Dear University lecturers - get back to work

[ralphrj]

lauda said:

Tony427 said:

I beg to differ.

Which is why my Mrs is retiring early .

Cheers,

Tony

In what way are they changing benefits previously accrued?

I was always under the impression that you can't change what has already been accrued.

USS said:

The proposed changes, detailed below, are subject to a statutory consultation by employers with all affected employees (active members and employees eligible to join). This is due to begin in March. They would come into effect no sooner than 1 April 2019 and would only apply to benefits built up from that point onwards by active members (people currently paying into the scheme).

Benefits already earned by both active and deferred members are protected by law and in the scheme rules. Benefits already being paid to retired members are not affected by this decision.

[crankedup]

captain_cynic said:

rscott said:

Fair enough if the scheme changes for new entrants, but do feel sympathy for those who've been paying into the scheme for decades and are now told they may get far less than expected.

And this is what the protest is about. People who've been working in academia for 10/20/40 years are suddenly being told their existing pension has been significantly reduced.

New employees are already placed on the new scheme. What the union has asked for is for pensions up until now to be guaranteed with future contributions on the new scheme.

Perfectly reasonable imo. Education is the most important aspect for the future of the Country,
we need to attract the best in the World into the U.K. to provide that education. Skimping on pensions is shortsighted but unsurprising.

[Rovinghawk]

Tony427 said:

I beg to differ.

Which is why my Mrs is retiring early .

Surely anything already accrued is a done deal & can't be retracted? How can this not be the case?

[lauda]

Brave Fart said:

I suppose the pension members would say the the Universities, many of whom are rolling in cash, should make good on their contractual promise. Last time I looked, the University of Southampton (my local) had £140 million cash in the bank.
I fail to see how penalising students by strike action is fair, however, and I'd be very annoyed if I'd paid £9k tuition fees and this happened.

Southampton Uni might have some cash in the bank but they’ve also got a fair chunk of debt too. They issued a £300m bond last year.

My reading of their financial position is not that great. They’re currently on a recruitment freeze and student applications have been down for the last two years.

Their pension scheme for non-academic staff is also being changed in an attempt to cut costs.

[alfie2244]

southendpier said:

one of my little Piers is a student is affected by these strikes:

"so before we make a journey to the Uni for a lecture, can you let us know when you'll be out so that we don't waste our time."

"No"

"So we still have to turn up to all lectures even though you may not be there?"

"Yes"

"What about follow on practical sessions, if you're there the practical will go ahead?"

"Can't tell you that. You'll just have to be there "

" and the parts of the course you don't teach us, they'll still be in the examinations?"

"naturally"

"OK, so for every day you're not teaching me on the course that I've paid £9k for, can I get my money back since I've worked it out myself?"

"ABSOLUTELY NOT, COMRADE WE'RE IN THIS TOGETHER ....oooooh Jeremy COOOOr..BYN!"

Alfie junior told exactly the same

[crankedup]

southendpier said:

one of my little Piers is a student is affected by these strikes:

"so before we make a journey to the Uni for a lecture, can you let us know when you'll be out so that we don't waste our time."

"No"

"So we still have to turn up to all lectures even though you may not be there?"

"Yes"

"What about follow on practical sessions, if you're there the practical will go ahead?"

"Can't tell you that. You'll just have to be there "

" and the parts of the course you don't teach us, they'll still be in the examinations?"

"naturally"

"OK, so for every day you're not teaching me on the course that I've paid £9k for, can I get my money back since I've worked it out myself?"

"ABSOLUTELY NOT, COMRADE WE'RE IN THIS TOGETHER ....oooooh Jeremy COOOOr..BYN!"

Don’t panic, students will not be confronted with exam questions which have not been covered due to industrial actions by lecturers. Also students are looking to be compensated for loss of education for which they are paying for, or racking up debt for.

[crankedup]

lauda said:

Brave Fart said:

I suppose the pension members would say the the Universities, many of whom are rolling in cash, should make good on their contractual promise. Last time I looked, the University of Southampton (my local) had £140 million cash in the bank.
I fail to see how penalising students by strike action is fair, however, and I'd be very annoyed if I'd paid £9k tuition fees and this happened.

Southampton Uni might have some cash in the bank but they’ve also got a fair chunk of debt too. They issued a £300m bond last year.

My reading of their financial position is not that great. They’re currently on a recruitment freeze and student applications have been down for the last two years.

Their pension scheme for non-academic staff is also being changed in an attempt to cut costs.

Sounds like they employed the wrong business manager.

[lauda]

crankedup said:

Sounds like they employed the wrong business manager.

Or perhaps to HE sector is facing some challenging times and that’s why Universities UK think that trying to sweep the £6bn funding deficit in the USS under the carpet isn’t a very sensible idea?

[Pan Pan Pan]

At what age do the lecturers receive their pension?, Some it seems do so at age 60, and must take it then, as there seems to be no ability to defer it, What would 5 extra years of pension payments typically be worth to a 60 year old lecturer?

[Tony427]

ralphrj said:

lauda said:

Tony427 said:

I beg to differ.

Which is why my Mrs is retiring early .

Cheers,

Tony

In what way are they changing benefits previously accrued?

I was always under the impression that you can't change what has already been accrued.

USS said:

The proposed changes, detailed below, are subject to a statutory consultation by employers with all affected employees (active members and employees eligible to join). This is due to begin in March. They would come into effect no sooner than 1 April 2019 and would only apply to benefits built up from that point onwards by active members (people currently paying into the scheme).

Benefits already earned by both active and deferred members are protected by law and in the scheme rules. Benefits already being paid to retired members are not affected by this decision.

Benefits being paid to existing pensioners cannot be changed. Pension benefits previously agreed but deferred are protected

The money employees and the Universities have already paid into the scheme is protected.

The benefits employees are expecting to receive have not been protected as yet. My wife's pensions projections have gone down over the last 6 months based on the same retirement date. If they are to be protected that would mean that each employee would need a guaranteed pension value and benefits statement at March 31st 2019 with that pension frozen at that point and a new pension started 1st April 2019. That is not to say this could not be done. HSS has done it before.

However, whatever is put into the pot at that point will diminish what is available for later pensioners, and with employee contributions at 8% and University at 20% theres no room to increase contributions. Anyone who is taking their pension later than April 2019 will get a reduced pension. There is no alternative. Unless you go early and grab your pension whilst benefits are still relatively generous. Which loads of people are doing.

In fact the only way out of the huge black hole that has opened up in the funding of USS is to reduce the pension benefits of pensioners yet to take their pension.

A few months ago the Pensions regulator refused to let the USS alter its investment risk profile which would have inflated projected future investment earnings which would have resulted in USS kicking the underfunding "can" further down the road.

Unfortunately for the USS this wasn't allowed and now there is no alternative than to cut future pension benefits of current employees in addition to reducing the benefits that new employees will get. Its the only way to fill the £9 billion, some say a lot more, black hole.

Cheers,

Tony

[Too Drunk to Funk]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Morningside said:

Then protest about higher student fees putting people off.

How do you explain the record number of students attending university then? You are talking rubbish.

Do you think all these people are happy to pay the £9k a year?

Now who's talking rubbish.

[Digga]

Decent coverage from the BBC on this. They're not sitting on the fence on this topic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43157711

• University pension boss's £82,000 pay rise
• Sally Hunt, leader of the UCU lecturers' union, said: "Whatever happens with this dispute, it is time for a proper look at what is happening with USS.
• There had been complaints about "fat cat" salaries for senior staff while lecturers' pay had been capped, but the head of the lecturers' pension scheme this year received a 17% increase.

[johnfm]

Tony427 said:

ralphrj said:

lauda said:

Tony427 said:

I beg to differ.

Which is why my Mrs is retiring early .

Cheers,

Tony

In what way are they changing benefits previously accrued?

I was always under the impression that you can't change what has already been accrued.

USS said:

The proposed changes, detailed below, are subject to a statutory consultation by employers with all affected employees (active members and employees eligible to join). This is due to begin in March. They would come into effect no sooner than 1 April 2019 and would only apply to benefits built up from that point onwards by active members (people currently paying into the scheme).

Benefits already earned by both active and deferred members are protected by law and in the scheme rules. Benefits already being paid to retired members are not affected by this decision.

Benefits being paid to existing pensioners cannot be changed. Pension benefits previously agreed but deferred are protected

The money employees and the Universities have already paid into the scheme is protected.

The benefits employees are expecting to receive have not been protected as yet. My wife's pensions projections have gone down over the last 6 months based on the same retirement date. If they are to be protected that would mean that each employee would need a guaranteed pension value and benefits statement at March 31st 2019 with that pension frozen at that point and a new pension started 1st April 2019. That is not to say this could not be done. HSS has done it before.

However, whatever is put into the pot at that point will diminish what is available for later pensioners, and with employee contributions at 8% and University at 20% theres no room to increase contributions. Anyone who is taking their pension later than April 2019 will get a reduced pension. There is no alternative. Unless you go early and grab your pension whilst benefits are still relatively generous. Which loads of people are doing.

In fact the only way out of the huge black hole that has opened up in the funding of USS is to reduce the pension benefits of pensioners yet to take their pension.

A few months ago the Pensions regulator refused to let the USS alter its investment risk profile which would have inflated projected future investment earnings which would have resulted in USS kicking the underfunding "can" further down the road.

Unfortunately for the USS this wasn't allowed and now there is no alternative than to cut future pension benefits of current employees in addition to reducing the benefits that new employees will get. Its the only way to fill the £9 billion, some say a lot more, black hole.

Cheers,

Tony

20% employer pension contribution!


TWENTY PERCENT.

And the lecturers are striking??


FFS

[egor110]

johnfm said:

20% employer pension contribution!


TWENTY PERCENT.

And the lecturers are striking??


FFS

I take it you'll now be changing career to take advantage of this awesome pension then ?

[sidicks]

oyster said:

Why should pension payments be guaranteed?

If contributions haven't been enough to avoid a deficit, why should the pension members not contribute more?

Because that’s how a DB works.

[lauda]

Tony427 said:

Benefits being paid to existing pensioners cannot be changed. Pension benefits previously agreed but deferred are protected

The money employees and the Universities have already paid into the scheme is protected.

The benefits employees are expecting to receive have not been protected as yet. My wife's pensions projections have gone down over the last 6 months based on the same retirement date. If they are to be protected that would mean that each employee would need a guaranteed pension value and benefits statement at March 31st 2019 with that pension frozen at that point and a new pension started 1st April 2019. That is not to say this could not be done. HSS has done it before.

However, whatever is put into the pot at that point will diminish what is available for later pensioners, and with employee contributions at 8% and University at 20% theres no room to increase contributions. Anyone who is taking their pension later than April 2019 will get a reduced pension. There is no alternative. Unless you go early and grab your pension whilst benefits are still relatively generous. Which loads of people are doing.

In fact the only way out of the huge black hole that has opened up in the funding of USS is to reduce the pension benefits of pensioners yet to take their pension.

A few months ago the Pensions regulator refused to let the USS alter its investment risk profile which would have inflated projected future investment earnings which would have resulted in USS kicking the underfunding "can" further down the road.

Unfortunately for the USS this wasn't allowed and now there is no alternative than to cut future pension benefits of current employees in addition to reducing the benefits that new employees will get. Its the only way to fill the £9 billion, some say a lot more, black hole.

Cheers,

Tony

With all due respect, I think you’ve misunderstood a few issues here.

Your wife’s pension to 1 April 2019 will be calculated on the same basis as the pension she’s accrued up to today. That will be protected and will not change regardless of any scheme amendments that are made to post 1 April 2019. They can’t tell you what her pension will be at April 2019 because they don’t know what her earnings will be between now and then or what the impact of inflation will be on the pension she’s accrued in the CARE section in recent years.

As you say yourself, she’s had projections of her benefits but those will always change since the assumptions that underpin those projections could change or won’t be bourne out by actual experience.

I don’t think your assumption that anyone drawing their pension after 1 April 2019 will get a reduced pension is correct either. The scheme might have a £6bn deficit at present but that is based on liabilities stretching out over a period of probably the next 100 years. There’s no immediate cash flow crisis and the trustees will be required to pay full benefits to members.

The only instance in which members who have retired could potentially be in a beneficial position to active or deferred members would be if the scheme entered the PPF but the USS isn’t anywhere near that sort of crisis.

And finally, the Pensions Regulator has no power to direct the actual investment strategy of the scheme. They may challenge assumptions on future returns that the trustees use for the purpose of a funding valuation but if the trustees think that they can earn their way out of deficit using investment returns, they have the power to pursue that strategy.

[scenario8]

johnfm said:

20% employer pension contribution!


TWENTY PERCENT.

And the lecturers are striking??


FFS

I couldn’t believe that figure either. Except I could, of course, as figures like that (and higher) get mentioned in passing in all these public sector/bluechip pensions threads.

I haven’t noticed “race to the bottom” mentioned yet but I may have missed it.

[sidicks]

johnfm said:

Tony427 said:

ralphrj said:

lauda said:

Tony427 said:

I beg to differ.

Which is why my Mrs is retiring early .

Cheers,

Tony

In what way are they changing benefits previously accrued?

I was always under the impression that you can't change what has already been accrued.

USS said:

The proposed changes, detailed below, are subject to a statutory consultation by employers with all affected employees (active members and employees eligible to join). This is due to begin in March. They would come into effect no sooner than 1 April 2019 and would only apply to benefits built up from that point onwards by active members (people currently paying into the scheme).

Benefits already earned by both active and deferred members are protected by law and in the scheme rules. Benefits already being paid to retired members are not affected by this decision.

Benefits being paid to existing pensioners cannot be changed. Pension benefits previously agreed but deferred are protected

The money employees and the Universities have already paid into the scheme is protected.

The benefits employees are expecting to receive have not been protected as yet. My wife's pensions projections have gone down over the last 6 months based on the same retirement date. If they are to be protected that would mean that each employee would need a guaranteed pension value and benefits statement at March 31st 2019 with that pension frozen at that point and a new pension started 1st April 2019. That is not to say this could not be done. HSS has done it before.

However, whatever is put into the pot at that point will diminish what is available for later pensioners, and with employee contributions at 8% and University at 20% theres no room to increase contributions. Anyone who is taking their pension later than April 2019 will get a reduced pension. There is no alternative. Unless you go early and grab your pension whilst benefits are still relatively generous. Which loads of people are doing.

In fact the only way out of the huge black hole that has opened up in the funding of USS is to reduce the pension benefits of pensioners yet to take their pension.

A few months ago the Pensions regulator refused to let the USS alter its investment risk profile which would have inflated projected future investment earnings which would have resulted in USS kicking the underfunding "can" further down the road.

Unfortunately for the USS this wasn't allowed and now there is no alternative than to cut future pension benefits of current employees in addition to reducing the benefits that new employees will get. Its the only way to fill the £9 billion, some say a lot more, black hole.

Cheers,

Tony

20% employer pension contribution!


TWENTY PERCENT.

And the lecturers are striking??


FFS

20% isn’t a where near enough to pay the benefits. That’s the problem. Once again, public sector workers appear entirely ignorant of economics and demographics.

[johnfm]

egor110 said:

johnfm said:

20% employer pension contribution!


TWENTY PERCENT.

And the lecturers are striking??


FFS

I take it you'll now be changing career to take advantage of this awesome pension then ?

No - I'm already very well paid for what I do.


However, I will be reminding public sector employees not to moan about pay and conditions when they whine about 'pay freezes' etc yet conveniently don't whine about very generous, unfunded employer pension contributions that form part of their pay package.

[egor110]

johnfm said:

egor110 said:

johnfm said:

20% employer pension contribution!


TWENTY PERCENT.

And the lecturers are striking??


FFS

I take it you'll now be changing career to take advantage of this awesome pension then ?

No - I'm already very well paid for what I do.


However, I will be reminding public sector employees not to moan about pay and conditions when they whine about 'pay freezes' etc yet conveniently don't whine about very generous, unfunded employer pension contributions that form part of their pay package.

I'm not totally convinced they care what you think .