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".

Having been a union rep in two different unions (Unison & Amicus/MSF) during my sojourn from NATS, I know only too well that it's a thankless task. But as I always said to the guys I represented, 'you need to tell me what you want before I go banging on the management's door. No good bitching that what we ended up with wasn't what you wanted.'

At my last unit, they had a habit of promoting the union reps to positions where they had to give the union job up. Still, I'm sure NATS has figured out that having a poacher wearing the gamekeeper's jacket is a handy thing for them.

Actually full time representation makes good sense, especially if you mean a Non nats person doing our negotiating. How much would that cost each member roughly?

I've no idea what you're on about zooker, nor do i wish to. And your analogies are rubbish! I doubt you'd be even be able to pay someone to help you keep whatever job you do!

At Swanwick the pension situation has been top of the canteen talk agenda for some time and a couple of very pertinent points have been brought up. It has been suggested that the privatisation "trust of promise" only covers employees in post prior to 2001 and that any vote to change the pension arrangements would have to be agreed by the majority of employees of NATS.
I would like to suggest that if this is so then we "oldsters" are either in the minority already or will be very shortly if you include the many adminisrators and other non ATC staff in post at Swanwick and the CTC. This will be compounded by "oldsters" who the changes do not affect voting for the proposed changes to receive the inevitable "bung" which goes with these "improvements" to our pension fund.

Working To Rule
 

As has been correctly pointed out, any 'working to rule' would mean that we would have to forego any possible early go's.

Are people so precious about 30-40 minutes at the end of one shift in 6 that they would not be willing to do this?

Any working to rule would hurt the company far more than it would hurt us. Things to be considered as doable would be:

a. Dropping sectors above the MUR.
b. If not the above, insisting that if we are required (for staffing purposes) to move from one sector to the other - we ensure we get half an hour break before we do so and not move immediately from one seat to the other (safety implication).
c. No AAVAs
d. Training - ensure that we are fully happy that we have enough continuity before training someone
e. Splitting sectors every way they can be split more often (Safety again, after all, are you really in a fit state of mind to work sectors bandboxed when you are worried about what is happening to your pension? Is it worth the risk?)
f. Refuse to do the secondary duites that you do not get paid for i.e. writing the roster or attending workshops for new procedures etc

I'm sure there are many other instances os goodwill that we could refuse to carry out, safety is always a good reason, no one can pick you up on it.

As for early go's - I for one advocate that we have 2 cycles whereby no one gets an early go. The reason I say this is that some pathetic idiots (certainly on my watch) think it's a right, not a privilege, and whinge all the time about it.
These people have never worked in jobs where early go's are unheard off... a bit of a reality check would do them good every now and again!!

REVOLUTION,

Your post about pay rises and MUR is a valid one, but I have one concern - there are a few ATCO's who are near to retirement who have had a productive career and are now finding it a bit difficult to work the core sectors... Do you not feel that there should be some discretion for these people?

I fully agree though that someone who is in the early stages of their career should have an MUR to receive full benefits.

If they are not good enough to hold MUR, they should not be on the unit. There are a few people around who are in this position (having been trained on a non core sector after SVC/TVC, and then unable to cross over through inability), yet their course mates who failed to validate on a core sector after SVC/TVC get chopped, sometimes not even being given a second chance at another unit.

I know life is not fair, but why if we bin people who cannot do a core sector from the offing, do we hold onto people who through luck get to train on a non core sector instead of a core one, then do nothing else?

An AAVA is paid at a flat rate for the shift, the rate is dependant on the banding of the unit and obviously is of more relative value to the junior ATCO's.

Thanks for joining the debate again, I appreciate both arguments for and against AAVA's, but some of the alternatives to a voluntary agreement may be even less appealling!

I look forward to hearing your views:)

:DFirstly we need to be pushing the union to commission another valuation of our pension scheme using the amounts NATS should have been paying. Then we can see where the pension surplus really should be. I’m sure everyone will agree that the figures would be a lot healthier.

This would help in a number of ways….firstly it shifts the “blame” for the reduction of the surplus to NATS management and not an unsustainable scheme/economic downturn etc etc etc

This would also be essential to present as evidence to bolster public support in the event of strike action!

121.375

I agree entirely.

As I said before, would we even be asking these questions now had NATS been coughing up what they should have been paying into the scheme.

Even now the trustees are still allowing them to get away with a reduced rate, whilst posting profits and paying dividends. WTF is going on?:mad:

On pensions - I would expect to see the tone of messages coming from the TU to alter soon.... in order to show a clear distance between the negotiating sides. Gridlock.

On pay - We may well end up getting something around the expected RPI + 0.5 - 1% but I very much doubt it will all come as part of a 'core' pay offer. Rather, I'd expect to see a core offer under RPI with a multitude of agreements on efficiencies and trimming of costs paying for the rest. The message coming from NATS is 'whatever payrise you get has to be paid for with savings for us'. But thats been the case in recent years.

On a general note - reading these NATS discussions I think it's often forgotten that there are people who work for NATS, doing 40-50 hours a week and supporting a family on £20-£25k. They are also most often the ones who are made to work harder and longer to cover for job cuts made to fund increases. No, they don't wear a headset - but their gas went up by the same 35%, their petrol costs just as much - they just don't have the Ferrari to put it in :)

Me me me me

your last paragraph is a very valid and well put point :ok:

The past year has been an extremely volatile time for the Markets in which our pension scheme invests so much of our funds.

I don't think it'd be wise to make any long term decisions based on this period.

We should also be wary of any statistics bandied about as we all know with a little bit of skill and a little bit of spin they can be made to prove anything.

What hope standing together over the pension issue, I ask myself...

Defend Our Pay & Pensions
 

The most important thing here is that the different types of employee stick together. ATCO, Engineer, Scientist, ATSA should be united. NATS senior management will try to divide and rule. We want no separate pay deals, no separate pension deals!. My faith in the union leadership to defend our iinterests is at an all time low. We should demand the company increases its contribution to the pension fund to take it FURTHER into surplus. Also we should go back to single year pay deals and settle for nothing less than RPI + 1. It is clear the company wants to weaken the Pension in order to close the scheme and split up NATS. NSL would almost certainly be sold first. The answer is simple...defend the Pension Scheme and get a decent pay rise for all and the company is less attractive for a potential buyer...which is what we want. Secure your pension, more pay and one whole NATS sounds simple to me. We just need some sort of gutsy leadership from TUs. Failing that the Union risks wildcat action by disgruntled ATCOs & other staff.

Call a strike on pay? No...

Call a strike on pension? Yes.

On the question about MACC getting band 5... erm... no mention I know of. Have heard some ridiculous demands from a few of those having to move though.

goldfrog,

i dont envy you working those ours at all.
there will always be a divide between ops staff and the other, many aspects of the company. the majority of it stems from high above and we always play into their hands. the main point here is pay and pensions, the latter should be none negotiable for all of us. regardless of hours worked in any given week, that is our job, whatever it may be. NATS has indeed lost its way since PPP and is now a business run by externally drafted types who have no clue about providing a safe service, let alone actual ATC but are near wholly concerned with profit and delays.
if we let the company take it easy on pay and pensions this time round, it will not be remembered by the company in 3 to 7 years and they will stiff our pensions for good then. THEY were allowed to take a payment holiday by ALL of us who voted. its time they made it up and admitted responsibility for their actions. if they have to use some of their 'record profits' for the last year and get the pension fund sorted. so be it.

MNT

Watch the exodus when the pension goes. I come to work everyday because I love my job, not the company, managers or new initiative makers wasting precious money on things like destinations and 'Lost Horizons'.

I am not a company man and believe this company has gone far too commercial. Air traffic should not be handled like this as everything comes down to cost and profit rather than safety. I appreciate we need some backroom staff and if you actually read my post I was talking about the numerous administrators and manager this that and the other that we are brimming with. They are just mainly based at CTC. I count engineering as front line staff and the guys at my unit are well respected and part of the team. I do not feel however that I am part of the HR team etc or vice versa and the only thing in common is we work for NATS.

any news on today's union meeting?

Top secret apparently :confused: