Well, I'm going to put my neck on the line here and say that I've actually voted in favour of this deal.
I don't like the scheduling side of it as it relies on too much good will being risked in order to get good will back (and as far as I recall, this has never happened!). And also the agreement uses terms which are open to incredible amounts of interpretation, and leave gaping holes in our defence. BUT... we do have the ace card here. If the company do not live up to these rules that they have set, then in 6 months time, then we can ballot for the strike then, on the idea that the agreement has been broken, or was never intended in the first place.
In reality, the pay side of things - well how much do you want? We all want more... and not a single one of us would turn down a 15% payrise if we were offered it? But is it correct? No. It's not... When the initial ballots came out, most of us said "We want RPI". So we get an offer at RPI, and now people are saying that it isn't enough. We'll never be able to extract more than 2% for the year that we've lost - there's no chance that will ever budge. I don't like next year being capped, but there's going to be little chance of getting that to budge too.
But we've also got to consider the Holiday pay which will add another little bit onto our figures too.
I'll be the first person to be critical of financial incentives offered to directors and high up management and the company. But in this case, we asked for an RPI linked payrise, and that's what we got.
It takes good will from both sides to make this work, let's just hope that it is shown from the company. If it's not, then we ballot for the strike and hit them then. It will give us a much firmer ground than the one we are on right now!