I attended the briefing yesterday.
I went in thinking I was a definite no vote and whilst some of my perceptions were changed I am still a no vote - but accept that it is likely action may have to be taken in the future to protect the pension scheme.
I suggest as many of you as possible attend the briefings to make up your own minds - although remember since they want a yes vote it is a bias point of view which is presented.
My thoughts are that we are proposing greater measures than those needed to protect the pension.
The main issue seems to be the underlying rate which NATS will have to pay which could be circa 42% from January - hence the big rush to sort the issue out.
The part of the proposal which will have the immediate and significant effect in reducing the underlying cost is the cap of rpi + 0.5%. This is also the part which can't be instigated without our say so as we’re protected by the trust of deed. According to the presentation the cap alone is predicted to reduce the underlying rate to 25% which I'm sure the company could afford long term. The SMART pension changes seem to make sense in saving money so I wouldn't be against this. The main point I have issue with is the two tier system. The union talked at length about what a good new scheme they have secured - which compared to what else is around is very true. From a selfish point of view though I am more concerned about my pension and those of other current employees – not future employees who haven’t yet joined and aren’t yet paying union fees. Regardless of how good the new scheme is it will be inferior to the current one so I'm sure down the line the members of the new scheme will shaft us given half a chance. Human nature will mean they say "why should you get more money than me?" rather than "boy - didn't prospect negotiate well on our behalf back in 2008!"
After seeing the presentation I still believe we can have one NATS one pension - we just might have to compromise on the terms of the pension in the future.
I'd like to see an agreement to cap for a shorter period of time together with an agreement that NATS HAVE to pay a minimum percentage during this period should market conditions improve. It is by not paying in when times are good that causes problems when times are bad.
One final thought - the whole reason to vote yes according to UNIONATS is "if the company goes bust you could lose the pension and your job"
Another way to lose your pension is if we're split up and sold. The proposed changes (new money purchase scheme) reduces the company’s liabilities and makes them much more predictable - this will make us a MUCH more attractive prospect to potential purchasers.
VOTE NO - let NATS start to pay the new high rate (which may put us in financial trouble eventually but not in the short term – we have after all made a profit for the last five years despite the cost of TC relocation etc.) and then let’s get back round the table if necessary to negotiate a way to go forward with the best terms for us rather than least risk for NATS.
Say yes in haste, repent at leisure