UCU - Pensions and Pay Disputes

[redsquirrel]

When was the deadline for election ballots? I know I sent mine back some time ago.

EDIT: It was the 1st March

 

[redsquirrel]

Looks like an agreement of sorts may have been reached. UCU HEC meeting tomorrow to decide whether or not to approve it:

https://t.co/fbiRLgoqoN

(Deal getting widely panned on twitter).

According the Southampton branches twitter the HEC vote tomorrow is only on whether to suspend strike action (presumably just this current round). Whether or not to accept the deal will go to members

Whether that is correct or not I couldn't say.

 

[teuchter]

Anyone know what it is about the assumptions behind the forecast pension deficit that is fuelling the grievance?

Does this answer your question?

Deficit, what deficit? The politics of financial fact

(I don't claim to understand it all myself)

 

[teuchter]

It reads more like face-saving pabulum to me. We are "encouraged" to reschedule missed lectures, but even so, disruption will still only be "minimised".

It doesn't seem like the important part of the agreement, or the part that people should be looking at carefully.

 

[redsquirrel]

Crap (but exactly what one would expect from you).

Both UUK and UCU recognise that trust needs to be rebuilt following this dispute. They also recognise that strike action will lead to the loss of pay. The issue of lower paid Graduate Teaching Assistants who have participated in the action is acknowledged. UUK asks institutions to consider ways in which the financial impact on Graduate Teaching Assistants may be minimised. UCU undertakes to encourage its members to prioritise the rescheduling of teaching in order to minimise the disruption to students.

While this paragraph doesn't actually bind either side to anything it breaks an important red line that UCU itself has been keen to stress over the last 4 weeks - that work lost during the strike is just that lost. In addition, the very fact that it isn't anything more than aspirational is poor, either it should be affirmative or it shouldn't be in there at all.

Likewise, the stuff about CDC is poor. CDC is specifically mentioned to be "meaningful[ly] discuss[ed]" but no other alternative is.

I'm shocked that the UCU negotiators even thought this deal/language would satisfy members. Unless they didn't and this is just a way of showing employers how strongly members feel.

 

[Mrs D]

This deal is worse than doing nothing. The employee contribution rate goes up which is an effective pay cut for all including the lowest paid members.

 

[redsquirrel]

How's the feeling in people's branches/on the pickets about the proposed deal?

Feedback to my branch is split pretty much 50:50, with a majority of those picketing in favour of rejecting.

Video of Sally Hunt talking to members gathered outside UCU this morning.

 

[Mrs D]

Warwick rejected with 5 abstentions and zero in favour.

 

[Fedayn]

Glasgow rejected it too.

 

[teuchter]

Crap (but exactly what one would expect from you).

While this paragraph doesn't actually bind either side to anything it breaks an important red line that UCU itself has been keen to stress over the last 4 weeks - that work lost during the strike is just that lost. In addition, the very fact that it isn't anything more than aspirational is poor, either it should be affirmative or it shouldn't be in there at all.

I don't disagree with you as such. If staff are expected to reschedule and do all the work that would have been done during the strike, then they should be paid for it. As Idris2002 said it seems like face-saving and doesn't really bind anyone to anything. But the significant and important part of the proposal is the details of what happens to the pensions which has much longer term and bigger consequences.

 

[redsquirrel]

My guess is that the HEC will go with something similar to what Southampton passed this morning.

We are minded to support the suspension of the action to put the deal to our members with the information they will need to make evidence based and critically informed decisions because this is a complex situation and we need to hear all voices.

So that strike action will be suspended, deal will be passed to members to ratify with Hunt and co doing everything in their power to sell it.

 

[Pickman's model]

It doesn't seem like the important part of the agreement, or the part that people should be looking at carefully.

people should be looking carefully at every part of it to see how badly the union's sold them out

 

[Pickman's model]

It doesn't seem like the important part of the agreement, or the part that people should be looking at carefully.

why do you think people shouldn't be looking carefully at that part?

 

[teuchter]

Looks like they have rejected the deal.

 

[Pickman's model]

Looks like they have rejected the deal.

good

 

[redsquirrel]

Glad I was wrong about the HEC vote but now questions need to be asked about why this deal was put out in this way.

Why have press releases that implied that a deal was within reach (or if UCU weren't involved in those releases why didn't they contradict them sooner)?
Why put this deal out there with no commentary allowing energy and momentum to be dissipated?

The way this whole thing has been handled has put us on the back foot and given UUK the initiative.

 

[Pickman's model]

Glad I was wrong about the HEC vote but now questions need to be asked about why this deal was put out in this way.

Why have press releases that implied that a deal was within reach (or if UCU weren't involved in those releases why didn't they contradict them sooner)?
Why put this deal out there with no commentary allowing energy and momentum to be dissipated?

The way this whole thing has been handled has put us on the back foot and given UUK the initiative.

it's been handled cackhandedly

 

[aqua]

One suggestion I've heard today was whether it was put out knowing it would get this reaction to a) galvanize further those on strike and b) make a fuck ton of noise

I'm not so sure, and I guess unless only those in that negotiating room really know. I do get a feeling hec is somewhat disconnected to the ground level actions though so maybe they did do what they thought was best. A strange day that's for sure.

 

[PursuedByBears]

Glasgow rejected it too.

Unanimously rejected by 84 Lancaster members this afternoon.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Unanimously rejected by 84 Lancaster members this afternoon.

Rejected by 195-0 at my branch.

 

[stethoscope]

 

[aqua]

I won't say what happened at our branch. To use the word shambles wouldn't be an understatement we're against, of course, but getting there was like pulling teeth

 

[redsquirrel]

Any West Yorkshire based members, or just supporters/urbanites there's a rally in Leeds tomorrow starting from the Parkinson steps around 1200 and going to Victoria gardens be great to see you there. After this rejection we need to show we are absolutely committed to continuing action.

 

[2hats]

Anyone know what it is about the assumptions behind the forecast pension deficit that is fuelling the grievance?

More on this (apologies if this has been posted before) - an analysis of the statistics behind the USS pensions ‘deficit’:
Case study: The declared ‘deficit’ in the USS pension scheme

Some of the points have been covered elsewhere before but in conclusion:

As we have demonstrated, the probability of scheme default is zero provided that the scheme is not de-risked. Actual de-risking – an act of self-harm of the first order – increases the chance of default, although even in the worst case, immediate de-risking is still odds-on to leave a surplus.

The obvious solution to the current crisis is for the Government to accept that a multi-employer scheme of publicly-funded universities is not subject to the same risks of a single-employer pension fund.

Sector bankruptcy would be a national tragedy that would also constitute the simultaneous collapse of one of the UK’s leading exporting industries (higher education), the eviction of millions of students from their courses and the collapse of the UK independent research sector. It is a political issue of the utmost importance to the UK economy as well as generations of university staff and students.

Cuts in the pension benefits and increases in employer expenditure are pointless and damaging when the ‘deficit’ is so obviously an artefact of the valuation method. The obvious solution is that the Government simply guarantees the security of the pension fund, and permits the Trustees to value the scheme on an ongoing basis.

 

[Mrs D]

More on this (apologies if this has been posted before) - an analysis of the statistics behind the USS pensions ‘deficit’:
Case study: The declared ‘deficit’ in the USS pension scheme

Some of the points have been covered elsewhere before but in conclusion:

I have to disagree with that. The government guaranteeing the fund would not promote sound asset management in USS because whatever mistakes they made, the government would step in to fix things. It would effectively therefore nationalise the scheme and make it subject to the whims of future chancellors. I think it’s independence is a good thing and should be protected. There is no reason it can’t stand on its own two feet.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

FE pay escalating strike action. Going out 27th 28th and 29th of March.

 

[2hats]

FWIW… CrowdJustice: Fighting for Pensions Justice in UK Higher Education by Academics for Pension Justice Legal Campaign.

 

[William of Walworth]

Looks like they have rejected the deal

good

Agreed

 

[Wolveryeti]

Interesting blogpost on the legal constraints faced by universities trying to punitively dock wages for striking:

Can universities cut staff pay for the strike as they please? “No way”, says the law. | British Politics and Policy at LSE

 

[William of Walworth]

FE pay escalating strike action. Going out 27th 28th and 29th of March.

Good on them , but does the Easter break for most Universities not start until after Easter then? (29th March = "Easter Thursday", 30th = Good Friday).