>> Please put your Institution in 'Comments' >>
----
We write as members of USS who are concerned that the current
negotiations over the future of our pension scheme are based on the
projection of a very large deficit based on an actuarial model that
has been publicly challenged, if not wholly discredited.
We do not intend to rehearse the arguments here, except to note that
the model currently used include mutually contradictory assumptions,
"prudence layered on prudence" (to quote UUK), 'de-risking' that is
required only on winding up. It also premises future assets growth on a "Gilts +" approach that is not required by the Regulator. The
result is that the different alternative valuations of the scheme
have obtained a minimum range of valuations from a surplus of +£440M
to a deficit of -£12.3BN.
It makes no sense to negotiate a solution to a problem that either
does not exist, or the scale of which cannot be predicted with a credible
model that enjoys the consensus support of experts and stakeholders.
Members of USS, and indeed the
Employers, wish to know that any changes made are justified by
evidence and proportionate. Any perception that there is a rush to
make changes on the basis of a discredited valuation would
undermine confidence in USS and invite legal challenge, as well as
precipitate an escalating and damaging dispute with UCU.
As time is short, we urgently seek confirmation from the USS Board
that there will be no attempt to implement changes to USS rules at
the next Board Meeting, scheduled for 15 January 2015.
Any public
assurances you can make on this matter would be extremely helpful.
-----------------
Pic: Simon Scott (Flickr)
Updates
Reached 250 supporters
December 22, 2014
December 18, 2014
A hundred people have put their names down for this now which is just wild because I honestly thought it would be crickets when I hit publish. It is hard to keep track of the institutional feedback coming in but I am trying to keep up with the comments.
Reached 100 supporters
December 15, 2014
293 Comments
I believe this is the 2nd stage of a 3 stage process and that the 3rd stage will be to close any defined benefit element and move eveyone into a purely defined contribution scheme, accomplishing the aim of shifting the risk and cost of the scheme onto individual members. USS proposed changes are politically driven and without a true financial justfication.
Major changes such as those proposed shouldn't be implemented in a rush, particularly as we're talking about issues that will only play out over generations. At present, it feels as though USS/UUK are trying to bounce the members into acceptance without proper discussion. Cambridge
When projections aren't supported by actuary analysis, then there's something severely amiss. This must be resolved before any vote is taken, lest those who make decisions find themselves on the end of litigation in future times.
University of Birmingham: evidence-based decision making is needed, and the modelling and assumptions are not robust at present. An independent approach to reviewing the assumptions would be a good step forward.
Under the terms of the 2010 Equality Act, USS should produce an Equality Impact Assessment before introducing changes which will disadvantage women like myself. USS=UnderScrutinisedShyster.
Bristol
Bristol
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept our Terms and Privacy Policy and agree to occasional emails about petitions. Unsubscribe anytime.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
>> Please put your Institution in 'Comments' >>
----
We write as members of USS who are concerned that the current
negotiations over the future of our pension scheme are based on the
projection of a very large deficit based on an actuarial model that
has been publicly challenged, if not wholly discredited.
We do not intend to rehearse the arguments here, except to note that
the model currently used include mutually contradictory assumptions,
"prudence layered on prudence" (to quote UUK), 'de-risking' that is
required only on winding up. It also premises future assets growth on a "Gilts +" approach that is not required by the Regulator. The
result is that the different alternative valuations of the scheme
have obtained a minimum range of valuations from a surplus of +£440M
to a deficit of -£12.3BN.
It makes no sense to negotiate a solution to a problem that either
does not exist, or the scale of which cannot be predicted with a credible
model that enjoys the consensus support of experts and stakeholders.
Members of USS, and indeed the
Employers, wish to know that any changes made are justified by
evidence and proportionate. Any perception that there is a rush to
make changes on the basis of a discredited valuation would
undermine confidence in USS and invite legal challenge, as well as
precipitate an escalating and damaging dispute with UCU.
As time is short, we urgently seek confirmation from the USS Board
that there will be no attempt to implement changes to USS rules at
the next Board Meeting, scheduled for 15 January 2015.
Any public
assurances you can make on this matter would be extremely helpful.
-----------------
Pic: Simon Scott (Flickr)
Updates
Reached 250 supporters
December 22, 2014
December 18, 2014
A hundred people have put their names down for this now which is just wild because I honestly thought it would be crickets when I hit publish. It is hard to keep track of the institutional feedback coming in but I am trying to keep up with the comments.
Reached 100 supporters
December 15, 2014
293 Comments
UUK promise that pension already earned will be safe - and then renege by threatening to erode them through inflation by changing RPI indexing to CPI.
I believe this is the 2nd stage of a 3 stage process and that the 3rd stage will be to close any defined benefit element and move eveyone into a purely defined contribution scheme, accomplishing the aim of shifting the risk and cost of the scheme onto individual members. USS proposed changes are politically driven and without a true financial justfication.
Major changes such as those proposed shouldn't be implemented in a rush, particularly as we're talking about issues that will only play out over generations. At present, it feels as though USS/UUK are trying to bounce the members into acceptance without proper discussion. Cambridge
When projections aren't supported by actuary analysis, then there's something severely amiss. This must be resolved before any vote is taken, lest those who make decisions find themselves on the end of litigation in future times.
University of Birmingham: evidence-based decision making is needed, and the modelling and assumptions are not robust at present. An independent approach to reviewing the assumptions would be a good step forward.
Under the terms of the 2010 Equality Act, USS should produce an Equality Impact Assessment before introducing changes which will disadvantage women like myself. USS=UnderScrutinisedShyster.
Bristol
Bristol
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 500 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept our Terms and Privacy Policy and agree to occasional emails about petitions. Unsubscribe anytime.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
UUK promise that pension already earned will be safe - and then renege by threatening to erode them through inflation by changing RPI indexing to CPI.