jobsfortheboys
Hold at SATAN has it right - you are looking at things wrongly. Where do you come up with the notion that a
no vote will result in
...hope that the Gov or whoever might ride in on a crest of a wave to save us and bail out our expensive pension pot, seems unlikely at best. Worst case scenario is pension frozen and moved to new scheme by whoever and NSL in jeopardy.
I assume this is the line that was spun by the management rep??
Vote
yes and
...NSL in jeopardy.
will be more likely because the burden of a good pension scheme will be gone, making NSL more saleable
The pension fund needs help - no doubt about it. The options for voting are
1. Vote
yes if you believe that there are no other ways to help the pension fund and believe that NATS has investigated all avenues of funding, including sticking it's hands in it's pockets and taking out some of the huge profits it has made, despite shelling out on the WD move and other projects.
2. Vote
no because although you agree that the fund needs help, you either believe there may be other funding options available to us that need to be explored
or simply you do not trust management have come up with the best solution for everyone, considering they do not explain at theses briefings all the other options they have allegedley considered.
This is a huge financial decision we are being asked to agree to - would you buy a house or a car and accept the first deal a salesman pitched at you, based on trust and the salesmans say-so? That's what we are being asked to do here - we are being presented with one solution and being told that all other solutions are no good - but we are not getting it explained to us why that is the case.
If they did explain things thoroughly and the figures made sense, then people would vote
yes, I however am very wary of voting for something so far reaching with regards to my financial well being, without being fully conversant with the facts.
Are management taking this seriously? You have to question that very closely when you hear of the management representatives at some of the briefings being unable or unwilling to answer basic questions (as per previous posts in this thread).
Voting
no is not saying we want the company to be re-nationalised, or that we think the pension scheme is fine if left alone - it's saying we do not necessarily believe that this solution - the only one that is being presented to us - is in our best interests and is the only viable one. Why should the employees (apart from senior management) take all the pain when the company posts increasing profits year after year??