UCU Left report on Friday’s NEC

UNITE dispute means NEC is paralysed by its inability to instruct the General Secretary to settle the dispute and fails to look outwards. 

Unlike the first meeting of the HEC which dealt with all business, the first meeting of the NEC has been paralysed by its inability to hold the General Secretary to account. Unfortunately it was a very inward looking meeting and failed to orientate the union in a way that can meet the huge challenges facing the post-16 education sectors. 

The NEC by rule (28.2 and 29.2) has responsibility to instruct the General Secretary in relation to staff issues. The UNITE staff union’s dispute over racism, bullying and the breaking of the procedure agreement led to the abandonment of the second day of UCU Annual Congress and has now led to the halting of NEC members ability to instruct the GS to resolve the dispute.

A union that fails to have influence in the wider social and industrial environment it operates within, building confidence within its branches and the rank and file, inevitably begins to focus on control over internal structures. It is therefore no surprise  that the series of complaints that should have been resolved swiftly, robustly and internally in order to avoid a dispute, has now spread into the functioning and representation of the wider union.

Moreover, UCU’s retreat from UK coordinated industrial action over pay, jobs and conditions to a focus on local branch-level action will weaken rather than strengthen the national union. In doing so it leads to the General Secretary suggesting that an incoming Labour Government, under Starmer’s leadership, will repeal anti-union legislation in its first 100 days including the 50% threshold for ballots. It was optimistically suggested that this will open the door to a new era of industrial strength. We hope it does, but it only will if trade unions continue to fight for members – improved pay and conditions will not simply be granted from above.  

It was welcome to hear that the Labour Party has approached UCU to hear our solutions to the crises. We need to take any opportunities that we can to shape educational policy under the incoming government. In order to do this we need to build pressure on them to act, we cannot trust them to carry through on their words and platitudes. It was disappointing that the Congress decision to call a national demonstration in the Autumn term was not part of the GS report, and that that section was timed out before NEC members could ask about this. 

The right wing of our union places the paralysis of our union within a narrative of a dysfunctional NEC impeding the completion of ‘important’ union business. However, by ‘important’ they mean managing bureaucracy and avoiding urgent political questions, such as responding to racism in the forthcoming UK elections or motions from branches.

Very few decisions were taken on how UCU will take forward its important work. A motion was unanimously passed on organising against the CASS report by working with trans-led organisations and to pressure the government to improve trans healthcare. The second motion that was passed originally called to support the work of Stand Up To Racism in opposing the rise of the far-right in the UK. UCU is affiliated to Stand Up To Racism, the organisation that is at the heart of building opposition to the far right in the UK. However, the right in the union wants to over turn this affiliation through amending motions rather than taking the decision to Congress, and so the motion was amended which removed naming SUTR. Nevertheless, NEC did support that UCU members should campaign against the Reform Party and, importantly, to support, mobilise and publicise the counter demonstration against the nazi Tommy Robinson on 27th July. We hope this happens and that we see many UCU members with their banners alongside the rest of the trade union movement to oppose the far right. 

Many other motions fell due to time constraints – these covered issues such as defending the student protests. This was an important motion as we have seen hostile management actions and horrendous police aggression against student encampments, particularly at Oxford and Newcastle. 

There was very little discussion on Palestine, despite the overwhelming support at Congress for UCU to take action to provide solidarity and build the movement to oppose the war. 

Another decision that was taken was to move, in principle, to a hybrid Congress in 2025. At Congress 2024 a change in the standing orders was passed that enabled NEC to consider moving to hybrid Congress. We must ensure our democratic structures and conferences are open to all members, and for some, being able to join online will improve their ability to engage. However, the paper that was brought to NEC had very little detail on how a hybrid Congress would work. This is deeply concerning for issues of democracy and equality. 

Being part of a trade union is about feeling the sense of collectivity and solidarity. Attending in person meetings can enable members to meet others from across all our sectors and nations. For many, particularly women with caring responsibilities, it is very hard to take part in an online conference. If members are not encouraged to attend in person, it may seem an easy option to join online so they can continue with their day-to-day duties. However, this can lead to feeling isolated and disconnected. Moreover, disabled members at Congress and NEC spoke of the need to make Congress more accessible. We need to be finding ways to ensure people feel welcome and that Congress has an accessible and family friendly atmosphere, rather than feeling that Congress is not a space for them and that they need to join online. 

What is clear from Friday’s NEC is that the national leadership and the right in the union are unable to meet the challenges that we face. We must build a stronger rank and file movement within the union that can create the conditions to push back against this bureaucratic inertia.

Report of UCU Congress 2024

UCU Congress met in the context of a snap General Election having just been called. Many are desperate to see the back of the Conservatives, as 14 years of Tory governments has been marked by austerity, increased marketisation and a failure to see education as public good. But expectations seemed to be limited across delegates.

Moreover, the war in Palestine has led to a huge wave of resistance and solidarity – countless national marches, several workplace days of actions and the recent wave of student encampments. This has led to many questioning the role of our educational institutions as academic freedom has been restricted, staff and students victimised as management have argued our campuses should be apolitical. UCU Left believe as trade unionists that these are important issues that our union must take up. 

The FESC and HESC were cancelled due to strike action by UNITE members who work for UCU. UCU Left stands in solidarity with UNITE members and it is a terrible inditement on our union that UCU SMT have failed to resolve these issues. More detail on this later in the report.   

This article reports the debates on the Wednesday and Friday of Congress and the strike action by UCU UNITE members on Thursday 30th May.  The results of the votes on motions submitted to Congress 2024, except for emergency motions, can be found at: https://www.ucu.org.uk/Congress24

Day 1 Wednesday 29th May 2024

The day started with a challenge to the ordering of motions. Motions 32 – 37 on solidarity with Palestine had been scheduled for the end of the day. Unfortunately, motions put later on the agenda often are not heard due to time constraints. Delegates argued that due to the urgency and importance of the situation in Palestine, the need to provide solidarity and resist the draconian approaches taken by our employers and the police, the motions needed to be moved up the agenda. Also, elements of motions that supported calls for BDS had been ruled out of order as Congress Business Committee or Democratic Services?  stated they were not possible to legally implement. Congress delegates agreed with both challenges and these important issues were moved earlier on the agenda and ordered back on to the agenda respectively. 

Union democracy and campaigning

Casualisation is a blight on our sector that needs urgent and sustained focus. Congress passed a motion from the Anti-Casualisation Committee about creating a toolkit for winning union recognition in unorganised workplaces, that would build on the successful campaigns at University of Cambridge and Sussex ISC. 

Congress carried a motion from Yorkshire and Humberside Region about supporting democratic debate and restoring the UCU activists’ list. This was a vital resource for branches to speak to each other calling for advice or informing others of problems – our union must support the ability for members to speak and discuss issues. 

Congress carried a motion from Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Committee calling on the TUC to continue lobbying the government to allow unions to use electronic voting in union elections and industrial action ballots.  This is at present not permitted by law.

It also carried a motion from Liverpool City College calling for investigation into low turnout in union elections and investigating a move towards electronic voting.  

A key attack on the trade union movement is the introduction of the Minimum Service Levels Bill. Congress carried a composite motion to work with other unions to brief members about the new law and about TUC/union policies opposing the law.  Further the motion instructed branches not to comply with any ‘work notices’ issued by employers under the Act.

Two motions on green policies were passed, recognising the importance of education for a green transition and calling on more members to become green reps and to access CPD courses on green issues.

Education

Congress passed motions affirming the value of education and denouncing government attacks on ‘low value’ courses.  It instructed the NEC to launch a national campaign to defend post-16 education, which would include a national demonstration in the Autumn. We expect this to be organised and that we see branch banners from across HE, FE, ACE and Prisons to raise the profile and help defend our sectors. 

Congress also debated issues of free speech, academic freedom and sometimes misuse thereof.  It remitted motion 12 to NEC and carried motions 13 and 14 to protect LGBTQ+ people and those who are discussing issues of war. 

Finally in this section Congress carried a motion from the Retired Members’ Committee to hold a Health and Social Care Conference due to the ongoing crises in these sectors that affects us all. 

Attitudes towards a future Labour government

Congress agreed with a motion from Westminster-Kingsway College that there should be no honeymoon period for a Labour Government. UCU Left supported this motion as we do not believe that Starmer’s Labour Party is going to be supportive of workers. Trade unionists should not simply sit on their hands and wait for Labour to resolve the issues within our society.  There was some opposition to the motion, with one contribution arguing that we need “friends in high places”. However, delegates passed the motion.

It is absolutely shameful the way that Dr Faiza Shaheen has been treated by the Labour Party. Congress called on the Labour Party to reinstate Dr Faiza Shaheen as Labour Party candidate for Chingford and Woodford Green.  Dr Shaheen is a UCU member who works at LSE.

Congress carried the motion from Yorkshire and Humberside RMB calling on a future government to tackle inequality crises in food, health, housing, social care and transport.  This motion attracted three supportive amendments.

Pensions

Congress passed a motion deploring the practice of some universities of using employment by subsidiary companies to keep staff out of TPS and on inferior pension schemes.  It also called on the government to fully fund the increased employer contribution to TPS pensions in post-92 universities.

A motion was carried from the Retired Members’ Committee seeking reform of TPS pensions, so that survivors of TPS pensioners who retired before 1st January 2007 can keep their pension on remarriage or formation of a new partnership.

International solidarity

Congress carried a motion from the NEC about the importance of international solidarity and co-operation.  It carried a resolution from the migrant members’ standing committee calling on UCU to fund costs of inviting a speaker from a sibling union from the Global South or a historically marginalised UCU event to attend a UCU conference.

As highlighted at the start of this report, the genocide in Palestine was the key issue of the day for many delegates. Congress carried six resolutions in solidarity with the people of Palestine. Delegates heard from movers of motions who highlighted how staff and students’ freedom of speech have been limited by employers and the government. The motions that were passed called for a defence of free speech on Palestine and support for pro-Palestine protests on US campuses.

Another key debate was the composite motion to ‘Oppose a ‘pre-war’ world – welfare not warfare’. Movers of the motion argued that there is a ramping up of war rhetoric, our government is pledging to spend more money on defence which will mean there is less money to be spent on welfare. This must be opposed. Congress supported the motion, which resolved for UCU to submit a motion/amendment to this year’s TUC Congress calling on government to reverse the rise in arms expenditure. 

Congress carried a solidarity motion with Ukraine and an amendment that called for a ceasefire rather than sending military aid. Also motions in solidarity with Argentinian workers resisting the Milei Government, and with Uyghur Muslims were passed.

Day 2 Thursday 30th May 2024

The middle day of Congress is normally when the employment sector conferences meet and when retired members at Congress hold a meeting.  This year, this did not happen as UNITE members took strike action on 30th May, leading to cancellation of the meetings scheduled for that day. UNITE members of UCU staff have been in dispute over various matters, including racism in UCU, organisational culture and union recognition, arising from the decision of UCU to recognise the GMB as a separate union for senior UCU staff.  UNITE represents over 80% of UCU staff, so this had a profound effect.

UNITE UCU have held two ballots for action in the last twelve months, the latest of which resulted in a clear majority for strike action.  

UCU Left delegates along with others joined UNITE “picket lines” at the Congress venue from 8.30am on Thursday morning – it is a terrible indictment on our union that this strike had to happen. 

The UNITE branch were keen to explain to UCU delegates why they had found it necessary to take strike action and held several events over the whole Congress, that were packed with UCU delegates keen to show solidarity.  On the Thursday, unite held a moving rally to explain the experiences of members, many of whom were taking industrial action for the first time. Moreover, during Congress debates some delegates wore t-shirts with the slogan ‘Black Staff Matter’ to show their support for the UNITE dispute and for the Black Members Standing Committee.  The t-shirts were produced by lay UCU members and profits were donated to the strike fund.

Motions about the dispute were carried on Friday.

Day 3 Friday 31st May 2024

Equality 

The Black Members Standing Committee did not submit any motions to Congress this year, due to their boycott of UCU since February. This is due to the failure of UCU HQ to take seriously issues of racism raised by the BMSC – for more information https://ucublackmembers.wordpress.com/ It is completely unacceptable that members have felt so sidelined and undermined that they have taken this drastic action and we stand in solidarity with them. 

UCU Left are very pleased that Congress passed two motions in solidarity with the BMSC and Black staff. It is not usual for Congress to debate any matters related to staffing, but Congress voted to do so on this occasion due to the widespread strength of feeling. 

Motions were also carried on women, race and intersectionality and developing perimenopause and menopause education in colleges and universities. Sadly, motions 41-49 of the Equality section of Congress business were not reached for debate and were remitted to the NEC.

Address by Palestinian Ambassador, Husam Zomlot

In a moving speech, the Palestinian ambassador acknowledged the support of UCU, especially in urgently and promptly calling for a ceasefire.  He stressed the extent of the massacres, the lack of red lines laid down for Israel by the international community and the fact that Israel is engaged in all-out genocide. The evidence is stark and irrefutable. 70% of houses and 80% of schools in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed.  625,000 school children in Gaza have had no schooling for eight months.  36 hospitals have been destroyed.  Only 4 hospitals are partially functioning.

The Israeli government has cut off food, water, electricity and fuel to Gaza.  Children are dying of malnutrition.  Over 250 aid workers and 700 health care workers have been killed.  95 professors and over 260 teachers have been killed. Israel is making life in the Gaza strip impossible, preparing the war for further ethnic cleansing and a second Nakba.

Education is very important for the Palestinian people in sustaining Palestinian culture and identity. The ambassador also referred to the importance of campaigns for USS to divest from companies which support the oppression of the Palestinian people. He condemned the role of the US and UK governments in failing to support the Palestinian people and in providing weapons for the IDF. 

He also raised the fact that the UK has not resumed funding for UNRWA.  The UK Government must recognise the state of Palestine. The ambassador praised the work of branches and members towards obtaining student visas for Palestinians. 

Rule Changes

A rule change, proposed by the University of Sheffield, was carried, providing for proper, transparent procedures for halting industrial action, just as applies for authorising it.

A rule change was carried to allow for future Congresses to be conducted on a hybrid basis.  This was a debate in which several concerns were expressed.  Arguments for the hybrid option were related to accessibility and not excluding members who cannot travel easily.  While supporting the motion, many delegates also valued the networking and accountability aspects from having in-person events and would not want everything to become online only. It was agreed to move towards hybrid events, with card voting for those in the hall. 

An NEC amendment to model regional committee standing orders was agreed.  This provides for prison or other institutions which have more than 10 members in a region, other than the region in which the institution is primarily based, to send delegates to the regional committee.

An emergency rule change motion on recall was accepted for debate and carried.  This provides a recall mechanism for the situation which occurs when a Congress or sector conference does not take place when scheduled. It now becomes policy to reschedule the event, rather than remitting motions to NEC.

Motions related to UNITE dispute

Congress carried two motions related to the UNITE dispute.  The motions instructed the General Secretary to settle the dispute and to agree an independent investigation into UCU’s workplace culture.

Conclusion

Many members will be concerned about when the FE and HE Sector Conferences will take place.  These meetings are vital for deciding UCU’s industrial strategy particularly in relation to the issues in our national bargaining claims, and the industrial action members will take if necessary to achieve bargaining objectives. Within both HE and FE there are disagreements on the best way to move forward and it is essential that these debates are held, so decisions can be taken and then implemented. 

The UCU UNITE staff group has helpfully indicated that they have no opposition to these meetings being rescheduled and so it is hoped that these conferences take place soon. UCU Left urges UCU SMT to resolve the dispute immediately and will continue to be in dialogue with the UNITE branch to ensure that we provide solidarity.

This was an atypical UCU Congress.  There was a lot of frustration with UCU’s SMT, and rightly so. Nevertheless, there were good debates and some good decisions taken on the Wednesday and Friday. These decisions will be referred to the incoming NEC to allocate to relevant committees for action, which is the normal practice. It is important that we continue to build our union and campaign for all parts of post-16 education and that our efforts are not curtailed by the failures of UCU SMT. 

Strategy, democracy and the GS election

UCU General Secretary-incumbent Jo Grady has made a number of claims in her election campaign.

In particular, she says that were she re-elected she would treat her strategy, as outlined in her manifesto, as being ‘endorsed’ by members, and expect all members of the union, including elected members of the NEC, to follow it.

This is profoundly undemocratic for obvious reasons.

Strategy

The first problem with her approach is that the strategy itself cannot work. Any industrial strategy based on a limited industrial action programme set in advance is certain to fail simply because the employers will change their response depending on what the union does! The saying “no plan survives contact with the enemy” is attributed to Moltke the Elder, a German WWI general, but the point is well made.

You don’t need to look very far to see obvious examples. The strength of the Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) in 2022 and the early part of 2023 lay in the fact that the employers did not know who was participating and therefore how to respond. On the other hand, the weakness of the MAB in 2023 came from the paralysis at the top of the union as Jo Grady and her supporters left members to hang out to dry over the summer.

Jo Grady herself had to abandon her ‘build now, fight later’ strategy in the summer of 2022 when rising inflation propelled members to support the #ucuRISING campaign.

Changing economic circumstances meant that it was politically unsustainable to advocate such an approach, and instead she had to call for members to vote to take action over pay. But she had no plan to follow through. She bypassed elected negotiations, agreed to stop negotiations over pay with the employers and tried to divert negotiations onto pay-related matters at ACAS.

Despite the rhetoric, Jo Grady has no militant strategy to defend our sectors. But worse, as a top-down leader who sees members’ industrial action as a walk-on-part in stage-managed actions, she struggles to adapt her strategy to face new challenges, such as the current employers’ offensive over jobs and conditions in HE. Moreover, it is profoundly mistaken to see industrial militancy as something which can be turned on and off like a tap. Union members will take action when they are confident they have a union leadership which listens regularly to members and which is capable of following a consistent industrial action strategy. But Jo Grady’s tenure of the General Secretaryship has been marked by stop-start inconsistency and demotivation of members.

Democracy

The second problem with her approach is that it is undemocratic. Trade union democracy is far more developed than Westminster elections: elections take place annually, replacing half of the executive committees each time, and policies made at national union conferences are binding on the executive.

In our union the rule is simple: members make policy decisions, and executive committees carry them out. This rule applies to union branches and to the national executive committee structure of our union. Congress is binding on NEC and HE and FE Sector Conference resolutions are binding on HEC and FEC. Rule 18.1 says

18.1 The National Executive Committee shall be the principal executive committee of the Union, and shall be responsible for the execution of policy and the conduct of the general business of the Union between meetings of National Congress, and shall abide by decisions passed at National Congress, subject to the Rules. The HEC and FEC shall abide by and implement the decisions passed by their respective Sector Conferences.

By contrast, governing parties in Westminster make decisions in cabinet. In some cases, parties impose policies that were never in their manifestos. Famously, in 1997, following a landslide election, Tony Blair introduced £1,000 university tuition fees, in order to begin a process of marketisation of Higher Education, a proposal entirely absent from the Labour Party manifesto. One can point to numerous other examples!

What Jo Grady is demanding is a centralisation of power around her manifesto that is incompatible with the rules of the union. If she and her supporters wished to make her proposals they would be obliged to win a vote in a quorate union branch meeting, put the motion to Congress or Conference, and then win a vote in those meetings. She wants to bypass both members and debate.

The General Secretary has tried to impose her strategy on the union three times already, and whenever it has been put to a vote, she has lost heavily. Now she is trying to wrap it up in the mantle of her GS election campaign.

But a small proportion of members tend to vote in this election, and they do so by choosing between candidates, not detailed strategy documents. Her strategy has no popular support, hence her attempt to present a vote for her as a vote for her strategy.

If you have not voted yet in the elections, please do vote!

What is increasingly at stake in this GS election is not just a vote for different candidates, but a vote for the future of our union as a democratic and effective union..

Do we want a member-led union which builds on the best of our democratic processes, where the General Secretary does what members tell her to do? Or do we want a union where democracy is reversed, and the members are expected to do what the General Secretary wants?

The alternative

We need to face up to the reality of industrial relations in post-16 education. The days of partnership with management and quiet words in the ear of the Head of Personnel have long gone — if they ever existed. Vice Chancellors want to see “blood on the carpet” and a weakening of our union. They have shown they don’t care about students or the quality of their degree teaching or marking. Most Further Education principals don’t implement national pay offers.

Our pay and conditions are under assault by university and college employers thanks to increasing inflation on top of a toxic combination of market competition, division, and a race to the bottom.

We should not underestimate divide and rule. Not every member is made redundant simultaneously. Some may be prepared to take voluntary redundancy if they don’t see a prospect for a fightback. Not every member takes part in industrial action at the moment.

We need to develop a culture in our union which encourages members to meet together, stick together and participate in strikes together.

To defend our jobs and rates of pay, we must organise members at the grassroots of the union and build members’ confidence to take action. Crucially, this means being honest. It means not abandoning them when the chips are down. Our members need a leadership who will support them when they resist. This means following through on decisions when they are made, like reballoting over the summer.

We have to rebuild UK-wide disputes because otherwise we are forced into fighting over what every individual employer tells us they can afford. Our employers will plead poverty. This is a recipe for a Hobson’s Choice between jobs and pay. HE will become more like FE just as our FE colleagues are attempting to get national pay bargaining back on the agenda.

Nothing argued here is “against strategy”: rather UCU Left is opposed to counterposing the idea of a strategy to the task of real-world organising. In fact, a serious industrial strategy means organising to fight on the terrain where the employers are weak and we are strong. It means, for example, preparing the political ground for industrial action, such as targeting professional bodies accrediting courses before a MAB.

But the best way to guarantee members have confidence in an industrial strategy is simply this: they themselves must be part of developing it in practice under the changing conditions of the struggle.

This means increasing democracy. We need members to have democratic control of strike action and MABs, continually day-by-day, week-by-week, through the development of strike committees in branches, and, in national disputes, linked up UK-wide.

The basic principle that members who take action should control that action is unanswerable.

But this is not just a moral imperative. We should never underestimate our strength.

As a group of workers, we are immensely strong. Other people can’t easily teach our courses or mark our students’ work. If we increase participation in our action, we can be more solid and effective still. That is why the HE employers pulled out all the stops to try to break our action last summer, risking their public reputations and their wider employment relations with staff. It is why FE employers pay better levels of pay to members in better organised and more militant branches.

But for members to have confidence in collective action they need to control it.

In a truly member-led union, democracy and strategy go hand in hand.

In-person Congress returns: democracy, debate and catharsis

For the first time since 2019, UCU came together in-person, in its annual Congress: a three-day union policy conference with delegates from every branch. The meeting included two days of general union policy-making, ‘Congress’, and one day of sector conferences where motions about industrial policy would be heard.

The fact that Congress met in-person after such a period of time is remarkable. Many delegates who attended had not been before. In the dark days of lockdown, many old hands would be forgiven for expecting that a return to an in-person Congress would not be possible. Although we have seen a flourishing of online meetings and conferences since 2020, the return of an in-person conference therefore represented new opportunities and challenges for delegates.

There were sharp disagreements which were generally handled well, but there was also a very large amount of unity across Congress delegates.

Further Education Sector Conference

On Sunday, the Further Education Sector Conference heard the Head of FE launch the campaign in preparation of ballots in the new academic term involving at least 150 branches. He said this would be the biggest and the best resourced campaign that FE had ever seen. 

Delegates voted to outline how the already agreed nationally-coordinated campaign over pay, workload and an England-wide binding bargaining agreement should be conducted. 

They supported calls for a demonstration in London on one of the first days of strike action, an England-wide strike committee, and to prepare for an aggregated ballot of all FE branches from January if the coordinated campaign had not succeeded in moving the employers. 

Delegates also supported a raft of other important motions on maternity/paternity rights, parity with sixth form colleges, the impact of the cost of living crisis on Black members’ mental health, which resolved to campaign for the government to publish data on the disproportionate impact it has had on Black people, and motions in support of trans and non binary people in FE.

The Yorkshire and Humberside motion on attendance monitoring in colleges was well supported after delegates explained the corrosive impact on staff and students on punitive attendance chasing policies, which are rife within the sector.

A late motion brought by Trafford college on the negative impact of Ofsted in the wake of the tragic death of Ruth Perry was unanimously supported.

Higher Education Sector Conference

Meanwhile at the Higher Education Sector Conference, delegates voted for a long reballot over the summer in both the Four Fights and USS disputes. Our existing mandate runs out in September and without the ability to threaten further action in the autumn term the employers will be tempted to harden their stance against the MAB and may renege on promises on pensions. 

HE delegates also voted to encourage branches to call strike committees if they had not done so already, and to call a national strike committee in HE disputes. Such a committee would have a coordinating role to ‘increase members’ involvement and participation in building disputes and [shape] their direction.’ Delegates should be elected from every striking (or MABbing) branch and meet regularly while action is being taken. (The meeting would be advisory, but they should be run by union members rather than officials. A rule change motion which would have created rules and standing orders for a national strike/‘dispute’ committee with decision-making powers was not heard on Saturday due to lack of time.)

The responsibility for calling a national strike committee now falls to the incoming President. Given that the UK-wide MAB is now at an acute point, one should be called urgently in the Four Fights dispute.

Motions calling for further exploration of Conditional Indexation in USS and a ‘student distribution system’ were also passed. UCU Left opposed CI because it risks becoming a way that USS reintroduces stock market uncertainty into members’ pensions just as we are close to a victory. 

We also questioned the wisdom of focusing on balancing student numbers rather than opposing the entire market system, in which Universities UK is lobbying for £12K undergraduate fees in England and next year’s undergraduates are signed up to 40 year RPI-based loans. This is not opposition in principle but concerns the practical implications of such a stance. The risk is that this opens the door to advocates of high tuition fees, dividing members and branches, and staff from students and parents. The motion called for both exploration of student redistribution models and the immediate advocacy of the idea – which seems premature!

Accountability of the General Secretary

One of the most difficult debates also relates to democracy.

On Saturday, Congress voted to censure the General Secretary over her role in the HE dispute. (Censure means formally criticise.) A motion of ‘no confidence’, which is more serious, fell by only 27 votes. Before Congress met, eleven HE branches had submitted motions of either censure or no confidence.

Delegates criticised the continual undermining of the HE disputes through pausing strikes at key moments, ignoring HEC decisions and blocking democratically elected national negotiators from key decisions.

FE delegates shared these concerns. As one put it, ‘We in FE are heading into a dispute on a national level next year. We do not want a long-drawn-out dispute which is paused at key moments when we should be escalating to win.’ 

The General Secretary was allowed a 15-minute right to reply after the debate but before the voting took place. She admitted mistakes had been made and spoke about how we need unity if the union is to move forward to beat the employers. 

At the end of the debate, Congress voted to censure her. The fact that the ‘no confidence’ motion fell indicates that delegates were prepared to give the General Secretary a chance to rectify the way she has handled the disputes. 

Congress has made a decision. It is not one that UCU Left agrees with, but we need to draw a line under this debate and move on to winning the ballots in FE, and pursuing the MAB. We will also need to reballot in HE to maintain our mandate. This raises the prospect that we could see a united post-16 strike over pay and conditions in the autumn. 

But on her part the General Secretary must make good on her promise to learn from the mistakes that have been made. Any recurrence of attempts to undermine democratic decisions will lead to members calling our elected leadership to account again.

Worryingly, on the last day of Congress the outgoing President said that some of the speeches in Saturday’s debate had been misogynistic, i.e., sexist and abusive. This is a surprising claim, firstly because the debate was witnessed by over 300 members, and secondly because if the chair (the President) felt this, she should have intervened at the time! In fact, the debate was characterised by a high level of care by all delegates. Delegates were very careful to focus on the actions of the General Secretary rather than making remarks directed to her personally. 

The debate is not about personalities, but who controls the disputes. Members are putting themselves on the line when they strike or MAB, and they expect their union leadership not to leave them high and dry. 

The best solution is to organise. Members in disputes need to continue to strengthen union democracy, and in particular to organise real, functioning strike committees – regular decision-making meetings open to every striker or MABber – in every institution participating in the dispute. 

What kind of democracy do we need?

The other big debate about democracy, which was reflected in both the HE Conference and the full Congress, concerned e-ballots versus deliberative democracy. 

Some delegates argued that electronic surveys and polls reached more members than branch meetings or strike committees, and therefore were either superior, or should be used in addition to other forms of decision-making. These arguments were voted down, primarily because delegates have witnessed how such e-polls can be misused in the HE disputes. If they run in parallel with branch meetings, how do you integrate possibly different results? If they run as a separate step, do they lead to delay and inaction?

Changes to union rules

Congress 2022 last year had established a committee to review Rule 13, the UCU procedure for dealing with complaints against union members, in response to concerns about the fairness of the procedure. This year, Congress voted to bring in a new procedure, which establishes a new body, the Conduct of Members Committee, to deal with these complaints. This body will be comprised of members elected by Congress, increasing lay member involvement in internal processes that were previously highly centralised. Congress’s wish to democratise union procedures should be seen as part of a more general will to improve democracy and accountability within our union, also seen, for example, in motions such as those to establish strike committees. 

UCU Left supported the proposals from the Rule 13 Commission and opposed an Open University amendment, which was passed, which established a different panel for gender-based violence and bullying which would have only a single UCU member and two external members ‘qualified in survivor-centred complaint investigation and resolution.’ We consider that these are very serious issues, but opposed the creation of a separate procedure. We also believe that UCU needs to be accountable for the behaviour of its members and take responsibility for sanctioning them when required.

Having a separate procedure for gender-based violence raises the issue of separate procedures for racially-motivated violence, and violence against disabled and LGBT+ people. It is also not clear whether any citation of bullying in a complaint would cause this alternative procedure to be selected. This is a debate we will have to return to.

In an historic vote, Congress also agreed to rule changes that permit postgraduate research students (‘PGRs’) to become UCU members on an equal basis to staff, even if they were not employed at the time. Although delegates were made aware of some issues of implementation – primarily, access to legal support and industrial action ballots (like retired members, student members can’t lawfully vote in statutory ballots) – these were not considered insurmountable, and the principle of inclusion was paramount.

Another rule change clarified the role of national negotiators and their reporting responsibilities.

International motions

After a thorough debate, delegates voted for two motions on Ukraine. Both motions took a clear position of opposition to the Russian invasion, demanded Russian troops leave, condemned all manifestations of imperialism, and called for peace. The first motion called for the British government to stop sending arms to Ukraine, opposed NATO expansionism and called on UCU to support demonstrations called by the Stop the War Coalition and CND. The second motion called for UCU to campaign for safe routes for all refugees and asylum speakers, for the cancellation of Ukraine’s national debt, and tasked the UCU with developing programmes of practical solidarity work.

Congress was persuaded by those who argued that the war was escalating in violence and weaponry, with an arms race of ever more high-tech weapons being deployed on both sides, risking prolonging the war, killing tens of thousands of working-class Ukrainians and Russian soldiers, and increasing the likelihood of a nuclear conflagration. 

Congress also voted to support the ‘Right to Boycott’ campaign, a new campaign being set up to oppose Government plans to make Boycott Divestment and Sanctions policies of public bodies illegal. Already this topic has caused the union to become legally defensive, despite the union winning the famous Fraser vs. UCU legal case. Congress voted to reinstate, and then support, an amendment to the motion which reminded members of existing policy towards academic boycott of Israeli institutions and their academic freedom right to decide who to collaborate with.

Along with other motions in support of the Palestinian struggle and in solidarity with the people of Sudan, these motions were overwhelmingly supported.

Equality

In a series of debates, Congress reaffirmed its commitment to trans and non-binary solidarity and LGBT+ rights. It also took forward proposals on sex workers’ rights, and sexual and gender based violence training, including in the internal UCU complaints procedure. A range of motions on disability advocacy and support were passed, including supporting disabled students and campaigning against Cost of Living and cuts in disability entitlements. 

A motion on reparations for slavery that had fallen off the agenda last year was brought forward in the agenda and supported overwhelmingly.

Finally UCU voted to campaign against the various new far right extremist groups who have been given a platform to attack refugees by the Government’s brazen scapegoating. 

Solidarity with UEA and Brighton branches

Congress unanimously passed motions of solidarity with two branches suffering serious redundancy threats at the moment – University of East Anglia and University of Brighton.

Delegates heard that the attack at Brighton University, involving the threat to over 100 academic jobs, was also a deliberate assault on the UCU branch there with the aim of driving through further changes in breach of the post-92 national contract. Four members of the branch committee are on the ‘at risk’ list, including the Chair, who was also recently re-elected to the union’s NEC. 

Congress agreed that the struggle at Brighton should be declared ‘a local dispute of national significance’ and the branch should be provided with the resources it needs to resist this serious attack.

Branches in London and the South East, and some from further afield, committed to sending delegations with their branch banners to the ‘Save Brighton University – No to mass redundancies’ demonstration called by Brighton UCU for Saturday 10th June.

UCU Left Pre Congress Meeting

UCU’s annual Congress takes place at a crucial time for the union and with its leadership under increasing scrutiny.

As we gather in Glasgow, Higher Education branches will probably still be participating in a UK-wide marking and assessment boycott, with many members potentially suffering punitive pay deductions. Serious local attacks, like the threat of mass redundancies at Brighton University, are adding to the sense of crisis and the challenges facing the union.

Decisions to mount a national pay campaign in Further Education are being implemented hesitantly at best, threatening to waste the opportunity to take a huge step forward in uniting the sector.

The outcome of voting on motions at Congress and the two Sector Conferences will determine the future of the General Secretary -who faces motions of censure – and the direction of the union as a whole.

Join this meeting to discuss the key issues and prepare for Glasgow 2023.

Register in advance: bit.ly/UCUL_PreCongress2023

UCU Left voting advice for the 19 April Special Higher Education Sector Conference

We might agree with the sentiments of motion HE1 (‘Solidarity, struggle and reconciliation’), but the assumption that disagreement per se is damaging is wrong, and patronising to reps. Debate is the lifeblood of a democratic union. All industrial action requires members to be argued with to go on strike or take part in a Marking And Boycott (MAB). The ‘resolves’ section is thus misguided and impractical. 

Second, once motions of censure and no-confidence in the GS are ruled out of order by CBC (B8-11) then HE1 and HE23 should also be out of order. HE1 appears to be a coded attempt to see off a vote of no-confidence in the General Secretary and should be remitted, or opposed if remission is lost. 

Support HE2 on USS and 4 Fights. This is the key debate. The strategic strength of coupling the 4 fights and USS disputes – uniting pre and post 92 sectors across the generational divide – cannot be overstated. The brilliant ballot results announced on 3 April, with higher percentages for action in both campaigns on a record turnout, are of paramount importance in this debate.

Oppose HE3 which proposes decoupling the 4 Fights from the USS dispute. This repeats superficial observations about progress in the USS dispute, concluding that 4 Fights and USS campaigns must be decoupled. We know from recent experience that strike action cannot be turned on and off like a tap, and from past experience that decoupling action on 4 fights and USS reduces the effectiveness of both.

Oppose late motion L1 which aims to halt the MAB. Our starting point is that members have just voted, in a ballot that closed on 31 March, 89.05% in favour of strike action and 91.61% in favour of ASOS for the USS dispute, and on 4 Fights, 85.65% and 89.92% respectively. They did so understanding that this could only mean a MAB in the third term. Remarkably, L1 sets a ‘reject’ threshold of 66.67% of all members (not just those who voted): far higher than the anti-trade union laws! The e-consultation presented members with two options: to ‘note’ or ‘reject’. L1 conflates ‘note’ (progress made in negotiations) with ‘accept’. And it’s wrong to state that action to-date has “delivered results on all four claims”. L1 also ignores what we know to be true: that serious industrial action drives recruitment and builds union density: ‘recruitment drives’ disconnected from action do not.

There are three motions which attempt to use strike action to back up the MAB. However we should avoid the risk of allowing this strategy to be misinterpreted. Depending on how HE4 and its consequentials are interpreted, we should support HE5 in preference to HE4. HE4 is a restatement of the proposal from last year’s Special HE Sector Conferences, which is explained more clearly in HE5. However, last year those HE4-type motions were interpreted by the officials as calling 10 days of strike action (and only 10 days) independent from the MAB. This is not what the motion says of course, but HE5 is clearer.

Listen to the debate. If HE5 supersedes HE4, then vote for both HE4 and HE5. If they are not agreed to be compatible, vote for HE5 in preference to HE4. Support HE6.

The 4 Fights dispute is addressed in HE7 and HE8, which we recommend delegates support. The anti-casualisation element of 4 Fights is rightly foregrounded by HE8, which makes the inclusion of concrete proposals to address insecurity a prerequisite to settling the dispute.

Motion HE9 has been overtaken by events, but otherwise resolves “to use the 2020 offer from UCEA on casualisation, workloads and pay inequalities as a template for an agreement […]”, which is helpful, and “to begin immediate preparations for a marking and assessment boycott to escalate the dispute to improve the pay offer”, which takes the decoupling of the USS and 4 fights disputes as a starting point. HE9 should be remitted or opposed if remission is lost.

The future of the USS dispute is examined by motions HE10, amendment HE10.A1, and HE11. In particular, HE11 prioritises benefit restoration over the reduction of contributions, the former benefitting all staff, and the latter, the employers (as contributions are split 66% / 33% between employers and staff). Both HE10 and HE11 should be supported.

Oppose amendment HE10.A1. At a glance this adds helpful clarifications, but it replaces ‘Conferences believes a satisfactory resolution of the USS dispute requires’, which restates negotiation boundaries, with ‘Conference believes restoration of trust in USS requires’, removing any relevance to the conduct of our industrial dispute.

The next group of motions (HE12 through HE15) consider how to deal with offers from the employers. Support HE12, HE13 and HE15. However, delegates should remit or oppose HE14, which does not add to policy but creates an ambiguity about what a ‘significant improvement’ might mean. The motion says any offer that is a ‘significant improvement’ on the March 15 offer should be put to members whether or not that offer is an improvement on subsequent offers. Suppose it is agreed to put out an offer of 6% for next year and that is rejected by members. Should we then consult members over a further offer of 5.5% or 6.1%? 

We can’t address this problem by passing a motion at SHESC and gaming every possible scenario in advance. Instead we need to support motions HE16-19 on ensuring that we strengthen our democratic structures at branch level, so that reps and members can discuss any offers in branches without premature e-ballots and start-stop action, and HEC can meaningfully engage with branch reps. 

The remaining motions, with the exception of HE25, address the various abuses of UCU democratic structures and rules that have occurred over the course of this dispute. The following motions should all be supported:

  • HE16 – Democratise Branch Delegate Meetings
  • HE17 – Elected negotiators and democracy
  • HE18 – Observe UCU’s democratic rules and structures
  • HE19 – For democratic control over disputes

Motion HE20 argues that existing UCU policy against the use of informal e-polls or consultative e-ballots should be respected.  The wording suggests that input by HEC and sufficient time for discussion in branches and BDMs might make such e-ballots acceptable. 

We need a proper debate about the use and misuse of e-ballots in our union. We have witnessed the GS and her team putting out consultative e-ballots as a bargaining ‘ploy’, to retrospectively justify standing down ‘pauses’ in industrial action, and to twice canvass support for ending action and putting out offers to members. These e-ballots were put out to members, not just without HEC input into the questions asked, but without reference to HEC, HE officers or elected negotiators.

UCU has clear policy (the Commission for Effective Industrial Action Report adopted by Congress 2018) limiting the use of consultative e-ballots to ‘a campaigning tool which carries the relevant officers/committee’s recommendations as opposed to a passive surveying of members’ views’ (Recommendation 11). When HEC (or any other committee charged with this purpose) considers an offer from the employers to be sufficient to put to a ballot of members, HEC must always specify its voting recommendation (Recommendation 8). Although the wording could be clearer, we recommend a vote to support HE20.

Support HE21, in solidarity with members pressured to reschedule classes, and HE22, which expresses concern at many of the problems with the way the disputes have been conducted by UCU HQ.

The arguments about the first e-consultation on USS and the ACAS-negotiated 4 fights statement are revisited in motion HE23. It is surprising that a motion to censure HEC has been permitted for debate by CBC but not motions criticising the GS.

This motion should be opposed, for the simple reason that it attempts to rewrite history. First, the processes mentioned (e-poll, BDM) are constitutionally informal and ‘advisory’, whereas the elected HEC is charged with making decisions, including on the basis of information that is industrially sensitive and not shared with members. Second, the questions asked of members and their framing were not agreed by HEC or HE officers, despite UCU policy and HEC passing motions that insist that they should be. Third, the specific e-poll mentioned (with a double-barrelled question) was seen by reps as such a serious misuse of process – and an attack on branch democracy – that the Branch Delegate Meeting became extremely heated. Fourth, the motion misrepresents the decision of HEC, which was not to refuse to consult, but to not rush out a poorly-constructed consultation at the same time as conducting industrial action. Vote HE23 down, which is a poorly-worded attack on basic trade union democracy and accountability at branch and HEC level. 

Support HE24. Though we might quibble about the impact of strike action being ‘uncertain’, we are in favour of encouraging students to pressure university management.

Many branches will be concerned with punitive pay deductions for taking part in the MAB. HE25 proposes seeking favourable legal advice on this threat, which in some institutions has spread to include demands to reschedule cancelled lectures. The best remedy to punitive deductions in any institution is a rapid escalation to all-out strike action at a national level (a tactic which HE5 explicitly supports). However, that is not an argument to oppose the motion, as legal arguments can be an important factor in bolstering members’ confidence.

Summary of voting recommendations

MotionRecommendation
HE1 – Solidarity, struggle and reconciliationRemit / Against
HE2 – USS and Four FightsFor
HE3 – Composite: Decoupling the Four Fights from the USS disputeAgainst
L1 – Marking and Assessment Boycott – Four FightsAgainst
HE4 – Supporting a marking and assessment boycott (MAB)For
HE5 – Industrial action: MABs, strikes, and BDMsFor (in preference to HE4)
HE6 – Responding to 100% MAB deductionsFor
HE7 – Winning Four FightsFor
HE8 – Composite: The ever-increasing casualisation and insecurity in HE needs addressing urgentlyFor
HE9 – Consulting on UUK offer and escalating dispute with UCEARemit / Against
HE10 – Restoring trust and value to USSFor
HE10A.1Against
HE11 – Restore USS benefits in full before contributions reductions are consideredFor
HE12 – Meaningful, democratic, transparent and informed consultationFor
HE13 – Informed decision-makingFor
HE14 – Formal consultation on offers if the disputes continueRemit / Against
HE15 – Taking democratic control of our disputesFor
HE16 – Democratise Branch Delegate Meetings (BDMs)For
HE17 – Elected negotiators and democracyFor
HE18 – Observe UCU’s democratic rules and structuresFor
HE19 – For democratic control over disputesFor
HE20 – Respect the union’s existing policy against the use of “consultative” eballotsFor
HE21 – Solidarity against discrimination and victimizationFor
HE22 – Negative Impact of short notice consultation on strikeFor
HE23 – Censure HEC for 17 March DecisionAgainst
HE24 – UCU to encourage students to pressure management during strike actionFor
HE25 – Challenging the legality of pay deductions for ASOSFor

UCU Left recommendations on USS SHESC voting

Motion Recommendation
1 SWG report and recommendations HEC Remit, because the last bullet point is potentially unconstitutional and could be used to silence negotiators
Oppose if not remitted*
2 Call for indefinite strike action Sheffield Against, in favour of later motions
3 Indefinite action USS HEC For
4 Escalate to indefinite action with local consultation Manchester For
5 ASOS and strike action (composite) Dundee / Ulster / Liverpool For
6 Industrial Action Plan University College London For
7 Action to win Glasgow For
8 USS – Escalating industrial action Nottingham Against, only ‘moving towards’ boycott
9 Assessment boycott as a core part of our UK-wide strategy Newcastle For, although no specific resolves
10 Escalation of USS Dispute ACC Against, no resolves and could be used by GS to undermine action
11 UCU HEC invitation to UUK to ACAS collective conciliation Bristol Against, because it would likely create a delay and the demand is unrealistic**
12 Next steps in the disputes Newcastle For
13 Planning now for action next academic year Cambridge Against, due to the mistaken call for an aggregated ballot
14 Co-ordinating effective UK-wide action Liverpool For
15 Striking out of teaching term Leeds Against
16 Maximum effective action Edinburgh For
17 Compiling regional calendars to assist timing of industrial action Heriot-Watt For, if amended
Otherwise oppose (risk of delay)
17A.1 Dundee For
18 Call for a return to aggregated strike ballots Southampton Against (aggregated ballot)
19 No decoupling of Four Fights and USS Dundee For
20 UCU HE members to decide future HE strike action Bristol Against
21 Branch Delegates Meetings Edinburgh For
22 Pay deductions for striking members with external funding ACC For
23 Negotiations before valuation Glasgow Against, because it weakens the negotiator’s position and there are better prospects in campaigning over DRCs
Consequentials: rules out 26 resolves “a” (no detriment) which has been remitted

Notes

*Motion 1. The Remit and Standing Orders for the SWG are intended to go via the NEC processes. Any changes in normal expectations must be made via standard Congress rule change process (2/3 majority etc), and corresponding implementation. While “Terms of Reference” may sound innocuous and indeed are proposed in good faith, they cannot be put in place for one committee in a manner that is distinct from that for all other. This poses risks in interpretation, implementation and consistency of process. As there is no option to take the motion in parts, were remission to fall, the SWG report should be voted down.

Existing policy would still continue to apply should the report be not passed.

**Motion 11. “Notes 4” is incorrect. The ACAS resolution of reduction in benefits similar to the current one was rejected by members; the JEP proposal came out of discussion between the previous GS and employers, and there was no second JEP proposal.

UCU must call the marking boycott now – there is no time to waste!

In the ballot for industrial action, union members in their tens of thousands voted overwhelmingly for strike action and ASOS (including a marking boycott). When members were asked, “should we fight on?”, they voted YES.

Now, in an historic vote, elected branch delegates at the first Special Higher Education Sector Conference (on the Four Fights dispute) have voted for an immediate marking boycott backed up by strike action.

No more delays

These decisions must be acted on immediately. With marking begun in some universities, and 14 days notification to the employers required under the anti-union laws, there is no time to waste.

Every day lost risks weakening the marking boycott.

But the General Secretary’s email to members says that there will be a meeting on 10 May and an HEC on 12 May to decide “next steps”.

This is not what delegates voted for.

  • Motion 5 calls on HEC to “initiate a marking and assessment boycott at the earliest opportunity in all branches with a mandate.”
  • Motion 6 demands that UCU “call a boycott of all summative marking from the start of summer term.”
  • Motion 23, the only motion that resolved to consult branches, asked UCU to consult branches about dates to avoid for strike action.

Motions expressing the General Secretary’s proposals to postpone action were defeated. But her latest email seems to be yet another intervention to delay action to a point where it could be ineffective.

She has to stop blocking the democratic decisions of members.

We just voted. We don’t need to be consulted again!

UCU needs to call the marking boycott now – not after 12 May.

What needs to happen urgently is for HEC officers to meet and decide to send out notification to employers. There is no need for a full HEC meeting.

It was expected that this would happen after Friday’s HEC meeting. But that has been called off. HEC members have already written to the General Secretary asking why this has happened.

Consult over strikes, not the boycott

It is a good plan to hold a Branch Delegate Meeting on 10 May. But that is not a reason to delay calling the marking boycott. Indeed Motion 6 specifically called for weekly BDMs with voting powers to be held to monitor progress, after the marking boycott was called.

Branches did not vote for more consultation and delay over the marking boycott.

What you can do

Members and branches should write to  the General Secretary and HEC officers calling for the marking boycott to be formally notified immediately, and to reinstate Friday’s HEC meeting.  

The USS Special HESC

On Wednesday, delegates meet at the second Special Higher Education Sector Conference, on the USS pension dispute, to discuss the next steps in that campaign. All delegates have the right to expect that when they vote for motions, decisions will be enacted as soon as possible – especially when time is critical.

Several motions tabled at the Four Fights HESC re-appear on the order paper. We would encourage colleagues to be disciplined and ensure that at least the same action is called on the USS dispute heading as over Four Fights! It is also important that we work together to get through all of the business and debate the USS-specific motions at the end of the agenda.

Build the Solidarity!

We are now entering a new phase in the fight over Four Fights and USS.

Forty branches have a mandate for action. Others do not, but have recorded resounding YES votes.

We need to put the question of solidarity for all branches and members taking action at the forefront of everything we do. We need to build UCU Region networks and meetings, twinning branches and raising money. And the super-regional UCU Solidarity Movement, which is backed by UCU, can be a place where members can meet and discuss the next steps in the dispute.

The next Solidarity Movement meeting is on Wednesday evening at 6pm. We would encourage all members and supporters to attend!

Details below.


UCU Solidarity Movement open organising meeting

⏰Wednesday 27 April 6pm

👉🏽 Direct link to Zoom: https://bit.ly/6pmWed

Seize the Time, Don’t Abandon the Fight

We all know we are in the fight of our lives.

But the General Secretary’s ‘new plan of action for the four fights dispute’ is a radical-sounding document that abandons the Four Fights dispute until a year’s time, and pulls back from defending the USS pension scheme at the very moment the employers are cutting it back.

It is unsurprising that union reps are speaking out spontaneously against this plan.

We are told that continuing action at this point would be ‘conservative’, whereas the ‘radical and militant’ response to the greatest attack on our standard of living for 30 years is to… halt the fight for a year! Inflation is hitting 9 percent, but our union’s leadership is telling its members – with a live dispute and mandate – to put up with it, and fight another time!

Reading this document, you wouldn’t have thought that the union had just recorded overwhelming majorities for strike action and ASOS. Reps are lectured on ‘democracy’ after winning votes!

We are told that this is the way we can increase union density, but this flies in the face of our own union’s history. In 2018, pre-92 HE branches grew by 50% in a couple of months as they readied for strikes. That happened because members want to know the union will defend them, individually and collectively. On the other hand, shutting down the national fight against casualisation sends precisely the wrong signal to members on casual contracts.

The General Secretary is counterposing union recruitment to industrial action. Her theory of the ‘supermajority‘ says that the reason why strikes win is because union density is high. But this is not correct. UCU was a third smaller in the pre-92 USS ballot in 2018 than in 2021. And some branches with high membership density – like Goldsmiths – are under remorseless attack.

In fact, industrial action is won by workers when employers recognise that refusing to concede to union demands will be more costly than any perceived benefits. That cost can be economic (e.g. damaging reputations and recruitment, etc), but it can also be political (causing a political crisis for the employers, as in 2018). 

For everyone who has stood on the picket lines in the wind and rain, and spent weeks fighting to get the vote out, the General Secretary’s pre-prepared ruminations will be a massive disappointment.  On the other hand, members who voted for action but failed to take it themselves will read it as a signal that the union is not serious. 

Democracy

Jo Grady was elected after her predecessor, Sally Hunt, sought to abandon the USS fight. She was elected as an expression of UCU members’ will to resist. However her response to the present attacks on UCU members looks little different to Sally Hunt’s.

The latest round of ballots saw members once again vote overwhelmingly for action. Had this ballot taken place before the Tory Anti-Union Law of 2016 was introduced, we would be all able to take strike action. Branches have asked their members whether they support strikes and ASOS. And they have voted Yes!

Even if you are in a union branch that failed to get over the Tory threshold and cannot take action, with very rare exceptions, in branch after branch members have overwhelmingly voted for action. That’s democracy. 

It is wrong to interpret non-votes as no votes. Firstly, it is anti-democractic in principle. This is why quorums for general meetings are low, to ensure that members turn up and participate in debates and vote for and against motions.

Secondly, it is not consistent with the evidence. Members do not vote for a variety of reasons, as anyone who has engaged with a Get the Vote Out (GTVO) campaign can report, from lost papers to house moves and pre-arranged leave. This explains why branches with well-organised GTVO campaigns chasing and nudging members to vote have been repeatedly able to get high turnouts. It is also why Yes vote percentages tend to be remarkably stable even when turnout fluctuates. 

The three-week ballot insisted upon by UCU HQ, at the end of the second term and into the Easter break, left many branches close below the 50 percent threshold. Another week would have brought more branches over the line, and two more weeks, as voted for by HEC, could have changed the picture enormously. 

Some members complained that replacement ballot papers arrived at home on the final Friday, and rep reports show members saying they were voting right up until the end. The ballot deadline combined with the postal voting process cut voters short.

A plan to win

The General Secretary is now trying to lobby union reps and activists over their heads, to persuade branches to stand down the action that members have just voted for. Yet a calibrated plan and a mobilisation of the whole union could win these disputes. 

At the current time, some 40 branches can still take action on exams in Term 3. Everyone knows this action will need the whole union to rally around.

  • A marking boycott organised on a ‘Liverpool basis’ requires a positive outward campaign across the membership to sponsor strikers, fundraise on a massive scale, and ensure that every participant knows the whole union is behind them, practically and financially.
  • Members in non-striking branches would be more than willing to contribute to sponsor colleagues. These branches need to organise too. The USS rank-and-file legal challenge shows the scale of fundraising we need.
  • And a ballot over the summer in the context of a hard-hitting fightback makes sense. It could see us all ready to take on the employers right at the start of the autumn term.

The General Secretary says this is a war. But you don’t win wars by telling the enemy you are too weak to fight, and would they mind if we came back in a year?! The attacks on Goldsmiths colleagues, and the employers’ general intransigence show that they are likely to see such a declaration as a sign of weakness.

We are now told that despite previous attempts to de-couple the USS dispute from Four Fights that it’s OK to keep them coordinated – as long as we fight in a year’s time! But this makes no sense. Why would giving the employers free rein for a year make them more likely to reverse the changes? With the next valuation in 2023, backing off now looks like an invitation to the employers to push for 100% Defined Contribution!

Even USS Limited admit there is no need for ‘Deficit Recovery Contributions’, and that these could be spent on members’ pensions. This represents an open goal – if we fight.

Debating the way forward 

Members deserve a serious strategy. Instead we are told is to ‘keep our powder dry’ while the university employers drive through attacks on staff and students alike. Demobilisation is a recipe for defeat and demoralisation, not union-building.

We cannot allow the work by UCU reps and members to be wasted. We need to stand up for union democracy and stand by the ballot.

Two meetings have been called to debate the way forward:

In our strikes and ballots, members learned to trust each other, not the official union machine.

We are the union, and we need to fight for the future of our sector.

Democracy Now! How can members control our disputes?

The issue of union democracy has again become important in the context of UCU’s higher education disputes.

Many members are wondering how the Higher Education Committee (HEC) could blatantly ignore the views expressed at the previous Branch Delegate Meeting (BDM) when they took decisions about our forthcoming industrial action.

No delegate argued for decoupling the two disputes, and no delegate made the case for rolling regional one-day strikes. And yet that is what HEC voted for.

Fury at this democratic deficit has led to branches passing motions for an emergency Special HE Sector Conference and to a demand for a further Branch Delegate Meeting, with voting powers, before the next HEC meeting.

Democracy is the life-blood

Democracy is central to fighting industrial disputes effectively. This is because unlike an army, those making sacrifices to fight cannot simply be ordered around. Union members need to feel that we have a stake in the battle and a say in how it is conducted. If members believe that the strategy will be ineffective, or that their leaders will settle for less than they should, support for the dispute will quickly erode.

Democratic involvement is not an optional extra. It is essential to being able to win.

The last time a row about democracy exploded in UCU was in the USS dispute in 2018. The famous #NoCapitulation revolt by members stopped the the then General Secretary signing a shoddy deal. To avoid motions critical of the GS being debated at Congress later that year, the leadership unplugged the microphones and turned out the lights. Congress ended early, but not before it had set up a Democracy Commission comprising elected union members to propose ways to enhance democracy in the union.

Dispute committees

One of the proposals drawn up by the Democracy Commission was for dispute committees to be set up in every dispute, composed of delegates from each of the branches involved. The dispute committee would debate the strategy and tactics of the dispute and no decision about the conduct of the dispute could be taken without its approval. Dispute committees would ensure that control of disputes was in the hands of the members fighting them and prevent settlements that the majority of branches opposed.

Unfortunately, at the Democracy Congress in December 2019, this proposal narrowly failed to gain the two-thirds majority required to bring it in. Opponents argued that it undermined the authority of the HEC and the Further Education Committee (FEC) — which was precisely the point — and that holding such meetings would be impractical and expensive. The pandemic has taught us otherwise.

Nevertheless, it is already constitutionally the case that the National Executive Committee’s (NEC) role is to enact the policy set by members, not to determine it. What mechanisms do we have to ensure that it, and its two subcommittees, HEC and FEC, behave democratically? Continue reading “Democracy Now! How can members control our disputes?”