Personally, I'm surprised at the amount of anger directed towards NATS management.
Surely we all knew that this is ultimately what they have always wanted? That is, the beginning of the end of our final salary pension scheme?
Management haven't done anything that should come as a big shock to any of us.
The Union on the other hand have a shedload to answer for. At the end of the day we expect management to try and squeeze as much out of us as they possibly can. That's what they do. Their role is to try and make us work harder, for fewer benefits, thus ensuring yet more of their precious profits.
However, the unions who have negotiated this on 'our behalf' should be held to account and some very serious questions should be asked along the lines of, 'Do we really think our interests are truly being properly represented at this time'?
PPP?
2 year pay deals becoming 3 year pay deals?
Banding?
And now the Pensions?
Just flicking through the Union handbook and seeing what they SHOULD be doing and what they actually end up doing highlights a major difference between what the members want and what the BEC and others actually do.
And I'm still trying to work out how the chair of the BEC can also be a member of management? Surely, that's a conflict of interests?!?
I think we need to accept that whether we vote 'Yes' or whether we vote 'No', ultimately we have not been shafted by management.
I reserve that accolade solely for the Union who should NEVER have gone down the path they went down. A Union who has allowed 'Working Together' to go too far and has allowed itself to be played like complete mugs by Paul Barron.
Maybe we should start looking for a new union to represent us?