NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As per my post yesterday, here in full is the e-mail that my colleague received. They did not want to post it themselves because their PPRuNe moniker is known to some of their workmates and they wanted to afford themselves of some anonymity.
They are unhappy that the union has taken this step and have stated that instead of convincing them to vote in favour of the proposals, it has actually made them more convinced to vote no.
Any grammatical mistakes in the text are made entirely by the original authors.
Hmm - lets see...
Based on our following letter that only states our position and beliefs – hardly a balanced document to use to make an informed decision.
Scare mongering and pure speculation, especially the phrase:
There is a very strong argument that says closing the pension scheme will cause job losses if and when NSL is sold off, as the NATS support infrastructure for those contracts will be removed, as they will be surplus to requirements.
Speculation, based on management tactics?? Similarly, it may well not go into liquidation.
Pure speculation
So you ‘think’ you have explored all the options… that’s comforting…
Labour Party – what is the relevance and indeed is it even wise to mention membership? This is the Labour Party that promised us ‘Our skies are not for sale’ as part of their election campaign. The subsequent PPP of NATS (by Labour) saddled the company with huge debts.
Also, this is the same Labour Party who are the employer mentioned during arguments about re-nationalisation -
So personally, I don’t think being members of the Labour party is something to be harping on about considering the arguments you are trying to make!!
Double speculation… Voting yes is also a gamble – even NATS admit that it only mitigates some risk. Any fund that relies on investments in stocks and shares is a risk… if it wasn’t a risk, we’d all have personal portfolios and we’d all be rich!!
They are unhappy that the union has taken this step and have stated that instead of convincing them to vote in favour of the proposals, it has actually made them more convinced to vote no.
Any grammatical mistakes in the text are made entirely by the original authors.
PCS
November 2008
Dear Member,
We are writing to you because we are concerned that all PCS members may not have taken the opportunity to attend one of the NTUS briefings which have been tagged on to the joint NTUS/NATS briefings on the pensions proposals.
This issue is probably the most important we have faced as employees of NATS, certainly since PPP and for that reason we believe that prior to casting your vote in the upcoming ballot you are fully aware of the potential consequences of a no vote.
Over the last 18 months we have been working as part of the NTUS team looking at our pension scheme and the ability of NATS to continue to meet their contributions as they are required.
As recently as our annual delegate conference in May this year we were firmly of the belief that closing the scheme to new entrants was not an option for PCS. However since then we have had the final result of the triennial evaluation and also the annual report by the scheme actuary.
The figures revealed by these evaluations have caused the Group Executive to rethink their position and to seriously challenge whether or not NATS could not continue to pay the level of contributions required to provide for our future pensions benefits.
We believe that our ultimate responsibility as your representatives, above all other considerations, is to protect the interests of all members. In order to do this we believe that, having examined all other options available, we have no choice but to recommend acceptance of the joint proposal.
We pose you the questions; how many MSG and ATSA jobs would survive a 42-43% on cost to cover pensions? How many contracts in NSL could stand such charges? Within NERL, for those jobs left, what could the company afford to pay in future pay rises if they were paying this underlying rate, and what attack would be made on our other terms and conditions?
In reaching this conclusion we examined the possibility that should NATS be unable to pay their pensions contribution they could go into administration.
This raised the question of whether or not re-nationalisation would be the best way to protect our members’ jobs, pay and pensions. It is our view that, should this scenario come to fruition, and in recognition that our pension scheme had effectively bankrupt a monopoly provider the administrator would have little choice but to close that pension scheme.
If we were re-nationalised, we would encourage you to look at the pay rates in the Civil Service, look at the pay cap in the Civil Service (2% including increments). PCS colleagues who are employed by the government are in continual dispute with their employer as they seek to remove a pay cap which is effectively cutting their standard of living.
As stated earlier we have been involved in these discussions for 18 months, and we are asking you to believe us when we say we think we have explored all the options. The current joint proposal is the best way to protect all our pensions. Indeed, if we believed that there were any alternatives then we would not be balloting now on this proposal.
Both of us have been very active in the Labour Party and the Trade Union for a number of years, and if for one moment we believed that re-nationalisation was the answer, we would be leading the campaign for this to happen.
We want to ensure your pension is safe, regardless of whether you are 64 or 18 or anything in between. We are 100% convinced voting YES is the best way to protect your pension now and into the future.
Voting no is a massive gamble which may put your future financial security at risk and we would ask that you take this into account when you get your ballot paper and before you cast your vote.
Yours fraternally and in a personal capacity.
Tweedle Dum Tweedle Dee
November 2008
Dear Member,
We are writing to you because we are concerned that all PCS members may not have taken the opportunity to attend one of the NTUS briefings which have been tagged on to the joint NTUS/NATS briefings on the pensions proposals.
This issue is probably the most important we have faced as employees of NATS, certainly since PPP and for that reason we believe that prior to casting your vote in the upcoming ballot you are fully aware of the potential consequences of a no vote.
Over the last 18 months we have been working as part of the NTUS team looking at our pension scheme and the ability of NATS to continue to meet their contributions as they are required.
As recently as our annual delegate conference in May this year we were firmly of the belief that closing the scheme to new entrants was not an option for PCS. However since then we have had the final result of the triennial evaluation and also the annual report by the scheme actuary.
The figures revealed by these evaluations have caused the Group Executive to rethink their position and to seriously challenge whether or not NATS could not continue to pay the level of contributions required to provide for our future pensions benefits.
We believe that our ultimate responsibility as your representatives, above all other considerations, is to protect the interests of all members. In order to do this we believe that, having examined all other options available, we have no choice but to recommend acceptance of the joint proposal.
We pose you the questions; how many MSG and ATSA jobs would survive a 42-43% on cost to cover pensions? How many contracts in NSL could stand such charges? Within NERL, for those jobs left, what could the company afford to pay in future pay rises if they were paying this underlying rate, and what attack would be made on our other terms and conditions?
In reaching this conclusion we examined the possibility that should NATS be unable to pay their pensions contribution they could go into administration.
This raised the question of whether or not re-nationalisation would be the best way to protect our members’ jobs, pay and pensions. It is our view that, should this scenario come to fruition, and in recognition that our pension scheme had effectively bankrupt a monopoly provider the administrator would have little choice but to close that pension scheme.
If we were re-nationalised, we would encourage you to look at the pay rates in the Civil Service, look at the pay cap in the Civil Service (2% including increments). PCS colleagues who are employed by the government are in continual dispute with their employer as they seek to remove a pay cap which is effectively cutting their standard of living.
As stated earlier we have been involved in these discussions for 18 months, and we are asking you to believe us when we say we think we have explored all the options. The current joint proposal is the best way to protect all our pensions. Indeed, if we believed that there were any alternatives then we would not be balloting now on this proposal.
Both of us have been very active in the Labour Party and the Trade Union for a number of years, and if for one moment we believed that re-nationalisation was the answer, we would be leading the campaign for this to happen.
We want to ensure your pension is safe, regardless of whether you are 64 or 18 or anything in between. We are 100% convinced voting YES is the best way to protect your pension now and into the future.
Voting no is a massive gamble which may put your future financial security at risk and we would ask that you take this into account when you get your ballot paper and before you cast your vote.
Yours fraternally and in a personal capacity.
Tweedle Dum Tweedle Dee
Hmm - lets see...
This issue is probably the most important we have faced as employees of NATS, certainly since PPP and for that reason we believe that prior to casting your vote in the upcoming ballot you are fully aware of the potential consequences of a no vote.
Based on our following letter that only states our position and beliefs – hardly a balanced document to use to make an informed decision.
We pose you the questions; how many MSG and ATSA jobs would survive a 42-43% on cost to cover pensions? How many contracts in NSL could stand such charges? Within NERL, for those jobs left, what could the company afford to pay in future pay rises if they were paying this underlying rate, and what attack would be made on our other terms and conditions?
Scare mongering and pure speculation, especially the phrase:
Within NERL, for those jobs left
There is a very strong argument that says closing the pension scheme will cause job losses if and when NSL is sold off, as the NATS support infrastructure for those contracts will be removed, as they will be surplus to requirements.
In reaching this conclusion we examined the possibility that should NATS be unable to pay their pensions contribution they could go into administration.
Speculation, based on management tactics?? Similarly, it may well not go into liquidation.
This raised the question of whether or not re-nationalisation would be the best way to protect our members’ jobs, pay and pensions. It is our view that, should this scenario come to fruition, and in recognition that our pension scheme had effectively bankrupt a monopoly provider the administrator would have little choice but to close that pension scheme.
Pure speculation
As stated earlier we have been involved in these discussions for 18 months, and we are asking you to believe us when we say we think we have explored all the options. The current joint proposal is the best way to protect all our pensions.
Indeed, if we believed that there were any alternatives then we would not be balloting now on this proposal.
Indeed, if we believed that there were any alternatives then we would not be balloting now on this proposal.
Both of us have been very active in the Labour Party and the Trade Union for a number of years, and if for one moment we believed that re-nationalisation was the answer, we would be leading the campaign for this to happen.
Labour Party – what is the relevance and indeed is it even wise to mention membership? This is the Labour Party that promised us ‘Our skies are not for sale’ as part of their election campaign. The subsequent PPP of NATS (by Labour) saddled the company with huge debts.
Also, this is the same Labour Party who are the employer mentioned during arguments about re-nationalisation -
If we were re-nationalised, we would encourage you to look at the pay rates in the Civil Service, look at the pay cap in the Civil Service (2% including increments). PCS colleagues who are employed by the government are in continual dispute with their employer as they seek to remove a pay cap which is effectively cutting their standard of living.
So personally, I don’t think being members of the Labour party is something to be harping on about considering the arguments you are trying to make!!
Voting no is a massive gamble which may put your future financial security at risk and we would ask that you take this into account when you get your ballot paper and before you cast your vote.
Double speculation… Voting yes is also a gamble – even NATS admit that it only mitigates some risk. Any fund that relies on investments in stocks and shares is a risk… if it wasn’t a risk, we’d all have personal portfolios and we’d all be rich!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eglnyt
That is pure management speak and complete twaddle. I bet the employees of NSL are all comforted by that statement.
Furthermore, I bet all the staff at CTC etc who support NSL must be comforted by that statement... do you think if we sold off NSL we would keep anywhere near as many support jobs?
egnlyt - you seem remarkably well informed when it comes to finances, however the trend of your posts seems to indicate that you have a vested interest (beyond being a pension fund member) in gaining NATS a yes vote.
Your arguments are unravelling - you talk of possible job losses if we vote no then come out with the likes of the above
Slider57
You may have studied maths, however you need to read peoples posts more carefully.
The FACT of the matter is, if NATS had not taken the pension holiday and paid in reduced contributins after that time, the deficit would not be as large as it is today. That's not even Maths, its basic primary school arithmetic.
What people are saying is if contributions had been kept up, then the deficit would not be as large... we are not saying that there would be no deficit
as for
Not a valid argument - if you want to throw that into the pot, then I put it to you that compared to professional footballers/basketball players we have a pretty poor deal.
Just because Nurses get paid a woeful wage does not mean we need to accept degradation in our Ts & Cs - it's a totally separate argument.
Again, completely irrelevant. Have you served in the armed forces? I have, I spent many years in the UK armed Forces before starting a second career with NATS. I have many friends who are still in and who are on active duty in all the different theatres.
I moved my ringfenced military penson into NATS to buy back years - if this proposal goes ahead, those years I have bought back (by my very service you are usingas an argument) will be worth less than if I had left them in my military pension. Please keep the argument relative. Comparison of different wages, conditions etc is irrelevant, because we can easily claim to be either seen off, or better off, depending how you massage the statistics and what profession(s) you use for comparison.
We were talking about a sale of NATS. Selling off NSL is a different matter.
Furthermore, I bet all the staff at CTC etc who support NSL must be comforted by that statement... do you think if we sold off NSL we would keep anywhere near as many support jobs?
egnlyt - you seem remarkably well informed when it comes to finances, however the trend of your posts seems to indicate that you have a vested interest (beyond being a pension fund member) in gaining NATS a yes vote.
Your arguments are unravelling - you talk of possible job losses if we vote no then come out with the likes of the above
Slider57
Having studied Maths, I am struggling to see the arguement about the NATS management pension break. Yes it will have affected the pension but not on the scale some people are saying.
If however you have proof that the pension holiday has led to the huge defecit we now seem to have then please post it on NATSNET for all to see. As yet no one has shown me numbers that seem to add up.
If however you have proof that the pension holiday has led to the huge defecit we now seem to have then please post it on NATSNET for all to see. As yet no one has shown me numbers that seem to add up.
The FACT of the matter is, if NATS had not taken the pension holiday and paid in reduced contributins after that time, the deficit would not be as large as it is today. That's not even Maths, its basic primary school arithmetic.
What people are saying is if contributions had been kept up, then the deficit would not be as large... we are not saying that there would be no deficit
as for
We also seem to have the odd rant about our T& C's, compared to nurses/police/armed forces and hundreds of other lower paid workers out there, we have got a pretty good deal overall.
Just because Nurses get paid a woeful wage does not mean we need to accept degradation in our Ts & Cs - it's a totally separate argument.
swap places with some of the boys and girls in Afghanistan or Iraq. You might then appreciate how good a deal you have.
I moved my ringfenced military penson into NATS to buy back years - if this proposal goes ahead, those years I have bought back (by my very service you are usingas an argument) will be worth less than if I had left them in my military pension. Please keep the argument relative. Comparison of different wages, conditions etc is irrelevant, because we can easily claim to be either seen off, or better off, depending how you massage the statistics and what profession(s) you use for comparison.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both of us have been very active in the Labour Party and the Trade Union for a number of years, and if for one moment we believed that re-nationalisation was the answer, we would be leading the campaign for this to happen.
It is "Old Labour" which favours re nationalisation, and is currently the way to go in this Global financial crisis
Where would our Banks be now if the Government had not Nationalised them ? Any takers on this question ??
Also, remember we are only part privatised and the majority, 49%, is owned by HMG, making the change to 100% all that bit easier
Join Date: May 2007
Location: swanwick carp lake
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I reckon that some if not all of NSL will be sold by 2010.What's do you reckon the odds are? Evens 
It WILL be sold. That is not a scaremongering statement and I am willing to back it up with ericbrokes bookmakers of swanwick, circa 2008.
also offering odds of 1/10 that Nats makes a profit next year after a yes vote on the pension of at least 60 million.
If enough of you place a stake with me, I may not need a pension.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What i really don't understand is, having been a bystander on this forum for a while, is why you don't believe the union reps that WE have democratically elected, that have pensions as well, that have friends in the pension scheme and futures to protect would not have gone through every option available to them and would not have negotiated the best possible deal for us? Surely they would want to protect THEIR best interests as well as OURS?
I find it quite interesting that some of you believe that because they are recommending something that it must be wrong or they must be 'in bed with management'. I pay my monthly subs and choose not to get involved as a union rep but those guys do get involved and I believe represent me in the best possible way and wouldn't ask me to vote yes to something that wasn't what they thought was the best they could possibly get.
I don't think the letter, that I think has been sent to all PCS members, is that well written and yes I do think they are worried BUT maybe they are worried because people aren't listening, i get the impression they have spent months coming to this (said at briefing) and truely believe it's the best thing for their pension as well as ours. I will vote YES, to me it's a no brainer.
I find it quite interesting that some of you believe that because they are recommending something that it must be wrong or they must be 'in bed with management'. I pay my monthly subs and choose not to get involved as a union rep but those guys do get involved and I believe represent me in the best possible way and wouldn't ask me to vote yes to something that wasn't what they thought was the best they could possibly get.
I don't think the letter, that I think has been sent to all PCS members, is that well written and yes I do think they are worried BUT maybe they are worried because people aren't listening, i get the impression they have spent months coming to this (said at briefing) and truely believe it's the best thing for their pension as well as ours. I will vote YES, to me it's a no brainer.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fit to burst
A very short answer to your very valid question. I know several union reps, the majority of the younger ones (that I know) with more than 15 years to go, believe that the proposal is a crock of sh!t.
The older ones (that I know) are split about 50/50.
What you need to remember is only a handful of people (counting both Union and management) have the full picture available to them because of the confidentiality clause that was signed (you can count the number of people on your fingers).
The union reps etc, have had to rely on briefings from the select few from managment and the Union who were privy to the confidential material.
As a Union rep, it is your duty once a decision has been made by the executive, to pass that message on - that's the function of the reps. The union reps are doing this in their official capacity, howerve as I stated above, privately they do not all (by a long stretch) agree with it.
A very short answer to your very valid question. I know several union reps, the majority of the younger ones (that I know) with more than 15 years to go, believe that the proposal is a crock of sh!t.
The older ones (that I know) are split about 50/50.
What you need to remember is only a handful of people (counting both Union and management) have the full picture available to them because of the confidentiality clause that was signed (you can count the number of people on your fingers).
The union reps etc, have had to rely on briefings from the select few from managment and the Union who were privy to the confidential material.
As a Union rep, it is your duty once a decision has been made by the executive, to pass that message on - that's the function of the reps. The union reps are doing this in their official capacity, howerve as I stated above, privately they do not all (by a long stretch) agree with it.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eglnyt
So far all you have done is nit pick the NO argument to within an inch of its life. You ask us for evidence that voting no is the way forward, yet you don't actually pose any solutions yourself. I want YOU to tell ME why I should vote yes...show me YOUR evidence that a YES vote is the way forward. As for you saying you were talking about a NATS sell-off ,not NSL, that does indeed sound like back-pedalling. If this goes through, NSL is GONE.....which makes the remainder of NATS (ie NERL) much more attractive to any buyers.
So far all you have done is nit pick the NO argument to within an inch of its life. You ask us for evidence that voting no is the way forward, yet you don't actually pose any solutions yourself. I want YOU to tell ME why I should vote yes...show me YOUR evidence that a YES vote is the way forward. As for you saying you were talking about a NATS sell-off ,not NSL, that does indeed sound like back-pedalling. If this goes through, NSL is GONE.....which makes the remainder of NATS (ie NERL) much more attractive to any buyers.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so are we saying then that the reps that WE elect don't trust the GECs/BECs that THEY elect? i find this interesting as they elect those that they feel are the best and right people to go and negotiate for all of us and then when they do and it's not what we like or want to hear we say they're wrong and we could have got something better and yet no-one as yet has come up with what better is!
I assume that all the No voters will be standing as Union reps when elections come up and that all union reps who are voting NO will be standing for whatever exec they fall under.....???
I assume that all the No voters will be standing as Union reps when elections come up and that all union reps who are voting NO will be standing for whatever exec they fall under.....???
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fit to burst
I think we are getting into the realms of semantics here - trust does not necessarily come into it.
A select few members of the Union and Management have been privy to the confidential documment.
The Union has tabled a joint proposal based on an agreement after negotiation. That proposal is what managemnt claim they can afford.
The union believe that that is the best deal they can get. That does not mean they believe that is all NATS can afford.
That is the first part of the process.
Part 2 is the ballot.
People who vote 'NO' believe and think that NATS can actually afford to dig deeper.
This belief is borne out by the fact that although the union claims not to have a clue about what to do for a plan B or Plan C, management almost certainly have - and in fact this was alluded to by management on the intranet/at some briefings when asked (I believe Phillip James may be one person who said this) who have said that what happens next depends on the extent of the 'NO' vote.
i.e. if there is a 'NO' vote but it's a slim majority, then the proposals will get pushed through anyways (because it's not p!$$ing off a huge amount of people ). If the vote is a larger majority, then management will go to plan B.
It is not necessarily a lack of trust on the side of the Union, it is a lack of belief from fund members that a company that happily takes from the fund when the sun shines, and spends millions on unnecessary costs yet still posts a good profit, cannot dig deeper into it's own pockets.
I think we are getting into the realms of semantics here - trust does not necessarily come into it.
A select few members of the Union and Management have been privy to the confidential documment.
The Union has tabled a joint proposal based on an agreement after negotiation. That proposal is what managemnt claim they can afford.
The union believe that that is the best deal they can get. That does not mean they believe that is all NATS can afford.
That is the first part of the process.
Part 2 is the ballot.
People who vote 'NO' believe and think that NATS can actually afford to dig deeper.
This belief is borne out by the fact that although the union claims not to have a clue about what to do for a plan B or Plan C, management almost certainly have - and in fact this was alluded to by management on the intranet/at some briefings when asked (I believe Phillip James may be one person who said this) who have said that what happens next depends on the extent of the 'NO' vote.
i.e. if there is a 'NO' vote but it's a slim majority, then the proposals will get pushed through anyways (because it's not p!$$ing off a huge amount of people ). If the vote is a larger majority, then management will go to plan B.
It is not necessarily a lack of trust on the side of the Union, it is a lack of belief from fund members that a company that happily takes from the fund when the sun shines, and spends millions on unnecessary costs yet still posts a good profit, cannot dig deeper into it's own pockets.
Ok, so are we saying then that the reps that WE elect don't trust the GECs/BECs that THEY elect? i find this interesting as they elect those that they feel are the best and right people to go and negotiate for all of us and then when they do and it's not what we like or want to hear we say they're wrong
Just becuse I have someone else representing me does not mean I put absolute faith in their every decision. Sometimes they are wrong. If they are wrong too often then they get replaced whether thay are my MP, Union, BEC, rep, employer or friend.
Last edited by Dan Dare; 21st Nov 2008 at 11:10.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet the employees of NSL are all comforted by that statement.
Furthermore, I bet all the staff at CTC etc who support NSL must be comforted by that statement... do you think if we sold off NSL we would keep anywhere near as many support jobs?
If the company can't afford to pay you it doesn't matter how important your job is. The current threats to CTC jobs are the current downturn, pension payments that NATS can't afford and possible industrial action. Longer term the threat is RPI-X because that -X equates to much greater than -X for support departments because NATS is actually increasing ATC costs by recruiting staff.
the trend of your posts seems to indicate that you have a vested interest (beyond being a pension fund member) in gaining NATS a yes vote.
you don't actually pose any solutions yourself. I want YOU to tell ME why I should vote yes
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the Unions do believe that this is the most that NATS can afford in fact i think they find it hard to believe that NATS can afford it as it is so expensive.
Why would the union have a plan B or C - if they did what makes you think they wouldn't be tabling it?? It's ridiculous to think that the union would be sat there thinking 'well if the members vote no we'll suggest this'. I really don't believe they have brought this to us with 'something in their back pocket in case it's a no vote' they would bring what's in their back pocket as they want the best possible deal for all of us!
If it's a no vote something will get implemented. A new scheme will be imposed. Management have not spent months trying to work out a solution to just go 'oh well never mind they didn't like it'. At our briefing they said if it's a no vote a new scheme will be imposed but the new scheme probably (yes i know probably could mean it is as good - but really??) wouldn't be as good as the one on offer now and we wouldn't have the protections to our T&C's written into it. So i guess we'd have to use industrial action to fight the imposed new scheme and get protection for our T&Cs.
I don't want my pension scheme to change but if for the sake of an RPI +0.5% cap which is all that really effects me means my pension is sustainable why wouldn't i vote yes?
Dan Dare - I assume you will be standing as Union Rep next time then or for the GEC/BEC if you're a rep already, so that you can ensure that you and your friends/colleagues are represented to your liking or if you don't want to be a rep that you will be finding someone who is prepared to stand that you feel will accurately represent your views?
Why would the union have a plan B or C - if they did what makes you think they wouldn't be tabling it?? It's ridiculous to think that the union would be sat there thinking 'well if the members vote no we'll suggest this'. I really don't believe they have brought this to us with 'something in their back pocket in case it's a no vote' they would bring what's in their back pocket as they want the best possible deal for all of us!
If it's a no vote something will get implemented. A new scheme will be imposed. Management have not spent months trying to work out a solution to just go 'oh well never mind they didn't like it'. At our briefing they said if it's a no vote a new scheme will be imposed but the new scheme probably (yes i know probably could mean it is as good - but really??) wouldn't be as good as the one on offer now and we wouldn't have the protections to our T&C's written into it. So i guess we'd have to use industrial action to fight the imposed new scheme and get protection for our T&Cs.
I don't want my pension scheme to change but if for the sake of an RPI +0.5% cap which is all that really effects me means my pension is sustainable why wouldn't i vote yes?
Dan Dare - I assume you will be standing as Union Rep next time then or for the GEC/BEC if you're a rep already, so that you can ensure that you and your friends/colleagues are represented to your liking or if you don't want to be a rep that you will be finding someone who is prepared to stand that you feel will accurately represent your views?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will correct you if I think you are wrong because I think it would be wrong for anybody else to make a decison based on incorrect posts.
At our briefing they said if it's a no vote a new scheme will be imposed but the new scheme probably (yes i know probably could mean it is as good - but really??) wouldn't be as good as the one on offer now and we wouldn't have the protections to our T&C's written into it. So i guess we'd have to use industrial action to fight the imposed new scheme and get protection for our T&Cs.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do you think that everything you have said is unequivocally correct???
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that it is impossible to remember exactly what is said at briefings and to recall it accurately on this forum - i think that is why there is inconsistency.
So what do you think will happen then?
So what do you think will happen then?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also,
why wouldn't i buy into what the unions are saying to me. I have excellent T&C's, I have had brilliant pay rises, i've got really good WP and I believe am well represented. They have never before lead me to question that they aren't doing what they believe is in my absolute best interest. So now because this is a really difficult subject and it's a really difficult decision everyone thinks we shouldn't trust what they are saying or that they aren't representing our best interests, on what basis?? It's just crazy.
why wouldn't i buy into what the unions are saying to me. I have excellent T&C's, I have had brilliant pay rises, i've got really good WP and I believe am well represented. They have never before lead me to question that they aren't doing what they believe is in my absolute best interest. So now because this is a really difficult subject and it's a really difficult decision everyone thinks we shouldn't trust what they are saying or that they aren't representing our best interests, on what basis?? It's just crazy.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slider57 said
We also seem to have the odd rant about our T& C's, compared to nurses/police/armed forces and hundreds of other lower paid workers out there, we have got a pretty good deal overall. Perhaps some of the people who only work 18 days a month (me included) and work in a very controlled environment that ensures you are not overworked and get more than enough time off should swap places with some of the boys and girls in Afghanistan or Iraq. You might then appreciate how good a deal you have.
What a load of bollocks. BTW It's men and women in Afghanistan or Iraq you patronising
. Oh and my good deal that I obviously don't appreciate - is that the one I'm expected to vote in favour of losing? 1st post mmmm - what are you - management or union?
VOTE NO
We also seem to have the odd rant about our T& C's, compared to nurses/police/armed forces and hundreds of other lower paid workers out there, we have got a pretty good deal overall. Perhaps some of the people who only work 18 days a month (me included) and work in a very controlled environment that ensures you are not overworked and get more than enough time off should swap places with some of the boys and girls in Afghanistan or Iraq. You might then appreciate how good a deal you have.
What a load of bollocks. BTW It's men and women in Afghanistan or Iraq you patronising
. Oh and my good deal that I obviously don't appreciate - is that the one I'm expected to vote in favour of losing? 1st post mmmm - what are you - management or union?VOTE NO
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Published March 2007 [VIEW 10]
NATS PENSIONS UNDER THREAT
Members campaigning against plans to close the existing National Air Traffic Services pension scheme to new members have launched a website.
The joint initiative by PCS and Prospect members is the latest stage in the campaign against the proposal, which could lead to a ballot for industrial action.
At the time of the NATS public-private partnership privatisation in 2001 the unions won assurances about the future commercialisation of the company and the protection of important conditions of service, including pensions.
Management appears determined to renege on these and is making clear it wishes to close the scheme to new members despite it being significantly in surplus and the company making a small contribution.
Ian McNiell, chair of the NATS trade union side pension committee, said :"A three-yearly valuation has just been carried out and we expect it will again show a significant surplus in the scheme. This website is an important part of the campaign to stop this attack on our members' terms and conditions."
Visit www.onenatsonepension.com for the campaign website.
[copied as accurately as possible from the original]
I wish I was French......never again will they be called Cheese eating surrender monkeys......at least not by me.......I have seen,heard and read the ultimate in betrayal.
Members campaigning against plans to close the existing National Air Traffic Services pension scheme to new members have launched a website.
The joint initiative by PCS and Prospect members is the latest stage in the campaign against the proposal, which could lead to a ballot for industrial action.
At the time of the NATS public-private partnership privatisation in 2001 the unions won assurances about the future commercialisation of the company and the protection of important conditions of service, including pensions.
Management appears determined to renege on these and is making clear it wishes to close the scheme to new members despite it being significantly in surplus and the company making a small contribution.
Ian McNiell, chair of the NATS trade union side pension committee, said :"A three-yearly valuation has just been carried out and we expect it will again show a significant surplus in the scheme. This website is an important part of the campaign to stop this attack on our members' terms and conditions."
Visit www.onenatsonepension.com for the campaign website.
[copied as accurately as possible from the original]
I wish I was French......never again will they be called Cheese eating surrender monkeys......at least not by me.......I have seen,heard and read the ultimate in betrayal.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think comparing the pension situation with the conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq is, to put it mildly, extremely foolish. What on earth does that have to do with voting NO??
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One NATS One Pension Campaign
Management have indicated to the Trade Unions in NATS that they wish to close the existing pension scheme to new members and to establish a new scheme for all new staff. PCS and Prospect are as one in their opposition to this proposal and have informed management that they will resist any attempt to do this.
The current scheme is well funded, well run and in surplus. Were the existing scheme to be in any difficulty at all then the Unions would be seeking to address these problems with management but this is not the case.
Management have said that the existing scheme would be safe and yet in December last year they made a unilateral change to the existing scheme in respect of both the 40-year rule and the non-ATCO flex that demonstrated that this is not the case.
How times and loyalties have changed
Management have indicated to the Trade Unions in NATS that they wish to close the existing pension scheme to new members and to establish a new scheme for all new staff. PCS and Prospect are as one in their opposition to this proposal and have informed management that they will resist any attempt to do this.
The current scheme is well funded, well run and in surplus. Were the existing scheme to be in any difficulty at all then the Unions would be seeking to address these problems with management but this is not the case.
Management have said that the existing scheme would be safe and yet in December last year they made a unilateral change to the existing scheme in respect of both the 40-year rule and the non-ATCO flex that demonstrated that this is not the case.
How times and loyalties have changed