Of course the management team have options B,C and D up their sleeve, even if the union do not.
One thing no one can accuse management of is that they are inept. They have manoeuvred the pension fund into this position, they have started to run NATS as a 'for profit' business, regardless of any mandate that stated it should not be run that way when we were first PPP'd.
Management are very good at what they are setting out to achieve, they are very effective. I do not like Barron or his cronies because of what they are intent on doing to the company. I do not like them for what they have done to morale and trust within the company since they joined.
I have the utmost respect for their abilities in as far as they are doing exactly what they have set out do do from the outset, and they don't give a s!ht if it upsets us or not.
Still Dark and Hungary
I've read a lot of posts who, and please correct me if I'm wrong, seem to say let's vote no just because we're p****d off at the managers - Not altogether a constructive attitude.
Both correct and wrong. People are p!$$ed off at the managers, but the reason some people are advocating the 'NO' vote is because they do not want to see an erosion of their pension, especially after NATS has taken from it during the good times, yet is unwilling to give it back.
Voting NO to protect your pension is still possible, whether you like the management or not. It is people who believe that staff want to vote 'No' just to give management a bloody nose who are incorrect. Giving them a bloody nose may be an added bonus, but people will vote 'yes' or 'no' because they think that is the best for the penson, not because they either like or dislike the management.
If any management read these threads (I'm sure they do), then get it into your skulls that a 'NO' vote is not neccesarily as dig at you, it's a dig at your taking from the pension fund during the good times, and the belief that despite your protestations, the fund is still viable.
As an aside,
if the vote has been pushed right by a month, are we happy with that?? Is this not just another example of the management getting their way??
All the time the pension drags on, our pay deal (payable from first Jan 2009) is not getting resolved. Considering that the Bank of England says inflation may continue to drop until it hits 1% next summer, it suits management to drag everything out, then plead poverty at every turn.
If it is true about any vote being pushed back a month, why are the Union allowing it when we have been
promised a vote in December??