Vote NO

Probably so, that's why we must vote no and withdraw AAVA and goodwill. If it bring NATS to its knees, so be it.

MNT

Towering CU wrote If you had been to a briefing then you would have heard that the right to be in the existing pension scheme is going to be written in to each employee's T&Cs for those in post today. But of course you don't trust management or the Union.

I am sorry the numbers pretty much speak for themesleves.

hold at SATAN

Numbers that THEY provided to further they're cause!

Radarspod

"If it bring NATS to its knees, so be it."

Are you kidding me? Is that really an argument? What about the sustainment of the employer who provides pretty much (and still will) the best Ts and Cs you will ever find? Any administrator charged with sorting out a bust company is going to target the thing that caused it to fail - in the NATS case the pension scheme that was too expensive that the company went bust.

Hold at SATAN - purely a question and not trying to be provocative - does a no vote to show dissatisfaction work, or does it play into managements hands? They could turn around at that and say "well we tried, the offers withdrawn, we'll go ahead with what we want to do anyway" and we are worse off. That is just IMHO a more likely scenario as them coming back and saying "you know what, you were right, we'll remove the cap idea, keep the pension running for new members and look again at one of the many things we have already discounted cos they were worse ideas".

Vote NO

You are correct in the first part. Well done

Incorrect in the second part though

The "thing" in question that caused it to fail was financial incompetence by the incumbent NATS management. I am sure they would be the first to go. Failure to predict this situation shows a complete lack of business sense. Failed projects and the reputed £120,000,000 lost in the Spanish fiasco
(The new company, to be called SACTA ATM, will develop the Spanish ATC system SACTA to a point where it is also capable of managing UK airspace – some of the most complex in the world. Skycontrol.net: SACTA ATM, world first in air traffic co-operation: Britain and Spain today launch a new Joint Venture Company)
give ample enough evidence to hang them. Ask them how much money they have lost and wasted in the last few years, insist on the figures, and I would think even the most ardent yes voter would have second thoughts.
I am not trying to be smart here, just asking people to open their eyes and look at the real reason we have ended up here today. If you are happy to see all this money wasted, fine, although I would seriously question your judgement. If not, take a stand and fight for your pension.

hold at SATAN

RS

I appreciate what you're saying, BUT politically they won't make a worse offer because if the proposal is the "Great white hope", and they do not want to be seen as the "bad guys", then they will stick to the original.
Furthermore, they will not only be cutting off their nose to spite their face, but they'll be cutting off their WHOLE face to spite their face

250 kts

I suspect the presnet managment would blame the Spanish affair on Richard Everett and co. They will claim they were brought in to sort out just this sort of mess.

Radarspod

If we can agree on one thing, is the SMART pensions a good move? I think so, and I hope that this gets separated from the rest of the proposal as a JFDI.



What I could do with £32

Vote NO

Barron was already in situ for two years when the news was announced two years ago. Failure to finalise properly the legal details allowed the Spanish to insist on X amount of income from the deal. Nats took the decision to fork out £120M in compensation rather than be tied in long term

alfie1999

NATS management have been very keen on emphasising to employees that the pension fund can only exist while the company exists. The implied threat being that if NATS goes under then both our jobs and pensions are lost.

However, Section 26 of the Transport Act 2000 lays out clearly the procedure for implementing an 'air traffic administration order' in the event of NATS failing to discharge its statutory or license requirements.

For example, in the event of the company being unable to pay its debts then an administration order would be enforced (TA2000, Pt1, Ch1, Para2) to remove the license from NATS and bring the functions of the company back under the control of the SofS, in effect, re-nationalisation.

Moreover, Section 96 of the Transport Act 2000 refers to the Secretary of States authority to make provision to re-allocate assets in CAAPS, but in doing so the SofS '...must ensure that each person falling within subsection (6) is overall in materially at least as good a position, as respects pension arrangements, as a result of the order...'.

Subsection 6 states that if you are, or have at any time, been a contributing member of the scheme then you are covered by Sec 96, as indeed, are any nominated beneficiaries.

I wonder if the Union have explored the articles and schedules in the TA2000 so at least the membership are informed of the impacts of 'worst case scenario'...and whether indeed it is 'worst case' on closer inspection.

The membership really need expert legal advice and an IMPARTIAL assessment of the likely ramifications of any particular course of action.

Mad As A Mad Thing

What's all this nonsense about if we vote no the company can just impose whatever it likes?

They can try and impose anything they like, but without workers shifting traffic they aint gonna get very far!

Stuff working together. It's them & us & it always has been. When did they ever do anything for the staff out of goodwill? How many things do you (yes you, personally) do out of goodwill, that are above & beyound what you're contracted for?

If they want to treat me like sh!t they will get it back in spades.

250 kts

As we would be under this deal. But does it state what would happen in the future? There is no change to present members until and if we get a pay rise of RPI+0.5%.

Just as a quick aside, if NATS offered a 30% rise to cover the next 5 years but only 20% of it were pensionable would you take it or leave it? I know what my answer would be.

Think about it folks.

mr.777

Good point apart from the fact....

a) In our wildest dreams we'll never see anything like that in the next 5 years

b) they have offered NOTHING to mitigate any hit we will take on our pension.

Therefore, NO.

Vampy

Personally, I'm surprised at the amount of anger directed towards NATS management.

Surely we all knew that this is ultimately what they have always wanted? That is, the beginning of the end of our final salary pension scheme?

Management haven't done anything that should come as a big shock to any of us.

The Union on the other hand have a shedload to answer for. At the end of the day we expect management to try and squeeze as much out of us as they possibly can. That's what they do. Their role is to try and make us work harder, for fewer benefits, thus ensuring yet more of their precious profits.

However, the unions who have negotiated this on 'our behalf' should be held to account and some very serious questions should be asked along the lines of, 'Do we really think our interests are truly being properly represented at this time'?

PPP?
2 year pay deals becoming 3 year pay deals?
Banding?
And now the Pensions?

Just flicking through the Union handbook and seeing what they SHOULD be doing and what they actually end up doing highlights a major difference between what the members want and what the BEC and others actually do.

And I'm still trying to work out how the chair of the BEC can also be a member of management? Surely, that's a conflict of interests?!?

I think we need to accept that whether we vote 'Yes' or whether we vote 'No', ultimately we have not been shafted by management.

I reserve that accolade solely for the Union who should NEVER have gone down the path they went down. A Union who has allowed 'Working Together' to go too far and has allowed itself to be played like complete mugs by Paul Barron.

Maybe we should start looking for a new union to represent us?

eglnyt

Alfie 1999

I think you'll find that both the union and management have taken extensive legal advice.

There is nothing in the Transport Act which protects the pension scheme from being wound up or gives you any rights to be in it. The Secretary of State made an order which complied with 96(5) when the scheme was seperated into CAA and NATS sections. Were the Secretary of State to make any further orders he/she would have to act in accordance with 96(5) which is the no decrement clause but that clause only has any effect if an order is needed. The main protection of 96(5) is to stop anybody changing the Trust Deed or the rules of the scheme but there is no intention to do that and there wouldn't need to be any change if NATS went bust. Winding up the scheme if the employer won't fund it is already in the Trust Deed.

There is nothing in the Transport Act to force NATS, the Government or any successor company to fund the scheme. It is the Trust of Promise which forces NATS to fund the scheme and keep it available to those who were in it in July 2001 but that contains clauses which limit its effect if NATS is bust. Anybody that tells you your pension is not assured if NATS goes bust is not scaremongering they are telling you the truth. Of course the scheme may not be wound up and somebody might chose to fund it but that would be fortune and isn't assured by any means. I certainly wouldn't rely on this Government to do it.

Air Traffic administration is not re-nationalisation. The administrator would be appointed by the court and would have to act to meet the two aims contained in the Transport Act. The Act is careful to make it clear that the company would continue to trade as a company and indeed would be held liable for any money received from the Government to allow it to keep trading. It is possible that the Government would act before an administration order was needed or indeed that the company would be transferred to the Government by the Administrator but no amount of legal advice will be able to predict what will actually happen if it gets to that stage. Last time the Government decided to avoid administration, but last time it was easily fixed with a relatively small amount of capital.

If it does get to that stage the future for a lot of people in NATS will be very uncertain. There seem to be some on here who relish the idea of bringing the company to its knees. I thought those sort of ideas went out with the miners, the steelworkers, the printers and anybody else who destroyed their own industry. Personally I think that anybody trying to bring the company down is gambling with my job and many others as well but it is quite clear that some posting here and on NATSNET believe quite strongly that we should sacrifice our jobs for their pension rights anyway so I don't expect my views to count for much.

Mr A Tis

The £120M SATCA compensation fiasco is only part of the story, how much was wasted in staff time & effort in Madrid?
I just do not understand how the Unions have fallen for this working together nonsense.
The Management have one clear intention & are doing it very well, they are "managing" union expections just as they said they would.
Our representatives have failed us at all levels.
For the Unions not to have an alternative strategy in regard to the Pensions issue beggars belief.
NATS staff seem to be marching hopelessly towards their own execution, reminds me of The Life of Brian.

, yea right of course they did, silly me.

alfie1999

I think employees who have paid many years worth of contributions in to caaps are entitled to challenge the management/union proposals without being accused of wanting to bring the company down.

BAND4ALL

Quote
For the Unions not to have an alternative strategy in regard to the Pensions issue beggars belief.

Mr A Tis That is why I will vote NO

ImnotanERIC

having just flicked through the brochure again, i am more convinced than ever before that this vote is merely a tick box exercise. this proposal is being brought in whatever the result. look at the scheduled timeline of events. we are in the feedback period now. how many people used the feedback forms presented at the briefings, or phoned the phoneline or had a formal conversation with someone from the management team. the feeedback period closes and a decision is made. which will bbe..............implement the proposal.
then we have a vote.
brilliant.
voting yes or no will have the same effect as drawing a massive school style cartoon cock and balls on the ballot paper.
our pension is getting screwed.

Mad As A Mad Thing

Mr A Tis...you beat me to it!

The coal mining industry was destroyed for the political gratification of the government of the day.

"In 1984, the National Coal Board announced that an agreement reached after the 1974 miners' strike had become obsolete, and that in order to rationalise government subsidisation of industry they intended to close 20 coal mines. " (Source Wikipedia)

Sound familiar? Ten years was all it took to renege on that deal. So don't tell me that voting yes is going to protect my pension for 15 years (never mind that that doesn't even take me to retirement age).