Thread by @MikeOtsuka

Re the @ucu Manchester conference, the afternoon session on #USS was inquorate, and hence any of the linked motions that passed were advisory rather than becoming official union policy. 1/

https://twitter.com/MikeOtsuka/status/1059383440011939840

See here: 2/

https://twitter.com/zenscara/status/1060284597957783552

So official @ucu policy on #USS remains as spelled out here in motions from earlier quorate HE sector conferences: 3/
ucuagenda.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/motion…

HE6 is the most relevant of this motions that remain official @ucu policy, non-superseded by any of the inquorate Manchester motions. It says: 4/

"Conference resolves to call on HEC and negotiators to publicly and officially adopt a negotiating position demanding the status quo be maintained with respect to USS contributions and benefits." 5/

Compare that with the most recent (linked) statement of @ucu SWG (of which UCU JNC negotiators are a subset) on the JEP report. That statement says: 6/
ucu.org.uk/article/9678/U…

"The SWG agreed the following position in regards to the JEP report and recommendations:
--SWG endorses the JEP report and its recommendations as basis for negotiations
--SWG looks forward to UUK and USS making the same commitment" 7/

The JEP report does not, however, recommend what HE6 calls for, which is that the "status quo be maintained with respect to USS contributions and benefits". 8/

Rather, JEP recommend adjustments to the 2017 #USS valuation and models the application of these adjustments to something a bit short of status quo benefits: namely, existing DB and DC benefits MINUS the 1% DC match. 9/

JEP says that, if their recommended adjustments are applied, they estimate that it would be possible to fund existing benefits minus the match, via a 3.2% rise in contributions, which would = +2.1% employer, +1.1% member, if the current cost-sharing formula is applied. 10/

#USS has recently issued a statement in which they suggest that JEP's proposals should be applied to a new valuation as at 31 March 2018, rather than to the 2017 valuation. See embedded thread for more details. 11/

https://twitter.com/MikeOtsuka/status/1057526638978719745

I believe that @ucu could offer the following as an opening negotiating position which is consistent with HE6 and also accepts the JEP recommended adjustments to the valuation: 12/

.@ucu could make the plausible case that when JEP recommendations (which are, strictly speaking, only w/r/to the valuation and not w/r/to benefit or contribution levels) are applied to the 2018 rather than the 2017 valuation, then... 13/

...it will be possible to preserve status quo benefits (including the 1% match) without any increase in contributions. 14/

👆That is what I would recommend @ucu offer as their opening negotiating position. 15/

#USS will no doubt respond that preservation of existing benefits w/o any increase in contributions involves too much risk. @ucu should respond that #USS overstates such risk, given its "large and demonstrable mistake" regarding Test 1. (See link.) 16/16

https://twitter.com/MikeOtsuka/status/1052854165658103809

👆@UniversitiesUK @ucu @AlistairJarvis @JoanneSegars @SallyBridgeland @Sam_Marsh101 @Flibitygibity @carlomorelliUCU @HershMarion @Dennis_Leech @DaveGuppy @UofGVC @RedActuary @Derek_Benstead @kevinwesbroom @GuyCoughlan @USSbriefs @JosephineCumbo @henryhtapper @markmleach