UCU Left

23 February 202623 February 2026

Youth unemployment at an eleven year high: the trade union movement must act!

— Sean Vernell UCU City and Islington and UCU national negotiator
— Regi Pilling UCU Westminster Kingsway and NEC

Just under one million 16-24 year olds are not in work, education or training.

Overall unemployment stands at 5%, but among 16-24 year olds it is 16.1%! This is the highest in eleven years. That’s one in eight young people who are not in work, education or training. These are not marginal figures, they are shocking and a social indictment.

How is it that the sixth richest country in the world cannot provide the most basic needs for our young people?

The response from politicians and employers is shameful yet predictable. They blame the minimum wage and young people’s supposed lack of skills. They fail to take any responsibility for the problem, instead blaming young workers for apparently ‘pricing themselves out of work’ and on to teachers for failing to train them with the skills needed by the labour market.

Starmer’s Labour government accepts these explanations. Caving into pressure from employers, it seems they will break another manifesto pledge and delay the rise in minimum wage for under 21s. This will only entrench the discrimination already faced by young workers.

The review commissioned by the government and led by arch-Blairite Alun Milburn is clearly preparing justifications for another assault on young people’s benefits, if they refuse to take low paid and demeaning jobs.

The real reason one million young people are out of work, education or training is not a failure of character or capability. It is the relentless pursuit of profit. Over the past four decades, wealth inequality has widened dramatically. ‘Trickle-down economics’ ushered in under Thatcher did not generate shared prosperity: it concentrated wealth in ever-fewer hands. Big Business’s desire to maintain these historic highs of profitability has been achieved through trying to weaken unions, cut jobs, increase workload and lower wages.

The supposed “skills deficit” of young people is not the core issue for their unemployment. The underlying issue is the failure of successive governments to create or invest in new, meaningful and well-paid jobs. Instead they have remained wedded to the deregulated neoliberal economic models of the last fifty years. The acceptance of this orthodoxy has seen public services privatised and cut, often accompanied by deskilling, and always by a reduction in wages and conditions.

This has further undermined, rather than expanded, job opportunities. Alongside this there has been an over emphasis on so-called economic growth in the ‘service and financial sectors’ — growth that too often generates low-paid, insecure and low-skilled work.

This has combined with an education system which has prioritised a Govian curriculum and heavy-duty assessment approach which has left many young people disillusioned and ‘failed’ by the education system. The government’s recent curriculum review acknowledged aspects of this problem, yet there has been little willingness to pursue the structural changes necessary to build an education system capable of enabling young people to flourish as informed and fulfilled individuals.

Mass youth unemployment has been institutionalized as a structural feature of the economy since the late 1970s. For fifty years, successive governments have failed to introduce schemes to create work. From the disastrous YOP, YTS and MSC schemes of the early 1980s, to the 2013 decision to raise to 18 the age at which young people must remain in education or training — all have failed to secure young people meaningful employment.

Those of us who work in Further Education know too well the impact on young people’s lives of government and employer failure. Sickness rates are at a record high. This is due to an increase in physical and mental ill-health, as young people find it increasingly difficult to live in a brutal world that prevents them from fulfilling their dreams.

A generation is being asked to lower their expectations in order to fit the suffocating constraints of an economy that offers insecurity as standard.

‘Workers staying in work for longer’ is often cited as a key barrier to young people gaining work. This narrative is an attempt to divide young workers from old. To the extent that this narrative is true, there are easy solutions to this problem.

First, return the state retirement and workplace pension age to 60, equalised at what was previously women’s retirement age. Increase employer pension contributions to facilitate stronger pensions which allow older workers to retire earlier.

Second, introduce a three day week on the same pay for those already in work, enabling those younger workers to enter the labour market.

We are told this argument is unaffordable and ‘pie in the sky’. But affordability is a political question — funding is about political choices and not cast-iron economic rules. This government has chosen to increase arms spending by 5% rather than deal with youth unemployment.

These are not economic inevitabilities but political choices being made.

Unemployment has always played an important role in the running of the system. Unemployment is a surplus pool of labour that can be tapped into when order books are full. Its existence disciplines those in work: ‘don’t complain about your pay and conditions as plenty of others would be more than happy to take your job’. Youth unemployment is not an accident. It is the result of choices and is being embedded into the system.

Therefore, this task is an urgent one. We must build a campaign capable of preventing the further immiseration of young people and of resisting attempts to divide those in work from the unemployed, and young from older workers.

The trade union movement must act.

The dangerous consequences of failing to act and of centering youth unemployment are all too clear — as shown by the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ demonstration in September 2025, organised by the fascist Tommy Robinson. On the demo there were large numbers of young working class teenagers, pumped up with rage, marching through the capital.

Reform UK argues that the white working class youth are more likely to be unemployed than their Black and Asian counterparts. This is untrue. In fact, institutional racism ensures that young Black people are twice as likely to be unemployed as their white counterparts, and Asian youth suffer the highest rates of unemployment (23%), according to a TUC report into equality and diversity in employment.

The labour and trade union movement has historically played an important role in ensuring that the collective power of the trade union movement is the champion of working-class youth rather than the hate filled divisive politics of the far right. The far right offers not solutions but scapegoats.

Historically, the labour and trade union movement has always provided a different answer. The Right to Work campaign launched in the latter half of the 1970s played an important role in undermining the fascist National Front’s support among white working-class youth. The campaign organised marches, lobbies and young unemployed activists joined striking workers on their picket lines.

We need to once again make the issue of youth unemployment a central part of our wider campaigns. We must challenge the increasingly dominant narrative, promoted by sections of the media, the far right and mainstream politicians alike, that this crisis is caused either by the young themselves or by older workers clinging to employment.

Young people today need policies that will ensure they don’t become another ‘lost generation’, scarred and dehumanised by life on the scrap heap. We must renew the demand for one million climate jobs, to return to public ownership of all our utilities, for council housing on a mass scale, and for the reversal of cuts to youth services across higher, further and adult education. Tuition fees must be scrapped for all courses.

As an education union, UCU has both a responsibility and an opportunity to lead. We must place the struggle against mass youth unemployment at the centre of our campaigning work.

If elected to the NEC, we will work to ensure that this becomes a strategic priority for our union.

Sean Vernell and Regi Pilling are standing in the elections for the UCU National Executive Committee.

20 February 202626 February 2026

Palestine is still the issue

— Sean Wallis, University College London

Reblogged from seanwallis.uk

The treatment of the Palestinian people is the defining question of the decade.

Where you stand on the deliberate brutal suppression of the Palestinians defines where you stand on the basic question of universal human rights.

Universality is not an abstract question: the alternative is selectivity.

Citizens of the UK have been forced into a position of horrified bystanders to one of the greatest crimes of our generation. In a world of social media and multi-channel international television, we cannot pretend we do not know a genocide is going on.

Our government has been complicit, which means that we are forced to contend with the democratic question: how do we hold our elected government accountable?

Standing with Palestine does not mean turning a blind eye to anti-semitism. On the contrary. We must be vigilant and condemn racism of all kinds, whether against Jews or Palestinians. Racism is the enemy of people everywhere. It is a weapon of divide and rule.

You don’t have to be ‘left wing’ to think like this. You don’t even need to be a liberal.

You only need to think, this could happen to you.

This is not just rhetoric. Around the world, Donald Trump’s New World Order is indeed being directed at people from the Lebanon to Venezuela and Greenland… and Minneapolis.

This is why the demonstrations for Palestine are massive, with a very broad demographic.

When all are counted, the movement for Palestine solidarity is comparable in size (possibly bigger), and is more sustained than, the two million plus who marched over Iraq in 2003 — up to that point, the biggest mass movement in British history.

The Iraq war protests had three, possibly four truly mass demonstrations: one in September 2002 of 450,000, the famous 15 February 2003 demo (two million in the UK with 1.5 million in London), and then a demonstration of 750,000 when the war started. A second demonstration during the war brought some 400,000 onto the streets.

By contrast, the recent Palestine protests may never have had a single ‘February 15th moment’, but the movement has sustained mobilisations in the hundreds of thousands over two whole years. After more than 20 national demonstrations, the movement sees no sign of abating.

It is also notable that this is a movement built in the teeth of grotesque misrepresentation from establishment figures and supporters of the slaughter in Gaza.

Perhaps the most disgraceful chapter was when Suella Braverman, then Home Secretary, libeled the movement as a ‘hate march’, while simultaneously allowing an anti-semitic fascist mob to descend on the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day 2023. This was too much even for the Metropolitan Police. In response, 750,000 marched on the US Embassy — and then Rishi Sunak sacked her.

This overall pattern was reflected in other attempts, such as when the Conservatives asserted that the slogan ‘From the River to the Sea’ was anti-semitic. This is nonsense. But it was defeated by mass defiance and public condemnation.

One might think that the collapse of the Conservatives and the election of a Labour government would have led to a change in tone. But if anything, attempts at repression of pro-Palestinian voices have escalated, in wider society and on our campuses.

Repression on campus

A lot of attention in recent months has (rightly) been on the Government ban on Palestine Action. I think it is absolutely right for this to be challenged, and the ban should be overturned.

When Parliament debated the Terrorism Act 2000, there was no suggestion that the law would be used to proscribe non-violent direct action campaigns. Indeed the legal language was expressed in terms of ‘violent extremism’, literally: a political ideology that intrinsically involved violence.

The ban on Palestine Action raises many questions for UCU members. Can colleagues teach about social movements, theories of non-violent direct action, or contemporary politics without risking being accused of ‘supporting’ terrorism?

The safe solution: Don’t Mention the War. The chilling effect is real.

This ban also directs the criminal law against members of the group like Qesser Zuhrah, a UCL student who was arrested and detained, and began a hunger strike to protest at her prison conditions.

British courts are supposed to uphold a principle of innocence until proven guilty. But Qesser and her colleagues have been detained without bail or trial (‘on remand’) for a year. The Government’s refusal to engage with the hunger strikers is itself a scandal, as Michael Mansfield KC has observed.

Repression does not work. Curtailing free speech does not make society safer, as we learned in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. On 7/7 2005, among other incidents, London was hit by multiple terrorist bombs, including in Bloomsbury. Then, on Christmas Day in 2009, an ex-UCL student attempted to bring a bomb onto an aircraft in his underpants. The university commissioned a thorough independent review into the student’s time at UCL. The Caldicott Review found no evidence that this man was radicalised while a student, or that intervention by the university authorities might have changed the outcome. The proposals for future action are extremely modest.

Yet, returning to the present day, without any evidence of violent disorder by the anti-war and pro-Palestine movement, campaigners, students and staff are being put under a spotlight.

Long-established parameters of freedom of speech are openly challenged by politicians, not for reasons of public safety, but in order to suppress the pro-Palestine movement. Arabic words like intifada, which literally means ‘jumping up’ and ‘shaking off’ (so that’s Taylor Swift banned) are allegedly a call to violence.

But here’s the thing: the 1987 Palestinian intifada was expressly recognised by the United Nations, who condemned and warned Israel for their acts of suppression. It says something about how far to the right sections of the British political establishment has lurched that they are seeking to retrospectively condemn the use of a word referring to an event that the UN ruled was legitimate resistance to oppression. Indeed, in 2023, recognising the way the term was being misrepresented by anti-Palestinian lobbyists, academics in University College London jointly explored the meaning of ‘intifada’.

University authorities have attempted to bring their share of repression onto campus. Far from acting, as required by their Charters and the law of the land, to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech, the University of London and the University of Cambridge separately brought pre-emptive civil injunctions banning student encampments and protests on their grounds.

Speech is free — if we agree with it. (George Orwell would be so proud.)

New anti-protest policies have followed suit, not just at these universities, seeking to limit protest.

This repression impacts directly on campus trade unions, like Birkbeck UNISON, who were initially told they had to get express permission from the University of London to assemble outside the university entrance to protest at their Board of Governors meeting!

Or SOAS UNISON and UCU, who were prevented from picketing their own entrances.

Student societies have been banned. But the targeting of individuals has been worse. Students and staff have been suspended and expelled from universities by little more than kangaroo courts. Once expelled, overseas students can lose their visa sponsorship, and are in line to be deported.

What can UCU do?

UCU, like all trade unions cannot remain neutral in such a situation.

We must be prepared to take a stand.

Since 2023, in my role as London Region Secretary, I have helped organise and facilitate training for UCU reps on freedom of speech law, working with the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC). As UCL branch secretary, I have advised, represented and supported many individual union members. I have also advised students — because what happens to them may happen to us. And, as an NEC member, I carried a motion to ensure that if members receive initial legal advice from the ELSC they are not prevented from accessing union legal support.

The law is clear: freedom of expression is considered one of the principal freedoms by the courts, because if someone cannot speak freely they cannot defend themselves. Like all freedoms, it is not unrestricted (see Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights). But any restrictions on that freedom must be proportionate, and carried out by a proper and competent authority. (Politicians like Nigel Farage who denounce the European Convention wish to strip us of all our Human Rights, including freedom of expression.)

The Office for Students (OfS) has issued regulatory guidance which shows just how far the Universities have already overstepped the legal boundaries the Government officially expects.

May universities issue pre-emptive injunctions against Palestine encampments? The OfS says No, this is disproportionate, and thus likely to be a breach of the positive duty to secure freedom of speech (Example 13: encampment disrupting ordinary activities).

The law is on our side, at least for now.

Trade unions are mass organisations of workers. We have to stand up for basic principles of defending the rights of members, and an injury to one is an injury to all.

Solidarity and internationalism are our watchwords. Our members are of many races and religions. That means we cannot be neutral: we oppose all forms of racism and prejudice.

There are important principled limits on free speech: fascists spreading racism and violence (and organising thugs to do so) must be opposed, not defended. But a ‘no platform for fascists’ principle requires very great care in clarifying precisely where that line lies.

We need to be resolute in our convictions, debate and work through disagreements, and be prepared to defend each other in the face of an increasingly hostile political establishment that seeks to divide us.

We all face a basic test of solidarity. We must rise to it.

Palestine is still the issue.

Forever wars, racism & corruption – their new world order

We need a union that can rise to the challenges we face.

— Sean Vernell, Capital City College

Since Donald Trump came to office, the world has become a nastier and even more dangerous place. His foreign policy is reckless, confrontational, and he seems hell-bent on starting World War Three. Such a global conflict would have unprecedented destructive potential. Today, all the major powers possess nuclear arsenals, and any large-scale war would dwarf the carnage of the First and Second World Wars.

However, Trump appears indifferent to where such conflicts erupt, as long as they serve US power and his own political ambitions.

The environmental crisis continues to deepen, yet for Trump this is not problematic but an opportunity. A key factor motivating his targeting Greenland has been the rising temperatures that are opening access to mineral-rich land and new shipping routes. As the ice melts, corporate interests race to exploit what was once inaccessible, envisioning profit-driven developments and large-scale resource extraction.

Venezuela, Iran, Palestine and Greenland are all treated as part of what Trump refers to as America’s “backyard” — the so-called Western Hemisphere — territory he believes must be controlled to protect US interests. Combine this imperial ambition with Trump’s global tariff wars, and the result is a perfect storm pushing the world in one direction: permanent conflict.

When NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warns that “we must prepare for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured,” it is clear that these concerns are shared well beyond the left.

European governments have responded to Trump’s drive to war by ratcheting up arms spending — there is now a new arms race in full flow. In Germany, thousands of school students walked out after the announcement of so-called “voluntary conscription.” In Britain, right-wing tabloids openly campaign for conscription’s return.

Keir Starmer’s response to Trump’s interventions around the world has been craven. He is consistently first to offer support for the US and has caved to right-wing pressure on issue after issue.

The Epstein Files: A symptom of a sick system

The Epstein Files have exposed the rotten and sick world of the rich and powerful. Pressure from Trump’s own base to release the files has revealed a network of sexual abuse protected and facilitated by the super-rich. Journalists continue to uncover individuals who were part of Epstein’s circle or who enabled him through silence and complicity. Presidents, political leaders and senior politicians appear across the evidence. The scale of corruption, misogyny and abuse is breathtaking.

Politicians now rush to distance themselves, feigning ignorance that strains all credibility. We have to listen to absurd interviews; for instance, Wes Streeting denigrating Peter Mandelson’s behaviour, as if he had no idea that Mandelson was obsessed with all the trappings of the wealthy and powerful — the elite access, the private clubs and their wealthy patrons.

What of Keir Starmer, feigning shock at the news that Peter Mandelson received regular payments from Epstein — payments he claims not to remember(!) — and that he passed insider government information to his banker friend? Starmer appointed Mandelson as US Ambassador precisely because of these elite connections, not despite them.

Many political commentators argue that Epstein cultivated powerful friends in order to gain wealth but also as insurance against any attempt to turn against him. While that may be true, it misses the bigger picture. The Epstein scandal reveals the world the wealthy inhabit and how they view everyone else. The files expose secret, lucrative deals and corrupt networks designed to make the rich even richer, by-passing democratic oversight. From arms dealers to private security firms, Epstein used his connections to profit from exploitation.

This is a world with a fundamentally different moral code — one where people are treated as disposable, sexist and misogynist behaviour is normalised, and laws are considered optional. Solidarity, dignity and respect seemingly have no place.

In short, the Epstein Files are not an aberration but a mirror: a reflection of a society built on class, empire and oppression — the same society they seek to impose on the rest of us.

The main enemy is at home: don’t let them divide us

The left has its work cut out.

A far-right government controls the most powerful state in the world, while social-democratic governments elsewhere buckle under far-right pressure. Appeasement has become the name of the game.

Draconian repression of protest is now routine, from the arrests of leading pro-Palestinian activists to attacks on social movements. It is utterly shameful that the British government were even prepared to allow pro-Palestinian hunger strikers to die.

The deliberate use of racism to divide working people appears to be working — or does it?

Trump’s unleashing of ICE, acting like a proto-Nazi brownshirts force and engaging in brutality and killings, including those of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, has sparked mass protest across the US. In some areas, confrontations between ICE and local police reflect a potential civil war stand-off. This shows the possibility of resistance.

In Britain, on the surface Farage seems invincible, seemingly appearing to be marching straight to No. 10. Starmer’s constant appeasement only strengthens the right. Vice Chancellors at some major universities have met with Reform UK policy advisers to woo favour. They are playing with fire and making a big mistake.

The far right can be stopped — it is not a given that Farage will be our next PM. The brilliant campaigns to defend refugee accommodation have successfully beaten back far-right mobilisations across the country.

When Tommy Robinson mobilised up to 150,000 people in London last September, it was a wake-up call.

On March 28th, the Together Alliance has called a national demonstration in central London. Over sixty civil society organisations — including the TUC — are backing it. This must become a turning point.

Turn defence to offence

We need to build a movement that can turn the defensive campaigning against the far right to an offensive one against the government. At present, all the pressure on Starmer’s government comes from the right. That must change — we need an offensive grassroots movement that applies pressure from the left.

There are a growing number of localised strikes, many of which have succeeded. In HE, twenty-six universities are either in dispute or balloting. In FE, sixteen colleges remain in dispute. We need to do all we can to build solidarity with these strikes. However, we can’t beat these attacks workplace by workplace. We need UK-wide action.

The NEU is launching a national ballot over pay, funding and workload. UCU and other unions must follow suit. We need a movement against austerity that defends every job, every wage and every condition.

The fight against war and racism are not separate from the fight against attacks on our living conditions. Employers and governments know full well that a workforce that is divided by racism, sexism and transphobia is a workforce that is easy to conquer.

This is why at the core of every battle we are involved in defending our living standards the anti-racist and anti-war argument must be heard. We must make the argument that every pound spent on defence is a pound not spent on education or pay.

Every time our management invites army recruitment stalls onto our campuses, we need to campaign to prevent them recruiting young working-class people to go and kill and maim the poor and unemployed of another country.

This requires leadership.

UCU NEC elections are now open. It makes a difference who is leading our union.

Do we choose those with a proven record of opposing war, racism and all forms of oppression? Those who have led successful strikes and defended members’ conditions and so are in workplaces which have sector leading terms and conditions?

Or do we want a leadership that consistently looks for excuses not to fight?

I know who I’ll be voting for – here are the UCU Left NEC candidates and the candidate websites for Vice-President from FE, Regine Pilling, and Vice-President from HE, Sean Wallis.

Sean Vernell is standing for London & East FE alongside our other UCU Left candidates.

4 February 20264 February 2026

Conditional Indexation: An introduction to a sugar-coated bitter pill

Carlo Morelli, member of the UCU Superannuation Working Group

USS has produced its second report into changing our pension scheme into a Conditional Indexation (CI) scheme, Conditional Indexation: second report (December 2025). They and our employers claim they are just exploring the feasibility of CI, and have yet to make any decision.

While the final decision may not have been made, their enthusiasm for it is increasingly evident in the positive spin it is given in the first UCU – USS conditional indexation interim report, June 2025 and now second report.[i]

Before making the case against CI, it is worthwhile clarifying what a pension such as USS is, and is not. Unlike the state pension, USS is not redistributive. In short, the more of your salary you and your employer pay in, the more you get out, whereas the state pension pays out entirely based on how long you paid, and you receive the same irrespective of your earnings. This is important when it comes to considering questions of equality between existing types of scheme members under CI.

There are essentially four main types of current USS scheme members:

retired members (meaning those whose pensions are in payment),
deferred members (those not in work in the sector but with pensions built up and not yet in payment),
active members (currently making payments into USS), and finally
dependents (partners and children of deceased members in receipt of pensions).[ii]

Changes to a CI-based pension has significant implications on how different groups of members will be treated.

Unlike employer pensions in the public sector, such as in the NHS or the Teachers’ Pension Schemes, USS is a funded scheme. It is not a ‘pay-as-you-go’ scheme in which current employees are paying the pensions of previous employees. Instead, USS has its own assets built up over decades of member contributions, currently valued at over £74bn. This fact is important when it comes to discussing issues of intergenerational fairness between current members of the scheme and the next generation of staff not yet in employment.

These distinct constituencies of current or potential scheme members are important to consider when it comes to any pension scheme. But in the case of USS, they have been central to its success to date.

The forthcoming triannual March 2026 valuation of the scheme is estimated to show a ‘notional’ surplus of as much as £15bn.

USS is considered to be an ‘immature’ scheme, because contributions in and returns on assets continue to exceed payments out, and thus the asset-base continues to grow.[iii] This is also why we have retained guaranteed benefits for our pensions – a defined benefit (DB) pension scheme.

Now, if you disadvantage one group of current members you risk current members removing “their” pension pot from the scheme, to the detriment of its asset base. On the other hand, if you ignore the interests of future members you risk making the scheme unattractive to potential new members, resulting in the scheme becoming ‘mature’, with income no longer covering expenditure and the assets depleting.

As I will now explain, unfortunately, Conditional Indexation introduces these risks.

But there is no need for CI. The scheme is in a very healthy surplus. Instead of discussing increasing the risk of a worse outcome to members under CI, this huge surplus should be used to both protect and extend the current DB scheme, providing better benefits for all.

What is CI anyway?

The very first point to make is that ‘CI’ is not one thing. It is really a spectrum of potential scheme designs, all of which have one thing in common: they seek to pass on inflation risk to members in different ways, affecting different types differently.

Essentially, the greater the inflation protection (and hence the more like a fully DB scheme it is) the higher the projected cost.[iv]

The more ‘flexible’ the scheme is permitted to be, the weaker the inflation guarantee becomes, and hence the more the scheme becomes like a fully Defined Contribution scheme – and the lower the cost to the employers.

As explained on p.8 of the Second Report:

“Importantly, to have maximum flexibility from a funding perspective (and therefore help ensure stable contributions, benefits and indexation), the indexation to be awarded cannot be prescribed in a legally binding formula. In practice this would mean that decisions on indexation would ultimately be a matter of judgement for the relevant decision makers rather than governed in an entirely mechanical fashion – this would enable the scheme to be funded on the basis that CI increases are not guaranteed – thereby delivering increased flexibility compared with the existing approach.” – USS, CI Second Report, 2026, p.8

Thus, Conditional Indexation claims to be a means of protecting members from inflation reducing the real value of their pension, but it makes this inflation protection conditional rather than guaranteed.

‘Flexibility’ in these documents is in relation to control over funding, particularly employers’ funding, rather than the benefits promised to members.

Members would bear the inflation risk, and the guaranteed benefits of our DB scheme are sacrificed in the interests of managers running the scheme and employers whose make the largest contributions (on our behalf, as deferred wages) to the scheme.

Under a CI scheme, each year a decision will be made by scheme managers on whether it is ‘appropriate’ to pay an expected target level of inflation increase to members’ contributions. During the first 10 years following the introduction of CI, and extending to 30 and 60 years when reaching a steady state, the risk of not reaching the target level of increase is expected to be at its greatest (Second Report, p.14 and p.20). The biggest risk will be borne by current pensioners and the current generation of active members.

The process by which this takes place is required to be:

“Fair and transparent: Members, employers and the Trustee should be able to trust that the decision-making framework will lead to fair and reasonable outcomes based on transparent information and in accordance with fiduciary duties.” (original emphasis) – USS, CI Second Report, 2026, p.6

This ‘fairness and transparency’ condition would be achieved through… ‘A well-written policy document’ (p.7)!

Members may recall extensive, well-written critiques of the gilts-based valuation method as the basis of the scheme valuation produced by members, which were ignored and trumped by the ‘fiduciary duty’ reportedly insisted upon by the Pensions Regulator.

However, CI has another problem. It is not only inflation risk that transfers to members under CI. A still stronger guarantee to members’ benefits exists in the Defined Benefit scheme’s collective Employer Covenant.

USS is termed a ‘last man standing’ scheme. This means that if individual universities were to fail, their liabilities (known as Section 75 debt) would be paid by the remaining employer member organisations in USS.

CI would remove employers from this collective covenant by allowing scheme managers to refuse to provide the target level of indexation until the Section 75 debt had been recovered. So pensions can be devalued in real terms if employers leave the scheme. It is no wonder that employers are being encouraged to support CI, given the reported levels of liability in their annual balance sheets under the FRS17 regulations.

Ultimately, CI is not a solution to an inadequate valuation methodology, it passes the buck onto members, and should be rejected!

Intergenerational Inequality: setting member against member

It is not only inflation guarantees that CI seeks to undermine. It also risks pitting member against member in its decision-making over these target inflation increases. Inflation protection in USS is uniformly applied to all types of members, but under CI this would not necessarily be the case.

While active members are modelled in the Second Report within target inflation at CPI+1%, retired members are modelled with a target inflation of CPI. However, this advantage given to active members is only if the target is achieved. On the other hand, under current UK legislation, retired members are protected from poor outcomes with a requirement of inflation protection of 2.5% or CPI whichever is the lower.

It is obvious that a significant level of intergenerational inequality is built into CI proposals. Retired members will have greater protection from poor returns compared to active members. This problem could in theory be mitigated by the use of the current surplus creating a buffer against missing target indexation in the establishment of CI. However, the surplus is generated from past accrual. In this scenario, retired members would see their built-up pension surplus being transferred to today’s active members, instead of increasing retired members’ benefits. And once any surplus is spent, the potential for protection for the next generation is lost.

CI is not a solution to providing decent pensions for past, current or future staff in higher education. Instead, it is a gamble with our pensions that need not be taken. There is a large surplus in the current scheme that could be used to increase benefits to all types of members rather than pitting one section of members against another.

In UCU we need to discuss how to use the reported surplus to the benefit of all members, past and present. For one thing, the current system of inflation protection could be improved with no additional cost.

Our pensions are currently protected as long as inflation is below 5%, but above this and up to 15% there are lower levels of protection. This limitation on inflation protection could be lifted. This has no real cost if inflation remains low, but protects all members equally if it were to rise, for instance under a Farage government or a Trump-induced military conflict or a stock-market crunch.

Conclusion

CI is being promoted as a ‘solution’ to the failings of the long-standing valuation methodology. Yet it is nothing of the sort.

It simply passes all the inflation risks of funding a pension onto members and away from employers and USS.

While members may be bamboozled by supposedly sophisticated modelling in the coming months the key task is simple. We must continue to demand a guaranteed pension.

We struck in 2018 to retain a guaranteed pension for all, and we won. We struck again to reverse pension cuts. The scheme is in surplus.

Don’t let it be stolen now.

Notes

[i] The Second Report includes 60 references to the word ‘could’, 24 to ‘would’ and 46 to ‘will’, compared to 32 to ‘not’, 3 to ‘cannot’, 1 to ‘unable’ and 1 to ‘will not’.

[ii] Members can be in more than one category, such as taking flexible retirement, and there are also some other membership types, such as those who receive full commutation of benefits due to terminal illness.

[iii] The 2025 Financial Report & Accounts show exceptionally this is not the case, due largely to the writing off of USS’ £1bn investment in Thames Water. See Financial Report & Accounts 2025, p.59, available at Report and Accounts.

[iv] The current scheme has inflation protection up to 5%, which is fully 100% matched. If inflation were to rise above 5% up to 5-15% this additional level is matched by 50%. Inflation over 15% is not protected at all. USS is said to have a ‘soft-cap’ for indexation. In a world of CI, any inflation protection would be conditional upon the rules of the CI scheme, with no inflation protection in any year where it was determined unaffordable.

10 January 202610 January 2026

Venezuela to Palestine – Trump’s New World Order

Thursday 15th January, 6.30pm
Register: https://tinyurl.com/uculeft-venezuela-mtg

Trump’s military seizure of Venezuela has shocked the world. Trump boasts openly about his naked imperial goals. He says Venezuela’s oil is “America’s”. Previously Chavez sought to use them to raise workers and peasants’ living standards. Now they are in the hands of extractive climate-destroying US corporations. Trump cites a new Monroe Doctrine where the whole of the Americas from Greenland to Argentina are to be treated as the US’s backyard. Meanwhile Israel’s genocide in Palestine, supported by the USA and Britain, continues under the pretence of a ceasefire. Come to this meeting to discuss what is happening and how we can build solidarity and resistance.

Speakers:
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Lindsey German, Stop the War Coalition
Sophie Bolt, General Secretary CND
Sean Vernell UCU CCG
a Venezuelan activist…

3 December 20252 December 2025

Together Against the Far Right

The threat from racism and fascism is all too clear. Therefore, UCU nationally and UCU Left are supporting the launch of the TOGETHER alliance against the far right, which launched yesterday (https://www.togetheralliance.org.uk/)

This new alliance includes most unions, Palestine Solidarity, Stand Up To Racism, Show Racism the Red Card plus high profile celebrities, including Lenny Henry and David Harewood.

One of its activities will be a major positive demonstration and celebration of our unity in London on March 28.

Can you help build this across the union and beyond?
1. Trade Union Network to Stop the Far Right

Thursday 4th December (tomorrow!) at 6pm SUTR & TUC are hosting this very important meeting for all trade unionists.
Speakers include Daniel Kebede (NEU GS), Steve Wright (FBU GS), Matt Wrack (NASWUT GS) and others.
More details and registration here: https://standuptoracism.org.uk/join-the-sutr-trade-union-network/

2. Start spreading the news and building Together Alliance
To help build and show support we’re asking if you can do an…

Email – send an email to your branch members and reps
Branch and regional meeting – Put support for TOGETHER, and support for the national demonstration on March 28th on your next district agenda.
Social media – post about your support for TOGETHER on all social media platforms.

Suggested text to post:
#TOGETHER we can reject division and racism.
#TOGETHER we can build hope and solidarity across communities.
#TOGETHER we can unite against the far right.
I am standing #TOGETHER with hundreds of trade unions, community organisations, and celebrities. Join us: togetheralliance.org.uk
“We’re supporting TOGETHER. Join us in London on Saturday 28th March 2026 to bring a message of hope over fear.”

You can download pictures to use here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kjtkcPzh4J3fzfh0ksJDxU97if-m0HwgnBwf9_Y80q0/edit?tab=t.ruov9q94yzx3

2 December 202522 December 2025

After the HE ballot results – what next?

The Higher Education ballot results are out.

Despite hard and consistent work by reps and activists in branches, and a campaign from HQ, unfortunately we failed to get over the 50% threshold.

The right in the union are already arguing that it was a mistake to ballot members. Their constant refrain is that it’s the wrong time to ballot, and that the union should concentrate on local fights over jobs rather than building a UK-wide fightback.

This is the position of members of HEC belonging to the Commons and IBL factions who stopped the union reballoting during the 2023 MAB. Having failed to lead the union when they had the mandate, they blame the members, the left – indeed anyone but themselves – for not mobilising successfully now.

How should we interpret this result?

It’s good that 40% of members did participate in the vote – but why did the campaign fail to cross the 50% threshold?

The central problem is that many UCU members, including dedicated union reps, don’t believe that our leadership is willing to lead a serious fight. This is borne out by people questioning the industrial action strategy. The gap between the 70% vote for strike and 83% vote for ASOS may also reflect this.

But this belief is also based on experience of recent disputes.

Branches fighting job losses have been left to fight alone. There has been no attempt to link up the disputes that have won – like Dundee and Newcastle – with those that are striking or balloting here and now. Nor has there been any central effort to build solidarity with branches in the middle of the fight. Restrictions on accessing the Fighting Fund mean branches taking strike action have had to issue public calls to branches for financial support alongside the usual solidarity.

Secondly, UCU central messaging failed to set out the case for the dispute except in general terms. Members reasonably asked ‘what national agreements are under threat?’, ‘what would a national agreement on jobs look like?’ and ‘is the pay claim affordable?’ Multiple branches, such as Durham, took the initiative. There were lively campaigns by branches and reps on social media. A rank and file group tried to pin down the demands. The UCU Solidarity Movement enumerated 10 reasons to vote Yes.

But compared to this, the central campaign was very weak.

The ongoing – and utterly shameful – failure to resolve the dispute with UCU Unite staff has been another big negative factor. And many activists across the UK are still angry at the betrayal of the 2023 MAB campaign over two years ago – and in some cases, are still recovering from the financial hardship they endured.

What next?

So what are the prospects for members, reps and branches in resisting a further cycle of cuts? How can we defend our sector and ourselves?

The employers are not going to sit back. Indeed they may increase the attacks on branches. Northumbria and Southampton Solent are testing the water to see how the union responds to a brazen assault on TPS pension membership. Other employers may think now is the chance to demand job losses.

There are several arguments that won’t go away.

#1: The sector could afford pay and jobs – if employers cut other expenditure

The affordability argument is pushed by the employers’ organisations UCEA and UUK. They say the cupboard is bare, and that the value of student tuition fees have fallen so low that redundancies and pay cuts are inevitable.

To add insult to injury, they say staff should take a real terms pay cut of 3% on top of job losses of 10-15,000 a year, with uncounted losses of casualised workers.

Worse still, left to their own devices, a recent report says the employers will continue this cycle of cuts annually.

What is happening to university expenditure?

Figure 1. Expenditure of UK HEIs over time (all) £ millions (source: HESA). *Staff costs are corrected for FRS-102 adjustment.

Note: HESA data adjusts ‘staff costs’ by the FRS-102 accounting method. Thanks to major changes in USS pension liabilities, these ‘costs’ have fluctuated widely in the last few years. An early version of this blog post incorrectly quoted uncorrected HESA data.

These inclines appear quite steep, but become flat or even fall once inflation is taken out. Universities were still expanding over this period. Staff and student numbers in the sector have grown.

Figure 2. Expenditure headings over time (Fig 1), adjusted for inflation (RPI). Source: ONS/Statista.

What is covered by “other operating costs”? This is a catch-all category, but the greatest proportion is capital expenditure. Employers are continuing to invest in new buildings, campuses, medical schools, etc. This expenditure has grown since 2014, when the cap on student numbers was lifted, triggering a “war of all against all.”

This is why it is right to say the money is there. We do not face a “choice” between pay and jobs – the employers are taking both. And the answer is the same – cut the capex! Whenever the employer is announcing redundancy programmes we must first insist on opening the books and stop sacking staff to pay for new campuses.

And if that won’t solve the problem, we need to put pressure on the government to demand a bailout.

#2: Governments can be made to bail out universities

This data is an average. Not all universities are in the same position.

Redundancies should be the last resort.

Employers are not powerless victims. Despite the headlines, most universities are making surpluses, and some are engaged in substantial capital expenditure projects. Others are restructuring, hiring more staff while making others redundant. Employers have considerable flexibility about what they choose to spend their money on!
Employers are feigning memory loss. Those that accumulated large surpluses in the past now want to forget them and focus on this year’s deficit. The average surplus across UK HE over the last decade was 3.23% of income. Wales is the exception, with an average surplus of just 0.61%.
Universities have reserves. These past surpluses are unspent income. They are not ‘operating surpluses’ – these sums have been banked. Universities have reserves, although the scale of reserves varies massively across the sector.

Some universities, like Dundee and Hull, have a structural deficit, and need a government bailout. Others, like Goldsmiths and Sheffield Hallam, are hovering around the break-even point. But the evidence of the last few years is that redundancy programmes don’t cure deficits, because they also drive students away.

So we need a strategy to defend jobs and the sector, and expose what is going on.

What Dundee UCU did should be a model for other branches to follow.

In the first round, the branch took their fight to the Scottish Parliament, and convinced them to back a bailout to protect jobs.

When their employer’s new Interim Principal decided to renege on the agreement from last year and sought to make cuts, Dundee UCU were forced to reballot.

They struck again last week, and succeeded in getting a clear statement from the Scottish Government that the £40m bailout must be spent on keeping jobs not paying staff redundancy payments:

“It is Scottish Government’s clear instruction that until such a strategy (referred to above and in the Conditions of Funding as the Strategy To Recovery) has been developed and approved by Court there should be no new proposals for additional compulsory staff reductions.”

This is an amazing victory: a ‘Made in Dagenham’ moment.

Education is a public good, and universities in towns and cities like Dundee are key employers, they cannot be allowed to fail. The combination of strikes and a political campaign over defending jobs show that it is possible to force governments to bail out universities and hold VCs to pledges not to make redundancies.

But for every Dundee there are several other branches that have been less successful.

#3: We need to take the fight to Parliament

Local fightbacks are not enough. A union that only fights locally is bound to lose. We risk the entrenchment of unequal terms and conditions: the strongest branches may do ok, others will lose out again and again. Many members see the national union effectively silent and failing to lead. The result is an understandable demoralisation.

We need to force Higher Education up the political priorities of governments – and of the UK Parliament in particular. At the moment, Vice Chancellors and UUK are being heard in the press and Parliament. UCU and the other unions are ignored. It is barely surprising if many members don’t believe that UCU has a national strategy!

A UK-wide strike is the best way to turn up the pressure, but we don’t need to wait to organise lobbies. This November, a small group of UCU reps in Further and Adult Education organised a lobby of Parliament in London which had over 300 in attendance. Students joined to support the fight for their education. Sensing the way the wind was blowing, several employers gave the green light for staff and students to attend.

UCU could call a series of actions building up to coordinated national lobbies of all four Parliaments in the New Year, and build action towards elections in May.

#4: We need to support local strikes over jobs

At the same time, we must redouble our support for branches resisting the jobs massacre. Branches should invite speakers from branches planning to take action. Donations matter!

Solidarity should not be left to local reps to organise. UCU head office could do a lot more to support branches taking industrial action to resist job cuts.

Examples include:

Extend strike pay so that action need not end too soon (and the employer knows they can’t starve staff back to work)
Organise regions to build solidarity for branches fighting back, including local demos, fundraising events, etc
Organise speaking tours for reps from branches that have run successful disputes, to share ideas
Organise lobbies of key politicians and parties, advertising them publicly to members, and putting on transport

#5: We need to rebuild the campaign, and reballot members on a UK-wide basis

If we are going to get high turnouts in future ballots in HE, we need an honest discussion about what went right and what went wrong with the ballot we have just had.

UCU should call a HESC not just a swift BDM, so that there is an opportunity to debate motions rather than just give 90-second reports from a limited number of branches, and for delegates to decide on next steps in the dispute.

There should be no attempt to stifle criticism of the UCU leadership – we can’t do things better if we don’t know (or daren’t discuss) what went wrong.

We will need to reballot members.

Finally, there is one further factor. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, despite being watered down, is wending its way through Parliament.

If it passes, then the 50% ballot threshold will be abolished.

This won’t change the importance of winning members to taking action. We will still need to campaign to win a ballot. But it will abolish the undemocratic veto, where a group of members actively not voting can stop a strike.

Hold leaders to account in the elections

We can’t just complain about “the leadership” if we don’t seek to change or influence it. This year’s elections for half of the NEC run in February. Due to a resignation, the election for Vice President from HE and FE are being run at the same time.

This is a unique opportunity to reconfigure UCU’s national officers, to build a dynamic team directing strategy for members. UCU Left have strong and experienced candidates running for VP of HE, Sean Wallis, and VP of FE, Regi Pilling. UCU Left will be running candidates for a large number of seats, alongside a number of independents we regularly work with.

For a more coherent national strategy across post-16 education, we encourage all colleagues to join the campaign to boost turnout to ensure we get a strong left leadership elected.

1 December 20251 December 2025

FE: the case for escalation

A Special Further Education Committee (FEC) was held last Friday to discuss the results of the recent ballot and to plan the next steps in the campaign. It was a frustrating meeting which failed to build on the excellent ballot results. It exposed a deep pessimism among some members of the FEC and a failure to listen to the membership.

At the May FESC there was a detailed debate on the need for escalation – specifically, nationally coordinated strike action to unite FE branches to win on pay, workload and crucially take a step closer to national binding bargaining. The consensus at that conference was clear: we needed to act in the new academic year. Some of us warned then that there would be attempts to prolong the campaign and narrow the campaign to local actions against colleges to eke out pay deals. This is exactly what happened.

Despite several delays in the ballot timetable, when the ballot finally went ahead members in 32 branches beat the anti-trade union threshold. Several others came very close. If the ballot had been aggregated – the overall result would have been a 90% YES vote, on a 50.6% turnout. This is unprecedented in recent FE history, demonstrating the strength of feeling among members.

Congratulations to all reps and members for getting the vote out. This demonstrates a growing level of organisation within FE branches and shows that members are increasingly won to the need for national binding bargaining and improved deals on pay and workload.

However, the turnout could — and should — have been even stronger. When you compare the General Secretary’s promotion of the Higher Education ballot to the effort made to drive turnout in FE, the disparity is striking.

The case for escalation

UCU Left members put a motion calling for escalating strike action – beginning in December and building through January and February. This approach would have capitalised on the momentum of the ballot and the successful lobby of Parliament, organised by UCU Left FEC members, branch reps and members. Over 300 staff and students took part in the lobby – the largest in year years. It was a powerful event with several MPs in attendance, hearing directly from students and staff on the necessity of Adult Education and the devastating impact of cuts on individuals and communities.

The motion also called for branches that narrowly missed the threshold, to be offered a reballot so we could build further unity.

It also called for a Branch Delegates Meeting after the first 5 days of strike action, allowing those in dispute to collectively decide the next steps. We held an online Strike Committee in the 2023 dispute; this was an effective way for those branches in dispute to maintain control of the action.

However, this motion was narrowly lost by a vote of 10 against and 9 for.

What is particularly galling is that all 10 FEC members who voted against it, came from branches that are not taking action – they either pulled out of the ballot before it started, pulled out during the ballot or did not meet the threshold.

Those FEC members who are in branches which will be taking industrial action – all voted for the UCU Left motion of escalating action.

Arguments against escalation, and why they don’t stand up

Those who voted against the motion, claimed:

1. How do we know that members want to act now? Members just voted for action by 90%. We are not sure what more evidence some of our FEC members need.

2. Going out in December is too rushed an approach, we need time to build the campaign. Again, we disagree, as already stated branches put motions to the May FESC calling for nationally coordinated action in the Autumn term.

3. December is a bad time to strike as Christmas is approaching and people are tired. Whilst it’s true that staff are exhausted, that’s precisely why action is needed to push back against unbearable workloads. Pay deductions would fall in January, not before Christmas. The “bad timing” argument is used repeatedly by the right. At previous FEC’s the summer term wasn’t a good time to ballot, we should ballot during enrolment. Then at the next meeting they argued, enrolment was a bad time it needed to be later. Seemingly for some there is never a “good time” to ballot, it’s always later. The truth is very few of those on the exec have ever taken strike and have always argued against it.

4. The Adult Education lobby was very London centric. This was an attempt to undermine the argument that we could build on the momentum of the lobby. Again, we strongly disagree – Parliament is in London hence why the lobby was there. Reps and members are looking at building further actions in their localities. One of the London FE representatives took a motion to London Region to get the lobby organised, as it hadn’t been organised by Head Office. However, the organising meetings and those who attended the lobby came Bristol, Birmingham and London – it was not London-centric. And the lobby of over 400 staff and students was not made up of white Londoners! Students and staff travelled from across England and represented communities from Somalia, Ethiopia, Caribbean, Sudan, Columbia, Venezuela, Ukraine, Portugal, Italy, Afghanistan and Iran to name but a few. FEC should applaud this event and support further actions to defend Adult Ed.

5. National binding bargaining isn’t a real possibility. This objection is not simply a pessimism about our ability to win a national binding agreement; it is that but also more fundamental. The right does not believe that achieving a national binding agreement is desirable. They believe that after over 25 years of incorporation it is too late for the sector to turn the clock back. The only way to achieve better deals for our members is on a regional and college/group basis. It is this acceptance of the status quo that leads those on the FEC to oppose taking action on a national basis and put in very little effort in getting across the thresholds.

So, what will be the next steps?

1. Three days of strike action will take place in the second week of January. It’s vital that as many of the 32 branches as possible remain in dispute. Employers will try to bully branches into accepting local offers — each branch that drops out weakens our collective strength.

2. UCU Head Office will organise a London rally for striking branches on Friday 16^th January and will write to MPs with striking colleges in their constituency to support the strike on the picket lines and in Parliament.

3. Instead of a delegate meeting, members in striking branches will be surveyed after the first three strike days to gauge next steps. It is disappointing that they were will only be an individualised survey, rather than an in person or online delegate meeting so we can collectively discuss.

The Fight Ahead

This is not the hard-hitting campaign we had hoped for nevertheless we need to ensure that it is still as big and as successful as it can be.

A 4% pay offer is fails to address the 18% real terms cut in pay over the past decade. Employers will bully branches to accept, claiming 4% is the best they can offer. But this is not true. Many colleges have buoyant student numbers, and more cash has flowed into FE and will continue to do so next year due to increased 16-19 funding. Many colleges can afford more.

We must demand serious action on workload, which remains unbearable workloads with half of new FE teachers leaving in the first 3 years.

We must demand that our employers make clear statements supporting a new binding framework. National binding bargaining is necessary to level up the sector and fight for all members pay and conditions, not just those who can surpass the 50% threshold in their branches. This can be worn with a clear staged approach.

Despite being one of the hardest hit sectors under austerity, due to mounting resistance over the last 15 years we have made FE pay and the question of binding central to debates between employers and the unions at national talks. We must keep up the pressure and ensure action in all branches is strong. Those not taking action should arrange solidarity such as visiting pickets and doing collections. We have to let every employer know they are on notice.

On the picket lines and throughout the next steps, the demand to restore Adult Education must be amplified.

We will not give up on our demands. Despite the Chancellors and government rhetoric, they have not broken with austerity – the cost-of-living crisis continues whilst they lurch to a war economy and fuel racism. We will continue to demand national action from our union and encourage the wider trade union movement to rise to the challenges of our times.

Unity is strength, we can win more when we fight together than when we fight alone.

See you on the picket lines.

12 November 202512 November 2025

Conditional Indexation FAQs

1. What is Conditional Indexation (CI)?

Indexation is the amount your pension is increased each year to take account of inflation. In conditional indexation this is not guaranteed, but depends on market forces and possibly other factors, such as governance structures and who makes the decisions.

2. How would this affect our current USS pension scheme?

Currently all elements of our pensions, including indexation (inflation protection), are guaranteed.

Conditional Indexation (CI) removes this guarantee.

3. How are pensions calculated now?

Currently there is an accrual rate of 1/75. This means that for every £1000 of pay you receive each year £1000/75 will be added to the pension you receive each year.

There is also a salary threshold above which members receive defined contribution (DC) pensions where the amount is not guaranteed. This is now over £70,000, so does not affect most members.

The value of accrued pensions are increased with inflation. This is called ‘indexation’. Indexation is guaranteed, but is based on a ‘soft cap’. It is currently equal to CPI (consumer price index, a measure of inflation) up to 5%. It then increases to 10% as CPI increases to 15% (at a rate of half a percentage increase for every inflation percentage increase) and is capped there.

Therefore pensions could be improved.

4. Why is Conditional Indexation being discussed?

The idea of Conditional Indexation was originally proposed when the valuation was showing a large deficit, largely due to the way it was being calculated.

The valuation is a calculation of the difference between the pension scheme’s assets and liabilities (payments that need to be made). Pension regulations require it to be calculated at least once every three years.

We had to take industrial action in 2018 to stop the loss of defined benefits (guaranteed pensions) but we were unable to prevent a massive cut in 2022. This was finally overturned in 2024, which required a lot of industrial action and work by negotiators.

5. Who will decide on the amount of indexation?

This is still being discussed, but it could just be USS with no or insufficient involvement of UCU.

6. Will Conditional Indexation prevent future deficits?

No, Conditional Indexation will not resolve problems associated with the valuation. This will require a different valuation approach and also a better investment strategy. UCU has been working on the valuation approach and also for a better investment strategy.

7. Will CI reduce the likelihood of industrial action?

Probably not, and it could increase it. It is likely that indexation will be calculated every year in addition to the valuation every three years. This gives more opportunities for disputes which could lead to industrial action.

8. What is UCU’s position on Conditional Indexation?

UCU is sceptical, but continuing to explore CI in the interests of members and to ensure no decisions are made that we are not involved in.

9. What do the employers and USS think of CI?

They support it. The employers would like to reduce their contributions and reduce the amount of USS liabilities that appear on their balance sheets to enable them to borrow more.

They are not using recent savings from reduced employer contributions to increase pay, or take measures to increase job security. Despite the recent significant reduction to employer (and member) contributions, employers are still threatening massive redundancies. The percentage of university income spent on staff (including pensions) has reduced to an all time low.

10. What are the benefits of Conditional Indexation to members?

USS has suggested that it could increase benefits paid to members. It has done some modelling which seems to shows this.

However, this modelling does not set these projected improvements against the risk to members from the loss of guaranteed indexation (see point 11 below). USS have not provided the details needed to check the model. It also does not consider the improvements in benefits that could be achieved in the current scheme.

11. What are the disadvantages of CI to members?

We will lose guaranteed indexation, which is of great value to members. Investment risk will be transferred from employers to members, and members will see a significant increase in risk. It is unclear what the benefits, if any, will be to set against this. No wonder UCU is sceptical!

12. Will Conditional Indexation provide a minimal level of indexation?

No. It could provide zero indexation, as USS thinks this will give greater flexibility. However, pensioners will receive the legally required minimum of 2.5%.

13. What would happen if there are several years with no or low indexation?

There is supposed to be some sort of ‘catch up’ mechanism to increase indexation subsequently when market conditions improve and allow this. However, the details have not yet been worked out.

14. Will this catch-up mechanism prevent problems due to years of low indexation?

No. Some pensioner members could die before indexation increases (if it does). Other members may put off retiring until indexation improves, or find it difficult to decide when to retire.

We are fighting casualisation and job losses, but have large numbers of casualised members who may leave the sector and could lose out on any catch-up.

It is difficult to provide more details of exactly what will happen as we do not know yet know what the governance mechanism will be.

15. If Conditional Indexation is introduced and it does not work out, can we go back to our existing pensions?

Unfortunately not, or at least not without extended industrial action. The employers are strongly pushing CI and would have liked to introduce it for the next valuation. USS also seems very strongly in favour.

So employers and USS are very very unlikely to agree to a return. If we move to CI we will lose guaranteed indexation and will not be able to get it back.

27 October 202531 October 2025

Organising to Win in Post-16 Education and Beyond: Unity & Solidarity not Warfare & Division.

Sunday 2nd November
11 – 12.30 public meeting, followed by UCU Left AGM 12.30 – 1pm
Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/o-uI_I2ATJmXe8_l90KlNA

Speakers:
Maria Chondrogianni, UCU President
Serafeim Rizos, Greek trade unionists and teacher involved in the recent General Strike around Palestine
Wilf Sullivan, former TUC Race Equality Officer
Laura Miles, author of Transgender Resistance
Speakers from HE (Donna Brown) and FE (Regi Pilling)

From October, members in 200 branches in HE and FE are being balloted over pay and conditions. Meanwhile, dozens of individual UCU branches are in local fights over jobs, pay and conditions. In HE 4 of the 5 campus unions are coordinating industrial ballots for the first time – this could be game changing.

At this time of great struggle on and off our campuses we need to build a fighting UCU that stands for solidarity, equality, and hope — and for the protection and advancement of post-16 education for all.

At the same time, we face a wider social and political emergency. The rise of Reform UK and the far right, led by Tommy Robinson, are spreading hate and division, feeling emboldened on campuses and in communities. Anti-migrant rhetoric is intensifying, and communities across the UK are under attack. Labour’s inability to take equality seriously is leading to the continued threat to trans+ rights as well as the rights and safety of survivors of sexual abuse. Free speech and the right to protest are being crushed. Globally, the situation in Palestine remains devastating, and the climate crisis continues to accelerate, threatening the futures of students and workers alike.

Post-16 education is essential for the future of our communities, for equality and social cohesion. We must build collective action to protect education as a public good in a time of crisis.

Join us to hear from those fighting for a better world today, speakers include:

FE and HE activists
Greek trade unionist involved in the strike for Palestine
Women Against the Far Right
Trans Rights Activist