Radarspod

Quite a number of my colleagues here were also persuaded. I agree with the basic principle that "something" has to be done. The case was made very persuasively too.... but I just don't feel that this is the "only option" as they would attempt to make us all believe.

If we agree that the primary issue that needed addressing is the underlying rate increasing to an unsustainable level: Why close the scheme to new entrants? This does not have any positive impact on the underlying rate.

Personally, I would probably accept the RPI+0.5% cap - as I see it unlikely we'll get anything above that anyway. The cap also was shown by the actuary to have a significant impact on the underlying rate - reducing it to manageable levels on its own (20-25%) over a period of time.

The desire to close the scheme to new entrants has been there for a long time - long before there were any issues to be addressed. This is simply opportunism to do it now. I see no reason why NATS should not be expected to continue allowing employees to join its excellent scheme, if measures have been introduced to ensure the underlying cost is reduced to a manageable level.

I feel people are being fooled into accepting unneccessary changes, just so the necessary ones can be done. That is why I will vote no...

me me me, i couldnt agree with you more.

after speaking to my union rep... one who has been in actual negotiations.... we are being taken for a ride. i and all i know of admit that something needs to be done, but it is far too vague a proposal in the companies favour so they can bugger us in 3 to 5 years.
do people actually think that if this doesnt get voted in, management will turn round and let the company collapse. No.... they will have a plan b.c.d etc and will end up giving us a little more so we think we have won, when the reality it is still les than they would give us if pushed to the wire.
the briefings are very one sided, its just one way propaganda.
vote no and wait for a realsitic offer.

I have attended a pension briefing and would vote no for the following reasons.
We are making decisions about our pension and therefore our future security in a great rush, I would like more time say 6-9 months to look more closely at the data and the conclusions reached.
I think that we are being rushed into this vote for other reasons:
a) Selling off NSL for financial reasons
b) Restructuring NATS for financial reasons and senior management bonuses
c) Selling off NATS with the agreement of the new labour government so that they will have monies to provide election bribes at the next election due within the next 18 months.
We have been told that it must be agreed by the end of next month due to conditions set by the actuaries, well as the actuaries are contracted by the management and unions and are being paid well for this service I would suggest that they will have to wait until the information and other sources have been studied so that we can make a BALANCED and INFORMED decision and if at the period I realised that there was no alternative I would vote yes.
There is a saying "Marry in haste, repent at leisure" I think that it could also be applicable to the pension situation.

.


that is my thinking to.

i know very little about the pension offered,but a little about negotiation. what advantage do we get by voting yes straight away. what is the worst that can happen if we vote no. the longer the saga has been going the less confident i am about getting the no vote. it does smell of propaganda in terms of the briefings. i hate the thought of the back slapping and champagne popping by the management if they get the yes vote, they would have made what looked impossible 2-3 months ago reality, and we would have to take our hats of to them,as it would be a job well done.

Radarspod, you haven't got all the facts, you aren't being lead correctly and you most certainly are not being represented by your union properly. If you can't see that, then fair enough, but do not and I repeat DO NOT tell me I'm gambling with your job. I've got a bit more guts than you and it needs more than a few scary scenarios from management/union to frighten me into giving up my future income so NATS can have more profit and split the company. Where's the job security in a NERL sell off?

Honest I wonder if these people have got anything between their painted on ears. The Yes voters are also giving union a long mandate to not bother achieving anything above RPI+ .5% in payrises for the next 15 years, do you think the union will try and get such a rise? And have themselves proved wrong?

The Clyde must be full of banana boats these days, thankfully I have more faith in my fellow colleagues to know the vertebrates are gonna win.

TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW CONVINCED BY THE FIGURES TO VOTE YES......................................................... ................................

Did the presentation actually explain what will happen if the yes vote goes through?
Did the presentation address the figures after we are out of financial turmoil?
Did the presentation show what profits the company will be sitting(and laughing)on after the dust settles on the financial horizon?
Did the management admit that they wish us to take a finacial hit to help them out of the fact that they have fiscally mismanaged us over the past 5 years?

There are so many unanswered questions from the flip side of the union/management argument.Answers that OUR union should have been pursuing on OUR behalf.

I dont blame the YES people.The propaganda has been reasonable to hook a few people who get frightened.


But you have to view this as accepting a PAY CUT.And that will never be on my agenda.


VOTE NO

I will vote 'no' merely because we are being presented with one option as being the only option that will 'save' the fund (until management come back in 5-10 years to rob it further).

No one is sitting down and explaining all the other options that are available to help mitigate cost to both the company and the employees. Even if those options are not viable, no one is actually going through them with us to prove that... so what is being hidden from us??

If you were to buy a house and the estate agent said to you they could get you a mortgage, would you accept this mortgage witohut checking out other options?

It's what we are being asked to do with this deal - and sums invovled are similar!! We are being sold something by someone who has it in their best interest to sell us this particular deal!!

It seems that the only people who are having to really dig into their pockets to rescue the fund are the employess - present and future.

Regardless of arguments about cost saving by trimming un-needed staff etc, the profits are already available to pay the anticipated excess for the pension fund over the next few years. I'm not saying the company should necessarily shell out all the money without some employee contribution to help, but it can afford to do more than it is trying to get away with.

Bdionu

Why not try staying up all night after a hard day in CTC........or is that different?

Let me assure our colleagues in the North and at NSL that not everyone at Swanwick is a bottlejob, sellout yes voter...there are plenty of people who are prepared to see this through. And if this comment upsets those of you ready to throw OUR pension away, I don't really give a toss:)

Same number of hours would be nice as Operational staff work less hours than day workers :} As for pay it depends on your grade.
Hey I think most Ops staff would totally agree with you but it misses the little tweak of the tail that I was trying to make about a certain post. I apologise that my post never came across the right way. Which was that operational staff get paid UHP to work unsocial hours. I think all operational staff and non operational staff are worth every penny they earn but having a pop about shift workers and non shift workers was a bit silly.

Cheers
BD

Hey Bdionu

You are obviously on a day off today, sitting at home, keeping up to speed on pprune. Only the 2 post today so far.....

GMWTB

Nah I'm one of the dross working (sorry I mean skiving) at CTC and my kidneys are floating with all the Starbucks coffee I've had, so I'm feet up at my desk surfing the web.

BD

BDiONU

Is there a NIBS code for pprune ;)

GMWTB

Enough of this willy waving already! Let's get back to the matter in hand (no pun intended)- OUR pension.

I find it incredible that many of us all being convinced by stats and projections made by the very people that want us to agree to them. A vauxhall dealer is only going to promote his (or her) own product and not going to spout the virtues of their competitors.

Yes thay may be convincing, but the figures are there to serve a purpose -frighten us into submission. And divide and on conquer?...I think we are all doing half of NATS manaagement's work fo them already.

Somebody's going to say that the actuarial reports are independent etc. Well there's independent and there's independent. It all depends on what the remit was when selecting Mercers. Also, as the report is secret, how do we know that the numbers are being fed to us correctly or in a balanced way? We don't...and we certainly can't trust OUR union to do so neither, They may not be complicit, but simply ignorant... but then again they might just be part of the plan!

besides, if NATS are going to ignore the vote and put the cap on etc. anyway, why not give them a bloody nose anyway - it might make them think twice in future (not bloody likely) - and just
VOTE NO

Not exactly true... The actuarial evaluation will be in January. NATS WANT this done and dusted by then so that the Actuary can take account of what they have done and reduce his projections on the underlying rate accordingly.

The only reason the vote is being rushed through is so they can look to maximise risk/cost reduction immediately. There's no requirements from the actuary or trustees to do so.

Another reason to say: No

Having just attended a Pension briefing, I would think only the most gullable naive halfwit would be convinced by this propaganda.
To say they are being economical, or should I say comical :) with the truth is being more than generous.
There can only be one winner from this if the Proposed Pension deal goes through, and it isn't the employees :\

If we don't take a stand on this issue, it will be "Life Jim, but not as we know it" from here on in!

VOTE Nhttp://static.pprune.org/images/stat...ser_online.gif

Interesting point from the briefing pack. The NATS executive will make the final decision and under the Trust deeds and rules NATS already has the ability to decide what part of a pay increase is pensionable. What then is the Vote all about? It appears to me that we can vote no and the company will still implement as they have the legal right to do so. Vote yes and all we are doing is endorsing the package. Maybe these questions are answered in the NATS/NTUS briefings but I haven't been to one yet.

Please do go to a briefing and make up your own mind, rather than be swayed by conjecture, teabreak gossip and NO rants on here.

The same question was asked at ours. My understanding is the the vote is a union ballot for member of the pension scheme who are in the union. The result of that ballot will be presented by the union to the NATS board as an indication of the feelings of the employees.

The NATS board can take note of the resulting ballot, but their legal duty is to the company and shareholders and as such to them the most important thing is to keep the company running and viable. The legal requirement for a consultation stage is going on at the moment. Once that is over (end Dec?) then the board will decide what to do. A No vote does not stop NATS going ahead anyway, or removing the deal put down and coming back with a worse one (or a better one, but I ain't chancing it).

What the union do in the result of a No vote, they said they don't know. Read into that what you like.

Just a point for the union official haters out there and to balance opinion (cos its all a little one sided!) - the union representatives left our briefing with a round of applause and thanks from many of the employees for working hard to minimise the impact of this. Think about that before you jump on the NO bandwagon. The majority of views on this PPRUNE thread are not necessarily that of reality.

RS

I've been to a briefing and it was all one-sided scaremongering. It their facts and figures to prove their point. Hardly a well balanced presentation. That is the problem

Like I said vote no just to lodge your dissatisfaction at NATS management. Yes will only give them the green light to proceed with their plans without a second thought.

Propaganda is what we are being fed - wake up people, whoever you are, vote No

RS

Your reasons are well put and are the reasons for a NO vote IMO. As you say this is a consultation by management. The union should not under any circumstances have been talking to them for so long about our pension when they were directed by the membership NOT to do so etc etc.
The no vote will be the feeling of non acceptance by the staff of all these dealings on both sides. The inevitable will take place however the vote.
B:mad:ds

VOTE NO:ok:

Probably so, that's why we must vote no and withdraw AAVA and goodwill. If it bring NATS to its knees, so be it.

Towering CU wrote If you had been to a briefing then you would have heard that the right to be in the existing pension scheme is going to be written in to each employee's T&Cs for those in post today. But of course you don't trust management or the Union.

I am sorry the numbers pretty much speak for themesleves.

Numbers that THEY provided to further they're cause!

"If it bring NATS to its knees, so be it."

Are you kidding me? Is that really an argument? What about the sustainment of the employer who provides pretty much (and still will) the best Ts and Cs you will ever find? Any administrator charged with sorting out a bust company is going to target the thing that caused it to fail - in the NATS case the pension scheme that was too expensive that the company went bust.

Hold at SATAN - purely a question and not trying to be provocative - does a no vote to show dissatisfaction work, or does it play into managements hands? They could turn around at that and say "well we tried, the offers withdrawn, we'll go ahead with what we want to do anyway" and we are worse off. That is just IMHO a more likely scenario as them coming back and saying "you know what, you were right, we'll remove the cap idea, keep the pension running for new members and look again at one of the many things we have already discounted cos they were worse ideas".

You are correct in the first part. Well done :ok:

Incorrect in the second part though :ooh:

The "thing" in question that caused it to fail was financial incompetence by the incumbent NATS management. I am sure they would be the first to go. Failure to predict this situation shows a complete lack of business sense. Failed projects and the reputed £120,000,000 lost in the Spanish fiasco
(The new company, to be called SACTA ATM, will develop the Spanish ATC system SACTA to a point where it is also capable of managing UK airspace – some of the most complex in the world. Skycontrol.net: SACTA ATM, world first in air traffic co-operation: Britain and Spain today launch a new Joint Venture Company)
give ample enough evidence to hang them. Ask them how much money they have lost and wasted in the last few years, insist on the figures, and I would think even the most ardent yes voter would have second thoughts.
I am not trying to be smart here, just asking people to open their eyes and look at the real reason we have ended up here today. If you are happy to see all this money wasted, fine, although I would seriously question your judgement. If not, take a stand and fight for your pension.

RS

I appreciate what you're saying, BUT politically they won't make a worse offer because if the proposal is the "Great white hope", and they do not want to be seen as the "bad guys", then they will stick to the original.
Furthermore, they will not only be cutting off their nose to spite their face, but they'll be cutting off their WHOLE face to spite their face

I suspect the presnet managment would blame the Spanish affair on Richard Everett and co. They will claim they were brought in to sort out just this sort of mess.

If we can agree on one thing, is the SMART pensions a good move? I think so, and I hope that this gets separated from the rest of the proposal as a JFDI.



What I could do with £32 :}

Barron was already in situ for two years when the news was announced two years ago. Failure to finalise properly the legal details allowed the Spanish to insist on X amount of income from the deal. Nats took the decision to fork out £120M in compensation rather than be tied in long term

NATS management have been very keen on emphasising to employees that the pension fund can only exist while the company exists. The implied threat being that if NATS goes under then both our jobs and pensions are lost.

However, Section 26 of the Transport Act 2000 lays out clearly the procedure for implementing an 'air traffic administration order' in the event of NATS failing to discharge its statutory or license requirements.

For example, in the event of the company being unable to pay its debts then an administration order would be enforced (TA2000, Pt1, Ch1, Para2) to remove the license from NATS and bring the functions of the company back under the control of the SofS, in effect, re-nationalisation.

Moreover, Section 96 of the Transport Act 2000 refers to the Secretary of States authority to make provision to re-allocate assets in CAAPS, but in doing so the SofS '...must ensure that each person falling within subsection (6) is overall in materially at least as good a position, as respects pension arrangements, as a result of the order...'.

Subsection 6 states that if you are, or have at any time, been a contributing member of the scheme then you are covered by Sec 96, as indeed, are any nominated beneficiaries.

I wonder if the Union have explored the articles and schedules in the TA2000 so at least the membership are informed of the impacts of 'worst case scenario'...and whether indeed it is 'worst case' on closer inspection.

The membership really need expert legal advice and an IMPARTIAL assessment of the likely ramifications of any particular course of action.

What's all this nonsense about if we vote no the company can just impose whatever it likes?

They can try and impose anything they like, but without workers shifting traffic they aint gonna get very far!

Stuff working together. It's them & us & it always has been. When did they ever do anything for the staff out of goodwill? How many things do you (yes you, personally) do out of goodwill, that are above & beyound what you're contracted for?

If they want to treat me like sh!t they will get it back in spades.

As we would be under this deal. But does it state what would happen in the future? There is no change to present members until and if we get a pay rise of RPI+0.5%.

Just as a quick aside, if NATS offered a 30% rise to cover the next 5 years but only 20% of it were pensionable would you take it or leave it? I know what my answer would be.

Think about it folks.

Good point apart from the fact....

a) In our wildest dreams we'll never see anything like that in the next 5 years

b) they have offered NOTHING to mitigate any hit we will take on our pension.

Therefore, NO.

Personally, I'm surprised at the amount of anger directed towards NATS management.

Surely we all knew that this is ultimately what they have always wanted? That is, the beginning of the end of our final salary pension scheme?

Management haven't done anything that should come as a big shock to any of us.

The Union on the other hand have a shedload to answer for. At the end of the day we expect management to try and squeeze as much out of us as they possibly can. That's what they do. Their role is to try and make us work harder, for fewer benefits, thus ensuring yet more of their precious profits.

However, the unions who have negotiated this on 'our behalf' should be held to account and some very serious questions should be asked along the lines of, 'Do we really think our interests are truly being properly represented at this time'?

PPP?
2 year pay deals becoming 3 year pay deals?
Banding?
And now the Pensions?

Just flicking through the Union handbook and seeing what they SHOULD be doing and what they actually end up doing highlights a major difference between what the members want and what the BEC and others actually do.

And I'm still trying to work out how the chair of the BEC can also be a member of management? Surely, that's a conflict of interests?!?

I think we need to accept that whether we vote 'Yes' or whether we vote 'No', ultimately we have not been shafted by management.

I reserve that accolade solely for the Union who should NEVER have gone down the path they went down. A Union who has allowed 'Working Together' to go too far and has allowed itself to be played like complete mugs by Paul Barron.

Maybe we should start looking for a new union to represent us?

Alfie 1999

I think you'll find that both the union and management have taken extensive legal advice.

There is nothing in the Transport Act which protects the pension scheme from being wound up or gives you any rights to be in it. The Secretary of State made an order which complied with 96(5) when the scheme was seperated into CAA and NATS sections. Were the Secretary of State to make any further orders he/she would have to act in accordance with 96(5) which is the no decrement clause but that clause only has any effect if an order is needed. The main protection of 96(5) is to stop anybody changing the Trust Deed or the rules of the scheme but there is no intention to do that and there wouldn't need to be any change if NATS went bust. Winding up the scheme if the employer won't fund it is already in the Trust Deed.

There is nothing in the Transport Act to force NATS, the Government or any successor company to fund the scheme. It is the Trust of Promise which forces NATS to fund the scheme and keep it available to those who were in it in July 2001 but that contains clauses which limit its effect if NATS is bust. Anybody that tells you your pension is not assured if NATS goes bust is not scaremongering they are telling you the truth. Of course the scheme may not be wound up and somebody might chose to fund it but that would be fortune and isn't assured by any means. I certainly wouldn't rely on this Government to do it.

Air Traffic administration is not re-nationalisation. The administrator would be appointed by the court and would have to act to meet the two aims contained in the Transport Act. The Act is careful to make it clear that the company would continue to trade as a company and indeed would be held liable for any money received from the Government to allow it to keep trading. It is possible that the Government would act before an administration order was needed or indeed that the company would be transferred to the Government by the Administrator but no amount of legal advice will be able to predict what will actually happen if it gets to that stage. Last time the Government decided to avoid administration, but last time it was easily fixed with a relatively small amount of capital.

If it does get to that stage the future for a lot of people in NATS will be very uncertain. There seem to be some on here who relish the idea of bringing the company to its knees. I thought those sort of ideas went out with the miners, the steelworkers, the printers and anybody else who destroyed their own industry. Personally I think that anybody trying to bring the company down is gambling with my job and many others as well but it is quite clear that some posting here and on NATSNET believe quite strongly that we should sacrifice our jobs for their pension rights anyway so I don't expect my views to count for much.

The £120M SATCA compensation fiasco is only part of the story, how much was wasted in staff time & effort in Madrid?
I just do not understand how the Unions have fallen for this working together nonsense.
The Management have one clear intention & are doing it very well, they are "managing" union expections just as they said they would.
Our representatives have failed us at all levels.
For the Unions not to have an alternative strategy in regard to the Pensions issue beggars belief.
NATS staff seem to be marching hopelessly towards their own execution, reminds me of The Life of Brian.

, yea right of course they did, silly me.

I think employees who have paid many years worth of contributions in to caaps are entitled to challenge the management/union proposals without being accused of wanting to bring the company down.

Quote
For the Unions not to have an alternative strategy in regard to the Pensions issue beggars belief.

Mr A Tis:D That is why I will vote NO

having just flicked through the brochure again, i am more convinced than ever before that this vote is merely a tick box exercise. this proposal is being brought in whatever the result. look at the scheduled timeline of events. we are in the feedback period now. how many people used the feedback forms presented at the briefings, or phoned the phoneline or had a formal conversation with someone from the management team. the feeedback period closes and a decision is made. which will bbe..............implement the proposal.
then we have a vote.
brilliant.
voting yes or no will have the same effect as drawing a massive school style cartoon cock and balls on the ballot paper.
our pension is getting screwed.

Mr A Tis...you beat me to it!

The coal mining industry was destroyed for the political gratification of the government of the day.

"In 1984, the National Coal Board announced that an agreement reached after the 1974 miners' strike had become obsolete, and that in order to rationalise government subsidisation of industry they intended to close 20 coal mines. " (Source Wikipedia)

Sound familiar? Ten years was all it took to renege on that deal. So don't tell me that voting yes is going to protect my pension for 15 years (never mind that that doesn't even take me to retirement age).