By their fruits shall ye know them.......
 

Automatic right to two fam flights per year.............GONE
Automatic right to two liaison visits per year...........GONE
12 hours per year refresher flying subsidy...............GONE
Pension..........GOING..........GOING.......................

When you get a load of bus and train people thinking that Air Traffic is just another transport service provider you can expect trouble. The lean mean controlling machine that was inherited has been transformed into a milch cow. More departments than Harrods, and a sucker for every slick vacuum cleaner salesman that turns up at the door. Half a £billion down the toilet on a system that has no capacity gain whatsoever......which is being forced through to prove a point rather than by any demonstrated and coherent need.
This glossy brochure presentation company eats a lot of money.....and your pension is where it will eventually come from.
Time for a vote I think!

I dont want to bring the company to its knees.
I would like an easy life, earn good money, make lots of it for the company and have a good pension... but that is not the case.
My pension is going to go, and all the money i make by shoehorning planes through southeast london is being wasted by my management team on crap.
SMART pensions i would agree to, but it is the managements blind arroance and mis-managing of finances that will bring the company down, not me. I would rather look back and say i fought those wankers than bend over.... regardless of the outcome. If we will be made to suffer the supposed 'dire' consequences, you can bet your bottom dollar the average holidaymaker, businessman, anyone else who uses a plane and the UK economy will suffer more than us. I hope it doesnt get that far, but people need to see its not the workers sayin no that is the problem... managment have got us here so let them see it through.
So i will be voting no still and thinking which sectors i will be giving up.

Cheers :)

Well this is the nub, Richard Everitt was an airline man, brought in to sweet talk us into accepting the PPP. Promising us better quality Management to provide a superb ATC service to the aviation industry.
Once that task was completed (no resitstance to PPP), the real agenda has now come to the fore.
Our company has now just become a commodity, designed to make a profit & to be bought & sold like any other. The company has even dropped the word air traffic from it's name for heavens sake, its just NATS now, might as well be Cash Converters.
It's all very sad what they have done to our once wonderful company, still they print lots of brochures, do lots of surveys, graphs & charts, monitors that monitor the monitors. Liberate & Inspire ????!:eek: what a perverse sense of humour they have.

The penny has, at last, dropped for one poster :ok:

BD

Its a bit like saying an airline is a commodity which can be bought and sold, but take the pilots out of the equation and its worthless.
I will leave you to draw your own analogy with NATS, but let me help you. NATS is an Air Traffic Control commodity which can be bought and sold but take the
... ....... ........... out of the equation and its worthless :)

Its a bit like saying an airline is a commodity which can be bought and sold, but take the engineers (dispatchers/check in staff/ops staff/accountants/fuel tanker drivers etc.) out of the equation and its worthless.
As many many other posters have said NATS isn't just about ATCO's its a team effort.

BD

Exactly that. NATS staff is NATS! And the staff can change it for better or for worse.

NATS staff can also fight for their pension if they stand as one :)

keep up the good work :ok:

There you go a new phrase the Union can have

ONE STRIKE ONE PENSION :ok:

Well, having had a personal briefing (aren't I the privileged one!!:}) by one of the union negotiators in a nice pub in Wokingham yesterday, i've looked at all the facts and figures being presented by the company and listened to what was said and asked my questions and have decided we have only one choice...vote NO!!

The SMART pension bit is an absolute no-brainer. No down-sides to that at all so i'm all for that.

Ignoring any question of whether there was a mandate to negotiate or not, and definitely completely ignoring any patently ridiculous ideas or suggestions of bungs, ATCO 1 promotions or any other incentives being offered to the negotiators, you have to ask yourself two questions...do you believe the facts and figures being presented to you, and do you believe this is the only option available to us? I for one don't doubt the figures, but I question whether they can't have been presented in such a way as to scare people into voting yes.

The current pension bill is about £60 million and has to rise to about £120 million next year leaving us £60 million-ish to find. Now repaying the loans early has brought about charges (quite how much I don't know) and the costs of closing west drayton and other costs this year have resulted in profits of £60 million, so there's nothing to say that had these things not come about, our profits (based on our current charges, which the airlines are happy to pay I might add!!) might not have been £150 million plus, a difference of about £90 million, which would more than cover the extra £60m required and still leave another £30m for other projects or dividends or whatever the finance people decided to spend it on!

I am definitely annoyed that we're being asked to change our pension when the facts and figures from 2003 and 2006 both showed that the underlying costs were rising and yet the management still didn't decide that that was just enough cause to pay the ACTUAL underlying rate, they continued paying less than required! And yes, I know that its their prerogative to do that, but they then can't come bleating to us asking us to bail them out because the underlying rate has risen to "unsustainable levels"...i'm sorry, but if you'd been paying the correct amount for the last 6 years then it may have been sustainable!

And, putting my scientist hat back on(:O), if you change the frequency with which you analyse something, you will see more variation than looking at it every three years. Dec '03 underlying cost was about 18% (I think...we got to this slide after my 4th guinness so may be a bit of variation in MY figures!!:}) and underlying cost in Dec '06 was about 28% (again I may be making these figures up but don't shoot me yet!!) Now in Dec '07 its apparently 42%! Again I don't dispute these figures, but there is also the possibility that the underlying rate in '04 or '05 could've been up as high as 40%, but came back down again due to normal variation, but because the scheme wasn't reviewed then, we'll never know. Now that we're reviewing every year though we will possibly see more variation, so who's to say the '08 or '09 figures won't have reduced back down to a sustainable level.

Also shown was the effect of the RPI cap and how it immediately brought the underlyng costs down to 25% (which is apparently an acceptable level for the management). Now if this is the case, then why do we need to close the scheme to new entrants?

I also think the fund has been badly managed because when it became apparent that a massive fall in the stock markets etc was on the horizon, the high risk, high yield elements were not changed to more secure things...a poor decision if you ask me!!

If we're being told that this is the only option to secure the company then fine, I want some sort of assurances though that if, in the future the scheme is seen to become massively healthy again, there is some sort of option for reopening the scheme or getting some sort of further compensation or whatever (I don't know what...i'm not a negotiator!!;)) We are being asked to sign up to a longterm deal based on scaremongering facts and figures that can be twisted to fit the situation, and with no means of return once it's done, something i'm not prepared to do to be honest!!

We all have a vote and can do with it as we wish, but make sure its for the right reasons! Don't just vote no because you don't want to see barron driving off into the sunset in his shiny new DB9! Equally, don't just vote yes because management tell you "its the only option"...it can't possibly be, no matter what they say!! If you don't like the salary cap, vote no. If you don't like the two tier scheme, vote no. If you don't like the SMART pension bit, vote no. But at least do the research, ask the questions and make up your own mind based on your own conclusions (and remember stats can be made to say whatever you want them to!!).

Bring on the ballot and we'll see what happens. As for enforcing the changes...he'd be very foolish and i'd like to see him try.

I'm even more convinced it's a NO from me and I hope all my colleagues (be they Engineer, Assistant, Controller, Support staff or whatever) will see the offer the way I see it, which is as an attempt to use the current economic climate to scare us all into giving up vital terms and conditions of our gold-plated pension scheme, which is to no-one's benefit except those who have bonuses related to the "future health of the company"!!!:=

Anyway, enough from me...choose wisely people!:E

FB:ok:

Excellent post :D

imnotaneric thats a great post love the idea haven't done one of those pictures since i was well a couple of years younger! however we have to vote accordingly otherwise none of this will get sorted and our overall terms and conditions will be sliced and chopped and diced down. This was one thing i was assured of at the last vote we were fighting for through our union, we have people on here saying its our own fault we voted on our reps and i questioned my rep and he knew noting about the changes of what our union were fighting for! so the union basically went against its membership without even giving us notice that something had to be done. NATS CAN afford the pension its management just doesnt want to pay for it!

time to draw that line i will start it NO NO NO NO NO ____________________________________________________________ ____

fly bhoy.....
you really are getting into your lengthy letters. do you do wedding vowels by any chance?

im voting no, and im photocopying my form hundreds of times with a big no on it and sending that back to so our week arse union get the message.

thanks fly bhoy, excellent post.

Wish we had been shown something like that at the pensions briefing to balance the one sided presentation we received.

Should be made a sticky !!!

Ivor

BDiONU,

After 1400 posts by yourself, I never thought I'd agree with anything you said.
However I find myself in agreement with TWO on one page!! (1082 & 1084)

Strange times.

VOTE NO !!!!

Rpi + 0.5% ????
 

I had the brief today.

As the cap is only relevant if the salary increase is >RPI + 0.5%, I would like to know......

Have the salary increases over the past 15 years for example, been much over this ?

What has the average been ?


Oh yes, why has it taken Nats so long to introduce the Smart/Salary sacrifice pension system ? My previous employer brought it in 5 years ago. ( 5 x £2m they said it would save them per year = £10m )

I think it was RPI +2.5% over the last 10 years, from a previous post on here. Which presents a problem when you use it in the model!

I see
 

Yes that does change things a bit.

Thanks

All we need now is some of the YES crew to pipe up and say "you'll NEVER EVER get a payrise lof RPI +2.5% in the next 58 years so it doesnt matter".

It may have been on the NATS intranet at work, check to make sure, I am pretty sure it was rpi +2.5 though as I remember being shocked by how much I would lose :eek:

I just have to say, as various posters have commented on my posts. That i in know way infer that EVERYONE at CTC/Heathrow House or other NON-operational posts, are Dross. I work quite a lot outside of just sitting in front of a radar screen, I work with ENG and other support staff in various projects, initiatives, I see many talented people, many people who bring a lot to the company, or support the operational staff in many ways. And to those who have posted on here who feel offended by my coments, who are among those working at CTC that do these jobs to help make NATS work well and are a needed asset in the company I apologise, but from my experience, and yes this is experience not just a view, there is an awful lot of positions at CTC that are either not really doing much for the support of the company, could maybe be done by others rather than 10 people to do 1 or 2 peoples job, or quite simply do we really need it. Those that work at CTC should be just as equally concerned by this as the operational staff are, as its those that are doing a good job at CTC that are getting Tar'd with the same brush.

The slagging off of some of operational ATCO's about their hours/conditions/pay etc is as rediculous....AAVA's are there because there isnt enough operational staff, often AAVA's are not approved at many units, and the unit left to run short so controllers, who not only perform operational tasks, but also involved in other work and work with CTC people, do so on their breaks, they often work a full cycle and end up at CTC on days off, hence a massive problem with ATCO's accuring loads of rest in lieu days that they cant take because of ATCO shortages, and being required to be either operational or at CTC again on another project. So think of it like this, a monday to friday job at CTC and then go work at swanwick at the weekend, that is what its like for some atco's. ATSA's who are on day 9 at work without a day off, due to sickness and shortage.

So when you see comments by some people on here of their views of SOME CTC staff, they are not just being nasty, they are not just thinking of themselves as something more than important than non operational staff, they are commenting from a view where they not only do their operational job, but also work along with CTC staff, giving up their days off, not being able to take leave, working short and harder because an AAVA wont be paid, dont all work at swanwick, with nice sleeping accomodation, and in fact dont actually get to sleep on night shifts.

Oh and for the poster who referred to Airline staff, pilots vs check in staff etc. I think you will find that Check in, baggage handlers, refueling, and all of those other jobs, are not actually part of the airline, they are employed by contractors or the airport. The airline doesnt need all these etc people either.

We asked why SMART hadnt been introduced, the answer......


"Ooooh errrr I dont think anybody had really thought about it or knew about it"


For the last few years to overlook what seems to be a win-win easily implemented, money saving form of payment seems kinda silly, since they're so strapped for cash un all...

No is still the way to vote...

They have broken the trust of the employees over pensions, that is as simple as it gets...

We have all seen the figures, I dont disagree it doesnt look totally rosy, but there are still other options, and the proposal doesnt come with any guarantees that it will actually work. They have left out many facts when it comes to the finances of the company, there is no evidence of predicted profits to cover this short term shortfall, and future investment. There are many projects that take a lot of cash at the moment that will be complete in those 15 years.

I think whatever the outcome, a No vote at this stage is necessary just to show the message that we are not happy that they have broken the trust, that we dont trust them to stuff us further, that we expect more from them(not just in cap or smart, but better assurances of what future will be if we accept) If we roll over a stage one, then why are they ever going to be worried about other changes in the future when as a workforce we will then have less to bargain with.

further evidence etc may prove that this is the only option, that is what has to happen, but surely we should make them work for this, make them see they cant just baffle us with figures and heavy handed tactics, that they have to respect the people that at the end of the day ensure they make any profit at all.

For those that are jumping to the yes, because you retire before the 15 years are up. just think, about those that dont, and consider a no now, its easy at this stage just to say NO, and wait and see what comes next, at the end of the day a second ballot woul be necessary before any action was taken and by then the company maybe a bit more honest and you can then maybe consider yes.

The govt either don't understand or don't care as majority shareholder.
I received a letter from mark hoban (my mp) who forwarded on a reply he got from the dept for transport to my questions and comments he sent about a month ago:

Dear Mark,
Thank you for your letter dated 20th oct addressed to Geoff Hoon enclosing correspondance from your cinstituent, Imnotaneric, address, hampshire regarding the NATS pension scheme. I am replying as I have ministerial responsibility for Aviation.

The proposal jointly developed by NATS and the NATS trade union side (NTUS) for the reform of the NATRS pension scheme is a matter for the company.

I can advise you that the company, and the NTUS, have parallel consultation processes in place with employees and members respectively, which they have just started this week. Your constituent should ensure they take full advantage of the opportunity afforded by the consultations, to seek clarification, raise questions and make their views known both to NATS and to their TU representative.

Should you have further questions about the consultation process, may I suggest you write to NATS at 4000 parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, PO14 7FL, either to richard churchill-coleman who is general counsel and company secretary or to jane johnston who is head of external communications.

yours sincerely,

Jim Fitzpatrick



I shall be writing to Jim directly soon and re-iterate my comments regarding the union operating without a mandate, and the promises NATS employees were made pre privitisation.If Anyone has got anything specific they want me to add (keep it clean), pm me or write yourself.

His email is [email protected]

My understanding of the situation is even if there is a No vote the proposals will still be implemented.

By law the the members of a pension scheme have to be consultation before any changes can go ahead. This is that consultation.

The Deed of Trust can not stop NATS closing the scheme to new members.

The Deed of Trust can not stop NATS from deciding what remuneration is and what remuneration is not pensionable.

The question is what are we as a workforce going to do once the changes are implemented.

The only power any workers have over their owners is the power to dent profits.

Any industrial action without the Unions is illegal and a disciplinary matter so any industrial action will have to involve the Unions and lets face it they are more aligned to Management than Us now.

So that only leaves non co-operation by individuals.

How the hell did we get up this creek?

ERIC,

What a cop out...I am emailing Fitzpatrick as we speak and I advise evrybody else to do the same. Your reply was a carbon copy of one recieved by Cuddles on the NATS forum.

smart pensions
 

When Deloitte or whoever started looking at the fund, they asked NATS management in particular the accounts side, why we did not use SMART pensions.
The reply was along the lines of "why would we want to do that, it's not in our interest".

In short, the management did not want to employ any method which made the scheme look healthier as that is at odds with what they wanted. It's only on the table now because they cannot wriggle out of it.

This is a further example of either under-handedness or if they had never heard of SMART pensions (unlikely scenario) it shows our money managers are incompetent. Either way, questions should be asked about how fit they are to be employed.

It begs the question, what other financial dealings are being mishandled through incompetence?

Absolutely correct and confirmed by my previous post

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..................>>>>>>>>:uhoh:

The Joint Venture agreement was signed at the industry’s premiere conference in Maastricht, Holland by Paul Barron, Chief Executive of NATS and Francisco Quereda, Air Navigation Director of Aena.

http://www.pprune.org/4513196-post1063.html

Tell him you won't be voting for him at the next election.

While Fitzpatrick is minister for aviation, we can't let our own MPs pass the buck to him. As shareholder, the whole govt. not just aviation minister have an interest in NATS

If a wordsmith could kindly pm or stick on as a posting a draft letter which we could all copy to our local MP

FB: that is the best post I have seen on this thread :ok:. I can understand why ATCO's CTC bash, its the home of non operational "management", accountants, HR, and other "can recruit them off the street" types :E. I was going to vote NO before reading this post, now I am more convinced than ever!

Many thanks - from use engineering/ATC/support staff, whom I may add ofter work over the European working time directive in our attemp to make the front line ATCO's job as "easy" as possible. :ugh:

i had a great piece of advice from an old trade unioner when he overheard me discussing this. he said "its like buying a car mate, never, ever accept the first offer!, that's the offer the buyer wants to pay. you want the offer he's willing to accept to pay "

ayrprox

According to the NTUS at our briefing this is far from the first offer. The union reps were firmly of the opinion that there was no more to get so voting No as a bargaining ploy was pointless.

and you believe that???
the union have unfortunately fallen for the management spin.
its basic scare tactics.
Tell me this, if they tell you in jan you cannot have a pay rise as there is nothing in the pot, are you going to go for that too?

its playing into management hands... dont go for it!!!

spineless union
 

I definately support the NO NO NO stance. Us poor northerners got screwed by the union on the Banding, we all got screwed on the redundancy package, and the home to duty package.The poor trainees got screwed on every front. How many more times can we let the union get away from this, this is the time to send a definitive signal. The content of these scare tactic briefings is tantamount to bullying.:ugh::ugh::ugh::=:=

Fascinating reading for an outsider like me.

Having dealt with the modern day management style which is based upon a bonus culture, what is Barron's motivation? Clearly it must be making all, or part of NATS saleable, or does the intended suitor demand this?

Only one answer to the pensions ballot and for me it would never be yes!*

Never trust senior management if you have something of value to lose. By the time you realise you made a mistake, they will be happily spending their bonus payments!



* I am an ex pension trustee (not CAAPS).

Any questions we should ask them ?

thanks

ayrprox & sandwiches

Can you please provide us with the proof that this is managements first offer?

I haven't personally spoken to any of the reps who were involved with the negotiations - but if you have then please supply the info.

And in answer to your question, if they told me in Jan there wasn't any money for a pay rise then no I wouldn't believe them - But if they told me they were offering, for example. only 2% then i'd have to believe their opening gambit had been 1% then the union had asked for 3% and we settled on 2%.
I know that's over-simplicising things but isn't that the way negotiations go?

Just because we don't know about them doesn't mean they didn't happen.

still dark and hungry,

at the briefing i went to-the first at our unit- we asked how far management had moved in negotiations. they insisted that management had moved a considerable distance but wouldn't tell us how much.
They continually said they would tell us if we wanted but then didn't and promptly changed the subject.
We knoe smart pensions is a no brainer, everyone wins, the cap was a jointly proposed idea according to the guys at our briefing. so the only thing that has been changed (reading between the lines) is the amount of employer and employee contribution to the defined contribution scheme for new employees.

here's a quote from the guy in the stripey tie who looked a bit like martin "mad dog" allen,
" we can tell you, but i don't like negotiating in a goldfish bowl" cue change of topic.
brilliant.

I went to a pension briefing yesterday, after two and a half hours I felt as if I had been to a timeshare sale, and had been forced to buy a 4 bedroom villa I didn't want!!!!

There is loads of facts and figures aimed at scaring people in to voting yes.

Still not happy, and I felt that the union really didn't believe in what they were telling us.

Voting NO

The plain fact of the mater is, NATS as a company can afford to pay more into the pension than it does at the moment - easily.

Management are lying if they try to claim that they are not trying to get away with paying as little as possible. One of Barrons main objectives in his employment is to ensure the financial health of NATS - he has admitted this on NATSNET and it's a valid enough objective; however financial health can be looked at in several ways - for starters cynics may say that it is to pave the way to a sell off, others will say it's basic business sense.
Whatever the reason, it is a fact that Barron wants to get the cheapest deal he can on this issue (and no doubt in the upcoming pay talks). Management talks of NATS going to the wall if they have to pay a penny more towards pensions is complete and utter rubbish - total scaremongering and not supported by the company accounts.
It just means that we do not post such big profits (in this alleged 'not for profit' company) and dividends to the Airline Group (who again are not supposedly in this for any profit), will be cut or taken away.

The AG invested in this deal to ensure that they continued to get a world class service (not a profit) - that is the dividend they were promised through investment - not a piddling bung every year through the shares they hold. It's time they and NATS started playing by the book.