250 kts

Yahoo,

and

So you just decided to ignore the bit that it is the actuaries who are saying this needs to be done.

So you are now also admitting that your view is sod the new comers to the company. Hardly a stand together attitude is it? I take it your view on "onenatsonepension" was purely transitory till the writing was really on the wall?

This deal does everything it can to protect those of us who are already in and achieve the best for those who have yet to join.

And just because my views don't reflect yours doesn't mean you have to resort to personal insults

Air.Farce.1

I have made my mind up to vote NO. I will not attend any briefings as I have read enough and understand what management are trying to do. The enlightened amongst you, and I can see a few here today will know where I am coming from. Management are giving these briefings for their benefit, not yours.
This was always on the cards when we were part privatised, and I like some others did predict this would happen to our pension. What next....NATS will be sold off to the highest bidder now we are a more attractive asset, leave will be reduced, winter and summer rostering will be the norm. Six days on, four days off ? forget it. UHP? get real, or get a day job elsewhere.
These particular briefings are only a tool used by management to deceive, confuse and to ill inform, and by their nature are delivered in a duplicitous fashion.
If you feel you need to be briefed I understand and hope they help you reach an informed choice.
Try and look at the bigger picture on this or I suspect as you approach retirement you will come to regret not taking a stand and fighting for your pension. Remember your spouse/partner, kids and grand kids will all lose out when you retire if you dont fight this one

I am done here... back to the real world

PS if I am wrong on the above, remind me and I will humbly apologise

mr.777

250kts...when do you retire??? I only ask as I have another 25+ years to go.
Now, bearing in mind that the economy operates on a cyclical basis, at some point the financial gloom is going to lift and we WILL be back to payrises ABOVE RPI...over the course of 25years, of that there is no doubt.
Your whole argument about not losing a penny on the new pension is based upon the notion that we will NEVER again get a payrise above RPI. If you're about to retire in the next 5-10years I'd say you might be right...but for the rest of us poor s*ds we stand to lose out somewhere in the region of £8-10k per year.
As has been said many times, a pension is deferred salary therefore this is a PAY CUT. Therefore the management and the Union will have to come up with something better for me to vote YES. Until then, I'd say units are going to come to a standstill. Believe me there are enoughed people who are presently at the end of their tether having been f***ed around by Mr Barron for the umpteenth time...goodwill is going to be withdrawn very shortly.
As for the Union saying by voting NO we are rolling the dice with our pension, what kind of bulls*it is that??? Sorry, but that is just not a good enough answer over an issue this big.

VOTE NO.

rodan

Because if you don't, then the second these future employees outnumber current employees, you can reasonably expect them to vote for changes and pay deals that will benefit them but shaft you.

BAND4ALL

Rodan

Exactly then a two tier pension will do just that too

Beejam

I had no idea the underlying trust in our union was so poor for so many.

Trying to keep an open mind can any of you supply information to back up your conviction that management and the union are lying?

Specifically can anyone explain to me why the shortfall in covering the underlying cost (assuming there is one) is not a direct result of the very large pay increases we've had over the past 5 years or so?

It seems quite clear to me that the success of our union in negotiating these pay increases would result in pension problems particularly when you remember that NATS' turnover is DWARFED by the pension cost.

Anybody?

mr.777

What, like the 13% a certain person got in ONE year?? Do me a favour. Next you'll be telling us all that "overall, the pension holiday has not contributed to this situation" and that NATS is not for profit.

Beejam

Like I said, I'm trying to keep an open mind here.

By responding in that dismissive tone you're being every bit as evasive as some people are accusing the management/union of being.

I'm not telling you anything, I'm asking a question which you seem to be deflecting with a sharp comment. You don't need to do that, I'd just genuinely like to know if someone can explain what seems to me to be an obvious and very simple mathematical issue.

Can you answer the question?

Greebson

There seems to be an indication that this pension debate is all about the current economic downturn; it isn't. Paul Baron was talking about damaging the pension scheme on his barstool sessions.

mr.777

The question you posed appeared to be phrased in a way that inferred that the cause of the pension deficit was based purely on our payrises...if I got the wrong end off the stick, I apologise...its a n emotive issue, no doubt about that.
I'd prefer to know exactly what the hell the company were doing while they were taking a payment holiday and then posting record profits...whilst management were getting fat payrises with money that could have been paid back into the pension fund. Surely people must see that there is something fundamentally wrong with that, or is just me being cynical??

250 kts

Unbelievable that you are not prepared to put yourself out to listen to the case and ask the questions you want answers to. I suspect not too many of us actually have the chance to ask actuaries what their views are but hey, let's not allow informed debate get in the way of entrenched positions.

Anything from 10 to 15 years to go for me. By the way it is RPI + 0.5% not a straight RPI. Why do you really think anything much above this is achievable unless we sell some real productivity improvements?

Anybody come up with what the negotiating team will be expected to get if there is a "no" vote?

mr.777

10 to 15 years to go means you'll be gone befor ethe Memorandum of Understanding expires and those of us left get it in the a***....no wonder you're voting yes, which is indeed your right.
Which brings me to my next point...what protection if any do those of us who joined the company AFTER July 2001 have, as we are not covered by the trust of a promise. This was asked at a briefing and the Union were very wooly with their answer.

viaEGLL

I WILL BE VOTING NO!

throw a dyce

A very wooly answer from the union usually means that you're swed.I reckon that the joiners after 2001 are swed as well,but not just yet.

The Fat Controller

Wherever you work, go to the briefing and listen to what the only person from outside of NATS and the Unions has to say.

This is the reality of where the pension scheme stands right now.

If we vote "NO" there does not seem to be any "Plan B" from either side.

For those of you that joined after July 2001, it seems that nothing will change for you as long as NATS continues as a viable company, you will stay in the NATS Section of CAAPS and the new 15 year MOU will protect you from being forced out or otherwise discriminated against.

Not Long Now

Mr 777, those of us in the company before 2001 are not really protected by the 'promise' either, as it can be ignored if the company is in severe financial difficulties.
What are severe financial difficulties? Who decides that and over how long a time period you have to be in them for, does it have to be both NSL & NERL in them or just one, or even NATS holding company?
Nobody knew at the briefing I attended, still waiting to hear, but if any of us think we're safe because of a promise at the time of PPP, time to read the small print and wonder about just how wooly it sounds I'm afraid.
As for the pensions holiday, yes it seems misguided now, but NATS was ever thus (especually regarding recruitment, feast or famine in taking on new trainees, and still famine everywhere results). The fact seems to be that the 'surplus' we had does not alter the rate of contributions required going forward, merely when or if even more is required to maintain a fully paid up fund. Yes our payrises are partly responsible, along with increaed longevity, inflation, tax and pension accounting rule changes and god knows what else, but the fact remains that our pension is just too generous in terms of future benefits for the company to afford to maintain as is.
Is this the best negotiated outcome? Not sure, but I truly think that is the only question.

Air.Farce.1

"I have made my mind up to vote NO. I will not attend any briefings "

250kts

If you read why I said the above I can only guess you need help and can't work things out for yourself. By all means attend your "briefing" I am sure management will reel you in, hook line and sinker. No need for embarassment or the need to make such comments below.... you are certainly not one of the enlightened ones I referred to, confirmed by your intention to vote yes .

"Unbelievable that you are not prepared to put yourself out to listen to the case and ask the questions you want answers to. I suspect not too many of us actually have the chance to ask actuaries what their views are but hey, let's not allow informed debate get in the way of entrenched positions."

121decimal375

The question of those who joined post 2001 was brought up today at the briefing. No clear answer given, all that was said is that it is a wooly issue because it also depends on if you joined after 2006. Basically another important question well avoided.

Im stil a NO

mr.777

As I suspected....yet more money wasted on glossy brochures and briefings where half the questions are unable to be answered.

kinglouis

i am a NO.