Vote No
The company can afford RPI. All that Barrons e-mail states is that profits won't be as large as he'd like...
As for pay percentage for job losses, I'm all for cutting jobs within NATS, if it is done properly; i.e. wasters get chopped.
However there should not be a culture of 'chop more, get a higher percentage', there
should be a proper study of who we need now and who we will need in the near future (taking into account the lead time it takes to train people etc)... then bin the rest.
Barron et al try to tell us that they are running NATS as a business. Until they cut out the fat, which includes the stupid, pointless ATCO management posts that keep springing up, then it seems to me that they are not doing a good job of running NATS as a business.
Barron got his pension deal, now he should cut other unnecessary jobs. That may sound harsh, but why should we carry people just to keep them employed?
We are either a business or we are not. Why should I not take a pay rise just to keep someone, who is doing little or nothing, in a job??
In the past week I have heard of people who have failed in their management post being given yet another chance with the introduction of yet another new management position. Another case of failed managers being shuffled around to keep friends in jobs.
We are either trying to save money or not. I am getting
f
king sick of being told we need to save money, then seeing failures keeping their high paid jobs when they could be taken back into operational employment with a pay cut
