Thread by @Sam_Marsh101

This weekend, Observer economics editor @phillipinman wrote an article on the #USS dispute, which enraged many within @UCU due to the inaccuracies it contained and the inflamatory conclusion.

What was wrong with it? Here are the errors I found. 1/

theguardian.com/business/2019/…

1. A deficit of over £20bn on liabilities of £87bn.

I don't recognise either of these numbers, though it's unclear on which basis the liabilities are supposed to be valued. Self-sufficiency? PPF? Not clear. Perhaps Phillip isn't sure either. 2/

2. The strike is to prevent the scheme's trustees from hiking contribution rates.

This is not true. We're asking employers to pay the increased costs arising from the 2018 valuation, whch rejected the Joint Expert Panel's recommendations. 3/

3. Employers have agreed to defer increases while talks take place with an independent body.

This is just false. Increases (to 9.6% member contributions) occur next month, then again (to 11%) in October 2021. This may be some garbled reference to the JEP's second report. 4/

4. Why has the union pressed ahead with a ballot when employers have put increases on hold?

See above. It's because they haven't. 5/

5. It is clear the fund is in deep trouble.

This is far from clear, and is the argument we've been having for years and years. Welcome, Phillip! 6/

6. Almost every other final salary scheme has over the past 25 years shut down.

This is true and a travesty. But the problem here is the implication that #USS is still final salary, which it isn't. (Oddly this is contradicted later on the article.) 7/

7. @DrJoGrady wants to make a last stand.

This is, I guess, poetic license. It's the @UCU membership which are taking a stand, and Jo is reflecting the union's policy. But calling it a "last stand" is insulting, as others have pointed out. 8/

8. To keep the scheme open, the trustees must demand much higher contributions.

Again, this is far from clear. Welcome to the debate, Phillip. Perhaps read the Joint Expert Panel's report. 9/

9. To keep the scheme open, the trustees would need to take a trip to the pensions equivalent of Las Vegas.

Investing in productive assets long-term is precisely what we need pension funds to be doing, benefiting both the wider economy & scheme members. It is not Las Vegas. 10/

10. Many universities are in dire financial straights.

The figures don't back this up. In aggregate, the sector is the healthiest it's ever been. There may be a small number which are wobbly, but claiming many are in dire straights is a big overstatement. 11/

11. Universities won't be amenable to paying more for pensions.

They've already agreed to do this, though not to the extent that we're asking them to do. And the JEP report concluded that the level they're prepared to pay is likely to be enough. 12/

12. Investing in the stock market is not a risk the pensions regulator is willing to take.

This is just not true. The regulator does not dictate investment strategies to pension schemes, though does want to make sure risks are manageable and sufficiently backed up. 13/

13. Those earning over £57k put extra contributions into a DC fund.

This is badly phrased, but not totally incorrect. Thoe earning over £57k have defined benefits based on a £57k salary, with an additional DC element formed from the contributions above the cap. 14/

14. Academics are fools if they think they can work for 40 years and retire on a half salary for another 25 years.

This is another reference to the old final salary scheme. That's long gone. But anyway: the fools are those that don't ask for proof of such claims. 15/

15. The pension fund debt is real.

Just repeating this doesn't make it true. (See points 5 and 8.) 16/

16. The weak financial situation (of employers) is real.

Again, the figures don't back this up. (See point 10 and the thread below.) 17/

https://twitter.com/Sam_Marsh101/status/1171001523750473734

17. The boat marked "guaranteed pensions" has sailed.

Again, welcome to the debate. Nice to have you here, Phillip. 18/

18. @DrJoGrady believes her pension calculations are better than the industry's.

Again, this may be poetic license, but why personalise things in this way? Jo hasn't done any pension calculations, but the Joint Expert Panel - and two well respected actuarial firms - have. 19/

19. @DrJoGrady's executive are backing her position.

I'm sure this is true, though it's rather an odd statement. It is the membership of @UCU that defines union policy, not Jo. Again, unnecessary and misleading personalisation. 20/

20. If academics want a fight, they should be tackling the plight of their younger colleagues.

Firstly, #notjustacademics. Secondly, we are doing this, right now in a concurrent ballot and have been doing this for ever. Keep up. 21/

21. Zero-hour contracts and jobs with few benefits shame higher education.

Finally, a point to agree on. Glad the closing setence was a strong one. 22/

And that ends my problems with @PhillipInman's article. I haven't come across this much poor quality writing on this stuff since @UniversitiesUK's press releases from 2017. 23/23.