Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #nodetriment
Most recents (5)
Today is #USS's annual 'Institutions Meeting'. This is the first time I've been (I'm invited as a member of the Joint Negotiating Committee), but my understanding is that it's a way for USS to woo representatives from employers with presentations, food, nibbles and drinks. 1/
We *may* get a sneak preview of a 2018 valuation in one of the morning sessions: videos I've seen from previous years have included stuff relating to scheme funding. If so, it's likely to be confidential until the Technical Provisions consultation launches in a week or two. 2/
What might a 2018 valuation show? That depends on the input assumptions, but if the JEP recommendations are followed in full and applied to 2018 data I don't think we'd be far off #NoDeficit and #NoDetriment, even if Test 1 remains unamended. 3/
It is becoming clearer and clearer that all feedbacks from votes from union branches show demands for substantial amendments to the proposal (ranging for asking institutional guarantees with TPR/USS to a full #NoDetriment clause). I of course fully agree with these demands. 1/9
However pls do not get distracted from the real shit that is happening in the backstage: an intentionally vague proposal has been written by UUK (never discussed by the union negociators who saw it 1h before) and released unilaterally last Friday evening. 2/9
It was then backed up immediately by Sally Hunt, with no guarantees in this proposal AND with the trick of pushing for an e-ballot to the members on this very text. The whole trap is here. 3/9
My quick thoughts on the email from Sally Hunt. They'll have to be quick because we have a branch meeting for all members at 1pm! (mini-thread)
First, it is apparent there is a split in views amongst the union leadership. In several places, the text says "I" when it should say "we". 
Differences of opinion are natural. A challenge for the union is to accommodate differences while presenting a united front.
Don't usually like massive threads, but want to expand on this condensed reaction Friday's offer/agreement on #USS re
#USSstrike #ucustrike #Strikefor USS #NoCapitulation #NoDetriment 1/9
#USSstrike #ucustrike #Strikefor USS #NoCapitulation #NoDetriment 1/9
While I agree with all the #NoDetriment statements about being naive to trust UUK/'indepdendent' panel, & related demands/amendements suggested for the statement, believing that a more specific clause would be the end of the struggle is equally naive. 2/9
We could strike until we got everything we wanted writ down,but at some point we'll go back to work (!)&then inevitably pension manager crooks will continue attempts to subvert the agreement, inc using requirements of the pensions regulator to continually revisit arrangements 3/9
To clarify: there is a win but it is only on pushing the timetable. There is no clear win in *substance* of offer. As many have pointed out, a) DB until April 2019 was guaranteed anyway, b) the Independent Panel is worded as within a) "regulatory framework" and ...ctd.
...b) "affordability". There is no commitment to look at framework ( = assumptions that caused the deficit) or approach the Pensions Regulator/Gov't on that, so deficit is built in (maybe slightly smaller, but still there). So no actual commitment in offer that secures...
DB benefit structure. Additionally: the part that mentions looking at solution "broadly" in line with DB benefits, not a guarantee of any kind - remember UUK thought new DC scheme was broadly in line with existing DB - "broadly" is v broad for them...In sum...
