Ba Pension Trustees & A Missing Ballot.
Thread Starter
Ba Pension Trustees & A Missing Ballot.
Can someone explain how the NAPS trustees can sign the agreement on the new proposal without waiting for the results of TU ballots?
We were promised a vote.
What happened?
We were promised a vote.
What happened?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In law, there is no requirement for any form of negotiation or consultation before trustees make changes to a pension scheme. They are only required to consult with the company (not the unions).
In the case of BA, both negotiation and consultation took place with the unions. However, there was always the possibility of the Trustees (or indeed the Pension Regulator) imposing a deal on the staff.
Both the unions and BA were bright enough to realise that this was not the best idea so they entered into negotiations, which resulted in the agreement between BA and the Trustees last week. As a result, the pension deal has been finalised. Legally, the unions get no input on this.
Most unions have balloted their members to gain acceptance or otherwise (BASSA didn't ballot on this, strangely!!). However, the Trustees are required by law to protect existing pensions as their priority, almost to the exclusion of all else so the ballots themselves are effectively a rubber stamping exercise for what the unions have negotiated (or not in the case of the GMB). The problem the GMB now have is that further negotiations regarding the pension cannot achieve anything as the final deal has been signed off by the Trustees, which to reiterate, are not required to deal with unions. A strike will also have no bearing on the new pension deal for the same reason.
That may or may not be good news for you but it's the story so far....
In the case of BA, both negotiation and consultation took place with the unions. However, there was always the possibility of the Trustees (or indeed the Pension Regulator) imposing a deal on the staff.
Both the unions and BA were bright enough to realise that this was not the best idea so they entered into negotiations, which resulted in the agreement between BA and the Trustees last week. As a result, the pension deal has been finalised. Legally, the unions get no input on this.
Most unions have balloted their members to gain acceptance or otherwise (BASSA didn't ballot on this, strangely!!). However, the Trustees are required by law to protect existing pensions as their priority, almost to the exclusion of all else so the ballots themselves are effectively a rubber stamping exercise for what the unions have negotiated (or not in the case of the GMB). The problem the GMB now have is that further negotiations regarding the pension cannot achieve anything as the final deal has been signed off by the Trustees, which to reiterate, are not required to deal with unions. A strike will also have no bearing on the new pension deal for the same reason.
That may or may not be good news for you but it's the story so far....
Thread Starter
First of all thank you for replying so eloquently.
However,
It may not have been the best idea (to get the regulator involved) for BA and the high paid. IE Pilots. But for the rest of us plebs who will have to foot the bill the regulator would have been a risk worth taking.
I am disgusted with the trustees. The pension I had has gone and I wasn't allowed to even question the decision. If a private or public financial organisation did this the FSA would have a field day!
Even worse, is that in 2009 they will be able to do it all again as part of the "shared responsibility".
However,
In the case of BA, both negotiation and consultation took place with the unions. However, there was always the possibility of the Trustees (or indeed the Pension Regulator) imposing a deal on the staff.
Both the unions and BA were bright enough to realise that this was not the best idea so they entered into negotiations, which resulted in the agreement between BA and the Trustees last week. As a result, the pension deal has been finalised. Legally, the unions get no input on this.
Both the unions and BA were bright enough to realise that this was not the best idea so they entered into negotiations, which resulted in the agreement between BA and the Trustees last week. As a result, the pension deal has been finalised. Legally, the unions get no input on this.
I am disgusted with the trustees. The pension I had has gone and I wasn't allowed to even question the decision. If a private or public financial organisation did this the FSA would have a field day!
Even worse, is that in 2009 they will be able to do it all again as part of the "shared responsibility".
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But for the rest of us plebs who will have to foot the bill the regulator would have been a risk worth taking.
IMHO, the whole thing is a crock. However, there was no way any of us were going to do any better out of BA, strike or no strike.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Pension Trustees are required to act in the best interests of all members of the Pension, aware that some members were getting a better deal in NAPs 1 and 2(ie. flying staff), then to allow changes that that give some members an 18.75% Pensionable Pay Rise(ie. flying staff) appears most UnFair.
.
Ground staff would have done better if the Regulator was used to sort out this mess.
.
I would guess when all the ground staff understand how UnFair they have been treated in these pension changes we will see various Legal Actions starting, it could be a slow painful show???
.
Ground staff would have done better if the Regulator was used to sort out this mess.
.
I would guess when all the ground staff understand how UnFair they have been treated in these pension changes we will see various Legal Actions starting, it could be a slow painful show???
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NCL
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shared Responsibility
Turin - The proposal to share the risk of increased life expectancy was dropped. So we have been saved from this risk of shared responsibility. It is worth noting this also means we won't get a reduction in payments if the prospects for the scheme ever improve in the future. A case of no risk no gain to us, but I think we've got the better end of the deal on this.
If the stock market goes against us and the deficit gets bigger, I'm sure we will be reminded of shared responsibility.
Apparently the pensions regulator would have imposed a settlement at the end of March if the trustees hadn't reached an agreement. If that was the case, the regulator's first duty is to people currently drawing a pension, so we could have been worse off. Unfortunately we will never know how good or bad it would have been, so we cannot make a clear judgement if we would have been better or worse off.
CB
If the stock market goes against us and the deficit gets bigger, I'm sure we will be reminded of shared responsibility.
Apparently the pensions regulator would have imposed a settlement at the end of March if the trustees hadn't reached an agreement. If that was the case, the regulator's first duty is to people currently drawing a pension, so we could have been worse off. Unfortunately we will never know how good or bad it would have been, so we cannot make a clear judgement if we would have been better or worse off.
CB
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...then to allow changes that that give some members an 18.75% Pensionable Pay Rise
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF, I understand what you say.
.
If the company want the pensions sorted and happy staff to boot they will offer all staff the choice to accept this 18.75% pensionable pay rise, if they don't, we will be watching a long bitter show???
.
If the company want the pensions sorted and happy staff to boot they will offer all staff the choice to accept this 18.75% pensionable pay rise, if they don't, we will be watching a long bitter show???
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGLL
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the company want the pensions sorted and happy staff to boot they will offer all staff the choice to accept this 18.75% pensionable pay rise, if they don't, we will be watching a long bitter show???
You however (altough I dont know your personal circumstances) have a decreased accrual rate which will mean your percentage of final salary will be lower. It will decrease by an amount in the order of around 5%. You can however save more in AVC's now if you desire the same pension as before.
So the choice we have is a 5% cut in your pension, or a doubling of the pension contributiuons. Which one would you like?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joetom,
They may do, although I doubt it. Either way, you would still have to pay for it yourself - same as we are.
Out of interest, and not trying to start an argument, what percentage of your basic pay is your pensionable? Prior to the new agreement, ours was 80%. Now it is 95%.
...they will offer all staff the choice to accept this 18.75% pensionable pay rise...
Out of interest, and not trying to start an argument, what percentage of your basic pay is your pensionable? Prior to the new agreement, ours was 80%. Now it is 95%.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF,
.
Ground staff pen pay is same as basic pay minus the abait figure or 15% depending on NAPs 1 or 2, all other extras like shift pay are outside and do not count for pen pay.
.
My understanding is the company put all flying staff extras like shift or flying pay into basic and that is why at present flying staff get pen pay on 80% of present basic pay.
.
I think it is only Fair that if the company are offering a 18.75% pen pay rise to some staff, they should offer it to all, they could make it an option on changes, tick if you want it will be fine, then any flying staff who think it's a bad deal can leave the box empty, like it or not this would appear Fair and be an Equitable outcome?
.
Ground staff pen pay is same as basic pay minus the abait figure or 15% depending on NAPs 1 or 2, all other extras like shift pay are outside and do not count for pen pay.
.
My understanding is the company put all flying staff extras like shift or flying pay into basic and that is why at present flying staff get pen pay on 80% of present basic pay.
.
I think it is only Fair that if the company are offering a 18.75% pen pay rise to some staff, they should offer it to all, they could make it an option on changes, tick if you want it will be fine, then any flying staff who think it's a bad deal can leave the box empty, like it or not this would appear Fair and be an Equitable outcome?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Joetom
I think it is only Fair that if the company are offering a 18.75% pen pay rise to some staff, they should offer it to all,
this would appear Fair and be an Equitable outcome?
I'd settle for a pro rata amount CM 9% for 5 years! Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yachtno1,
.
9% is better that now't, but look at it another way, flying staff take out more than ground staff now, shut NAPs 1 and 2, then allow all staff to join this New NAPs on the same terms, only problem is this would be Fair.
.
The company said they wanted a one time fix on this pension, the above would fill that hole.!!!
.
9% is better that now't, but look at it another way, flying staff take out more than ground staff now, shut NAPs 1 and 2, then allow all staff to join this New NAPs on the same terms, only problem is this would be Fair.
.
The company said they wanted a one time fix on this pension, the above would fill that hole.!!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Near LGW
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptSly. I will have to almost double my pension payments to recieve a lower accrual rate than at present. And your "Basic Salary" includes an average of expenses that was incorporated into it a few years back. Whereas ground staff payments like shift pay and allowances are non-pensionable.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Near LGW
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure this discussion could go on infinitum .. but the plain fact is that all the F/D I've seen (and I see about 10 to 12 crews each day at work) are content with the deal. I've not heard one dissenting voice. I'd just like the flight crew to admit they've achieved a better deal than the ground staff!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Joetom
9% is better that now't, but look at it another way, flying staff take out more than ground staff now, shut NAPs 1 and 2, then allow all staff to join this New NAPs on the same terms, only problem is this would be Fair.
.
The company said they wanted a one time fix on this pension, the above would fill that hole
.
The company said they wanted a one time fix on this pension, the above would fill that hole
We could shut NAPS 1 and NAPS 2 if you like, but you'd still have to fund the deficit now and the whole deal would have to be restructured. You'd still have to pay your share, and the flying staff would still refuse to work extra years to fund your share of the deficit.
Spin it how you will, the deal is done and we're not going to pay for you. Welcome to the real world.
Originally Posted by yachtno1
I'd just like the flight crew to admit they've achieved a better deal than the ground staff!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yacht1 and joe tom, lots of banging your heads against the wall with you 2 isn't there? Its typical of how you and your union the GMB have misread the situation entirely, and are now using you as cannon fodder in their battle as to who runs BA, the Unions or WW (I know who I would rather have).
As with BASSA you are being used as prawns in a bigger game of chess, thank god for the BASSA team Tony Woodley saw the light and scrapped them out the bottom of the hole that they had dug for themselves.
Its been repeated time and time again by some more patient contributers than me, to try and help you out, but if you want to base your decision on ramp rumours and union hype then its down to you.
FACTS
Much of our allowances are not pensionable, just like your shift pay.Its true that after 2003 the non pensionable element is less. However still 27% of my income from variable allowances is non pensionable
The pensionable pay rise from 80% of basic to 95% of basic is a theoretical amount, NO ONE WILL GET ANY MORE MONEY IN THEIR PAY INSTEAD IT WILL LESS CASH IN TAKE HOME PAY!!! UNDERSTAND???
This pensionable pay rise has been self funded by the flight crew by sacrificing the 5 year transition period which had always been on the table from the start (and cabin crew if they accept the deal) perhaps you would like to self fund yours by working an additional 10 years as opposed 5!!
If you take me as example. Before this mess I was due to retire at age 55 with £xxxx amount of pension based on 6.5% contributions. In order to get this same amount at age 60, I must work another 5 years (some think this is a good thing, I don't) and now pay 8.5% of 95% of my basic as opposed to 6.5% of 80% of my basic just to break even. If i want to buy back to age 55 with 1/52nd build up I will need to pay a whopping 23.5% of pensionable pay
In summery as with everyone flight crew will pay more and work longer just stand still. There are no winners, and from where I sit, NO I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A GOOD DEAL, just the best thats on the table.
Role on the legal challenges from the GMB, thats if they have the money in the union coffers for it
As with BASSA you are being used as prawns in a bigger game of chess, thank god for the BASSA team Tony Woodley saw the light and scrapped them out the bottom of the hole that they had dug for themselves.
Its been repeated time and time again by some more patient contributers than me, to try and help you out, but if you want to base your decision on ramp rumours and union hype then its down to you.
FACTS
Much of our allowances are not pensionable, just like your shift pay.Its true that after 2003 the non pensionable element is less. However still 27% of my income from variable allowances is non pensionable
The pensionable pay rise from 80% of basic to 95% of basic is a theoretical amount, NO ONE WILL GET ANY MORE MONEY IN THEIR PAY INSTEAD IT WILL LESS CASH IN TAKE HOME PAY!!! UNDERSTAND???
This pensionable pay rise has been self funded by the flight crew by sacrificing the 5 year transition period which had always been on the table from the start (and cabin crew if they accept the deal) perhaps you would like to self fund yours by working an additional 10 years as opposed 5!!
If you take me as example. Before this mess I was due to retire at age 55 with £xxxx amount of pension based on 6.5% contributions. In order to get this same amount at age 60, I must work another 5 years (some think this is a good thing, I don't) and now pay 8.5% of 95% of my basic as opposed to 6.5% of 80% of my basic just to break even. If i want to buy back to age 55 with 1/52nd build up I will need to pay a whopping 23.5% of pensionable pay
In summery as with everyone flight crew will pay more and work longer just stand still. There are no winners, and from where I sit, NO I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A GOOD DEAL, just the best thats on the table.
Role on the legal challenges from the GMB, thats if they have the money in the union coffers for it
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Near LGW
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our Union is Amicus DD ... and there's no need to shout. No-one said you got a payrise! Scroll back if you don't believe me. I'll have to pay 11.5% of my pensionable pay to keep the status quo. Stay cool 
Last edited by yachtno1; 16th Feb 2007 at 18:10.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry yacht 1, but it does appear that there is a hell of a lot of ill informed gossip going around.
As I have for you could you elaborate on your 11% contribution rate? Is that 11% to keep the status quo, or 11% for an extra 5 years to age 65?? cos as I have said to you, to keep my status quo will cost 23.5%.
As I have for you could you elaborate on your 11% contribution rate? Is that 11% to keep the status quo, or 11% for an extra 5 years to age 65?? cos as I have said to you, to keep my status quo will cost 23.5%.