LUCU News – July 2022

This newsletter reports on the AGM, USS & 4 Fights and Management Negotiations.

AGM Report

In brief, the AGM addressed the activities of the branch committee over the last year including – e.g. – the removal of ratings and the decoupling of rewards from PDR, our monitoring of Covid safety measures, GTVO campaigns for USS and 4 Fights, organising strike actions, the joint statement with Loughborough management on USS, and our input to Project Enable and the review of promotions criteria. Looking ahead, we discussed a major recruitment campaign for next year, which will include opportunities for members to receive training and support their Reps in this vital activity.

Officers for the 2022-23 committee were also confirmed:

Mary Brewer: Chair
Marc Gibson: Secretary
Marie Hanlon: Membership Secretary
Alec Edworthy: Health, Safety and Environment Officer
Andrew Dix: Casework Coordinator
David Wilson: Treasurer
Sue Hignett: Equalities Officer
Joanna Boehnert: Ordinary member

Minutes of the AGM have been emailed to all members.

USS & 4 Fights

A branch delegates’ meeting was held on 27 June. Delegates were asked to vote on the timing of an aggregated ballot for industrial action on USS & 4 Fights. 79% of delegates voted to ballot in October, with action to take place in Spring/Summer 2023; 51% of delegates voted against a summer ballot. Full details of questions and ballot results have been emailed to members.

HEC met on 1 July and agreed the following demands for 2022/23:

To call on UUK to withdraw their imposed benefit cuts to USS
To call on USS to carry out a new evidence-based valuation
To reject the pay offer from the employers
To seek a substantial (at least £2,500) pay increase
To seek meaningful agreements on workload, casualisation, and equality pay gaps

However, regard timing, HEC decided to open the ballot in August to run until October, with industrial action to begin in November, should the employers not agree to the above demands. This appears out of line with the expressed view of a large majority of branches, whose delegates proffered a variety of reasons why they did not support this strategy and/or feel able to deliver a positive ballot result within this time frame. Consequently, branch officers have requested a meeting with Justine Mercer, HEC Chair, to discuss further the rationale for November strike action.

Management Negotiations: PDR and Covid 19

JNCC, in which the 3 campus unions negotiate with management, met on 6 July.

PDR:

Management confirmed that the 2023 round of PDR will follow the same process as this year, that is, there will be no ratings or reward tied to PDR. However, in 2024, management is considering returning to ratings and re-linking PDR to rewards. The three campus unions made clear our strong opposition to the reintroduction of a judgemental rather than developmental review of staff performance.

C-19:

The unions requested that senior management

reiterate to all line managers that staff are not expected to work when ill, whether from Covid or another illness,
recirculate the policy that asks staff who have Covid or any other communicable disease to stay at home to protect others, and
continue providing cleaning materials for commonly used equipment, whether desks, copiers, vans, etc. We are pleased to report that management agreed to these requests.

The unions also asked that clean air is ensured, free from airborne spread diseases. This could be provided by adequately filtered air handlers, where fitted, and HEPA air purifiers where there is no mechanical ventilation. We are disappointed that management would not agree to the installation of air purifiers, because, they argued, there is insufficient evidence to support their effectiveness. LUCU disagrees with this analysis, and our Health and Safety officers will discuss the question of evidence further with Neil Budworth, the Director of Health, Safety and Wellbeing.

Addendum

We have received a response to our newsletter, above, from Anne Lamb, Director of Human Resources, regarding the item on PDR.

It remains the case that there is not likely to be any significant change on ratings or rewards for PDR 2023; however, we have been asked to circulate further details about the timing and decision-making process regarding PDR.

Following a meeting of the Academic Leadership team and consultation with Deans, final details about PDR 2023 will be shared with staff in the autumn.
Looking ahead to 2024: PDR and reward are to be included in one of the University’s enabling projects, Project Expectation, which will explore the longer-term arrangements.

LUCU Committee

1st June 20221st June 2022

LUCU June News: Workload / USS & 4 Fights / LSU

Workload: Project Enable

Colleagues involved in Phase 1 of Project Enable, the University’s review of workload, have thus far identified 77 areas where work could either be removed from the system or processes could be revised to create more headroom in staff workloads. For example, a new triage system has been set up in the Research Office so faster decisions can be made on contract approvals, and bureaucracy is being reduced in the staffing approval process.

Changes are being made to the Ethics Approval process for both staff and student projects, which will reduce the amount of checking and save time for both PS and RTE colleagues, particularly in SSEHS and SDCA where staff have highlighted this as a workload stressor. Also, changes to a range of practices around learning and teaching, such as module and programme approval processes, are either underway or are being planned. LUCU welcomes these initiatives as they afford potential to free up time for professional services & RTE colleagues.

The work carried out by the branch committee on the Task and Finish workload groups for RTE and Professional Services staff informed Phase 1 of Project Enable. In June, the Programme Board, chaired by Richard Taylor, will meet to carry out a prioritisation exercise to determine the workstreams for Phase 2 of Project Enable. This exercise will consider the impact, effort required, beneficiaries and appetite for change in each of the items identified in Phase 1.

LUCU will be represented by Mary Brewer in Phase 2, who will join the Project Group. She will work closely with Sue Hignett as Equalities Officer to assess the EDI implications of proposed changes. Management recognizes that Phase 1 is unlikely to have captured all the activities where we might change working practices; therefore, members are encouraged to pass on ideas/suggestions for smarter working in their areas by speaking to their Department Rep or emailing UCU@lboro.ac.uk.

USS and 4 Fights: LUCU solidarity with assessment boycott at University of the Arts, London

UCU members in a relatively small number of branches began a marking boycott on the 23^rd of May, in support of the USS and Four Fights campaigns. As we are not taking part, our branch has “twinned” with the University of the Arts, London, who are undertaking this action despite threats of 100% pay deductions for partial performance. The branch committee will offer practical campaign assistance where possible, and to further support our colleagues at UoA, £500 has been donated from our hardship fund to theirs.

We also urge you to consider donating to their Just Giving page if you can afford it. This small number of colleagues are taking on a huge burden on behalf of us all, and any financial solidarity we can offer them will make a real difference to those who face having their pay withheld.

LUCU and LSU

At recent EGMs, members have asked us to prioritise establishing supportive exchanges with Loughborough Students’ Union (LSU), and we can report good progress on this front. Though mindful of the need to reflect a range of student opinion on campus, LSU has been helpful in soliciting material from us about our reasons for taking industrial action and in posting this on their social media platforms.

With a possible marking boycott in the air, Freya Mason, the LSU President, recently contacted us again. Mary Brewer and Andrew Dix then met with Freya and four of her team. We’re glad to inform members that this was a warm and productive conversation. While it would be unreasonable to expect LSU to be on the barricades with us, they are keen to play whatever role they can in finding solutions to current disputes (most pressingly, the pensions issue). With this in mind, we will be exploring the possibility of tripartite meetings, involving management, LSU and ourselves. At present, exchanges are only bilateral – and we would welcome the chance to make our case with student leaders, as well as managers, in the room.

We will say more in future newsletters as these initiatives develop (there will be opportunities for collaboration with LSU on other fronts as well, including mental health and equity and inclusion). For the moment, we’d just like to thank Freya and her colleagues for their support this year and to say that we look forward to working equally productively with the incoming LSU team.

We hope you have a good break over the extended bank holiday!

LUCU Committee

10th May 2022

LUCU News – May 2022

EGM Report

Members’ views were canvassed regarding a further 10 days of strike action and a marking boycott as voted for at the recent HE sector conferences on USS & 4 Fights. An emergency motion was tabled that instructs branch officers to communicate to UCU HEC the following:

LUCU does not agree with the timing of a marking boycott in May/June;
LUCU will hold our strike days in reserve at this time;
LUCU believes that national actions require a majority to be participating, and we are in favour of aggregated ballots.

The motion was passed with a majority of 84%. We have shared the motion with Paul Bridge, Head of UCU HE. The EGM revealed strong support for the strategy proposed by Jo Grady to delay action in order to build broader support throughout the sector (you can find her position paper here), but which was not supported at the sector conferences. At the meeting on May 10th for branches that have a mandate for action, our delegates will report members’ views as expressed in the motion and recommend that HEC give further consideration to Grady’s recommendations.

Throughout the dispute, the LUCU committee has kept the channels of communication open with management. We reported to members on a joint LUCU-Lboro statement that syncs with the recent statement between Glasgow UCU & management (click here for the Lboro statement). It is hoped that the statement will encourage other institutions to come forward and publicly support a fair resolution to the USS dispute. LUCU will now work to secure a joint statement on 4 Fights.

General Assembly

The Chief Operating Officer, Richard Taylor, has responded to the 2 motions that were tabled for the General Assembly meeting that was postponed.

Concerning the request that GA does not take place during strike action: the date of GA was fixed before Lboro UCU fixed their strike dates. We do not routinely re-organise University events affected by strike dates.
On the second motion (the deficit), it is not clear if this is a motion to ask Council not to pay the deficit reduction now; if this is the case, we believe it would be beyond Council’s legal power to act in this way. If the intent is to push for a dispensing of the need for the deficit reduction payments in the future, this would be within Council’s powers, and therefore it could consider this. I believe it would be best to raise this following the next valuation.

I would like to note this point of governance: Council cannot be compelled to act by GA. The GA called and postponed, can still be reinstated at UCU’s request, but I would hope we could determine a better route. Management has no objection to the view of Loughborough UCU being shared with Council. If there are views/statements that Loughborough UCU wish us to bring to the attention of Council (which it could then choose or not choose to consider), we would be happy to do this.

Given this statement, should another GA be called on a strike day, LUCU will act to gather the 25 signatures needed to call another meeting, and the branch committee welcomes the opportunity to present members’ views to Council.

Pay Gaps

The Government Pay Gap Review 2017-2022 reveals little progress over the last 5 years on gender; for example, Lboro is in the worst position for 3 metrics compared to other East Midlands universities. Click here for Lboro data on gender pay gaps; click here for government data.

We will be raising the issue of pay gaps for all staff with protected characteristics at the JNCC on September 14^th. Management agrees that more progress is needed, and they have agreed to invite Charlotte Croffie (PVC for EDI) to present her initial thoughts on closing pay gaps. LUCU will work to ensure that solving the pay gap problem at Lboro is high on her agenda.

Lboro University Council Elections

LUCU endorses the candidacy of Priti Meredith, who is standing for the role of non-academic member of University Council.

I have worked for five different Universities in the Midlands and in London since 2005. I joined the University in 2015 and currently work for the School of Science as a Development Manager in the Centre for Mathematical Cognition. I will take on a role in operations management this summer for a new, large-scale research centre in early mathematics learning.

Having worked for different Universities has enabled me to experience a range of organisational strategies, policies, and procedures. In addition, I am female and of Asian British Indian origin and a working mother. As a result, I feel that I would be able to make a unique and pragmatic contribution to Council. Furthermore, I am presently on maternity leave following the birth of my second daughter and becoming a member of Council would further contribute to my career development.

My experience overlaps with the remit of Council including advising in the development of strategy and vision and contributing to decision-making. In addition, I have worked collaboratively with colleagues to create risk strategies and helped identify and monitor Key Performance Indicators.

I have strong communication and presentation skills and regularly present to audiences, shaping my delivery to suit. Much of my career has involved encouraging academic colleagues to apply for external funding and I have a track record of achieving this successfully through my experience and ability to be honest and empathetic, which I feel are also important attributes for Council. I understand that good governance is critical to ensuring the organisation’s success and endeavours to make the most of available opportunities to move the organisation forward. I feel greatly enthused at the prospect of playing an active role in contributing to Council’s work and adding representation in terms of a professional staff member and one who is able to represent academic colleague’s views and experiences, thus bringing an exclusive and valuable insight –Priti Meredith

LUCU Committee

1st April 20221st April 2022

LUCU News: Pensions Update

Today is April Fools’ Day. It’s also the day when Universities UK’s cuts to USS come into effect. What’s happening to our pension scheme is as ludicrous as the great April Fools’ pranks of the past (spaghetti trees, the island of San Serif), but, unfortunately, not as funny.

As a result of these cuts, the pension you will earn today is between 15% and 35% lower than the pension you earned yesterday. Coupled with the 21/22 pay award of just 1.5% and an inflation rate currently running at 6.2%, the assault on our pensions means that this year will see the biggest cut in our real-terms renumeration since at least the 1970s – potentially the biggest cut ever.

The changes taking effect in USS from today have other implications, too. From now on, the University will be spending around £5.8m per year on servicing the ‘deficit’ that USS calculated existed on 31 March 2020, at the height of the pandemic. In the Trustees’ interim monitoring report of 28 February 2022, USS accepted that this ‘deficit’ had shrunk from £14.1bn to £2.0bn. Remarkably, to create even this trivially small £2.0bn ‘deficit’, USS had to lower its growth assumptions below even the ‘excessively prudent’ assumptions used in the 2020 valuation: USS is now assuming 0% growth in real terms (since 2020 it has achieved 33% growth).

You may need to take a moment for this outrage to sink in. This £5.8m per year is real money, taken from the University’s bank account. So, the next time you are told there is no money to fund your PhD student to attend a conference, no money to replace your faulty computer, or no money to buy a new heater for your cold office, please remember that there is enough money in the University to spend £5.8m servicing a deficit that doesn’t exist.

What now?

There are two immediate ways in which the dispute could be resolved.

First, USS is being taken to court by a group of UCU activists. The hearing is scheduled for 5 April, and you can find out details of the case at the CrowdJustice page.

Second, Universities UK could insist that USS issues a new deficit recovery plan in light of post-valuation experience. Because the current ‘deficit’ is so low, this would be likely to reduce deficit recovery payments to zero, thereby providing scope for devising a new schedule of contributions and higher benefits. Critically, to improve benefits does not require the same lengthy consultation and legal process as is needed when benefits are cut.

To date, Universities UK has refused to call for a new valuation, or for post-valuation experience to be taken into account in drawing up the deficit recovery plan; instead, it has preferred simply to cut staff benefits. Without concerted pressure from UCU members, in the form of a high turnout and a strong ‘yes’ vote in the current ballot for continuing industrial action, UUK will continue to erode our living standards.

Sign the petition

Please urgently join UCU’s call for Universities UK (UUK) to revoke the cuts by signing the petition here: https://speakout.web.ucu.org.uk/uss-cuts-are-not-necessary/

Please vote

The ballot closes a week today: 8 April. We urge you to return your ballot papers, if you have not already done so. The last safe day to post is Wednesday 6 April. Thank you.

LUCU Committee

25th March 202225th March 2022

Check with HMRC if your UCU membership is listed in your tax code

On UCU strike? Facing another week of lost pay? Do one quick thing today to help – check with HMRC to get your UCU membership listed in your tax code under ‘professional subscriptions’.

You can claim back to 2017/18 at the moment, but be quick as that will roll over to 2018/19 onwards soon as tax year ends this month. You’ll need the annual amounts you’ve paid to UCU to hand (a quick check of online banking/UCU direct debit) for each year, including this one. The same applies for most professional memberships related to your job.

You can also check that it’s on your tax code for the new tax year about to start 22/23 (letters sent recently).

Online can take up to 15 days, so given we are close to end of tax year, we suggest you call 0300 200 3300 with just your NI number and your UCU annual debited amount for the past few years. If you do wish to complete online please click here.

You can also find guidance on this from national UCU here.

LUCU Committee

18th March 2022

A Letter To Our Members

Dear colleague

In support of our Union’s efforts to reverse brutal pension cuts and to improve pay and working conditions in the sector, we have been called out on strike for a further week (beginning next Monday, 21 March). No-one, to put it mildly, is rejoicing at the prospect. On the contrary, we know that many of you feel bruised by the action already taken and that you are dismayed at the request to strike again.

You may be in two minds about whether you participate in this latest action. We understand this deep unease: indeed, we share it. Notwithstanding this, it is vital that every member of Loughborough UCU answers this call to strike.

‘Going on strike again is unaffordable’

The idea of losing another week’s money is dispiriting. Few of us, despite our opponents’ spin, are wealthy enough to keep foregoing significant chunks of income. But while we appreciate that the thought of further salary loss will be giving you pause, we hope that it will not, in the end, prevent your involvement in the strike. And this for several reasons:

Presently, we are facing the loss of, at most, several thousand pounds for participating in strike action. This is hardly a trivial matter. However, if the horrifying pension cuts are not reversed, we face the loss of many tens, if not hundreds of thousands. The withdrawal of our labour will cost us plenty – but the failure of our campaign will cost us so much more.
You may not be aware of the scale of financial support made available by UCU’s Fighting Fund – or you may be reluctant, given the level of your salary, to make a claim on it. However, the fund is there for all members who are experiencing significant financial pressures, and we encourage you to make use of it.
Details of the strike pay scheme and how to apply can be found here. Basically, you can claim £50 a day if you earn more than £30k p.a., and £75 a day if your salary is lower. This is not fully compensatory, of course, but it represents not insignificant mitigation for financial loss.

‘Going on strike again is too disruptive to students’

All of us in student-facing roles – whether as lecturers or administrators, librarians or IT specialists – relish this work. All of us are dismayed at the thought of causing further disruption to students.

It is an unavoidable fact, however, that only by causing this disruption will the strike be successful (by prompting students in large enough numbers to contact the University’s managers and urge them to do so much more to help secure a fair hearing for the Union’s case, especially on pensions). A mass refusal to complete our PDRs will not jog the Vice-Chancellor’s elbow; failure to update Co-Tutor on time, or to submit that new bid for research funding, will not exert any pressure either.

We completely understand why, reluctant to cause further gaps in the education of students you like and value, some of you may be feeling that you cannot strike on the 21^st. However, we ask you to pause and consider how a decision to work seriously diminishes the effectiveness of UCU’s action and brings our defeat that little bit closer. An alternative course of action, we propose, is to let your students know what you are planning to do (and why) and how they can help – and then to strike.

‘Going on strike again serves no strategic purpose’

There is certainly no expectation that your support for the Union should be uncritical. Questions can fairly be asked about the conduct of the ongoing industrial action, including about the latest plan to stagger strikes by institution across two weeks. However, without a rapid follow-up to the recent series of strike days, impetus for the struggle would be lost. University managers nationwide would relax. Effective strike action, by contrast, will ensure their continued attention. The Joint Negotiating Committee of USS meets on 29 March – and it is vital that its management representatives have very clear evidence, from a well-supported strike, of our determination and stamina in this fight.

The Union is acting on the basis of a clear mandate supplied by members across the country (including – and by a significant majority – members at Loughborough). The campaign it is presently waging in our interests is crucial, perhaps even epochal. It requires – and deserves – our full participation.

To repeat: we understand and empathise with you if you feel disinclined to strike again. We acknowledge that what’s said above may not have changed your mind. For us on the Branch Committee, however, the situation is clear: to go on strike on the 21^st will be difficult, but it is necessary. The campaign in defence of our pensions, in particular, cannot be allowed to fail – but it only has a chance of success if it is fully supported by all UCU members, including on this campus.

Thank you very much for your time.

LUCU Committee

16th March 2022

USS & Four Fights Strike Update – 15th March

USS & Four Fights Strike Update

Additional Strike Days Announced

We will be taking an additional 5 days of strike action over USS & Four Fights from Monday 21^st to Friday 25^th March to put additional pressure on employers. Thank you to all our members who’ve been part of the action.

Picket Details

We will be picketing the gates of Loughborough University again from the 21^st to 25^th March. Picketing will start at 8am and conclude around 11am. Please let Marc Gibson know if you will be able to join the pickets.

Re-balloting of Members

Our current strike mandate runs out on the 3^rd of May and the UCU HEC have decided to re-ballot all members at Loughborough (and the 148 other HEIs) on both Four Fights and USS to extend the strike mandate. The ballot will open on Wednesday 16^th March. Please check your postal details are correct on MyUCU now, and please look out for your ballot pack arriving in the post. It should contain 2 ballots, one for USS and one for Four Fights. Please complete both and return as soon as possible. The ballot period will close on Friday 8^th April.

USS Legal Action – Crowdfunding Appeal

This is a joint effort from many university branches who believe in fair pensions and a living planet. Its organising group includes Dr Neil Davies, Bristol UCU, and Dr Ewan McGaughey, KCL UCU and the below is taken from their latest update.

We wanted to update you about the legal action against the USS directors over cuts to our pensions and management of the USS. As you may have heard, we won our first oral hearing, and now we need to raise more to cover costs for the next on 28 March.

If you can donate it will make a huge difference. The current pensions cuts leave many of us £100,000’s worse off in retirement (see modeller). If we win, we could get an injunction against the cuts that will happen on 1 April. We have 3 weeks to save the pension, so please donate now, and share with everyone you know!

Legal case progress to now – In August last year, we raised £50,000 to start legal action against the USS directors. Many thanks to the over 1700 people who contributed. These donations paid for our legal team to develop our claim, which we submitted last Autumn. On the 28^th of February, our barrister presented the case at an initial hearing at the High Court judge and requested permission to proceed to the next stage – a full contested hearing. We were successful, and the judge recognised the urgency of our claim and granted us a contested hearing on the 28th of March. He ruled that we have a prima facie case and that we were acting in good faith. If we are successful at the next hearing, we will be able to proceed with the legal action against the directors, which may be paid for by USS Limited (the company that runs our pensions). We have four claims:

That the 2020 valuation was flawed and unnecessary
USS costs are excessive
The changes discriminate against women, younger and minority colleagues
The USS has failed to have a credible plan to divest from fossil fuels, and this causes significant financial detriment

Crowdfunding – However, to proceed with the next hearing, we urgently need to raise more money to cover the legal costs of the full hearing. So we would be very grateful if you could contribute to our crowdfund. Time is short, so if you could donate here asap – we would greatly appreciate it! If there is any money remaining in the crowdfund after the legal action is complete, we will use it for further legal action over the USS, for example, seeking judicial review of The Pensions Regulator. If there are no further legal options, or we get everything we want (a reasonable valuation, a cost-effective pension scheme, a pensions proposal that is not discriminatory, and divestment from fossil fuels), then we will donate any remaining funds to a charity.

LUCU Committee

1st March 2022

Strike Pay – How to Claim from the Fighting Funds

The national officers have authorised payments from the national Fighting Fund in support of members in the HE disputes (USS and Four Fights) which started on 1 December 2021. Payments from the national scheme apply from your second strike day and currently up to a maximum of 11 days. In addition, as a branch, we have passed a motion to use our local strike fund to reimburse hourly-paid staff for the first day they strike up to the same daily maximum. Please note the December, February and March dates are all considered a single set of actions meaning your “first day” of action (for which no payment is available from the national fund) is only counted once, not separately for each set of dates.

In order to make a claim to the Fighting Fund you need to:

be paying subscriptions at the correct rate (if any subscription is payable);
have participated in official strike action and lost pay for this
provide evidence of deduction from your salary or loss of earnings for strike action.

Claiming from the Local Strike Fund (hourly paid staff, day 1 claims)

Please send the following to our treasurer David Wilson – D.Wilson@lboro.ac.uk

confirmation from your School or Department of the hours not worked due to striking
the number of hours missed and the hourly rate of pay you receive

Claiming from the National Strike Fund (all other claims)

Claims to the Fighting Fund in respect of all disputes can only be made once members receive payslips showing deductions for strike action. Please read the appropriate Guidance before making your application. The Higher Education Guidance can be found here.

If you are in a position where you can go without making a claim or you feel able to claim for a lesser amount please consider doing so in order that we can prioritise those whose loss of pay may cause particular hardship. The Fund will be able to support more members for longer if you can contribute in this way.

Click here to make your application.

Donating to the National Fighting Fund

You can make a donation to the Fighting Fund here or by sending a cheque payable to UCU and marking the back of the cheque ‘donation to UCU fighting fund’. Please send cheques to UCU, Carlow Street, London NW1 7LH.

LUCU Committee

25th February 202225th February 2022

USS Dispute – Update (24/2/22)

USS Dispute: What has been happening?

17th January: branch officers meet with local management to discuss proposals that UCU could put forward to resolve the dispute. We explain how strike action could be avoided by both employers and employees agreeing to pay slightly higher contribution rates for a year to maintain existing benefits (employers: 23.7% for six months, 25.2% for six months; employees: 11% for six months, 11.8% for six months). Although the employer rate would be higher than under the UUK proposals, the average employer contribution rate between October 2021 and April 2023 would be less under these proposals (23.4%) than had been budgeted for (23.7% under the 2018 valuation).

24th January: branch officers meet local managers again to continue the discussion.

24th January: UCU receives a report from USS detailing members’ responses to the official consultation on UUK’s proposed cuts. This reveals strong support for maintaining existing benefits, even if it required contribution increases.

26th January: In light of the consultation responses, UCU formally tables its proposals in a letter to the Chair of the Joint Negotiating Committee. The union’s proposed resolution has three parts: (i) a joint call for a new moderately prudent valuation to supersede the discredited March 2020 valuation; (ii) maintenance of existing benefits until at least April 2023, with employers to pay 23.7% contributions for six months, then 25.2% for six months; employees to pay 11.0% for six months and 11.8% for six months; (iii) should USS refuse to conduct a new valuation then from April 2023 contribution rates would be capped at 25.2% (employers) and 9.8% (employees) with benefits reduced to the best possible available under these rates.

26th January: UCU’s proposals are discussed with local managers at the Academic and Related Staff Negotiating Subcommittee.

26th January: Without consultation with universities, UUK says that UCU’s “proposal does not appear to be a serious attempt to reach agreement as it doesn’t reflect the views employers have expressed in consultations.”

27th January: Loughborough responds to UUK. Management welcomes UCU’s proposals as a first step to resolving the dispute, but argues that point (iii) in UCU’s proposals is unrealistic.

31st January: UUK refuses to formally consult with employers on UCU’s proposal until USS confirms that the costings in the proposal add up. This is despite the proposal being based on figures provided by USS to both UCU and UUK in August 2021.

2nd February: UUK formally consults employers on a trivial modification to their own proposals, despite explicitly admitting that the new proposal was based on costings not validated by USS. For a 40 year old earning £40k/year, UUK’s modified proposal represents a 29% cut rather than the originally proposed 30% cut. UUK continues to refuse to consult employers about UCU’s proposals.

10th February: USS confirms to UUK that the UCU proposal is based on valid costings.

10th February: Two weeks after they received the proposals, UUK starts a consultation with employers on point (ii) of UCU’s proposals. They do not tell employers about point (iii) of the proposal (recall that point (iii) caps employers’ future costs, and is therefore critical). Mike Otsuka, UCU National Negotiator, writes to UUK expressing concern about this “serious misrepresentation of UCU’s proposals”.

12th February: UUK modifies its consultation materials in response to UCU’s concern, but continues to misrepresent the cost of the UCU solution. They write that UCU’s proposals would involve contribution rates of “at least 43%” whereas employer contribution rates would in fact be capped at 25.2% under the UCU proposals. Mike Otsuka writes again to UUK expressing concern at the continuing misrepresentation.

13th February: UUK describes UCU’s complaints about the inaccuracy of their consultation materials as being “simply UCU misinformation, which looks like a cynical attempt to increase turnout for their strike action”. This is a straightforward lie.

14th February: Industrial action starts. The branch begins to issue regular reports from the picket lines.

14th February: UUK modifies its consultation materials again, implicitly accepting that the previous versions contained errors.

15th February: In light of UUK’s confused communications, local managers write to LUCU seeking clarification about whether UCU’s proposals are identical to the solution discussed in the meetings of 17th, 24th and 26th January in local meetings. LUCU explains that they are.

16th February: At an Emergency General Meeting of LUCU the branch passes a motion providing strike pay to hourly paid staff from the first day of the action, partly funded by a generous donation from our friends in Loughborough’s Unite the Union branch. Other colleagues who need support to take strike action are directed to the union’s national fighting fund.

18th February: Loughborough responds to UUK’s consultation:

Our initial response to the UCU proposal welcomed it as a potential first step to a negotiated solution and we encouraged UCU and UUK to work constructively to build an implementable solution, noting the very tight timeframes involved. We called on industrial action to be suspended whilst this took place.

· We continue to welcome UCU’s acceptance that benefit changes are likely to be necessary in securing a resolution (UCU’s letter says they will accept the ‘[securing of] current benefits or, if not possible, the best achievable as a result of the … valuation’).

· We have stated in previous consultations that we believe the current valuation was excessively prudent and call for a new moderately prudent valuation at the earliest opportunity.

· We would be willing to consider some increase in employer contribution, but 25.2% is not sustainable. Any figure that is arrived at should be based on an extension of the current cost sharing model so employee contributions rise in proportion.

We call upon UCU and UUK to urgently seek a solution based on these three points.

Industrial action serves no benefit while this happens and should be paused.

(Aside: the third bullet point in the University’s consultation response involves a strange invocation of USS’s existing cost sharing model. In fact UCU’s proposal is consistent with current USS rules. Specifically, under UCU’s proposal the cost of maintaining current benefits would be split 65:35 between employer and employee, as required by USS Rule 76.4. Rule 76.4 only applies to situations where existing benefits are maintained and not to situations where benefits are changed (i.e. not to point (iii) in UCU’s proposal). Clearly benefit reductions fall entirely onto members rather than employers, so it would not be reasonable to expect the cost sharing rules that apply when there are no benefit reductions to also apply when there are.)

21st February: UUK announces that 93 of 97 employers “do not support” the UCU proposal (it is unclear how Loughborough’s response was categorised). An analysis of consultation responses reveals that at least some employers misunderstood the proposal (for example, some employers explicitly state in their responses that they could not afford employer contributions of 29.1%, when the UCU proposals caps them at 25.2%). Given this, we simply do not know how many employers would have supported UCU’s proposals if a competently conducted consultation had taken place.

21st February: USS announces that, even using its own highly pessimistic valuation method, the scheme’s funding position has improved from 83%-funded to 97%-funded since the March 2020 valuation date. Nevertheless, UUK decides to press ahead with cuts to pensions based on the earlier 83% value.

22nd February: The first phase of industrial action ends.

22nd February: At USS’s Joint Negotiating Committee the ‘independent’ chair votes in favour of UUK’s cut to your pension.

23rd February: Josephine Cumbo, the FT’s Pensions Correspondent, writes “I have covered UK university sector disputes over pension cuts since 2017 and can say that I have not seen members so angry as they are today over fresh cuts to their retirement benefits. The anger has reached a new depth. This does feel like a turning point.”

In summary: the last few weeks have taught us that UK universities have been willing to cut staff pensions by up to 35%, despite accepting that the valuation the cuts are premised on is flawed. To achieve this, UUK, the employer association, has been willing to misrepresent UCU’s proposals and then lie about doing so.

We’re now faced with a decision about how to respond. UCU’s Higher Education Committee meets on Friday.

LUCU Committee

LUCU News – July 2022

This newsletter reports on the AGM, USS & 4 Fights and Management Negotiations.

AGM Report

USS & 4 Fights

Management Negotiations: PDR and Covid 19

PDR:

C-19:

Addendum

LUCU June News: Workload / USS & 4 Fights / LSU

Workload: Project Enable

USS and 4 Fights: LUCU solidarity with assessment boycott at University of the Arts, London

LUCU and LSU

LUCU News – May 2022

General Assembly: Notice of Postponement

LUCU News: Pensions Update

Check with HMRC if your UCU membership is listed in your tax code

A Letter To Our Members

USS & Four Fights Strike Update

Strike Pay – How to Claim from the Fighting Funds

USS Dispute – Update (24/2/22)