You are paid less

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

You will recall that, earlier this year, your union issued a consultative ballot over the pay issue, and that members voted to reject the 1% pay offer. In the next few weeks, we want to offer some information to contextualise the union’s concerns. Today’s is the first of these messages: you are being paid significantly less in real terms than you were five years ago.

In 2010, the annual change in inflation (RPI) was 4.6%, but your pay increased by 0.4%. A pay cut in real terms.
In 2011, the inflation increase was 5.2%, but your pay increased by 0.3%. A pay cut in real terms.
In 2012, the inflation increase was 3.2%, but your pay increased by 1%. A pay cut in real terms.
In 2013, the inflation increase was 3%, but your pay increased by 1%. A pay cut in real terms.
In 2014, the inflation increase was 2.4%, and your pay increased by 2%, following a dispute. Still, a pay cut in real terms.

The last five pay settlements, then, amount to a 4.8% increase in pay for most HE staff. Cumulative inflation over the same period rose by about 19.8%. This represents an average pay cut in real-terms take-home pay of 15%. Some will have lost more.

Over the same time, many of you will have seen further cuts to your take-home pay in the shape of the over-inflation rise in transport costs (West Yorkshire rail fares rose by 6.2% in 2014, then 3.5% for 2015, for example). This erosion of take-home pay will be exacerbated further by the increase in pension contributions and potential increase in national insurance payments.

Posted in Pay

Prevent – our policy

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

As a university and union we are proud of our commitment to, and record of, challenging any expression of prejudice or discrimination directed against any group or individual (whether in form of racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism; attitudes to sexuality, gender or disability). Where any safeguarding or more general duty of care concern is raised that may put a student or other persons at risk of harm, there are established procedures of prompt referral which every member of staff should be aware of and should be able to act on accordingly. In addition:

It is essential that in order to explore views and opinions and where necessary, challenge them, we actively promote a climate of free discussion and debate. There should be no fear that this will incur suspicion, or limit on free expression within the boundaries of our equality and diversity policy and disciplinary codes on harassment or abuse.

It is essential that legitimate political opinions expressed by staff or students are not in any way regarded as ‘extreme’ or legitimising ‘extremism’. In the context of ‘Prevent’, it is perfectly legitimate for example, to criticise government foreign policy; to criticise the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan; to express support for Palestinian rights or to express either support for or opposition to Israeli domestic or foreign polices. Neither is it extreme or illegitimate to hold that the rise of terrorism or hostility to western governments is a direct result of any of these. One may agree or disagree with such views. However, they form part of legitimate discussion and debate; they are widespread in the political and academic sphere and in society at large. They are neither ‘extreme’, nor should they be presented as ‘excusing’ or providing cover for ‘extremism’ or acts of violence or terror.

Finally, the insistence on freedom of expression and free debate, within the boundaries of established policies and codes of behaviour, is paramount. Therefore sufficient time for discussion, debate and respectful exchange of views is essential in any forum in which ‘Prevent’ is discussed or presented. Everyone is entitled to their own political view or opinion but no-one should privilege one view over that of others, or present one political explanation as ‘expert’ or not subject to challenge.

All presenters in ‘Prevent’ forums, whether internal or external, should be made aware of these principles and be expected to abide by them.

University of Leeds UCU resolves to present the above to the Senior Leadership team and at our negotiating forum, as an agreed set of principles by which any discussion or training on Prevent be conducted.

Update on USS

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

As you know, in the face of all protest and intelligent argument, next year we will all be converted to a career average salary scheme. You’ll recall also that there will be a ‘defined contribution’ scheme running in tandem, that will begin with contributions from salaries over a certain threshold. The USS still are nowhere near having that element in place, and so the pension scheme next spring will in effect convert to one that nobody has proposed or agreed (albeit moderately better than the one imposed), and this will last for a few months until they can get their ‘defined contribution’ section up and running. For details of how poor a defined contribution scheme is compared to the defined benefits of a career average or final salary scheme, see the second half of this page:

You’ll recall that when all this came to light a year ago, it was proposed (as we warned back in 2011) that the final salary pension scheme would be closed and that a career-averaging scheme would be applied for all current and new members to the USS pension scheme. The argument for the necessity of this centred around a calculation, a valuation, misleadingly called ‘the deficit’ (there is no deficit), that basically asked if the value of the scheme at the 31 March 2014, ignoring all contributions after that date, could pay for all future benefits payable. The UCU argued, and continues to argue against this model of calculating the scheme’s vitality, but the changes remained on the table. Remember, the scheme in reality brings in millions more each year than it costs and what it pays out each year is a very small fraction (less than a third of one percent) of the £49 billion that it is actually valued at (up from £42 billion last year)(Yes, that’s a 17% increase in one year, compared to the two or so percent they insist on predicting with).

All members were consulted, earlier this year, on whether they accepted the details of the scheme as proposed, though only a small proportion responded. Institutions too were consulted and Universities UK (UUK), representing the employers, made recommendations. Early last month, the USS finally submitted the valuation. In this, not only did they ignore the UCU argument composed by First Actuarial, but they broadly ignored the UUK recommendations, and the final version was pretty much unchanged from the October 2014 version. Those who would like to see a comparison chart for details, can check this page.

One of our key complaints, and central the argument by internationally leading financial mathematicians, was the inappropriate nature of the ‘gilts+’ method used for calculating future investment growth. In brief, this assumes future investment growth by pegging growth predictions to the value of government bonds, which are at a historic low. It does not employ the predicated yield on the actual contents of the USS investments (which contains few gilts). The 2015 USS report (page 30) demonstrates quite openly how poor the gilts+ method is as a predictor of future growth, and indeed the investments have grown so well that USS have handed out increased millions in bonuses to themselves for an actual, proven investment achievement which they, on the other hand, denied could happen, and continue to insist on devaluing our pensions on that basis. This, coupled with the continued plan to ‘de-risk’ the scheme (which actually materially and knowingly increases the risk of failure to afford all future benefits), leads us to conclude that we will all face this all over again in 2017. We’re giving you a heads up of that now!

Motions passed at EGM on 20th January

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

1. Motion to recommend rejection of the offer
This UCU branch believes that the current ‘potential agreement’ offer represents a major
cut in pensions. The offer accepts the parameters of the huge projected deficit, and cuts
pensions to fill this gap. As well as ending Final Salary, it concedes the principle of a
Defined Contribution element for contributions over £55,000 that allows the Employer to
cut their contributions to 12%, provides members with no certainty about the value of their
pension and paves the way for future concessions.

This UCU branch therefore calls on all members to vote to reject the offer, and to demand
HEC officers call hard-hitting industrial action to win the dispute.

We support the UCL UCU executive’s decision to host a national networking meeting to discuss the Pensions dispute to follow the UCU Education, Cradle to Grave Conference on 7 February.

Proposed by Lesley McGorrigan

Seconded by Hau Hing Chau

2. “This branch rejects the current proposals for uss reform. Although it represents an improvement for new
scheme members, that is only because the existing scheme is so poor for them compared with longstanding
scheme members. For longstanding scheme members, this is a 20% detriment or more. This branch resolves
to support a no detriment outcome for longstanding members and an outcome for newer members which
offers at least as good a pension as for longstanding scheme members. We collectively therefore reject
the divide and rule scheme promoted by the employers.”

Proposed by Jeremy Toner

Seconded by Colin Hendrie

EGM 20th January 1pm Civil Engineering LT A (1.10)

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

University and College Union
LEEDS UNIVERSITY LOCAL ASSOCIATION

NOTICE OF EMERGENCY GENERAL MEETING
Tuesday 20th January 2015
1pm, Civil Engineering LT A (1.10)
AGENDA
1. Congress delegates.
2. Local rules.
3. USS dispute.
4. Boycott of assessment.
5. Motions from members.
6. AOB

If members would like to submit motions under the theme of the current USS dispute these should be received by the administrator, Ailis Ferris-Neely, by 5pm on 16th January for tabling.