So you're clear I'm not a Personal Contract management grade, I'm in the ATSA area. There is a big difference in how the rewards (pay is a reward) are arrived at between the negotiated grades and Personal Contract grades, ask your union rep to explain. As I said some posters are trying to compare apples with oranges.

I'm pretty disgusted and saddened by some of the comments in this thread, which is in the public domain and obviously affects other ANSP's and members of the publics perception of NATS staff. Its time to start playing the ball and not the player!

BD

Lets be clear here then, are you or are you not defending the fact that Mr Barron got a 13% pay rise last year and a huge bonus as being acceptable because he's on a Personal Contract, because that is what your post suggests. If so, you'd be the only one on here who thinks that.

has anyone heard a peep out of barron today?
im sure he and his cronies will be on damage limitation, unless of course they are so arrogant, naive or both that they think after the weekends natsnet action they are still in a good place.
the funny thing is that what led barron to rise to the bait wasnt actually that bad, and it looks like it has got nice and personal from our colleagues at scottish and manch.... keep it up chaps :ok:
its more of a NO than ever now as the companies lies are becoming more and more transparent... what fools.

Not up to me to defend, its a matter of indifference to me. I couldn't do his job but nor would I want to, not even for twice the pay.

BD

Sorry for the false start folks.

It appears that the posts about Mr Barron's perks and his rebuttal are still there, just not on the thread on NATSnet I thought they were on. Doh !!!:bored:

That said, another colleague has had a post removed on the pensions thread, presumably because he asserted that NATS management had mishandled the PPP and everything that has happened now is a result of it. His local management have not asked him to apologise yet though ;)

Bring on the barstool sessions where some free flowing debate can take place :E

http://www.nats.co.uk/uploads/user/N...ounts_2008.zip

From the Chief Executive's review (Paul Barron):

"The single uniting factor across our business is our people. Everything we achieve is done so through the commitment and professionalism of an incredibly capable workforce. I would like to thank our employees for their outstanding contribution"

Paul - for my "outstanding contribution" I expect a final salary pension. That is a pension based on my final salary.

:mad::mad:


The above link is worth reading before attending a briefing - some figures include:

- Loans paid off 24 years early (part of the loans were re-financed saving £5.5million in interest costs this year, the rest was paid off with cash)
- £15.8 million early redemption charges for paying these loans off 24 years early
- £23 million spent on relocation staff to West Drayton etc,
- £3 million costs related to staff bungs for changing redundancy t+c's
- £?? in payments to Heathrow staff for moving to new control tower

Not to mention the £66.7 million pre-tax profit or the £2.5 million in shareholder dividends



The briefing tries to say the company needs to find £125 million.

In reality this is £70 million as they already pay around £55 million each year into our pensions.

The figures in the above report do not show a company that is struggling to pay it's own way :=

Barstewards,

Maybe others can enlighten, what money exactly was paid to Heathrow staff for the move to the new tower? anyone?

Just looked at the report and yes does state a one off payment. but the above question still stands.

IIRC, £2400 each.

"Last month the ATSAs are being consulted about job losses by someone recruited into NATS.He had been there 2 weeks."

I also expect to be seeing this punter at Heathrow before long - probably in the New Year. That's assuming the local Mgmt bother to ask him down to see us :hmm: This is a separate issue, but may well have an effect on which way I choose to vote for the proposed pension changes.

Page 44: barron's pay £400k. Pension contribution £16k (i.e 4% rate for PCG, etc) What happened to the earnings cap of £117k. Does it not apply to him? or Hoskins et al?


:mad::mad::mad:

If thats is true, its outrageous.:mad:

I have been reading all these threads and NATSnet with rising fury regarding this sorry pension debate. I want to know why the NTUS reps agreed to the secrecy clause to protect the "credible" Deloitte and Touche report?? This is OUR pension and we are entitled to see the evidence that has caused such a stir and convinced the NTUS reps that change is required. The secrecy clause was soley to protect Deloitte from come back if they got it wrong, again.

We are mature and intelligent people with a very big vested interest in this report. If the report was soooo convincing we should have been able to view it for ourselves and make our own minds up!!.......oh no, the NTUS reps know better, don't they. AGAINST Prospect current branch policy, they entered into negotiations with management and have struck up this deal to be recommended to the staff. WHAT RIGHT do they have???

As far as the memorandum of understanding is concerned this document has NOT been written yet, but is nothing more that a promised wish list from that snake Barron and his nest of vipers. The gulable NTUS reps are hoping that we will TRUST them and vote yes! YOU MUST BE JOKING!!!
I never trust NATS management, but the sorryest thing for me is that I don't trust the Prosect BEC either. What bribes have been promised to the negotiating team in return for a yes vote???

Vote NO to the offer, then vote NO CONFIDENCE in the BEC!!!

Does anyone know the exact jobs that "our" negotiaing team have within NATS?

This is the reply that just dropped on my doormat from Mark Hoban, MP for Fareham.
I wrote him an email with a brief outline of the proposals and asked a couple of questions regarding how much they were informed, how much influence they had on the matter and stated that industrial action is not an impossibillity



"Dear Imnotaneric:),

Thank you for your email concerning the National Air Traffic Service Management Proposal regarding the pension scheme.

I am so sorry to hear about the uncertainty that you and your colleagues face and appreciate how worrying this situation is for you. I have written to Geoff Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Transport, asking for clarification on this matter and I will, of course, contact you when I receive a reply.

Once again, thank you for writing to me. If you would like to know more about what I do in the constituency and Westminster, please log on to my website www.markhoban.com and register to receive a copy of my e-newsletter.

Yours sincerely,
Mark Hoban"

As mature and intelligent people we should be well able to understand the difference between having a keen interest and having a legal right.
The D&T report is not "ours". It's a commercially sensitive document with legally binding confidentiality clauses.
The legal reason for the secrecy is to protect information about NATS that would be damaging if it were in the public domain. Any company run properly would take such steps to protect its business.

It's a very emotive subject - but it damages the arguments against the deal proposed when the sense of injustice clouds judgement.

I have just emailed Michael Mates, my MP, posing the same questions as ERIC. I think its time we took this a step further before we get well and truly s**t on. Write/email your MPs people.

Your damn right its an emotive subject.

Feelings of Injustice and mistrust run right through this argument and if you think that members are just going to vote YES because the BEC says they have seen the report and they recommend it to us, you are very sadly mistaken.

I WANT THE EVIDENCE and I know that most of the staff at my unit feel the same too! Don't keep hiding behind the confidentiality aspect of the D&T contract.....which incidentally the NTUS were wrong to agree to, in my opinion.

NTUS trust has been broken and the members want to see the evidence before we come to our own conclusions. Not just because NATS and the NTUS say so. There is a mountain of work to be done before the members will be convinced, and recent scare-mongering by the BEC up here will not help either.

Sorry to be emotive, but its MY pension and I'm damn sure I am going to do everything I can to protect it!!!

At our meeting in ScOACC, the question was asked whether this whole exercise was just to get NATS ripe for sale, specifically in respect of NSL. Philip James answered that it was just 'a rumour'. Which probably means it is true.

The impression I got from those ordinary union members at the meeting was that the sale of NSL was not good for 'one NATS' and we should all be pulling together as one company. Some, like me, even believe we should look at how we can bundle ourselves back up and address the divisive banding issues and the like.

Now we hear rumours that people who attended the meetings at Glasgow and Edinburgh were fed the line by our NTUS reps that the NERL folks don't give a toss about NSL and would happily sell them down the river over pensions and a sell off.

Can anyone who went to a Glasgow or Edinburgh meeting confirm this ?? If it is true, then it is an outrageous claim by a NTUS group who are not only doing managements job of selling the pension for them, but are also doing their job of dividing and conquering for them as well. The NTUS speakers looked and acted more like NATS management than NATS management did. They need to snap out of this and remember who they are here to represent. They also need to remember that we have Branch policies and they are going against them at their own peril. Maybe the upcoming union conferences will kick them out on their arses, and our fight to retain our hard earned terms, conditions, and pension will continue with leaders with backbones.

Angry ?? You bet !!!! :mad:

I agree that the TU shouldn't have signed up to the non-disclosure agreement in the first place. It puts a barrier between them and the people who they were elected to represent, so they cease to represent their members and are, instead, only representing themselves...

So feel free to issue them with a very firm "No"

Anybody - TU or Management who feeds you a line about how "X unit doesn't care about you, so why care about them?" is just applying the divide and rule tactic. Don't listen to that !!!!!.