A comment on this linked letter from @AlistairJarvis that the University of St Andrews accidentally emailed to some of its staff. 1/ facebook.com/mike.otsuka.9/…
writes: "If the JNC decision were not carried forward it is likely that the USS trustee will be obliged to re-introduce 76.4 of the USS rules, which states that in the absence of an agreed plan for funding the pension scheme,..." 2/
"increased costs will be imposed on both employers and members. This would result in an increase to employer contributions to c24% of salaries, and an increase in member contributions to c11% of salaries." 3/
"As such, it would hardly be responsible to re-open negotiations without the prospect of an alternative proposal that addressed the funding challenges of USS." [End of Jarvis quotation. My comments to follow.] 4/
Comment on the above: If JNC rescinded the 23 January decision without approving a new one, then cost-sharing would be imposed. But what reason would JNC have to rescind the 23 January decision without at the same time approving a new one??? 5/
JNC could refrain from rescinding the 23 January decision unless and until a new proposal was agreed by both sides. Hence, @AlistairJarvis presents a transparently nonsensical reason to refrain from re-opening negotiations on the 23 January decision. 6/6
