Clawback is a term used by Mangement to drag folk in on their days off to attend certain meetings/courses.
Normally us ATC types owe them about two or three days per anum:sad: as we don't sometimes actually work exactly 40 hours per week, and have to comply with the Clawback :ok:

So is the life expectancy argument used by management based solely on historical data for NATS shiftworkers?

Just a yes or no will do thanks.

bdionu
actually, the Employee Handbook Part 1A Chapter 3 says

Quote:

---

Normal hours of work for full-time employees are 40 gross hours (i.e. including meal breaks) for a 5 day week.

---

And the only reference I could find to meal breaks was to one break of no more than 1 hour.

No

According to the NATS Annual Report the last pension valuations were based on the actuarial tables PMA92 and PFA92. These are the tables produced by the Continuous Mortality Investigation and are the standard tables used by most actuaries for pension purposes.

Forgot to add that if they used the 92 tables last time then they will probably use the 00 tables next time and it is the improvement in life expectancy between the two which causes some of the increase in pension costs.

Peltonlevel,
Please tell me you are joking.
I'm perfectly aware of the diversity of jobs and residents in the London area thank you... I just think that using the "City" as a source of mean wage for comparison is a no brainer. FFS.....

Fenella
Well, somebody has to!
I thought the city wages rant was getting a bit ridiculous - does anybody NOW think that City (and Canary Wharf) pay is justifiable?

So there is more than one 'standard'?
CAAPS has recently increased their life expectancy assumptions and that's why the we have a shortfall, who decides which measure to use?
-The trustees. Are there any NATS board members on the board of trustees?

While I accept there are different international accounting standards when it comes to making assumptions on life expectancy, there would appear to be some flexibilty in which 'standard' to abide by. It does not seem unreasonable to suspect management have had an opportunity to make the pension fund look especially precarious in the run up to these negotiations.

Philip James, Director of HR, is one of the Trustees. This is a fact he failed to mention in the pension briefings when he was the member of management present.

Possible conflict of interest??

The number indicates the date. The 92 tables are derived from data between 1991 and 1994 and were published in 1999. The 00 tables are based on data between 1999 and 2002 and were published in 2006. The 92 tables were the most recent available during the 2006 valuation. The 00 tables will probably be the most recent when the fund is valued again.

Three things to consider. First the Pensions Regulator sets guidance which both trustees and actuaries have to follow. There is some flexibility but both trustees and the actuary would have to justify any use of that flexibility to the regulator. Second actuaries are "Professional" people and like all "Professions" have a code of ethics and a requirement to exercise independent judgement in their work. Failure to do so would lead to a very short career. Third although there are, as you'd expect, NATS appointed trustees they are not a majority and as trustees they have legal obligations to act in the best interests of the scheme at all times.

He probably thought you knew (the NATS management nominated trustees are James and Fotherby). He certainly would not have denied it if you had asked.

hey dc10man.
congrats on your approaching escape from nats and its mismanagement! glad you got what due to you in your pension. hope its still the same in 20 years when i approach the same milestone. enjoy the retirement!

ps remember to vote no! :p

But you only actually attend 181/annum based on full leave entitlement. If you go down your logic you could argue that you lose 2 days leave for a night duty-not good I would suggest. Or alternatively go back to the shambles which was calculating leave in hours.

DC10RM - PM for you.

All gone a bit quiet here...I take it that means that everybody has made up their minds, cast their votes and sent them back then?

Not much more to be said now, I'm sure things will heat up again once the result is known.:E

Sorry, I was just bored...Sunday night and all that:)

Just in case any one is waivering.........:)

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Poll Results latest http://www.drfun.com/breaknnews.gif


NO ....82%....111 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

YES....18%....24 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif


Remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!

Ask yourself, how safe will my job be if this deal goes through and NATS is sold off ?

This is your last chance :eek:
If you vote yes, you are a turkey voting for XMAS

http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i...ert/Turkey.jpg


Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

VOTE NO http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

MERRY XMAS

need a new thread creep again for a few posts. We've covered banding, unit locations, NSL vs NERL, CTC Starbucks, AAVAs, working hours, luncheon vouchers:eek:......what else is vaguely pension related?:}

What about the allowance paid to personal contract staff in lieu of company cars?

What about the pension discount given to PCG grades is that fair?:)

ps so much for the thousands of non Nats people who were going to ruin the scientific poll eh:ok:

I am assuming that the following scenario has been considered and would not happen but I haven't seen it explicitly mentioned

With deflation a distinct possibility, say next year the RPI was -2% and NATS were offered a 0.5% pay rise.

Would this mean that the pensionable salary would decrease by 1%?

Surely not?

At the meeting I attended, the question of negative RPI was raised. We never really got an answer, just a vague suggestion that pensions wouldn't be cut. I'd want that in writing as part of the agreement before I would consider a yes vote. :=

Here's another suggestion for people to discuss.

I was informed at the briefing that should there be a No vote, then NSL is not in a good position to defend itself against the possible future financial implications (renationalisation, possible selling off etc...). The general message being that we (NERL people) should vote Yes to save our colleagues in NSL.

How about we also get included in the agreement a clause that says 'Any attempt to sell off NSL would result in the immediate removal of the pension cap for all employees, and any non pensionable pay that may have accrued is made pensionable again'.

If as management claim, they have no intention of selling off NSL, I'm sure they would be happy to have such an inclusion legally added :E

No

A pay freeze would be the result.

Not often pensionable these days :)

No - see the FAQs on Natsnet:
30 most recently added questions
10 What would happen if RPI was ever negative?
There would be no negative impact on pensionable pay.

As far as 2009 pay deal goes...there won't be one. We'll be getting a PAY FREEZE...and that came straight from Barron's mouth.

So the Union is saying vote yes and NSL is safer.On Pprune people are saying vote yes and NSL will be sold/broken up.Management are saying NSL not for sale.
Communication is excellent as always.:D If anyone has a cunning plan,then it would be nice to know what it is.:ugh:

Before we all get carried away, let's not forget what the 'Ru' stands for in pPrune.........

Speaking as a waverer between 'Yes' and 'No', even I can see that there's a whole heap of unsubstantiated rubbish being written on this thread........

What's that about wheat and chaff? :ugh:

Such as? The selling of NSL? No-brainer....just because management said it won't happen doesn't mean it's not on the cards.How can anybody believe anything that comes out of Barron's mouth these days?

As fro pay deal...Barron has said to a colleague of mine that there won't be one. Before the interest rate cuts and inflation figures of the last few months, I would have said we'd be lucky to get 1-2%...now I definitely think that a big fat 0% is on the cards.

You are right though Loxley, all unsubstantiated at the moment, just people making educated guesses.

So what's the alternative? Disregard EVERYTHING that he says as a lie? That's not very realistic or productive is it?

And why would the BEC members (both of whom are NSL) who came to my unit and were asked about an NSL sell-off, lie about it? These are people who have been negotiating for the best part of 18months with Barron and his cronies. If there was any hint of a by-product of these proposals being that NSL would be sold off, do you not think they would be ever so slightly concerned about it? Not least of all because it would be their futures on the line as well.

I'm still struggling to see the 'educated' bit. From what the reps I've spoken to have told me, these proposals are not liked at all by Lawrence Hoskins because they're so expensive for him. And the new pension scheme for new joiners is still going to be one of the best in the UK private sector today. Coupled with the fact that many NSL contracts are currently LOSING money (not least Manchester) then why would NSL suddenly become so attractive to outsiders with a 'Yes' vote? You would still have the vast majority of staff on a final salary pension for years to come before the 'new-pensioners' outnumbered them.....

Loxley,

I'd give up if I were you, there are only so many times you can post sense on here when it falls on deaf ears. I personally have given up banging my head against the wall.:ugh:

The only other explanation is everyone is lying and you can trust no-one, if you believe that then vote no :E


RS

p.s. if you haven't already, vote YES. :ok:

Loxley

NSL contracts are losing money because of the way NATS has run them.

NATS has historically chased some of these contracts and put in bids in an effort to win the contract, not necessarily make money.

On the flip side of your argument, why in the future would NATS want to continue to provide a service on these loss making contracts? Does that make any sense?? Of course not.

What would make sense is if NATS were to walk away from the contract once it is up for renewal.

Anotherthing, I would follow the above advice mate.

Loxley, if you think that NSL is NOT being fattened up for a sell off then you, my friend, are living at the North Pole with Santa, his elves and all the other fairies.

VOTE NO

Assuming that was meant for me, I am signing off.

Good luck everyone :ok:

See you on the new results thread!

Or maybe I'm just not a complete cynic. (As well as a 'waverer' I'm also NSL....). I actually prefer to believe what management and, more importantly, what my union tell me.

When there's a shred of evidence to NSL being 'fattened up' for a sell-off, THEN I'll start to worry....... :ok:

Loxley

By that time it will be too late if the yes vote prevails.
Surely common sense would tell you what's going to happen?

You reap, what you sow :eek:

So what you're saying is, there is no evidence?