What about the allowance paid to personal contract staff in lieu of company cars?

What about the pension discount given to PCG grades is that fair?:)

ps so much for the thousands of non Nats people who were going to ruin the scientific poll eh:ok:

I am assuming that the following scenario has been considered and would not happen but I haven't seen it explicitly mentioned

With deflation a distinct possibility, say next year the RPI was -2% and NATS were offered a 0.5% pay rise.

Would this mean that the pensionable salary would decrease by 1%?

Surely not?

At the meeting I attended, the question of negative RPI was raised. We never really got an answer, just a vague suggestion that pensions wouldn't be cut. I'd want that in writing as part of the agreement before I would consider a yes vote. :=

Here's another suggestion for people to discuss.

I was informed at the briefing that should there be a No vote, then NSL is not in a good position to defend itself against the possible future financial implications (renationalisation, possible selling off etc...). The general message being that we (NERL people) should vote Yes to save our colleagues in NSL.

How about we also get included in the agreement a clause that says 'Any attempt to sell off NSL would result in the immediate removal of the pension cap for all employees, and any non pensionable pay that may have accrued is made pensionable again'.

If as management claim, they have no intention of selling off NSL, I'm sure they would be happy to have such an inclusion legally added :E

No

A pay freeze would be the result.

Not often pensionable these days :)

No - see the FAQs on Natsnet:
30 most recently added questions
10 What would happen if RPI was ever negative?
There would be no negative impact on pensionable pay.

As far as 2009 pay deal goes...there won't be one. We'll be getting a PAY FREEZE...and that came straight from Barron's mouth.

So the Union is saying vote yes and NSL is safer.On Pprune people are saying vote yes and NSL will be sold/broken up.Management are saying NSL not for sale.
Communication is excellent as always.:D If anyone has a cunning plan,then it would be nice to know what it is.:ugh:

Before we all get carried away, let's not forget what the 'Ru' stands for in pPrune.........

Speaking as a waverer between 'Yes' and 'No', even I can see that there's a whole heap of unsubstantiated rubbish being written on this thread........

What's that about wheat and chaff? :ugh:

Such as? The selling of NSL? No-brainer....just because management said it won't happen doesn't mean it's not on the cards.How can anybody believe anything that comes out of Barron's mouth these days?

As fro pay deal...Barron has said to a colleague of mine that there won't be one. Before the interest rate cuts and inflation figures of the last few months, I would have said we'd be lucky to get 1-2%...now I definitely think that a big fat 0% is on the cards.

You are right though Loxley, all unsubstantiated at the moment, just people making educated guesses.

So what's the alternative? Disregard EVERYTHING that he says as a lie? That's not very realistic or productive is it?

And why would the BEC members (both of whom are NSL) who came to my unit and were asked about an NSL sell-off, lie about it? These are people who have been negotiating for the best part of 18months with Barron and his cronies. If there was any hint of a by-product of these proposals being that NSL would be sold off, do you not think they would be ever so slightly concerned about it? Not least of all because it would be their futures on the line as well.

I'm still struggling to see the 'educated' bit. From what the reps I've spoken to have told me, these proposals are not liked at all by Lawrence Hoskins because they're so expensive for him. And the new pension scheme for new joiners is still going to be one of the best in the UK private sector today. Coupled with the fact that many NSL contracts are currently LOSING money (not least Manchester) then why would NSL suddenly become so attractive to outsiders with a 'Yes' vote? You would still have the vast majority of staff on a final salary pension for years to come before the 'new-pensioners' outnumbered them.....

Loxley,

I'd give up if I were you, there are only so many times you can post sense on here when it falls on deaf ears. I personally have given up banging my head against the wall.:ugh:

The only other explanation is everyone is lying and you can trust no-one, if you believe that then vote no :E


RS

p.s. if you haven't already, vote YES. :ok:

Loxley

NSL contracts are losing money because of the way NATS has run them.

NATS has historically chased some of these contracts and put in bids in an effort to win the contract, not necessarily make money.

On the flip side of your argument, why in the future would NATS want to continue to provide a service on these loss making contracts? Does that make any sense?? Of course not.

What would make sense is if NATS were to walk away from the contract once it is up for renewal.

Anotherthing, I would follow the above advice mate.

Loxley, if you think that NSL is NOT being fattened up for a sell off then you, my friend, are living at the North Pole with Santa, his elves and all the other fairies.

VOTE NO

Assuming that was meant for me, I am signing off.

Good luck everyone :ok:

See you on the new results thread!

Or maybe I'm just not a complete cynic. (As well as a 'waverer' I'm also NSL....). I actually prefer to believe what management and, more importantly, what my union tell me.

When there's a shred of evidence to NSL being 'fattened up' for a sell-off, THEN I'll start to worry....... :ok:

Loxley

By that time it will be too late if the yes vote prevails.
Surely common sense would tell you what's going to happen?

You reap, what you sow :eek:

So what you're saying is, there is no evidence?