In response to 2six4 above. I am mindful of the time and effort that our union reps put into the job and am grateful for it. However, I am convinced that a potentially serious mistake has been made and that an attempt is being made to shift the blame.
People keep talking about a 'healthy surplus'. The £350m that is often mentioned does not take into account the scheme's future liabilities. In the past the surplus calculation has allowed for this and a real surplus has existed. This time the real surplus is in fact a deficit! NATS & TUs are now comparing apples with oranges, not the other way round as the recent TU background paper suggested!
If a real surplus existed, 2six4 is quite right, members would be more than happy to share in the benefits. But they would also be supportive in NATS' proposal to take a contributions holiday at this difficult time - if the scheme could afford it!
Given that the deal is done (and in any case NATS could have done it without it being given credence by TU agreement) we should now be making representations to NATS (either directly or by encouraging the unions) to give some concrete guarantees about the criteria that must be met for contributions to recommence. There is no way they will contribute at 30+%, if the scheme was to get to the stage where contributions at this level are required, it would fold - there is no alternative at that stage!!
We need to know at what level the past service surplus will be allowed to reduce to before contributions recommence. Will they start contributing if the actuary says they need to contribute at x% at one of the six monthly reviews - if so what is x? Will they expect us to make up some shortfall by increasing our contributions??
The TUs can go some way to redeeming themselves if they can negotiate an acceptable answer.
[ 04 December 2001: Message edited by: OrangeAdair ]