brummbrumm
As Statistics was your forte in a previous life you will no doubt be well aware of the saying
" There's lies, damn lies and statistics"
Stats can be made to say whatever the person presenting them wants to say.
For instance the Stats gloss over the fact that they have been contributing at less than the underlying rate for at least 5 years ( and probably considerably longer).
Contributing at less than the underlying rate for the last 5 years does not change the underlying rate that needs to be paid today. If Nats had paid at 36% (assuming that was the underlying rate required in 2003) and continued to pay the underlying rate then the scheme would not be in quite as mucg deficit as it was at the Sept 08 valuation (£595m) the underlying rate that NATS would be required to pay would still be in the region of 42%
Also before you start commenting on others naivety perhaps you'd lile to consider whether it is more naive to take a one sided presentation as unbiased fact.
I didn't. I went in armed with all the facts from the briefingdocuments, the company accounts and the advice of an independant financial advisor.
My final point is on the perennial idea that it's okay to screw the terms and conditions of those not yet in the company so we don't have to fight with management is really starting to wear thin. When are people going to realise that these are our future work colleagues. Just remember the debacle that still is the college Atco wages and the effect that's had on the new colleague's you work with now. Think how much worse it will be when you try to justify your wonderfull pension while there busy doing financial gymnastics to get an okay one maybe if there lucky and the stockmarket doesn't imconveniently crash on them at the wrong moment.
No I don't think it's great, but in the same vain is it great to screw with our own pensions to protect the pension of those that are NOT employed by the company.
Is it perhaps naive to think that we would get any support from HMG or the public if we walk out of the door to protect the pension of schoolchildren who won't be employed by the company for another 10 years? I am willing to fight management tooth and nail for a justifiable cause, I believed that my pension is a justifiable cause and I believe that our unions have fought on our behalf and on behalf of those schoolchildren not employed by the country and they have done a fine job in protecting what is a great scheme for us and getting a fantastic scheme for future employees.