Reader N writes:
USS proposes to move new entrants to the profession from a final salary scheme to a career average (CARE) scheme. Even the Unions says that CARE per se is not a problem. However, CARE is almost certain to disproportionately dis-benefit women employees.
Many women have children in their twenties and thirties, with associated periods of maternity leave, which slows their promotions and hence their salary increases. They might hope to catch up with their male counter-parts by the end of their career (optimistic, I grant, but nevertheless possible), but it is fairly certain that even a woman/ mother who catches up will have a lower career average salary than a man/ father. Hence the move to the CARE scheme is likely to disadvantage women compared to men.
This raises several questions: Has anyone modelled/ investigated/ quantified the differential effects of CARE on men and women? Why are female academics not more outraged about the move to CARE? And is it even legal for the employer to implement a scheme that will systematically disadvantage women compared to their male counterparts?
Seems like a damn good point.