Committee for 2021-2022 elected

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

UCU members have elected/appointed the branch committee for 1 August 2021 until 31 July 2022.

President

Chloe Wallace

Vice-president

Aisha Walker

Immediate past president

Ben Plumpton

Treasurer

Alaric Hall

Honorary secretary

Tim Goodall

Membership officer

Jane Holgate

Equality officer

Temporary job share of Megan Povey and Ben Plumpton, with a by-election to be held in November/December.

Campaigns officer

Lesley McGorrigan*

Health and safety officer

Neil Maughan

Anti-casualisation officer

Job-share Joanne Armitage and Xanthe Whittaker

Ordinary committee members:

Alexa Athelstan-Price

Brendon Nicholls

Helen Coskeran

Hugh Hubbard

Jennifer Fletcher

Kevin Critchley

Lata Narayanaswamy

Laura Loyola Hernandez

Mark Taylor-Batty

Megan Povey

Mette Wiggen

Paul Steenson

Rachel Walls

Rasha Soliman

Ruth Holliday*

Simon Moore

Stephen Muir

Vicky Blake*

(*Automatically members of the branch committee as elected by UCU members to national roles.)

Leeds University UCU response to the University’s student education delivery plans for 2021/22

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Leeds University UCU welcomes the recognition by the University that there is still much uncertainty between now and September, when the next academic year begins. Whilst vaccine progress has been positive, at the time of writing there is a new variant of concern– variant B 2.167.2 – which currently appears to be more transmissible and there may be more variants of concern to come. SAGE – the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies – have stated consistently that there is a high likelihood of a resurgence in hospitalisations and death, either if the vaccine roll out hits problems, or if policies and behaviours adopted to reduce transmission are relaxed too early.

It appears very clear to us that, whilst academic year 2021-22 will be different from 2020-21, it will not represent ‘back to normal’ and we are pleased that the University is recognising this in planning.

We therefore believe that it is appropriate for the university to maintain a hybrid approach to learning and teaching, ensuring that it remains possible to retain COVID mitigations, such as social distancing, well ventilated spaces and hygiene measures. All plans need to allow for the possibility of moving online only if the worst happens and there is serious resurgence of cases.

It is particularly important that all university plans allow staff or students who test positive for COVID-19 to self-isolate immediately, as that will be critical in keeping case numbers low. We also note that, even after a vaccine roll-out, it remains the case that some staff and students are more vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19; the university has a duty of care towards those people to allow them to work flexibly and not to put themselves at risk.

The successes of this academic year are down to the tremendous efforts of all staff on the ground, whether they be student education service staff, library and digital education service staff, staff in residences, cleaning staff, academics and many others. Whilst for some the end of the academic year is in sight, for others the intensity continues over the summer teaching and supporting postgraduates, managing admissions and many other things. This magnificent effort should not be taken for granted by management. In many cases, it has been at the expense of work/life balance, family life, and general health and well being. In planning for next year, the university needs to ensure that workloads are healthy and reasonable, that the differential impacts of this ongoing crisis on different groups of staff are recognised and acted upon, and that staff are not subject to the devastation of redundancy, whether they are on ‘permanent’ or fixed term contracts.

Act now to protect the arts in Higher Education

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

From email sent to branch members 6 May 2021

Dear members

I expect you’ve heard about the Governments latest plans to decimate arts provision in Higher Education – see for example https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/may/06/plans-for-50-funding-cut-to-arts-subjects-at-universities-catastrophic

A 50% cut to arts funding would be disastrous both across the UK and for this university and our amazing arts schools.

I am writing to urge you to support the Public Campaign for the Arts, see https://www.campaignforthearts.org/petitions/stop-the-50-percent-funding-cut-to-arts-subjects-in-higher-education/ by signing their petition.

Also, the government is holding an extremely short consultation about this, due to end at 23:59 today.  You can input to this consultation here:

https://survey.officeforstudents.org.uk/s/RecurrentFundingConsultation2021-22/

Please do this if you possibly can.

Please share this widely, including on social media.

Thank you.

Ben

Ben Plumpton
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
University of Leeds UCU President

Decisions of general meeting 10 March 2021

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Members met on 10 March and made the following decisions as a branch. The full approved minutes were emailed to members and a copy is available from the honorary secretary or branch administrator.

Rule change motion for UCU Congress 2021: Amend Congress Standing Order 18 (quorum)

Delete “(subject to rounding up to the nearest whole number)”
Add at end:
“except where, by convention, the chair asks that only a subset of the branches in a sector should vote on the topic under discussion, in which case the quorum shall be a fraction of 150 members proportionate to membership in that subset. Quora shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.”
Purpose:
To have a quorum for sector specific conferences on matters relating to a subset of the sector which is line with the membership of that subset.

Motions for UCU Congress 2021

The branch is allowed to submit one non-rule-change motion to UCU Congress 2021. The branch carried two motions: ‘financial disclosure and transparency’ and ‘Xinjiang and Chinese government oppression of the Uighurs’ and agreed to submit ‘financial disclosure and transparency’ to congress unless another branch submits that motion in which case this branch will submit ‘Xinjiang and Chinese government oppression of the Uighurs’.

Motion for UCU Congress 2021: Financial disclosure and transparency

Congress notes the series of issues relating to expenditure, some of which have caused debate within UCU and the media, including £400k of expenditure for a former General Secretary* which was subject of a non-disclosure agreement.
Congress resolves that:

  1. UCU National Executive Committee (NEC) must be provided with proposals for, and be involved in, expenditure decisions relating to:
    a. Redundancy payments or other non-standard payments to UCU employees
    b. Membership levies
    c. Consultancy contracts
  2. The honorary treasurer will report such expenditure to NEC as soon as possible before it has been incurred.

Motion for UCU Congress 2021: Xinjiang and Chinese government oppression of the Uighurs

Congress resolves to issue a statement and initiate a campaign in support of the Uighur population of Xinjiang, calling for the Chinese government to end the on-going forced mass imprisonment, alleged sterilisation, indoctrination, torture and oppression of the Uighur people.

Motion: Ending casual contracts and securing decent work with full employment protections for staff at Leeds: Reaffirming our anti-casualisation claim

This branch notes:

  • Two years ago, in January 2019, Leeds UCU branch lodged an anti-casualisation claim with the University.
  • The claim addressed growing levels of casualised work in all aspects of university employment through fixed-term contracts, worker contracts and hourly-paid staff, on the basis that insecure contracts are detrimental for staff. It also argued that teaching-focused staff should have 20% of time ring-fenced for scholarly activity.  Details here
  • The claim states the need for time-limited negotiations over these matters with the aim of revising university policy. 


This branch further notes:

  • Two years after its submission, the university has not formally negotiated the heads of claim with the UCU branch, although some elements of the claim are the subject of consultation between Leeds UCU and the university through HRTU.
  • Based on discussions of the claim in the anti-casualisation working group, the issues outlined in the claim remain and the branch continues to do work, through campaigning and casework to address them. 
  • we want to to send a strong and unified message to the university that the branch continues to see anti-casualisation as a high-priority and to support branch officers in their discussions with HR
  • The branch is aware that, in some instances staff who have been on FTCs for 3 years or more are being transferred onto “open-ended fixed-funded” contracts. These contracts are open only in name and offer no security to staff and potentially offer diminished protections against dismissal by broadening the scope of what would reasonably considered a ‘fair’ dismissal, by allowing the end of funding as a “permissible reason” for termination of contract.

This branch:

  • Reaffirms its commitment to the heads of claim outlined in the anti-casualisation claim of 2019, including: 
    • An end to the use of worker contracts
    • Fractionalisation of hourly-paid staff
    • Removing unequal treatment
    • Reduction of the use of fixed-term contracts
    • Teaching fellowship roles to contain at least 20% scholarly activity.
  • Rejects the use of Open-Ended Fixed-funded contracts as an alternative to fixed-term contracts and calls instead for staff who have been on FTCs for more than three years to be moved onto permanent contracts that are not conditional on funding.
  • Resolves to continue mobilising and organising members to put pressure on management to start formal negotiation of the claim with UCU as a matter of urgency

Motion: Oppose Leeds City Council’s decision to approve the Leeds Bradford Airport expansion

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.

The USS pension ‘deficit’ and the forthcoming survey of members

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Text from email sent to members 21 April 2021

The USS pension scheme recently calculated that on a ‘best estimate’ basis, our pension scheme is £4bn in surplus.* ‘Best estimate’ (or ‘unbiased estimate’) means that this scenario is considered 50% likely to happen. The legal requirement for submitting a pension valuation, however, is that the calculations are done on a ‘prudent’ not ‘best estimate’ basis. ‘Prudent’, in this context, means more than 50% likely to happen. The £4bn surplus, then, is a starting point for those calculations, and the more ‘prudence’ is applied to them the lower the theoretical value of the scheme.

You will have heard of there being a significant deficit in the scheme, and it is likely that this has been represented to you as a fact, and probably without any reference to the ‘best estimate’ surplus. As a consequence of this narrated ‘deficit’, we are told, we must consider a possible reduction in our pension benefits – the amount we can rely on as income in retirement. 

This ‘deficit’ is the mathematical consequence of applying excessive prudence to that best estimate surplus. Some people will argue that the deficit is a result of factors such as increased longevity and market conditions, and yet the Superannuation Arrangements of the University of London pension scheme (SAUL) recently posted a surplus in their valuation, not a deficit. If a surplus/deficit was really only down to market conditions and demographic features, as some would have us believe, then SAUL too would have posted a deficit. But market conditions etc. are simply some of the ingredients in the calculation of a valuation. It is the recipe that is used that ultimately defines the valuation, and the management of assets and liabilities are very different in SAUL and USS. 

One of the key factors in a valuation, more so than longevity and market conditions, is a thing called the ‘discount rate’. This is because a valuation is not about whether there is an account currently in the red or black (in fact the USS assets are currently valued at £80bn, and less than £2bn is needed to be paid out annually, with more than £2bn coming in annually – the scheme remains cash-flow positive with growing assets). Instead, what a valuation does is ask if the current value of the assets matches the current size of all the future pensions that have been promised to date – yours and mine. Fundamentally that is a good question, though it is less crucial in an open and healthy scheme such as ours than in a closing or closed scheme. The ‘discount rate’ in effect is the amount by which you believe those assets will grow over time (because if you have a debt to pay long in the future, you don’t need to hold the full amount now if you can earn returns on it in the interim). As part of their excessively prudent approach, USS are suggesting that the assets will grow at around CPI + 0%, which is to say pretty much not at all – excessive prudence. That is a significantly dominant ingredient in their valuation recipe. Everything that you hear now about the ‘deficit’ has its origins here in decisions that USS make about the valuation. 

The university will soon be sending round a survey of members, and the UUK template we have seen is disappointing, steering toward a pooled acceptance of benefit detriment. The UCU hopes to work with the university to make meaningful adjustments to this survey before it goes out, but please look out for communications from us at the point at which it is released. 

Please alert colleagues in USS who are not UCU members to this post or forward the email on to them – we represent them too in matters of USS. 

Do come to the UCU General Meeting tomorrow, at which we are proposing a motion on USS. See Ben’s email of earlier this afternoon.

There is a national Defend USS meeting this Friday that you might wish to sign up for: http://bit.ly/PensionFightBack

Mark Taylor-Batty
Pensions representative, University of Leeds UCU

Note

*This figure is quoted in a First Actuarial note, quoting USS materials. First Actuarial themselves offer a ‘best estimate’ of £14bn surplus. The disparity is due to FA’s calculations being based on the actual assets that are held by USS, whereas USS calculates based on a theoretical model portfolio – another baked in aspect of prudence in any calculation of valuation.

Here are some recent links:

ABC of USS, jargon explained: https://www.leedsucu.org.uk/the-abc-of-uss-a-guide-to-the-jargon-that-surrounds-our-pension-scheme/

USS bite-sized: https://www.leedsucu.org.uk/uss-pensions-bite-sized/

The valuation: https://www.leedsucu.org.uk/the-uss-pension-scheme-2020-valuation/

The cost of opting out: https://www.leedsucu.org.uk/opting-out-of-the-uss-at-what-cost/

 A crisis in USS governance: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2021/04/06/the-uss-trustees-governance-crisis/

Get involved with UCU Health and Safety!

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

The health and safety work of trade unions has been very important in the last year. As your branch Health and Safety Officer, I’ve been working to raise your concerns about the pandemic, improve guidance, inspect buildings and liaise with the other campus unions. I’ve spent many many hours in meetings to represent all our interests and improve safety for staff and students. All of us involved in safety on the union side feel this work has made a significant difference in improving the university’s approach, but we know there are still many concerns which continue to arise.

On a local level, some schools and departments have elected departmental health and safety reps. These have been crucial in discovering and acting on specific issues. If your part of the university doesn’t have an elected UCU H&S rep., would you consider taking this on? (You can check if your area has a rep at https://www.leedsucu.org.uk/about-us/departmental-representatives/). The role involves keeping an eye open for local health and safety issues, raising them with the local H&S team, representing UCU on your local health and safety committee, and liaising with the branch H&S Officer. UCU can provide optional training (which starts with a 3 day H&S course) and you are entitled by law to necessary time off for H&S duties.

The annual Workers Memorial Day is coming up on Wednesday 28th April. It’s a day when we commemorate those who have lost their lives at work, or from work-related injury or ill health. This year of course, we will particularly remember those workers who have died from COVID-19. So this year more than ever, it’s important to renew our H&S efforts, to organise collectively and to prevent work-related health issues. In our Leeds UCU branch, we want to mark the day by supporting more members to become local H&S reps.  And thus better ensure the health and safety of staff and students.

If you’re interested and would like to discuss this further, please email me.

Or if you decide now that you would like to stand as a local H&S rep, please email ucu@leeds.ac.uk expressing your willingness to stand. Then we’ll need two colleagues in your area who are UCU members to email ucu@leeds.ac.uk nominating you for the role.  If there are nominations for more than one person, there’s a possibility of job sharing or the committee will organise an election. 

The deadline for nominations is Monday 26th April.

Regards,

Neil Maughan

Leeds UCU Health and Safety Officer

UCU branch AGM

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

This post has been edited as the AGM date has been changed from 13 May to 20 May.

A reminder that UCU branch Annual General Meeting (AGM) will be at 3.45pm – 5pm on Thursday 20 May. The meeting will be on Zoom (link to follow nearer the time).

(Not to be confused with the general meeting this Thursday lunchtime that I emailed about yesterday.)

Traditionally we all have tea and coffee and cake from 3.30pm before the AGM, and we’re still going to do that, but you’ll need to provide your own tea and cake!

The deadline for motions to the AGM is 12pm on Tuesday 27 April. Please email any motions to ucu@leeds.ac.uk.

Nominations for the branch committee for the next academic year need to be with the branch administrator by the end of Wednesday 19 May (the day before the AGM).

There is lots of information on the website about standing for the branch committee, including the different roles, the nominations process and the importance of ensuring the committee is representative of the whole membership. Ben Plumpton has offered to have a chat with anyone who is thinking of standing and would like to know more, and I’m happy to do that as well (as are probably all of this year’s committee members).

UKRI/ODA Funding Cuts

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

From email sent to members 16 April 2021

You’ll have seen from the General Meeting agenda circulated yesterday that we’ll be discussing a motion about the UK Research and Innovation Official Development Assistance funding cuts at our branch meeting next week, to go forward to the union’s Higher Education Committee.

Before then, your UCU committee would like to find out more about who is affected and what’s happening on the ground so that we can better support members and campaign against these cuts. We have set up a special meeting for UCU members about this next Tuesday, 20th April, from 1-2 pm on Teams (see email for link).

Locally, your branch negotiators have raised serious concerns with management, and we received an update from the deputy vice-chancellor for research, at the Organisational Change Group meeting this Monday. The timescales that the government have imposed for this have been incredibly tight, and we know that universities must respond to UKRI by today (16th April) with their proposals.  We understand that 16 major projects at Leeds are affected, many involving international partners, and at various stages.  The DVC told us that replacement funding had been found for about half of the cuts but there is still a significant shortfall. We argued, and will continue to argue, that the university should cover this shortfall from reserves and honour all staff contracts.

If this affects you, please come to Tuesday’s meeting.  If you can’t make that time, please let us know by email to ucu@leeds.ac.uk what’s happening in your area.

Also, if you signed the Open Letter about this you will have received an update from the letter organisers on Monday, about the publicity they have generated and the lack of response from UK government, and encouraging you to write to your MP.  Please do – I have attached their template letter but please add examples and personal insights.  They are hopeful that creating sufficient pressure can prevent further cuts next year. You can find your MP and write to them via https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/

Best wishes,

Tim

Tim Goodall
Branch Secretary, University of Leeds UCU

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.