Well, having had a personal briefing (aren't I the privileged one!!
) by one of the union negotiators in a nice pub in Wokingham yesterday, i've looked at all the facts and figures being presented by the company and listened to what was said and asked my questions and have decided we have only one choice...vote NO!!
The SMART pension bit is an absolute no-brainer. No down-sides to that at all so i'm all for that.
Ignoring any question of whether there was a mandate to negotiate or not, and definitely completely ignoring any patently ridiculous ideas or suggestions of bungs, ATCO 1 promotions or any other incentives being offered to the negotiators, you have to ask yourself two questions...do you believe the facts and figures being presented to you, and do you believe this is the only option available to us? I for one don't doubt the figures, but I question whether they can't have been presented in such a way as to scare people into voting yes.
The current pension bill is about £60 million and has to rise to about £120 million next year leaving us £60 million-ish to find. Now repaying the loans early has brought about charges (quite how much I don't know) and the costs of closing west drayton and other costs this year have resulted in profits of £60 million, so there's nothing to say that had these things not come about, our profits (based on our current charges, which the airlines are happy to pay I might add!!) might not have been £150 million plus, a difference of about £90 million, which would more than cover the extra £60m required and still leave another £30m for other projects or dividends or whatever the finance people decided to spend it on!
I am definitely annoyed that we're being asked to change our pension when the facts and figures from 2003 and 2006 both showed that the underlying costs were rising and yet the management still didn't decide that that was just enough cause to pay the ACTUAL underlying rate, they continued paying less than required! And yes, I know that its their prerogative to do that, but they then can't come bleating to us asking us to bail them out because the underlying rate has risen to "unsustainable levels"...i'm sorry, but if you'd been paying the correct amount for the last 6 years then it may have been sustainable!
And, putting my scientist hat back on(
), if you change the frequency with which you analyse something, you will see more variation than looking at it every three years. Dec '03 underlying cost was about 18% (I think...we got to this slide after my 4th guinness so may be a bit of variation in MY figures!!
) and underlying cost in Dec '06 was about 28% (again I may be making these figures up but don't shoot me yet!!) Now in Dec '07 its apparently 42%! Again I don't dispute these figures, but there is also the possibility that the underlying rate in '04 or '05 could've been up as high as 40%, but came back down again due to normal variation, but because the scheme wasn't reviewed then, we'll never know. Now that we're reviewing every year though we will possibly see more variation, so who's to say the '08 or '09 figures won't have reduced back down to a sustainable level.
Also shown was the effect of the RPI cap and how it immediately brought the underlyng costs down to 25% (which is apparently an acceptable level for the management). Now if this is the case, then why do we need to close the scheme to new entrants?
I also think the fund has been badly managed because when it became apparent that a massive fall in the stock markets etc was on the horizon, the high risk, high yield elements were not changed to more secure things...a poor decision if you ask me!!
If we're being told that this is the only option to secure the company then fine, I want some sort of assurances though that if, in the future the scheme is seen to become massively healthy again, there is some sort of option for reopening the scheme or getting some sort of further compensation or whatever (I don't know what...i'm not a negotiator!!
) We are being asked to sign up to a longterm deal based on scaremongering facts and figures that can be twisted to fit the situation, and with no means of return once it's done, something i'm not prepared to do to be honest!!
We all have a vote and can do with it as we wish, but make sure its for the right reasons! Don't just vote no because you don't want to see barron driving off into the sunset in his shiny new DB9! Equally, don't just vote yes because management tell you "its the only option"...it can't possibly be, no matter what they say!! If you don't like the salary cap, vote no. If you don't like the two tier scheme, vote no. If you don't like the SMART pension bit, vote no. But at least do the research, ask the questions and make up your own mind based on your own conclusions (and remember stats can be made to say whatever you want them to!!).
Bring on the ballot and we'll see what happens. As for enforcing the changes...he'd be very foolish and i'd like to see him try.
I'm even more convinced it's a NO from me and I hope all my colleagues (be they Engineer, Assistant, Controller, Support staff or whatever) will see the offer the way I see it, which is as an attempt to use the current economic climate to scare us all into giving up vital terms and conditions of our gold-plated pension scheme, which is to no-one's benefit except those who have bonuses related to the "future health of the company"!!!
Anyway, enough from me...choose wisely people!
FB
