The solution isn't to prop up the pension benefits of people who are earning well above their field, then.
Most universities operate on a so-called "equal pay for equal work" principle in that they give the lecturers the same wages irrespective of their field, unless they are a guest lecturer or a 'star' who the university wants to grab for the reputation.
STEM lecturers wouldn't be leaving if they wouldn't have to make such a huge salary sacrifice in order to work at at a university instead of the public sector.
Yes, engineering, medicinal and economics lecturers will be taking a massive pay cut in order to work at a university. They have a clear incentive to leave if their pensions are cut, because that's the only retention factor.
Some courses such as law, marketing etc. are paid fairly equal to the market rate.
Other courses such as arts, psychology and languages are paid multiples above the private sector. Gaining employment at a university is creme de la creme because you won't find a higher paid job elsewhere.
In other words, lecturers from courses in higher market demand are subsidising the lecturers with lower market demand.
A very quick job search on jobs.ac.uk reveals that King's College London is looking for the following job titles:
"Lecturer in Economics" (£33,518 starter)
"Lecturer in African Literature" (£33,518 starter)
"Lecturer in Medieval Literature" (£33,518 starter)
Please tell me with a straight face that these two courses are legitimately of the same societal or economic value, or generate the same revenue in tuition fees for the university.
Lecturers in STEM should be angry that the university is overpaying non-STEM lecturers and underpaying them, instead of being angry at the universities for having to cut spending in order to finance burgeoning pension benefits.
A pension scheme for person A teaching Economics who had 300 students will be paid the same both pre and post retirement as a person B teaching African Literature who had 20 students. This is inefficient.
They need to take that up with the auditors of the pension scheme then, not the scheme operators.
That was the professional judgement of the auditors who thoroughly investigated the scheme top to bottom, after the actuaries opined that this was indeed the deficit.
I doubt UCU has more clout and knowledge than actuaries who plan pension schemes 5 days a week, or auditors who are held to high ethical standards to form an accurate opinion.
Seems more like an emotional argument.
King's College London Vice Chancellor salary: £350 000
King's College London staff numbers (FTE):
6 590Bonus to all members of staff upon sacking the Vice Chancellor (Salary/Staff): £53.
Okay, I hope they enjoy their Christmas jeans present then.
I mean, you can sack the entire senior management and executive board in all universities in the USS scheme and you'd still need major cuts because the sackings and subsequent redirection of all funds fully and only back to the pension scheme would not really make a dent in the pension deficit.