University lecturers to boycott marking over pensions row

Staff at older universities will begin a marking boycott next week in a row over pension changes

October 27, 2014

Academics at 69 higher education institutions will start an assessment boycott from 6 November, the University and College Union announced on October.

It may mean students at pre-1992 universities will not be able to sit exams due to be held before Christmas. Nor will they be set any coursework or receive marks back from their tutors.

However, Universities UK has warned that many institutions may implement full-day pay deductions for those taking part in the boycott, saying universities will “take all reasonable steps to mitigate impact on students”.

“Universities would not be able to accept partial performance from staff,” it said.

The action follows a ballot of UCU members about potential industrial action over proposed changes to the Universities Superannuation Scheme, in which 87 per cent of members who voted said they backed action short of a strike.

The turnout was 45 per cent – a record-high for a UCU national ballot, the union said.

It follows talks between UCU and the employers’ representatives last week, in which plans were discussed to end the USS final salary scheme and move all active members to a career average scheme with a defined contribution element for higher earners.

The union said it was unhappy that employers had presented their proposals as a fait accompli and had failed to address criticisms of the proposed scheme.

UCU negotiators claimed employers had “failed to provide a guarantee the employers were making any effort to protect the pensions of USS members”.

Sally Hunt, UCU general secretary, said: “The employers failed to convince us of the need for their dramatic changes or the reasons behind the methodology for its deficit reduction plan.

“Their proposals remain full of holes and the information they are apparently relying on to back them up keeps being exposed as misleading.”

The boycott coincides with the next negotiating meeting between universities and UCU on 7 November.

“We hope the employers will come back to the table for genuine negotiations aimed at resolved the enormous gap between our two positions,” said Ms Hunt.

Universities are taking action to close a substantial deficit in the USS, which is likely to be about £8 billion, but could rise to as much as £13 billion if proposals to de-risk the fund’s investment portfolio and adjust longevity assumptions are adopted.

A UUK spokesman said it was “disappointed that the UCU has decided to pursue a damaging course of industrial action aimed directly at disrupting students’ education”.

“Taking industrial action will not make the substantial scheme deficit and the risks to the future viability of the scheme go away,” he said

UUK added that the employers’ proposals for reform offered the best possible deal for employees within the constraints that the USS Trustees have set, while the pension fund had to fill its deficit or it would face action from the Pensions Regulator.

“It has to meet certain minimum levels of funding, a test which it currently fails to the tune of at least £8 billion,” UUK said.

“It is unavoidable that a recovery plan has to be agreed that would remove the deficit over a reasonable period.”

Please login or register to read this article

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Reader's comments (8)

Lecturers will undoubtedly pay a price for taking industrial action but any pressure that can force a climb down from these damaging proposals will make it worthwhile. We would need to be on strike for a long period of time before the lost earnings would equal the lost income in retirement. Whilst the final salary element of our pension appears to be going, we must fight to retain (and improve on) the career average scheme. The cap on this element of the scheme is particularly damaging as it penalises colleagues already at, or with the ambition to achieve, senior lecturer or above. There is no need for it need it and this must be the 'red line' to defend. I suspect the ultimate aim is to reduce the £50K cap and eventually remove the career average element completely, so making our pensions entirely dependent on the stock market - God help us!
Aacdemics should try private sector to understand the olutside world. i would sack the lot and appoint young PhDs many of who are out of work.
Simon, if I was researching in the private sector I could be earning upwards of four times as much as I do now.
It might have been more constructive if UCU had tabled alternative proposals for dealing with the USS deficit, rather than taking a pre-emptive decision to lash out at students...
This is a complete farce. How is a marking boycott supposed to put pressure on university leadership? All this does is creates a false opposition between staff and students. The UCU, as always, will make no attempt to reach out to students to explain why they should be angry with the university leadership and not their tutors and lecturers. Surely an admin boycott would have much more effect in disrupting how universities make their money. I'm really concerned about the motives of the UCU leadership at the moment. Do they want to win the dispute or just do the minimal required in acting like a trade union while not actually having any effect on the ways universities are run.
This reporting is factually inaccurate: "Universities are taking action to close a substantial deficit in the USS, which is likely to be about £8 billion, but could rise to as much as £13 billion if proposals to de-risk the fund’s investment portfolio and adjust longevity assumptions are adopted." These figures are based on a worst-case scenario estimate made by USS trustees (e.g. a 2.5% yield on current investments through the end of the century), _not_ a reasonable-case scenario. They have done this deliberately to make their unreasonable and unfair proposal seem like a sensible and defensible option. Shame on the THE for failing to fully investigate the issue and reporting a more balanced assessment of the claims made by _both_ sides. Who among readers, I wonder, would _not_ want to take serious steps if their employer suddenly announced, without any attempt to negotiate a compromise, that they were cutting their pensions by 27% based on highly-biased calculations?
To Craven Arms, the response is of course, well if you can earn up to 4 times as much in the private sector, then why don't you go and do so? We are after all always hearing about the shortage of scientists, engineers, doctors etc... Perhaps the marginal utility of the extra cash is not so high, taking into account different working conditions, security, job satisfaction and all the other things that make people choose one job rather than another. Oh, and not forgetting the pension. Back to pensions, any proposals to change pension benefits should however start from the position of not reducing accrued benefits. A move away from final salary defined benefit schemes is inevitable, even in the public sector, but should start from today. Reducing benefits already earned (ie: averaging salary over past service) should be avoidable, although even this could be negotiated away against say the likelihood of the need for longer service to pay for protected pensions.
Tim. I wish.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments