[63] UCU stated that UUK's proposal would "leave a typical lecturer almost £10,000 a year worse off in retirement than under the current set-up",[64][65] with younger staff the worst affected, with some losing up to half their anticipated pensions.

[109] At the same time, UCU gave formal notice of a five-day strike action, aimed at disrupting the exams and assessments period, at some universities for 16 to 20 April 2018, potentially to be called off if there was progress in the negotiations.

[124] On 1–3 June, a tumultuous UCU congress included calls for the general secretary, Sally Hunt, to resign over what was perceived to be undemocratic practice within the Union's prosecution of the dispute.

The proposed rises (as a percentage of salary) were to be phased in over a year: These plans were announced against a backdrop of USS's annual report calculations of the deficit falling, due to changing assumptions about factors such as returns on corporate bonds and mortality.

[129][25] The Panel's press release recommended a number of adjustments to the methodology and data used in the 2017 valuation of the USS scheme, and stated that "it is the Panel's belief, based on independent actuarial analysis, that the full implementation of these adjustments could mean total required contributions estimated at 29.2% to fund current benefits [...] This compares to the current rate of 26% (18% of salary paid by employers, 8% by employees) and the rate of 36.6% from April 2020 which is proposed by USS, based on the valuation as it stands".

[144] In response, on 9 May 2019, USS proposed three options 'for finalising the 2018 valuation', retaining the scheme's previous benefits, and requiring lower contributions than the arrangement that the scheme had defaulted to in the absence of an agreement, but requiring much higher contributions than the proposals put forward by the JEP:[145] Meanwhile, on 15 March the Council of Trinity College, Cambridge voted to withdraw the college unilaterally from USS as of 31 May 2019, in a move that came to be called Trexit.

[179] The University of Warwick's Stuart Croft publicly stated that "I am sure that I am not alone in being mystified at this [proposed] change",[180] and argued, in line with the position of the Liberal Democrats, that the UK government should underwrite USS pensions.

[207][67] Similar developments occurred at St Andrews, with the Principal, Sally Mapstone, writing that "having considered all matters in the round, I believe that our current policy to deduct pay at 100% for failure to reschedule classes cancelled due to strike action is inconsistent with this University's values and the store we place on our shared sense of community".

[228] The purpose of the occupations extended into other issues: on 19 March, University of London students occupied Senate House in support of a strike called for 25–26 April by outsourced worked including cleaners, porters and receptionists.

[231] Students, who in England had since 2012 paid fees covering most of the cost of their education, responded by demanding compensation from their universities, explicitly in support of the striking staff: by 20 February 2018, 70,000 had signed letters and petitions of this kind,[232] rising to around 126,000 by 5 March.

[254] The action attracted national television coverage,[255] and supportive editorials from newspapers including the Observer[256] and the Financial Times, which opined that "the universities must increase their pensions offer, and lecturers should give a fair hearing to any new proposals.

[7] According to Esther Muddiman, Rowan Campbell and Grace Krause, "the industrial action undertaken by members of UCU in 2018 in response to a dispute about pensions provision ... acted as a catalyst for discussions about workload, staff wellbeing, equality, pay and conditions – and, we argue, moved the issues of precarity and casualisation up the agenda and brought about new ways of community-building in HE".

The Union asked that, failing that, employers "must cover any increases in full that are needed to maintain current benefits until USS's governance and valuation methods and assumptions have been overhauled".

The UUK spokesperson expressed hopes that the industrial dispute could be resolved without strike action and that UCU 'will now join us to consider governance reforms and alternative options for future valuations' regarding USS.

[280][281] On 19 November, UUK and UCEA jointly wrote an open letter 'to staff impacted by the UCU pensions and pay disputes', partly arguing that 'the publication of the JEP's second report will present UUK and UCU with the opportunity to develop a valuable and sustainable future for USS' and that while universities 'simply cannot afford to put more into this year's pay increases than they already have', UCEA had invited negotiations on 'workload, gender pay/equality and casual employment arrangements'.

[294] Soon after, the Financial Times ran en editorial arguing that "while academics and universities might not want to hear it, if the USS is to continue operating, the money has to come from them", and also saying that "the current industrial action carries wider significance than the fate of a disputed retirement plan.

It has exposed the precariousness of Britain's higher education system as it has become more of a marketplace", and calling for an "independent inquiry" into the handling of the USS valuation "by all key players, including the Pensions Regulator".

[305][306] Growing anxiety about the position of international students whose visa requirements for class attendance might be affected by the strikes, in the context of the UK Home Office's hostile environment policy towards migrants, was also in evidence.

[345][346][347][348] By the end of the third week of strike action (Friday 6 March), UCU summarised the position of negotiations as showing good progress on achieving a UK-wide, sector level framework to address casualisation, gender pay-gaps, and workload, with continued debate concerning the pay deal.

[372] Against the backdrop of a cessation in industrial action, the closure of UK campuses, and an improvised sector-wide shift to online teaching, along with tensions over whether universities were fulfilling their obligations to provide safe working environments,[373] negotiations between UCU and UCEA continued.

[395] Maintaining a degree of consensus, both UUK and UCU criticised these proposals, arguing that they showed an unnecessary aversion to risk and made unrealistic contribution demands on individual staff and employers alike.

[411][412] Industrial action during 2021-22 took place in the context of inflation in the United Kingdom spiking for the first time in over a decade, eroding the real value of pay, pensions, and student fee income, increasing financial worries for both employers and employees in the sector.

[35] On 4–5 November 2021, UCU announced that of the 68 institutions polled regarding USS, 37 had met the legal minimum turnout threshold for taking industrial action,[413][414] while of the 145 balloted about the Four Fights, 56 had done so.

[432] Conversely, The Guardian focused on pay and conditions, arguing that "vice-chancellors and managers should reflect on why levels of staff morale in higher education have plummeted to the extent that industrial action is becoming an annual affair.

[448] An extensive petition by female professors expressed concern for the disproportionate effects on pension changes on women and the alleged lack of an equalities analysis of USS's actions.

UCEA emphasised the financial challenges facing the sector and argued that it was making good progress on investing in staff and reducing casualisation, though not on addressing pay inequality.

[456] The Joint Trade Unions' claim, meanwhile, featured numerous desiderata, prominently including "a pay uplift that is, at least, inflation (RPI) plus 2%", "a minimum wage of £12 per hour for all", a 35-hour working week, "meaningful, agreed action to tackle the ethnic, gender and disability pay gap", "a framework to eliminate precarious employment practises and casualised contracts", and "a UK level higher education redeployment facility for those whose jobs are at risk of redundancy".

[494][497] Yet, concerning the Four Fights, Grady suggested that the pay spine was itself being reviewed and would lose its lowest point; that "involuntary" zero-hours contracts might be abolished "on campus"; and that "time limited negotiations for new agreements" were in prospect to address casualisation, workloads, and equality pay-gaps.

[495] Meanwhile, concerning pensions, UCU and UUK issued an "interim joint statement" foreseeing that the March 2023 valuation of the pension would enable the restitution of benefits as they stood prior to April 2022, at reduced cost to both employers and employees; saying that "we agree on the urgent need, with the USS Trustee, to examine the case more fully for divestment from fossil fuels and that a greater visibility of climate crisis action and mitigation should be a feature of long-term USS planning"; and agreeing to improve the governance of the scheme to prevent recurrent disputes.

[507]: 23 [508] Following further consultations with members and their representatives, on 17 April 2023, UCU, satisfied with progress, paused industrial action concerning pensions, but a marking and assessment boycott was declared with regard to the Four Fights dispute.