NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radarspod
Quite a number of my colleagues here were also persuaded. I agree with the basic principle that "something" has to be done. The case was made very persuasively too.... but I just don't feel that this is the "only option" as they would attempt to make us all believe.
If we agree that the primary issue that needed addressing is the underlying rate increasing to an unsustainable level: Why close the scheme to new entrants? This does not have any positive impact on the underlying rate.
Personally, I would probably accept the RPI+0.5% cap - as I see it unlikely we'll get anything above that anyway. The cap also was shown by the actuary to have a significant impact on the underlying rate - reducing it to manageable levels on its own (20-25%) over a period of time.
The desire to close the scheme to new entrants has been there for a long time - long before there were any issues to be addressed. This is simply opportunism to do it now. I see no reason why NATS should not be expected to continue allowing employees to join its excellent scheme, if measures have been introduced to ensure the underlying cost is reduced to a manageable level.
I feel people are being fooled into accepting unneccessary changes, just so the necessary ones can be done. That is why I will vote no...
Quite a number of my colleagues here were also persuaded. I agree with the basic principle that "something" has to be done. The case was made very persuasively too.... but I just don't feel that this is the "only option" as they would attempt to make us all believe.
If we agree that the primary issue that needed addressing is the underlying rate increasing to an unsustainable level: Why close the scheme to new entrants? This does not have any positive impact on the underlying rate.
Personally, I would probably accept the RPI+0.5% cap - as I see it unlikely we'll get anything above that anyway. The cap also was shown by the actuary to have a significant impact on the underlying rate - reducing it to manageable levels on its own (20-25%) over a period of time.
The desire to close the scheme to new entrants has been there for a long time - long before there were any issues to be addressed. This is simply opportunism to do it now. I see no reason why NATS should not be expected to continue allowing employees to join its excellent scheme, if measures have been introduced to ensure the underlying cost is reduced to a manageable level.
I feel people are being fooled into accepting unneccessary changes, just so the necessary ones can be done. That is why I will vote no...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
me me me, i couldnt agree with you more.
after speaking to my union rep... one who has been in actual negotiations.... we are being taken for a ride. i and all i know of admit that something needs to be done, but it is far too vague a proposal in the companies favour so they can bugger us in 3 to 5 years.
do people actually think that if this doesnt get voted in, management will turn round and let the company collapse. No.... they will have a plan b.c.d etc and will end up giving us a little more so we think we have won, when the reality it is still les than they would give us if pushed to the wire.
the briefings are very one sided, its just one way propaganda.
vote no and wait for a realsitic offer.
after speaking to my union rep... one who has been in actual negotiations.... we are being taken for a ride. i and all i know of admit that something needs to be done, but it is far too vague a proposal in the companies favour so they can bugger us in 3 to 5 years.
do people actually think that if this doesnt get voted in, management will turn round and let the company collapse. No.... they will have a plan b.c.d etc and will end up giving us a little more so we think we have won, when the reality it is still les than they would give us if pushed to the wire.
the briefings are very one sided, its just one way propaganda.
vote no and wait for a realsitic offer.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have attended a pension briefing and would vote no for the following reasons.
We are making decisions about our pension and therefore our future security in a great rush, I would like more time say 6-9 months to look more closely at the data and the conclusions reached.
I think that we are being rushed into this vote for other reasons:
a) Selling off NSL for financial reasons
b) Restructuring NATS for financial reasons and senior management bonuses
c) Selling off NATS with the agreement of the new labour government so that they will have monies to provide election bribes at the next election due within the next 18 months.
We have been told that it must be agreed by the end of next month due to conditions set by the actuaries, well as the actuaries are contracted by the management and unions and are being paid well for this service I would suggest that they will have to wait until the information and other sources have been studied so that we can make a BALANCED and INFORMED decision and if at the period I realised that there was no alternative I would vote yes.
There is a saying "Marry in haste, repent at leisure" I think that it could also be applicable to the pension situation.
We are making decisions about our pension and therefore our future security in a great rush, I would like more time say 6-9 months to look more closely at the data and the conclusions reached.
I think that we are being rushed into this vote for other reasons:
a) Selling off NSL for financial reasons
b) Restructuring NATS for financial reasons and senior management bonuses
c) Selling off NATS with the agreement of the new labour government so that they will have monies to provide election bribes at the next election due within the next 18 months.
We have been told that it must be agreed by the end of next month due to conditions set by the actuaries, well as the actuaries are contracted by the management and unions and are being paid well for this service I would suggest that they will have to wait until the information and other sources have been studied so that we can make a BALANCED and INFORMED decision and if at the period I realised that there was no alternative I would vote yes.
There is a saying "Marry in haste, repent at leisure" I think that it could also be applicable to the pension situation.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: england
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
me me me, i couldnt agree with you more.
after speaking to my union rep... one who has been in actual negotiations.... we are being taken for a ride. i and all i know of admit that something needs to be done, but it is far too vague a proposal in the companies favour so they can bugger us in 3 to 5 years.
do people actually think that if this doesnt get voted in, management will turn round and let the company collapse. No.... they will have a plan b.c.d etc and will end up giving us a little more so we think we have won, when the reality it is still les than they would give us if pushed to the wire.
the briefings are very one sided, its just one way propaganda.
vote no and wait for a realsitic offer
after speaking to my union rep... one who has been in actual negotiations.... we are being taken for a ride. i and all i know of admit that something needs to be done, but it is far too vague a proposal in the companies favour so they can bugger us in 3 to 5 years.
do people actually think that if this doesnt get voted in, management will turn round and let the company collapse. No.... they will have a plan b.c.d etc and will end up giving us a little more so we think we have won, when the reality it is still les than they would give us if pushed to the wire.
the briefings are very one sided, its just one way propaganda.
vote no and wait for a realsitic offer
that is my thinking to.
i know very little about the pension offered,but a little about negotiation. what advantage do we get by voting yes straight away. what is the worst that can happen if we vote no. the longer the saga has been going the less confident i am about getting the no vote. it does smell of propaganda in terms of the briefings. i hate the thought of the back slapping and champagne popping by the management if they get the yes vote, they would have made what looked impossible 2-3 months ago reality, and we would have to take our hats of to them,as it would be a job well done.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radarspod, you haven't got all the facts, you aren't being lead correctly and you most certainly are not being represented by your union properly. If you can't see that, then fair enough, but do not and I repeat DO NOT tell me I'm gambling with your job. I've got a bit more guts than you and it needs more than a few scary scenarios from management/union to frighten me into giving up my future income so NATS can have more profit and split the company. Where's the job security in a NERL sell off?
Honest I wonder if these people have got anything between their painted on ears. The Yes voters are also giving union a long mandate to not bother achieving anything above RPI+ .5% in payrises for the next 15 years, do you think the union will try and get such a rise? And have themselves proved wrong?
The Clyde must be full of banana boats these days, thankfully I have more faith in my fellow colleagues to know the vertebrates are gonna win.
Honest I wonder if these people have got anything between their painted on ears. The Yes voters are also giving union a long mandate to not bother achieving anything above RPI+ .5% in payrises for the next 15 years, do you think the union will try and get such a rise? And have themselves proved wrong?
The Clyde must be full of banana boats these days, thankfully I have more faith in my fellow colleagues to know the vertebrates are gonna win.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW CONVINCED BY THE FIGURES TO VOTE YES......................................................... ................................
Did the presentation actually explain what will happen if the yes vote goes through?
Did the presentation address the figures after we are out of financial turmoil?
Did the presentation show what profits the company will be sitting(and laughing)on after the dust settles on the financial horizon?
Did the management admit that they wish us to take a finacial hit to help them out of the fact that they have fiscally mismanaged us over the past 5 years?
There are so many unanswered questions from the flip side of the union/management argument.Answers that OUR union should have been pursuing on OUR behalf.
I dont blame the YES people.The propaganda has been reasonable to hook a few people who get frightened.
But you have to view this as accepting a PAY CUT.And that will never be on my agenda.
VOTE NO
Did the presentation actually explain what will happen if the yes vote goes through?
Did the presentation address the figures after we are out of financial turmoil?
Did the presentation show what profits the company will be sitting(and laughing)on after the dust settles on the financial horizon?
Did the management admit that they wish us to take a finacial hit to help them out of the fact that they have fiscally mismanaged us over the past 5 years?
There are so many unanswered questions from the flip side of the union/management argument.Answers that OUR union should have been pursuing on OUR behalf.
I dont blame the YES people.The propaganda has been reasonable to hook a few people who get frightened.
But you have to view this as accepting a PAY CUT.And that will never be on my agenda.
VOTE NO
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will vote 'no' merely because we are being presented with one option as being the only option that will 'save' the fund (until management come back in 5-10 years to rob it further).
No one is sitting down and explaining all the other options that are available to help mitigate cost to both the company and the employees. Even if those options are not viable, no one is actually going through them with us to prove that... so what is being hidden from us??
If you were to buy a house and the estate agent said to you they could get you a mortgage, would you accept this mortgage witohut checking out other options?
It's what we are being asked to do with this deal - and sums invovled are similar!! We are being sold something by someone who has it in their best interest to sell us this particular deal!!
It seems that the only people who are having to really dig into their pockets to rescue the fund are the employess - present and future.
Regardless of arguments about cost saving by trimming un-needed staff etc, the profits are already available to pay the anticipated excess for the pension fund over the next few years. I'm not saying the company should necessarily shell out all the money without some employee contribution to help, but it can afford to do more than it is trying to get away with.
No one is sitting down and explaining all the other options that are available to help mitigate cost to both the company and the employees. Even if those options are not viable, no one is actually going through them with us to prove that... so what is being hidden from us??
If you were to buy a house and the estate agent said to you they could get you a mortgage, would you accept this mortgage witohut checking out other options?
It's what we are being asked to do with this deal - and sums invovled are similar!! We are being sold something by someone who has it in their best interest to sell us this particular deal!!
It seems that the only people who are having to really dig into their pockets to rescue the fund are the employess - present and future.
Regardless of arguments about cost saving by trimming un-needed staff etc, the profits are already available to pay the anticipated excess for the pension fund over the next few years. I'm not saying the company should necessarily shell out all the money without some employee contribution to help, but it can afford to do more than it is trying to get away with.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me assure our colleagues in the North and at NSL that not everyone at Swanwick is a bottlejob, sellout yes voter...there are plenty of people who are prepared to see this through. And if this comment upsets those of you ready to throw OUR pension away, I don't really give a toss
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for pay it depends on your grade.
if i could get paid the same as i do now and not have the responsibility of ACTUAL controlling, then i may entertain that.
Cheers
BD
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough of this willy waving already! Let's get back to the matter in hand (no pun intended)- OUR pension.
I find it incredible that many of us all being convinced by stats and projections made by the very people that want us to agree to them. A vauxhall dealer is only going to promote his (or her) own product and not going to spout the virtues of their competitors.
Yes thay may be convincing, but the figures are there to serve a purpose -frighten us into submission. And divide and on conquer?...I think we are all doing half of NATS manaagement's work fo them already.
Somebody's going to say that the actuarial reports are independent etc. Well there's independent and there's independent. It all depends on what the remit was when selecting Mercers. Also, as the report is secret, how do we know that the numbers are being fed to us correctly or in a balanced way? We don't...and we certainly can't trust OUR union to do so neither, They may not be complicit, but simply ignorant... but then again they might just be part of the plan!
besides, if NATS are going to ignore the vote and put the cap on etc. anyway, why not give them a bloody nose anyway - it might make them think twice in future (not bloody likely) - and just
VOTE NO
I find it incredible that many of us all being convinced by stats and projections made by the very people that want us to agree to them. A vauxhall dealer is only going to promote his (or her) own product and not going to spout the virtues of their competitors.
Yes thay may be convincing, but the figures are there to serve a purpose -frighten us into submission. And divide and on conquer?...I think we are all doing half of NATS manaagement's work fo them already.
Somebody's going to say that the actuarial reports are independent etc. Well there's independent and there's independent. It all depends on what the remit was when selecting Mercers. Also, as the report is secret, how do we know that the numbers are being fed to us correctly or in a balanced way? We don't...and we certainly can't trust OUR union to do so neither, They may not be complicit, but simply ignorant... but then again they might just be part of the plan!
besides, if NATS are going to ignore the vote and put the cap on etc. anyway, why not give them a bloody nose anyway - it might make them think twice in future (not bloody likely) - and just
VOTE NO
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have been told that it must be agreed by the end of next month due to conditions set by the actuaries.
The only reason the vote is being rushed through is so they can look to maximise risk/cost reduction immediately. There's no requirements from the actuary or trustees to do so.
Another reason to say: No
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just attended a Pension briefing, I would think only the most gullable naive halfwit would be convinced by this propaganda.
To say they are being economical, or should I say comical with the truth is being more than generous.
There can only be one winner from this if the Proposed Pension deal goes through, and it isn't the employees
If we don't take a stand on this issue, it will be "Life Jim, but not as we know it" from here on in!
VOTE N
To say they are being economical, or should I say comical
with the truth is being more than generous.There can only be one winner from this if the Proposed Pension deal goes through, and it isn't the employees
If we don't take a stand on this issue, it will be "Life Jim, but not as we know it" from here on in!
VOTE N
Last edited by Vote NO; 6th Nov 2008 at 16:51.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point from the briefing pack. The NATS executive will make the final decision and under the Trust deeds and rules NATS already has the ability to decide what part of a pay increase is pensionable. What then is the Vote all about? It appears to me that we can vote no and the company will still implement as they have the legal right to do so. Vote yes and all we are doing is endorsing the package. Maybe these questions are answered in the NATS/NTUS briefings but I haven't been to one yet.
Last edited by Geffen; 6th Nov 2008 at 16:52. Reason: typo's
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please do go to a briefing and make up your own mind, rather than be swayed by conjecture, teabreak gossip and NO rants on here.
The same question was asked at ours. My understanding is the the vote is a union ballot for member of the pension scheme who are in the union. The result of that ballot will be presented by the union to the NATS board as an indication of the feelings of the employees.
The NATS board can take note of the resulting ballot, but their legal duty is to the company and shareholders and as such to them the most important thing is to keep the company running and viable. The legal requirement for a consultation stage is going on at the moment. Once that is over (end Dec?) then the board will decide what to do. A No vote does not stop NATS going ahead anyway, or removing the deal put down and coming back with a worse one (or a better one, but I ain't chancing it).
What the union do in the result of a No vote, they said they don't know. Read into that what you like.
Just a point for the union official haters out there and to balance opinion (cos its all a little one sided!) - the union representatives left our briefing with a round of applause and thanks from many of the employees for working hard to minimise the impact of this. Think about that before you jump on the NO bandwagon. The majority of views on this PPRUNE thread are not necessarily that of reality.
RS
The same question was asked at ours. My understanding is the the vote is a union ballot for member of the pension scheme who are in the union. The result of that ballot will be presented by the union to the NATS board as an indication of the feelings of the employees.
The NATS board can take note of the resulting ballot, but their legal duty is to the company and shareholders and as such to them the most important thing is to keep the company running and viable. The legal requirement for a consultation stage is going on at the moment. Once that is over (end Dec?) then the board will decide what to do. A No vote does not stop NATS going ahead anyway, or removing the deal put down and coming back with a worse one (or a better one, but I ain't chancing it).
What the union do in the result of a No vote, they said they don't know. Read into that what you like.
Just a point for the union official haters out there and to balance opinion (cos its all a little one sided!) - the union representatives left our briefing with a round of applause and thanks from many of the employees for working hard to minimise the impact of this. Think about that before you jump on the NO bandwagon. The majority of views on this PPRUNE thread are not necessarily that of reality.
RS
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been to a briefing and it was all one-sided scaremongering. It their facts and figures to prove their point. Hardly a well balanced presentation. That is the problem
Like I said vote no just to lodge your dissatisfaction at NATS management. Yes will only give them the green light to proceed with their plans without a second thought.
Propaganda is what we are being fed - wake up people, whoever you are, vote No
Like I said vote no just to lodge your dissatisfaction at NATS management. Yes will only give them the green light to proceed with their plans without a second thought.
Propaganda is what we are being fed - wake up people, whoever you are, vote No
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RS
Your reasons are well put and are the reasons for a NO vote IMO. As you say this is a consultation by management. The union should not under any circumstances have been talking to them for so long about our pension when they were directed by the membership NOT to do so etc etc.
The no vote will be the feeling of non acceptance by the staff of all these dealings on both sides. The inevitable will take place however the vote.
B
ds
VOTE NO
Your reasons are well put and are the reasons for a NO vote IMO. As you say this is a consultation by management. The union should not under any circumstances have been talking to them for so long about our pension when they were directed by the membership NOT to do so etc etc.
The no vote will be the feeling of non acceptance by the staff of all these dealings on both sides. The inevitable will take place however the vote.
B
dsVOTE NO