UCU Extraordinary General Meeting Thursday 3 October 2018 (19 slides)

1. UCU Extraordinary General Meeting Thursday 3 October 2018(19 slides)

3. Agenda • USS - The JEP report - what next? • Motion 1 • Pay & Equality Campaign • Organising to get the vote out • Election of delegates to Pay and USS special HE sector conference • IOE UCU and UCL UCU Merger • Motion 2 • Solidarity with Senate House IWGB • Motion 3

4. USS JEP report

5. The USS JEP Report 1 • Joint Expert Panel set up as a means to resolve the USS dispute • Membership • Actuarial experts nominated by UUK and UCU • Independent chair • Terms of reference • to review the current valuation, with the aim of reducing it (Report 1, September 2018) • to review the methodology used for future valuations (Report 2, work to begin once agreement reached)

6. The USS JEP Report 1 • Summary of conclusions • The pension scheme is basically sound • It is growing (‘immature’) and will continue to grow with the sector • The nature of the sector and scheme mutuality mean that it can bear investment risk • ‘De-risking’ is unnecessary and profoundly damaging • Some of the other valuation assumptions, e.g. around mortality rates, can be improved • The arguments for de-risking are misconceived • UUK has engaged in misleading consultations of its own members, especially around appetite for risk • The Pension Regulator has also interfered

7. The USS JEP Report 1 • The interim proposal • The USS Board must agree a valuation and submit it to the Pension Regulator - the current valuation is overdue • Revert to the September 2017 valuation (‘September TPs’) • This models delayed de-risking, so is still ‘excessively prudent’ • Increase contributions from 26% of salary to 29.2% • potentially, temporarily, depending on JEP Report 2 • Next steps • UCU, UUK and USS Board have to accept the report • UCU and UUK can negotiate over contribution rates • The Pension Regulator needs to accept the valuation and steps to reduce deficit

8. The USS JEP Report - who pays? • If no agreement is reached under Rule 76.4: • employers pay +6.9% salary • employees pay +3.6% • If the report is accepted • total contributions will rise by 3.2% • the share is negotiated by UCU and UUK at the JNC • There are good arguments for staff not to pay more

9. The USS JEP Report - who pays? 1. The employers cut their contributions in the past • Employees’ contributions were not reduced • Cost to assets est. £5-£7bn today 2. The employers pushed for ‘de-risking’ in 2014 • Creating the ‘deficit’ and thus increasing contributions 3. The employers provoked the dispute 4. We should say no to paying more to dissuade future attacks on USS 5. 1.2% of salary is not a small amount 6. We need to retain the right to strike • Nothing is settled at present

10. Motion 1: USS JEP Report - who pays? UCL UCU notes 1. The historic 14 days of strike action in the Spring Term 2018 that stopped the UUK employers organisation from imposing a 100% Defined Contribution scheme on USS members. 2. The convening of a Joint Expert Panel (JEP) with UCU and UUK nominees to examine ways of reducing the projected deficit in the fund. 3. The triggering of Rule 76.4 over the summer which if not superseded would increase contributions by over 40% for employees and employers. 4. The contents of the first JEP report, which concluded: a) that the scheme is not at an imminent risk of default, and b) that it is UUK’s demand to reduce the Employers’ Covenant (their long-term commitment to the scheme) that triggered ‘de-risking’ proposals that are the principal cause of the deficit projections. 5. As an interim measure the JEP proposed that total contributions should rise from 26 to 29.2% of salary, an increase of more than 12% in contributions.

11. Motion 1: USS JEP Report - who pays? UCL UCU believes 1. That the JEP report demonstrates that UCU was right in challenging ‘de-risking’ and ‘Test 1’. 2. That UUK were well aware that it was their attempt to limit the Employers’ Covenant that was responsible for the deficit. 3. Consequently, that any increase in contributions in this valuation round should be fully borne by the employers. 4. That insisting that the employers pick up the full cost in this case is necessary to protect USS against future employer attempts to impose ‘reckless prudence’ on staff pensions. UCL UCU resolves 1. To call on the employers to pick up the full cost of any increased contributions. 2. To ballot members for industrial action if either a) the employers fail to accept the JEP report in full or b) the employers attempt to pass on costs they have generated onto employees. 3. To send a motion to the November 7 Special Conference to this effect.

12. UCU’s Pay and Equality Campaign

13. UCU’s Pay and Equality Campaign • We used to get inflation-based pay increases! • Employers cutpay after 2008 • Not just revenge • Deliberate strategy to cutpay bill

14. UCU’s Pay and Equality Campaign • Since 2008 our pay has fallen in real terms • Against CPI: 12% • Against RPI: 15% • 2% offer = another cut: • August CPI: 2.4% • August RPI: 3.4% • ONS estimates inflation ~1% higher in London • + USS costs...

15. UCU’s Pay and Equality Campaign • The money is there • Sector surpluseswere £1.2bnlast year = £2,800 for every employee • Could lift thelowest paid out of poverty pay • Could settle ourclaim in full

16. UCU’s Pay and Equality Campaign • A joint union campaign • Pay demand: 7.5% • keep up: requires ~3.4% (4.6% with USS contributions) • catch up: to recover lost pay • Gender pay gap • National Gender Pay Gap: 12% • UCL: concentrated in teaching & research • Greater proportion of women in casualised posts or where promotion is difficult (Teaching Fellows, Researchers) • Casualisation • HE sector second only to catering industry

17. UCU’s Pay and Equality Campaign • Get the Vote Out • Every member should be encouraged to vote • Remind your colleagues • Organise department • Paper ballot • Deadline: Friday 19 October • We need to get >50% turnout • A chance to address issues beyond pensions that affect very many members

18. Elections

19. Election of delegates • National Higher Education Sector Conference, 7 November • UCU’s democratic decision-making forum • Pay dispute • Pensions dispute • UCL UCU is entitled to 5 delegates • One day in Manchester • transport paid, time off agreed with UCL • overnight stay night before possible

20. Branch Merger

21. Motion 2: Branch Merger UCL UCU notes that 1. The merger of UCL and the IOE have led to a situation where we have two branches in one institution; 2. A certain amount of work is being duplicated as a result, and other work that would benefit from being centralised; 3. There are no obvious issues of branch culture, policy, etc., that would act as an impediment to merger; 4. Should the two branches merge they will form the largest single UCU branch in the country; 5. UCL UCU and IOE UCU branch officers have met to discuss the practicalities of merging our branches.

22. Motion 2: Branch Merger UCL UCU believes that 1. Merger will bring important benefits that outweigh any drawbacks; 2. There is no opposition in IOE branch to the merger (as reported by their branch officers). UCL UCU resolves 1. To accept the proposal to merge that the two branches be merged and the process led by both sets of branch officers working together; 2. To begin a process towards formal merger consisting of the following steps: a) a meeting of the two branch committees, b) a fusion of the two branch committees following the meeting and an interim period where these committees work as one, c) a “Merger General Meeting” where the final terms of the merger, final size of committees, and officer roles are confirmed in the new, merged, branch; 3. That this process should conclude by the end of the 2018-19 Academic Session.

23. IWGB Senate House dispute

24. Motion 3: IWGB Senate House dispute UCL UCU notes that 1. The IWGB Senate House branch have been involved in a significant campaign to return outsourced workers (security and cleaning staff) to an in-house arrangement; 2. Outsourcing of staff at Senate House has removed a number of employment rights from those staff; 3. The IWGB Senate House branch, and the IWGB generally, showed us solidarity during the pensions strike, bringing support to our meetings and supporting us on the picket lines; 4. The IWGB Senate House branch has requested that we ask our members to boycott activities at Senate House (booking events; participating in senate house events, using their café/restaurant, etc.), and that this has been cleared with the Senate House UCU Branch Secretary as an acceptable tactic to them.

25. Motion 3: IWGB Senate House dispute UCL UCU notes that 1. The IWGB Senate House branch have been involved in a significant campaign to return outsourced workers (security and cleaning staff) to an in-house arrangement; 2. Outsourcing of staff at Senate House has removed a number of employment rights from those staff; 3. The IWGB Senate House branch, and the IWGB generally, showed us solidarity during the pensions strike, bringing support to our meetings and supporting us on the picket lines; 4. The IWGB Senate House branch has requested that we ask our members to boycott activities at Senate House (booking events; participating in senate house events, using their café/restaurant, etc.), and that this has been cleared with the Senate House UCU Branch Secretary as an acceptable tactic to them. • We have had a request from Senate House UCU to delete Notes 4 so that we can discuss the specifics of a boycott further with them.

26. Motion 3: IWGB Senate House dispute UCL UCU believes that 1. Outsourcing is a harmful practice in HE institutions, leading to loss of trade union and employment rights; 2. UCL UCU is opposed to such outsourcing and will support other trade unions in their struggles against it. UCL UCU resolves that we will: 1. Advise our members to boycott Senate House services; 2. Continue to show solidarity with, and work with the IWGB in fighting against outsourcing at Senate House and at UCL.