Your employer assumes your pay will grow by up to 4.5%, but gives you 1%

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Last December, during the pension debate, your employer recommended via Universities UK that USS should assume a 2.4% pay settlement for 2015-16 for the purposes of calculating pensions liabilities (read ‘deficit’). They then turned to you and insisted on a ‘full and final offer’ of 1%. How do you feel about that?

Your pension is going to be reduced based upon an assumption of pay growth over the last year that is higher than it actually was, and over an assumption of pay growth for this year that is much higher than they insist on paying. Want to know how that can be? Read on.

Your pension was downgraded based on a fallacious construction of a projected ‘deficit’ in the pension fund. Within the actuarial assumptions employed to define this deficit were projections about pay growth that no employer was going to support in reality. Quoting from these calculations, general pay growth was assumed to be:

“CPI in year 1, CPI +1% in year 2 and RPI + 1.0% p.a. thereafter”.

Year 1, here, is 31 March 2014 to 31 March 2015, and year 2 is 31 March 2015 to 31 March 2016.

To complicate matters (go down a paragraph if you just want to get to the bottom line), “CPI in year 1” and “CPI in year 2” do not refer to actual CPI during those periods. Rather “CPI” refers to their ‘market derived’ long term price inflation of 3.6%, minus a 0.2% ‘inflation risk premium’, minus an assumed RPI-CPI gap of 0.8%. Therefore “CPI” = 2.6%. “RPI” is the ‘market derived’ inflation minus the ‘inflation risk premium’. So the current “RPI” assumption = 3.4%. The ‘inflation risk premium’ is assumed to reduce linearly over 20 years from 0.2% to 0.1%. So by 2034, RPI is assumed to be 3.5%.

So USS’s assumed general pay growth for 2014 to 2015 = 2.6%, for 2015 to 2016 = 3.6%, and for subsequent years = 4.4% to 4.5%.

Wouldn’t it be nice if your employer stood by these figures in reality, rather than simply using them theoretically to argue down your pension? Because that is exactly what they did, what they have done, what they are likely to continue doing. And your family’s security and comfort in retirement on the back of your hard work has already been eroded because of these fictions.

So, USS is now assuming that this year (March 2015 to March 2016) we will receive a general pay increase of 3.6%. But the employers insist upon the ‘full and final offer’ for this year is 1%.

As part of the deflation of your pension, they assume your pay will grow by 4.4% to 4.5% in subsequent years. They will not give you that, but in 2017 they will most likely use those inflated figures to argue a further change to your pension. Unless you are prepared to take action.

Nota bene: The 2015-16 below-inflation pay increase of 1% is the last increase to the pensionable ‘final’ salary of those on final salary before the scheme closes in April 2016.

Let’s spell all this out a little further – your pension is going to be reduced based upon an assumption of pay growth over the last year that is higher than it actually was, and over an assumption of pay growth for this year that is much higher than they insist on paying. That is to say, your employer insists that it is ‘prudent’ to assume that they might somehow retrospectively go back and upgrade ‘full and final’ offers on pay for the last two years to the figures they insisted on for calculating a theoretical deficit. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Posted in Pay

Minutes of Committee meeting 6 October 2015

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

University of Leeds Local Association Committee

1pm-2pm, Tuesday 6 October 2015

Venue: Baines Wing G.03

Minutes

Attendance: Mark Taylor-Batty (President), Brendon Nicholls, Ben Plumpton, Steve French, Gabriella Alberti, Lesley McGorrigan, Neil Maughan, Nigel Bubb, Vicky Blake, Elwyn Isaac, Mark Walkley, Tim Goodall, Hugh Hubbard, Andy West, Alan Smith (administrator)

  1. Apologies: Paul Steenson, Ann Blair, Malcolm Povey, Steven French (lateness), Steve Lax, Jeremy Toner
  2. Amend to add Hugh to attendance.
  3. Matters arising
    Co-option of Environmental Rep: the committee welcomed Tim Goodall.
    Pay. Mark gave an update from the regional pay briefing. In real terms we have had a 15% pay cut, and increased pension contributions and national insurance contributions next year. Pay at the top end is increasing and most universities are holding surpluses.
  4. Regional committee delegates
    Agreed to delegate Ben Plumpton, Lesley McGorrigan, Vicky Blake, Mark Taylor-Batty, Brendon Nicholls.
  5. Co-option of anti-casualisation representative
    Agreed Mark would email membership by the end of this week to seek nominations
  6. Draft organising plan
    Committee agreed to roll considerations around increasing involvement of reps into draft organising plan which Alan will present to a future committee as a discussion document.
  7. Website and social media
    Agreed Mark Taylor-Batty, Nick Efford, Ben Plumpton, Vicky Blake and Alan Smith will take responsibility for website and social media and will have access to the Twitter account, with roles agreed within that. UCU HQ are setting up a new website which we can use which they will host, combining the current website and blog. Facebook page to be used primarily to link to posts on the website. Longer term plan for web app in dashboard form interspersed with UCU news. Events to be collated into a Friday members email. A senator to produce a summary of senate for UCU members.
  8. Electing departmental representatives in IT
    Agreed to seek nominations for departmental representatives for IT.
  9. RIS (Research Innovations Service)
    Held over to next meeting
  10. e-assessment
    Reported that the trade union side of the Joint Committee of the University and UCU expressed our opposition to the opt-out model and raised all issues as agreed. Ongoing.
  11. Statutes
    Reported that the statutes negotiating team pressed the issues as requested. “Some other substantial reason” remains unresolved. Management will add caveats to removal from non-substantial post to prevent it being used to remove people dissenting from the central view.
    The proposed new statutes will be sent to the committee when we have new drafts from the employer. An extraordinary committee will be arranged to discuss them in detail.
  12. Joint Committee of the University and UCU
    as reported elsewhere
  13. Refugee crisis
    Motion moved by Gabriella Alberti

This branch notes:

The worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II with millions fleeing their homes looking for refuge in Europe.

Since 2000 around 30,000 migrants or refugees have died in their attempts to reach or stay in Europe, with the highest figures recorded in the past two years.

The continuing plight of refugees in Calais and elsewhere in Europe escaping from war, political oppression, poverty and violence.

The demonization of migrants and asylum seekers by the media and the government.

The inadequate response by the Tory government, for example, only allowing in just 20,000 refugees by 2020 on a temporary basis in the first instance, and only from camps in the Lebanon.

The heartening public response to the crisis e.g. collections, donations etc.

That the University of Leeds is collaborating with the Council to promote Leeds as a City of Sanctuary. As part of this the University is proposing to offer scholarships and to host a second public meeting of Leeds City of Sanctuary on the 21st October.

That other universities such as the University of East London have committed to offer at least ten postgraduate scholarships to Syrian refugees.

This branch resolves to

Contribute to ongoing solidarity action occurring on campus such as the collections by students and to donate to local Leeds charities in support of both asylum seekers and migrants in need, both locally and internationally.

Campaign and pressure the government to accept more refugees and offer them permanent status in the UK, including Syrian and other refugees escaping violence in the Middle East and beyond.

Adopt a ‘Refugees welcome here’ position and to promote this in the wider union movement, as an important means of reinforcing the principle of solidarity at a time when cuts in public and welfare services and a hostile media make migrants and refugees easy scapegoats.

Play an active role in developing a discussion with senior management at the University of Leeds to explore internal ways in which the university can effectively provide short- and long-term assistance for refugees/asylum seekers, including the development of scholarships for asylum seekers and refugees and support for educational activities such as ESOL classes for migrants.

Commit to a longer term campaign that goes beyond expressions of solidarity and collections of usable goods and includes initiatives that involve us as educators in promoting a culture of welcome and inter-cultural dialogue on our campuses, involving students from all backgrounds.

The motion was carried. Agreed to put this to the General Meeting as a motion from the Committee.

  1. Prevent
    Motion moved by Brendan Nicholls:

University of Leeds UCU local association notes the new “Prevent Duty” being imposed on Higher and Further Education providers. The branch observes that this duty erodes staff and students’ academic freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of debate.

The branch notes further that the definition of extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values” is a direct attack on ethnic minorities. It undermines the free exchange of ideas and undermines democratic social inclusion. The branch believes that the effect of this definition will be to institutionalise both racism and Islamophobia.

University of Leeds UCU local association resolves to work with UCU HQ to develop a policy of non-co-operation with the “Prevent Duty,” up to and including branch boycotts.

The motion was carried. Agreed to put the motion to the General Meeting from the Committee.

  1. Facilities money
    Held over to next meeting
  2. Annual leave
    Held over to next meeting
  3. USS
    Held over to next meeting
  4. Promotions
    Held over to next meeting
  5. Any other business
    The agenda for the General Meeting was agreed as follows: Pay, refugee crisis, prevent, USS, promotions, fixed-term contracts, congress delegates, car parking

UCU Branch News

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Our October newsletter is out now. It’s available as a PDF to download at LeedsUCUnewsletterOct15 and some print copies will be available.

The full text of the newsletter is below:

Pay rise 2015 (and 2016)

In the 2015 pay bargaining round the employers put forward a take-it-or-leave-it offer of 1%. UCU held a consultative ballot of members in June to help decide on a campaign approach. A majority supported action short of a strike (ASOS) but not strike action. A close vote at the HEC consequently decided that ASOS without the threat of strike action to back it up would be ineffective, the 1% will be ‘noted’ and a claim for 2016 delivered early.

“Like many members I’m disappointed by how this vote went,” says Mark Taylor-Batty, the Leeds UCU President. “But we now need to focus our anger at an effective pay cut of 15% since 2010 on a strong campaign to address some of that erosion in 2016.” We need your ideas at a general meeting / action group meetings on how to take this forward.

More info at http://wp.me/p1X58R-qk

Car parking

The university intends to ramp up car parking charges (by about 50%) from January, to pay for the new ‘cheesegrater’ multi-storey car park (aiming to cover the building costs in one year). The increases fall disproportionally on the lower paid and on those with smaller/ greener vehicles. This (or public transport fare increases) will eat up your measly pay rise. We believe that it would be fairer to cover the costs over say 5 years and make the increases more equitable. We welcome your support in demanding changes.

‘Prevent’ duty

UCU is seriously concerned about the effect of the government’s ‘Prevent’ duty on open discussion in universities. The October General Meeting passed a motion on this, and agreed to explore options for a boycott. See: www.leedsucu.org.uk/archives/1692

Open University closures

The Open University (OU) is threatening to close 7 regional offices, including the Leeds one, with a potential loss of over 500 jobs.

Please sign the OU UCU petition at http://ow.ly/TBuxX and tweet your support with the hashtag #saveOUregions

Refugee crisis

We believe that the university should be doing far more to support refugees in the present crisis. UCU is pushing the university to offer scholarships for refugee students, to work with the student union to offer practical support, to take an active role in the Leeds City of Sanctuary, and get involved with the Council for Assisting Refugee Academics (CARA). In the meantime, here are some suggestions for what you can do: http://ow.ly/TBxmA

Trade Union Bill

The Conservative Trade Union Bill aims to utterly decimate trade union rights, making it virtually impossible for us to campaign within the law. Get involved in the fight back! More info at https://www.tuc.org.uk/tubill

USS Pensions

Thanks to everyone who completed the USS consultation survey. We don’t have access to the results, but we gather it was very negative about the USS proposals. However the proposals haven’t changed, and we will all be converted to a ‘career average’ scheme from next April. They haven’t sorted out what will happen about the ‘Defined Contribution’ part of the new pensions (for those earning over £55k) so that will happen later.

UCU remains very concerned about the USS calculations, which seem designed to lead to a further so-called deficit at the 2017 valuation, leading to more cuts to your pension. In real life, USS investments have gone up 17% in one year, compared to the miniscule rates predicted, and our salaries are going up 1% compared to the 3.6% used in calculations.

More info at http://wp.me/p1X58R-ru

Services to be slashed

In the last Integrated Planning Exercise, services were asked to find cuts of £11 million over the next 5 years. This translates for example to £3 million from IT and £1 million from the Library (in the context of publishers costs rising at 6% a year). UCU believes these cuts are unnecessary and unfair, and will also result in additional workloads for academic staff. We will be opposing them in consultative meetings and in Senate. Please encourage academic-related colleagues to join the union so that we can better protect them against any job losses or downgrading.

Casework

UCU caseworkers offer assistance to members with problems at work, including protecting salaries, renewal of contracts, harassment, workload issues and more. For help, or to volunteer as a caseworker (training provided!) contact ucu@leeds.ac.uk

Uniforum consultancy

Members in services will also be aware of the recent Uniforum activity analysis, whereby managers allocated staff time across categories of work. Our results will be compared to other universities and a benchmark of the 5th lowest will be set. No doubt Leeds will seek to reduce costs (staffing?) in areas where we spend above the benchmark. On the bright side, Leeds will probably be at the bottom of the Russell Group after the aforementioned £11 million cuts – so this will end up being a big waste of staff time and the cost of the Uniforum consultants.

Fixed term contracts (FTCs)

It is clear from monitoring university job adverts that the agreed policy on avoidance of fixed term contracts is frequently ignored in some areas. UCU is aiming to put a stop to this practice. The university is also consulting the campus unions about changes to the FTC policy – be assured, we will not support changes detrimental to staff.

Leeds UCU General Meeting

Come to the next General Meeting on
Weds 25 Nov, 1 – 2 pm, Roger Stevens LT18

Action Group

Action Group is for any UCU member who’d like to get more involved in campaigns. Meetings are normally every other Tuesday at lunchtime – contact the branch for more details.

Not a member? Join now!

In these difficult times, university staff have never needed a union’s protection more. It’s easy to join at https://join.ucu.org.uk

Contact us:

Email: ucu@leeds.ac.uk
Phone 0113 343 5904 (internal 35904)
Web: www.leedsucu.org.uk

Follow us on Twitter: @leedsucu

Minutes of committee meeting 8 September

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

University of Leeds Local Association Committee

12pm-1pm, Tuesday 8 September 2015

Venue: Business School Maurice Keyworth SR (1.24)

Minutes

  1. Attendance: Mark Taylor-Batty, Brendon Nicholls, Briony Thomas, Lesley McGorrigan, Hugh Hubbard, Nick Efford, Elwyn Isaac, Steve French, Alan Smith (administrator)
    Apologies: Gavin Reid, Ben Plumpton, Stephen Lax, Ann Blair, Mark Walkley, Gabriella Alberti, Malcolm Povey, Neil Maughan, Vicky Blake
  2. Minutes of previous meeting: Agreed
  3. Matters arising: There were no matter arising
  4. New branch administrator:
    Mark welcomed Alan to the branch and explained Alan is also employed as an organiser and will be helping with recruitment, campaigns and communications.
  5. Promotions documents
    Trade Union Side met management about proposed academic-related document on 7 September. TUS stressed members perceptions is academic-related lack of promotion opportunities – in some cases have ‘no promotion’ clauses in their contracts and our perception is the threat of downgrading is also a serious problem. TUS requested data from management around promotions of academic-related staff, and said we will consider that data before looking at the proposed re-wording of the promotions document.
    Discussed lines to take with rewording of academic promotion document. Removing of gendered language is welcome, but some of the simplification risk making promotions more difficult to get in some circumstances. Concerns raised that they are using HERA, rather than HERA-related as previously assured. TUS will request that role profiles are published on the website again, as these have been removed.
    Noted that a workshop had raised issues about the mechanism, not just the wording, but these haven’t been addressed yet in the proposals.
  6. (One) IT
    Management proposing response to situation in IT which may make the situation worse. Serious concerns to raise at JCUU and if necessary ESRG
  7. Cubane
    Agreed to take to JCUU
  8. Car parking
    Members shocked by the increased costs. Management stating these were ‘agreed’ but they must mean agreed with other parts of management as not agreed by trade unions. To raise at General Meeting.
  9. Setting date for General Meeting
    Meeting will be 7 October 2pm
  10. Setting away day agenda
    Ref and Tef, Cubane, pay dispute, Prevent, access to facilities for former employees, job security and casualisation, comms, surgeries / roadshows / themed meetings, recruitment and organisation, casework
  11. Manchester pay discussion
    Committee members to let Mark know if they want to attend
  12. Refugee crisis
    Collecting items in UCU office or with Mark or Lesley, working with LUU.
  13. Co-option
    Carry over to following Committee
  14. School of Education
    Concerns raised, to consider raising at ESRG

 

University cash reserves grow by 58%

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Last week, we explained how the take-home value of your salary has been eroded by 15% over the last five years. Today, we’ll map that decline in the value of your pay against UK university finances, to challenge any sense that our pay has been squeezed because of the health of HEIs’s finances.

A HEFCE report from October 2014 on the financial health of the higher education sector 2013/14 to 2016/17 summed up the situation accurately.

Bottom line: the short term viability of institutions was not a concern.

Over the period in which your pay sank in value by 15%, the following is evident:
UK universities cash reserves increased by 57.4%
Income has increased by 14.7%
Capital expenditure has increased by 8.2%

And the cost of paying staff as a percentage of expenditure dropped by -1.2%

One might sum that up by saying that paying us less has contributed to universities becoming richer. You may feel proud to work at your institution; you may consider yourself lucky to have a job – does that mean you are so grateful and proud that you are content for them to keep some of what you have rightly earned to bolster the university’s bank accounts and investments?

It is worth noting that this report cited here used data that did not include the recent additional 30,000 students recruited following the removal of the cap.

Posted in Pay

Minutes of committee meeting 22 September

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

University of Leeds Local Association Committee

1pm-2pm, Tuesday 22 September 2015

Venue: Baines Wing G.03

Minutes

Present: Mark Taylor-Batty, Brendan Nicholls, Neil Maughan, Hugh Hubbard, Mark Walkley, Malcolm Povey, Steven French, Paul Steenson, Nigel Bubb, Gabriella Alberti, Lesley McGorrigan, Ann Blair, Nick Efford, Ben Plumpton, Alan Smith (admin)

  1. Apologies
    Steven Lax, Vicky Blake
  2. Minutes: agreed
  3. Matters arising
    Co-options
    The following co-options to the Committee were agreed:
    Brendan Nicholls formally co-opted so that both joint Honorary Secretaries may vote at the committee
    Tim Goodall co-opted as Environment Representative
    The Committee can co-opt 4 members, and will seek to co-opt a member on a fixed-term or casual contract and a post-graduate representative.
    Refugees
    Agreed it would be useful to have a motion to the general meeting; agreed to talk to LUU about what more we can do together; agreed to liaise with CARA and discuss possibly having a speaker at the general meeting
    General meeting
    14 October agreed as new date, and 25 November agreed for subsequent meeting. Alan to put notice out this afternoon. The committee authorises Brendon to set dates for the year.
    Car parking
    Agreed to put members’ issues to JCUU.
  4. Joint Committee of the University and UCU (JCUU)
    Agreed that JCUU minutes can be circulates to the Senate if they are agreed by Secretaries of both Management Side (MS) and Trade Union Side (TUS).
    JCUU TUS will normally be Mark, Brendon and Vicky plus one other delegate, in addition to the regional officer and Alan to keep notes.
  5. Statutes
    Congratulations to negotiators – current proposals infinitely better than they were a year ago.
    Date of next meeting not set. Must have principle of no detriment.
    Among issues discussed: serious concern that “some other significant reason” clause for dismissal, if not a disciplinary or capability matter, could be used for senior management strategic aims
    Negotiating team to raise issues discussed with the employer.
  6. Fixed-term contract policy
    A number of concerns were raised about the policy, including that it would give more freedom for the employer to use fixed-term contracts because it gives examples rather than prescribed circumstances. Negotiators would seek to improve the policy further. JCUU trade union side to request details including rationale of new fixed terms contracts on ongoing basis.*
  7. Pay campaign questions
    The committee agreed responses to the UCU consultation on the pay campaign
  8. Prevent policy and motion
    JCUU TUS will seek an update from employer. Agreed it might be good to have a motion on this for the general meeting.
  9. Inviting reps to attend the committee (in non-voting capacity)
    Principle agreed, with 4 abstentions, but not clear if allowed in the rules. Agreed that a more detailed proposal would be brought to the next Committee
  10. Facilities
    This and subsequent items were not discussed as the meeting closed
  11. Casework time buy-out
  12. Annual leave
  13. USS
  14. Any other business

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!