Thread by @MikeOtsuka

In a thread started by @USSbriefs, @ucu-appointed JNC negotiator @Sam_Marsh101 says this: 1/

https://twitter.com/Sam_Marsh101/status/1090718301926256641

.@Sam_Marsh101 & I differ over how much anger & fury is justified. See 👇. 2/

https://twitter.com/MikeOtsuka/status/1088723587568156672

Here I make a further point: outrage over #USS's valuation in response to JEP should be tempered by the following key passage in the JEP report👇. 3/

"Charts above" refer to this👇modelling of JEP's own recommended path to <30%, two elements of which (Sept TP & smooth contributions) #USS has rejected. 4/

So #USS has rejected "one approach" which JEP recommended but which JEP also said was one of "a number of different paths that the Trustee could adopt to reduce the contribution rate to below 30%". 5/

#USS has instead adopted what JEP describes as "another approach", which I highlight in blue👇, to reducing contributions to below 30%. 6/

#USS proposes a blue-highlighted approach that reduces contributions to 29.7%, which is below 30%. It is hard to square the outrage of @Sam_Marsh101 & others w/ #USS's conformity to this JEP passage. 7/

#USS's choice of JEP's suggested blue-highlighted approach 👇to <30% has clearly also been guided by an attempt to confirm to @TPRgovuk's letter of 11 December . 8/
ucu.org.uk/media/9999/TPR…

It is, moreover, entirely reasonable of #USS to have chosen the blue approach to <30%, rather than JEP's charted path, in the light of this later guidance from @TPRgovuk. 9/

This is because the blue approach is one of lesser resistance to such @TPRgovuk guidance of which JEP didn't yet have sight, because it hadn't yet been issued, when they charted their different suggested path. 10/

There are a number of different pathways that conform to the blue approach. #USS has proposed one, which combines the 2 elements of the blue approach w/ £13 bn reliance, in order to reduce contributions to 29.7%. 11/

Aon has suggested another pathway within the blue approach, which combines its 2 elements w/ smoothing of future contributions, in order to reduce contributions down to the 29.2% endpoint that JEP had charted via a different route. 12/

Aon makes the case that smoothing future contributions is a path of lesser resistance to @TPRgovuk guidance, and hence might justify a reduction in contributions from 29.7% to 29.2%. 13/

Aon's approach strikes me as more constructive & reasonable than a fomenting of outrage over #USS's failure to issue a No Detriment valuation that reduces contributions all the way down to 26% (& not just <30%), via path of great resistance from @TPRgovuk. 14/

Such outrage over #USS's alleged disregard of JEP can be sustained only if one air brushes this key passage (the unhighlighted as well as the highlighted)👇 out of the JEP report. 15/15

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

I now see that in their linked FAQs, #USS refers 👇to the JEP passage I discuss👆.
uss.co.uk/news/all-news/…