Vote No
I don't think for one minute we are in this position because of financial incompetence - management want us to be in this position as having a cheaper-to-run pension scheme is in their interests (whether that be for sell off or to garner better profits is open for debate).
To that end, they have been very financially astute, taking money from the pot when it was in surplus, even though looking ahead, they could have forecast these problems.
Remember, the CAA section of CAAPS is doing very well, yet despite actuaries telling the CAA that they could pay reduced contributions, they have decide to maintain the underlying rate to ensure the viability of the scheme... a totally different attitude compared to that of NATS.
From
Reds' Blog:
We know that the underlying cost is going to be with us for years irrespective of what happens to the markets in the short to mid term and we have to deal with that threat now
If you know that, why has NATS acted in such a short term outlook when it decided to reduce its contributions? Why was the pensions problem not forecast prior to now (if you can make such a bold statment about knowing the future (above)), and why did NATS not act in a manner that the CAA has done to protect the pension?
Increased longevity etc is not something that has just sprung up over the past 5 years... SMART pensions are not a new concept.
NATS could have done more to protect the pension... what people have to ask themselves is why NATS did not, and do they trust NATS to protect the future proposed pension if it is voted in.
A 'YES' vote may well indicate to management that although we think more could have been done by them to protect the pension in the past, we are happy to let management rob the pension, then degrade our benefits.
If that's the message NATS receive, what will stop them in 5 years time coming back and saying they need to change the deal for the worst again?
The 15 year MOU is not worth the paper it will be written on... after all, the promises made at PPP
This guarantees that employees at that time would have continued membership of CAAPS, or the same benefits as if they had been in CAAPS.
Are being torn asunder because allegedly NATS is in trouble (though
Red uses the fact that we are still in CAAPS to refute that the promise is being broken, and that the promise did not actually mention what the benefits would be... maybe true, but proof that we have been led down the garden path from the outset)
If the company is in financial distress then it says that we should use “best endeavours” to provide those benefits
Something that can be used again in future years. This is the NATS that
Red talks about
if the company became insolvent
(a nice bit of scaremongering), but NATS have in the very recent past made numerous claims about how well we are doing, have boasted about the improvement in our credit rating, have paid off loans early etc.
Finally,
Red says -
I have been telling people on my roadshow that I am also a member of this scheme and in fact put my entire pension from my previous employment into CAAPS
I think I am correct in saying
Red received a nice big amount of money as compensation for having to leave his old pension scheme.
Also, I believe
Red recently got a substantial pay rise... which will of course be fully pensionable (nice work to get that well-above RPI rise in before you push the cap through... nice manoeuvre
Red)
And I also believe
Red does not have too long to go to retirement... probably before any cap gives any real degradation on his pension.