1/ A thread on why universities need to keep teaching online for the rest of this term. 2/ The government's last guidance to universities was issued on 3 February. It instructed HE providers not to offer any face-to-face teaching - outside exempt subjects such as medicine, dentistry and veterinary science - until at least 8 March. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

1/ The hardest sell in the package that UCU issued overnight is not the demand to move all (or almost all) teaching online. It is the demand that universities 'scrap plans to reopen campuses'. 2/ 'UCU said that demanding over a million young people move around the UK to attend university made no sense [...] UCU said the push to get students back on campus was being driven by a dangerous desire to get back to business as usual, before it was safe to do so.'

1/ Bill Galvin, CEO of #USS, shills for a third runway at Heathrow airport.
thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/… 2/ Let's leave aside how outdated this article - with its frequent invocation of taking the long view - looks a mere three weeks later.

It's been pointed out that the 9.1% offer UUK negotiators made to UCU at the #USS JNC on Thursday contained a 'ballot moratorium clause' (the so-called #bullyclause) which immediately made it unacceptable to UCU negotiators. But it hasn't been pointed out yet that, in their public statements about the offer yesterday, @adamtickell (the chair of the EPF) and @UniversitiesUK have given inadequate summaries of this clause.

@JohnRalfe1 @felicitycallard @MikeOtsuka @DrJoGrady @ProfTomMole @carlomorelliUCU @USSEmployers @ucu @AlistairJarvis @JoanneSegars @SallyBridgeland @Sam_Marsh101 @Flibitygibity @HershMarion @Dennis_Leech @DaveGuppy @UofGVC @adamtickell @RedActuary @Derek_Benstead @kevinwesbroom @GuyCoughlan @USSbriefs @JosephineCumbo @Wonkhe @stianwestlake Mike, thanks for this. I'll try to clarify my view.

It is true that JEP have accepted Test 1 for the current valuation, despite their pretty scathing criticisms of it. However what drives 'de-risking' is not Test 1 as such but the way USS chooses to interpret it. 1/ @JohnRalfe1 @felicitycallard @MikeOtsuka @DrJoGrady @ProfTomMole @carlomorelliUCU @USSEmployers @ucu @AlistairJarvis @JoanneSegars @SallyBridgeland @Sam_Marsh101 @Flibitygibity @HershMarion @Dennis_Leech @DaveGuppy @UofGVC @adamtickell @RedActuary @Derek_Benstead @kevinwesbroom @GuyCoughlan @USSbriefs @JosephineCumbo @Wonkhe @stianwestlake Their current definition of Test 1 (Sep 2017 TP consultation doc, p. 58) is:

"Test 1: a test designed to measure whether or not the long-term risk in the DB section of the scheme is within the risk appetite agreed between the trustee and sponsoring employers. 2/

@JohnRalfe1 @felicitycallard @DrJoGrady @ProfTomMole @MikeOtsuka @carlomorelliUCU @USSEmployers @ucu @AlistairJarvis @JoanneSegars @SallyBridgeland @Sam_Marsh101 @Flibitygibity @HershMarion @Dennis_Leech @DaveGuppy @UofGVC @adamtickell @RedActuary @Derek_Benstead @kevinwesbroom @GuyCoughlan @USSbriefs @JosephineCumbo @Wonkhe @stianwestlake Employers are in a position to push USS very hard. For example, they can say that while they accept TPR's Code of Practice 3 for DB schemes para 117: 1/ @JohnRalfe1 @felicitycallard @DrJoGrady @ProfTomMole @MikeOtsuka @carlomorelliUCU @USSEmployers @ucu @AlistairJarvis @JoanneSegars @SallyBridgeland @Sam_Marsh101 @Flibitygibity @HershMarion @Dennis_Leech @DaveGuppy @UofGVC @adamtickell @RedActuary @Derek_Benstead @kevinwesbroom @GuyCoughlan @USSbriefs @JosephineCumbo @Wonkhe @stianwestlake "Technical provisions should represent a target reserve to hold against a scheme's future liabilities calculated using assumptions that have been chosen prudently, taking into account the degree to which the employer covenant can support a range of likely adverse outcomes." 2/

@MikeOtsuka @USSEmployers @ucu @AlistairJarvis @JoanneSegars @SallyBridgeland @Sam_Marsh101 @Flibitygibity @carlomorelliUCU @HershMarion @Dennis_Leech @DaveGuppy @UofGVC @adamtickell @RedActuary @Derek_Benstead @kevinwesbroom @GuyCoughlan @USSbriefs @JosephineCumbo @Wonkhe @stianwestlake Hi Mike

Some comments on this double-thread.

First, at 3-5 (= tweets 3-5) you say TPR will not accept higher than gilts+1.2%. Is this on the basis of what USS says about TPR, or of statements by TPR itself? If it is the former I would take it with a pinch of salt. 1/ @MikeOtsuka @USSEmployers @ucu @AlistairJarvis @JoanneSegars @SallyBridgeland @Sam_Marsh101 @Flibitygibity @carlomorelliUCU @HershMarion @Dennis_Leech @DaveGuppy @UofGVC @adamtickell @RedActuary @Derek_Benstead @kevinwesbroom @GuyCoughlan @USSbriefs @JosephineCumbo @Wonkhe @stianwestlake Second, at 9 I think you are very defeatist. If UUK and UCU were jointly determined, on the basis of solid arguments, to reject the TP document (as it should be rejected) USS would be forced to renegotiate with TPR. 2/

1. Here's a 12-tweet thread on today's UUK statement, made shortly after the UCU ballot results were announced, first via Josephine Cumbo and then on their website. universitiesuk.ac.uk/news/Pages/bal… 2. In it I compare the new statement with UUK's original offer of 23 March, which is also on their website. universitiesuk.ac.uk/news/Pages/Joi…

Hi Carlo, as an ordinary UCU member I am concerned about process. In her email today (reproduced at ucu.org.uk/article/9424/L…) Sally Hunt says that all last week, 'working through ACAS' she pressed UUK on the issues of a joint expert panel and ... meanwhile taking 'the current proposal to axe the guaranteed pension off the table'. She then says 'The proposal from UUK is their final response to that pressure from UCU'. This suggests (a) that there were informal contacts between Sally Hunt and other UCU leaders and UUK ...