| | |

Pension Changes Proposed: lower benefits, little savings, weaker UCRS

Byhigbie

choice a bThe University of California will soon have a third pension tier if the Regents approve a plan put forth by the Retirement Options Task Force on Friday. UC President Janet Napolitano charged the Task Force, which included management and Academic Senate representatives, with finding a way to implement her agreement with Gov. Brown to set a cap on pension benefits in exchange for state funds to support the pension system.

Over the weekend, as faculty activists read the task force report and a second report produced by Senate leaders (Guide to reviewing the recommendations of the Retirement Options Task Force) it has become clear that the proposed options will significantly decrease pension benefits for new hires, will not save very much money, and may weaken the viability of existing pension tiers in the UC Retirement System (UCRS).

To get up to speed on this issue, read the following posts:

The proposed new pension tier would offer new hires after July 1, 2016 two options, so currently faculty are not directly impacted. Plan A is a defined benefit (DB) plan like the existing tiers but with contributions based on income under $117,000. Income over the cap will count toward a supplemental defined contribution (DC) plan. Plan B does away with the traditional pension arrangement and offers a DC plan only. Employees choosing Plan B could be convert into the Plan A system after 5 years.

According to independent faculty analysis, both plans represent a significant cut in benefits for new hires, save relatively little money for the UC budget, and do little to address the underfunded pension liability. Despite the sacrifice by UC employees, the State of California will not commit to paying its share of pension costs. There are many more financial details, wherein resides the devil as they say. The upshot for current faculty is that the financial arrangements of the new plans pose a significant risk to the financial health of the retirement benefits of currently employed faculty, according to those who have carefully read the proposal.

The UC Office of the President (UCOP) has generously given faculty leaders until February 15 to respond to the complex recommendations, and the Senate in turn has asked for faculty comment by February 5. Under these circumstances, the Academic Senate should reject the plan or at least demand more time for review.

UC employee representatives, including the Faculty Associations, have an online petition calling on the Regents to reject the proposals. Please consider adding your name!

Sign the Petition: http://www.protectmypension.org/

Similar Posts

| | |

Faculty associations address UCOP

Byhigbie

The UCLA Faculty Association is part of a UC-wide coalition of faculty associations known as CUCFA–the Coalition of UC Faculty Associations. Through CUCFA, UC faculty are able to address the UC Office of the President on issues of importance to faculty, their students, and staff. Below is a round-up of recent communication between CUCFA and UCOP. UC Union Coalition on Health Insurance Costs CUCFA signed on to a joint letter from unions representing employees across the UC system expressing concern with large increases in the cost of health insurance. The unions requested a meeting to “address what appears to be…

|

New 2022 AAUP Survey of Tenure Practices

Byadmin

Tenure practices vary among institutions, however systematic studies of these practices are rare. The 2022 AAUP Survey of Tenure Practices is the first survey of its kind since 2004. It “offers a snapshot of prevailing tenure practices and policies at four-year institutions with tenure systems. Among the findings, the survey found that tenure is highly prevalent throughout US higher education, with 87 percent of four-year institutions that have a Carnegie Classification of bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral institution reporting having a tenure system.” Available online.

| |

Update on UC-AFT negotiations: 10/21, 7-8 PM

Byhigbie

With a possible strike by our lecturer colleagues on the horizon this quarter, the UCLA Faculty Association invites you to a virtual town hall hosted by the Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA) with representatives from the lecturers’ union, UC-AFT. University administrators likely have sent you their spin about UCOP’s latest proposal to UC-AFT, but what they undoubtedly have not told you is that President Drake’s representatives have thus far refused, despite three requests from UC-AFT, to schedule a bargaining session to discuss the proposal. Take-it-or-leave-it bargaining that deprives a party of the opportunity to ask questions, achieve understanding, and present a counterproposal…

| | |

Academic Council knocks UCOP data policy

Byhigbie

The Academic Council of the UC Academic Senate called for significant revisions to a proposed new university policy on “Research Data and Tangible Research Materials.” The Council characterized the proposed policy as, “overly broad, difficult to enforce, and a potential danger to faculty intellectual property.” Previously, the Berkeley Faculty Association criticized the policy as a solution in search of a problem, and a danger to faculty academic freedom. As the BFA noted, the policy opens with a sweeping assertion of new university rights, “The Regents of the University of California owns all Research Data and Tangible Research Materials,” and goes…

Academic Senate Rejects New Pension Tier
| |

Academic Senate Rejects New Pension Tier

Byhigbie

Representatives of UC faculty on all campuses delivered a strongly worded rejection of the proposed 2016 pension tier. Reports from the campuses were extensive and overwhelmingly negative (link to PDF). Berkeley faculty called the proposal “imprudent and potentially fiscally irresponsible.” Davis faculty said, “It is a myth that UCRP is too generous,” and went on to detail a long list of likely negative outcomes from the new tier. Irvine faculty noted “the level of disappointment and depth of passion expressed from all quarters about the negative impact that the imposition of the PEPRA cap has on the future of the…