USS: commit to no vote on scheme changes on 15 January 2015
293 Comments
D
Dr George Paizis
11 years ago
why the haste when the consequences are so enormous?
G
Geoff Turner
11 years ago
I am concerned that USS trustees are working hard to destroy USS in line with current government ideology
M
Mark Conner
11 years ago
The option not to change the scheme needs to remain on the table as one possible outcome of the discussions until there is more convincing evidence that it is not affordable.
C
Catherine Fritz
11 years ago
USS members at new universities deserve a voice as well. I wholly endorse the letter. If changes are necessary, they can be made following careful consideration of the evidence and arguments. They should not be made precipitously.
L
Liping Xu
11 years ago
Agree that all stakeholders need more discussions, Important issues as such cannot be rushed through to a decision. Cambridge
B
Bev Skeggs
11 years ago
We need reliable data before anything is agreed
F
Fay Dowker
11 years ago
UUK have no credible argument for their proposed cuts
M
Michael McGarvey
11 years ago
There is no objective evidence that the proposed changes are justified as they are based on a flawed valuation of the pension fund
D
Dr DL Clements
11 years ago
Until there is agreement on the valuation there can be no changes to pensions
A
Anonymous
11 years ago
Featured
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.
W
Will Graham
11 years ago
Featured
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
M
Mike Holmes
11 years ago
Featured
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.
A
Alan Brown
11 years ago
Featured
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.
why the haste when the consequences are so enormous?
I am concerned that USS trustees are working hard to destroy USS in line with current government ideology
The option not to change the scheme needs to remain on the table as one possible outcome of the discussions until there is more convincing evidence that it is not affordable.
USS members at new universities deserve a voice as well. I wholly endorse the letter. If changes are necessary, they can be made following careful consideration of the evidence and arguments. They should not be made precipitously.
Agree that all stakeholders need more discussions, Important issues as such cannot be rushed through to a decision. Cambridge
We need reliable data before anything is agreed
UUK have no credible argument for their proposed cuts
There is no objective evidence that the proposed changes are justified as they are based on a flawed valuation of the pension fund
Until there is agreement on the valuation there can be no changes to pensions
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
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.
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.