!: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!!!