Every @ucu member will be charged £15. 120,000 members x £15 = £1,800,000! So the @UCULeft-controlled HEC blew a huge hole in union finances, by calling members out on 22 days of strikes w/o figuring out how to pay for them. Recklessly irresponsible. 1/
And then @UCULeft turns around and condemns the very levy that a majority of their own NEC members supported to bail themselves out of their own profligacy. @UCULeft has no shame. 2/
.@uculeft's own proposal to bail themselves out for their profligacy is to call on other unions -- whose average members are generally much less well paid than the HE members they called out for 22 days of strikes -- to donate £1mn to the @ucu strike fund. Again, no shame. 3/
By calling HE members out on 22 days of strikes, @UCULeft has now made it impossible for FE members to receive anything that will ever come close to the strike pay that the union has promised HE members. 4/
Yet every FE member will be forced to pay an extra £15 levy to bail out the strike fund that @UCUleft depleted by their calling HE member out on 22 days of strikes. 5/
.@UCULeft boasts about how they refused to support any cut in the strike pay for the HE members they called out on 22 days. But they refuse to take any responsibility for the financial consequences of their various decisions. What a shameless enterprise. 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵explaining what's so wrong with @USSEmployers VC Alistair Fitt's claim on @BBCr4today that "Modelling published by the @USSpensions trustee themselves shows that impact [of UUK's proposed pension cuts] is likely to be between 10% & 18% for the vast majority of members." 1/
As I've drawn to @USSEmployers's attention on more than one occasion👇, the 10-18% range is based on an outdated & otherwise indefensible assumption which understates the detrimental effect of the 2.5% cap on CPI revaluation. Please read🧵👇. 2/
.@ucu noted that this assumption was so indefensible that persisting with it would expose the consultation to legal challenge. We maintained that our actuary @FirstActuarial's modelling of the inflation cap was far more accurate. 3/
In his 18 Oct letter to @ucu GS @DrJoGrady, @AlistairJarvis repeats this false £860 claim.👇 He writes: "a university staff member earning £40,000 per annum would be paying an additional £860 in pension contributions next year for the same benefits". 1/
The actual annual increase is +£550, not +£860. When we break this down by month, paying an extra £40 per month from April to Oct 2022 would make it possible for this member to retain current pension benefits rather than take the hit of the UUK cuts.👇2/
The extra £40 per month = a rise from £327 to £367 paid each month. That's a 12% increase to avoid UUK's reduction in their future accrual from 1/75 to 1/85 during that period, PLUS UUK's reduction in the upper limit of inflation protection from 10% to 2.5%. 3/
🚨🚨🚨The SAUL pension scheme announces that it is in SURPLUS -- 109% funded -- as at 31 April 2021. It was, however, in deficit -- 94% funded -- as at 31 March 2020 triennial valuation date. (@JosephineCumbo) 1/ saul.org.uk/#/page/sauls-h…
It appears that SAUL's actuary has certified the Schedule of Contributions at 30 April 2021 date of signing rather than 31 March 2020 valuation date. Hence the schedule assumes a surplus & therefore no deficit recovery contributions. 2/
While past pensions promises are more than fully funded, the cost of making pension promises in future years is now estimated to cost 35% if benefits and investment strategy remains the same. This is 13% above the current 22% contribution rate (6% member, 16% employer). 3/
A thread on why I share our @ucu GS's reaction👇to the recent @USSEmployers proposal to cut our pensions by lowering the DB/DC threshold from £60k to £40k, reducing accrual from 1/75 to 1/85, & capping CPI revaluation at 2.5%. 1/
As @jogrady mentions, this proposal is almost identical to the instantly reviled & reject March 2018 ACAS agreement. Here's why it's a provocation for @USSEmployers to try to push this through once again. 2/
On 1 October, @USSpensions contributions are scheduled to rise by 4 percentage points from 30.7% (9.6% member, 21.1% @USSEmployer) to 34.7% (11% member [+1.4], 23.7% employer [+2.6]). This increase was scheduled under the last 2018 valuation. 3/
.@ucl's outgoing & incoming heads have issued a statement👇that stands out for its acknowledgement of how bad things are in London, its responsibility to the wider community, & of what needs to be done. (@SusanLiautaud) 1/3 ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/jan/…
The statement notes👇that their position is out in front of the current position of the UK govt but correctly maintains that this is the most responsible course of action. Also draws attention to the risks of travel into London when transmission is dangerously high. 2/3
.@ucl has stood out during the pandemic for taking its public health responsibilities to the wider community seriously. They've led with their actions rather than waiting (in vain) for the government to provide cover by telling them to do what they know they ought to do. 3/3
🚨UK longitudinal study of 201 individuals with #LongCovid reveals a high proportion are relatively young & without pre-existing health conditions. Also reveals "almost 70%…have impairment in one or more organs four months after initial symptoms". 1/4 medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
▶️"prevalence of pre-existing conditions (obesity: 20%, hypertension: 6%; diabetes: 2%; heart disease: 4%) was low"
▶️Only 18% had been hospitalised
▶️Mean age: 44
▶️"impairment in heart (32%), lungs (33%), kidneys (12%), liver (10%), pancreas (17%), and spleen (6%)"
2/4
"In this young cohort with low prevalence of comorbidities, the extent of symptom burden and organ impairment is concerning", given the "pandemic's scale and high infection rates" among this population deemed "low risk". 3/4