I'm sorry but i will have to continue my support of the union here -

'How times and loyalties have changed'

'i seen, heard and read the ultimate in betrayal'

What on earth do you mean?? Loyalties of union reps who like you and me pay their subs and instead of just expecting someone to do the work for them actually do it themselves. If their 'loyalty' has changed its changed to themselves as well as you!! Can you be disloyal to yourself or betray yourself and would you willingly and knowingly do so?

I assume that as the whole onenatsonepension thing has been posted again that you actually asked why their position had changed at your briefing, if you didn't maybe you should go and find one of the Reps or go to a briefing and ask them.

I would have thought it was rather obvious :confused:

Anyway I am not going to start bashing Union reps who have signed confidentiality clauses, and can't tell members whats really going on because its sensitive "business information" and they will go to jail :{ if the break that confidentiality

They can wrestle with their own consciences

As somebody who was affected by both those changes I took a very close interest in that and having researched it very thoroughly I can tell you that NATS had no choice but to make those changes. The person to blame for that change to our pension was Gordon Brown who headed up the Government that brought in the age discrimination legislation.

After reading the mail from PCS... which I must admit, made me more inclined to vote NO just because I hate feeling I'm being "persuaded" by a biased argument. The TUs should not be pushing people to vote either way, just informing of facts and leaving us to our own free decision.

However.... one thing I think it's important to mention. That's 18 months of discussions between a team of senior managers, including highly experienced accountants and negotiators, with a support team of professional pensions analysts... taking on a team of union officials that are actually office workers, controllers, engineers etc etc. Not to say the guys in the TU who sit on the pensions committees aren't intelligent and well informed... but the professional experience and the qualifications to speak with authority on these subjects is heavily weighted on one side. It's not surprising in such a position, that people can be persuaded in to an opinion they would previously have recoiled in horror from.

fit to burst,

your posts seem to infer that anyone voting no should either stand as a union rep, or else, not post any dissenting view on the negotiations that took place.
Why should any no voter have to stand to be a union rep. I did not join NATS to be a Union Rep, I joined to be an AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER. I have the utmost respect for the union reps, who do a hard job in difficult circumstances, but that does not mean i cant tell them that , in my opinion, that i think the deal they negotiated is a tub of sh1t .

I dont see why the deal needs to be over 15 years, that is way too long. A lot can happen in 15 years, you can go through an entire cycle of boom and bust in 15 years.
I dont see why closing the pension to new members is a good thing . a closed scheme is a dying scheme. surely you need new people in at the bottom of the fund contributing to ensure the financial future of those near to retirement about to draw their pension.If the scheme is closed to new members, then the pot of money within that fund will start to dwindle, and if the fund is only funded to 100% of its liabilities, then there is no margin to account for sudden downturns like we are seeing now. Thats another thing, i dont see why funding the pension to just 100% of its liabilities is a good thing, and the 'its best practise' argument is just horsesh1t!!! thats like saying ' oh well everybody else is jumping of the cliff, so we should too..' look whats happened to all those other pensions that have been closed to new members, aren't they all doing well. err... no.
Now i know that last argument isnt to do with the pension negotiations per se, but it does make me question the people that are meant to be looking after our interests and that includes the trustees who i think have some questions to answer as well.
As you can probably guess from the subtle tone of my post, its still a no for me i'm afraid.

eglnyt:

How long do you think external customers will value a service that is related to something we don't do front line?

Sell NSL, lose a huge area of expertise. NATS is so good at what it does (coal face ATC in case anyone has forgotten what NATS is about), because it does it for real at some of the busiets airports and in some of the most congested/complex airspace in the world.

Stop doing the job at the coalface, and the 'expertise' soon withers in the backrooms.

Putting it bluntly - if we are not doing it for ourselves, we can't maintain our expertise in it; ergo the CTC jobs will wither and die, not immediately, but progressively after any sale of NSL.

Times have certainly changed but loyalty ? Are you suggesting that the NTUS reps are acting dishonestly ? If so I think you either need to withdraw the accusation or find some evidence to support it.

Certainly the NTUS has modified its approach, sometimes you have to amend your demands when they are shown to be unrealistic, but to describe that as betrayal is ridiculous unless you can prove that they are acting in anything other than what they believe to be the best interests of the membership as a whole.

what an arrogant statement to make... you are saying that other people are wrong, but you are correct!

Fit to Burst

I don't agree with some of what you are saying, but that does not mean that you, nor anyone else needs to apologise for what they believe.

The same however goes for people who you are telling to become union reps, just because they believe in this issue, that the union has got it wrong. They are entitled to believe that, it does not mean that they have to become union reps - it's called democracy!

One thing I think the union will admit, either publicly or more likely in private - this matter has not been dealt with in the best manner - if it had been done differently, there might not be such a vociferous 'NO' lobby.

It's a shame because as you quite rightly say, the Union has done us well in the past, but going from a well advertised ('you should read this' - from the union) website proclaiming "OneNATSOnePension", to silence, then to see the website meekly change without advertising the fact shows how poorly managed this has been.

Quote:
Management have said that the existing scheme would be safe and yet in December last year they made a unilateral change to the existing scheme in respect of both the 40-year rule and the non-ATCO flex that demonstrated that this is not the case.

eglnyt


.

The above quote was made by the Union, so is Management to blame or the Government? If it's the Government then this quote from the Union is incorrect !

eglnyt "old boy" :)

I think you are losing the plot here, it is you who are suggesting that I am suggesting that NTUS reps are acting dishonestly!

I have not described anything as betrayal (you are mixing up posts here:))

Take a well deserved break and compose yourself and stop flogging a dead horse :)

Vote NO

I'm saying exactly what I wrote. If I think you are wrong I will correct you. If it is arrogant for somebody with access to the correct facts to question incorrect ones or arrogant to suggest an alternative point of view possible with the same evidence then I admit to arrogance.

I am sure that the Union DID work their backsides off for 18months, nobody is disputing that fact. However, just because they spent that amount of time on it doesn't make it a reasonable proposal.
How can you defend a proposal that, for every single pension briefing, is presented to you in a different manner....as, more importantly, are the consequences of voting NO and other such gems like why cost pass through to the airlines is prohibited?! Is it just me that finds this odd?!

Vote No

The change was unilateral in that NATS made the change without agreement from the Union. The change had to be made because legal advice was that those benefits became illegal once the age discrimination legislation came into effect.

I've no doubt that NATS management must have thought Christmas had come several times at once because it allowed them to make changes to pension benefits and the redundancy scheme that they would never ever have been able to make previously but it would be wrong to suggest that this is evidence that NATS was targetting the pension scheme and renegading on previous promises.

Then you need to re-phrase it because grammatically, what you are saying is twofold... you think they are wrong (infers they might not be), but you will correct them (even though you only think they might be wrong.

Whatever, the way you have written it implies arrogance and a belief that you know better, whether you do or not. The same arrogant attitude that keeps telling people to attend a brief etc just because they see the statistics differently from you.

As for where is the provenance in that statement, apart from merely taking your word for it? Or are you happy for people to believe you at your word, but not anyone else?

You might not be arrogant at all, but that is how you come across to me - I doubt I'm alone.

WRONG. This may not be evidence but Mr Barron and the management have been after the pension from day 1 of his tenure. The Union went to see Barron to discuss SMART pensions. He wanted £50million saved through pension cuts, at a time when the pension was healthy, they said "No chance", he said "No SMART pension discussion then".

Special Conference Motions
 

Anyone seen what Motions have been put for Special Conference ? Any news from the battlefront ?

I haven't told anyone to become a Union rep - i have asked if you are going to become one as clearly you don't like what the reps have negotiated and think there is a better alternative which i assume you feel you could negotiate?

I guess what I am asking is if this is a no vote will you be the person that goes and negotiates what you feel is the right thing for everyone, or will you wait for whatever happens next and throw stones at that?

You can post all the dissenting views you like, i just find it a little sad that you are willing to union bash your own colleagues, on a public forum, who fight for your best interests but aren't prepared to be a rep yourself. I guess i just think that someone who feels so strongly about how bad the union are and the 'tub of sh1t' they've negotiated might have the balls to stand up, become and rep and deliver something better but as you say you didn't join to be a rep you joined to be an ATCO just like all those guys who are trying to do what's best for you and them.

The way I see it, here is how it goes:

:)The underlying cost is what it will cost NATS to provide future benefits to all members if there wasno surplus (i.e.100% funded)

:)100% funding means that there is enough going in to meet CURRENT outgoings from the fund paid in at a particular rate(lets call this rate value F%)


If there is a surplus, there is more being paid in than going out, to meet current commitments, and a deficit means the opposite.

What NATS have done over the last few years is made it their aim to bring value of the down to 100% funding (i.e paid in=paid out), so instead of paying F%, they have paid in less and alowed the surplus make up the difference and thus causing it to dwindle down (now looking like a deficit)

Here's my biggest problem with the way the fund is portrayed:

Why the heck are we aiming for 100% funding when the underlying cost is what needs to be paid to ensure future liabilities are met?

100% funding rate will ALWAYS be much lower than the underlying rate, simply because future outgoings are going to bemuch higher than current outgoings.

NATS management are feeding us crap about the underlying rate being so high, yet base their contributions on the current funding :ugh:

This means that the underlying costs will continue to go up every year as NATS will always be paying in less than what is required to keep the fund viable in the future.

so bloody NATS got us into this mess because they were paying in much less than the underlying rate (future obligations), indeed, were paying in less than what is required to meet current obligations, using the surplus to make up the difference :mad::mad: 100% funding is a load of crock and is merely the actuaries equivalent od rose tinted specs:

In the form of a play

NATS:"hey, we have enough money to pay our current commitments and we will pay in just the right amount to maintain this. Aren't we great?"

LITTLE TIMMY: "but what about the future?"

NATS:" yeah, erm, well... erm, oh dear we haven't been paying enough to meet future needs. We'd better tell everybody that we need to pay in a lot more just so that we have enough money in the pot to pay future pensioners"

LITTLE TIMMY:"but you paid less in than what you needed to ensure there was enough cash in the pot to pay future pensioners. Isn't it your fault?"

NATS:"well...yes, erm..we can afford to pay it but we don't want to. We're just going to have to scare everyone into taking less when they retire and so we won;t need to have such a big pot of cash in the future"

THE END

Mr 777 - I am amazed, you must be really tired, exhausted even, having been to EVERY SINGLE BRIEFING to make such a statement on how each and everyone has been presented differently.

Fit to Burst

if you say that my democratic right (otherwise, why have a ballot), to vote 'NO' because I believe that NATS can afford to do more than the proposal will entail i.e. I think that the Union could get a better deal is Union bashing, then I'll admit it.

However I can't see how my opinion that NATS can afford to cough up more, can in anyway be misconstrued as to be union bashing.:ugh:

And I think you'll find that although you are answering me directly, the phrase you are saying I used (and are using to imply my feelings) - (the phrase shown in red taken from a quote of your last post) - was not written by me, but by Ayrprox.

If you are going to sling accusations, get it right. Do keep up :ugh:

I'd pay to watch the full length version of that SATAN:}

Mr 777 I didn't say that NATS didn't want to reduce pension costs, I've can only speculate about what they may want or desire. I said it would be wrong to portray the 40 year rule and flex termination as evidence of what they want.

The fact that only ONE briefing was different to my own shows inconsistency, you pedant.:ugh: Problem for you is you can't argue that one can you????

Secondly, in one breath you're saying "I'm not telling everyone to join the Union" then "if you vote NO you should join the Union and do a better job yourself"...which is effectively telling EVERYBODY who votes NO to join the Union...see, I can be pedantic too. So which is it then??

Mr. 777

I believe the producers are looking at some funding options for the sequel :}

I'd advise them to ask NATS...they seem to have pots of cash.:rolleyes:

Hold at Satan

Until very recently the contribution rate was always greater than the actual rate. That was because Actuaries always used pessimistic assumptions and real life was never worse case. As a result time after time the fund was in surplus. The current problem arises because after years and years of that being the case real life has changed and suddenly those assumptions aren't pessimistic they are optimistic. The Actuaries don't have rose tinted specs they tend to have a gloomy outlook so they've gone out and got new pessimistic assumptions. Unfortunately those new assumptions greatly increase the cost of any defined benefit scheme and that's why generally the UK can't afford defined benefit schemes any more.

Mr 777, i'm not saying you should become a union rep if you vote no i'm asking if you will?? Also, i assume then that you have been to more than 1 briefing to state what you have as fact, if so fair enough...

Anotherthing - i was kinda answering two posts in one that's why i hadn't put your name to it in reply, so yes you're right the last bit wasn't for you and wasn't your words.

tongue in cheek, but because the actuaries have stopped taking happy pills (which incidentally allowed NATS to rape the fund) and are now on Prozac - NATS wants to change the scheme.

I can see it now -

Actuaries - "we are pessimists, you need to contribute this amount... oh we were wrong."

NATS - "That's alright, we'll pillage the fund."

7 years later

Actuaries - "now we're optimistic... bugger"

NATS - "That's alright, we'll shaft our employees."


?? years later


Actuaries - "guess what, we were wrong; the fund was manageable after all"

NATS - "never mind, we've gained during good and bad times, and we managed to get rid of the airports... thanks!!"
I'm not buying into that :=



Fit to Burst

No worries - becomes clear now :ok:

Fit To Burst

2 reasons I won't be a Union rep. 2 guys on my watch have only very recently stepped up to the plate to do the job.

Secondly, as you may be able to tell, I don't really have the temperament for peaceful negotiation (not with the management anyway!) :E

The rest of your points I take on board in the spirit in which they were intended.

Ben Doonigan

There are (or at least were last time I saw it!) two motions on the table:-

1) the members support the BEC to continue negotiations with the management over the issue of pensions, and

2) the members DO NOT support the BEC to continue negotiations with the management over the issues of pensions.

Can't remember the exact wording but that was the basic gist of it and as far as I can interpret it, it effectively amounts to a vote of no-confidence.

Personally I would defintely vote for 1 because, if it does come back as a NO vote, I can't think of anyone better placed to go back to the table to continue negotiations on our behalf. I fully support the union and do think that, based on the information given by management, they have negotiated the best deal available. The key phrase there though is "based on the information given by the management" and that being said, i'm still voting NO because I don't believe management have been totally honest in their dealings with the union and have been bordering on negligent in their handling of it by paying less than required, regardless of trustees advice!!

And all the yes voters who are asking for alternatives...here's one...rather than a pensionable earnings cap, what about a 15 year paydeal of RPI+0.5%??? Would you vote for this?!? It has the exact same effect as the pensionable earnings cap in terms of letting actuaries more accurately calculate underlying rates, and apparently the union have repeatedly asked the management for this instead (because obviously it would make the deal much more appealing to the membership as then everything gained in any payrise will be pensionable!!) The management, however, know that this would ultimately not be as cost-efficient for them and therefore may impact on the profits and, ultimately, the financial-health-of-the-company-related bonuses that they are due to receive upon completion of this deal!! This deal (instead of the cap) would certainly make it look more appealing to me, but that being said, i'd still vote NO because I honestly don't believe that the cap is the most important issue here...it's closing the scheme to new entrants which really worries me, and we all seem to have been sidetracked by something which everyone agrees isn't going to have a major impact on us!!:ooh:

I would say their refusal of this offer is yet another indication of how the management have got nothing like our best interests at heart, because if that was the case, they'd snap up this 15 year pay offer, reduce the underlying cost and leave our entire salary pensionable and not the (potentially) less than final salary scheme on offer.

As for becoming a union rep...I am giving it serious consideration!! Not because I think I could a better job mind, but because I want to take a more active interest in what's going on that affects my colleagues and I!! That and I personally just like a good argument!!!:}

FB:ok:

eglnyt
2003 valuation stated underlying rate: 26.8%
2006: 37.3%

NATS have never paid anyting near those amounts; only enough to maintain CURRENT requirements, indeed, stock markets gains above expectations caused the surplus.

Yes the Actuaries' assumptions have caused some of the increase, but much of it would have been offset if NATS didn't go chasing 100% funding (i.e meet current pension outgoings) but actually put something infor the future pensioners' outgoings.

NATS is using the best parts of a flawed accounting method to paint a rosy picture of their own contributions to date (paid sufficiently to meet current costs); and used the worst part to show the dire position of the fund (can't meet future costs)

Reasons not to vote 'yes'.
 

1 - Trust. This could refer to the Trust of a Promise, Deed of Trust or "do you trust management".

I cannot believe that the proposal is an unavoidable and 'best we can do' solution to solve the pension 'problem'. The first FACT that makes me DIStrust what I am told was NATS Business Services boasting on NATS website, selling its expertise (to other ANSPs) in "transferring public sector pensions into the private sector" and of "managing union expectations throughout the change". (not surprisingly this little gem was very quickly removed by NATS management - but I think it merely proves the management thinking and deception that is going on behind the scenes)

I find it hard to believe that no-one has seen fit to raise this issue, and that the unions have been completely silent on this - perhaps they are too embarassed at the "you've been had" implications of it ?

2 - "Vote Yes" advocates (and there are some eloquent arguments hidden in amongst the drivel) argue that "this is the best we can get' and "we are getting a better deal than nurses/teachers etc.."

I'm sorry, but that is no argument. ie. "You're getting stuffed but stuffed less than others." There is a worldwide shortage of ATCOs, and forecast to get worse when 10,000 (out of 14,000) USA ATCOs become elligible to retire over the next 5 years - yes, you heard that right - ten thousand. When pay rates at Dubai are up to £8000 a month (tax free), do you not think that NATS management will have thought about the upward forces on ATCO pay rates after the recession ? The union playing your pay expectations down is pretty shameful IMHO. Anyway, it comes back to that 'trust' word and 'promise'. My pension is deferred pay. I bought in to that pension on the basis of my projected final salary. I made financial plans based on my contract and that promise. I will not allow my employer to squirm out of that responsibility that easily.

3 - When Railtrack announce today that they are putting up fares by 6% to cover 'massive investment', (and I believe Railtrack employees pensions ARE protected) it seems equally perverse that NATS cannot raise fees, are pegged by RPI-X during a period of massive investment, and that all the cutting cost measures are directed at our T+Cs.

4 - Leadership? Forget the thousands of pounds wasted (I like the oft-used phrase "spunked away") on pointless CTC/management initiatives and away-days. What about the responsible leadership of NOT deliberately running the pension down to the bare legal minimum ? We have been totally failed by our 'leaders' who see the workforce (except themselves) as a cost and not an asset. Perhaps an apology (a la Royal Bank of Scotland) is beneath them?

5 - The Government. They caused the problem with a totally inappropriately funded PPP package (evidenced when investigated by HoC). Govt are a 49% shareholder, they MUST accept responsibility or be brought to account. Labour Party (ha ha ha) rhetoric at the time of PPP was that no employee or pensioner would financially suffer, and if evidence was forthcoming - they (the Govt) would act. Well, it's time to live up to that rhetoric.

Has no-one in management or Union asked them to act or get involved? Or are our Labour Party Union lackeys looking for some sneaky backhander for giving the Govt an easy ride and doing their dirty work? I think in this case being a Labour Party member is at odds with representing union members - a complete conflict of interest - you cannot serve 2 masters.

If the only way to get the Govt to sit up and notice is threaten industrial action - then, so be it.

my mp is a ****, gordon brown is a ****, so is jim fitzpatrick.
i don't want to do any of their jobs thanks.
Does that mean I have to take the view that their !!!! doesn't stink and that everything they say and do is marvellous?

FlyBhoy

if this is true, then it adds even more to the 'NO' argument; butit should come as no surprise that NATS would want to be obstructive!

I think what NATS want to do is screw the pension, then try to give us poor pay deals on top - otherwise as you say, a 15 year pay deal of RPI+0.5% (or in these days of credit crunch best say a pay deal of either 0.5% or RPI+0.5%, whichever is greater), with it all being pensionable, is quite attractive.

When Jim Fitzpatrick came to visit the new Heathrow Tower, he didn't once make any effort to speak to ATCOs or ATSAs. He came across like an arrogant little tw*t, up his own narcissitic ar$e.(dear moderators I am being fair and objective in my observation, unfortunately :ouch:)


Ministers are usually not fussed about where they are now, but where they want to be next. One special exception was Ms. Dunwoody, God rest her soul

FB

The reason NATS won't go for that is that they'll be bound for 15 years and will have no pay deal "incentive" :ok: to offer staff for making more cutbacks

Yet, they are quite happy to tie us into a 0.5% cap "deal" :eek: for 15 years

In any case given the global demand for our skill, we'd be underselling ourselves. If others (I'm thinking UAE, et al) can throw money to attract and retain staff, it can only but improve our bargaining positions.

fly bhoy: So let's get this straight you would take a 15 year pay cap at RPI +0.5% and you would be happy with that because all of it would be pensionable. You won't however accept a 15 year pensionable pay cap that allows you salary to rise by more but your pensionable bit to remain capped at RPI + 0.5%. Are you sure about that?? or is it that you just want a guaranteed pay rise for the next 15 years??

He was on TV yesterday discussing Labours latest plans for taxing the great British motorist...he came across exactly the way you have just described SATAN.

As replies have shown from those who have written to their MPs (those who have received replies anyway...still waiting for mine), the Govt and Geoff Buff-hoon want nothing to do with this particular hot potato...not, that is, until we take industrial action when their indifference will come back to bite them on the arse in a rather large and public way. I do not understand how a 51% shareholder in a major company has no interest in whether their workforce strike or not, which this could come down to. The Union were asked at our briefing whether they had approached the Govt. They had but the Govt were, apparently, not interested...."not a matter for them" allegedly.

FB,

I'm not sure that's quite correct.....NATS pay what the Trustees tell them to pay. I don't believe the Trustees have ever advised anything different to what has actually occurred. When NATS took the 'holiday', that was agreed between NATS, Trustees and Unions.

I'm not sure that was what FlyBhoy's post alluded to, but I'll let him make his own reply.