Agreed...and let's not even get started on Vision 2011...

If NATS want to save more costs can I suggest they close down all departments involved in customer service?
Lets face it NATS biggest customers save millions through shoddy customer service, why not take a leaf out of Ryanair or BA's book?

And, back to the topic......

I have it on good authority the union membership are pretty much on board with management now on this issue - the big challenge is to persuade us mortals to accept the change (hence the new number appearing on our payslips showing how much NATS have contributed to CAAPs - all part of a propaganda campaign to make us feel grateful). No doubt we can look forward to large bungs....

Prospect are not in bed with management on the matter by any means. So far as the number appearing on the payslip I am almost certain that was PROSPECTS/STAFF request and not management.

two companies (NERL/NSL) means two lots of managers, additionally the multitude of newly created managerial/directorship non-jobs : get rid - save cash!

The Union Reps are not in agreement with NATS on their wish to close the scheme. They have acknowledged there is an issue that requires action to resolve... that's very different.

Generally, on the predictable comments about how the company could start by not having awards nights/conferences/initiatives etc etc... Come on... They could save more money by not paying for fully-furnished gyms, plasma screens and subsidised restaurants in Swanwick. you have any idea how much those contracts cost us each year? I don't see any suggestions of closing those...
Doing things to engage and reward staff is a good thing. It doesn't come free but if you get suitable engagement and increased performance from it then it's worthwhile. There's an attitude of resentment from some people about any money spent that doesn't go directly in their pockets... It's nothing to do with whether it's the right thing to do or not. The company is financially healthy... The threat to the pension scheme is not because cost cutting is required.

Is the number a cumulative career total (I've been in a few final salary schemes and never seen that before on a payslip) or is it just how much they've put in this month? (don't think I've seen that on a payslip either).

If it's a cumulative total not just a comparison with the deduction which is the employee's own contribution, it surely implies some line may have been crossed. Very few employers have admitted that pensions contributions are historically a contracted part of the employee remuneration package. If it is shown on a payslip it surely is tantamount to admitting it is an integral part of the employment contract?

But the quid pro quo for the employer is surely as poi098 infers ... propaganda leading up to the day when 'negotiations' begin again in earnest :yuk: ... or did they never cease ? :hmm:

quite simple, if they mess with our pension and pay they can have one of my validations back.... if everyone (the majority) went back to MUR, the company would be well and truly shafted.
the company seem to forget very quickly that most of us in AC centres do more sectors than we are contracted to do.