51³Ō¹Ļ

Essex v-c says universities can afford to pay more into pensions

Anthony Forster criticises failure of negotiators to ā€˜embrace principled compromise’

Published on
November 18, 2019
Last updated
November 18, 2019
Anthony Forster
Anthony Forster

A vice-chancellor has broken ranks to argue that UK universities can afford to contribute more to staff pensions, ahead of an eight-day strike over the issue.

Anthony Forster, vice-chancellor of the University of Essex, criticised Universities UK negotiators for being ā€œnot willing to embrace principled compromise in seeking a solution to our pensions crisisā€. ā€œContinued failureā€ to reach a deal on the future of the Universities Superannuation Scheme ā€œwill not only affect the sustainability of our universities, but negatively impact on our ability to recruit and retain global academic and professional services talent in our universitiesā€, he said.

Concern about the projected deficit at the pension scheme – UK higher education’s biggest – have led to employee contributions being hiked to 9.6 per cent of salary, up from 8 per cent in April. Employer contributions have increased from 18 per cent to 21.1 per cent.

But, in a for staff and students, Professor Forster says that he felt the trustees of the pension scheme were ā€œbeing overly prudent in their assumptions, which undervalue assets and overestimate liabilitiesā€.

51³Ō¹Ļ

ADVERTISEMENT

Professor Forster says that Essex ā€œremain[s] willing to increase employer contributions to the scheme, to sustain critical features of the USS, including defined benefitsā€.

University and College Union members at 60 universities are set to walk out from 25 November to 4 December in disputes over the UCU and this year’s pay offer from the Universities and Colleges Employers’ Association.

51³Ō¹Ļ

ADVERTISEMENT

Professor Forster writes: ā€œIn 2018 we had a painful and disruptive strike that dragged the parties to the negotiating table. It is a matter of enormous pain and regret that we again find ourselves in a position that the negotiators who represent us – both employers and employees – are not willing to embrace principled compromise in seeking a solution to our pensions crisis.

ā€œShould positions remain unchanged, no side will win and the most likely outcome is that a solution will be forced on us by the Pensions Regulator, who has the legal authority to break the pensions deadlock and impose a solution. I have no doubt this will be a profoundly unsatisfactory outcome for those that share our view about USS.ā€

Professor Forster writes that employees should pay a share of increased contributions to protect USS benefits, but that Essex was ā€œconcerned about the extra level of employee contributions and the impact this is having on affordability for some staff, especially if they feel forced to leave the USS schemeā€.

He says that the joint expert panel of UCU and UUK-nominated specialists should ā€œaccelerate its work and…stake out where the common ground might be for the futureā€, producing a report ā€œprior to the commencement of strike actionā€.

51³Ō¹Ļ

ADVERTISEMENT

ā€œThis might include, for example, differential contribution levels, so that USS members on lower salaries contribute a lower percentage of their pay to the scheme in a manner similar to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, or smoothing contribution increases over a longer period to ensure that the funding of the scheme reflects the long-term nature of the assets and liabilities of a pension scheme,ā€ Professor Forster writes.

He adds that union and university representatives should ā€œreturn immediately to the negotiating table without preconditions on either sideā€.

Professor Forster also says that Essex will make a ā€œmitigating paymentā€ to students who have lectures and classes cancelled as a result of the strike.

A spokeswoman for USS employers said that their position ā€œhas been formed following extensive engagement and consultation with the 340 employers in USSā€.

51³Ō¹Ļ

ADVERTISEMENT

ā€œThe vast majority of employers believe the current arrangement where employers meet 65 per cent of costs and members 35 per cent is fair and reasonable. A higher cost national settlement is not affordable for most employers,ā€ she said.

ā€œIf any employer takes a different view then they can choose to make an additional payment at a local level to offset higher pensions contributions for their staff.ā€

51³Ō¹Ļ

ADVERTISEMENT

chris.havergal@timeshighereducation.com

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

Related universities

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT