It seems VCs at @USSemployers are struggling to understand what they need to do to end the threat of heavy industrial action over #USS, and I'm appalled by how little "leadership" we're seeing from such highly paid servants of the sector. Let me enlighten them. 1/
The legal terms of the dispute couldn't be clearer. We want @USSemployers to pick up the highly controversial increased costs of the scheme, which lack a solid justification. We have spent years pointing out why, and have been vindicated by an independent expert report. 2/
So on one level, this story's very simple: agree to limit our contributions to 8% of salary, and this goes away. But that won't in itself solve the huge problems underyling why costs have soared. To fix that problem, a major intervention from @USSemployers is necessary. 3/
If the CEO, Bill Galvin, is unwilling or unable to see his role in those terms (after all, this is a complete reversal of the way he has run the executive to date), then it's hard to see any way forward until he steps down. @USSemployers will need to make that clear. 5/
Not only did David and Bill choose not to pass @TPRgovuk's complaint on to the board, they didn't disclose the existence of this email even when member-nominated director Jane Hutton specifically asked about this matter. 7/
It was months later that the regulator's complaint became apparent, and only because Jane kept pushing. Even then, it only surfaced because @TPRgovuk told her that they'd sent it and advised her to ask David Eastwood directly. Jane was suspended from the board soon after. 8/
It is hard to understand the suspension (and ultimate dismissal of Jane Hutton) when the clear wrongdoing is on the part of the Chair of the board. David Eastwood should be suspended pending an investigation into his conduct. @USSemployers should demand this. 9/
And as for Jane Hutton's dismissal? The top secret report that contains the justification for this decision (which even Jane has not been allowed a copy of) must be released, at least as far as Jane and the Joint Negotiating Committee and, with Jane's permission, publicly. 10/
Not only is it totally unacceptable that a member-nominated trustee, well supported by the membership, is removed with no public justification, but the report also contains recommendations on "improvements to policies and procedures" within #USS. We need to see them. 11/
So @USSemployers must join with @UCU in demanding that the report into Jane Hutton's suspension is released. It will cost them nothing to do so. It will be start in putting right a serious wrong. 12/
And what of the valuation? The brainless algorithimic approach to "de-risking" that #USS have clung to for years must end, and @USSemployers must publicly denounce it in the strongest possible terms. But that in itself will not be assurance enough for members. 13/
We need to find a mechanism whereby the #USS board commits to producing a 2020 valuation which has the support of the employers and members of the scheme. This may be difficult, but not impossible. 14/
The scheme rule that gives #USS unilateral powers to set the contribution rate is the reason that the law allows them to "consult" employers over the valuations rather than having to "agree" it with them. The valuation process should be looked at in this context. 15/
Should the scheme rules change? Perhaps. There must be some way to amend them to make such large disagreements over the valuation methods lead to compromise rather than imposition. 16/
These are some of the actions that @USSemployers will need to take to end this dispute. It's a sorry state of affairs indeed that @UCU are having to spell out to them in these terms what's needed. The salaries at the top of Higher Education have never looked so inflated. 17/17
