USS pensions – bite-sized

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

The University has undertaken a series of ‘town hall’ meetings on the matter of the pension, and the VC is currently going around Schools to discuss the matter in smaller groups. We offer here some bite-sized notes, from questions that have come to Leeds UCU, or which have arisen in such meetings.

Is the pension I have built up to date under threat?

No, absolutely not. By law, everything that you have accrued to date so far should be paid to you on the terms that were in effect at the time of contribution. So, for example, if you were paying in to the pension before 2016, then you still have a ‘final salary’ part of your pension that was calculated at point of the closure of that part of the scheme, and is growing in relation to inflation each year and will be paid out as part of your pension package in retirement, alongside the Career Average part that you have been accruing since. As with the switch from final salary to career average, any change to the structure of the benefit calculation that results from a valuation will take effect from a given future date. 

Is the USS really in deficit?

Yes and No. If someone told you that Harry Potter really existed, you would think they were having trouble with reality, but you would have no difficulty agreeing that the character of Harry Potter existed. The deficit is a narrative too, a construction based on a set of real-world characteristics, but made up of a series of guesses about the future. By far the most significant one of these is the ‘discount rate’, which is the rate by which you might safely assume the contributions that we and employers pay will grow over time to cover the promise of the defined benefit pension. The USS have set this rate at something close to what they themselves admit has something like 1 in ten odds of happening: or in other words, they believe that there is a 9 in 10 chance of those assets growing much higher than that, but they won’t use those higher probabilities in the calculation of the deficit. What is more, the starting point from which future growth is calculated was set at 31 march 2021, which is to say right in the middle of an anomalous drop in the assets of the value as the Covid impacts upon the markets were hardest. As a consequence of this, the schemes assets are not predicted to reach £80bn in value until the early 22nd century, and yet that is precisely what they are worth today. This is why the UCU refer to these calculations as ‘excessively prudent’, or ‘recklessly prudent’. There are of course other factors that are used in these calculations: estimations of salary growth, estimations of longevity and so on. 

As for the current health of the scheme, leaving aside speculation of the future and looking at what is currently materially ‘in the bank’, then there is no evident deficit. The money coming in to the scheme from contributions has always more than covered the money going out of the scheme in benefits; the assets of the scheme have grown to £80bn value in recent weeks, which is the equivalent of forty years of paying pensions out at their current size (in the last USS report, just under £2bn annually). 

What does the surplus posted in the SAUL pension scheme tell us about the USS deficit?

The Superannuation Arrangements of the University of London (SAUL) pension scheme is the scheme that is most closely analogous with USS. It is a CARE Defined Benefit scheme. It has a similar demographic of membership. Recently, it posted a surplus in its 2020 valuation. So what this very plainly tells us is that the USS deficit has not been caused by market conditions, and has not been significantly impacted by the longevity of the demographic, nor any other aspect that is pertinent to our scheme. Anybody who claims these things now either simply does not understand how valuations are constructed or, worse, is trying to deceive you or deflect your attention from the core issue: the deficit is caused by the manner in which USS manages its assets and liabilities, and the manner in which it chooses to conduct its valuations. It is not the ingredients, it is the recipe.

How are UUK proposing to fix the ‘deficit’ and how does this compare to their past proposals that caused the 2018 USS strikes?

At the time of writing, April 2021, the UUK are consulting with employers on a proposal to reduce the Defined Benefit portion of our pensions, reduce accrual (you have to pay in for longer to gain the same benefits) and capping CPI revaluation (if inflation goes over above the set cap, the pension no longer increases in line with that inflation). This is broadly similar to what was being proposed, and rejected by members, in March 2018. Significantly, the rush to push through such a change before the scheduled increases to contributions in October 2021 implies that they are seeking to slash the value of our pensions by about 25% in order to prevent a 2.6% rise in employer contributions. Jo Grady has written to all members on this issue recently.

What are UCU proposing?

UCU have set out clear principles: Progressive contribution structures to enable low paid staff to join and stay in USS (which might involve, but is not limited to, conditional indexation of benefits, see next para); An end to the movement over the last decade to contribution increases and benefit cuts; A pension fund with more return-seeking investments, and ethical investments; Commitments from employers to 1.) covenant support 2.) USS governance reform 3.) lobbying for regulatory change.

Conditional Indexation: UCU, via their Superannuation Working Group (SWG), are also exploring the potential of restructuring benefits using Conditional Indexation. One key virtue of CI is that it would undermine the pull of over-prudence in valuations, and consequently could bring contributions down for all parties, possibly to 8% for employees. SWG would only recommend a form of CI that would be welcome to and of advantage to members. UUK are also exploring this and have been briefed on it. It is a system that would fit with what is expected of the scheme by the Pension Regulator. Because it implies a reliance on growth assets, it would remove the drive within USS to ‘de-risk’ the assets, which is one of the ingredients that lead to a deficit. As a consequence, a solution of this form could be an end to the cycle of deficit/reform/dispute. Conditional Indexation involves making the inflation-related increase on accrued pensions conditional upon the performance of the assets, and as such it represents a removal of guaranteed increases in value, but there are means of structuring such a scheme that compensates for the deflation in years of poor performance.

Should I consider opting out of the scheme?

We cannot give financial advice. For every £100 you contribute to the scheme, before tax, the employer contributes £200. The decision to opt out, then, is a conversation to have with your future self and family about whether you should take that net loss. Calculate what 21.1% of your current gross salary is (this is what your employer is currently paying into your deferred salary, your pension). Ask your future self if you should turn that sum down (and all its assumed growth) from your pension pot in order to retain 9.1% of your salary now. This also about the loss of the life assurance and other benefits that come with membership of the scheme. We have written an article on this matter here. We recognise that the potential increase of contributions to 11% this October will put a strain on members in their take-home pay, which is all the more reason to begin to get active on this issue now.

If the USS wanted deliberately to close the scheme, one thing they might do is find a means to increase the contributions to such a level that a significant number of members might consider opting-out.

What’s wrong with a Defined Contribution pension?

That depends on how well it performs. As the name indicates, the only thing that is known, defined, about a DC pension is how much you pay in; your contributions. You have no idea what you will earn in retirement from it as that will depend on how well the assets are managed by the pension scheme over the time until your retirement. It therefore does not offer the security of a defined benefit scheme such as the one we have as the majority part of our hybrid scheme, which, by contrast is one that tells you exactly how much you will get as a regular salary in retirement. 

What is the difference between a DB and a DC pension in terms of inter-generational unfairness?

Firstly, any change to the pension benefit that is worse that what is currently being offered is inter-generationally unfair. The most logical way to fight for inter-generational fairness is to try to maintain the current level of benefits, so that future generations get the same as past generations. Anyone who argues for changes to the scheme that downgrade the benefits is not arguing for inter-generational fairness, though often they use that argument as a shield for their proposals. 

What is the difference between a DB and a DC pension in terms of pay inequality?

Both DC and DB, sadly, hard-wire pay inequality; gender or race pay inequality means that the gap that is manifest in your pay packet is also manifest in your pension later in life, because your and the employer’s contribution to your future pension is a given percentage of your gross salary. This is one reason why UCU often state that fighting for fair pensions is a part of the broader fight for equal pay, and why we link campaigning for equality, and against casualisation, with campaigning to stop pension changes. Arguably, defined contribution pensions are even worse in manifesting gender and race pay inequality because the sum that is accrued in a DC pension will grow at a given percentage over time, and the smaller the amount invested, the slower and smaller that accumulative growth. This is then compounded in retirement when you have to use that invested amount to buy an annuity to create a regular income. 

 If USS members are unhappy with what the USS trustees are proposing, do we have a means of electing different trustees to better represent our interests?

No. The scheme offers very little in the way of accountability to stakeholders. Read more here.

What kind of pension do our colleagues in post-92 institutions have?

The post-92 sector pays into the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS), offering a Defined Benefit (career average) pension. Contribution rates are tapered, from 7.4% for salaries up to £28,169 to 11.7% for salaries above £81,255. It is a public sector scheme, unlike USS which is a private scheme.  We suspect that if detrimental changes are imposed for the USS Scheme, there will be pressure to do the same to TPS, and similarly for local pension schemes for support staff.

UCU writes to government to call in airport expansion application

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Following the decision of members on 10 March to oppose Leeds City Council’s airport expansion decision, branch president Ben Plumpton has written to the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government Robert Jenrick MP calling on the government to call in (review) the planning application for the expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport and hold a public enquiry.

The planning application to expand Leeds Bradford Airport, from 4 million passengers per year to 7 million, was approved by Leeds City Council’s plans panel on 11 March. The council has now referred the decision to government to consider the impact on the greenbelt, but UCU members want the decision to be called-in and for a public inquiry.

Dr Jennifer Fletcher, a senior research scientist in atmospheric and climate science at the university, who co-chairs the UCU branch climate and ecological emergency working group, said: “Expanding airports is incompatible with bringing down our soaring carbon emissions. It is vital that Robert Jenrick calls in this airport decision, as he did with the similarly controversial coal mine in Cumbria. As we recover from Covid-19, we need to increase healthy, green, well-protected jobs – not the sort of jobs associated with aviation.”

The branch motion and letter to Robert Jenrick follow an open letter from 246 staff and postgraduate researchers from the University of Leeds sent on 19 March.

Next general meeting reminder

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

The next UCU general meeting (meetings for all members) is scheduled for 1pm – 2pm, Thursday 22 April

The deadline for motions is 12pm on Tuesday 13 April.

(See the branch website for details of all the scheduled general meetings for this academic year)

The 22 April general meeting is also the chance to propose amendments to other branch’s motions that they have submitted to UCU congress – those motions will be published early in April.

You can find out a bit more about turning your ideas into union policy at making UCU general meetings work better

The USS pension scheme 2020 valuation

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Our pension scheme is yet again seemingly under attack by the people who are supposed to be looking after it. This time even the employers’ body Universities UK have made a public statement criticising the valuation.

If you want to know more about the USS pension scheme 2020 valuation, and why everyone wants them to stop trying to put the contributions up unnecessarily, here’s a video of branch pensions rep Mark Taylor-Batty’s fantastic presentation to the branch open meeting on pensions on 11 March 2021, with an update from UCU President Vicky Blake on the national situation.

Read more

UCU University of Leeds Branch statement on gendered and sexual violence

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

For too long women, transgender, gender non-binary people and children have faced the threat of male violence and have been subjected to this violence to a sickeningly disproportionate degree. The horrifying kidnap and murder of Sarah Everard and the appalling murder of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry are the most recent examples of this plague endured for decades, centuries, millennia. As a union, we recognise that both the threat of and actual violence directed towards women, transgender, non-binary people and children from men can be exacerbated by intersectionalities that aggravate power imbalances towards the LGBT+, Black, ethnic minority and migrant communities. This was particularly evident in the lack of media coverage directed towards Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry’s murders in June 2020 and the police misconduct that ensued in the disturbing allegations that two serving Met Police officers took ‘selfies’ with their bodies.

We stand together in solidarity with Sarah Everard’s, Nicole Smallman’s and Bibaa Henry’s families and all affected by male violence. We make a stand for all women, transgender, non-binary people and children living in fear from male violence. We make a stand to demand equality for all.

In the UK, 97% of young women have experienced sexual harassment. This statistic is shocking, yet one that we tend to accept. The reporting of incidents of sexual harassment is consistently low – over 95% of women, girls and non-binary people did not report their experiences of sexual harassment in 2021. One in four LGBT+ people have experienced domestic violence and, despite suffering the same trauma as non-LGBT+ people, tend to be less likely to report these incidents due to the concerns around homophobia, biphobia and transphobia to be endured in speaking up. We make a stand in the face of these staggering figures to demand a change in the culture of acceptance of gendered male violence.

We take a stand against male violence in all its forms in all spaces – at work, home, online and in public. To turn the tide and promote equality we must confront this insidious discrimination which pervades our institutions and everyday life and allows its agents to defy justice.

In particular, we call on the Government to hold accountable the Metropolitan Police in their response to the Sarah Everard vigil this weekend in which protesters were subject to unjust force, restraint and state violence. Government must take a stand in driving out male violence and empower women, children and gender minorities by instilling confidence that they will seek to hold those who perform acts of gendered violence to account.

We stand in opposition to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, whose passing would exacerbate the inequalities that Government should be seeking to dismantle in the wake of Sarah Everard’s murder. We call on Government to abandon the disproportionate control measures as outlined in the Bill, which would curtail freedom of expression and the fundamental right to protest.

We call on our members and the public to take a stand in opposition to women’s, children’s, transgender and gender non-binary peoples’ subjugation:

  1. Donate to gender-based anti-violence charities, such as Refuge, Women’s Aid, Galop and SARSVL.
  2. Sign the UCU NEC and members’ statement to end gender-based violence & defend the right to protest.
  3. Protect your freedom to protest by signing this petition in opposition to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
  4. Email your MP in defiance of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
  5. Join the White Ribbon campaign for men and boys who want to work against sexual violence.
  6. Follow advice on how to support women and be an ally in the face of oppression.

If you have been affected by male violence and the latest events surrounding Sarah Everard’s murder, we would encourage you to seek support:

Opting-out of the USS – at what cost?

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

This blog post is not intended and cannot be taken as financial advice. An individual should seek independent financial advice based on their own circumstances and objectives. 

One of the concerns that faces the USS pension is the number of eligible members who have opted out of the scheme. As the contribution levels have grown (they are currently now the same as for the TPS pension that is common in post-92 institutions)* some people have felt the need to opt out and retain that 9.6% of salary, and perhaps make alternative pension plans. With the contribution level planned currently to go up to 11% in October, and with the unhelpful noises being made about potential further increases in the pipeline as a consequence of the 2020 valuation, it is understandable that some people might query the level of contribution in terms of how it impacts on their take-home pay each month. 

In the 2020 Report and Accounts of the USS scheme, it was stated that 16% of eligible members had not joined or had opted out of the scheme. In 2015 that figure was 21%, with a dip to 12% in between. There were 147,137 active members of the scheme in 2015 and 204,753 in 2020.

Of course, from a collectivist point of view, there is a risk with people opting out, as that can put pressure on the pension fund to continue to maintain its commitments to pay out the pensions that have been accrued. The pension that you have earned to date is legally protected – you will get it as defined – but loss of income to the scheme puts some pressure on future pension commitments and contributes to that much critiqued deficit calculation (though of course it also removes liabilities from the picture).

From an individual point of view, this is really a conversation you need to have with your future self. There is one crucial issue to think about if you are considering opting out: for every £100 you contribute to the USS pension (before your salary is taxed), the employer contributes £200. If you opt out, you might get to keep that £100 (and get it taxed) but you are also losing that additional £200 of your salary that is being deferred to your retirement. To opt-out, then, is to turn down the additional 21.1% of salary (currently) every year of the employer’s contribution to your pension. It represents an immediate net-loss under the guise of a seeming immediate gain. If you find an alternative pension, you start with that £100 a month contribution (or rather £80, after it was taxed), instead of that £300. Assuming the reason you opted out was wanting to pay less to a pension, then it would be logical that you would in fact start again in a new pension paying in less than a third of what you were effectively doing in USS. This could have the obvious consequences of a.) very significantly shrinking the size of pension you and your family might later be able to rely on, and b.) increasing the age at which you might afford to retire. In coming to this decision, we would recommend that you seek independent financial advice that considers what age you would wish to retire and on what size pension. In recommending independent financial advice, we would note the scandal in recent years of people being advised to move out of Defined Benefit schemes and into Defined Contributions schemes, to their demonstrable loss but to fund managers’ gain. 

The USS is still predominantly a Defined Benefit scheme, and the bulk or all of your pension is in an ‘Income Builder’, as USS call it: the more years that you contribute to the scheme, the higher the guaranteed income in retirement. That means that you can plan forward to retirement with some certainty of the kind of income you might get from day one, for the rest of your life. If you choose to find an alternative pension solution, not only will you be starting with a third of your USS contributions, but you will no doubt be using a defined contribution method – a form of pension that only lets you know with any certainty how much you are paying in, not at all what you might get in retirement: the more money you put in over time does not necessarily guarantee a larger pension.

Even if you only stay in a job for short time, you get to keep the pension you earn during that time forever, and it grows in value with each year to retirement. You can even hold multiple pension pots that you can draw on when you retire (or later consolidate them). Just a year or so of a Defined Benefit pension locked away when you are younger could be worth more than several years of Defined Contribution pension contributions later. Regardless of what changes are made to the pension scheme in the future, what you lock in now stays locked in on the current terms, and cannot legally be taken away from you or retrospectively downgraded.

The gender pay-gap and pension pay-gap is important here. Contribution levels are of course based on earnings, so the gender pay gap means that women tend to contribute less to their pension, and so have a lower pension in retirement. Women also tend to live longer, so having less to retire on is something that has an impact across a number of years. While a defined benefit scheme mirrors the pay gap in retirement, a defined contribution scheme is worse and amplifies that gap, due to the cumulative nature of investment growth – the size of the gap increases over time within the pension pot, assuming default investment choices.

The ill-health support and life cover that comes with contributing to a USS pension are also important factors to consider in any decision to opt-out of such ongoing benefits.

Of course, the recent behaviour of the USS in relation to valuations can be argued to be causing a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. By constructing fictional deficits with ‘excessively prudent’ assumptions about the future growth of salaries, or of the scheme’s assets, they suggest that more is needed to pay in to the scheme, which puts off people, causes opt-outs, which then put real pressure on the scheme’s affordability if opt-outs reach a certain level. This is not in any stakeholder’s interest.

*(Note – the TPS has a tiered set of contribution rates. 9.6% is the most common rate paid in that scheme currently)

Members vote to oppose Leeds City Council’s airport expansion decision

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

UCU University of Leeds Branch voted to oppose Leeds City Council’s decision to approve the Leeds Bradford Airport expansions in a general meeting of members on Wednesday 10 March 2021. The Branch President has subsequently written to the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick MP, to ask him to call in this planning application for a public enquiry.

This branch notes:

  • The recent dismal decision of Leeds City Council (LCC) City Plans Panel to provisionally approve the expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) to build a new terminal, leading to a substantial increase in flights and therefore carbon emissions.
  • Following this provisional approval, the University of Leeds’s UCU Climate and Ecological Emergency working group and University of Leeds climate and sustainability experts drafted a letter to the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick MP, asking the Government to ‘call in’ (review) the planning application for the expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport. The letter was signed by over 100 people.
  • That the UK Climate Change Committee’s  Sixth Carbon Budget published in December 2020 states that (i) there should be no expansion of UK airport capacity unless the sector is on track to sufficiently outperform its net emissions trajectory (Table p8.1, p29) and (ii) the Government should assess its airport capacity strategy in the context of net-zero and any lasting impacts on demand from COVID-19 (para 2, p34). Expanding LBA would increase the flight passenger volume by 75%, exceeding the maximum growth compatible with the UK’s legally adopted net-zero target.
  • That an increase in international flights runs contrary to the UK’s climate targets and responsibilities to international climate mitigation as per the Climate Change Act and the Paris Agreement.
  • It also runs contrary to the findings of the Leeds Climate Commission citizens’ jury where 18 out of 21 citizens members believe that it was the wrong decision to expand LB airport.
  • That approving LBA expansion is in stark conflict with LCC’s decision to declare a Climate Emergency in May 2019 and makes the stated aim of Leeds being carbon neutral by 2030 practically impossible.
  • The planning application and the Planning Office report to Leeds City Plan Panel dramatically understated the climate impact of the expansion. University of Leeds experts found that in case of expansion, LBA’s climate impact would be almost four times larger than LBA claimed.
  • The critical role played by University of Leeds climate and sustainability experts who submitted detailed evidence of the full climate impact of LBA expansion during the consultation period to LCC.

This Branch believes:

  • The decision of LCC is an abdication of its civic duty to protect the citizens of Leeds from harmful effects of even more aeroplane emissions and pollution over the city, also exposing those under the flight path to more noise pollution
  • That it is our responsibility as an academic community with expertise in climate change, sustainability, and zero carbon futures to demonstrate leadership on climate change and oppose this decision and stand up for the wider community in Leeds to fight for a socially just transportation transition
  • That to tackle current unemployment and promote post-Covid recovery, job opportunities should instead be created in sustainable businesses, to progress cutting carbon emissions, such as creating green jobs to improve energy efficiency

Leeds University UCU therefore resolves: 

  1. To support the open letter drafted by the University’s UCU Climate and Ecological Emergency working group to the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick MP, the branch president will write a follow up letter to Robert Jenrick MP.
  2. To support the Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (Galba) in their attempts to make a legal challenge to this decision by making a donation of £200
  3. Forward this resolution to other UCU branches in the region, asking them to support this cause.

Senior management have agreed to withdraw new draft Trans Equality Policy

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Following pressure from UCU, Unite, Unison, and the LGBT+ staff network and LUU students’ LGBT+ society, University of Leeds senior management have announced that the detrimental draft new Trans Equality Policy will be withdrawn.

(For background see Unions oppose detrimental changes to university trans equality policy)

The draft document, which UCU and the other staff unions have fiercely opposed since it was tabled in late January, will be completely removed from consultation.

The university will now seek to make improvements from a place of respect and the solid foundation of the existing 2017 Trans Equality Policy. We are looking forward to working with university senior management and the Equality Policy Unit to make any refinements for the benefit of trans, non-binary and intersex staff and students at the University of Leeds.

Lorraine Youds
Equality Officer

Unions oppose detrimental changes to university Trans Equality Policy

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Staff unions UCU, Unison and Unite, alongside the LGBT+ staff network and LUU students’ LGBT+ society have jointly written to University of Leeds management asking them to withdraw the draft replacement for the 2017 Trans Equality Policy.

UCU, with Unison and Unite, have made clear in early consultations that the proposed replacement policy should be scrapped and any consultations on improvement should be based on the agreed 2017 policy.

10/03/2021

RE: Draft Trans Equality Policy

Dear Members of the Equality Policy Unit, and Members of the Equality and Inclusion Board at the University of Leeds,

We write to you to provide our views on the proposed new Draft Trans Equality Policy provided for our review in January and February 2021.

In summary, this is a regressive policy: key, supportive points have been removed, and statements have been weakened. We believe it lies outside of relevant laws, including the Equality Act (inc. Public Sector Equality Duty), GDPR, and the Gender Recognition Act:

Much of the language and terms used are inconsistent and not in line with best practice (i.e. are offensive).

Much of the wording has changed from “we will do” to “we will strive to” – which in practice means the University don’t have to do anything stated within this policy, only that they have to “strive to” do them.

There are many statements which are qualified with “where applicable” and “where feasible”. There is however no indication as to who decides what is applicable and feasible, nor indeed what criteria would be considered when making this decision.

Although we have asked, we haven’t been told why the existing policy is being changed to such a negative extent; ‘updating of IT systems’ does not explain the full, retrograde policy changes and the unenforceable nature of this new non-policy.

The existing policy already fits with the University’s new Equality Policy Framework, and in fact fits far better than the proposed new policy does.

The staff and student comments on the content and wording are fundamentally the same as have been provided by the Trade Unions previously. However, these comments have been mostly ignored by the Equality Policy Unit (EPU) so far.

Trans students and staff at the University have provided the following impact statements for your consideration:

“Especially in the context of increased transphobia in Higher Education, this policy does nothing to make me feel like the University wants to be a safe environment for trans people like myself. A strategy which aspires to “proactive equality and inclusion strategies” will not be successful if the policies behind those strategies do not read like policies that intend to support the provision of basic legal protections to trans people. This instead reads like a policy intended to obfuscate those provisions and protect the University if it fails in its duties both as an employer and as a public sector body.”

“When is it not “realistic” to speak positively about trans people? This implies there are circumstances when it is acceptable to speak negatively about us.”

“I cannot object more strongly to the use of “aims/strives to” in this policy document. Either you promise you will do these things or you scrap the document entirely- saying you hope you’ll be able to do something does not protect or support trans people at all.”

“Equality training that does not include trans people is not equality training.”

“I used to think the University cared about us; I fear I’ve seen the mask slip now. Understandably, I am scared. We are all scared.”

“The current trans equality policy made me feel confident about my work situation as a trans woman. The policy as currently amended makes me fearful for anyone following in my footsteps and fearful for myself as well.“

“Having learned that this document was submitted to the Trade Unions without any input from the UoL’s trans staff or students confirms my sense that the University has treated this as little more than a box-ticking exercise.

At best, this is an appalling oversight; at worst, it is evidence of a sinister attempt to hastily push an ill-considered policy revision past the very people most affected by it, without their input or awareness – a policy revision that, in my view, attempts to ‘correct’ the previous policy’s tendency to over-promise and under-deliver by instead both under-promising and under-delivering.”

“The University would do well to apologise to its trans staff and students and to humbly reflect on the motto ‘Nothing About Us Without Us.’ “

“It is particularly disturbing that the University would seek to privately reduce its commitment to providing basic protections to trans people during LGBT* History Month, especially as it is happy to simultaneously use its connections to the trans community as positive promotional material on its public-facing websites and social media.”

Therefore, we, the undersigned, collectively submit the following statements and requests to the University of Leeds:

  1. We oppose the new policy and cannot endorse any part of it.
  • No more comments or engagement on this new policy will be provided at this stage.
  • We are instead asking the EPU to scrap the new policy and begin engagement with the LGBT+ and TNBI Networks and Trade Unions in good faith and from a place of mutual respect and understanding, based on the current (2017) policy.
  • We ask that the University engage with (and act upon input from) members of the trans, non-binary, and intersex communities, including students, at all stages of review and in all meetings regarding any present or future policy changes.
  • We also do not accept that IT systems cannot be updated, and/ or organisational processes implemented, to fit the 2017 policy.

We await your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Plumpton, on behalf of UCU

Jo Westerman, on behalf of UNITE

Nick Allen, on behalf of UNISON

Ian Holdsworth, on behalf of the UoL LGBT+ Staff Network

Chris Minas, on behalf of the LUU LGBT+ Student Society

LGBT+ staff society
LGBT+ Soc
UCU University of Leeds University and College Union
Unite the Union
Unison the public service union

USS meeting this Thursday, open letter and more to #DefendUSS

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

A quick reminder that Leeds UCU has organised an Open Meeting on USS this Thursday (11 March) 12 noon – 1 pm.  Please come along to find out what’s going on with the latest valuation.  Our pensions rep Mark Taylor-Batty will be expanding on the brief contribution he was able to make to the recent university ‘Conversations’ sessions about USS, and we are keen to discuss this with you. Please encourage your colleagues to attend too, whether union members or not, and please forward this invitation to as many people as possible – thank you.

Read more