To think that the striking lecturers are hurting the wrong people?

[StrikeStrikeStrike]

So this morning I turned up to an important Lab, a Lab which is integral to an assessment. After a 30 minute wait it was confirmed the Lecturer was on strike and we were asked to leave.

While I understand the reasons for the strike, I can't help but feel angry. I understand they want to cause maximum disruption but a heads up would've been nice (fellow students on other courses have been given advance notice).

I am expected to go into University tomorrow for the second part of this Lab which forms part of our assessment. I'm expected to go in even though the chances of this Lecturer being on strike again are high. However, the department will not confirm the Lab as cancelled until 15 minutes after the start time.

Some of my fellow course members are choosing to stay home as they don't want the hassle of walking through the snow to a (probably non-existent) 9am Lab. Others are planning to attend anyway on principle.

I am unsure. I'm not sure I want to take the risk of not turning up if the Lab goes ahead. It is part of our assessment.

But, for me attending a 9am Lab means getting up at 6:30, getting the kids ready for school, all of us leaving the house by 7:15, catching a train (which cost £10), and finally a 30 minute walk. And tomorrow I could potentially be doing all that in the snow. Would you go?

AIBU to ask for a partial refund of my fees? The University are withholding the pay of staff who strike. Why should they (the University) profit?

Our eldest is in the same situation.

We have advised for him to document all disruption. If he's not aware of a lecturer's absence, he should go along, take a photo and keep track.

Then, if he decides to reclaim monies he's got evidence to back it up.
I suggest you talk to your Student Union as, from my limited knowledge, they will help you with such a claim.

You have a right to be angry. However, your anger should not be aimed at your lecturers.

You are paying a lot of money, which the university is spending on everything and anything except the people teaching you. There was an interesting programme on the TV yesterday about the vice chancellors' expenses - you might want to watch it to see where your money is being spent.

Please write to the VC and tell him how this affects you, learn about the issues, use your social media, and talk to your friends about it. Your lecturers really really care about your education, but they might be the only ones. They would appreciate your support in this.

we just can't afford these very generous public sector pensions. We aren't being asked to!

And the point is that, whatever pension you get, you plan your future based on it. If someone changes it all, especially based on what is effectively a Zombies Apocalypse theory, then people have the right to disagree.

Unfortunately the only way lecturers can have that conversation is by striking - not because they are unreasonable, but because all other avenues have been closed.

Direct your ire where it more appropriately belongs!

Anyone who is posed off should write to the VC of whichever Uni they prefer... tell them how annoyed you are!

Bugger!

posed = pissed

Sorry

public sector pensions

We're not public sector—just for the record.

@MySockIsWetAgain
@CuriousaboutSamphire

Thank you; beautifully put

What do the alternative fund valuations conclude about the deficit?

That it's potentially a surplus

And the point is that, whatever pension you get, you plan your future based on it. If someone changes it all, especially based on what is effectively a Zombies Apocalypse theory, then people have the right to disagree

And pretty much no one in the private sector has that certainty. They don't know what their fund will pay out.

Like I say, I support the right to strike and I get why it's very painful, but the money has to come from somewhere.

If other valuations suggest the fund isn't short 6bn, what is that alternative assessment?

Sorry, cross post.

I'm struggling to understand how such a discrepancy could come about then. 6bn shortfall and in surplus are very different forecasts.

And pretty much no one in the private sector has that certainty

Indeed. An some people haven'y got access to clean water but I bet it wouldn't stop you fighting to keep yours if there were a chance of it being taken away.

As a PP said: this isn't a race to the bottom.

I know. I support the right to strike but also pointing out why others may not rally to your particular cause.

Pensions are hella expensive. There are big challenges ahead for the country in funding them.

I'm struggling to understand how such a discrepancy could come about then. 6bn shortfall and in surplus are very different forecasts.

All down to to the assumptions that are built into the model: going concern forecasts, life expectancy, investment returns et al. USS want to de-risk to the point of no risk. However, that's not a sensible approach. In order to generate return, you have to expose yourself to some level of risk. How much? Now therein lies (part of) the problem.

Am not an academic - but DH is so have had some discussions about this. I think that the scheme as it stands is a mutual scheme - so last university standing - which is why some of the asset rich universities are worried. So the valuation done on a doomsday scenario doesn't seem appropriate.

My understanding is that up until now this issue has been "managed" by pension committees and there is a view that it just wasn't on some/most VC's radar until way to late.

The other issue - again I'm getting this second hand so feel free to correct me - is that the changes proposed are likely to have a greater impact on women than men..

I know. I support the right to strike but also pointing out why others may not rally to your particular cause.

Yep, I get your point. But sometimes people do things for others. I'm of retirement age and my friend in the picture (see previous post) isn't even in USS. However we both feel it right to protect the pension for the future generations

And pretty much no one in the private sector has that certainty. They don't know what their fund will pay out. Not sure that's the right way of looking at it. Lecturers do have that kind of pension, they have paid into that pension, it is, as others have said, a deferred salary scheme.

So that the private sector doesn't have that type of pension is because employees get paid the whole of their salary every year.

So the current proposals are 'stealing' the salary that lecturers have deferred - if you want to see it that way.

And remember, the scenario being used to support the huge deficit has been robustly questioned by quite a few very reputable sources. Which is why lecturers are striking... it is the only way they have to communicate with the universities about this. All other avenues have been firmly closed!

However we both feel it right to protect the pension for the future generations

Isn't it part of USS argument that paying out less for those retiring now is an important step in ensuring there is some left for future generations?

They said that back in 2010 when they closed off final salary to new applicants and again in 2016 when they closed final salary for all. Only last year they gave a commitment not to change pensions or reduce employer contributions until 2020. They’re a bunch of lying shysters.

What percentage (on average) has been taken from lecturers salaries for their pension contributions?

Because in my experience the eventual payout for public sector schemes in relation to what they've paid in is very generous compared to private sector schemes.

Just using public sector for want of the correct term. Which is what, by the way?

And the USS assets have grown by 12% in the last five years, and they can cover all pensions for 30 years without touching their assets. This scheme is NOT in trouble in any meaningful sense of the term.

We contribute 8% of our salary and employers contribute 18%. In both cases these are deferred wages. Academic salaries in the UK are low both in comparison to private sector and by international academic comparison. The compensation package in the UK was always understood to be a decent fair and secure pension. They are trying to rob that from us while the senior management line their pockets. Like I said, a bunch of lying shysters.

And what's (prior to changes) could you expect as pension payout per year?

Just another example of UUK bad faith: they base their projected deficit on the assumption of roughly 4.4% pay rises for academics each year. They have refused anything more than 0.5% pay rise (which is a real terms pay cut) since 2009. Bunch of lying shysters.

We contribute 8% of our salary and employers contribute 18%

For comparison's sake, I've just become eligible for my (private sector) company's pension plan. It took six months of no contributions (probation) for eligibility.

They're contributing 8%, which is very generous for my sector. And that's only because I'm fairly senior. About 80% of the company get 4%. I figure I'll have to put in about 20% myself to be adequately preparing.

My previous company had no pension scheme at all for example.

And yes, it's not a race to the bottom, but those on private schemes have a lot worse provision. Which is going to colour their view of course.

The USS saga seems very complicated from what I've heard here and briefly read. DB is an actuary, I must ask his view.

People in the private sector who are similarly qualified (think 7-8 years of training and years of precarious contracts) earn much, much more than academic salaries. Our compensation was the pension, which they are now trying to rob us of.