USS reforms ‘would cut guaranteed pension income by 35 per cent’

Union says vice-chancellors’ shake-up would leave staff thousands of pounds out of pocket annually, but universities say current benefits are unaffordable

Published on
May 28, 2021
Last updated
May 28, 2021
Chris Havergal
Elderly man holds in his hands an empty wallet
Source: iStock
Read more about
Read more about: 
Higher education pensions

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (5)

#1 Submitted by acc129 on May 28, 2021 - 8:51am
Interested in the perhaps selective example of only needing to work four years longer to achieve the "same" pension (for four years less, of course). Modelling some examples of someone starting at the base of the lecturer scale and advancing through to senior lecturer (i.e. earning over the new £40k ceiling more substantially and more quickly) would probably be a more typical example. UCU's position seems to forget the Pension Regulator and their (politicised?) position in limiting USS's room for manoeuvre. UUK, on the other hand, can seem to come across as "Investing in buildings matters more than people" at times. Complex problem with unaligned stakeholders......
#2 Submitted by inuk on May 28, 2021 - 9:11am
You seem to assume that progression is a given. This is not always the case, especially now with covid and Brexit being used as justifications for over-cutting and over-restructuring, making staff redundant and have them reapply for their same job, but on a lower grade. Some universities even blocked progression "until further notice".
#3 Submitted by inuk on May 28, 2021 - 9:14am
Perhaps "over-cutting" is not correct either. I meant cutting without assessing what positions really need to be cut. In some cases there have been cost cutting exercises targeting entire grades, without really checking if someone was performing well or not.
#4 Submitted by acc129 on May 28, 2021 - 9:28am
Point taken. However, the example given would seem to me to be the one where the least financial damage was being inflicted on the employee; a range of cases would enable employees to decide if the trade -off many of us have made between relatively low professional pay, but compensated by reasonable levels of deferred income (aka pension) was still the right decision for them. Perhaps the union should be putting forward examples from the post-1992 Universities and the pensions that would be earned by being in their (Teachers') scheme versus the potential USS pensions.
#5 Submitted by oliver.... on May 29, 2021 - 7:25am
This all sounds very suspicious. At the very least it is an almighty mess. How can such a fund find itself on the brink of bankruptcy despite the massive expansion of the sector over the years? Where is all the money going? Doesn't seem sensible to stay in given the contribution rates and return.

You might also like

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT