.@UCL_UCU has responded on Twitter to my linked blog post "Questions for advocates of No Detriment". Below I expose two problems with their response. 1/
medium.com/@mikeotsuka/qu…
medium.com/@mikeotsuka/qu…
In that blog, I ask: "Do you think union members would vote to authorise a strike for a No Detriment elimination of their 1.1% rise for three years rather than accepting the JEP-modelled solution?" 2/
.@UCL_UCU's rejoinder is that they are proposing a negotiation of a No Detriment elimination of any rise in contributions, not only of the modest 1.1% over the next three years, but also beyond that three year period. 3/
Even if, according to @UCL_UCU, members would not consider it worthwhile to go on sustained strike to prevent a 1.1% rise for the next three years, they would consider this worthwhile to prevent future rises in their contributions as well. 4/
Here is the 1st problem with the @UCL_UCU position: Even if they wanted to, it would not be within UUK's power to commit to No Detriment beyond the three years of this valuation. 5/
This is because the level of contributions necessary to fund a given level of DB benefits is determined by USS, not UUK. 6/
Moreover, given the iterative nature of Test 1 (see embedded tweet and the 9 below it), it is not now in the power of employers to commit to absorbing 100% of any increase in contributions beyond this valuation. 7/
The 2nd problem with @UCL_UCU's position has to do with the need for threats of sustained industrial action in order to achieve No Detriment. 8/
In their replies to me, @UCL_UCU often emphasises the need to threaten industrial action in order to secure No Detriment. See, e.g., this tweet (& read 2 above it for context): 9/
There is, however, a problem involving timescale with such threats of industrial action to achieve No Detriment for this valuation. 10/
Assume that JNC comes to an agreement, either late this year or early next year, regarding the implementation of JEP proposals AND that USS accepts this. 11/
Employers would need to send such agreement out for consultation for a statutory minimum of 60 days. This would be required even if such agreement involved nothing other than a reduction of employer contributions, relative to the Rule 76 schedule of increases. 12/
The requirement of such 60 day consultation explains why USS maintains that JEP cannot be implemented by April 2019. The earliest possible implementation is Oct 2019. 13/
The threat of a strike to impose No Detriment would add several months, involving notice period for ballot, sufficient time for the ballot itself, notice period after a successful ballot, before strikes can commence, and the strikes themselves. 14/
It will therefore be difficult to follow through with strikes so that they lead to a swift enough resolution to pre-empt the first large Rule 76 increase in October 2019. 15/
USS would also need to be willing to wait that long before making adjustments to a 2017 valuation, the Rule 76 version of which will have been submitted by then. 16/
Especially given my first point, earlier in this thread, that it is not within UUK's power to commit to No Detriment for the next valuation as well as this one... 17/
It will be hard to convince members that all this cost, strife, & uncertainty, including the risk of being stuck with much higher Rule 76 contributions than under the JEP-modelled solution, would be worth it to prevent a 1.1% increase in member contributions for 3 years. 18/18
