You will have received an email recently from Jill Nimmo, forwarding a USS communication in which they offer a brief summary of the cost-sharing consultation with members that took place over the summer, and which was in effect eclipsed by the publication of the JEP report in September. They refer to the JEP by all but name in a second paragraph headed ‘Alternative Proposals’, and point out that a subsequent survey of employers indicated that employers are broadly willing to adopt the JEP recommendations. They then point out that they intend to run a new valuation, dated at 31 March 2018. The implications of this new valuation need then to be consulted upon, and they explain that this will then mean that any new payment arrangements which could be agreed will be too late to be implemented, and the first tranche of the emergency increase in employer and employee contributions will come into effect in April 2019. This will mean an increase in member contributions from 8% or salary to 8.8%, and an increase of employer contributions from 18% to 19.5%. We presume that any subsequent agreed change to contributions as a consequence of the March 2018 valuation and  related … continue reading

The latest development in the ongoing USS saga sees the revelation that USS themselves seem to have failed to correctly apply their own ’Test 1’, and that when this is corrected there is no deficit in the scheme as of March 2018. If there is no deficit, then there is no longer any argument for any change to our contributions or for any ‘benefit reform’, the euphemism we hear often which means changes to how much we receive in pension, and the means by which it is calculated. This seeming flaw has been exposed by Sam Marsh, a member of the Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC). ‘Test1’ and ‘self-sufficiency’ The USS have three tests which they apply in coming to a valuation.* Of these, Test 1 considers the viability of achieving a ‘self-sufficiency’ position in 20 years. ‘Self-sufficiency’ is, in effect, a position whereby all owed pensions can be paid without significant further contributions to the scheme from employers or employees. The Joint Expert Panel (JEP) expressed concern about Test 1 as “given too much weight in determining the valuation and its effects extend beyond its original purpose” (p. 8) and that specifically “Test 1 drives the investment strategy toward a … continue reading

Members will have received communications recently from the University and from UCU about the USS’s consultation over proposed changes to our pension. The consultation is a requirement upon USS, and was originally deferred as a result of the outcome of the dispute earlier this year, when it was originally scheduled for June. One of the important proposals that caused members to vote to freeze our dispute earlier this year, was the creation of the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) that would look into the pension valuation. We therefore don’t recommend that members respond to the USS consultation until the JEP reports. Leeds UCU will be in touch with members again once we have considered the implications of that report, with some recommended responses to the consultation. There’s no rush – you have until Friday 2nd November to respond to the consultation.Members who want begin to consider responding to the consultation, or wish to do so before the JEP reports, might wish first to read the recent UCU briefing for members on this issue. And perhaps read Sheffield UCU’s commentary on Twitter here.  The questions asked in the consultation cover: The removal of the 1% matchProposals over contributions above the salary thresholdIncreased contributions … continue reading