 34,000 employees, was unveiled today by Network Rail.

The pension scheme will be a defined benefit arrangement, based on the average of an employees earnings, known as Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE). This new pension gives Network Rail employees a wide choice of pension options - the best in the rail industry. Employees will be able to choose from:


A defined contribution scheme - a type of private pension plan with employee contributions being flexible (from 0 to 4%)
The new defined benefit scheme based on average earnings with employee contributions of around 6%
The existing defined benefit scheme (Railway Pensions Scheme - RPS) based on final salary with employee contributions presently around 11% of pensionable pay
The move to introduce a new pension scheme follows a recent report from the Railway Pensions Commission that concluded that the existing industry wide defined benefit scheme could become unaffordable for all parties in the future and recommended that railway companies should seek to provide a more affordable defined benefit scheme.

Iain Coucher, Chief Executive, said: "This is about providing our employees with the very best options when making those difficult financial planning decisions. Pensions are very important to our people and we want to provide great pension choices that balance cost and benefits, enabling employees to make informed decisions about their future.

"Our new CARE scheme will give everyone another option when making retirement planning decisions, an option that is a good balance between cost to the individual and the benefits it pays out."


Notes to Editors:

Details of the scheme:
• The CARE scheme is a shared cost defined benefit scheme, with 60%of the cost met by the employer and 40% by employees
• Employee pension contributions are expected to be around 6% of basic pay. (The defined contribution scheme is between 0 and 4%, while the final salary scheme is currently 10.8% of pensionable pay, rising to 11.36% from January 2009
• The CARE scheme offers life assurance of 4x pensionable pay and dependants pensions on death in service, together with ill-health retirement benefits
• Benefits will be based on 1.25% of basic pay for each year in the scheme
• An employee paying into the scheme over a 40 year career could achieve a pension of 50% of their average basic salary from the age of 65
• The CARE scheme will be open to new employees from day one. Existing employees will have the option to switch to the CARE scheme



Railway Pensions Commission:
The results of the 2004 valuation of the Railway Pension Scheme created real concerns across the rail industry that costs were too high and becoming unsustainable. All parties (employers and trade unions) agreed that something had to be done and as a result the Railway Pensions Commission was set up jointly in September 2006.

The Commission's remit was to consider, against a background of rising costs of pension provision, what, if any, alternative means of long term pension provision might be available that would be fair and affordable for both employees and employers.



Sometimes the full picture isn't so rosey as a headline!

BAND4ALL

And on FEB15th.......
15 February 2008 14:15

Hial Flyer

Is it not about time we had a vote of no confidence in our union.

They don't seem to be prepared to fight for what the membership want. They are supposed to be representing us not management.

BEXIL160

Just one more point. How much would a one day shutdown cost UK PLC? More than enough to fund CAAPS for a LONG time. Perhaps it's time NATS was run properly as a not for profit company (as is only true and right) and the Government protected the pension.

BEX

Air.Farce.1

My thoughts exactly.

Can I just reiterate my thoughts from a previous post....

"Legal Status and Ownership

NATS Holdings Ltd is the holding company for NATS Group. It owns NATS Ltd, which in turn owns two operating subsidiaries: NATS (En-Route) plc (NERL) and NATS (Services) Ltd (NSL). The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9%, BAA plc 4.2%; and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd 5%.

The Government is the major shareholder (48.9%) and NATS cannot go into administration. There is a good reason why they still part own it... because NATS is essential to the UK both economically and from a safety and security aspect, thus NATS will not be allowed to go into administration -even if it could."

Bearing the above in mind, since the Government owns 48.9% which belongs to the Public sector, perhaps we are attacking this from the wrong angle. Has anyone lobbied their local MP ? NATS is predominantly owned by the Government not the private shareholders above.

Please bear these facts in mind and try and steer away from any attempts to have your minds changed by the faint hearted who post management and dare I say Union "working together" opinions on this forum.

Consider this also, the meer threat of a one day strike would not be tolerated by the Public, never mind an actual ATC strike. We know the effects from a 3 hour computer glitch - headline news and major delays.
Do not underestimate the skills you have which this Government and the public cannot do without

jonny B good

National Rail do have a defined benefit scheme open to all

HOWEVER

You can only join it after 5 years of service (reducing the benefits) and its cost is shared 60% by the employer and 40% by the employee. As it becomes more expensive, the employee contribution rate will rise, already being at 11% now.
Add to this that it is not a final salary scheme but an average salary scheme.
Add to this that it doesn't pay out even 2/3rds of average salary but somewhere between 33% and 60% after 40yrs service, depending on salary.
They also have a Defined Contribution scheme which every new member of staff must join for at least 5yrs.

Welcome to the railway pensions website

The point is that even in the renationalised world, there are no securities or guarantees and our scheme is head and shoulders above the Network Rail Pension (in benefits and in cost).

Before people make decisions, however emotive the subject, do the research, even if you don't attend any briefings, and make an informed decision. At the end of the day, the members and not the 'leadership' of the union will decide. No matter what the result of the ballot, YES or NO, I would hope everyone is able to make an informed decision on such an important subject.

As for the union stepping down, the union is the members. If they are unhappy with the way the union is doing business, then elect different 'leaders'. There are many people complaining but it seems very few willing to step up to the mark and do a better job. If you think you can, it looks like you'll have the support of a lot of people on here.

ifaxu

no not management or working together points of view. dont be so patronising and pompous. just a different view to yours! we will all have the full facts soon. hopefully! lets wait and see what we all think then. I sincerely hope I am wrong and that the pension proves to be sustainable in its present form. Its much easier to take the easy opinion that we can strike and everything will be ok again. In my opinion it is too late for that. those that think differently cant be dismissed by accusations of being management lackeys or weak union reps. It would actually have been much easier for the union to come out and say that maybe we could keep things the same. they have made themselves extremely unpopular over this and you have to ask yourself why. Maybe because they have seen all the facts and made a considered judgement based on those facts. Please refrain from the old accusations that they are just wannabe managers so suck up to management. dont you think they have pensions too. some of them with more invested in them than the two year veterans that seem to populate the knee jerk reactionary corner. I dont include all people that believe we should strike and there have been some very interesting posts from both sides. but please lets get away from this idea that because the news that is coming out is bad that it must be lies made up by some kind of management and union cartel. presumably the pension trustees are liars too!

Air.Farce.1

I am sure our reps can do the job, but not the job they are doing at the moment for management.
All we ask is that they step back from "working together" and start working for the members.