MrJones

After recent events there is not a pension fund in the country that looks too healthy. The pension industry and the Treasury will be looking very closely at rules governing schemes and these may well change to ease the pressure the funds will be under.

I can’t help thinking now is a very bad time to make long term decisions. We may well end up repenting at our leisure.

LACCATCO

All the 15 year memorandum relates to is the salary cap as far as I understand it from the information - speak to your union rep for confirmation. The protection for us on the old scheme (by which I mean everyone up until Apr 2009!) is now written in to our permanent contract of employment. This cannot be changed.

As for being re-nationalised, yes, if NATS went bankrupt having taken all measures possible not to, then I agree we would be re-nationalised on the same T's & C's inc Pension as we have currently.

As it stands, if the staff vote to No to basically making the company more financially sound, then we go bankrupt - I still believe we would be re-nationalised, however, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the government would roll over and give us the salary, pension and conditions that we have now. It would all be up in the air again, and with a significantly weakened union trying to negotiate it...

There really is alot more information available than it seems some people are demonstrating a small knowledge of. Sky news is good, however, the information needed in this case to make and EDUCATED decision is a little harder to find... but still there. I have tried and still have more to learn but at least the effort is there...

LACCATCO

P.S I dont like the fact that this is happening but want to do everything I can to minimise the impact on me.

If you want to blame somebody blame Gordon Brown, his was his stealth tax raids on pension funds as chancellor that has seen the demise of the Final salary scheme.

I'm not trying to change anyones mind, thats why we vote, just make sure you are voting no for the right reason...

Caesartheboogeyman

As i said earlier


"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."


from nats own publication

ifaxu

lets not lose sight of the fact that a no vote does not necessarily mean strike action. It gives the union the task of going back to management to seek different terms. Even if this is effectively a done deal at least they could be forced to give us a bung of some kind.As unpalatable as that sounds it may be the best deal we can expect. Anyway have not been to my briefing yet so wont say too much. what abot the union statement about withdrawing overtime until agreement is reached.
Confusing times!

Air.Farce.1

Absolutely right. We have to get things into perspective, and remember we have the upper hand.
I have been off sick for 2 weeks, are we withdrawing AAVA/overtime ?

callyoushortly

Where does this gem from LACCATCO come from??

I quote from page 16 of the glossy booklet:
"In addition, employees who were members of CAAPS on or before 26th July 2001 are protected by the trust of a promise. The trust of a promise guarantees that such employees would be afforded the benefits promised by the scheme whilst they remain in NATS or in the event that their employment is transferred to another owner. This is provided that the company is not in severe financial difficulty, in which circumstances the guarantee is only that the company must use it's 'best endeavours' to provide the promised benefits."

That reads to me that so long as NATS can hold their hands up and say "well we tried boys" if it all goes tits up, then none of the benefits will be promised, and certainly doesn't imply that the government would then bail us out on the same T+C's and pension.
Mebbes I'm missing something obvious........

LACCATCO

,


From speaking to my union rep, you are reading this wrongly. The Trust of a Promise ONLY comes into effect if:

1) NATS goes bankrupt
2) NATS is sold and ceases to be NATS, i.e we become part of SERCO.

As I said before, the protection for differential treatment is being written into ALL current employees full time contract and unless you agree to join the new scheme - you keep your current pension. I understand that the document does not make this clear, the best thing to do is speak to your section chair or go to a briefing and ask for clarification there.

I will speak to my section chair tomorrow just to confirm and will post findings.

LACCATCO

I believe we are arguing the same point... there are many people saying if we go bankrupt the government will take us back and everything will be roses when we both know this is not the case.

I was trying to say that if we vote through these pension changes - hence being responsible employees by trying to ease NATS financial predicament - and other circumstances conspire and we still go under, the government may be forced to re-nationalise and would be more sympathetic to our cause and hence 'endeavour' to honour our current benefits and conditions.

If however we vote no to this and NATS ups it rate to the required 40% of salary, then we go bust - I'm pretty sure the government would still step in but with a much less sympathetic eye towards the staff...

BDiONU

LACCATCO I claim my £10 for spotting that you're obviously a brown nosing management lackey!

BD

radar707

Spoke to my union rep today, he went to the briefing the other day and is yet to be convinced, lots of spin, lots of dire predictions.

This (to my mind) is all about NATS setting itself up to sell of NSL.

Apparantly Barron got his nose bloodied by conceding to the scheme for new entrants that the unions wanted.

At the end of the day, if we don't accept, WE TELL THUNE OINS WHAT WE ARE PREPARED TO ACCEPT and they then go back to Barron and his cronies and negotioate, only after those negotiations do we ballott on industrial action.

I'm not sure if NATS has the ability to close the scheme to new entrants without the consent of the current employees, they may well be able to do so.

I am going down the NO route on this one, no amount of scaremongering wil convince me that these cahnges are for the better

radar707

Note to self:

GET TYPING LESSONS

radar707

LACCATCO,

The only people that need to be responsible and ease the financial burden on NATS are NATS mangement.

Their continued mismangement of projects and staff have cost this company £MILLIONS and they continue to do so. They seek to cut costs by investing millions in failed projects, projects that do not deliver on time. Commitments to a 2 centre strategy just to piss off the staff in situ and lose them to the sandpit.

Yes I am a responsible employee, responsible for keeping the metal separated, that's where my responsibility and loyalty to NATS ends

eglnyt

The Trust of Promise is a very strange legal device which wasn't understood at the time of PPP and isn't still. I've yet to find anybody who will tell me exactly what it means and if union reps are briefing that it only comes into effect if NATS is badly managed I don't think they know either.

There were two protections at PPP, the protection to the Trust Deed contained in the Transport Act and the Trust of Promise which the Government required all the prospective bidders to agree to before buying their stake in NATS. The first protection stops the pension benefits being changed and the Trust of Promise stops you being forced out of the scheme or the scheme being closed.

Quite how it does this is a mystery and we need to find out exactly how. As it's an agreement between the Government and the buyers it can't be something that only comes into effect if NATS fails. More likely it somehow prevents a sale by the original buyer without a similar agreement to protect the rights of pre 2001 members. It is quite likely that this will lapse if the company goes bust but that needs to be confirmed.

Air.Farce.1

LACCATCO

I fail to see how the Government can view us less sympathetically. We have been shafted one little "shaft" at a time, until we are now well and truly.......SHAFTED

We were a lot happier and better off before we were part privatised

Hial Flyer

Have to agree. The government could never afford to let us go bust. There is no way that the government would allow the company which controls its airspace to fold.

If NATS went bust who would provide the air traffic service in the UK. This wouldn't only effect flights within the UK but nearly all transatlantic traffic as well. The government would be under pressure from airlines and most other governments around the world to avoid this happening.

121decimal375

Slightly off topic but I thought that the pensions negotiations were to be linked to this years (jan 09) pay deal......Where is the paydeal offer? Or is a secret until we show how much we are willing to fight for our pensions then the increments will be sweetened accordingly???

Unless NATS offering us a pay deal for the next few years of greater than RPI + 0.5 % then whats the point of this clause? Our pay rises will still be negotiated in the same way!

Cuddles

They could always offer is (an eminently pensionable) spine point or two each.

And the devil's going to work this morning on a snowmobile.

Stupendous Man

This also means that even if people vote this sh1te through with a yes vote that there is nothing to stop Barron (or whoever he has sold us to) from saying "Look, we tried with the new pension and the pay cap - but its still not enough. Everyones cash is moving to the new pension" And do you think those members of staff in the new scheme will support us as we try to defend our pension rights then? Will they ****!

For those that say there is no alternative - there is. Vote No and send the negotiators back in.

Write to your MP - are the government / MPs fully aware of what the airline group are trying to do to NATS?
Mine wasn't.

Roll over on this and kiss it all goodbye in 5 years time. Along with leave entitlement.

Stupendous Man

And in these joint briefings don't direct all your fury / questions at the NTUS guys. Management have caused this situation through poor planning. The £48 million they didn't put in could have been covered and more by last years profits.

Don't let Phillip James off the hook. Why isn't Barron coming to defend all this?

The Union guys have plenty to answer for - but in the joint sessions try and keep some sort of a united front. Remember there are union only briefs afterwards when we'll have our chance to get more answers on their actions...