Southampton UCU Rotating Header Image

USS Pension

Data Breaches, Fraud, and USS

Further advice from a real expert

I was at the Cambridge Cybercrime Conference in June and I had the opportunity to discuss the USS breach with Richard Clayton . His research interests are much closer to cybercrime than mine; he is an acknowledged leader in this field. His key takeaways are:

  • This is a very large breach: consequentially, your individual risk is very low. It is not easy for a criminal to do much with the stolen data. In practical terms, the data loss is not likely to lead directly to an attack. Even your National Insurance number, which is alleged to be confidential, does not present a serious risk.
  • On balance, you probably should take up the free Experian offer, but there are two important caveats:
    • Do not be frightened by the warnings they send to you. Experian’s business model for this product depends on scaring you into continuing with a paid subscription after the free period.
    • Make certain that the sign-up process does not embroil you in “inertia selling” with a requirement that you actively cancel at the end of the free year.
      As you will see below, it does!
  • The benefits of the Experian product are limited; it is probably not good value for you to continue with the paid-for service after the free year. UCU negotiators should confirm with USS that there will be no “inertia selling” or “scare tactics” to induce members to pay for ongoing Experian service.
  • Think hard before you “freeze” your credit; it may have unexpected consequences. For example, it will likely prevent you hiring a car.
  • As always, watch your bank and credit card statements for anything unexpected.
  • There has been frightening publicity about unauthorised student loans or property transactions through the Land Registry. These are not widespread; in most cases you will be sent a physical letter to your home before anything seriously bad happens.

Experian sign-up

I signed up for the “free” Experian “Identity Plus” membership. After I turned off cookies, the site asked for my title, first and last name, date of birth, email address, contact phone number, and mother’s maiden name. At the bottom of this page, it displayed the worrying small print:
The next page wanted my current address, a password, and a memorable word, along with agreement to the Experian terms and conditions. It then made a rather crude identity check, asking me to confirm a credit card supplier I use, and how long I have had it. After that, I was in, with the promise of a Daily Experian Fraud Report.

It encouraged me to enter extra information, including driving licence, passport, credit card and bank account numbers along with additional emails, phones and addresses; I declined. I was then presented with my report. I might be rather boring, but mine contained just five entries, with nothing older than three months. Three were associated with insurance renewals in April; the other two were because I had signed up to this service. They were all marked Won’t impact your credit score. Experian also knew about my credit card (and credit limit) and gas/electric account.

Oddly, they then presented a list of “useful addresses”. These were mainly organisations with whom I used to have some sort of account many years ago; it was not clear why they might still be helpful.

Overall, I did not learn anything useful, and the report seemed more interested in my credit rating than my security. Richard Clayton’s concern seems justified; it looks as if Experian really do hope that I will forget about this “offer” by next year, and find myself paying them nearly £180 per year for a service which appears to be of very little value.

I will post them a letter asking them cancel my membership automatically when the year is up, and to confirm that they will be doing so. It would be good if our USS negotiators could make sure that none of our members are tricked into this substantial annual payment.

Yet another data leak

If you have used MyView recently, you will have seen that it now hosted by Zellis; the URL is now and we are no longer required to enter a “favourite colour” or any other second factor authentication. Sadly, Zellis have also suffered a data breach as part of the wider problem with the MOVEit file transfer software.

We have not been notified that any Southampton staff have been affected.

Fair treatment

To further protect yourself, you might think about moving to a bank which prioritises fair treatment in the event of a loss. The TSB is one of Matin Lewis’s top bank accounts for new switchers. At the Cybercrime conference, Ross Anderson told us that the TSB, uniquely, offers the TSB Fraud Refund Guarantee. Many other banks will routinely accuse customers of “gross negligence” and refuse a refund. These decisions are hard to fight.

USS as an activist investor

UCU HE Sector Conference has passed motions seeking to influence USS investment strategy in 2022, 2021, 2020, 2018 and 2016. Our ethical concerns have included climate change, armaments, and international conflicts. We have made little progress in influencing USS’s behaviour.

While we may not believe that the public water supply should be in private hands, such utilities would, under normal circumstances, be typical of the safe, long-term investments that would be made by a fund such as USS. USS has holdings in both Thames Water and South West Water: the latter through Pennon Group PLC. Sadly, our water and sewerage services are neither the safe custodians of our national infrastructure, not the steady investments for which we might hope.

In this sector, USS is an activist investor. Bill Galvin has said:

We remain of the view that, with an appropriate regulatory environment, the long-term objective of repairing important UK infrastructure and paying pensions to our members are in strong alignment.

Now what can that mean? Is he asking Ofwat not to be too rigorous in cleaning up our rivers? Something similar has come from Thames Water itself:

Shareholders have also acknowledged that delivery of the Turnaround Plan will require the provision of further equity support in AMP8, significantly in excess of the current AMP7 commitment. Indicatively, the AMP8 equity support is expected to be in the region of £2.5 billion, but the nature and level of such medium-term support will depend on the finalisation of the business plan and the regulatory framework that will apply to the AMP8 period.

The USS JNC met last Friday, but our negotiators were unable to learn much:

We pressed USS on Thames Water on Friday at the JNC including on our views on good governance, ethical investment and nationalisation particularly given that USS had invited the former Thames Water CEO Sarah Bentley as their poster-child for successful investment/intervention to the institutions meeting. We did not make much headway, and due to the concerns about requirements under market abuse regulation etc, they were unable to comment on their position. But we will press again at the next JNC as things unfold.
[report by Deepa Govindarajan Driver]

We may feel fortunate that here in Southampton we are not in Thames Water’s area. Sadly, Macquarie Asset Management, who did much to put Thames Water in its current position, have bought a majority stake in our Southern Water.

Denis Nicole

A SUCU member in IT explains to non-academics why strike has become the last resort 

There are several issues around the strike. The headline is that we’ve had below inflation pay increases for the decade before this year’s cost-of-living crisis. But there has been a significant increase in casualisation… it’s shocking that some university lecturers are now part of the “gig economy”. Admittedly, a few people do like that arrangement, but many don’t. Finally, many of us chose and stayed in this career for the excellent pension. My “final salary” pension was ended a few years back and my 20 years of contributions was converted to an annuity-on-retirement that will increase in line with inflation… unless inflation goes over a cap that is set via a mechanism I don’t understand. High inflation means that my 20 years of contributions are shrinking and I feel betrayed when the promise was that this was to be linked to my final salary. I know many people don’t have as good a pension, but I chose to remain at the uni through good times and bad and the pension promise was part of that decision… I didn’t realise that they could just decide to invalidate it.  

Last time there was a marking strike it resulted in a big win for the union, but this time it’s going to hit students who’ve had the worst experience of university of any cohort in decades due to the pandemic. They don’t deserve this, but our staff deserve not to have yet another year of below inflation pay increases.  

Personally, I don’t have many expenses so am not hurting but many of my co-workers have kids to raise and each year they are paid a little less (after inflation) and have a little less security at work. Something you may not have thought about is that, while IT people like me have other jobs we can go to, a lecturer has usually done a 3 year degree, a one year MSc or similar, a 3-4 year PhD, done 5 years or so as a “post doc”. That’s 13 years of training to get to be a basic lecturer… and it’s more complicated, as being a lecturer isn’t fungible to other topics. If you are an expert in, say, Roman era pottery, that means maybe you could lecturer in other topics on Roman archaeology or pottery archaeology but there’s less than 200 universities in the country which means maybe 100 jobs in the entire UK for the thing you’ve spent your life becoming competent in, so job hopping usually means moving around the country or even to another country (oops, Brexit screwed that, so tough luck). I’m writing this as I suspect we are not going to be treated kindly in the press and it’s good for people to understand a bit of the background. 

A common response to people unhappy with the career they followed is “if you don’t like it, leave”, but Academia is a job that needs to be done. These are the people teaching the advanced classes to the next generation and doing the research which makes our society wealthier and wiser.  

I don’t want to go on strike. I dislike doing a bad job, and I care about the work we do. I am lucky enough to have skills that could get me a job elsewhere and very modest outgoings. I’ll be voting for strike action because it’s not just about me, and I can afford to lose a few day’s pay even if not all union members can. Even if I couldn’t afford to go on strike, I’d still vote “yes” on the ballot because not doing so takes away the other union member’s right to withdraw their labour. So even if you can’t afford to go on strike every day, or at all, please vote “yes” to not deny other people that option. 

UCU HE dispute: UCU Rising – USS communication to Vice-Chancellor

As the UCU Rising ballot opens today, Southampton UCU branch officers have today written to the Vice-Chancellor asking him to reconsider the University’s stance on USS and for him to provide a formal response to six USS facts.  We will keep you updated of any response.


Email to: Vice Chancellor Mark E Smith

cc: Sarah Pook, Executive Director of Finance

6 September 2022

Dear Mark

As you know, UCU are once again balloting members on industrial action to fight back against unjustified cuts to USS pensions. Members at your university stand to lose up to 35% from their pensions due to cuts which were imposed based on a flawed valuation in March 2020 when markets were crashing. Newer members to the scheme, part-time staff, casualised staff and women all stand to lose the most. This is disgraceful, especially given that these staff are also the ones most likely to be squeezed by the cost-of-living crisis.

We are writing to request that you respond formally to the following six important facts on USS, which are listed below with evidence:

  1. Negligible deficit and lower future service costs: Even by USS’s highly contested valuation methodology, the USS June 2022 monitoring suggests the fund is now in surplus and requiring only 20.9-21.2% total contributions to continue to fund the current reduced level of benefits. Even without the April 2022 cuts the fund would remain in surplus and require total contributions in the low 30%s. A graph and spreadsheet show the June monitoring surplus with and without cuts. The results have been reproduced and verified independently by Michael Bromwich, Professor of Accounting and Financial Management Emeritus at LSE, who has estimated here, from the June monitoring, the increase to future service costs with restored pre-April 2022 benefits as an update to his article ‘Time for Agreement’.
  1. Many employers want to improve benefits as soon as possible. Through public statements alone, 32% of USS institutions (weighted by USS contributions) have already called for any upside to be prioritised to improving benefits, while 22% have already publicly called for this to be as soon as possible, for example through a change to the schedule of contributions based on an intermediate valuation in advance of a formal valuation.
  1. UUK can consult rapidly on unusual arrangements, and their aspiration for a ‘fast-track’ 2023 valuation is in opposition to earlier claims. UUK claim they want to ‘deliver positive changes for scheme members as quickly as possible’, but are not considering the option of an interim restoration of benefits, which is within the power of the JNC. Instead they expect to be able to ‘fast-track’ a 2023 valuation, in spite of having previously claimed that it would be extremely challenging to fast-track a 2022valuation when UCU called for one in January 2022. In addition in September 2021, UUK consulted on and endorsed a highly unusual change involving a complex dual schedule of contributions and expedited submission of the 2020 valuation. This consultation lasted only one week but resulted in a new schedule of contributions and recovery plan that delayed deficit recovery contributions. So a precedent has been set for rapid consultation on a proposal that includes delaying or changing the structure of deficit recovery contributions.
  1. USS is no longer nationally competitive. USS has now fallen so far behind public sector pensions that the value of the pension it provides is well below half the value of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.
  2. UUK consistently underestimated the level of cuts. UUK seriously and repeatedly underestimated the level of cuts through consultations as demonstrated in ‘The distribution of loss to future USS pensions due to the UUK cuts of April 2022’ which analyses the cuts using only the UUK Heat map and the USS modeller.
  1. UUK consultations are viewed as flawed. The UUK consultation process was widely and credibly viewed to be biased against UCU’s proposals that would have prevented the cuts. Sam Marsh and Mike Otsuka have written repeatedly on this, for example here on UUK’s escalating misrepresentation of UCU’s proposals (Pt II), here on the delay in consulting, and here on the double standards applied to UCU and UUK proposals.

As you can see, the evidence shows that the situation has changed enormously over the past two years. We believe that vice chancellors have a duty to reconsider their position in the light of that and to restore benefits while a new valuation is carried out. We understand that the UUK annual conference is taking place 7-8th September in Leicester, and we hope that you will use this information to inform your responses during any discussions on USS which takes place. This branch would like to be able to say that our vice chancellor, as an influential leader in UUK, led the way in ensuring that staff at this university were protected in their retirement and not left to face financial hardship in retirement.

We look forward to receiving your reply.

Southampton UCU Executive Committee


University fails to move on exams release dates

UCU presented the following paper at the UCU Joint Negotiating Committee meeting with senior management on 17 February 2022 complaining about the ridiculously short turnaround time for this year’s marks:

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

At the subsequent UCU JNC on 19 May, we were informed by Philip Wright, Senior Vice-President (Academic), that the dates would not be moved because they would impact on Super Graduation.

We would like to remind members that we are currently taking part in Action Short of a Strike.  At Southampton, MyHR calculates a working week at 35 hours and part time staff are pro rata also based on this. While most contracts do not stipulate a maximum number of hours, the Working Time Directive says you should never work more than 48 hours (unless you have chosen to opt out). If you cannot get your marking done in 35 hours, you are overloaded. If you need more time to complete your marking to the high standards our students expect, then you should tell your line manager and ask them to release you from other duties. The refusal of management to listen to requests from staff to address the marking deadlines is indicative of their lack of interest in staff welfare and their assumption that they can exploit our goodwill.

We are saying that our goodwill has run out.

Work your hours, then go home. Make ASOS count.



Senior Vice-President (Academic)

Reasons to vote YES in the HE ballots – USS

Some staff have sent emails to the VC urging him to rethink his position on USS in the light of new evidence that the perceived deficit on which the current UUK proposals are based has all but disappeared. They received a standard response email from the Finance Director, Sarah Pook, and shared it with us. We wanted to investigate some of the assertions made in this email and consulted pensions expert, Mike Otsuka, from LSE. He has provided us with these helpful comments which challenge many of her key points and suggest that UoS is doubling down in its defence of a fundamentally flawed position adopted by UUK.

Sarah Pook: ‘In the spirit of ensuring that everyone has awareness of all views to ensure the widest possible understanding of the situation, I thought it would be helpful to make you aware of the response and clarification given by Universities UK, on behalf of USS employers, to the latest UCU comments relating to the USS Trustee’s latest monthly monitoring report of the pension scheme:

The USS Trustee has a legal duty to conclude the 2020 valuation, and has determined the contributions payable by both employers and members under the 2020 valuation. These contributions are set out in the schedule of contributions and are legally payable until superseded at a future valuation’.

Mike Otsuka: The bold bit of this statement is false: “These contributions are set out in the schedule of contributions and are legally payable until superseded at a future valuation.” Even in the absence of a new valuation, USS could issue a new recovery plan and schedule of contributions, which reflects the current, improved funding level of the scheme as indicated by the monitoring of the 2020 valuation. Moreover, even in the absence of a new valuation, JNC could revoke the UUK cuts and replace them with a higher level of benefits, costed in a similar way.

Sarah Pook: ‘It is good news to see an indicative improvement in the funding position, but this is monthly monitoring and not a full actuarial valuation which requires a full process including revised covenant assessment, and statutory consultations to be concluded amongst other processes; as we know this takes considerable time to conduct.’

Mike Otsuka: The above is true. Nevertheless, it would be possible, while awaiting the results of a full actuarial valuation with more reasonable (less excessively conservative – aka ‘prudent’) underlying assumptions than the 2020 valuation – to revise the recovery plan and schedule of contributions to reflect the improved funding position of the 2020 valuation.

Sarah Pook: ‘USS made clear last week at the Joint Negotiating Committee that without the latest reforms we would not have seen such an improvement in the funding position, which remains very volatile month-to-month’.

Mike Otsuka: As Mark Taylor-Batty notes: “The growth of assets to circa £90bn, the fundamental aspect of the improved position, has nothing to do with the UUK proposal. The health of the scheme adds credibility and urgency to the UCU proposals.”

Sarah Pook: ‘The USS Trustee has made clear that without the reforms escalating contributions would be payable by both members and employers – and this would not change until a new valuation was concluded’.

Mike Otsuka: This is false. Even before a new valuation is concluded, it would be possible to cap the escalation in contributions, as spelled out by the third of UCU’s three proposals. See here for further explanation of how such a cap could be realised.

Sarah Pook: ‘Indeed, if the reforms were not made the USS Trustee’s February 2022 monitoring points to a future service rate of 40.7%, plus a deficit of £6.3bn to be addressed which requires further deficit contributions of between 4% and 6.2%’.

Mike Otsuka: Here your VC is running together two very different items under the heading of ‘reforms’: (i) UUK’s swingeing cuts to future accrual, and (ii) their commitment to repair the damage to the covenant caused by the exit of one of their members (Trinity College Cambridge) by such means as a 20 year commitment of all other employers not to exit the scheme. The figures quoted above are based on the assumption that employers fail to repair this damage but instead offer only minimal covenant support. Under UCU’s proposals, current benefits would be underpinned by these measures to repair the damage to the covenant – i.e., they would be underpinned by the same level of covenant support as employers are extending to their own cuts to benefits. With such comparable covenant support, USS has indicated that, as of 28th February, the cost of future service would be 38% (not 40.7%), the deficit would be £3.6bn (not £6.3bn), and required deficit recovery contributions would be as low as 0.9% (not 4%), where this lower rate would be achieved by means of reasonable assumptions regarding length of recovery plan and assumptions regarding returns on asset investment.

In short, this is further evidence that our employer is refusing to engage with UCU even when the situation has changed and even when UCU’s proposals represent the best option for securing benefits for members and protecting the long-term health of the scheme.

The only way for us to get any leverage to push back against these savage cuts to our pensions is to refuse to accept them.

Vote YES to Strike Action and YES to ASOS on USS.

Reasons to Vote YES and YES from a local member

A local active member shared with the branch some of the comments they received while talking to colleagues about the ballot. Here are some responses to things they’ve heard:

  1. “I can’t find my ballot paper”

You can check at MyUCU where your ballot paper was sent.  Sadly, if you haven’t received it already it is too late to request a replacement so have a hunt around at home/in your pigeonhole to check it’s not under a pile of other papers.  Send it in the post by 6 April to ensure safe arrival. 

  1. “I’m not sure if I’m eligible to vote”

Do any of the following apply to you?

  • You’ve retired
  • You’ve become unemployed
  • You’ve left the branch
  • You’re on long term leave (including maternity leave, sick leave, sabbatical)
  • You’re employed by a third party
  • You’re head of the institution
  • You hold an emeritus or honorary position

If they do then it’s really important that you tell Amanda ( by 5 April so that you can be excluded from the ballot, otherwise the threshold will be artificially high

  1. “I can’t be doing with paper forms, if the UCU wants my vote they should organise online ballots”

They’d love to but the government won’t let them. The anti-union legislation currently in force requires postal ballots despite (or more likely because) of them being cumbersome and expensive

  1. “I’m abstaining so there’s no point in posting my ballot”

You couldn’t be more wrong! Every abstention received counts towards the turn-out threshold. Leaving your ballot unposted means your colleagues’ votes are ignored and allows our management to claim that we don’t care about pensions, workloads, casualisation or pay gaps. It’s happened twice, please don’t let it happen again.

  1. “I joined the Union because it helps members, not because I wanted to go on strike”

So did I, and without its help I wouldn’t be in Higher Education today. But the Union can only help its members if it’s also prepared to take action to defend their interests. Management have made it abundantly clear that the only limiting factor to what they’re prepared to do to us is what we’re prepared to tolerate.

  1. “I don’t like UCU’s approach to campaigns”

Get involved, let them know. If you don’t want a strike, vote against it. But don’t throw your vote away, and all your colleagues’ votes with it.

  1. “There’s no point taking action, it never works”

A common misperception, that VCs would love you to believe. Industrial action in HE/FE is highly effective, see here, here and here for just a few recent examples.

  1. “The changes to USS are a necessary response to current economic conditions and they’re in our best interests”

You’re welcome to your opinion, but if that’s the case why have UUK been hiring consultants who specialise in breaking pension schemes since long before these conditions were present, and why have VCs (including ours) been misleading staff about the negotiations?

  1. “These issues don’t affect me personally so why should I take action?”

Because that’s what a union is.


Why academic related professional staff should vote YES in the HE ballots

The University of Southampton comprises over 6,000 staff. Over 2,000 are academic-related professional staff (ARPS). We work across 17 distinct professional services: responsible for student and education services, libraries and the arts, widening participation and social mobility, global recruitment and admissions, residences, iSolutions, and the list goes on. ARPS are fundamental to the running of the university. Whilst our collective voice in UCU may be smaller in relation to our academic colleagues, we are affected by many of the same issues, we are of equal importance when it comes to challenging issues of our pensions, pay, workloads, casualisation and equality, and it is imperative that ARPS make it clear that we will not stand for the erosion of our pay and conditions.

Many ARPS will be affected by the ongoing USS pensions dispute, and indeed, many of us have taken strike action on this issue previously at Southampton in 2018, 2019 and 2020. On 31st March 2022, UCU issued a call for VCs across the UK to demand UUK revoke the cuts to the pensions after the health of USS finances were revealed. The changes due from 1st April see staff who pay into USS lose up to 35% of their pensions when they get to retirement. If you haven’t already, you can use the UCU modeller to see how you could be affected by these cuts.

Along with our pensions, pay has been eroded consistently since 2009, with a recent report by UCU showing that pay is down by 25.5% in real terms. ARPS are already in a position where there is no consistency with academic colleagues in regards to a framework for pay and promotion. Relatedly, the national picture on pay inequality is bleak. The pay gap between Black and white staff is 17%. The disability pay gap is 9%. The mean gender pay gap is 15.1%. An earlier blog in this series pointed to the pervasive gender pay gap at the University of Southampton. The erosion of pay is closely linked to increased casualisation. There are approximately 15k ARPS employed on temporary contracts. The issue of casualisation HE is not exclusive to our academic colleagues. Across the University of Southampton, professional services have undergone or are undergoing restructures, and there are departments still reeling from loss of staff after the latest rounds of voluntary severance in 2020. This has seen temporary posts and uncertain secondments proliferate, putting strain on teams, and adding to workloads where staff turnover is high and gaps in teams aren’t being properly resourced. For an institution that has just unveiled a new strategy that states a commitment to put its people at the ‘heart’, presiding over sustained cuts to our material conditions at a time when the cost of living is the highest it has been in decades is contemptuous.

Voting to take strike action is hard. It can be particularly difficult when you are one of only a small handful of colleagues in a team – or sometimes the only one – who are members of UCU. However, visibility of ARPS on the picket line is key to growing our numbers at the branch and making that collective voice stronger. Without ARPS, universities would cease to run. Academics would suffer, students would suffer, and the wider community would suffer. We need to stand unified with our academic colleagues, recognising that the issues outlined in the ballot affect us all.


University management’s response to the USS consultation

Despite our numerous attempts to encourage the University to support UCU’s counter-proposals on USS, senior management refused to back our proposals.  Their formal response to the USS consultation is below:


Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

USS – SUCU clarifies VC’s claim relating to UCU’s alternative proposals

SUCU believes that this claim made by Mark E. Smith in his response to us is misleading.

The letter states: ‘In addition, the University notes its disappointment that UCU has not been able to advance a formal, costed solution during the extensive valuation process to date, that it comes at the eleventh hour and is still not yet a formally tabled proposal at the JNC.’

The facts are that USS-costed proposals have been formally tabled for the JNC meeting this Friday the 11th of February (tomorrow), which was the date on the USS grid for the tabling of such proposals.

These proposals were not tabled earlier because UUK had declared that they would not negotiate with UCU over proposals until after the close of the USS consultation on the 17th of January. Moreover, UCU sought confirmation of strength of member consultation support for its approach, involving the paying of higher contributions to preserve current benefits. UCU received reports on the consultation responses on the 21st and 24th of January. These responses revealed strong support for our proposals. Having received this confirmation, UCU swiftly publicised the proposals on the 26th of January.

Since then, employers have simply stalled in unprincipled fashion. Although they were aware of the indicative USS costings on which our proposals were based, they demanded formalisation (which is a very complicated procedure) of these costings from USS as a condition of sending UCU’s proposals out for consultation. This in spite of the fact that they sent their own revised proposals out for employer consultation before they received formal confirmation from USS of the 0.2% costing.

They could and should have sent UCU’s proposals out for consultation when they received them on the 26th of January, just as they sent their own proposals out for employer consultation before they had received formal confirmation of costings.

UUK has today acknowledged that UCU’s proposals meet the higher standard they set for them than for their own proposals, and that they will be launching a consultation on them from early next week. It is not clear why consultation cannot start today.

The response from VCs on this matter, including the letter from Mark E Smith is deeply disingenuous, and appears to categorise proposals from the employer side in a very different way. We therefore ask that USS members inform themselves fully of the facts rather than relying on communications from the employer.

Follow: Mike Ostsuka @MikeOtsuka, Sam Marsh @Sam_Marsh101 and Jackie Grant via @sussexucu

(With grateful thanks to Mike Otsuka for his input)



USS – UCU’s alternative proposal and UoS response

We recently wrote to the Vice-Chancellor asking him to support UCU’s alternative proposal on USS and thus avoid further action from UCU members nationally in the current dispute.  You can read our letter and the V-C’s disappointing response below.


Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab