So you're clear I'm not a Personal Contract management grade, I'm in the ATSA area. There is a big difference in how the rewards (pay is a reward) are arrived at between the negotiated grades and Personal Contract grades, ask your union rep to explain. As I said some posters are trying to compare apples with oranges.

I'm pretty disgusted and saddened by some of the comments in this thread, which is in the public domain and obviously affects other ANSP's and members of the publics perception of NATS staff. Its time to start playing the ball and not the player!

BD

Lets be clear here then, are you or are you not defending the fact that Mr Barron got a 13% pay rise last year and a huge bonus as being acceptable because he's on a Personal Contract, because that is what your post suggests. If so, you'd be the only one on here who thinks that.

has anyone heard a peep out of barron today?
im sure he and his cronies will be on damage limitation, unless of course they are so arrogant, naive or both that they think after the weekends natsnet action they are still in a good place.
the funny thing is that what led barron to rise to the bait wasnt actually that bad, and it looks like it has got nice and personal from our colleagues at scottish and manch.... keep it up chaps :ok:
its more of a NO than ever now as the companies lies are becoming more and more transparent... what fools.

Not up to me to defend, its a matter of indifference to me. I couldn't do his job but nor would I want to, not even for twice the pay.

BD

Sorry for the false start folks.

It appears that the posts about Mr Barron's perks and his rebuttal are still there, just not on the thread on NATSnet I thought they were on. Doh !!!:bored:

That said, another colleague has had a post removed on the pensions thread, presumably because he asserted that NATS management had mishandled the PPP and everything that has happened now is a result of it. His local management have not asked him to apologise yet though ;)

Bring on the barstool sessions where some free flowing debate can take place :E

http://www.nats.co.uk/uploads/user/N...ounts_2008.zip

From the Chief Executive's review (Paul Barron):

"The single uniting factor across our business is our people. Everything we achieve is done so through the commitment and professionalism of an incredibly capable workforce. I would like to thank our employees for their outstanding contribution"

Paul - for my "outstanding contribution" I expect a final salary pension. That is a pension based on my final salary.

:mad::mad:


The above link is worth reading before attending a briefing - some figures include:

- Loans paid off 24 years early (part of the loans were re-financed saving £5.5million in interest costs this year, the rest was paid off with cash)
- £15.8 million early redemption charges for paying these loans off 24 years early
- £23 million spent on relocation staff to West Drayton etc,
- £3 million costs related to staff bungs for changing redundancy t+c's
- £?? in payments to Heathrow staff for moving to new control tower

Not to mention the £66.7 million pre-tax profit or the £2.5 million in shareholder dividends



The briefing tries to say the company needs to find £125 million.

In reality this is £70 million as they already pay around £55 million each year into our pensions.

The figures in the above report do not show a company that is struggling to pay it's own way :=

Barstewards,

Maybe others can enlighten, what money exactly was paid to Heathrow staff for the move to the new tower? anyone?

Just looked at the report and yes does state a one off payment. but the above question still stands.

IIRC, £2400 each.

"Last month the ATSAs are being consulted about job losses by someone recruited into NATS.He had been there 2 weeks."

I also expect to be seeing this punter at Heathrow before long - probably in the New Year. That's assuming the local Mgmt bother to ask him down to see us :hmm: This is a separate issue, but may well have an effect on which way I choose to vote for the proposed pension changes.

Page 44: barron's pay £400k. Pension contribution £16k (i.e 4% rate for PCG, etc) What happened to the earnings cap of £117k. Does it not apply to him? or Hoskins et al?


:mad::mad::mad:

If thats is true, its outrageous.:mad:

I have been reading all these threads and NATSnet with rising fury regarding this sorry pension debate. I want to know why the NTUS reps agreed to the secrecy clause to protect the "credible" Deloitte and Touche report?? This is OUR pension and we are entitled to see the evidence that has caused such a stir and convinced the NTUS reps that change is required. The secrecy clause was soley to protect Deloitte from come back if they got it wrong, again.

We are mature and intelligent people with a very big vested interest in this report. If the report was soooo convincing we should have been able to view it for ourselves and make our own minds up!!.......oh no, the NTUS reps know better, don't they. AGAINST Prospect current branch policy, they entered into negotiations with management and have struck up this deal to be recommended to the staff. WHAT RIGHT do they have???

As far as the memorandum of understanding is concerned this document has NOT been written yet, but is nothing more that a promised wish list from that snake Barron and his nest of vipers. The gulable NTUS reps are hoping that we will TRUST them and vote yes! YOU MUST BE JOKING!!!
I never trust NATS management, but the sorryest thing for me is that I don't trust the Prosect BEC either. What bribes have been promised to the negotiating team in return for a yes vote???

Vote NO to the offer, then vote NO CONFIDENCE in the BEC!!!

Does anyone know the exact jobs that "our" negotiaing team have within NATS?

This is the reply that just dropped on my doormat from Mark Hoban, MP for Fareham.
I wrote him an email with a brief outline of the proposals and asked a couple of questions regarding how much they were informed, how much influence they had on the matter and stated that industrial action is not an impossibillity



"Dear Imnotaneric:),

Thank you for your email concerning the National Air Traffic Service Management Proposal regarding the pension scheme.

I am so sorry to hear about the uncertainty that you and your colleagues face and appreciate how worrying this situation is for you. I have written to Geoff Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Transport, asking for clarification on this matter and I will, of course, contact you when I receive a reply.

Once again, thank you for writing to me. If you would like to know more about what I do in the constituency and Westminster, please log on to my website www.markhoban.com and register to receive a copy of my e-newsletter.

Yours sincerely,
Mark Hoban"

As mature and intelligent people we should be well able to understand the difference between having a keen interest and having a legal right.
The D&T report is not "ours". It's a commercially sensitive document with legally binding confidentiality clauses.
The legal reason for the secrecy is to protect information about NATS that would be damaging if it were in the public domain. Any company run properly would take such steps to protect its business.

It's a very emotive subject - but it damages the arguments against the deal proposed when the sense of injustice clouds judgement.

I have just emailed Michael Mates, my MP, posing the same questions as ERIC. I think its time we took this a step further before we get well and truly s**t on. Write/email your MPs people.

Your damn right its an emotive subject.

Feelings of Injustice and mistrust run right through this argument and if you think that members are just going to vote YES because the BEC says they have seen the report and they recommend it to us, you are very sadly mistaken.

I WANT THE EVIDENCE and I know that most of the staff at my unit feel the same too! Don't keep hiding behind the confidentiality aspect of the D&T contract.....which incidentally the NTUS were wrong to agree to, in my opinion.

NTUS trust has been broken and the members want to see the evidence before we come to our own conclusions. Not just because NATS and the NTUS say so. There is a mountain of work to be done before the members will be convinced, and recent scare-mongering by the BEC up here will not help either.

Sorry to be emotive, but its MY pension and I'm damn sure I am going to do everything I can to protect it!!!

At our meeting in ScOACC, the question was asked whether this whole exercise was just to get NATS ripe for sale, specifically in respect of NSL. Philip James answered that it was just 'a rumour'. Which probably means it is true.

The impression I got from those ordinary union members at the meeting was that the sale of NSL was not good for 'one NATS' and we should all be pulling together as one company. Some, like me, even believe we should look at how we can bundle ourselves back up and address the divisive banding issues and the like.

Now we hear rumours that people who attended the meetings at Glasgow and Edinburgh were fed the line by our NTUS reps that the NERL folks don't give a toss about NSL and would happily sell them down the river over pensions and a sell off.

Can anyone who went to a Glasgow or Edinburgh meeting confirm this ?? If it is true, then it is an outrageous claim by a NTUS group who are not only doing managements job of selling the pension for them, but are also doing their job of dividing and conquering for them as well. The NTUS speakers looked and acted more like NATS management than NATS management did. They need to snap out of this and remember who they are here to represent. They also need to remember that we have Branch policies and they are going against them at their own peril. Maybe the upcoming union conferences will kick them out on their arses, and our fight to retain our hard earned terms, conditions, and pension will continue with leaders with backbones.

Angry ?? You bet !!!! :mad:

I agree that the TU shouldn't have signed up to the non-disclosure agreement in the first place. It puts a barrier between them and the people who they were elected to represent, so they cease to represent their members and are, instead, only representing themselves...

So feel free to issue them with a very firm "No"

Anybody - TU or Management who feeds you a line about how "X unit doesn't care about you, so why care about them?" is just applying the divide and rule tactic. Don't listen to that !!!!!.

The story is over a year old for goodness sake :rolleyes:

BD

Agreed. Don't believe the hype, if the last you few days has shown anything it's that we are more powerful if we are united. Management will try anything to divide us and use that to our advantage. VOTE NO.
BDiONU, towing the management bulls***t line again are we? You really are the most patronising and condescending idiot I know. Go and peddle your poxy YES vote somewhere else.

Talloway
 

To reply to your question about briefings at PF & PH....I was at one and yes that did happen.

Because the current situation is unsustainable, as shown by the figures from the actuaries.
Am I bovvered? Do I look bovvered?

BD

NSL guys and gals.
I work at this management whorehouse that some like to call 'Swanwick'.apparantly we (now the minority) are actually involved in ATC down here... although we are the dirty family secret that no one wants to bother with anymore.
Let me assure you that we will stick together and not sell you down the river. ATCO,ATSA, Engineer... whatever you are, where ever you work. Lets stick together.
It really does look like the union are trying to divide us which makes me angry.
I am as stated a hundred tines voting NO, and im near 100% sure that in the time left there is bugger all barron and his snakes can do to change my mind, not even the offer of taking the Aston for a spin round the car park and pretending im 007.
Now can we go back to west drayton please where management knew their place and left us alone to generate a profit for barrons perks?
and BD, please stop wasting nats time and posting on here when you are meant to be at your desk doing barrons will..... if you belived the !!!!e from the company you are a fool.

BDiONU

You realy are living in cloud couckoo land :E if you think the only reason is for this pension deal is because the existing pension is unsustainable :ugh:

Vote NO :ok:

Hhhmm, 3 insulting posts in a row, JACKPOT! Had seen a theme developing which is now confirmed. IF you are not a 'no' voter then you are a toadying management lackey who is gullible, foolish and stupid without enough backbone to go on strike. Strangely guys some of can think and act for ourselves.

BD

It's an emotive subject, but let's try and keep personal stuff out of it.

If you disagree with someone, then counter their arguments with well made points of your own. If you can't manage that and feel the only way you can respond is to get personal or start name calling, then don't bother posting. Regardless of whether you are a 'Yes man' or a No man', you'll find your posts deleted.

I will try to be as even handed as possible on my post. I only have 18 working days to retirement and as such the changes to the pension fund do not directly affect me and although I am entitled to vote on the issue I will not do so because of that fact. I did attend the pension fund briefing at the De Vere hotel for union representatives last week and in my opinion the various issues can be summed up in one question.
"Do you trust Mr Barron?"

mr.777

Re writing to Michael Mates - he is my MP too and have been in contact for the last two weeks . Have just received reply stating that he has written to the Minister about the matter .Hope to have reply when he gets back from business trip .
Haven`t yet been to a briefing yet (next week) but my open mind is fairly well decided on a straight forward "get lost" vote .

I've had some time to think about my decision now, as making my choice that close to the briefing would have been silly. I've made my decision and I'm going to be a NO, mainly because i dont like the idea of being tied into a crap deal for 15 years, also the 'guarantees' given by the NTUS seem to me to be wishy washy, and nothing more than guidelines, that the company will be able to wiggle around. too many endeavour to's , and not enough cast iron guarantees in an MOU that may or not be binding.

mostly though, the idea of barron walking away,or driving the DB9, after 'improving the company's financial future', with a huge bonus and ripping his hugely improved pension pot away to whatever company he goes to screw over next with a satisfied grin on his face
That has made my mind up. The question's asked here are very telling...
'Do i trust Paul Barron' ... not on your f***ing life.
more sadly..
'do i trust my union to represent me'....not any more
and i think that is almost as sad as the whole pensions debacle. The fact that Barron has driven a stake through the heart of the union , could cause us the most trouble in the future.
well done Prospect, you should be very proud
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/applause.gifhttp://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/applause.gif

I totally agree with ayr prox.

The Prospect BEC, as well as the other NTUS reps, should hang their collective heads in shame......they are not following branch policy and not representing the Prospect members. Not that seems to matter to them.....yet!

Time for us to vote NO to them too.

Another thing to consider........if Barron manages to get a yes vote on this issue with the help of the NTUS reps, we as memebers, can all say goodbye to our other terms and conditions. Where will the vipers come to next?? Reductions in anual leave, seven day working, split shift etc etc?

Our union power and credibility will have been severely undermined and the NATS management know that we don't have the guts for a fight
(especially the NTUS reps) and will dismantle our T&C's with no worries.

Time to stand and fight and say NO NO NO!!!!

Well I attended the briefing today. I went in a committed NO and came out having being converted.

OK they are messing with the pension, but the fact remains, one of the most committed trade unionists I have ever had the pleasure to meet turned round and said that "doing nothing is not an option."

He didn't like it but the figures speak for themselves. I frankly am not prepared to gamble with my pension for the sake of a few thousand pounds when I retire in 20 odd years.

Like it or not NATS can't afford to pay the underlying rate, we would be foolish to believe that a no vote would conjure up any more money, even if it did, it wouldn't last, they simply can't afford sustained contributions of that amount.

My heart tells me that the way to vote is no but my head tells me that I have to protect what I've got for my financial security in retirement.

If it does come out as a no vote, then I am prepared to walk as I'm a committed union member and believe strongly in the union ethic.

I sincerely hope that it doesn't come to that.

At the end of the day we shouldn't be voting against this just to piss off Barron, or just to get back at the unions for negotiating this deal without a specific mandate (the ATCOs have a rather woolly version of a mandate - blame your reps for being hungover and voting it through on a wet and windy Sunday morning).

The negotiating team have, to my mind, done a bloody good job to get the offer that is on the table.

By their own admission they "stand here with heavy hearts." But at least they were prepared to walk when Barron came back with full and final offer after full an final offer. They had even gotten to the stage where they had called the various section chairs to prepare for a ballot on industrial action.

The ATCO's have very little left to give in terms of T's & C's for future pay negotiations. I would be surprised if we got anything like recent pay deals at any time during the next 15 years, especially with the current economic climate.

See this for what it is - PROTECTING OUR PENSION SCHEME

It's got my vote

brummbrumm gets off soapbox to wait for torrents of abuse

I can well understand the frustration that people are expresssing towards the union over the way they have conducted these negotiations on the quiet. I'm frankly disgusted by their complete disregard for important and clear branch policies, by hiding behind sweeping wishy washy ones, but when all is said & done, nothing plays into the hands of management more than leaving the union.

From chatting to people around the company I think it may well be a very heavy NO vote and having invested so much time and effort into a YES vote one wonders where the Unions go from here.

Certainly there needs to be a discussion on their future and I think ALL negotiations with management should be suspended until they get a fresh mandate from the members.

I can not remember a Union ever being so out of touch with its membership and it is very sad.

I'm beginning to think it's a membership out of touch with reality rather than a union out of touch with its members.

brummbrumm

With the greatest of respect,you went into a briefing that was wholly one sided!
You will have had no counter-argument.

I think they have seen you coming!

Who would like to have a guess what jobs the "negotiating" team will be promoted into by next year.

The whole thing stinks..............................................

brummbrumm, you sum up my thoughts as well.

If the union is out of touch with it's members then sadly I think a fair percentage of said members are out of touch with reality.

It is a fact that the pension landscape is changing and no change to ours is not a viable option for the long term future of the scheme.

Prospect, the BEC, those involved in these negotiations continue to have my faith and support.

I agree with emma, its a joint proposal. the union side of the presentation is the same as the management side, but with different slides.

I have yet to go to a briefing, but in spite of how unpalatable the offer is I have to believe that the individuals who were part of the NTUS negotiating team fought hard and have got what they truly believe to be the best deal possible.

My feelings on this at the moment (but I'm trying to keep an open mind) are that the current scheme is not sustainable for new entrants, and provided that current employees benefits are adequately protected then a new scheme for new entrants should be established.

I'm yet to be convinced that the "adequate protection" that I mention above is in place - particularly for those current employees that joined after PPP should / when NATS be completely privatised.

My personal feeling is that the 15 year pay cap is too long. I would have preferred to see a rolling five year cap which would be reviewed with a guarantee of a minimum RPI + 0.5% for the subsequent period. I would also like to have seen as a gesture on behalf of the management team a guarantee of a minimum RPI + 0.5% pay deal during this capped period.

Although Pay 09 and the pensions are being kept separate - It would be good to see a generous offer put forward by NATS for Pay 2009 to be implemented on 31st December 2008 to ensure that it is not subject to the pay cap. This would, in my view, not be considered a 'bung', but as an indication of some "good will" towards staff - it certainly might have put people more onside than they are at present.

I can't imagine how awful morale will be if somehow the pension issue gets a 'YES' vote and then NATS turns around and says "Thanks very much, oh and by the way there's a below inflation rise for next year". That would only compound the feeling of staff being "done to".

I would also like to see the union withdraw from the current AAVA agreement as a consequence of the position the management team have taken on the pension scheme, but with the option of renegotiating the terms at a more favourable level - enabling staff who are concerned about income during retirement the opportunity to invest an amount of non-pensionable pay whilst providing NATS with essential additional attendances.

I'm not convinced about the argument that ATCOs have nothing left to give in terms of working practices over the next 15 years. 15 years is a really long time. Who knows how iFACTS, iTEC, Multi-sector Planner, ADS-B, <insert TLA that hasn't been invented yet> are going to affect the way we work?

As I say - I'm trying to remain open minded at this point and am looking forward to attending the briefing