UK - NATS Pay negotiations - latest rumours
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me Me Me Me
VOTE NO
The ATCOs, ATSAs and Engineers all voted Yes too. As I've said previously.. Anyone who posts on here and thinks that the views on PPRuNe are representative, are very naive. This has been proven time and time again.
VOTE NO
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract from latest NTUS Circular. It's gotta be worth a no vote on pay.
14th May 2009
Mr John Devaney
5th Floor South,
Brettenham House,
Lancaster Place,
London, WC2E 7EN
5th Floor South,
Brettenham House,
Lancaster Place,
London, WC2E 7EN
Dear John,
I am writing on behalf of the Prospect and PCS to express our concerns regarding two significant and high profile issues namely NATS contribution rate to the NATS Section of CAAPS and the decision to pay out £43.5m in dividends to the shareholders. These two issues cause the NTUS and our members real concern and we fail to understand the rationale and decisions made by the board. For clarity I set out our concerns on these two issues below.
Pension contribution
As you will no doubt be aware the NTUS has been engaged with NATS for over two years examining the position of the NATS Section of CAAPS (the Scheme) and the ability of the business to support its obligations to the Scheme. Having considered all the information on the Scheme and its relationship with the business we came to the conclusion that, in order to protect both the Scheme and the business it was necessary to take some action and we agreed jointly, with NATS, a way forward. The NTUS then went about explaining to our members (NATS staff) the need for action and explained the proposed course of action to be taken. The action agreed by our members means the potential risk to the business is reduced. However, this is achieved through our members agreeing to the potential for a reduction in pension growth. Additionally we have agreed to a two tier pension arrangement with the introduction of a new, defined contribution, scheme. This was, for us, a huge leap of faith but something we felt was necessary and therefore required us to act responsibly – which the NTUS and its members have done and continue to do.
Given the current state of the Scheme, as outlined below, it was our expectation that NATS would be increasing the contribution rate immediately (following the interim valuation) to 30% of pensionable pay into the Scheme. Indeed this was one of several figures that were mentioned by NATS, if the Scheme were to be in such a state, whilst we were jointly explaining the proposal to our members.
As you will no doubt be aware the NTUS has been engaged with NATS for over two years examining the position of the NATS Section of CAAPS (the Scheme) and the ability of the business to support its obligations to the Scheme. Having considered all the information on the Scheme and its relationship with the business we came to the conclusion that, in order to protect both the Scheme and the business it was necessary to take some action and we agreed jointly, with NATS, a way forward. The NTUS then went about explaining to our members (NATS staff) the need for action and explained the proposed course of action to be taken. The action agreed by our members means the potential risk to the business is reduced. However, this is achieved through our members agreeing to the potential for a reduction in pension growth. Additionally we have agreed to a two tier pension arrangement with the introduction of a new, defined contribution, scheme. This was, for us, a huge leap of faith but something we felt was necessary and therefore required us to act responsibly – which the NTUS and its members have done and continue to do.
Given the current state of the Scheme, as outlined below, it was our expectation that NATS would be increasing the contribution rate immediately (following the interim valuation) to 30% of pensionable pay into the Scheme. Indeed this was one of several figures that were mentioned by NATS, if the Scheme were to be in such a state, whilst we were jointly explaining the proposal to our members.
The December 2008 draft actuarial valuation of the Scheme identified the following:
Without the MoU With the MoU
Funding level: 72% Funding level: 76%
Deficit: £910m Deficit: £700m
Underlying Rate: 44% Underlying Rate: 38%
Funding level: 72% Funding level: 76%
Deficit: £910m Deficit: £700m
Underlying Rate: 44% Underlying Rate: 38%
Indeed as part of NATS consultation process with staff, NATS made it clear that it was their understanding that if the Scheme were no longer in surplus that they would have to pay at least the underlying cost of the Scheme. Against that backdrop we do not consider increasing
the contribution rate simply to 25% to be in the best interests of our members, the Scheme or NATS and therefore this course of action is not acting responsibly. We would urge the Board to reconsider the planned arrangement, to increase the pension contribution rate to 25% for 2009 and then to 30% for 2010, and consider moving to a 30% contribution rate immediately and then increasing the rate to 35% or greater depending on the Employer’s underlying contribution rate.
If following the results of the Triennial Report NATS, in the opinion of the NTUS, do not fulfil the obligations incumbent upon them, and which were made as part of the joint pension briefings (with reference to NATS paying the full underlying rate), the NTUS will have no choice but to consider action (including industrial action) to safeguard the future pension provision of our members.
the contribution rate simply to 25% to be in the best interests of our members, the Scheme or NATS and therefore this course of action is not acting responsibly. We would urge the Board to reconsider the planned arrangement, to increase the pension contribution rate to 25% for 2009 and then to 30% for 2010, and consider moving to a 30% contribution rate immediately and then increasing the rate to 35% or greater depending on the Employer’s underlying contribution rate.
If following the results of the Triennial Report NATS, in the opinion of the NTUS, do not fulfil the obligations incumbent upon them, and which were made as part of the joint pension briefings (with reference to NATS paying the full underlying rate), the NTUS will have no choice but to consider action (including industrial action) to safeguard the future pension provision of our members.
The above comments are further compounded by the potential level of deficit within the Scheme and what appears to be a lack of urgency with regard to addressing the underlying funding requirements of the Scheme as well as the deficit. I am sure that you are aware of the recent pronouncements of the Pensions Regulator with regard to this issue and in particular that “pension recovery plan(s) should not suffer, for example, in order to enable companies to continue paying dividends to shareholders”.
Shareholder dividend
On this issue the NTUS and our members are incredulous at the dividend payment demanded by the Board for its shareholders. Given the current economic climate and the downturn in traffic together with the £45m costs NERL is looking to take out of the company (based on its strategy for Control Period 3); add to this the state of contracts within NSL and the current state of the NATS Section of CAAPS; then the decision to pay out £43.5m leaves us stunned. We understand the expectation of shareholders to get a return on their investments even though this venture was entered into with a view of not receiving commercial gain. However to extract £43.5m cash out of the business at a time when we are facing the likelihood of a significant negative RPI (and the impact this will have on NERL’s pricing) together with the downturn in traffic does indeed cause the NTUS and our members real concern and as such we have to question the thinking behind the decision by the Board.
I hope you are able to understand the weight these two issues have with the NTUS and our members – we are all stakeholders here and we wish to see a successful NATS – a NATS that is sustainable and provides an excellent service whilst providing good jobs and job security with good pay, terms and conditions and pensions.
On this issue the NTUS and our members are incredulous at the dividend payment demanded by the Board for its shareholders. Given the current economic climate and the downturn in traffic together with the £45m costs NERL is looking to take out of the company (based on its strategy for Control Period 3); add to this the state of contracts within NSL and the current state of the NATS Section of CAAPS; then the decision to pay out £43.5m leaves us stunned. We understand the expectation of shareholders to get a return on their investments even though this venture was entered into with a view of not receiving commercial gain. However to extract £43.5m cash out of the business at a time when we are facing the likelihood of a significant negative RPI (and the impact this will have on NERL’s pricing) together with the downturn in traffic does indeed cause the NTUS and our members real concern and as such we have to question the thinking behind the decision by the Board.
I hope you are able to understand the weight these two issues have with the NTUS and our members – we are all stakeholders here and we wish to see a successful NATS – a NATS that is sustainable and provides an excellent service whilst providing good jobs and job security with good pay, terms and conditions and pensions.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
Suresh Tewari
CC. Peter Read Chairman Airline Group
Sigurd Reinton Director
Brenda Dean Director
Yours sincerely
Suresh Tewari
CC. Peter Read Chairman Airline Group
Sigurd Reinton Director
Brenda Dean Director
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me Me Me Me,
Ease up ..not all ATCOs/ATSAs &Engineers voted yes for the pension debacle..I certainly didn't neither did a lot of colleagues. and won't be voting yes for the pay!!
Ease up ..not all ATCOs/ATSAs &Engineers voted yes for the pension debacle..I certainly didn't neither did a lot of colleagues. and won't be voting yes for the pay!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar 707,
your posting proves what a bunch of w*nker$ NATS management are and the utter disdain in which they hold the union and NATS staff as a whole. All the board are interested in is how to make a quick buck for themselves and their mates, whilst feathering the nest for their next job.
Barron will f**k off to his next "job" before long so that the next guy can have a go at f**king us over, and use the eternal line: "sorry folks, not my fault. It was like that when I got here"
NTUS needs to understand that they have been completelty out-manoeuvered by a bunch of greedy f**kers who would sooner sell their mothers than look at you. NTUS needs to stop "working together" for the board's agenda and actually grow a pair. It's now or never folks! And all those sycophanths who do nothing but buy the management hyperbole: WTF?
Sorry for expletives but I am
your posting proves what a bunch of w*nker$ NATS management are and the utter disdain in which they hold the union and NATS staff as a whole. All the board are interested in is how to make a quick buck for themselves and their mates, whilst feathering the nest for their next job.
Barron will f**k off to his next "job" before long so that the next guy can have a go at f**king us over, and use the eternal line: "sorry folks, not my fault. It was like that when I got here"
NTUS needs to understand that they have been completelty out-manoeuvered by a bunch of greedy f**kers who would sooner sell their mothers than look at you. NTUS needs to stop "working together" for the board's agenda and actually grow a pair. It's now or never folks! And all those sycophanths who do nothing but buy the management hyperbole: WTF?
Sorry for expletives but I am
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly.
There is much more at stake here than a 2 or 3 % pay "rise".
It's about standing up for all the hard working professional workforce that keeps NATS afloat, be they in an office or on radar. It's also about having some self respect and pride in what you deliver, and not being shafted by a bunch of greedy tossers who are jumping ship in 10 months with a shed load of what's left after they unneccessarily dolled out £43.5 million 
There is much more at stake here than a 2 or 3 % pay "rise".
It's about standing up for all the hard working professional workforce that keeps NATS afloat, be they in an office or on radar. It's also about having some self respect and pride in what you deliver, and not being shafted by a bunch of greedy tossers
who are jumping ship in 10 months with a shed load of what's left after they unneccessarily dolled out £43.5 million
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UP North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is all very well having this NO campaign on here but we need to get it into the ops rooms.
The union reps are doing a great job brainwashing some of the staff to accept this deal like they did with the pension.
We need to get a NO campaign which is can be seen by all. Not all ATCO, ATSA's etc read pprune.
The union reps are doing a great job brainwashing some of the staff to accept this deal like they did with the pension.
We need to get a NO campaign which is can be seen by all. Not all ATCO, ATSA's etc read pprune.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We should start by leaving copies of the NTUS letter copied in radar707's posting and highlight management's subterfuge all over ops rooms, vcrs, rest rooms, CTC and anywhere else that NATS folk are employed.
Let none of us fall for the propaganda. Let's not kid ourselves. The more we give, the more they'll want to take, and not for the benefit of us or the greater good of the company, but for their own selfish needs and those of the non-staff shareholders.
Let none of us fall for the propaganda. Let's not kid ourselves. The more we give, the more they'll want to take, and not for the benefit of us or the greater good of the company, but for their own selfish needs and those of the non-staff shareholders.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: swanwick carp lake
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all too late for this huffing and puffing. the time for this was 6 months ago over the pension saga as has now been proved by nats not even getting near to paying the underlying rate.
i still predict 80% yes.
i still predict 80% yes.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: way down south
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ImnotanEric.
If you think that its goning to be a landslide "YES" vote but believe it should be a "NO" vote then why aren't you being a bit more positive (about "NO") and trying to let those "YES" voters know why for the sake of all the workers involved below management level that a "NO" vote is the only way to show those carpet-baggers that we still have some fight in us.
If you think that its goning to be a landslide "YES" vote but believe it should be a "NO" vote then why aren't you being a bit more positive (about "NO") and trying to let those "YES" voters know why for the sake of all the workers involved below management level that a "NO" vote is the only way to show those carpet-baggers that we still have some fight in us.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: way down south
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of the younger/newer staff.. in all areas.. may not be aware of all the previous offers from management over the years that unions have had to fight long and hard for to get the pay and conditions they enjoy now. Some just see money of some sort coming their way but don't think about the long term.
The unions need to be tougher and more truthful with the facts..If they are putting their hands up to a job then they should do it and do it well and not half-arsed for fear of recriminations!! "Working Together"! "My A..e" as Jim Royal would so eloquently put it.
The unions need to be tougher and more truthful with the facts..If they are putting their hands up to a job then they should do it and do it well and not half-arsed for fear of recriminations!! "Working Together"! "My A..e" as Jim Royal would so eloquently put it.
Last edited by kats-I; 16th May 2009 at 14:20.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS want the ballot to be opened and closed before the annual results are published, the date of the ballot is not a 'lucky coincidence'- this is a FACT confirmed by a very senior Union Bod.
Why do you think NATS wish to do this? Because it will show how well NATS has done over the past year, thanks to the hard work by all the staff.
Of course once the sycophants have voted yes and we get our 2% over two years (does anyone honestly believe we will get any extra increments after the Aug RPI), the PCG pay awards will be done... against the background of a very strong annual report!! Kerching for PCGs.
There has been talk here and on NATSNET about the fact that neighbours etc have lost jobs etc, so what?
Whilst I sympathise with anyone who has been made redundant the fact is NATS has performed well due to its staff. Just because other companies are not doing well does that mean we have to wear sack cloth?
There are plenty of businesses including banking who have awarded well over 2% in pay awards this year... and paid staff bonuses to boot.
I care about NATS and work bloody hard to ensure that it remains a very good ANSP, as do most of the staff. I deserve to be rewarded for this. I don't give a fig about public support - I'd happily man the picket lines, as long as I don't need to use coal braziers... might as well strike in comfort and get a catering agency in. May I suggest these guys for Swanwick Hog Roast, Hog Roast Machine, Hog Roast Machines, Pig Roasts ??
As I said, I don't care about public support. People should dust down their backbone and use the bloody thing. Fight for yourself, not to appease people who have nothing to do with our company
One year pay deal please, based on Aug 08 RPI as per the usual way of operating, not some blended RPI based on assumptions made by people who took money from our pension fund when it suited them then refused to bolster funding when it was needed.
Why do you think NATS wish to do this? Because it will show how well NATS has done over the past year, thanks to the hard work by all the staff.
Of course once the sycophants have voted yes and we get our 2% over two years (does anyone honestly believe we will get any extra increments after the Aug RPI), the PCG pay awards will be done... against the background of a very strong annual report!! Kerching for PCGs.
There has been talk here and on NATSNET about the fact that neighbours etc have lost jobs etc, so what?
Whilst I sympathise with anyone who has been made redundant the fact is NATS has performed well due to its staff. Just because other companies are not doing well does that mean we have to wear sack cloth?
There are plenty of businesses including banking who have awarded well over 2% in pay awards this year... and paid staff bonuses to boot.
I care about NATS and work bloody hard to ensure that it remains a very good ANSP, as do most of the staff. I deserve to be rewarded for this. I don't give a fig about public support - I'd happily man the picket lines, as long as I don't need to use coal braziers... might as well strike in comfort and get a catering agency in. May I suggest these guys for Swanwick Hog Roast, Hog Roast Machine, Hog Roast Machines, Pig Roasts ??
As I said, I don't care about public support. People should dust down their backbone and use the bloody thing. Fight for yourself, not to appease people who have nothing to do with our company
One year pay deal please, based on Aug 08 RPI as per the usual way of operating, not some blended RPI based on assumptions made by people who took money from our pension fund when it suited them then refused to bolster funding when it was needed.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: way down south
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing
Couldn't agree with you more about not worrying about public support..someone elses neighbour isn't going to worry about us, might sound callous but its a-dog-eat-dog world.
Only today in the papers I read that bankers are going to get up to 50% pay rises..50%!!!! and Nats quibbles about 4-5%!
Perhaps we wouldn't..or shouldn't.. have worked so damn hard for the company if we had known that only the top-bods and airlines were going to be the only ones to really benefit.
It was obvious that Nats was trying to rush this through thinking us poor peasants wouldn't uncover their ruse .
("poor" being the operative word if we end up with a paycut/freeze!!)
If a senior union bod has confirmed this little gem are he and his playmates going to do anything about it? Like recommend a "NO" vote if only to drag it out til after annual results published. Suppose that depends who the "Playmates" are eh?
Couldn't agree with you more about not worrying about public support..someone elses neighbour isn't going to worry about us, might sound callous but its a-dog-eat-dog world.
Only today in the papers I read that bankers are going to get up to 50% pay rises..50%!!!! and Nats quibbles about 4-5%!
Perhaps we wouldn't..or shouldn't.. have worked so damn hard for the company if we had known that only the top-bods and airlines were going to be the only ones to really benefit.
It was obvious that Nats was trying to rush this through thinking us poor peasants wouldn't uncover their ruse .
("poor" being the operative word if we end up with a paycut/freeze!!)If a senior union bod has confirmed this little gem are he and his playmates going to do anything about it? Like recommend a "NO" vote if only to drag it out til after annual results published. Suppose that depends who the "Playmates" are eh?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my garden shed
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kats-I
you're spot on. I too don't care what others think of our payrise. Whay? Because we earnt the money through hardwork. Whilst I sympathise with those who have lost their jobs, as you point out, there are many who are getting subtantial pay increases (including, it appears, our board) based on their performances.
We did lose our chance 6 months ago in a big way, but we now have a chance to stop slipping down that slippery slope of getting shafted every which way, including loose.
By recommending the deal our Unions have backed themselves into a corner, but with the dividend and soon to be published financial numbers, we have a counter to their no more money argument.
I'm positivethat if we vote NO, NTUS can go back to NATS armed with accounts etc. and say: "sorry our membership say no. What more can you offer? and by the way what the f*** are the dividend and pensions lies about? You people plead poverty and here we are with big profits and you lot flashing the cash? Show me the money! Show me the money!" (dramatised for effect)
you're spot on. I too don't care what others think of our payrise. Whay? Because we earnt the money through hardwork. Whilst I sympathise with those who have lost their jobs, as you point out, there are many who are getting subtantial pay increases (including, it appears, our board) based on their performances.
We did lose our chance 6 months ago in a big way, but we now have a chance to stop slipping down that slippery slope of getting shafted every which way, including loose.
By recommending the deal our Unions have backed themselves into a corner, but with the dividend and soon to be published financial numbers, we have a counter to their no more money argument.
I'm positivethat if we vote NO, NTUS can go back to NATS armed with accounts etc. and say: "sorry our membership say no. What more can you offer? and by the way what the f*** are the dividend and pensions lies about? You people plead poverty and here we are with big profits and you lot flashing the cash? Show me the money! Show me the money!" (dramatised for effect)
Last edited by hold at SATAN; 16th May 2009 at 19:19.
NOW
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Winchester.Hants.England
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a senior union bod has confirmed this little gem are he and his playmates going to do anything about it? Like recommend a "NO" vote if only to drag it out til after annual results published.
The union want us to accept the pay deal, which is why the ballot is being held before the release of the results, which are going to be very good and will include an upbeat statement about the future of NATS.
Last edited by Flybywyre; 17th May 2009 at 09:37.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: way down south
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybywyre
So what the unions want they get eh? Perhaps not this time ..What about us getting what we want!! They got what they wanted over the pension, Its our turn now or didn't their mothers teach them to share and take turns??
So what the unions want they get eh? Perhaps not this time ..What about us getting what we want!! They got what they wanted over the pension, Its our turn now or didn't their mothers teach them to share and take turns??
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what the unions want they get eh? Perhaps not this time ..What about us getting what we want!!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: way down south
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going to ballot and wanting a "Yes" vote...well It's our vote to do as we please and I will please myself by saying "No" and to all those "Yes" folk out there I will say as I have said before.."USE IT WISELY!! At least let the management know we feel we have a choice. If the return offer is no better so be it but at least it will hold things off til after annual results are published. We may have more ammunition then. 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the return offer is no better so be it but at least it will hold things off til after annual results are published. We may have more ammunition then
The problem for both sides is that regardless of what sort of year we had last year any pay rise negotiated will have to be paid for out of this year's income and nobody really knows how bad this summer is going to be. You seem to assume that if we put off negotiations until later we will be in a stronger position but what if that isn't the case ? Do you think the current deal will still be on the table if the summer is worse than predicted and NATS can't afford it ? Remember the August RPI figure is very important because if it is negative it will reduce the income next year even if traffic levels pick up again next summer. At the moment both management and workforce are gambling a bit on what that figure might be and the risk is shared but I think it unlikely that NATS management will be prepared to take any of the hit if we wait until after that RPI figure is known.