Interesting proposal. I'm happy that if the unions are willing to state that:
The trade unions believe that the above settlement is the best achievable by negotiation.
then they genuinely believe this and have negotiated as hard as they could. The implication is, of course, that if we don't like it then we vote no. If the statement then turns out to be true we'll be lighting fires in upturned oil drums.
You're not even going to ask for an underpinned deal on the extremely thin chance that economic growth might, just might, happen.
I'll bet you a month's payrise it doesn't. The outlook is grim, no two ways about it. If we're going to stick by our guns and ask for 4.8% then we'd better be willing to take a 3% pay cut come next January. Frankly, I (and my bank manager) would prefer to see a more stable income than that.
£30 million into the Pension fund and £20 million into our pay rise seems to be a much better way of using those funds.
The difference here is that the dividend is a one off payment. A pay rise is a commitment from now until forever that Mr. Actuary has to take into account, such that putting profits into payrises above RPI is unsustainable. I'm glad I kept my shares. Although of course the dividend doesn't come close to even a 1% rise, when the opportunity to buy more comes along I'll snap them up (based on my reckoning on the future of NATS).
Whilst it may be argued that 'in the current climate' this is a fair offer, the fact remains if the unions had negotiated the pay deal prior to Jan 2009 when the economy was in a better state I dare say we would have got more!
True fact. Our boat sailed late last year when we all got sidetracked with the pensions debate and put off this negotiation. 20/20 hindsight. It is a fair offer; now. While I watch my friends lose their jobs around me (two in the last month), I'll take it, and be glad of it.