USS employers comment on decision made by JNC
Commenting on today’s decision by the Joint Negotiating Committee
(JNC) to progress the employers’ proposal for changing the
Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) pension scheme to
consultation with affected members and representative bodies, a
spokesperson for USS employers said: “Today’s decision by the USS
Joint Negotiating Committee provides a viable and implementable
solution to the 2020 valuation. The employers’ proposal sees a
significant element of defined...Request free trial
Commenting on today’s decision by the Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) to progress the employers’ proposal for changing the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) pension scheme to consultation with affected members and representative bodies, a spokesperson for USS employers said: “Today’s decision by the USS Joint Negotiating Committee provides a viable and implementable solution to the 2020 valuation. The employers’ proposal sees a significant element of defined benefit retained while preventing unaffordable contribution levels. The additional backing offered by employers is unprecedented among UK pension schemes, with the USS Trustee valuing their additional covenant support at around £1.3 billion per year, which has the impact of limiting the benefit reforms needed. “In partnership with the University and College Union (UCU), we look forward to progressing a major governance review of USS, jointly exploring future options for scheme design including Conditional Indexation, and shaping a lower-cost option so staff on lower salaries are no longer priced out of retirement saving. “USS’s formal assessment of the scale of the deficit means that no change is not a viable option. We understand that the benefit changes passed by the JNC will be unwelcome for scheme members, but the huge increases in contributions required to keep benefits the same are unaffordable for most members and employers. The valuation methodology adopted by the USS Trustee and the position of The Pensions Regulator meant that no change was not an option. Faced with total contributions that would equate to 56% of salaries, the proposals accepted by the JNC represent the least bad compromise possible. “The employers’ proposal for reforms is an alternative to the USS Trustee’s proposed unaffordable contribution rates for scheme members and employers, which would have caused considerable disruption for members and risks forcing more people to leave the scheme. UUK’s package of reforms averts damage to the student experience, and job losses and recruitment freezes because additional money from teaching and research budgets would have to go towards even higher pension costs. Commenting further on the reforms passed today by the USS JNC, a spokesperson for USS employers said: “We have had helpful and constructive discussions at the JNC on many areas of reform. We are keen to continue this engagement with UCU and other unions over the coming weeks and also seek further views from members of USS, through the forthcoming 60-day scheme member consultation on the proposals. “Employers have consistently said that they would be happy to explore viable alternative proposals for reform from the University and College Union (UCU). While the reform package passed by the JNC today proposes a particular set of changes to the future pensions earned from USS’s defined benefit and defined contribution sections, the upcoming consultation is important and open – and could lead to these proposals being amended. Employers remain open to considering alternative benefit structures and formulations, provided they are viable, affordable and implementable. “Benefits which members have already earned within USS are protected by law and secure, and the employers’ package, and in particular the unprecedented additional covenant support measures provided by employers, further strengthens that protection.” Notes to editors
USS Employers back changes to the pension scheme, 15 June 2021 Employers respond to UCU's benefits modeller, 28 May 2021 USS valuation: Aon comments on March 2021 materials, 9 April 2021
|