NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr 777 I didn't say that NATS didn't want to reduce pension costs, I've can only speculate about what they may want or desire. I said it would be wrong to portray the 40 year rule and flex termination as evidence of what they want.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr 777 - I am amazed, you must be really tired, exhausted even, having been to EVERY SINGLE BRIEFING to make such a statement on how each and everyone has been presented differently.
Problem for you is you can't argue that one can you????Secondly, in one breath you're saying "I'm not telling everyone to join the Union" then "if you vote NO you should join the Union and do a better job yourself"...which is effectively telling EVERYBODY who votes NO to join the Union...see, I can be pedantic too. So which is it then??
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold at Satan
Until very recently the contribution rate was always greater than the actual rate. That was because Actuaries always used pessimistic assumptions and real life was never worse case. As a result time after time the fund was in surplus. The current problem arises because after years and years of that being the case real life has changed and suddenly those assumptions aren't pessimistic they are optimistic. The Actuaries don't have rose tinted specs they tend to have a gloomy outlook so they've gone out and got new pessimistic assumptions. Unfortunately those new assumptions greatly increase the cost of any defined benefit scheme and that's why generally the UK can't afford defined benefit schemes any more.
Until very recently the contribution rate was always greater than the actual rate. That was because Actuaries always used pessimistic assumptions and real life was never worse case. As a result time after time the fund was in surplus. The current problem arises because after years and years of that being the case real life has changed and suddenly those assumptions aren't pessimistic they are optimistic. The Actuaries don't have rose tinted specs they tend to have a gloomy outlook so they've gone out and got new pessimistic assumptions. Unfortunately those new assumptions greatly increase the cost of any defined benefit scheme and that's why generally the UK can't afford defined benefit schemes any more.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr 777, i'm not saying you should become a union rep if you vote no i'm asking if you will?? Also, i assume then that you have been to more than 1 briefing to state what you have as fact, if so fair enough...
Anotherthing - i was kinda answering two posts in one that's why i hadn't put your name to it in reply, so yes you're right the last bit wasn't for you and wasn't your words.
Anotherthing - i was kinda answering two posts in one that's why i hadn't put your name to it in reply, so yes you're right the last bit wasn't for you and wasn't your words.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tongue in cheek, but because the actuaries have stopped taking happy pills (which incidentally allowed NATS to rape the fund) and are now on Prozac - NATS wants to change the scheme.
I can see it now -
Actuaries - "we are pessimists, you need to contribute this amount... oh we were wrong."
NATS - "That's alright, we'll pillage the fund."
7 years later
Actuaries - "now we're optimistic... bugger"
NATS - "That's alright, we'll shaft our employees."
?? years later
Actuaries - "guess what, we were wrong; the fund was manageable after all"
NATS - "never mind, we've gained during good and bad times, and we managed to get rid of the airports... thanks!!"
I'm not buying into that
Fit to Burst
No worries - becomes clear now
I can see it now -
Actuaries - "we are pessimists, you need to contribute this amount... oh we were wrong."
NATS - "That's alright, we'll pillage the fund."
7 years later
Actuaries - "now we're optimistic... bugger"
NATS - "That's alright, we'll shaft our employees."
?? years later
Actuaries - "guess what, we were wrong; the fund was manageable after all"
NATS - "never mind, we've gained during good and bad times, and we managed to get rid of the airports... thanks!!"
I'm not buying into that
Fit to Burst
No worries - becomes clear now
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fit To Burst
2 reasons I won't be a Union rep. 2 guys on my watch have only very recently stepped up to the plate to do the job.
Secondly, as you may be able to tell, I don't really have the temperament for peaceful negotiation (not with the management anyway!)
The rest of your points I take on board in the spirit in which they were intended.
2 reasons I won't be a Union rep. 2 guys on my watch have only very recently stepped up to the plate to do the job.
Secondly, as you may be able to tell, I don't really have the temperament for peaceful negotiation (not with the management anyway!)
The rest of your points I take on board in the spirit in which they were intended.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Surrey
Age: 46
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ben Doonigan
There are (or at least were last time I saw it!) two motions on the table:-
1) the members support the BEC to continue negotiations with the management over the issue of pensions, and
2) the members DO NOT support the BEC to continue negotiations with the management over the issues of pensions.
Can't remember the exact wording but that was the basic gist of it and as far as I can interpret it, it effectively amounts to a vote of no-confidence.
Personally I would defintely vote for 1 because, if it does come back as a NO vote, I can't think of anyone better placed to go back to the table to continue negotiations on our behalf. I fully support the union and do think that, based on the information given by management, they have negotiated the best deal available. The key phrase there though is "based on the information given by the management" and that being said, i'm still voting NO because I don't believe management have been totally honest in their dealings with the union and have been bordering on negligent in their handling of it by paying less than required, regardless of trustees advice!!
And all the yes voters who are asking for alternatives...here's one...rather than a pensionable earnings cap, what about a 15 year paydeal of RPI+0.5%??? Would you vote for this?!? It has the exact same effect as the pensionable earnings cap in terms of letting actuaries more accurately calculate underlying rates, and apparently the union have repeatedly asked the management for this instead (because obviously it would make the deal much more appealing to the membership as then everything gained in any payrise will be pensionable!!) The management, however, know that this would ultimately not be as cost-efficient for them and therefore may impact on the profits and, ultimately, the financial-health-of-the-company-related bonuses that they are due to receive upon completion of this deal!! This deal (instead of the cap) would certainly make it look more appealing to me, but that being said, i'd still vote NO because I honestly don't believe that the cap is the most important issue here...it's closing the scheme to new entrants which really worries me, and we all seem to have been sidetracked by something which everyone agrees isn't going to have a major impact on us!!
I would say their refusal of this offer is yet another indication of how the management have got nothing like our best interests at heart, because if that was the case, they'd snap up this 15 year pay offer, reduce the underlying cost and leave our entire salary pensionable and not the (potentially) less than final salary scheme on offer.
As for becoming a union rep...I am giving it serious consideration!! Not because I think I could a better job mind, but because I want to take a more active interest in what's going on that affects my colleagues and I!! That and I personally just like a good argument!!!
FB
There are (or at least were last time I saw it!) two motions on the table:-
1) the members support the BEC to continue negotiations with the management over the issue of pensions, and
2) the members DO NOT support the BEC to continue negotiations with the management over the issues of pensions.
Can't remember the exact wording but that was the basic gist of it and as far as I can interpret it, it effectively amounts to a vote of no-confidence.
Personally I would defintely vote for 1 because, if it does come back as a NO vote, I can't think of anyone better placed to go back to the table to continue negotiations on our behalf. I fully support the union and do think that, based on the information given by management, they have negotiated the best deal available. The key phrase there though is "based on the information given by the management" and that being said, i'm still voting NO because I don't believe management have been totally honest in their dealings with the union and have been bordering on negligent in their handling of it by paying less than required, regardless of trustees advice!!
And all the yes voters who are asking for alternatives...here's one...rather than a pensionable earnings cap, what about a 15 year paydeal of RPI+0.5%??? Would you vote for this?!? It has the exact same effect as the pensionable earnings cap in terms of letting actuaries more accurately calculate underlying rates, and apparently the union have repeatedly asked the management for this instead (because obviously it would make the deal much more appealing to the membership as then everything gained in any payrise will be pensionable!!) The management, however, know that this would ultimately not be as cost-efficient for them and therefore may impact on the profits and, ultimately, the financial-health-of-the-company-related bonuses that they are due to receive upon completion of this deal!! This deal (instead of the cap) would certainly make it look more appealing to me, but that being said, i'd still vote NO because I honestly don't believe that the cap is the most important issue here...it's closing the scheme to new entrants which really worries me, and we all seem to have been sidetracked by something which everyone agrees isn't going to have a major impact on us!!
I would say their refusal of this offer is yet another indication of how the management have got nothing like our best interests at heart, because if that was the case, they'd snap up this 15 year pay offer, reduce the underlying cost and leave our entire salary pensionable and not the (potentially) less than final salary scheme on offer.
As for becoming a union rep...I am giving it serious consideration!! Not because I think I could a better job mind, but because I want to take a more active interest in what's going on that affects my colleagues and I!! That and I personally just like a good argument!!!
FB
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eglnyt
2003 valuation stated underlying rate: 26.8%
2006: 37.3%
NATS have never paid anyting near those amounts; only enough to maintain CURRENT requirements, indeed, stock markets gains above expectations caused the surplus.
Yes the Actuaries' assumptions have caused some of the increase, but much of it would have been offset if NATS didn't go chasing 100% funding (i.e meet current pension outgoings) but actually put something infor the future pensioners' outgoings.
NATS is using the best parts of a flawed accounting method to paint a rosy picture of their own contributions to date (paid sufficiently to meet current costs); and used the worst part to show the dire position of the fund (can't meet future costs)
Until very recently the contribution rate was always greater than the actual rate
2006: 37.3%
NATS have never paid anyting near those amounts; only enough to maintain CURRENT requirements, indeed, stock markets gains above expectations caused the surplus.
Yes the Actuaries' assumptions have caused some of the increase, but much of it would have been offset if NATS didn't go chasing 100% funding (i.e meet current pension outgoings) but actually put something infor the future pensioners' outgoings.
NATS is using the best parts of a flawed accounting method to paint a rosy picture of their own contributions to date (paid sufficiently to meet current costs); and used the worst part to show the dire position of the fund (can't meet future costs)
Last edited by hold at SATAN; 21st Nov 2008 at 16:26.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cellblock K
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reasons not to vote 'yes'.
1 - Trust. This could refer to the Trust of a Promise, Deed of Trust or "do you trust management".
I cannot believe that the proposal is an unavoidable and 'best we can do' solution to solve the pension 'problem'. The first FACT that makes me DIStrust what I am told was NATS Business Services boasting on NATS website, selling its expertise (to other ANSPs) in "transferring public sector pensions into the private sector" and of "managing union expectations throughout the change". (not surprisingly this little gem was very quickly removed by NATS management - but I think it merely proves the management thinking and deception that is going on behind the scenes)
I find it hard to believe that no-one has seen fit to raise this issue, and that the unions have been completely silent on this - perhaps they are too embarassed at the "you've been had" implications of it ?
2 - "Vote Yes" advocates (and there are some eloquent arguments hidden in amongst the drivel) argue that "this is the best we can get' and "we are getting a better deal than nurses/teachers etc.."
I'm sorry, but that is no argument. ie. "You're getting stuffed but stuffed less than others." There is a worldwide shortage of ATCOs, and forecast to get worse when 10,000 (out of 14,000) USA ATCOs become elligible to retire over the next 5 years - yes, you heard that right - ten thousand. When pay rates at Dubai are up to £8000 a month (tax free), do you not think that NATS management will have thought about the upward forces on ATCO pay rates after the recession ? The union playing your pay expectations down is pretty shameful IMHO. Anyway, it comes back to that 'trust' word and 'promise'. My pension is deferred pay. I bought in to that pension on the basis of my projected final salary. I made financial plans based on my contract and that promise. I will not allow my employer to squirm out of that responsibility that easily.
3 - When Railtrack announce today that they are putting up fares by 6% to cover 'massive investment', (and I believe Railtrack employees pensions ARE protected) it seems equally perverse that NATS cannot raise fees, are pegged by RPI-X during a period of massive investment, and that all the cutting cost measures are directed at our T+Cs.
4 - Leadership? Forget the thousands of pounds wasted (I like the oft-used phrase "spunked away") on pointless CTC/management initiatives and away-days. What about the responsible leadership of NOT deliberately running the pension down to the bare legal minimum ? We have been totally failed by our 'leaders' who see the workforce (except themselves) as a cost and not an asset. Perhaps an apology (a la Royal Bank of Scotland) is beneath them?
5 - The Government. They caused the problem with a totally inappropriately funded PPP package (evidenced when investigated by HoC). Govt are a 49% shareholder, they MUST accept responsibility or be brought to account. Labour Party (ha ha ha) rhetoric at the time of PPP was that no employee or pensioner would financially suffer, and if evidence was forthcoming - they (the Govt) would act. Well, it's time to live up to that rhetoric.
Has no-one in management or Union asked them to act or get involved? Or are our Labour Party Union lackeys looking for some sneaky backhander for giving the Govt an easy ride and doing their dirty work? I think in this case being a Labour Party member is at odds with representing union members - a complete conflict of interest - you cannot serve 2 masters.
If the only way to get the Govt to sit up and notice is threaten industrial action - then, so be it.
I cannot believe that the proposal is an unavoidable and 'best we can do' solution to solve the pension 'problem'. The first FACT that makes me DIStrust what I am told was NATS Business Services boasting on NATS website, selling its expertise (to other ANSPs) in "transferring public sector pensions into the private sector" and of "managing union expectations throughout the change". (not surprisingly this little gem was very quickly removed by NATS management - but I think it merely proves the management thinking and deception that is going on behind the scenes)
I find it hard to believe that no-one has seen fit to raise this issue, and that the unions have been completely silent on this - perhaps they are too embarassed at the "you've been had" implications of it ?
2 - "Vote Yes" advocates (and there are some eloquent arguments hidden in amongst the drivel) argue that "this is the best we can get' and "we are getting a better deal than nurses/teachers etc.."
I'm sorry, but that is no argument. ie. "You're getting stuffed but stuffed less than others." There is a worldwide shortage of ATCOs, and forecast to get worse when 10,000 (out of 14,000) USA ATCOs become elligible to retire over the next 5 years - yes, you heard that right - ten thousand. When pay rates at Dubai are up to £8000 a month (tax free), do you not think that NATS management will have thought about the upward forces on ATCO pay rates after the recession ? The union playing your pay expectations down is pretty shameful IMHO. Anyway, it comes back to that 'trust' word and 'promise'. My pension is deferred pay. I bought in to that pension on the basis of my projected final salary. I made financial plans based on my contract and that promise. I will not allow my employer to squirm out of that responsibility that easily.
3 - When Railtrack announce today that they are putting up fares by 6% to cover 'massive investment', (and I believe Railtrack employees pensions ARE protected) it seems equally perverse that NATS cannot raise fees, are pegged by RPI-X during a period of massive investment, and that all the cutting cost measures are directed at our T+Cs.
4 - Leadership? Forget the thousands of pounds wasted (I like the oft-used phrase "spunked away") on pointless CTC/management initiatives and away-days. What about the responsible leadership of NOT deliberately running the pension down to the bare legal minimum ? We have been totally failed by our 'leaders' who see the workforce (except themselves) as a cost and not an asset. Perhaps an apology (a la Royal Bank of Scotland) is beneath them?
5 - The Government. They caused the problem with a totally inappropriately funded PPP package (evidenced when investigated by HoC). Govt are a 49% shareholder, they MUST accept responsibility or be brought to account. Labour Party (ha ha ha) rhetoric at the time of PPP was that no employee or pensioner would financially suffer, and if evidence was forthcoming - they (the Govt) would act. Well, it's time to live up to that rhetoric.
Has no-one in management or Union asked them to act or get involved? Or are our Labour Party Union lackeys looking for some sneaky backhander for giving the Govt an easy ride and doing their dirty work? I think in this case being a Labour Party member is at odds with representing union members - a complete conflict of interest - you cannot serve 2 masters.
If the only way to get the Govt to sit up and notice is threaten industrial action - then, so be it.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: swanwick carp lake
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can post all the dissenting views you like, i just find it a little sad that you are willing to union bash your own colleagues, on a public forum, who fight for your best interests but aren't prepared to be a rep yourself. I guess i just think that someone who feels so strongly about how bad the union are and the 'tub of sh1t' they've negotiated might have the balls to stand up, become and rep and deliver something better
i don't want to do any of their jobs thanks.
Does that mean I have to take the view that their **** doesn't stink and that everything they say and do is marvellous?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyBhoy
if this is true, then it adds even more to the 'NO' argument; butit should come as no surprise that NATS would want to be obstructive!
I think what NATS want to do is screw the pension, then try to give us poor pay deals on top - otherwise as you say, a 15 year pay deal of RPI+0.5% (or in these days of credit crunch best say a pay deal of either 0.5% or RPI+0.5%, whichever is greater), with it all being pensionable, is quite attractive.
And all the yes voters who are asking for alternatives...here's one...rather than a pensionable earnings cap, what about a 15 year paydeal of RPI+0.5%??? Would you vote for this?!? It has the exact same effect as the pensionable earnings cap in terms of letting actuaries more accurately calculate underlying rates, and apparently the union have repeatedly asked the management for this instead
I think what NATS want to do is screw the pension, then try to give us poor pay deals on top - otherwise as you say, a 15 year pay deal of RPI+0.5% (or in these days of credit crunch best say a pay deal of either 0.5% or RPI+0.5%, whichever is greater), with it all being pensionable, is quite attractive.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Jim Fitzpatrick came to visit the new Heathrow Tower, he didn't once make any effort to speak to ATCOs or ATSAs. He came across like an arrogant little tw*t, up his own narcissitic ar$e.(dear moderators I am being fair and objective in my observation, unfortunately 
)
Ministers are usually not fussed about where they are now, but where they want to be next. One special exception was Ms. Dunwoody, God rest her soul
)Ministers are usually not fussed about where they are now, but where they want to be next. One special exception was Ms. Dunwoody, God rest her soul
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
The reason NATS won't go for that is that they'll be bound for 15 years and will have no pay deal "incentive" to offer staff for making more cutbacks
Yet, they are quite happy to tie us into a 0.5% cap "deal"
for 15 years
In any case given the global demand for our skill, we'd be underselling ourselves. If others (I'm thinking UAE, et al) can throw money to attract and retain staff, it can only but improve our bargaining positions.
The reason NATS won't go for that is that they'll be bound for 15 years and will have no pay deal "incentive"
to offer staff for making more cutbacksYet, they are quite happy to tie us into a 0.5% cap "deal"
for 15 yearsIn any case given the global demand for our skill, we'd be underselling ourselves. If others (I'm thinking UAE, et al) can throw money to attract and retain staff, it can only but improve our bargaining positions.
Last edited by hold at SATAN; 21st Nov 2008 at 16:31.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fly bhoy: So let's get this straight you would take a 15 year pay cap at RPI +0.5% and you would be happy with that because all of it would be pensionable. You won't however accept a 15 year pensionable pay cap that allows you salary to rise by more but your pensionable bit to remain capped at RPI + 0.5%. Are you sure about that?? or is it that you just want a guaranteed pay rise for the next 15 years??
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Jim Fitzpatrick came to visit the new Heathrow Tower, he didn't once make any effort to speak to ATCOs or ATSAs. He came across like an arrogant little tw*t, up his own narcissitic ar$e.(dear moderators I am being fair and objective in my observation, unfortunately )
As replies have shown from those who have written to their MPs (those who have received replies anyway...still waiting for mine), the Govt and Geoff Buff-hoon want nothing to do with this particular hot potato...not, that is, until we take industrial action when their indifference will come back to bite them on the arse in a rather large and public way. I do not understand how a 51% shareholder in a major company has no interest in whether their workforce strike or not, which this could come down to. The Union were asked at our briefing whether they had approached the Govt. They had but the Govt were, apparently, not interested...."not a matter for them" allegedly.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB,
I'm not sure that's quite correct.....NATS pay what the Trustees tell them to pay. I don't believe the Trustees have ever advised anything different to what has actually occurred. When NATS took the 'holiday', that was agreed between NATS, Trustees and Unions.
I don't believe management have been totally honest in their dealings with the union and have been bordering on negligent in their handling of it by paying less than required, regardless of trustees advice!!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let's get this straight you would take a 15 year pay cap at RPI +0.5% and you would be happy with that because all of it would be pensionable. You won't however accept a 15 year pensionable pay cap that allows you salary to rise by more but your pensionable bit to remain capped at RPI + 0.5%. Are you sure about that?? or is it that you just want a guaranteed pay rise for the next 15 years??