{"id":379,"date":"2018-03-01T22:00:11","date_gmt":"2018-03-01T22:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wp.lancs.ac.uk\/subtext\/?p=379"},"modified":"2018-03-01T22:03:30","modified_gmt":"2018-03-01T22:03:30","slug":"letters-9","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/wp.lancs.ac.uk\/subtext\/2018\/03\/01\/letters-9\/","title":{"rendered":"LETTERS"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dear subtext,<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Fleming\u2019s letter (subtext 173) is factually inaccurate, and shows complete disregard for the strength of staff feeling on this issue at his alma mater, which had the highest turnout in the ballot in England and third highest in the UK, with over 88% endorsing strike action. I would like to respond to each of the points made in the letter in turn.<\/span><\/p>\n

1. UCU has a strong mandate for industrial action, given by its members through an average turnout of more than 58% across all 68 institutions that were balloted (a record), with 88% voting for strike action and 93% for action short of a strike. Membership is at record levels, with over a 100 members joining UCU at LU in the last two-three weeks alone. The only thing that seems to be over the top is UUK\u2019s intransigence to negotiations, given a number of VCs across the sector, including institutions like Loughborough, Glasgow, Warwick, Birkbeck, Goldsmiths, Strathclyde, London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine and others are publicly calling for a resumption of national talks.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. While previous pension arrangements are indeed protected, under proposed changes the future pension arrangements will not be protected from 2019. Proposed changes mean our pensions will move from the current defined benefit scheme (which guarantees the rate of pension received in retirement), to a defined contribution scheme (fixing the rate of pay contributing to pension). Crucially, when the chief executive of USS was asked when he visited Lancaster how USS would protect members from the vagaries of the financial markets and that put members pensions at considerable risk, no answer was forthcoming.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. We are not working in the private sector \u2013 our pensions are just a small recompense for our very modest salaries. Modest in relation to the private sector, with very little movement between grades over the lifetime of work, and with the \u2018initial investment\u2019 of time and effort spent in gaining qualifications to work in a University that many in the private sector are not required to make. It seems disingenuous to make any comparisons with the private sector, and hardworking academic and related staff would find any comparisons with employer contributions to a pension scheme in the private sector particularly odious. Those who work in the education sector do so because they have a special set of values, of public good and not individual benefit. Our lifetime contributions to our pensions are being put at risk of markets, with it being left to the individuals to decide what they want to do with their pension pot upon retirement. Do we think vultures would be circling? We only have to see what has happened at British Steel recently.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. UCU has proposed a range of models that illustrate how defined benefits can be maintained by modest increases in contributions (for e.g. 1% for the employees if employers decide to accept the September valuation), lowering of accrual from 1\/75th to 1\/80th, and willingness to negotiate on salary thresholds. UUK have rejected all proposals outright saying they will only accept a defined contribution scheme.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sunil Banga<\/span><\/p>\n

UCU Exec, Pensions Officer<\/span><\/p>\n

***<\/span><\/p>\n

Dear subtext,<\/span><\/p>\n

I have been trying to understand the reasons for the current pensions dispute, and have found this talk by Carlo Morelli, an economics lecturer at Dundee University really useful:<\/span><\/p>\n