fit to burst,
your posts seem to infer that anyone voting no should either stand as a union rep, or else, not post any dissenting view on the negotiations that took place.
Why should any no voter have to stand to be a union rep. I did not join NATS to be a Union Rep, I joined to be an AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER. I have the utmost respect for the union reps, who do a hard job in difficult circumstances, but that does not mean i cant tell them that , in my opinion, that i think the deal they negotiated is a tub of sh1t .
I dont see why the deal needs to be over 15 years, that is way too long. A lot can happen in 15 years, you can go through an entire cycle of boom and bust in 15 years.
I dont see why closing the pension to new members is a good thing . a closed scheme is a dying scheme. surely you need new people in at the bottom of the fund contributing to ensure the financial future of those near to retirement about to draw their pension.If the scheme is closed to new members, then the pot of money within that fund will start to dwindle, and if the fund is only funded to 100% of its liabilities, then there is no margin to account for sudden downturns like we are seeing now. Thats another thing, i dont see why funding the pension to just 100% of its liabilities is a good thing, and the 'its best practise' argument is just horsesh1t!!! thats like saying ' oh well everybody else is jumping of the cliff, so we should too..' look whats happened to all those other pensions that have been closed to new members, aren't they all doing well. err... no.
Now i know that last argument isnt to do with the pension negotiations per se, but it does make me question the people that are meant to be looking after our interests and that includes the trustees who i think have some questions to answer as well.
As you can probably guess from the subtle tone of my post, its still a no for me i'm afraid.