Author: Bee Hughes

Posted on

USS Ballot Results November 2021

UCU Left congratulates USS members on the excellent ballot result. Obtaining 53% overall turnout and over the 50% threshold in 37 branches in a very short ballot period is amazing. It shows the commitment of members to defending USS and throwing out the employers’ iniquitous proposals with 75% voting for strike action and 88% for action short of a strike. There is plenty of evidence that current benefits are affordable at current or reduced costs.

Members have shown their anger at what is happening to USS and their appetite for action. We call on HEC to initiate sustained strike action in the 37 branches over the threshold immediately. We also call on HEC to organise a re-ballot of all the branches below the 50% before the end of November and with a longer ballot period. This will enable them to join further action in the second term.

Posted on

Solidarity with trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming people, and Sussex UCU

UCU Left send our solidarity to Sussex UCU, and support their statement of 12th October 2021 in support of trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming members of our university communities. UCU Left also support the national UCU statement published on Twitter on 12th October.

Both of these statements reaffirm UCU’s existing policy of affirming and supporting our trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming siblings to feel safe and included on campus. The statements do not criticise any individuals, other than the Sussex VC, who has failed spectacularly to show any leadership or commitment to supporting some of the most marginalised members of his university. Neither statement call for dismissal of any members of university staff.

Galop reported that 4 in 5 respondents to their study (2020) had experienced a transphobic hate crime.  Pink News and Vice World News reported a 332% increase in transphobic hate crime in the UK from 2014-15 to 2020-21. This is a serious social problem. Public discourse around trans rights often falls into abstraction. We must be very clear that real people are at the centre of the so-called debate and they must not be forgotten or talked over. We do not debate the right of trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming people to exist and live happily and safely.

Trans identities are protected under the Equality Act (2010). We must ensure all our institutions (educational or other) uphold their duties in law, and hold them to account when this falls short, as has been the case at Sussex University.

Universities must live up to their commitments to equality and diversity by working actively to ensure that all members of the university community (students and staff) can work and study in safety on campus. There can be no equal opportunities if one section of the university community feels its presence is constantly challenged and undermined.

Academic freedom is integral to academic life in the UK and elsewhere. Academic freedom is important for the documenting of injustice and discrimination and the development of new equality agendas. Academic freedom is an important freedom that it is the duty of educational institutions to defend. We must however acknowledge that neither academic freedom, nor the broader concept of ‘freedom of speech’, are without any limits. We do not accept that people have the freedom to make racist, misogynist or homophobic statements, or publish or teach racist, misogynist or homophobic theories as part of their academic work; equally, we should not allow delegitimising trans people and their rights. Those of us who work in education have a duty to be committed to equality, and to affirm the right of all our students to exist and participate equally in the academic community.

We value academic freedom, and we believe it should be exercised responsibly. It is part of research ethics to consider the impact of research and its dissemination on research subjects, those who may be impacted by the research and the wider society. Those who cite academic freedom to undermine the rights of others are misusing the concept. If they wish to defend an individual for making statements that delegitimate trans lives and undermine safety and wellbeing for trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming students and staff, then they must also accept freedom of speech and expression for those who criticise this view.

Many trans and non-binary students at Sussex clearly feel that the university is not giving them the protection they deserve. When they protest, they are exercising their democratic rights and freedom of speech. They have the right to be heard.

We do not support calls for the summary sacking of any member of staff. But student complaints of discrimination must not be ignored or silenced. Institutions are obliged to investigate credible complaints against staff including academics, test them against legal principles enshrined in the Equality Act, and principles of justice and inclusion, taking due account of academic freedom. Urgent work is needed to ensure universities have suitable and sufficient policies in place to support all members of the university, and to develop literacy and understanding of key equality issues, including for the support and wellbeing of trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming staff and students.

As socialists and trade unionists, UCU Left firmly believe we must stand with our most marginalised and oppressed colleagues, comrades, and members of our communities. We oppose all forms of oppression, discrimination and hate crime.

Posted on

If we don’t fight, we lose

Which HESC motions should be supported, and which opposed?


The two current disputes in Higher Education are of the utmost importance to UCU and its members in the sector. Both are fuelled by the employers’ desire to drive down the proportion of their spending which goes to staffing. Under the impact of marketisation and competition between institutions, senior managements at richer and poorer universities alike have adopted this as their primary goal.
The pre-92 universities have decided that the sector-wide pension scheme is too expensive and that its mutualised character does not fit with the competitive environment. All institutions are happy to hide behind the most cash-strapped institutions in justifying continual below-inflation pay awards year after year. They are also determined to resist any binding sector-wide limitations on the use of casualised contracts or on workloads, and are quite comfortable with the gender and race pay gaps that afflict the sector.


We need industrial action in both disputes this autumn

It is clear that we need to fight both these disputes this year. It is also clear that the action we take needs to start well before the end of the autumn term to give ourselves time to escalate and create the leverage on the employers that we need.

We know that our employers are increasingly vulnerable to industrial action. Determined strike action fought off the initial attack on pensions in 2018, and more recently a series of local fights against redundancies, especially by the Liverpool branch, have confirmed the power of industrial action to achieve results.

Thursday’s Special HESC needs to commit the union to organising action in both the USS dispute and the Four Fights. We need an immediate campaign to build support among members, a balloting timetable and a plan for industrial action in both disputes. Any delay would simply hand the initiative to the employers and create confusion and demoralisation among members.  

Motions to oppose

Most of the motions on the agenda contribute to that goal and should be supported. The exceptions are those which would mean a delay in one or both of the disputes.


Motion 1 needs to fall because it removes the threat of industrial action over USS. The position of union negotiators is strengthened by action and the credible threat of action. Delaying action will merely allow time for the USS to drive through the changes to the scheme they want. Branch delegates must decide the timing of action, not leave it up to negotiators. As Conference Business Committee (CBC) has indicated, if Motion 1 is passed, a number of good motions on the agenda would automatically fall.


Amendment 3A.1 from Kent seeks to lengthen the window for an industrial action ballot. A longer window can sometimes help to get the vote out, but the delay that this would cause to taking action is too high a price to pay. This amendment should be opposed and if passed, Motion 3 should be opposed as well.


Motion B4 would commit the union to conditional indexation of USS. This would make our pensions conditional on a number of uncontrollable variables. Agreeing to explore conditional indexation would represent a capitulation to the argument that the existing arrangements are unaffordable and would encourage further attacks by our employers. We need to focus our energies on overturning the flawed valuation and defending the guaranteed benefits of the existing scheme.

Motion 10 should be opposed because it would effectively mean no fight over pay, equality, casualisation or workloads this academic year. Fighting over USS only would send a message to members in post-92 institutions that UCU is primarily a union for the old universities. And it would be a betrayal of our women and black members as well as all the young, casualised members upon whose energy and commitment the fight to defend USS depends.


CBC has ruled that if Motion 11 passes, Motions 12 and 13 automatically fall. This appears to be based on an interpretation of Motion 11 that the two disputes should not be fought concurrently and that industrial action for each should not be combined. Motions 12 and 13 do not in fact advocate treating USS and Four Fights as one dispute, but since it is not possible to challenge CBC’s ruling, Motion 11 must be opposed, because Motions 12 and 13 further the cause of uniting the union behind action over pensions and the Four Fights.

Voting advice summary

UCU Left recommends voting in the following ways on the motions:


1 Timing of action on USS – Bangor. Oppose because it delays action and because of the series of consequentials identified by CBC.

2A.1 compositing amendment – UCL. Support. 
2. Enact HE12 now – Imperial & UCL. Support whether amended or not.

3A.1 – Kent. Oppose because though a longer ballot window might be useful, its effect would be to undermine the possibility of action in the autumn term. 
3. Defend USS defined benefits – Lancaster. Support even if unamended, Oppose if amended.

4 Defend USS defined benefits – Glasgow. Support

5 Defending defined benefit – Dundee. Support

B4 Conditional indexation of USS – Bangor. Oppose

6 Lobby MPs on USS – Lancaster. Support

7A.1 – Anti-cas cttee. Support. 
7. Four Fights & USS – Newcastle. Support whether amended or not.

8 Ballot on pay with USS – UCL. Support

9 Four Fights – Brighton. Support

10A.1 – Swansea. Oppose.
10A.2 – Anti-cas cttee. Support (Same as 7A.1). 
10 What a win looks like – Nottingham. Oppose whether amended or not (point d shelves the Four Fights).

11 Separating the disputes – Glasgow Caledonian. Oppose because of CBC guidance that Motions 12 & 13 will fall if it passes.

12 Combine Four Fights & USS – Leeds. Support

13 Building member-led action – Dundee. Support

Posted on

Congress 2021: Motion Prioritisation Recommendations

line of people sat on chairs (can see legs and torsos onlu) - foremost person is writing in a notebook held on their knee

In this post we offer a suggested list of priority motions that your branch or region might like to consider when you respond to the UCU Congress and HESC 2021 prioritisation consultation.

We found the process of identifying motions that should be prioritised problematic for various reasons. Fundamentally, we believe that if branches and regions have submitted motions in good faith they should be heard by Congress or Sector Conference, because these are the ‘sovereign bodies’ of our union according to our constitution. Congress / Conference amend the union’s rulebook and decide on the union’s policy. Any pre-filtering prior to the debate, whether it is by a select group or delegates, is a restriction on democracy.  It also reduces the opportunity for new ideas and issues to be considered and for proposals to be tested in debate.

That said, it would be remiss of us not to argue that Congress 2021 has some key policy decisions to make. These include:

  • Workplace safety in the context of COVID
  • Support for workers with long COVID
  • Negotiating around homeworking
  • International solidarity, especially in the context of Myanmar and the persecution of the Uighurs in China
  • Defending the right to protest
  • Ending violence against women
  • Continuing to strengthen our policies in support of LGBT+ members
  • resisting the IHRA working definition and defending academic freedom
  • (in HESC) HE national bargaining and USS pensions

With these themes in mind we have focused on motions we believe are the most effective motions for the union to unite around. This is in many cases because they identify specific actions and/or raise new areas of policy.

We have deliberately restricted our recommendations to a smaller number than the total number of priorities permitted because we expect that branches and regions will wish to bid for their own motions, or those proposed by particular Regions or committees.

Education Motions

ED2 – Sussex motion on cuts to Arts & Humanities.


Equality Motions

EQ2 – Long Covid.
EQ4 – Demands UCU BLM Day.    
EQ9 – Sarah Everard & gender based violence.
EQ11 – NEC motion on GRA reform and defence of asylum seekers.    
EQ12 – LR’s IHRA motion.


ROC Motions

ROC2 – Liverpool anti-cas.
ROC3 – ARPS working from home.
ROC4 – Retain the right to work remotely re Covid, esp those who can’t be vaccinated.
ROC8 – End UCU bias towards pre-92 unis.
ROC13 – Climate crisis composite.

Further consider prioritising: 
ROC5 – Learning tech and casualisation.

SFC Motions

SFC6 – LR general fightback over safety, jobs, pay, equality, casualisation
SCF8 – Access to strike pay for local disputes.
SFC10 – Right to protest.
SFC12 – Free immigration advice from employers.
SFC18 – Cancel Trident and get rid of nuclear weapons.
SFC20 – Solidarity with Hong Kong & Uighurs, no Cold War with China. 
SFC22– Solidarity with Myanmar.


Rule Motions

R1 – Inserts ‘gender identity’ into equality clause.
R5 – Give equality standing committees two delegates each.
R6 – Ends compulsory aggregation for delegate entitlement.
R8 – Establish a retired members committee.
R10 – Reduced quorum for sub-sectoral votes.


HE Sector Motions

HE2 – Brighton motion on Four Fights.
HE4 – Fight on workload and casualisation.
HE5 – Change rule for electing pay negotiators. 
HE6 – Support all local disputes better.
HE9 – Address promotion discrimination including a national agreement.
HE11 – Build USS fight (UCL).
HE13 – Legal action on USS.
HE15 – Resist adoption of IHRA. 
HE19 – Fighting research funding cuts & casualisation.
HE29 – End discrimination against overseas students – fees, visas etc.
HE30 – Support student rent strikes.
HE34 – Raise LGBT+ awareness (teaching and research).

Further consider prioritising:
HE10 – Reject USS valuation and fight.
HE14 – Women’s equality regarding pensions.

Posted on

The Fight for Trans Rights

A photograph of a trans pride flag laid out flat

Note on terminology: this article will use the term trans throughout as an umbrella term referring to a range of trans, nonbinary, genderqueer and gender non-conforming identities (as many trans-led organisations such as Gendered Intelligence do). We will use other terms alongside trans when we are discussing a specific identity within the trans* community.

In 2020 the Morning Star published a transphobic cartoon depicting trans people as vicious predators that would have been shocking if it had appeared in the Daily Mail. In recent years we have seen trans exclusionary or trans hostile rhetoric become commonplace in the mainstream media and social media, with a number of high profile writers, journalists and politicians facing criticism for their comments. It is deeply disappointing to see the growing transphobia coming from far-right and right wing populist regimes and organisations being echoed by a minority of feminists and people on the left. Much of this ill-framed and ill-informed assault  has been centred around the now scrapped reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), a process which was shelved by the Tory government in 2020, to the dismay of trans people and organisations.

UCU has a long history of enabling self-identification for all members linking back to our predecessor unions. This is a key part of our work and responsibilities as trade unionists and socialists – working together to end all forms of oppression. Improved rights for one oppressed group should never be conditional on the oppression of other groups. Trans rights and women’s rights are not incompatible, just as women’s rights are not incompatible with the rights of disabled people, or our Black siblings. Indeed, many trans people are also women, are disabled, are Black.

There has been, rightly, a storm of criticism and condemnation of the many examples of media transphobia, as well as the specific shocking example of the Morning Star cartoon. For those of us less familiar with the ongoing fight for trans rights and inclusion, it is worth asking why these attacks on trans and nonbinary people have gained the traction that they have in recent years.

The state of the so-called trans debate reveals a departure from the basic position all socialists must take when it comes to oppression. Socialists unconditionally stand with all the oppressed. Capitalism divides the working class through racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Governments led by the likes of Johnson and Bolsonaro are looking to pick on groups of already vulnerable people who appear to be different to the rest of the class and attempt to blame them for poverty, poor housing and cuts to services and the insecurity these cause, for which in reality these governments are responsible.

The roots of trans oppression

The causes of transphobia have similar roots to those of women’s oppression. They lie in the emergence of class societies, especially capitalism, and the centrality of the ideology of the privatised nuclear family as the key unit in providing, at minimal cost to the state, the next generation of workers to generate profits and economic growth. For socialists this is the starting point to understanding women’s and trans peoples’ oppression. It is through the traditional family unit that the mores and behaviours the establishment expect from working people are perpetuated and sustained. It is for this reason that the fight for women’s and trans equality are one and the same struggle.

It is through the bravery and heroism of those who came out and defied homophobic and transphobic societal norms in the late 1960s, most spectacularly in the 1969 Stonewall riots, that a powerful social movement for LGBT+ rights emerged with the aim of putting an end to such discrimination. The struggles of those who ignited the fight in the 60s have led to many important reforms for LGBT+ people and women that today right wing governments, in their reactions to the failures of neoliberalism, are trying to roll back in order to divide opposition to their policies and re-impose strict traditional family values. Why does a vocal minority, including in education, continue to provide left cover for transphobic lines of argument under the guise of ‘concern’ for ‘academic freedom’ or ‘free speech’? They seem to accept basic right wing tropes used first against gay men and now against trans people. Gay men were, and are, attacked on the spurious basis that the only reason they go to public toilets is to have sex with unsuspecting heterosexual men. Another key trope was that gay men groom children. That was one of the spurious and vicious claims used to justify the Tories’ Section 28 homophobic legislation of the late 1980s which impacted the education system. Similar claims are being made against trans people and their organisations today.

The Morning Star cartoon reinforced offensive myths about trans women – that trans women are not women at all but ‘men in dresses’ who want to use public toilets and other single sex spaces to abuse women. Yet actual examples of trans women assaulting cisgender women in public places like toilets, changing rooms or refuges are very rare. Indeed, the main results of this scaremongering are to make life more threatening and dangerous for trans people – and to result in more cisgender women being challenged because they are not perceived as fitting gender stereotypes sufficiently well. This position is also rooted in deep-seated homophobia and (trans)misogyny, as its proponents rarely consider trans men, nonbinary and other gender nonconforming people in their analysis of trans people’s experiences.

Unity

The final reason why some of the left end up in a position that puts them at odds with those in the trans community is that they oppose some aspects of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA). The scrapped GRA reforms, and the recent High Court hearing of Bell V Tavistock (2020) – granted appeal for 2022 – leave trans people under a cloud of legal limbo, as much needed reforms and access to gender affirming healthcare (especially for young people, in relation to Bell V Tavistock) are pushed further out of reach. Many young trans people have had the lifeline of puberty blockers snatched away from them without notice by last December’s High Court ruling. The ruling also potentially threatens young people’s access to contraception and abortion in the future.

The proposed / possible reforms to the GRA are not particularly radical, and are not out of step with other countries such as Ireland, Portugal, Uruguay and Spain. The introduction of self-identification/self-declaration – instead of a heavily medicalised process – to obtain a gender recognition certificate, would have been a key step towards trans liberation in the UK. The Tories have failed to implement this opportunity to make trans people’s lives a little bit less hazardous, pathologised and stressful.

This move is being greeted by transphobes as a victory and will inevitably lead to further abuse and discrimination against trans people. It will also open the door to further attacks on women’s and LGBT+ rights, since a setback for trans women would be a setback for all women and for all LGBT+ people.

Nor should the introduction of additional voluntary questions on gender in the National Census, allowing for the expression of non-binary and trans identities, be perceived as a threat to women. For the first time this will generate some national data about the numbers of people who may be trans or non-binary. Despite this, some transphobic groups have supported a legal challenge to the guidance the ONS has published on how to complete the question on sex.

The existence of trans women is not a threat to women’s rights or a denial of cis women’s oppression. History has shown us when the oppressed are united we can better protect all our rights and we all take a step closer to liberation.

That’s why it’s crucial that the left unites now around a renewed campaign to amend the GRA as well as defend the trans rights embodied in the 2010 Equality Act just like we did in the late 1980s around Section 28. We must continue to push for the legal recognition of nonbinary identities, building on the decision from Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover (2020) that nonbinary and genderfluid employees are also protected under the Equality Act 2010.

It is understandable that a lot of those who have been offended, angered and felt so let down by the media and public discourse around trans rights have been calling for individuals and organisations to be ‘no platformed’ and boycotted by the labour movement. Trans people feel attacked, beleaguered and marginalised. Increasing numbers report being afraid to leave their homes or use public facilities, or access education, and this stress and isolation has been made worse by the effects of the pandemic and repeated lockdowns.

Transphobes and ‘trans critics’ who are using their considerable platforms and positions to push these attacks on trans people often claim, perversely, that they are being ‘silenced’ and bullied. Clearly, making threats against such people is unacceptable, but those trying to block or undermine trans rights cannot expect immunity from criticism and counter arguments, particularly since it is overwhelmingly trans voices that are repeatedly ignored or silenced.

Nevertheless, we think a blanket application of a no-platform policy would be a mistake and no-platforming should be restricted to fascist organisations and individuals. Though we do not believe inviting those with proven transphobic records, or hate organisations, is acceptable, and student and staff organisations are entitled to disinvite speakers if they decide to do so, we do not believe refusing a platform in every individual case is the best way to persuade the vast majority of people to support and act in solidarity with trans people. As we do when people make bad faith arguments at UCU Congress and Sector conferences, or in our branches, or during equalities committee meetings or debates, we must demonstrate that these arguments are wrong. We must not lose our own voices – if they don’t happen in the light, they will continue to happen in the shadows.

We recognise that there are differences within the movement around a range of issues, and indeed that some people are genuinely unclear or poorly informed about trans rights, but we must debate these disagreements rather than refuse to engage with them. ‘No platform’ is a tactic used to prevent fascist organisations from gaining any foothold in our society which they would then use to undermine the very democracy that allowed them that platform in the first place. Whatever our disagreements may be with people who espouse transphobic views, they are not – in the vast majority of cases – fascists.

We can debate these issues on the basis of evidence but we cannot and should not expect trans people to engage with transphobes and trans critics who want to ‘debate’ the very existence of trans people. Let’s debate the issues, yes, sometimes robustly if necessary. But let’s above all also unite in the defence of the LGBT+ community and fight for a world where people are brought up to never know what it is to discriminate against those who are perceived to be different.

Originally published March 2020 by Laura Miles & Megan Povey
Updated in February 2021 by Bee Hughes, Laura Miles & Megan Povey

Posted on

LBGT+ Members’ Conference 2020

 

The LGBT+ conference took place on Saturday 5th December, via Microsoft Teams. It was attended by around 50 colleagues, and we heard from four guest speakers across two panels. Five new members were nominated and elected to the LGBT+ Members Standing Committee, including UCU Left Chair, Bee Hughes.

We also paused for a 30 seconds silence, proposed by Peter Evans, to remember Nita Sanghera. Chair, Ryan Prout spoke of Nita’s impact across the union and her allyship with the LGBT+ community.

 

Panel One: Intersectionality

The first speaker, Sen Sunil Raj, gave a detailed and vital presentation on the intersections of LGBT+ experience and seeking asylum. His presentation highlighted the ways in which hostility towards LGBT+ people, racist and homophobic and transphobe stereotypes, and racism in the LGBTQIA+ community can significantly worsen and amplify the effects of the UK’s hostile border environment. Sen also detailed how UK law has changed, demonstrating that homo/transphobic practices have long been entwined with the law, though there have been some recent positive precedents, including the UK’s first granting of asylum based on nonbinary gender.

Next, we heard from Rohit Dasgupta, who explored ‘Queer Spaces, Racialisation and Belonging in East London’, drawing on his experiences as a Labour Councillor, ethnographic, and the art of Raisa Kabir. Rohit’s presentation reflected on the ‘limits of British multiculturalism’ and the production of queer spaces which exclude queer Muslim people, closing with a call to imagine new modes of queer Muslim belonging.

A detailed discussion followed, covering the impact of gentrification, how we can improve our work as activists and professionals, the need for legal recognition of nonbinary genders, workplace bullying, and how we can make our IT systems work for inclusion rather than exclusion.

 

Panel Two: LGBT+ in FE & HE Now

The second panel began with a presentation by Trude Sundberg, sharing results from their ‘Report from LGBT+ Pilot Survey “Working conditions for LGBT+ Staff in HE”’. The results from this survey explored the impact of the covid-19 crisis on the wellbeing of LGBT+ staff laid bare a shocking and sobering view of how the LGBT+ community has been effected by recent changes including working from home. The survey demonstrates the wearing accumulated effect of ‘indirect’ or ‘everyday’ discriminations, such as misgendering, and derogatory language, the increased feeling of being ‘outed’ by working from home, and the intersection of racism with homo/transphobia which impact Black LGBT+ colleagues immensely.

The final guest speaker for the conference, PhD researcher Samuel J. Heyes, spoke movingly on the experience of being a trans student in post-16 education. Samuel shared his experience of continuing to support trans siblings through the university system, while taking care of himself as a trans student. He highlighted the huge emotional investment and labour it takes to perform these acts of (self)care and of simply being a trans person in a world where public discourse is often overwhelmingly hostile.

During the discussion many attendees expressed solidarity with Samuel, the impacts many at the meeting have experienced since working from home and online, the inflexibility of IT systems which do not accommodate gender diverse people’s identities, feelings of institutional gaslighting, and questions about the impact of covid-19 on those living with HIV. Bee Hughes proposed that LGBT+ Members Committee, and any other members present, to work together to develop good practice guidelines for the union, and for branches negotiating and workplace policies which impact trans and nonbinary people. The proposal was welcomed by a number of attendees who will take up this work together.

 

Motion: Campaign for GRA Reforms and Against Asylum Seeker Persecution

Megan Povey moved the motion from Leeds UCU, which has introduced so well through the context provided by Sen Sunil Raj’s presentation, resolving to ‘raise the profile of the UCU campaign for reform of the GRA’ and ‘to campaign for an end to the persecution of asylum seekers’. The motion was formally seconded by Bee Hughes. Though there was a small minority of conference delegates who opposed the motion, with one person speaking against, the overwhelming majority of attendees indicated support, with multiple speeches decisively for the motion. Voting on the motion is underway online.

Posted on

UCU Higher Education Sector Conference 2020 Report

Members pay and pensions are under threat but is UCU’s leadership capable of resistance?

The Higher Education Conference, originally timetabled for May 2020, finally took place in an interim form, with a truncated set of motions and restricted opportunities for speaker’s contributions, on December 15th. Nevertheless, the fact it took place at all, after the cancellation of the originally timetabled virtual conference in October is important. The labour movement is rapidly getting familiarised with video conferencing technology and this time the conference, organised on Zoom, worked better than previous attempts. However, the limited opportunity to discuss and debate, due to delegates having to register to speak in advance, and the voting taking place afterwards are areas that need further consideration.

Overall, the outcome of the voting does not indicate that delegates are yet convinced that the threats to pay and pensions are as serious as the left are arguing or that UCU is yet capable of mobilising a UK-wide fightback. A key motion (HE2) from Yorkshire & Humberside Region on USS to start a campaign for industrial action was remitted by 51 votes to 49. Its two amendments to identify how a strategy could be developed have been marked as lost, but presumably should be also be remitted.

USS is under threat yet again, as USS probably wants to end the Defined Benefit (DB) scheme and employers are not prepared to unite with UCU to defend it or may even support moving to Defined Contributions (DC).  The strategy that the USS crisis ‘will only be resolved through constructive negotiation’ proposed in L1 from Sheffield, which was passed, is insufficient.  It will our willingness to act rather than negotiation on its own that will alter this dynamic and allow us to win.  Voting for a ballot would have shown employers and USS that we are serious and willing to take action as necessary to defend USS pensions.  Remitting HE2 has done the opposite and given totally the wrong signals.  We need to ensure a special HESC, as agreed by the meeting of branches many months ago and implied in HE1, takes place at the end of January/early February to change this.

Similarly over pay, delegates voted in favour of HE5 Sheffield UCU’s motion (by 72 to 43 votes) on multi-year pay deals, which in the current economic climate would likely mean multi-year pay cuts. It is clear that an undue pessimism from the leadership of UCU, particularly in their interpretation of last year’s 22 days of strike action, weighs heavily on activists and particularly those whose involvement in the union structures originates in the pre-92 USS disputes. Our strikes demonstrated that the union can defend members, can unite its differing sectors and interests together and do have power to disrupt the sector. Our actions continue to see membership growing as those previously not engaged in a trade union see the potential to challenge what is going wrong in the sector. In particular the link between the #FourFights pay campaign and the USS dispute was symbolic of our recognition that unity is strength and no section of the union will be ignored. That we did not win immediate tangible gains has however led many to draw pessimistic conclusions about the inability to fight for change. This ignores the fact that fighting for our rights is hard work and may require several rounds of industrial action.  It would be wonderful, but unrealistic to expect only resounding victories.  We need to keep on when we have setbacks or even defeats.  If we give up at the first hurdle our employers will walk all over us, we will lose UK-wide bargaining and the USS pension scheme. This is why the conclusions of UCU’s Commission for Effective Industrial Action was a rejection of the tokenistic strategies of the past (click here).

This pessimism was also reflected in motion HE4 Queen Margaret University which sought to suggest that the post-92 interests over pay were subsumed into the pre-92 interests over pensions. Post-92 institutions UCU branches are, as pre-92 institutions were over USS, being transformed by strike action. It is instructive that Brighton, Northumbria and Manchester Met, to name a few, are branches leading industrial disputes in Higher Education and smashing through the anti-union ballot thresholds. Importantly, delegates rejected HE4 by 47:66 votes indicating that a willingness to unite the union still is evident. For similar reasons delegates voted unanimously for HE12 University of Winchester, defending members in the Teachers Pensions Schemes in post-92 institutions from rising contribution levels.

HE6 on Local Agreements from the HEC and motions HE8-11 covering causalisation, academic related staff and researchers respectively were also passed overwhelmingly. These together called for the impetus built up around the #FourFights pay inequality elements to be built into local negotiations and not to be abandoned. While delegates may not yet have the confidence to initiate industrial action now these motions suggest there is no appetite to abandon demands for equality in the union. This was also the case for HE13 on supporting Black researchers through mentoring and monitoring of career paths. Other motions debated included HE7 on the use of domestic flights and climate change which was remitted, largely for its minimalist approach to tacking climate change and two further motions on USS from the Higher Education Committee D43 and D44.Both discussed the damaging impact on UCU’s voice in the Trustee Board the adoption of Master trust regulations have and the motions sought to find mechanisms to remove the Defined Benefit scheme from these regulations. D44 was passed awhile D43 was lost by 43 to 49 votes.

Despite some pessimism at UK level, UCU is organising ballots for industrial action in dozens of branches over conditions at work, health and safety in response to Covid-19 and redundancies.  Heriot Watt’s excellent ballot result made their management step down, Northumbria University has now beaten their record for the highest turnout and Brighton has had their first days of strike action.  We need to build on this strength and confidence at branch level and transfer it to a UK-wide campaign on pay, equality, anti-casualisation and pensions.  We can still win and cannot afford not to.  If we do not all members will be affected, but the most disastrous impacts will be on younger, casualised, Black and minority ethnic, Disabled, women and LGBT+ members.

The union finds itself organising ballots for industrial action in dozens of branches over conditions a work, health and safety over Covid-19 and redundancies. This is a time when members are demanding a co-ordinated UK-wide response. UCU HEC is failing to develop this strategy and it is therefore up to activists to build that solidarity and unified response. On the 16th January the UCU Solidarity Movement holds their next conference. This can act as a major staging post in the rebuilding of the confidence and militancy UCU needs. Every activist should seek to build this conference.

Posted on

Further Education Sector Conference 2020 Report

Collectivise the resistance: Covid Safety, Pay and Working Conditions

This year’s rescheduled UCU Further Education Sector Conference (FESC) met on Saturday the 12th of December online via Zoom under the extraordinary conditions of a second wave of Coronavirus.

In addition to the pandemic, 2020 also saw the emergence of a mass movement of the Black Lives Matter movement globally in the wake of the televised murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police. This was reflected in the agenda with a section to discuss advancing UCU’s work on BLM in our workplaces.

The motions passed at the FESC pave the way for a renewed national profile to UCU’s work in the further education sector and a fight back on Covid safety, pay and working conditions.

A number of colleges were in dispute as the FESC met including CCCG on Covid safety, United Colleges Group over their contract, Brighton College defending jobs and Macclesfield College branch.

The meeting began with a 2 minute silence to remember Nita Sanghera UCU FE Vice President.

37 motions were discussed with most carried unopposed or with near unanimity. The conference went much smoother than on previous platforms and conference was able to debate a number of motions not originally ordered onto the agenda.

Unfortunately delegates were asked to notify UCU in advance of their intention to speak to motions. Many delegates expected to be able to raise their hand to speak. This stifled more fluid debate.

Points of order were disallowed and delegates were asked to place their votes a few days after the conference. As the movement learns to use online platforms we need to find more space for discussion and debate to promote democratic processes.

Despite this, the online conference worked well, albeit with room for improvement. The debate reflected the real battles and organisation taking place on the ground to defend safety and conditions. A new emerging leadership of black activists from branches pointed to the potential to revitalise the union’s work in sector and to build a more representative union.

No return to unsafe workplaces in the new year

Over 66,000 people have lost their lives to Covid under the pandemic.
The FESC met following the news of the approval of a vaccine. Whilst this is cause for hope, the reality for those who work and study in Further Education means there could be many months before working conditions are safe or free from instability and stress.

As the spike following the Thanksgiving celebration in the USA and the UK’s Help Out to Eat Out showed. It is almost inevitable there will be a third wave in the New Year.

Rightly, the FESC adopted a motion to implement the strong public stance by UCU on Covid and safe working into the further education sector. This called for online teaching to be the default, to implement UCU’s escalation plan where our colleges are unsafe and to organise an additional national reps meeting on the theme of no return to unsafe workplaces. A second motion called for regular Covid-testing of all staff and students.

Branches will have to come together quickly in the New Year to resist attempts by the employers to roll back on safety measures and ramp up workloads under the optimism of the vaccine and drive to return to ‘normal’.

If branch officers are to feel confident about implementing this motion UCU nationally must be proactive in launching a national campaign over Covid -19, which so far has been missing in the sector.

1% is a slap in the face, the national fight back starts now. 

In the week prior to the FESC delegates. UCU members working in further, adult and prison education learnt that the government would implement a pay freeze on public sector workers.

The Association of Colleges (AoC), the employer’s federation, shamefully declared their intention to compound this insult with a 1% pay award in English Colleges. That is despite the Welsh equivalent supporting circa 8% for new starters, and around 3% for main grade lecturers.

After 10 years of implementing austerity and the damage it has done to our sector. Have they learnt nothing?

After we have gone the extra mile to continue to staff the frontlines, deliver remotely through lockdown and risk our health. This is slap in the face and give the lie to all the faint praise and thanks we have received.

UCU’s Andrew Harden, National FE Official, in his report outlined UCU’s campaign to find the #FEMissingMillions of additional money the employers were given this year.

See how much money your college was given here.

Our pay has been cut by 30% under austerity. The employers promised additional funding would go to restore college pay.

In the last pay  campaign we secured £400m on additional FE funding and part 2 claims to fractionalise casualised staff were successful in securing permanent contracts on improved pay.

Further Education Committee Officers will meet following the FESC to draw up a timetable and plan of action to organise the pay campaign and to advise branches on submitting part 2 claims.

A strong motion was also passed calling for a national industrial ballot if the government attempted to attack TPS pensions.

For the indicative and the industrial action ballots to be successful then UCU nationally will need to ensure that there is a a dynamic social media campaign with materials going into every branch.

Black lives matter in further and adult education

For the Black Lives Matter movement, it was agreed that all regions (and nations, we hope) host briefings and encourage branches to make independent local organising plans to put black lives matter charters to their employers. As well tackling racism and bullying in the workplace should include decolonising the curriculum in further, adult and prison education. Further motions called for research into LGBT+ experiences in FE, race caseload data, and for resistance to surveillance of migrants’ status.

Attendance and workload

There are five motions on workload and stress, asking for unnecessary duties to be abandoned, for all guided learning hours to be taken into account, for a model care leave policy, for annual workplace health and safety surveys and a further motion on the menopause, asking all members to share knowledge about it and ensure each branch works on a model policy for their institution.

Despite the real need to reduce footfall on campuses the employers are using attendance monitoring, relentless duplication of record keeping and tracking, calling parents etc that are all driving up workload at a time members are struggling to adapt teaching to new learning platforms. UCU must implement these motions and campaign to challenge the new methods of managerialism and micro-management.

Defend adult education

Many motions were concerned with lifetime skills and adult education: more funding is urgently needed. Adult education is vital for the mental and physical health of many people and our members providing it must be valued and paid properly, with permanent contracts.

Curriculum

There were three more motions, on the competence of principals and governors, on the threat of closure of BTEC courses and for alternative models for post-16 maths and English.

We finished the core agenda and had time to cover another nine motions from the reserve list. These covered anti-casualisation agreements, adult education, “enforced” well-being, weapons on campus, safety for prison workers, learning support staff pay and contracts and LGBT+ migrants.

Solidarity

Let’s make sure 2021 is a year of resistance. The national fightback starts here!

Link to all the motions can be found here.

Posted on

UCU Black Members’ Conference Report 2020

BLM protest, London, 6th June 2020.

BLM protest, London, 6th June 2020.
BLM protest, London, 6th June 2020. Photo by James Eades on Unsplash

This year’s Black Members UCU Conference took place in a world that saw the COVID 19 pandemic, economic recession, climate crisis and the brutal murder by the police in the US of George Floyd. Seen by millions across the world, his death led to the biggest anti-racist movement since 1968, a working class and multi-racial movement of profound power. 

As BLM grew at stunning speed through towns and countries it reignited fresh hopes for racial class justice. Protests across the USA were followed by millions protesting around the world, including the UK, which saw over 280,000 people march, the biggest anti-racist marches since the 1970s. Many people question why racism in all areas of Black Lives, including our education sectors, was not being challenged enough and what could be done now to end institutional and systemic racism. The conference was attended by Black members from across the country. 

Keynote speaker: Labour MP Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) called for immediate online teaching for students in both colleges and universities, rather than face to face teaching, due to the high rate of infections of coronavirus. COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on Black frontline workers, racism has also increased significantly over recent months. Zarah felt Black Lives Matter had not been taken seriously enough. Decolonising the curriculum was needed at all schools, colleges, universities and Zarah fully supported this vital call.

Zarah noted that the women and equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch, sought to legitimise the government’s attempts to shut down discussions on how structural inequality is damaging black lives. Badenoch had called out critical race theory and anyone who wants to decolonise the curriculum, Zarah firmly rejected these points from the Minister. Zarah raised concerns about the current issues of academic freedom in relation to Prevent, and to the campaign to support Palestinian people. Zarah supports lecturers in their fight for equality and their jobs under the last round of redundancies. A very inspiring speech by Zarah who has a wealth of experience in community and trade union activism. Sadly Gary Younge was not able to come, and Gargi Bhattacharyya was not able to make the conference due to technical problems. 

Four workshops were organised: 

Protecting and empowering yourself in the workplace
Members raised concerns and shared their stories. The main issues were: it was felt branch reps sometimes were not fully aware of equality issues, being targeted and bullied by middle and senior managers, Covid 19 risk assessments for Black staff, student complaints against staff, and disproportionate workload and loss of jobs facing black staff. Advice was given on how best members could remain safe and protected from this hostile environment. Members should go to their UCU branch for support, or if that is not possible speak to their regional official. If that does not work for you, speak to the UCU national office equality team. 

BLM – Beyond 2020
Meeting the challenges we face as black workers after the resurgence of BLM in 2020. The main issues from members were that they were not being supported enough by their institutions, and felt that key issues were tick boxed. Other issues included, the race pay gap, recruitment of black staff, retention and progression; these issues were often not scrutinised effectively at all. Unconscious bias training has been criticised by many academic reports, and that racism is conscious. Students need to be supported too. Management strategies to box and contain institutional racism were obvious to many staff. A few members highlighted that BLM had opened the door, and that they had been able to meet management to talk and negotiate on their issues.

It was noted that most post-16 education institutions had a BLM statement on their websites. It is now time, one member said, to move to holding the good intentions of employers to account. A national UCU strategy was required, said one member, for effective negotiations. Another member stressed we must keep fighting for more and ensure our voices are heard. Action was now needed to move beyond words for meaningful change. 

Developing black activists – black activists as black leaders
Delegates discussed issues regarding lack of Black leadership in UCU branches and possible ways to increase both Black membership and their active involvement in the union. 

The first issue was communication. Delegates were concerned that anti-racist news, both nationally and locally is always buried at the bottom of the agenda. This needs to change. Branch committee members need to support black activists, to understand what advice is available, and how they can stand for union committee and regional positions, chairing of meetings and helping to set the agendas. Secondly, branches should demand and create Black members reps with allocated time, and use research to look at union density and black membership and how it intersects. The work of the black members committee needs to be publicised to all branches to support union committees, to gain more understanding of structural racism. Third, branches should use the ‘UCU Week of Action against Workplace Racism’ in February as a springboard to organise all members to campaign against racism and challenge racism and discrimination in our institutions. Finally, make sure our UCU branches put anti-racism at the heart of their union work. 

Decolonising Community and Prison education
Addressing the issues faced by black educators in prison and community education. This sector is often forgotten and UCU needs to raise its profile. The workshop started with definitions of decolonisation and asked the question – where do we start with this process of decolonisation? We need to decolonise the whole organisational structures, with management, curriculum and staff. It was highlighted that there are limited basic education provisions in prisons, few education managers, and no opportunities for Black prison educators unlike their white counterparts to progress within the system. There is a need to involve the communities served in the process of seeking changes or reform a member said. We need to show the powers that be, that it is in the interest of society to have an established education curriculum for prisoners to mitigate against re-offending. There is a need to have a survey for all prisoners black and white, younger offenders as well as older adults. This could then be used as a campaigning tool, and taken to the education authorities as evidence to support a call to set up a Black lives matter task force in the prison education sector. UCU was called on to support the initiatives and to help organise a plan going forward. 

The conference ended with a thank you to all the members for coming to the virtual conference. A big thank you to the equality staff at UCU, and to all the existing and newly elected members of the Black members committee. Let’s keep up the pressure for real change for Black Lives Matter UCU. 

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
Martin Luther King.