Why We Strike
Waseem Yaqoob
Next Thursday, staff at UK universities will begin a wave of strike action in defence of our pensions. Fourteen days of strikes will roll across 61 of the ‘pre-92’ universities; the other seven are being reballoted by the University and Colleges Union (UCU) as they didn’t meet the 50 per cent turnout threshold imposed by the 2016 Trade Union Act. On days not covered by the strike, we will work to contract.
The Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) has more than 400,000 members. According to Universities UK (UUK), the employers’ association, USS faces a deficit that requires its transformation from a defined benefit scheme, providing staff with a guaranteed retirement income, into a defined contribution scheme, made up of individual pension funds subject to the vagaries of the stock market. These changes, imposed in the teeth of opposition from union negotiators, will leave everyone who currently pays into USS worse off.
What is proposed is a textbook case of the dismantling of a shared good through financialisation. If our pensions are dependent on investment performance, risks that were once shared will be borne by individual USS members. All estimates (including employers’) are of a reduction in retirement income of between 10 and 40 per cent, with a typical staff member losing between £60,000 and £200,000 over the course of their retirement. Defined benefit pensions are deferred wages, and the proposed reforms are a wage grab – following a real-term decline in staff salaries of 15 to 20 per cent since 2009.
The rationale for the changes is dubious. There is no crisis in USS: the alleged deficit of £7.5 billion is largely fictional, produced by a remarkably opaque and pessimistic valuation – driven by the leadership of Oxford and Cambridge – that is optimistic in only one respect: how much longer staff will live to burden the scheme. The valuation assumes an increase in average life expectancy of 1.5 per cent per year (in practice, increases in longevity are proving lower than expected). The hawkish valuation also relies on an imagined shift in investment strategy away from growth and towards a ‘de-risking’ so radical that it endangers the health of the scheme; union negotiators have described it as ‘reckless prudence’.
All this at a time when UK universities are richer than ever, thanks to fee income. To afford the expensive capital investment they believe is required to attract students – from vanity building projects to overseas campuses – universities are looking to reduce employment costs, whether through wages, staff numbers or pension liabilities. Cambridge’s wage bill has decreased as a percentage of total expenditure by 4.3 per cent since 2009.
The planned offloading of pension liabilities onto staff represents a shift in the nature of universities, from a common educational enterprise to a scheme of profit maximisation directed by senior management (whose own pay is soaring). It is a political choice, not a financial necessity. UK universities are a microcosm of the most inequitable developments in the wider economy. Wealth accumulates at the top, while low pay, insecurity and exploitation is endemic elsewhere. Figures from 2016 showed that 75,000 UK university staff were on highly casualised contracts, and 21,000 on zero hours.
With the pensions dispute, however, the chain of influence may spread outwards from universities. Exchanges between UCU branches and MPs show that the government is taking an interest in the future of all defined benefit schemes. What happens to USS, the second largest pension fund in the UK, is of national importance. At stake are the principles that workers should be paid fairly and that risk should be pooled.
Since winning a major victory on pay in 2006, university staff have increasingly questioned the value of taking industrial action. Academics in particular have preferred to place their hopes in traditional modes of self-governance. Given the deep distaste lecturers have for disrupting their students’ education, this was to be expected. But it seems that many have realised once again that concerted industrial action, despite its hardships and moral dilemmas, may be the only way to prevent the decline of the sector, in the interests of staff and students alike. On a turnout of 58 per cent, 88 per cent of UCU members who voted backed strike action.
The success of the strike will depend to a large extent on how students respond. Jeremiads about the future of the universities depict the students as consumerist monads. But a survey carried out earlier this week reveals that, though students are split on the strike, most of them blame the government, their university or their vice chancellor. Only one in twenty blames the union. Students have expressed solidarity with striking staff while at the same time demanding refunds for their disrupted education. Staff as well as students may have much to learn in figuring out how to make common cause with each other.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-36045536
Very much like the Student Unions, the democratic apparatus that allows for staff involvement with university business have become totally powerless. If the VC can ignore a university-wide declartion of his incompetence amid all these problems, what, but a strike, is actually left for the effected workers to do?
Two maneuvers in particular produce the big deficit. One is that they use the 30-yr gilt yield to project the fund's future returns. This is a standard calculation method in the pensions industry, but there are very serious questions about whether it is an appropriate method when the gilt yield has been forced very low by artificial manipulation by the Bank of England (i.e. QE).
The second is that the objective they are measuring the deficit against is the fund paying out all accrued benefits even if no future contributions were made. This might be appropriate in a single-company pension scheme, when the collapse of the company is a realistic possibility, but it isn't sensible for USS which covers all pre-1992 universities. The entire UK higher education sector suddenly collapsing is a ludicrously unlikely scenario.
This is one of the key bits of misinformation offered by UUK so it's essential to reject it. It's useful for them because if there weren't enough money, then it wouldn't matter whose fault it is - "there is no alternative." But it's not true: there's plenty of money in the fund. No matter how rich the fund was, they'd be able to get an accountant to figure out a scenario in which it couldn't pay out, and then say there was a deficit.
The gilt yield is used to discount the fund's future pension payouts back to today's money. It uses gilt yields because they're an approximation to a "risk-free" rate, and a "risk-free" rate is used because it's completely certain that they'll have to pay people their pension. This approach has been used universally in the UK for the last 20 years based on a some highly-influential academic research in the 1990s (eg http://www.actuaries.org.uk/research-and-resources/documents/financial-theory-defined-benefit-pension-schemes), making it particularly ironic and sad to see academics attacking the results of the research as soon as it goes against their narrow self-interest.
The comments on "paying out accrued benefits even if no future contributions are made" are also deeply misguided. Future contributions come with future accrued benefits. Ie next year you and your university will contribute more to the pension scheme but at the same time you'll become entitled to a higher pension. You really can't take future contributions into account unless you also take future accrued benefits into account. I guess it is true that you could try and make future employees pay contributions to cover both their own pension and also your pension, but in theory this is hugely inequitable and in practice this isn't going to happen.
The fundamental problem here is, being extremely simplistic, that we'd like to work for 40 years and then retire for 20 years on a good salary but don't want to make pension contributions of 50%.
Academics should remember that they live at the public expense. We need, at most, about 5% of the university output of graduates. The rest is a self indulgent waste for the benefit of the middle classes.
If you disagree then do what those in private sector employment have to do. Find another job.
You can be sure that when it comes to money, what goes around, most definitely comes around. The root of finacialisation of the excellent public good of University education was student fees. Perhaps if at the time there was more resistance to such from academic staff, they would not be faced with the private sector facts of life. University education is de facto 'private sector' now anyway.
I would be surprised if there is much support from the student body, given the dire future prospects in their own working lives.
Otherwise, the LRB seems to be the homing ground for those who flaunt progressive reasons for ignoring attacks on the pensions of lower paid, women, ethnic minority academics while the old white guys do ok.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43157711
Mrs T ushered in a new managerial class whose competence in running organisations came nowhere near to their expertise in designing remuneration packages,
The 'get real' contingent here have been disproved by even further revelations of the stitch-ups Universities UK and Oxbridge organized to impose their Maxwellizing conditions - the caucusing of Oxbridge bursars outside their governing bodies, the misrepresentation of the proportion of universities who wanted the change,the willingness of the majority of institutions to increase employer contributions being overruled.
And, the frequent twittersphere reporting, especially from Cambridge, of 'LRB luvvies' crossing picket lines. I was minded to cancel my sub, but then realized it was the authors of the impenetrable 'catlit pages' which I have learned to tear out anyway. Yes, David Runciman is alleged to be one of these. If true, he should have gone on strike, and used the time to do something completely unconnected to his work, like a creative writing course.