Reasons not to vote 'yes'.
1 - Trust. This could refer to the Trust of a Promise, Deed of Trust or "do you trust management".
I cannot believe that the proposal is an unavoidable and 'best we can do' solution to solve the pension 'problem'. The first FACT that makes me DIStrust what I am told was NATS Business Services boasting on NATS website, selling its expertise (to other ANSPs) in "transferring public sector pensions into the private sector" and of "managing union expectations throughout the change". (not surprisingly this little gem was very quickly removed by NATS management - but I think it merely proves the management thinking and deception that is going on behind the scenes)
I find it hard to believe that no-one has seen fit to raise this issue, and that the unions have been completely silent on this - perhaps they are too embarassed at the "you've been had" implications of it ?
2 - "Vote Yes" advocates (and there are some eloquent arguments hidden in amongst the drivel) argue that "this is the best we can get' and "we are getting a better deal than nurses/teachers etc.."
I'm sorry, but that is no argument. ie. "You're getting stuffed but stuffed less than others." There is a worldwide shortage of ATCOs, and forecast to get worse when 10,000 (out of 14,000) USA ATCOs become elligible to retire over the next 5 years - yes, you heard that right - ten thousand. When pay rates at Dubai are up to £8000 a month (tax free), do you not think that NATS management will have thought about the upward forces on ATCO pay rates after the recession ? The union playing your pay expectations down is pretty shameful IMHO. Anyway, it comes back to that 'trust' word and 'promise'. My pension is deferred pay. I bought in to that pension on the basis of my projected final salary. I made financial plans based on my contract and that promise. I will not allow my employer to squirm out of that responsibility that easily.
3 - When Railtrack announce today that they are putting up fares by 6% to cover 'massive investment', (and I believe Railtrack employees pensions ARE protected) it seems equally perverse that NATS cannot raise fees, are pegged by RPI-X during a period of massive investment, and that all the cutting cost measures are directed at our T+Cs.
4 - Leadership? Forget the thousands of pounds wasted (I like the oft-used phrase "spunked away") on pointless CTC/management initiatives and away-days. What about the responsible leadership of NOT deliberately running the pension down to the bare legal minimum ? We have been totally failed by our 'leaders' who see the workforce (except themselves) as a cost and not an asset. Perhaps an apology (a la Royal Bank of Scotland) is beneath them?
5 - The Government. They caused the problem with a totally inappropriately funded PPP package (evidenced when investigated by HoC). Govt are a 49% shareholder, they MUST accept responsibility or be brought to account. Labour Party (ha ha ha) rhetoric at the time of PPP was that no employee or pensioner would financially suffer, and if evidence was forthcoming - they (the Govt) would act. Well, it's time to live up to that rhetoric.
Has no-one in management or Union asked them to act or get involved? Or are our Labour Party Union lackeys looking for some sneaky backhander for giving the Govt an easy ride and doing their dirty work? I think in this case being a Labour Party member is at odds with representing union members - a complete conflict of interest - you cannot serve 2 masters.
If the only way to get the Govt to sit up and notice is threaten industrial action - then, so be it.