An update on pensions
More than 25 town halls hosted in 2011
Ryan McNutt - January 31, 2012
Over 1,000 attendees. More than 100 questions. And many, many updates to the PowerPoint presentation.
For the past year, Ken Burt, vice-president finance and administration, and Katherine Sheehan, assistant vice-president human resources, have been hosting town halls to discuss the state of the university’s pension plan with employees and to share information about options for changing how the plan is governed.
“Pension plans can be complicated at the best of times, so the best way to work through the issues our plan is facing is face-to-face, as a community,” explains Ms. Sheehan.
Throughout the 25-plus town halls, a few common themes emerged that will have to be addressed in any changes to the plan:
- Employees say they are not in a position to pay considerably more in contributions to the pension plan.
- They’re concerned about how to address past debt while also keeping payments to the plan affordable.
- Finally, while employees are open to governance changes (how decisions are made), they want to retain the ability to protect the benefits of the plan
The town hall sessions have concluded just as Dalhousie is preparing for conciliation with two of its employee groups. Sessions with the Dalhousie Faculty Association (DFA) begin this week, with conciliation scheduled with the Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union (NSGEU, Local 77; Administrative and Technical Support) on February 20.
Pensions are expected to be a key topic of discussion. Ms. Sheehan and Mr. Burt say they’re optimistic that the negotiations will result in solutions that will address the concerns identified at the town hall sessions.
Read more: Dalhousie negotiations website
Read more: Dalhousie Pension Town Halls - key documents + Q&As
Looming solvency threat to university budget
The immediacy surrounding the pension topic relates to a solvency deficit in the university plan. Under provincial regulations, the university is expected to have enough money in the pension fund to pay all its obligations in the unlikely event that the university were to suddenly close. At last estimate (Sept. 30, 2011), Dalhousie was assessed as being $270 million short of that threshold.
Both the university and the DFA have lobbied the government for a permanent exemption from solvency requirements, as exists for universities in other provinces, but as of now Dalhousie’s temporary exemption is set to run out in March 2013. Unless market conditions have recovered dramatically by then—unlikely, says Mr. Burt, according to financial observers—Dalhousie will be expected to cut into its operating budget to make significant repayments into the pension fund, perhaps by as much as $50 million each year.
“It’s challenging enough for our community when the university is forced to find three or four per cent in savings, the sort that we’re looking likely at this year,” says Mr. Burt. “Without a change in our pension situation, we’d be looking at cutting 15 per cent or more from our budget to pay off our pension deficit.
“I’m almost at a loss for words as to how we’d address that. The consequences would be dramatic.”
A jointly-sponsored governance solution
When university leaders discuss moving to a jointly sponsored pension plan (JSPP)—where responsibility and decision making would be shared equally between the university and its employee groups—that looming March 2013 deadline is the key reason why. Under new proposed provincial regulations, JSPPs which are funded at 80 per cent will be exempt from the solvency test, meaning that if Dalhousie moved to a JSPP, the university would avoid having to cut catastrophically from its budget to make repayments.
“A new governance model does two things for the university, and solvency relief is the most immediate” says Mr. Burt. “But it’s also about addressing a pension governance status quo that isn’t working, and creating a model for decision making that keeps our plan sustainable for the future.”
Dalhousie’s current pension governance structure, which grants a veto on plan changes to each employee group and the university, has been unable to come up with solutions for addressing the current deficit. Under the status quo, one group can veto a decision that the majority of the employee groups and the university agree on.
No changes to pensions or benefits under discussion
Ms. Sheehan says that while many of the attendees she talked with at the town halls were understandably anxious about what a new governance model would mean for the plan, she says that any discussions about changes to contributions or benefits are premature.
“We haven’t talked about those kinds of specifics,” she says. “First, we need a framework to support those conversations – a framework that’s fair, that’s collaborative and that gives representatives from all member groups a hand in shaping our plan’s future. We think a JSPP is the best way to do this, because it also achieves solvency relief.”
While many companies and public sector organizations are rethinking or eliminating defined benefit pension plans, the university has no interest in following suit: Ms. Sheehan says that the defined benefit pension plan is a key driver of employee recruitment and retention and is highly valued by employees.
As the collective bargaining process moves along, the university has launched a negotiations website – dal.ca/negotiations – with status updates on collective bargaining and background on the university’s pension plan. Resources from the Town Halls (including responses to common questions) are also available at the Dalhousie Pension Plan website, and there have been several articles here on Dal News about the pension situation, including in-depth interviews with key leaders.
- Budget Advisory Committee delivers first report on 2012-13 budget (Jan. 26, 2011)
- Pension Q&A with Ken Burt (Oct. 12, 2011)
- Pensions: A starting point for discussions (March 2, 2011)
Keeping an open dialogue
Ms. Sheehan says that the continued interest in the town halls, and the pension issue more generally throughout the past year, is encouraging.
“The worst thing for us would be trying to have these conversations about pension changes in an environment where no one wanted to talk or listen. Instead, people have been eager to learn more about the choices ahead and share questions, concerns, hopes and worries.
“Hopefully we’ve done our part to answer them as best we can, and that together we can bring that same collaborative spirit to finding solutions that keep our plan, and university, sustainable.”
The key questions
(taken from dal.ca/negotiations)
What is the university asking from employees?
The university wants to change the governance structure of our pension plan, and we need agreement from all employee groups in order to do this. We are not proposing any changes to the pension plan benefit formula. We are suggesting a jointly-sponsored pension plan (JSPP) governance structure model, which will a) allow for solvency relief, and b) allow for the university and the employee groups to share responsibility for plan governance, administration, and terms.
Why do we have to change our governance structure?
The current governance structure is not working. We have a solvency deficit of $270 million, which the university is responsible for paying. In order to pay this, we will have to take money from our operating budget, which impacts programs and services. With recent proposed legislation, if we move to a JSPP model, as long as the pension plan is funded at 80 per cent, we will be exempt from the solvency test, which will reduce the amount we have to take from the operating budget.
Twitter
Readers Say
January 31, 2012 12:10 PM
As long as interest rates remain at the present low level large solvency deficits seem likely to persist due to their effect in the solvency test as much as on asset returns. When long term interest rates return to historical ranges the solvency deficit will diminish, but who knows when that will be?
A significant other problem not mentioned from low asset returns is the loss of indexation for pensioners, a problem that also will persist for many years for new retirees and present as a catch-up on lost indexation (already over 13%) will be required before new indexation can be provided. That's a major loss of purchasing power for those on a Dal pension.
-Randy Barkhouse
President, Association of Dalhousie Retirees and Pensioners
January 31, 2012 3:11 PM
I believe only one of the Union groups have this included in their contract.
A concerned employee,
February 1, 2012 8:56 AM
It sounds more like Dalhousie wants to bring the employees in on the decision making so the university isn't 100% responsible for the shortfall. Then they'll tell us all the nasty details and the employees will be on the hook for 50% of the problem. I'm feeling railroaded.
And I mean it, please, correct me if I'm wrong.
-Very Worried
February 1, 2012 1:23 PM
Based on estimates at September 30, 2011, if Dalhousie were to move to a JSPP, there would be full solvency relief under the draft regulations, although this full relief would be partly due to the fact that the draft regulations allow for "liability smoothing." Shared responsibility and decision making (i.e. JSPP) would ensure that it is less likely to see funding levels fall below 80% in the future.
Dalhousie has provided comments to the government on the draft regulations. We agree that JSPPs should be afforded relaxed solvency rules, however our position is that JSPPs should be fully exempt from solvency funding.
The university does recognize that the loss of indexation is a major concern for the retirees of the Dalhousie pension plan. It continues to look for solutions to this product of low investment returns in world markets.
February 1, 2012 3:08 PM
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/prop-zero/Gov-Jerry-Brown-Pension-Reform-134868898.html
February 2, 2012 9:43 AM
There are two tests of pension plan health required in Nova Scotia. In addition to the solvency test there is a going concern test which does not assume the university closes. That also shows a deficit, but Dalhousie is making additional payments of several million annually to amortize that, and has been for the past two years. That test seems likely to indicate a worse state on March 31, 2013 than at March 31, 2010, due to lower interest rates, and those payments would then have to increase.
The "nasty details" related to the solvency test and liability smoothing may have the result you indicate when earlier years are replaced in the smoothing by the more recent. However when interest rates rise again the solvency test will be positively affected, improving that health indicator for the plan independent of any other action. Only if interest rates stay low for a very long time will the solvency test continue to show the alarming figures now evident.
In those Canadian provinces where universities do have permanent full exemption from the solvency test there isn't any apparent concern that their pension plans are less healthy for it.
February 9, 2012 11:01 AM
1. The pension shortfall is a result. Have we evaluate how our pension is doing in terms of generate returns with reference to other pensions?
2. If we did poorly than most others, we shall discuss the management issue regardless it is under the University governance or future joint governance. Otherwise, we can say that it is more related to the market risk, which we could not avoid.
3. The problem that future liabilities are greater than assets under management can only be solved by contributing more or cutting future benefits. It does not matter what governance structure we will adopt.
4. No effort appears on horizon (even in the budgetary discussion paper) to generate more revenue (e.g. by increasing the enrollment so that the University can make more contribution to the pension. For example, by increasing the enrollment, members of the University in fact can contribute in kind (work more) to help the University to deal with the pension shortfall. This requires a good working relationship between the University and employee unions.
5. If there are no more additional contributions from employees and the University and no sound management of the pension, future benefits promised in the pension plan may sound good but will not be a sure thing. Be aware!
February 16, 2012 5:14 PM
You messed up. If you hadn't made poor investment choices you wouldn't be in this situation. If I make bad investment decisions no one bails me out. So maybe you guys cut your pensions by 10% instead of crying to the government and students to make it up. It's not like your going to starve on your already overpaid salaries. Who do you think you are, the bus drivers!
February 16, 2012 11:57 PM
February 17, 2012 9:13 AM
Employees (including professors) at Dalhousie don't have anything to do with the poor investment decisions.
Don't blame us, blame the university
February 17, 2012 10:17 AM
Investments everywhere right now are tanking, the university is not the only one with this problem. By striking on the issue faculty will be adding stress to a situation that cannot handle anymore. The pension plan relies on the interest generated, the shortfall will stop growing once interest rates rise. In the meantime the university could with the jspp option, or put massive funds into the plan and make up costs elsewhere. Given that they are not allowed to further raise tuition my be is you would see less profs, and a cut to accessibility services. Again striking does absolutely nothing to solve the problem, if anything it makes it a whole lot worse.
As I mentioned this is not a Dalhousie problem, it's pretty global, and i do think the DFA knows that. This strike vote was planned to rattle the cage, to my understanding they had yet to even talk money when the vote was initially called. Students should pressure both sides, as both sides cause a strike and both sides lose. DFA negotiator Kevin Grundy, and Dalhousie president Tom Travis. I would caution against picking a side, that adds strength to one side and can prolong a strike. Bottom line is if students stay away there are no profits for the university, and no pensions for faculty (we already know they can't cover costs as is). Best of luck to all of you!
February 18, 2012 5:54 PM
The pension is underfunded based on current market conditions and recent downturns. To maintain the required amount of invested funding to ensure enough money is available to supply a pension amount to all invested parties immediate funding is required. That means more money has to be put into the fund now and in the future going forward. Dalhousie already has one of the highest contribution rates of any employer. With the cuts to education funding, Dal can't afford to contribute more than their fair share to make up the short fall. Like many that have investments, I need to make up some of the shortfalls myself. I have had pension increases in my contribution amount in the past and it didn't kill me. It was required to keep the level of funding, or I risked loosing everything. Its simple economics.
We are all in this thing together and we all need to make adjustments going forward to fix the problem.
As for striking, there needs to be some give on both ends. Any increase in costs due to increased salaries or pension contributions will be passed on to the the students through either increased tuition and/or lost services.