We asked why SMART hadnt been introduced, the answer......


"Ooooh errrr I dont think anybody had really thought about it or knew about it"


For the last few years to overlook what seems to be a win-win easily implemented, money saving form of payment seems kinda silly, since they're so strapped for cash un all...

No is still the way to vote...

They have broken the trust of the employees over pensions, that is as simple as it gets...

We have all seen the figures, I dont disagree it doesnt look totally rosy, but there are still other options, and the proposal doesnt come with any guarantees that it will actually work. They have left out many facts when it comes to the finances of the company, there is no evidence of predicted profits to cover this short term shortfall, and future investment. There are many projects that take a lot of cash at the moment that will be complete in those 15 years.

I think whatever the outcome, a No vote at this stage is necessary just to show the message that we are not happy that they have broken the trust, that we dont trust them to stuff us further, that we expect more from them(not just in cap or smart, but better assurances of what future will be if we accept) If we roll over a stage one, then why are they ever going to be worried about other changes in the future when as a workforce we will then have less to bargain with.

further evidence etc may prove that this is the only option, that is what has to happen, but surely we should make them work for this, make them see they cant just baffle us with figures and heavy handed tactics, that they have to respect the people that at the end of the day ensure they make any profit at all.

For those that are jumping to the yes, because you retire before the 15 years are up. just think, about those that dont, and consider a no now, its easy at this stage just to say NO, and wait and see what comes next, at the end of the day a second ballot woul be necessary before any action was taken and by then the company maybe a bit more honest and you can then maybe consider yes.

The govt either don't understand or don't care as majority shareholder.
I received a letter from mark hoban (my mp) who forwarded on a reply he got from the dept for transport to my questions and comments he sent about a month ago:

Dear Mark,
Thank you for your letter dated 20th oct addressed to Geoff Hoon enclosing correspondance from your cinstituent, Imnotaneric, address, hampshire regarding the NATS pension scheme. I am replying as I have ministerial responsibility for Aviation.

The proposal jointly developed by NATS and the NATS trade union side (NTUS) for the reform of the NATRS pension scheme is a matter for the company.

I can advise you that the company, and the NTUS, have parallel consultation processes in place with employees and members respectively, which they have just started this week. Your constituent should ensure they take full advantage of the opportunity afforded by the consultations, to seek clarification, raise questions and make their views known both to NATS and to their TU representative.

Should you have further questions about the consultation process, may I suggest you write to NATS at 4000 parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, PO14 7FL, either to richard churchill-coleman who is general counsel and company secretary or to jane johnston who is head of external communications.

yours sincerely,

Jim Fitzpatrick



I shall be writing to Jim directly soon and re-iterate my comments regarding the union operating without a mandate, and the promises NATS employees were made pre privitisation.If Anyone has got anything specific they want me to add (keep it clean), pm me or write yourself.

His email is [email protected]

My understanding of the situation is even if there is a No vote the proposals will still be implemented.

By law the the members of a pension scheme have to be consultation before any changes can go ahead. This is that consultation.

The Deed of Trust can not stop NATS closing the scheme to new members.

The Deed of Trust can not stop NATS from deciding what remuneration is and what remuneration is not pensionable.

The question is what are we as a workforce going to do once the changes are implemented.

The only power any workers have over their owners is the power to dent profits.

Any industrial action without the Unions is illegal and a disciplinary matter so any industrial action will have to involve the Unions and lets face it they are more aligned to Management than Us now.

So that only leaves non co-operation by individuals.

How the hell did we get up this creek?

ERIC,

What a cop out...I am emailing Fitzpatrick as we speak and I advise evrybody else to do the same. Your reply was a carbon copy of one recieved by Cuddles on the NATS forum.

smart pensions
 

When Deloitte or whoever started looking at the fund, they asked NATS management in particular the accounts side, why we did not use SMART pensions.
The reply was along the lines of "why would we want to do that, it's not in our interest".

In short, the management did not want to employ any method which made the scheme look healthier as that is at odds with what they wanted. It's only on the table now because they cannot wriggle out of it.

This is a further example of either under-handedness or if they had never heard of SMART pensions (unlikely scenario) it shows our money managers are incompetent. Either way, questions should be asked about how fit they are to be employed.

It begs the question, what other financial dealings are being mishandled through incompetence?

Absolutely correct and confirmed by my previous post

The "thing" in question that caused it to fail was financial incompetence by the incumbent NATS management. I am sure they would be the first to go. Failure to predict this situation shows a complete lack of business sense..................>>>>>>>>:uhoh:

The Joint Venture agreement was signed at the industry’s premiere conference in Maastricht, Holland by Paul Barron, Chief Executive of NATS and Francisco Quereda, Air Navigation Director of Aena.

http://www.pprune.org/4513196-post1063.html

Tell him you won't be voting for him at the next election.

While Fitzpatrick is minister for aviation, we can't let our own MPs pass the buck to him. As shareholder, the whole govt. not just aviation minister have an interest in NATS

If a wordsmith could kindly pm or stick on as a posting a draft letter which we could all copy to our local MP

FB: that is the best post I have seen on this thread :ok:. I can understand why ATCO's CTC bash, its the home of non operational "management", accountants, HR, and other "can recruit them off the street" types :E. I was going to vote NO before reading this post, now I am more convinced than ever!

Many thanks - from use engineering/ATC/support staff, whom I may add ofter work over the European working time directive in our attemp to make the front line ATCO's job as "easy" as possible. :ugh:

i had a great piece of advice from an old trade unioner when he overheard me discussing this. he said "its like buying a car mate, never, ever accept the first offer!, that's the offer the buyer wants to pay. you want the offer he's willing to accept to pay "

ayrprox

According to the NTUS at our briefing this is far from the first offer. The union reps were firmly of the opinion that there was no more to get so voting No as a bargaining ploy was pointless.

and you believe that???
the union have unfortunately fallen for the management spin.
its basic scare tactics.
Tell me this, if they tell you in jan you cannot have a pay rise as there is nothing in the pot, are you going to go for that too?

its playing into management hands... dont go for it!!!

spineless union
 

I definately support the NO NO NO stance. Us poor northerners got screwed by the union on the Banding, we all got screwed on the redundancy package, and the home to duty package.The poor trainees got screwed on every front. How many more times can we let the union get away from this, this is the time to send a definitive signal. The content of these scare tactic briefings is tantamount to bullying.:ugh::ugh::ugh::=:=

Fascinating reading for an outsider like me.

Having dealt with the modern day management style which is based upon a bonus culture, what is Barron's motivation? Clearly it must be making all, or part of NATS saleable, or does the intended suitor demand this?

Only one answer to the pensions ballot and for me it would never be yes!*

Never trust senior management if you have something of value to lose. By the time you realise you made a mistake, they will be happily spending their bonus payments!



* I am an ex pension trustee (not CAAPS).

Any questions we should ask them ?

thanks

ayrprox & sandwiches

Can you please provide us with the proof that this is managements first offer?

I haven't personally spoken to any of the reps who were involved with the negotiations - but if you have then please supply the info.

And in answer to your question, if they told me in Jan there wasn't any money for a pay rise then no I wouldn't believe them - But if they told me they were offering, for example. only 2% then i'd have to believe their opening gambit had been 1% then the union had asked for 3% and we settled on 2%.
I know that's over-simplicising things but isn't that the way negotiations go?

Just because we don't know about them doesn't mean they didn't happen.

still dark and hungry,

at the briefing i went to-the first at our unit- we asked how far management had moved in negotiations. they insisted that management had moved a considerable distance but wouldn't tell us how much.
They continually said they would tell us if we wanted but then didn't and promptly changed the subject.
We knoe smart pensions is a no brainer, everyone wins, the cap was a jointly proposed idea according to the guys at our briefing. so the only thing that has been changed (reading between the lines) is the amount of employer and employee contribution to the defined contribution scheme for new employees.

here's a quote from the guy in the stripey tie who looked a bit like martin "mad dog" allen,
" we can tell you, but i don't like negotiating in a goldfish bowl" cue change of topic.
brilliant.

I went to a pension briefing yesterday, after two and a half hours I felt as if I had been to a timeshare sale, and had been forced to buy a 4 bedroom villa I didn't want!!!!

There is loads of facts and figures aimed at scaring people in to voting yes.

Still not happy, and I felt that the union really didn't believe in what they were telling us.

Voting NO

The plain fact of the mater is, NATS as a company can afford to pay more into the pension than it does at the moment - easily.

Management are lying if they try to claim that they are not trying to get away with paying as little as possible. One of Barrons main objectives in his employment is to ensure the financial health of NATS - he has admitted this on NATSNET and it's a valid enough objective; however financial health can be looked at in several ways - for starters cynics may say that it is to pave the way to a sell off, others will say it's basic business sense.
Whatever the reason, it is a fact that Barron wants to get the cheapest deal he can on this issue (and no doubt in the upcoming pay talks). Management talks of NATS going to the wall if they have to pay a penny more towards pensions is complete and utter rubbish - total scaremongering and not supported by the company accounts.
It just means that we do not post such big profits (in this alleged 'not for profit' company) and dividends to the Airline Group (who again are not supposedly in this for any profit), will be cut or taken away.

The AG invested in this deal to ensure that they continued to get a world class service (not a profit) - that is the dividend they were promised through investment - not a piddling bung every year through the shares they hold. It's time they and NATS started playing by the book.