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?:}