eglnyt
You may not like the deal but it is streets ahead of what most people are getting and that can be attributed entirely to management's fear.
Methinks you are looking at this the wrong way. The way you are speakng, one would think that we have no pension at the moment and that this ofer was a proposal for a scheme to be introduced. If that was the case, then your statement would have some credence. However, the way I am looking at it is they are taking a pension that is perfectly viable, and trying to reduce our benefits.
...but it's the cap which has the most immediate effect on the financial health of NATS...
Completely wrong; it has nothing to do with immediate fixes and all to do with the future.
The cap only comes into force in future pay rises,
and only if those pay rises are greater than RPI+0.5%. Putting a cap in place, if it never gets used because pay rises do not go above RPI+0.5% is merely a paper exercise and makes the pension look affordable on paper. i.e. it makes NATS more attractive to potential buyers of NSL.
It makes NATS look healthier on paper
in the future but does not actually achieve anything if in reality we get low pay awards.
NATS is financially healthy, so I do not even know why you mentioned that... our management are the ones who keep banging on about our A* banking rating etc.
Putting this cap on does not mean that NATS wil immediately start saving money. This cap will only save NATS money if any pay rises are greater than RPI+0.5%.
The 'Yes' voters tell us on the one hand that the cap is no big issue because pay rises greater than RPI+0.5% will be hard to come by in future years (which means no actual real savings for NATS), yet on the other hand they say things like
...but it's the cap which has the most immediate effect on the financial health of NATS...
so which is it guys???