So that we can ensure that all Members of the Churchill College community stay healthy and safe, things will look a little different when you next come to College. But you can find everything you need to know on our new Coronavirus Guidance page From the latest research from the University to what you should do if you have symptoms, and from the provision of College services to minimising the risk of transmission, you'll find all the answers to your questions here.
Agreed at its meeting on March 16, 2018.
This College, like others in Cambridge, feels frustrated by this week’s process in which a decision was required by UUK to a question that formally allows for no nuance in its answer and on a timescale incompatible with the ability of its members to respond collectively. In September, in the original UUK survey on pensions, the questions were equally un-nuanced, a fact that has almost certainly contributed to today’s unhappy situation. A Charity Trustee body, or a committee acting on such a body’s behalf, has to be on very sure ground to say yes to a question that asks simply if it is willing to accept more risk, as such an answer is easily seen to be inconsistent with its primary fiduciary responsibilities. We feel that this manner of ‘consultation’ has been very unhelpful and has contributed to the current sorry state of affairs. Furthermore, as many others have said, the basis on which calculations have been based seems flawed and unwarranted; adequate justifications for these have never been made by your team.
Our response to UUK’s latest request, submitted by the UUK deadline by email and made explicitly longer than a simplistic yes or no in order to reflect more precisely the nuance we feel this matter warrants, spells out that we are willing to support an improved offer (relative to the one rejected this week).
As a college, we have a strong sense of community and wish to support our members who are struggling at this difficult time. Although the focus has been on academics, we are conscious that, like some other Cambridge colleges, the majority of USS members from the College are non-academic staff, not academics; these people are just as deserving of attention; their struggles in the face of pension cuts will be just as acute.
The original proposal generated real fear amongst early career academics about the potential loss of pension that would have been imposed; this fear is tangible and real, the more so as the academic profession is becoming increasingly uncertain. Many of these younger members (be they employed through the college or elsewhere in the university) saw a guaranteed and substantial pension as a trade-off to the not entirely rosy set of conditions and pay under which many of them now labour. (While we do our best to ameliorate such conditions, we are bound to a significant degree by realities across the wider sector, especially where younger academics — who do not have tenure-track positions in the college or the university, and who are therefore looking elsewhere for future career opportunities — are concerned.) The potential loss of pension for younger colleagues is something about which many older colleagues are extremely angry.
The Governing Body of Churchill urges you to engage from this point in an open manner with both employers and employees to find a swift solution to the impasse. Such a resolution will only be achieved by working with the transparency that the Master has already urged upon you in her letter of 8 March 2018, to which answer is still awaited. We also believe strongly that:
It is critical that all at UUK do everything in their power to rebuild the trust that has been sadly squandered in recent months. The damage to the sector is huge. Confidence in the ability of the UUK leadership to resolve this dispute is rapidly waning.