Category: HE

Higher eductaion stories

Posted on

Conditional Indexation: An introduction to a sugar-coated bitter pill

2nd USS demo, London, 2018

Carlo Morelli, member of the UCU Superannuation Working Group

USS has produced its second report into changing our pension scheme into a Conditional Indexation (CI) scheme, Conditional Indexation: second report (December 2025). They and our employers claim they are just exploring the feasibility of CI, and have yet to make any decision.

While the final decision may not have been made, their enthusiasm for it is increasingly evident in the positive spin it is given in the first UCU – USS conditional indexation interim report, June 2025 and now second report.[i]

Before making the case against CI, it is worthwhile clarifying what a pension such as USS is, and is not. Unlike the state pension, USS is not redistributive. In short, the more of your salary you and your employer pay in, the more you get out, whereas the state pension pays out entirely based on how long you paid, and you receive the same irrespective of your earnings. This is important when it comes to considering questions of equality between existing types of scheme members under CI.

There are essentially four main types of current USS scheme members:

  • retired members (meaning those whose pensions are in payment),
  • deferred members (those not in work in the sector but with pensions built up and not yet in payment),
  • active members (currently making payments into USS), and finally
  • dependents (partners and children of deceased members in receipt of pensions).[ii]

Changes to a CI-based pension has significant implications on how different groups of members will be treated.

Unlike employer pensions in the public sector, such as in the NHS or the Teachers’ Pension Schemes, USS is a funded scheme. It is not a ‘pay-as-you-go’ scheme in which current employees are paying the pensions of previous employees. Instead, USS has its own assets built up over decades of member contributions, currently valued at over £74bn. This fact is important when it comes to discussing issues of intergenerational fairness between current members of the scheme and the next generation of staff not yet in employment.

These distinct constituencies of current or potential scheme members are important to consider when it comes to any pension scheme. But in the case of USS, they have been central to its success to date.

The forthcoming triannual March 2026 valuation of the scheme is estimated to show a ‘notional’ surplus of as much as £15bn.

USS is considered to be an ‘immature’ scheme, because contributions in and returns on assets continue to exceed payments out, and thus the asset-base continues to grow.[iii] This is also why we have retained guaranteed benefits for our pensions – a defined benefit (DB) pension scheme.

Now, if you disadvantage one group of current members you risk current members removing “their” pension pot from the scheme, to the detriment of its asset base. On the other hand, if you ignore the interests of future members you risk making the scheme unattractive to potential new members, resulting in the scheme becoming ‘mature’, with income no longer covering expenditure and the assets depleting.

As I will now explain, unfortunately, Conditional Indexation introduces these risks.

But there is no need for CI. The scheme is in a very healthy surplus. Instead of discussing increasing the risk of a worse outcome to members under CI, this huge surplus should be used to both protect and extend the current DB scheme, providing better benefits for all.

What is CI anyway?

The very first point to make is that ‘CI’ is not one thing. It is really a spectrum of potential scheme designs, all of which have one thing in common: they seek to pass on inflation risk to members in different ways, affecting different types differently.

Essentially, the greater the inflation protection (and hence the more like a fully DB scheme it is) the higher the projected cost.[iv]

The more ‘flexible’ the scheme is permitted to be, the weaker the inflation guarantee becomes, and hence the more the scheme becomes like a fully Defined Contribution scheme – and the lower the cost to the employers.

As explained on p.8 of the Second Report:

“Importantly, to have maximum flexibility from a funding perspective (and therefore help ensure stable contributions, benefits and indexation), the indexation to be awarded cannot be prescribed in a legally binding formula. In practice this would mean that decisions on indexation would ultimately be a matter of judgement for the relevant decision makers rather than governed in an entirely mechanical fashion – this would enable the scheme to be funded on the basis that CI increases are not guaranteed – thereby delivering increased flexibility compared with the existing approach.” – USS, CI Second Report, 2026, p.8

Thus, Conditional Indexation claims to be a means of protecting members from inflation reducing the real value of their pension, but it makes this inflation protection conditional rather than guaranteed.

‘Flexibility’ in these documents is in relation to control over funding, particularly employers’ funding, rather than the benefits promised to members.

Members would bear the inflation risk, and the guaranteed benefits of our DB scheme are sacrificed in the interests of managers running the scheme and employers whose make the largest contributions (on our behalf, as deferred wages) to the scheme.

Under a CI scheme, each year a decision will be made by scheme managers on whether it is ‘appropriate’ to pay an expected target level of inflation increase to members’ contributions. During the first 10 years following the introduction of CI, and extending to 30 and 60 years when reaching a steady state, the risk of not reaching the target level of increase is expected to be at its greatest (Second Report, p.14 and p.20). The biggest risk will be borne by current pensioners and the current generation of active members.

The process by which this takes place is required to be:

“Fair and transparent: Members, employers and the Trustee should be able to trust that the decision-making framework will lead to fair and reasonable outcomes based on transparent information and in accordance with fiduciary duties.” (original emphasis) – USS, CI Second Report, 2026, p.6

This ‘fairness and transparency’ condition would be achieved through… ‘A well-written policy document’ (p.7)!

Members may recall extensive, well-written critiques of the gilts-based valuation method as the basis of the scheme valuation produced by members, which were ignored and trumped by the ‘fiduciary duty’ reportedly insisted upon by the Pensions Regulator.

However, CI has another problem. It is not only inflation risk that transfers to members under CI. A still stronger guarantee to members’ benefits exists in the Defined Benefit scheme’s collective Employer Covenant.

USS is termed a ‘last man standing’ scheme. This means that if individual universities were to fail, their liabilities (known as Section 75 debt) would be paid by the remaining employer member organisations in USS.

CI would remove employers from this collective covenant by allowing scheme managers to refuse to provide the target level of indexation until the Section 75 debt had been recovered. So pensions can be devalued in real terms if employers leave the scheme. It is no wonder that employers are being encouraged to support CI, given the reported levels of liability in their annual balance sheets under the FRS17 regulations.

Ultimately, CI is not a solution to an inadequate valuation methodology, it passes the buck onto members, and should be rejected!

Intergenerational Inequality: setting member against member

It is not only inflation guarantees that CI seeks to undermine. It also risks pitting member against member in its decision-making over these target inflation increases. Inflation protection in USS is uniformly applied to all types of members, but under CI this would not necessarily be the case.

While active members are modelled in the Second Report within target inflation at CPI+1%, retired members are modelled with a target inflation of CPI. However, this advantage given to active members is only if the target is achieved. On the other hand, under current UK legislation, retired members are protected from poor outcomes with a requirement of inflation protection of 2.5% or CPI whichever is the lower.

It is obvious that a significant level of intergenerational inequality is built into CI proposals. Retired members will have greater protection from poor returns compared to active members. This problem could in theory be mitigated by the use of the current surplus creating a buffer against missing target indexation in the establishment of CI. However, the surplus is generated from past accrual. In this scenario, retired members would see their built-up pension surplus being transferred to today’s active members, instead of increasing retired members’ benefits. And once any surplus is spent, the potential for protection for the next generation is lost.  

CI is not a solution to providing decent pensions for past, current or future staff in higher education. Instead, it is a gamble with our pensions that need not be taken. There is a large surplus in the current scheme that could be used to increase benefits to all types of members rather than pitting one section of members against another.

In UCU we need to discuss how to use the reported surplus to the benefit of all members, past and present. For one thing, the current system of inflation protection could be improved with no additional cost.

Our pensions are currently protected as long as inflation is below 5%, but above this and up to 15% there are lower levels of protection. This limitation on inflation protection could be lifted. This has no real cost if inflation remains low, but protects all members equally if it were to rise, for instance under a Farage government or a Trump-induced military conflict or a stock-market crunch.

Conclusion

CI is being promoted as a ‘solution’ to the failings of the long-standing valuation methodology. Yet it is nothing of the sort.

It simply passes all the inflation risks of funding a pension onto members and away from employers and USS.

While members may be bamboozled by supposedly sophisticated modelling in the coming months the key task is simple. We must continue to demand a guaranteed pension.

We struck in 2018 to retain a guaranteed pension for all, and we won. We struck again to reverse pension cuts. The scheme is in surplus.

Don’t let it be stolen now.

Notes

[i] The Second Report includes 60 references to the word ‘could’, 24 to ‘would’ and 46 to ‘will’, compared to 32 to ‘not’, 3 to ‘cannot’, 1 to ‘unable’ and 1 to ‘will not’.

[ii] Members can be in more than one category, such as taking flexible retirement, and there are also some other membership types, such as those who receive full commutation of benefits due to terminal illness.

[iii] The 2025 Financial Report & Accounts show exceptionally this is not the case, due largely to the writing off of USS’ £1bn investment in Thames Water. See Financial Report & Accounts 2025, p.59, available at Report and Accounts.

[iv] The current scheme has inflation protection up to 5%, which is fully 100% matched. If inflation were to rise above 5% up to 5-15% this additional level is matched by 50%. Inflation over 15% is not protected at all. USS is said to have a ‘soft-cap’ for indexation. In a world of CI, any inflation protection would be conditional upon the rules of the CI scheme, with no inflation protection in any year where it was determined unaffordable.

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

UCU Congress 2025 – UCU Left Report 

UCU Congress 2025 took place at a critical time as our sectors face a deepening crisis. In HE 10,000 jobs are set to go, and another 10,000 at risk next year. In Adult Education pay rises have lagged behind FE and face funding cuts of up to 6%. In FE chronic underfunding and pay that continually falls behind school teachers means many are leaving. Prison Educators continue to face risk and underfunding in privately run prison providers’ classrooms. Across the sectors, unacceptable high levels of casualisation leave members with lower pay, less security and at greater risk of bullying. 

But these sector-specific struggles are part of a broader, multifaceted crisis. We are witnessing attacks on welfare, migrants, and trans rights; a growing clampdown on solidarity with Palestine; and the worsening climate emergency. Congress debated and voted on all these issues, and there was a strong sense of unity on the path forward.

Defending post-16 education: a mandate for UK-wide action

Delegates from both the Higher Education Sector Conference (HESC) and the Further Education Sector Conference (FESC) were clear: the fight for fair pay and against redundancies must be escalated. Congress passed motions calling for a UK-wide industrial ballot in HE and an England-wide ballot in FE, both to be held in the Autumn term.

Congress decisively rejected the argument—promoted by the right wing of the union and some at UCU HQ—that we must focus solely on local capacity building (the density argument) before acting as a whole union. This pessimistic view assumes we cannot win – and that industrial action cannot win – but the votes showed that Congress believes otherwise: we cannot defeat these challenges university by university, or college by college. Coordinated, UK-wide action is now essential. Congress also agreed that we should aim to get the whole post-16 education sector out together – further, higher and adult education.

However, now that we have democratically decided on strategy we need to make sure this happens. We must build within our branches and regions to ensure that we get the vote out.  

FESC delegates recognised that we’ve been building towards England wide industrial action for nearly two years. Grassroots branches and reps have pushed for collective action, and it’s encouraging their voices are now being heard. While one motion discussed branches ‘opting out’, this was amended to encourage all branches to unite. The overwhelming majority of motions from branches supported a collective approach. 

HESC also voted for a motion to explore opening an industrial dispute with the Secretary for State for Education. Every tactic should be explored, but given the scale of the crisis facing post-16 education we cannot afford to prioritise this over moving to industrial action against the employers now. Time is of the essence to save jobs and secure the future of our sectors and education. 

Congress recognised that achieving sector-wide change of increased funding and reversing cuts, also means political pressure. Therefore, along with votes for action, Congress supported UCU calling a lobby of Parliament on budget day in October to build that pressure. And to call on UCU to submit an amendment to the TUC demanding a national demo to coordinate action against Austerity 2.0.

Starmer’s government is feeling the greatest pressure from Reform and other racist, regressive forces. We can see them increasingly parroting these lines and moving further to the right. We need to change this and make sure that the progressive forces in society are the ones applying the pressure on Labour.

Unfortunately, Congress didn’t reach the motion that called for a message of solidarity and a donation to the Birmingham bin workers – who have been on strike since January, and indefinite strike action since March. However, an absolute highlight was Steeven, one of the strikers who gave an inspiring speech to Congress and received a standing ovation.

————————————————

Welfare not Warfare

Congress and sector conferences passed motions strongly condemning continued attacks on the welfare state. After years of Tory government’s austerity and disregard for the welfare state, Labour should have come in and radically increased funding. Instead, they maintained the two-child benefit cap, cut the winter fuel allowance and cut disability payments. This will only play into the hands of Reform.

At the same time, Starmer’s government committed to increasing arms spending by 2.5% – despite the UK already spending £54 billion annually on arms. Cutting welfare to fund warfare will not make the world safer. But a well-funded welfare state would make a safer, better society. Unfortunately, there are some in the trade union movement who welcomed the increase in defence spending, with UNITE’s General Secretary saying it was “backing Britain”. This is not true, it will lead to greater division and it is workers who get sent to war. Congress supported sending a motion to the TUC Congress demanding a reversal in arms spending and to spend this on welfare.

Palestine

Once again, UCU Congress overwhelmingly reaffirmed its solidarity with Palestine. Delegates condemned the intensifying crackdowns on university campuses, including police repression and legal injunctions targeting student and staff activism. Congress voted in favour of donating to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and strengthening partnerships with the European Legal Support Centre, Liberty, and other organisations to build a national campaign resisting these crackdowns. This includes providing political support and training for branches affected by such measures.

Delegates also supported funding a third Campus Voices for Palestine tour and committed to continued collaboration with BRICUP and University and College Workers for Palestine in delivering this initiative.

Trans, Non-binary, Intersex and Gender Diverse People

Trans rights featured prominently at Congress, rightly so after the recent attacks on trans rights from the Cass Review, to Trump to the Supreme Court ruling. All motions were overwhelmingly passed. It was incredibly important to show solidarity with our trans siblings and to pass motions opposing the Cass Review, Wes Streeting and the SC ruling. But importantly practical actions were taken to call on employers to develop trans-inclusive policies, for UCU to create a joint working group to help develop policy and to support demonstrations that oppose transphobia.

Climate change

UCU committed to backing the TUC’s call for a Year of Action on Climate Change, beginning in September 2025. The COP summit in Brazil will serve as a key focal point for mobilisation.

As part of this commitment, UCU will co-organise a Climate and Ecological Education Conference alongside other trade unions and climate justice campaigns. Congress also called on UCU to work with other unions and climate campaigns to build workplace events during the TU year of action.

Pensions in HE

HESC resolved to defend the Teachers Pension Fund in HE and lobby USS for more ethical investment plans. The SWG report was accepted, which recommended UCU continues to explore and take a sceptical view of CI. Unfortunately as a consequential, a key motion on  improving USS members benefits which also called for UCU to take a policy position of opposing Conditional Indexation (CI) fell. In the absence of a policy to oppose CI, there is not only a risk of employers potentially imposing CI; but also a missed opportunity of not focussing action to improve benefits in light of the significant USS surplus.

———————————–

This was the first hybrid Congress, with the vast majority of delegates in person. There was a great range of issues discussed and for many delegates, both first timers and more seasoned delegates, it was inspiring to hear from different branches.

Congress concluded with a strong sense of unity and purpose. Now, we must build on that strength to deliver real gains—on pay, workload, climate change, trans rights, anti-racism, solidarity with Palestine, and the defence of the welfare state.

Posted on

Casualisation – a blight on post-16 education

Christina Paine (London Met UCU, NEC) and Cecily Blyther (Petroc UCU), both members of the Anti-Casualisation Committee

Across the UK, the post-16 education model is broken as workers struggle under the weight of precarious contracts, redundancies, casualised job losses and impossible workloads. As working conditions continue to race to the bottom we must secure the casualised to stop the casualisation of the secure.

Behind every ‘hourly paid’ or ‘fixed-term contract’ model are stories of poverty wages, homelessness, insecurity, burnout and exploitation. We know casualisation worsens structural inequalities, overwhelmingly impacting women, migrants, racialised and disabled colleagues.

The structural inequality of casualisation needs to be a key focus in our equality work (SFC33). We see the most vulnerable are targeted and are often left feeling “discarded” as contracts vanish with no consultation or redundancy.

Across post-16 education, casualised workers deliver the core teaching, support student learning and keep institutions afloat yet are discarded without consultation, redundancy process and with no safety net.

Casualised staff precarious

As HE institutions parade deficits and launch brutal redundancy and restructuring programmes it’s casualised staff who disappear first with few redundancy rights or recognition.

The pattern repeats in FE. Staff hours are cut, contracts aren’t renewed and layers of redundancy are obscured while management shifts workload to permanent staff already struggling under impossible demands.

The lack of data and monitoring of these job losses is unacceptable. Institutionalised insecurity is the business model for marketised post-16 education. We must support Congress motions calling for UCU to survey branches to document the scale of the job losses.

Key Motions

• HE11 calls for all campaigns against redundancy to protect and defend casualised staff.
• HE22, HE23 and HE24 demand transparency in casualised redundancies and for UCU to survey branches on the scale of job losses among casualised staff.
• FE15 calls for solidarity across casualised and non-casualised staff and protecting casualised staff in campaigns against redundancy.
• FE16 addresses recruitment and retention of casualised workers in FE, calling for a representative working group to develop union work in this area.

Pensions often feel unattainable to casualised workers, yet pension inequality is a huge issue with inconsistent work and huge amounts of unpaid labour leaving them out of pocket in work and in retirement. This is compounded by the introduction of two-tier pensions in some institutions with casualised workers pushed onto inferior schemes. We must fight for all workers to have a decent and secure retirement.

• ROC2 defends universal pension and welfare rights and SFC36 calls for stronger pension action for casualised workers.
• SFC33 calls for UCU to develop a stronger, unified strategy to defend equality and fight casualisation.
• SFC21 targets action on the pitiful Employment Rights Bill and calls for the full repeal of the anti-trade union laws. This is vital for strengthening work to stamp out casualised work in our sectors.

We must fight together against every job loss:
• SFC15 calls for a post-16 strategy to defend education. It is time for action across the union to call for full security for all workers and full government funding for post-16 education.

Starmer’s Labour is Anti-Worker

The Labour government’s so-called Employment Rights Bill fails to offer meaningful protection or a way forward for workers. They’ve climbed down on reversal of the Trade Union Act 2016 and banning zero-hours contracts. The Bill does not guarantee work after regular service and there are no penalties for misuse of casual contracts. It’s a betrayal dressed up in progressive language while leaving thousands of workers out to dry.

Zero-hours contracts remain as legalised precarity. They lock staff into cycles of poverty pay, instability and mental harm. They disproportionately trap women, racialised and disabled workers in second-class employment, excluded from rights and robbed of security.

UK-wide joint action now – enough is enough.

Casualisation is the ground on which every other injustice grows – leading to unpaid work overload, inequality, stress, mental health collapse, bullying and silencing. We must build on recent networks created in our regions and join with sibling unions to build on new strong networks in our regions to give voice to casualised workers.

Our working conditions are the foundations of students’ education in every part of post-16 education and casualisation undermines both. Casualised staff are not disposable. They are central to the sector. We cannot wait any longer – we must all work together to fight for decent jobs and pension justice for all workers.

Posted on

Welfare not Warfare: Defend Disability Benefits – Defend Our Rights

Roddy Slorach (Imperial College UCU) and Christina Paine (London Met UCU and NEC)

Keir Starmer’s government is in big trouble. Its strategy is already in tatters and its support is rapidly disappearing. Many voters are turning in desperation to the racists of Farage’s Reform UK. Labour’s answer is more scapegoating – of migrants, muslims and now of trans people. For many people, the most shocking betrayal is the savage assault on disability
benefits. Cuts to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and incapacity benefit threaten to push at least 250,000 disabled people into poverty.

In her Spring Statement in March, chancellor Rachel Reeves said Labour is “clear whose side we are on.” Her policies have indeed made this clear. The pledge to restrict public spending was rapidly forgotten when Donald Trump demanded European countries ramp up arms spending. Starmer says there is a “moral case” for the cuts to disability benefits – with the savings spent on more deadly weapons like those being used to carry out genocide in Gaza.

Disabled workers across post-16 education are raising the alarm – and UCU is demanding action. Staff are still being denied the most basic reasonable adjustments to do their jobs safely, whilst simultaneously facing a government hell-bent on slashing the support they rely on to live and flourish.

War on the poorest

Disabled people are already poorer than a decade ago. A report to the UN by disability organisations in August 2023 showed the real terms value of UK benefit payments had fallen by over ten percent since 2010. Research by disability charity Scope shows that the average UK disabled household faces extra costs of £1122 per month – making disabled people “almost three times as likely to live in material deprivation than the rest of the population.” With one in ten people of working-age receiving health-related benefits, UCU
members are among those threatened by the cuts.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting tried to divert attention by claiming that the problem is an “overdiagnosis” of mental distress and conditions such as autism and ADHD. The real problem is that more and more of us are struggling to cope in an increasingly barbaric and hostile world.

Fifteen years ago, another Labour government introduced the Equality Act in 2010. It is a deeply flawed law that nevertheless for the first time put disability discrimination on an equal legal footing to racism, sexism and other forms of oppression. Many people believed that the new law would improve life for disabled people – but our employers constantly refuse to meet its most basic requirements.

Toxic narrative

The government’s toxic narrative – that disabled people are work-shy or exaggerate their difficulties – ignores the reality of our communities and workplaces. Across post-16 education, staff report long delays for essential support like screen readers, ergonomic equipment, hybrid work arrangements, or flexible hours. Often, reasonable adjustments never arrive and disabled workers increasingly face job insecurity and loss of hours.

The government’s unacceptable cuts to PIP and other disability benefits have been widely condemned by trade unions, disabled-led organisations and carers’ groups. In a chilling continuation of austerity politics, ministers are tightening assessments and proposing to stop many thousands of people from accessing the support they need to live, whether they are in work or not. All of this is being done under the guise of “fiscal responsibility.”

Among the most vulnerable are the growing number of disabled workers on casualised contracts. Meanwhile, digitalisation and AI-driven teaching models create new barriers and exclusions. Flexible tech could open doors, but instead it’s being used to strip out jobs and further marginalise disabled educators. We need a national campaign for accessible, inclusive and secure workplaces, a zero-tolerance approach to non-compliance on reasonable adjustments and above all a union that is prepared to fight for every job and
every member.

These cuts can be beaten and the fightback starts here. Starmer suspended Labour MPs who refused to support the cuts to winter fuel payments, but this time the threats aren’t working. Disabled People Against Cuts and other organisations have called a series of protests against the cuts under the banner of ‘Welfare not Warfare’. Every Palestinian supporter, every anti-war campaigner and every serious trade unionist needs to get behind this growing rebellion in defence of disability benefits.

Key Motions

The following motions will strengthen and support UCU’s work to fight discrimination against disabled members:
• Universal welfare and equal pensions provision (ROC2 EQ18).
• Ending cuts to PIP and disability benefits, working with wider campaigns for welfare and against military spending (SFC24 SFC25).
• Better support for disabled members to engage with UCU (EQ12) and linking anti-casualisation with equality issues (SFC33).
• Support and guidance for developing robust and inclusive policies (EQ15).
• More robust data to enable effective campaigning (FE32).

These motions will help us in the fight for restoring and securing PIP and disability benefits, a zero-tolerance approach to non-compliance on reasonable adjustments and stronger legal protections for precariously employed disabled members. We need a UK-wide campaign for accessible, inclusive and secure workplaces and greater accountability for institutions that rely on insecure labour while evading their equality duties.

Posted on

Organising for Palestine on campus: from repression to resistance

Anne Alexander, comms officer for Cambridge UCU and a member of
University and College Workers for Palestine and BRICUP

The past year has seen a significant escalation in repressive tactics by universities against protest for Palestine on UK campuses, mainly targeting students. Many UCU branches and activists have played an important role in building solidarity campaigns to protect student activists and the ability to collectively protest, but more needs to be done at a national level to organise a fightback.

Back in August 2024, University and College Workers for Palestine documented a wide set of repressive tactics deployed by university managements working in collaboration with security companies and sometimes the police. Although at a much lower level than the repression of pro-Palestine protests in other countries, such as the US and Germany, these
attempts to discipline and criminalise student protesters is deeply worrying.

Examples include violent arrests of students in Newcastle, Oxford and SOAS; victimisation of student activists at Birmingham, Essex, SOAS and LSE through long-running disciplinary cases, where some were banned from campus and threatened with expulsion. Even though legal charges have often been dropped later, or no disciplinary action taken after the
investigation – the impact on individuals targeted has been immense.

In two recent cases, University of London and Cambridge University used High Court injunctions in an attempt to pre-emptively ban protests on or near university-owned land. Breaching a court order puts students, staff and members of the public at risk of fines or even imprisonment.

The increasing legal threats to protest rights for students and staff on campus should concern every trade unionist and activist. The injunction obtained by the University of Cambridge targets all types of protest, not only solidarity action for Palestine. It affects a location in the centre of the city which has been used for decades as a rallying point by trade unions and local campaigns.

It comes alongside other attacks on the right to protest and speak about Palestine, such as the prosecution of leading figures in the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Stop the War Coalition after police restrictions and mass arrests on the 18 January demonstration, the arrest of Youth Demand activists in a Quaker Meeting House and the use of counter-terrorism laws to try and silence people speaking out against genocide, such as Cardiff activist Kwabena Devonish who faces trial in August. None of this can be separated from examples of authoritarian policing, such as the intervention to stop picketing by striking bin workers in Birmingham and the harsh sentencing of climate activists on charges of “conspiracy” for taking part in a zoom call.

Yet repression is only half the picture – many of these cases galvanised greater solidarity and organising by staff and students to push back. When the University of Leicester brought police to arrest students occupying a university building in November, the UCU branch put out a strong statement pointing out that student occupations played a key role in the campaigns against the Vietnam War and South African Apartheid.

University of London took three student activists to the High Court to obtain an injunction against them organising BDS protests on part of its land. UCU, Unison and IWGB branches from across the UoL’s Bloomsbury colleges helped to co-organise a major rally condemning the injunction on the workplace day of action for Palestine, 28 November.

In Cambridge, the University’s rush to obtain a High Court injunction targeting pro-Palestinian protests in February spurred staff and students to work together on a public and legal campaign contesting this repressive move online, in the streets and in court. The University was forced to retreat on several aspects of its original request to the court, including targeting the student-led campaign, Cambridge for Palestine, by name. National
and international pressure played an important role through open letters condemning the University from Gina Romero, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Assembly and UCU General Secretary Jo Grady.

Battles over the right to protest shouldn’t obscure the scale of the audience for Palestine solidarity organising – and how this audience continues to grow and develop. University and College Workers for Palestine and BRICUP worked with UCU nationally to organise a highly successful tour, implementing a resolution at UCU congress in 2024.

Between October 28 and November 6, the Campus Voices for Palestine tour visited 8 cities across the UK with a message of solidarity against scholasticide and amplifying the calls by staff and students from Palestinian universities for BDS. Sundos Hammad from the ‘Right to Education’ campaign from Birzeit University and Ahmed Shaban of the Emergency
Committee for the Universities of Gaza were able to connect with activists across the UK which also boosted local organising.

Workplace days of action have continued to bring staff and students together to highlight institutional complicity in genocide and war crimes. Initiatives like these are taking on a significance beyond the question of Palestine, with the current tilt towards militarism from governments worldwide. Labour’s appalling decision to steal money from disabled people in Britain in order to boost the profits of arms companies creating weapons to kill and maim
people in Palestine and around the world has rightly enraged activists across the country.

In the coming year, we should be looking to build as many links as possible between the Palestine movement and wider campaigns challenging the drive to war.
• Donate to the legal campaign over the University of London and Cambridge injunctions here .
• Resources from the Campus Voices for Palestine tour here
• Download BRICUP’s pamphlet on BDS, sign the Academic Commitment for Palestine and find other resources here.

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

Post-16 Education at the cross roads: national action now!

Sean Vernell – City and Islington College, NEC and FE National Pay Negotiator

This year’s Congress takes place in one of the most serious political situations faced by those working and learning in the Post-16 education sector for many years.

In HE over 10,000 jobs are at risk this year alone, with another 10,000 staff threatened next year. This crisis is set to get worse. The wiping out of arts, humanities and social sciences in all but the most elitist universities is on the cards.

The government announced a cut of 3 – 6% to the Adult Skills Fund which covers adult education in England FE and local authorities. Subsequently more student places will disappear, on top of the one million already lost in the last decade. In FE the refusal to act on UCU demands of a national binding agreement and pay parity with teachers has led to the worst recruitment crisis in the sector’s history. A crisis that is set to get worse with
the predicted 60,000 increase in student numbers in the next two years.

With workloads spiralling out of control across the sectors, physical and mental health issues are rising significantly as staff and students’ conditions worsen.

Post-16 Education is in crisis. And there is worse to come.

It is clear that the strategy pursued by the GS and her team of fighting college by college, university by university, to stem the tide of attacks on the basis of ‘building capacity’ has, at best, simply led to a stagnant membership as we lose more members through redundancy. This strategy has not prepared our branches to be ready to resist the avalanche of attacks that are set to come.

Trump leading the way and Starmer happy to follow.

Trump’s tariff wars are a part of a wider offensive his administration has launched on everything that is progressive.

On the one hand he is attempting to break with the free trade model of running the world, replacing it with a protectionist model that Trump believes will boost the growth of goods made in the US and with it jobs and prosperity. Neither economic models benefit working class people and neither model was designed to do so. Trump’s tariff wars will lead to layoffs in America and elsewhere, it will lead to a general worsening of workers’ living standards just as the free trade agreements did across the world.

On the other hand, Trump is using his ‘war on woke’ to divide workers and make it easier to push through the cuts to make America profitable again. Being tough on ‘illegal’ immigrants is a key component to this offensive.

The attacks on the transgender community are at the forefront of his agenda. A classic tactic used by all far right leaders – target a numerically very small section of society and hold them responsible for working class immiseration.

His attempts to prevent teachers teaching anything the right regard as ‘woke’ is chilling. If a teacher is found ‘guilty’ of teaching equality rights, it can lead to dismissal. The showdown with Harvard and Columbia universities shows how far Trump’s administration will go to enforce his anti-equality agenda.

Starmer is only too happy to follow Trump’s lead out of fear of upsetting the ‘special relationship’. Starmer and Reeves’ economic agenda is to attempt to make Britain profitable again through more cuts in the welfare state. As usual it starts with those receiving benefits and attempts to demonise those who survive on ‘state handouts’.

Whilst Trump cuts US spending on Nato to force European powers to increase their spending on arms, Starmer and Reeves are happy to comply. Starmer has ratcheted up the pre-war rhetoric to justify cuts to welfare – the extra £6bn a year to be spent on arms is apparently “necessary” to deter the apparent ‘real threat’ of a Russian invasion.

This appeasement of the right can be seen in Starmer’s continued support for the genocide in Palestine and his tough action on ‘illegal’ immigrants – keeping in line with Tump and an ineffectively attempting to marginalise Reform UK.

The jettisoning of Labour’s manifesto commitment to spend £28 billion to tackle the climate crisis is another example of how far Starmer will go to appease the far right. Farage, like Trump, blames the woke ‘net zero agenda’ for the loss of the steel manufacturing in Scunthorpe rather than the vagaries of the free market. Starmer, alongside the leadership of the steel workers union, refuses to challenge this lie.

We only have to look to the Birmingham bin workers strike, where a Labour Council is prepared to break the strike with troops, to see how the Labour Government will fiercely try to squash any resistance to its cuts agenda.

However, Starmer’s ‘warfare not welfare’ approach, predictably ‘has given confidence to Farage and Reform UK feeding off working people’s despair. Reform UK, now the largest far right party in Britain ever, is leading Labour in many of the so-called ‘Red wall’ constituencies.

National action to turn the tide on despair.

The only way to stop the far right cashing in on the despair of millions of workers is by providing hope. Resistance provides that hope. At this Congress delegates have the opportunity to vote for motions that can lead to resistance.

This congress and its sector conferences must be councils of war. The first decision we must take is to support motions calling on UCU to organise national action within the sectors and across. Congress and the sector conferences must signal a clear break from the college by college, university by university strategy adopted by the GS and her team.
It is irrelevant how we get there – aggregated or disaggregated – as long as we do.

Our colleagues in Newcastle, Dundee and Brunel universities have shown how we can fight. They have been an inspiration to the whole union. We cannot allow them to fight alone.

We have time to rise to the challenge and resist the attacks that are coming and implement the decisions made by HEC and HESC to launch an industrial action ballot on pay. And in FE, to implement the FEC decision for an indicative ballot on pay, workload and a national binding agreement before FESC. Failure to do so gives the employers and government a green light to speed up their attacks on post-16 education.

Lessons are being learnt by the government and the employers – that if they are to win, they must hit us on multiple fronts at once. We no longer live in a world where we can fight one front at a time. If we are to be able to unite in the battles over pay and jobs, we will also need to take up the attacks on benefits, the trans community, migrants and refugees and also take up tackling the climate crisis.

We must argue that the funding of our colleges and universities must be a priority and not an increase in arms spending – we must demand welfare not warfare.

Posted on

HEC votes for a ballot – and a campaign to save the sector

Aberdeen UCU victory

The fight is on to save Higher Education.

UCU’s Higher Education Committee (HEC) met on Thursday 12 December to consider what the union should do in the light of the financial crisis hitting our sector.

Tens of thousands of members face losing their jobs. Last year the union had no UK-wide campaign. Branches were left to fight alone. With the financial situation getting worse, and a limited window of opportunity to influence the Labour Government, we cannot afford to wait.

HEC voted for

  • a carefully structured ballot campaign over pay, to begin as soon as possible,
  • linked to a political campaign in defence of the sector,
  • on a timeline that would permit the union to call action before the end of the spring term.

Alongside the ballot and GTVO activity would be a campaign to raise the union’s emergency demands to save jobs, courses and our sector. It should include a conference to discuss the union’s demands. UCU has already agreed to focus on practical interventions that a Labour Government could make – to reinstate the block grant, for the government to cover or cancel the TPS contribution increase, and to reverse the hostile environment visa changes currently putting off overseas students from applying to university in the UK. We need to popularise these calls and debate them with politicians and ministers.

HEC also repeated the call made by Congress and the NEC for a major national demo to defend post-16 education.

We need to be imaginative and ambitious. In 2016-17, lobbying organised by The Convention for Higher Education, a loose coalition of UCU activists, academics and bodies including the Council for the Defence of British Universities, managed to force concessions from the Conservative Government in their Higher Education and Research Act.

The plan is for a joined-up strategy fighting for pay and jobs that can mobilise members to speak up about the crisis in Higher Education and put pressure on Labour to intervene. Our members are the best advocates for the sector. If this campaign develops successfully, we can also impact on Labour’s forthcoming HE funding review.

Branches facing redundancies and cuts were in the forefront of HEC’s minds. This strategy does two things: it brings our whole union together, and it puts pressure on Government to pay up for HE. If branches are fighting job losses they want to know that the whole union is behind them, and we all need to mobilise to insist Labour addresses the funding crisis of the sector.

HEC also voted to escalate procedures for branches facing redundancies to ballot for industrial action over jobs (see resolution 2 below).

The HEC meeting ended in messages of solidarity to branches facing job losses, and to UNITE UCU.

No-one should fight alone.

Resolutions from HEC meeting 12 December 2024 (including amendments)

1. Building industrial action ballot alongside a political campaign to defend HE

HEC notes the consultative ballot rejecting the pay offer and in favour of IA.

HEC resolves to

  1. Immediately organise an IA ballot for a ‘fully-funded pay rise’ of 5.5% (2023-24 claim) linked to a political campaign for a fully-funded sector calling for emergency measures to save jobs, courses and the sector.
  2. Run the IA ballot, HEC meetings etc., on a timeline permitting members to take UK-wide term-time strike action before the Easter break in most universities.
  3. Recommend that the National Demonstration to Defend Post 16 education as decided at UCU Congress is called for a Saturday in February 2025 in order to support the ballot
  4. Send out detailed briefing notes and organise regional GTVO workshops.
  5. Call a conference to defend HE in early February promoting and debating UCU’s proposals. Organise regional lobbies and mass lobby of Parliament with the post-16 demonstration.
  6. Consult members during the ballot on types of action through regional/devolved nations meetings and a branch delegate meeting during the ballot. Hold HEC in final week of ballot to plan action in anticipation of the result.

2. Responding to the Employers’ Offensive in the context of HE Crisis and Pay Dispute

This HEC notes

  1. The HE employers’ offensive and the broken university funding model.
  2. Long IA balloting-and-notification periods (TUA2016) and short windows for CR consultation (30 or 45 days, TULRCA1992) making timely ballot authorisation vital.
  3. That branches should not have to fight on their own but that several branch that have taken or threatened industrial action have made gains or mitigated losses.

This HEC resolves to

  1. Update branch officers weekly with a list of redundancy programmes by HEIs including VRs and CRs, and have a dedicated campaigning webpage.
  2. Weekly anti-cuts meeting open to all branches.
  3. Training on opposing redundancies via industrial action.
  4. Hold a national demonstrations in early February in Wales, Scotland, England and NI and protests at MP’s surgeries in constituencies with threatened universities.
  5. Shorten current ballot authorisation timelines, without requirement for consultative ballots.
  6. Make every branch taking industrial action against redundancies a local dispute of national significance.
  7. The large-scale redundancy programs and restructurings occurring in HE include a significant but varying silent redundancy of casualised workers across the sector. HEC resolves that the numbers of casualised work losses and ‘redundancies’ be added to the present count of redundancies to enable us to comprehensively assess the true scale of job losses across the sector and to inform our IA campaign with members.