FBU pensions campaign

on pensions and retirement

2 FireFighter Pensions

PENSIONS

The Fire Brigades Union’s campaign to defend firefighters’ pensions is reaching a critical stage. New developments will make a huge difference to the direction of our campaign.

The government’s Public Service Pensions Bill is reaching its final stages in parliament. It imposes a

normal pension age (NPA) of 60 on all firefighters, despite overwhelming evidence against it – including from the government’s own experts. Such an unworkable NPA will mean older firefighters facing capability dismissal towards the end of our careers.

The Westminster government is due to respond to the review of the NPA for firefighters it commis-sioned. That review, authored by Dr Tony Williams and published in January this year, does NOT recommend an NPA of 60 for current firefighters.

Capability dismissalIt makes clear that the majority of firefighters will not be fit enough to work to 60 and recommends additional protection. It clearly warns that mass capability dismissals are likely.

The clearest indication of government intentions appears on page 123 paragraph 9.1.2. Dr Williams describes an option for dealing with firefighters who

The government’s proposals for firefighter pensions mean we really are ‘all in it together’

OLDERFirefighters with 10 years’ or less service to go and who are included in the transitional protection arrangements the government has already offered (as well as those with partial protection for a further four years) may believe they are protected. But they are not exempt from the fitness proposals

Pensions FireFighter 3

cannot maintain fitness but do not qualify for an ill-health pension:

“Not all firefighters meet the criteria, so signifi-cant numbers will be in a position where they can no longer cope, often through loss of fitness, but the only option is to leave or have their contract terminated on capability grounds without early payment of pension. This is often a difficult process for all involved.”

This is a real game changer. The threat of capability affects every firefighter. Nobody is safe.

No protection at allEvery firefighter is under threat if these proposals go forward. Firefighters with 10 years’ or less service to go who are included in the transitional protection arrangements the government has already offered (as well as those with partial protection for a further four years) may believe they are protected. But they are not exempt from these fitness proposals.

With the stringent fitness requirements outlined in the report, capability dismissal is possible up to the end of a firefighter’s career – with the consequent deferment of pension rights. So government may be saying older firefighters can retire as planned, but it is going to make it much harder to reach.

Retained

Some retained firefighters may believe that they are not threatened. But these proposals hit retained firefighters especially hard. The review says every fire and rescue service should implement regular fitness training and regular assessments to ensure fitness is maintained. It says wholetime firefighters should have 2.5 hours of fitness training built into their work routines, but only recommends that retained firefighters get “appropriate support and opportunities”, whatever that means.

Retained firefighters are especially vulnerable because they will not get the same opportunity to maintain their fitness, but will be assessed to the same levels and face the same action if they cannot meet these levels – this means the threat of dismissal.

Women The review was tasked to look at the reasonable expectation that a firefighter could work to and retire at the NPA 60 and this is where the report’s

‘We all face the threat of the sack – just for getting older’

WOMENThe Williams review says: “It is likely that a substantially larger proportion of women will find it hard to maintain fitness at the required level, leading to a disproportionate number becoming unfit for firefighting before age 60.” It suggests they could leave the service on a reduced pension

RETAINEDRetained firefighters are especially vulnerable. They would not get the opportunity to maintain their fitness that is built into the proposals for wholetime firefighters, but would be assessed to the same levels and face the same action if they could not meet these levels – the threat of dismissal

PENSIONS


PENSIONS

recommendations impact disproportionately on women. The review says (page 138 paragraph 11.5.5): “The gender issue is important; only around 25% of women meet the fitness criteria to become firefighters, and a larger proportion will only just exceed the minimum level on entry. It is likely that a substantially larger proportion of women will find it hard to maintain fitness at the required level, leading to a disproportionate number becoming unfit for firefighting before age 60.”

This is a clear indication that women are dispro-portionately affected by the NPA of 60. The review goes on to say: “It is important to avoid discrimina-tion under the Equality Act 2010. Allowing women to become firefighters ensures fairness. It is then important to ensure there are no provisions, criteria or practices that discriminate during service.”

This could not be any clearer – the NPA review is saying that it is right to let women become

firefighters and it is not right to put in place a pension scheme that discriminates against women.

An NPA of 60 clearly does disproportionately discriminate against women.

The report recognises this and tries to mask it by suggesting that firefighters should be able to retire after age 55 with a reduced pension.

On page 145, paragraph 12.8.4 it states: “There is likely to be a substantially larger proportion of women firefighters who are physically and/or medically unfit over age 55. Allowing firefighters to leave after age 55 on a pension that is actuari-ally reduced from age 60 without any additional penalty could be considered a reasonable way to manage expectations, and to manage any potential discriminatory issues.”

The review acknowledges that the FBU has vigorously raised these concerns. But it is yet another example of where the proposed scheme does not give the scheme member the reasonable expectation that they will be able to work to and retire at NPA 60.

Wholetime It is also important to recognise the number of people that this could involve, with the majority of wholetime firefighters under threat.

The report uses a fitness measurement of VO2max 42 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 for firefighting as a minimum standard to establish if firefighters can work beyond 55. The normal population drops below 42 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 before the age of 40 for men.

This is the “worst case scenario” in the report. The report says that 85% of firefighters on this scenario would not have a VO2max of 42 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 by 55 years of age (page 49 paragraph 4.4.4).

Even someone who exercises regularly, has a BMI (body mass index – a measure of fat in the body) of 20 (over 25 is overweight; over 30 is obese), does not smoke and eats only healthy food will still see their VO2max decline. This is the “best case” in the report. But 23% of firefighters in this category would still not have a VO2max of 42 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 by 60 years of age (page 49 paragraph 4.4.3).

Both scenarios are flawed because they both use a starting point of 47 mL∙kg-1∙min-1. This is not, and has never been, the minimum standard for recruits on entry expressed in VO2max terms. The National Firefighter Selection Tests equate to 42 mL∙kg-1∙min-1. But if starting at this level, with age-related decline – even with lifestyle changes, most firefighters will not be fit to work beyond 55.

Officers Dr Williams uses a lower fitness standard of 25 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 to suggest that officers of station manager and above can work until age 60. This lower standard has not been discussed or agreed with anyone. It has not been the subject of any substantial research.

It overlooks the fact that officers may still on occasions be expected to undertake actual fire-fighting and other rescue duties, which require a higher fitness standard than this. In reality this ill-conceived idea would mean major changes to the way the fire and rescue service is structured and run.

OFFICERThe Williams review suggests a lower fitness standard for station managers and above so they can work to 60, overlooking the fact that they may be expected to undertake rescue duties on occasion. The implications of this are major changes in the way the service is run

VO2 MAXVO2 measures the volume (V) of oxygen (O) a body consumes in a minute. If it is measured when someone is working at his or her maximum heart rate – after strenuous exercise – a ‘VO2max’ figure is obtained.


DESK JOBThe fitness plans would apply to every firefighter, from the moment they were recruited to the end of their career, from the trainee to someone close to retirement

Everyone threatened

The truth is that all firefighters are affected by the report. Whatever shift system you work, role you perform, age you are, gender, or pension scheme you are in, the threat is the same. This is not about whether you are in the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (FPS) or the New Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (NFPS).

It does not even matter if you are not in any pension scheme. The fitness plans would apply to every firefighter, from the moment you are recruited to the end of your career, from the trainee to someone close to retirement. Capability threatens us all.

The NPA review is currently being considered by the Westminster government. Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have all said that they will be implementing the same scheme as England, so whatever is proposed in England will, in reality, be UK-wide.

No agreement There is no agreement on a standard that fire-fighters must maintain below which they are required to leave or face capability dismissal. Importantly, this issue has not been negotiated by the fire service employers with the FBU. Nor has the government discussed it with the union.

The FBU has already won a legal case in which members were faced with the “no job or no pension” scenario.

The Williams report suggests that people will not qualify for ill-health retirement as they are simply unable to maintain the required level of fitness. The FBU does not accept this position.

In all the scenarios set out in the review the scheme member would be faced with the “no job, no pension scenario”.

FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said: “Now we know what the government means when they say ‘we are all in it together’.

“With these pension proposals, on the issue of capability dismissals, every firefighter is ‘in it together’. No one is protected. We all face the threat of the sack – just for getting older.

“Despite overwhelming evidence to support our concerns, the government isn’t listening to firefighters and it’s not even listening to its own experts and evidence.

“No one seriously argues that firefighters can currently work to 60. We cannot endorse or sign up to changes to the firefighters’ new pension scheme that will make it unworkable and will ultimately see thousands of firefighters sacked.”

‘We cannot endorse or sign up to changes that will ultimately see thousands of firefighters sacked’

WHOLETIMEThe majority of wholetime firefighters would fail the fitness test suggested in the Williams review before they are 60 — even if they exercise regularly, have a BMI of 20, do not smoke and eat only healthy food

PENSIONS


BE SUPER-FIT OR SACKED

RETIREMENT AGE

The review of normal pension age (NPA) for fire-fighters published by the Westminster government does not make the case for firefighters working until 60. The FBU believes instead that it includes evidence that firefighters should not

be made to work beyond 55.FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said:

“FBU officials attended the review as the sole representatives of employees. The union submitted evidence to the review and discussed the research with the review chair, Dr Tony Williams. But members should recognise that this report does not represent our opinions and the FBU has not endorsed the recommendations.

“We believe that the review does acknowl-edge the arguments the union has made. The FBU will be discussing it with ministers and civil servants.”

Key findingsThe most significant points in the Williams report are:

● It does not recommend a normal pension age of 60 for the firefighters’ scheme planned from 2015.

● An NPA of 60 for the majority of the current workforce, whatever scheme they are in, means large numbers would face dismissal on the grounds of capability. (9.1.3 page 123).The report argues that the only way such a

change in NPA could be achieved is if certain conditions are met in relation to entry standards; improved monitoring of fitness levels and health; improved arrangements for fitness training and monitoring; and a range of other measures (12.9 page 146).

Despite this being a government-commis-sioned review, it does not support the current government proposals in relation to fire-fighters’ normal pension age of 60.

Worst caseThe report is mostly about fitness rather than pensions. It states that a fitness level of at least 42 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 VO2max is necessary given the nature of firefighting. The report provides medical evidence that working beyond 55 is not attainable by most current firefighters. Between half and two-thirds of current firefighters would not be fit enough

The ‘best case’ scenario is a

fantasy

to work beyond 55. Elsewhere, the report suggests more than four out of five firefighters would not make it to the proposed NPA.

The report suggests that, even with higher entry standards, if 42 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 is the required fitness level, then as a worst-case scenario, at 55 years of age, approximately 85% of firefighters would be below the minimum standard required for operational duty. By 60 years, this percentage would increase to 92% (4.4.4 page 49).

The report claims, on the basis of just four out of 57 fire and rescue services, that the current VO2max of firefighters is 46 mL∙kg-1∙min-1, but with wide variation for fitness, age and gender between 38 and 54 mL∙kg-1∙min-1. It admits that at 55-60 years 66% of firefighters were below this standard (4.4.5 page 50).

Protection Around half of all existing firefighters are partially or totally protected from the proposed changes to the pension scheme. Firefighters within 10 years of the end of their career can retire as planned, while those with more than ten years but less than 14 to go receive tapered protection. However that still leaves around 9,000 members of the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (FPS), 4,600 wholetime members of the New Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (NFPS)and 5,000 retained members of the NFPS without any protection.

The Williams report recommends that the government look at further protection for fire-fighters who have little or no chance of being fit enough to work to 60.

It states: “Allowing firefighters to leave after age 55 on a pension that is actuarially reduced from age 60 without any additional penalty could be considered a reasonable way to manage expectations, and to manage any potential discriminatory issues.” (12.8.4 p.145).

Matt Wrack said: “Although the FBU intends to challenge aspects of the review and its findings, it does give a pretty clear indication that an NPA of 60 is unworkable, unrealistic and does not take account of the job. The FBU will continue to raise our points in an attempt to get a sensible and workable solution.”


REPORT’S ‘BEST CASE SCENARIO’ IS JUST A FANTASY The report suggests that even in a ‘best case’ scenario, in which firefighters maintain their physical activity status, body mass index and smoking status as they age, at 55 years of age approximately 15% of firefighters would be below the minimum standard required for operational duty. By 60 years, this percentage would have increased to 23% (4.4.4 page 49).

But the ‘best case’ model uses a higher entry standard than is current practice. It assumes firefighters are recruited at 47 mL∙kg-1∙min-1, whereas actually the recruitment standard is much lower.

This means the ‘best case’ scenario is a fantasy, as it assumes a much higher fitness level on recruitment than is, in fact the case.

Both scenarios use a starting point higher than the current national firefighter selection tests. In addition, the report does not spell out clearly what kind of fitness regime and lifestyle changes would be necessary for its ‘best case’ scenario.

Most firefighters already do fitness training at work of at least 30 minutes per shift. The report’s recommendation of 2.5 hours a week does not seem sufficient to improve fitness of most existing firefighters.

Matt Wrack said: “This model is not based on current standards, current fitness regimes or on the current workforce.”

BE SUPER-FIT OR SACKED New report backs FBU arguments about when firefighters should retire

The Williams report and FBU pension bulletins can be downloaded from www.fbu.org.uk

RETIREMENT AGE


PENSIONS

FBU officials have been defending firefighter pensions from government attacks

Fire Brigades Union officials have been busy defending firefighters’ pensions in recent months. Last year, due to the union’s efforts, the

government agreed to review the normal pension age (NPA) that firefighters would be expected to work to before receiving a full pension.

The review, which looks at the appro-priateness of the proposed NPA, is expected to be available early this year.

Firefighters are the only group of workers given an NPA review of this nature. Other unions, including those that took strike action in 2011, were unable to force the government to move on its plans, which are for the NPA to come into line with the state pension age. This will mean other public sector workers (including our control members) working until they are 66, 67 and 68 before receiving their full pension. The Public Service Pension Bill, to put this into effect, is currently going through the Westminster parliament.

Sean Starbuck, FBU national officer with responsibility for pensions, said:

“Our officials have been working very hard on the NPA review. We’ve been the only organisation that gathered new evidence of this nature and have been arguing vociferously with academics and civil servants that firefighters cannot physically work beyond 55 in any real numbers. We believe we have made a very strong, evidence-based case.”

Review processThe government’s proposals for a new firefighters’ pension scheme from 2015 include an NPA of 60 (Written ministe-rial statement: Fire and Rescue Service, 24 May 2012). The current NPA for firefighters in the Firefighters Pensions Scheme (FPS) is 55, while those in the New Firefighters Pension Scheme (NFPS) already have an NPA of 60.

The FBU has argued that an NPA of 55 is appropriate for all firefighters, including those in the NFPS. Firefighting is an arduous job and few firefighters can maintain operational fitness into their fifties. Few firefighters (only 2%) currently work beyond 55. And there are few alternatives without an operational

Contesting unreasonable expectations


PENSIONS


PENSIONS

requirement in the service for older fire-fighters unable to work longer.

One important job FBU officials have done is to demolish the arguments used for an NPA of 60 when the NFPS was imposed in 2006.

At the time, the government made assurances that sufficient non-opera-tional roles would be available. It stated that “greater emphasis on fire safety will create a wider range of job opportunities where some experience of firefighting and other emergency work will be beneficial” (Government Proposals for a New Firefighters’ Pension Scheme, 21 September 2005).

Redeployments The FBU surveyed every fire and rescue service in the UK to enquire what opportunities it had for redeploying firefighters deemed unfit for operational duty on ill-health grounds.

In England, only five of the 46 fire and rescue services confirmed that they had any redeployment opportunities. The total number of redeployments presently available for England is 16 posts. In Scotland, only Strathclyde had any redeployment opportunities, while only Mid and West Wales had a few alternative roles in that country. No redeployments are available in Northern Ireland.

With no prospect of alternative employment on Grey Book conditions for older firefighters, the rationale for 60 used by the last government is exposed as illogical.

Occupational pensionThe FBU has defended firefighters’ pensions by concentrating on the occu-pational demands of the job. Firefighters have a unique occupational pension in keeping with the special status of the job, which is widely recognised as presenting the most challenging non-military vocational experiences.

Firefighting, particularly wearing breathing apparatus to tackle compart-ment, high-rise and other fires, is highly demanding. It requires sustained effort for long periods, in highly hazardous and varied environments as well as high-intensity intervention in BA. The arduous nature of the job has been thoroughly examined and many

government reports contain testimony as to the taxing character of the work.

The expectation in the UK fire and rescue service, whatever the role or duty system, is that firefighters are capable of intervening for as long as we are employed. Firefighters accept the challenge; however it must mean having a pension scheme commensurate to the nature of the job.

FitnessGiven the demands of the job, another key consideration is whether firefighters can maintain the levels of fitness necessary for their own safety, the safety of other firefighters and for public safety.

The FBU argued that an NPA greater than 55 makes unreasonable fitness demands on most individuals and increases the risk of ill-health and injury for the older firefighters, as well as for others present at emergencies.

Fitness declines with age for well understood physiological reasons. Fat mass increases with age, while muscle mass may be lost during aging. Skeletal muscle also changes, as do tendon properties.

Firefighting is a particularly demanding job because it requires a combination aerobic fitness (endurance or the ability to sustain work for prolonged periods), anaerobic fitness (ability to function at a high intensity for short periods) and strength (such as grip and lifting).

Aerobic power Maximal oxygen uptake or maximal aerobic power (VO2 max) is the indicator of aerobic fitness. VO2 max is determined by the measurement of oxygen uptake during the performance of maximal work.

Studies of individuals over many decades have shown a decline in peak VO2 with age and that this decline accel-erates for older individuals of both sexes.

Although the decline can be attenuated by regular physical exercise, levels of aerobic power cannot be maintained at the same level into a person’s forties and fifties.

Firefighters know this from the careers of elite sportspeople – even these athletes lose performance despite heavy training regimes as they age.

The total number of redeployments presently available for England is 16 posts


Many fire and rescue services now operate a fitness VO2 max standard of 42 ml.kg-1.min-1, which represents a moderate, average level of fitness for someone in their early twenties. A man would expect some loss of fitness during his career, but still be able to make the NPA of 55. However he would fall below the widely used minimum standard of 35 ml.kg-1.min-1 if expected to work beyond 55. FBU officials are already dealing with cases where firefighters are being taken off the run for not meeting fitness standards.

Driving out professionals These standards are more difficult for women firefighters to achieve, but still possible. Pushing up the NPA beyond 55 would also make retaining women firefighters to the end of their career far harder.

The imposition of inappropriate and unrealistic fitness standards designed to make all firefighters work longer is also likely to drive large numbers of highly effective professionals, especially women operational firefighters, out of their jobs.

The FBU asked Richard Graveling from the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) to examine the implications of imposing the 42/35 ml kg-1 min-1 VO2max standard.

He calculated that “by the age of 40 years, approximately 65% of fire-fighters would be estimated as having a predicted maximum oxygen uptake (aerobic capacity) of 42ml kg-1 min-1, with approximately 20% already failing to attain the lower criterion of 35ml kg-1 min-1”.

By the age of 50 years “those values have risen to 86% failing to attain the higher criterion, with almost half (47%) not reaching the lower value”.

Increasing the NPA above 55 would mean more than half of all firefighters – even those who exercise regularly, don’t smoke and have a low BMI – would not meet the fitness standard.

Sean Starbuck said: “There is no definitive medical evidence that the majority of firefighters in the UK can continue to perform beyond 55.

“In fact all the major studies by the UK government in the last two decades have concluded that the NPA of 55 is appropriate.”

Costs of ill-health Forcing firefighters to work beyond 55 will have consequences for their ability to carry out their job and their resulting risk of injury.

It will also increase the risk to colleagues and members of the public, whose safety might depend on the performance of other team members.

To cost this, the FBU asked First Actuarial consultants to provide an assessment of the potential impact of any rise in ill‐health retirements on the existing pension schemes.

First Actuarial found that ill‐health retirements dramatically increase with age.

The assumption for ill‐health retire-ments uses the Treasury’s own valuation figure of 5%. An increase in ill‐health retirement by between 10% and 15% would nullify any savings that might be delivered by increasing the NPA from 55 to 60.

An increase by 20% would actually make the proposal to increase the NPA from 55 to 60 more expensive than the current scheme arrangements. The conclusions are broadly similar for both the FPS and the NFPS.

The FBU believes that, alongside the risk of increased ill-health retirements (medical discharges), there is a risk that draconian fitness policies allied to a higher NPA would significantly increase the number of firefighters dismissed on capability grounds. Sacking firefighters is no basis on which to design a new pension scheme.

Sean Starbuck said: “There are no guarantees that even an Olympic fitness regime would yield the kind of improve-ments necessary to ensure firefighters are fit for operational duty into their late fifties.

“Forcing firefighters to work beyond 55 is gambling with the future of an irreplaceable public service.

“There is no case for increasing the current NPA for members of the FPS; indeed there is a strong case for reducing the NPA of NFPS members.

“If the government is committed to designing a workable occupational pension scheme for firefighters, it will listen to the voice of professionals within the fire and rescue service.”

Even an Olympic fitness regime would not yield the kind of improvements necessary

PENSIONS


PENSIONS

T he Fire Brigades Union’s campaign to defend firefighters’ pensions has reached a new stage with two reviews of fire-

fighters’ pension contributions and the normal pension age (NPA).

The union has taken a measured approach and has, so far, achieved slight movement through negotiation.

The UK government is pressing ahead with pension changes for other public sector workers. After pressure from the

FBU, backed up by a range of supporting evidence, the government agreed to two reviews for firefighters which could provide a mechanism to influence its proposals before any final decisions are made.

FBU national officer Sean Starbuck said: “This is far from over and we have not got anything that resembles an acceptable position to put to members. We see the reviews as another way of trying to influence any decisions and are

committed to taking part. We remain extremely cautious about them.

“We have not been asked to agree to any proposals or asked to sign up to any agreement and have made our position clear on this.

“We will continue to monitor the situation and be open and honest with members on the position. There are no guarantees of success.

“There is still a long way to go and we are not ruling out strike action.”

PENSIONS‘FAR FROM OVER’ AS REVIEW CHAIR APPOINTED

9 February 2012The UK government publishes its “Heads of Agreement” for the new post-2015 firefighters’ pension scheme. The FBU executive council says the proposals are “unacceptable” because they include “unaffordable and unfair contribution rates” and “a totally unrealistic retirement age for firefighters”.

20 March 2012The Court of Appeal rejects the appeal brought by the FBU and other unions to stop the switch in the inflation measure used to increase public service pensions, from the Retail Price Index to the normally lower Consumer Price Index.

29 March 2012The UK government imposes pension contribution increases for firefighters. The FBU executive council says it is “extremely disappointed that firefighters’ pension contribution rates have been increased at all”, given the high contributions already paid and the pay freeze.

24 May 2012UK government issues a ministerial statement Firefighters’ Pension Scheme: Proposed Final Agreement. FBU writes to fire minister Bob Neill: “this development is unhelpful, unnecessary and inflammatory.”


31 May 2012Bob Neill replies to the FBU: “I remain fully committed to ensuring that the two review undertakings confirmed in the proposed Heads of Agreement are successfully concluded and that all the associated evidence is considered carefully before final decisions are taken”.

19 June 2012FBU conference discusses the pension campaign and strategy. Conference votes overwhelmingly to participate in the review process, to carefully monitor the situation and to take “national industrial action should it become necessary”.

4 July 2012Fire minister Bob Neill (below) appoints Dr Tony Williams to chair the review into the normal pension age. Both reviews are to be completed by the end of 2012.

Review of opt-outs The FBU has submitted a YouGov survey of members and actuarial evidence to show that contribution rates of 13.2% are unaffordable and will force many firefighters to opt out of their pension scheme. The union will submit further evidence to show how government plans will make the pension scheme unworkable.

Review of NPAThe FBU has submitted medical, financial, equality and practical evidence showing that firefighters cannot work to 60. Government proposals would make the firefighters’ pension scheme unworkable and put firefighters’ and public safety at risk. The FBU will submit further evidence to support for an NPA of 55 for all firefighters.

NOW

CO

LIN M

cPH

ERS

ON

CO

LIN

MC

PHER

SON

; KAT

IE C

OLL

INS/

PA; C

LIVE

GEE

/PA;

ED

MO

ND

TER

AKO

PIAN

/PA;

REB

ECC

A N

ADO

N/P

A; R

OD

LEO

N

PENSIONS

PENSIONS‘FAR FROM OVER’ AS REVIEW CHAIR APPOINTED

Documents

FBU pensions campaign