Any division between employees and CAAPS members over this issue will hurt all. The mooted option of a different pension being offered dependent on which Union you come under is nonsense. What kind of company would base fundamental policies on TU subscription?
The history of final salary pension schemes that have closed to new members is very clear. Company closes to new members, relying on the self-interest of current members to swallow the "but it doesn't effect you, why care about some newbie you don't even know?" line. Then some time later as members retire and new employees are hired, the balance tips and there are more employees of the new scheme than of the good old one. At this point the company (under pressure to do so from the TU ironically) will close the old scheme and force all members into the new one. Been done and done and done.
The answer to me is clear.. don't swallow their bull... They need to save money yeah, so stop wasting hundreds of thousands on (dodgy) re-branding, piss-ups in 5 star hotels for hundreds of managers every few weeks.. etc etc. Don't even think about touching our pension.
There's never been a company who have attempted closure of their scheme in this way before when the scheme is actually operating with a healthy surplus!
Oh... and on the HTD. I'm one of those that doesn't get it, so obviously I voted yes - money for nothing - but I wont criticise anybody who does get it that voted no.