NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the negotiating team is not to agree to anything on the pension front without first consulting the membership."
I may be a little bit slow here but isn't that exactly what is happening. Nobody has agreed anything yet and nobody will until the membership has been consulted and there's been a ballot. Are you seriously suggesting that the union representatives should consult on every suggestion at every meeting, and if so do you honestly think that could ever work ?
I may be a little bit slow here but isn't that exactly what is happening. Nobody has agreed anything yet and nobody will until the membership has been consulted and there's been a ballot. Are you seriously suggesting that the union representatives should consult on every suggestion at every meeting, and if so do you honestly think that could ever work ?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Callyoushortly, it's on page 20 of the 2008 NATS Annual Report. Before you get too excited you need to read on a few sentences because the next paragraph contains the 112% figure and the triennial review. There was an explanation for this difference on NATSNET shortly after the report was published so it isn't new information.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the negotiating team is not to agree to anything on the pension front without first consulting the membership."
I may be a little bit slow here but isn't that exactly what is happening.
I may be a little bit slow here but isn't that exactly what is happening.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Callyoushortly, it's on page 20 of the 2008 NATS Annual Report. Before you get too excited you need to read on a few sentences because the next paragraph contains the 112% figure and the triennial review. There was an explanation for this difference on NATSNET shortly after the report was published so it isn't new information.
For those interested, the relevant paragraphs read as follows:
Pensions
At 31 March 2008, measured under international accounting standards, the pension scheme had a surplus of assets over liabilities of £413.5m compared with a surplus of £238.6m at 31 March 2007. The £174.9m increase in the surplus is due mainly to a decrease in the present value of the obligations arising from an increase in the prescribed discount rate from 5.2% to 6.2%. The scheme’s assets increased by just £13.1m or 0.5% to £2,846.2m in the year.
The group made cash contributions to the scheme of 12.2% (2007: 12.2%) of pensionable pay during the year giving a cash cost of £37.7m (2007: £32.6m). From 1 April 2008, cash contributions to the scheme will be paid at an annual effective rate of 20.0% of pensionable pay. This follows the outcome of the triennial valuation performed as of 31 December 2006, which reported a surplus of assets over liabilities of 112% and an increase in the future service cost to 37.3% of pensionable pay (from 26.8% at 31 December 2003).
The group is currently engaged in discussions with its Trades Unions on proposals to reduce the cost and risk of future pension provision.
At 31 March 2008, measured under international accounting standards, the pension scheme had a surplus of assets over liabilities of £413.5m compared with a surplus of £238.6m at 31 March 2007. The £174.9m increase in the surplus is due mainly to a decrease in the present value of the obligations arising from an increase in the prescribed discount rate from 5.2% to 6.2%. The scheme’s assets increased by just £13.1m or 0.5% to £2,846.2m in the year.
The group made cash contributions to the scheme of 12.2% (2007: 12.2%) of pensionable pay during the year giving a cash cost of £37.7m (2007: £32.6m). From 1 April 2008, cash contributions to the scheme will be paid at an annual effective rate of 20.0% of pensionable pay. This follows the outcome of the triennial valuation performed as of 31 December 2006, which reported a surplus of assets over liabilities of 112% and an increase in the future service cost to 37.3% of pensionable pay (from 26.8% at 31 December 2003).
The group is currently engaged in discussions with its Trades Unions on proposals to reduce the cost and risk of future pension provision.
NATS employees are unfortunately enduring the now-frequent concerted attack on employee pension provision by a company anxious to be seen trying to protect its future contribution liability. In one corporate sense, this is understandable but if fundamental changes are to be made, then they have to be convincingly and honestly put and appraised. There is little point in securing corporate financial benefits in a service industry if you totally p*ss off your workforce in the process.
As an outsider (but one who has witnessed similar shenanigans from his own one-time employer), I have great sympathy with what you are trying to protect. IMHO, you need to have union representation singing from the same hymn-sheet and whom you trust, together with (more importantly) specialist pension advisers who can see through the smokescreen that the employer will inevitably put up, in order to try and secure an advantageous agreement.
Having seen similar situations, therefore, my humble advice to you would be to nail your Prospect Reps to the path you wish them to follow and ensure you/they have the best possible pension advice to enable you to make an informed decision before any ballot takes place.
Sorry if I am intruding - sorry also if I am stating the bl**ding obvious - but I feel extremely strongly about such raids on employee benefits by commercial managers who, as their first priority, have their own agendas to follow. We always used to tag them with Peter Carrington's phrase, "Duplicitous B*stards" - until or unless proved otherwise, of course ...
Good luck.
JD
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the South
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the BEC had a mandate to negotiate on our behalf due to the very fact that we voted them in. Do they need to ask fo a mandate every time they talk to management? Correct me if I'm wrong but I agree with eglnyt. The union has been involved in high level discussions and on our behalf has negotiated the best position that they think achievable. They will now spend the next few weeks briefing each unit individually, explaining their position so that you can make an informed decision and vote as you wish. There is no need for a special conference. Total RED HERRING.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many people seem to be missing the point that there are 3 constituent unions involved. How will a Special Conference, say, for the ATCOs have any effect on the other 2 groups-it won't.
All 3 of the Executives have seen fit to come to a decision to recommend this deal to the members. If that weren't the case I think we should all be deeply suspicious.
The fact that all 3 are in this position makes me suggest that we should all stop jumping the gun and be prepared to ask some very tough questions at the briefings as there must be a compelling case for the proposed changes.
I am no more in favour of changes than anyone else but am prepared to listen to the case.
All 3 of the Executives have seen fit to come to a decision to recommend this deal to the members. If that weren't the case I think we should all be deeply suspicious.
The fact that all 3 are in this position makes me suggest that we should all stop jumping the gun and be prepared to ask some very tough questions at the briefings as there must be a compelling case for the proposed changes.
I am no more in favour of changes than anyone else but am prepared to listen to the case.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UP North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should also be coming out at the southern units too in the next few days. Ask your reps.
It needs 170 signatures but at least twice that number should be possible.
It needs 170 signatures but at least twice that number should be possible.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think that NATS can limit the number of shares that can be sold, at the end of the day, once we've held them for the qualifying period then we are entitled under the terms of the share ownership plan to sell them and the comapny has to buy them back and then share them out amongst the employees as they need to continue to hold the relevant % of the total share allocation, although I stand to be corrected
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: here
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Text taken from: My Lords, my starting point now, as...: 26 Oct 2000: House of Lords debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)
Pertinent points in bold:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey (Deputy Chief Whip (House of Lords), HM Household; Labour) | Hansard source
My Lords, my starting point now, as at Committee stage, is entirely consistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said at Second Reading. Nobody can value the staff of NATS more than we do; nobody can feel more strongly than we do that they deserve proper treatment in every respect, not just as regards pensions. However, they deserve proper protection in particular for their pensions.
We have reflected on the points made in Committee. I can assure noble Lords that we have done so in great detail. Pensions affect us all. I can well understand why the issue is so important to NATS employees. We fully support the need to protect the pensions of NATS staff and we would not do anything to put them at risk.
I understand the issue of confidence to which the noble Lord, Lord Brett, refers; namely, that these fears were very real throughout the privatisations of the 1980s and early 1990s. If I were the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, I would not refer to them in quite such a cheerful way. During those years tens of thousands of public servants passed from the public sector to the private sector without adequate reassurance about how their pensions would be protected. Sometimes they were denied access to a pension scheme as good as the one they were leaving. Sometimes they were confronted by invidious choices about what to do with their accrued service in the public sector pension scheme, which meant that one way or the other they would loose.
In three privatisations--coal, electricity and rail--the previous administration used primary legislation to give statutory protected person rights to employees in those industries regarding their access to occupational pension schemes after transfer to the private sector. In every other case no such protection was given and the range of outcomes was extremely variable. Noble Lords will remember the privatisation of London Buses. I take that as a particular example of the bus industry generally to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred. London Transport staff were forcibly separated from their pension scheme with no effective safeguards as to the quality of its replacements.
That was the legacy we inherited in 1997. We set to work on reform. In 1998 interim new guidance was issued by the Cabinet Office under the title "Better Quality Services". This re-emphasised the importance of protecting staff pensions in restructuring involving private sector partners and required that the quality of that protection should be a factor in assessing bids for partnership. Then, in June 1999, the "wicked" Treasury issued definitive guidance under the title "A Fair Deal for Staff Pensions" which was subsequently incorporated into broader guidance on the treatment of staff by the Cabinet Office at the beginning of the year.
The object of these reforms was perfectly simple: to take the fear out of public sector reform and sales as far as pensions were concerned and to set a common standard of protection which all projects should pass. What we have now is a comprehensive framework of protection which represents a huge improvement in the standard of treatment of staff. It is a fair deal not only for the staff, but also for the private sector businesses bidding to enter into partnership to deliver public services.
That is the background against which we have looked at the NATS employees. Our common goal is to reassure NATS staff about the pensions they have a right to expect in their retirement. I believe that I can give the reassurance which is needed without the need for amendments to the Bill.
Perhaps I may explain how. The Civil Aviation Authority Pensions Scheme is to be amended in order to make it possible for staff employed by the PPP to remain members of that scheme. Technically, the CAAPS is already a centralised scheme for non-associated employers because Highlands and Islands Airports Limited is a non-associated employer within it. Amendments to the scheme are necessary to reflect requirements such as the elimination of cross-subsidy which is now much more relevant given the much greater size which the NATS PPP section would have within CAAPS.
That means that staff will continue to enjoy the benefits that they currently receive. They will be able also to enjoy such new benefits as are agreed from future surpluses. They may also draw some comfort from belonging to an excellent public sector scheme, one that is very comfortably funded. For example, at the most recent evaluation of CAAPS on 31st December 1998, the minimum funding ratio was in excess of 190 per cent. Since the MFR represents what I might call the statutory floor for the funding of pension schemes, a funding ratio of 190 per cent represents a substantial excess. As regards benefits, pensions in payment are index-linked and pension benefit is calculated not just on base salary, but includes overtime and certain other fluctuating remuneration.
Perhaps I may digress to cover the position of current pensions and deferred pensioners. I can assure the House that the position of those two groups will remain unaffected by the PPP. They will remain in CAAPS; they will be in the CAA section of the scheme, which will also include current CAA staff. They will continue to receive benefits in the same way as they do now.
Returning to the NATS public/private partnership, we have made it very clear to all those bidding to be our strategic partner in the PPP that securing that current staff can continue to participate in CAAPS is a fundamental condition of being considered for that role. In addition, we will put into the strategic partnership agreement a binding commitment, enforceable at law, that guarantees the continuation of that right on terms at least as favourable as those now existing.
Then there is the protection of pensions that exists under the law of the land, such as the pensions Acts of 1993 and 1995. These provide, among other things, protection for accrued benefits and funding levels.
A further level of protection exists in the CAAPS trust deed and rules to which my noble friends have referred. These are unusually restrictive and protective of members' interests. Although it may not always have been the case, it is now universally accepted and buttressed by statute that accrued rights--that is to say, the pension which an individual has earned by each day at work--cannot be adversely affected by amendments to pension schemes. By contrast, it is entirely usual for the sponsoring employer of a pension scheme to have the ability to reduce the level of benefits for future service such as prospective benefits. However, no employer who participates in CAAPS has that power because of the restrictive power of amendment in the trust deed which provides that amendments cannot be made to reduce accrued or prospective benefits. When this restrictive power is allied to the continuing interest of the Government in the PPP as shareholder, quite apart from the express contractual provisions in the strategic partnership agreement, I believe that the House will agree that there is a very substantial set of protections for the current NATS staff.
Lots of talk about not reducing current members benefits - so what exactly is the RPI + 0.5% cap? A reduction in our pension benefit....
Pertinent points in bold:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey (Deputy Chief Whip (House of Lords), HM Household; Labour) | Hansard source
My Lords, my starting point now, as at Committee stage, is entirely consistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said at Second Reading. Nobody can value the staff of NATS more than we do; nobody can feel more strongly than we do that they deserve proper treatment in every respect, not just as regards pensions. However, they deserve proper protection in particular for their pensions.
We have reflected on the points made in Committee. I can assure noble Lords that we have done so in great detail. Pensions affect us all. I can well understand why the issue is so important to NATS employees. We fully support the need to protect the pensions of NATS staff and we would not do anything to put them at risk.
I understand the issue of confidence to which the noble Lord, Lord Brett, refers; namely, that these fears were very real throughout the privatisations of the 1980s and early 1990s. If I were the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, I would not refer to them in quite such a cheerful way. During those years tens of thousands of public servants passed from the public sector to the private sector without adequate reassurance about how their pensions would be protected. Sometimes they were denied access to a pension scheme as good as the one they were leaving. Sometimes they were confronted by invidious choices about what to do with their accrued service in the public sector pension scheme, which meant that one way or the other they would loose.
In three privatisations--coal, electricity and rail--the previous administration used primary legislation to give statutory protected person rights to employees in those industries regarding their access to occupational pension schemes after transfer to the private sector. In every other case no such protection was given and the range of outcomes was extremely variable. Noble Lords will remember the privatisation of London Buses. I take that as a particular example of the bus industry generally to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred. London Transport staff were forcibly separated from their pension scheme with no effective safeguards as to the quality of its replacements.
That was the legacy we inherited in 1997. We set to work on reform. In 1998 interim new guidance was issued by the Cabinet Office under the title "Better Quality Services". This re-emphasised the importance of protecting staff pensions in restructuring involving private sector partners and required that the quality of that protection should be a factor in assessing bids for partnership. Then, in June 1999, the "wicked" Treasury issued definitive guidance under the title "A Fair Deal for Staff Pensions" which was subsequently incorporated into broader guidance on the treatment of staff by the Cabinet Office at the beginning of the year.
The object of these reforms was perfectly simple: to take the fear out of public sector reform and sales as far as pensions were concerned and to set a common standard of protection which all projects should pass. What we have now is a comprehensive framework of protection which represents a huge improvement in the standard of treatment of staff. It is a fair deal not only for the staff, but also for the private sector businesses bidding to enter into partnership to deliver public services.
That is the background against which we have looked at the NATS employees. Our common goal is to reassure NATS staff about the pensions they have a right to expect in their retirement. I believe that I can give the reassurance which is needed without the need for amendments to the Bill.
Perhaps I may explain how. The Civil Aviation Authority Pensions Scheme is to be amended in order to make it possible for staff employed by the PPP to remain members of that scheme. Technically, the CAAPS is already a centralised scheme for non-associated employers because Highlands and Islands Airports Limited is a non-associated employer within it. Amendments to the scheme are necessary to reflect requirements such as the elimination of cross-subsidy which is now much more relevant given the much greater size which the NATS PPP section would have within CAAPS.
That means that staff will continue to enjoy the benefits that they currently receive. They will be able also to enjoy such new benefits as are agreed from future surpluses. They may also draw some comfort from belonging to an excellent public sector scheme, one that is very comfortably funded. For example, at the most recent evaluation of CAAPS on 31st December 1998, the minimum funding ratio was in excess of 190 per cent. Since the MFR represents what I might call the statutory floor for the funding of pension schemes, a funding ratio of 190 per cent represents a substantial excess. As regards benefits, pensions in payment are index-linked and pension benefit is calculated not just on base salary, but includes overtime and certain other fluctuating remuneration.
Perhaps I may digress to cover the position of current pensions and deferred pensioners. I can assure the House that the position of those two groups will remain unaffected by the PPP. They will remain in CAAPS; they will be in the CAA section of the scheme, which will also include current CAA staff. They will continue to receive benefits in the same way as they do now.
Returning to the NATS public/private partnership, we have made it very clear to all those bidding to be our strategic partner in the PPP that securing that current staff can continue to participate in CAAPS is a fundamental condition of being considered for that role. In addition, we will put into the strategic partnership agreement a binding commitment, enforceable at law, that guarantees the continuation of that right on terms at least as favourable as those now existing.
Then there is the protection of pensions that exists under the law of the land, such as the pensions Acts of 1993 and 1995. These provide, among other things, protection for accrued benefits and funding levels.
A further level of protection exists in the CAAPS trust deed and rules to which my noble friends have referred. These are unusually restrictive and protective of members' interests. Although it may not always have been the case, it is now universally accepted and buttressed by statute that accrued rights--that is to say, the pension which an individual has earned by each day at work--cannot be adversely affected by amendments to pension schemes. By contrast, it is entirely usual for the sponsoring employer of a pension scheme to have the ability to reduce the level of benefits for future service such as prospective benefits. However, no employer who participates in CAAPS has that power because of the restrictive power of amendment in the trust deed which provides that amendments cannot be made to reduce accrued or prospective benefits. When this restrictive power is allied to the continuing interest of the Government in the PPP as shareholder, quite apart from the express contractual provisions in the strategic partnership agreement, I believe that the House will agree that there is a very substantial set of protections for the current NATS staff.
Lots of talk about not reducing current members benefits - so what exactly is the RPI + 0.5% cap? A reduction in our pension benefit....
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
might be worth contacting our MP's about this and highlighting the excellent post by barstewards:
TheyWorkForYou.com: Are your MPs and Peers working for you in the UK's Parliament?
TheyWorkForYou.com: Are your MPs and Peers working for you in the UK's Parliament?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent work barstewards -
Everyone attending a Unit briefing should take a copy and ensure that the relevant paragraphs are read out before the "joint" presentation takes place.
Never forget that these were the assurances, given to the members, by the ATCOs Branch, that there was no need to "Ballot the Membership for industrial action in the event of Privatisation" prior to our sell off.
We may be privatised we were told, but don't worry -"OUR PENSIONS ARE SAFE - no need for any action"
Well, we are privatised - OUR PENSIONS ARE NOT SAFE - It's time for action!!
Everyone attending a Unit briefing should take a copy and ensure that the relevant paragraphs are read out before the "joint" presentation takes place.
Never forget that these were the assurances, given to the members, by the ATCOs Branch, that there was no need to "Ballot the Membership for industrial action in the event of Privatisation" prior to our sell off.
We may be privatised we were told, but don't worry -"OUR PENSIONS ARE SAFE - no need for any action"
Well, we are privatised - OUR PENSIONS ARE NOT SAFE - It's time for action!!
Last edited by expediteoff; 3rd Oct 2008 at 17:29.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RUA
not quite correct re shares. once the holding period is up (5 years), the company will buy them back - the price may fluctuate if a lot of people decide to sell them back at the same time.
Once they have been sold back and the company is holding a substantial amount, they have to be re-issued to the workforce.
Details can be found on the intranet if you type 'shares' in the search box
not quite correct re shares. once the holding period is up (5 years), the company will buy them back - the price may fluctuate if a lot of people decide to sell them back at the same time.
Once they have been sold back and the company is holding a substantial amount, they have to be re-issued to the workforce.
Details can be found on the intranet if you type 'shares' in the search box
That is the rule at present ANOTHERTHING but if everyone sold their shares back the company would change that rule.
I believe the union have been advised of this informally.
I believe the union have been advised of this informally.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have followed the advice of radar707 and written to my MP - who also happens to be First Minister of Scotland....
The main point I made was does NATS have the right to change pension benefits for those of us who were members of CAAPS prior to PPP. As well as the Hansard quote by barstewards (Thanks for that
) I also quoted at length from the Transport Act 2000, which set out the PPP legislation. The relevant part is Section 96 which I reproduce here in its entirety: (My highlighting)
96 Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the allocation of assets, rights, liabilities or obligations between different sections of the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme.
(2) An order under this section may include provision for or in connection with—
(a) securing that the Scheme continues to be approved for the purposes of the relevant enactments;
(b) the amendment of the Scheme;
(c) the manner in which questions arising under the order are to be determined.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the amendment of the Scheme includes a reference to the amendment of—
(a) the trust deed of the Scheme;
(b) the rules of the Scheme;
(c) any other instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of the Scheme.
(4) An order under this section may be made so as to have effect from a date falling before the making of the order.
(5) In making an order under this section the Secretary of State must secure that each person falling within subsection (6) is overall in materially at least as good a position, as respects pension arrangements, as a result of the order.
(6) A person falls within this subsection if—
(a) he is or has at any time been a contributing member of the Scheme, or
(b) he is or may become entitled to benefits in respect of a person falling within paragraph (a).
(7) A contributing member of the Scheme is a member who makes, and whose employer makes in respect of him, contributions under the Scheme.
(8) The relevant enactments are—
(a) Chapter I of Part XIV of the [1988 c. 1.] Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (retirement benefit schemes);
(b) Part III of the [1993 c. 48.] Pension Schemes Act 1993, so far as relating to occupational pension schemes.
Now I am no legal eagle but that reads as if the only person who can make changes to the scheme (Trust Deed/Rules/Constitution/Management/Operation) is the Secretary of State and even then, your material position must not be worse as a result of the change.
DD
The main point I made was does NATS have the right to change pension benefits for those of us who were members of CAAPS prior to PPP. As well as the Hansard quote by barstewards (Thanks for that
) I also quoted at length from the Transport Act 2000, which set out the PPP legislation. The relevant part is Section 96 which I reproduce here in its entirety: (My highlighting)96 Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the allocation of assets, rights, liabilities or obligations between different sections of the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme.
(2) An order under this section may include provision for or in connection with—
(a) securing that the Scheme continues to be approved for the purposes of the relevant enactments;
(b) the amendment of the Scheme;
(c) the manner in which questions arising under the order are to be determined.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the amendment of the Scheme includes a reference to the amendment of—
(a) the trust deed of the Scheme;
(b) the rules of the Scheme;
(c) any other instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of the Scheme.
(4) An order under this section may be made so as to have effect from a date falling before the making of the order.
(5) In making an order under this section the Secretary of State must secure that each person falling within subsection (6) is overall in materially at least as good a position, as respects pension arrangements, as a result of the order.
(6) A person falls within this subsection if—
(a) he is or has at any time been a contributing member of the Scheme, or
(b) he is or may become entitled to benefits in respect of a person falling within paragraph (a).
(7) A contributing member of the Scheme is a member who makes, and whose employer makes in respect of him, contributions under the Scheme.
(8) The relevant enactments are—
(a) Chapter I of Part XIV of the [1988 c. 1.] Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (retirement benefit schemes);
(b) Part III of the [1993 c. 48.] Pension Schemes Act 1993, so far as relating to occupational pension schemes.
Now I am no legal eagle but that reads as if the only person who can make changes to the scheme (Trust Deed/Rules/Constitution/Management/Operation) is the Secretary of State and even then, your material position must not be worse as a result of the change.
DD
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've written to mine quoting all the useful information from Barstewards and have e-mailed again with the additional info from Data Dad (very interesting that section of the transport act).
I've requested that he look into the matter and perhaps raise the issue in the house. I'm also going to write to the chair of the transport select committee (as soon as I find out who that is), just a shame that Ms Dunwoody is no longer with us as I feel that if she were then this would be making headlines.
I've requested that he look into the matter and perhaps raise the issue in the house. I'm also going to write to the chair of the transport select committee (as soon as I find out who that is), just a shame that Ms Dunwoody is no longer with us as I feel that if she were then this would be making headlines.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: here
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RMT union for railway workers seems to be standing up to Network Rail's management over employees terms and conditions.
http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Inte...?NodeID=112664
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Rail strike discussions to resume
I guess they do not 'work together' with management but have an interest in their fee paying members.....
Prospect take note please
http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Inte...?NodeID=112664
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Rail strike discussions to resume
I guess they do not 'work together' with management but have an interest in their fee paying members.....
Prospect take note please
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian helped support New Prestwick Centre, and I beleive he used to be on the Transport Committee
He will be keen to know about our pension !!
http://www.briandonohoemp.co.uk/
Brian Donohoe MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA
Email: [email protected]
fax 020 7219 5388
phone 020 7219 6230
He will be keen to know about our pension !!
http://www.briandonohoemp.co.uk/
Brian Donohoe MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA
Email: [email protected]
fax 020 7219 5388
phone 020 7219 6230
Last edited by Air.Farce.1; 3rd Oct 2008 at 20:18.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, that lovely formidable Gywneth Dunwoody would certainly have been a good ally.
JD