NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing
Alfie1999
I'm ex forces, now a NATS ATCO. I have to concur with BDiONU.
As an Officer, I had numerous (unpaid and un-volunteered for) secondary duties, was moved from pillar to post (NATS staff don't really know what a mobile grade can mean!); was responsible (without extra pay) for the career advancement and pastoral care of junior officers/rankers below me; was eligible for postings to less salubrious area where I could get shot at.
And the pay, as an Officer (can't remember what my salary was when I left in 2001), was nowhere near as good as I get now as an ATCO (taking into consideration subsequent pay rises after I left) and I'm not anywhere near the top of scale yet)
The two are just not even remotely comparable when you take everything into consideration!
Trying to compare salaries is a non starter whatever jobs you compare, unless you are talking a direct like for like i.e. shelf stacking at Sainsburys compared to shelf stacking at Tescos etc
Alfie1999
I'm ex forces, now a NATS ATCO. I have to concur with BDiONU.
As an Officer, I had numerous (unpaid and un-volunteered for) secondary duties, was moved from pillar to post (NATS staff don't really know what a mobile grade can mean!); was responsible (without extra pay) for the career advancement and pastoral care of junior officers/rankers below me; was eligible for postings to less salubrious area where I could get shot at.
And the pay, as an Officer (can't remember what my salary was when I left in 2001), was nowhere near as good as I get now as an ATCO (taking into consideration subsequent pay rises after I left) and I'm not anywhere near the top of scale yet)
The two are just not even remotely comparable when you take everything into consideration!
Trying to compare salaries is a non starter whatever jobs you compare, unless you are talking a direct like for like i.e. shelf stacking at Sainsburys compared to shelf stacking at Tescos etc
anotherthing,
BDIONU made a claim about the how well (or otherwise) the armed forces are paid and I replied with comparisons to the average national wage.
BDIONU then chose to answer points that hadn't been made using spurious comparisons he created himself but avoided answering the one inconvenient question I did ask.
I'm sure we're all familiar with these debating methods on this thread by now.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDIONU made a claim about the how well (or otherwise) the armed forces are paid and I replied with comparisons to the average national wage.
BDIONU then chose to answer points that hadn't been made using spurious comparisons he created himself but avoided answering the one inconvenient question I did ask.
BDIONU then chose to answer points that hadn't been made using spurious comparisons he created himself but avoided answering the one inconvenient question I did ask.
BD
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eglnyt, it would likely be based on when a scheme member reaches maximum accrual for the benefits. If we both retired in 2 years on same pay, and ive worked for 41 years and you have for 39, I could take home more than you. This is wrong. And, the benefit is no longer definable. The fixed rise suggestion is better because the benefit IS still defined relative to salary.
I'm beginning to think that the proposal's implications have not been fully thought through. Would it help if I said I can see a scenario whereby an ATCO who started in 1996 could potentially bypass (legitimately!) the effect that this cap may have on everyone else? I'll let you or someone else work that one out!
I agree with some of the principles behind the proposals, but I think there are too many flaws with it as it stands.
I'm beginning to think that the proposal's implications have not been fully thought through. Would it help if I said I can see a scenario whereby an ATCO who started in 1996 could potentially bypass (legitimately!) the effect that this cap may have on everyone else? I'll let you or someone else work that one out!
I agree with some of the principles behind the proposals, but I think there are too many flaws with it as it stands.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiONU
I gave you a very specific example of myself and how generous the pay I received when I first started working for NATS in a pseudo controller role as opposed to being a military controller. What more do you need, copies of my pay statements (I do have them available)?
I gave you a very specific example of myself and how generous the pay I received when I first started working for NATS in a pseudo controller role as opposed to being a military controller. What more do you need, copies of my pay statements (I do have them available)?
You chose to then make comparisons with NATS employees and start rebutting points I hadn't actually made.
It's a common debating technique that you see at most pmq's usually employed by one of the nu-liebour stooges.
Not that i'm accusing you of being a NL voter!!!!!!
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You chose to then make comparisons with NATS employees and start rebutting points I hadn't actually made.
Not that i'm accusing you of being a NL voter!!!!!!
BD
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scheme members who have less than 10 years to go can vote yes in the knowledge that the cap and its attendant compounding affect probably won't take too much out of their final benefits.
However, for those in their mid-40s or younger the issue is far more complicated as they are the ones who will bear the brunt of these proposals and be faced with a possible 1/2 final salary scheme (or worse).
However, for those in their mid-40s or younger the issue is far more complicated as they are the ones who will bear the brunt of these proposals and be faced with a possible 1/2 final salary scheme (or worse).
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must have been a quiet day on the sectors today with 3 pages of slagging i one day....what all you guys going to do on your breaks once all this is sorted???
That sad its still a geat big NO from me
That sad its still a geat big NO from me
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo
Negative Captain! Surplus is current commitments vs pension contributions. The future pension benfiits are what the underlying rate is about. And if NATS had paid the underlying rate then a surplus would always exist as future pension outgoings, higher than currently, will need to be met, assuming the number of pensioners increases (i.e longevity) and/or pay is above inflation.
In december 2003 there was a surplus of £296.2m realtive to the technical provisions
Technical provisions - actives (excluding any reserve for future expenses)
The sum of money that is left over after current and all future liabilities of the scheme are taken into account
In december 2003 there was a surplus of £296.2m realtive to the technical provisions
Technical provisions - actives (excluding any reserve for future expenses)
Last edited by hold at SATAN; 22nd Nov 2008 at 23:04.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagine if NATS had 1 current pensioner(A) who is drawing a pension and 1future pensioner (B) who retires in 10 years.
100% funding means that NATS have enough money going into the fund to meet the liabilities of paying out for the current pensioner A.
The underlying rate is how much you need to put in so that in 10 years time when the second pensioner B retires, there will be enough in the pot to pay for both A and B until they are assumed to kick their respective buckets
so, here's the issue....
scenario 1: if NATS only pays in enough to maintain 100% funding (i.e. paying for current pensioner A then in 10 years time when future pensioner B retires, NATS will need to put in a big wad of cash to enable future pensioner B to be paid out.
scenario 2: if NATS pay the underlying rate, the ongoing pot will pay the current pensioner and have a surplus for future pensioner which will continue to grow until 10 years elapse and future pensioner retires. At that time the surplus will slowly reduce, and will be sufficient to pay the two pensioners, until their assumed life expectancy.
In summary, NATS have paid in less than the rate (R) needed to maintain 100% funding as they saw that there was a surplus, which could be whittled down, to make up the difference to meet the rate (R) need for 100% funding
I think that clears that up, children...I wonder if this thread will reach a hundred pages?
100% funding means that NATS have enough money going into the fund to meet the liabilities of paying out for the current pensioner A.
The underlying rate is how much you need to put in so that in 10 years time when the second pensioner B retires, there will be enough in the pot to pay for both A and B until they are assumed to kick their respective buckets
so, here's the issue....
scenario 1: if NATS only pays in enough to maintain 100% funding (i.e. paying for current pensioner A then in 10 years time when future pensioner B retires, NATS will need to put in a big wad of cash to enable future pensioner B to be paid out.
scenario 2: if NATS pay the underlying rate, the ongoing pot will pay the current pensioner and have a surplus for future pensioner which will continue to grow until 10 years elapse and future pensioner retires. At that time the surplus will slowly reduce, and will be sufficient to pay the two pensioners, until their assumed life expectancy.
In summary, NATS have paid in less than the rate (R) needed to maintain 100% funding as they saw that there was a surplus, which could be whittled down, to make up the difference to meet the rate (R) need for 100% funding
I think that clears that up, children...I wonder if this thread will reach a hundred pages?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, the Pension Trustees can only force NATS to make up the shortfall in 100% funding - i.e if the fund is in deficit- and thats where the "recovery plan"* comes in. The deficit occurs when values of assets go down (as they have in recent financial turmoil) and when contributions are low (just like what NATS have been doing). The trustees will not demand 37% for underlying costs but enough for the fund to be able to contnue paying out for current pensioners (and not future pensioners)
*recovery plan: a document summarising a plan of action for correcting a shortfall over an agreed period - source: 2006 Triennial Valuation
*recovery plan: a document summarising a plan of action for correcting a shortfall over an agreed period - source: 2006 Triennial Valuation
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 5116N00044W
Age: 76
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
landedoutagain
Why is this, in particular, wrong? If you stopped contributing 2 years ago, your saved contributions have been earning for an extra two years (or losing in bad years?)
Isn't that the subtle difference between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? In fact, at the point of retirement, the benefit is definable - it's just not predictable.
If we both retired in 2 years on same pay, and ive worked for 41 years and you have for 39, I could take home more than you. This is wrong.
And, the benefit is no longer definable.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 5116N00044W
Age: 76
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hold at SATAN
The trustees will not demand 37% for underlying costs but enough for the fund to be able to continue paying out for current pensioners (and not future pensioners)
The trustees will not demand 37% for underlying costs but enough for the fund to be able to continue paying out for current pensioners (and not future pensioners)
The current liabilities for an ATCO about to retire will be about £1million, for a 20-year-old MSG7 with one month in the scheme about £500 but they will both need to be covered by the scheme's assets - if the scheme is closed to everyone now, it will have to be able to cover the rights that both have earned.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pelton, its wrong because it makes a mockery of the phrase ' defined benefit '. And, as you correctly point out, I would be even better off because I had stopped contributing. So a double whammy for you. Still think thats fair?!
"Isn't that the subtle difference between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? In fact, at the point of retirement, the benefit is definable - it's just not predictable."
On your date of retirement, you will find out how much you get under either scheme... A DB scheme you will KNOW what %age of pay you get beforehand - ie, its defined. Under a DC scheme you do not know. (I feel like i am saying the same thing again tho! sry!)
"Isn't that the subtle difference between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? In fact, at the point of retirement, the benefit is definable - it's just not predictable."
On your date of retirement, you will find out how much you get under either scheme... A DB scheme you will KNOW what %age of pay you get beforehand - ie, its defined. Under a DC scheme you do not know. (I feel like i am saying the same thing again tho! sry!)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume some one came up with a good argument to go for option 1, seems like a good opportunity to stop this madness wasted.
Looking on the bright side, at least we can get on with voting NO to get our message across.
Looking on the bright side, at least we can get on with voting NO to get our message across.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 5116N00044W
Age: 76
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
landedoutagain
Well you would have been contributing to the scheme at a time when every penny counted, rather than late in life when you probably have spare cash..
BUT I don't think pensions are ever fair - see my post about late promotions under the current scheme!
I don't know whether you've read the conditions of the current scheme for times of falling RPI. Someone retiring last year whose pension has been indexed up can have it indexed down (at least as far as its original level). Someone retiring this year whose pension is based on a final salary indexed up by RPI can't have their pension indexed down below the higher level awarded this year. Is this fair?
I can find lots of anomalies in the current scheme (but I am not an advocate of DC schemes, they just seem to be inevitable - the view of one of my daughter's friends who is a trainee actuary).
it's wrong because it makes a mockery of the phrase ' defined benefit '. And, as you correctly point out, I would be even better off because I had stopped contributing. So a double whammy for you. Still think thats fair?!
BUT I don't think pensions are ever fair - see my post about late promotions under the current scheme!
I don't know whether you've read the conditions of the current scheme for times of falling RPI. Someone retiring last year whose pension has been indexed up can have it indexed down (at least as far as its original level). Someone retiring this year whose pension is based on a final salary indexed up by RPI can't have their pension indexed down below the higher level awarded this year. Is this fair?
I can find lots of anomalies in the current scheme (but I am not an advocate of DC schemes, they just seem to be inevitable - the view of one of my daughter's friends who is a trainee actuary).
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the union reps attending the special delegates conference were supposed to be representing the common member (the majority of whose views looking through this thread seem pretty clear), how did option 1 get voted in?
I'd encourage people to ask their local reps whether they were voting for their personal views or those of the people they represent.
I'd encourage people to ask their local reps whether they were voting for their personal views or those of the people they represent.