During my pensions brief I too thought we were being given a talk by a bunch of snake oil salesmen.

NATS have the income to more than cover ALL pensions commitments. and more than enough to pay ENTIRE underlying rate to keep the current pension on track.

NATS management are lying slimeballs - an our union have allowed themselves to be roped iin. :sad:

Buster the Bear
 

The sums of money involved are low by comparison to other similar companies' schemes. The real reason for management's intransigence could be more subtle. They have promised the industry that crippling nav charges are to fund an investment in futuristic ATC equipment and systems; and there is unhealthy pressure to introduce a result. By forcing the "pension" issue and the inevitable industrial action that might follow, they will have managed to smokescreen their own ineptitude. [Besides which, the kit is a bag of worms.....no capacity increase and woefully inadequate in many areas].
If the main argument is future financial liability then there is no argument...management need to take a competency tablet and address the funding issue with a long term plan. The pension is an essential plank in the terms and conditions of our employment; a point the union should not forget.

I went to the brief because i wanted to hear whatever they could come out with to convince me to slit my own throat and vote "Yes".

I listened, I questioned and i changed my mind. Two main reasons.

1. My "Vote No" was based mainly on the fine and well intentioned information contained in this here thread. I found the case presented by the NTUS team was well thought out and although not the rosiest of pictures, not half as black as painted here. If the same problems are besetting all final-salary schemes, I bet our solution is better than most, if not all.

2. I witnessed the member of the NTUS team who represented my own grade, a man whom I trust as a representative of our entire grade structure and a dyed in the wool Union man, tell me that this was as good as we are going to get. Any attempt at trying to scar Barron or NATS with a "No" vote was counter-productive and that although it pained him to say it, he recommended a "Yes" vote in order to protect what we have already.

Good enough for me.

I don't think we're going to get much more than RPI = 0.5% anyway for the forseeable. My pension will increase. My pay may increase more. My pension is still better than anyone else's [especially the poor wee buggers on a standard Civil Service Pension].

I will be voting yes.


A thought. If we spent a bit less time "fighting" management, we wouldn't need so many bloody managers. Now that is what I call win/win.

Another thought. There seem to be some pretty provocative posts coming from relatively new posters. Not an accusation, but something to consider...

If we got say 2% below RPI (during a recession- like now) and 2% above RPI after a recession when the good times were back then wouldnt we be 1.5% worse off on our pension based on our salary plus the new rules?
everybody seems to think that all other things bieng equal that our pensions would not be cut from from what they are today.
Just a thought. Happy to be proved wrong.

I expect that to be a tactic for reducing pension costs after a cap takes effect - low or flat pay rises for as many years as people will put up with it. Once employee anger has built to a level where this cannot be sustained, there would be a single large adjustment (say, RPI+5%) which takes pay to where it should have been anyway, but which does not bring the pension up with it because that is capped. Repeat.

Even if pay only rises by an average of RPI+0.5%, it's still possible to reduce pensionable pay using this method.

still dark, i have no evidence that this is the company's first offer, but as i said this is what i believe they WANT to pay, not what they are WILLING to pay. As to the pay question, sadly, i don't trust these current union negotiators to get me a good deal on a subway meal at the moment. i would expect them to come to me and say that they have been in negotiations for a couple of years and have decided its in subway's and my best interests to go for a 6 inch sub of the day, as this is the easiest thing to make. nevermind that i want a foot long subway melt with extra pepperoni!, thats just not achieveable.
seriously though, i really have zero confidence in the union to negotiate for anything on my behalf, they seem way too interested in the company's problems and how we can help them out of the huge abyss they've dug themselves. Thats why at scottish we pushed for the special delegates conference , with various motions i wont discuss in public , showing exactly how p***ed off we are with them!

Dances with Boffins - "I will be voting yes."

Thank god for that - when the vote comes in 99.8% to 0.2% against the deal, at least people won't just be pointing at me as THE yes voter :ok:

Well rounded and fair arguments, couldn't have put it better myself - believe me I tried!

Here's a thought. I read talk of "don't take the first offer" & "get what they are willing to pay" - very old-school union ways of thinking, unions vs management - the kinds of attitudes that resulted in negotiation loggerheads, long term industrial disputes and were generally bad for both sides. What if that by actually working together, the unions and the management have actually come up with what is best, that by working together rather than throwing deal suggestions and counter-claims and general abuse over the fence, they actually sat around the table and negotiated this one properly and did come up with a joint position that was mutually agreeable? Once it was sorted they made a joint presentation on what was agreed on our behalf, the NTUS BEC reps who agreed the deal being the ones WE elected (or were too apathetic to vote against) - Why in today's world is that so hard to believe? The many cynical among you will say I am being naive, I say move with the times - donkey jackets and braziers went out in the 80s.

I cannot believe now that anyone who was thinking in the future about wanting to step up to being on the Prospect or PCS BECs to represent his or her colleagues would even dare now due to the misdirected and appalling spite I have read on this forum against people who as far as I am concerned tried to act in what they believe to be the best interest of the members they were elected to represent.

I'm still waiting for a Vote No advocate to tell me what the "real" figures are if there is any EVIDENCE that both the management and the NTUS have lied and presented facts and figures that are untrue. I'm still waiting - I asked on this thread some 2 weeks ago. Please step up, show me the numbers and show me I am wrong (I have no problem with that :E). As far as I am concerned I am still not being presented in this forum or others any evidence this is all a scam, only cynicism and suspicion. :hmm:

Vote YES

RS

(just to clarify, I am not management, nor union hierarchy - just a member of NATS staff with a pension to protect) :cool:

I think it is really just a question of good judgement based on experience of life in general.
The softening up process is the Briefing, followed by the "Barstool session". And with the Union on board spouting management cliches :eek: then surely we must beleive them! They couldn't possibly be economical with the truth, could they?

Ask yourself, who stands to gain from this financially?
Answer= Management

Who stands to lose from this financially?
Answer= Staff

Are you really willing to tie your pensionable earnings into a 15 year deal capped at RPI+ 0.5% ?

Stick RPI +2.5% into the model to represent the last ten years average pay increase for ATCOS. Also try RPI+2% for non ATCO staff. Fifteen years is a long time to have a pension cap.

That's why I will still Vote NO

vote no.. again put simply and making sense.

we will loose out and it will be a very flush xmas for the families of senior management this year if we bend over.... daddy please can i have that pony?????

My understanding is that even if the proposals are agreed NATS will almost certainly end up paying far more than it has been for our pensions and probably a lot more than it would like to. Have we reached the limit of what they are willing to go to ? We'll probably never know. Do we like the deal ? Of course not. Is it the best deal we could get ? Probably.

I'm not sure why there's a lack of confidence in the union. As I've said before from time to time they are going to have to bring you bad news. If you are going to vote them out when that happens you are destined to go through a lot of union reps.

Personally I think they've done a pretty good job. I was impressed at the amount of effort that the union has put in and it was quite clear under pretty detailed questioning that they'd considered far more options and thought out a lot more angles than anybody in the room had.

Should our union be worrying about the good of the company ? Actually I think they should. Generally employees are likely to be far better off in a company that is healthy than one that isn't. If the trade union movement has learnt anything since 1979 it must be that bringing down the company you work for generally damages the employees as much as the company.

Are the figures correct ? I don't know for sure but there are enough PCS members in finance to ensure that the truth would out if they weren't.

again more sense from another perspective... thanks.
i guess it doesnt help that our presentation was utter rubbish and they actually avoided a lot of basic and simple questions... both management and the union.

Sorry Radarspod, but not taking the first offer is basic common sense I'd say. I ahve my briefing in 2 hours time and I shall be asking the Union how much negotitaion was involved and how much the management moved in producing this wonderful offer for us....because I, along with the other 99.8% of people, think there is more to come...there has to be.

There will be at least 3 mate :ok: In one of the departments I used to work in there is a high powered union rep who only does union work. He is absolutely committed to the unions and the workers, not a management lacky by any stretch of the imagination. Seen him at one of the briefings and I trust him absolutely to have negotiated hard. I'm disappointed to see so many posters in this thread who distrust the union reps they have.

BD

:eek:

That's it then, we have to vote yes, and to think of all the time we have wasted with briefings etc.
Might as well cancel the famous Bar stool sessions also :}

Who pays this "high powered union reps" wages ?

Boffin: Just because others are getting shafted, should we also get the same? We are in an industry that, despite all the doom and gloom, has a realitvely inelastic demand for our services (thus income)

With the global shortage of ATC staff, we are selling ourselves short by expecting no more than RPI+0.5% over 15 years. And before somebody says this only applies to ATCOs, we need all the support people around us too. In any market, people who are in demand will get pay commensurate with that.

Management will most likely put the plan through without our ratification, but at least we can vote no and show our disdain

So to quote 80s pop idol Andy Bell (Erasure) "Give a little respect, to-oo-oo-ooooo meeee"

Inflation at 1%
 

Does the bank of England's inflation report that says that inflation will Fall Bellow 1%(with a high possibility of RPI dropping into negative numbers) change anyones views on the chances of getting pay rises of above the 0.5% limit in the medium term?

RPI was forecast a month ago to possibly be -3% next year. The first negative since 1926!
Who knows? The financial tsunami (yes that's how you spell it!) from our USA friends is still to come and is heading this way :\

It's still not a reason, however convenient, to have our pensionable earnings capped at RPI +0.5 % till 2024 !

I know this is digressing slightly into the realms of pay awards and that this thread was split from that, but actually, the two an totally linked because of the RPI+0.5% pensionable bit of the pension deal.

We are likely to get even more shafted in pay talks if inflation drops further - just because headlne inflatin will drop, the fact of the matter is, the cost of a loaf of bread etc will not drop by the same amount. Since the last pay deal, we have seen prices in the supermarket etc shoot up at ridiculous rates. That is what we should negotiate to base our pay rise on - the difference between prices from the last pay award to the current day prices - NOT headline inflation which will sell us short and actually make us worse off in real terms!!

back to the pensions -

eglnyt so you are willing to roll over for 'probably' not definately??

Radarspod I'm still waiting for a Vote Yes advocate (because the management lackey at the briefing is incapable of answering a serious question that is not on his little crib) to prove to me that the company cannot afford to pay more than it will have to under this deal, as opposed to the fact that is is actually unwilling to pay more. They are trying to sell this to us as the only possible way of solving the pension issue.

It is incumbent on management and the union to prove to us that this is the only way it will work.
When we continue to post profits, well in excess of the extra money the company would need to find if it paid for the pension itself, it is very difficult for me to accept that the company should not fork out more.

And before any "YES" man starts bleating on about the Credit Crunch (:yuk:), this deal/offer was done and dusted before the 'meltdown' properly started... therefore this blip in th eeconomy (which is cyclical) has nothing to do with the argument - so don't try throwing it into the melting pot now.

And don't even try to say it was done with the knowledge that there would be economic downturn, because we all know that NATS is not that financially astute nor capable of long term planning.... the very fact that our money moguls have 'only just discovered' SMART pensions goes to prove either gross incompetence or more likely given the comments made when it was mentioned to them - deliberate mismanagement of the companies money because it suited them to run down the pension fund as much as possible.

Anotherthing - have to agree with you on the point on SMART pensions (see - working together! :}). My wife's employer started SMART pensions nearly two years ago and while people were a little more suspicious back then as it was relatively new, it has since shown real benefit to their pensions scheme and the employees - it's only an 1/80ths DB scheme, but the proportion of the underlying cost it covers is significant enough to make it worthwhile - for our scheme it was quoted that SMART may cover 0.8% of the underlying cost, but hey every little helps :ok:.

So why NATS didn't do this ages ago I don't know :ugh: ......one thing I have never argued here is that our management are completely competent.

RS

Are Cartus going bust? Are they the Manch relocation experts chosen by our glorious leaders?

Thread drift, but as an employee and shareholder, I want NATS to employ a company other than Cartus to manage the Manchester move.

I know of several cases where the process was woefully mismanaged by Cartus on the WD side - including the sale of my house which ended up costing NATS £70k (25% of the GSP), all because they did not take advice from me or the 2 surveyors about which local estate agent to use (the one we were psoposing already had a buyer who was willing to offer the same as the GSP). In the end, my house sold 17 months later, at 75% of the GSP.

However, it's probably easier, therefore for the lazy, more attractive, just to use Cartus. :ugh:

Just returned from my pension briefing.... NO NO NO!!!!!!
Too many assumptions and not enough concrete figures about what might or might not happen. The usual bulls*it about voting for your pension and not giving Barron "a bloody nose". I found the HR woman incredibly patronising and generally unhelpful...answered EVERY question by bleating on about the £595million deficit in the fund but then ran out of time when I wanted to ask her what they intended to do if we voted no i.e would they bring it in anyway? Suddenly she had to leave...what a surprise.
Union presentation was, to be fair, well rounded and they were pretty sympathetic to what most of us feel. My biggest problem is they don't know what they'll do if they get a NO vote...I find that astounding. I would suggest that they seriously start thinking about this now as a reality rather than a possibility. They have a genuine dislike for Barron and his methods, which I found quite good, but that will not be enough for me to get mugged off by the scaremongering that's going on, and to vote yes. VOTE NO:ok:

O/T I know but the question was asked
Zooker,

my wife runs a property search company (not in Manchester and no connection with NATS). For (usually well-off) individuals wanting to buy in her area she interviews them to find what they are looking for, searches properties, does inspections, checks schools, pubs, stables, or whatever you are interested in, and presents report before most individuals would have got around to touring the area.

She also knows of properties coming on the market before any details are published. Middle-men can be useful. Depends what you want

Do you need to be pilot or even flown to be ATCO? Let alone flown the particular route. Arguably ATC is a middleman trade as well

p.s. has a date been fixed for the vote yet?

Mr 777

We asked Phil whats his name at the briefing what they would do if the vote was no. He said "it depends on the size of the no vote"!
Read into that what you may, but they may reconsider things if enough staff are not too pleased?
Answers to questions I thought were very poor indeed, and they were just going through the motions. Very unprofessional and lacking in substance.

Another reason to Vote NO :)

ProM

Cartus are based in Bath or Bristol I believe. They have a list of preferred Estate Agents all over the country - no doubt there is a deal tied up there i.e. they, Cartus, will get commission from the Estate Agents, as well as from the removal companies - on top of the huge fee they charge NATS.

This would be fair enough if they, Cartus, listened to the staff they are relocating. People who live somewhere have a much better idea about estate agents to use etc than some office bod sitting hundreds of miles away, yet Cartus disregard them and use their preferred agents. I know of numerous cases where this has meant that prices achieved for houses have been lower than they should be, which NATS then has to cover.

Also removal costs. A colleague of mine thought that the cost quoted by the company Cartus provided was over the top, so he went about getting his own quote in a bid to save the company some money (removal costs are part of the relocation package). Despite a quote which was £1800 cheaper, Cartus ignored him and went with their 'preferred' company - again no doubt because they get commission from them.

Your wife specialises in property in her area. The word to note is specialises, Cartus do not give a fig because they know that NATS will pick up all the costs, so where is the incentive for cartus to spend some time and do a proper job? Meanwhile, although this money is being wasted, we are fighting for the survival of the pension!

Vote No

I think what might happen is this -

If there is a 'NO' vote in the region of 60/40 (or less of a margin), then the pension changes will be pushed through regardless.

If there is a bigger percentage of people voting 'NO', then that may be enough to force management back to the table.

It will all be down to how management perceives the mood to be - and a big part of that will be the way the vote count turns out.

Just to clarify, as the HR woman was too busy to answer my question, I asked the Union guys whether this could be pushed through regardless, in the event of a majority NO vote. He said that certain parts of it COULD be imposed regardless but, importantly, the cap element could not be. So, we vote NO, the worst Barron can do is implement a SMART pension scheme with no cap. Oh, and the Union guys also confirmed that he DOES drive a DB9 (contrary to his NATSnet rebuttal) and apparently never shuts up about it...their words not mine!:}

I thought the RPI+0.5% cap on pensionable earnings was essential for the SMART pension to work, otherwise we are back to where we are now? :confused:

Mr777,

presumably they could also close it to new joiners as well though as that is not changing existing members Ts & Cs? Or am I wrong in that assumption?

I think what Barrons' actual comments were on the DB9 is that he is given a certain amount towards a car and that in this instance he elected to put some of his own money in to upgrade to a DB9.

The amount of his own money he needed to use though is obviously what counts - I bet it wasn't much. I doubt he was offered a Ford Mondeo and decided to throw in £90k to upgrade!!

As for Vision 2011, how does a DB9 sit with the vision "Acting Responsibly"??

"Do as I say, not as I do" - yeah, !!!! off :mad:

Vote No

SMART pensions work whatever the pensionable salary is - they will always save the company money as they reduce the employer NI and tax contributions.

They have nothing to do with whether future pensionable pay is capped or not. If that's what was alluded to in your brief, you have been misled

Exactly. He cannot impose the whole proposal, only the SMART part of it....which, as you said, is a waste of time without the cap element attached to it. If that IS true, then he can't do anything if we vote NO ,without further negotiation with the Union. Certainly, he will not be able to bring in this proposal as it stands now if we vote NO.

You were right about the Aston, anotherthing. Did make me laugh though when the Union guy said he never bloody shuts up about it! I bet he just lurrrrrves talking about it.

.

Im still voting a big fat NO. if it drags their rich arrogant arses back to the table then that is excellent. if it only means they can bring in smart pensions, fine by me... its a no brainer that saves the company money of which they probably wont put back into the pension anyway.
cracks seem to be showing courtesy of HR and phil whatshisface..... depends on how many vote no,,, come on, thats got to prove that we can fight this and they are chancing their arms to get this through. they are taking the piss and now arent even hiding it... its being waved in front of our faces. we do have strength in this and hopefully seems to be showing.
off topic slightly, but i have just read online that NHS nurses are going for a strike before xmas due to a 'lousy 8% pay rise' implemented this summer for 3 years..... if they can get that and its still not good enough, Mr Barron and Co, you can go swivel if you attempt no pay rise next year.

Talking of payrises...the Union said we have a much better chance of getting a decent rise next year if we vote this in as the company will be saving money. My view, which I put to them, was that we're more likely to get FA as we have rolled over on the most important issue and the management will see this as carte blanche to f*** us over on other issues.

what did our union chums say to that???

privatesandwiches

Thats what I think too. We have just got to see this through and see what transpires. We have nothing to lose and all to gain

Vote No :)

The cap is not as big an issue as the new scheme being implemented.
As soon as a new scheme starts, our scheme is on death row.
The union answers to questions about the future viability of the current scheme in a few years (eg 15) were poor and evasive to say the least.
A two tier workforce is going to cause massive problems for us when it comes to vote time again in 15 years about removing the cap or whatever is in place at the time.
Since this process started, having spoken to people at work who have spoken to people at work etc etc etc, i now believe this will be a close vote but will turn out yes.
If a no vote wins, Nats will bring in all the proposals anyway.
Then we would be looking at a vote for industrial action. That won't pass.
I am bored with this fight now because I think we have already lost.
vote no, for all the good it will do.:{

then say goodbye to goodwill sectors, safety meetings that we have to come in 2 hours early to have and anything else we do for free.
any loyalty to the company gone.... any pride in working for nats gone.... keeping sectors bandboxed due staffing, not a chance.... GS asking to bandbox as its quiet, erm NO....morale down..... productivity down.... looking abroard for employment, YES....well done nats.

IMNOTAN..."If a no vote wins, Nats will bring in all the proposals anyway.
Then we would be looking at a vote for industrial action. That won't pass.
I am bored with this fight now because I think we have already lost.
vote no, for all the good it will do

Were are your balls man???????......if you believe you are being shafted (which you are) how about a bit of fighting spirit???

But the opposite may be true. If the NTUS can't carry the membership on a deal which is far better than most employers are offering is NATS likely to take them seriously in the future and spend any time on negotiating with them ? You may think that the old fashioned way of conflict negotiation gets better results but does it really ?

And if it is a No you may have to follow through on the threat of industrial action. NATS managers are scared stiff of industrial action but often the fear is far worse than the actual event. Can you trust all your colleagues to back it because if NATS management discover that your powder isn't as dry or powerful as they thought they really will have carte blanche in the future. If it's a Yes vote they don't get the chance to find out and that uncertainty could continue to be very useful in the future if you aren't too greedy. You may not like the deal but it is streets ahead of what most people are getting and that can be attributed entirely to management's fear.

There was plenty of time to ask both NATS management and NTUS about a No vote in our briefing. NATS management said they would talk to NTUS if that happened. They can implement SMART and the closure to new entrants anyway but it's the cap which has the most immediate effect on the financial health of NATS and is the most important. They claimed that the executive hasn't yet considered what to do if it is a No vote. NTUS said they would talk to NATS but there isn't much to talk about unless we tell them why we are voting No and so far nobody advocating No has come up with a reason which would warrant any further negotiation.

A lot depends upon how the voting goes. The two Prospect branches and PCS will be considered as 3 separate ballots and all 3 have to vote to accept. That means there are a number of different possibilities and I'm sure NATS will react differently depending upon which it turns out to be.

Quote
They can implement SMART and the closure to new entrants anyway but it's the cap which has the most immediate effect on the financial health of NATS and is the most important.

Exactly that is why we should vote NO to stop two schemes being run if the cap makes that much difference:ok: