The story is over a year old for goodness sake

BD

Agreed. Don't believe the hype, if the last you few days has shown anything it's that we are more powerful if we are united. Management will try anything to divide us and use that to our advantage. VOTE NO.
BDiONU, towing the management bulls***t line again are we? You really are the most patronising and condescending idiot I know. Go and peddle your poxy YES vote somewhere else.

To reply to your question about briefings at PF & PH....I was at one and yes that did happen.

Because the current situation is unsustainable, as shown by the figures from the actuaries.
Am I bovvered? Do I look bovvered?

BD

NSL guys and gals.
I work at this management whorehouse that some like to call 'Swanwick'.apparantly we (now the minority) are actually involved in ATC down here... although we are the dirty family secret that no one wants to bother with anymore.
Let me assure you that we will stick together and not sell you down the river. ATCO,ATSA, Engineer... whatever you are, where ever you work. Lets stick together.
It really does look like the union are trying to divide us which makes me angry.
I am as stated a hundred tines voting NO, and im near 100% sure that in the time left there is bugger all barron and his snakes can do to change my mind, not even the offer of taking the Aston for a spin round the car park and pretending im 007.
Now can we go back to west drayton please where management knew their place and left us alone to generate a profit for barrons perks?
and BD, please stop wasting nats time and posting on here when you are meant to be at your desk doing barrons will..... if you belived the !!!!e from the company you are a fool.

BDiONU

You realy are living in cloud couckoo land if you think the only reason is for this pension deal is because the existing pension is unsustainable

Vote NO

Hhhmm, 3 insulting posts in a row, JACKPOT! Had seen a theme developing which is now confirmed. IF you are not a 'no' voter then you are a toadying management lackey who is gullible, foolish and stupid without enough backbone to go on strike. Strangely guys some of can think and act for ourselves.

BD

It's an emotive subject, but let's try and keep personal stuff out of it.

If you disagree with someone, then counter their arguments with well made points of your own. If you can't manage that and feel the only way you can respond is to get personal or start name calling, then don't bother posting. Regardless of whether you are a 'Yes man' or a No man', you'll find your posts deleted.

I will try to be as even handed as possible on my post. I only have 18 working days to retirement and as such the changes to the pension fund do not directly affect me and although I am entitled to vote on the issue I will not do so because of that fact. I did attend the pension fund briefing at the De Vere hotel for union representatives last week and in my opinion the various issues can be summed up in one question.
"Do you trust Mr Barron?"

mr.777

Re writing to Michael Mates - he is my MP too and have been in contact for the last two weeks . Have just received reply stating that he has written to the Minister about the matter .Hope to have reply when he gets back from business trip .
Haven`t yet been to a briefing yet (next week) but my open mind is fairly well decided on a straight forward "get lost" vote .

I've had some time to think about my decision now, as making my choice that close to the briefing would have been silly. I've made my decision and I'm going to be a NO, mainly because i dont like the idea of being tied into a crap deal for 15 years, also the 'guarantees' given by the NTUS seem to me to be wishy washy, and nothing more than guidelines, that the company will be able to wiggle around. too many endeavour to's , and not enough cast iron guarantees in an MOU that may or not be binding.

mostly though, the idea of barron walking away,or driving the DB9, after 'improving the company's financial future', with a huge bonus and ripping his hugely improved pension pot away to whatever company he goes to screw over next with a satisfied grin on his face
That has made my mind up. The question's asked here are very telling...
'Do i trust Paul Barron' ... not on your f***ing life.
more sadly..
'do i trust my union to represent me'....not any more
and i think that is almost as sad as the whole pensions debacle. The fact that Barron has driven a stake through the heart of the union , could cause us the most trouble in the future.
well done Prospect, you should be very proud

I totally agree with ayr prox.

The Prospect BEC, as well as the other NTUS reps, should hang their collective heads in shame......they are not following branch policy and not representing the Prospect members. Not that seems to matter to them.....yet!

Time for us to vote NO to them too.

Another thing to consider........if Barron manages to get a yes vote on this issue with the help of the NTUS reps, we as memebers, can all say goodbye to our other terms and conditions. Where will the vipers come to next?? Reductions in anual leave, seven day working, split shift etc etc?

Our union power and credibility will have been severely undermined and the NATS management know that we don't have the guts for a fight
(especially the NTUS reps) and will dismantle our T&C's with no worries.

Time to stand and fight and say NO NO NO!!!!

Well I attended the briefing today. I went in a committed NO and came out having being converted.

OK they are messing with the pension, but the fact remains, one of the most committed trade unionists I have ever had the pleasure to meet turned round and said that "doing nothing is not an option."

He didn't like it but the figures speak for themselves. I frankly am not prepared to gamble with my pension for the sake of a few thousand pounds when I retire in 20 odd years.

Like it or not NATS can't afford to pay the underlying rate, we would be foolish to believe that a no vote would conjure up any more money, even if it did, it wouldn't last, they simply can't afford sustained contributions of that amount.

My heart tells me that the way to vote is no but my head tells me that I have to protect what I've got for my financial security in retirement.

If it does come out as a no vote, then I am prepared to walk as I'm a committed union member and believe strongly in the union ethic.

I sincerely hope that it doesn't come to that.

At the end of the day we shouldn't be voting against this just to piss off Barron, or just to get back at the unions for negotiating this deal without a specific mandate (the ATCOs have a rather woolly version of a mandate - blame your reps for being hungover and voting it through on a wet and windy Sunday morning).

The negotiating team have, to my mind, done a bloody good job to get the offer that is on the table.

By their own admission they "stand here with heavy hearts." But at least they were prepared to walk when Barron came back with full and final offer after full an final offer. They had even gotten to the stage where they had called the various section chairs to prepare for a ballot on industrial action.

The ATCO's have very little left to give in terms of T's & C's for future pay negotiations. I would be surprised if we got anything like recent pay deals at any time during the next 15 years, especially with the current economic climate.

See this for what it is - PROTECTING OUR PENSION SCHEME

It's got my vote

brummbrumm gets off soapbox to wait for torrents of abuse

I can well understand the frustration that people are expresssing towards the union over the way they have conducted these negotiations on the quiet. I'm frankly disgusted by their complete disregard for important and clear branch policies, by hiding behind sweeping wishy washy ones, but when all is said & done, nothing plays into the hands of management more than leaving the union.

From chatting to people around the company I think it may well be a very heavy NO vote and having invested so much time and effort into a YES vote one wonders where the Unions go from here.

Certainly there needs to be a discussion on their future and I think ALL negotiations with management should be suspended until they get a fresh mandate from the members.

I can not remember a Union ever being so out of touch with its membership and it is very sad.

I'm beginning to think it's a membership out of touch with reality rather than a union out of touch with its members.

brummbrumm

With the greatest of respect,you went into a briefing that was wholly one sided!
You will have had no counter-argument.

I think they have seen you coming!

Who would like to have a guess what jobs the "negotiating" team will be promoted into by next year.

The whole thing stinks..............................................

brummbrumm, you sum up my thoughts as well.

If the union is out of touch with it's members then sadly I think a fair percentage of said members are out of touch with reality.

It is a fact that the pension landscape is changing and no change to ours is not a viable option for the long term future of the scheme.

Prospect, the BEC, those involved in these negotiations continue to have my faith and support.

I agree with emma, its a joint proposal. the union side of the presentation is the same as the management side, but with different slides.

I have yet to go to a briefing, but in spite of how unpalatable the offer is I have to believe that the individuals who were part of the NTUS negotiating team fought hard and have got what they truly believe to be the best deal possible.

My feelings on this at the moment (but I'm trying to keep an open mind) are that the current scheme is not sustainable for new entrants, and provided that current employees benefits are adequately protected then a new scheme for new entrants should be established.

I'm yet to be convinced that the "adequate protection" that I mention above is in place - particularly for those current employees that joined after PPP should / when NATS be completely privatised.

My personal feeling is that the 15 year pay cap is too long. I would have preferred to see a rolling five year cap which would be reviewed with a guarantee of a minimum RPI + 0.5% for the subsequent period. I would also like to have seen as a gesture on behalf of the management team a guarantee of a minimum RPI + 0.5% pay deal during this capped period.

Although Pay 09 and the pensions are being kept separate - It would be good to see a generous offer put forward by NATS for Pay 2009 to be implemented on 31st December 2008 to ensure that it is not subject to the pay cap. This would, in my view, not be considered a 'bung', but as an indication of some "good will" towards staff - it certainly might have put people more onside than they are at present.

I can't imagine how awful morale will be if somehow the pension issue gets a 'YES' vote and then NATS turns around and says "Thanks very much, oh and by the way there's a below inflation rise for next year". That would only compound the feeling of staff being "done to".

I would also like to see the union withdraw from the current AAVA agreement as a consequence of the position the management team have taken on the pension scheme, but with the option of renegotiating the terms at a more favourable level - enabling staff who are concerned about income during retirement the opportunity to invest an amount of non-pensionable pay whilst providing NATS with essential additional attendances.

I'm not convinced about the argument that ATCOs have nothing left to give in terms of working practices over the next 15 years. 15 years is a really long time. Who knows how iFACTS, iTEC, Multi-sector Planner, ADS-B, <insert TLA that hasn't been invented yet> are going to affect the way we work?

As I say - I'm trying to remain open minded at this point and am looking forward to attending the briefing