Thread by @felicitycallard

It's Friday. This is a thread about holidays, & mini-breaks.
And pensions & USS.
#ofcourse #ussstrike

And in particular about UUK's commitment to ensuring that phrase "contribution holiday" cannot be pinned on to them. So it's a thread about a discursive battle.

I'm indebted here to on-going work by @deepa_driver @ProfKurtMills @acupunctureUSS on contribution holidays (& contribution 'mini-breaks' [thanks @acupunctureUSS]).

I'm going to focus here just on the language used rather than the underpayments/holidays/reductions themselves.

As most of us know, asides from UUK's famous, multiple tweet responses of "happy to meet tomorrow" made on 5 March, UUK communicated very little via Twitter during #USSstrike with those on strike.

Oh no, I've got the genealogy of contribution "mini-break" wrong. My origin story is flawed! So sorry @NJSHardy & @gib_arch (see:

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @acupunctureUSS view original on Twitter

) And note @acupunctureUSS's "contribution chillaxation"

UUK did (outside it's "happy to meet" splurge) make 2 exceptions that I saw to its general policy not to respond to tweets from individuals. Both exceptions (on 26 Feb & 26 March) were to deny that employers had taken a "contribution holiday" in late 1990s twitter.com/search?l=&q=ho…

These 2 tweets (separated by a month) suggest that the "contributions holiday" is a key issue for UUK & one around which it is committed to shifting the discourse. We should take seriously how seriously UUK takes this issue: it broke its Twitter silence for it on 2 occasions.

The almost identical phrasing of these 2 tweets – & repetition of adjective "substantial" – is interesting.

Particularly in light of significant discursive struggle around adjective "comparable" (which appears twice in UUK-drafted 23 March proposal universitiesuk.ac.uk/news/Pages/Joi…)

The adjective "comparable" was subject to deep epistemic & ontological contestation [search "broadly comparable] eg

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @sophie_r_allen view original on Twitter

Also note the contest over the Janet Beer (UUK Pres) phrase "a solution which includes an *element* of DB pension"

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @jamaicandale view original on Twitter

Both "comparable" & "substantial" raise questions of value as well as of measurement. Comparable connotes something *fit* to be compared. Substantial implies sturdy and solid.

There's a lot at stake in both these adjectives. (This has turned into a bit of a #histsci #STS thread)

And so I can't help but be interested that UUK, in its latest discussion of "contribution holiday" (see USS Valuation – FAQs for USS members employerspensionsforum.co.uk/sites/default/…, April 2018) DOESN'T repeat its previous (Twitter) language of "substantial contribution"

Quite a lot happened yesterday with USS JNC (quick summary tweet:

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @USSbriefs view original on Twitter

), which meant I was distracted before I finished my #contributionsminibreak thread

I had been thinking about how "comparable" & "substantial" (both adjectives that have been used by UUK in relation to pensions) have embedded within them complex questions of judgement & value. Which rendered UUK's use of them open to profound ontological & political dispute

Cf. recent UUK doc, "USS Valuation – FAQs for USS members" employerspensionsforum.co.uk/sites/default/…. This doesn't use the adjective comparable at all, & uses "substantial" only once (in relation to a "substantially higher" cost (37.4% versus 26%) of building up future benefits

To return to contributions holidays specifically, the UUK Twitter language of "substantial contribution" no longer appears. Instead, we have: "USS employers have never paid less than the rate that was required by the Trustee at that particular time ..." employerspensionsforum.co.uk/sites/default/…

The phrase "never paid less than the rate that was required" functions as an attempt to close down ontological & political dispute (Is the substantial actually substantial?) – by installing an indisputable standard imposed by 3rd party to which UUK has adhered ("never paid less")