Tag: Pension

Posted on

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

2nd USS demo, London, 2018

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.

Posted on

Consultation open • Vote Reject on 4 Fights, Reject on USS!

Please select some of our tweet-friendly graphics to help you campaign amongst your colleagues.

To implement the reballot result, vote REJECT on Four Fights and REJECT on US

The reballot results were clear. UCU members in HE want to continue the fight. They do not believe that the employers’ offers on Four Fights or USS are anywhere near good enough and they want a marking and assessment boycott (MAB) to take the fight to the employers.

But the General Secretary is determined to confuse members and muddy the waters. Despite the brilliant ballot result, we are to be consulted on the offers by e-ballot to see if we really meant it when we voted for action in such huge numbers.

This is ridiculous. We need to insist that the MAB, backed by strike action to deter punitive deductions, is called immediately and goes ahead.

The best way to ensure that is to achieve massive votes to REJECT in both ballots. UCU HQ is trying to mislead members by replacing the option to Accept with ‘Note’ on the Four Fights. They are trying to claim that if the offer is ‘Noted’ the dispute is not over and that action can be restarted at any time in the future.

This is misleading. Not only would not rejecting the offer mean accepting the 15% pay cut imposed on us for this year and next, but the employers have made it clear that any industrial action in the next 12 months would end their participation in the talks on pay-related issues. Any action in academic year 2023-24 would require a new ballot in any case, possibly on new grounds of dispute.

On USS, a massive vote to reject will keep the pressure on the employers to live up to their promises and ensure that our two disputes remain coupled. ‘Noting’ the offer would give HQ the opportunity to call off the MAB for the Four Fights as well as the USS dispute.

With the National Education Union (NEU) having voted overwhelmingly to reject a rotten deal on pay and calling more strikes, we are part of a wider movement rejecting pay cuts. We also have the chance to link up our fights with others who are fighting back. 

Let’s not fall for any attempts to sweeten the reality of what we have been offered or to blunt the result of our overwhelming reballot results. 

Vote Reject on Four Fights! Vote Reject on USS! Let’s start the MAB!

Posted on

No more ‘pauses’ – no suspension of action! Strike to win!

Tuesday’s #UCURising reps briefing has caused a huge amount of confusion ahead of our six days of strike action.

No new information about progress in the talks materialised.

All we learned was that there ‘may’ be some progress on USS, and that ‘some agreement’ is close on how the issues of casualisation, pay gaps and workloads might be addressed in the future.

  • Pay: The only pay-related item currently on the table is compression of the pay spine (the result of higher increases on lower spine points reducing pay differentials between them). Correcting this is unlikely to put money in UCU members’ pockets, and may make only a small difference to the lowest paid. There has been no further offer from the employers over headline pay. Members still face a two-year 15% pay cut against inflation.
  • USS: On USS there has been an interim statement with employers agreeing to prioritise benefit restoration ‘if it can be done in a sustainable manner.’ However, there has been no firm commitment to benefit restoration, and a lot could still go wrong.

In other words, there is no offer that represents tangible progress in the disputes, and there is not likely to be one this week.

In spite of this, it seems that branches will be asked to elect delegates in preparation for an ‘emergency’ BDM which may take place as early as this Thursday, and be followed by an ‘emergency’ HEC to take decisions on the action.

Why? The only reason can be that the General Secretary and the President-elect want to call off our strikes. The silence from HQ about these six days of action has been deafening.

Jo Grady has learned, however, that calling off strikes unilaterally produces a negative response from members. Instead, it looks like an emergency BDM will be used as a mechanism to try and bounce the HEC into calling off the action.

Democracy takes time

We are in favour of holding BDMs to update members in the course of disputes and to involve them in decisions about action.

But as of March 15, no-one apart from a select few even knows what is on the table!

A BDM called at no notice to discuss an ‘offer’ which does not yet exist — and which delegates will barely get sight of in advance — is even less democratic than some of the recent BDMs have been.

To be effective and democratic, BDMs need to be preceded by branch meetings at which the issues are discussed, votes are taken and delegates are elected and mandated. This ensures that members can consider the arguments for and against, delegates vote according to branch positions and decisions, and don’t just represent themselves.

This kind of democratic process will be impossible ahead of a BDM on Thursday. Members are mobilised for the strike. Many are attending Budget Day demonstrations on Wednesday and will have no time to meet.

Indeed, the only reason for the rush to do this on Thursday seems to be because the NEC meets on Friday all day!

We have to go forward

What is at stake is not just a few days of strike action but the future of the entire dispute.

We need to insist that no more of our planned strikes are called off. The GS’s ‘pause’ set back our campaign by destroying our momentum and causing confusion among members. We lifted the pressure from the employers at the crucial time, with the inevitable result that the employers imposed a pay award comprising two years’ worth of pay cuts instead of just one.

We have already wasted too much of this six-month mandate to call off more strikes. Every time we do, the employers are emboldened.

Strike. Vote. Win.

Strikes now at the end of term have substantial leverage with the employers because they prevent remedial ‘catch up’ teaching ahead of exams next term (in some universities this is the last week of teaching). Were we to stand down action next week, it would lead to immediate demands on members to catch up with teaching and undermine our own strikes. Of course we are not just a union of lecturers. But teaching is time-constrained, and it is a mistake to think otherwise.

But ultimately the main message will be obvious. Cancelling strikes tells members and employers that the union is not confident of winning. The pressure on employers is immediately lifted. And it will make it harder to win the reballot we need to mount a marking and assessment boycott next term — and harder to carry it out, for fear of a repeat of more start-stop sabotage.

No Capitulation. Unity is Strength.

Build the Pickets. Keep up the Action.

Posted on

The Cost Of Living Crisis is Biting Now – Escalate to Win

Lobby of UCEA employers during 30 November national demonstration.

#NoCapitulation

The General Secretary has followed up the video she released last week, in which she questioned the HEC’s decisions on industrial action, with a proposal of her own. In a glossy document, she sets out a timetable for limited strike action, a reballot and possible marking assessment boycott.

The General Secretary’s proposal

Having declared last week that a marking and assessment boycott would be organised for January, it is not included in this latest plan.

Worse, as an alternative to the indefinite action favoured by HEC, for the rest of our ballot mandate she proposes a ‘strategy’ of sporadic two- and three-day strikes in February and March.

The document claims this is a ‘professional’ strategy which is based on the ‘successful management of the RMT and CWU disputes.’ But those disputes have not broken through.

If this were agreed, it would squander the mandate for industrial action in 150 universities that we celebrated with much fanfare in October. Counting the three days we have already taken, Jo Grady is proposing a total of just 13 days across the entire six month period covered by the ballot, but in an on-off manner that loses momentum and the employers can easily manage as they have demonstrated since 2019.

This is nothing like the ‘shutting down of campuses’ that the General Secretary promised. It is not even an escalation.

It is a green light for the employers to sit tight and ride out the action, just as they did last year and just as employers and government are doing in the post, rail and NHS disputes.

Why did HEC vote for indefinite action?

The reason HEC voted for an early marking boycott and indefinite strike action was because we need to try and win the dispute early, ideally without having to reballot.

Going all-out in a sustained way with indefinite action run by the grassroots of the union means a hard-hitting shutdown of campus early in term that can win the dispute and limit the impact on students.

Not only have the post and rail disputes demonstrated that ‘playing the long game’ does not deliver results, but the rhythm of the academic year demands that we take action at every point where all institutions are teaching.

The negotiations are coming to a head now, and the time to escalate is now.

The reason why the employers were planning to table an early settlement on pay is that the period December to April is when universities know their tuition fee income and finally allocate their budgets for the year. If staff want a share of that budget, they need to apply industrial pressure over this period.

On USS, we have a real opportunity to recover members’ benefits. Two of our negotiators have outlined a credible proposal for reversing the theft of USS members’ benefits on 1st April 2023. But there is a short window for putting any such proposal into action.

We cannot afford to risk the momentum we built up by wasting two months of a six month window without taking action. That’s why a January marking boycott is important. But it must be followed up with meaningful strike action in order to defend members. The GS’s document spells out that there are seven weeks during February and March during which all universities are teaching. Calling an indefinite strike in February threatens the employers with up to 42 days of strike action which would shut down the campuses and take out Semester 2.

Democracy is not an added extra

There is a marked difference between the resources being put behind the communication of the General Secretary’s proposal compared to the HEC plan. HEC’s decisions were kept secret for more than a month by UCU, despite having been taken by elected lay members following democratic debate based on input from branches.

January’s Branch Delegate Meeting is being set up on the basis of a straight choice between the two proposals. In her determination to get the BDM to endorse it, the GS is incorrectly describing her proposed strategy as ‘escalating action from February through to April.’ But it does not escalate, and the last strike date she proposes is actually 22nd March. If she is successful in persuading the BDM, the pressure will be on HEC to reverse the decisions it took in November.

Branches should not rely on these questions. They should organise meetings for the BDM and express their views through motions. This is the tried and tested democratic process used in the trade union movement. Then we must demand that those views are discussed and debated at the BDM. In October HEC voted for BDMs to hear motions from branches, but this motion was ignored.

Democracy is not an added extra. Strike action of this scale needs an elected national strike committee that can coordinate between branches and can decide whether to pause or resume action.

Of course we all want coordination with other unions, and of course we have to take issues of hardship seriously. But coordination shouldn’t be used as a reason for individual unions to hold back action. While we need to raise solidarity across the movement, the best way to deal with the threat of hardship is to use the mandate we worked so hard for to win this dispute.

The General Secretary says that indefinite action has not been used by the ‘big battalions’ of the movement. That is true – but both CWU and RMT are now being forced to escalate their strikes because the employers are digging in and counter attacking. By contrast, an indefinite strike won barristers a hefty 15% pay rise.

Members have to take democratic control of this dispute, both at the BDM and in branches but also by the establishment of local and national strike committees to assess and develop action and involve the mass of members.

We need a proper debate in our union about the next steps in our dispute, not surveys with leading questions without a proper explanation of the merits and disadvantages of proposals.

We face the biggest attack on our living standards for generations.

We can’t just revert to the same old tired plan. We have to fight to win – and that means escalating as soon as possible.

UCU Left Open Meeting

Fighting the HE disputes
What strategy do we need and how should we decide it?

Wednesday 4th January, 7pm

The General Secretary has proposed an alternative to the strategy passed by the Higher Education Committee on November 3rd. Instead of a January marking and assessment boycott followed by an indefinite strike, she advocates ten days of strike action spread through February and March.

Ahead of the Branch Delegate Meeting, join this Q&A to find out why UCU Left members of HEC voted for a MAB and indefinite action, and why we need union democracy to win these disputes.

Posted on

Now not Never! HEC report (12/5/22)

HEC met at a crucial time in the HE disputes with a marking and assessment boycott due to start in just over a week. To avoid undermining the dispute by revealing sensitive information to the employers, we cannot divulge details of the motions discussed and the results of the voting. However, members should not expect any outcomes from HEC which decisively alter the present situation.

What is still required is that the full range of decisions passed at the SHESCs is implemented without further delay. We need strike dates to be notified to the employers for branches that intend to use their mandate for a marking and assessment boycott. Without these in place we have no defence against punitive deductions. We urgently need the circulation of detailed instructions and guidance on how to carry out a marking and assessment boycott. And we need a campaign of fundraising in branches without a mandate to support members whose pay will be docked. 

If this doesn’t happen, it will be clear that the General Secretary and the full-time officials are trying to undermine the possibility of action taking place this term, against SHESC policy. We know that the General Secretary believes that we cannot win our disputes at the present time. Having lost the argument for a lengthy pause in the action, she is now trying to achieve the same result through delay, confusion and demoralisation.

Branches that believe they can successfully implement a boycott should renew their demands on the HE officers and the officials at HQ for strike action to be notified, indicating their chosen start date. They should demand the guidance on marking and assessment boycotts that we are told is being prepared. And they should seek assistance on twinning with branches not taking action so that the raising of funds can begin.

The Left on the HEC argued that it would be disastrous for action to be called off. Taking no action this term would demoralise members and embolden the employers. We need to avoid this happening.

We also note that the incoming HEC and NEC will have a different make-up, which may mean different decisions are taken at these committees in future.

But we also need to ensure that reballots take place over the summer to enable us to hit the induction periods at the start of the autumn term. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past when the ballot timetable allowed us to take our first action only a few weeks before Christmas.

Annual Congress and Sector Conference is coming up on 1-3 June. We would encourage branches to submit late motions to HESC on implementing the results of SHESCs, further strike action, re-balloting fundraising and the fighting fund.  Motions which refer to events and decisions which took place after the deadline should be accepted as late motions. 

UCU Left will host a meeting to discuss the Congress agenda on Monday 23 May, 6-7.30pm. All delegates and non-delegates welcome. Register here: bit.ly/UCUL-CongressPreMeet.

Posted on

Our disputes are in danger

This is a hazardous moment in the Four Fights and USS disputes. There is a danger of our planned action for this term unravelling, leaving us with no plan for defending members from our employers’ attacks.

Very late on Friday we received confirmation that the marking and assessment boycott will start on 23rd May. But since delegates to the two special sector conferences voted for marking boycotts backed by strikes, the General Secretary has done everything possible to undermine the disputes.

Damaging

The delay in issuing notifications has been very damaging. Every day until the boycott begins means more and more marking is completed, reducing the leverage we can exert over our employers. The excuses for the delay continue to pile up. They told us they had to wait for the results of the USS conference before implementing the results on Four Fights, even though they separated the decisions by holding two separate conferences, against the policy of keeping the disputes coupled. Then they told us that the workload involved is too high for UCU staff. If the union is understaffed, we should employ more staff and pay them properly. 

The General Secretary now argues that the votes at the conferences were too close to mount an effective campaign, suggesting that the reasons for delay are not solely practical. But the votes were clear and decisive, especially given that the argument for action had to overcome the GS’s call for a pause in the run-up to the conferences. 

What is she suggesting? That votes on industrial strategy need a two-thirds majority? Aren’t the hurdles imposed by the anti-union laws enough?

Worries

All of this demoralises members and increases the worries in branches about whether action can be successful. No advice has been issued from HQ on how to implement a marking and assessment boycott. No steps have been taken to implement the conference decision to raise funds from members in branches without a mandate to support the branches taking action. Worse, the GS’s supporters and their allies on NEC voted not to remove the cap on payments from the Fighting Fund.

Branches with a mandate are being forced to organise these things themselves by sharing experience on marking boycotts and initiating twinning arrangements. We want member control of our disputes, but we don’t want the leadership to wash its hands of us.

We are now told that Tuesday’s meeting is not a Branch Delegate Meeting but a ‘branch briefing’. Who is briefing whom? This should be an opportunity for branches to discuss how to implement the action and what we need from the General Secretary and HQ to support it. What we don’t need is to be told that the decisions we took at the sector conferences are wrong, invalid or can’t be implemented.

Terrify

There is now an urgent need to change the narrative and the mood around these disputes. A properly supported marking and assessment boycott in 40 institutions can terrify bosses across the sector and relieve the pressure on Goldsmiths and Queen Mary, who are currently fighting isolated local battles. The threat of strikes can blunt the employers’ willingness to make punitive deductions. Wage-sharing and twinning of branches can reduce the effectiveness of main weapon against us. 

It is no coincidence that UCEA raised their offer for 2022-23 to 3% on Thursday. It is still nowhere near enough, but it indicates that they want to sweeten the deal just enough to deter further disruption in the sector. And the rise in interest rates means, even on the corrupt valuation, that the USS scheme has moved back into surplus. This is not time to pull back from the fight.

Demonstrations

UCU should call regional and national demonstrations to unite branches with and without mandates. The TUC demonstration against the cost of living crisis on 18 June will be an important moment. Our ability to beat the anti-union thresholds and fight back can give a lead to others in the movement, desperate to take on their own bosses and Johnson’s corrupt government. 

Jo Grady was elected after the #NoCapitulation moment as an expression of members’ willingness to fight and their desire for democratic control of disputes. Members will not forgive a General Secretary who ignores their decisions and abandons the fight.

BDM Pre-meet 6 pm 9 May
https://bit.ly/BDMPre-Meet

Posted on

USS HESC results: Start the action now!

The results of the votes at last week’s USS Special HE Sector Conference are now out. They are largely in line with the results of the Four Fights HESC from the week before.

Delegates again rejected the strategy of delay put forward by the General Secretary by voting for motions calling for an immediate marking boycott backed up by strike action. They also overwhelmingly reaffirmed the commitment that the USS dispute should continue to be fought in conjunction with the Four Fights.

The majority of delegates clearly felt that suspending the disputes for 12 months was not a viable option given the scale of the attacks to the pension scheme. Those attacks, along with those on the pay and working conditions of HE staff in general, would be intensified if the union decided to take a time-out.

Urgent

It is now urgent that the notifications for action are sent to employers. They have been delayed too long already. The latest pretext was that it was necessary to wait for the results of the USS HESC votes before issuing the Four Fights notifications. This has pushed back the marking and assessment boycott by over a week, presumably in the hope of the leadership that some of the USS votes would contradict the Four Fights votes and create enough confusion to justify calling off the action. In fact, the only significant divergence between the two conferences was on the question of whether future ballots should be aggregated.

These delays are unforgivable. The ballot mandates achieved by branches in November ran out today. Every day that goes by without our being able to take action emboldens our employers and weakens our ability to disrupt marking and the awarding of degrees. 

Coherent plan

We now need a coherent plan to implement the strongest possible marking and assessment boycott and defend it with strike action as necessary. This will require serious planning at branch level and coordination between branches with a mandate and those without. We need to learn the lessons of the Liverpool dispute and replicate them in the 40 branches with a mandate. 

We cannot rely on the national leadership at Carlow Street to do what is necessary. They have already excluded branches without a mandate from Tuesday’s delegate meeting despite both HESCs emphasising the importance of concrete support from members not involved in action. Much of this coordination will need be initiated by branches themselves.

Tonight’s UCU Solidarity Meeting will be a crucial forum for doing this. Every HE branch should try to ensure that it is represented there by as many members as possible. The Solidarity Movement has a track record of providing exactly what we need at this moment in the disputes: a platform for the sharing of ideas and delivering solidarity between branches.

Members should also attend the pre-BDM meeting organised by UCU Left on Monday at 6pm. Some preparation by delegates can help us resist Tuesday’s meeting being manipulated from the top in the ways that previous BDMs have been.

Building the Marking Boycott 
6pm Thursday 5th May 
Link to register: https://bit.ly/3rYl1ig
Facebook page: https://fb.me/e/2Elx1obWT

BDM Pre-meet 6 pm 9 May
https://bit.ly/BDMPre-Meet

Posted on

UCU Left – pre USS HESC meeting

6pm Monday 25 April
Registration link: https://tinyurl.com/ucul-usshesc

Ahead of UCU’s Special Higher Education Sector Conference on the USS dispute, UCU Left is organising an open meeting for reps and delegates to discuss the prospects for the dispute.

What can be won in the next six months?

We now know the projected deficit has disappeared. USS has admitted that “Deficit Recovery Contributions” (DRCs) – 20% of all the money paid in to USS – is unnecessary. But the employers are refusing to agree to put it into pensions.

A quick win on DRCs should be possible. Paying that money into our pensions could more than halve the impact of the 1 April cuts. This would not end the dispute, but it is clearly winnable. Their resistance also exposes the hypocrisy of our employers.

What kind of action do we need?

Liverpool UCU beat their employer with a combination of marking boycott and strike action. How do we use our mandate effectively? What kind of organisation will we need to sustain the action?

Can we recouple the disputes and increase the pressure on the employers?

Come to this meeting and discuss the way forward.

Posted on

Seize the Time, Don’t Abandon the Fight

We all know we are in the fight of our lives.

But the General Secretary’s ‘new plan of action for the four fights dispute’ is a radical-sounding document that abandons the Four Fights dispute until a year’s time, and pulls back from defending the USS pension scheme at the very moment the employers are cutting it back.

It is unsurprising that union reps are speaking out spontaneously against this plan.

We are told that continuing action at this point would be ‘conservative’, whereas the ‘radical and militant’ response to the greatest attack on our standard of living for 30 years is to… halt the fight for a year! Inflation is hitting 9 percent, but our union’s leadership is telling its members – with a live dispute and mandate – to put up with it, and fight another time!

Reading this document, you wouldn’t have thought that the union had just recorded overwhelming majorities for strike action and ASOS. Reps are lectured on ‘democracy’ after winning votes!

We are told that this is the way we can increase union density, but this flies in the face of our own union’s history. In 2018, pre-92 HE branches grew by 50% in a couple of months as they readied for strikes. That happened because members want to know the union will defend them, individually and collectively. On the other hand, shutting down the national fight against casualisation sends precisely the wrong signal to members on casual contracts.

The General Secretary is counterposing union recruitment to industrial action. Her theory of the ‘supermajority‘ says that the reason why strikes win is because union density is high. But this is not correct. UCU was a third smaller in the pre-92 USS ballot in 2018 than in 2021. And some branches with high membership density – like Goldsmiths – are under remorseless attack.

In fact, industrial action is won by workers when employers recognise that refusing to concede to union demands will be more costly than any perceived benefits. That cost can be economic (e.g. damaging reputations and recruitment, etc), but it can also be political (causing a political crisis for the employers, as in 2018). 

For everyone who has stood on the picket lines in the wind and rain, and spent weeks fighting to get the vote out, the General Secretary’s pre-prepared ruminations will be a massive disappointment.  On the other hand, members who voted for action but failed to take it themselves will read it as a signal that the union is not serious. 

Democracy

Jo Grady was elected after her predecessor, Sally Hunt, sought to abandon the USS fight. She was elected as an expression of UCU members’ will to resist. However her response to the present attacks on UCU members looks little different to Sally Hunt’s.

The latest round of ballots saw members once again vote overwhelmingly for action. Had this ballot taken place before the Tory Anti-Union Law of 2016 was introduced, we would be all able to take strike action. Branches have asked their members whether they support strikes and ASOS. And they have voted Yes!

Even if you are in a union branch that failed to get over the Tory threshold and cannot take action, with very rare exceptions, in branch after branch members have overwhelmingly voted for action. That’s democracy. 

It is wrong to interpret non-votes as no votes. Firstly, it is anti-democractic in principle. This is why quorums for general meetings are low, to ensure that members turn up and participate in debates and vote for and against motions.

Secondly, it is not consistent with the evidence. Members do not vote for a variety of reasons, as anyone who has engaged with a Get the Vote Out (GTVO) campaign can report, from lost papers to house moves and pre-arranged leave. This explains why branches with well-organised GTVO campaigns chasing and nudging members to vote have been repeatedly able to get high turnouts. It is also why Yes vote percentages tend to be remarkably stable even when turnout fluctuates. 

The three-week ballot insisted upon by UCU HQ, at the end of the second term and into the Easter break, left many branches close below the 50 percent threshold. Another week would have brought more branches over the line, and two more weeks, as voted for by HEC, could have changed the picture enormously. 

Some members complained that replacement ballot papers arrived at home on the final Friday, and rep reports show members saying they were voting right up until the end. The ballot deadline combined with the postal voting process cut voters short.

A plan to win

The General Secretary is now trying to lobby union reps and activists over their heads, to persuade branches to stand down the action that members have just voted for. Yet a calibrated plan and a mobilisation of the whole union could win these disputes. 

At the current time, some 40 branches can still take action on exams in Term 3. Everyone knows this action will need the whole union to rally around.

  • A marking boycott organised on a ‘Liverpool basis’ requires a positive outward campaign across the membership to sponsor strikers, fundraise on a massive scale, and ensure that every participant knows the whole union is behind them, practically and financially.
  • Members in non-striking branches would be more than willing to contribute to sponsor colleagues. These branches need to organise too. The USS rank-and-file legal challenge shows the scale of fundraising we need.
  • And a ballot over the summer in the context of a hard-hitting fightback makes sense. It could see us all ready to take on the employers right at the start of the autumn term.

The General Secretary says this is a war. But you don’t win wars by telling the enemy you are too weak to fight, and would they mind if we came back in a year?! The attacks on Goldsmiths colleagues, and the employers’ general intransigence show that they are likely to see such a declaration as a sign of weakness.

We are now told that despite previous attempts to de-couple the USS dispute from Four Fights that it’s OK to keep them coordinated – as long as we fight in a year’s time! But this makes no sense. Why would giving the employers free rein for a year make them more likely to reverse the changes? With the next valuation in 2023, backing off now looks like an invitation to the employers to push for 100% Defined Contribution!

Even USS Limited admit there is no need for ‘Deficit Recovery Contributions’, and that these could be spent on members’ pensions. This represents an open goal – if we fight.

Debating the way forward 

Members deserve a serious strategy. Instead we are told is to ‘keep our powder dry’ while the university employers drive through attacks on staff and students alike. Demobilisation is a recipe for defeat and demoralisation, not union-building.

We cannot allow the work by UCU reps and members to be wasted. We need to stand up for union democracy and stand by the ballot.

Two meetings have been called to debate the way forward:

In our strikes and ballots, members learned to trust each other, not the official union machine.

We are the union, and we need to fight for the future of our sector.

Posted on

USS results update: Keep up the fight

University of Liverpool UCU demonstration 1 April

The USS results followed the pattern of the Four Fights votes. Twenty-four branches secured a mandate for action. This is obviously considerably fewer than in the last round, but that’s not the whole story.

The votes for action were strong. Not a single branch voted against action, and the overall percentages for action actually increased. Like the Four Fights, where the overall majority for strike action rose from 70% in November to 74%, the USS vote for strike action was nearly 80%, up from 77%. 

We need to be clear that it is the obstacles put in place by the Trade Union Act 2016 – the 50% threshold plus the requirement to renew mandates after six months – that have caused this situation, not any weakening of the willingness of UCU members to fight these disputes. Even with fewer branches over the line, 45% of the union’s USS membership has a mandate for action next term.

Given the challenges of the anti-union laws, the decision by Head Office not to implement HEC’s decision for a five-week ballot window was a huge mistake. An extra week would have made a big difference, especially as the revelation that the alleged deficit in the scheme had magically shrunk from £14bn to £2bn emerged well into the ballot period.

We can still win these disputes. The branches with a mandate need to take hard-hitting industrial action next term while being backed by a serious strategy of financial support from the remaining branches. Hitting a minority of institutions can work to our advantage by causing splits among the employers as some complain they are being targeted while their competitors are let off the hook.

A reballot over a long ballot window during the summer can replenish our forces in time for action in induction weeks in the majority of institutions. 

The forthcoming SHESCs will be crucial for asserting member control over the disputes, organising the twinning of branches, planning the reballot and setting a strategy that can win.

Come to the pre-SHESC meeting called by UCU Left.

What next for the USS and Four Fights disputes?
Pre-SHESC organising meeting
Tuesday 19th April, 6pm
Zoom registration: https://bit.ly/PreSHESC
All those who want to continue the fights welcome