As a non-ATCO, I'm happy to exchange that for getting shot of the pensionable pay cap...where do I sign? :}

I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of those that did not vote were in their mid 50s and, rightly or wrongly, decided that the proposals would have little or no effect on their retirement. You could argue that they were right to abstain from a proposal that will not effect them.

The Union has been less than honest with us during the briefings. At the briefing I attended they gave a list assurances that would be included in the MoU, giving the impression it was just a matter crossing the ts and signing; yet in their correspondence today it all seems a lot less certain and appears to need a significant amount of consultation. However, I still think a yes vote was the right one.

If you are a union member, you should have been sent the official results, which showed that one engineer (or other specialist) spoiled their ballot paper.

Ok, let me re-phrase.....would someone who had decided to abstain from voting, for whatever reason, really return a spoiled paper, or would s/he merely not bother to return it?

I don't think I would bother to open the envelope, if I were in that position.

Anyway, my point was that, just as one should not condemn all those who undertake overtime/VAPs/AAVAs as being greedy, one should not condemn those who did not return a vote as 'couldn't be arsed' or 'didn't think it was sufficiently important enough' or 'lazy'.

I agree with what Gonzo is saying here.

Its not fair to say that all those that did not vote should be ashamed of themselves. I, and I am sure there are others out there, know of half a dozen ATCO's who fall under one of the following -

a - Were not able to attend a brief at their unit due to manning and therefore were not properly informed and able to make an educated decision
b - Some people did not receive ballot papers at all, one colleague received theirs the day the ballot closed
c - Felt that the whole consultation was so quick and mis managed that they had no idea what the hell was going on (I know some will say that it their own short sightedness but it happened).

It harks back to my previous post about the Union and their role in all of this. I don't feel they have represented us at all and to paraphrase a quote on the internal net (and to agree with ToweringCu), have shamefully ignored the 'democratic' mandate' we give to them.:(

So it is all over. Some interesting and Witty comments on this thread over the last few weeks. The next big challange will be the pay award.
Anything less than RPI and I feel that we realy are on the start of a long slippery slope.

It would be interesting to see a new thread on why people are union members (given the vote and number of abstainers). I feel that too many see it as an insurance policy to cover up their own weaknesses in the profession.

Good ATSA's with some Systems engineering knowledge can play a big part in our Future centres programs so I hope that some will retrain as those that I have worked with have been well worth their money.

ATSA reductions wont only be limited to PC but Scottish airfields with the roll out of EFPS. Still a long way to go (IMHO) for PC and the systems that replace them will need to have good fallback systems and procedures which will prove (again IMHO) much more expensive than the projects would want in order to make those staff reductions. The latter was never more obvious than during the recent NAS-NERC system resynch problems where the OPS and theefore business effect was limited by the continuing production of good old paper strips distributed by the good old ATSAs.

Merry Xmas to you all.

FDPWalla

as much as I believe we should never settle for any less than RPI, I honestly don't think we will get anything above 3% - if that.

The union has asked for Aug RPI+1% (5.8% I believe), but asking for something and fighting for it are 2 totally different things, as we saw with "OneNATSOnePension".

Regardless of why people chose not to vote, a 35.3% non turn out over the board is very poor considering the ramifications of the pensions issue, and will only serve to make Management believe that in fact they can do almost anything to us, because we can't be arsed to vote about it (whether can't be arsed is the correct reason or not, it will be taken that way). I say that despite acknowledging the extremely valid and correct point Gonzo makes about some people maybe being unsure which way to vote.

A lowly 64.7% turnout is another victory for Mr. Barron in the 'divide and conquer' tactics.

As for Rumouroid saying what he/she did about ATSAs...

In TC the ATSAs work exactly the way they did at West Drayton. I have a lot of respect for the good ATSAs, though we do have some useless ones (it's a fact of life in any job).

However, they are paid extremely well for what they do - any sane ATSA will admit this. Anyone looking from the outside in would be amazed and incredulous at the salary for what they do.

However, the very good ATSAs that we have are worth their weight in gold and can make or break a sector... are they overpaid, or are they just very well paid??

I can't comment on the AC ones as their job has evolved.

However, Rumouroid has a very valid point - those operational staff that bleat on about CTC staff are a bit two faced when they then try to shoot him/her down.

The CTC staff generally get paid less, but do a lot of good work and long hours that goes unnoticed by operational staff, just because we don't undertsand it or there is not visible day to day evidence unlike looking in an Ops room.

I don't doubt for a minute that there is excess fat that could be trimmed at CTC, but that is true in the Operational side as well, if to a lesser degree.

We are talking about the financial health of the company, which is allegedley what the pensions issue was about. In talking about the financial health, statements such as Rumouroids are perfectly valid, whether they are found to be correct or not is another matter, but they do need asking.

Anotherthing

Thank you for your support, as far as I can see you are a well resepected and longstanding member of this forum and have many posts. It is difficult to be a probationer and post such an emotive issue and not get some support when what you know you are saying makes sense, however delicate the subject may be.

I knew I wasn't alone as I have heard many a conversation with ATCOs and ATSAs on this subject and many have come to the same conclusion.

As I previously said most NATS employees, certainly the operational ones are just waking up to the "real world". I'm surprised that we have managed almost 8 years since PPP before these questions have begun to arise. In most other companies they would have been asked a long time ago.

I think you're certainly right when you say that its amazing that we have lasted this long. NATS, or what we used to know as National Air Traffic Services, is dead. Barron is nailing the coffin shut on its corpse and its only a matter of time before it becomes completely unrecognisable from the company that it once was.

Barrons Vision of 2011 is NATS divided up and sold off, he's accomplished the first stage by improving the future financial health of the company by reducing the pension liability. What's next? :confused: some more shady tactics and Timeshare style briefings to brainwash more staff into massaging the company into a cash machine.

split from NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
 

When are some people going to stand up for themselves?

You missed out NATS after "End of" :sad: and possibly SERCO ...the beginning of...:(.

Unfortunately Pandora's box is now open!

But we won't stand for that........will we? Our powder is dry :oh:

split from NATS Pensions (Split from Pay 2009 thread)
 

I believe they are :eek:

It must be really hard being Barron, soooo many tough decisions to make. Oooh what should he do next, organise what to spend the bonus from the pension proposal on, or more of working, sorry shafting together with the union to get his next bonus.

It really has disappointed me that they have used this "you'd better vote yes or else we're all doomed" technique to push this through and put the company on the market to the highest bidder.

I know, Barron can spend his bonus on a Caribbean island, he will still be surrounded by all his mates (sharks), that should make him feel at home.

He has already stated publicly that he doesn't get a bonus for the pension deal :rolleyes:

BD

But he will get a bonus when he sells us off, now that some of us have agreed to this Pension deal, which amounts to the same thing.

You have to ask the right questions to get the right answers :ok:

BDiONU

He may well have stated that he does not receive a bonus for the pension deal, however he has also stated that he receives a bonus for improving the future financial health of the company. I think you'll find that the new reduced pension liability has improved the future financial health of the company.

By voting yes all we have done is show that we will roll over and play dead everytime they threaten us with "you'd better vote yes or else" mentality. Expect a lot more of that in the future, even when Barron has moved on, he has now set the avalanche in motion and it is moving towards us gathering pace and ferocity all the time.

Some of us? As in the overwhelming majority in a democratic ballot. Sorry Mr 777 I mean 60% of the ATCO's that voted and 78% of the 'other ranks'.

Will he get a bonus? Are we being sold off? I know this is a rumour board but please! Can you provide some evidence, is this written down anywhere official?

BD

I should hope so but there are a lot of things which contribute to the future financial health, so he is absolutely correct to state that he doesn't receive a bonus for getting the pension deal through.

BD

3 years ago the pension scheme wasn't in the predicted condition its in now. so thank goodness he didn't mindlessly stick to what he said then and took action. Otherwise, as the members have decided, we'd be down the swannie sans paddle.

BD

I would have thought common sense would tell you what will happen :)

The naiveity of some people, at times, never ceases to amaze me. :}

But he will still get a bonus for getting the pension deal through albeit indirectly when he sells us off, which amounts to the same thing :ok:

Ah, sheer conjecture then :ok:

BD

No windup and no gloat, there were no 'winners', only the best chance of preserving our pensions.
Mr 777 would disagree with you there. The point I was making that we still see No voters bleating away on here when the result of a democratic ballot has been counted and made public. Its time to suck it up and live with it guys.

BD

This thread is reinstated after a bit of detective work by the back room boys to sort out a dodgy URL posted by Vote NO which locked out the thread.

No plot or any other dubious circumstance .... just the way it is.

250kts
"I think the "keeping our powder dry" statement came from an ATCO Chair around 10 years ago. If we were evrr to light it then it was over PPP, and I reckon you could count on 3 hands the number of ATCOs who really got involved with the anti-PPP campaign apart from sending the odd letter to their MP. Certainly not many were at the Houses of Parliament canvassing them directly.

I see you have been taking advantage of the AAVA agreement. That was a deal negotiated on your behalf and subsequently past pay rises have included the "selling" of that deal to management. This is what helped you to around a 40% pay rise since PPP.

It certainly is disappointing that only 70% found the time to put a x in the box and go the local post box, but maybe this is an indication that there is a reluctant acceptance that there really was no real option to that presented. Also an acceptance that there is no other career that most of us would rather be employed in in the present down turn.

Just look at your employment conditions and honestly say that "the union" has not done you proud over the years from salary to SRATCOH.

Nothing ever stays the same in life and you don't always get exactly what you want, apparently unless you are a NATS ATCO and think the rest of the industry owes you not only a pretty good salary, job security but also a class leading pension. Well unfortunately the "real world" is closing in on us as the ATSAs at Scottish are sadly finding out now and those at LACC will discover in the not too distant future.

You still have fine conditions of work and will continue to have in the future.

I look forward to the debate in the future."

At last a voice of reason. I have wasted a long time in recent weeks wading through pages of drivel in this thread. It seems that my 5 year old daughter has a better idea of what is happening to the rest of the country than most of you. I have said it before but as a profession we really do have an over inflated opinion of our worth. I am all for saving the pension I signed up for AND getting an above inflation pay rise but I am realistic enough to see that we are not impervious to the financial disaster which has befallen the UK and beyond.
We still have an excellent pension scheme compared to any and almost all of us can look forward to many years of safe employment.
For christ's sake take your heads out of your backsides and see what the world is really like for those struggling by on an average wage with the very real prospect of a bleak 2009.
We have done bloody well in the 9 years I have been here and will probably continue to do so for years to come.


Happy Christmas All!

Vlad,

So we have done well in the past nine years
(have we really) - is that reason enough to roll over and start taking a degradation in our Ts and Cs?

As far as ATCOs are concerned (and I know this is about so much more than just ATCOs before anyone bleats on) - NATS ATCOs are now paid at or about the going rate, so what has happened over the nine years you allude to?

We have been brought up from being poorly paid compared to other ATCOs to being paid a market rate wage. So yes, we have done well (via the union) to drag us up to market rate, but it's nothing special, we've not been given OTT salaries.

As for being realistic - pensions are long term investments. For years now, pensions have been underperforming - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this - I remember one of the biggies quite a few years ago now was Scottish Widows.

The writing has been on the wall for ages in respect that things have needed to be done to secure the future of a pension scheme.
Yet even whilst other pension schemes were failing, NATS decided to skim the cream off our fund by taking pension breaks and reduced contributions.
All the while, other pension schemecs were closing yet we were promised ours would not be affected by the companies actions.

What we should have been doing, is exactly what the CAA are doing now i.e. maintaining the contribution level to help protect the pension (and thus reduce the possible future shortfall).

BDiONU

You say 3 years ago the pension scheme wasn't in the predicted state it is now.... the current market should not be used to predict the pension future - in fact if anything the current market helps it because any stocks and bonds we buy are going to increase in value dramatically once this cyclical downturn is over.

You state the figure 3 years - are you saying that we were unable to see a possible problem that was only 3 years round the corner?

That is extremely poor forecasting of a long term investment.

Remember, todays current financial climate has little to do with the pension fund - a point stressed by the actuaries at the briefings. Therefore 3 years ago, whilst NATS was happily making reduced contributions, the signs were available that it was not prudent to do so.

Unless of course we are saying that the fund managers were grossly incompetent.

It comes as no surprise that one of the management team who wanted to
reduce the contributions, also happensto be on the pensions board... a conflict of interests methinks.

Vlad,
Presumably you also think a lot of airline pilots are overpaid and have an inflated estimate of their own worth too? I know a lot of very experienced jet crew who say they wouldn't like to try our job cause of how hard it can be, but they get paid a lot more than we do. And this also doesnt compare paritcularly well when you consider that lots of people want to be pilots and very few want to work in air traffic (the RB also doesnt understand this point very well, but thats another story).
And we are short of staff....
(and i shouldnt start sentences with 'and' !!)

i am not a backroom boy :}

(at least i was right about something!)

Interesting comparisons between the CAA and NATS pension statements.The CAA have been very steady with 83% Government securities,15.7% Company shares,1% Commercial property and 0.3% in Cash etc.
This is about what I would expect having read articles about pension fund problems in the past.
NATS however is a competely different thing.
23% Government securities,70.4% Company shares,5.8% Commercial property,and 0.8% Cash etc.
This portfolio is at best,a very risky timebomb,and at worst a complete disaster.
Why the complete opposite? Well being someone who would like to think that NATS had my best interests at heart,:bored: it would seem that they were investing it wisely at high risk.
However after 25 years+ I think that this was engineered by NATS to fail.Not bomb completely,but enough to get pension reform through,with a helping hand from pension holidays etc.
Prospect.Mr B gotcha, hook,line and sinker.You're now about as useful as my dog,and she costs less to feed per month.

Sorry about that, it was just a google link to a shoeshine boy shining his masters shoes . (BDiONU and PB :})

I'll let you guess which one was doing the polishing :oh:

TAD, if you look in detail at the two schemes, you'll also see a great difference in demographics. The CAA scheme is mature; when the NATS/CAA split ocurred, all pensioners were taken on by the new CAA scheme, so at the point the new NATS scheme had no pensioners. Therefore in comparison, the NATS pension scheme is very young; ask any IFA and they will tell you that in such a situation a scheme will invest in a larger proportion of higher risk, higher yield investments.

Gonzo -

True facts you state, but that does not take away the very important fact that although the mature CAA pension is doing very well, the fund managers have turned down the opportunity to invest at a reduced contribution rate to help ensure that the fund continues to perform.

Unfortunately NATS, with a totally different demographic (pointed out quite rightly by you), and with a much risker portfolio, did the exact opposite!

Also - worth remembering, this financial downturn is cyclical and will end. In the long term, the investments we make now will reap big rewards later... in fact because of the type of investment we use, the reward will be proportionally larger than 'safer' investments.

Throw a dyce - it's that way because the CAA section has a much larger ratio of retirees to contributing members than the NATS section.

The bonds are held to pay the current retirees' pensions as these require a stable cashflow. The more risky investments like equities are held to provide higher returns for the contributing members' future pensions as they don't need the short-term stability.

It's simply a case of prudent fund management when faced with differing investment goals, rather than any sort of risky behaviour.

What's more, if the portion held as equities were held as bonds, the underlying rate would have to go up to make up for the lower investment returns. So we'd probably have to accept an even lower cap - or worse still, have the scheme even more radically altered than what has just been accepted.

Vlad....... as a NATS ATCO my comment to you is..........
......Well said.
I agree with your sentiments...and I am not alone...its just that many "voices of reason" choose not to "mouth off " on this website.
Don't be intimidated !

Vlad the Impaler

You are still obviously wet behind the ears. If you have done 30 years, then you would know what has been eroded over the last two decades. I don't see why we all should be dragged down to the lowest common denominator. :*
If your attitude was prevalent during WW2 then we would all be speaking German, at least those of us who survived, and you might not even exist.:eek:


MikeZeelee

For "voices of reason", read "naive", and for choosing not to "mouth off" read "even more naive". As for being "intimidated" on a web site :{, thank God you were not around in WW2 :eek:

Happy New Year

Vote No...... are you a well person ?

" You should know what has been eroded over the last two decades"...........like what has been eroded?
We have achieved good salaries and good terms and conditions, and yes, I have done more than thirty years.
Your rants are tiresome, often factually incorrect, and by comparing things with World War II, ridiculous.
Maybe you should go and do a different job instead.

HNY to all.

But there could be a comparsion to WWII in this and other pension threads. We've seen a lot of Keyboard Warriors.

BD

Vote NO

I don't post on here very often but I have to say that your last post was one of the most ill conceived and insulting posts I have read on here for a long time.

To start calling people wet behind the ears and insinuating that their attitude to a pension vote would have resulted in a loss of a World War is, frankly, ludicrous.

I'm sure you are angry about the way the vote went but, for Pete's sake, keep some ruddy perspective.

P7

We've also seen a great deal of tripe from 'Poachers turned Game Keepers', the 'Napoleons' and 'Squealers' who find that walking on two legs along the corridors of power make them far superior to those of us still at the coal face. The individuals who in less than five years will be enjoying their lump sums, while those of us with two decades or more left to go will be wondering what will become of us post retirement, and who'll still be trying to get their heads around the wonderful new pensions deal, which even now has yet to be thrashed out.

I don't have much time for the pissing contests between Management and TU's, both on these pages and at work - a plague on both your houses.

What I want are the tools to do the job and a salary commensurate with the skills I have been taught and which I continue to bring to the job. With terms and conditions comparable to others in the industry, for which I include any professional whose training leads them to possess the skills and resulting responsibilities on a par with those of my own, in any part of the world.

What I'm not interested in are the likes of TU reps comparing my terms and conditions with Civil Service paper shufflers and pen pushers in Portcullis House, or New NATS Management types who have never controlled anything other than their children, or if they indeed at one time pushed tin it wasn't this side of the millenium, telling me how lucky I am, after all, any Joe on the street could do the job I do, couldn't they.

But what do I know about anything, being the ungrateful whinging ATCO that I am...