You will note from the Railway Pension website that ex BR employees were and indeed are still COMPLETELY protected and continue to enjoy a Final Salary scheme. Indeed the employer is REQUIRED by law to maintain the scheme for those protected staff.

BEX

That would be me then, with a mere 25+ years service.:rolleyes:

NEVER forget. NATS management (or management of any private company) don't have the employees best interests t heart. Their prime task is to run a profit making company and return dividends. In other words, they will always be biased.

One more thing. Deloitte, who were involved in advising NATS about CAAPS have been taken to court over the bad advice they gave to a company, whih subsequently went into liquidation because of their inaccurate report. So, probably NOT the best advisors then

BEX

ifaxu wrote .... its all very well saying things will improve in the financial markets given time. which they will. but it will all be a bit late if Nats has gone bust and our pension scheme wound up. and be under no illusion, any new buyer or government bail out will not honour our pension rights.

will any new buyer buy a company when the workforce won't work for them without their current Ts n Cs??? I think not. Will the government allow no flights over uk airspace??? ditto

we only need to stick together and fight this constant undermining of our Ts n Cs

Nats has made profits of X amount of million over the past few years how much of this is due to management starving our pension sceme?

first it was one pension, then it was two but no cange to our Ts and Cs, now well, if we do nothing we may as well start the search for different jobs! because in a few years it will be RPI - 0.5% then rpi - 1% until we are all on the new scheme because it will be better financially

each agreement management take something from us lets just let it keep happening eh??????:=

If we have to we stick up for ourselves I know I will, my belief is it will never get that far!

Deloitte hit by record £750,000 fine for failings in wealth management arm - Business News, Business - The Independent



It is also possible for us as union members to call for a special conference to be convened to discuss the pensions issue.

If what has been said above is true then MACC and ScACC are already doing this, just write to the union requesting a special conference, include your name and membership number.

Alternatively ask your local rep to produce the letter and get everyone on the unit who wants to sign it, then send it off.

If I remember rightly there needs to be about 170 signatures in total for a request for a special conference.

If one is convened, you can then tell your rep what you want and the matter can be debated.

The union have negotiated this deal without any mandate to do so. At the very least a special conference should be called even if it is to give the union a mandate to negotiate on our behalf and discuss what exactly WE want from these negotiations.

I may just speak to my rep when I'm back in and get him to do this.

There seems to be a large number of people against the proposed changes to the NATS pension but with both NATS management and the NTUS proposing a YES vote for these changes who is going to marshal the NO vote?

It certainly needs organising and organising fast.

I think it should also have the same privileges as the YES vote; time off for meetings, company website space, notice board space, access to staff data lists, internal mail facilities etc etc etc.

There are 3 main sections of NATS – Controllers, Admin and Engineers and they all need to be onboard.

Wot about the ATSA grades, ATSA 1-4, DSS, ATC T&S (C-A)? Strictly speaking the sections are:
ATCO
ATSA
ATCE
STAR (SCIENCE, TECHNICAL, ANALYTICAL & RESEARCH GROUP)
&
MSG (MANAGERIAL AND SUPPORT GROUP)

:)

BD

who cares what we are.

we all need to vote no.... and to be honest, the feeling at our large and influential unit is that anyone voting yes had better had some thick damn skin and keep their heads down.

Oh great. Now we are getting threats. Ee, it 'minds me of t'days of old down t'pit.

Will you be coming down from your large and influential unit to intimidate and bully us at our small and insignificant one then?

I will vote how I think best, not you. I may vote no, or I may vote yes, but it will be my vote.

well said dances with boffins. I will happily provide king louis with my home address via private e-mail and he can come down and try to intimidate me if i decide to vote yes! think he may get more than he bargained for though. Weasel!

I'm with you, DwB, I've already seen what could be seen to as intimidation.

Of course, the 'anonymous' nature of internet bulletin boards sometimes works against reasoned debate.

Everybody needs to calm down. We live in a democracy and no one need ever fear any retribution for however they vote.

Let's not let this thread deteriorate into a squabble; your pension is far too important and far too imperilled for that.

Let's just have constructive ideas and factual argument please.

Delving deep in the Nats annual report and accounts linky reveals some interesting facts and figures.

1.Profits were reduced by the repayment of £65Million in high interest (11.5%) perpetual shareholder loan notes financed in part by the group’s strong
operating cash flows. The repayment incurred an early
redemption charge of £15.8Million!...in other words a healthy profit for shareholders without actually being seen as 'profit'!.

2. At 31 March 2008, measured under international accounting
standards, the pension scheme had a surplus of assets over
liabilities of £413.5m compared with a surplus of £238.6m
at 31 March 2007. This varies greatly from the figures being spouted as to why the pension scheme is at risk.


Who is telling the truth??:confused:

king louis said:
what unit is this?
At my large and influential unit, most people I spoke to are disgusted by this proposal but I have heard nothing of people being gunned down mid opinion etc?

NATS SECTION OF CAAPS SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS MARCH 2008 - MARCH 2013

There was no shortfall when this document was signed 20th March 08 and the employer contributions were agreed untill March 2013

ImageShack - Hosting :: image1sm1.jpg

So who on here honestly thinks the pension scheme is viable as it stands?

It should also be coming out at the southern units too in the next few days. Ask your reps.

It needs 170 signatures but at least twice that number should be possible.

I believe it could well be.

I think it suits the owners to have a hobbled pension scheme as NATS would be worth more in a sale.

I certainly don't believe we should be making any long term decisions in such unusual financial times.

I also think we need a truely independent financial accessment of the fund and NATS's ability to maintain its contributions.

I also think the cost through put rubbish is the biggest pile of :mad: I have heard in a long time.

Kinglouis,:=

Dont be such an idiot.
We can all vote as we see fit,and you can stick your pathetic bullying.

There's a copy of the MACC/ScOACC signup sheet been faxed over to PH for signatures, and we'd heard that it'd been faxed to PF as well.

Airways B. Where did you find this? I can't :{
I think it'd make interesting reading around the ops room :ok: