Category: Debate

Posted on

After the HE ballot results – what next?

The Higher Education ballot results are out.

Despite hard and consistent work by reps and activists in branches, and a campaign from HQ, unfortunately we failed to get over the 50% threshold.

The right in the union are already arguing that it was a mistake to ballot members. Their constant refrain is that it’s the wrong time to ballot, and that the union should concentrate on local fights over jobs rather than building a UK-wide fightback.

This is the position of members of HEC belonging to the Commons and IBL factions who stopped the union reballoting during the 2023 MAB. Having failed to lead the union when they had the mandate, they blame the members, the left – indeed anyone but themselves – for not mobilising successfully now.

How should we interpret this result? 

It’s good that 40% of members did participate in the vote – but why did the campaign fail to cross the 50% threshold?

The central problem is that many UCU members, including dedicated union reps, don’t believe that our leadership is willing to lead a serious fight. This is borne out by people questioning the industrial action strategy. The gap between the 70% vote for strike and 83% vote for ASOS may also reflect this.

But this belief is also based on experience of recent disputes.

Branches fighting job losses have been left to fight alone. There has been no attempt to link up the disputes that have won – like Dundee and Newcastle – with those that are striking or balloting here and now. Nor has there been any central effort to build solidarity with branches in the middle of the fight. Restrictions on accessing the Fighting Fund mean branches taking strike action have had to issue public calls to branches for financial support alongside the usual solidarity.

Secondly, UCU central messaging failed to set out the case for the dispute except in general terms. Members reasonably asked ‘what national agreements are under threat?’, ‘what would a national agreement on jobs look like?’ and ‘is the pay claim affordable?’ Multiple branches, such as Durham, took the initiative. There were lively campaigns by branches and reps on social media. A rank and file group tried to pin down the demands. The UCU Solidarity Movement enumerated 10 reasons to vote Yes. 

But compared to this, the central campaign was very weak.

The ongoing – and utterly shameful – failure to resolve the dispute with UCU Unite staff has been another big negative factor. And many activists across the UK are still angry at the betrayal of the 2023 MAB campaign over two years ago – and in some cases, are still recovering from the financial hardship they endured.

What next?

So what are the prospects for members, reps and branches in resisting a further cycle of cuts? How can we defend our sector and ourselves?

The employers are not going to sit back. Indeed they may increase the attacks on branches.  Northumbria and Southampton Solent are testing the water to see how the union responds to a brazen assault on TPS pension membership. Other employers may think now is the chance to demand job losses.

There are several arguments that won’t go away.

#1: The sector could afford pay and jobs – if employers cut other expenditure

The affordability argument is pushed by the employers’ organisations UCEA and UUK. They say the cupboard is bare, and that the value of student tuition fees have fallen so low that redundancies and pay cuts are inevitable. 

To add insult to injury, they say staff should take a real terms pay cut of 3% on top of job losses of 10-15,000 a year, with uncounted losses of casualised workers.

Worse still, left to their own devices, a recent report says the employers will continue this cycle of cuts annually.

What is happening to university expenditure?

Figure 1. Expenditure of UK HEIs over time (all) £ millions (source: HESA). *Staff costs are corrected for FRS-102 adjustment.

Note: HESA data adjusts ‘staff costs’ by the FRS-102 accounting method. Thanks to major changes in USS pension liabilities, these ‘costs’ have fluctuated widely in the last few years. An early version of this blog post incorrectly quoted uncorrected HESA data.

These inclines appear quite steep, but become flat or even fall once inflation is taken out. Universities were still expanding over this period. Staff and student numbers in the sector have grown.

Figure 2. Expenditure headings over time (Fig 1), adjusted for inflation (RPI). Source: ONS/Statista.

What is covered by “other operating costs”? This is a catch-all category, but the greatest proportion is capital expenditure. Employers are continuing to invest in new buildings, campuses, medical schools, etc. This expenditure has grown since 2014, when the cap on student numbers was lifted, triggering a “war of all against all.”

This is why it is right to say the money is there. We do not face a “choice” between pay and jobs – the employers are taking both. And the answer is the same – cut the capex! Whenever the employer is announcing redundancy programmes we must first insist on opening the books and stop sacking staff to pay for new campuses.

And if that won’t solve the problem, we need to put pressure on the government to demand a bailout.

#2: Governments can be made to bail out universities

This data is an average. Not all universities are in the same position. 

Redundancies should be the last resort.

  1. Employers are not powerless victims. Despite the headlines, most universities are making surpluses, and some are engaged in substantial capital expenditure projects. Others are restructuring, hiring more staff while making others redundant. Employers have considerable flexibility about what they choose to spend their money on!
  2. Employers are feigning memory loss. Those that accumulated large surpluses in the past now want to forget them and focus on this year’s deficit. The average surplus across UK HE over the last decade was 3.23% of income. Wales is the exception, with an average surplus of just 0.61%.
  3. Universities have reserves. These past surpluses are unspent income. They are not ‘operating surpluses’ – these sums have been banked. Universities have reserves, although the scale of reserves varies massively across the sector.

Some universities, like Dundee and Hull, have a structural deficit, and need a government bailout. Others, like Goldsmiths and Sheffield Hallam, are hovering around the break-even point. But the evidence of the last few years is that redundancy programmes don’t cure deficits, because they also drive students away.

So we need a strategy to defend jobs and the sector, and expose what is going on.

What Dundee UCU did should be a model for other branches to follow.

In the first round, the branch took their fight to the Scottish Parliament, and convinced them to back a bailout to protect jobs. 

When their employer’s new Interim Principal decided to renege on the agreement from last year and sought to make cuts, Dundee UCU were forced to reballot.

They struck again last week, and succeeded in getting a clear statement from the Scottish Government that the £40m bailout must be spent on keeping jobs not paying staff redundancy payments:

“It is Scottish Government’s clear instruction that until such a strategy (referred to above and in the Conditions of Funding as the Strategy To Recovery) has been developed and approved by Court there should be no new proposals for additional compulsory staff reductions.”

This is an amazing victory: a ‘Made in Dagenham’ moment. 

Education is a public good, and universities in towns and cities like Dundee are key employers, they cannot be allowed to fail. The combination of strikes and a political campaign over defending jobs show that it is possible to force governments to bail out universities and hold VCs to pledges not to make redundancies.

But for every Dundee there are several other branches that have been less successful.

#3: We need to take the fight to Parliament

Local fightbacks are not enough. A union that only fights locally is bound to lose. We risk the entrenchment of unequal terms and conditions: the strongest branches may do ok, others will lose out again and again. Many members see the national union effectively silent and failing to lead. The result is an understandable demoralisation.

We need to force Higher Education up the political priorities of governments – and of the UK Parliament in particular. At the moment, Vice Chancellors and UUK are being heard in the press and Parliament. UCU and the other unions are ignored. It is barely surprising if many members don’t believe that UCU has a national strategy!

A UK-wide strike is the best way to turn up the pressure, but we don’t need to wait to organise lobbies. This November, a small group of UCU reps in Further and Adult Education organised a lobby of Parliament in London which had over 300 in attendance. Students joined to support the fight for their education. Sensing the way the wind was blowing, several employers gave the green light for staff and students to attend. 

UCU could call a series of actions building up to coordinated national lobbies of all four Parliaments in the New Year, and build action towards elections in May.

#4: We need to support local strikes over jobs

At the same time, we must redouble our support for branches resisting the jobs massacre. Branches should invite speakers from branches planning to take action. Donations matter! 

Solidarity should not be left to local reps to organise. UCU head office could do a lot more to support branches taking industrial action to resist job cuts. 

Examples include:

  • Extend strike pay so that action need not end too soon (and the employer knows they can’t starve staff back to work)
  • Organise regions to build solidarity for branches fighting back, including local demos, fundraising events, etc
  • Organise speaking tours for reps from branches that have run successful disputes, to share ideas
  • Organise lobbies of key politicians and parties, advertising them publicly to members, and putting on transport 

#5: We need to rebuild the campaign, and reballot members on a UK-wide basis

If we are going to get high turnouts in future ballots in HE, we need an honest discussion about what went right and what went wrong with the ballot we have just had.

UCU should call a HESC not just a swift BDM, so that there is an opportunity to debate motions rather than just give 90-second reports from a limited number of branches, and for delegates to decide on next steps in the dispute.

There should be no attempt to stifle criticism of the UCU leadership – we can’t do things better if we don’t know (or daren’t discuss) what went wrong.

We will need to reballot members. 

Finally, there is one further factor. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, despite being watered down, is wending its way through Parliament. 

If it passes, then the 50% ballot threshold will be abolished. 

This won’t change the importance of winning members to taking action. We will still need to campaign to win a ballot. But it will abolish the undemocratic veto, where a group of members actively not voting can stop a strike.

Hold leaders to account in the elections

We can’t just complain about “the leadership” if we don’t seek to change or influence it. This year’s elections for half of the NEC run in February. Due to a resignation, the election for Vice President from HE and FE are being run at the same time. 

This is a unique opportunity to reconfigure UCU’s national officers, to build a dynamic team directing strategy for members. UCU Left have strong and experienced candidates running for VP of HE, Sean Wallis, and VP of FE, Regi Pilling. UCU Left will be running candidates for a large number of seats, alongside a number of independents we regularly work with. 

For a more coherent national strategy across post-16 education, we encourage all colleagues to join the campaign to boost turnout to ensure we get a strong left leadership elected.

Posted on

Conditional Indexation FAQs

1. What is Conditional Indexation (CI)?

Indexation is the amount your pension is increased each year to take account of inflation.  In conditional indexation this is not guaranteed, but depends on market forces and possibly other factors, such as governance structures and who makes the decisions.

2.  How would this affect our current USS pension scheme?

Currently all elements of our pensions, including indexation (inflation protection), are guaranteed. 

Conditional Indexation (CI) removes this guarantee. 

3.  How are pensions calculated now?

Currently there is an accrual rate of 1/75.  This means that for every £1000 of pay you receive each year £1000/75 will be added to the pension you receive each year. 

There is also a salary threshold above which members receive defined contribution (DC) pensions where the amount is not guaranteed.  This is now over £70,000, so does not affect most members. 

The value of accrued pensions are increased with inflation. This is called ‘indexation’. Indexation is guaranteed, but is based on a ‘soft cap’.  It is currently equal to CPI (consumer price index, a measure of inflation) up to 5%.  It then increases to 10% as CPI increases to 15% (at a rate of half a percentage increase for every inflation percentage increase) and is capped there.

Therefore pensions could be improved.

4.  Why is Conditional Indexation being discussed?

The idea of Conditional Indexation was originally proposed when the valuation was showing a large deficit, largely due to the way it was being calculated. 

The valuation is a calculation of the difference between the pension scheme’s assets and liabilities (payments that need to be made). Pension regulations require it to be calculated at least once every three years. 

We had to take industrial action in 2018 to stop the loss of defined benefits (guaranteed pensions) but we were unable to prevent a massive cut in 2022.  This was finally overturned in 2024, which required a lot of industrial action and work by negotiators.  

5.  Who will decide on the amount of indexation?

This is still being discussed, but it could just be USS with no or insufficient involvement of UCU.

6.  Will Conditional Indexation prevent future deficits?

No, Conditional Indexation will not resolve problems associated with the valuation.  This will require a different valuation approach and also a better investment strategy.  UCU has been working on the valuation approach and also for a better investment strategy.

7.  Will CI reduce the likelihood of industrial action?

Probably not, and it could increase it.  It is likely that indexation will be calculated every year in addition to the valuation every three years.  This gives more opportunities for disputes which could lead to industrial action.

8.  What is UCU’s position on Conditional Indexation?

UCU is sceptical, but continuing to explore CI in the interests of members and to ensure no decisions are made that we are not involved in.

9.  What do the employers and USS think of CI?

They support it.  The employers would like to reduce their contributions and reduce the amount of USS liabilities that appear on their balance sheets to enable them to borrow more. 

They are not using recent savings from reduced employer contributions to increase pay, or take measures to increase job security.  Despite the recent significant reduction to employer (and member) contributions, employers are still threatening massive redundancies.  The percentage of university income spent on staff (including pensions) has reduced to an all time low.  

10.  What are the benefits of Conditional Indexation to members?

USS has suggested that it could increase benefits paid to members.  It has done some modelling which seems to shows this. 

However, this modelling does not set these projected improvements against the risk to members from the loss of guaranteed indexation (see point 11 below). USS have not provided the details needed to check the model.  It also does not consider the improvements in benefits that could be achieved in the current scheme. 

11.  What are the disadvantages of CI to members?

We will lose guaranteed indexation, which is of great value to members.  Investment risk will be transferred from employers to members, and members will see a significant increase in risk.  It is unclear what the benefits, if any, will be to set against this.  No wonder UCU is sceptical!

12.  Will Conditional Indexation provide a minimal level of indexation?

No.  It could provide zero indexation, as USS thinks this will give greater flexibility.  However, pensioners will receive the legally required minimum of 2.5%.

13.  What would happen if there are several years with no or low indexation?

There is supposed to be some sort of ‘catch up’ mechanism to increase indexation subsequently when market conditions improve and allow this.  However, the details have not yet been worked out.

14.  Will this catch-up mechanism prevent problems due to years of low indexation?

No.  Some pensioner members could die before indexation increases (if it does).  Other members may put off retiring until indexation improves, or find it difficult to decide when to retire.

We are fighting casualisation and job losses, but have large numbers of casualised members who may leave the sector and could lose out on any catch-up.

It is difficult to provide more details of exactly what will happen as we do not know yet know what the governance mechanism will be.

15.  If Conditional Indexation is introduced and it does not work out, can we go back to our existing pensions?

Unfortunately not, or at least not without extended industrial action.  The employers are strongly pushing CI and would have liked to introduce it for the next valuation.  USS also seems very strongly in favour.

So employers and USS are very very unlikely to agree to a return.  If we move to CI we will lose guaranteed indexation and will not be able to get it back.

Posted on

Newcastle and Dundee – How to Win in a Crisis

A Crisis in the Making

The Market Experiment in UK Higher Education visibly began to collapse in 2024-25, with a series of universities reporting shortfalls and deficits of the order of tens of millions of pounds amid reports from forecasting bodies identifying evidence of sector-wide structural deficits.[i] Reports of tens of thousands of job cuts taking place in 2024-25 and 2025-26 were forecast by activists, and the danger of universities becoming insolvent and destabilising the whole sector was widely recognised.[ii]

The crisis within UK HE is rooted in the ending of opportunities for expansion underpinned by student tuition fees from home and international students. The experiment began in 1998 with the first introduction of £1,000 undergraduate tuition fees, extended in 2006 to £3,000 and then turbocharged, first with the rise of English tuition fees to £9,000 in 2011 and finally, the lifting of the cap on home student recruitment in 2014. Differences across UK nations for home tuition fees did not lead to alternative HE funding models, instead, the tendency was towards intensified competition for student fees in what was referred to as ‘unregulated markets’, i.e. taught postgraduate programmes and overseas student fees.[iii]

The UK Higher Education system adopted an ideology of free market competition and its accompanying language. Universities were now ‘higher education providers’, they ‘competed’, students were ‘customers’, and quality was associated with fee levels. Of course, as with free market ideology itself, internal contradictions were obvious from the beginning. UK Higher Education was a price-fixing cartel in which student fees were set by employers’ organisations at the maximum available, international fees were benchmarked to providers with similar international rankings, and prices for student services, most obviously accommodation, were set by the maximum loans students could access through the living costs component of student loans.

The race was on to expand to maximise surpluses and market share for individual providers, and this required the rapid growth of major capital projects, new campuses, and buildings springing up across university campuses throughout the UK.

As with other markets in capitalism, this proved to be a major source of the crisis emerging in 2024. Capital expansion and interest payments funded by ever-rising surpluses in the sector unravelled when tuition fee income fell. The unwillingness of government to increase student tuition fee loans in line with inflation resulted in a declining profitability in the UK student tuition fee market. Racist immigration policies pursued by UK governments, coupled with financial crises in developing economies responsible for the largest numbers of international students and the growth of domestic alternatives led to a downturn in overseas student applications, and a squeeze on the international tuition fee market. Mainstream economists would call this a crisis of profitability. Marxists would recognise this as an example of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall.

The Employers’ Response to the Crisis

Employers turned to a uniform set of explanations as a focus for the crisis. Contingent explanations were provided, such as the fall in international student numbers across the UK, government National Insurance increases and rising staff costs. Solutions identified were also uniform across the sector: job cuts were supposed to be a means to address the fall in surpluses.

The University UK’s September 2024 report, Opportunity, Growth and Partnership: A Blueprint for Change from the UK’s Universities is their response to the crisis of HE funding and the return of a Labour government. UUK is advocating shared services, outsourcing and joint ventures as a means to ‘reform’ HE. The authors are a who’s-who of the architects of the crisis! David Willetts, villain of the 2011 hike in tuition fees, is a contributor who opines about ‘global reach, reputation and impact.’ Another author, Peter Mandelson, who has been active in the press on this matter, uses the analogy of the academy chain in the school system as a model for shared services. 

UUK has followed up on their Blueprint with the establishment of a ‘Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce’ in January 2025, with restructuring of professional services at the heart of its remit. The head of this Taskforce is a merger-and-acquisitions lawyer and VC of the University of the Arts London, Sir Nigel Carrington, producing a report on 2 June, Towards a New Era of Collaboration.

While a general crisis of profitability in the sector erupted in 2024, not all institutions felt the crisis in the same form. Many of those most successful in expanding student numbers saw a fall in their surpluses, while a smaller number that had been less successful in sustaining their expansion were unable to maintain sufficient surpluses to remain solvent. In these cases, real deficits are appearing which have the potential to force institutions into insolvency.

Class and Conflict in the Crisis

Newcastle and Dundee Universities are examples of these two types of institutions. Newcastle University, a university that reported a £190m cash surplus for the financial year 2023-24, declared a £35m budget shortfall (i.e. a surplus below its budget target) in October 2024, and demanded 300 job cuts. The University of Dundee, which failed to publish its Financial Statement for 2023-24 due to its cashflow crisis and impending insolvency, declared a £35m deficit in November 2024 and demanded 632.4 full time equivalent job losses.[iv]

The two universities also shared similarities, which are the focus of the remaining sections of this piece, namely the response of the UCU branches and their members in building campaigns against the job cuts which proved successful in defeating their employers.

We offer our summaries of what happened to encourage colleagues across the union to discuss them and consider what they can apply to their own situations. We will have to learn from these important examples in the coming months. Hopefully this will be in the context of UK-wide industrial action, so branches won’t always be striking alone as we found ourselves.

The membership of our union branches rejected the managed decline of the sector promoted by employers, policy analysts and even some within its own union leadership. The branches launched immediate mass mobilisations of members, moving speedily to industrial action, leading to sustained strike action. This was combined with broad mass political campaigns to win hearts and minds in the wider population. These highlighted the governance crisis at the heart of the sector, identified sector-wide political solutions required to prevent collapse, and built broad-based solidarity campaigns involving students, communities, political parties, national demonstrations and lobbies.

The two campaigns were not identical, but both identified key areas of weakness in their employer’s approach and responded to the specific timescales of the redundancies being imposed on staff. Newcastle UCU successfully mobilised mass picketing, taking strike days during marking season, and exploited the pressure a national demonstration could bring to bear on their employer. Dundee UCU managed to mobilise political pressure on the devolved Scottish Government, as its university management collapsed in disarray, as a focus for campaigning. Most importantly, however, despite these differences, both were underpinned by recognising the need for extensive strike action from the start, mass mobilisation of the union membership which built the union, and a general militancy in approach.

Newcastle strike calendar
Newcastle strike calendar.

How to Win

Both branches sought to maximize industrial leverage on the employer by getting ahead of timelines of balloting and redundancy consultation through declaring a dispute at an early stage. They rejected the traditional UCU ‘long haul’ approach of small-scale strike action and waiting for a management response. They recognised that this simply did not measure up to the scale of the crisis, and that without a clear lead, staff would be demoralised and leave.

Hard-hitting industrial action created the capacity within the branches for — and amplified — a wide repertoire of campaigning in the political lobbying sphere, within the academic and governance spheres, and in the press. In Newcastle’s case, four weeks of action were initially notified, while Dundee’s three weeks took them to the end of the semester (Scottish Universities timetables are significantly earlier than most English universities). These were not the end, but were followed by further periods of strikes to increase pressure on employers.

Crucial to taking militant industrial action was the involvement of the membership at every step of the way. Dundee initiated a series of ‘Townhall’ meetings open to all staff, not just those of UCU or UNITE and UNISON. These typically involved over 1,000 staff, the largest meetings ever held at the University. Weekly branch meetings and member involvement meant that decisions were not the prerogative of the branch leadership but were in the hands of members, who regularly opted for a stronger response to the employers.

Rejection of redundancies also required an intellectual argument. In both universities, UCU members voted to reject all redundancies and not limit themselves to compulsory redundancies. Members drafted reports highlighting the expansion of capital expenditure and increases in other operating costs rather than staff costs, that were at the core of the university’s failed strategies.

Two further important initiatives were developed in the branches which acted to expand recognition of the disputes beyond their local branches and raise solidarity. In the case of Newcastle, the branch coined the phrase ‘Spreading the Resistance’.  It was clear that what was occurring in Newcastle would spread across the sector, so encouraging other branches to adopt a similar militant approach, combined with raising financial support for the strikes, had the potential to spread the local campaign into a sector-wide campaign. This was not purely altruistic: it increased pressure on the Newcastle VC to concede.

In Dundee’s case, the financial crisis was deepened by the collapse of the University Executive Group. Of the eight senior managers in post at the beginning of the year, all bar two resigned over the following weeks and months. Initiated by the Finance Director’s early departure, the Principal, Vice Principals and University Secretary all left in rapid succession. The resignations spread beyond the UEG into the Court governing body. Currently, Dundee University remains a university without a functioning UEG and Court.

The UCU’s campaign, led by Dundee UCU and backed by UCU Scotland, forced the Scottish Government into a very public commitment to financially underpin the University. To-date, £22m has been awarded to stabilise the university’s liquidity crisis, and two further years of funding, estimated at around £20m per annum, has been identified.

This approach also ensured that the dispute could go beyond that of the original declared trade dispute. Other staff at risk of redundancy, not the focus of the original 632.4FTE staff cuts, including casual staff on zero-hour contracts in the Medical School, research funded staff and those running online modules in the School of Engineering all saw their jobs saved as the branch linked their job cuts to a wider demand of no redundancies.

The approach taken provides a blueprint of how to halt the employers’ offensive in institutions in very different circumstances. This approach is forcing Higher Education onto the political agenda, so that governments are forced to intervene and the HE funding model itself is put up for public debate. Crucially it also means that the voices of university staff and not just the employers are heard.

Picket line in Dundee. Pic: Jon Urch.
Picket line in Dundee. Pic: Jon Urch.

Organising to Win

The role of activists in both branches and branch leaderships proved crucial to the successful development of the two strikes. Mass meetings and weekly branch meetings encouraged the existing branch leaderships to broaden the base and leaderships of the strikes. Initiatives came from new and older reps.

We will give three important examples to illustrate this point.

First a positive example: the push to move to early balloting. Within UCU there is a general conservativism which has a tendency to delay balloting, often imposing extensive informal ‘further consultation’ and extended ballot timetables. But all of these restrict the window for strike action during the teaching period. UCU’s current ‘Building to Win’ strategy document, written by paid officials, does not even include industrial action in its approach, and centres negotiation, within a ‘credible prospect of a positive outcome’ (sic), as the most desirable outcome.[v]

The confidence of members would be completely undermined had the local branches not fought for a much more urgent campaign and ballot timetable. Wider networks of reps and activists, including in the UCU Solidarity Movement, also proved crucial in listening to, and offering advice, in this process. In both cases, branches succeeded in dramatically reducing proposed timescales from declaring disputes to their first day of strike action, putting the branches in a much stronger position.

But not all examples are positive. The second example was negative: the overturning of branch decisions to campaign against all redundancies. UCU only balloted against compulsory redundancies, against the express desire of repeated branch meetings. This is a mistake that weakened branch campaigning, not least for the simple reason that everyone understands that accepting voluntary redundancy leaves those remaining with unmanageable workloads.

The final example, a failure to include an explicit reference to a Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) in the Newcastle ballot, further restricted the extent to which branches could initiate action after the teaching semesters had finished. Newcastle UCU’s initiative of ‘MAB strike days’ was explicitly designed to overcome this limitation.

Activists, new and old, had to learn quickly that not only were they fighting their employer, but overcoming inertia within UCU itself was necessary to maximise our leverage.

National Demo in Newcastle - rally by the Monument
National Demo in Newcastle – rally by the Monument, Wed June 11 2025.

Lessons Learned: Power Lies in the Rank and File

The experiences of Newcastle and Dundee UCU branches, rooted in divergent experiences of the crisis in Higher Education, show that UCU does not simply have to accept the management of decline in the sector or limit itself to so-called ‘credible’ demands. Job cuts can be stopped, management can be challenged, and new funding can be won for the sector. Confidence in our strength provides the opportunity to move beyond the limits of a trade dispute and develop new forms of industrial action or expand our demands to cover other vulnerable staff groups, such as grant-funded researchers.

The ability to do so comes from the militancy of members and branches leading a broad fight, underpinned by extensive strike action. Balloting promptly, mobilising the membership quickly and promoting their decision-making through branch meetings, taking bold action and building a wider campaign of solidarity all increase the likelihood of victory against employer attacks.

We would encourage all UCU activists and branches facing redundancy to look closely at the methods adopted by Newcastle and Dundee UCU. These provide just two examples of success branches can learn from. We would encourage you to invite speakers from these branches to your branch meetings.

— Carlo Morelli (Dundee) and Matt Perry (Newcastle)

Newcastle mass picket
Newcastle mass picket.

Notes

[i] Financial Times, (2023), The looming financial crisis at UK universities, 18th July 2023.  Available at The looming financial crisis at UK universities. London Economics, (2024), Examination of higher education fees and funding in England Policy note, February 2024. Available at PowerPoint Presentation, accessed 19th July 2025.

[ii] Queen Mary University UCU (2025), UK HE Shrinking, Available at  UK HE shrinking, Accessed 19th July 2025.

 Times Higher Education (2024), UK University funding ‘at a crossroads’ ahead of general election, 6th February 2024. Available at UK university funding ‘at a crossroads’ | Times Higher Education (THE), accessed 19th July 2025.

[iii] For a history of the introduction of the market to higher education see A. McGettigan, (2013), The Great University Gamble: Money, markets and the future of Higher Education, Pluto Press: London.

[iv] University of Newcastle (2024), Integrated Annual Report 2023-24, p.65. Available at IAR-23-24-compressed.pdf, accessed 20th July 2025. The Courier (2025), Newcastle University responds to job losses and the UCU’s strike action. Available at Newcastle University responds to job losses and the UCU’s strike action – The Courier Online accessed 20th July 2025. Financial Times, (2025), How a cash crisis pushed Dundee university to brink of collapse. Available at How a cash crisis pushed Dundee university to brink of collapse accessed 20th July 2025.

[v] UCU, Building local bargaining project paper: BUILDING TO WIN: available at 20240930_Building_to_Win_Local_bargaining_project.pdf, accessed 23rd July 2025.

Posted on

FE needs unity in action to improve funding

Richard McEwan (New City College) and Regi Pilling (Westminster Kingsway
College), both NEC and national FE pay negotiators

The Starmer government has signalled its intent to continue austerity, cutting adult education budgets and slashing welfare and disability payments relied on by many students and staff. The DofE is recommending a 2.8% pay award, but it’s unfunded meaning more realterms pay cuts. As we are all too keenly aware, colleges were left out of the last pay award entirely. The promised £300m will not go far after years of cuts, rising student numbers and rising costs like national insurance, which the government is no longer covering. The situation is unlikely to improve with the Comprehensive Spending Review later this year – further education funding will still be woeful and unable to meet the ambitions of the New Deal claim. In this context, the decisions of this year’s FE sector conference will really matter.

Events have moved significantly since the special sector conference last spring. Employers, through the National Joint Forum (NJF), have committed to exploring how binding national bargaining can be implemented in England FE. Two special meetings have scoped this out, tied to a desire for pay parity with schools. England FE remains the only part of UK education without proper national bargaining, making it the poorest sector and unable
to put coherent demands to government.

Although it is still early days, there is a convergence of interests as employers seek to address the recruitment crisis. It is clear that a new bargaining system is coming, but whether it favours us or the employers will depend on our industrial strength. Achieving a binding framework will require additional government funding and cannot be won through local strikes alone. Therefore, UCU needs to launch an England-wide campaign of protests, demonstrations, and strikes. Securing a national framework could transform pay and conditions — we must seize this opportunity with a decisive strategy.

Moreover, the FEC and the secretariat now agree that the time is right to escalate the New Deal claim to national action – this is also reflected in the motions to conference. However, whether this turns into action remains to be seen, especially with the IBL / CUD (the right in UCU) holding a majority on the FEC. They have historically opposed action, including
recently opposing a motion for UCU to hold an indicative ballot to find out if members would strike to gain the equivalent 5.5% school teachers’ pay award. Therefore, the critical question is how and when we escalate our current campaign.

We could be in a much stronger position. In March 2023, a majority of England FE members voted for national action — an achievement that took the NEU years to reach – however little action was taken by UCU. This academic year, action by 30 sixth form colleges on FE pay over the 5.5% award caught the attention of employers and government- most 6th form colleges have now gained that pay award.

Yet UCU took two years to issue a briefing explaining our campaign for national bargaining, and no local FE strikes occurred this year — a first. Last year, despite strong indicative ballots, over 75 branches opted out of action. This demobilisation and lack of national leadership led to low settlements and made life harder for those branches that fought. The local action strategy has run its course. If we are to win, we cannot repeat these mistakes.

At this year’s FESC all the motions call for nationally coordinated action. However, timing is key. In FE, the best time to act is near the start of the academic year, when local and national negotiations occur and before the October census date, which is critical for student funding. Management are very worried about strikes at this point as students still have the ability to move to other institutions. Striking after enrolment but before the census date gives us maximum leverage.

We also need mass, coordinated action. Members understand that local strikes alone cannot address sector-wide issues. A campaign mobilising colleges together will be far more powerful and will raise confidence amongst members.

We support all motions. FE2 should be amended to encourage strong branch participation. What we are trying to do as a union requires branches to act in the overall interest of the union’s claim. FE3 and FE9 call for a national ballot, which we also support. Whether aggregated or disaggregated, the important thing is a united, England-wide ballot. It has been clarified to FEC that all previous national ballots were technically disaggregated. This should be explained clearly to the conference. If passed, the FEC can implement the
motions as we have for previous national ballots.

We hope you have a good conference and that we come out with a clear plan to fight for our claim and win it. If we get this right in addition to fighting for our own pay and conditions, we will have a strong voice to stop more attacks on our communities’ access to education.

Posted on

From Boom to Bust to Fightback? We need to mobilise our members to defend the University

Sean Wallis – London Regional Secretary

After 15 years of seemingly limitless market-led expansion of Higher Education, the UK university sector is facing the biggest crisis in its history. It is worth briefly remembering how we got here. Any solution to the crisis has to talk about how we get onto a stable financial footing, and what that will look like.

The 2010/2011 Willets Plan for English Universities had the following elements:
• Up to £9,000 tuition fees for home students (equating to a profit of some £2,000 per student)
• Abolition or partial reduction of the block grant subsidy (which was calculated on a quota basis per subject area)
• (2014) Abolishing student recruitment caps (apart for regulated courses like Medicine)
• (2017) Changing the regulatory regime from a quality assurance model to a deregulated ‘consumer complaints’ one.

These home undergraduate tuition fees were backed up by student loans costing some ~£20bn a year to the Treasury. Alongside increases in home student fees, unregulated overseas student fees were allowed to soar.

This system initially appeared to work, although not how politicians had imagined. First, nearly all universities found that charging less than £9,000 per student did not help them recruit, so the Tory idea of a ‘genuine’ marketplace with different prices turned out to be a pipe dream. Second, faced with a lifetime of debt, students tended to pick subjects they were confident about. Humanities, rather than maths and science courses, found themselves the main beneficiaries. This meant that students tended to repay their loans at a lower level than Willets and co had planned: over the then 30-year loan period, the Treasury reckoned only half the loan would be paid.

Nonetheless, after caps on recruitment went in 2014, many universities gambled on long-term expansion, taking out 20 or 30-year loans to build new campuses. But that was OK, interest rates were at an all-time low and property prices were surging. What could possibly go wrong?

Then in 2017, Jeremy Corbyn nearly found himself Prime Minister as a leftwing Labour Party programme saw his party surge to nearly beating Teresa May (with 40% against the Tories’ 42.4% of the popular vote) – an increase explained in part by the youth vote and a popular call to abolish university tuition fees. In response, the Conservatives announced a review of HE funding, to which the financier Philip Augar was eventually appointed in
2018.

Augar’s review was delayed by first Brexit and then Covid. Augar’s solution, eventually implemented by Michele Donelan in 2023, was to tinker with the market formula, changing the loans system to a 40-year repayment scheme with an RPI rate of interest, and lower earnings thresholds for repayment. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated that working class students would pay back more, wealthy students would likely pay less. Whereas the earlier scheme was closer to a hefty 9% graduate tax, the new scheme was more like a Treasury-backed loan, which students would be made to pay. These changes added at least £30,000 to the cost of education over the student’s lifetime – some estimates put figures closer to £60,000.

What would a sustainable alternative look like?

By 2019 the market system was getting close to failure, for anyone who cared to look. In 2020, a rapidly-convened Convention for Higher Education statement was launched in Parliament during the Covid lockdown. The proposals it put forward did not abolish the market system, but were designed to rein it in and address the social inequalities created by the market. They included:

• Restoration of maintenance grants.
• Resources to tackle inequalities of access (prioritising social groups in disadvantaged circumstances, whether on the basis of locality, socio-economic class, ethnicity or disability; and to unemployed adult returners).
• Immediate reduction in tuition fees by 30%, with the balance made up by the government.
• Restoration of student recruitment caps, backed up by direct public funding to support struggling institutions through a temporary dip in recruitment.
• Senior salaries should be restricted to a 6:1 ratio, and casualised staff given secure contracts.
• Abolition of racist and discriminatory policies towards international staff and students.
• Democratisation of internal university governance.

The Convention Statement was supported by the Labour Shadow Minister for Higher Education, Emma Hardy. Her statement at the launch is worth reading, especially in the light of shallow promises from Bridget Phillipson and Jacqui Smith. The Convention’s broad-based efforts in getting the ear of the Government, Lords and Labour in opposition contrasts with UCU’s so-far feeble lobbying campaign.

The fight we need

We cannot fight redundancies of 10,000 a year on a university-by-university basis. We need to take the fight to Government. When that has been done – as in Dundee – the union has been able to spearhead a defence of Higher Education and marshal the overwhelming majority of public opinion in our favour.

University of Dundee planned to cut 632 jobs – the UCU branch took 3 weeks of strike action in February and March. UNISON and UNITE also balloted successfully. Together they built an excellent campaign with large pickets, general meetings and public rallies involving other trade unionists and politicians from the Scottish National Party, Labour and Green Party. But critically they pressured the Scottish government to act. Consequently MSPs questioned University of Dundee management and the Scottish government stepped in providing additional funding. The fight is not over for Dundee – but it shows what can be
done when the fight is taken to government.

But most of the time our national union is not pushing out to make the big arguments. Instead union branches have been advised to negotiate locally. Branch reps are being asked merely to hand-hold members as they are escorted through notionally ‘Voluntary’ and inevitably Compulsory Redundancy Consultations. Even when branches are allowed to strike, it is often too little and too late.

Making the big arguments means we have to fight for the future – for the defence of subject areas and departments, as well as for universities and access. That’s why we need to spell out short-term demands as well as long-term goals.

We need to mobilise the whole of the union to take UK-wide action in the face of this crisis. At Congress there are several motions in front of HESC which propose slightly different mechanisms to put together a fight to defend jobs and defend the sector. Ultimately which the union decides to back is for HE Sector Conference to decide. But we should not allow differences in tactics to get in the way of unity around a common plan to mobilise branches, to win ballots and to fight to defend the sector.

Posted on

Building a national UCU HE campaign in 2024

The UCU’s Higher Education Committee met on Friday 27 September to decide on next steps in the 2024 national pay and related claim.

We have reached the end of a series of formal negotiations over pay and pay-related elements. Most employers are already moving to impose the offer on pay in members’ pay, but some — perhaps as many as 20 — have told union branches they intend to ‘defer’ for 11 months.

In the immediate term, HEC voted overwhelmingly to keep the dispute over pay alive. There was a recognition that we have both a major opportunity — to put pressure on the new Labour Government — and a major threat — a spiral of sectoral decline — to address.

As we set out below, the best way to develop a campaign to defend our sector includes an industrial campaign over pay. A UK-wide pay campaign can mobilise our members against the ongoing Cost of Living crisis and demand UK-wide solutions that Higher Education urgently needs.

At the Branch Delegate Meeting (BDM) before the HEC, no delegate spoke in favour of the pay offer. Everyone knows that it is a pay cut, on top of the 11% cut in pay members suffered in two years previously. Staging the payment adds insult to injury. But there was doubt expressed by a number of delegates as to whether we could win more. All members, delegates and branches need a strategy to turn the situation around.

HEC voted to reject the pay offer and accept the pay-related elements of the offer. Some branches at the BDM reported that their members voted to reject the pay-related elements (terms of reference for negotiation over the other Three Fights) because the offer was too vague. But ‘acceptance’ simply means UCU agrees to go into negotiations in JNCHES over national policy recommendations. And it would mean that any industrial action and ballot would be specified in relation to the pay claim.

Such an ‘acceptance’ does not prevent branches fighting for best practice at a local level with specific local claims to employers. Nor would it stop the union campaigning publicly over casualisation abuses, chronic workload or discriminatory pay gaps.

Indeed, the strategy we attempt to set out below could provide a good platform to expose the current poor state of UK Higher Education working conditions.

The employers’ offensive

Over the last year, as many as a third of Vice Chancellors have asserted the need for cuts in jobs. We have seen a wave of major redundancy programmes across the sector. As well as creating suffering among our members in branches, the VC’s mantra of ‘affordability’ has cast a long shadow over negotiations at the top table.

Redundancy programmes and course closures are not new — ever since London Met’s infamous shrinking by two-thirds, numerous universities, including recently Roehampton, Wolverhampton and Goldsmiths have borne the brunt of horrific purges. But in previous years, major redundancy programmes were exceptional. Employers knew they risked undermining student recruitment in a ‘competitive marketplace’. Instead they mostly managed workforce numbers over time via means that avoided a public crisis, such as retirement, recruitment freezes and voluntary schemes.

Unfortunately in the face of this wave of redundancies, UCU’s approach has been to keep the fight local. Branches have been supported by the central union, but apart from independent rank-and-file initiatives there has been no attempt to bring the whole union together to fight them. Many members hear about redundancies, but in a piecemeal way. Their union is not mobilising them to offer solidarity. Even the Higher Education Committee has not been permitted to see a breakdown of redundancies branch-by-branch, despite HEC members asking for this information repeatedly.

There are two overarching factors as to why the last year has been marked by a redundancy wave. The first is the cumulative division between ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in market competition for students, worsening ever since 2010. Sooner or later the dam would break.

The second is the way our own union has reacted to the failure to meet the ballot threshold in Autumn 2023. Having botched the MAB by refusing to implement a summer reballot, and refusing to set up Conference-mandated strike committees to allow branches continuous reporting and control over the dispute, our union leadership effectively signaled defeat to the employers. Seeing their chance, Vice Chancellors rolled out their revenge across the country. The sector was now ‘in crisis’ despite universities sitting on billions in reserves.

We cannot continue like this. We have to say ‘enough’.

We need to discuss a serious strategy that can put meaningful pressure both on employers and the new Labour Government to change course.

We need to borrow from the successful NEU schoolteachers’ campaign for a ‘Fully Funded Pay Rise’, linking the fight over pay to the fight to defend the sector.

So how can we do that?

Building a new kind of dispute

We think UCU needs a joined up campaign, consisting of two elements: political campaign for a Fully-Funded Sector and an industrial campaign for a Fully-Funded Pay Rise. Many of the elements of this campaign are already policy, having been voted for by our Special Sector Conference in April.

This has to be a campaign that puts branches facing redundancies right at the centre. No branch and no members should be left behind.

Our inspiration should be the pay campaign run by the National Education Union (NEU). From the outset of their dispute, the NEU knew that schools in England and Wales would not be able to meet their pay demands. So they made that message part of their campaign.

They did not limit their demands to what the employers could afford. After all, a school with unbudgeted RAAC that turned the lights off after kids went home would not suddenly find cash for pay rises stashed away in a cupboard!

We need to take a leaf out of their book.

The public political campaign, which we suggest we could call For A Fully-Funded Sector, needs to be discussed and refined at branch, region and nation level, with initiatives taken up by all union bodies that can articulate both immediate and near-term demands to the new Labour Government. This would then be the backdrop for a ballot members over the national JNCHES claim (RPI+2% over pay).

HEC agreed to launch a consultative ballot as part of this campaign.

We need to urgently elaborate a strategy that all of our HE branches can get behind.

For a Fully-Funded Sector

The current home undergraduate tuition fee and loan system in England is unjust and unsustainable. Scottish universities have never had these high fees, and Northern Ireland and Wales had reduced fees. The falling real values of tuition fees, plus the competition for students built into the system, have cumulatively created the current crisis in the sector. Raising fees to £12,000+ a year, as Universities UK (UUK) wants, is socially regressive, unjust and politically divisive, will not address the ‘winners and losers’ problem, and could cause student enrolments to fall.

Recent reports that Bridget Phillipson is contemplating raising tuition fees to £10,500 a year shows that Labour is under pressure to do something. But it also shows that UUK are more influential than UCU right now.

In fact in the short term — without touching student fee levels — Labour can be called on to take three steps which together would begin to level the playing field in the sector. These were agreed by the Special HE Sector Conference earlier this year.

  1. Cancel (or agree to pay) the TPS surcharge. These are extra costs the Treasury has imposed on TPS employers as a result of the most recent pension valuation. Schools and FE colleges are not required to pay this cost for at least a year. But Post-92 universities are shouldering an additional cost of between 3 and 5% of total salary. This partially explains why so many Post-92s have triggered redundancy programmes.
  2. End the Hostile Environment, and ensure student visa routes are humane, affordable and rational. This means resurrecting post-study visas and visas for dependents. Labour should also abolish the migrant salary threshold for all. Right now universities outside of London cannot even internationally recruit postgraduate research assistants. Universities employ very large numbers of part-time teaching staff — none can be recruited internationally.
  3. Bring back the ‘block grant’. This is a teaching grant to departments that was abolished for many disciplines (including all of Arts and Humanities) in 2010, and reduced heavily in others. We need to resurrect support for courses that have been denied historic levels of funding for years. This could be fixed at a student number cap, allowing the government to bring back caps on regulated student recruitment in stages.

These are all short-term demands. But none of them require tuition fees to rise.

Having cheer-led for £9k fees, the Vice Chancellors in Universities UK are now campaigning to raise even higher fees — to over £12k. But the demand to increase tuition fees is obviously unfair, and would be politically difficult for the Government. It is by no means clear that Labour will increase fees, but if they do, it won’t be enough for the VCs.

Although UUK envisage the tuition fee rise would be covered by the student loan, that would just mean that the student debt mountain would grow even faster than its current £20bn/year growth rate.

Student loans in England are large by international standards.
Student loans reached £236bn in March 2024. (Source: House of Commons Library.)

Paying universities directly via resurrecting block grants is simpler, focused and cheaper. It could also create some structural stability by financially underpinning departments previously reliant wholly on student recruitment.

The market system got us to the current crisis. The solution is not more of the same.

Winners, losers, and building unity

Raising home undergraduate tuition fees by £1,000 per student/year or so can ease finances slightly.

But it will escalate, rather than moderate, the market war-of-all-against-all that the sector was plunged into in 2014 when the Government allowed universities to make unlimited numbers of offers to home students (with the exception of Medicine). It will increase income to the universities with the most home students. And it will add to the loan every student will borrow and be expected to ultimately pay back — which may mean a further disincentive to working class undergraduates.

Winners and losers - 2019 (Source: UCEA)
‘Winners’ and ‘losers’ – 2018-19 (Source: UCEA)

In recent years, this scenario of ‘winners and losers’ has been used by the employers to undermine national pay negotiations.

The employers’ approach is to set the national pay rate at a level the poorest university in the sector can afford. Then some universities may choose to make better offers to (some) staff. This process may be via permitted local negotiated arrangements (e.g. London Weighting or adjusted grade boundaries), one-off payments such as ‘Covid enhancements’, or, more individually, by promotion programmes and market supplements. Exceptionally it may be through universities exiting national negotiations.

The result is that what started as a ‘rate for the job’ national negotiation starts to become one of below-inflation offers followed by limited and selective local and personal negotiation. Collective bargaining, sector cohesion and principles of solidarity and equity between staff and union branches are undermined.

This process is working for the employers. Universities are spending ever-smaller proportions of their budgets on staff. In the 1970s, some research-based universities spent as much as two-thirds of their budgets on staff costs. 50 years later, and that figure has fallen to nearly half.

In their last-published release, the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency reported that UK-wide staff costs had fallen to a record low of 50.8% of expenditure in 2022/23. The proportion is lowest in England (averaged across many universities) and greatest in Northern Ireland. Recent fluctuations aside (Covid and USS being likely factors), the tendency remains downward. The last sharp downturn between the 2021 to 2022-23 financial years coincides with the sharp rise in inflation (raising capital and operating costs) and below-inflation pay rises.

Graph of staff costs as a proportion of total expenditure (HESA) 2014-23
Graph of staff costs as a proportion of total expenditure 2014-23. Source: HESA. 

Paradoxically, as universities have become more and more focused on mass teaching, and more and more labour intensive, they have tended to spend a smaller proportion of their budgets on staff.

UCU, and its forerunners Natfhe and AUT, has always argued that pay levels should be based on inflation and the cost of living, not on what individual universities claim is ‘affordable’. Indeed, once we concede that argument, we know we become the prisoners of Vice Chancellors’ financial gambles. Employers show us empty balance sheets: redundancies become inevitable, and colleagues are put in a zero-sum game over jobs and pay. That is why a local bargaining strategy like the General Secretary’s latest misnamed ‘Building to Win’ strategy is guaranteed to spiral to defeat.

We need to reset our campaign, and fight over pay in a different way, one that does not let the Government off the hook for the Higher Education crisis.

It’s why we need an combined industrial and political campaign that calls for a Fully-Funded Sector and a Fully-Funded Pay Rise.

Redundancies and the Other Three Fights

A campaign of the type described here can create the kind of broad-based public political platform would also allow the union to highlight the worst managerial behaviour we see in Higher Education.

We all know that market volatility drives employment volatility. Fighting for secure funding is crucial to take on the public argument about job insecurity and redundancies. So when we say we want a Fully-Funded Sector we can also say we want Secure Jobs and No Redundancies within it.

The same approach applies to Workloads and Pay Gaps. We can put our members at the forefront of this campaign. Our colleagues are by far the best spokespeople. They can say that they must have Time to Think! Or they can expose the reality for women, Black members, Disabled members and others who find themselves held back by structural barriers to progression.

This should be an opportunity to enable our members to lobby MPs and others, to give members a platform to speak up about the real conditions in our sector.

This approach also gives our members a platform over Pay. We can show that we are both committed to fighting low pay in the here and now, and to viable employment for the next generation of researchers, lecturers, and academic-related staff.

Industrial action for Fully-Funded Pay

But we can and must go one step further — we will need to take industrial action to highlight how far our pay has fallen. Mobilising the union onto the picket lines and streets is crucial to show the public and MPs that we are serious. Without that step, we risk being written off as just another lobby.

The action that we took in 2022-23 was extremely hard-hitting. But it was focused specifically on employers. That meant long periods of industrial action. A campaign that is focused both on the employers and government could look different. What it looks like is something we need to discuss as a union.

Most obviously, we could start with specific days which have an impact in Westminster or other national parliaments.

But the first key focus for activists is to put UCU in a position to signal to the Labour Government that UCU members are prepared to return to picket lines. In order to do that we need to win an industrial action ballot.

Right now, to implement this plan we will need to take some practical steps. Rushing straight out to an Industrial Action ballot without explaining the strategy in branches would be likely to fail to mobilise the 50% of membership required to win a ballot. Indeed, it would also be a huge missed opportunity. We have vast knowledge and expertise among our members. We should develop the plan in conjunction with branch officers and reps.

A consultative ballot is coming our way.

We should not roll out a consultative ballot alone. The ballot should be part of an urgent serious structured discussion in our union about how we can put across our union’s arguments and mobilise our members in speaking up for our sector.

There will likely be more Q&As organised centrally. Branches can invite HEC members and national negotiators to speak at branch meetings.

This is a chance for all members to discuss how we can build a proper grass-roots membership-driven campaign to defend our sector, our colleagues and our pay.

Our sector is at an historic juncture.

The market system is publicly failing. We must make sure neither staff nor students pay the price.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

UCU elections: A Pyrrhic victory for Jo Grady as left gains majority of seats

The fourth UCU GS election is over, and Jo Grady is the victor.

Grady argues that she now has a mandate to carry out the policies she campaigned over. The reality, though, is rather different. The GS presides over a more divided union compared to the one before the election started and an NEC which is even further from her views. Left NEC candidates received around 60% of the vote, which provides a real opportunity to build a serious grassroots movement in the union.

Despite being the incumbent candidate, Jo Grady’s support collapsed from her dominant win five years ago to scraping in with a narrow margin on the final round. After all preferences were counted, she beat the next closest candidate, Ewan McGaughey, by fewer than 200 votes. And, despite Grady campaigning for members to support her slate, UCU left supporters now have more seats on the NEC than any other grouping. The wider left have a comfortable majority on all three committees: the NEC, FEC and HEC.

Grady’s preferred VP candidate, David Hunter, also won. But again, his group is in a minority on the FEC.

UCU Left put up candidates for both the GS and VP positions. Although they did not win, these campaigns were successful in ensuring the voice of the rank and file was heard, and provided an important pole of attraction for everyone who wanted to see a more militant and democratic union. In a crowded field, one in six members gave their first preferences to Saira Weiner for GS. Peter Evans, our VP candidate, got the highest total vote of any UCU left VP candidate since the union was formed.

There is a clear appetite for change within the union.

Our candidates made sure that Palestine was part of the election debates. Their unwavering support for Gaza increased the pressure on the union to stand up for Palestinian solidarity actions. It meant that calls were put out by the GS’s office to members to support the Days of Action, the most recent of which saw 66 colleges and universities take part.

The election result also reflects the frustration and anger of members, especially in HE, where members have engaged in a bruising battles with the employers, and are angry with the way the GS and much of the leadership conducted these campaigns. This is the main reason why Grady’s vote collapsed from the last GS election where she received over 50% of the first preference vote.

Many members felt that Ewan McGaughey’s campaign, that focused on legal means to achieve results that members so desperately desire, was the way forward. Unfortunately, whereas legal challenges are important and UCU is far too conservative in pursuing legal paths, the law cannot be a substitute for mass action, as our USS victory proved. It was members’ strike action that secured victory over the employers.

We now need to ensure that the wider left unites, not just on the NEC, over the fights ahead. We will need to commit to building maximum solidarity for everyone fighting job losses and education cuts in both sectors. We need to support every branch resisting attacks on contractual rights and nationally-agreed pay levels.

For example, in Further Education we will need to unite against the newly-elected GS and VP’s attempt to undermine FE members’ democratic decision to hold an aggregated ballot over binding national, pay and workload agreements. Already Mr Hunter has questioned the FEC’s democratic mandate to implement the ‘levelling up campaign’ despite it being passed not once but twice at Further Education Sector Conferences!

We will also need to continue to maximise our efforts to stop the genocide in Palestine as Israeli tanks prepare to roll into Rafah and oppose racism at home.

It is these issues and more that UCU Left hopes will enable the left to put our differences aside and unite to build a powerful movement that can challenge the corrosive marketisation of post-16 education.

Let us move forward in unity to defend education, jobs, our employment rights and working conditions, to fight for equality in our sector, and build a stronger union for all.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

Pay, Workload and a National Binding Agreement: Levelling up the sector

Report from the Special Further Education committee (SFEC) held on Friday 2nd of February 2024

The SFEC met to consider how to implement an aggregated ballot. This follows conference decisions to take our campaign forward if the employers have not addressed our claim for agreements that are binding on all employers.

This year the sector will receive a further £275m that is supposed to go to staff pay, this is at a time when the cost of living is still biting and the sector is in the midst of a staff recruitment crisis.

The SFEC voted overwhelmingly for a motion to prepare an aggregated ballot to be held in the summer term, if our demands are not met.

This will be the biggest campaign in further education for many years, one that could have the power to level up the sector leaving no-one behind.

This motion as amended was passed:

Winning binding national bargaining: Prepare for an aggregated ballot for 24/25

FEC notes:

  1. The AoC’s willingness to enter into exploratory talks on implementing binding national bargaining.
  2. The Respect campaign this year; eight colleges took strike action.
  3. A minority of colleges implemented the recommendation of 6.5%.
  4. The indicative ballot on national action: 87% of members voting yes, on a 51% turnout.
  5. The FESC voted to prepare an aggregated ballot in 2024.

FEC believes:

  1. Establishing binding national sectoral bargaining is achievable and would be a significant step forward to level up pay and conditions.
  2. To win binding bargaining will require national strike action.
  3. We can win an aggregated ballot
  4. Strike action is most effective at the start of the academic year
  5. The money is there for a significant pay award for all staff. £275m extra is available to colleges for 24/25
  6. The special FESC 2023 voted to wait at least one year before moving to an aggregated ballot
  7. The Summer 2023 FESC voted to prepare for an aggregated ballot in 2024
  8. The case for a binding national agreement needs to be communicated as part of the campaign and ballot
  9. “A new deal” and “a fair deal” are overused slogans
  10. The NEU won an aggregated ballot and pay for all members
  11. We can learn from EIS, they linked their strikes to the elections, raising the profile of education. They won back national bargaining
  12. A mass campaign can firm up Labour’s support for FE

FEC resolves:

  1. Submit an England claim to the AoC on pay and workload, with the focus on our demand for binding national bargaining
  2. Prepare an aggregated ballot in the summer to start after the FESC, to enable strike action in September
  3.  The campaign should be called Levelling up the sector: leave no one behind
  4. Call separate national briefings and produce publicity for all members making the case for binding national sectoral bargaining, workload and pay
  5. The workload campaign will highlight and expand on these demands:
    • Agreed national policy on the delivery of guided learning hours
    • The resourcing of more administration staff
    • Nationally agreed class size recommendations for 16-18 and 19 +
    • A set of agreed workload and wellbeing protocols such as working from home agreements
    • A set of agreed boundaries for contacting staff by email or phone
  6. UCU will campaign for and highlight:
    • A 10% increase in pay. This is a first step to restore more than the 35% cut in real pay for FE staff over a decade.
    • A commitment to close gender and ethnic pay gaps
    • To reduce the use of precarious employment
  7. Launch an initiative aiming to recruit five GTVO volunteer contacts per branch for the duration of the ballot.
  8. Produce regular forum and briefings to equip volunteers how to GTVO
  9. Agree a target for every branch to map their workplace and recruit 15% more members
  10. Produce a timeline for the campaign and ballot admin working back from a first strike in the second week of September
  11. Hold regular forum open to all members to get involved in the campaign scheduled at times when staff can attend
  12. Publicity should include FAQs, stickers, leaflets, and a dedicated website space
  13. Promote equal pay with school teachers
  14. Highlight excessive CEO pay as part of the campaign
  15. Prepare a Parliamentary lobby as part of the campaign
  16. Send MPs a briefing pack asking them to pledge to support our demands

FAQS – Frequently asked questions

What are binding sectoral agreements and why does it matter?

National negotiations covering colleges in England take places at the National Joint Forum (NJF). The Association of Colleges (AoC) represent the employers side and negotiate with the staff unions annually. Agreements are sent out to employers as non-binding recommendations.

Sixth-form colleges, who do a job very similar to ours, have binding sectoral bargaining. That means all employers have to abide by the agreements on pay and conditions. Similarly, for several years as a result of a national campaign, colleges in Wales negotiate nationally and all employers honour those agreements.

If we are to stop the pay gap with schools growing, and that between colleges, it is vitally important that we reform the national bargaining environment to ensure decisions are binding and upheld by all employers. This is what is meant by levelling up the sector and the way to achieve it. We want to ensure every member receives a decent pay award and we stop the race to the bottom on pay and conditions.

The employers agreed to “exploratory” talks as a result of our campaigns and demands. We need to turn words into deeds and it is recognised this will require a big campaign that involves all members.

Is pay, workload or a binding agreement the central campaign?

The three issues are linked. Unless we secure binding national agreements employers don’t have to honour pay awards. We also want the employers to adopt national workload agreements that would cover issues facing every college. That would include class sizes, how contact time is recognised, guided learning hours, admin time, deadlines and how and when the employer communicates with staff such as out of hours emails.

It is not one or the other. The squeeze on staff is less pay, longer hours, and more intense work and less autonomy over how we work. We have to fight back on all fronts and ensure all our employers stick to agreements.

All elements of the claim should be front and centre. Winning binding agreements is key and would be a huge step forward, especially for all those staff in colleges whose managements have not abided by decisions. But it also impacts the more organised branches where they have formed decent local agreements on pay and workload, only to see those eroded due to market conditions.

The union has to make a clear case for why binding national agreements matter. In the last campaign our demands for workload and binding agreements were not amplified, giving employers the wrong signals. That cannot happen again.

Who are we fighting: our employer, the AoC or the government?

Because of incorporation, colleges are individual entities. The AoC is an employers’ body representing the largest group of employers in the sector. We do not directly negotiate with the government despite the fact they legislate for the sector and provide almost all college funds.

Our employers, the AoC and the government could all play a significant role in implementing a new binding sectoral bargaining framework.

The employers could agree to a new binding framework tomorrow and the AoC could be the vehicle to implement that under guidance of the DfE. If our employers are unwilling to do so, then an act of government could impose a new bargaining arrangement on colleges.

We have seen the government step in before. For example, the government recently intervened to bring colleges back into the public sector to scrutinise and oversee funding and spending. Likewise, an instruction from government for colleges to merge set in motion a significant restructuring of the sector almost overnight. The big ESOL campaigns of a few years ago were able to shape government thinking and funding having a dramatic impact quite quickly, from imposing cuts to reversing them.

That is why in our campaigning and publicity we need to apply pressure to our employers and the government with demonstrations, lobbies and strikes. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Will college leaders concede a new binding framework?

There are times when the interests of employers and our members coincide, albeit for different reasons.

The fact the the AoC agreed to explore the implications of our demand for binding agreements reflects the fact that some employers are already looking at how to level the playfield. On their terms they face a staff recruitment and retention crisis pushing wages up between sectors. Many new teachers will look to schools where pay is £9k on average higher. This is coupled with competition between colleges, with some better prepared to pay more or forced to do so due to strike action.

That is why some employers are looking for ways to control wages and break out of a bargaining framework that favours competition.

What can be at stake is not whether we win a new binding framework, but whether one is ultimately imposed on us that is not on our terms. The more our voices are heard and we are visible, the better we will be able to navigate the introduction of a new binding bargaining sector.

Can we campaign during an election year?

If we campaign during a general election we can raise the profile for further, adult and prison education. The EIS were successful at linking their industrial demands during the Scottish elections.

Were Labour to come to power we would be among the first to be knocking at their door.

Can we win an aggregated ballot?

Yes. The e-ballot result last spring showed a majority of members supported a national ballot.

An aggregated ballot could ensure all branches are able to take action together at the same time. This could make a big difference. Issues like pay are national and UK-wide: that is the source of our funding.

Many branches are fairly small, with 100 to 200 members. So in many senses, the task is much easier than in the big universities where UCU has been successful at winning aggregated ballots.

Data from recent reps’ surveys and ballots shows we are not far off securing a technical majority. But if the union made a concerted effort to win an aggregated ballot we could do much better. A campaign by the whole of FE could be a sum of more than its parts. We haven’t had a serious national campaign in a long time.

What we have seen is many branches with historically small dedicated committees, who have not campaigned or been on strike for years, join action and then leap to the fore in recent campaigns, recruiting members and reps and having big lively pickets.

This has been the case in many unions. The junior doctors’ union has flourished in recent years. The RCN nurses’ union never had a strike in 106 years and then had huge member involvement. The NEU planted a flag to go for it and were able to win an aggregated ballot in much more difficult circumstances than than us.

What if my college is not in the AoC?

We want as big a critical mass as possible. Where colleges are not in the AoC, those branches should be supported to put in demands to be included in a new binding sector framework and be covered by pay and workload. Those branches could be balloted in parallel and strike alongside everyone else if our demands are not met.

When would we go on strike?

The union will submit an England claim to the AoC.

We may not need to strike at all. That is, if our employers agreed to an above-inflation pay award, which they can afford, and a national workload agreement covering all colleges. And an undertaking to implement a new sector bargaining framework for all. That is all in their gift.

Otherwise, the union will prepare to win a ballot this side of summer. If we are successful in winning that ballot. Then the motions proposed we strike and march in September. We can exert maximum pressure striking in first weeks of teaching and within the census date of colleges.

Dharminder Singh Chuhan, FEC UK-elected, Sandwell College
Nina Doran, FEC UK-elected, City of Liverpool College
Delmena Doyley, FEC London & East, Croydon College
Peter Evans, FEC LGBT+, Ealing, Hammersmith & West London College
John Fones, FEC South, Bridgwater & Taunton College
Naina Kent, FEC UK-elected, Hackney ACE
Richard McEwan, FEC London & East, New City College
Juliana Ojinnaka, FEC Black members, The Sheffield College
Regi Pilling, FEC Women members, Capital City College Group
Doug Webley, FEC Midlands, South and City College Birmingham
Elaine White, FEC North East, Bradford College
Sean Vernell, FEC UK elected, City and Islington College