No retreat into a service union

A paradox in UCU’s leadership under General Secretary Jo Grady exists. Her leadership has been defined by the adoption of an ‘organising’ model championed by the writer and activist Jane McAlevey. Yet faced with intransigent employers the actual model being imposed on the union is one of retreat into servicing members until some day in the distant future when employers can be challenged. In the meantime, all that is offered is services, CPD and individual advice on workplace rights (though access to legal support for cases remains elusive).

There is no doubt that our employers are intransigent. UCEA’s recent press release UCEA update on talks completely contradicts the press statement released by UCU only hours earlier UCU – Update on negotiations with UCEA. There is no reconsideration on UCEAS’s part on the continuation of falling pay in the sector. Instead UCEA openly communicate their desire to fundamentally undermine the union’s power in “an urgent need to re-set industrial relations and … end the cycle of industrial action” 2023-24 New JNCHES pay round (ucea.ac.uk)

This should not have come as a surprise to UCU’s leadership and Jo Grady should have been astute enough to disbelieve everything that is not public and in writing. She claims to be an industrial relations expert after all!

Faced with such intransigence the union has two options. The first, to increase the pressure on employers until sufficient numbers split from the official UCEA line and enforce a more conciliatory approach to industrial relations in the sector. There is no doubt that many employers are unhappy with UCEA’s approach. The variation of punitive deductions ranging from zero to remaining permanent until marks are handed over is an express recognition of these disagreements. Other employers have gone further still. Queens University got expelled from UCEA for being naughty boys and girls by negotiating a local deal. 

But that pressure needs to be built upon. It isn’t static. Jo Grady, the majority of the HE Officers and her supporters in the HEC have refused to hold a HEC in July. This would have allowed a vote to implement the Congress decision for a summer ballot thus extending our existing mandate into the Autumn term. The General Secretary and HE officers also have powers to call a summer ballot without recourse to a HEC. Only Vice President Maria Chondrogianni was prepared to support this.  These are all acts of deliberate sabotage of our dispute by those at the top of our union.

The alternative to building pressure is to abandon the dispute. Jo Grady has set her course on driving the dispute into the ground as a result. Jo Grady has ensured members taking action are severely restricted in their claims on the hardship fund, in contradiction to policy passed at Congress. She has stopped campaigning for the Four Fights and has called no further action in September, which is possible under the existing mandate. When 20 members on the left of the HEC called for a HEC to vote on a summer ballot and even 19 of her own supporters called for an electronic ballot on her own strategy, she still chose to do nothing. Instead we hear that the union is on holiday, just like Tory Government Ministers; when needed, it is nowhere to be found. 

In order to push through her strategy Jo Grady has overseen the undermining of democratic control of the dispute and repeatedly ignored HEC and Sector Conference decisions. The strike committee made up of striking and MABing branches was never convened. The Branch Delegates’ Meetings aimed at determining strategy were never held and instead substituted with ineffective meetings issuing directives and recently MAB meetings unable to make decisions. Even these have now been cancelled. 

Unsurprisingly, UCEA have recognised this weakness and have offered nothing, refusing to return deducted pay from those participating in the MAB 2023-24 New JNCHES pay round (ucea.ac.uk). Worse still, our employers wish to extend this intransigence into the USS negotiations by replacing the employers’ body UUK with UCEA at the USS Joint Negotiating Committee. Their focus is clear – lower contribution rates, not the return of benefits and compensation for losses. It took five years of our action to force employers and UUK to relent on the destruction of the scheme and now employers are looking at underfunding the scheme as a new way to ensure our guaranteed pensions are taken away. 

There is a £7.4b surplus in the USS scheme which the employers think is there for the taking. USS is our pension fund not a savings pot for employers to dip into on a whim. It could be used to improve benefits and address pension inequalities, such as the gender pension gap. Yet Jo Grady and her supporters have offered this up to employers. Jo Grady’s calls to ‘de-couple’ the two disputes weaken UCU’s campaign in both. Employers aren’t interested in de-coupling and instead what to ensure their desire to maximise their surpluses extends into all areas of HE.

Where do we go from here?

We have been here before with a weak UCU leadership and it requires action from below in branches and among activists to stop the employers and replace poor UCU leadership. We need to maintain pressure on employers by campaigning for financial support for all members participating in the MAB. Donations to branches and wage sharing must become systematic.  Branches need to organise to call strikes now for September under the current mandate. Employers knowing we aren’t ending the dispute, despite the weak leadership in UCU is crucial to force them to change tack. 

Finally, we also need to call to account the leadership of UCU by returning to the votes of censure and no confidence in the General Secretary presented at Annual Congress in 2022 and 2023 and re-assert the democracy in our Congress and Sector Conferences decision making. A new leadership is desperately needed in UCU. The General Secretary election takes place in 2024, along with annual elections for the NEC and HEC. Members can’t afford to have an incompetent General Secretary or a right-wing majority in the HEC.

STOP PRESS

After this article was drafted Jo Grady announced on Twitter a meeting to be called in 24 hours to discuss the calling of a special HEC. Our General Secretary is astute enough to know when her position is untenable, and due to the pressure from members she has decided to move. What was impossible yesterday is now possible. However, further delay is not needed. There is no point in calling a special HEC to vote to not hold a ballot. Unless you wanted to pass the responsibility for the failure to support members to others. The ballot needs to be announced immediately. There is still time to ensure the current mandate is almost immediately followed by a new mandate. Branches need to inundate HEC members with demands for a summer ballot and a decision-making BDM needs to be held prior to any HEC.

UCU: A Union without a leadership

The Marking and Assessment boycott has been on since 20th April, and has proved the power of members to halt the universities’ ability to award degrees. Members have shown a magnificent willingness to take and sustain the action in the face of bullying threats and punitive pay deductions.

But UCEA’s talks have, to date, achieved nothing, and are evidence of employers trying to delay rather than negotiate. They can only do this because the pressure we have built up is being undermined by the leadership of our union.

We are now two months post-Congress when we voted for a summer ballot to ensure our mandate continues into October and to continue to put pressure on the employers as the MAB’s impact reduced in the weeks after students’ graduations. Yet our General Secretary, Jo Grady, has refused to call a special HEC to launch the ballot. Despite 20 members of HEC writing to Jo Grady to call a special HEC, it has not been called. A special HEC is only necessary because the majority of the HEC Officers refuse to use their powers to call the ballot immediately. Only Vice President Maria Chondrogianni is prepared to stand by Sector Conference decisions and respect our democracy.

The GS wishes to bury the MAB and our dispute, and instead claims to employers that it will begin again in 2024. We must and can win now, not in some dim and distant future.

The lack of leadership not only impacts on our #FourFights dispute. It is also undermining the steps we have taken to force employers into returning our USS pensions in the pre-92 universities. We need a re-ballot over USS so we have a mandate and are in a position to put pressure on the employers if things go wrong.  We know the employers want to reduce contributions, whereas our priority is to get our benefits restored.  

The offer made by the General Secretary in her letter to UUK of reduced contributions to employers was made without any discussion with the elected negotiators. This offer is not only dangerous but shows new levels of incompetence. Motions passed at UCU Congress on censure of the General Secretary were explicitly aimed at ensuring negotiators are included in all negotiations. Asking for contributions to be cut early gives away leverage, encouraging employers to cut contributions to a level below which benefit restoration is not possible or sustainable.  

In the longer term, a mixture of benefit increases and contribution cuts is in the best interests of members. But asking for contribution cuts immediately makes it more difficult to negotiate this. Were we to allow employers to cut their contributions to 14%, below that needed to return our benefits to the levels of pre-April 2022 and compensating us for our losses since April 2022, we would risk undermining the scheme in the longer run. 

Giving employers a pension contribution holiday is a further attempt at pension theft, and could turn into a mechanism to trigger the closure of the guaranteed pension scheme at the next valuation. The surplus now identified in the scheme’s valuation is our pensions – not money employers are entitled to steal from the scheme.

The MAB must be supported by UCU

The dispute is in a critical moment. Though its impact has been uneven, the MAB has created a crisis for the employers. But the burden of the action on our side is massively uneven, within and between branches. Some members face summer without pay at all, others face half pay, whilst others who have also taken the MAB have faced only token deductions.

On the fighting fund, two motions were passed on removing the cap on hardship payments during the MAB (motion 25) and payments from day 1 for casualised staff (motion 26). Fully-briefed by the treasurer about the state of our finances, Congress decided that there should be no limit on the days that could be claimed from the hardship fund. Congress took an informed decision that this extraordinary situation (we have not had a national MAB since 2006) merited dipping into the normal reserves. As it stands that decision is being ignored, and many members are shocked when they find that they can only claim nine days, £270.

The hawks among the employers adopted a strategy of trying to starve members back to work. This has created considerable bad press for those institutions. But there is no national strategy to support those branches that are facing prolonged or indefinite 50 or 100% deductions until 30 September. Many branches have taken local or regional initiatives to donate to each other or organise fundraising, but we need the weight of the national union to support those branches. The GS has a responsibility to act and to implement Congress decisions.

In many respects, fighting fund decisions are as important as the summer re-ballot. The risk is that the most hawkish employers will get their way and force people to choose between their homes and the MAB. There needs to be urgent action to support those members and branches in this situation.

Student solidarity with UCU MAB campaign at Edinburgh University

https://youtube.com/shorts/tV8fNmot13A?feature=share

What is going on in the HE national negotiations?

Summary

  • These talks concern ending the Marking and Assessment Boycott
  • Pay, casualisation, workload and pay gaps are not on this table: at best, these talks may lead to restarting negotiations
  • Employers are not making an improved pay offer, but have offered a ‘review of sector finances’
  • We need to launch the summer reballot, not just for leverage now, but to keep up pressure in the autumn
  • Democracy is essential: any offer must be put to a Branch Delegate Meeting before going to HEC and an e-ballot

On Friday, members received an email from the General Secretary about the talks with UCEA. A rather cryptic ‘joint statement’ between UCU and UCEA has been published on UCEA’s website.

Members are engaged in a Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) in order to persuade employers to increase their offer on pay and engage in meaningful negotiations over casualisation, workload and pay gaps.

We all know that the MAB has been difficult to carry out. On top of the professional and personal sacrifice, it is extremely stressful for staff. Members are facing up to threats of 100% pay deductions and often prolonged deductions. These threats have already been carried out in many cases, and some members have even received zero pay!

But we are doing this in order to move the employers on the demands of the dispute. The scale of this action and its impact is due to the cumulative anger in the sector of staff who have seen employers hold down pay and continue abusive practices of casualisation and overwork. The MAB is less like a strike and more like an underground organised movement that has included staff who did not take part in strike action in the past.

The joint statement says

Today’s exploratory talks between UCEA, UCU and the other joint unions’ side secretary were constructive, although there is still significant ground to be covered. We have explored obstacles to resuming negotiations and bringing an end to the Marking and Assessment Boycott, with both sides recognising the complexity of the issues. Both sides welcomed the positive tone of the discussion and have identified dates for further urgent talks. Further discussion will also take place with the Joint HE Trade Unions to consider the scope and remit of a review of sector finances.

This statement after the first day of negotiations follows a letter from UCU General Secretary Jo Grady to UCEA two weeks ago. In this letter she set out terms of reference for an ‘interim agreement’ and the following approach to negotiations:

  • Any suspension will require UCEA to recommend an immediate end to punitive pay deductions and a return of deductions to members.
  • Any suspension will require a commitment from employers to recognise staff’s entitlement to leave and to a reasonable workload on their return to normal working.
  • Any interim agreement will be subject to consultation with UCU members.
  • University staff have already rejected the 5% pay award UCEA began imposing in February (2023), and continue to demand that UCEA improve pay to deal with the cost-of-living crisis.

The employers have refused to talk to the unions about pay since they declared the pay offer for August 2023 as ‘final’ in February. They placed preconditions on negotiations on casualisation, workload, pay gaps and ‘the review of the pay spine’ (considering whether to delete and adjust salary points at the lower end of the national pay scale) that ruled out any industrial action by any trade union for the duration of those negotiations.

So why are they talking now, and what does this ‘positive tone’ refer to?

Decoding the statement

In order to decode the statement we have to read the bullet points in Jo Grady’s letter. This sets out UCU negotiators’ brief as to negotiate an end to the MAB.

On the one hand, an agreement to stop and return any deductions made would obviously be welcome. But if the employers wish student work to be marked by staff who set assessments and taught the students in the first place, it will be essential anyway!

With the exception of Queen Mary, which faced significant strike action, and Goldsmiths, which was in a parallel local dispute over redundancies, no deductions were made for MAB participation last year. Although this negotiation is more complicated with 145 institutions at the national table rather than at 30 local ones, the realpolitik is essentially the same.

But what about actual positive movement on the issues of the dispute? What is the substance of the statement?

The final bullet point is unclear. It seems only to ask the employers to note that the unions continue to demand an increased pay offer, but not to commit to it.

The UCEA statement says ‘[f]urther discussion will also take place with the Joint HE Trade Unions to consider the scope and remit of a review of sector finances.’ But ‘a review of sector finances’ means ‘open the books’ at best. It does not put new money on the table. Given the financial speculation and capital overspend that many universities have engaged in over the last decade, this review could easily turn into a platform for the employers to plead poverty. It is likely that many will.

UCU is currently negotiating the end of the MAB without demanding a concrete commitment from the employers to move on the Four Fights – the entire point of the dispute. By contrast, branches in the MAB last year were able to extract concrete commitments from their employers, and in some cases additional payments, as a condition of ending the MAB.

What can we do at this critical point in our dispute?

We have to stop our union giving away our leverage. It is not enough to say ‘hold the line’ if these negotiations will be the end of the line!

The first step is to call a summer reballot and demand that other Sector Conference decisions are respected and implemented, as members have a right to expect. It is possible, within UCU rules, for the relevant officers to trigger the ballot. Of course this should have happened at the last HEC meeting, however, the agenda item which would have triggered the ballot was ‘timed out’ by other business.

The reballot must begin immediately. If the employers are kicking negotiations over pay into next term, we need those talks to begin in the context of a credible threat of industrial action. Other trade unions, including UNISON, are lining up to take strike action next term.

Launching the reballot will also send a strong signal to the employers in the current negotiations that members expect a better deal right now.

The second step is to demand that any offer from the employers is put to an official Branch Delegate Meeting (BDM) before an HEC meeting is convened to discuss it. This is the very least we should expect, and has been how UCU has consulted over negotiations since 2018. Yet it seems that sections of the UCU leadership are averse to doing this. Could it be that they worry that branch reps won’t stand for a sell-out?

Calling a BDM is a basic requirement. Local branches negotiating the end to the MAB last year put offers to branch meetings and debated whether the offer was good enough. But there was no official BDM called ahead of the last HEC meeting which voted (by a majority of one) to approach the employers with these conditions.

Democracy is not an added extra. It is essential to our union’s health and strength. Whether one thinks that an ultimate offer is a good or bad one, we must not let our union slide further into undemocratic practices. Nor must we permit the undermining of reps and activists who have led the MAB in the branches, and every single member who is holding the line for their union right now in the face of management intimidation.

Passing motions

An example model motion is the following (passed at KCL on 12 July)

MAB for the win!

This branch believes that

  1. the MAB is currently exerting huge pressure on the employers
  2. now is not the time to offer concessions
  3. the offer of an ‘interim agreement’ sends a dangerous signal that we have no stomach for the fight.

This branch calls for

  1. an urgent BDM to discuss the MAB
  2. the decisions of Sector Conference to be respected and implemented, including the summer reballot, which should begin immediately.

This branch resolves to contact our geographical and UK-wide representatives on HEC to explain the way they voted on the key motions at last Friday’s meeting and under what circumstances they would vote to overturn decisions made by HE Sector Conference.

Don’t suspend the MAB, keep up the pressure – where’s our ballot?

Report on HEC meeting – 30 June 2023

By a single vote, UCU’s Higher Education Committee (HEC) on Friday voted to approach the employers to negotiate a possible ‘interim agreement’ to suspend the Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) ‘as soon as is practical, and subject to member consultation’ – despite not receiving a new offer from the employers’ organisation, UCEA. 

National negotiators warned against offering to suspend the MAB, pointing out that there was no sign from the employers right now that they would be prepared to enter into constructive negotiations. In fact, UCEA has said that they will agree to talks only if UCU stands down the action, and if we accept that there will be no increase in the pay offer. 

But this suspension plan was put to the HEC with the full backing of the General Secretary, who had the ‘comms ready to go’ should HEC agree. 

Members received a message from Jo Grady that avoids stating clearly what happens if the employers do not agree to UCU’s terms:

We will be making it clear to the employer that we are seeking:

  • an improved offer on pay and conditions,
  • an immediate end to all punitive pay deductions
  • a return of all punitive pay deductions
  • a commitment from employers to recognise staff’s entitlement to leave and to a reasonable workload on their return to normal working

Members are promised a consultation, but it will inevitably be a take-it-or-leave-it vote. 

Our union has the upper hand. Despite bullying, threats of deductions and plaintive calls from VCs, members have stood fast. Marks are not coming in, and many students currently cannot graduate. Of the graduations taking place, many students are given provisional marks. 

HEC has blinked first

This is a very bad decision. Branches are at loggerheads with their employers right now. However this is spun, any sign of weakness will encourage the employers to wait out the MAB. 

Members have every right to be furious. We have mobilised members at a higher level of organisation than ever before. We have made enormous sacrifices to get to this point. We have been supported by our students. What are we to say to them – that none of this suffering was worth it because some of our leadership had no stomach for a fight? 

Wasting momentum in this dispute has implications for the USS campaign, and for our colleagues working in FE, who are building up for a national campaign. Members in prisons and ACE will be concerned by the General Secretary’s decision to blink first. And it will obviously weaken the position of our sister unions in Higher Education, who have benefited from the strength shown by members of the largest union. An injury to one is an injury to all.

There is no sign that the action is weakening on the ground.

Delegates from more than 30 UCU branches who met just the day before at an unofficial Branch Delegates Meeting opposed any suggestion that action should be stood down. Delegate after delegate talked about how exam boards had refused to ratify unmarked modules and progress or graduate students. Members can feel their power. Even where the MAB has been circumvented, this is often by unqualified markers, single markers, interpolated scores, condoned mandatory modules, etc. – all of which come with a massive reputational cost to the student, as well as the employer.

Where does this leave union democracy? Members voted in an Industrial Action Ballot knowing they would be called upon to take part in the MAB. They then voted again in an e-consultation about JNCHES and USS disputes. We had two Sector Conferences – an online Special Sector Conference, and one in-person HE Sector Conference in Glasgow – that set clear policy to take the Marking and Assessment Boycott to this point. 

It was always clear that the dispute would come to a head. 

The groups that aligned on HEC to vote for this motion are the ‘Commons’ group aligned with the General Secretary and the old ‘IBL’ grouping. They are doing their best to let the employers off the hook, and the GS made it clear she supported their motion. 

If they had the slightest confidence in a planned suspension, they would have proposed it to a branch meeting, never mind Sector Conference. They did not. 

We need to demand the summer reballot begins promptly. For one thing, it would it be very dangerous to leave branches still facing MAB deductions without a mandate to strike in the autumn. But it would also be a massive setback if UCU were not in a position to fight alongside Unison and Unite HE branches, not to mention schoolteachers and head teachers who all plan to strike then. With our FE colleagues also moving into the fray, the possibility exists for a powerful strike movement in defence of education in autumn 2023. We should be part of it.

It is deeply regrettable that Friday’s HEC voted down a UCU Left motion for a week of strike action before the end of the current mandate. But although the General Secretary clearly wanted it to, HEC did not countermand the summer ballot voted for by Glasgow’s Sector Conference in order to renew our mandate. This ballot must now be organised urgently. 

HEC did vote for a national political campaign to support the MAB, and to support the ‘greylisting’ (academic boycott) of Brighton University, called for by Brighton UCU over redundancies. But these wins are dwarfed by the self-inflicted setback the GS and HEC majority have wrought on the union.


Open Briefing organised by UCU Left
No surrender to the employers

Defend democracy, defend the MAB
7pm Tuesday 4 July
Zoom registration: bit.ly/DefendTheMAB


Get your branch to pass this motion

This branch believes that

  1. the MAB is currently exerting huge pressure on the employers
  2. now is not the time to offer concessions
  3. the offer of an ‘interim agreement’ sends a dangerous signal that we have no stomach for the fight.

This branch calls for

  1. an urgent BDM to discuss the MAB
  2. the decisions of Sector Conference to be respected and implemented, including the summer reballot, which should begin immediately.

This branch resolves to contact our geographical and UK-wide representatives on HEC to explain the way they voted on the key motions at last Friday’s meeting and under what circumstances they would vote to overturn decisions made by HE Sector Conference.

‘Unofficial’ Branch Delegate Meeting 2pm 29 June

London Region and Newcastle and LJMU UCU branches are inviting delegates and observers from HE branches across the UK to attend an ‘unofficial’ Branch Delegates Meeting (BDM) on the JNCHES pay and conditions (Four Fights) dispute.

This meeting will be held at 2-4pm on Thursday 29 June.

This is intended to allow branches to form a meaningful collective assessment of the balance of forces and provide input to Friday’s meeting of UCU’s Higher Education Committee (HEC).

We are at a critical moment for the union’s industrial action, centred on the Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) and backed up by strike action in many universities. Some branches face indefinite pay deductions, but universities are learning that very many students are unable to graduate or progress.

Please discuss this invitation with your committee and consider sending up to two (2) delegates per branch.

As we explain below, this meeting is not intended to supplant any official BDM (were one called). However, unless one is called, there will be no opportunity for branches to collectively discuss the current situation ahead of Friday’s HEC meeting. 

Questions for consultation with members

HEC members need to know: 

  1. How effective is the MAB in your university? Do you have an estimate of how many students will not graduate or progress? If not, how quickly will the impact be known? 
  2. What is the position regarding deductions in your university, and is the branch able to support members facing them? 
  3. Has your employer reached out to attempt to resolve the dispute? If so, what are they offering?

How to participate

Branches who are taking action in the JNCHES dispute are invited to send two (2) delegates to this meeting. Branches excluded from JNCHES pay bargaining are also encouraged to send delegates.

We will also invite as observers:

  • Members of Higher Education Committee
  • National negotiators
  • UCU officials

Register on Zoom

Note that you can also send a message to HEC members via the UCU’s Send a message to an NEC member webform.

Our intention is to organise this meeting on a similar basis to conventional BDMs and to take soundings from branches.

Before Congress, London Region UCU called two unofficial BDMs ahead of HEC meetings. Following Congress, Newcastle UCU and LJMU UCU called weekly ‘unofficial’ BDMs, which have been gaining support from branches. 

UCU London Region HE committee added their name to this call at its AGM on Saturday. Other supporters include UCU HE branches at Greenwich, Westminster, Durham, Bristol, Imperial, Oxford, Ulster, York St Johns, London Met, Brighton and Royal Holloway.

All BDMs are advisory in nature. But if HQ call an ‘official’ BDM, we will encourage reps to attend that meeting in preference to this one.

We are at a critical point in our dispute. Let us make sure we win it.

Sean Wallis London Region UCU secretary
Matt Perry Branch Chair, Newcastle University UCU
Saira Weiner Branch Secretary, LJMU UCU

In-person Congress returns: democracy, debate and catharsis

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

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

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

Further Education Sector Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

Higher Education Sector Conference

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

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

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

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

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

Accountability of the General Secretary

One of the most difficult debates also relates to democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of democracy do we need?

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

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

Changes to union rules

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

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

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

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

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

International motions

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

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

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

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

Equality

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

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

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

Solidarity with UEA and Brighton branches

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

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

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

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

UCU Left Pre Congress Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

Register in advance: bit.ly/UCUL_PreCongress2023

Winning The MAB – Bringing the Four Fights to a head

Our Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) is now well into its second week. Already, the employers are extremely worried about it. They know that if our action remains solid, universities will be unable to fulfil what they see as their primary function – issuing degrees to students who have paid at least £9.25k a year to become graduates. 

The immense strength of a MAB is that it is continuous action which the employers cannot simply ride out. They can try to find some strike-breakers to mark the work, but if participation in the action is high, there is too much marking to cover, in too many specialist areas. They can water down their marking and graduation standards, but this will effectively degrade degrees, so will not be popular with graduating students. If dissertations in particular remain unmarked, even this becomes impractical. 

The MAB brings our conflict with our employers to a head. This is exactly what we need.

Pay docking

The employers are struggling to find an effective response. Most are threatening punitive deductions, but this is unlikely to be effective, while simultaneously alienating staff. Those threatening 100% deductions are dramatically raising the stakes by effectively threatening a lock-out of their staff. 

Others are more cautious and are threatening to dock pay at a lower rate. But this is more difficult to justify legally. Once a smaller percentage is docked, the employer is obliged to say why is this particular percentage chosen. Who can say what is the precise percentage of marking in the workload of every individual member of staff? And staff are quite reasonably comparing the small percentages of their Workload Models with the scale of deductions employers are threatening. 

What should our response be?

  1. We should not be panicked by the threat of deductions. In almost all of last year’s MABs – undertaken by twenty branches – no deductions were made. Their threats only work if we are scared of them. If we stand firm, the employers don’t get the marks, and if they want them, they have to remove the threat of pay docking.
  2. While many branches will wish to challenge the level of threatened deduction, negotiating with university managements over this cannot be the main focus for our dispute. Branches should seek to move towards strike action in response to deductions, whether they are 50% or 100%.
  3. Remember it is difficult for managements to actually make the deductions. Payroll cut-off dates mean that many members’ participation won’t be evident in time to be deducted from May’s pay packets. The next opportunity is the end of June but they will need the marks before then. Of course, we should continue to advise members not to declare their participation in advance.
  4. Nevertheless some members might suffer deductions in May and will either be locked-out or find themselves working for no pay. It is obviously very important to put wage-sharing mechanisms in place, but this is not enough. Attacks on individual members require a response from the whole branch in the form of strike action.

What kind of strike action do we need?

This needs to be decided on a branch-by-branch basis. If a branch believes that the way the employer is responding to the MAB is to make disproportionate deductions then it can adopt strike action as an alternative tactic. This can’t be done nationally, because this assessment necessarily varies between institutions. 

In the hands of individual branches strikes can be targeted to hit key dates in the particular timetables of each institution, including exam boards.

Where members are hit with 100% pay deductions, branches may wish to take longer periods of strike action, and move towards strikes earlier.

Branches should be thinking now about the optimum time to begin strike action. The Special HE Sector Conference on April 19th passed motions allowing branches to request notification of strike action in 10-day (2-week) blocks. Subsequent blocks should be notified before the end of the previous block, but action can be suspended if employers back down over deductions or if the branch decides it would be more effective to wait.

Branches should take a decision in favour of striking in a quorate branch meeting, citing the day it should start or the days when it should occur. The law requires 14 days’ notice to employers. HQ will need an extra few days to do the paperwork, although the officials are saying it can be done swiftly. There are also template letters that can be sent to employers, but the real deterrent will be the notification of action itself.

To maintain maximum support for the MAB, members need to know we have a plan to respond to the threat of punitive pay docking. The law cannot be used to prevent the employers acting unlawfully now – only once deductions have been made can a case be taken to court, and cases can take years. Instead we need to make the employers realise that their bullying and intimidation will not work, and that the only way they avoid thousands of students being unable to graduate is to settle the dispute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of voting recommendations

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

Consultation open • Vote Reject on 4 Fights, Reject on USS!

Please select some of our tweet-friendly graphics to help you campaign amongst your colleagues.

To implement the reballot result, vote REJECT on Four Fights and REJECT on US

The reballot results were clear. UCU members in HE want to continue the fight. They do not believe that the employers’ offers on Four Fights or USS are anywhere near good enough and they want a marking and assessment boycott (MAB) to take the fight to the employers.

But the General Secretary is determined to confuse members and muddy the waters. Despite the brilliant ballot result, we are to be consulted on the offers by e-ballot to see if we really meant it when we voted for action in such huge numbers.

This is ridiculous. We need to insist that the MAB, backed by strike action to deter punitive deductions, is called immediately and goes ahead.

The best way to ensure that is to achieve massive votes to REJECT in both ballots. UCU HQ is trying to mislead members by replacing the option to Accept with ‘Note’ on the Four Fights. They are trying to claim that if the offer is ‘Noted’ the dispute is not over and that action can be restarted at any time in the future.

This is misleading. Not only would not rejecting the offer mean accepting the 15% pay cut imposed on us for this year and next, but the employers have made it clear that any industrial action in the next 12 months would end their participation in the talks on pay-related issues. Any action in academic year 2023-24 would require a new ballot in any case, possibly on new grounds of dispute.

On USS, a massive vote to reject will keep the pressure on the employers to live up to their promises and ensure that our two disputes remain coupled. ‘Noting’ the offer would give HQ the opportunity to call off the MAB for the Four Fights as well as the USS dispute.

With the National Education Union (NEU) having voted overwhelmingly to reject a rotten deal on pay and calling more strikes, we are part of a wider movement rejecting pay cuts. We also have the chance to link up our fights with others who are fighting back. 

Let’s not fall for any attempts to sweeten the reality of what we have been offered or to blunt the result of our overwhelming reballot results. 

Vote Reject on Four Fights! Vote Reject on USS! Let’s start the MAB!