Dear University lecturers - get back to work

[johnfm]

egor110 said:

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 .

Equally I don't care that they think they're underpaid when they don't include their pension rights.

[johnfm]

Nanook said:

johnfm said:

Equally I don't care that they think they're underpaid when they don't include their pension rights.

Sure you don't.

That's why you're ranting about it here, because you don't care...

Can you read?

I don't care "that they think they're underpaid".

I clearly care that they strike over pensions when their pensions are generous.

[Runes]

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!"

The striking staff have no power to refund tuition fees, do they?

[Rovinghawk]

Runes said:

The striking staff have no power to refund tuition fees, do they?

So they can screw the students over with no guilt. Excellent. Power tto the people.

[Vaud]

One thing that annoys me in this process is the local Unions asking their University to "get back to the negotiating table"... ignoring that:

• it is a centrally agreed negotiating agreement on both sides, not individual Universities
• they have been to the "table" 35 times
• they are still negotiating in the background, no doors are closed
• all sides quietly agree that status quo is untenable.. kicking the issue down the line serves no-one

[Runes]

Rovinghawk said:

So they can screw the students over with no guilt. Excellent. Power tto the people.

Just to clarify, I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that.

No doubt some of the striking staff feel guilty about the disruption to students' education. But disruption is part of the point of striking. It's how it's meant to work. Don't you agree?

The point I was making in my previous post is that it is bizzare to complain that striking staff won't refund tuition fees, when they have no power to do so.

[Vaud]

Runes said:

Just to clarify, I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that.

No doubt some of the striking staff feel guilty about the disruption to students' education. But disruption is part of the point of striking. It's how it's meant to work. Don't you agree?

Some staff are only striking on days where they don't have lectures. Keeping to spirit of the action.

[Runes]

Vaud said:

Some staff are only striking on days where they don't have lectures. Keeping to spirit of the action.

I'm not sure if by that answer you mean that you agree or do not agree.

Anyway, it seems unlikely that if there is such a thing as "the spirit of the action", it can include not striking on days when staff have lectures, given that the union members have chosen to, err, strike on days when they have lectures!

[Rovinghawk]

Runes said:

No doubt some of the striking staff feel guilty about the disruption to students' education. But disruption is part of the point of striking.

So they know it's wrong but do it anyway. Right.

Runes said:

It's how it's meant to work. Don't you agree?

It isn't meant to work at all. I've always seen strikes in a similar vein to a kid hurling the teddy out of the pushchair. Real men just go elsewhere, to where their skills are appropriately rewarded, or realise they have the best deal they're going to get so knuckle down & get on with it.

Strikes are just a kid's hissy fit on a grander scale.

[Vaud]

Runes said:

I'm not sure if by that answer you mean that you agree or do not agree.

Anyway, it seems unlikely that if there is such a thing as "the spirit of the action", it can include not striking on days when staff have lectures, given that the union members have chosen to, err, strike on days when they have lectures!

You may find that not all lecturers (who are union members) are striking for the full set of dates. Note that some Universities are docking lecturer pay if a rescheduling of the work is not complete. So they are showing their support for the action but not taking full action.

Few lecturers actually want to harm students as "collateral damage". It is the University executive that they want to pressure, not the students. The University executive that have their hands tied by a collective bargaining process.

[Runes]

Rovinghawk said:

Runes said:

No doubt some of the striking staff feel guilty about the disruption to students' education. But disruption is part of the point of striking.

So they know it's wrong but do it anyway. Right.

No, that's not what I said, as I suspect you know.

Rovinghawk said:

Runes said:

It's how it's meant to work. Don't you agree?

It isn't meant to work at all.

Hm, strikes aren't meant to work? Why do you think people strike then? Did you actually mean to write that strikes don't work (a different claim)?

Rovinghawk said:

I've always seen strikes in a similar vein to a kid hurling the teddy out of the pushchair. Real men just go elsewhere, to where their skills are appropriately rewarded, or realise they have the best deal they're going to get so knuckle down & get on with it.

Strikes are just a kid's hissy fit on a grander scale.

OK, I disagree, but it's neither here nor there in relation to the point I made.

[Runes]

Vaud said:

You may find that not all lecturers (who are union members) are striking for the full set of dates. Note that some Universities are docking lecturer pay if a rescheduling of the work is not complete. So they are showing their support for the action but not taking full action.

The very fact that different people are striking differently points away from there being a "spirit of the strike" which is not revealed from the terms of the strike.

Vaud said:

Few lecturers actually want to harm students as "collateral damage". It is the University executive that they want to pressure, not the students.

I agree, but that's not to say that inconveniencing students is not an effective way of pressuring universities (whether, apart from its effectiveness, it's the right thing to do is another question).

[travel is dangerous]

johnfm said:

Boo fkign hoo.

New entrants now having to go onto defined contributions pensions.

Lecturers revolting at having to contribute to their pension and get out what they put in + growth instead of being allowed final salary pensions that future taxpayers will pay for.

Poor little dears.

25 % of our salary is contributed towards making the defined benefit pension. I contribute to my own DB pension. It does not come (entirely) from taxpayers (e.g. it's a private pension scheme)

The scheme currently can afford to pay its annual liabilities from its annual income, with room to spare - it doesn't have to touch the invested capital.

Alternatively, the scheme needs only a 3 % annual return to meet its annual liabilities (without touching income).

And silliest of all, the scheme - which is the largest private sector pension scheme in the UK - is in deficit by an inappropriate accounting measure. The deficit is calculated based on the current (estimated) liabilities of the scheme. The test requires that the scheme should be able to meet these should all of the employers go out of business. Now, if the scheme in question is run by a single employer - e.g. BHS, Marks and Spencers, etc. etc. this makes sense. If the scheme's major contributors are the 60 best universities in the uk then this condition is clearly bonkers.

The change is being driven by universities who want to get the potential pension liabilities (from the failure of other scheme members - if one university fails, the other members have to up their contributions) off of their balance sheet so they can borrow more money, or borrow at a lower rate.

The scheme could lose the 20 smallest employers, or the median 10, or the largest employers, and the increase in contributions required by all of the other employers would be on the order of 0.01 %.

I estimated the effect the proposed changes would have on my pension. I assumed that under any potential DC scheme, I would purchase an annuity - to provide the security of income that I have under the current DB scheme. My estimated annual retirement income will fall from ~25-30k to 10k.

When I became an academic, I accepted that I would take lower pay (as much as 50 % lower) than I would as a professional in my field. Partly, the autonomy and the opportunity to do what I am interested in offsets this. Partly, a strong pension also offsets this. Universities in the UK are some of the best in the world. We need to be able to employ the best people. Part of this involves having a competitive remuneration package.

Now, I am aware many people have lost their DB pensions, but this is not an argument to gut this one - it's an argument to make the scheme better.

So, regarding your post - what a load of drivel.

[travel is dangerous]

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.

this is just wrong, nobody will lose the DB pension commitments that they have already accrued.

[travel is dangerous]

johnfm said:

20% employer pension contribution!


TWENTY PERCENT.

And the lecturers are striking??


FFS

it's actually 18 %. under the new proposals it will fall to 13.25 % (I think) into each individual's DC pot.

[lauda]

travel is dangerous said:

And silliest of all, the scheme - which is the largest private sector pension scheme in the UK - is in deficit by an inappropriate accounting measure. The deficit is calculated based on the current (estimated) liabilities of the scheme. The test requires that the scheme should be able to meet these should all of the employers go out of business. Now, if the scheme in question is run by a single employer - e.g. BHS, Marks and Spencers, etc. etc. this makes sense. If the scheme's major contributors are the 60 best universities in the uk then this condition is clearly bonkers.

That’s simply not true. The scheme is not funded on the assumption that all of the participating employers were to go under. If it were, the deficit on a buy-out or full self-sufficiency basis would be significantly higher than £6bn.

In fact, that £6bn figure places a very high value on the strength of the employer covenant.

[travel is dangerous]

Rovinghawk said:

Runes said:

The striking staff have no power to refund tuition fees, do they?

So they can screw the students over with no guilt. Excellent. Power tto the people.

staff who are striking do not do so likely. I think many feel it is their last resort. what else can they do?

If the organisation that you are paying to deliver a service to you cant deliver that service to you because of an industrial dispute with its staff (or because it can't get any chicken), then your problem lies with the organisation failing to manage its business properly - not with the individuals (or chickens) who remove their labour (or flesh).

[travel is dangerous]

Rovinghawk said:

Runes said:

No doubt some of the striking staff feel guilty about the disruption to students' education. But disruption is part of the point of striking.

So they know it's wrong but do it anyway. Right.

here's an idea: a course of action can be neither right, nor wrong. It can be right in some ways, and wrong in others. I am sure that some university courses might deal with concepts like that, somewhere.

[travel is dangerous]

lauda said:

travel is dangerous said:

And silliest of all, the scheme - which is the largest private sector pension scheme in the UK - is in deficit by an inappropriate accounting measure. The deficit is calculated based on the current (estimated) liabilities of the scheme. The test requires that the scheme should be able to meet these should all of the employers go out of business. Now, if the scheme in question is run by a single employer - e.g. BHS, Marks and Spencers, etc. etc. this makes sense. If the scheme's major contributors are the 60 best universities in the uk then this condition is clearly bonkers.

That’s simply not true. The scheme is not funded on the assumption that all of the participating employers were to go under. If it were, the deficit on a buy-out or full self-sufficiency basis would be significantly higher than £6bn.

In fact, that £6bn figure places a very high value on the strength of the employer covenant.

No, the scheme isn't funded on that basis. But the valuation of the schemes assets is made on that basis. I.e. should all of the employers go bust, the assets would have to be moved into very safe investments, which grow more slowly (gilts basically). These will grow more slowly than inflation and so, in the event the scheme has to close then it is true that the fund would not be able to meet its liabilities.

BUT (and it's a big but) - do we really think the entire UK university sector will go bust? I think if it did there would be bigger issues for the country than the pension scheme...

All of this is not to mention that all of the post 92 university (ex-poly's) staff are members of the unfunded and government backed teacher's pension scheme. and under that scheme, my retirement income would be nearly double what it would under the current USS DB scheme. And 5 times what it would be with the new proposed DC scheme.

Why is that the government will guarantee pensions for the employees of one set of universities but not others? I don't really know...

[lauda]

travel is dangerous said:

No, the scheme isn't funded on that basis. But the valuation of the schemes assets is made on that basis. I.e. should all of the employers go bust, the assets would have to be moved into very safe investments, which grow more slowly (gilts basically). These will grow more slowly than inflation and so, in the event the scheme has to close then it is true that the fund would not be able to meet its liabilities.

BUT (and it's a big but) - do we really think the entire UK university sector will go bust? I think if it did there would be bigger issues for the country than the pension scheme...

All of this is not to mention that all of the post 92 university (ex-poly's) staff are members of the unfunded and government backed teacher's pension scheme. and under that scheme, my retirement income would be nearly double what it would under the current USS DB scheme. And 5 times what it would be with the new proposed DC scheme.

Why is that the government will guarantee pensions for the employees of one set of universities but not others? I don't really know...

I don’t wish to seem rude but I think there are some fundamental errors in your understanding of how pension schemes are funded. The basic fact is, if the USS wanted to have a 95% chance of meeting all of its liabilities if it were to receive no further contributions from any of the participating employers, it would need another £23bn.

I don’t know about your perspective on that number but I think it indicates that costs are running out of control.

And there’s no way that you would receive a pension of double your current USS DB pension from the teacher’s scheme since the accrual rate in that scheme is nowhere near double that of the USS.