This guest blog by Martin Heneghan, Jo Grady and Liam Foster explains why any movement towards a defined contribution pension system poses a direct threat to women’s income in retirement. As university staff are on strike to protect their pensions, it is important to remember the proposed cuts will hurt women more than men.
University staff have taken the difficult decision to take industrial action against their employers as a consequence of the imposition of a significant cut to their income in retirement. University and College Union (UCU), estimates pension cuts will leave university staff on average nearly £10,000 worse off per year, totalling £200,000 over 20 years. However, this cut will not be spread evenly; women are set to be more adversely affected than men. Here we outline the proposed changes to the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) and demonstrate that they pose a direct threat to the adequacy of women’s pensions in particular.
On average, women have a smaller pension than men in any system. This is partly a consequence of gendered discrimination in the labour market, which means women earn less than men. As research from Grady shows, it is also a result of gender blind pension systems that ignore the gendered occupational life course, taking the experience of men as default when formulating pension policy. Women are more likely to leave the formal labour market for caring roles, which reduces both their income over the life course and their career progression. Also, when they do return to the labour market, they tend to take up part-time work, due to caring responsibilities. We also know that the ethnic pay gap, leaves BME women with even lower salaries, and lower pension incomes. None of these intersecting inequalities is reflected in occupational pension systems that are gender and ethnicity blind, and recognise only paid employment as a way to accrue pension income. In a defined benefit final salary scheme, men on average have a higher income at the point of retirement and therefore a higher pension. Some of this is mitigated in the current defined benefit USS scheme, which is a proportion of the average income, rather than the final salary. However, given that women earn less over the life course (not just in universities, but in general), their average salary is smaller and their pension less generous. Under the proposed USS reform, these gendered effects will be exacerbated.
The proposed changes will shift USS members from a defined benefit (DB) to a defined contribution scheme (DC), this switch transfers risk from the employer to the employee, with individual pension scheme members directly taking on more risk. However, there is substantial evidence that women are more risk averse in investment decisions than men. Research conducted about the Australian university superannuation fund (UniSuper), found that women made more conservative investment decisions and as a result received smaller pensions than men. This warning from the Australian university sector should be heeded by those in the UK committed to gender equality, as it could beckon a growing gender gap in retirement income here in the UK. This risk adversity by women is not surprising as those on lower incomes are usually the most risk averse, and given it is women who tend to earn less than men, they are unlikely to want to engage in risky investments with their pension. Furthermore, asking people to be their own pensions investment manager is not gender neutral. As research from Foster and Heneghan shows, there is a gendered difference in how men and women engage with financial information, so encouraging university workers to become financial decision makers cannot ignore these wider structural forces that influence individual decisions.
DC schemes also fail to offer the maternity coverage that DB schemes do. In DB schemes, women receive full maternity coverage on the DB part of the pension scheme. If their maternity pay is less than the pre-maternity salary, the employer makes up the shortfall to keep contributions records as if the maternity leave had never been taken. Employer contributions are also paid for up to 39 weeks of maternity leave (note that women who take one year of maternity leave see their pension reduced!). For those who also take advantage of the USS 1% match into the university investment builder, any shortfall in salary is not made up by the employer. With the proposal to transfer all pension contributions into the investment builder, if the current terms were kept as they are, women who take maternity leave would be adversely affected.
In addition to the removal of benefits and coverage the DB gives women, the switch DC also presents women with larger administration costs. Mainly because in a DC system the cost of administration is usually borne by the individual, whereas in a defined benefit one the cost is usually borne by the employer. In a DC scheme, the administration is more complex, and therefore, more costly. It often requires an individual fund manager for each account. These costs can have a dramatic impact on the value of a pension plan. This is particularly problematic for women and lower earners, as it means that a larger proportion of the accumulated fund is devoted to administration charges.
It is also worth remembering that the establishment of DB pensions was not the product of employer benevolence, successive generations of workers – both male and female – have actively worked to improve pension rights. Furthermore, whilst it is true that DB pensions offer certainty and income security in older age for employees, they also offer advantages to employers. A DB scheme was, and remains, a way to foster loyalty from employees. For a firm that had made a substantial investment in training its workforce, it wanted to ensure this investment was contained in the firm. Do universities not want to do the same? It was also a way to keep job opportunities open to younger workers, by offering income security to older ones. The push for increased flexibility in the labour market, and wider economy, has seen policy makers encourage DC schemes, so that workers can take their pension pot with them to a new firm. However, there are strong reasons to suggest this is not the way the university sector should seek to operate. For research and teaching staff, the sector has likely already made a substantial investment in their training. Offering a DB pension system is a way to enhance retention of academic staff. For women, this is particularly important. There is already significant precarity in an academic career. Short term contracts and geographical relocation are increasingly prevalent. Given that this precariousness also happens at a time when many women are beginning a family, the withdrawal of certainty in retirement, may be the final straw in their decision to leave the profession for good. In addition, the oversupply of PhD graduates is well documented. Reducing the pension income of those close to retirement will likely see them stay in the labour force for longer, further exacerbating the mismatch in the supply and demand of PhD graduates.
We must also remember that a pension is a deferred wage. It is not free money in retirement. A guaranteed and predictable pension in retirement is payment of income foregone during employment. Moreover, considerable financial sacrifice is made in obtaining a postgraduate degree, a doctoral degree and then entering a precarious labour market, and the promise of a stable and meaningful pension in later life, helps offsets those sacrifices. In a patriarchal society it is a reasonable assumption these sacrifices are even greater for women, and greater still for women of colour. Women who have navigated all the challenges that forging an academic career places in front of them, should not have their income security in old age threatened.
We have arrived at Week 3 of the action, and our programme of things to keep you busy has just landed! Now is the time to join us on picket-lines, at our teach-outs, and on our Thursday march for International Womens Day to make sure the national talks reach a consensus as swiftly as possible. Don’t rely on your colleagues to do the job: we need you visible too!
Tomorrow we meet with Keith Burnett, previously missing in action, but now taking much more interest in events on campus, evident in his announcement last week that there would be no pay deductions for refusing to reschedule classes. We will be reporting the outcomes back to members at our open meeting on Wednesday, midday in the Students Union. Please come!
Our hardship fund continues to receive donations. If you could like to donate, or know anyone who does, the bank details are below:
Finally, we will be celebrating International Womens Day with a march on Thursday. Assemble at midday on Thursday at the Arts Tower. Working conditions are a feminist issue: pensions, gender pay gap, sexual harrassment and more. March with us!
Postdocs play a vital role in research; we are the highly skilled hands and minds that create new things, test out theories and provide hands-on training. So why do we feel like we go unrewarded and underappreciated? The answer has a lot to do with fixed-term contracts. Apparently, 68 % of postdoctoral research staff in the UK are currently employed on fixed term contracts.[i] However, from talking to postdoc and academics within my institution and others, I would estimate that this proportion is actually far higher for your average postdoc with 0 – 8 years’ experience.
Fixed-term postdoc contracts vary in length from a few months to a few years; however, one thing they all have in common is an expiry date. This article collects my fellow postdocs and academics opinions, and my own, to explain some of the unproductive impacts of fixed-term contracts on the wide-scale employment of postdocs.
I’d estimate that the current consensus is that postdocs need to acquire something like 5 – 8 years’ experience (publishing 2- 3 papers per year), to have a chance at securing that dream academic job. This means that postdocs need to spend the first 5 – 8 years, of their career moving around from university to university, seeking the next contract. The pressure of constantly having to look for a new job, relocating, making new friends and finding a new place to live has been described to me as “exhausting, frustrating, distracting and demotivating”.
If you have progressed to postdoc status by your mid-twenties (which is about as soon as you can get there) this period of uprooting and moving around coincides with when the majority of people are likely to consider the possibility of settling down and starting a family. Many researchers (in their late 20’s to early 30’s) find it difficult to put roots down and or plan for the future during this turbulent period of moving around. Many researchers also commented to me on how they found their future to be full of uncertainty and grey areas: “If I take maternity leave will I have a job to come back to?”, “Am I eligible for parental leave if my contract is less than 12 months?”, “Can I get a mortgage if I/we are on short term contracts?”
Struggling with a mortgage and childcare / maternity arrangements, are common issues. You may (or may not) also be surprised to learn that even now the attitude toward female researchers remains archaic in some part of academia. It was relayed to me by a fellow postdoc that a particular PI took a very hard line on postdocs returning after maternity leave, putting them in an all or nothing situation, where retuning part-time was not considered an option. I have heard of occasions when female researchers have be told that now they are pregnant that’s effectively the end of their research career. Are we supposed to choose between career and family life…?
Fixed-term contacts leave us with an ultimatum: continually relocate or seriously damage your chance of getting a permanent job in the future by ‘stubbornly’ staying in one place. But what about those of us who cannot easily relocate? “As a single parent my career decisions had to be location based. I have had to make sacrifices, choosing not so optimal jobs at times, because of the way the system will affect your career prospects if you do not move.” Those of us with partners (who also have careers to think about), young families, caring responsibilities or disabilities (who may require help with day-to-day living) cannot just move at the drop of a hat. In short, fixed term contracts fail to promote equality. When you consider that lots of university departments are keen to show off how much they support equality (e.g. the Athena Swan award in Science related disciplines) it is inconsistent that they employ the majority of postdocs on fixed-term contracts.
Is there a way you can stay in one place? The short answer has been put to me as: “yes, but it doesn’t look good”. There is a redeployment system at UoS, however, postdocs who have used it regarded it as “inadequate and ineffective.” To make things worse, academic staff appear to prefer to select postdocs from a wider ‘world’ market rather than the redeployment pool. Living in the same place and commuting to a different university is also an option, but you would be faced with the same type of fixed-term contract there too.
For those that do manage to stay in one place by securing the elusive open-ended contract there are still problems ahead: Without a steady stream of research money coming in the contract isn’t really worth a whole lot, and even if you are successful at bringing in funding, it’s difficult to gain the same stature as academic staff. A long term researcher with 16 years’ experience has observed first hand that “research fellows are not treated equivalently (as permanent academic staff) by the University system”.
What about promotion? Other than acquiring a new role as a research fellow or lecturer, there are no promotional steps you can take as a researcher, which makes progression and development another one of those grey areas. One postdoc described their situation as being “adrift on the sea of science”, receiving very little in the way of advice and career support from their supervisor. Although people at the University will tell you that it is the job of the line manager, to help postdocs plan and progress in their careers, the bottom line is that they are overworked (so don’t have the time) or don’t understand the issues (because they are not on a fixed-term contract). A common response from postdocs is that they feel “undervalued” especially when they are “expected to pick up the pieces of over worked lecturers without the credit.”
You can make it work staying in one place, but it’s a lot about luck. You may feel like you are always playing second fiddle to your academic peers, “if you stay in the role long term, you do begin to wonder if you do genuinely have a career and whether any progression is possible, even when demonstrating superior publications and income than your (academic) peers.” The turnover of academic staff is slow and there are many more postdocs than there are jobs (a recent advert for two lectureships in my department attracted around 200 applicants). For those of us who have already invested several years as a postdoc, there is a difficult decision looming: Do I stay or do I go? If I change career, what can I do with my skills?
Looking forward, how should we fund and employ postdocs? Right now, I don’t have the answer, but I do know that it requires a big, bold change. I think a key issue is that the fundamental building blocks of the system fail to promote equality and are un-suitable for the future. As researchers, we know that a good research proposal relies on solid principles and clear aims, lets apply the same approach here.
Ultimately we want to achieve fairness, stability and clear continuity into postdoctoral employment, so we can focus on our work, instead of the next pay packet The university could aid this by: Using bridging funds more effectively with open ended contracts to ensure continuity; developing alternate career streams, e.g. career researchers, to provide promotion into areas other than academic positions; challenge the out-of-date culture surrounding postdoc by nurturing and promoting home grown talent to the wider community.
The problem is a shared one, we all (individuals, universities and research councils) have a responsibility to ask questions, stimulate discussion and implement change. In order to promote equality across the university as a whole, using a fair selection process, we first need equality in the pool of talent.
Fixed-term contracts are archaic leftovers from academic cultures of times gone by, they are a barrier to equality, and to the future of academia. They are having an impact on current postdocs and on those starting out in research, one PhD researcher said “I’m done with research after my PhD, I don’t want to be in the same situation as you (meaning myself) 3-4 years down the line. It’s a lot to gamble on, when you may not achieve what you set out to.”
Prevent is a key component of the government’s 2011 anti-terror strategy known as Contest. It builds on the previous Prevent strategy brought in by Tony Blair’s government after the London bombings in 2005. It has been widely criticised for casting all Muslims as a ‘suspect community’.
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 enshrines elements of Prevent in law. It includes what is known as the “Prevent duty” which specifies that various public bodies have a duty to have “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. This came into force on 1 July 2015 for much of the public sector, including schools, NHS trusts, local authorities, childminders and probation services. Following some controversy over plans to ban outside speakers seen as “extremist”, the revised guidelines for HE and FE colleges came into effect on 21 September.
The government has advised that relevant employers must provide training to staff in the implementation of the Prevent duty. This is being rolled out across the public sector. Training ranges from e-learning, private or in-house trainers, to a government DVD and script based training programme known as WRAP (workshop to raise awareness of Prevent).
Channel
Channel is the government’s programme for dealing with those identified as at risk of radicalisation. These are individuals, often children, who have not committed any crime (they are in the “pre-criminal space” as the Prevent pundits put it), yet the police are centrally involved in monitoring these individuals and in putting together programmes to “de-radicalise” them.
Between April 2012 and April 2015 some 912 children were referred to Channel. Young children are being viewed through the lens of security and suspicion, with 55 under 12 year olds referred to Channel between 2007–2010. Children as young as three have been referred to Channel.
Opposition
There has been widespread opposition to the Prevent strategy, its underlying assumptions and its implementation. UCU and NUS have campaigned over many years to stop lecturers and student unions being forced to spy on their Muslim students. The TUC this year passed policy opposed to Prevent. Other unions with policy opposed to Prevent include the UCU, NUT and NUS. Many Muslim organisations and civil rights groups, as well as Stop the War, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Stand Up to Racism have also spoken out against Prevent.
Key arguments against Prevent
1. Defending British values?
Prevent centres on tackling what the government calls “non-violent extremism” –i.e. no actual violent act may have been considered or admired.
The government defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces.”
This definition opens up a very ambiguous definition of extremism and includes expressions of political views that may not involve any invocation or support of violence.
The idea that these values are intrinsically British –and not shared by others—is racist.
It is pure hypocrisy to suggest that the British state has respected these values, given what is known of Britain’s foreign policy (Iraq, Ireland, Afghanistan, drone strikes in Syria, colonialism) and Britain’s domestic policy (racism throughout the criminal justice system).
This definition opens the Prevent powers to be used against political dissent that has nothing to do with terrorism (see below).
2. Prevent ignores the context of war and racism
The government model of radicalisation is based on a “conveyor belt” which involves vulnerable individuals being groomed by radical clerics / the internet / other associates and in which non-violent extremism leads to violent extremism and therefore to acts of terrorism.
This deliberately ignores the context of foreign policy, racism and war. In fact attempts to give political context are themselves cast as giving cover to terrorists in the form of justifying grievances.
As John Prescott has said: “When I hear people talking about how people are radicalised, young Muslims. I’ll tell you how they are radicalised. Every time they watch the television where their families are worried, their kids are being killed and murdered and rockets firing on all these people, that’s what radicalises them.” Even MI5 has concluded that there is no straightforward single pathway to terrorism.
3. Prevent targets Muslims
Most of the training packages for Prevent stress that it is about targeting all forms of terrorism, not just “Muslim extremism”. The Home Office’s WRAP DVD dwells at length on the case of a far right activist. However in practice Prevent overwhelmingly targets Muslims.
Muslims made up 90 percent of those referred to Prevent’s anti-radicalisation programme Channel between 2007 and 2010, despite being less than 5 percent of the population.
Prevent encourages racial profiling: Three schools in Barnsley, an area with a high level of EDL activity, published risk assessments earlier this year that stated that the schools were not prone to radicalisation and extremism as “cohort of pupils are white British majority” and many pupils “take a keen interest in British military work”. They also stated that “Staff continue to monitor BME (black and minority ethnic] cohort”. The risk assessments were taken from a template approved by the Prevent team at South Yorkshire police.
The Prevent guidance specifies that it regards groups in Syria and Iraq and those associated with Al-Qaida as a greater threat than far right terrorism. It describes “Islamic extremists” who “regard Western intervention in Muslim-majority countries as a ‘war with Islam’, creating a narrative of ‘them and us’.” While socialists don’t agree that western foreign policy is driven by a war on Muslims, it is not surprising that many do see the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine in this way–and we must defend those with this view as a legitimate part of the anti-war and pro-Palestine movement.
Prevent feeds wider racism. As UCU argues, Prevent “is discriminatory towards Muslims, and legitimises Islamophobia and xenophobia, encouraging racist views to be publicised and normalised within society.”
4. Safeguarding the vulnerable?
Much of the Prevent duty is being dressed up as a form of safeguarding – helping people who may be vulnerable to radicalisation. Many employers are incorporating the Prevent duty into their existing safeguarding procedures. Much training also asks public sector workers to look for signs of “vulnerability” and “radicalisation” in colleagues—in other words to be suspicious of each other.
Some of the risk factors specified include:
Substance and alcohol misuse
Peer pressure
Influence from older people or via the Internet
Bullying
Crime and anti-social behaviour
Domestic violence
Family tensions
Race/hate crime
Lack of self esteem or identity
Grievances (personal or political)
Migration
This encompasses a huge number of people who are not in any way connected to terrorism or “extremism”. So the perceived risk of radicalisation is extremely subjective and open to abuse. This breeds an atmosphere of suspicion and provides an almost endless list of identifiers that can be used to label suspect individuals or groups (i.e. Muslims).
This approach potentially deters children and other vulnerable people from seeking help, support or medical advice for fear of being labelled as at risk of radicalisation.
Many inappropriate referrals are being made to Channel: 80 percent of Channel referrals between 2006 and 2013 were eventually rejected by Channel panels, showing that many referrers are finding threats where none exist.
5. Preventing dissent
There are many recorded instances of how Prevent is being used to crack down on dissent:
Lancaster university’s student union president was targeted by police for displaying
pro-Palestinian posters in her office.
Prevent officers were involved in shutting down a conference on Islamophobia at Birkbeck university in December 2014.
Police in West Yorkshire told over 100 teachers attending Prevent training that they should consider environmental protesters, anti-fracking campaigners and anti-capitalists as potential extremists, citing Green MP Caroline Lucas as an example.
In The Muslims Are Coming, Arun Kundnani describes how a teenager was targeted by Channel after attending a pro-Palestinian demo and warned to keep away from his new associates – who were revolutionary socialists, not radical Muslims.
6. Crushing open debate
The MCB reports numerous examples of children being afraid to discuss issues at school for fear of being labelled extremists as well as parents trying to coach their children not to speak about their beliefs or religious practices in public.
Many academics and others have argued that Prevent undermines free speech and shuts down debate, therefore making us all less safe.
Case studies on how Prevent and Channel are already being used in schools
These case studies were collected by the Muslim Council of Britain and submitted to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in July 2015:
One schoolboy was accused of holding “terrorist-like” views by a police officer due to possession of an Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions leaflet. “Free Palestine” badges were deemed “extremist”.
Teachers confirmed to the MCB that they were trained to find out the views of young children by making them do presentations on sensitive topics – a parent told the MCB how a young child was asked to do a presentation on Syria, to find out the parents’ views.
A young child in south London was referred for signs of radicalisation after he was asked to write a piece on British foreign policy and he mentioned the history of the Caliphate.
A two year old child in east London who has a diagnosed learning disability, sang an Islamic song and said “Allahu Akbar” spontaneously – he was subsequently referred to social services for “concerning behaviour”.
Two college students were stopped by a lecturer who noticed that they had made way for two female students and lowered their gaze. They were reported to the senior management team for concerning behaviour.
In another recent case, a 14 year old from north London was hauled out of class to be questioned by a child protection officer after he discussed “eco-warriers” and “ecoterrorism” as part of a topical debate in a French lesson. He was questioned, without his parents’ knowledge, about whether he was affiliated to Isis.
Other problems with Channel
Unlike other forms of safeguarding, Channel is not transparent and doesn’t involve any mechanisms for appeal.
It is not publicly accountable – information about the programme is very scarce and shrouded in secrecy.
The police are centrally involved, even though those involved are by definition not criminals.
Referrals of children and young people take place without consent or discussion with their parents.
Accounts of contact with Channel and Prevent suggest that information gathering extends to families, friends and other associates of individuals who are not suspected of any criminal action.
What to do?
The exact forms in which Prevent can be challenged will vary.
Challenging Prevent is part of a process of building opposition to state Islamophobia and racism within the workplace.
Build a collective approach to Prevent in our workplace / sector.
Resist external trainers—they are not a condition of Prevent. Staff and students at one college managed to stop training being delivered by the Quilliam foundation.
Insist on the primacy of discussion and debate including in the training sessions themselves (see motion). Argue that political views of ‘trainers’ are simply that – they are contested and do not constitute ‘expertise’.
Push for presentations on Islamophobia and racism for staff and if appropriate, students.
Be prepared for flashpoints and new campaigns to arise as Prevent is implemented.
Look for allies—Prevent cannot be challenged solely within the trade union or workplace, let alone simply the training sessions themselves. There has already been important resistance from students, parents and the Muslim community. Work with Stand Up to Racism and other anti-racist campaigners and Muslim groups in the area.
