Category: FE

Further education stories

Posted on

In-person Congress returns: democracy, debate and catharsis

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

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

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

Further Education Sector Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

Higher Education Sector Conference

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

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

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

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

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

Accountability of the General Secretary

One of the most difficult debates also relates to democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of democracy do we need?

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

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

Changes to union rules

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

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

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

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

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

International motions

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

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

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

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

Equality

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

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

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

Solidarity with UEA and Brighton branches

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

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

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

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

Posted on

UCU Left Pre Congress Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

Register in advance: bit.ly/UCUL_PreCongress2023

Posted on

After the historic vote – where next for the FE campaign over pay, workload and binding national bargaining in England

The results of the Special Further Education Sector conference, at long last, are out and the first round of negotiations with the Association of Colleges (AoC) took place last week around our claim.

What follows is a strategy on how we take our campaign over pay, workload and a binding England-wide framework forward.

The results of SFESC

The results eventually were published three weeks after the conference. They reveal that the votes were close and perhaps could have been different if votes were allowed to be taken directly after the debates rather than several days after the conference had finished.

Overall, for those who supported the strategy of moving to an aggregated ballot, the results are disappointing. But the votes did not simply reject the idea out of hand. Motion two was carried with amendments. The first amendment, replaced the sentence that said that an aggregated ballot would undermine the gains made by the nationally coordinated campaign with a sentence that said they would build upon them.

More importantly it amended the final resolves that said, ‘to build towards a future FE England aggregated ballot, and to move to ballot only following a consultation which reaches a turnout over 50% with, ‘To build an FE England aggregated ballot, and move to ballot only when a consultation reaches a significant turnout’

Clearly 51% is a significant turnout, it beats the Tories’ anti-trade union threshold.

Motion one calling for an aggregated ballot was tied (54 votes for and 54 against) and only fell because of the union rule that if a motion is tied then it falls and existing policy remains in place.

Importantly, Motion 8 from Kendal Branch was defeated. It argued that UCU should continue with local disputes and not move to a national strike.

Motions that argued that we need to win a binding England-wide bargaining framework before we move to an aggregated ballot were carried but failed to provide any ideas on how this will be achieved without taking England-wide action.

Not only the delegates who supported moving to an aggregated ballot now will be disappointed, but critically members who voted by 87% on a 51% turnout for, ‘a national campaign’ will be in disbelief that delegates went against the clear mandate members had given them.

An historic vote

The General Secretary often likes to use the word ‘historic’ to describe everything UCU does under her leadership. It is interesting she chose not to use this word when addressing the SFESC to describe the ballot results. In fact, she failed to mention the results at all.

A 51% turnout with 87% vote for action is a genuinely historic event (i.e. it has never happened before). Never have UCU members in the FE sector got over the trade union thresholds of 50%. You will have to trawl way back into when FE lecturers were a part of NATHE to see results like these.

Odd then that the GS forgot to mention this in her address.

What makes these results so stunning is that, whilst there was more of an England-wide campaign compared to other FE campaigns, it wasn’t resourced anything like the ones that have been conducted in HE. It is no secret that the GS, President, the FE chair, national and regional offices were, and are, opposed to launching an aggregated ballot to allow us to take our campaign to a national level. Therefore, to gain such a clear mandate from members is very significant and tells us there is a real appetite to support an England-wide campaign.

In a FEC report from the secretariat, they put the case arguing it would be disastrous to launch an aggregated ballot (i.e. an England-wide fight) back in January,

‘Last year’s consultative ballot (22/23) the overall turnout was 27.5% (3,977 voted out of a ballot group of 14,368). There was a 91% Yes vote for action. 16 branches got over the 50% threshold. 33 branches got over 40% and these 33 became part of the nationally coordinated action. Approximately 70 were excluded from the consultative ballot because of important local material factors.’

Disgracefully UCU FEC members and national negotiators have not been given the chance to examine this year’s results, due to the chair refusing to allow this. However, the President, in her summation speech at the SFESC, clearly had seen the breakdown of the results and was able to inform the conference (in an attempt to persuade them to vote against an England-wide campaign) that 110 branches got over the 50% threshold and 120 didn’t.

We don’t know how many of those 120 got near and how many didn’t but this clearly is a very significant set of results. We are not sure why in the 22/23 consultative ballot 70 branches were excluded from the ballot because of ‘important local material factors.’ And it is interesting that it appears the vast majority of branches, this time, were put into the ballot.

‘Wins’ – the facts

One of the central arguments of those opposed to a nationally aggregated ballot is that it will undermine the work we have done around the national coordinated action campaign that we started in 2018.

We are all very proud of these campaigns. Indeed, some of the signatories of this report wrote the FE Respect campaign strategy and the FE charter. Our branches have taken strike action on several different occasions and, some, won significant and benchmark deals. The problem is that this strategy can only take us so far; we need to move to the next level – an England-wide campaign involving all branches in England.

When we look to this year’s campaign 33 branches took part in that campaign. 16 won some kind of deal on pay; 16 did not, despite taking strike action (and in some cases significant strike action). Out of the 16 that got deals 10 were worth between 2% and 5% or to put it another way when inflation is at 14% this is a pay cut of between 12% and 9%. 

Any way you try and stack these results they are not ones that defend our members from the cost-of-living crisis where food prices have soared to an ‘historic’ high of 19%.

AoC response to our claim

Last week the National Joint Forum (NJF) met to discuss the claim submitted by UCU and FE staff unions with the Association of Colleges (AoC). 

David Hughes, AoC CEO, opened the meeting by saying they wouldn’t even dispute the validity of the pay claim for 15% and it was a reasonable claim given the state of pay and with food prices rising 19%.

He argued that we should be entitled to the offer rejected by the NEU. However, as colleges do not have enough funds they couldn’t match it. And he went further, saying funds are so depleted they would not be making any offer as it would simply be insulting to do so. Which sheds a rather bad light on those within UCU who have trumpeted pay deals between 2% and 5% as ‘wins’!

If the AoC meant what they said about the pay element of our claim being ‘reasonable’ they would make an offer that matches our claim, then go to government and demand that they should fund it. This is what the head teacher’s union are doing.

On national bargaining the AoC said it would not be possible to sort out England-wide bargaining in two months. They cannot mandate their members beyond recommendations. However, they said they were not dismissing that out of hand but this could not happen in the short or medium term. 

Also they were not opposed to some kind of independent review body but it was not clear how to achieve that or whether it was possible in the short-term. 

This is something UCU can win. There is no reason that FE pay cannot become a part of the independent review body alongside the teachers’ and other public sector organisations and quickly. Those within UCU who have argued that we should wait before we take any England-wide action until we have reached an agreement on this are playing into the employers’ hands.

Government and the employers will only move to implement such an agreement if they feel threatened by our members taking action. Without action any deal that is reached (unlikely that this is) will be a weak deal and is more likely to benefit the employers.

It is clear that we are going to have to fight on an England-wide basis if we are to achieve real wins for our members and the sector.

Forward to an England-wide campaign

Whilst delegates voted for a delay in moving towards an aggregated ballot, they also recognised the limitations of simply organising more local battles with the employers. Delegates made clear their desire for a much wider campaign that involves as many branches as possible.

Therefore, we now need to move to an England-wide, coordinated campaign. However, this year the campaign needs to be different if it is going to be successful.

First, all branches that achieved a 35% turnout or over (and who voted for action) must be automatically balloted (disaggregated). This could mean that there are around 150 branches involved. The ballot needs to be run from September 2023 for 6 weeks allowing us to take action from October.

Second, the campaign must be focussed on the government and the employers nationally. Whilst some colleges can afford to offer a real offer, many cannot. We need more funds coming into the sector if it is to survive.

Third, no branches/regional offices should agree deals and therefore pull out of action unless the deal has been agreed by the ratification panel and the FEC.

Fourth, the amount of strike days to be taken and the nature of the campaign must be determined by the FEC and FESC.

Fifth, UCU must call a national demo and lobby of the DFE on a strike day.

Sixth, If the government has not conceded to our demands by the end of 2023, then preparation for an aggregated ballot must begin from January 2024.

Sean Vernell, UCU National Negotiator FE, Capital City College Group

Juliana Ojinnaka, The Sheffield College, Rep. Black members FEC

Cecily Blyther, Petroc, Rep. casually employed members FEC

Peter Evans, Ealing, Hammersmith & West London College, Rep. LGBT+ members FEC

Regine Pilling, Capital City College Group, Rep. women members FEC

Delmena Doyley, Croydon College, London and East FEC

Richard McEwan, New City College, Vice Chair & London and East FEC

Elaine White, Bradford College, North East FEC

Naina Kent, Hackney ACE, UK-elected FEC

Nina Doran, City of Liverpool College, UK-elected FEC

Saleem Rashid, The Sheffield College, UK-elected FEC

Dharminder Singh Chuhan, Sandwell College, UK-elected FEC

Posted on

No sellout. Keep up the action. Strike to win

Jo Grady has today upped the stakes in her attempt to call off action and capitulate in our UCURising disputes.

While many of us were marching alongside striking teachers, civil servants and junior doctors, and while Jo Grady was herself delivering a rousing speech at the rally in Trafalgar Square, UCU HQ was emailing members to invite them to vote in an ‘informal’ e-ballot on an ‘offer’ from the employers.

There is no new offer from the employers. The pay award rejected by 80% of UCU members a few weeks ago has not changed and remains imposed by the employers. The hopes that USS benefit cuts will be reversed during the next year remain hopes rather than firm commitments.

The only additional elements that Jo Grady can point to are a series of agreed terms of reference for talks on casualisation (contract types), pay equality and workloads. These represent nothing more than a commitment from UCEA to discuss these issues over the coming months. They come with no promises that any HE institution will implement anything that may come out of these talks.

Jo Grady is selling this ‘offer’ as a major breakthrough. It is nothing of the sort, and the General Secretary knows it. If it were, she would not need to work so hard to convince members.

The ‘informal’ e-ballot represents a manipulation of democracy of the worst kind. According to the rules of the union, it is the elected Higher Education Committee (HEC), and HEC alone which decides whether an offer in an HE dispute should be put to members to be accepted or rejected. If HEC decides to put it to members, it should make a clear recommendation to members as to which way to vote.

Jo Grady has gone over the heads of the HEC to try and end the dispute at all costs. She is hoping that confusion and strike fatigue among members combined with her misrepresentation of the ‘offer’ will deliver a big enough Yes vote in this ‘informal’ ballot to pressure HEC into calling off next week’s strikes and ending the dispute.

We should have none of this. Many branches have urged their members not to vote until branch meetings take place which can discuss the situation, decide on their position and elect delegates to the BDM to represent their collective view.

We need the strongest possible expression of opposition to Jo Grady’s attempt to capitulate to the employers. The BDM must decisively throw out this ‘offer’. Members should attend the lobby of the HEC meeting at Carlow Street at 1.30 on Friday called by UCU Left members of HEC.

Our sister union, Unison, has taken the decision that the offer is so poor that it is not worth putting to their members. UCU HEC should take the same decision and refuse to call off the strikes.

UCU Left pre-BDM Open Meeting

2pm Thursday 16th March

Zoom registration bit.ly/UCULeftPreBDM

Read UCU Left’s statement from this morning here: https://uculeft.org/no-more-pauses-no-suspension-of-action-strike-to-win/

Posted on

Pay, workload and national bargaining: levelling up to win in FE

UCU has just launched a consultative ballot in Further Education via email. Every member in every college will be asked, ‘Are you prepared to take strike action over pay, workload and a national binding negotiating framework?’

The Further Education Committee is recommending to vote YES in the e-consultation. The FEC also supports the aim to launch a national strike over these issues. After the consultation ends there will be a Special Further Education Sector conference to debate how to implement the decision made by members in the e-consultation.

Two of the demands, pay and workload, need little explanation. Our pay has been cut by 35% in last decade. Equivalent to working two days a week for free. Inflation stands at 12% and the fuel bills are set to rise again. The sector is having the worst recruitment crisis in over twenty years. FE staff have the lowest rates of pay compared to all the other education sectors.

Unsustainable workloads are creating an ever-increasing rise in physical and mental health issues amongst staff. Attendance chasing, unrealistic weekly deadlines, cuts in guided learning hours (GLH) and increases in marking is making our role as teachers untenable.

The third demand, for a nationally binding negotiating framework, might need a little explaining why this is such an important part of this year’s campaign.

Why national action?

Since the 2016 Trade Union Act was passed, making it a legal requirement for unions to get at least a 50% turnout in an Industrial Action ballot before strike action can commence, UCU in FE have pursued a nationally coordinated strategy. We have attempted to encourage as many branches as possible to put in local claims over pay and conditions. We have then tried to coordinate those local disputes nationally.

We have had some success in this. Both in terms of wins and the strengthening of our branches. However, this strategy was never meant to be an end in itself but a means to be able to build up our strength so that we can get 50% of our members to vote in a nationally aggregated ballot to allow us to come out together. It is generally recognised by most that a union that can’t deliver national action, does not have much of a future.

Since 1993 when the link with local authorities was severed and the sector became incorporated (private sector but funded through the public purse) the disparity between colleges on pay and conditions has grown wider and wider. We won’t be able to level up the sector by fighting college by college.

Whilst the locally coordinated national strategy that we have pursued over the last five years has produced some success, it has not levelled up the sector. It is not just in the less organised branches that members wages have been cut and their conditions worsened. In those branches that have taken action and won better pay and conditions, those gains are quickly eroded because other college employers refuse to offer their staff the same deals because there is no pressure on them to do so.

Most of us working in the sector will recognise the employer’s argument behind refusal to offer a better deal, ‘You have the best pay rates in the region/country’. It is rarely true but when a college is paid better rates for the job compared to others its nothing to shout about. The pay rates are so low everywhere, being at the top of this league doesn’t actually mean very much!

Unless everybody’s wages and conditions rise together it is difficult to make gains at a local level for more than a short period. A victory in one college is soon evaporated as they become isolated because a critical mass hasn’t followed through.

Levelling up

Recently the FE sector has been reclassified as being a part of the public sector. This provides us with an opportunity to campaign for parity with schools over funding, pay, conditions and a national bargaining framework which is binding.

At the moment FE does not have a binding national bargaining framework. What we have is something called the National Joint Forum where unions meet up with the AoC to negotiate pay and conditions. However, it is not binding. Any recommendation that the AoC makes to its ‘subscribers’ (college members of the AoC) is down to individual employers to implement or not.

Of course, invariably, many colleges don’t implement the recommendations. Even last year’s paltry pay offer of 2.5% and £750 one-off, less than half of colleges implemented it! It is clear the AoC national negotiating framework is not fit for purpose and hasn’t been for somewhile.

This is why the demand for a binding national negotiating framework is so important. If we are to be able to level up the sector then we need a framework that binds all colleges to any agreement that is forthcoming.

What this framework would look like and who we negotiate with is something we will need to work out. But we can only begin this if we are able to force the employers to agree to negotiate it.

Will we miss out the AoC and negotiate directly with the DFE or will the AoC be the ones who mediate our demands to government? The yearly public sector pay rate (including schools) is recommended to government by the Independent Pay Review Body. Despite its name it is not very independent and makes the decision on the amount based on what the government says is affordable.

However, whatever the amount, the vast majority of schools in local government and those in academy chains implement the pay review body’s recommendation. Now that FE is a part of the public sector should we not at least have this?

Any of these potential frameworks would be a step forward for the sector. But the employers and government are not going to voluntarily implement such frameworks. We will have to fight for them. In the late 1960s and early 1970s workers in the private and public sectors successfully fought for national collective bargaining so all workers enjoyed the same rates of pay and conditions. If we want parity and equality in our sector then we will have to do so again.

It is a fight worth having. Vote YES to strike over pay, workload and a binding national negotiating framework.

Sean Vernell UCU FE national negotiator

Posted on

Organising to win a national FE ballot

Online zoom meeting: Organising to win a national FE ballot.  

6.30pm on Tuesday 7th of February  

Link https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83976342324?pwd=dUdRRTM3QUYrU2hTSmVaTE43NG5tZz09  

Meeting ID: 839 7634 2324 Passcode: 605496 

Open organising meeting.  

All welcome, please pass on to UCU further education colleagues.  

Build national action that can win in FE. 

UCU’s Further Education Committee (FEC) voted last week to launch a nationally aggregated ballot over pay, workloads and binding national bargaining. In the last decade our wages have been cut by 30% and 25,000 jobs have gone. Over one million adult education student places have been deleted. 

Our working lives are dominated by managerialism that leads to bullying and harassment. Teaching, increasingly, is becoming our second job as management expect us to chase attendance, input increasing amount of meaningless data in attempt to measure everything we and our students do and be social workers for generation of young people who suffer physical and mental health problems created by the pandemic and increased poverty. 

This must stop. It is time for change. 

Since 2017 our strategy in FE has been to attempt to organise nationally coordinated local action. With the introduction of the government trade union thresholds we could not reach the 50% thresholds on a national scale to allow legal strike action. The aim was to win local battles over pay and conditions and to build branch capacity to enable them to beat the thresholds. 

This strategy has paid off. The first round of coordinated action in 2017 saw CCCG and Sandwell College make significant landmark pay deals. A number of other colleges followed. Similarly, in this year’s round of coordinated action a number of branches have taken successful action and made gains and not just the usual suspects. Branches in the NW took action for the first in many years. Sheffield College, who are striking now over pay, haven’t struck for over a decade. 

However, this strategy has not been successful for all. Out of the 33 branches in this round of coordinated action 13 did not manage to get a deal and are still in dispute with their employers despite taking significant strike action. To ensure that we win for all we need to build a national strike movement in FE to force the government and the AoC to pay us a decent living wage. 

The point of the nationally coordinated strategy of local disputes was not an end in itself, it was a strategy to allow us to build capacity to be able to take national action. We have reached this point. 

There were some on the FEC who opposed this strategy arguing that we are not in a position to break through the thresholds in a nationally aggregated ballot. They cite the 28% turnout in last year’s national indicative ballot. Of course, we all recognise that some branches will need support from local and national UCU offices. But this is the point, there was no campaign or resources put in by UCU in the last national indicative ballot. Our colleagues in HE have demonstrated, brilliantly, that this can be done. FE wants the same kind of mobilisation of national and regional resources as HE did in their successful attempt to get over the thresholds. 

Those who opposed the move to build for a nationally aggregated ballot fail to recognise the context we are now fighting in and the impact it is having on our members in FE. With the biggest wave of industrial action seen in a generation many are asking in FE, ‘Why aren’t we out with them?’. 

If the NEU, with 300,000 members, can break through the thresholds, then UCU FE with 30,000 members can do so too. 

But there is even more of a worrying argument put by those on the FEC who oppose moving to a nationally aggregated ballot. They argue even if we were successful in breaking through the thresholds on a nationally aggregated basis, and reached a decent agreement on pay and conditions, it wouldn’t make any difference because the agreement would not be implemented by the majority of colleges. 

This really misses the point. If we were successful in winning a significant deal and only 40% of colleges implemented the AoC recommendation this would be a massive step for a significant section of our members and it would inspire those members in the 60% of colleges who fail to implement it, to do something about! 

But also, it is a defeatist argument because it accepts that we can’t win at a national level. We can only attempt to eke out deals on a college-by-college basis. Our campaign this year will be about fighting for negotiating structures that have nationally binding agreements. The re-classifying of FE as part of the public sector also provides us with an opportunity to push for funding parity with schools. 

Our fight this year we will need to target government as well as the AoC for more funding for FE. How successful we will be will be determined by how must action our members will be prepared to take. This is a debate we will need to have. But first we need to break through the trade union thresholds.   

We call on all UCU officers in FE to start to prepare their members for the fight to put FE at the heart of the resistance for pay, conditions and a national bargaining structure that is binding. 

Cecily Blyther, UCU FEC Rep. Casually employed members FE, Petroc 

Dharminder Singh Chuhan, UCU FEC Rep. FE UK, Sandwell College 

Nina Doran, UCU FEC Rep. FE UK, Liverpool College (attached) 

Delmena Doyle, UCU FEC Rep. FE London & East, Croydon College 

Peter Evans, UCU FEC Rep. LGBT+ members FE 

Naina Kent, UCU FEC Rep. FE UK, Hackney ACE 

Richard McEwan, UCU FEC Rep. FE London & East, New City College 

Juliana Ojinnaka, UCU FEC Rep. Black members FE, The Sheffield College 

Regine Pilling, UCU FEC Rep. Women members FE, Capital City College Group 

Saleem Rashid, UCU FEC Rep. FE UK, The Sheffield College 

Elaine White, UCU FEC Rep. FE North East, Bradford College 

Sean Vernell, UCU FE National Negotiator, Capital City College Group  

The Special FEC held on the 25th January voted in favour. 

The FEC resolves:  

1)    Put forward a claim for 2023/24 (and conditions now) 

2.     Launch a campaigning consultative ballot of branches in England to run 20th Feb for three weeks.  

– The e-consultation campaign to include: 

– A national online launch meeting explaining to contact members directly 

– A video tutorial sent to reps on how to use mail merge for GTVO 

– Thrutext services for branches 

– A central campaign of messages and emails to members from the General Secretary’s office 

– leaflets for branches and reminders to vote 

3)    The question on the consultative ballot to be: Are you prepared to take strike action to secure an above inflation pay rise, binding national bargaining structures and a national workload agreement? 

4)    Call an online FESC on 11th March to discuss 23/24 pay campaign and including holding a nationally aggregated ballot. 

5)    Launch a nationally aggregated ballot to run between 20th March and 1st May. If the FESC agrees to do so. 

6)    This year’s claim will be: i) Inflation + 2%, ii) Demand for binding national negotiating structures and iii) workload element. 

7)    To send a message of solidarity to NEU. 

Adapt as the basis for a model motion from your branch: 

Branch notes: 

  1. The cost-of-living crisis and inflation at 10.5% 
  2. The whole movement is rising and winning ballots.  

Branch believes:  

  1. We need national action in further education to put pressure on the government and employers to defend our living standards. 

Branch resolves: 

  1. Support the decision of the FEC for a nationally aggregated ballot.  
  2. Calls on every member to vote and vote yes in the upcoming e-ballot.  
  3. To organise a branch, Get The Vote Out campaign meeting.  
  4. Elect a delegate to send to the FESC in march.  
  5. To contact other local FE branches to share ideas, support each other and build the campaign.  
  6. Offer support and solidarity to striking unions in our localities, communities and regions.  

If passed send to FEC Chair mlooby@ucu.org.uk; copy in your regional FEC member and vice chair richmcewan@hotmail.com 

Online zoom meeting: Organising to win a national FE ballot.  

6.30pm on Tuesday 7th of February  

Link https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83976342324?pwd=dUdRRTM3QUYrU2hTSmVaTE43NG5tZz09  

Meeting ID: 839 7634 2324 Passcode: 605496 

All welcome, please pass on to further education colleagues.  

Posted on

30th Jan: Building the Fightback and Getting the Leadership We Need

UCU Left open meeting

Register

Speakers Include:

Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP. Member of Parliament for Streatham

Phil Clarke. Vice President, National Education Union

Member of the striking French teachers’ union

Member of PCS National Executive

Maria Chondrogianni. UCU NEC election candidate for Vice President

Deepa Govindarajan Driver. UCU NEC election candidate for Honorary Treasurer

As we prepare to join teachers, civil servants and train drivers for a mass strike on Wednesday 1st, and with elections for UCU Vice President, Treasurer and the NEC opening on 26th January, this meeting will discuss how we get the national leadership we need to mount a fightback that can win.

Our planned 18 days of strike action starting on 1st February has been called because the Higher Education Committee (HEC) listened to demands from branches and voted against attempts by the General Secretary to water down action and delay the fight. 

UCU Left members were decisive in making this happen and have pushed hard in further and higher education for escalating action coordinated with other unions.

How do we ensure that the democratic processes in our union are respected and improved so that we are able to build the powerful action we need to defend our pay, pensions, job security and working conditions? 

How do we make UCU a real fighting, member-led union?

Come and join the discussion with speakers from NEU and PCS and hear from UCU Left candidates in the elections.

Register in advance for this meeting

tinyurl.com/UCULeftBuildingTheFightback

Jan 30, 2023 7:00 – 8:30pm

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

Posted on

HEC revamps the General Secretary’s strike plan, but we still may need to escalate sooner rather than later 

large rally outside King's Cross station with many union banners

Last week’s decision to call 19 days of strike action during February and March (including on 1 February the TUC’s ‘right to strike’ day) came after a sharp argument across the UCU about the future of our disputes.

Once again our General Secretary, Jo Grady, used all her political capital to limit the action the union would take and at a blatantly stage-managed Twitter debate, rolled out her supporters to put the case against every form of action other than her plan for limited blocks of action.

Despite all this, and the fact that the Higher Education Committees (HEC) decision to call out indefinite strike action was kept from members for weeks, branch after branch backed forms of indefinite action as a way to win our disputes. Ate last Tuesday’s Branch Delegate Meeting (BDM) a remarkable 31% backed all-out indefinite strike action.

Last Thursday’s HEC discussed and voted on various plans of action, including all-out and indefinite action, and eventually voted for an escalating program of strikes in the pattern 1-2-3-3-4 days in February and further days in March. Following votes at the BDM it was agreed that the marking and assessment boycott (MAB) would be delayed until April.

Given recent experience of prevarication and resistance to implementing democratic decisions, the first step is to ensure this action is announced and notified. Members need to know now what action will look like so that they prepare to make it successful. 

But we also know that our employers will attempt to ride out time-limited strikes. That means the next BDM must return to the question of indefinite action as soon as possible.

We also have to end a situation where the General Secretary constantly undermines the decisions made by the union’s democratic bodies. 

We need a Special Higher Education Sector Conference (SHESC) as soon as possible so that we can decide our strategy for escalation if we need it in the most democratic way possible.

That means twenty branches passing motions calling for a SHESC (see below) and instructing the HEC and the General Secretary to organise it. 

But in order to run our action we need to develop more responsive democratic structures. A national strike committee composed of delegates from every branch could meet weekly to discuss developments in the disputes and reflect the debates and issues being raised by members. Meetings of the UCU Solidarity Movement and branch initiated events have included hundreds of activists in serious debates in a way that the national union has failed to do up to this point. 

It’s been clear all along from her statements, videos and discussion papers that the General Secretary does not want to fight now. She has attempted to mobilise against militant and hard hitting action. Her alternative is to fight in the summer or some other time. 

But our members are suffering now in the cost of living crisis, our pensions are being stolen now and other unions are fighting now too.

The GS is now mandated to carry out this plan, including co-ordinating action with other unions on 1 February. It’s time for her to step up: to fight to build financial and political support for our campaign and give the kind of leadership we really need.

If she fails to do so, there must be big questions about whether she will ever be prepared to implement the democratic decisions of members.

Every branch now needs a battle plan to build the biggest possible strikes, build up hardship funds and cement the maximum links with our students, campus and other unions fighting back. 

We are in the fight of our lives. In the NEC elections that open on 26th January, we would argue hard for colleagues to vote for UCU Left recommended candidates. These are the people who have fought to keep our disputes on track in the face of opposition by the General Secretary and her supporters grouped in ‘UCU Commons’.

We can win this fight but it means rank and file members building strike committees on every campus, pushing for a national strikes committee and calling a SHESC to gain control of this dispute.  

Motion 

This branch calls under Rule 16.11 for a Special Higher Education Sector Conference to be called to debate and direct the future of our disputes.  

Notice for this SHESC should be issued as soon as the number of branches requesting it reaches twenty.

Posted on

2023: The year our side breaks through or another missed opportunity?

dozens of people at a picket at UCL

Twenty twenty-two will be remembered as the year that organised labour returned. More strike days have been lost since the summer than any time since 2011. Perhaps more importantly than the numbers is the attempt to coordinate the action across different unions. We have seen rail and postal workers strike on the same day as nurses and higher education workers.  The question that faces the movement is – will we coordinate and escalate our action in a way that allows us to win?

More unions are set to strike in 2023. February has been pencilled in as the month in which up to half million workers could coordinate their action including 350,000 teachers.

Predictably the media and press have responded to the strikes with the usual attempts to blame the strikers for ruining Christmas and putting people’s lives at risk.  Despite their relentless attempt to divide the ‘public’ against striking workers, polls show that the majority of people support those taking action for more pay and to protect services.

The government and the employers have significantly lost the battle for the ‘hearts and minds’ of the public.

Commentators speak of the return of strikes as a central part of daily life as a turning point. However, if this is to be a turning point that benefits the working class as a whole then we need victories.

There have been some very significant victories especially in the private sector. Liverpool Dockers, Bus drivers and Barristers. These victories are important, demonstrating the power of hard hitting strike action over a quick period of time. However, they do not generalise in a way that lifts the whole of the class, as would be the case if the current national strikes won.

The stakes are high for both sides. We only need to look to Italy and France to see what happens when strikes don’t succeed in improving working peoples living standards – the far-right feeds on despair.

National strikes – more than pay

The government and employers are digging in. They are doing so because they are desperate to keep profit margins high at any expense. The Financial Times surveyed 100 leading economists, the vast majority of which believed that the UK will have the longest recession compared to other G7 countries.

They recognise that a victory for any one of the groups of workers taking national action would open the floodgates. It is one thing for a local employer to concede to local demands but completely another for government and employers to reach a compromise with a union taking national action. For them this is more than a battle about keeping pay below inflation.

The arguments put by governments and the employers are simply not convincing. The usual tropes of ‘wage rises cause inflation’ do not cut it. The obvious wealth inequality that exists in society is well known.

A new report shows that the FTSE 100 CEO pay increased from £2.46m in 2020 to £3.41m in 2021. Median CEO pay is now 109 times that of the median UK full-time worker, compared to 79 times in 2020 and 107 times in 2019. Median CEO pay is also up on pre pandemic levels – reflected by an increase of 5% from £3.25m median CEO pay in 2019. In 2022 CEO pay surged by 32%!  CEO pay survey 2022: CEO pay surges 39% • High Pay Centre

What creates such rage about this inequality is not simply that the rich are getting wealthier whilst we are getting poorer but they are doing so at our expense!

The government and employers are becoming increasingly aware that what lies behind the solid support for the strikes is a much bigger desire among the public than simply seeing workers win a pay rise which keeps up with the cost-of-living crisis.

The inability for the government and employers to win ‘heart and minds’ doesn’t simply lie with pay inequality. It is also because the ‘public’ want to see a more democratically run society which prioritises public services which deliver for society and people.  One in which profit margins must not be the concern for a national health service, rail network or a postal service.

The strikes have also highlighted how unhappy people are at work. The bullying managerialism that is rife in every workplace, the long hours and the struggle to maintain a work/life balance, are all leading to significant increases in physical and mental ill health.

In short, the government and employers are becoming increasingly alert to the fact that a deal that would be considered by the public as a victory would not only be a victory for increased pay but a defeat for everything this government, and all the ones that preceded it over the past 40 years, have stood for – the zealot like belief in the market, competition and profit as the only way society can be run effectively.

The strikes give the public a glimpse that it ‘is not necessarily so’.

Never been a better time to fight and win.

If you add to the mix the skill shortages in key sectors like health, teaching and social care and you have an explosive combination, which puts those who are fighting back in a good position to win – or should. All the arguments that are usually put forward by union leaders that we can’t escalate because we don’t have ‘public opinion on our side’ or, ‘members aren’t up for indefinite action’ or ‘the government/employers are too strong and united’ are ones that clearly don’t hold today, if they ever did.

Incredible ballot results, solid strikes, lively pickets and excellent solidarity all demonstrate workers are up for taking significant action including indefinite action. The government is clearly weak and divided. If they called an election around the theme, ‘who runs the country the government or the unions’ as Heath did in 1972, Sunak would get the same answer…

As for public opinion, unions, union leaders, strikes and coordinated strikes have never been so popular. The role played by the dreadful Starmer – not supporting strikes and disciplining Labour MPs who appear on picket lines – has allowed the Mick Lynch and other trade union leaders to fill the political vacuum left by a rightward moving Labour leadership desperate to prove that they are fit to govern.   

However, although a useful sign of the weakness of the government’s position, unfortunately public opinion does not win strikes – more strikes and solidarity do. The Great Miners’ strike of 1984-5 highest recorded public support for the miners was 35%. But this was not the reason why the miners lost. It was the failure of the TUC and Labour leadership to turn that 35% into solidarity strike action.

The high levels of support for the strikes at the moment can quickly evaporate if they are not pursuing a strategy that is clearly putting the government and employers under pressure.

Bring down the Tories: Make the country ungovernable.

We are in a very good position to win. But to do so we will need to take the action that can win. The government and the employers are working together to ensure that they inflict a serious defeat on the rail and postal workers to show others thinking of doing the same that they too will be crushed if they follow. Just like after the miners defeat in 1984/5 trade union leaders will be lining up to tell those arguing for action, ‘if the rail or postal workers can’t do it – what chance have we?’

The government appear to want to adopt tactics learnt from the past. The government response to the 1926 General Strike was to pass laws to make it easier for the employers to break the strikes, make scabbing easier and use the army. However, the government victory came not from new laws but because the TUC, supported by the left-wing TU leaders, called the general strike off on the seventh day. This left the miners to fight alone leading to an unnecessary devastating defeat. The debate about the defeat of 1926 General strike is pursued here in this interesting debate between Duncan Hallas, leading member of the SWP and Tony Benn (sadly, both now passed) – it’s worth a watch. Tony Benn & Duncan Hallas: Lessons of 1926 General Strike

It is clear that Sunak is preparing new trade union legislation to make it even harder for workers to take legal strike action. Worryingly, Paul Novak, the new TUC GS, response to these new laws is to threaten to take the government to court. This strategy clearly will not work and its failure will not only make it even more difficult for workers to withdraw their labour but it will leave those who taking action potentially isolated. 

We’ve been here before….

To maintain the level of support from the public as well as from the workers who are taking strike action there needs be a strategy which convinces that victory is possible.

There are times in which merely the result of an industrial action ballot is enough to bring the employers back to the table and agree a significant deal. Or a few days of action can force the employers to back down. But we can’t play by the same old rules using the same strategies. Their side isn’t neither should ours.

As argued above, currently the stakes are too high for the government and the employers to respond to significant ballot results or one- or two-days action. The employers are prepared to ride out several two day strikes over a period of months. The government and employers have held the line.  The RMT and CWU are right to shift to calling more sustained action over a shorter period of time.

This doesn’t mean that the government and employers can’t be beaten. They can. But to do so we have to raise the stakes ourselves through prolonged strikes over a shorter period to make the country ungovernable. This would increase the pressure on government, challenge their current strategy of waiting out strikes and provoke divisions amongst their side as some sections of the employers would fear increased crisis and rising and generalised resistance across society.

It doesn’t automatically mean that to win workers have to take indefinite action for months and months.  In fact, if the postal and rail workers had taken all their days of strike action all in one go over a week or two-week period it is very likely the government and the employers would have conceded by now.

For workers taking strike action to sustain more prolonged action over a shorter period it will take, out of necessity to facilitate such organisation, more active participation of those on strike with the decisions and running of the disputes through strike committees.

Without such organisation prolonged strike action will be far more difficult to achieve.

For those who are about to enter the field of battle the lessons to draw from the action so far is not to adopt ‘smart’ strategies, or look to limit days of strike action over a long period of time. The government and employers and prepared for that. What they are not prepared for is sustained action including indefinite action over a matter of weeks.

Coordinating and escalating on this basis will put real pressure on the government to concede as employer’s fear where this action might end if concessions aren’t made.

If 2023 is to be the year remembered as the year in which workers won then we will need to take the action that can deliver that victory.

Sean Vernell UCU CCCG Coordinating Sec and National Negotiator.

Posted on

Why we need real democracy in UCU

UCU march on 31 Nov 2022, including banners saying "On the back of our labour"

What lies behind the continual delays in announcing industrial action and the current tussle between Jo Grady and the Higher Education Committee over strategy in the UCURising disputes? This article explains where the conflict comes from and why fighting for control by members is so important.   

The long-running concerns about democracy in our union have come to a head with another attempt by the General Secretary to impose her own strategy for the UCURising disputes. Jo Grady has circulated her proposal to all members and hopes to use January’s Branch Delegate Meeting to induce the Higher Education Committee (HEC) to overturn the decisions it took in November.

Democratic deficit

The issue of democracy has been high on the agenda for several years. The #NoCapitulaton moment in 2018, followed by the leadership’s shutdown of Congress that year, pointed to a ‘democratic deficit’ in the union that Jo Grady highlighted during her campaign for General Secretary. Congress delegates set up a Democracy Commission which they hoped would devise policies to enhance the voices of members and improve the transparency of decision-making.

It didn’t work. Very few of the Democracy Commission’s proposals were implemented, and the worries about an unaccountable leadership have, if anything, grown during the Four Fights and USS disputes. Two motions directly critical of the General Secretary made it onto the agenda of Congress 2022, along with others calling for more consultation with members during disputes.

Tensions

It is not surprising that democracy issues are exposed during industrial disputes. When the union takes on the national employers, tensions are exacerbated between those employed at head office to lead the union and the members taking action on the ground. The more bitter and protracted the dispute, the more ordinary members feel that they deserve greater control over the strategy being deployed. After all, they are the ones making considerable sacrifices in taking strike action or facing the threat of 100% pay docking for ASOS.

Delegates elected from branches have become less and less willing to accept the General Secretary’s strategy proposals. In April 2022, Jo Grady’s argument that the union was too weak to take on the national HE employers and that a period of recruitment and rebuilding was necessary before we could fight again was rejected repeatedly by conferences in favour of strong action early this academic year. Members also insisted that there should be more Branch Delegate Meetings (BDMs) before important decisions on industrial strategy are taken.

‘Unimplementable’

There has also been growing tension between the elected lay leadership of the union which is formally in charge of industrial disputes – the Higher Education Committee – and the full-time leadership – the GS and officials. When the HEC becomes dominated by representatives of members who want to see a serious fight against the employers, it increasingly finds itself in conflict with the General Secretary.

The full-time leadership has attempted to control debate by ruling motions brought by HEC members out of order. When these attempts failed, and HEC passed the motions, they have been declared ‘unimplementable’. This happens particularly when motions relate directly to issues of democracy. HEC tried to gain control of the questions put to branches ahead of BDMs and to allow motions from branches to be considered, but their decisions were pointedly ignored.

The very mechanism that members put in place to enhance democracy has been routinely subverted by the way that BDMs are run. The choice at January’s BDM will be either the HEC’s strategy of a marking boycott followed by indefinite action, or the five days of strike in February followed by five more in April favoured by the General Secretary. Not only can no alternatives be considered, but the debate is rigged. The GS has the resources to circulate a glossy document arguing for her plan, while the HEC was made to keep its decisions secret for weeks and has no direct access to members to communicate or explain them.

What can we do about this?

The conflict over democracy in the union is not one that can be wished away. Nor can it be permanently solved. It is a reflection of the divergent interests of the bureaucracy of trade unions on the one hand and the rank and file membership on the other. The membership can’t do without a full-time leadership to manage the day-to-day running of the union, its resources and finances. But a union is nothing without its members, and the bureaucracy has to accept a degree of accountability to them. There is a continuous battle over the degree of control that members should have over decisions taken by those who run the union.

Not a luxury

This internal battle within the union is not an academic exercise. When the union is in the fight of its life against a major assault on the pensions, pay and conditions of its members, democracy is not a luxury. When the level of action required to beat the employers has become serious and protracted, the struggle cannot be won unless the members taking that action feel that they are in control.

This is not only because members in the workplace have a better grasp of strategy than the officials based in head office, despite their claims to be ‘professionals’. It is also because treating members like an army to be mobilised at the whim of a General Secretary will rapidly erode their motivation and commitment to the fight.

The fight for democratic control

It is essential, therefore, that we fight to extend democracy in UCU. We must continue to find ways to challenge the manipulation of BDMs and the use of member surveys to try to justify strategies dreamed up at head office. We need genuine debate, not a series of branch reports which can be ignored if they do not match the views of the bureaucracy. Branches should pass motions on industrial action and demand that they are discussed at the BDM. We must also continue to demand that the decisions taken by elected representatives on HEC are implemented.

We must create strike committees in every institution which meet daily at the height of the action to allow members to control their own strikes and ASOS. We must press for these local bodies to be linked through delegates to a national strike or dispute committee, whose decisions are binding on those charged with carrying them out.

Widen the debate

UCU Left stands for a democratic, fighting union. Our opponents try to claim that UCU Left members on HEC and on branch committees seek to impose their own views on reluctant members. This is the opposite of the truth. We are in favour of widening the involvement of members in debates about the running of their union and abiding by the decisions that they take. We are opposed to decisions being taken at head office and imposed on members.

The fight against our employers and the fight for democracy in our union go hand in hand. Democracy is the only way to win.

UCU Left Open Meeting

Fighting the HE disputes
What strategy do we need and how should we decide it?

Wednesday 4th January, 7pm

Zoom registration link

The General Secretary has proposed an alternative to the strategy passed by the Higher Education Committee on November 3rd. Instead of a January marking and assessment boycott followed by an indefinite strike, she advocates ten days of strike action spread through February and March.

Ahead of the Branch Delegate Meeting, join this Q&A to find out why UCU Left members of HEC voted for a MAB and indefinite action, and why we need union democracy to win these disputes.