All posts by Colette Maxfield

Redressing the balance: Employer stances on UUK proposal re USS

We warmly welcome the public statements made in support of staff pensions by Warwick and Glasgow Universities. It is clear that the very detrimental proposed changes are not supported unanimously within UUK, nor do all employers consider the current proposal to be necessary.

 

The current UUK proposal is to move USS from a defined benefits scheme (determined and guaranteed by your ‘career average’ earnings) to a defined contribution scheme (where your money is no longer guaranteed, but dependent on the stock market investments at the point at which you retire).
The VC at Warwick states that he is ‘mystified’ at the stance taken by UUK, and that Whatever happens we will not let the current increasingly conservative approach to USS go unchallenged’:

 

The University of Glasgow has stated that it would prefer to keep a Defined Benefits Scheme and ‘The University believes that its interests are aligned with those of the UCU and that all parties should work together constructively to identify a solution. It is, of course, for members of UCU to decide how they vote in the ballot.’

Your USS vote and TU legislation

You should be receiving your ballot paper later this week.

We understand that there is a large amount of technical language involved with the current UUK offer on USS but at heart this is a very simple dispute: the offer on the table at the moment is detrimental and the only way to change the terms of the offer is if members are prepared to take action.

Due to recent changes in Trade Union legislation we need a 50% turn out at this Branch in order to take any form of action. We are at the point where every vote really does matter.

It is unusual for University managers to communicate with members about potential trade union action during a ballot, as this could be interpreted as trying to influence the vote, but if you receive any communications that you are uncertain of please get in contact.

As we regard changes to pensions as an exceptionally serious issue, members are encouraged to ring the TU office on 01483 68 2323. We will be putting aside an hour every Friday, between 10:30 – 11:30, to discuss the UUK offer with members. More technical queries will be forwarded to our National Pensions Official, and we are currently collecting FAQs for her to answer. Please email these queries to: cmaxfield@ucu.org.uk

Surrey UCU is committed to keeping members informed every step of the way, please do not hesitate to get in contact if you are unsure of anything.

UUK proposal on USS in a nutshell

We are aware that recent proposed changes to the USS Pension may be difficult to digest. Our National Pensions Official visited our Branch last Friday and plainly outlined some of the issues. You will also have received an all-staff communication from the University today on the current UUK proposal:

UUK proposed that for future service the current hybrid scheme salary threshold will be modified so that there is no further defined benefit accrual. Instead, it is proposed that there will be a “market-leading” defined contributions scheme (through the USS Investment Builder) for all members.

To be very plain, the employer offer currently on the table is to move USS from a defined benefits scheme (determined and guaranteed by your ‘career average’ earnings) to a defined contribution scheme (where your money is no longer guaranteed, but dependent on the stock market investments at the point at which you retire). This means that the employers are intending to move all risk on to you as an employee.

We will also be collating and anonymising your USS related questions for our National Pensions Official to answer, so please forward any queries that you may have to: cmaxfield@ucu.org.uk

UCU will be balloting formally on this issue very shortly, please read UCU updates as they arrive so that you are prepared and informed. Surrey UCU will keep you as up to date as possible.

Result of ‘Defend pensions’ ballot of USS members. October 2017

Message from Sally Hunt:
 
I wanted to let you know about the result of the ballot.
 
86.6% of members who voted said they would be prepared to take industrial action to defend USS pension benefits on a turnout of 55.8% of those eligible.

This turnout – if replicated in a statutory ballot – well exceeds the 50% turnout requirement set by the government as the minimum legal requirement.
 
Thank you for your support of the union. Later today, your elected negotiators will begin detailed talks with the employers. No one should be in any doubt about the difficulty of the task they are undertaking on your behalf.
 
Universities UK (UUK), which represents the USS institutions in these negotiations, recognises that institutions have the ability to pay extra in order to safeguard existing benefits. However so far they have said that this is not an option and unless we can change their minds or persuade both UUK and USS itself to adjust their valuation methodology, detrimental change is inevitable.
 
Some employers have even signalled that they wish to move wholly to a scheme in which your pension income will be dependent on what returns if any there are from the investment of your contributions in the stock market – in essence a pension with no guarantees.
 
I hope our ballot result concentrates the minds of your employers. All we want is for them to stand up for staff and help us to protect your interests in the fund rather than look away while benefits are cut.
 
Be in no doubt that I and colleagues will try to solve this difficult dispute but if we need to seek your support for action it is good to know that you are with us in such large numbers.
 

Response to valuation of the University Superannuation Scheme

In response to the information circulated by the University recently concerning the valuation of the University Superannuation Scheme, our former Surrey UCU Pension Rep is happy to share his consequent response to the University:

I believe that USS is using the same Gilts plus methodology for valuation which they used in 2014 therefore it is not more optimistic. It is also more pessimistic than USS’s best estimate of future returns on their investments. 

Independent studies, and I believe those of USS’s consultants, have verified that the required funding gap is within the employers ability to pay but may not be in line with employers willingness to pay. It all revolves around how much employers value their employees across the whole range of the salary spectrum.

Report for UCU: Progressing the valuation of the USS. 15 September 2017. The First Actuarial report prepared for UCU as a response to the USS’s consultation document, also concludes:  The current employers’ contribution rate of 18% of pensionable pay, of which 15.1% goes towards defined benefits, is prudent. The asset income which is required, in addition to contributions, to pay the benefits in full is low. Indeed, in a scenario of “best estimate” pay rises, the benefits of the USS can very nearly be paid from contributions, without reliance on the assets. We can be very confident that the scheme is not vulnerable to forced disinvestment. We can be very confident that the cash flow in will meet benefit outgo for the very long term, so in the mean time fluctuations of market value or the pension scheme’s balance sheet are of low importance. The break even returns of 1.36% pa real CPI on past service and 1.85% pa real over CPI on future service are well below the expected returns on equities and property. The likelihood that the USS can achieve the break even returns is high. If the actual performance achieved exceeds the break even returns, the funding level will improve. Any funding level could be achieved eventually, given time. The cost of longevity improvements should be partially covered by the link of the USS’s NPA to SPA. At some point, there may need to be an adjustment to the balance of the contribution rate and the benefits to respond to improving longevity, but this point is not imminent. Subject to this point about increasing longevity, the cash flow analysis does not show any need to increase the contribution rate. The employers should be able to regard their current contribution rate as reliable. Making the same point the other way around, there is no need to reduce members’ benefits. Full report: https://www.ucu.org.uk/uss?utm_source=lyr-campaignupdate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=members&utm_term=_all-members&utm_content=The+Friday+email:+22+September+2017

Urgent announcement from Sally Hunt: A major university (Southampton) has become the first to publicly call for current USS pension benefits to be wholly replaced by a defined contribution scheme. Forget the pensions jargon. What this means in simple terms is that rather than being based on scheme rules as now, your annual pension will be completely dependent upon what returns your monthly USS contributions can get from the stock market. If other universities follow suit, UCU will need every member to stand together with the union and say NO.

Please also find the following information on USS which may be of use:

Request a replacement USS e-ballotThe ballot to defend the USS pension is currently open. If you haven’t voted please vote now. It’s crucial that we show that members are prepared to defend their pensions so please check your inbox (and junk box) for the unique link UCU has sent you and let UCU know if you can’t find it: https://yoursay.ucu.org.uk/s3/USS

USS Posters: show your support. If you’ve already voted why not put one of the new UCU / USS posters up on your door. Please download here: https://www.ucu.org.uk/uss?utm_source=lyr-campaignupdate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=members&utm_term=_all-members&utm_content=The+Friday+email:+22+September+2017

We will keep you updated as and when we receive more details –

 

University of Surrey pays 18 members of staff £140,000 or more – but only one of them is female

3 August 2017

getSURREY reports:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/university-surrey-pays-18-members-13417537

The University of Surrey employs 18 members of staff remunerated to a total of £140,000 or more – but only one of those staff members is female, newly published data has revealed.

Figures revealed through a Freedom of Information request show the university currently pays 55 employees less than the Living Wage, 23 of whom are women.

The stats show the university employs less than five apprentices, the lowest paid on just £7,800 a year

They also reveal the highest paid member of staff is paid some 24 times more than the lowest paid staff member.

A spokesman for the university said: “The university has to compete for talent in a global market for all of its staff.

“Therefore, we have to ensure our remuneration is such that we can recruit and retain talent at all levels.

“We have worked hard in recent years to improve our performance on equality, and around 30% of our senior staff are female, in line with our sector – and we are actively looking to improve the balance still further.

“All of our staff are paid above the minimum wage, and the university makes generous pension contributions of up to 18% of salary, as well as having excellent benefits, such as 40 days paid leave a year, inclusive of public holidays.

“The University of Surrey prides itself on being one of the largest and best employers in the area, and last year our staff survey highlighted staff engagement was at its highest level for seven years.”

The complete answers to the FOI request are here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_act_2000_148?nocache=incoming-1012361#incoming-1012361

Free UCU Membership to All PGRs

Excerpts from a message from Sally Hunt, President of the University and College Union:

The future of our profession

During the (recent, Presidential) election, I lost count of the senior staff who approached me to express concern about the fate of the next generation. Locked into exploitative employment with little or no job security, the current model used in …… HE has high expectations of young staff but gives little back to them. They need UCU most, yet their membership density remains low.

With your help, we want to do something about this. Let’s work together and build a trade union culture in low security areas – a culture where the union stands up for staff rights, bargains for better pay and conditions, and helps young staff to get the best out of their careers.

Pushing for better conditions from the bottom benefits both established members and the profession as a whole. We all know that this exploitative employment model is creeping upwards.

Effective from 1 October 2017, if you are a PhD student teaching in HE, ….., UCU will make your union membership free. We think this covers around 70,000 (mostly younger) staff – the majority of whom are struggling at the start of their academic careers.

It is a big offer and valid for four years (or until a more secure job is achieved). We need to remove every possible barrier in the way of young staff joining our union in the hope that positive, valuable, UCU experience will spark a lifetime habit.”

https://www.surrey.ac.uk/doctoral-college/news/free-ucu-membership-all-pgrs

Joining only takes a few minutes: https://www.ucu.org.uk/

Details on UCU CPD can be found here: http://cpd.web.ucu.org.uk/

Surrey UCU AGM 2017

We are holding the Surrey UCU AGM 2017 on:
 
Date: 4th August 2017.
Time: 13:00 – 14:00.
Location: Room 01 DK 03.

We would warmly welcome new members onto the Surrey UCU committee as we have key roles vacant at present. Surrey UCU also has facilities time (paid time) available for committee members, so please attend the AGM to find out more.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Ollie Purkiss, Liberal Democrats, response to Brexit letter

Ollie Purkiss, Liberal Democrats candidate for Surrey South West.

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the Higher Education sector and Brexit. I completely agree that a hard Brexit will be devastating for this sector and that we must fight to protect this socially and economically vital element of our country. The Conservative’s hard Brexit agenda is senselessly jeopardising our renowned and respected education sector and my party and I will continue to do everything in our power to stop them.

 

The EU student population contributed £3.7 billion to our economy and provided 34,000 jobs between 2012 and 2013. It is vital that the Conservative government ensure that this population can continue to study. To curtail the movement of EU students, or to actively cut their numbers would be irrational, illogical and short-sighted. Applications from the EU to Cambridge University for undergraduate courses have already dropped by 14%. We simply cannot afford to see this drop continue.

 

As well as the multitude of benefits that EU students bring to our country, UK students benefit hugely from being able to live and study in other EU member states. The Erasmus+ Programme is just one example of this. It offers opportunities for UK participants to study, work, volunteer, teach and train in Europe. Over 200,000 British students have already benefited from its opportunities. Over the next seven years Erasmus+ was set to allocate almost €1 billion to the UK and involve 250,000 participants. A hard Brexit, which would include the UK leaving the European Economic Area (EEA), would mean an end to our participation. It is senseless for us to withdraw from such a fantastic programme that has helped so many British people to develop, broaden their horizons and gain new experiences. The Tories are determined for us to cut off our nose to spite our face.

 

The EU is undeniably beneficial for our universities. It has directly invested in British universities, funding projects such as Swansea University’s new Innovation Centre. Under Framework Programme 7 (which ran from 2007 to 2013) the UK won around €8.8 billion in research grants, while paying in €5.4 billion. Through the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme the UK is set to receive £2 billion in the first two years. If the government, pull us out of the EU and the European Research Area (ERA) we will not be eligible for any future Horizon 2020 funding. Research and development, academic sharing and the exchange of ideas is essential for the future prosperity of the UK.

 

The Liberal Democrats are the only party that have consistently fought to stop the Tories pursuit of a hard Brexit. We have consistently called on the government to grant EU citizens living in the UK the right to remain; fought for the people to have the final say on the Brexit deal; and called for the Britain to maintain its membership of the Single Market. Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination. My colleagues and I will continue to push against a hard Brexit, advocating for the UK’s continued membership of the ERA and EEA.