Thread by @MikeOtsuka

.@UniversitiesUK CEO @AlistairJarvis has a piece about the #USS dispute in today's Times. In the thread below, I zero in on a false claim he advances, and on which much rides. @AlistairJarvis -- I hope you will engage w/ us in the comments below. Link: thetimes.co.uk/article/81dfdc…

Jarvis: "We have proposed changes only because they are necessary." This claim is (apologies to #USS CEO Bill Galvin) palpably false. It is only because insufficient numbers of employers refused to embrace the maximum level of risk USS was willing to propose... 1/

that we are faced with a valuation that makes the current level of defined benefits unaffordable. There were two crucial points, the Feb/Mar and the Sept consultations, in which employers could have chosen, but refused, a somewhat higher but nevertheless prudent level of risk. 2/

I say 'nevertheless prudent' since these were proposals #USS had carefully assessed as within an acceptable level of risk for the trustee. So it all came down to whether employers were willing to accept these proposals. Or whether their 'risk appetite' was too low. 3/

In the linked blog post, I describe the two points at which too many employers said 'No thanks' to the level of risk #USS said they were willing to accept. 4/
Link: medium.com/@mikeotsuka/th…

I also note that, had sufficient numbers of employers accepted USS's proposals regarding risk, it would have been possible to preserve the status quo of 1/75 CRB up to £55.5k, via +1% employer (from 18% to 19%) & +0.5% member (from 8% to 9.5%) contributions. 5/

.@AlistairJarvis you have consistently failed, in both today's Times and in previous @UniversitiesUK releases, to acknowledge the role of employer choices regarding risk in creating this mess. It is now time to come clean to members about this. 6/

You write: "To maintain the status quo with USS benefits, however, total contributions from employers and staff would need to rise by 11%: an extra £1bn a year." 7/

In order to restore trust with scheme members, you need to come clean and acknowledge that costs are so high only because a 42% minority of employers (of which a third Oxbridge colleges) chose to break the valuation (see link). 8/
LInk: medium.com/@mikeotsuka/yo…

You also need to come clean and acknowledge that a settlement acceptable to both sides is now impossible because employers CONTINUE to refuse to embrace the level of risk #USS proposed in September. As Sally Hunt wrote on Wednesday: 9/

'Nor would they [i.e., @UniversitiesUK] agree to a joint approach with us to revert to the so called "September" risk levels which themselves would unlock a much more affordable solution to the current dispute.' 10/
Link: ucu.org.uk/article/9404/H…

You write: "The time I do not spend seeking a solution, I spend in reflection on what could have been done differently to avoid this dispute". It is, however, crystal clear what your organisation could have done differently to avoid this dispute: 11/

.@UniversitiesUK could have accepted the level of risk #USS was willing to propose in Feb/Mar & Sept. And you can NOW accept @ucu's proposal to join w/ them in making an appeal, in the strongest terms, to #USS to revert to the level of risk proposed in the Sept valuation. 12/

Does @UniversitiesUK accept this proposal? If not, why not? @AlistairJarvis please engage with scheme members by answering, rather than avoiding, these questions. Like a @UniversitiesUK online consultation, I invite you to comment in the space below. 13/13

PS: Here I make the case, on the merits, for a reversion to the September level of risk: medium.com/@mikeotsuka/un…

ERRATA:
1/ : Change "refused to embrace" to "embraced".
5/ : Change "(from 8% to 9.5%)" to "(from 8% to 8.5%)".