Yahoo,

and

So you just decided to ignore the bit that it is the actuaries who are saying this needs to be done.

So you are now also admitting that your view is sod the new comers to the company. Hardly a stand together attitude is it? I take it your view on "onenatsonepension" was purely transitory till the writing was really on the wall?

This deal does everything it can to protect those of us who are already in and achieve the best for those who have yet to join.

And just because my views don't reflect yours doesn't mean you have to resort to personal insults

I have made my mind up to vote NO. I will not attend any briefings as I have read enough and understand what management are trying to do. The enlightened amongst you, and I can see a few here today will know where I am coming from. Management are giving these briefings for their benefit, not yours.
This was always on the cards when we were part privatised, and I like some others did predict this would happen to our pension. What next....NATS will be sold off to the highest bidder now we are a more attractive asset, leave will be reduced, winter and summer rostering will be the norm. Six days on, four days off ? forget it. UHP? get real, or get a day job elsewhere.
These particular briefings are only a tool used by management to deceive, confuse and to ill inform, and by their nature are delivered in a duplicitous fashion.
If you feel you need to be briefed I understand and hope they help you reach an informed choice.
Try and look at the bigger picture on this or I suspect as you approach retirement you will come to regret not taking a stand and fighting for your pension. Remember your spouse/partner, kids and grand kids will all lose out when you retire if you dont fight this one

I am done here... back to the real world :ok:

PS if I am wrong on the above, remind me and I will humbly apologise :O

250kts...when do you retire??? I only ask as I have another 25+ years to go.
Now, bearing in mind that the economy operates on a cyclical basis, at some point the financial gloom is going to lift and we WILL be back to payrises ABOVE RPI...over the course of 25years, of that there is no doubt.
Your whole argument about not losing a penny on the new pension is based upon the notion that we will NEVER again get a payrise above RPI. If you're about to retire in the next 5-10years I'd say you might be right...but for the rest of us poor s*ds we stand to lose out somewhere in the region of £8-10k per year.
As has been said many times, a pension is deferred salary therefore this is a PAY CUT. Therefore the management and the Union will have to come up with something better for me to vote YES. Until then, I'd say units are going to come to a standstill. Believe me there are enoughed people who are presently at the end of their tether having been f***ed around by Mr Barron for the umpteenth time...goodwill is going to be withdrawn very shortly.
As for the Union saying by voting NO we are rolling the dice with our pension, what kind of bulls*it is that??? Sorry, but that is just not a good enough answer over an issue this big.

VOTE NO.

Because if you don't, then the second these future employees outnumber current employees, you can reasonably expect them to vote for changes and pay deals that will benefit them but shaft you.

Rodan

Exactly then a two tier pension will do just that too:ugh:

I had no idea the underlying trust in our union was so poor for so many.

Trying to keep an open mind can any of you supply information to back up your conviction that management and the union are lying?

Specifically can anyone explain to me why the shortfall in covering the underlying cost (assuming there is one) is not a direct result of the very large pay increases we've had over the past 5 years or so?

It seems quite clear to me that the success of our union in negotiating these pay increases would result in pension problems particularly when you remember that NATS' turnover is DWARFED by the pension cost.

Anybody?

What, like the 13% a certain person got in ONE year?? Do me a favour. Next you'll be telling us all that "overall, the pension holiday has not contributed to this situation" and that NATS is not for profit.:ugh:

Like I said, I'm trying to keep an open mind here.

By responding in that dismissive tone you're being every bit as evasive as some people are accusing the management/union of being.

I'm not telling you anything, I'm asking a question which you seem to be deflecting with a sharp comment. You don't need to do that, I'd just genuinely like to know if someone can explain what seems to me to be an obvious and very simple mathematical issue.

Can you answer the question?

There seems to be an indication that this pension debate is all about the current economic downturn; it isn't. Paul Baron was talking about damaging the pension scheme on his barstool sessions.

The question you posed appeared to be phrased in a way that inferred that the cause of the pension deficit was based purely on our payrises...if I got the wrong end off the stick, I apologise...its a n emotive issue, no doubt about that.
I'd prefer to know exactly what the hell the company were doing while they were taking a payment holiday and then posting record profits...whilst management were getting fat payrises with money that could have been paid back into the pension fund. Surely people must see that there is something fundamentally wrong with that, or is just me being cynical??

Unbelievable that you are not prepared to put yourself out to listen to the case and ask the questions you want answers to. I suspect not too many of us actually have the chance to ask actuaries what their views are but hey, let's not allow informed debate get in the way of entrenched positions.

Anything from 10 to 15 years to go for me. By the way it is RPI + 0.5% not a straight RPI. Why do you really think anything much above this is achievable unless we sell some real productivity improvements?

Anybody come up with what the negotiating team will be expected to get if there is a "no" vote?

10 to 15 years to go means you'll be gone befor ethe Memorandum of Understanding expires and those of us left get it in the a***....no wonder you're voting yes, which is indeed your right.
Which brings me to my next point...what protection if any do those of us who joined the company AFTER July 2001 have, as we are not covered by the trust of a promise. This was asked at a briefing and the Union were very wooly with their answer.

I WILL BE VOTING NO!:ok:

A very wooly answer from the union usually means that you're s:mad:wed.I reckon that the joiners after 2001 are s:mad:wed as well,but not just yet.:uhoh:

Wherever you work, go to the briefing and listen to what the only person from outside of NATS and the Unions has to say.

This is the reality of where the pension scheme stands right now.

If we vote "NO" there does not seem to be any "Plan B" from either side.

For those of you that joined after July 2001, it seems that nothing will change for you as long as NATS continues as a viable company, you will stay in the NATS Section of CAAPS and the new 15 year MOU will protect you from being forced out or otherwise discriminated against.

Mr 777, those of us in the company before 2001 are not really protected by the 'promise' either, as it can be ignored if the company is in severe financial difficulties.
What are severe financial difficulties? Who decides that and over how long a time period you have to be in them for, does it have to be both NSL & NERL in them or just one, or even NATS holding company?
Nobody knew at the briefing I attended, still waiting to hear, but if any of us think we're safe because of a promise at the time of PPP, time to read the small print and wonder about just how wooly it sounds I'm afraid.
As for the pensions holiday, yes it seems misguided now, but NATS was ever thus (especually regarding recruitment, feast or famine in taking on new trainees, and still famine everywhere results). The fact seems to be that the 'surplus' we had does not alter the rate of contributions required going forward, merely when or if even more is required to maintain a fully paid up fund. Yes our payrises are partly responsible, along with increaed longevity, inflation, tax and pension accounting rule changes and god knows what else, but the fact remains that our pension is just too generous in terms of future benefits for the company to afford to maintain as is.
Is this the best negotiated outcome? Not sure, but I truly think that is the only question.

"I have made my mind up to vote NO. I will not attend any briefings "

250kts :suspect:

If you read why I said the above I can only guess you need help and can't work things out for yourself. By all means attend your "briefing" I am sure management will reel you in, hook line and sinker. No need for embarassment or the need to make such comments below.... you are certainly not one of the enlightened ones I referred to, confirmed by your intention to vote yes .

"Unbelievable that you are not prepared to put yourself out to listen to the case and ask the questions you want answers to. I suspect not too many of us actually have the chance to ask actuaries what their views are but hey, let's not allow informed debate get in the way of entrenched positions."

The question of those who joined post 2001 was brought up today at the briefing. No clear answer given, all that was said is that it is a wooly issue because it also depends on if you joined after 2006. Basically another important question well avoided.

Im stil a NO

As I suspected....yet more money wasted on glossy brochures and briefings where half the questions are unable to be answered.:rolleyes:

i am a NO.

I am a no, simple as:mad:

Mr.777 wrote...
I understand it's an important issue and you may be right to be cynical. I agree it's a bit "off" taking payment holidays in this context but really as I've said before the payment holidays are negligible in the scheme of things.

I don't think the situation is caused completely by our pay rises but it has to a big part of it the way I see it.

Definately NO.

The main aim of management was to start winding up the pension scheme by closing it to new employees. What's been added on (and appears to be attracting most outrage) is the cap on pensionable pay rises. I think this is a bit of a smokescreen to deflect us from the important change. In December we vote no; unions go back to management, management agree to drop capping. We think we've won and vote yes, and management get what they actually wanted all along; the closure to new members and the first nail in the pensions' coffin.

TowerinCu
I think you have truly hit the nail on the head in that coffin :ok:

toweringCu,

now that sounds like the true management game plan. Of course they have a plan b... most likely a C and D. they know we are a selfish bunch of gits and will want to sort ourselves out... as soon as we can secure that, they will close the case.
For the naive among us, and all are entitled to their own decision.... if you vote yes, you are eating out of their hands, plain and simple. as stated here a thousand times, we need balls and backbone on this and to ride this one out and show them at least we wont fold at the first hurdle and have some dignity and self respect. we are intelligent people, if mister brown told us the economy was going down and unless us 'high' tax payers paid in 80% tax for the next 5 years to save the country or we go to the wolves, riots, crime etc etc.... would you?
up next, pay talks.... what joy.

let's everybody stand fast and keep our nerve. The only way we can approach this situation right now is to vote NO and throw the ball back in their court. I have serious misgivings about what they are going to set up for our future colleagues, people who in far less than 15 years will comprise the majority in NATS. The proposal does not make conditions clear in terms of death in service, widows pension etc. We have a responsibility to look after the future controllers as well as ourselves and their terms and conditions are surely as vital a part of the scenario as existing members.

VOTE No

It is inconceivable that NATS management do not have a plan B.
I would suggest that what we have been presented with is plan A in the knowledge that they may get lucky and get a YES vote but if not then the more palatable scenario (plan B) that TCU suggests above would be taken up as some sort of compromise.
I suspect there is also a plan C!
It is also inconceivable that in the case of a NO vote the same NTUS negotiating team could go back and start seriously renegotiating what they have already signed up to and want us to accept.
How could they do that?
It just wouldn’t work. Management would simply say we can’t do x, y, z because of the reasons we have already discussed and which you have agreed with.
Should there be a NO vote in December this would leave the NTUS mortally wounded and in no position to start renegotiating.
It would require a completely new NTUS team.
(IMHO)

there are plenty of volunteers at my place. a couple have stepped up last month, if there were more spots to join as a rep.... plenty of us would love the chance to do it and renegotiate on behalf of you all.
i was on leave when it all happened, if i could have i would have.
maybe next time.

vote NO NO NO.

i'VE JUST SPENT AN HOUR TYPING IN MY VIEWS ON THE BRIEFING I ATTENDED YESTERDAY- ONLY FOR THE FORUM TO TIME ME OUT BEFORE POSTING.
I'LL POST THEM AT SOME POINT BUT THE ESSENCE OF IT IS STILL NO!

Its simple....if we accept this we will be stuffed for ever. And another thing,I am going to trade in my shares while they have any value!!! next year they will be worth bugger all!! The problem is if we all did that could NATS afford to pay the money?????

BT
 

Is it not also true, that when BT introduced SMART pensions in 2004, the Communications Union negotiated :
"There will be NO reduction in the BT pension you receive when you retire as a result of Smart Pensions.
BT has agreed if it fails to identify people who would lose under Smart Pensions, or underestimates the level of potential loss, it will make good any financial loss caused by Smart Pensions"The above lifted from CWU web site.
I think the NTUS have more work to do ..................:mad:

I went in with an open mind ... I came out a confirmed NO.

I do not doubt that the union guys believe that this is a lesser evil than the potential chaos of 'Plan B', and their views were well expressed.

I do not doubt that there is a funding issue with the underlying rate.

But I do disagree strongly that we (NATS) should be the only ones expected to solve this problem. In fact there seem to have been NO MOVES to pressure or lobby the Government for help, or to even suggest to them that there might be a looming problem.

This problem is a direct result of the Government's PPP - saddling us with so much debt, and then insisting through the regulator that we are rigorously capped by the CAA and restricted in our ability to pass through pension costs.

The Government own 49% of NATS, it is time they were made to live up to their responsibilities.

If the Government hear that we are even threatening industrial action, believe me, they will sit up and take notice. If they hear nothing but good news, they will ignore us and hope that the problem (for them) will go away.

It might be worth remembering and revising what was said on NATS Pensions during the Parliamentary Readings of the Transport Bill.

House of Lords - 26 Oct 2000 - Passed Amendment (#70A) seeking extra legal protection for NATS pensions. (78 For, 77 Against.)

Commons Debate - 15 Nov 2000 - Rejected that Lords Amendment. (337 to 203)

Nick Raynsford, the Government Minister, who steered the Government's rejection of that Lords Amendment (70A) said .. and I quote ...

"The key point, which we have already clarified, is that if evidence is forthcoming that shows that existing pensioners, deferred pensioners or existing employees face A SERIOUS PROBLEM that could have AN ADVERSE EFFECT on their financial prospects under a pension, WE ARE READY TO RESPOND QUICKLY AND POSITIVELY."

Well I for one think that avenue has not even been tested and they now need to be held to account.

I suggest you all write to your current MPs and those ministers involved, and get this issue raising its head NOW.

MPs that voted AGAINST that extra protection include,

Jim Murphy (Eastwood) The new Scottish Secretary
Alasdair Darling (The then Transport Secretary)
Des Browne (Kilmarnock)
Douglas Alexander (Paisley South)
Anne Begg (Aberdeen)
Brian Donohoe (North Ayrshire)


MPs that voted FOR that extra protection included ..
Gavin Strang (Edinburgh)
Vince Cable
Menzies Campbell
Charles Kennedy
Lembit Opik
Tam Dalyell
Liam Fox
John McDonnell

Find the list here

Questions that remain unanswered. :confused:

What life expectancy are the actuaries using ? :\

Is it the same for all, or do they split down into ATCOs, ATSAs, shift workers, office workers ?

I ask, because shift workers have a 5 year lower life expectancy than office workers and if that is not taken account of, it makes for rather skewed liabilities.

The question of what NATS does with its £60m profit each year wasn't adequately answered. :hmm:

Director HR said it gets reinvested into the company. Well that doesn't seem to include staff terms and conditions which is surely an investment in the company.

Why should we trust a 15 year memo of understanding. What happens if the company is sold on and NATS no longer exists ? :yuk:
I didn't hear any cast-iron guarantee that it would be valid. We were told it was a legally binding document, but not convinced that this passes onto successor companies.

What about a potential deficit? :eek:

All the proposal is currently concerned with is the underlying funding rate. What happens at the next actuarial valuation (Dec 2008?) when the assets will perhaps be much much lower (due to markets) and presumably a whacking great deficit. Expect the poverty pleas to start again.

NATS Business Services website :=
Management seemed genuinely embarrassed that this had sneaked out, and said it was 'a mistake'. You bet it was. But it just shows that they cannot be trusted - this is the prevalent company mentality in NATSworld. It now seems that NATS whole website has been taken down. :D

You can still view the offending site by Googling "managing union expectations throughout the change" and looking in the Google cache. :8

..or try here ..

Ask the Union if they are embarrassed at being suckered in and having their expectations managed like this ? :ugh:

No coherent answer as to what happens to employees who have joined between 2001 and 2006. :ooh:

Questioned on the ballot.
Each constituency, PCS, Prospect (ATCOs), Prospect (Engineers) are balloted separately. If one rejects it, the proposal falls. :ok:

Keep those questions and subsequent answers coming ....

Jobby,
some of those were answered at the briefing I went to.
If there is a deficit at the next valuation, the trustees have to put place a plan to eliminate the deficit and return to a fully paid up fund (ie 100%). This means NATS would have to increase the payment in to cover not only the future liabilities but also to recover the deficit, which apparently must be enacted over a timescale agreed with the pensions regulator.
As for the lifespan question, not sure of the answer, but then does it really make any difference, as whatever the answer, that is the data being used by the scheme actuaries, and so is the data that would be taken into account in assessing future liabilities by either the scheme or the pensions regulator should the worst occur. It's all very well arguing it may not be what you think should be used, but will that change it?
As for NATS profit, couldn't agree more, should all be ploughed straight back in to company, certainly not issued as dividend to shareholders.

I haven't ben to a briefing and will not be able to attend the one at my unit.

I have however carefully read the brochure supplied by NATS and the NTUS and talked extensively with my rep who has been briefed. I have also done all the calculations on the intranet. Based on the actuarial assumptions I will be £8k a year worse off (assuming no promotions), that's a lot of money to be out of pocket each year when you're a pensioner. Add to that the reduced lump sum that will be available upon retirement, the reduced widows pension (assuming I die before my wife) and it all adds up to a big fat NO from me. No amount of scaremongering from Barron and his mob will change my mind. This is my vote and is based on careful consideration of ALL the information supplied to me from all available sources. All a briefing will do is go through the figures and I get to ask all the questions I have already asked my reap and had answers to.

Don't kid yourselves that there isn't more to offer from management because the threat of industrial action or the company going under will be enough to get them back to the negotiating table.

We will have to have a new negotiating team who can go into the talks with a clear mandate of what will be acceptable to us the membership and can then proceed to negotiate the best deal possible based on that mandate.

Stop all AAVA's now!

Is anyone actually still doing them ?

I thought any attempt to degenerate our pension automatically triggered an overtime ban!

Am I right or wrong here ?

aava s
 

air farce you are wrong unfortunately. still be done at Swanwick. how will management even begin to think there is any backbone within this workforce if we dont stop overtime immediately. whether you want to vote no or yes this is a time to show our management that we have been badly managed over the last ten years and that we are seriously considering this matter. To carry on with overtime as normal will be a great indicator to senior managers that things are going their way. please think very hard indeed before agreeing to it and about the message you are sending not only on your behalf but on behalf of your fellow workers!

No point calling for an AAVA ban unless it is a co-ordinated and agreed action across the workforce, with union backing.

Otherwise you will still have people doing them for their own personal reasons and you possibly face the risk of coming under the spotlight for starting illegal 'industrial action' if you make it a public call to arms.

The union conference is not far away, so that's the place to raise a motion calling for a ban on union members doing AAVAs. There are many good reasons why we should not be doing them any longer, but let's make it a legitimate ban.