NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the majority of whose views looking through this thread seem pretty clear
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's been a good response to this thread, the sample size to membership ratio whilst not great is probably enough to give a valid prediction of the population as a whole.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All you can gauge from this thread is the views of the small number of people that post on it
I would suggest that you don't get around the units much...Vote No is gathering HUGE momentum with every day that passes. 5 weeks ago I'd have said the vote would be close...I'm not sure now.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFFLECK,
Your local Union committee would have held a meeting to discuss how the delegates should be advised to vote, and at that meeting the watch reps would have put across the views of each watch.
At least that's what happens at LL.
Your local Union committee would have held a meeting to discuss how the delegates should be advised to vote, and at that meeting the watch reps would have put across the views of each watch.
At least that's what happens at LL.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GONZO
No such meeting at Scottish, but our union reps are very approachable and definitely pass on our views, I believe it was the Scottish reps who petitioned for the SDC so our views could be heard. It's a shame they couldn't get the support they needed, but I'd like to thank them for trying.
No such meeting at Scottish, but our union reps are very approachable and definitely pass on our views, I believe it was the Scottish reps who petitioned for the SDC so our views could be heard. It's a shame they couldn't get the support they needed, but I'd like to thank them for trying.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dahn Saa'af
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a Prospect Branch Briefing dated July 2006. (It helps to have a tidy up once in a while!)..,,
The spectre of a potential sell off only brings into sharper focus the issue of pensions and the need for strong and effective trade union representation within NATS. I am aware that many of you will have been along to management briefings on this issue and it is important that you understand and support the position being taken
by the unions. Prospect held a pensions seminar on the 23 June led by
our pensions expert at Head Office, Fiona Draper, to ensure that key Prospect and PCS representatives were aware of the facts and understood our position.
The reality is that NATS pays a relatively low level of employers' contributions to the pension scheme, (12.2%), in contrast to organisations in other areas of the economy which have defined benefits pension schemes (including the civil service). The fact that the contribution rates by the employer have remained at relatively modest and affordable levels is a tribute to the careful stewardship of the pension scheme by the Trustees on your behalf.
The arguments put forward by the Unions are simple but not simplistic.
We believe that the pension scheme is:
♦viewed by members as a key term and condition of employment which assists NATS in the recruitment and retention of highly skilled and motivated
should not be seen by the employer as simply a burden.
♦the interests of existing and future beneficiaries of the scheme are best served and protected by the scheme remaining open to all.
♦some of the comparisons made to the position of pension schemes
elsewhere are not valid due to the careful and effective stewardship of the NATS scheme.
♦any discussions with regard to pensions should be evidence led and based on empirical fact.
♦pensions are a long-term investment and should be viewed as such.
It is important that members are aware of the fact that the unions are not 'burying our heads in the sand' with regard to this issue and that we are seeking to effectively promote what we believe is in the best long term interests of members in NATS. Pensions are a long term investment and viewed by members as effectively 'deferred wages'. The unions have not been seeking to avoid a dialogue with management on the issue of pensions, but our starting point is that we wish to ensure that the current scheme remains open to all and has a long-term sustainable future.
On the most recent professional advice we have had we believe that the current scheme is well funded and sustainable for the future.
The pension scheme is due for its triennial review at the end of this year. Given that the scheme was in surplus almost two and a half years ago and given improvements in terms of equities we would expect that the outcome will show the scheme to be in surplus again. Against that backdrop we believe it is precipitate and premature for the employer to seek to take forward any work with regard to the future of the scheme until the triennial valuation has taken place and the Trustees allowed to consider the outcome.
Pensions are a key issue which affect all Trade Union scheme members across NATS. We have made robust representations to the employer and have also raised the issue with the Secretary of State for Transport. We will also be raising the issue with the Regulator and Airline Stakeholders to ensure that they understand how seriously the unions consider this issue and the potential impact if a dispute arose.
Conclusion
Given the challenges we face on issues such as pensions and ownership - there never has been a more important time to be a union member. The more members we have and the more we work together, the more effective we can be on your behalf. I hope to be doing a tour of airports and centres over the coming months and look forward to the opportunity to meeting with you. If in the interim you should have any issues of concern - please raise them with your local representative.
Garry Graham National Secretary
..A lot of bones to pick out of that, 2 years on, my, how things have changed. Just makes me deeply suspicious.
The spectre of a potential sell off only brings into sharper focus the issue of pensions and the need for strong and effective trade union representation within NATS. I am aware that many of you will have been along to management briefings on this issue and it is important that you understand and support the position being taken
by the unions. Prospect held a pensions seminar on the 23 June led by
our pensions expert at Head Office, Fiona Draper, to ensure that key Prospect and PCS representatives were aware of the facts and understood our position.
The reality is that NATS pays a relatively low level of employers' contributions to the pension scheme, (12.2%), in contrast to organisations in other areas of the economy which have defined benefits pension schemes (including the civil service). The fact that the contribution rates by the employer have remained at relatively modest and affordable levels is a tribute to the careful stewardship of the pension scheme by the Trustees on your behalf.
The arguments put forward by the Unions are simple but not simplistic.
We believe that the pension scheme is:
♦viewed by members as a key term and condition of employment which assists NATS in the recruitment and retention of highly skilled and motivated
should not be seen by the employer as simply a burden.
♦the interests of existing and future beneficiaries of the scheme are best served and protected by the scheme remaining open to all.
♦some of the comparisons made to the position of pension schemes
elsewhere are not valid due to the careful and effective stewardship of the NATS scheme.
♦any discussions with regard to pensions should be evidence led and based on empirical fact.
♦pensions are a long-term investment and should be viewed as such.
It is important that members are aware of the fact that the unions are not 'burying our heads in the sand' with regard to this issue and that we are seeking to effectively promote what we believe is in the best long term interests of members in NATS. Pensions are a long term investment and viewed by members as effectively 'deferred wages'. The unions have not been seeking to avoid a dialogue with management on the issue of pensions, but our starting point is that we wish to ensure that the current scheme remains open to all and has a long-term sustainable future.
On the most recent professional advice we have had we believe that the current scheme is well funded and sustainable for the future.
The pension scheme is due for its triennial review at the end of this year. Given that the scheme was in surplus almost two and a half years ago and given improvements in terms of equities we would expect that the outcome will show the scheme to be in surplus again. Against that backdrop we believe it is precipitate and premature for the employer to seek to take forward any work with regard to the future of the scheme until the triennial valuation has taken place and the Trustees allowed to consider the outcome.
Pensions are a key issue which affect all Trade Union scheme members across NATS. We have made robust representations to the employer and have also raised the issue with the Secretary of State for Transport. We will also be raising the issue with the Regulator and Airline Stakeholders to ensure that they understand how seriously the unions consider this issue and the potential impact if a dispute arose.
Conclusion
Given the challenges we face on issues such as pensions and ownership - there never has been a more important time to be a union member. The more members we have and the more we work together, the more effective we can be on your behalf. I hope to be doing a tour of airports and centres over the coming months and look forward to the opportunity to meeting with you. If in the interim you should have any issues of concern - please raise them with your local representative.
Garry Graham National Secretary
..A lot of bones to pick out of that, 2 years on, my, how things have changed. Just makes me deeply suspicious.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GONZO
I'll look into it. I know they have union meetings between the reps, but not had a local member to rep meeting that I can remember. Info tends to be exchanged on an informal basis with your rep rather than through meetings, but seems to work well up here.
I'll look into it. I know they have union meetings between the reps, but not had a local member to rep meeting that I can remember. Info tends to be exchanged on an informal basis with your rep rather than through meetings, but seems to work well up here.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must have missed something at work then. I've only heard 2 people definitely voting no, and 1 of those freely admits he votes no on principle to everything, and doesn't seem to care, as 'it's only 1 vote so it doesn't matter".
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airways B
Good stuff.....how soon we forget....or more accurately.....how conveniently the union chooses to forget. We are witness to the death of a union and its transformation into a management lapdog staff association. All the evidence is there, from the joint glossy brochure attack, emails, and joint union/management presentations through to the on-duty pprune thread monitors.
Two opposing sides, and what happens:- "Deloitte were engaged jointly by both management and the unions....." ...that says it all!!
Right now my union membership hangs by a thread......someone convince me that the subscription is money well spent.
Two opposing sides, and what happens:- "Deloitte were engaged jointly by both management and the unions....." ...that says it all!!
Right now my union membership hangs by a thread......someone convince me that the subscription is money well spent.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ONLY reason I'm still in the union is just in case something nasty happens.This is because we are required to work in Class G airspace,providing service to airliners taking shortcuts,when perfectly good CAS exists.I have seen too many close calls with the military.
As far as what the union has done.Well it has helped erode terms and conditions at the lower Band units,until half the tasks we do,we don't get paid for.This pension issue is just another beauty,and after 15 years of it they expect me to smile and say thank you so much for sh
fting me again.I don't think so.
As far as what the union has done.Well it has helped erode terms and conditions at the lower Band units,until half the tasks we do,we don't get paid for.This pension issue is just another beauty,and after 15 years of it they expect me to smile and say thank you so much for sh
fting me again.I don't think so.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of Yes voters at CTC, or so I hear when sitting around Starbucks all day drinking lattes 
It would be interesting to see ballot stats per site rather than per branch.
RS
p.s Vote YES
It would be interesting to see ballot stats per site rather than per branch.RS
p.s Vote YES
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Union genuinely seem to think what they are doing is for the best, so I can't fault them too much for that (I'm sure many will disagree). However, from the briefing I attended, they indicated that they may not support us on taking further action in the case of a no vote.
If the vote form the membership is for a no vote, that stance is unacceptable from a Union who we pay for and should be there to support us.
If the vote form the membership is for a no vote, that stance is unacceptable from a Union who we pay for and should be there to support us.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume a varied mix. There is a large number of non-ops engineers at CTC following the closures of Spectrum House, West Drayton and Kemble street - a significant portion of the ATSS branch of Prospect. Very few ATCOs. The majority of non-Prospect union membership (MSGs, etc) I assume are in PCS.
RS
RS
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest, what is the legal position of industrial action if not the union's way forward? Take a (likely) example that the vote is close and ever so slightly more on the NO side. Does the union have to go back and try to re-negotiate as was more than 50% against, or can they still state that union stance is to accept the deal, effectively meaning any industrial action is not lead by the recognised union bodies - is this action legal?
I'm only asking as quite a few on this thread see that as the way to go, but what if the ballot is so close the unions do not support that action?
RS
I'm only asking as quite a few on this thread see that as the way to go, but what if the ballot is so close the unions do not support that action?
RS
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Makes no difference at all what the CTC ers are voting....although it comes as no surprise to me that they would vote yes and sell us down the river. If rumours are to be believed, Scottish and Manch will vote NO en masse, the airports I assume would vote NO to protect themselves from being sold and Swanwick is probably veering towards NO if anything. Happy days