mr.777

Lovin' it, lovin'it, lovin' it............VOTE NO

eyeinthesky

Text of latest Union newsletter:
QUOTE
Prospect ATCOs’ Branch held a Special Delegates Conference on the 22nd November, prior to the Annual Delegates Conference, in order to allow a full and proper discussion and debate to take place on the issue of pensions. One of the main points of discussion was the package of measures which had been negotiated with management and the conduct of the Pensions Negotiating Team during these discussions.
A very thorough examination of the issues took place during the full and frank debate, with comments and opinions given by delegates from all units. It was recognised by the BEC that issues such as communications and conflicting mandates could have been dealt with better and lessons need to be learnt for the future. The BEC would like members to be aware that it acknowledges its failings with regard to communications, and over the coming weeks will publish a report on how they will be improved in the future. On the substantive issue however, and after a full and proper debate, the Special Delegates Conference voted unanimously to support the position of the Branch Executive to recommend the pensions package to members.
Over the next few days you will be receiving your ballot paper. The Prospect ATCO Branch Executive, the ATCO Special Delegates Conference and the ATCO Annual Delegates Conference have all voted to recommend that members vote in favour of the proposals. This is a key issue and it is important that you are given the opportunity to take an informed view. AdditionalTrade Union Briefings are detailed below, please endeavour to attend a briefing if you have not already done so. If you have any questions about these briefings you should approach your unit Rep or a member of the BEC.
UNQUOTE

Seems clear enough to me. No need to argue about it any more on here, then!

Vote NO

Indeed , that's it then, game over. Do we actually still need a ballot now?

Min Stack

1 validation given up by me this week and no more AAVA's

Vote NO

Good on you mate

Del Prado

Eglnyt,

reposting for clarification.


Quote:
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.


Is that true? I've never heard NATS state they could afford to pay 30%.
Remind me again what their contribution rate will be if and when the proposed changes happen?

Gonzo

Interesting to note that the poll in the NATS forum, where only NATS employees are permitted, the results are 60/40 in favour of a 'no', rather than 83/17 in favour of a 'no' in the public vote........

Vote NO

The average of both then is about 71/29 in favour of NO

eglnyt

Del Prado

Some of the briefing material includes predictions by Mercer of the likely underlying rate with the proposals in place. I don't have access to that material right now to quote the exact rate but it is up at about the 30% which is 10% more than present. It stays quite high for quite a long time and then slowly starts to come down as the balance between people on the two schemes changes.

Roffa

What interested me from the Prospect circular was that after all the stuff coming down the grapevine about our colleagues north of the border being in open revolt following their calls for the SDC, it was a unanimous vote in favour of the position negotiated by the BEC.

BAND4ALL

Roffa
Think there is a lot of politics attached to the unanimous vote for the BEC. There is a lot going on up North right now and it was a case of damage limitation mate.
Think a lot of reps there will still be voting NO.

mr.777

According to Barron's blog, he had a meeting with Hoon and Fitzpatrick today...hmmm...wonder what that was about? Doesn't matter though does it as "it's not a matter for the government"...tw*ts

PeltonLevel

And exactly what are you averaging?

Vote NO

NATS forum, where only NATS employees are permitted, the results are 60/40 in favour of a 'no', rather than 83/17 in favour of a 'no' in the public vote........

Very basic maths gives an ave. of 71/29 aprox. in favour of NO

I thought it was rather obvious, sorry if you were confused

eglnyt

Only if exactly 100 people have voted in both polls.

Vote NO

Incorrect, I am averaging the percentages of the votes, not the number who actually voted.

I thought that was obvious

60+40 =100 , 83+17 = 100 , 71+29 .......wait for it = 100

I know you like detail, so just for you, to prevent any more confusion

In mathematics, a percentage is a way of expressing a number as a fraction of 100 (per cent meaning "per hundred"). It is often denoted using the percent sign, "%". For example, 45% (read as "forty-five percent") is equal to 45 / 100, or 0.45.
Percentages are used to express how large one quantity is relative to another quantity. The first quantity usually represents a part of, or a change in, the second quantity, which should be greater than zero. For example, an increase of $ 0.15 on a price of $ 2.50 is an increase by a fraction of 0.15 / 2.50 = 0.06. Expressed as a percentage, this is therefore a 6% increase.
Although percentages are usually used to express numbers between zero and one, any dimensionless proportionality can be expressed as a percentage. For instance, 111% is 1.11 and −0.35% is −0.0035.

250 kts

Damage limitation for who?

I thought there was a general feeling on this site that the BEC had done a poor job and it was time to go. If the feeling on here is reflected nationwide, then why would the most vociferous unit and critics do anything other than push for what is, supposedly, the majority feeling?

I would have thought they would have canvassed hard for additional support and pushed the "no confidence" option. Maybe I'm missing something here?

anotherthing

As the Pension thread on NATSNET has been squirelled away to a small box, the following may have been missed by people.

An interesting link, posted on the intranet thread, worth a read... dated 2001!!

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/151...on-danger.html

So, it seems although actuaries have not as yet managed to do a good job of looking into the future as far as our pension is concerned, others painted a pretty close picture of todays events...

Also on the intranet - the following... on the new Q&A site

What has the RPI pay increase been over the past 15 years?
< Back
What has the RPI pay increase been over the past 15 years?
Pay has not always been RPI related – it is only in the last few years when we have agreed multi-year pay deals that RPI has been referred to regularly. In addition, the level of rise has been different for different groups with some getting rises in excess of RPI+0.5% in some years and others not. Therefore there is no one figure that provides a useful guide. Also, past increases are not a guide to future rises – clearly overall deals are related to the health of the company and to productivity improvements.


Strange how our money experts seem unable to work out the average RPI and pay rise over the past 15 years to give a straight answer... an answer that will show that a cap of RPI+0.5% will make a huge difference to the ratio of our 'final salary' pension... 50% final salary or less, anyone??

Obviously a straight and honest answer would indicate clearly what the cap will do to us, and is therefore deemed not suitable by the management.

These same money experts who cannot do basic arithmetical sums and a little bit of digging for historical data, are the ones who are ruining our fund!!

PeltonLevel

It's only obvious to people who are not particularly numerate.
An average of two percentages is only meaningful if weighted according to their respective sample sizes. It seemed pretty obvious what had been done, but not obvious what inference could be drawn from this bit of arbitrary arithmetic.

Vote NO

I apologise, I incorrectly considered all on here to have a grasp of very basic maths and common sense.
You can infer from this bit of arbitrary arithmetic that there is a good chance that the vote will go in favour of the NO VOTE. I thought that was obvious too

I think you mean It's only obvious to people who are particularly numerate