May I suggest you ask any BEC members at your unit what went on at the SDC and they can fill you in with all the details.
Unless they signed up to another confidentiality clause after conference!

Actually it's bloody hard because I've tried it. As soon as you go back past 6 years you run into a whole series of staggered payrises and non pensionable add ons which make it almost impossible to calculate. It's also questionable whether or not you should include wage rises pre PPP as representative of future settlements although my figures suggest they were generally worse than since.

For ATCE, STAR, MSG and in most years ATSA grades I think the most recent figures going back are RPI + 0.25, RPI, 2.8% + £500 non pensionable (representative RPI for that year was 3.4%), RPI + 0.6, RPI + 0.6

If anything summarises the tactics of those trying to secure a 'yes' vote then this does.

Why not produce all the pay settlement figures and the attendant RPI numbers so we can assess the historical impact of the cap for ourselves?

We know the reason and that's the fear of the 'yes' side that staff will realise their pensions are going to be crippled by this cap and in many cases will reduce the final benefits to 1/2 salary or worse.

Even the modeller itself doesn't show the continuing huge impact of the cap after the 15 year period assuming it is scrapped at that point.

Staff are looking at losing tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of pounds but aren't being told this.

"We know the reason and that's the fear of the 'yes' side that staff will realise their pensions are going to be crippled by this cap and in many cases will reduce the final benefits to 1/2 salary or worse."


That's on the assumption that we would have got RPI+1.5% pensionable pay for the next 15 years though, isn't it?

Is this meant to be humorous?

Yes, sorry. Just making sure I wasn't being ignored.... This site is like dipping a toe in the North Sea in Feb if you're considering "not voting no" :O

I can see that, if either of these polls is representative of voting intentions of the membership as a whole, the the noes have it by a fair margin.

The problem is, there is a difference between very basic maths and statistics.
I know that the arithmetic mean of 83 and 60 is 71 and the arithmetic mean of 40 and 17 is 29 (both rounded). But, not knowing the size of either sample, or whether anyone has voted in both polls, it is not possible to combine the results in any meaningful fashion.
:ugh:
:ugh:
:ugh:
:confused::confused::confused:
:ugh:
:ugh:
:ugh:

After your first post, not likely. :ok:

eglnyt,

Can I be forward enough to ask your (rough) age and how long you've been with NATS? Fair enough if you don't want to answer.

(I'm mid-30s with 14 years in the scheme btw).

Superb work everyone! Only another 150 posts or so, plumped up by mathematical debate, and this will soon be the biggest thread in the ATC forum :ok:

RS

wtf is the biggest one about then? :eek:

Luncheon vouchers

A-ha...that'd be the sticky a couple of threads up then. :}

What were they? Never got any of those :}

RS

A taxable benefit (non-pensionable) in lieu of a subsidised restaurant/canteen.

Clearly wasn't sarcastic enough...... not all NATS locations got them.:uhoh:

"Others" get Aramark :ok:

I've heard good things about 'Aramark'.











Or was it Primark.

It would've been Primark, cheap and good value. Aramark is cheapish and there the similarity ends - although they do a good line in slop.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1297/...27272e.jpg?v=0

Not welcome here! :sad: