BrummBrumm
its obvious that emotions are running high over the whole issue, but I think you may misunderstand some people... your statement that 'doing nothing is not an issue' is a statement that I reckon 100% of NATS staff agrees with.
The vote for 'yes' or 'no' is not about doing nothing or doing something, it's about whether doing what is proposed is the correct or best answer.
We are being sold the solution as a fait accompli - The briefings (mines is not til November) seem to be unable to make clear to people the bare facts.
People are still coming out of briefings confused and unsure as to what everything means... the briefings (it seems from various posts) are more geared to telling people we have a problem (everyone knows that) and this is the solution.
I for one am very uneasy about voting 'yes' for something so far reaching that I do not understand... to vote 'yes' in this circumstance would be totally reckless and stupid.
If I come away from a briefing fully conversant with the facts and I believe all other avenues have been explored, then i will vote 'yes'. I need to be happy thatI fully underrstand the issues though - not just pay lip service to what soemone else tells me, as opposed to properly explains to me.
I do not sit with the camp that believes letting the company go bust and getting re-nationalised is a good idea - it's wrong for so many reasons.
However I am still to be convinced that a company that manages to spunk so much cash on lavish events and ill-thought out projects that fail cannot stick it's corporate hand in its corporate pocket and take a bit of a hit to help the pensions.
It does not mean the company would have to go bust - we are being told left, right and centre how financially well off the company is. We, the employees, and the pension fund took the hit to help the company when we were saddled with government debt as part of PPP (remember the speech 'our skies are not for sale'?).
The company can afford to take more of a hit than the people at the top want it to - because taking more of a hit impinges on the financial health of the company (though not to a hugely detrimental effect) and makes those lovely bonuses less likely to come by.
Barron got a whopping pay rise - so what if he is a PCG? We are all in this company together PCG or not. It's the common workers who make the company so succesful, in conjunction with a hard nosed business orientated senior management. Therefore we should all be given the same recognition - and when needs be, we should all suffer the same to 'help' the company... the fat cats get away with huge bonuses and pay rises, then hide behind the PCG argument.
Barrons abilities as a business mogul do not make me any more efficient at shifting traffic, which at the end of the day is what NATS is mostly about, therefore why should my abilities result in his bonus???
We are being asked to trust a management without being made fully conversant of the facts and without fully understanding the implications.
We were promised by Labour that 'Our skies were not for sale'.
They then sold us and saddled us with hundreds of millions of debt.
We were promised that the pension contribution holidays (that NATS came to us cap in hand for) would not affect the pension.
We are now being told the pension is in trouble (and before you start, I know it has to do with a hell of a lot more than the contribution breaks).
We are being told that NSL is not being set up for sale, we are being told that we will have a 15 year MoU.
Do you trust this company that much to swallow these latest statements?
What exactly is a Memorandum of Understanding worth?? Not the paper it's written on to be honest, it's an understanding, not a legally bindingdocument. It's something that can be torn up willy nilly in the future with the comments "sorry, but it doesn't suit us anymore"
Staff are not willing to vote 'yes' because they still feel they are not fully conversant with all the facts. If this issue was addressed, then maybe the staff would change their mind. There is a huge amount of misrust over past promises, this is carried over to the pension issue. Unless management and the Union address this by making sure people understand the facts, then people will vote 'no'.
Although I fully agree that we need to take measures to help the pension, unless I am made to understand one hundred percent the facts and figures and that this is the only option, I will vote 'no'. If I have any lingering belief that there may be other less staff orientated and more company orientated methods of solving this, I will vote 'no'.