NTEU Advice on UniSuper Issues
Please find below NTEU's advice on the issues surrounding UniSuper that have been covered in the media this week.
Other
(193 KB) - PDF
(193 KB) - PDF
•
Related Blogs:
ACT Division, NSW Division, NT Division, Vic Division, WA Division, SA Division, Qld Division, Tas Division, Australian Catholic University, University of Adelaide, Australian Defence Force Academy, Australian National University, University of Ballarat, Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, Bond University, University of Canberra, Charles Darwin University, Central Queensland University, Charles Sturt University, Curtin University of Technology, Deakin University, Edith Cowan University, Flinders University, Griffith University, James Cook University, La Trobe University, Macquarie University, University of Melbourne, Monash University, Murdoch University, University of Notre Dame Australia, University of Newcastle, University of New South Wales, Queensland University of Technology, RMIT University, Southern Cross University, Swinburne University of Technology, University of Sydney, University of New England, University of Queensland, University of South Australia, University of the Sunshine Coast, University of Southern Queensland, University of Technology Sydney, University of Western Australia, University of Western Sydney, University of Wollongong
Post a comment
Branch Contacts
Branch Office
RED 6.1.13 Charles Darwin University Campus
Charles Darwin University
Phone: 08 8946 7231
Fax: 08 8927 9410
nt@nteu.org.au
http://www.nteu.org.au/cdu
. Vacant
Branch President
Heinz Schmitt
Division Industrial Officer
hschmitt@nteu.org.au
Comments
[ +1 ] I agree with Mike Rafferty that the NTEU response has a clear analysis of the issue. It's just a pity he didn't read it thoroughly or perhaps didn't understand the most important point. The Accrued Benefit Index is currently at 98%!! That means there is a 2% difference between assets and expected liabilities within the DBD as they fall due.....not now, but has they fall due in the years ahead. That hardly justifies the appalling beat up and fear mongering institigated by Rafferty and the ABC. It's also a shame the NTEU appears to be exploiting the same fear. If the NTEU understands the issue better than Rafferty, as it clearly does, it should focus more on appeasing the fear amongst its members.
Like • Dislike •[ +3 ] Grahame, I accept the seriousness of your intentions in this matter. An important reason why I have always, until retirement, been a member is that NTEU has a track record of taking its responsibilities seriously.
Like • Dislike •You are right, a very serious mistake was made in 2006 – one of which retirees remained unaware until recently (I had thought that NTEU representatives understood that moves of this kind made by employers are seldom weighted toward the interests of employees).
It really is the responsibility of the Union to rectify it in a way which will ensure that it doesn't become a perennial issue whenever a problem arises with the fund.
[ +8 ] Can I say as someone responsible for bringing the issue to public attention, that I took great comfort and encouragement from the General Secretary's statement?
Like • Dislike •Unlike almost all other responses from the fund and the other union, the statement makes a clear analysis of the issue, accepts that it is a problem and outlines a range of options for addressing it.
The additional blog by GM develops that further and is even more frank.
It might be tempting to be cynical about this as just words, but to me it is remarkably free of spin and very forthright in calling for forms of action to remedy the problem. In the end of course it is not up to the Secretary to determine what happens, but us as members.
I read the statement as a very important initiative by the leadership of the NTEU - it is taking it seriously and is listening.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr McCulloch on moving swiftly and decisively on the matter. It makes the work done to bring the issue out worthwhile.
[ 0 ] I note the NTEU hasn't mentioned that the amendment to the UniSuper Trust Deed Clause 34 in 2006 also removed the possibility of MEMBERS (not just employers) having to pay increased contributions to maintain benefits in the event of a shortfall of funds. That puts a different light on things doesn't it? The prospect of members having to pay more for the same benefits! How is that different from paying no more but getting less. I doubt anyone who truly understood how the fund worked would have been blindsided in 2006. If they were, they should not have been representing members.
Like • Dislike •[ +1 ] It’s good to get blog feedback on the very important UniSuper issue. “Soon to retire†and Harry Burton raise, in different ways, the issue of what the NTEU intends to do to protect members’ interests and what role it plays in UniSuper’s decision making.
Like • Dislike •While these matters are touched on in the Union’s press release, they are dealt with in considerable detail in the statement I issued to all NTEU members yesterday – and this is can be downloaded as the first blog item on the Union’s homepage.
Briefly stated, the Union will not accept reductions to employee superannuation benefits (should any funding shortfall in UniSuper persist) and has both a political and industrial strategy based on securing changes to the UniSuper Trust Deed some time in 2012. In relation to NTEU’s role in UniSuper decision making, honesty and clarity is the best policy – NTEU has 1 UniSuper Board Director (as does the CPSU) out of a total of 11 Board members, and there are around 70 employee representatives on UniSuper’s 140 member Consultative Committee. It is clear that Union and employee representatives were blindsided during the discussion on the 2006 Trust Deed amendment, which was characterised by the UniSuper Board and many employee and employer members of the Consultative Committee as merely administrative in character. Plainly its implications were far greater than this.
There is no conflict of interest between NTEU’s role in UniSuper and the present dilemma – ironically had there been wider and deeper NTEU representation in UniSuper decision making structures it is very unlikely that the blindsiding would have occurred. But NTEU must take its share of responsibility for the largely uncontested change.
However, the Union’s industrial and policy response is far from “lame†(as Harry Burton suggests). We will bring the full force of NTEU’s industrial and political strength to change the 2006 decision. Simply put, the best measure of the Union’s integrity and commitment is our willingness to publicly acknowledge a serious mistake and deal with the issue in front of us. Not too many political or industrial organisations have a reputation for being frank about errors of judgement. NTEU will need the full backing of all university employees (whether Union members or not) to secure a fair and equitable outcome on this fundamental issue. I hope Harry Burton and “Soon to retire†will be part of the NTEU campaign.
Grahame McCulloch, NTEU General Secretary
[ -1 ] NTEU only ever post these stupid press releases - only reason I'm still in this Union is because the other one is even worse!!!!
Like • Dislike •Most likely just whinge for a few months then when it gets quiet we won't hear anything else. That's what happened with the Macquarie and UNSW Stuff - both were major losses for the stuff there.
[ +6 ] This development at Unisuper is appalling. But why wasn't the NTEU on top of it back in 2006? And what's the plan now to oblige Unisuper to do the right thing? Action and resolution are needed quickly.
Like • Dislike •[ +3 ] This is a very lame press release by the Union. The Union have offered no solution and has a conflict of interest by having a NTEU rep on the UniSuper Board.
Like • Dislike •