I am a no, simple as:mad:

Mr.777 wrote...
I understand it's an important issue and you may be right to be cynical. I agree it's a bit "off" taking payment holidays in this context but really as I've said before the payment holidays are negligible in the scheme of things.

I don't think the situation is caused completely by our pay rises but it has to a big part of it the way I see it.

Definately NO.

The main aim of management was to start winding up the pension scheme by closing it to new employees. What's been added on (and appears to be attracting most outrage) is the cap on pensionable pay rises. I think this is a bit of a smokescreen to deflect us from the important change. In December we vote no; unions go back to management, management agree to drop capping. We think we've won and vote yes, and management get what they actually wanted all along; the closure to new members and the first nail in the pensions' coffin.

TowerinCu
I think you have truly hit the nail on the head in that coffin :ok:

toweringCu,

now that sounds like the true management game plan. Of course they have a plan b... most likely a C and D. they know we are a selfish bunch of gits and will want to sort ourselves out... as soon as we can secure that, they will close the case.
For the naive among us, and all are entitled to their own decision.... if you vote yes, you are eating out of their hands, plain and simple. as stated here a thousand times, we need balls and backbone on this and to ride this one out and show them at least we wont fold at the first hurdle and have some dignity and self respect. we are intelligent people, if mister brown told us the economy was going down and unless us 'high' tax payers paid in 80% tax for the next 5 years to save the country or we go to the wolves, riots, crime etc etc.... would you?
up next, pay talks.... what joy.

let's everybody stand fast and keep our nerve. The only way we can approach this situation right now is to vote NO and throw the ball back in their court. I have serious misgivings about what they are going to set up for our future colleagues, people who in far less than 15 years will comprise the majority in NATS. The proposal does not make conditions clear in terms of death in service, widows pension etc. We have a responsibility to look after the future controllers as well as ourselves and their terms and conditions are surely as vital a part of the scenario as existing members.

VOTE No

It is inconceivable that NATS management do not have a plan B.
I would suggest that what we have been presented with is plan A in the knowledge that they may get lucky and get a YES vote but if not then the more palatable scenario (plan B) that TCU suggests above would be taken up as some sort of compromise.
I suspect there is also a plan C!
It is also inconceivable that in the case of a NO vote the same NTUS negotiating team could go back and start seriously renegotiating what they have already signed up to and want us to accept.
How could they do that?
It just wouldn’t work. Management would simply say we can’t do x, y, z because of the reasons we have already discussed and which you have agreed with.
Should there be a NO vote in December this would leave the NTUS mortally wounded and in no position to start renegotiating.
It would require a completely new NTUS team.
(IMHO)

there are plenty of volunteers at my place. a couple have stepped up last month, if there were more spots to join as a rep.... plenty of us would love the chance to do it and renegotiate on behalf of you all.
i was on leave when it all happened, if i could have i would have.
maybe next time.

vote NO NO NO.

i'VE JUST SPENT AN HOUR TYPING IN MY VIEWS ON THE BRIEFING I ATTENDED YESTERDAY- ONLY FOR THE FORUM TO TIME ME OUT BEFORE POSTING.
I'LL POST THEM AT SOME POINT BUT THE ESSENCE OF IT IS STILL NO!

Its simple....if we accept this we will be stuffed for ever. And another thing,I am going to trade in my shares while they have any value!!! next year they will be worth bugger all!! The problem is if we all did that could NATS afford to pay the money?????

BT
 

Is it not also true, that when BT introduced SMART pensions in 2004, the Communications Union negotiated :
"There will be NO reduction in the BT pension you receive when you retire as a result of Smart Pensions.
BT has agreed if it fails to identify people who would lose under Smart Pensions, or underestimates the level of potential loss, it will make good any financial loss caused by Smart Pensions"The above lifted from CWU web site.
I think the NTUS have more work to do ..................:mad:

I went in with an open mind ... I came out a confirmed NO.

I do not doubt that the union guys believe that this is a lesser evil than the potential chaos of 'Plan B', and their views were well expressed.

I do not doubt that there is a funding issue with the underlying rate.

But I do disagree strongly that we (NATS) should be the only ones expected to solve this problem. In fact there seem to have been NO MOVES to pressure or lobby the Government for help, or to even suggest to them that there might be a looming problem.

This problem is a direct result of the Government's PPP - saddling us with so much debt, and then insisting through the regulator that we are rigorously capped by the CAA and restricted in our ability to pass through pension costs.

The Government own 49% of NATS, it is time they were made to live up to their responsibilities.

If the Government hear that we are even threatening industrial action, believe me, they will sit up and take notice. If they hear nothing but good news, they will ignore us and hope that the problem (for them) will go away.

It might be worth remembering and revising what was said on NATS Pensions during the Parliamentary Readings of the Transport Bill.

House of Lords - 26 Oct 2000 - Passed Amendment (#70A) seeking extra legal protection for NATS pensions. (78 For, 77 Against.)

Commons Debate - 15 Nov 2000 - Rejected that Lords Amendment. (337 to 203)

Nick Raynsford, the Government Minister, who steered the Government's rejection of that Lords Amendment (70A) said .. and I quote ...

"The key point, which we have already clarified, is that if evidence is forthcoming that shows that existing pensioners, deferred pensioners or existing employees face A SERIOUS PROBLEM that could have AN ADVERSE EFFECT on their financial prospects under a pension, WE ARE READY TO RESPOND QUICKLY AND POSITIVELY."

Well I for one think that avenue has not even been tested and they now need to be held to account.

I suggest you all write to your current MPs and those ministers involved, and get this issue raising its head NOW.

MPs that voted AGAINST that extra protection include,

Jim Murphy (Eastwood) The new Scottish Secretary
Alasdair Darling (The then Transport Secretary)
Des Browne (Kilmarnock)
Douglas Alexander (Paisley South)
Anne Begg (Aberdeen)
Brian Donohoe (North Ayrshire)


MPs that voted FOR that extra protection included ..
Gavin Strang (Edinburgh)
Vince Cable
Menzies Campbell
Charles Kennedy
Lembit Opik
Tam Dalyell
Liam Fox
John McDonnell

Find the list here

Questions that remain unanswered. :confused:

What life expectancy are the actuaries using ? :\

Is it the same for all, or do they split down into ATCOs, ATSAs, shift workers, office workers ?

I ask, because shift workers have a 5 year lower life expectancy than office workers and if that is not taken account of, it makes for rather skewed liabilities.

The question of what NATS does with its £60m profit each year wasn't adequately answered. :hmm:

Director HR said it gets reinvested into the company. Well that doesn't seem to include staff terms and conditions which is surely an investment in the company.

Why should we trust a 15 year memo of understanding. What happens if the company is sold on and NATS no longer exists ? :yuk:
I didn't hear any cast-iron guarantee that it would be valid. We were told it was a legally binding document, but not convinced that this passes onto successor companies.

What about a potential deficit? :eek:

All the proposal is currently concerned with is the underlying funding rate. What happens at the next actuarial valuation (Dec 2008?) when the assets will perhaps be much much lower (due to markets) and presumably a whacking great deficit. Expect the poverty pleas to start again.

NATS Business Services website :=
Management seemed genuinely embarrassed that this had sneaked out, and said it was 'a mistake'. You bet it was. But it just shows that they cannot be trusted - this is the prevalent company mentality in NATSworld. It now seems that NATS whole website has been taken down. :D

You can still view the offending site by Googling "managing union expectations throughout the change" and looking in the Google cache. :8

..or try here ..

Ask the Union if they are embarrassed at being suckered in and having their expectations managed like this ? :ugh:

No coherent answer as to what happens to employees who have joined between 2001 and 2006. :ooh:

Questioned on the ballot.
Each constituency, PCS, Prospect (ATCOs), Prospect (Engineers) are balloted separately. If one rejects it, the proposal falls. :ok:

Keep those questions and subsequent answers coming ....

Jobby,
some of those were answered at the briefing I went to.
If there is a deficit at the next valuation, the trustees have to put place a plan to eliminate the deficit and return to a fully paid up fund (ie 100%). This means NATS would have to increase the payment in to cover not only the future liabilities but also to recover the deficit, which apparently must be enacted over a timescale agreed with the pensions regulator.
As for the lifespan question, not sure of the answer, but then does it really make any difference, as whatever the answer, that is the data being used by the scheme actuaries, and so is the data that would be taken into account in assessing future liabilities by either the scheme or the pensions regulator should the worst occur. It's all very well arguing it may not be what you think should be used, but will that change it?
As for NATS profit, couldn't agree more, should all be ploughed straight back in to company, certainly not issued as dividend to shareholders.

I haven't ben to a briefing and will not be able to attend the one at my unit.

I have however carefully read the brochure supplied by NATS and the NTUS and talked extensively with my rep who has been briefed. I have also done all the calculations on the intranet. Based on the actuarial assumptions I will be £8k a year worse off (assuming no promotions), that's a lot of money to be out of pocket each year when you're a pensioner. Add to that the reduced lump sum that will be available upon retirement, the reduced widows pension (assuming I die before my wife) and it all adds up to a big fat NO from me. No amount of scaremongering from Barron and his mob will change my mind. This is my vote and is based on careful consideration of ALL the information supplied to me from all available sources. All a briefing will do is go through the figures and I get to ask all the questions I have already asked my reap and had answers to.

Don't kid yourselves that there isn't more to offer from management because the threat of industrial action or the company going under will be enough to get them back to the negotiating table.

We will have to have a new negotiating team who can go into the talks with a clear mandate of what will be acceptable to us the membership and can then proceed to negotiate the best deal possible based on that mandate.

Stop all AAVA's now!

Is anyone actually still doing them ?

I thought any attempt to degenerate our pension automatically triggered an overtime ban!

Am I right or wrong here ?

aava s
 

air farce you are wrong unfortunately. still be done at Swanwick. how will management even begin to think there is any backbone within this workforce if we dont stop overtime immediately. whether you want to vote no or yes this is a time to show our management that we have been badly managed over the last ten years and that we are seriously considering this matter. To carry on with overtime as normal will be a great indicator to senior managers that things are going their way. please think very hard indeed before agreeing to it and about the message you are sending not only on your behalf but on behalf of your fellow workers!

No point calling for an AAVA ban unless it is a co-ordinated and agreed action across the workforce, with union backing.

Otherwise you will still have people doing them for their own personal reasons and you possibly face the risk of coming under the spotlight for starting illegal 'industrial action' if you make it a public call to arms.

The union conference is not far away, so that's the place to raise a motion calling for a ban on union members doing AAVAs. There are many good reasons why we should not be doing them any longer, but let's make it a legitimate ban.