I could not agree more.!!!

Vote No, should the worst happen and HMG end up back in charge, what makes you think that NATS would not be subject to a no-strike clause as part of the rescue package? The armed forces, the prison service, the police are all tied in to one, why not NATS, being 'vital to the country's infrastructure.

HMG were in charge before 2001 and strike action did take place before.
I have not heard of any new legislation to prevent strike action, however our powder is so dry it has almost evaporated! However if the majority want to roll over and die, so be it. I think the French have the right idea:ok:

The French DO have the right idea. None of this poncing around "working together" cr*p....no negotiation...you don't wanna play ball? Fine, we're on strike then.

Either that or we join ASLEF. As a former member of said Union, those guys strike at the drop of a hat. They don't get f***ed about by management and they don't take "no" for an answer. Barron wouldn't stand a chance if he was in the railway industry up against these guys. Wishful thinking....

:)Well, if this deal goes through we could all end up wearing "SERCO" uniforms on a half final salary pension scheme, with no one to blame but those who voted yes.
By that time most ATC staff will have gone elsewhere leaving CTC HQ to separate traffic :{
And dont rule out NATS failing in the next 2 years due the recession/depression:uhoh:

Route direct Starbucks....report visual with photo of the day:}

PeltonLevel

Not sure what proportion CAA are still on, however a cap (though I still maintain this is a side issue) will quickly take our scheme below a 2/3rds of 1/59th scheme.

It won't take many pay rises just above RPI+0.5% for the difference to be reversed, especially as while our pensionable pay would be getting capped, the CAAs' would be growing

:}:}:}:}:}:}:}:}

Rumourmill
 

Having just spent over an hour reading through these posts, I've come to the conclusion that sadly a lot of you either haven't been to the briefings or went with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut.
For a start, if HMG have to get involved, that will mean that NATS have gone into administration and our pension scheme will have been frozen. HMG will have no intention of keeping NSL going, and will hand the contracts over to the highest bidder.. anyone working at these units will have no "trust of a promise" or anything else to protect their Ts&Cs because NATS is in administration so all bets are off. Whoever's left will get an extremely reduced package and they'll have to accept it because the union won't have the negotiators they once did as they'll have resigned after your no vote.
Just remember that these people are the same negotiators that achieved our great Ts & Cs in the first place. They don't like the deal either, but they're running with it. I say vote yes, swallow the bitter pill, and get angry about something else.

Fenella

NATS will not go into administration.

Like the Government is doing at this very moment, if we need to, we can borrow our way out of any temporary situation (after all, as we keep getting told by management, our credit rating gets better and better every year and we are in great shape), and this 'credit crunch' is temporary.

In fact this credit crunch has nothing to do with our situation - they even stress that at the beginning of the briefing (then put a slide up halfway through saying how the downturn is hutring our portfolio :ugh::ugh:)

NATS are scaremongering in order to get what they want, which is a cheaper to run pension scheme.

Having a cheaper to run scheme is in the interests of any 'for profit' company (even though at PPP we were told NATS would be 'not for profit').

It makes great business sense for NATS to close the scheme and reduce the benefits to existing members, however that does not mean it is necessarily required to keep the company afloat, it is just a way to cut costs.

NATS could have done as the CAA are doing i.e. continued to pay the underlying rate into the pension scheme even when it was in surplus, but it chose not to because it suited them, even though in doing so it would harm the pension. (This should be taken into context considering Phillip James, in answer to someone on the intranet wrote '85% of pension schemes have closed sdue to lack of money over the past 10 years'... If thats the case why did NATS think it was acceptable to effectively take money from the scheme?)

You should not believe every thing that management tell you, there is a bigger picture.

Do you honestly think NSL will not be sold off if this deal goes through? What about the Ts & Cs then?

This is a company that has added layers of management when it could have stripped them out; this is a company that could have saved itself and employees some money by using SMART pensions years ago, but chose not to.

This is a company that now claims it can forsee the future and the future is not good, therefore we need to close the scheme - yet the company was unable to see this future (conveniently), when it wanted to take money from the scheme.

This is a company relying on actuaries who only now seem to have realised that year on year since records began, people have lived longer into retirement, thus increasing burden on pension schemes.

ProM

Band4All has a salient point though - just over an hour to read and digest this thread???!!!

FenellaJust because our Union (and some personnel have changed) have managed to do well in the past, it does not mean that they continue to do well or that they will do well in everything into the future. People slip up from time to time.

The Union has done a very poor job of keeping people informed during the middle of negotiations. In fact the Union started off with 'OneNATSOnePension' emblazoned on a website, and told us to visit it frequently for updates. Those updates failed to arrive and the 'OneNATSonePension' logo was quietly (without fanfare or notice) removed.

The union has done well in the past, but in this instance it has not covered itself in glory. That does not mean we have to bin them, but it might mean that they have to go back to management and admit they misread members feelings over this issue, and renegotiate.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Management have 2 or 3 fall back positions... do you honestly think this is as much as they can offer us??

Thanks anotherthing .

I get fed up preaching to those that think they know better ;)

I made no comment one way or another on saliency, merely that in my view a newcomer should be afforded a little leeway and welcome, especially in a case such as this where she(?) is a colleague of yours.

In fact since her post only applied to comments made since the briefings, then I believe that if I had dedicated time I could skim read most of those in a little over an hour. Were they printed off I think i could comfortably skim the whole thread. Since so much is repeated I would certainly elicit enough information to draw a conclusion such as Fenella posted. This is not to say that i agree with Fenella, I am not in a position to agree or not.

ProM

Nowhere in Fenellas post does she say she only read the posts written since the briefings started!

She mentions the briefings in passing inferring that anyone who is contemplating voting no Now, that's a very bold statement to make, just because some people obviously want to vote in a manner that does not sit with Finellas point of view.

Has Fenella been to every briefing to ne able to make such a bold statement?

I'm all for the right for people to vote as they believe is in their or the schemes best interest, however at least I have not resorted to inferring people who have a differing opinion to me have so because they have failed to attend a brief or just did not listen...

If we are going to be overly sensitiveabout this (as we seem to be about everything in tis day and age), although her welcome from Band4all may not have been overly welcoming, I think conversely it was not exactly the best 'first post' in history either and not the way to endear oneself to the masses!!

Personally, I couldn't care either way, as long as when people quote or write with regard from others' posts, they do it with a modicum of accuracy!!

Nothing betrays ignorance quite like forming an opinion and then expressing dismay that everyone else didn't follow suit!

I do agree that falling back on HMG would be a bad thing. Hundreds of people would lose their jobs, costs would be slashed, working conditions would suffer etc etc. Not happy times.

Yes, they are the same negotiators who got the great T&Cs we are all on.. but those were negotiated with a management of civil service mentality who had pots of money they needed to dispose of. It was hardly a difficult task for many years. Got a bit more tricky since PPP, but their negotiating strength was founded on an implied threat of their ability to call us all out in the event of an attack on any key issue. Whether this vote is yes or no, they have lost that strength. They have shown the "dry powder" has grown mouldy in storage and there's no spark can light it.

I attended a briefing, I asked a number of questions. Only some of those were answered. The failure to address a couple of the key points I challenged on is why I will happily vote no.

You may believe many of us paid no attention and didnt get it... We all may similarly suggest you to be a tad gullible. each to their own.

To the interesting point of the legality of industrial action in the event of a No vote... We have - through our unions - a mandate for industrial action, should NATS seek to force a closure of the pension scheme. Whether the TU executive agree or not is irrelevant to the legal case. It weakens the campaigh, but it doesn't prevent it. I would fully expect some, if not all, of them to resign their posts if this happened.

Do you ? A motion passed at conference falls far short of what the law would consider to be a mandate for industrial action. By law there will have to be a ballot meeting all the requirements of the relevant legislation before there can be any official industrial action. Only then will there be a mandate for industrial action.

An interesting test to apply to some of the posts made by the more ardent No supporters.

Nice start.

Unfortunately the 'briefing' you went to was in fact a 'sales pitch' designed solely to produce the voting result desired by Unions/Management.

I don't doubt that the pitch has been very effective in scaring and confusing attendees.



Initially the Administrator would secure all benefits accrued in the pension scheme.

When Railtrack were subject of a 'Railway Administration Order' under the Railways Act and the employees continued to accrue their pension benefits after coming back under the control of HMG.

This 'end of the world' scenario from the management is at best disingenuous scaremongering and isn't supported by precedent imo.



Evidence please, thanks.




Evidence please, thanks.





Union negotiators have done an excellent job over pay negotiations.

However, at the age I am I do not wish to end up with a 1/2 final salary scheme or indeed much worse.

The company is trying to take 6 figures of deferred pay off me without proving the case.

I agree completely. If they offered me a pay rise of 66% now, (and further rises as per negotiated deals), then I could be persuaded to leave the scheme completely! ;)

It's interesting that you chose Railtrack. That scheme has similar problems to ours. If you google Railway Pensions Commission you'll find a whole lot of information that looks very familiar. Two things which might be of interest. First the protection for their pensions in privatisation legislation was far stronger than ours. Second since coming back under HMG control the Network Rail part of the scheme has been closed to new members, members contribution rates have increased (over 11% from January 2009) and those who didn't have the protection in the privatisation legislation will probably end up with lower benefits and an increased retirement age.

I would recommend a look at the Railway Pensions Commission site for anybody who still thinks this is a NATS conspiracy. Railway Companies and the Unions working together to solve the pensions problem.

Having been "modded" earlier in response to Fenellas 1st ever post I just am wondering where she gets the above idea that this will happen however I am in total agreement with this outcome :ok::E

Still a big fat No from me, who did go in with ears open and brain in gear to the Union Management Xmas Panto
"Oh yes I did"

Watch out those Mods are..........BEHIND YOU :)

They seem to be very active :suspect: lately on this thread :E

Some of us :O will have to speak in" tongues" to avoid having posts removed :p, a bit like on NATS intranet :ooh:

They certainly work faster than the BBC :E

:ok:
Maybe we can just use icons :E to communicate on here :}

Mind you I wouldnt mind Jonathan's salary,:) nearly as much as :E:E:E:E :E:E:E:E:E:E earns ;)

just found out you can only use 15 images in a post!!

If the mods are here is there any way we can have some polls set up on this site?
I know not very accurate but hey would be interesting non the less:ok:

yea, come on MODS give us a yes/no vote poll :O :E

We could always set up our own web site with a poll :ok:

Hope my "location" is not too offensive :oh:

If I get booted, I will return with a "girly" name and know I will be safe :)

I searched the site and nowhere was it suggesting that employees in their 20s and 30s should be looking at a 1/2 final salary scheme or much worse.

The Railway Pension Scheme isn't proposing to take potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds of deferred pay from employees.



Is this where the 'doomsday' scenario rears its discredited head again?

We've established now that the management line about losing pensions in the event of NATS going to the wall is far LESS likely than losing them under present proposals.




It's good to see that your example shows that NATS going back under HMG control will not result in employees losing their pensions.

And indeed your highlighting that an increase in contribution rates as an alternative is a creditable one rather than the hidden snatch of hundreds of thousands of pounds of employees money.




Absolutely, it's good to see clear proposals which may involve an increase of contributions without the scheme being reduced to 1/2 final salary or much worse.

Management and unions working together to avoid staff having hundreds of thousands of pounds of deferred pay being removed from their pension schemes.

Nice idea, especially if the voting could be further broken down to individual unions.

Vote Here
 

Come on MODS, give us a poll :ok:

We've established nothing of the sort, far from it. Just repeating speculation about what might happen does not make that outcome any more likely. We know the worse that can happen because that's enshrined in legislation, the Trust Deed and the Trust of Promise. Nobody knows what will actually happen.

Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

Its official we have a poll :ok: and you cannot vote repeatedly. :}

VOTE NO

nice one band4all

There's already a poll in the NATS private Forum. Any poll here would be open to anyone voting and so could be very very inaccurate.

What if the 200,000 odd daily viewers to PPRuNe all voted YES or NO ?? Would this give us an accurate picture of how NATS staff are actually going to vote ?? Nope, it wouldn't.

Again I am in agreement with you.

We know that in the event of NATS failing then our pension schemes assets are protected. Nobody will lose money from the scheme in this case unlike the impact of potentially losing hundreds of thousands of pounds from voting 'yes'.

I also agree that scaremongering speculation about loss of pensions if management don't secure themselves a 'yes' vote is irresponsible and misleading.

By no means guaranteed. In our case the Trust of Promise dies if NATS goes into administration that was not the case for the Railway workers whose protection was written to survive that circumstance.

It's never been in doubt that increasing contribution rates would allow our current scheme to continue for existing members. The problem is that NATS says it can't afford to pay all the potential increase and the no decrement clause means we can't. Even if we could I can't see many NATS staff being happy to pay the extra 10% that would be required.

I think we are just having a laugh :)

Looking good though NO100% 7YES0% 0

So are you saying that if the trustees, management and employees all agree to increased contributions the 'no decrement' clause couldn't be set aside?

Why haven't employees been given the choice of increasing contributions instead of having their pension slashed when they come to retire?

Can you show us how your calculations that produced the requirement for employees to pay an extra 10%.

NATS say they can't afford it, where is the evidence? How much profit would have been made this year without repaying loan notes, fees for early repayment, exceptionals for moving from WD?

Not quite accurate. If the scheme is taken over by the new employer then all stays as it currently is except of course the new employer will have the same funding problem as NATS and will still have to do something.

If the scheme is not taken on by the new employer and wound up there are two scenarios. If it is not in deficit then your current earned benefits will be protected but they'll be frozen and increase only at RPI until you retire. If it is in deficit then it may have to refer to the protection fund in which case you will get less than your current earned benefits. In both cases you will then need to make new provision for your continuing pension and I doubt if you'll get anywhere near as good as the revised scheme when you do that. The effect of that will depend upon how long you have to go to retirement but is likely to be much bigger than the cap for most of us.

This was also covered in the briefings. The legal interpretation of the protection for the Trust Deed contained in the Transport Act is that every single member of the scheme has to agree before it can be changed. If one single person says no then the change can't happen. Neither the Union or NATS believes they could ever get that total agreement so it's a non starter.

eglnyt


So my statement 'in the event of NATS failing our pension scheme assets are protected' is exactly right.

In the event of HMG re-taking control of NATS are you saying that they will have a funding problem?

Are you also suggesting that the government would risk industrial action affecting millions of voters for the sake of £60m or so quid a year?


So getting a quick resolution either way now is to the benefit of employees.

The government continued to fund railtrack employee pensions when they took that company over.




The government did not do this to railtrack employees so again I ask you to stop scaremongering with wild claims and back up your statements with facts.