NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you're clear I'm not a Personal Contract management grade, I'm in the ATSA area. There is a big difference in how the rewards (pay is a reward) are arrived at between the negotiated grades and Personal Contract grades, ask your union rep to explain. As I said some posters are trying to compare apples with oranges.
I'm pretty disgusted and saddened by some of the comments in this thread, which is in the public domain and obviously affects other ANSP's and members of the publics perception of NATS staff. Its time to start playing the ball and not the player!
BD
I'm pretty disgusted and saddened by some of the comments in this thread, which is in the public domain and obviously affects other ANSP's and members of the publics perception of NATS staff. Its time to start playing the ball and not the player!
BD
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets be clear here then, are you or are you not defending the fact that Mr Barron got a 13% pay rise last year and a huge bonus as being acceptable because he's on a Personal Contract, because that is what your post suggests. If so, you'd be the only one on here who thinks that.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
has anyone heard a peep out of barron today?
im sure he and his cronies will be on damage limitation, unless of course they are so arrogant, naive or both that they think after the weekends natsnet action they are still in a good place.
the funny thing is that what led barron to rise to the bait wasnt actually that bad, and it looks like it has got nice and personal from our colleagues at scottish and manch.... keep it up chaps
its more of a NO than ever now as the companies lies are becoming more and more transparent... what fools.
im sure he and his cronies will be on damage limitation, unless of course they are so arrogant, naive or both that they think after the weekends natsnet action they are still in a good place.
the funny thing is that what led barron to rise to the bait wasnt actually that bad, and it looks like it has got nice and personal from our colleagues at scottish and manch.... keep it up chaps
its more of a NO than ever now as the companies lies are becoming more and more transparent... what fools.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets be clear here then, are you or are you not defending the fact that Mr Barron got a 13% pay rise last year and a huge bonus as being acceptable because he's on a Personal Contract, because that is what your post suggests. If so, you'd be the only one on here who thinks that.
BD
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rebel HQ
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the false start folks.
It appears that the posts about Mr Barron's perks and his rebuttal are still there, just not on the thread on NATSnet I thought they were on. Doh !!!
That said, another colleague has had a post removed on the pensions thread, presumably because he asserted that NATS management had mishandled the PPP and everything that has happened now is a result of it. His local management have not asked him to apologise yet though
Bring on the barstool sessions where some free flowing debate can take place
It appears that the posts about Mr Barron's perks and his rebuttal are still there, just not on the thread on NATSnet I thought they were on. Doh !!!
That said, another colleague has had a post removed on the pensions thread, presumably because he asserted that NATS management had mishandled the PPP and everything that has happened now is a result of it. His local management have not asked him to apologise yet though
Bring on the barstool sessions where some free flowing debate can take place
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: here
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.nats.co.uk/uploads/user/N...ounts_2008.zip
From the Chief Executive's review (Paul Barron):
"The single uniting factor across our business is our people. Everything we achieve is done so through the commitment and professionalism of an incredibly capable workforce. I would like to thank our employees for their outstanding contribution"
Paul - for my "outstanding contribution" I expect a final salary pension. That is a pension based on my final salary.
The above link is worth reading before attending a briefing - some figures include:
- Loans paid off 24 years early (part of the loans were re-financed saving £5.5million in interest costs this year, the rest was paid off with cash)
- £15.8 million early redemption charges for paying these loans off 24 years early
- £23 million spent on relocation staff to West Drayton etc,
- £3 million costs related to staff bungs for changing redundancy t+c's
- £?? in payments to Heathrow staff for moving to new control tower
Not to mention the £66.7 million pre-tax profit or the £2.5 million in shareholder dividends
The briefing tries to say the company needs to find £125 million.
In reality this is £70 million as they already pay around £55 million each year into our pensions.
The figures in the above report do not show a company that is struggling to pay it's own way
From the Chief Executive's review (Paul Barron):
"The single uniting factor across our business is our people. Everything we achieve is done so through the commitment and professionalism of an incredibly capable workforce. I would like to thank our employees for their outstanding contribution"
Paul - for my "outstanding contribution" I expect a final salary pension. That is a pension based on my final salary.
The above link is worth reading before attending a briefing - some figures include:
- Loans paid off 24 years early (part of the loans were re-financed saving £5.5million in interest costs this year, the rest was paid off with cash)
- £15.8 million early redemption charges for paying these loans off 24 years early
- £23 million spent on relocation staff to West Drayton etc,
- £3 million costs related to staff bungs for changing redundancy t+c's
- £?? in payments to Heathrow staff for moving to new control tower
Not to mention the £66.7 million pre-tax profit or the £2.5 million in shareholder dividends
The briefing tries to say the company needs to find £125 million.
In reality this is £70 million as they already pay around £55 million each year into our pensions.
The figures in the above report do not show a company that is struggling to pay it's own way
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barstewards,
Maybe others can enlighten, what money exactly was paid to Heathrow staff for the move to the new tower? anyone?
Just looked at the report and yes does state a one off payment. but the above question still stands.
Maybe others can enlighten, what money exactly was paid to Heathrow staff for the move to the new tower? anyone?
Just looked at the report and yes does state a one off payment. but the above question still stands.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london, UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC, £2400 each.
"Last month the ATSAs are being consulted about job losses by someone recruited into NATS.He had been there 2 weeks."
I also expect to be seeing this punter at Heathrow before long - probably in the New Year. That's assuming the local Mgmt bother to ask him down to see us
This is a separate issue, but may well have an effect on which way I choose to vote for the proposed pension changes.
"Last month the ATSAs are being consulted about job losses by someone recruited into NATS.He had been there 2 weeks."
I also expect to be seeing this punter at Heathrow before long - probably in the New Year. That's assuming the local Mgmt bother to ask him down to see us
This is a separate issue, but may well have an effect on which way I choose to vote for the proposed pension changes.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NATS 2008 Accounts are interesting, especially pp 46-50. I have 1 job, and after 20 years I am still learning how to do it. Most of these lunatics have at least 5 jobs! No wonder UK-PLC is sliding down the toilet-pot. 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 44: barron's pay £400k. Pension contribution £16k (i.e 4% rate for PCG, etc) What happened to the earnings cap of £117k. Does it not apply to him? or Hoskins et al?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been reading all these threads and NATSnet with rising fury regarding this sorry pension debate. I want to know why the NTUS reps agreed to the secrecy clause to protect the "credible" Deloitte and Touche report?? This is OUR pension and we are entitled to see the evidence that has caused such a stir and convinced the NTUS reps that change is required. The secrecy clause was soley to protect Deloitte from come back if they got it wrong, again.
We are mature and intelligent people with a very big vested interest in this report. If the report was soooo convincing we should have been able to view it for ourselves and make our own minds up!!.......oh no, the NTUS reps know better, don't they. AGAINST Prospect current branch policy, they entered into negotiations with management and have struck up this deal to be recommended to the staff. WHAT RIGHT do they have???
As far as the memorandum of understanding is concerned this document has NOT been written yet, but is nothing more that a promised wish list from that snake Barron and his nest of vipers. The gulable NTUS reps are hoping that we will TRUST them and vote yes! YOU MUST BE JOKING!!!
I never trust NATS management, but the sorryest thing for me is that I don't trust the Prosect BEC either. What bribes have been promised to the negotiating team in return for a yes vote???
Vote NO to the offer, then vote NO CONFIDENCE in the BEC!!!
We are mature and intelligent people with a very big vested interest in this report. If the report was soooo convincing we should have been able to view it for ourselves and make our own minds up!!.......oh no, the NTUS reps know better, don't they. AGAINST Prospect current branch policy, they entered into negotiations with management and have struck up this deal to be recommended to the staff. WHAT RIGHT do they have???
As far as the memorandum of understanding is concerned this document has NOT been written yet, but is nothing more that a promised wish list from that snake Barron and his nest of vipers. The gulable NTUS reps are hoping that we will TRUST them and vote yes! YOU MUST BE JOKING!!!
I never trust NATS management, but the sorryest thing for me is that I don't trust the Prosect BEC either. What bribes have been promised to the negotiating team in return for a yes vote???
Vote NO to the offer, then vote NO CONFIDENCE in the BEC!!!
Last edited by delta20; 21st Oct 2008 at 09:35.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: swanwick carp lake
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the reply that just dropped on my doormat from Mark Hoban, MP for Fareham.
I wrote him an email with a brief outline of the proposals and asked a couple of questions regarding how much they were informed, how much influence they had on the matter and stated that industrial action is not an impossibillity
"Dear Imnotaneric
,
Thank you for your email concerning the National Air Traffic Service Management Proposal regarding the pension scheme.
I am so sorry to hear about the uncertainty that you and your colleagues face and appreciate how worrying this situation is for you. I have written to Geoff Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Transport, asking for clarification on this matter and I will, of course, contact you when I receive a reply.
Once again, thank you for writing to me. If you would like to know more about what I do in the constituency and Westminster, please log on to my website www.markhoban.com and register to receive a copy of my e-newsletter.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Hoban"
I wrote him an email with a brief outline of the proposals and asked a couple of questions regarding how much they were informed, how much influence they had on the matter and stated that industrial action is not an impossibillity
"Dear Imnotaneric
,Thank you for your email concerning the National Air Traffic Service Management Proposal regarding the pension scheme.
I am so sorry to hear about the uncertainty that you and your colleagues face and appreciate how worrying this situation is for you. I have written to Geoff Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Transport, asking for clarification on this matter and I will, of course, contact you when I receive a reply.
Once again, thank you for writing to me. If you would like to know more about what I do in the constituency and Westminster, please log on to my website www.markhoban.com and register to receive a copy of my e-newsletter.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Hoban"
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been reading all these threads and NATSnet with rising fury regarding this sorry pension debate. I want to know why the NTUS reps agreed to the secrecy clause to protect the "credible" Deloitte and Touche report?? This is OUR pension and we are entitled to see the evidence that has caused such a stir and convinced the NTUS reps that change is required. The secrecy clause was soley to protect Deloitte from come back if they got it wrong, again.
We are mature and intelligent people with a very big vested interest in this report. If the report was soooo convincing we should have been able to view it for ourselves and make our own minds up!!.......oh no, the NTUS reps know better, don't they. AGAINST Prospect current branch policy, they entered into negotiations with management and have struck up this deal to be recommended to the staff. WHAT RIGHT do they have???
We are mature and intelligent people with a very big vested interest in this report. If the report was soooo convincing we should have been able to view it for ourselves and make our own minds up!!.......oh no, the NTUS reps know better, don't they. AGAINST Prospect current branch policy, they entered into negotiations with management and have struck up this deal to be recommended to the staff. WHAT RIGHT do they have???
The D&T report is not "ours". It's a commercially sensitive document with legally binding confidentiality clauses.
The legal reason for the secrecy is to protect information about NATS that would be damaging if it were in the public domain. Any company run properly would take such steps to protect its business.
It's a very emotive subject - but it damages the arguments against the deal proposed when the sense of injustice clouds judgement.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just emailed Michael Mates, my MP, posing the same questions as ERIC. I think its time we took this a step further before we get well and truly s**t on. Write/email your MPs people.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your damn right its an emotive subject.
Feelings of Injustice and mistrust run right through this argument and if you think that members are just going to vote YES because the BEC says they have seen the report and they recommend it to us, you are very sadly mistaken.
I WANT THE EVIDENCE and I know that most of the staff at my unit feel the same too! Don't keep hiding behind the confidentiality aspect of the D&T contract.....which incidentally the NTUS were wrong to agree to, in my opinion.
NTUS trust has been broken and the members want to see the evidence before we come to our own conclusions. Not just because NATS and the NTUS say so. There is a mountain of work to be done before the members will be convinced, and recent scare-mongering by the BEC up here will not help either.
Sorry to be emotive, but its MY pension and I'm damn sure I am going to do everything I can to protect it!!!
Feelings of Injustice and mistrust run right through this argument and if you think that members are just going to vote YES because the BEC says they have seen the report and they recommend it to us, you are very sadly mistaken.
I WANT THE EVIDENCE and I know that most of the staff at my unit feel the same too! Don't keep hiding behind the confidentiality aspect of the D&T contract.....which incidentally the NTUS were wrong to agree to, in my opinion.
NTUS trust has been broken and the members want to see the evidence before we come to our own conclusions. Not just because NATS and the NTUS say so. There is a mountain of work to be done before the members will be convinced, and recent scare-mongering by the BEC up here will not help either.
Sorry to be emotive, but its MY pension and I'm damn sure I am going to do everything I can to protect it!!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rebel HQ
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At our meeting in ScOACC, the question was asked whether this whole exercise was just to get NATS ripe for sale, specifically in respect of NSL. Philip James answered that it was just 'a rumour'. Which probably means it is true.
The impression I got from those ordinary union members at the meeting was that the sale of NSL was not good for 'one NATS' and we should all be pulling together as one company. Some, like me, even believe we should look at how we can bundle ourselves back up and address the divisive banding issues and the like.
Now we hear rumours that people who attended the meetings at Glasgow and Edinburgh were fed the line by our NTUS reps that the NERL folks don't give a toss about NSL and would happily sell them down the river over pensions and a sell off.
Can anyone who went to a Glasgow or Edinburgh meeting confirm this ?? If it is true, then it is an outrageous claim by a NTUS group who are not only doing managements job of selling the pension for them, but are also doing their job of dividing and conquering for them as well. The NTUS speakers looked and acted more like NATS management than NATS management did. They need to snap out of this and remember who they are here to represent. They also need to remember that we have Branch policies and they are going against them at their own peril. Maybe the upcoming union conferences will kick them out on their arses, and our fight to retain our hard earned terms, conditions, and pension will continue with leaders with backbones.
Angry ?? You bet !!!!
The impression I got from those ordinary union members at the meeting was that the sale of NSL was not good for 'one NATS' and we should all be pulling together as one company. Some, like me, even believe we should look at how we can bundle ourselves back up and address the divisive banding issues and the like.
Now we hear rumours that people who attended the meetings at Glasgow and Edinburgh were fed the line by our NTUS reps that the NERL folks don't give a toss about NSL and would happily sell them down the river over pensions and a sell off.
Can anyone who went to a Glasgow or Edinburgh meeting confirm this ?? If it is true, then it is an outrageous claim by a NTUS group who are not only doing managements job of selling the pension for them, but are also doing their job of dividing and conquering for them as well. The NTUS speakers looked and acted more like NATS management than NATS management did. They need to snap out of this and remember who they are here to represent. They also need to remember that we have Branch policies and they are going against them at their own peril. Maybe the upcoming union conferences will kick them out on their arses, and our fight to retain our hard earned terms, conditions, and pension will continue with leaders with backbones.
Angry ?? You bet !!!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the TU shouldn't have signed up to the non-disclosure agreement in the first place. It puts a barrier between them and the people who they were elected to represent, so they cease to represent their members and are, instead, only representing themselves...
So feel free to issue them with a very firm "No"
Anybody - TU or Management who feeds you a line about how "X unit doesn't care about you, so why care about them?" is just applying the divide and rule tactic. Don't listen to that sh*t.
So feel free to issue them with a very firm "No"
Anybody - TU or Management who feeds you a line about how "X unit doesn't care about you, so why care about them?" is just applying the divide and rule tactic. Don't listen to that sh*t.