Dear Colleagues
2010 Pay Claim
This is to advise you the Unite Education Industry Committee met yesterday to hear the result on the recent ballot on 2010 Pay and other negotiations.
The Committee heard that 36.8% of members participating voted to accept the offer. 63.1% rejected the offer. It was agreed to formally write to UCEA, the employers association, to reject the 0.4% offer and to enter the dispute resolution procedure. It was further agreed that any resolution of the dispute should include a firm commitment by the Employers to address the question of low paid staff working in higher education.
Four other unions have now rejected the 0.4% offer, EIS, GMB, UCU and Unite. It is understood Unison have voted to accept. The national Unite committee was unhappy that the issue of low paid staff was not addressed in the poor offer. You will also recall that the Employers have left open the possibility of withdrawing the offer if it was not accepted by the end of October.
Next steps are Unite will formally write rejecting the offer. The national procedures require a dispute resolution meeting be held between Unite and UCEA within days.
Please continue to work normally during this time.
I will report back further once those processes have been engaged.
Yours sincerely
Mike Robinson
National Officer
Education
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, October 08, 2010
Hutton Review
Hutton Review
As you may know the Con Dem coalition commissioned Lord Hutton to look into public sector pensions including possible changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme that some workers in Universities are affected by, particularly those who were moved over as part of the post 1992 changes.
Lord Hutton has now issued an interim report, conveniently just before the Comprehensive Spending Review due later this month. So any savings Lord Hutton suggests could be incorporated in Government savings projections.
Bryan Freake from Unite has done a short analysis on the interim proposals. These are attached. I thought those who understand these issues would like to see what Unite is saying but also to keep you informed on a debate that is likely to end in a push to reduce LGPS and other public sector pensions.
Be ready for the fight back and come to the TUC Rally at Westminster on the 19th October to lobby your MP against cuts in Education budgets and public sector pensions. Details of the travel arrangements can be obtained from your local Unite office.
When the cuts come and your pension scheme or state entitlements are affected don't be someone who did nothing to stop them!
Hutton Interim Report
Unite analysis of the short–term implications
On the options for short term reform the report says :-
* the CPI change (if implemented) has reduced the value of the package by 15%
* any other change in accrued benefits is rejected (as outside terms of reference)
* 'there is a rationale for increasing member contributions to ensure a fairer distribution of costs between taxpayers and members'
* 'it is a matter for the Government to decide the manner and level of any increases in contributions necessary' (and makes no suggestion)
* notes 1% across the board could raise £1 billion (less tax relief)
* recommends against anything which might lead to lower-paid workers opting out
* suggests there may be a case for targeting increases more on the higher-paid and extending the application of tiered contributions
* suggests phasing of increases might be appropriate to discourage opting out especially given the current pay freeze
* since 'effective benefit levels vary considerably between different schemes, particularly pre- and post reform schemes, then changes in employee contributions could be made to reflect this'
Other points in the report relevant to this
* recent reforms have reduced benefits for active members by around 10% (additional to CPI savings)
* cap and share arrangements are recognised as containing further cost increases
* the cost of public sector pensions is projected as around 1.9% of GDP for the next ten years but subsequently falling (before any new reforms) to only 1.4% in 2060
* ' It is mistaken to talk about gold-plated pensions as being the norm across the public sector. In the most part the pensions that are paid out to public service employees when they retire are fairly modest by any standard'
* 'I have rejected a race to the bottom ………and hope reformed public service pensions can once again be seen as …..a benchmark for the private sector to aim towards'
* 'public service pensions should provide an adequate level of retirement income for public service workers with a reasonable degree of certainty'
* the likely direction of longer term reform will be a move away from final salary on fairness grounds with CARE top of the agenda for consideration
* the Government is invited to review the appropriateness of the (key ) long term discount rate (notional investment return) which is 'at the high end of what is appropriate' and notes that a reduction from 3.5% over inflation to 3% over inflation might raise contribution costs by 3%
Summary comment
While calling for increased employee contributions and reformed benefits the Report takes a more balanced look at the costs of public sector pensions than the Government and may be helpful to an extent in disarming some critics .
A key point not dealt with is how proposed contributions can be reconciled with cap and share valuations as would have been suggesting that members would have to suffer some significant increase in contributions/reduction in benefits taking effect in 2012 onwards.
Extending tiered contributions in the short term might be questioned if the longer term reform involves a move to CARE, as both seek to achieve a fairer balance between contributions paid and benefits received.
The suggestion that contribution increases might be differentiated to reflect differences within and between schemes could lead to proposals, for example, that employees retaining retirement at age 60 could be invited to pay more than those who have 65, or that civil service schemes members could be asked for larger increases, as their current contribution levels are lower.
The Report gives no explicit support to changes being negotiated though Hutton is on record as supporting this
Clearly, we now await the Government to pronounce on contributions, possibly in the pre-Budget report
As you may know the Con Dem coalition commissioned Lord Hutton to look into public sector pensions including possible changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme that some workers in Universities are affected by, particularly those who were moved over as part of the post 1992 changes.
Lord Hutton has now issued an interim report, conveniently just before the Comprehensive Spending Review due later this month. So any savings Lord Hutton suggests could be incorporated in Government savings projections.
Bryan Freake from Unite has done a short analysis on the interim proposals. These are attached. I thought those who understand these issues would like to see what Unite is saying but also to keep you informed on a debate that is likely to end in a push to reduce LGPS and other public sector pensions.
Be ready for the fight back and come to the TUC Rally at Westminster on the 19th October to lobby your MP against cuts in Education budgets and public sector pensions. Details of the travel arrangements can be obtained from your local Unite office.
When the cuts come and your pension scheme or state entitlements are affected don't be someone who did nothing to stop them!
Hutton Interim Report
Unite analysis of the short–term implications
On the options for short term reform the report says :-
* the CPI change (if implemented) has reduced the value of the package by 15%
* any other change in accrued benefits is rejected (as outside terms of reference)
* 'there is a rationale for increasing member contributions to ensure a fairer distribution of costs between taxpayers and members'
* 'it is a matter for the Government to decide the manner and level of any increases in contributions necessary' (and makes no suggestion)
* notes 1% across the board could raise £1 billion (less tax relief)
* recommends against anything which might lead to lower-paid workers opting out
* suggests there may be a case for targeting increases more on the higher-paid and extending the application of tiered contributions
* suggests phasing of increases might be appropriate to discourage opting out especially given the current pay freeze
* since 'effective benefit levels vary considerably between different schemes, particularly pre- and post reform schemes, then changes in employee contributions could be made to reflect this'
Other points in the report relevant to this
* recent reforms have reduced benefits for active members by around 10% (additional to CPI savings)
* cap and share arrangements are recognised as containing further cost increases
* the cost of public sector pensions is projected as around 1.9% of GDP for the next ten years but subsequently falling (before any new reforms) to only 1.4% in 2060
* ' It is mistaken to talk about gold-plated pensions as being the norm across the public sector. In the most part the pensions that are paid out to public service employees when they retire are fairly modest by any standard'
* 'I have rejected a race to the bottom ………and hope reformed public service pensions can once again be seen as …..a benchmark for the private sector to aim towards'
* 'public service pensions should provide an adequate level of retirement income for public service workers with a reasonable degree of certainty'
* the likely direction of longer term reform will be a move away from final salary on fairness grounds with CARE top of the agenda for consideration
* the Government is invited to review the appropriateness of the (key ) long term discount rate (notional investment return) which is 'at the high end of what is appropriate' and notes that a reduction from 3.5% over inflation to 3% over inflation might raise contribution costs by 3%
Summary comment
While calling for increased employee contributions and reformed benefits the Report takes a more balanced look at the costs of public sector pensions than the Government and may be helpful to an extent in disarming some critics .
A key point not dealt with is how proposed contributions can be reconciled with cap and share valuations as would have been suggesting that members would have to suffer some significant increase in contributions/reduction in benefits taking effect in 2012 onwards.
Extending tiered contributions in the short term might be questioned if the longer term reform involves a move to CARE, as both seek to achieve a fairer balance between contributions paid and benefits received.
The suggestion that contribution increases might be differentiated to reflect differences within and between schemes could lead to proposals, for example, that employees retaining retirement at age 60 could be invited to pay more than those who have 65, or that civil service schemes members could be asked for larger increases, as their current contribution levels are lower.
The Report gives no explicit support to changes being negotiated though Hutton is on record as supporting this
Clearly, we now await the Government to pronounce on contributions, possibly in the pre-Budget report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)