The <\/span>USS 2020 valuation<\/span><\/a> is not fit for purpose, the <\/span>governance of USS<\/span><\/a> is not fit for purpose. The behaviour of the Pensions Regulator is at <\/span>odds with its remit<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span> The situation has changed considerably since 2019 when UUK had \u2018full confidence in the way the giant USS scheme was being run\u2019 <\/span>FT, July 2019<\/span><\/a>. UUK have <\/span>publicly written to USS<\/span><\/a> to call for a review of the valuation, describing the valuation as \u2018unjustified\u2019, \u2018unnecessary\u2019, and \u2018unaffected by the evidence presented\u2019. The <\/span>actuarial report by Aon for UUK<\/span><\/a> describes the valuation as \u2018misleading\u2019 and a \u2018hall of mirrors\u2019. In writing to <\/span>the Pension Regulator<\/span><\/a>, UUK state \u2018we are particularly concerned about the influence of the Pensions Regulator on the USS Trustee\u2019 and \u2018we have seen little evidence to date that there is focus on your statutory objective\u2019. The UUK consultation document explicitly states that \u2018scheme governance is long overdue a review\u2019.\u00a0<\/span> Astonishingly USS Trustee, which has total power over the \u00a380 billion in assets of the University sector pension fund, responsible for the pensions of over 400,000 people has refused to conduct a review as requested by employers and employees as represented by UUK and UCU.\u00a0<\/span> So UUK are now consulting employers on a substandard valuation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Edit: you can see the estimated effects of the new valuations’ scenarios on your pensions using the web app here<\/a>.<\/p>\n All USS Defined Benefit pensions accrued to date are guaranteed, firstly by the collective strength of the HE sector and then by the <\/span>Pension Protection Fund<\/span><\/a>. However, <\/span>as explained by Sam Marsh<\/span><\/a>, the USS Trustee has forecast such ridiculously low asset returns that a shortfall of between \u00a315-18 billion is estimated. As discussed by Neil Davies, the approach adopted by the USS Trustee appears to <\/span>involve reverse-engineering<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n So the USS Trustee is now claiming that either huge contributions or hugely detrimental benefit reductions are necessary. The claims have been met by widespread public criticisms, and are considered \u2018misleading\u2019 by all stakeholders. The proposed contributions are all unaffordable, and there is widespread agreement, <\/span>including with Mike Otsuka<\/span><\/a>, that the UUK proposal to cut benefits are \u2018insulting and provocative\u2019 as described by Jo Grady, UCU General Secretary. The UUK Aon proposed structure is a more expensive version of a proposal made in 2018, implementing a significant deterioration in pension benefits. This proposal should be rejected on the grounds that no one should agree to have their pension devalued by 20% as a consequence of valuation that is not fit for purpose.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If you are a USS Member or eligible to be a USS member, you can share your views with your employer. You can do this two ways. You can respond to the University of Sussex survey that will opening today and close on Thursday 29 April. The <\/span>UUK survey template<\/span><\/a> asks vague questions about \u2018flexibility\u2019 and \u2018concerns\u2019 but without context and as such responses could easily be misinterpreted. There are no questions that allow staff to give views on governance reforms, conditional indexation, there is no opportunity to share thoughts on options such as legal action or political lobbying or industrial action. University of Kent UCU has not been consulted on the survey and we will raise our concerns.\u00a0<\/span> Secondly, you can share your views with branch and, if you would like to do so, please email me<\/a> to arrange a meeting.<\/span><\/p>\n We are fully aware of the overwhelming complexity and the time available to people to commit to forming views. On top of the initial valuation documents, the consultation documents alone are over 200 pages long. They are unnecessarily complex, obscure and misleading. There is considerable work to do to unpick the nonsense from the small amount of useful but disjointed information.\u00a0<\/span> We don\u2019t expect USS members to have time to unpick the details and, even with the support of UCU and other pension reps, we are struggling. However we do want to talk to you and hear from you all. There needs to be action on USS, and in addition to your views on the valuation, and we need to know what kinds of action you would support.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Having outlined the situation in general above, here is a record of our communication with EG on pensions. We have so far written two letters to Karen Cox and have had two replies. Members will be able to see for themselves the level of commitment being made to influence the USS Trustees and their position.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n UCU Kent Branch to Karen Cox re. Pensions 17.3.21<\/a><\/p>\n Karen Cox responded to our letter with a brief email, claiming that the University’s voice would be weaker in unison with the branch’s voice than without. Our response is summarised in the second letter.<\/p>\nWhere does this leave the University community?\u00a0<\/b><\/h3>\n
And what can we collectively do about it?\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/h3>\n
Where to start in forming your views?\u00a0<\/b><\/h3>\n
Previous Communication with EG<\/h1>\n
First Letter<\/h3>\n
Second Letter<\/h3>\n