The vote of UCU members in the recent e-ballot paused our industrial action campaign to facilitate the formation of the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) into the USS valuation. But the JEP is already facing resistance from USS itself. Even before the JEP has been elected, its independence, its ability to question the valuation and its authority to decide changes are being undermined by the actions of USS. If the JEP is unable to affect the valuation this round, members will see escalating costs or cuts in their pensions, or both.

The USS Joint Negotiating Committee meets on the 27th April. If the JEP is to function effectively it has to be empowered to properly investigate the valuation, challenge assumptions and explore alternative valuation methodologies. We reserve our right to take further action. If this means putting industrial action back on for the examinations period and beginning a new industrial action ballot, so be it.

The London Region UCU ‘Union Transformed’ activists meeting on Saturday now provides a central opportunity to discuss the way forward in depending our pensions. Details are at: https://uculondonregion.wordpress.com/

USS management are fighting a rearguard action to defend their valuation methodology, despite it having been discredited by members, by First Actuarial and UCU, by individual employers and even by UUK itself. Our industrial action has destroyed the credibility of the valuation, revealing it as partisan, inconsistent and designed to undermine the viability of a Defined Benefit pension scheme. When we are told that a valuation fluctuates from a £5.2 to £7.5 billion deficit (before settling on £6.1 billion), most unbiased observers would see it as anything but definitive!

USS is being obstructive because it is no longer a body set up and run by members and employers. Instead has become a giant pension fund with its own interests. USS, and more precisely its senior managers, are placing their own credibility in the financial sector above those of the members of the scheme who stand to lose their pensions. They want to minimise risks to themselves (whether actual or perceived) and maximise their profits.

USS’s latest decision to impose cost-sharing increases in contributions, under rule 76.4, of 10.6% on members and employers (3.7% on members and 6.9% on employers), seems designed to make the continuation of the Defined Benefit scheme unaffordable to all. If this were not bad enough, USS are saying that the JEP would have to report by the end of the summer and can only make minor changes to assumptions. This rule 76.4 imposition seems aimed at undermining the JEP, however independent or expert its members.

USS are now seeking to manage their campaign in defence of the valuation, referred to as the November valuation, and in doing so provide partial, inaccurate and biased information. So in their latest video, A technical overview of the 2017 Valuation, https://vimeo.com/264204534 a series of incomplete and inaccurate statements are made to encourage a view that their valuation remains justified.

We are told at the very beginning that the ‘Trustees must make decisions in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the scheme’ (0.28 minutes in). This implies that members’ interests are paramount. Yet this is an incomplete and misleading statement.

USS’s legal advice to the JNC was that the law ‘..  does not require that every decision taken by USSL or the JNC should have an exclusively positive impact on the financial wellbeing of each member… Decisions have to be taken in the round, taking account of uncertainty over time and considering the Scheme as a whole (US legal advice to JNC members 22^ndJanuary 2018).

It is the ‘scheme’ not the ‘member’ which takes paramount importance in decision making. Loses of pension by members is acceptable as long as the scheme is maintained.

Elsewhere in the video there are numerous other examples.

• So we are told (12:30 minutes into the video) that USS is at “the least prudent end” of UK pension schemes for its valuation, yet this is a comparison with DB pension schemes which are closed to new members. It compares the open collective USS scheme, with its collective covenant agreement covering all pre-92 HE institutions, with closed schemes backed by only individual employers? Why wouldn’t USS be less prudent than these schemes in these circumstance?
• We are also told (19:00 minutes) that each element of the variables within the modelling for the scheme are “independently verified”. Yet there is no consistency in the data used for these variables. Salary growth, for instance, is measured in different ways with a lower measure for the growth of assets (salary growth = CPI) and a higher measure for the growth of liabilities (salary growth = CPI +2%). This is what is meant by bias.
• Most importantly the discount rate is designed to demonstrate a deficit. As USS are forced to admit (25:00 minutes into the video) the 10 year rate of return on equities is estimated at CPI + 1.91%. Yet USS arbitrarily chose a discount rate of CPI – 0.53% for their 10 year discount rate, even though they know a discount rate of just CPI +1.35% is sufficient to break even. This is setting up the valuation to generate a deficit and is what UCU calls ‘reckless prudence’!

The imposition of rule 76.4 means that USS have made it clear they are committed to sticking to the November valuation, irrespective of the JEP. They say they will defend their valuation by imposing increased costs on employers and employees if the JEP seeks to make any significant changes – which it would have to do if it were to undertake a serious approach to the valuation methodology, assumptions or accounting standards.

Where does that leave the union?

Firstly, UCU must continue to demand UUK support the decision to establish the JEP and ensure it has sufficient authority and time to examine the scheme’s methodology in full.

Therefore

1. UCU must insist that the DC scheme is formally withdrawn at that meeting.
2. The USS proposal to impose rule 76.4 must also be rejected by the JNC.
3. The April 2019 implementation date for changes to benefits and contributions must be abandoned.

There is no reason to retain the original deadfline from a discredited valuation process. A new implementation date can be determined once the JEP has reported. Until such time maintaining our existing DB scheme with the status quo and no detriment ‘at least’ until April 2019 must now be agreed.

If the employers will not support this position at the JNC, it indicates that they are not genuine in their proposal for a joint expert panel in the 23 March UUK offer. It will be a slap in the face for every member of UCU, including those who voted YES for the offer.
UCU needs to be clear with its members. We have demonstrated our industrial leverage, and we must be prepared to use it again. Members have learned that by carrying out extended strikes we can completely disrupt and shut down the college. Our current mandate continues until 19 July. UCU can strike with 14 days’ notice for any period until then, and can start a fresh ballot mandate for further action, including to hit the beginning of the autumn term if necessary.

Following the JNC, UCU must urgently call branch delegate meetings, this time with full voting rights, to debate the way forward and to discuss mobilising branches for future action.

Most of all, what is happening must be discussed with members face-to-face. Branches will need to call general meetings and put Late Motions to Sector Conference in May as part of the campaign for renewed action to defend USS.

We reject this proposal because

1) it does not go nearly far enough to meet our demands and

2) we are in an excellent position to continue to pressure employers and to get what we want.

We strongly welcome the large and dynamic members’ meetings that have met to debate the proposal. These have seen a growing tide of opinion in favour of a no vote, with branches such as Kent, Salford and Sheffield already resoundingly voting to recommend a no vote. We urge all branches to follow their example and hold branch meetings at the earliest opportunity.

We welcome the expert panel in the UUK proposal – it is critical that the valuation is seriously challenged. But we reject the framing of the terms of the panel within the existing constraints of “risk”, “affordability” and the “current regulations”. A revaluation within these constraints may lead to improvements, but excessive prudence or a regulatory approach that was not designed for a gigantic sectoral scheme could still lead to the artificial creation of a deficit,

The commitment of UUK to DB is too vague and too weak. There is no commitment to anything approaching the status quo. It is not even definite that it will give us more for the current valuation than the 12^th March offer members resoundingly rejected. All the employers are really committed to is paying our current benefits until April 2019. But even the employers’ original, and much-lambasted, 100% DC proposal promised this much.

There is no mention of protection from victimisation for striking members, nor a commitment not to deduct from staff on casualised contracts.

Even the timing is vague. There are no deadlines in the proposal, so we could get the Valuation Panel report at a time in the academic year that makes it harder to ballot and take industrial action if we need to.

This is not what we stood on picket lines for, for 14 days in the cold, rain and snow. It’s not what thousands of members joined the union for.

We are in a good position to take action and force UUK back to negotiate for more. The employers are terrified by the 14 days of industrial action we have planned, because the action is timed to maximise disruption to marking and Exam Board preparation. They are desperate to avoid the resulting chaos, complaints and demands from students. While veiled threats from the Chinese Embassy, and the potential loss of millions in revenue from international students, has them very worried. We will not easily be in this good a position again.

That is why we voted against the move to ballot at HEC and will be voting No.

It is also why we will continue working with members to turn what has been the most impressive industrial action our union has undertaken into its most successful.

UCU Left HEC members (pre-92)

Sue Abbott
Rachel Cohen
Julie Hearn
Marion Hersh
Lesley Kane
Lesley McGorrigan
Eleni  Michalopoulou
Carlo Morelli
Sean Wallis

UCU Left No Detriment Leaflet – click to download

A week is a long time in politics – and also in Higher Education management apparently!

On Tuesday 13^th March the limit of affordability for employers, while conceding that members of staff value a defined benefit pension scheme, was £42K at an accrual rate of 85^th and a CPI cap of 2.5%. By the end of the next week (10 days later) the status quo was being guaranteed, at least until April 2019, and any long-term changes would ensure a ‘broadly comparable’ pension would be the outcome.

This apparent change of heart of the employers is being scrutinised by striking UCU members with a fine-tooth comb due to their understandable lack of trust in their managements. Unsurprisingly, members are finding the change of heart might not be quite as great as we first thought. April 2019 is the earliest possible date of implementation of any USS changes so conceding ‘status quo’ until then is not a concession.

Our Action Gets Results

The offer from UUK is however significant and does tell us much about what has happened in our 14 days of strike action and also what we need to do next.

Back in February, a wholly defined contribution scheme was “the only affordable option available” and defined benefit was a utopian dream. According to one commentator, ‘it is unclear how anything less than [massive disruption] that could bring about a proposal that conforms to UCU policy.’ Well, we now know the disruption did work.

First the employers moved to offer a (very poor) defined benefit scheme after three weeks of action. However, that offer was completely inadequate. Accepting it would have been disastrous, amounting to a 19% cut in value for employees at the absolute minimum. That deal was thrown out by the mobilisation of rank and file members of UCU on 12^th and 13^th March. In university after university, college after college, members met quickly and decided to oppose it.

Now, 10 days later we have a more serious offer that could get us to a point where the existing defined benefit scheme was maintained and even protected in the future. But the offer is not yet sufficient.

It is our action that has achieved this. It is only the threat of our action next term that can now win a settlement that is worth the paper it is written on

We Are Winning: Keep The Action On.

The UUK offer does provide the basis for settling this dispute but ONLY if the ambiguity and obfuscation is removed.

• The ‘status quo’ must not simply be guaranteed to ‘at least April 2019’ and must also be accompanied by a commitment to #NoDetriment if (for some reason) the Independent Expert Group discovers that the valuation is in deficit and changes must be made. Any changes must leave current and future members no worse off than under the status quo.
• The ‘current regulatory framework’ has created the mess we are now in. Therefore we must demand any changes to the scheme must not be undermined by the ‘current regulatory framework’. This means action should not be called off until USS JNC, Trustees and Pension Regulator have agreed the proposal.
• ‘Guaranteed’ benefits must be genuinely guaranteed, i.e. defined. It should not mean guarantees for a minimum pension topped up by hoped-for additional payments dependent upon the vagaries of the market. Guaranteed benefit must mean defined benefit, if it doesn’t, the guarantee is worthless.
• ‘Inter-generational fairness and equality considerations’ must mean no to a two-tier scheme whereby new members get worse pension benefits. The casualised staff joining our strike deserve the same rights to the same pension as the rest of us as soon as they get jobs. In the medium term we should resume the debate about Final Salary vs. CARE. Currently those facing discrimination in career progression also get discriminated against in their pensions due to the way the current CARE scheme. Equal pay for work of equal value must also mean equal pensions for work of equal value.

This offer by UUK has not been negotiated with the UCU elected negotiators. Indeed they saw it for the first time just one hour before it was released to members. They have not been able to change a single word.

UCU branches must now mandate their delegates to Wednesday’s branch reps meeting to demand the negotiators return to talks with UUK and ensure the words on the deal are understood by all to be consistent with those above. If UUK are serious and agree with our interpretation then this can be resolved in days.

If not, then the deal is not worth the paper it is written on, and the action must continue.

#NoDetriment: Do not call off the action or ballot members until we have secured a commitment from the employers not to make detrimental changes to members’ benefits in the current valuation round

#NoDetriment: Do not send it out to ballot by members until USS JNC, Trustees and tPR have agreed it

#NoDetriment: Keep the action on until UUK agree to UCU’s demands

Historic Vote in UCU

Now Make It Count: build the strikes

The vote for strikes to defend USS pensions in pre-92 universities is historic on many levels. 

Not only is the 58% turnout and 88% for strike action the highest vote UCU has ever recorded but it has also demonstrated how we can overcome the the Tory anti-union laws.

The day after the vote the USS Joint Negotiating Committee voted to press ahead with attacks on our pensions. Sir Andrew Cubie again used his casting vote to back the employers and destroy our pensions. Only our strikes can stop them now.

We are now the second major union (the other being the CWU) to break through the 50 percent threshold in a ballot across Britain. As a result UCU’s Higher Education Committee (HEC) have correctly responded by calling 14 days of escalating strikes at 61 universities to begin on 22 February.

The magnificent vote for action didn’t come out of thin air. Thousands of members, branch activists and officers, and UCU staff took the arguments into the universities about the real significance of the attack on our pensions. USS negotiators spoke at dozens of universities. Out of the 12 branches with the highest votes in the ballot one of the negotiators had spoken at nine of them! This vote shows what UCU can do when it campaigns as a fighting trade union.

The vote vindicates what UCU Left members and supporters have been consistently arguing for years—when we fight for our members they will rally around our union. Branch after branch has reported recruiting many new members. We now have to turn this vote into an industrial campaign of strikes alongside a political campaign to defend higher education from the market folly that is being unleashed on the sector.

Learning, teaching and research have been replaced by the profit motive.  Staff are overworked and underpaid. Managerialism with an associated culture of bullying and blame is endemic. The attack on USS is simply the latest phase in this process.

We are seeing the creation of a market for students in which dog eat dog is the mentality of the university managements. In this atmosphere of competition where they are ‘competing’ against each other one university going bankrupt could be seen as a good thing, as long as they don’t pick up their pension liabilities as a result – 

Hence the break-up of the USS scheme and the ending of collective pensions and move to individual defined contributions.

Some in our union’s elected leadership simply do not understand the importance of this historic vote. They are still arguing that members may have voted for action but they aren’t really prepared to go on strike. We have to make clear to those conservative voices in our union that members want to defend their collective defined benefit pension, without cuts in benefits and without increasing contributions.

We must avoid settling for too little and making compromises too early. We have a one off opportunity to defend our pensions and significantly reduce the likelihood of future attacks on them.

Members are crying out for an effective UCU that puts a halt to privatisation, marketisation and cuts. This is what UCU Left members on the union’s HEC have been arguing for and will continue to do so.

UCU activists delivered the strike vote. Now we need to deliver the strike action too.

We need to;

1. Step up the meetings of UCU members, open them to non-members and ask them to join UCU. Build the union!
2. Organise strike committees open to all who want to be active. This is the members’ strike so let them own it and run it.
3. Hourly paid visiting lecturers do much of the seminar and lab teaching in our universities. We can’t achieve effective action unless we ensure that our HPVLs are engaged with and supported by, us. It’s still free for PhD students to join UCU and not too late for them to join and participate in the action, so we need to develop local recruitment campaigns.
4. Organise for solidarity from students. Ensure students know their education is being undermined by profit driven managers who have no interest in students unless it is for their NSS score.
5. Organise the political campaign to win the argument for pensions and a public university. Write, lobby and visit MPS, councillors and members of the devolved administrations.
6. Build opportunities for solidarity from other trade unions, call demonstrations and public meetings.
7. We need a national demonstration to defend pensions and higher education.
8. Call on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party to support our action.

We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to reclaim the universities and make them into public bodies in which education is for all; we can stop their transformation into profit centres for big business.

UCU Elections Starting Soon

Back in July HEC voted to mandate its USS negotiators to defend the Defined Benefit scheme. That is what has happened to date and must continue.

This approach has in no small measure been due to the role played, alongside others, by UCU Left supporters from the campuses up to the level of national negotiators. While of course demonstrating a willingness to negotiate they have been steadfast that the Defined Benefit scheme must be protected.

This has unified UCU’s negotiating position and proven successful so far in stopping the imposition of the employers’ proposals.

UCU members have NEC elections in February. We must take the opportunity to elect UCU Left supporter Nia Sanghera as the union’s first black woman Vice President. We should also  back other UCU Left supporting candidates who can ensure the lessons of this battle become embedded within UCU at all levels.
https://nita4vpucu.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/first-blog-post/

https://www.facebook.com/Nita4VPucu/