NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Beady Eye
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 1
From: UK
yes voters"
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
From: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Me me me.........What planet do you really live on........who gives a flying fcuk what the average man in the street thinks....our guys earn what they do because they are the best in the buisness, do not even dare to compare them with your average Joe Bloggs that has sponged off the government for the past 20 years because he has an in growing toenail that prevents him leaving his rather posh council house.............I have contributed for over 30 years to this pension scheme and I am not going to be kicked in the bolloks now..!!!!
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
From: Hants
Mr 777 - a point of order, if I may.
'twas I who first introduced the technical term 'spunk' to this thread, several pages ago when I talked about money being wasted on elaborate 'pat on the back functions'.
Spunkage is merely an extension of the word, as you can see below.
Here endeth the lesson in economic language.
Note to PPRuNe Radar - before someone (i.e. 250Kts) says this post is irrelevant to the thread I believe this post has a (very tenuous) link to the pension thread; as I am of the opinion that NATS would be in a better position to pay the money it should into the pension fund, if it did not merrily 'spunk' good money on silly functions etc.
'twas I who first introduced the technical term 'spunk' to this thread, several pages ago when I talked about money being wasted on elaborate 'pat on the back functions'.
Spunkage is merely an extension of the word, as you can see below.
Definitions
Spunk - the action of wasting something, as in 'to spunk good money on a pointless function.'
Spunker - someone who attends aforementioned function, thus helping waste company money.
Spunked - having wasted valuable money on a pointless function.
Spunkage - the sum total spunked on one or more functions.
Spunking - the act of wasting good money on a frivolous function
the collective noun for said spunk is cup or in american english, beaker i.e. a cup (beaker) of spunk
Spunk - the action of wasting something, as in 'to spunk good money on a pointless function.'
Spunker - someone who attends aforementioned function, thus helping waste company money.
Spunked - having wasted valuable money on a pointless function.
Spunkage - the sum total spunked on one or more functions.
Spunking - the act of wasting good money on a frivolous function
the collective noun for said spunk is cup or in american english, beaker i.e. a cup (beaker) of spunk
Note to PPRuNe Radar - before someone (i.e. 250Kts) says this post is irrelevant to the thread I believe this post has a (very tenuous) link to the pension thread; as I am of the opinion that NATS would be in a better position to pay the money it should into the pension fund, if it did not merrily 'spunk' good money on silly functions etc.
Last edited by anotherthing; 4th December 2008 at 19:14.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
From: Hants
250Kts
If you count the actual attendance hours, divide into an average month it works out a about 8 hours a day for a 5 day week... but as we don't do a 5 day week, we do the same hours in less days per month.
So yes simplistically looking at it we get more days off, but we work the same hours
i.e. we work longer working days than Joe or Josephine bloggs (that's if they are not claiming benefits because of an ingrown toe nail)
If you count the actual attendance hours, divide into an average month it works out a about 8 hours a day for a 5 day week... but as we don't do a 5 day week, we do the same hours in less days per month.
So yes simplistically looking at it we get more days off, but we work the same hours
i.e. we work longer working days than Joe or Josephine bloggs (that's if they are not claiming benefits because of an ingrown toe nail)
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
Cure for Nats pension problem
Since nobody deals in money these days and it's all simply a collection of numbers held on a computer, why not just allow every bank/Company to add, say 9 or 10 zeros on to the end of their balance sheet, suddenly they're a few billion in the black again and everybody's happy.
As we are all on the happy pills eh
As we are all on the happy pills eh
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
From: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
circa 20th DEC I think
Anotherthing,
Profound apologies for theft of the word "spunkage". Grammar lesson and declension/conjugation of said verb/word most appreciated. I believe they can ALL be applied to NATS and its management
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 712
Likes: 17
From: SE England
Before you all get carried away with guilt over your pay packet why not bear in mind that the mean pay for full-time workers in the city of London for 2008 was £82,084* - thats including cleaners, nurses, techers and other essential, but low paid jobs (if you strip women from the figures the mean pay was £98,923). Does the average NATS ATCO earn as much as that? Then surely we have a very average pay packet for doing a quite extraordinary job. Part of that package is the pension I was promissed - not some proportion of it with no meaningful future.
* source - Office for National Statistics
* source - Office for National Statistics
Last edited by Dan Dare; 4th December 2008 at 20:37.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: South of England
"City of London"? Convenient argument. I find that post risible... unless I haven't been told about the huge amount of nurses and cleaners living and working in the Square Mile. And damn those annoying women that lessen your case for argument, eh? How dare they have the audacity to work in the city for a lesser wage 
Get them cleaning somewhere else I say
Get them cleaning somewhere else I say
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: scotland
The vocal sides of each camp are relatively small in number.
It's the silent (very large) majority who will decide and I have a feeling that those who say nothing are more likely to be 'yes' voters than 'no'.
Don't ask me why I think that, I just do.
(How's that for scientific?)
It's the silent (very large) majority who will decide and I have a feeling that those who say nothing are more likely to be 'yes' voters than 'no'.
Don't ask me why I think that, I just do.
(How's that for scientific?)
