NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alfie1999 ,
No one will listen
As in my previous post
If NATS goes under,here we go again HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension, otherwise we will go on strike! Remember NATS is crucial to the infrastrucure of UK security,safety,economy. NATS must continue to operate at full efficiency. The country would collapse with no aviation, no food, no tourism, no business!
I think any level headed individual would agree NATS can not "go under" if the private side fails, why do you think HMG has the major stake? Here we go againUK SAFETY, ECONOMY, SECURITY.
That is why HMG retain the major share
No one will listen
As in my previous post
If NATS goes under,here we go again
HMG who own 49% will take over the rest and the Pension, otherwise we will go on strike! Remember NATS is crucial to the infrastrucure of UK security,safety,economy. NATS must continue to operate at full efficiency. The country would collapse with no aviation, no food, no tourism, no business!I think any level headed individual would agree NATS can not "go under" if the private side fails, why do you think HMG has the major stake? Here we go again
UK SAFETY, ECONOMY, SECURITY.That is why HMG retain the major share
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you show us how your calculations that produced the requirement for employees to pay an extra 10%.
NATS say they can't afford it, where is the evidence? How much profit would have been made this year without repaying loan notes, fees for early repayment, exceptionals for moving from WD?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATSnet today is positively boasting about NATS has an AAA credit rating. So how does that tie in with us losing money hand over fist, and being days away from going bust??
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll 
Poll Results latest
NO ....82%....69
YES....18%....15
Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction !
Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php
Poll Results latest
NO ....82%....69
YES....18%....15
Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction !
Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php
Last edited by Vote NO; 27th Nov 2008 at 12:11.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I so hope your scientific poll is accurate. Incidentally, I know of at least one senior union rep (PCS) who is privately planning to vote no, despite being involved in the 'vote yes or our company will go under, there will be plagues of locusts and the moon will turn to blood' presentations.
I wonder how many other clost no voters there are among our union Quislings...
I wonder how many other clost no voters there are among our union Quislings...
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South of England
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I sparked up the fire of debate there, didn't I?
I will admit that my first ever paragraph on pprune was ill thought, and therefore apologise to anyone who took offence, but there are posts on here based on pure supposition (I'm sure some will accuse mine of being one of them).
However, at no point did I make any personal attack on anyone (I feel my post was very vague in that respect) yet in return have been directly accused of being gullible, ignorant and at one point of being a man with a woman's name to hide my true identity(???). I assure you I am neither gullible nor ignorant, but very guilty of being a pprune virgin.
This is the most significant issue I have ever experienced in NATS having joined post PPP, which is why I sought the opinion of an independent pension specialist. I agree wholeheartedly that the union has handled this woefully, but I would still rather keep my powder dry for ATCO job losses ie failure of NSL contracts leading to redundancies, which I think is more likely after a no vote.
Feel free to swarm around my post, but leave the sting out please
I will admit that my first ever paragraph on pprune was ill thought, and therefore apologise to anyone who took offence, but there are posts on here based on pure supposition (I'm sure some will accuse mine of being one of them).
However, at no point did I make any personal attack on anyone (I feel my post was very vague in that respect) yet in return have been directly accused of being gullible, ignorant and at one point of being a man with a woman's name to hide my true identity(???). I assure you I am neither gullible nor ignorant, but very guilty of being a pprune virgin.
This is the most significant issue I have ever experienced in NATS having joined post PPP, which is why I sought the opinion of an independent pension specialist. I agree wholeheartedly that the union has handled this woefully, but I would still rather keep my powder dry for ATCO job losses ie failure of NSL contracts leading to redundancies, which I think is more likely after a no vote.
Feel free to swarm around my post, but leave the sting out please
MP Reply
At long last, my Lib Dem MP has replied to me re NATS:
Yea I know we are not being forced out of CAAPS, but the gist is, we are not being kept in CAAPS in the spirit that was promised.
I joined this Company when it was the CAA & the CAA current employees seem to be doing very well in CAAPS.
What a shame the Unions did not mount a political campaign FIRST, BEFORE getting into bed with the RB.
This is why the Unions are in for a shock when the votes come in, me thinks
I'm sure you will be aware but at the time the Government made the decision about privatising, the Liberal Democrats were adamantly against privatising NATS. Our main concern was one of safety, and that privatisation would distract from the primary role the NATS have - to ensure safety. We were also concerned that employees would not be treated fairly once the service had been privatised. I am therefore very worried to hear about the current developments in NATS, you quite rightly say that employees who have worked for NATS for years should be treated better.
Your point about the pension plan is also a concern, especially considering, as you rightly say that the Government assured us that existing employees would be entitled to remain in the CAAPS. It seems to me that the changes you describe go against the spirit of that promise. I am writing to the Secretary of State for Transport to raise these issues.......
Your point about the pension plan is also a concern, especially considering, as you rightly say that the Government assured us that existing employees would be entitled to remain in the CAAPS. It seems to me that the changes you describe go against the spirit of that promise. I am writing to the Secretary of State for Transport to raise these issues.......
I joined this Company when it was the CAA & the CAA current employees seem to be doing very well in CAAPS.
What a shame the Unions did not mount a political campaign FIRST, BEFORE getting into bed with the RB.
This is why the Unions are in for a shock when the votes come in, me thinks
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll
Poll Results latest
Poll Results latest
Unless you don't vote at all, maybe that is a No?
Back to my Starbucks latte, methinks
RS
p.s. Vote Yes!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question to those people who are considering a Yes vote in the ballot - What do you think is realistically going to happen in the event of a No vote?
It seems very unlikely that management and unions will accept that as a final decision and simply forget the entire matter until NATS may or may not face financial problems.
The probable outcome is another round of talks, during which the Union can go back and do it properly. If you think, as the Union and Management claim that this is the best deal possible, consider this - ask management for an extra £10 Xmas bonus this year in return for a guaranteed Yes vote, they'd bite our hands off.
Yes it's a stupid example, but the point is that this isn't the best deal possible, it's simply the best deal that our Union have manage to negotiate so far.
Send them back in there with a strong No vote in the ballot, the full backing of the membership and stop overtime (officially, by suspending the overtime agreement as per the mandate), see how long before Management magically come up with a better offer. If the original Union negotiators feel they can't go back, there are plenty of people I can think of who would have a go.
I'm not saying it will be vastly better than we have now, but this is a long term problem, we have nothing to gain by leaping at the first offer.
Think about it before committing yourselves to a 15 year deal, once you vote Yes, there's no way back.
It seems very unlikely that management and unions will accept that as a final decision and simply forget the entire matter until NATS may or may not face financial problems.
The probable outcome is another round of talks, during which the Union can go back and do it properly. If you think, as the Union and Management claim that this is the best deal possible, consider this - ask management for an extra £10 Xmas bonus this year in return for a guaranteed Yes vote, they'd bite our hands off.
Yes it's a stupid example, but the point is that this isn't the best deal possible, it's simply the best deal that our Union have manage to negotiate so far.
Send them back in there with a strong No vote in the ballot, the full backing of the membership and stop overtime (officially, by suspending the overtime agreement as per the mandate), see how long before Management magically come up with a better offer. If the original Union negotiators feel they can't go back, there are plenty of people I can think of who would have a go.
I'm not saying it will be vastly better than we have now, but this is a long term problem, we have nothing to gain by leaping at the first offer.
Think about it before committing yourselves to a 15 year deal, once you vote Yes, there's no way back.
That's a ball park wild arsed guess based on the difference between the maximum amount that NATS said at the briefing it could pay, roughly 30%, and the funding figure without the propsal which it says it can't afford which was 42% at the briefing I went to.
Remind me again what their contribution rate will be if and when the proposed changes happen?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFFLECK
Valid point - how many people (either 'yes' or 'no' voters - it matters not) honestly believe that management do not have at least one fall back position?
For all that I dislike what management are doing to NATS, I don't accuse them of being stupid or reckless. They are good at achieving what they are trying to do for NATS as a profit making business (closing the pension is one such business aim); they are not stupid enoughto go into this with their eyes shut and say and say "this is the only solution available to us".
This is the solution hammered out between the unions and NATS. Remember, it is a deal both parties are happy with.
The union believed it had done enough to satisfy its members - the vote will tell whether that is true or not... NATS will have other options up its sleeve in the event that the union has read its members feelings over pensions wrong.
Anyone who believes that management have not left themselves any manoeuvring room is effectively saying that management are dumb.
Strange, considering that some 'yes' voters are trying to claim that people voting 'no' are doing so because they don't trust the ability of maanagement, but then they themselves obviously don't understand how management work if they don't believe/trust that management has fallback plans.
People who are saying a 'no' vote means re-nationalisation - do you honestly think that such a high powered and allegedley capable management team would gamble everything on an all or nothing strategy?
Valid point - how many people (either 'yes' or 'no' voters - it matters not) honestly believe that management do not have at least one fall back position?
For all that I dislike what management are doing to NATS, I don't accuse them of being stupid or reckless. They are good at achieving what they are trying to do for NATS as a profit making business (closing the pension is one such business aim); they are not stupid enoughto go into this with their eyes shut and say and say "this is the only solution available to us".
This is the solution hammered out between the unions and NATS. Remember, it is a deal both parties are happy with.
The union believed it had done enough to satisfy its members - the vote will tell whether that is true or not... NATS will have other options up its sleeve in the event that the union has read its members feelings over pensions wrong.
Anyone who believes that management have not left themselves any manoeuvring room is effectively saying that management are dumb.
Strange, considering that some 'yes' voters are trying to claim that people voting 'no' are doing so because they don't trust the ability of maanagement, but then they themselves obviously don't understand how management work if they don't believe/trust that management has fallback plans.
People who are saying a 'no' vote means re-nationalisation - do you honestly think that such a high powered and allegedley capable management team would gamble everything on an all or nothing strategy?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 5116N00044W
Age: 76
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following the Pre-Budget Report, I think that anyone who believes that the government will take on the best part of £1billion in additional debt by renationalising NATS ought to seriously consider changing their therapist!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South of England
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The probable outcome is another round of talks, during which the Union can go back and do it properly"
The "union" were advised during the SDC on Friday to resign subject to a no vote though. As I said in my ill thought first post, these people won't be there to go back to the table. Who's there to take their place? I'm truly worried about that.
The "union" were advised during the SDC on Friday to resign subject to a no vote though. As I said in my ill thought first post, these people won't be there to go back to the table. Who's there to take their place? I'm truly worried about that.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the briefing I attended, someone suggested transferring NATS property ownership into the pension scheme to cover the deficit, as M&S had done to solve their problems. Apparently we can't do that as all NATS property is secured with loans.
What about asking the Government to transfer their share of ownership into the pension scheme. I'm sure, with the appropriate paperwork, that they can keep rights to it and it would still keep the actuaries happy.
Has this already been considered?
What about asking the Government to transfer their share of ownership into the pension scheme. I'm sure, with the appropriate paperwork, that they can keep rights to it and it would still keep the actuaries happy.
Has this already been considered?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagine the headline-
GORDON BROWN STEPS IN AT LAST MINUTE TO PREVENT AIR TRAFFIC STRIKE, TRAFFIC CHAOS NARROWLY AVERTED.
eglynt - There's your answer, he could do with the good press at the moment.
GORDON BROWN STEPS IN AT LAST MINUTE TO PREVENT AIR TRAFFIC STRIKE, TRAFFIC CHAOS NARROWLY AVERTED.
eglynt - There's your answer, he could do with the good press at the moment.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "union" were advised during the SDC on Friday to resign subject to a no vote though.
They were also asked by delegates to strongly consider remaining in position as the delegates to conference believed that they were the best people to do the difficult job of negotiating on our behalf.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It used to be the case that a pearl handled revolver and a bottle of brandy were issued to such individuals in order for them to be seen to do the honourable thing.
They have fallen from grace, the trust has gone, and its time to bite the bullet.
They have fallen from grace, the trust has gone, and its time to bite the bullet.
Last edited by Vote NO; 27th Nov 2008 at 14:02.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good friend of mine works for the NAT WEST & knows a bit about these things.
First thing he said was that the need for a new scheme was probable but not at the cost of current members FINAL SALARY scheme the current proposals end all of that naming the cap as the key ingredient. He could not imagine us voting yes for this, especially if you are already in.
Funnily enough he said "you'd have them over a barrel if you walked out anyway wouldn't you?" But we won't go into that will we
Still a NO
Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php
First thing he said was that the need for a new scheme was probable but not at the cost of current members FINAL SALARY scheme the current proposals end all of that naming the cap as the key ingredient. He could not imagine us voting yes for this, especially if you are already in.
Funnily enough he said "you'd have them over a barrel if you walked out anyway wouldn't you?" But we won't go into that will we
Still a NO
Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll 
Poll Results latest
NO ....83%....82
YES....17%....17
Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!
Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php
Poll Results latest
NO ....83%....82
YES....17%....17
Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!
Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php
Last edited by Vote NO; 27th Nov 2008 at 20:46.