anotherthing,


BDIONU made a claim about the how well (or otherwise) the armed forces are paid and I replied with comparisons to the average national wage.

BDIONU then chose to answer points that hadn't been made using spurious comparisons he created himself but avoided answering the one inconvenient question I did ask.

I'm sure we're all familiar with these debating methods on this thread by now.

I gave you a very specific example of myself and how generous the pay I received when I first started working for NATS in a pseudo controller role as opposed to being a military controller. What more do you need, copies of my pay statements (I do have them available)?

BD

Anyway, getting back to the vote on our Pension .........:oh:

eglnyt, it would likely be based on when a scheme member reaches maximum accrual for the benefits. If we both retired in 2 years on same pay, and ive worked for 41 years and you have for 39, I could take home more than you. This is wrong. And, the benefit is no longer definable. The fixed rise suggestion is better because the benefit IS still defined relative to salary.

I'm beginning to think that the proposal's implications have not been fully thought through. Would it help if I said I can see a scenario whereby an ATCO who started in 1996 could potentially bypass (legitimately!) the effect that this cap may have on everyone else? I'll let you or someone else work that one out!

I agree with some of the principles behind the proposals, but I think there are too many flaws with it as it stands.

As I said you made a claim about how well (or otherwise) the armed forces are paid and I replied with comparisons to the national wage.

You chose to then make comparisons with NATS employees and start rebutting points I hadn't actually made.

It's a common debating technique that you see at most pmq's usually employed by one of the nu-liebour stooges.

Not that i'm accusing you of being a NL voter!!!!!!

But this thread is about NATs staff
You set up your points, I quoted them in each response I made to your points. Anotherthing responded similarly.
Phew! Thank goodness for that, or I'd have had to call you out ;)

BD

Scheme members who have less than 10 years to go can vote yes in the knowledge that the cap and its attendant compounding affect probably won't take too much out of their final benefits.

However, for those in their mid-40s or younger the issue is far more complicated as they are the ones who will bear the brunt of these proposals and be faced with a possible 1/2 final salary scheme (or worse).

Must have been a quiet day on the sectors today with 3 pages of slagging i one day....what all you guys going to do on your breaks once all this is sorted???

That sad its still a geat big NO from me

Gonzo

Negative Captain! Surplus is current commitments vs pension contributions. The future pension benfiits are what the underlying rate is about. And if NATS had paid the underlying rate then a surplus would always exist as future pension outgoings, higher than currently, will need to be met, assuming the number of pensioners increases (i.e longevity) and/or pay is above inflation.


In december 2003 there was a surplus of £296.2m realtive to the technical provisions

Technical provisions - actives (excluding any reserve for future expenses)

Imagine if NATS had 1 current pensioner(A) who is drawing a pension and 1future pensioner (B) who retires in 10 years.

100% funding means that NATS have enough money going into the fund to meet the liabilities of paying out for the current pensioner A.

The underlying rate is how much you need to put in so that in 10 years time when the second pensioner B retires, there will be enough in the pot to pay for both A and B until they are assumed to kick their respective buckets

so, here's the issue....

scenario 1: if NATS only pays in enough to maintain 100% funding (i.e. paying for current pensioner A then in 10 years time when future pensioner B retires, NATS will need to put in a big wad of cash to enable future pensioner B to be paid out.

scenario 2: if NATS pay the underlying rate, the ongoing pot will pay the current pensioner and have a surplus for future pensioner which will continue to grow until 10 years elapse and future pensioner retires. At that time the surplus will slowly reduce, and will be sufficient to pay the two pensioners, until their assumed life expectancy.


In summary, NATS have paid in less than the rate (R) needed to maintain 100% funding as they saw that there was a surplus, which could be whittled down, to make up the difference to meet the rate (R) need for 100% funding

:ok: I think that clears that up, children...I wonder if this thread will reach a hundred pages?

As I understand it, the Pension Trustees can only force NATS to make up the shortfall in 100% funding - i.e if the fund is in deficit- and thats where the "recovery plan"* comes in. The deficit occurs when values of assets go down (as they have in recent financial turmoil) and when contributions are low (just like what NATS have been doing). The trustees will not demand 37% for underlying costs but enough for the fund to be able to contnue paying out for current pensioners (and not future pensioners)

*recovery plan: a document summarising a plan of action for correcting a shortfall over an agreed period - source: 2006 Triennial Valuation

landedoutagain
Why is this, in particular, wrong? If you stopped contributing 2 years ago, your saved contributions have been earning for an extra two years (or losing in bad years?)

Isn't that the subtle difference between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? In fact, at the point of retirement, the benefit is definable - it's just not predictable.

No - they will try to ensure that, at any time, the fund is able to cover current liabilities, which includes payments to current pensioners and all future pensions earned to date. (In a year's time, the current pensioners will have changed and the earned future pensions will also have changed.)
The current liabilities for an ATCO about to retire will be about £1million, for a 20-year-old MSG7 with one month in the scheme about £500 but they will both need to be covered by the scheme's assets - if the scheme is closed to everyone now, it will have to be able to cover the rights that both have earned.

Pelton, its wrong because it makes a mockery of the phrase ' defined benefit '. And, as you correctly point out, I would be even better off because I had stopped contributing. So a double whammy for you. Still think thats fair?!


"Isn't that the subtle difference between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? In fact, at the point of retirement, the benefit is definable - it's just not predictable."

On your date of retirement, you will find out how much you get under either scheme... A DB scheme you will KNOW what %age of pay you get beforehand - ie, its defined. Under a DC scheme you do not know. (I feel like i am saying the same thing again tho! sry!)

Does any one know what happened at the special delegates conference?

Affleck

They voted in favour of number one, to support the BEC to continue negotiating with the management.

FB:ok:

I assume some one came up with a good argument to go for option 1, seems like a good opportunity to stop this madness wasted.

Looking on the bright side, at least we can get on with voting NO to get our message across.

Anything controversial that they did not vote for?

landedoutagain
Well you would have been contributing to the scheme at a time when every penny counted, rather than late in life when you probably have spare cash..
BUT I don't think pensions are ever fair - see my post about late promotions under the current scheme!
I don't know whether you've read the conditions of the current scheme for times of falling RPI. Someone retiring last year whose pension has been indexed up can have it indexed down (at least as far as its original level). Someone retiring this year whose pension is based on a final salary indexed up by RPI can't have their pension indexed down below the higher level awarded this year. Is this fair?
I can find lots of anomalies in the current scheme (but I am not an advocate of DC schemes, they just seem to be inevitable - the view of one of my daughter's friends who is a trainee actuary).

If the union reps attending the special delegates conference were supposed to be representing the common member (the majority of whose views looking through this thread seem pretty clear), how did option 1 get voted in?

I'd encourage people to ask their local reps whether they were voting for their personal views or those of the people they represent. :ugh: