Boycott of Trinity College, Cambridge

Posted on by

UCU’s higher education committee (HEC) today voted to officially censure Trinity College, Cambridge and will call on staff worldwide to boycott the institution unless it reverses its decision to pull out of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS). At a meeting of the college’s Fellows this morning, a motion to reconsider the decision to withdraw from USS was lost by 43 votes to 76. The union will set up a special committee to consider what action the boycott would entail and it may include asking HE staff to:

  • not attend, speak at or organise academic or other conferences at Trinity 
  • not apply for jobs at Trinity 
  • not give lectures at Trinity 
  • not accept positions as visiting professors or researchers at Trinity 
  • not write for any academic journal which is edited from Trinity 
  • not take up new contracts as external examiners.

(Post from UCU national website)

Calling on the UK government to act over Sudan massacre and human rights abuses

Posted on by

At least 110 opposition supporters were murdered in Sudan earlier this month when a paramilitary group violently dispersed a peaceful sit-in outside defence headquarters in Khartoum. The massacre followed six months of developing protests that began over bread prices last December, leading to a general strike in May.  The demonstrators were initially protesting against the 30-year-rule of Omar al-Bashir.  They continued to protest after he was deposed by the military, demanding a swift transition to civilian rule.

We encourage members to update their knowledge of what is occurring in Sudan: https://menasolidaritynetwork.com/2019/06/03/briefing-who-are-the-armed-men-who-threaten-sudans-peaceful-revolution/ and contact your MPs to promote the following three demands:

We call on the UK government to:

  • halt military and security cooperation with individuals and groups in Sudan responsible for human rights abuses.
  • end to the transfer of arms or equipment to Sudan which can be used for repression.
  • end the Khartoum process.

We note the following statement from the Sudanese Professionals Association (3 June 2019):

In the early hours of today, Rapid Support Forces backed by security forces and Police stormed the sit-in area in front of the headquarters of the Sudanese army in the capital Khartoum. Fire bullets were used excessively and injured several unarmed citizens; uncounted numbers of them are dead. The raiding forces burned the tents in the sit-in area and used excessive physical force against the protestors. The raid and attacks against civilians are still ongoing in an attempt to break and disperse the peaceful sit-in.
We consider this violation a criminal offence against the Sudanese people, and a total reversion to the old regime’s tactics and policies.
The Sudanese revolution will continue and shall prevail.

The Foreign Relations Committee, Sudanese Professionals Association
foreignrelations@sudaneseprofessionals.org

UCU University of Leeds Branch Committee

USS pension, misrepresentation: very important update

Posted on by

As a matter of urgency, please read [this revealing article] published in the Financial Times over the weekend. 

When you get to the FT website, you can log into Leeds’ institutional subscription for access using your @leeds.ac.uk email address. 

This article contains evidence (now in the public domain) that USS has misrepresented the position of the Pensions Regulator regarding calculations of risk and that it failed to address this misrepresentation when asked. This was at a crucial time while Universities UK the employers’ representative body) were consulting with member institutions over proposed assumptions for the 2018 USS valuation. 

USS was already under investigation by two regulators after one of its trustees, Professor Jane Hutton (appointed by UCU), turned whistleblower: she accused the Trustee Chair and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham, David Eastwood, of withholding crucial information from her. See [here].

We now know that Eastwood was a recipient of the email sent from the Pensions Regulator to USS in January. It is notable that Josephine Cumbo shared an excerpt of this email on [Twitter] which says that the Pensions Regulator were planning to copy this communication to Universities UK. UCU are concerned that it would thus appear that our employers’ representative body appear to be implicated in a cover-up of this email, which has never been shared with us (despite repeated formal requests). 

We will write again soon with more detail of the rapidly developing situation with our USS pension scheme. In the meantime here is a brief recap of where we are:

USS has refused to implement the recommendations of the Joint Expert Panel (JEP), to which UCU and Universities UK had signed up in full. Instead they proffered three options, none of which upheld the JEP recommendations and none of which are acceptable to UCU. The employers’ body UUK has announced its support for “Option 3” which would force members to increase pension contributions to 9.6% of salary from October 2019, and 11% after 2020. 

UCU has sent dispute letters to each USS employer, with a deadline of 19 June to respond to avert the need for us to head into industrial action. Read more, including the dispute letter [here]. 

There is still time for our employers to do the right thing.

The revelations over the weekend about the behaviour of the USS executive and board throw all of this into even sharper relief. There is still time for our employers to act, to stand with UCU in defence of our USS pension scheme. UCU has made it clear that we have run out of patience. If our employers do not act with us to confront an organisation currently headed by those who have demonstrated they cannot be trusted to act in USS members’ interests or to act transparently, we will have to take action against our employers.

Let’s hope our employers listen. UCU remain committed to defending the best possible version of USS for all members of the scheme, and to combatting misinformation and faulty methodology. 

In solidarity,

Vicky and Committee

Notice of trade dispute over USS pensions

Posted on by

A letter establishing a trade dispute over USS pensions has been sent today (7 June 2019) to every institution the scheme covers, including University of Leeds, as called for by UCU branches at the UCU Higher Education Sector Conference on Sunday 26 May (motion L5 (amended)).

The letter gives universities until 19 June to inform UCU that they will not be imposing any pension benefit cuts or increasing our pension contributions. The UCU’s position of ‘no detriment’ is based on there being no genuine need for any detriment, as the joint expert panel set up by the employers and the union confirmed.

We’d recommend all members read the full text of the letter below. (For more details about the dispute see our pensions page.)

Dear Vice Chancellor

You will be aware that early last year UCU members took part in 14 days of industrial action, which resulted in UUK withdrawing proposals to change USS from a hybrid defined benefit pension scheme into a defined contribution pension scheme.

UCU members later voted to suspend the action and set up the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) in response to an offer from UUK. 

The JEP reported in September 2018 and made a number of recommendations for the conclusion of the 2017 valuation. If implemented, these recommendations would also replace the Rule 76 contribution increases relating to the 2017 valuation which were triggered by USS while the JEP was still producing its report. The Rule 76 increases are being implemented in three instalments, from April 2019 until April 2020, when combined contributions would rise to 35.6%. The Rule 76 changes are based on the retention of the current levels of pension benefits, minus the 1% match, which has already been removed.

Both UCU and UUK welcomed the JEP report as the basis for negotiations. Initially, if applied to the 2017 valuation, the JEP’s proposals would have entailed a combined contribution level of 29.2% with no changes to pension benefits. However subsequent modelling by USS, based on changed market circumstances, showed that implementing the JEP in full would actually result in combined contributions no higher than 26%, or 8% for members.

However USS has not accepted some of the key recommendations in the JEP report. Instead, it has proposed replacing the 2017 Rule 76 increases with a new 2018 valuation that still involves contribution rates far above 26%. 

USS’s insistence on higher contributions is partly based on external pressure from The Pensions Regulator (TPR). TPR has expressed views on the levels of risk and the strength of the employers’ covenant, and USS has accepted these views rather than seeking to challenge them. This is despite the fact that both UCU and UUK’s professional actuarial advisers consider a valuation based on the JEP to be compliant with regulations, and despite the fact that the JEP has heavily criticised TPR’s role in the valuation process. However, USS has not worked to put the case for the JEP to TPR.

Instead, after months of drawn-out negotiations and unexplained delays, USS has given employers three options for finalising the 2018 valuation. The three options do not involve changes to pension benefits. However, all involve higher rates than would be the case if USS adopted the JEP’s recommendations.

The three options are now subject to a further UUK consultation and I consider each in turn:

Option 1: contributions of 33.7% (23% for employers and 10.7% for employees), to apply from April 2020;

Option 2: contributions of 29.7% – but with a mechanism for contingent contributions of three 2% increases (an additional 6%), split 65:35 between employers and members, to be added to starting contributions of 20.4% and 9.3% respectively; and

Option 3: contributions of 30.7%(21.1% for employers and 9.6% for employees) to apply from October 2019, with another valuation in 2020. Should no agreement on the contribution rate from the 2020 valuation be implemented before October 2021, the contribution rate would rise to 34.7% in October 2021.

UCU has a clear policy position of ‘No Detriment’ established by the union’s conferences. This policy means no increases in contributions and no cuts to pension benefits. Unlike a 2018 valuation informed by the JEP’s recommendations, all three of USS’s proposed options fail the test of ‘No Detriment’.

Members waited for the JEP report to be issued and implemented, while USS went ahead and scheduled massive contribution increases based on its controversial 2017 valuation. The JEP report called that valuation’s integrity into question. Other developments have made USS’s position even more questionable. These include Sam Marsh and First Actuarial’ s demonstrations that USS has not properly justified its ‘de-risking’ strategy; USS’s misrepresentation of the Regulator’s methods for evaluating risk; and the extraordinary recent accusation by statistician and USS Trustee board member, Professor Jane Hutton, that she has been denied access to important information and that the deficit may have been ‘substantially over-estimated’.

Members have trusted employers to work to replace the 2017 increases with a fair outcome, but it has become clear that they will not do so. Employers have a lot of influence over the valuation process, but they have allowed USS to dismiss the JEP’s most important recommendations, they have not pressed USS to engage properly with the Regulator, and, when other developments have called USS’s position into question, they have taken USS’s side.

UCU is running out of patience. At the UCU HE Sector Conference on 26 May 2019, delegates voted overwhelmingly to commence a dispute with USS employers and to move to a statutory ballot for industrial action in September.

I am now writing to seek your confirmation on behalf of your Institution that you will not impose any benefit cuts and/or contribution increases, including contingent contributions and default contribution rates for future valuations, on members from October 2019 onwards. This includes any and all increases over the rate of 26% (8% for members) which was established prior to the 2017 valuation. You must instruct your representatives on the Employers’ Pension Forum (EPF) and the UUK nominees on the JNC not to introduce, comply with, or vote for any proposals that would involve such cuts and/or increases for members; and, failing that, you must cover any scheduled increases in full until USS’s governance and valuation methods and assumptions have been overhauled.

If I do not have your affirmative response by 19 June 2019, UCU will consider a trade dispute to exist between your Institution and your employees/our members regarding this matter.

It is possible to avoid a damaging dispute and strike action in the autumn of 2019, and potentially thereafter in 2020. All you need to do is commit to uphold the level of contributions no higher than 26% (8% for members). You also agree to instruct your representatives on the Employers’ Pension Forum (EPF) and the UUK nominees on the JNC not to introduce, comply with, or vote for any proposals that would involve such cuts and/or increases for members; and, failing that, you must cover any increases in full that are needed to maintain current benefits until USS’s governance and valuation methods and assumptions have been overhauled.

I look forward to hearing from you no later than 19 June 2019 with your affirmative response as set out above.

Yours sincerely

Paul Bridge
UCU Head of Higher Education

Discussion boards for in-module feedback

Posted on by

You may have seen on Campusweb the announcement of the introduction, in 2019/20, of discussion boards within modules in Minerva to provide in-course feedback – you can find the announcement here: https://www.leeds.ac.uk/forstaff/news/article/6714/student_voice_enhancing_learning_and_teaching

It’s particularly important to emphasise that this initiative is about the provision of feedback as to the running of the course and the student experience, not for questions about module content (which I know many of us already use Minerva discussion boards for, sometimes making good use of anonymity). 

UCU was not consulted on this. We have a number of concerns which we have raised with University management.

 1. Understanding how a module is going from a student point of view is crucial. There are many ways of doing this, and colleagues around the university will have their own methods, from mid-module feedback forms, to focus groups, to in-class methods, to discussion boards (anonymous and otherwise). The appropriate mechanism will vary from discipline to discipline and according to class size and learning approach, and is a core issue of pedagogy, not an administrative add-on. We understand that this discussion board method has been piloted but we have not been told anything about how and where that pilot was carried out, and what the outcome was. We are extremely disappointed that more consultation has not been carried out amongst tea​ching staff to identify the good practice which we know is already in existence around the university. We are professionals, with much expertise and experience in these matters, and deserve better than having our pedagogies dictated to us.

2. The vast majority of our students, we know, would engage with this process, if they did so at all, in a constructive and respectful way. However, we all have experience of that very small minority of responses to anonymous feedback exercises which are non-constructive, hostile and abusive, ranging from critical comments about someone’s accent, dress sense or behaviour through to comments which are clearly sexist, racist and homophobic. These comments are often about staff, but can also be about students.  We also have experience of comments that are simply criticisms of the module content, particularly when we teach through perspectives such as feminist, race, queer or social justice. We believe that requiring staff, particularly staff with protected characteristics and those who are casualised and thus more vulnerable, to read such comments and engage with them (even when engagement is limited to removing the comments and reporting them for further investigation) creates a hostile or humiliating  work environment which our employer, the University, has a legal obligation to prevent. We note in particular that, unlike anonymous module evaluation forms, these comments would be visible to all students and staff on the module, until they could be removed. We also worry about the impact that such comments might have on junior and casualised staff, both in terms of their mental health and in terms of their future employment prospects, and about the impact of comments aimed at particular groups of students on those students and others. 

3. Dealing with this discussion board, and responding within 5 working days (and it is not clear whether this includes university vacation time, staff leave, or time when staff are away on research or University business) creates workload, particularly given the importance of identifying and removing inappropriate or abusive comments. The faculty taught student education committee paper tells us this should be an additional method of feedback and thus additional workload. We would like to know how this is justified and, in particular, what we should stop doing in order to make time for this.

4. In particular, the faculty taught student education committee paper states that students should be told that “the discussion board should only be used when other mechanisms to provide feedback on the student experience have been impossible.” We would like to understand more clearly what sorts of circumstances this envisages- when is it considered that other mechanisms would become impossible? We would also like to understand what the role of management would be in responding to these comments, and would particularly need a clear reassurance that they could under no circumstances be used as a foundation for disciplinary action.

We understand that this is to be discussed in faculty taught student education committees next week and are asking all members who are members of faculty taught student education committees to raise these concerns. We will continue, with your support, to lobby the University to drop this damaging idea. Your feedback and comments would be really helpful in supporting us to demonstrate the huge problems with this approach, and the harm that we think it could cause to staff, students and staff-student relations.