Hundreds of female professors working in UK higher education have joined forces to write to university bosses urging them to abandon planned cuts to pensions, arguing they will have a disproportionately damaging impact on female academics.
More than 800 of the most senior women working in the sector have signed a letter that has been sent to Universities UK, the umbrella organisation representing higher education institutions, voicing their “deep concern” and calling for a last-minute rethink.
Sweeping changes to the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), the UK’s largest private pension scheme, are due to be implemented from 1 April, despite having triggered repeated rounds of industrial action on campuses across the UK by members of the University and College Union (UCU).
The letter points out that women are already adversely affected by the existing pensions scheme because of gender pay gaps at all career stages and because the scheme penalises those who have taken career breaks because of caring responsibilities.
It warns, however, that the structure of the changes, which according to the UCU will cut 35% from a typical member’s guaranteed retirement income, will have “gendered impacts” that should be taken into account.
“The cuts specifically to the defined benefit portion of the USS scheme – which provides guaranteed income for life – could disproportionately impact women because we generally spend more years in retirement,” the letter states.
“Moreover, the sheer scale of the cuts would make the situation worse for future generations of women in academia, intensifying untenable trade-offs between early-career flexibility and the risk of financial precarity in old age.”
The letter argues that the proposed reforms are based on a flawed valuation of the scheme done at the bottom of the market in March 2020. “The UUK should abandon the artificial April deadline, to allow time for a new valuation and comprehensive analysis of equity impacts,” it says.
Pushing the changes through without due care for equity would show “a profound disregard for the wellbeing of women and members of other protected groups, undermining the commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion,” the letter adds.
Anne Pollock, a professor of global health and social medicine at King’s College London and one of the organisers of the letter, said: “It’s outrageous that our universities are planning to push through pension cuts on this scale without even bothering to do a full equity impact analysis.
“If our universities want to claim that they support equity for women and other protected groups, they need to make sure that the impact of any cuts doesn’t fall disproportionately on the same groups that are already treated poorly by the scheme.”
A UUK spokesperson insisted fairness, equality, diversity and inclusivity had been taken into account and said employers had conducted equality impact assessments on the changes, and also on the impact of the higher costs that otherwise would have been introduced.
“Feedback from members and their representatives bodies in the recent consultation on the changes shows that affordability is a big concern, and particularly so for protected groups,” the spokesperson said. “USS will remain one of the most attractive pension schemes in the country.”