NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For information reference the Memorandum of Understanding.
A memorandum of understanding (MOU or MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It most often is used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforcement agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
In some cases, depending on the exact wording, MoUs can have the binding power of a contract; as a matter of law, contracts do not need to be labeled as such to be legally binding. Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). For example, a binding contract typically must contain mutual consideration—a legally enforceable obligations of the parties, and its formation must take place free of the so-called real defenses to contract formation (fraud, duress, lack of age or mental capacity, etc.).
Thanks to wikipedia Memorandum of understanding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A memorandum of understanding (MOU or MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It most often is used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforcement agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
In some cases, depending on the exact wording, MoUs can have the binding power of a contract; as a matter of law, contracts do not need to be labeled as such to be legally binding. Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). For example, a binding contract typically must contain mutual consideration—a legally enforceable obligations of the parties, and its formation must take place free of the so-called real defenses to contract formation (fraud, duress, lack of age or mental capacity, etc.).
Thanks to wikipedia Memorandum of understanding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done terrain safe you beat me to it, the most important part read:-
It most often is used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforcement agreement.
So unless it does become legally binding in our case for 15years you can fcuk your yes vote
It most often is used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforcement agreement.
So unless it does become legally binding in our case for 15years you can fcuk your yes vote
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the MoU will become part of your contract and therefore would have to honoured.
Please let's just wait for the proper briefings to start and quit all this half baked speculation.
And as for a Thread to try to spot different answers around the country-well-as long as the question is phrased in exactly the same way and in the same context fine, but otherwise is this really needed?
Please let's just wait for the proper briefings to start and quit all this half baked speculation.
And as for a Thread to try to spot different answers around the country-well-as long as the question is phrased in exactly the same way and in the same context fine, but otherwise is this really needed?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controversial ironic quotation
Bit like the pension now then? 
I believe the MoU will become part of your contract and therefore would have to honoured.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South
Age: 64
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
250 kts
7 years after being promised our pensions were rock solid safe I doubt many members of staff believe there's much honour knocking about.
Whatever way the vote goes NATS has been changed forever.
I believe the MoU will become part of your contract and therefore would have to honoured.
Whatever way the vote goes NATS has been changed forever.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesnt the UK economy 'collapse' about every 15 years... 2007, late 80's/early 90's, mid-late 70's...
So management potentially wants to renegotiate again when they think they will have the bargaining chip of a duff economy to erode terms further? Or am I being a bit cynical?! Maybe the memorandum should include a clause that WE can initiate earlier if we choose, while they can not.
So management potentially wants to renegotiate again when they think they will have the bargaining chip of a duff economy to erode terms further? Or am I being a bit cynical?! Maybe the memorandum should include a clause that WE can initiate earlier if we choose, while they can not.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPrune Radar:
That would be the shareholders I guess in the form of dividends (and to Aston Martin, Lady Barron's company, his home, etc)
I strongly believe that whatever hyperbole the NTUS and NATS Management propoganda team spout, we should hold steadfast and vote NO... if it blows in our face, so be it. Better to have tried and fail than not to try an wonder if... highly unlikely though as we have a ton of dry powder, right prospect?
Allowing some to be taken by the tax man, where did the rest (plus the £48M pension holiday money) go ?
I strongly believe that whatever hyperbole the NTUS and NATS Management propoganda team spout, we should hold steadfast and vote NO... if it blows in our face, so be it. Better to have tried and fail than not to try an wonder if... highly unlikely though as we have a ton of dry powder, right prospect?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UP North
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
250kts
The union reps had a briefing yesterday and having spoken to some today they couldn't believe how management and even their own union were trying to sell this deal. Both parties were very good at pushing the bankrupcy theme. They couldn't even confirm that the 15 year deal was safe. 
Please let's just wait for the proper briefings to start and quit all this half baked speculation.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I attended the briefing yesterday.
I went in thinking I was a definite no vote and whilst some of my perceptions were changed I am still a no vote - but accept that it is likely action may have to be taken in the future to protect the pension scheme.
I suggest as many of you as possible attend the briefings to make up your own minds - although remember since they want a yes vote it is a bias point of view which is presented.
My thoughts are that we are proposing greater measures than those needed to protect the pension.
The main issue seems to be the underlying rate which NATS will have to pay which could be circa 42% from January - hence the big rush to sort the issue out.
The part of the proposal which will have the immediate and significant effect in reducing the underlying cost is the cap of rpi + 0.5%. This is also the part which can't be instigated without our say so as we’re protected by the trust of deed. According to the presentation the cap alone is predicted to reduce the underlying rate to 25% which I'm sure the company could afford long term. The SMART pension changes seem to make sense in saving money so I wouldn't be against this. The main point I have issue with is the two tier system. The union talked at length about what a good new scheme they have secured - which compared to what else is around is very true. From a selfish point of view though I am more concerned about my pension and those of other current employees – not future employees who haven’t yet joined and aren’t yet paying union fees. Regardless of how good the new scheme is it will be inferior to the current one so I'm sure down the line the members of the new scheme will shaft us given half a chance. Human nature will mean they say "why should you get more money than me?" rather than "boy - didn't prospect negotiate well on our behalf back in 2008!"
After seeing the presentation I still believe we can have one NATS one pension - we just might have to compromise on the terms of the pension in the future.
I'd like to see an agreement to cap for a shorter period of time together with an agreement that NATS HAVE to pay a minimum percentage during this period should market conditions improve. It is by not paying in when times are good that causes problems when times are bad.
One final thought - the whole reason to vote yes according to UNIONATS is "if the company goes bust you could lose the pension and your job"
Another way to lose your pension is if we're split up and sold. The proposed changes (new money purchase scheme) reduces the company’s liabilities and makes them much more predictable - this will make us a MUCH more attractive prospect to potential purchasers.
VOTE NO - let NATS start to pay the new high rate (which may put us in financial trouble eventually but not in the short term – we have after all made a profit for the last five years despite the cost of TC relocation etc.) and then let’s get back round the table if necessary to negotiate a way to go forward with the best terms for us rather than least risk for NATS.
Say yes in haste, repent at leisure
I went in thinking I was a definite no vote and whilst some of my perceptions were changed I am still a no vote - but accept that it is likely action may have to be taken in the future to protect the pension scheme.
I suggest as many of you as possible attend the briefings to make up your own minds - although remember since they want a yes vote it is a bias point of view which is presented.
My thoughts are that we are proposing greater measures than those needed to protect the pension.
The main issue seems to be the underlying rate which NATS will have to pay which could be circa 42% from January - hence the big rush to sort the issue out.
The part of the proposal which will have the immediate and significant effect in reducing the underlying cost is the cap of rpi + 0.5%. This is also the part which can't be instigated without our say so as we’re protected by the trust of deed. According to the presentation the cap alone is predicted to reduce the underlying rate to 25% which I'm sure the company could afford long term. The SMART pension changes seem to make sense in saving money so I wouldn't be against this. The main point I have issue with is the two tier system. The union talked at length about what a good new scheme they have secured - which compared to what else is around is very true. From a selfish point of view though I am more concerned about my pension and those of other current employees – not future employees who haven’t yet joined and aren’t yet paying union fees. Regardless of how good the new scheme is it will be inferior to the current one so I'm sure down the line the members of the new scheme will shaft us given half a chance. Human nature will mean they say "why should you get more money than me?" rather than "boy - didn't prospect negotiate well on our behalf back in 2008!"
After seeing the presentation I still believe we can have one NATS one pension - we just might have to compromise on the terms of the pension in the future.
I'd like to see an agreement to cap for a shorter period of time together with an agreement that NATS HAVE to pay a minimum percentage during this period should market conditions improve. It is by not paying in when times are good that causes problems when times are bad.
One final thought - the whole reason to vote yes according to UNIONATS is "if the company goes bust you could lose the pension and your job"
Another way to lose your pension is if we're split up and sold. The proposed changes (new money purchase scheme) reduces the company’s liabilities and makes them much more predictable - this will make us a MUCH more attractive prospect to potential purchasers.
VOTE NO - let NATS start to pay the new high rate (which may put us in financial trouble eventually but not in the short term – we have after all made a profit for the last five years despite the cost of TC relocation etc.) and then let’s get back round the table if necessary to negotiate a way to go forward with the best terms for us rather than least risk for NATS.
Say yes in haste, repent at leisure
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I Wish I Knew
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really believe that if management win this fight they will be satisfied, and that it will end there? Whatever agreements and guarantees they offer this time around will be totally worthless as they will know they can do whatever they want and we will capitulate.
If we don't have the guts to stand up for ourselves then we can forget ever been treated with any respect by management. In fact if we don't stand up for ourselves I don't see how we can even have any self respect.
If we don't have the guts to stand up for ourselves then we can forget ever been treated with any respect by management. In fact if we don't stand up for ourselves I don't see how we can even have any self respect.
While looking for onenatsonepension.com I did get to this cached version, which does have all of the links to the other relevant articles from the CAA, BA etc.
Highlights include: -
Some of the Q & As were still available including: -
Highlights include: -
Dear Colleague
NATS PENSIONS SCHEME - UNIONS MEET MANAGEMENT
Firstly, thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to the circular dated February 2006. Your comments were most welcome and show the depth of feeling amongst members in support of defending the existing pension scheme arrangements [...]
In response the NTUS stated the following:
Welcomed the fact that Management recognised the strength of feeling amongst the membership on the matter of pensions and re-stated that we have a clear mandate to oppose any changes to the existing arrangements including the setting up of a two tier scheme for new employees.
Didn't wish the tri-ennial review to be brought forward as we have complete faith in the Scheme Trustees and Scheme Actuary who administer the scheme on a day to day basis. If at any time they identify the need to consider the existing or future viability of the scheme we would be the first to indicate our desire to have a dialogue through the existing arrangement which is the NATS Joint Pensions Committee.
Regarding the pressure being applied by the customers on the Regulator we requested that NATS arrange for representatives of the NTUS to meet with the British Airways CEO when he attends a NATS function on 8th March. NATS did not feel that it would be appropriate for a customer to debate an internal issue and declined the request.
The NTUS also finds it somewhat ironic that the Regulator is also a part of CAAPS albeit the CAA Section.
The NTUS will continue to campaign with members to oppose any changes to the current arrangements and any proposals to set up an alternative scheme for new employees.
Two further points:
Management intend to set up a Question & Answer process on Pensions. The NTUS agreed to input comments.
Paul Barron and colleagues will be conducting Road Shows around NATS within the next few weeks and they intend to raise the issue of Pensions. The NTUS welcomes this opportunity for members to be directly involved in the debate and therefore asks as many as possible of you to ensure that you attend a session at your unit.
Finally, we see this campaign to defend our pension scheme as being a marathon rather than a sprint. With that in mind the NTUS have set up a small working group to draw up a campaign strategy and should the need arise we will be calling for your support. In the meantime, as before, your comments and ideas on campaign activities would be most welcomed.
ONE NATS - ONE PENSION SCHEME
Yours sincerely
Alastair Nicolson
Trade Union Co-ordinator
NATS PENSIONS SCHEME - UNIONS MEET MANAGEMENT
Firstly, thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to the circular dated February 2006. Your comments were most welcome and show the depth of feeling amongst members in support of defending the existing pension scheme arrangements [...]
In response the NTUS stated the following:
Welcomed the fact that Management recognised the strength of feeling amongst the membership on the matter of pensions and re-stated that we have a clear mandate to oppose any changes to the existing arrangements including the setting up of a two tier scheme for new employees.
Didn't wish the tri-ennial review to be brought forward as we have complete faith in the Scheme Trustees and Scheme Actuary who administer the scheme on a day to day basis. If at any time they identify the need to consider the existing or future viability of the scheme we would be the first to indicate our desire to have a dialogue through the existing arrangement which is the NATS Joint Pensions Committee.
Regarding the pressure being applied by the customers on the Regulator we requested that NATS arrange for representatives of the NTUS to meet with the British Airways CEO when he attends a NATS function on 8th March. NATS did not feel that it would be appropriate for a customer to debate an internal issue and declined the request.
The NTUS also finds it somewhat ironic that the Regulator is also a part of CAAPS albeit the CAA Section.
The NTUS will continue to campaign with members to oppose any changes to the current arrangements and any proposals to set up an alternative scheme for new employees.
Two further points:
Management intend to set up a Question & Answer process on Pensions. The NTUS agreed to input comments.
Paul Barron and colleagues will be conducting Road Shows around NATS within the next few weeks and they intend to raise the issue of Pensions. The NTUS welcomes this opportunity for members to be directly involved in the debate and therefore asks as many as possible of you to ensure that you attend a session at your unit.
Finally, we see this campaign to defend our pension scheme as being a marathon rather than a sprint. With that in mind the NTUS have set up a small working group to draw up a campaign strategy and should the need arise we will be calling for your support. In the meantime, as before, your comments and ideas on campaign activities would be most welcomed.
ONE NATS - ONE PENSION SCHEME
Yours sincerely
Alastair Nicolson
Trade Union Co-ordinator
Some of the Q & As were still available including: -
Q7. Are we totally protected by the Deed & Trust?
The recent removal of early retirement under age discrimination legislation,
shows that our pension is not totally safe, regardless of the promises made.
Legislation will and does change, over a period of time. Also, any sell-off may change your pension terms, as they only apply for as long as you work for Nats! There are no concrete guarantees that we will not be worse off.
Q8. Is the surplus running out?
There is no sign of the surplus running out. Markets are all performing well nd expected to continue to do so. The long term trends show a steady rise but there will always be down turns. We need to ensure that we have a healthy surplus to cushion us during these periods.
Q9. Is it all about selling off parts/all of Nats?
This is a very important question. It appeared very clear after the discussions at conference, that other ATM providers, even if privatised, will protect their interests. That leaves us vulnerable to a takeover!! Reduced costs and limiting future liabilities will make the company a very attractive purchase, especially NSL. The pre-budget report flagged the government's willingness to sell any of it's interests, and Nats specifically.
Q10. Why are our customers forcing us to change our pension scheme?
What they seem to say is that Nats must not make short term savings by reducing pension contributions, then come crying to them later to make up any shortfall. For those who provide Pensions to staff, we may even be the cheapest when it comes to Employer contribution rates at only 12.2%.
Responses to CP2 below:
BA Response:
For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future. We therefore urge the CAA to take this incentive effect into account when setting the proportion of total pension costs that is to be passed through to users (Source Page25 8.14 http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/5/ergdocs/...ishairways.pdf ).
We are therefore inclined to support the CAA in their view that NATS have been unduly influenced by the weak growth trends in the last few years, and have not taken sufficient account of longer-term trends (Source Page15 6.5)
[...]
Q12. What if there was a problem in the future?
Currently, it is up to Nats to make up any shortfall in the scheme. By maintaining a healthy surplus and not running it down, combined with a well managed scheme, we do not foresee any problems. If we believed there was a problem with funding, we would be banging on Nats door to ask for changes
and would be willing to explore all options to ensure the continued growth of an excellent single scheme, able to provide us with the benefits we have earned.
Q13. Are all company schemes in difficulty?
Firstly, the Nats CAAPS SCHEME is NOT in any difficulty, nor should it be so.
TESCO, one of the UK's largest employers, has no plans to change its final salary scheme. In a recent survey, 31% of companies operating Defined Benefits Schemes (3596 from 11600) were still open to all staff. That equates to some 5.4 million people (current employees, active and deferred pensioners). We have been unable to find an example of a healthy scheme closing!
The recent removal of early retirement under age discrimination legislation,
shows that our pension is not totally safe, regardless of the promises made.
Legislation will and does change, over a period of time. Also, any sell-off may change your pension terms, as they only apply for as long as you work for Nats! There are no concrete guarantees that we will not be worse off.
Q8. Is the surplus running out?
There is no sign of the surplus running out. Markets are all performing well nd expected to continue to do so. The long term trends show a steady rise but there will always be down turns. We need to ensure that we have a healthy surplus to cushion us during these periods.
Q9. Is it all about selling off parts/all of Nats?
This is a very important question. It appeared very clear after the discussions at conference, that other ATM providers, even if privatised, will protect their interests. That leaves us vulnerable to a takeover!! Reduced costs and limiting future liabilities will make the company a very attractive purchase, especially NSL. The pre-budget report flagged the government's willingness to sell any of it's interests, and Nats specifically.
Q10. Why are our customers forcing us to change our pension scheme?
What they seem to say is that Nats must not make short term savings by reducing pension contributions, then come crying to them later to make up any shortfall. For those who provide Pensions to staff, we may even be the cheapest when it comes to Employer contribution rates at only 12.2%.
Responses to CP2 below:
BA Response:
For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future. We therefore urge the CAA to take this incentive effect into account when setting the proportion of total pension costs that is to be passed through to users (Source Page25 8.14 http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/5/ergdocs/...ishairways.pdf ).
We are therefore inclined to support the CAA in their view that NATS have been unduly influenced by the weak growth trends in the last few years, and have not taken sufficient account of longer-term trends (Source Page15 6.5)
[...]
Q12. What if there was a problem in the future?
Currently, it is up to Nats to make up any shortfall in the scheme. By maintaining a healthy surplus and not running it down, combined with a well managed scheme, we do not foresee any problems. If we believed there was a problem with funding, we would be banging on Nats door to ask for changes
and would be willing to explore all options to ensure the continued growth of an excellent single scheme, able to provide us with the benefits we have earned.
Q13. Are all company schemes in difficulty?
Firstly, the Nats CAAPS SCHEME is NOT in any difficulty, nor should it be so.
TESCO, one of the UK's largest employers, has no plans to change its final salary scheme. In a recent survey, 31% of companies operating Defined Benefits Schemes (3596 from 11600) were still open to all staff. That equates to some 5.4 million people (current employees, active and deferred pensioners). We have been unable to find an example of a healthy scheme closing!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Luton
Age: 46
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice find Dan Dare - I'm getting all nostalgic reading it. Makes me want to get the donkey jacket and the placards out of the shed!
This bit is of particular interest. The proposed changes will limit future liabilities significantly and yet all talk of dangers to the pension seem to revolve around NATS going bankrupt rather than being sold.
Q9. Is it all about selling off parts/all of Nats?
This is a very important question. It appeared very clear after the discussions at conference, that other ATM providers, even if privatised, will protect their interests. That leaves us vulnerable to a takeover!! Reduced costs and limiting future liabilities will make the company a very attractive purchase, especially NSL. The pre-budget report flagged the government's willingness to sell any of it's interests, and Nats specifically.
This is a very important question. It appeared very clear after the discussions at conference, that other ATM providers, even if privatised, will protect their interests. That leaves us vulnerable to a takeover!! Reduced costs and limiting future liabilities will make the company a very attractive purchase, especially NSL. The pre-budget report flagged the government's willingness to sell any of it's interests, and Nats specifically.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last year, following changes in the age discrimination laws one NATS dept who qualify for a ‘scarce skills’ bonus were very nearly shafted by an agreement between local management and a TU rep. For a £300 (gross) sum they were to give away the pensionable aspect of their ‘bonus’ potentially costing them thousands. Immediate action by the staff ended with a fair and suitable solution for all. This was negotiated with higher management.
Oh and the name of the Union ****er who nearly sold us down the river has just reappeared as the NTUS signatory on my recent glossy mag describing our sell out.
Gonna rejoin the union to vote him out and have my say again.
Don’t underestimate our own power and please don’t assume that our ‘representatives’ are competent.
p.s. please don’t let perceptions about the CTC affect your dealings with colleagues there and comments on here? Many are essential to OPS and have the same worries that you (non-CTC based) do.
Time to stick together.
Oh and the name of the Union ****er who nearly sold us down the river has just reappeared as the NTUS signatory on my recent glossy mag describing our sell out.
Gonna rejoin the union to vote him out and have my say again.
Don’t underestimate our own power and please don’t assume that our ‘representatives’ are competent.
p.s. please don’t let perceptions about the CTC affect your dealings with colleagues there and comments on here? Many are essential to OPS and have the same worries that you (non-CTC based) do.
Time to stick together.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South
Age: 64
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know if the unions sought any independent advice on the scheme or did they just rely on what they were allowed to see of the management's report?
I sincerely hope they did.
I sincerely hope they did.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: swanwick carp lake
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a night shift last night, picked up my swanky polished pension proposal booklet and had a quick browse. First thought was of the front cover. Absolutely plastered in that waste of money new logo we commissioned a couple of years ago.
Opened it up and had a brief flick through as didn't want to get even moodier on a night shift than a lack of sleep already makes me but did notice a worrying anwer to a question on "your questions answered" page.
here it is:
"How do we know we won't be required to join the new defined contribution scheme (the new one) at a later date or that NATS won't make it a condition of promotion?
The trust of a promise prevents NATS from forcing employees who were members of the scheme at PPP into the new scheme."
My point being that anyone joining after 26th July 2001 can and will be forced to join the new pension scheme as the "trust of a promise" does not include these people, including myself.
I did a very rough night shift calculation that my own watch ops room contains 15%ish people who fall into this category after only 7 and a half years. In those years, we have gone through the college and validation training. Many NATS departments will have higher percentages already of non trust of a promise employees.
If this two tier scheme gets voted through then it won't be long before to many years (15 anybody??) before there is another review and a vote put to NATS as to closing the old scheme entirely and merging it with the new one. I would vote yes. And I wouldn't blame anyone else for doing it as it would be in the best interest of the members of the new scheme.
RIGHT NOW it is in our interest to all vote NO.
as i'm typing this i have also noticed:
"who makes the final decision on the proposals?"
"having reviewed all the comments resulting from the consultation period which closes on 10 December, the NATS executive will make the final decision about wheter to implement these proposals......
......The outcome of the consultation will be communicated to employees in January 2009."
We are getting shafted, and quickly. Make our opinions heard. Loudly and often.
The results of any PCS and Prospect ballot will not be announced until the end of december.
Opened it up and had a brief flick through as didn't want to get even moodier on a night shift than a lack of sleep already makes me but did notice a worrying anwer to a question on "your questions answered" page.
here it is:
"How do we know we won't be required to join the new defined contribution scheme (the new one) at a later date or that NATS won't make it a condition of promotion?
The trust of a promise prevents NATS from forcing employees who were members of the scheme at PPP into the new scheme."
My point being that anyone joining after 26th July 2001 can and will be forced to join the new pension scheme as the "trust of a promise" does not include these people, including myself.
I did a very rough night shift calculation that my own watch ops room contains 15%ish people who fall into this category after only 7 and a half years. In those years, we have gone through the college and validation training. Many NATS departments will have higher percentages already of non trust of a promise employees.
If this two tier scheme gets voted through then it won't be long before to many years (15 anybody??) before there is another review and a vote put to NATS as to closing the old scheme entirely and merging it with the new one. I would vote yes. And I wouldn't blame anyone else for doing it as it would be in the best interest of the members of the new scheme.
RIGHT NOW it is in our interest to all vote NO.
as i'm typing this i have also noticed:
"who makes the final decision on the proposals?"
"having reviewed all the comments resulting from the consultation period which closes on 10 December, the NATS executive will make the final decision about wheter to implement these proposals......
......The outcome of the consultation will be communicated to employees in January 2009."
We are getting shafted, and quickly. Make our opinions heard. Loudly and often.
The results of any PCS and Prospect ballot will not be announced until the end of december.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I Wish I Knew
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone mentioned earlier about whether there is a plan B...I can well believe that the union might not have a plan B...in fact I wouldn't even call this proposed sell out a plan A from the union point of view. What you can guarantee though is that management have a plan B,C,D etc
They know there will be a lot of bluster about these proposals, but as we have demonstrated consistently in pay negotiations over the last 20 years, we always roll over and play ball.
At the moment I think we are still behaving entirely in accordance with management's plan A.
It's no use just talking tough. We all have to be prepared to fight hard to save our pensions. I don't think management really take the prospect (sic) of industrial action at all seriously at this stage. It's up to us to change their perception and make them sit up and actually listen to us for once. This is our very last opportunity to ever stand up for anything worthwhile in our terms and conditions.
After this we will either look back with regret as we see everything else that makes this job worthwhile taken away from us, or we will look back with pride that we drew a line in the sand and showed that we will no longer tolerate being treated with such contempt.
Stand firm! Look at all the terms and conditions we have already given up in recent years. This has to stop. NOW
They know there will be a lot of bluster about these proposals, but as we have demonstrated consistently in pay negotiations over the last 20 years, we always roll over and play ball.
At the moment I think we are still behaving entirely in accordance with management's plan A.
It's no use just talking tough. We all have to be prepared to fight hard to save our pensions. I don't think management really take the prospect (sic) of industrial action at all seriously at this stage. It's up to us to change their perception and make them sit up and actually listen to us for once. This is our very last opportunity to ever stand up for anything worthwhile in our terms and conditions.
After this we will either look back with regret as we see everything else that makes this job worthwhile taken away from us, or we will look back with pride that we drew a line in the sand and showed that we will no longer tolerate being treated with such contempt.
Stand firm! Look at all the terms and conditions we have already given up in recent years. This has to stop. NOW
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southampton
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devils Advocate
Not wishing to stir the NATS hate bucket, but the T's & C's that we have 'given' up over the past 5 years have resulted in a rise in ATCO 2 scales (albeit this refers to band 5 only) of approx 46%.
There is no way we would be paid as much as we are today without these concessions and is a large part of the reason we are now having to negotiate a new pension for new entrants.
In response to if we don't fight for this we will get turned over on all negotiations in the future... Rubbish. I would see it as we no longer need to sell chips to get pay rises. I would rather agree to RPI +0.5% and keep my leave than have RPI +1.5% (1% not pensionable!) and sell 3 days leave.
Also, any pay rise over RPI +0.5% will be massively cheaper for NATS as they will no longer have the underlying rate to pay to the pension on it. So you could see it as easier to protect what we have.
With respect to the pension, the way I read it is that there can be no differential pay award between those in the new pension and us in the old one. This now written into our personal full time contract regardless of the Apr 2001 Trust of a Promise. Furthermore, this promise only comes into force if NATS is sold or goes bankrupt. In which case those who fall under it have their benefit underwritten by the government. As long as NATS exists as a company, regardless of who has the most shares, nobody on the old pension can have it taken away from them without their personal approval.
I can see that there is alot of bad feeling about this all over, predominantly for the wrong reasons. Quite simply, I want to protect my pension and I have more than 20 years remaining. If this CEO doesn't change it, the next one will - or we'll go bankrupt and will lose it anyway. I'm voting for potentially a £45k instead of a £50k one (at current rates) AND thats if we get pay rises for the next 20 years of RPI + 1% (NEVER GONNA HAPPEN)
Look at the figures, go to the briefings - its all there... and spare a thought for those 65yr olds retiring this year on their NORMAL pension which, in the current climate now pays <£10k.
I believe the union have negotiated the best deal available looking at ALL of the information and I wish more people would take the time to find that out for themselves.
Right, thats the end of my rant - Bring on the hate!
There is no way we would be paid as much as we are today without these concessions and is a large part of the reason we are now having to negotiate a new pension for new entrants.
In response to if we don't fight for this we will get turned over on all negotiations in the future... Rubbish. I would see it as we no longer need to sell chips to get pay rises. I would rather agree to RPI +0.5% and keep my leave than have RPI +1.5% (1% not pensionable!) and sell 3 days leave.
Also, any pay rise over RPI +0.5% will be massively cheaper for NATS as they will no longer have the underlying rate to pay to the pension on it. So you could see it as easier to protect what we have.
With respect to the pension, the way I read it is that there can be no differential pay award between those in the new pension and us in the old one. This now written into our personal full time contract regardless of the Apr 2001 Trust of a Promise. Furthermore, this promise only comes into force if NATS is sold or goes bankrupt. In which case those who fall under it have their benefit underwritten by the government. As long as NATS exists as a company, regardless of who has the most shares, nobody on the old pension can have it taken away from them without their personal approval.
I can see that there is alot of bad feeling about this all over, predominantly for the wrong reasons. Quite simply, I want to protect my pension and I have more than 20 years remaining. If this CEO doesn't change it, the next one will - or we'll go bankrupt and will lose it anyway. I'm voting for potentially a £45k instead of a £50k one (at current rates) AND thats if we get pay rises for the next 20 years of RPI + 1% (NEVER GONNA HAPPEN)
Look at the figures, go to the briefings - its all there... and spare a thought for those 65yr olds retiring this year on their NORMAL pension which, in the current climate now pays <£10k.
I believe the union have negotiated the best deal available looking at ALL of the information and I wish more people would take the time to find that out for themselves.
Right, thats the end of my rant - Bring on the hate!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LACCATCO
"I can see that there is alot of bad feeling about this all over, predominantly for the wrong reasons. Quite simply, I want to protect my pension and I have more than 20 years remaining. If this CEO doesn't change it, the next one will - or we'll go bankrupt and will lose it anyway"
If the NATS Airline group (41.9%)and BAA(4%) go down the tubes quite simply the Government (49%)will take us back fully Nationalised, it is that simple!
We will not lose our pension, but yes the Airline group and BAA could go bankrupt (,http://www.pprune.org/4449495-post518.html ) that is what NATS MANAGEMENT fear the most as they would lose their bonuses.
I think some people could learn a lot about economics by just watching the current news headlines
VOTE NO
Last edited by Air.Farce.1; 10th Oct 2008 at 16:29.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as NATS exists as a company, regardless of who has the most shares, nobody on the old pension can have it taken away from them without their personal approval
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No hate LACCATCO but tell me why I should consider those on state pensions. Many years ago when my contract staff were earning twice as much as me and paying less tax I made the decision to stay with the company and that was based on T+Cs. T+Cs that I thought were guaranteed following PPP.
Maybe that line should be for our CEO and his 14% pay rise this year.
You make some reasonable points but some things just dont add up to me and the briefings will not make any difference, especialy this 'cost pass thru' nonsense. Yes, I do expect our customers to pay toward our pension.
Also you have obviously bought this 'going bust' scaremongering. I am yet to be convinced.
Maybe that line should be for our CEO and his 14% pay rise this year.
You make some reasonable points but some things just dont add up to me and the briefings will not make any difference, especialy this 'cost pass thru' nonsense. Yes, I do expect our customers to pay toward our pension.
Also you have obviously bought this 'going bust' scaremongering. I am yet to be convinced.