NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
 

No, but i heard it was "stale mate" in the NATS-union pension talks!

If the Pension is upsetting NATS' management then they aren't going to be too happy with an RPI of 4.6% and rising.

The next figures due on 12th August and some analysts are predicting over 7% by the end of the year.

I have an idea to help with the stalemate. Everyone at area centres who are above MUR ( which is the majority) gives up the extra validations they do for free to help out watches,unit, COMPANY.
Certain sectors will grind to a complete halt, as long as the short sighted dont all go scrambling for the AAVA's to cover it. Management seem to forget our 'good will' so very easily....

Dont hold your breath, as the conductor of the night bus in Harry Potter says "Clench your buttocks and hold on tight, we're in for a bumpy ride"! Talk to you local rep.

Hi all,

Having spoken to a couple of our local reps, it is true that management are trying to link the pay negotiations with the pension debate. My understanding is that they would like to make some of the percentage increase pensionable and some of it would not be pensionable. In the long term, this could have a serious impact on what you walk away with at retirement time.

Also, it means that you would have set a precedent for management to use as a starting point to chip away at next time round. It is a bit like the pensionable pay vs bonus payments situation we had at West Drayton, and look what happened there.

Regarding the pension contribution issue, management claim that future employer contributions will become unsustainable and that the scheme and company could be put at risk. They also think that it is unreasonable for our customers to be expected to pay the bill for a final salary scheme.

Lets look at what has actually happened. Post 9/11 and PPP, which lets face it, we could have done without both of them. NATS management, knowing there was a considerable surplus in the pension scheme, asked the trustees of the pension if they could "as a short term measure" reduce contributions into the scheme in order to assist the struggling airlines and reduce our charges to them. Seemed reasonable at the time as the last thing NATS needed was for some airlines to go bankrupt and the resultant effect on route charges.

By 2004/5, things were starting to get back to normal and NATS and the airlines finances were getting back into shape. However, only recently have NATS increased there contribution rate into the scheme and not even to the normal amount.

This is a cost which the CAA currently allows us to pass onto the airlines(some of which are our emploters anyway)! Why have NATS not been paying in at the full rate for the last three or four years when our Chief Executive claims to be so aware of problems with the scheme looming on the horizon, and the company has been bragging about its profits and how well we are doing. They cannot have it both ways!

Why has this problem only been addressed in the last 12 months or so?, because management were in no rush to maintain an expensive scheme which would not be attractive to a buyer when they come to sell of the rest of the company.

So next time you buy an airline ticket or anything for that matter, make sure you give yourself a discount and bank the difference, as it would be unreasonable to expect you to pay for someone elses pension! According to NATS anyway.

Also, you have the reassurance from Mr Barron that he "is in the same boat" and has transferred his 30 years or so from his previous company into the NATS scheme, and he only got 14 or 15 years for it (boo hoo). That will be because you are earning so much more now and it is obviously worth your while doing it as you know you will walk away with a massive sume in the next two or three years when the scheme is still viable!

DEEP BREATH

rant over:mad::mad::mad:

Area52 - there are numerous ways to lower the burden on NATS to keep the pension scheme as it is.

As you mentioned, making only part of a pay rise pensionable is one of those... unlike you, I don't think that's a horrendous idea (neither do all the Reps I know) - think how much pension a leaver gets today then add a little each year, it's still a good pension... it might actually be unfeasible to ask for a pay rise of RPI then expect all of it to be pensionable!!

The company can also take pension contributions out before paying us, thus saving employer PAYE contributions on that part of our salary. The end result is the same amount of money goes into the pot, just not double taxed; unfortunately NATS are not too happy to do this as they know it makes the pension extremely viable.

A smaller increase in pensionable salary with an extra bit non pensionable is not too bad - what we do not want is a closure of the scheme as that could cause problems later on. Anything we can do to keep the scheme as it is needs to be done.

However, the unions do need to be strong, as the pension at the moment is in a very healthy state... it can be bolstered by having NATS pay the correct full contribution.

As for customers paying for our pension - that's bull. It's a very weak argument by NATS. Every company pension scheme is paid for by that companies customer... it's one of the differences between Gross and Nett profit FFS!

i agree with pretty much all of the above. management will seemingly do anything to get rid of the pension.... if there is a bung, it would have to be in the region of £100k plus which im not holding my breath for.
when they offer as a crap payout we need not to take it, just think a £10k bung now is very nice, but its not even a years pension. we need to think and tread carefully but if the company start to take the piss im sure there will be lots of long lines at the watch supervisors desks handing in excess validations, ojti and LCE endorsements... they would be royally screwed.

"Long live the King" I think the queue has already started!

No pension...no work....its as simple as that. As for pay rise, there is no way we will get RPI. I think we'll be doing well to get 2%!

I'm more worried about what I'm hearing about the pension negotiations. Rumour mill suggests that the NTUS has accepted that there must be changes to the scheme, and all they're on about is how poor the new entrants' scheme will be. Not sure what else there is to keep your powder dry for, when you give up the family silver for nothing :(

Beaver

there has been an announcement released - saw it in work today... it does not look good, though there is still a long way to go. Next announcement on or just after 14th August, I believe.

Yahoo,

I would like 12% - never going to happen.. however nice dream. I honestly think that if we don't sort the pension first and properly, then we will lose a hell of a lot more money in the long run.

Anotherthing

Thanks for that, I'm on leave at the mo so wasnt aware it was out. Is there any mention of "incentivisation"? This rather delightful word means that whilst you may stay in the old scheme, any future promotions you apply for, taking the job might be dependent on you joining the new scheme. Likewise with future pay negotiations: you could have 2%, but if you join Son of Caaps you can have 10% - I kid you not.

This for me is the real issue. Any negotiators out there care to deny this is on the table?

Beaver

The notice just says that both the union and NATS are in agreement that the pension fund might have some difficult times ahead.

It goes on to state that there is a lot of work to be done to bring both sides to agreement and that there is still a big divide between the two camps.

It then goes on to say that the next meeting is 14th Aug, and more info will be available after that.

As for all you say in your post, you are correct. A two tier pay award will definately be the way things go if we close the pension scheme to new joiners.

Any promotion jobs, even GS/LAS will involve joining the new pension scheme.

Any bung to vote for a change would need to be hefty - circa £200-£300k - that's what we could easily lose.

What the stance of the Union is is unknown to me... I know a few union reps who state they are still trying to keep the scheme viable, but it may mean several measures need to take place - such as future pay rises may not be 100% pensionable i.e. the pay award is for 4% but only 2% counts towards pensionable salary etc etc.

I don't believe it's a lost cause, a lot of reps want to fight it, but we may have to accept that in it's present form it will not survive so to keep it open for all, we may have to compromise to some degree.

Closing the pension scheme to new joiners should not even be contemplated unless current members wish to have a very high risk of losing out in the future.

Thisis the management team that claimed that pensions would not be affected when they took contribution breaks... we can only speculate what damage having so much less money in the pot to invest since late 2001 because we helped the company has done.

And this management team can make all the promises it likes medium term, but it will almost certainly not be the one in charge in 7 years when those in any new scheme out number those in the present scheme.

If any change is not fought now by the members then you can wave good bye to any decent pay rises in the next 10 years. We ain't going to fight over the odd couple of % if we don't fight over this-and management know it only too well. There are more things more important than next months' pay cheque. So every single person who does AAVAs should start thinking very carefully about if they should be doing them in the near future. This is not a call for industrial action, just a plea that intelligent people think hard about the long term.

Reading this thread one thing stands out and it was said by 250 kts about the Pension Scheme

Agree with anotherthing's last post. Quite often, the biggest whingers are the ones who would never bother to be a rep. Because they are the "me me me" type.

I believe the current wages are fair for pretty much everyone - at Swanwick. As for other units, well the banding issue is divisive and unfair, in my opinion.

Also, AAVA's are divisive. Some choose not to do them, others embarrass themselves by congregating like flies round **** when the girl from the resource office brings in her AAVA Wishlist, falling over themselves to remind her that they are on leave soon, but not going away. Others do the odd one here and there. To unite and choose not to do them would be difficult, though the resulting staff regulations and delays to our customers would generate a lot of heat for NATS. Also, be aware when talking of work to contract, that means staying to the end of every shift... be careful what you wish for.

Lets keep our eyes on the prize here, that's the pension. Since the pension is a NTUS negotiation, every ATCO, ATSA, ATCE, STAR and MSG should inform their local rep that they do not want a change to the pension scheme. Then NTUS must reflect our views. Though it seems like NTUS have already accepted that new entrants will join a new scheme, and negotiations are about the quality of that scheme. I find that unacceptable.

STEVEBBH

Why would you want to cap the pension at 35k, substantially less than the max pension at the moment for a top of the scale ATCO?

Also, please do get started on AAVA's, as I would like to hear why you don't approve of a voluntary agreement? Provided there is no adverse affect on long term T&C's and the pension of course as I stated in my last post.

Regards

AREA52

Beaver Liquor's last paragraph in his last post (#85) is very salient. Everyone should heed it. The union is, at the end of the day, only as strong as its members.

If we as members pussyfoot around and whinge in the background, how are our Reps supposed to know the strength of feeling. It doesn't take much, just go to you rep and tell them that you are not willing to change the pension scheme... it's numbers that count - in every other issue the union are left to get on with it... we need to show them how strongly all of us feel... though they do have a damned good idea already as they as individuals have the same worries/doubts as us.

Genuine question:

When Barron was doing his bar-stool sessions last Summer, he went to great pains (certainly at our unit) to emphasise the point that even if he wanted to change our pensions, to do so would require 100% approval of the membership in any ballot.

So why the hell is the Union even bothering with discussions?

Our pension (so we've been led to believe) was protected by law at the time of PPP!

Would anyone be happier with a proper professional fulltime Union Representation.(obviously would cost a bit more)

I would much prefer a Union that had both eyes on OUR interests,and not one on "promotion".