NATS is a profitable and basically healthy company but only just.
Do recent accounts support this?
Financial and Business reports - NATS
The current financial structure was tested under most foreseeable circumstances and NATS can survive normal market down turns although not all its staff will.
Did NATS shed staff post-01? Or during previous downturns?
There are however two circumstances which the company itself may not survive. The first is a huge hike in pension costs and the second is industrial action.
You may not believe the first is a risk at all and nobody knows for sure if it would ever happen but for people supposedly versed in risk management there is a lot of ignorance here.
So employees are 'ignorant' for not supporting the managements proposals?
The hazard (losing our pensions) is so great that even if the likelihood is very low it may still be in our interests to do something to mitigate it further.
So we should offer up our T&Cs to mitigate a 'great potential hazard with a likelihood that is very low'.
You'll understand if I don't leap at a 'yes' vote.
The possible loss of pension which will only happen if we get really big pay rises may be quite a small price to pay to reduce the risk of losing the pension altogether.
You may want to take a look at my post about the effect of just a one year pay freeze compounded over the 15 year MOU. I'd accept a one year nominal freeze with an actual real drop in pay to secure the pension.
The second is entirely in our control. However if we vote No and the company imposes the deal, which it almost certainly will, then our only alternative to industrial action is a strongly worded letter.
Do you really believe the government would ever allow a strike to go ahead - affecting millions of voters 2 weeks in the med - for the sake of the relatively tiny sums involved?