,
17 tweets,
10 min read
Read on Twitter
Firstly, why a ballot? When the Joint Expert Panel's report dropped in September, there was hope from all sides that it had the potential to end the dispute. Adopting its recommendations would mean a shift in philosophy from #USS and rate increases low enough to negotiate on. 2/ 
Both @UCU and @USSemployers backed the JEP report, the latter with the strikes still fresh in the mind and eager to put the dispute to bed. The issue, as was always likely to be the case, was with #USS itself. 3/
The first side-step by #USS was a proposal of a new, 2018 valuation as a way to incorporate the issues raised by the JEP. This would not replace the 2017 one, but instead follow close on its heels and intercept its large contribution increases. 4/ uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run…
Support for this approach was secured from @USSemployers, with the Joint Negotiating Committee being shown information that the JEP's recommendations applied in full to the 2018 valuation would mean the deficit would vanish and contributions would fall. 5/
Yet as soon as agreement to proceed with a 2018 valuation was sealed, the #USS executive team recommended to the board dropping two of the three key proposals from the JEP report. The one that remained would be inextricably tied to 'contingent contributions' from employers. 6/
The justification for #USS's rejection of the JEP's recommendations? That adopting them would send the 'discount rate' above the internal benchmarks the regulator uses to judge a valuation's prudence. 7/
Yet these internal benchmarks don't exist! The regulator added a cryptic stab at #USS in its annual DB funding report which made this explicit. It is possible - indeed likely - that this was not the first that USS had heard of this issue from TPR. 8/ medium.com/@mikeotsuka/on…
And this leads to where we are now: #USS insist the correct rate is 33.7% of pay, +7.7% since before the dispute. Yet this is based on a rejection of the JEP report and still relies on the universally-acknowledged flaws in Test 1. Nothing has changed. 9/ medium.com/ussbriefs/a-fl…
There are attempts by #USS to mask the situation by offering two other 'options'. But these options are either highly unpalettable (trigger contributions which are more likely than not to set off) or disingenuous (even in the eyes of the regulator). 10/ medium.com/ussbriefs/the-…
The University of Sheffield has published its response: it is not prepared to play the game and pick an option. This is not surprising. Employers and members alike both look on aghast at the mess that has developed for no clear reason. 11/
Added to this, Prof Jane Hutton, one of three @UCU-nominated trustees, has recused herself from the board under "considerable pressure" after whistleblowing to the regulator on the obstruction she faced obtaining data on the valuation. 12/ ft.com/content/96cf2d…
This has now led to over 1,000 academics signing a petition to call for an inquiry into the scheme. There are serious issues here that need proper answers. 13/ ft.com/content/fdf66d…
So, why a ballot? Because this dispute is far from over. Employers are losing faith in how things are being handled by #USS yet failing to publicly call out the problems, propping up a malign administration in the process. and allowing money to be siphoned out of the sector. 14/
Failing to push back now will lead to #USS tightening their grip, making it easier for them to shrug off the second report of the JEP. Employers will start contingency planning for a 2020 valuation which shows more of the same. We will face big problems in the future. 15/
So what's at stake? The same as ever: the future of the DB scheme. It is tragic that we're heading back towards a ballot for strike action. But employers know what they need to do to avert it: call out the disastrous internal governance of USS and demand change. 16/16
PS Academics for Pensions Justice (@ForPension) are preparing a legal challenge to #USS to add to the mix. Their work now has the support of @UCU, due to the motion sent to conference by us, and given more teeth by an excellent amendment from @leedsucu. ucu.org.uk/article/10091/…
