My quick thoughts on the email from Sally Hunt. They'll have to be quick because we have a branch meeting for all members at 1pm! (mini-thread)
First, it is apparent there is a split in views amongst the union leadership. In several places, the text says "I" when it should say "we". 
Differences of opinion are natural. A challenge for the union is to accommodate differences while presenting a united front.
This line suggests to me that it is likely the HEC will proceed to balloting the members, whatever the verdict of branch meetings. But I might be wrong.
(I think Sally meant to write "UCU branches" here).
(I think Sally meant to write "UCU branches" here).
Sally is clear that she has not seen any change of heart by the employers. I'm glad SH is clear-headed about this, because it is what I would expect, given the high level at which the DC transition has been planned over several years (see e.g. @felicitycallard's excellent work).
The text on #NoDetriment worries me. Personally, I am not arguing for #NoDetriment, as I would accept the UCU proposal originally put to ACAS, based on the Sep valuation. But ...
... SH recommends those in favour of #NoDetriment should vote AGAINST the proposal *when* (not if) given an opportunity. I think this is bad advice, and seems destined to split the Union down the middle.
On whether the DC move is gone for good, SH equivocates: it is "indefinitely suspended". However we should not forget that it is presently the default position of the JNC, if nothing else is agreed.
On the Pension Regulator, SH is also vague, but I have some sympathy here because of the delphic & inscrutable way tPR appears to operates ...
In some places, we should beware of the words used. "Inter-generational fairness" has been used by employers as an argument in *favour* of DC schemes, due to the ongoing deficit payments to sustain the DB scheme. (Again, as noted by @felicitycallard)
I am glad that SH recognises that further industrial action remains on the table, if UUK or USS block the proposal unfairly.
I forgot to note at the beginning that SH regards this as a "final response", not a starting point for negotiation. Nevertheless, I think branches meetings this week should still recommend constructive ways this proposal can be tightened up.
