Jolly good. If it comes down to it do give me a wave whilst you cross the picket line as I and my Prospect colleagues defend our own T&Cs as well as yours.

Just have the good grace not to denigrate those that are acting on all our, yes even your, behalf.

I rejoined ten years ago also :) but I don't agree with this "working together" stuff. I don't think its in the interest of your average punter like me.

What would you suggest in its place then?

Roffa,

I think that "Working together" has been compromised in the minds of the workforce. We can still have meetings with the management to discuss "stuff" that affects us, however it should be in a more formal enviroment with minutes taken of what was said etc.
I freely admit to being old fashioned and wonder if the union representatives themselves feel comfortable with informal "get togethers" with management in overnight stays in hotels with management personnel, including confidential briefings that they are not allowed to tell the union membership.
Rightly or wrongly the union membership feel that under "Working Together" their representatives are being compromised by their position hence some of the complaints/observations being voiced on this website.

Roffa

Not working together :)

I agree entirely DC10RealMan, "Working together" can only be beneficial to management. Overnight hotel stays plying reps with booze is not healthy (excuse the pun) for the workforce, and sends out the wrong signals. A more formal gathering would send the message we mean business and give a psychological advantage

Missed this thread for a few days now and have just caught up.......

Firstly I completely agree that public opinion matters not one jot, I cant really see why it would TBH. If its so important to some then I reckon we should all buy sub-£1k motors and use them for work which would, at a stroke, negate any arguement about us driving flash cars.
HOWEVER, how I wish to spend my money is MY business. If I want to but an Aston or Lambo then I will, I wont be pressurised NOT to in case some non-NATS employee takes the hump.

Secondly, knowing how the media like to sh1t-stir I have no doubt they would portray us in the worst light (unless, of course the editor has ATC connections). I strongly believe that the union should invest in a PROPER PR company to oversee things should things start to go down the strike road.

Thirdly, I sreally believe that the withdrawal of goodwill i.e no AAVA's, second sector work etc will produce the goods if carried out for a sustained period of time. This alone will have the desired effect going by what folks have said regarding staffing issues in their area of the business.

Spamcan

You're 100% right in what you say, Spamcan defender, but please don't refer to AAVAs as "goodwill" - being paid £350 to £500 a shot (depending on your unit) to come in for an additional duty has bug**r all to do with "goodwill"; it's simply down to economics i.e. it's cheaper for NATS to pay the AAVA rates than to pick up the bill for the likely delays, and it puts a not inconsiderable amount of additional cash (even after tax at 40%...) in the ATCO's pocket - which is a perfectly reasonable financial arrangement.

As for comparisons with the US ATCO strike and the current situation, one of the biggest differences is that back then, there were plenty of young recruits available to "join up" and eventually replace the guys who'd been fired. Nowadays (and it's the same throughout Europe) we're in the middle of a massive retirement bulge that's not due to peak until around 2013 by which time it's estimated that there could be roughly a 25% shortfall of controllers across Europe. Against that background, even the most right-wing administration and management would baulk at a "mass sacking" option.

As an ex US controller told me out here in the desert the other day, the US strike was illegal as FAA employees weren't/aren't allowed to strike ISTBC.

As no such legislation exists in the UK, and providing due industrial dispute process is followed, then a similar outcome would be highly unlikely!

Best wishes, on behalf of the ex NATS boys in Dubai.

Now you are talking ! :ok:

You're going to have to convince the non-members to rejoin.Why did they leave?Well ''working together'',and being constantly sh:mad:fted might have something to do with it.
Would the larger units come out on strike,if any pension changing plans involved NSL lower band units only.Errr No.Maybe that's what going to happen,because that's the trend from the past.
Our pensions are already much lower,because of the huge pay difference.In fact a Band 5 Atco can now retire on more than a Band 2 can earn.
I talk as one who has taken industrial action,and there will always be ways of getting round it.:uhoh:

Oh for goodness sake will you change the record!

This CAN'T happen :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Any changes to the pension happen to the pension as a whole - not individual members.

Banding is not the issue here. It is an issue - just not this one.

If we don't stand together on this then what banding did to pay will be insignificant.
Once Barron (and any future boss of NATS) sees that we aren't prepared to fight for our pension, our biggest T&C imho, then you can kiss pay rises goodbye. It'll be RPI + 0% - "because we have to save money".

It doesn't matter what band/grade/job you are. If you have money invested in NATS pension scheme - your money - then you have to stand together.

Please leave banding out of the pension discussion.

I want to know when exactly there is going to be anymore news. "Working together" or whatever the hell it is that is going on right now sounds fabulous, but people are FED UP and want to know what is going on NOW.
The lack of information is just serving to crank up the rumour mill and the longer it goes on, the less goodwill (not that there is any) there will be towards any management position.

Sorry, but I have to defend my colleague ThrowaDyce here.

The title of this thread is NATS Pay Rise for 2009.

Somehow this thread has skewed off topic onto the important pensions dispute. Might I suggest this thread gets edited and a new thread solely for the Pension 'negotiations' is started?

TAD doesn't mention 2009 pay and was referring to the pension in his post - which is what I was replying to.

There is a pension discussion in the NATS forum.

Or maybe you could start your own thread on unit banding :ugh:
Pensions are more important than any payrise...fact. This is just the kind of division that Barron and his buddies are counting on. Whingeing on about banding is playing right into their hands....can't you see that???

Stupendous Man, is it not a case that any changes to the scheme have to be agreed by a majority decision? In other words, to defend TAD, could there not be a proposal to change those that are elligible to be memebers and put this to the vote of pension members? Would this not be a change to the whole of the pension but one which would only affect some members? I am not saying that if this was the case any proposal would be voted through but I think this is where TAD is coming from with his distrust of the unions and their ability to look after the smaller units.

Bratbaak - as far as I am aware there can be no changes to our current pension scheme except by an act of parliament. In fact this works against us to a certain extent, because if we as emplyees said "lets increase our contributions by x% to help the fund" we couldn't.

Is what you and TaD are alluding to is a new pension for bands 1-3 units i.e close the scheme to new entrants at these units only?
I doubt this could happen as these people would have to be employed on different contracts to Band 4/5 units and when you join NATS you don't know where you are being posted. I'm looking at this purely from an ATCO point of view here.

What could (and probably will) happen if we don't stand together on this, is a new, worse scheme for new entrants (and all those that joined post 2001 - dates might be wrong) will be introduced.
Then any moves / promotions / postings will be dependant on you joining the new scheme.
Plus in X years time when the new-schemies outnumber the old-schemies, any pay deals will be split along the lines of New= RPI+ 5% Old = RPI. Plus I can imagine there will be a bung to buy back 6 days leave - which the new guys will accept and we'll lose out and so on and so on.

So its not just the pension at stake.

Anyway I seem to have gone off topic in my own post! Sorry about the wall of text.

:ok:

Stupendous Man, I will stand corrected then, thanks.

Yeah ok Yahoo...you just carry on whining about banding...its so boring mate...as Scuzi said, change the record. The rest of us will carry on worrying about the pension.
I wondered how long it would take before this turned into a Band 5 slagfest..:rolleyes:

FLB, the Ignore function works wonders to the look of certain threads.:ok:

To suggest this issue is not about banding is ostrich mentality to the extreme. It was even quoted by the independent auditors of the pensions scheme as being a major contributory factor to the reduction in the plans surplus.
To give an example, an ordinary band 5 ATCO retiring today will have paid approximately £10,000 more into the scheme than a colleague retiring from a band 2 unit. They will receive a one off payment £120,000 more than their colleague and expect a pension of nearly £20,000 more per annum!

When I worked at West Drayton, the watch union rep used to tell us that they based their negotiations on the fact that " The average gash, shag ATCO I represent would not only sell his grandmother for an extra spine point but would happily throw in the wife and kids as well" That person is now a very senior figure within the union and I have seen nothing within the last few years to suggest that their negotiating position has changed.

The attitude of the larger units towards their colleagues in union negotiations is finally coming home to roost. It is just a shame that everyone will have to pay the price for their insouciance.

That said I do believe that the current negotiations are part of a wider divide and conquer plan by management to force a NERL/NSL split with a view to a future NSL sell off ( anyone for a ring fenced NSL pension?? )

OK,

I'll bite becaase this is after all a thread about pay and not about pension (though some, myself included, believe pension is merely deferred pay).

All those who do not agree with banding out there - do you honestly think that all ATCOs at all the units within NATS should be paid the same?

Band 5 Units to blame for pension deficit shocker!!!
 

You read it here first folks!

Passepartout,
I cannot believe you are trying to pin this on the banding issue. Pathetic.
Please explain to me what the **** EXACTLY banding has to do with Barron and the rest of the NATS management wanting to change our pension.
I see you have olnly made 1 post on PPRUNE...I wouldnt bother making a second one unless you have something sensible to contribute to the discussion.
And before anyone decides to have a pop at the band 5 empolyee i.e ME, as usual with most of these discussions, the issue of banding was not brought up by somebody who works at a Band 5 unit but rather by someone who wishes they did and consequently has a massive chip on their shoulder.

Management will be delaying talks until the Global recession is a reality in everyones minds, making a stronger case for another pension holiday :*
Of this I have no doubt..........watch this space :oh:

Air.Farce.1, Well they can Foxtrot Oscar - I'm not agreeing to that!:ooh:

they had a contribution holiday because there was a substantial surplus. as a final salary pension scheme, it is their right to do what they wish with the surplus.

There isn't that surplus now, so there is no option for them to take a contribution holiday. It would be financial suicide - given the already escalating cost of provision.

Final meeting on pension talks today, my "source" has indicated it's not "good news" :\

No surprises there then :}

But our powder is still dry.. if we can find it :rolleyes:

Anybody heard anything after yesterdays meeting?

i heard current pension to be wound up with immedaite effect, and all the money in it to be given to the barron bugatti veyron appreciation society. you read it here first:}:}:}:}:}

Management and the Trade Unions have today issued a joint statement about the proposed way forward on pensions.
Dear Colleague
In May 2007, the NATS Executive and NTUS agreed to take a joint approach to the pensions issue by commissioning an independent report to consider the impact of the pension scheme (the Scheme) on the business. Since that time, NATS and NTUS have been working together to understand fully the findings of the report and its implications for the business.
As a result of this study, NATS and NTUS have become increasingly concerned that NATS will be unable to afford the cost of the Scheme. This would clearly have serious consequences for both NATS and the Scheme and this has led us to agree that urgent action is necessary. Therefore, we have decided that the best solution to address this serious problem is a series of measures which include the capping of future pensionable pay increases of our existing employees and the introduction of a new pension scheme for future employees.
The increasing cost and risk of supporting the NATS Section of CAAPS

NATS offers its employees a defined benefit pension scheme which promises a pension linked to the employee’s earnings close to the time they leave or retire. In common with other companies across the UK, the cost to NATS of providing defined benefit pensions has risen dramatically for a number of reasons outside of our control and in ways that we cannot predict.
This is being evidenced through sharp increases in the underlying cost of our own Scheme. The latest Annual Actuarial Report as at 31 December 2007 showed that the cost to the employer had risen to an alarming 42.1% of pensionable payroll, compared with 26.8% as at 31 December 2003.
Previously, because of the Scheme surplus and in line with normal practice, the Trustees of the Scheme have not required NATS to pay the whole of this underlying cost. However, the surplus has reduced for a number of reasons, most of which have been beyond our control, and so the employer contribution rate has had to increase to compensate, rising from 12.2% of pensionable payroll in January 2005 to an effective rate of 20% from January 2008. In 08/09 this represents employer contributions of around £62m. Now that the surplus has almost gone (as shown in the last Annual Actuarial Report of December 2007), it is very likely that the Trustees will require NATS to pay at least the underlying cost of 42.1% of pensionable payroll in the near future. This would more than double the employer contribution rate of 20% currently agreed with the Trustees and would represent employer contributions of around £125m per year. Incurring these kinds of costs could turn NATS into a loss-making company.
In addition, it could be even worse if the Scheme is in deficit, which given recent financial turbulence could be the case. The Trustees would not be able to wait to see if conditions improve but instead would have to seek increased employer contributions as soon as possible. This would immediately place an unsustainable financial burden on the company.

Unless action is taken, there is a real risk that ultimately NATS will be unable to pay pension contributions as they fall due. The Scheme relies on a financially healthy company. The NATS Executive has a responsibility to ensure that NATS can meet all its financial obligations which includes your pension. This is why, throughout our discussions, the priority of both NATS and NTUS has been to protect the pension benefits of existing employees and it is clear that action to protect the Scheme is required as soon as possible.
Some will say that the cost of our Scheme should be passed on to our customers. However, is it realistic to expect them to bear costs of this magnitude? In NSL where we operate in a competitive environment, our contracts cannot support the increasing cost of pension provision and our customers are already telling us that they are unwilling to pay for these costs. Indeed a number of them have already taken steps to control the cost and risk presented by their own pension schemes. Further, it is likely that the Economic Regulator will continue to require real reductions in the prices we will charge our NERL customers during Control Period 3 which runs from 2011 to 2015.
The options

As a result of this pensions review NATS and NTUS explored a range of options in order to resolve the problem. At times this has involved some very challenging conversations.
As you know, because of the protections offered by the Scheme’s Trust Deed & Rules, we are unable to propose many of the changes that other companies have typically made when addressing the challenges outlined above. For example, we cannot ask members to pay increased contributions, or change the benefits that members will earn in future as set out in the Trust Deed & Rules. The options available to us are therefore extremely limited.
NATS and NTUS joint proposal

As a consequence, NATS will be formally inviting questions and feedback from employees on the proposal that NATS and NTUS believe best addresses the cost and risk presented by the existing Scheme, whilst also providing highly competitive pension benefits for new employees.
To be clear, your defined benefit pension will continue and no change is proposed to the benefits you have earned. However to keep these pension promises, we are proposing a package of measures, the headlines of which are below. We will provide you with more comprehensive information shortly (see the ‘More information and next steps’ section of this letter).
From 1 January 2009

Cap on future pensionable pay increases

Currently, pensionable earnings are linked to any agreed increase in pay and pensionable allowances. In future, your pay will continue to be reviewed each year in the same way as it is currently. However, it is proposed that your annual increase in pensionable earnings will be limited to a maximum of the Retail Prices Index (RPI) plus 0.5%, even if your actual pay review is higher. Promotional pay increases and annual increments will still count in full for pensionable earnings. Any other increases above RPI plus 0.5% will be categorised as non-pensionable earnings.
This cap on future pensionable pay increases would apply only to existing members of the Scheme and for a period of 15 years, with a review thereafter. This agreement would be set out in a joint Memorandum of Understanding between NATS and NTUS.

To be clear, this is not about how much pay increase you get, but about how much counts for pensionable earnings. This change would provide an immediate improvement to the funding position of the Scheme which has been steadily worsening, whilst the underlying cost has been dramatically rising. It would also go some way to controlling costs over the longer term.
Memorandum of Understanding
NATS and NTUS are proposing to put in place a Memorandum of Understanding with effect from 1 January 2009 to last for a period of 15 years. This would incorporate the cap on future pensionable pay increases as mentioned above, as well as some specific protections for existing and future employees.
From 1 April 2009

SMART pensions
SMART pensions is a more cost effective way of paying pension contributions into the Scheme which reduces National Insurance contributions for both the employee and the employer. It would apply to all UK-based employees, both existing and future.
Under SMART pensionsyou don’t pay contributions directly into the Scheme as is currently the case. Instead your pay would be reduced by the same percentage of gross pay that you would otherwise have contributed to the Scheme. In turn, the employer increases its own contributions by the same amount of pay you have given up. In effect, you swap some of your pay for pension contributions.
As a result, the total contribution paid into the Scheme stays exactly the same, but your net take home pay is higher than it would be otherwise. This is because you will no longer pay National Insurance contributions on the part of your pay that funds the pension contributions that the employer now makes on your behalf. The employer also makes National Insurance contribution savings which will help it meet the cost of providing pension benefits.
New type of pension scheme for new employees
A new type of pension scheme is proposed for employees who join NATS on or after 1 April 2009. This new scheme will be on a defined contribution basis where the contributions, rather than the benefits, are fixed. The cost to the employer would be up to a maximum of 18%, with a corresponding cost to new employees of up to a maximum of 9% of earnings.
The default level of cost for new employees joining this scheme would be 6%. However, they would be able to a select a minimum cost of 4% up to a maximum of 9% to meet their own circumstances.
NATS as the employer, would match the cost that each employee selects on a 2:1 basis. NATS and NTUS believe the new defined benefit contribution scheme will be amongst the best in the country of its type and we are confident it will represent a highly competitive and attractive benefit in today’s workplace.
In summary

NATS and NTUS would not have embarked on putting this proposed package of measures to you if we did not think it absolutely necessary to protect your pension benefits. The risk involved in continuing with exactly the same arrangements as we have today threatens the financial stability of NATS and therefore the security of the existing Scheme for all of us.
More information and next steps

We recognise that this is a complex subject and that you may have questions that are not specifically addressed in this letter. NATS and NTUS are putting in place a number of steps to explain the proposals in more detail and you will receive a comprehensive booklet no later than 8 October about the proposal and why we want to take this course of action. Amongst other things, there will also be a series of briefings, a dedicated intranet site which will include a modelling tool to help you assess the potential impact of the proposals on you, and a Helpline to assist you in further understanding the proposal and what it means. We would strongly encourage you to take advantage of these arrangements.
From 8 October to 10 December, NATS will be inviting your questions and comments about the proposed changes. This is formally known as a ‘consultation’ and is legally required before NATS can implement some of the changes. NATS is choosing to consult on all the changes to ensure that employees have a complete picture of the proposals. During this time, we will seek to answer your queries and the NATS Executive will closely monitor your feedback on the proposals. NATS will also continue to meet with NTUS representatives. The outcome of the consultation will be communicated to employees in January 2009. In addition, both Prospect and PCS will hold a full consultation with members culminating in a ballot of all Trade Union members. The results of the ballot will be announced at the end of December.
Finally, if as a result of reading about these proposed changes anyone should be contemplating taking immediate action such as retiring early or taking your pension immediately, we strongly recommend that you take independent financial advice and carefully consider the package of measures we are proposing to put in place to safeguard your pension. NATS and NTUS believe that this proposed package of measures offers the best solution to protect your pension benefits.
Regards
Philip James / Sarah Stacey
Director HR&S / HR Director
https://south.home-access.co.uk/http...ionUpdate.gif/
Suresh Tewari
NTUS Chair

I just wonder how many employees in there mid fifties will jump ship before XMAS ?

I understand also we will be ballotted on any potential industrial action.

"Me thinks" a clearout of deadwood managers lurking in offices pretending to be ATCOS is called for, although I suspect they will jump ship before they are pushed overboard.

Now what would happen if we were re- Nationalised 100% again......... it could happen :confused:

so much for 'ONE NATS ONE PENSION'

do i believe its reasonable to pass on the costs??

you're damn right i do!! if this was a manufacturing plant, and the main costs were electricity and maintenance of the machinery, then our increased costs would justifyably be passed on to the consumer.
Unfortunately the main cost for this company is PEOPLE. It is The PEOPLE in this company that ensure the safe running of day to day operations. It is the PEOPLE in this company that try to minimize delays to the consumer, it is the PEOPLE of this company that for so many years have 'helped out' by survivng on goodwill. It is the PEOPLE of this company that help ensure any future profits that this company will produce.
So i have one question.
Why do you seem to want to P!SS the PEOPLE OFF so much?
Evenually we will pay off the burden of debt left to us by this government(:mad:). After that the profits of the company will soar. How about you invest in the future profits of the company and ensure that the PEOPLE continue to want to work for this company. We struggle as it is to get enough quality people to the operational end of this profession, How do you you expect to attract people when you continually cut back and cut back on the benefits . The Pension is one of the most attractive benefits of this job, and please dont people start saying about how we cannot expect to maintain a final salary scheme when everybody else is closing theirs. I'm not interested in other companies scheme's.
If this company had been paying the amount it was required to pay at the beginning, we would not be in the situation we are now. Mr barron has been put in this company for one reason in my opinion, to close the current pension scheme, reduce the liability of the company so it can be sold off and he can ride away with a huge bonus and massive personal pension fund to whatever company he wants to screw over next, as i believe allegedly happened at alstom ( i stand to be corrected by the way). i'm sure he's a nice guy but thats my opinion.

As to this 'proposal' i have one childish reply
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/finger.gif

Working together seems very one sided.

Ayrprox; spot on

I guess the company needs to get their thinking caps on some more because I am not accepting these changes. You know whats next!

As someone whose knowledge of pensions is somewhat limited, firstly I take my hat off to those of you who take the time on here to explain much of what is spouted by NATS/NTUS et al and put it into plain english. It really helps my understanding of what is obviously a very complex subject.

Now I have a couple of questions if I may... (and please note these are purely hypothetical)

For those of us who joined the company after the 2001 deed of trust, would we automatically still be considered members of an "old scheme" if the proposed new scheme were to come into force for the newbies? I personally would not wish to be hoodwinked into voting my own pension out of existence simply by virtue of my start date with the company....


Also, if said new scheme were to come online for new staff, is there no way that present members benefits can be ringfenced, to prevent any future ballots (say, er, in 15 years time?? :*) allowing new scheme members to vote on old scheme members benefits?

These questions are of course as I said purely hypothetical and I am not advocating a yes vote on an "i'm alright Jack" basis and screw anyone who joins after Jan, but for someone who doesn't really understand the finer points of pension law, I would be interested to know the answers.

Cheers comrades, see you by the oil drum.... :}

WRT passing the costs of the scheme on I agree with ayrprox on this one. In fact, for those staff employed before privatisation NATS CAN pass on the costs of the scheme as part of its licence.

If we accept these proposals it's the end of the final salary scheme (due to the 0.5% above RPI cap)

I want to see what Pay 2009 looks like too. Should we prepare ourselves for another shafting? TUs should be insisting any deal (and it needs to be a good one) is implemented on 31st Dec 2008 at the latest to ensure the pension restrictions are applied after the next rise.

Not sure I like the sound of the SMART pensions either...... I quite like the idea of my money going into my scheme, rather than relying on the company paying it.. or am I just being over cynical here?????

I dont mind having a compromise and I think the capping of pensionable pay rises may be tolerable.

HOWEVER,how many times have we told our TU reps "ONE NATS,ONE PENSION"? Then they come back with this tripe?Next they will be telling us to keep our powder dry for 15 years!

I for one will vote a resounding NO if given the chance.I will also be calling for the TU "negotiating" team to resign with immediate effect if they so much as try to talk me round!

Also,I wouldnt be surprised if they come back with a below inflation pay offer:ugh:

How many times do people have to be told......

Stop doing bloody overtime and coming in on your days off sucking up to management.

It really is that simple, which part of it does anyone need explaining :bored:

until it is an official tactic of the union to stop doing aavas, i personally will still do them if and when i feel like it. Not everyone is top of the scale and an aava here and there goes a long way.
aavas are much more appealing for people still climbing the scale.

I wonder if it was ever brought into question the legality of a pay scale like ours would it hold up. atc could be said to be a young mans game.
with increased traffic levels and having been trained in a busier environment some of the newer guys at my unit are very good indeed. Us fuddies, whilst still competent of course, get paid tens of thousands of pounds more than them because we have been in the company longer. Is our experience worth that much more when you are sitting doing t&p for each other oin the same airspace at the same time?
maybe if everyone earned top of the scale money aava volunteering would dwindle in numbers.Its not very often i can do them, mostly due to the ball and chain but thats another story.i love shopping honest.:ugh: but if i wa son less money with a massive mortgage i might do more of the ones i am offered