You may have seen the appalling news that Sheffield Hallam is seeking to move all teaching-only staff over to a subsidiary company where they will no longer be eligible for the Teacher’s Pension Scheme (TPS).

This is the latest announcement in a line of institutions who are seeking to cut costs associated with TPS. We appreciate that you may have concerns about potential changes here at MMU too.

MMU is indeed undertaking a “Pension Flexibility Project”. Read the statement provided by the university to us here. The key part of the statement is really:

The project will look at ways to broaden the range of schemes available. This includes expanding access, on an opt-in basis, to the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) to more academic staff, and exploring a new optional Defined Contribution (DC) scheme, known as FlexHE, which is designed to offer more personal flexibility. FlexHE is a scheme designed for the Higher Education sector and allows individuals to adjust their contribution levels or combine pension pots more easily if they change roles. How the University chooses to use FlexHE will be determined through the project. It is important to emphasise that current staff will not be required to move away from their current pension scheme if they do not wish to.

The branch has had an initial meeting with management on the project and have sought advice from UCU pension experts on what we have seen so far.

MMU are, in part, reviewing pensions to save money and as such it is unlikely that changes will improve pension provision in the long term. The information we have seen to date does not give a fair and complete comparison between the USS and TPS schemes. The experts we scope to described it as “unacceptable, disingenuous and misleading”.

We will be following up with management on the basis of the advice we have received and will also be writing to ask for clarification on a number of key questions.

We will keep you updated and informed as far as we are able to.

We will be looking to hold an open meeting for academic staff at MMU on pensions where we will be able to discuss concerns, and the differences between TPS and USS more fully, and where we will hopefully be able to hear from other branches like Northumbria who are currently in dispute over pension changes.

Let us know your thoughts and keep an eye out for further updates.

Last Saturday, 28 March, the #TogetherAlliance March took place in central London. There were more than 500,000 people, according to the media. 

Ten coaches departed from Greater Manchester that day. From the MMU-UCU branch, eight delegates attended: Fiona, Gregoris, Ian, Kathy, Liz, Matt, Miguel, and Pete; some accompanied by their guests; not all travelled by the same means, but they represented our union branch well. Thanks to all of them! Among the diverse UCU delegations, we could identify banners from these Higher Education institutions: University of the Arts, London, Birkbeck, Bristol, City St George, Coventry City adult education college, Croydon, Dundee, Imperial College, London College of Fashion, Manchester Metropolitan University, University of Manchester, Middlesex University, Morley College, North York, Open University, Royal Holloway, SOAS, Strathclyde, Sussex, University of Brighton, University of Edinburgh, University of Lincoln, and West Midlands. 

It was fantastic to be surrounded by people from different ethnicities, ages, and backgrounds, and to march together. It was the best manifestation of equity, diversity and inclusion we have ever experienced. Everyone went with the flow and enjoyed an environment of support, camaraderie, complicity, and companionship, all together for the same cause. Before the march, UCU set up a pink gazebo so people could gather and enjoy some good music. Plenty of UCU woolly hats and small UCU flags were distributed among all the by-passers. It was reassuring and encouraging to meet and interact with people from all over the UK who had decided to travel from long distances to fight against the far right and say it loud and clear, to avoid any doubt, that this country does not want hate, fear or division, but love, hope and unity instead.

Miguel Angel Saona Vallejos (UCU Rep)

I was recently approached in my capacity as module lead and asked if I’d be willing to trial software known as GrAIde as part of a pilot scheme using AI to mark formative assessments. As a trade unionist and a person who quite likes having a job and an income, I politely declined.

GrAIde bills itself as an AI powered marking and assessment feedback platform which learns from academics and provides feedback to students. According to the website, if the AI has high enough confidence in its predicted grade, it was fast track this, if confidence is low, the tutor will review it. It’s billed as a productivity tool and the marketing of the product seems focussed towards management as opposed to academics – which I think is significant in the context of the current state of the sector, where corporate phrases like “maximising productivity” and “reducing costs” have become more and more normalised. The benefits of the system focus on the micro-management aspects of the system, which would very likely undermine the marking and assessment tariffs across the University.

In my view, marking, alongside teaching and scholarly research, is one of the cornerstones of being an academic. It is a core part of our job descriptions, requiring expert subject knowledge as well as advanced knowledge of pedagogy and constructive alignment, the ability to formulate learning outcomes and assessments.

To relinquish this to a machine is to usher in the very thing that will make us redundant. I articulated my thoughts to my colleagues who had also been approached to trial this software and we fed this back to the person who had approached us.

To their credit, this person accepted our views and, on our behalf, relayed that the software wasn’t suitable for our needs, but I do worry that in the future this platform might be imposed by more senior echelons of the University. I also worry that overworked, burnt out staff, might welcome this without really considering the long-term ramifications. In the short-term, more free time sounds appealing, and if pitched in the right way, staff might focus on the so-called benefits.

I also worry about the impact this will have on our reputation and credibility: if I was a student, I would certainly feel short-changed if I knew my hard work was being marked by AI. From a recruitment perspective it’s probable that students would choose an HEI where their work is marked by a human, not a robot.

I know that AI is here to stay, but senior leadership should be considering productivity tools that help with the repetitive, time-consuming administrative tasks that burden academics: the tasks that don’t require specialist knowledge yet take up an increasingly large proportion of our workload. The focus should not be on streamlining marking and teaching to free us up for even more administration. If we welcome in AI to mark on our behalf, then we welcome in the very technology that will replace us in the classroom.

Stephen Marks (UCU Rep)

UCU members at the University of Sheffield have been taking sustained industrial action against management plans that put jobs at risk and ramp up already unsustainable workloads. Sheffield UCU’s State of the University campaign is clear that this crisis should not be treated as inevitable: it argues that senior management decisions have played a major role in bringing the institution to this point. Nationally, UCU reports that staff took 14 days of strike action beginning 17^th November 2025, with the dispute centred on redundancy risks and wider cuts—up to 20 staff were already at risk of compulsory redundancy at the time.

What makes this dispute especially alarming for the whole sector is the escalation in management tactics. Times Higher Education reports that staff were warned they could face further deductions (“double deductions”) if they did not reschedule teaching missed during the strike, including a threat that “100 per cent of your pay will be withheld” for a stated period, on the basis that staff would be in “breach of [their] contract”. The Sheffield Tribune also reports staff being warned they “won’t be paid unless missed lessons are replaced”. Meanwhile, Sheffield UCU has said it expects further strike action in spring 2026 if a settlement is not reached.

This concerns all of us at MMU because it’s the same model spreading across UK higher education: job cuts, restructures, workload intensification, and the expectation that staff will absorb the damage—while students pay the price in disrupted teaching and a degraded learning experience. Sheffield is not an isolated case; it’s a warning. If one university can push through cuts and then try to punish staff for taking lawful action, others will be tempted to follow. If we don’t stand together, it will be our turn next. The best response is collective action and visible solidarity—because solidarity is how we protect each other and defend the future of the sector.

How MMU UCU members can support Sheffield UCU

• Send messages of support / amplify Sheffield UCU updates through branch networks.
• Donate to Sheffield UCU’s Industrial Action Solidarity Fund (their branch describes it as a “vital lifeline” funded by solidarity donations).
• Support any solidarity actions our branch can organise (statements, photos, delegations to picket lines if further action is called).

An injury to one is an injury to all — and Sheffield’s fight is part of the wider fight to stop UK higher education being dismantled job-by-job and department-by-department.