Now, I don't profess to be an expert on this, so if i'm getting the wrong end of the stick then I'm happy to be corrected. From my limited experience, here's how I see it:
I like to think I'm a relatively realistic person. As a relatively new member of staff (post ppp) I can see the argument that final salary pension schemes are a huge burden to any company and are becoming rarer because of their associated cost.
BUT, and it's a big but, that doesn't necessarily mean that i'm just gonna put my hand in my pocket and bail Nats out without exploring the options.
Cleverer minds than mine i'm sure will correct me but is Nats not a 'not-for profit' organisation? Have they not posted profits of 10's of millions of pounds over the past few years? What happens to that cash?
If it did come down to me sacrificing some pension rights over the remaining 30-odd years of my career, I'd expect Nats to never post a profit....Ever again! 'Cause if they did then that would just be money that could and should be ploughed straight into the pension fund! And whilst they're at it they could put all the profit that they've recently declared back too.
I'm willing to be reasonable about things, but so far all I see is the 'company' as an entity looking after it's own interests and expecting the staff to pick up the tab!
Plus the whole idea that we can't pass on costs and even need to reduce our charges between 2011 and 2015.... Hold on, pretty much everything I've bought for the past couple of years has increased in price drastically. Do you know why? Because for one reason or another companies' costs are increasing and they're having to 'pass that cost on' to their customers! How come we're excluded from that little party?
Add to that the whole 15 year proposal = sleep now, get shafted later, and mine will be a polite but firm NO, bordering on the shove it! Come back with a better offer/idea and perhaps we'll talk, but until then, keep dreaming!
One final quick question if anyone can answer it:
The defined pension benefits of those in the pre-ppp scheme are protected, right? The new proposals claim not to change the benefits of the pensionable salary.
But by changing the 'pensionable salary' itself are they not simply hiding behind semantics? Can they really get away with that?