51福利/960?? 21 June 2018??
Carlow
Street, London NW1 7LH, Tel. 020 7756 2500, www.ucu.org.uk
To?????????????????? Branch and local
association secretaries
Topic????????????? unconfirmed
minutes, HE special sector conference on USS Dispute
Action???????????? for adoption; to
note
Contact?????????? Paul Bridge, Head of Higher Education
(Christine Bernabe, Head Office Administrator/minutes)
Higher Education Special Sector Conference:
USS Dispute : Decisions
Thursday 21 June 2018, The King’s House
Conference Centre, Manchester
1
Welcome
/ Opening remarks
1.1???? Douglas Chalmers, Chair welcomed all delegates and called conference to order. Housekeeping matters were note. Conference agreed 51福利 Regional Officials will assume the role of tellers.
2
CBC
report
2.1???? Martin Levy CBC moved the CBC report and agenda which had been made available at conference.
2.2???? The CBC agenda to HESSC was challenged. Speakers in the debate were Bruce Baker (Newcastle University) and Eleni Michalopoulou (University of Liverpool).
2.3???? CBC responded to the challenges.
2.4???? The following challenges to the CBC report were put to the vote and decisions were noted:
2.5 The challenge to put motions A, C, D and E back on the agenda was approved and conference accepted these motions will be taken after motion 9.
2.6 The proposal to put amendment 4A.1 back on the agenda (Bruce Baker, Newcastle University) was carried.
2.7 The University of Leeds proposal to withdraw G was accepted by conference:
????????? 2.8???? G.? Campaigning for DB pensions as the best social pension provision, University of Leeds (motion 20) the public university and academic freedom (Part of motion considered to be out
of order and not appropriate for debate as it would be deemed to be defamatory)
2.9???? Eleni Michalopoulou proposed to further challenge G. A vote taken in favour of the challenge to G was LOST.
2.10?? The challenge to put back H back on the agenda was removed.
2.11?? Motion F was not placed on the agenda.
3
Debate
of motions
Motion 1, Scrutiny of the Joint Expert Panel, University of
Liverpool was moved by David Whyte, University of Liverpool.
An amendment
also put by the mover following the
debate, to delete in point 1 ‘should take place in October 2018, at the annual
conference in May 2019 and’ was CARRIED.
Other speakers on this motion were Joe Gluza (University of Cambridge), Joanna
de Groot (HEC, University of York), Michelle Huws-Thomas (Cardiff University)
This motion was
subsequently CARRIED AS AMENDED :
Conference notes that a clear
mechanism of reporting to the membership will strengthen the power of our
representatives on the JEP.
?
Conference demands that the
national union establishes a standing meeting of HE delegates to scrutinise the
work of the JEP.
1.? This meeting should follow the same bi-annual pattern until the
membership (through a consultative ballot) agree that a satisfactory resolution
to the dispute has been agreed.
2.? Following each HE meeting, a consultative ballot should be held
within 2 weeks of the meeting to establish if the membership is satisfied with
progress.
3.? The wording of the consultative ballot should be agreed by
emergency motion at the HESC meeting.
4.? Should the consultative ballot indicate that members are not happy
with progress, the union will reopen its dispute with UUK.
Motion 2, JEP and USS Campaign, University of
Leicester was moved by David Harvie, University of Leicester. The motion was
opposed by Kamie Kitmitto (University of Manchester). The motion was CARRIED :
This HESC believes: Our ability to protect our pensions ultimately relies upon our willingness to restart our strike action. If, following receipt of the JEP report, UUK/USS agrees to increase members’ contributions or to cuts in benefits then this is unacceptable to 51福利. This HESC resolves: 1. To continue campaigning for no cuts in benefits or increases in our contributions in
?? our pensions. 2. If UUK/USS, on receipt of the JEP report, threaten cuts in benefits or increases in
?? our contributions, 51福利 will organise an industrial action ballot, timed to ensure we?? can strike before the end of the second semester of the academic year and to?? continue into the summer exam and graduation period.
Motion 3, JEP and national dispute committee,
University College London was moved by Sean Wallis (HEC, University College
London) was not opposed and was CARRIED
:
Conference notes HE13 calling for a national dispute committee for the USS dispute which will have inter alia the task of scrutinising the work of the Joint Expert Panel (JEP).Conference therefore agrees that 51福利 contact with the JEP and its chair must include reports to the national dispute committee. Conference calls on the JEP to require new valuations of the 2017 round which:1. abandon Test 1, Test 2, Test 3 and combinations of these;2. assume no de-risking of any kind. Conference further calls on the JEP to:a. explain the valuation assumptions that have been used, and their sources;b. produce illustrative calculations showing what happens when those assumptions are varied.
Motion
4, Transparency
and the USS Joint Expert Panel, University of Cambridge was moved by Susanne
Hakenbeck, University of Cambridge. Geoff Fowler (Sunderland University) moved amendment 4A.1, (which had been placed
on the agenda following a challenge to the CBC report). This amendment was carried:
Motion
4A.1 Transparency and the USS Joint Expert
Panel, University of Cambridge,????
Newcastle University
Add to Conference notes: 4. the use of non-disclosure agreements in the JEP. Add to Conference Resolves: d. to call for the withdrawal of non-disclosure agreements and instruct our USS negotiators to refuse to agree to confidentiality agreements.
Motion 4 was CARRIED AS AMENDED by 4A.1
Conference notes:1. that satisfactory recommendations from the 51福利-UUK Joint Expert Panel (JEP) are crucial to acceptable resolution of the USS dispute;2. that the lack of transparency severely undermined confidence in the 2017 USS valuation process;3. that the current Terms of Reference make both submitted evidence and discussions among the JEP confidential.4. the use of non-disclosure agreements in the JEP Conference resolves:That 51福利 will accept any JEP recommendations as authoritative only if accessible and convincing explanations of the following are provided:a.?????? the evidence and reasoning by which any Scheme deficit or surplus is calculated by the JEP, in light of the high level of actual investment returns;b.?????? the evidence and reasoning used by the JEP to estimate of the strength of the employer covenant;c.?????? the evidence and reasoning underlying the JEP's calculation of the contribution rates ??????????needed to fund various levels and types of future defined benefits.d.?????? to call for the withdrawal of non-disclosure agreements and instruct our USS negotiators to refuse to agree to confidentiality agreements Other speakers in the debate included Renee Prendergast (HEC, Queen’s University Belfast), Wendy Olsen (University of Manchester), Andrew Chitty (University of Sussex), Sam Morecroft (University of Sheffield). Mike Lammiman (University of Hull) raised a point of order to ask questions which spoke against the motion.
Motion
5, JEP
(Joint Expert Panel): regular reporting and submissions from members,
University of Oxford, moved by Jaya John John (University of Oxford) was not
opposed and CARRIED :
Conference notes the very welcome first statement from Joanne Segars OBE, chair of the Joint Expert Panel, in particular, that the JEP will: 1.???????? provide regular reports about the JEP’s progress and the issues discussed,2.???????? explain clearly the evidence serving as the basis for recommendations,3.???????? accept submissions from USS members on all relevant issues. Conference reaffirms the importance of these undertakings. Conference also notes motion HE47 carried at HESC 2018 which mandates Superannuation Working Group members to agree regular reporting and feedback mechanisms with 51福利 appointed members of JEP. Building on these, Conference mandates the SWG to negotiate that the JEP will report to members following each meeting of the JEP. Motion 6, Joint Expert Panel (JEP), University College London was moved by Saladin Meckled-Garcia (University College London). Speakers in the debate were Matthew Green (University of Nottingham), Kamie Kitmitto (University of Manchester), Justine Mercer (HEC, Midlands – HE). In response to a question asked, Paul Bridge, Head of HE clarified the official secretariat of JEP and process of contact. This motion was subsequently CARRIED :
Conference welcomes the setting up of the JEP and the motions of the recent HE Sector Conference about its work. Conference agrees that 51福利 contact with the JEP and its chair should involve all the elected lay negotiators and not just the General Secretary. Conference instructs the negotiators to:1. Investigate the use of any surplus to improve pensions for members on casualised
contracts, at the start of their careers and in equality strands. One approach would be a reduction in contributions while maintaining benefits.2. Publicise any refusal, delay or conditionality by USS upon releasing information to
? JEP.3. Encourage members to make submissions to JEP.
4. Arrange for a dedicated area of 51福利 website to be set up for JEP information and
??????????? reports.
The first part of point
4 ‘oppose replacing
the USS DB scheme scheme with a CDC scheme’ was carried. The latter part
of point 4 ‘although a CDC scheme might form part of a top-up scheme for
those earning over the cap in the current capped DB scheme’ was lost.
Conference notes the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) could recommend a Collective Defined Contribution (CDC) scheme to replace the current USS Defined Benefit (DB) scheme.Conference believes CDC schemes are considerably inferior to established DB schemes, even if superior to individual DC plans.Conference agrees 51福利 contact with the JEP and its chair should involve all our elected lay negotiators. Conference instructs our negotiators to:1.?????? publicise any refusal, delays or conditionality by USS upon releasing information to JEP;2.?????? encourage members to make submissions to JEP;3.?????? arrange a dedicated 51福利 website section for JEP information and reports;4.?????? oppose replacing the USS DB scheme with a CDC scheme.
5.?????? pursue measures for improving pension
arrangements for members on lower incomes, in the early career stage, on
casualised contracts, and in equality strands.
Conference welcomes the setting up of the JEP and the motions of the recent HE Sector Conference about its work. Conference agrees that 51福利 contact with the JEP should follow the agreed processes and that all outcomes should be publicised to members. Conference instructs HEC to: 1.?????? Publicise any refusal, unreasonable delays or conditionality by USS upon releasing information to JEP.2.?????? Encourage members to make submissions to JEP.3.?????? Arrange for a dedicated area of 51福利 website to be set up for JEP information and reports. Conference instructs the negotiators to: a.???? Investigate the use of any surplus to improve pensions for members on casualised??????? contracts, at the start of their careers and in equality strands. One approach would ????????be a reduction in contributions while maintaining benefits.
We ask the JEP to: 1.?????? Explain in simple terms by what process exactly does it go from being cash flow positive, with an annual surplus of ?1bn, to deficit. 2.?????? Provide projections of future income and benefit payments, updating the indicative ones made for 51福利 by First Actuarial that suggest it may be perfectly sustainable indefinitely without changes. 3.?????? Conduct a new analysis of the employer covenant, treating HE as a key ongoing economic sector, providing vital services that are always needed, and not merely in terms of the solvency of already-existing institutions. 4. ????? Do new tests of the reliance on covenant using consistent assumptions for the liabilities, including that the scheme remains open indefinitely (permitting long-term investment in high-income assets giving lower liabilities). 5. Provide detailed estimates of liabilities/deficit on a ‘best estimate’ basis, assuming it remains open and no ‘derisking’.
Motion A, JEP must operate transparently,
Newcastle University was moved by Bruce Baker (Newcastle University). Other
speakers in the debate were Marion Hersh (Glasgow University) who proposed remission of this motion, however
this was LOST. Justine Mercer (HEC / Midland-HE) also opposed the motion. A proposal was placed from the floor to
take point iii) in parts which conference agreed.
Point iii) - revised terms of reference for the
JEP incorporating these changes be submitted to the membership of branches in
dispute for approval, before August, for approval and if that approval be not
granted, that industrial action be announced for the beginning of the 2018-2019
academic year was LOST.
This motion was CARRIED AS
AMENDED :
Conference notes:
1. The membership has had no
role yet in shaping the structure or operation of the
?? Joint Expert Panel
Conference believes:
a. The JEP is not a negotiation
but a fact-finding exercise and should operate from a
?? presumption of transparency rather than
confidentiality
Conference resolves:
to insist that
i.??????? all materials submitted to or produced by the JEP be put into
the public domain immediately,
ii.?????? any such material deemed to require confidentiality shall be
put into the public domain in redacted form with an explanation for the
redaction,
Motion B, On
the Joint Expert Panel, University of Cambridge – was WITHDRAWN
1.?????? Conference
notes that the membership has had no role yet in shaping the structure or
operation of the Joint Expert Panel.
2.?????? Conference believes the JEP is not a
negotiation but a fact-finding exercise and is not legitimate in negotiating
alternative scheme design options, including Collective Defined Contribution
designs.
3.?????? Conference believes that the JEP should operate from a
presumption of transparency rather than confidentiality.
4.?????? Conference notes that the JEP risks taking away from the hands
of union members the democratic control over the dispute and risks co-opting
our union into employers’ positions.
Hence conference resolves to
insist that all materials submitted to or produced by the JEP be made available
to members of USS immediately, and the terms of reference for the JEP are
modified accordingly and submitted to the membership of branches in dispute
before August for approval.
Motion C, JEP abstention from discussions of scheme design
options including CDC, University of Sussex, was moved by Andrew Chitty
(University of Sussex). David Watts (University of Aberdeen) opposed the motion.
The motion was subsequently CARRIED :
Conference notes that the UUK
offer of 23 March of a JEP, which 51福利 members voted to accept, stated that the
remit of the JEP was to agree principles to underpin the valuation of the USS
fund. It proposed that UUK and 51福利 would continue discussion on 'alternative
scheme design options' but that this would happen 'alongside the work of the
panel'.
?
In line with this stated remit,
conference calls on the 51福利-nominated members of the JEP to limit themselves to
discussions on the methodology of the valuation of the USS fund, and to abstain
from all discussions of alternative scheme design options, including Collective
Defined Contribution designs.
We call on the SWG to request the
same abstention of the 51福利-nominated members of the JEP.
Motion D, Transparency and Reporting of
Joint Expert Panel, University of Strathclyde was moved by Francesco Sindico
(University of Strathclyde) who proposed that the motion be taken in parts. This was agreed. The motion was not opposed
following which Motion D was CARRIED :
Conference notes that ordinary 51福利 members have not yet had input into
the terms of reference for, or reporting mechanisms of, the Joint expert panel
(JEP).
Conference resolves that:
1.?????? terms of reference for JEP
are revised to insist on transparency as a default for the panel, and that a
clear indication and explanation of where this transparency is not afforded,
delayed or obstructed by any member is required
2.?????? a
clear mechanism is established for JEP reporting to the membership via the USS
dispute committee established from the Higher Education Sector Conference, with
a first report made available to members no later than October 2018 and a
substantial indicative report by the end of the year.
Motion E, Member feedback to JEP, University of Newcastle was
moved by Geoff Abbott (Newcastle University). Adam Ozanne (University of
Manchester / HEC) opposed the motion. The Chair asked conference to note that
point iii) of the motion will fall as a result of the vote result of Motion A :
point
iii) – revised terms of reference for the JEP
incorporating these changes be submitted to the membership of branches in
dispute for approval, before August, for approval and if that approval be not
granted that industrial action be announced for the beginning of the 2018-2019
academic year - FELL
Motion E was CARRIED as amended :
Conference notes
1.
the membership has had no role yet in shaping the structure or operation
of the Joint Expert Panel
Conference believes
a.
that the JEP must have a formal mechanism to accept feedback on its
operations as it is working
Conference resolves
i. that 51福利 members be provided
immediately with a mechanism for submitting their
??????????? views on the work of the JEP and
the objects of the JEP’s discussion
ii.
that the JEP formally acknowledge receipt of, discuss, and formally
respond to all such submissions in a timely manner
Motion 10, Democracy and transparency in ongoing industrial
action, University of Liverpool was moved by Anthony O’Hanlon, University of
Liverpool. Points of information were raised on this motion. Speakers in the
debate were Sam Morecroft (University of Sheffield), Ryan Prout (Cardiff
University), Justine Mercer (HEC and Midlands-HE), Glyn Heath (University of
Salford). The Chair responded to points of information on points i, ii, and iii
of the motion. The proposal to take the motion in parts was not approved. Following a vote count, this motion was
CARRIED :
Conference notes:
Conference believes:
a. A member-led union requires a
democratic and transparent decision-making process, both in the USS and any
future disputes
Conference resolves:
i.??? that
results of the April 2018 consultative ballot to suspend action be published
and broken down branch by branch
ii.?? that the
rules around calling notices for branch meetings be suspended during industrial
action
iii.? that all
key decisions in representative meetings end with a show of hands vote, the
result of which should inform the vote of the Higher Education Committee to
provide greater representation of the views of the wider membership.
Motion 11, Handling of employer offers during disputes, University of Oxford was moved by Jay John
John (University of Oxford) was not opposed and CARRIED :
Conference notes:
1.?????? Difficulties arising during the USS dispute due to limited
time for discussion and consultation.
2.?????? The improvements to our union’s handling of disputes mandated
by Congress 2018’s motion 9.
Building on this, conference
resolves that:
a.?????? During pensions, pay and other disputes, ballot text will be
circulated to branch officers at least 3 working days in advance of the ballot
going live.
b.?????? In order to provide flexibility to our national negotiators,
this timeframe may exceptionally be reduced to 1 working day, if a majority of
our national negotiators so vote.
Motion 12, Dispute Committee terms of reference, Goldsmiths
University of London was moved by Marian Carty (Goldsmiths University of
London). The mover of the motion proposed that the second paragraph of the
motion be withdrawn. It was further proposed that this paragraph be voted on
separately and this was accepted by
conference. David Watts (University of Aberdeen) spoke against the motion.
Paragraph 2 was lost :
HESC believes that membership
of the USS dispute committee should be based upon the membership criteria used
for the recent Industrial Action Commission (but for USS institutions) and
reflect the diversity of perspectives taken by branches in relation to employer
offers in the dispute thus far.
The motion was CARRIED AS AMENDED :
This Special HESC notes the
passing of HE13 on 31 May 2018 that resolved to establish a national USS
dispute committee (USSDC) composed of HESC delegates from USS branches in order
to empower members in strategic discussions.
HESC further believes that
any proposed ballot text on a future employer offer concerning USS has to be
approved by the dispute committee before it is put to members.
?
HESC mandates the HEC when it
meets on 29 June 2018 to agree a provisional timetable of meetings commensurate
with the meetings of the JEP and communicate this, and the election procedure,
to USSDC branches within 14 days.
Motion 13, USS voting rights of post-92 members and
representatives, University of Sunderland was not moved and
subsequently FELL :
?
HESC notes:
1. 51福利 currently has USS
collective bargaining rights only in pre-1992 institutions
2. Post-1992 51福利 members in USS
have been denied a voice in the USS pension
dispute and are
disenfranchised from voting on USS decision-making, including??? industrial action
3. 51福利 still has a job to do in
the ongoing USS dispute and we believe that continued
?? exclusion of post-1992 USS members from 51福利
decision-making is unfair, and is
?? contrary to the ethos of a Union that
believes in equality
4. Voting on USS matters has
been restricted to scheme members
?HESC resolves to:
a. Call on the NEC to
investigate necessary legal processes that would need to be
?? effected to enable post-1992 USS members to
have an individual vote on USS
?? matters.
b. Enable branch delegates and
other elected representatives to vote on USS matters
where their branch or
constituency has USS members, regardless of whether they themselves are in USS.
Motion 14, USS members in post-92 Universities,
University of Brighton (Falmer), University of Brighton (Mouslecoomb) was moved
by Mark Abel (University of Brighton). Denis Nicole (Southampton University and
Sean Wallis (UCL) raised point of information which were clarified. The motion was CARRIED :
HESC notes that some staff in post 92 universities are members of USS.? While these staff have not been involved in industrial action in the USS dispute, 51福利 needs to find means of informing them regularly of developments in USS pensions issues and, where feasible, involving them in the campaign to defend USS pensions. Furthermore 51福利 recognises the need to identify and quantify the extent of USS membership in post 92 universities and TPS membership in pre-92 universities. HESC calls upon HEC:1.????????????????????? to take active measures to identify USS members in post 92, e.g. through adding pension scheme membership to 51福利 membership records,2.???????? contact USS members in post 92 about developments in USS pensions,3.????????????????????? give them opportunities to be engaged in campaigning work to defend USS pensions,4.???????? give them a consultative voice in matters related to USS pensions. Motion 15, Call for resignation of USS CEO, University of
Glasgow was moved by Marion Hersh. Renee Prendergast spoke in the debate. The motion was CARRIED
Conference deplores the role
of the USS Chief Executive Officer in encouraging the undermining of our
pensions and provoking the most sustained and disruptive industrial action in
Higher Education history, including by:
????????????????????????????
1. Insisting on an
inappropriate valuation approach and recklessly prudent assumptions
2. Moving from the September
to November technical provisions,???
3. A lack of flexibility in
the implementation of the valuation deadlines and imposition of
??? rule 74.6, thereby undermining the work of
the Joint Expert Panel.
Conference calls for the
resignation of the CEO of USS.
3.1 Due to time limits, the Chair proposed remission of the following motions
to HEC. ?A proposal to suspend the
Standing Orders to continue with the business on the agenda was not approved by the Chair and the Chair
gave an explanation to conference for this ruling.
3.2 An extensive debate on the proposal to remit motions not taken to the
HEC followed. Deepa Driver (University of Reading), Carlo Morelli (Dundee University),
Michael Carley (University of Bath), Sam Morecroft (University of Sheffield),
Brian Garvey (University of Strathclyde), Marion Hersh (University of Glasgow)
spoke in the debate.
3.3 A vote followed and MOTIONS 16 –
21 were REMITTED (42 (in favour) / 0 (against) and 72 (abstentions)
(Note - motion 19: The University of Strathclyde made a proposal to withdraw motion 19 ‘
No assumption of pensions deficit or detriment’ and the Chair advised to write
to the HEC with this request)
Motion 16, COMPOSITE Casualised
Staff pensions, Goldsmiths University of London, University of Dundee
Conference notes casualised staff:1.???? are often barred from the right to join USS by their employer2.???? have poor pension prospects due to lack of alternative pension provision Conference resolves:a. To demand in our pay campaigns equal access to pensions for casualised staff.
b. To ensure all grades of academic related, teaching and research staff have access to the USS pension scheme.
c. To put a rule change through the JNC to ensure that casualised staff retain existing
pension rights during periods of a break in service without needing to make contributions.
Motion 17, Victimisation of
Striking Members in the USS Dispute, University of Salford
HE Sector Conference congratulates members in the successful strike
action in the USS Pensions’ dispute and notes that members have been victimised
during and subsequent to the strike.??
Members have been disproportionately sanctioned for minor breaches of
policies or disproportionately selected for redundancy.
HE Sector Conference demands that agreements negotiated by 51福利’s
negotiators include a clause whereby:
1.?????? During talks and up to and
including agreement there shall be no victimisation in any form against those
who have engaged in lawful strike action on behalf of their trade union
2.?????? 51福利 will engage in an
intensive campaign against any Employer that victimises 51福利 members in any form
or attempts to impose rescheduling of work upon members.
3.?????? Any
Employer that victimises 51福利 members in any form or attempts to impose
rescheduling of work will also be subject to academic boycott and censure (Grey
listing)
Motion 18, Possible future
withdrawal from USS pension scheme by Employers, University
of Salford
Possible future withdrawal from USS pension scheme by Employers.
Northwest Regional 51福利 are aware of at least one pre 92 employer
considering leaving the USS pension scheme, citing the possible increased costs
of the scheme.
HE Sector Conference demands that 51福利 engages in the strongest way
possible against any employer, who withdraws from USS.
HE Sector Conference believes that a National response from 51福利 should
include the following:
1.???? National Campaign against
the offending Institution
2.???? Immediate academic Boycott
and Censure/Grey listing of the offending institution.
HE Sector Conference demands that this response should be made clear to
USS negotiating team in negotiations.
Motion 19, No assumption of
pensions deficit or detriment, University of Strathclyde
Conference notes that a deficit in the USS pension scheme cannot be
assumed, that the previous reduced contributions made into the pension scheme
by employers relative to employees amount to some ?7billion.
Conference resolves:
1.?????? that 51福利 insists on
maintaining the defined benefit status quo for as long as the JEP requires to
complete its review?
2.?????? should the result of JEP
indicate a deficit there should be no detriment to current pensions before the
employers have recognised, accounted for, and addressed the impact of reduced
contributions.
Motion 20, Campaigning for DB
pensions as the best social pension provision, University of Leeds
Conference notes:
1.?????? our successful industrial
action defended the principle of Defined Benefit (DB) pensions, challenging
political orthodoxy to accept DB pensions were “unaffordable”
2.?????? the current government is
weak
3.?????? widespread criticism of
university leaders for their enrichment
4.?????? pensions are deferred
wages, thus increased employee pension contributions are a de facto pay cut.
5.?????? Labour Party policy has
shifted from solely promoting Defined Contribution (DC) Pensions towards
support for Defined Benefit pensions.
Conference believes:
a.?????? the best social pension
provision is DB
Conference resolves:
ii.
to campaign for DB pensions within
and without the labour movement, launching via a national trade union
conference on the future of pension provision in Britain, together with
advocates of DB pension schemes
iii.
to work with all relevant
political parties, calling them to advocate for collective provision of DB
pensions
iv.
any increase in employee pension
payments should be compensated for in future pay settlements.
Motion 21, Windfall from
employers' USS contribution holiday, University of Sussex
Conference notes that between
January 1997 and October 2009, while employees’ USS contributions remained at
6.35% of salaries, the employer contribution was reduced from 18.55 to 14%. In
1999, USS actuarial estimates indicated this decrease in employer contributions
would result in a shortfall of ?561m that would be made up from the USS fund’s
surplus. In October 2009 contributions were raised back to 16% and in April
2016 to 18%. It has been calculated that the total savings to employers,
relative to what they would have paid if they had continued to contribute in
proportion to employees, amounts to some ?7bn.
Conference calls on 51福利 members of
the USS JNC to demand that in the event of further requirement for increased
contributions needed to eliminate any USS deficit, said contributions should be
met entirely from employers, up to the total amount of savings mentioned above,
plus accrued interest.