[QUOTE
Are you saying that current NATS staff should take industrial action to 'protect' the T&C's of people who don't even work for the company yet, aren't forced to work for the company and will be aware of the companies T&C's before they sign on the dotted line?
BD[/QUOTE]

That was my initial reaction until someone explained the following:
Supposing the existing scheme is closed to new recruits, initially no problem as a small percentage of the workforce will have a different pension, but as time goes by...10...20 years that percentage will grow until the proportion of the work force that is in the existing scheme become the minority. At this point the minority will not have the leverage if there are any disputes!

For the long term safety of existing scheme members there should really be one pension scheme.

Uuumm, what disputes? CAAPS is ringfenced only parliamentary legislation or a vote by CAAPS members which is 100% in favour can make any changes. Anyone outside of CAAPS has no sway, please see the previous posts on this subject :)

BD

I posted this on the thread in the NATS forum that has gone off topic....

You are all right when you say that at the moment with the current laws in place NATS cannot touch our pensions - and long may that reamin so. Yes they would have to keep up contribution.

However. When the "new pension staff" out weigh those of us in the current scheme by 1 NATS will be able to tailor any pay deals + T&C to suit the new people.

So if in the future a new pension comprises of say 3% NATS input and 15% staff input (just making up numbers here) and our old one stays at the same rates what do you think will happen when management puts a deal on the table that goes like this

1% on basic pay
plus a reduction in staff contributions to the new pension of say 3% and the company will increase their own contributions to make up the shortfall for 3 years.

In effect a 4% pay rise for everyone in the new scheme, but 1% for those of us in the old.

And it would get voted through.

Its not just the pension that we are talking about - it is splitting the company (again imho thankyouverymuch Banding)

Where Has The Regulator Told Nats To Cut Its Pension Costs ??
 

BDI...
-
-
You keep saying that NATS has been told by the regulator to cut its pensions costs. Please show me where they have said this?
-
"For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future."......A direct quote from the Airline response to CP2.....Don't take pension hols then expect use to pay for them later....NOT....cut your pension costs, as you would have us believe.
-
I have read CP2, NATS Response, Airlines Response, IATA Response and a response from the Star Alliance. Nowhere, in any of these, does it say NATS must cut its pension costs. At worst, it says they must manage them and not make short term savings then ask the Airlines to make up any shortfall.
-
-
I REPEAT, and NATS AGREE...THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE PENSION SCHEME.
-
IF the surplus begins to fall, and it appears that in the future NATS contributions rates need to rise to an unrealistic level, then SURELY THAT IS THE TIME TO LOOK AT CHANGES, NOT WHEN THERE IS NOTHING WRONG !!
-
-
NATS Pensions costs are NOT increasing as the surplus is funding them. If the surplus begins to drop, then of course lets look at changes, but again I ask....Why Now??
-
-
I'm happy to back up what I say with quotes and facts, Can you do the same??

But, as you admit, legislation can be changed in an instant by politicians. No safety guarantees there then.

... Two suppositions, and neither is guaranteed or dependant upon the other because NATS is still 49% the responsibility of the government..... so, in your own words BD, RAILTRACK. (only the management and shareholders suffered there.)

'course they could always change the rules but we're dealing with National Transport Infrastructure here, like Railtrack, so it would be in UK Plc interests to keep things going as a non profit company, and write off the debts.

BEX

[quote=Stupendous Man;2976606]

So if in the future a new pension comprises of say 3% NATS input and 15% staff input (just making up numbers here) and our old one stays at the same rates what do you think will happen when management puts a deal on the table that goes like this

1% on basic pay
plus a reduction in staff contributions to the new pension of say 3% and the company will increase their own contributions to make up the shortfall for 3 years.

In effect a 4% pay rise for everyone in the new scheme, but 1% for those of us in the old.

[\quote]

I cant see that happening very often, cause their rate is going to be fairly low, if it is worse than the current scheme... and if it isnt they wont be able to try and pursuade people to transfer over.

DP - the rate is 12.8% of people´s pay, not the value of the scheme. Employees pay 6%, employer 12.8% at the moment...

James.

Surely, if the government should U turn and change the law protecting our pension that would be the time to strike? Up until that point our pension is safe. Why pull the trigger before we know what we are aiming at?

.4

The bit where they specifically disallow NATS from passing through pension on new joiners from 1 Jan 2006, which I've asked for your comment on previously. why did the regulator do that do you think?
You miss out the magic word, currently. There is currently no problem with the scheme.
Thats depends on whether you want to take a reactive approach, when its all falling about your ears, or a proactive approach and ensure things don't get to the stage of having to take action quickly.
Reactive versus proactive. I know the approach I prefer.
Uuumm I thought I had been, what have I missed?

BD
P.S. Could you please cut back on the shouting, really jars on the eyes.

Thanks for that James, I was just trying to put the sums into perspective. £30 million has been represented on this thread as a substansial amount, I was mearly trying to show that in this context it's not a lot.





Because by then how many of us will there be in CAAPS to strike? 80% of staff? 60%? What happens when less than 50% of staff are in CAAPS?

We won't have the strength in the future unless we stand together now.

NATS Employees are being criticised for promoting strike action in the event of changes to the CAAPS. In my opinion this is a too simplistic view, I think that the talk of strike action is the culmination of frustration of employees who think that the management have gone far enough in attacking employees general terms and conditions, treating the "Operational Resources" with bearly concealed contempt ie: Paul Barron complaining about "excessive" salary scales, conning the unions with "Working Together" whose only advantage seems to be one way ie: in the managements favour, ignoring personnel and other centrally negotiated agreements and other issues whose only aim appears to be to screw the workers.

I think it is a bit naive to believe that having people doing the same job but with different benefits is not going to cause problems in the long run!

DP

Fair enough, I see what you're saying.

Looking forward to something solid from the union.

.4

Ask yourself what would our French friends do if in the same situation???? is it not about time we showed we have balls of "steel" and not "rubber" as we have done in the past ......as for Mr "B" whatever the outcome he once again will wander off into the sunset with a nice wadge in his back pocket!!

BDI
 

The reason the regulator is stopping 'pass through' is to prevent what I have attempted to explain on numerous occassions. It prevents NATS from taking 'pension holidays' or failing to pay in sufficient funds today only to force the airlines to stump up more cash in the future, to subsidise a badly managed pension fund. It doesn't prevent our pension costs being passed onto the airlines in any way, shape or form. All companies include pension costs in their overall charges. Provided our scheme is managed well and not used as a cash cow for NATS short term profits, then we will continue to include pension costs in our fees. Your argument would seem to say that with no pass through allowed we cannot pass any pension costs to our customers. That is a ludicrous suggestion and not only a blatant distortion of the truth but simple scare mongering !!
-
-
As I said before, there is no problem with the Pensions Scheme. You say, not currently......Well, what is changing that makes it seem there is going to be a problem......Surplus is increasing, interest rates are rising, property prices are on the up, Govn Bond returns are increasing, the economy is stable, NATS are making a healthy profit, NATS costs per movement are down, etc, etc.
Again, when there is no evidence of this looming disaster.....Scare mongering
-
-
There is a surplus of over £200million, and it is likely this is will be even more come March. This will not vanish overnight as you would make out. If we see the surplus begin to fall, then that is the time to look to changes if need be. I'm not being reactive, I'm being sensible. Your actions are to change a scheme that is extremely healthy and shows no signs of being anything else.
-
-
To set up a new scheme, our costs would have to go up. To set up a Defined benefits scheme would cost in the region of £70million to set up initially. On top of this you then have NATS contributions to pay. The 12.2% is currently subsidised by our surplus, which would remain in the old scheme. Therefore, the new scheme is not being subsides, SO, just what contribution rate would NATS pay in. Surely it would have to be well over 12.2%, otherwise it would be well below what is required to provide a living wage on retirement?? SO, the cost of providing pensions would increase yet we can't pass through these costs....Where does this money come from then??
-
-
You have the right to believe what you do regarding the Pensions Issue, it is a complex and emotive topic, but I think you will find the arguments/facts stacked strongly against you. I hope we are all able to retire on the £££ we expect to recieve. I, for my part, will do all I can to ensure that is the case for all, not just those who believe (rightly or wrongly) their pensions can't be touched.
-
-
Once again, I thank you (and no shouting this time:O )

j-b-g

Bravo :D

As I've said before, I suspect there is more to this than simply pensions and NATS continued involvement in CAAPS is the biggest obstacle to a full-scale sell-off of, in the first instance, NSL, followed by whatever else can be flogged.

excellent
 

j-b-g
an excellent post which sums up perfectly the real issues and motives behind managements posturing on our pensions. I do hope you are a union rep as that is exactly the depth of research and knowledge that will be required if this comes to a fight. As someone who has spent a very dull evening trawling through cp2 and other equally dry publications I concur with all of your points.

Jonny be Good

An excellent post. Now I think I am beginning to understand the arguments and they do seem to suggest that there is no need to be messing about with this. Which then begs the quesiton, what are they really up to?

I am grateful for your clarity.

.4

P.s.
Just seen ifaxu's post. I agree; j-b-g, if you aren't a rep, please consider becoming one!

One argument from management is that 'we have done well with our investments in the past but the future might not see such good dividends, '.

Well thats utter tosh... that is the way investment banking has always been (the old "rates may go up or down" statement bankers have to issue). For the management to use that as an excuse to stop the current scheme is complete twaddle!

Jonny be good? Should be Jonny for God!!!

Excellent riposte!!!:D

May I refer the Honorable Gentleman to the reply I gave some time ago...

!:D

.4

Threat to existing pension rights
 

Not content with messing with the pensions of future employees, NATS are attempting (unilaterally) to use age discrimination legislation as an excuse to worsen terms and conditions for existing pension scheme members - see recent mail for Prospect and PCS members.

Could this be management testing the resolve of the unions? After all, if we won't stand up for our own terms and conditions we're hardly going to fight for the pension rights of future employees.

I've not seen this letter or anything, but my understanding is that once you have completed the total number of years required to get a full pension, you can retire. FULL STOP.

Ie the police pension scheme, you can in theory retire at 48.5 years old, as long as you joined when you were 18.5... there is no way of changing that. - Unless they change the pension scheme, like they have for the police, but only for new employees...

James

I too believe that Courtenay is right, once you have reached the age of 50 you can claim your pension (age 55 after 8th April 2010). I wondered if there is another reason for messing about with YOUR existing pension in that it might "encourage" the older employees (ie: expensive) to retire earlier rather than later?

It's no longer legal. Based on the shaky premise that having a different rule on retirement age because someone has been there a long time discriminates against those who haven't. Not a NATS shaky premise... a government one.

The union letter isn't actually saying what NATS has done is "wrong" just that they did it unilaterally, without proper consultation and examination of possible alternatives.

Lets be clear about this!!! The ATCO flexible retirement scheme is based on age and time served. The non-ATCO flexible retirement scheme was based on age and time served. Some wording may be different between the two schemes but the principle is the same. The correct course of action would be for NATS and the unions to agree a form of words which kept both schemes. Furthermore the union says that their legal advice is that the non-ATCO scheme do not breach the new legislation. IMHO this is another management move to divide and conquer. If this situation is not changed we will have a three tier pension scheme GOLD - ATCO, SILVER- existing non-ATCO staff and BRONZE - new staff.

I believe that we were told that existing staff would not be affected by the proposed changes to the pension scheme. The management wish to change the non-atco flexible retirement scheme to the detriment of, and without reference to the members or the trustees. The non-atco flexible retirement scheme was the keystone of my retirement and now it may be to my disadvantage. I also think that Thehitman is a little naive in that he think that there will be three pension funds ie: Gold, Silver and Bronze, I am quite sure that in time the management will propose in interests of fairness and equality we will all be put on the bronze scheme excepting present day managers who are championing this nonsense. What price the management guarantees and assurances now?

the "40 year rule " is deemed to be dicriminatory on the grounds that only people who joined under the age of 20 benefit. On these grounds isnt the extra leave entitlement earned for years of service discriminatory - as it is only a benefit to employees who joined before a certain age.

Is the change to the 40 year rule a way of the company limiting its cost burden

Any "40 Year Rule" age discrimination pales into insignificance when compared with the iniquitous nats age-pointed ATCO pay scale of the mid-seventies. Some of us have been seriously affected by both these misguided policies.......

Yes and the leave entitlements will be changed too.. already in progress.

The change to the 40 year rule and all of this is driven by legislation, not NATS. However, they are using it as a convenient tool by which to make large savings on future liabilities.

The change to the 40 year rule and all of this is driven by legislation, not NATS. However, they are using it as a convenient tool by which to make large savings on future liabilities.[/quote]

NATS interprets legislation to its advantage. It could be argued that the 40 year rule is legal as, under the legislation we can work for as long as we want. Someone joining at 25 can now work till they are 65 thereby building up a full 40 years hence full pension.

Prior to the legislation being introduced NATS could insist that you retire at 60 thereby denying that 25 years old joiner the opportunity to build up a full pension. It could be argue that the new legislation enables more people to benefit from the 40 year rule

Continental Brethren
 

Apologies if I am covering old ground here but have yet to get through the (vast number of) replies on this thread!!!

Does anybody know (roughly in % terms) how much less income you would receive from a new proposed scheme if you were fully paid up at retirement compared with the current one?

Did the French ever get what they were after when they went on strike?... And if so... What was it?

For what it's worth (not alot as EX prospect/NATS member)... Strike on guys and gals... I look forward to reading the headlines.

Hope you win! (More importantly hope there's a decent pension to return to if NATS ever take me back).

Happy camping.

P.S... Keep it up Nimmer!!! See ya when the pension changes!!!