UK Pensions strike.
 

Any Uk NATS staff gonna strike next week?

Or would it be a 'half strike' over the half of the organisation still being owned by the UK govt???:eek:

Yeah, we really live in the real world Yahoo; earning more than doctors, paramedics etc as we do.

Very real :=

Can't let that one go unchallenged:
"Salaries are covered by the National Health Service (NHS) Agenda for Change pay scales. Paramedic salaries are in Band 5, which ranges from £21,176 - £27,534. Up to 25% more can be earned for working unsocial hours (salary data collected June 2010).
For team leaders, salaries are in Band 6: £25,472 - £34,189 (salary data collected June 2010).
Employee benefits may include an NHS pension scheme, study leave for sponsored courses, relocation package and access to counselling services and physiotherapy treatment.
The emergency ambulance service operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Paramedics typically work 37.5 hours per week, usually including night and weekend shifts and cover for public holidays. There is usually an annual leave entitlement of 27 days, plus public holidays or time in lieu."
Paramedic: Salary and conditions | Prospects.ac.uk

NHS band 5 is roughly ATSA 4 wages.

BD

Can't let THAT one go unchallenged:
And how does NHS Band 5 compare with 'Beady-Eyes' on "The sunny English Riviera"? :E

That proves my point exactly BD, thank you.

An average ATCO earns much, much more than NHS band 5 and various other life saving, society enhancing roles - at least twice as much in fact - some of whom intend to strike on 30th. Rightfully so in my view.

So, in the context of the strikes, it can hardly be said that we're "living in the real world" and the strikers are not.

Indeed some of my colleagues wouldn't know a "real" day of "real" work if it bit them on their increasingly ample and lazy posteriors. Early go anyone? :E

Yeah, but a lot less than GPs and other medical staff

Ah my apologies, I read your view as being 180 degrees different :\
Perhaps things are going to change as increased mechanisation releases operational staff to do backroom stuff. As the company pursues it's new policy of defend and grow someone will have to do the defending, because those currently doing it are being used more and more for the growth bits. New engineers are being recruited but not new ATC staff.

BD

BD,
Hola.What about the advert for controllers with FerroNATS por favor.:confused:

Sorry I forgot about the airports, was thinking of the ACCs but that's a very similar case in point. Tower ATCOs for other airport bids because, of course, the airports are overstaffed :rolleyes: That's ignoring that EGPD have just lost 2 to DXB.

What is the point of having a worthwhile salary if your pension is crap? The CAA/NATS pension is NOT crap, but there are plenty in the political/fiscal wings aching to doo doo over it!

The Chancellor stated policy is to fully privatise NATS under the present regime...ha hem...government. Even the likes of Willy Walsh and Richard Branson and other figures in the Airline Group have publicly stated that they would like to see NATS fully returned to public hands as vital infrastructure giving a seamless, not fragmented service. All very true IMO. Also IMO a euphemism from them of 'have you seen that expensive pension scheme we would have to cough up for...no way!'.

As regards the present CAA/NATS scheme, as to whether it will be subject to the same devaluation as the strikers pensions, I'll hold my hands up and say 'don't know guv'nor!'.:confused: But no doubt there will be someone out there who does!

If it is the case that the scheme will be devalued in its present 'split identity' state, then my view is NATSers should stop looking at the short term gain of worthwhile salaries, and think of the long term pain of a significantly devalued pension.

The NATS pension has nothing to do with public sector pensions.

AA

So are the NATS employees pension's the responsibilty of :

a)the govt

b)the airline group

c)the CAA

d)the trustees

e)the NATS employees?

Given that NATS is in a similar limbo that BT, in the 80's was, when it spent a number of years part privatised. An organisation with a 'split identity'.

As you are confident where the NATS pension is NOT, hopefully you are just as confident where it IS.

I vote for d) but a) could still change the rules if they wish.

I'd vote for none of the above. The NATS schemes are "funded" schemes and NATS has the responsibility of ensuring that the schemes have sufficient funding to meet their obligations. In most respects they are no different from any other private sector schemes and covered by the same protection legislation although there is some additional protection for the original main scheme contained within the Transport Act that privatised NATS.

Zooker, where BD is headed is a heck of a lot sunnier!:ooh:

FerroNATS perchance?

Fimbles to Ferrets
 

I just put FerroNATS in my search thingy.

It came up with: 'Did you mean FERRETS'!:D

I can only hope ferrets have better fiscal heads than Fimbles!!!

And a bit more sandy :) But they do have the largest indoor ski slope in the world :cool:

BD

When NATS was privatised ten years ago Lord Prescott of Kingston upon Hull was the sponsor to a number of guarantees to safeguard the pension provision of the employees.

Three years ago the employees voted to voluntarily change the pension provision for new entrants and subsequently there have been further changes such as final pension payments excluding UHP and overtime which for PCS grades boosted their final pension and restrictions on the purchase of AVCs linked to the CAA Pension Scheme.

I wonder if by voluntarily voting for changes to the original scheme after the legal guarantees have been implemented then those guarantees have been compromised by the employees themselves if in the future NATS wanted to change the pension scheme completely to a much inferior scheme such as a money purchase scheme where all the risk is transferred to the employee and the pension has no guarantees?

No. NATS was very careful to only suggest changes not covered by the guarantees and the unions were very careful to ensure that nothing agreed compromised the guarantees.