Pensions decision ‘bad’ for university

[Glennis 15]

In todays Star - it about says it all really .

 

Published on Tuesday 13 December 2011 10:19

 

 

TRADE unionists claim bosses who introduced a new pension scheme for low paid workers at Sheffield U niversity are ruining its reputation.

 

 

The claims comes after Sheffield was named University of the Year in the Times Higher Education Awards.

 

Unions say the scheme will cost 2,000 porters, cleaners and office staff – who earn £14,000 a year – thousands of pounds in retirement.

 

High earners will continue to benefit from membership of the Universities Superannuation Scheme and its final salary pension provision.

 

University bosses insist they needed to amend the way pensions are paid to ensure provision for staff remains affordable, sustainable and attractive to members amid cuts and higher tuition fees.

 

The changes came after the University Executive Board recommended the University Council closed the final salary scheme and replace it with a cash balance scheme.

 

But unions say the university’s reputation is being harmed by the action and are now set to launch a legal challenge.

 

Stuart Anderson, joint branch secretary of the University of Sheffield branch of Unison, said: “It is ironic that the university has just been named University of the Year for ‘a strategy based on its values and rooted in its founding principles’ and the institution’s ‘determination and grit’ in focusing on its local community.

 

“Gratuitously increasing inequality and ramping up pensioner poverty hardly sits well with these fine words.

 

“The cash balance scheme provides for a ‘pot’ of money to be paid to the member on retirement which they will then have to buy pension provision with.

 

“It is sad that the top management of the university have seen fit to do this to its lowest paid workers.

 

“There is a strong community spirit at the university and staff of all grades are hurt and angry that the university bigwigs have attacked this community by effectively picking out the lower paid and treating them as second class citizens.”

 

Sheffield University graduate Sam Collins is among students and former students supporting the unions.

 

He said: “It’s wrong for management to pick on those at the bottom whilst looking after themselves.

 

“I am proud to have gone to Sheffield but actions such as this will damage university’s reputation.”

 

Retired professor Geoffrey Turner said: “This is all about cutting costs at the expense of the lower paid, for the benefit of the rich. Increased contributions and worsening pensions are simply a pay cut by another name.”

[ChrisT70 10]

this is true, the low paid will come out of their pension scheme while the upper management levels wont have to. sounds bizzare but they are pushing ahead with it. apparently the top guy gets £300K+ pa and will retain all pension rights unaffected.

[Glennis 15]

Yes, if you are in your 40s and 50s they are effectively pulling the rug from under your feet. I wonder if the younger members of the university staff fully realise what they are actually losing by being kicked out of the pension scheme.

[BHRemovals 10]

once again the high earners are ok

[Glennis 15]

once again the high earners are ok

 

They certainly are in this case - quite blatent in their aim to cut the current pension scheme of the very lowest paid, whilst at the same time maintaining the other pension scheme for the highest earners at the university

 

It may well be legal, but how can this be morally right?

 

Especially at a time the government is promoting the benefits of subscribing to a pension scheme.

 

As the branch secretary of the University branch of Unison, said:

 

“It is ironic that the university has just been named University of the Year for ‘a strategy based on its values and rooted in its founding principles’ and the institution’s ‘determination and grit’ in focusing on its local community .. increasing inequality and ramping up pensioner poverty hardly sits well with these fine words.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Glennis

[Dan_Ashcroft 10]

apparently the top guy gets £300K+ pa and will retain all pension rights unaffected.

 

£238k, but he is on the same national pension scheme as all higher education staff (called USS), so it will be affected.

 

The way it has played out higher paid staff (£23k and above) will be increasing their contributions to receive similar benefits, while lower paid staff have a range of flexible options (on a scale from increased contributions to less pay-out) to make the scheme solvent again.

[Dan_Ashcroft 10]

They certainly are in this case - quite blatent in their aim to cut the current pension scheme of the very lowest paid, whilst at the same time maintaining the other pension scheme for the highest earners at the university

 

 

The UoS doesn't own the higher scheme - it's a national one.

 

UoS does have responsibility for the lower scheme and needs to make it solvent (or risk the liability bankrupting the whole university)

[ChrisT70 10]

£238k, but he is on the same national pension scheme as all higher education staff (called USS), so it will be affected.

 

The way it has played out higher paid staff (£23k and above) will be increasing their contributions to receive similar benefits, while lower paid staff have a range of flexible options (on a scale from increased contributions to less pay-out) to make the scheme solvent again.

 

why dont they cap the payout to a sensible limit (ie does he need £120k pension?) and keep the final salary scheme for the lower paid who earn £10k pa? is it a 40/80 or 60ths scheme that will pay half pay to all the big earners?

[RichJay 10]

why dont they cap the payout to a sensible limit (ie does he need £120k pension?) and keep the final salary scheme for the lower paid who earn £10k pa? is it a 40/80 or 60ths scheme that will pay half pay to all the big earners?

 

Because it's not the same scheme.

[Glennis 15]

Unison is going to challenge this decision through the courts -

[Glennis 15]

Unison is going to challenge this decision through the courts -

 

On November 29 union representatives attended in good faith a meeting with

university managers at ACAS. The purpose of the meeting was to negotiate a fairer pension deal for members faced with the imposition of a scheme which would badly affect their income in retirement. Management, however, refused to negotiate. Therefore the meeting concluded with no proper negotiations having taken place due to management's intransigent stance. The ACAS Officer conducting the meeting spoke of his disappointment at the lack of movement by management.

 

On November 29 the University wrote to staff in the USPS pension scheme informing them the new pension scheme would be imposed from December 1 .

The letter contained changes to the grades 1-5 contracts for terms and conditions. Management imposed the changes unilaterally and refused to discuss alternatives. Unions are currently meeting with Thompsons Solicitors to launch a legal challenge regarding the imposition of these changes which directly conflict with staff contracts.

 

Prior to the branch meeting the unions met with the pension actuary to clarify what the grades 1-5 members of staff will get from their Pensions.

When the unions pressed on this point the pension actuary said they couldn't tell them as they didn't know. Your Union feels this puts the lower grade staff at high risk of being in poverty in retirement. These changes are a cost cutting management decision.

[tbtc 10]

The UoS doesn't own the higher scheme - it's a national one.

 

UoS does have responsibility for the lower scheme and needs to make it solvent (or risk the liability bankrupting the whole university)

 

True.

 

There have always been two "tiers" - the national scheme (USS) that allows academic staff to move between Universities with the same benefits, and the "Sheffield" scheme for non academic staff.

 

The University of Sheffield can't alter the USS, as its not theirs to alter. However they can alter the "Sheffield" scheme, which is what they are doing.

 

There can't be main porters/ cleaners etc in (fully open) Final Salary schemes elsewhere in Sheffield (outside the Council, of course). Maybe the bigger story is why are the University only paying 14k for full time positions?