Report on NEC 19th June: #Black Lives Matter

Black Lives Matter protest

Report on NEC 19th June: #Black Lives Matter

UCU’s National Executive Committee met on-line on 19th June. While technological issues continue to limit participation the meeting facilitated the NEC to debate and make some decisions.

Two motions on anti-racism and backing the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement were debated fully. The first motion a campaigning motion supporting Diane Abbott MP/Stand Up To Racism (SUTR)/ Doreen Lawrence’s call for an independent public inquiry into disproportionate BAME deaths in the COVID-19 crisis was passed with just three abstentions. It also agreed to work with the Black Members Committee (BMSC) to hold a special delegate meeting to discuss developing an anti-racist strategy for every university and college and finally to encourage local branches to work with BLM – SUTR and other anti-racist groups. A second motion was remitted to the Black Members Standing Committee. This motion was problematic in a number of ways. The terminology BIPOC (Black Indigenous People of Colour) was used, in the UK context, by white supremacists to suggest the white British majority need to be ‘protected’ from anti-racist policies. As a union we purposefully use the term BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethic) as a descriptor or ‘Black’ to define a political unity across ethnicities and have always campaigned for black and white unity because we understand the concept of ‘United We Stand: Divided We Fall’. An amendment changed this nomenclature. The motion also focused upon individual responsibility for racism rather than structural racism by identifying the primary importance of unlearning racism and the establishment of an alternative university system for black students.  The motion was remitted to the BMSC rather than rejected to allow for further discussion before coming back to NEC (see below for both motions).

The Treasurer’s report identified the scale of support for members on strike, while time constraints prevented any update on holding a Congress in 2020 and a motion relating to this was not heard. The General Secretary reported on the progress of the ‘Fund the Future’ campaign for funding of post-16 education on recruitment to a set of special working groups. It was a shame the report made no mention of the UCU Solidarity rally Jo Grady spoke at held by Roehampton, Imperial College, SOAS and Liverpool which had 700 register and over 600 attend. Nor was their call for a day of action over jobs heard. The next UCU Solidarity organising meeting will be held on Saturday 20th June at 12 noon.

UCU Solidarity organising meeting: Join Zoom Meeting: Saturday 20th June 12:00 noon.

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86226056754?pwd=Z3BYRkVPTDYyTjZHbTFDRDR3UHpIdz09

Meeting ID: 862 2605 6754 Password: 050753

One tap mobile

+442034815237,,86226056754#,,,,0#,,050753#

A motion on dealing with sexual harassment within UCU was debated and passed aiming to establish an independent inquiry into UCU’s treatment of past cases with lessons to be learnt for the future. The original motion was amended to ensure survivors are protected and the equality committee is involved in its development.

On-line meetings are difficult to chair and using voting systems which do not work properly wastes a lot of time. A number of important motions therefore fell off the agenda. Two important motions which fell off the agenda, one giving recognition and support to the call for a day of action over jobs made at the 700 strong activists meeting that took place on 17th June. The other was an emergency motion in support of Reading UCU, who are facing major job cuts with members facing downgrading and re-employment on lower grades. UCU NEC cannot become a body of inaction and inward retrospection and must rise to the challenge facing members. The NEU’s campaign has forced the government into committing a further £1b of funding for schools. We need to learn from their experience for post-16 education.

 

Motion 8 George Floyd and #BlackLivesMatter (passed with three abstentions)

UCU offers our condolences to the family of George Floyd.

UCU offers our solidarity to the global #BlackLivesMatter movement that has exploded onto the streets of the US and across the world.

The issues of institutional racism have been laid bare alongside the hugely disproportionate deaths suffered by BAME communities in the Covid19 crisis.

UCU urgently needs to develop a strategy to both de-colonise our campuses and to tackle institutional racism.

UCU supports the BLM movement – and the call by Diane Abbott MP/Stand Up To Racism, Doreen Lawrence for an independent public inquiry into disproportionate BAME deaths in the COVID-19 crisis.

Working with the Black Members Committee(BMSC) we will call a special delegate meeting to discuss developing an anti-racist strategy for every university and college.

We encourage local branches to work with BLM – SUTR and other anti-racist groups to promote campus and community anti-racist initiatives.

 

Motion 10 Addressing systemic and structural racism in British FEHEIs (remitted for discussion by the Black Workers Standing Committee with the term ‘Black’ replacing ‘BIPOC’)

NEC notes:

  1. The resurgence of BLM protests against global Anti-Black racism in the wake of George Floyd’s murder
  2. The pervasive and sinister nature of Anti-Black racism, perpetrated at every level of society, by institutions and individuals

NEC Believes:

  1. Institutional racism and structural inequality within the sector are upheld systematically by the sector
  2. WE are the sector
  3. The fight for the future of education cannot – should not – succeed if this fight doesn’t centre the work of anti-racism in a sustained and consistent way

NEC Resolves to:

  1. Seek affiliations with regional anti-racist organisations, offering ‘unlearning racism’ training courses across UCU
  2. Officially sponsor the Free Black Uni, and make a donation of £1000
  3. Explore, with UCEA & UUK, expansions to ‘employment relations’ to include BIPOC hiring and retention disparities
  4. Campaign for racial equality reforms across the sector, to enable BIPOC staff and students to thrive, and not just survive, in the sector

Motion 2. UCU is committed to rooting out sexual harassment and violence (Amended)

NEC notes

  • #Metoo created a movement to stamp out sexual violence
  • Remittance of the part of Congress 2019 motion 18 calling for a specific rule expelling from membership those found guilty of sexual harassment
  • Sexual harassment and violence can, and have, occurred within the union

NEC BELIEVES:

  • The UCU has no place for those who commit sexual violence nor for ostracization of survivors.
  • We need rules and procedures which do not silence survivors, and which are fit for purpose
  • An independent inquiry into SH within the UCU would help us all understand how abusers gain and retain power

NEC agrees to present the following as an amendment to the Congress motion from Sheffield branch

Congress commits to rooting out sexual violence and instructs NEC to urgently appoint an independent review of past cases within the UCU, with the aim of helping our work on stamping out sexual harassment.

The Inquiry to be:

  1. conducted with trauma informed procedures and counselling available to all
  2. conducted with appropriate confidentiality for all parties

Inquiry terms to be designed by survivor led organisations e.g. 1752 in conjunction with the equality committee and with input from NUS

The work of the sexual harassment task force to feed into the equalities committees

UCU Left report on HEC Meeting on 8th June: Don’t bury the #FourFights

Four-fights Square

The Higher Education Committee (HEC) re-convened for a further on-line HEC meeting on the 8th June following the inability to deal with questions relating to the Four Fights and USS disputes at its last meeting of the 27th May. Before commenting on this it is worth noting that two important decisions were taken at the Higher Education Committee (HEC) on 8th June, both of which were supported by UCU Left members. The first to support the “Take the Knee” protests called by Black Lives Matter and Stand Up To Racism on Wednesday 10th June. The motion (see below) was overwhelmingly supported 22:6 with 9 abstentions. The second motion (again see below for the motion) moved by a casualised member called for support for the vibrant campaign being waged by casualised staff and branches against redundancies in response to Covid-19. Unfortunately, neither motion was given the usual opportunity to a full debate but both were moved and voted on, this was due to the lack of time taken with the discussion which the HEC was originally convened to debate.

Four Fights & USS disputes

The reconvened HEC’s business concentrated primarily upon the unresolved question of how to defend members in the Four Fights and USS disputes. The Branch delegates’ meeting (BDM), held prior to the HEC of 27th May, rejected the settlement of the Four Fights and sought to retain the Four Fights and the USS dispute as live disputes. The one vote at the HEC of 27th May that was clear was that the HEC voted to support the position of the BDM and rejected employer (UCEA) proposals over the Four Fights as insufficient. May’s HEC therefore voted to reject a proposal to put the UCEA proposals to members. This was the view taken by UCU Left members.

The short time available for the original HEC meeting prevented discussion of the 14 motions which could then have outlined a strategy for the development of the two Four Fights and USS disputes. These included not moving to immediate ballots but retaining the disputes as on-going. This was in line with the decision of the BDM and was the specific question of the consultation within the branches prior to the BDM. Other motions to the May HEC would have called for the holding a Special Higher Education Sector Conference on the Four Fights dispute. Again something supported by the BDM meeting, but not subject to the original consultation. This could have allowed branches to determine the means by which a campaign would take place and, not least, provide a focus upon campaigning over job cuts to casusalised staff, which is at the heart of employers’ response to the current covid-19 crisis.

Unfortunately, the reconvened HEC did not discuss these outstanding motions but instead took up almost all its time examining the process of voting on proposals already rejected by the last HEC. The Chair clarified after one hour’s discussion that the vote would be on adopting the principles as outlined by the BDM, rather than on the implementation.  The HEC’s decision should not be misinterpreted as seeking to stop the Four Fights campaign, despite the fact that all the outstanding motions from the May HEC were remitted again, this time to the HEC in July. While there is little open support for the UCEA proposals, either at the HEC or the BDM, the consultation with members must come with a strong recommendation for rejection. If the implementation is decided outside HEC it will be an attempt to undermine the Four Fights dispute and abandon the fight over equality and causalisation. It is important to recognise that members do not vote for action at the drop of a hat. Without a concerted campaign from the union that convinces members both that we can fight and that the union is willing to back a fight members know they are being treated cynically, like a stage army; being led up the hill only to be led back down again. It is this that is leading the majority of the new HEC to overturn the previous HEC decision and now put the UCEA offer out to consultation. This is a model adopted by the last General Secretary.

The HEC voted by majority 22 to 17 to refuse to separate off the question of rejection of the offer from that of consulting members and so overturned the HEC decision of 27th May. UCU Left members voted to separate the two questions. Branches and members now need to campaign to keep the Four Fights alive. UCU must not cut the feet from under our casualised colleagues, nor ditch the campaign over equality or accept the inevitable increase in workloads now facing all staff. The Four Fights dispute arose out of the campaign by activists to force the union to ensure UCU took the questions of inequality and discrimination facing so many of our more vulnerable colleagues at the heart of our union’s work. Those members on more secure contracts recognised that without a campaign to raise the terms and conditions for the least well paid the terms of conditions for all will be lowered.

Emergency motion, Solidarity with George Floyd

HEC sends solidarity to George Floyd’s family and condemns the systematic racism that caused his death. We stand with all protesting against police brutality.

HEC believes that the UK has many BAME deaths in custody, and disproportionate BAME people in prisons. BAME are more likely to die from force or restraint and of Covid 19.

HEC demands all Principals and VCs to commit to ending institutional racist practices in the post 16 education sector.

1.  Decolonise the Curriculum

2.  End the BAME attainment gap.

3. End the race pay gap.

4. Support the protests of Black Lives Matter movements and SUTR.

5. Calls on all to join taking the knee on Wednesday 10 June at 6.00pm #TakeTheKnee

6 Supports the call to take by Dianne Abbott and Stand up to Racism for an independent inquiry into disproportionate BAME deaths in the Covid crisis in the UK.

Emergency motion, HE Casualisation crisis

HEC notes:

The consequences of the HE casualisation crisis are becoming clearer. The lack of UCU coordination on this has led to several brave campaigns being mounted by the most vulnerable precarious workers (many BAME) in defence of livelihoods, their students, and the future of the institutions.

HEC resolves:

  1. To engage in widespread media campaign to publicise grassroots anticasualisation efforts, including (but not limited to) Precarious@Gold, @EssexGTAs, @KingsGTAs, @CleanersFor, and @CoronaContract.
  2. To encourage members and branches to donate to solidarity funds for such campaigns.
  3. To expand UCU’s anti-casualisation work to support and dovetail with the work of said grassroots organisations, with the involvement of the anticasualisation committee. Said work will include both UK-wide campaigning, and concrete regional support for local branch work, via organisational and collective casework support.
  • ‘UCU to equip all members with know your rights training aiding the pushback against covering for casualised staff
  • UCU recruit and support a member, or group of members in a precedent setting case on resisting job loss due to Covid
  • to consult more closely with ACC and coronacontract
  • Jo Grady will speak directly with casualised organisers from corona contracts
  • to publicise any good practice on retaining of casualised staff’
  1. Arrange mass online meeting to organise opposition to casualization in HE, before the end of June 2020.
  • ‘Negotiate with UCEA on guarantee of at least two years job security for
  • casualised staff.
  • Develop a section of website on supporting Corona job retention
  • Name and shame institutions that engage in bad practice, by
  • media and articles by sympathetic journalists
  • Defend staff in the workplace who refuse to take on previously employed casualised colleagues’ work.
  • Consult with ACC about ALL actions concerned with casualisation’
  1. Urgently to mount a campaign to call on securely employed staff to defend casualised staff whose contracts have not been renewed or whose hours have been cut by refusing to take on new or additional work produced by redundancies, non-renewal and a reduction of their hours. This shall be accompanied by a strong and regular communications strategy with direct input from the Anti-casualisation committee.
  2. To reinstate the annual anticasualisation training and organising conference established by Congress 2013 composite motion 9, beginning in summer 2020 with an adapted online programme for the coronavirus context. It will be organised with direct guidance and input from the Anticasualisation Committee to ensure development of targeted, reproducible, confidence-building training to empower and recruit anticasualisation reps, officers and activists vital to the fight for jobs, safe working environments, and secure work.

 

New government proposals to take ownership of colleges

An article appeared in FE week reporting that the government is about to release a white paper on the future of Further Education. It says that the government is planning to take control of the sector.

It quotes Gavin Williamson saying:

“The FE sector is playing a pivotal role in making sure more people can access the high-quality education and training they need to progress and will support our economic recovery following the Covid-19 outbreak. Our reforms will build on and strengthen the excellent work already happening across the country and will ensure the FE sector is at the heart of every community.”

UCU has for a long time campaigned to end incorporation and to end the marketisation of the sector by bringing it back under democratic public ownership. Whilst we should welcome the reported move to bring the sector back into public ownership, we should be cautious about how the move is being framed by government.

The government is frustrated that their drive to merge colleges, driven by the FE commissioner and the area reviews, has not brought about the ‘revolution’ that the government believed they would. Many colleges are on the verge of financial collapse and are not in a position to play the central role in the post-coronavirus recovery. The government wish to point the finger of blame at incompetent college management.

These colleges were on the brink of collapse before the outbreak of Covid-19. Years of historic under-funding has led to 25,000 jobs to disappear, over one million adult education places have gone and wages cut by 27% in less than a decade. It is this under funding that has severely restricted colleges’ ability to place education and training at the heart of our communities.

It is successive governments’ market led reforms that have brought many colleges near to collapse. Of course, there has been disastrous management decisions that have made a bad situation a lot worse. But the real problem with the leadership is not their incompetence at making a marketised system work but their failure to oppose and publicly resist the market and competition in education.

UCU look forward to seeing the government’s proposals for the future of further and adult education. The sector will be vital to enable the recovery in a post covid-19 world. Fears of mass unemployment in particularly hitting the young with estimates of up to 600,000 without work will lead to another lost generation.

Our young people deserve and demand better.

Bringing the sector back into public ownership must be driven and shaped from the bottom up if this transformation is to be successful.

UCU should propose the following:

  1. All sector unions to be invited to discuss government’s plans to bring back the sector into public ownership.
  2. That the marketised model must be replaced by a collaborative and planned approach.
  3. For public ownership of the sector to work it must be properly funded over a five-year period to allow proper planning.
  4. That the educational and training needs must reflect the multifaceted ambitions of our students and not the narrow skills agendas of employers.
  5. Call for a guarantee of access to funded full-time education, paid training and employment for all.

 Sean Vernell UCU FEC Vice chair

 

Report of May 1 UCU Emergency NEC online meeting

UCU’s national executive committee (NEC) met online on May Day, 1 May. This was an emergency meeting called only after more than half of the committee had demanded it.

Society is in a permanent emergency, but Higher Education is at the edge of a financial precipice as the tuition fee market is expected to crash leaving universities bankrupt. Our members in FE are confronting job loses and management attempting force to implement a ‘business as usual’ approach.

The question is whether UCU will lead a UK-wide to fight to defend the sectors.

The meeting held on Teams was 2.5 hours in length — half the time of a normal physical NEC meeting.

The paper submitted by Sean Vernell and Sean Wallis proposing a way of framing the a UK-wide response of the union in a coherent way was ruled out of order on the basis that it was two days late. Despite the movers of the paper pointing out that much of we are doing currently is outside of rule, including the online NEC meeting itself (and its shortened form), sought leniency. The outgoing President resisted all attempts to include it, prevented any discussion of it and refused to accept a challenge to his ruling.

NEC heard a lengthy presentation by General Secretary Jo Grady on the steps the central union was taking. She defended her actions in writing to Government ministers, and commissioning and publishing reports from London Economics, without reference to the Higher Education Committee which had not met.

UCU’s intervention had stopped the UUK’s proposal from being adopted by Government. This is positive step. However, without a rapid bailout, employers are likely to now announce redundancies.

We cannot case-work our way out of a crisis. Nor can we fight branch by branch.

It was not until 3:50 that the meeting was permitted to debate the only motion tabled on Education and post-Covid recovery. That motion (attached below) was passed, amended to add reference to specific defence of casualised members. This motion called for a UK-wide response to the crisis. We will now need to make sure that this motion is enacted upon so that UCU is in a position to mobilise our members in defence of post-16 education.

The ‘Democratic Continuity’ paper — which was not debated by NEC — delegated powers to the General Secretary on the same basis as if the Covid-19 lockdown was the annual summer vacation.

Equality areas need urgent attention, especially given the national meeting of equality reps that was postponed from 3 April. When will this be reconvened?

In the meantime, NEC passed five other motions: on UCU’s equality organising, supporting the call from Diane Abbott and Stand Up to Racism for a genuinely independent public inquiry into BAME deaths from Covid-19, defending trans members and students, opposing the Hostile Environment and providing immigration advice.

Resolution 6. Education and post-Covid Recovery (as amended)

NEC notes:

  1. The crucial role of post-16 education in prosperity, individual development and post-Covid recovery
  2. The likely negative impact of Covid on college and university finances
  3. The risks of job losses and increases in casualisation
  4. The importance of education for (young people) who do not have employment

NEC agrees to launch a UK-wide campaign, call for support from trade unions and community organisations and ask GS to write to PM for:

  1. Removing college and university fees.
  2. Additional fully funded places at less prosperous and struggling institutions so all young people can have a college or university place.
  3. Significant increase in government funding to make up any shortfalls, that all casualised workers jobs will be guaranteed equally in the next two years, alongside those of permanent colleagues, and no permanent worker should be disadvantaged for refusing to cover the work of a casualised colleague in the event of job losses.
  4. Full support for health service, disability support needs and economic recovery that, given the scandalous injustices of precarious work highlighted by the covid crisis, that full occupational sick pay now be extended to ALL casualised workers in all universities and colleges and prison departments
  5. Cancellation of Trident.
  6. Progressive ring-fenced increase in taxation to cover the costs e.g. 2% over £30,000, 4% over £50,000, 6% over £100,000.

Passed overwhelmingly.

Lives versus profit: Breaking the shackles of Illusion

These days will pass

London is a pretty scary place to be at the moment as the death toll in the capital, like New York, continues to climb.  My daily exercise takes me through some of the richest real-estate on the planet. As I walk through the city of London towards the Thames, I pass the Cathedrals of Capitalism: gargantuan financial institutions that have sprung up in the last thirty years; glass and metal edifices that tower over the London cityscape.  The bars surrounding them, which would normally be thronging with suited, confident and very wealthy young men (and some women), are now silent.

As I continue to meander through the deserted city streets towards the Thames, the only people I see are the homeless and the Deliveroo bike riders. On one of my walks in the early weeks of the lockdown, I saw a young man ready to jump from one of London’s bridges in a suicide attempt. A passer-by was calmly talking to him in an effort to deter him, as the emergency services arrived.

Four weeks into the lockdown and there is growing concern about the way Johnson and the government have handled the Coronavirus crisis. As the death toll reaches the 12,000-mark, hospital workers and social care providers still do not have the PPE they need. Testing is still nowhere near what is needed to ‘search and destroy’ the virus.

It is a scandal that the government have airbrushed the deaths of the elderly who are in care out of the official figures.

The government are still, in reality following their original disastrous ‘herd immunity’ approach. Boris Johnson was forced into the lockdown as he has been forced into the minimal testing programme.

The consequences of this flawed strategy are that poor working-class people from BAME backgrounds are three times more likely to be hospitalised than white people.

In the US, where Trump is following the same strategy, black and Latino people in New York City are dying at twice the rate of white people, according to preliminary data released on Wednesday by the city.

But is this just sheer incompetency on behalf, of the government or does their negligence reflect a more systemic failure?

Back to work…

Last week the media gave a lot of column inches and air time to an article that appeared in the Lancet written by scientists from UCL about how school closures make no real difference to containing the spread of the virus. The article was quite rightly rebutted by scientists from Imperial College who argued that the research takes the school closure programme in isolation from the rest of the strategy.

The argument though is not really about the science. It is pretty obvious to most that reopening places of mass gatherings like schools, colleges, and universities would only increase the spread of the virus.  The attention given to this article reflects a bigger and more central concern of the establishment – the collapse of the economy.

There is a battle taking place in Britain – lives versus profit. This battle is mirrored in the tensions between Rishi Sunak and Matt Hancock. Big business is applying pressure on government to bring the lockdown to an end as soon as possible. The truly scary Home Secretary, Priti Patel, used her first appearance at the daily briefing to exploit fears for children’s safety. But her message about a rise in online child sexual abuse was little more than a piece of back-to-work propaganda dressed up as child protection.

It is quite clear that the government thought their slogan of, ‘Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives’ would not apply to most workers, who would instead continue to work. That is clearly what was intended by the government’s refusal to shut down many non-essential workplaces such as construction sites and has been reinforced by Johnson’s daily dose of Churchillian style rhetoric.

But this is not what has happened. Workers have fought to stay at home.

They have understood from all that they had been told about the virus that the key is self-isolation and have understood the importance of social distancing which is impossible in many workplaces. In many colleges, schools and universities it the collective power of workers that have forced these and other institutions to close, and we will have to use this power again to keep us all safe.

We owe nothing. They owe everything…

As the crisis continues some companies will continue to make profits out of the crisis.

As the body count rises, others are working out ways to protect their markets and bottom lines.  Marx and Engels in 1848, writing in the Communist Manifesto, explained the contradiction that lay at the heart of capitalism.  They praise capitalism for being the most advanced mode of production in history. For the first time humans had arrived at away of organising society that had the potential to rid it of disease, poverty and to provide for everyone’s needs.

They explained, however, because of the way that capitalist society was divided into classes where a very small minority owned the means of production who accumulated to compete, the potential of capitalism could never be realised. They explained that the social relations of society become a fetter for the further development of that society.

Capitalism can spend billions on weapons but millions of people live in overcrowded conditions or have no home at all. Capitalism has created the ability to produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet and the ability to transport it to anywhere in the world within hours. But, according to the World Health Organisation, every hour of every day, 300 children die because of malnutrition. It’s an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths – 2.6 million every year.

The coronavirus is not just killing us but it’s destroying the economy too. The government have had to act to save capitalism – to keep it alive. They have spent billions on ensuring that it survives so that the system can get back to business as usual.

The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that the economy could contract by 35% with unemployment rising up to two million. The government and the employers are already warning us that we will have to pay the price for such huge borrowing commitments by government.

But why should we?  We owe nothing. It is working people that have saved millions of lives and have got round every obstacle that government have placed in front of them. In fact, the bankers, financiers and government owe us for keeping them alive. Why should we be the ones that have to pay through losing our livelihoods?

There is no reason why the banks could not write off all the debt owed by government and by working people.

Rather than a state intervention to keep capitalism and its priorities alive we should be demanding that we want intervention to completely re-model our society from the bottom up.  The driver of this new model should be working people’s needs rather than maintaining an already fabulously wealthy minority’s profit.

All that is solid melts into air

So wrote Marx and Engels so poetically in the Communist Manifesto.  They were referring to how in the midst of the industrial revolution all the old certainties, values and morals simply vanished. New ones were brought in to reinforce the new ways of producing and working.

With the outbreak of COVID-19 a magic money tree has been found. The rail system can be nationalised, privatised companies can’t run our NHS and care services effectively. Performance measurement, league tables and exams can be abolished and the sky does not fall in. And factories can be re-tooled overnight to produce usefully necessary products that keep people alive, like ventilators, rather than products that kill.

Workers have always dreamed of an alternative world to the one that brought us to where we are today. I recently attended a film premier of a new documentary about a group of workers in the 1970s working for Aerospace who drew up a radical plan of what their skills could be used for. It became known as the Lucas Plan. Unfortunately, their vision was never realised but it showed what an alternative could look like

For many people the attempt by government to shore up the system has begun to bring in focus a different vision of what society’s priorities should be and a model that puts our needs over their profits.

It has become painfully clear to many that the government, the hedge fund managers, the bankers and the CEOs are not the ones that are vital to keeping us and our families alive. The pioneers of this new model are already in waiting; the bus drivers, the health workers, the teachers, the shop workers, the refuse workers and the constructions workers to name but a few – in short, the key workers. The people who have always ensured that society functions but now they have awoken to the power they have.

No return to the past

Political commentators like to evoke the memory of the Second World War in this time of crisis. There are two important outcomes of the Second World War that are important to bear in mind.

First It was the fear of revolt by working people as they made clear that they were not going back to the poverty and squalor of the 1930s after the sacrifices they made in the war which brought change. As Quintin Hogg, a Tory minister famously told government at the time, ‘give the people reform or they will give you social revolution’.

The second outcome was that the first opportunity the working class were given they unceremoniously kicked out of office the ‘hero’ of the hour, Churchill and instead elected a Labour Government by a landslide.

Yes, it could even mean the truly uninspiring and dreadful Sir Keir could get swept into office on the backs of working people’s rage and fear of going back to the dark days of austerity.

Also, like workers during the Second World War they are having to be resourceful to survive and have to rely on their own collectivity and solidarity to survive. As we have seen throughout history, even in the most difficult of situations workers have always found ways to fight back.

Millions clap for the NHS. Postal workers and Google workers have taken action over PPE. Construction workers organising to keep themselves safe and practitioners using their online power to prevent employers attempting to maintain ‘business as usual working’ models https://www.eis.org.uk/FELA-News/Onlinedemo. Wehave seen food workers in Northern Ireland walk out because employers were not practising social distancingand General Electric Workers strike demanding to make ventilators.

Many of our trade union leaders, predictably, have lagged behind this mood of defiance. Relying on Tory trade union laws and bureaucracy as an excuse not to generalise these instances of revolt, their first instinct is to repudiate those taking this action.

As some of our leaders clamour to be a part of Johnson’s national campaign they have left the door open for employers to go on the offensive at a local level, leaving workers unprotected and dying. UCU must ensure that it is fully behind the growing movement of twining and solidarity with hospitals to campaign for PPE.

We need to challenge our own employers who are using the crisis as an excuse and opportunity to push through their own agendas. The managerialism, the petty rules, the limited ambitions of the education policy makers have all been brought into sharp focus during this crisis. We must demand whilst we are working from home that we do so through our good will and must not to be forced to work as if we are in normal times. No one on a casualised contract must lose their jobs.

UCU must oppose any re-opening of colleges or universities before it is safe to do so. UCU must write to the government demanding that  a set of criteria is agreed with the union before we go back.

We will need to make clear to them we will not accept their ‘business as usual’ model, not now nor after the Coronavirus crisis is over. We also need to make clear that we won’t allow Johnson, Sunak, Patel, Gove or Hancock to put profit before our lives.

Millions of working people have demonstrated their heroism in this crisis which has not been matched by their political leaders. The system is tragically failing millions of people. The deception that the system works fairly for everyone has been exposed as a lie.

We must break the shackles of illusion.

Sean Vernell NEC

 

 

Coronavirus, capitalism and class

1280px-COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map

The outbreak of the Coronavirus COVID-19, has created panic across the globe.  The Italian government has just placed 16 million people under quarantine. Schools, universities, gyms, museums and nightclubs have been closed across the whole country. In total across the globe 100,686 people had been confirmed as having been infected as of Friday evening. Of those, 3,411 have died.

Global markets continue to fall as the virus spreads across the world. It appears the UK government is on the verge of making an announcement that could include the shutting of schools, colleges and universities before the Easter break. Department of health and social care figures showed 163 confirmed COVID-19 cases in the UK, an increase of 47 from the day before.

Clearly it is serious and we need to ensure we do all we can to stem the spread of the virus through our own personal hygiene habits. But the real barrier to stopping the spread is the government, the pharmaceutical companies and the marketised system that has caused the virus and allowed it to spread. It is they who we will need to fight if we are going to ensure that working people, once again, are not made to pay the price of a dysfunctional system that puts profit before peoples’ lives.

The 1980s saw over half a million people die in the US alone from the HIV virus.  The Reagan and Thatcher government not only dragged their feet over the issue they propagated a vile homophobic campaign. This was taken up by the press dubbing AIDS as the ‘Gay plague’. This campaign of hate culminated in the implementation of Clause 28.

Governments opposed safe sex campaigns, an important response to prevent the spread of AIDs. Instead they preferred moralising about abstinence. It took campaigners like Larry Kramer to set up organisations such as ACT-UP, eventually changing government policy. The campaign eventually succeeded, but hundreds of thousands of gay men died needlessly before changes were brought about.

The racist Johnson will not miss an opportunity to use COVID-19 as an excuse to whip up even more hysteria over migrants and toughen immigration laws to stop people coming into ‘our’ country spreading disease, spurred on by the Sun and Daily Mail. The appalling rise of attacks on Chinese and South East Asian people since the spread of the Coronavirus is growing. We need to ensure that we show solidarity with these communities by demonstrating our support for them every time an attack takes place.

We should not allow the government to use COVID-19 to close down public protest. In Madrid tens of thousands marched to celebrate International Women’s Day despite growing fears about the spread of the virus.

Owen Jones points out that:

‘More than 3,000 people have succumbed to coronavirus yet, according to the World Health Organization, air pollution alone – just one aspect of our central planetary crisis – kills seven million people every year.’

and argues that government should show the same urgency in dealing with climate change as they do dealing with the spread of COVID-19.

Disease and death are endemic to a failing system

The outbreak of the COVID-19 has shaken the establishment. They recognise that their system simply does not have the infrastructure to deal with such an outbreak. Of course, they don’t and won’t draw the necessary conclusion from this – to reverse all the cuts to the NHS and the welfare state they have made in the last decade.

Writing in the The Guardian Polly Toynbee rightly argues:

‘…there is no way of keeping politics out of this. If this epidemic is only half as bad as the official worst-case scenario, the pressure on every aspect of public services will be tested to breaking point. The full effect of a decade of austerity is about to be brutally exposed.’

In fact it is not just the last decade in which the system has been at fault, but the way that Capitalism as an economic system based on exploitation to maximise profit, is not able to keep safe the population and the planet that we inhabit.

In the 19th century, the birth of Britain as the ‘workshop of the world’ brought with it disease and death. As millions of people moved from the countryside to the cities mass slums were created. Water-borne diseases like cholera killed thousands of working men, women and children. Frederick Engels describes powerfully in The Conditions of the English Working Class what life for working people was like living in Manchester and working in the ‘dark satanic mills’.

The outbreak of Covid-19 began in China, a country which has experienced the fastest and biggest levels of industrialisation ever seen in history, much of this in order to provide cheap manufactured products to the West and to enable it to compete with the US. What took Britain a hundred years to do in the 19th century China has managed in 35 with the same consequences for working people.

After the First World War, brought about by competing imperial rivalries, the biggest ever flu epidemic in history occurred. As Europe emerged from the rubble of that war, disease spread rapidly through the European populations and is estimated to have killed between 20 and 50 million people.

The spread of deadly viruses and the development of an economic system that brings wars, climate change and the deregulation of production has gone hand in hand.

The pharmaceutical companies and agribusiness

A central part of the inability of our society to deal with these crises is the deregulation of the pharmaceutical and food industries. There appears to be progress being made towards creating a vaccine for the virus. But why is it so difficult to find a cure for viruses that kills so many people?

Pharmaceuticals are a multi-billion-dollar business. This means that there is little or no collaboration between the multinationals, each wanting to be the first to find a cure so that they can make a fortune. It is accepted by most now that the anti-viral drugs that have allowed AIDS sufferers not to die could have been found many years before, saving millions of lives, if there had been a sharing of research.

Stephen Buranyi, writing in The Guardian quotes a UK Ebola expert saying:

‘Unless there’s a big market it’s not worth the while of a mega-company … There was no business case to make an Ebola vaccine for the people who needed it most.’

Buranyi carries on to argue that:

‘Even if research begins during a pandemic, the unpredictable nature of outbreaks means work is often shelved if the crisis dies down, and so progress halts until the next time a similar infection flares up.’

In short there is no planning by the pharmaceutical companies. Their only response is to gamble on the best place to direct resources to create new vaccines that will bring the biggest profit.

A lot has been made about the origins of COVID-19 being from a market in the Wuhan province of China. Its racist overtones are difficult to miss. That it was the behaviour of the ‘uncivilised’ people of the region, selling and eating wild animals that allowed the virus to jump from animals to humans.

Whilst it is true most viruses are spread from animals to humans, hence the names we give them (eg bird flu and swine flu), it isn’t because of ‘barbaric’ people eating wild and exotic animals. It is the unregulated agribusiness that has made the spread of disease more prolific. The industrialisation of pig, cattle and chicken farms on a scale never seen before in history has allowed new strains of flu to develop and combine which morph into killer diseases.

We will need to fight for our protection

Whilst we wash our hands more frequently, and for at least for 20 seconds or the time it takes to sing Happy Birthday twice (!), we will need, once again, to campaign for government to put in real measures that protect working people from the diseases their system has created.

This must start with ensuring if workers are laid off that those on casualised contracts are being paid sick pay from day one. No doubt the employers in the HE sector will try and use COVID-19 as an excuse not to address our demands and will threaten great reprisals if we don’t end our dispute and accept any derisory offer they make.  It would be insulting to everyone working in the sector if the employers look to us to increase workload or face job loses to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 rather meet our demands.

It is the employers’ marketised model with its reliance on charging huge fees to overseas students and zero hours contracts that have created a crisis in the sector. Why would more of the same help to deal with COVID-19?

We must also be alert to any attempt by government to use the virus to bring in laws that make it easier for them to divide the working class. But above all we must put pressure on government to regulate the pharmaceutical companies and the agribusiness and demand that they reverse the austerity-driven cuts in the NHS and the welfare state.

Sean Vernell, NEC

Map data derived from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New York Times, CNBC – 27 February 2020

UCU Left ‘Four Fights’ Negotiators’ statement, 6/3/2020

Lobby of Woburn House
Lobbying UCEA HQ in December

Dear colleagues

We are writing as UCULeft ‘Four Fights’ negotiators who have been engaged in complex negotiations which are ongoing.

It is important to note that these negotiations have not yet resulted in an offer. Nothing is on the table and nothing is agreed.

The current situation is that after constructive discussions on the pay-related elements of the claim, the employers’ representatives were sent away to consult with their members.

In this context we are concerned that the General Secretary put out a statement on Thursday that was neither discussed nor agreed with the negotiators. In that statement she says that “If we can get an offer that represents the kind of movement I have set out here on all four parts of the dispute, I will recommend that our higher education committee (HEC) should consult members on whether to accept it.”

Negotiators are elected by members to engage directly with the employers to attempt to settle a dispute. During the course of negotiations we make proposals to the employers, knowing that whatever we might negotiate, there is a democratic process that holds us to account.

Offers, deals and accountability

HEC has agreed the following process for dealing with any offer from the employers. We have not had an offer, but were we to get one this is what would happen.

  1. First, negotiators would discuss it as a package and consider whether or not to recommend it for consultation as the best that could be achieved through negotiations. If it were not ready to go out, we would go straight back to the employers to negotiate further.
  2. Once it was sent out, members would see the offer, consult over and debate it in branch meetings or strike meetings, and elect delegates to a UK-wide meeting of branch reps.
  3. At that meeting, branch representatives would debate the offer at a UK-wide level, and vote on it (in a weighted vote) to decide whether to recommend to HEC as to whether or not to put it out to members.
  4. HEC would then take a vote on whether or not that offer should be sent out for a consultative ballot for members to vote on. HEC’s decision will be based on the recommendations of branch reps from the delegates meeting.

It is also strange to see a General Secretary proposing to recommend a deal that has not yet been made. It is standard practice in negotiations to say that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. The assessment of whether an offer is acceptable cannot be made until all the details are confirmed. This is not yet the situation.

Negotiating on Pay

The second issue concerns headline pay. On Tuesday, UCU negotiators adopted a negotiating position of putting 3% on the table to give UCEA the chance to consult their members about the potential for a rapid resolution of the dispute in the context of a serious global health crisis that could engulf us all.

Let’s not forget that UCU’s claim is for RPI+3%. The employers are sitting on reserves of £44bn. They can afford to meet our claim in full.

This was, and is, a genuine offer to try to resolve the dispute, but it is for members and delegates in the process outlined above to decide whether or not it is sufficient to resolve it.

It is difficult to discuss an offer that does not exist! But were we to get an offer we would have to make a serious decision as to whether we as negotiators, collectively or individually, can recommend it to members to be decided on by the process outlined above.

All the negotiators are strengthened by every single striker and picketer. We now need to sustain and strengthen the action.

Our strikes are our strongest leverage. We can win this together.

Mark Abel
Marian Mayer
Jo McNeill
Sean Wallis

Democracy Congress – Two steps forward, one step back?

Picture1

Saturday’s Democracy Congress saw a mobilisation by the right-wing ‘Independent Broad Left’ (IBL) to block rule changes proposed by the UCU’s Democracy Commission intended to improve accountability of the union’s leadership.

The Democracy Commission – and this Congress – were called to address the causes of the crisis in the union that was triggered in the 2018 USS strike, when first, the will of branch delegates was ignored by the union’s Higher Education Committee (then-IBL-dominated) and by the then-General Secretary Sally Hunt. Infamously, criticism of the General Secretary at Congress was averted by a walkout of officials.

Two key questions arising from this crisis remain unresolved:

  • can a sitting General Secretary be removed promptly by members when they act contrary to their interests (i.e. how are they accountable to members)? and
  • by what democratic mechanism may multi-institution strikes be run, on a day-to-day basis, by striking members themselves?

Democracy and accountability will become obvious and dominant questions as members in HE in particular take further strike action in the new year. First, our members need to have confidence that their General Secretary will negotiate hard from a position of knowing she is accountable to active striking members. Second, members themselves must be able to make important decisions to coordinate and focus strike action effectively.

Indeed the day before the Democracy Congress, a special Higher Education Sector Conference, led by striking branches themselves, took bold steps to plan escalating action for the Spring and Summer Terms.

A majority, but rarely two-thirds

Although nearly all of the proposals were supported by a majority of delegates, very few achieved the two-thirds majority they required for rule changes to bring them into effect.

A procedure regulating how Congress can be curtailed and a three-term limit for General Secretaries were agreed, but important measures to enhance members’ control over the leadership by creating elected Deputy General Secretary posts, and allowing branches or regions to trigger an investigation of the actions of the General Secretary, did not get the necessary majority. Also shelved was a proposal to put strikers in control of their disputes through the creation of multi-institution Dispute Committees made up of striking branches and those in dispute.

This was a setback for anyone who invested in the Democracy Commission when it was established in response to the shut-down of the 2018 Congress. It was clear from the outset that the IBL had mobilised heavily for this Congress, and used their votes consistently against every change designed to give members more control over the decision-making structures of the union and those who make them. This faction of the UCU is opposed to a member-led union and is committed to blocking changes to the existing structures and procedures which would give members more control.

Although they have been routed in the big HE pre-92 branches – which is why Manchester, Oxford, and Cambridge have grown, democratised and got over 50% in the last HE ballots – the IBL still have influence elsewhere. The title of their handout ‘UCU Agenda’ (UCU Bureaucratic Control) could not be more apposite.

With left activists in many branches busy mobilising for a Labour vote in the General Election, many did not send delegates. Compared to a Labour victory, this Congress might not have seemed important. But in 2018 we learned the hard way that structures and accountability matter immensely.

Other delegates who voted with the IBL against some of the proposals may have believed that since we now have a new rank-and-file General Secretary, the changes proposed by the Democracy Commission were unnecessary. It is true that Jo Grady has shown exemplary support for members when they want to fight. She put her shoulder behind the HE balloting effort and spent the eight days of strikes touring the country visiting picket lines and speaking at rallies.

It is also the case that compared to two years ago we now have a left-led HEC (with a large number of UCU Left members and supporters elected) which is more committed to action by members and has consistently put forward a strategy that can win.

Democracy and accountability for the future

#NoCapitulationHowever, the potential for a split between a full-time leadership and ordinary union members remains. This is not about individual personalities. Anyone who is in an elected position and has led strikes knows the pressure they are under to resolve a dispute. This pressure is even more powerful in the case of a national dispute. There is also pressure from unelected full-time officials whose focus on finding ‘exit’ strategies can often lead to outcomes short of what continued action can achieve.

These pressures can only get stronger as the current HE disputes escalate. There is only one force capable of stopping a repeat of 2018 and a compromise deal far short of what is possible – the active, mobilised membership. This is why it was a serious mistake to for some who quite rightly were angered about the outcome of the USS dispute two years ago to oppose the proposal for setting up multi-institution strike or dispute committees. We need structures which ensure that it is always the members who are taking action, picketing and losing money – not standing committees or Carlow Street – who can take the crucial decisions on the direction of their dispute. This happens in practice at a local level – but strikes at a national level are currently handed over to HEC, FEC and the officials.

Nevertheless, healthy democracy is not conjured up by perfect rules and structures. A democratic deficit will not be corrected by technical fixes. As last year’s events around the USS dispute showed, the desire for greater democratic control over the union arises out of members’ activity. So while rule changes that enhance members’ control over the union are important, it is ultimately the level of membership involvement in the union’s struggles that really counts.

There was hardly any mention of the current USS and Four Fights disputes at Saturday’s Congress, although this dispute had been discussed at length the previous day. But the question of democracy cannot be separated from the battles in which we are currently engaged. During the eight days of strike action in HE, many branches had regular open strike committee meetings (sometimes called “strike assemblies”) to discuss and plan their action. It is through such mechanisms that the ideas and creativity of members to solve problems, plan initiatives and make their action more effective come to the fore.

But it is also those meetings that allow members and reps to evaluate the potential for further action. Thus it was strike meetings at UCL, Liverpool and Dundee that debated motions about strike days which were then formally voted on by branch committees and proposed to Friday’s HE sector conference as amendments. Already we are seeing a nascent member-led democracy in the disputes, pushing existing structures into action.

Existing structures and moving forward

UCL Strike CommitteeWhat are the existing mechanisms for members to assert democratic control in disputes? They depend on the calling of a special Sector Conference like the USS HE Sector Conference (HESC) on Friday. Calling such conferences is slow, and conferences are expensive. A multi-institution strike committee could be much more flexible, quickly called and streamlined to key questions not lengthy motions.

An obvious question concerns who gets to vote. According to convention, striking post-92 branch reps were not supposed to vote on Friday, because the HESC was called over the USS disputes. However, on many issues, like the calling of further action, it is obviously reasonable for post-92 reps to have a vote. This is because the union is committed to joint action, and therefore post-92 reps with ballot mandates would reasonably expect to take the action voted on! Meanwhile, at that same meeting, branch reps in USS branches that were neither reballoting nor striking were allowed to have a vote! There is a mismatch between striking branches and the democratic delegate structures.

This is not an HE-only problem. The same issue would apply to the Further Education strikes of 2018, when some branches were striking but others not. Our democratic structures are imperfect, but we need to use them.

But we cannot afford to wait for formal structures to be set up. We will need to create our own rank-and-file delegate body to link up local strike committees if we are to win the HE disputes. If we cannot do this through official means, we must create our own unofficial, mechanisms. The moral authority of strikers is not to be ignored, as the #NoCapitulation moment identified. Woe betide any HEC member or General Secretary who refuses to accept the will of mobilised strikers! So if we cannot make our reps accountable in rule, let us make them accountable in practice!

So the outcome of the Democracy Conference is: we need more democracy! In Higher Education, striking members and those reballoting need to get organised.

First, colleagues will need to work hard to win the next round of reballots in HE branches. Solidarity, twinning and branch-to-branch support across regions are crucial to getting the vote out.

Second, in early February we will know the outcome of the reballots and we need a national strike coordinating meeting. We can plan creatively towards fostering joint collective organising, from branch-to-branch Skype linkups to joint physical meetings in cities during the next round of strikes.

Margot Hill (Croydon College)
London Region Secretary
– standing for UCU Vice President

Historic day – TUC passes support for a 30-minute workday campaign action in solidarity with climate strikes

Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Group post

tuc_voting_for_motion

The TUC passed, unanimously, the composite motion calling for a 30-minute workday campaign action to coincide with the global school student strike on the 20th September. It is the first time that the TUC has called on its 6.5 million members to demonstrate support for school students taking action. Indeed, it is the first time in many years the TUC has called on its members to demonstrate its collective power in solidarity with anyone.

The trade union movement has a great debt to pay to the school students for transforming the debate over climate change and making it one of the main priorities amongst working people.

The 20th September will be the biggest organised labour response in the UK to climate change. UCU members at 8 universities in Scotland are organising to walk out on the day. At Bristol University the Vice-Chancellor has declared a climate emergency and is encouraging staff to show their support for the students. At Capital City College Group UCU branches have voted to join the students on the day and the CEO has agreed to allow staff and students to attend. Councils in Salford, Camden and Tower Hamlets are supporting its workers showing their decision to support the students (video) and colleges and universities around the UK are already organising in support of this call.

As Jeremy Corbyn reminded Congress in his speech today, ‘Climate Change is a class issue’. It is the poor and dispossessed that feel the full blast of extreme weather conditions brought about by climate change.   From the fires in the Amazon to the terrifying hurricane ripping up the Bahamas to conditions that workers endure in the global South to produce cheap goods for the rest of the world. It is they who are being made to pay for the greed of the multinational companies who continued to ignore the science that proves that climate change is occurring because of their relentless drive for profit.

It is a shame that the TUC ensured that the composite had taken out the word ‘stoppage’ from UCU’s original motion. UCU feel that it would be a stronger motion and would have made it clear to workers what it is the TUC is asking them to do on the day. Whilst the trade union laws make such calls ‘illegal’ where there are unjust laws it must be the duty of the trade union movement to challenge these laws.

The vote today has sent a clear message to young people that the TUC is with them and that trade unions are organisations that they need to join to make them relevant to future generations. When young people do so then they must feel that the TUC is open and democratic, which means allowing debate on motions even when there are differences of opinions.

The Bakers union (BFAWU) also passed a very important motion which called the TUC to campaign for the whole of the power sector to be brought under public ownership. This is a central demand that we must be raising across the working-class movement.

It is important that governments declare climate emergencies but without the legislation that puts the energy sector under public ownership as we see in Scotland, private firms will control our energy supplies and renewable industries and they will put profit before the needs of our communities.

Today the TUC took an important step forward on the issue of climate change that matches our young peoples’ outrage and anger. Let’s make sure that September 20th 2019 is a massive show of our collective power and solidarity to make it clear that we will not allow Johnson and his fossil fuel friends to destroy our planet.

Guest post by Sean Vernell, UCU National Executive Committee, on Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Group website 

NEC report: The General Secretary Must Be Accountable To Members

UCU Congress 2018 Voting

Emergency National Executive Report 1 March 2019

The General Secretary Must Be Accountable To Members

UCU National Executive Committee (NEC) met on Friday 1 March as an extra-ordinary meeting due to the resignation of the General Secretary, Sally Hunt, on health grounds. NEC unanimously thanked Sally for her leadership in both the formation of the union and its development over the past thirteen years. NEC also wished her well with her illness and hoped she would be able to manage her health to ensure she retained a high quality of life. It is very fortunate that we live in a society which benefits from a fantastic National Health Service.

UCU Left wishes to see a united single left candidate stand for election. We welcome discussions with all members interesting in standing for the GS position with a genuine desire to ensure the agreed left candidate has a maximum chance of winning this most important seat in the union.

Winning the seat for the left is a key part of creating a transparent, accessible, accountable leadership which will bring about the member led, campaigning union we all want.

We have an opportunity to transform our UCU. We have to rise to the challenge.

Timetable

NEC was presented with a set of proposals on the process and timetable for the election of a new GS. Rules of UCU permit any UCU member or employed staff member of UCU to nominate themselves for election. These will be the same rules used for the previous three elections in UCU.

More problematic, however, is the timetable for the election. The timetable presented was to ensure a new candidate is elected prior to Congress in May 2019. However, the most significant argument over the accountability of officials and officers the union has ever had has been ongoing since the walkout of staff and the IBL majority on the NEC at Congress 2018. Since then, the Democracy Commission (created by Congress in response to the crisis) has included discussions of how we can formulate mechanisms for the recall of the General Secretary to ensure member-led democracy is strengthened within the union.

The timetable proposed at NEC circumvents and frustrates these discussions. A decision by a lay member to give up their job for five years is not one many can make on a whim. Yet the timetable ensures little time for any lesser mortal who has not known about this announcement weeks in advance to contemplate such a decision.

As a result, two sets of proposals were put forward to amend the regulations for the General Secretary elections. The first was to delay the election, and importantly the appointment, of the new General Secretary until a mechanism for recall had been passed at Congress. This matters because it has been previously argued by officials that any changes to the rules governing the accountability of the GS cannot apply to a sitting GS and will only apply to a future GS.

If this interpretation now was applied again to the future GS, protecting this person from recall, this would be an outrageous undermining of the Democracy Commission!

The Chair employed a classic, undemocratic manoeuvre by using her position as Chair to order business in a way which ensured that her supporters, i.e. the IBL, would not be seen to be voting against recall. This was done by taking the vote on the paper put forward by the bureaucracy first and then ruling that, if passed, the motions attempting to amend that paper would fall.

As a result both amending motions in this section fell without even being voted on.

The new GS’s contract and recall

The second set of proposals required that the GS’s contract of employment be modified to ensure that, if Congress agreed a rule for recall of the GS, it would apply to this new contract. Since the Democracy Commission is examining the potential for such a rule, which would go to Congress after the new GS had been elected, resolving this potential problem now was very important.

Without such a clause in the contract, the risk is that the new incumbent could potentially argue that the dismissal was unfair. Since candidates would sign up to this contract as part of the process of standing for election, it made sense for the NEC to ensure that all candidates agreed to the recall principle – even if there was no mechanism yet in the union’s rules.

The lead official advising the NEC reported legal advice stating that it was in fact possible to implement a recall mechanism using the existing contract.

Here again, the Chair refused to allow a vote on the proposals by suggesting that the passing of the unamended contract of employment meant the amendments fell. Again the vote to accept the unamended employment was 26 for and 21 against.

Let us be clear. This does not mean that the new UCU General Secretary will be protected from recall, but it does create ambiguity where none was needed.

Any ordinary member who was a fly on the wall in the meeting would have wondered why on earth did the Right of the NEC vote not to accept this motion as it cost nothing and would have simply confirmed the legal advice and protected the legal position of the union!

And it also means that all candidates for GS now need to be asked the following questions:

Do you accept that you should be accountable to members through a proper recall procedure in the union’s rules if Congress decides one is needed? Will you accept a change of terms of employment in your contract if this is said to be necessary, allowing for a recall mechanism to apply to you?

For all the claims that the IBL are not a faction they do indeed vote en-bloc remarkably consistently when directed by the chair!

Election conduct

It is to be expected that paid officials of the union and lay members of the union will stand. It is essential therefore that no candidate is given preferential treatment during the election.

In UNISON a major argument has broken out due to senior officials instructing employees of the union to campaign on their behalf.

Proposals to prevent this bullying of staff were also put forward by UCU Left members. Here the IBL voted with the UCU Left leading to a unanimous vote to prevent staff being disciplined if they refuse to act in a partisan way in the elections.

Similarly, candidates who are staff members or officers of the union will also be prevented from presenting UCU’s publicity in their name, with immediate effect.

Looking to the future

The next General Secretary will be crucially important to the future development of the union at a time when marketisation is fast progressing, when the membership of UCU has simultaneously grown and, crucially, at a time when a substantial minority of members indicates that a militant mood exists for action against marketisation.

The left in the union has a responsibility to ensure we have a candidate who can create a member-led union over the next five years. They need to be a candidate who can stand up to both the right wing of our union lay leadership and the trade union bureaucracy.

Motions text

On delaying the GS election

NEC thanks Sally Hunt for her service and sends best wishes.

NEC notes:

  1. The Democracy Commission was tasked by our sovereign body Congress (2018) with introducing recall mechanism and greater accountability of officials including the General Secretary
  2. The Commission is currently drawing up relevant recommendations and will be putting these to Congress 2019. The Commission was informed that the staff union UNITE would likely dispute changes to the current incumbent’s contract, and it was agreed therefore that a recall mechanism would come into effect at a change of contract.
  3. Holding an election on the current proposal would create a delay of five years in the introduction of recall.

NEC believes such a delay undermines the wishes of Congress 2018 and thus undermines our democracy which may create discord.

NEC resolves not to implement any election process that would undermine and render ineffective the introduction of recall mechanisms if voted for by Congress 2019.

On Democracy Commission and GS election

Noting:

  1. Democracy Commission’ specific, time-limited purview, mandated by Congress 2018 to make recommendations for branch delegates to decide at Congress 2019 and Special Congress (November 2019).
  2. DC is mandated to recommend changes including aspects of the GS role, such as an inter-election recall mechanism.
  3. DC may recommend shorter terms of office.
  4. Changes agreed by Congress/Special Congress must only effect subsequent GS contracts.
  5. Pursuing a GS election before Congress delays any agreed changes by 5 years.
  6. GS election rules Schedule B provide up to 12 months calling notice.

NEC agrees:

  1. Pre-empting outcomes of democratic debate at Congress would endanger confidence in UCU’s commitment to upholding sovereign Congress decisions.
  2. UCU should elect its GS after Congress 2019 votes upon DC recommendations regarding the role, terms and conditions.
  3. NEC should meet following Congress to agree finalised changes to the GS role.

Both motions fell by 26 to 21 with 1 abstention, following passage of section of report

Motion ensuring recall mechanism applies to incoming GS

NEC agrees to amend the new contract of the GS in NEC1215 to explicitly ensure that, should Congress agree a rule change that establishes a formal recall mechanism, this mechanism would trigger the issuing of notice by the President on behalf of the NEC, under clause (i) of the Termination of Employment section of the contract.

NEC further resolves that, should the above solution be not deemed workable, to add a new clause (iii) to the Termination of Employment section of the contract. This would clarify that, provided that a rule for the recall of GS were triggered under UCU rules, the GS would be suspended from office and given six months’ notice to allow the election to be conducted.

Motion fell 26 to 21, following passage of section of report

Amendments to GENERAL SECRETARY ELECTION 2019: GUIDANCE NOTES NEC1215.

Add new bullet points:

  1. UCU staff members involved in the administration of the General Secretary election will act in a non-partisan way to all candidates and must not be asked for preferential treatment by any candidate or their supporters. Any member of staff found to be electioneering or showing favour to one particular candidate in the course of their normal employment will face formal disciplinary action. Any staff member refusing to act in a partisan way will be protected from any disciplinary action.
  2. During the period of the election, starting with NEC 1st March 2019, UCU will ensure equal access to media and public pronouncements for all candidates. Any statement released by UCU in the name of any staff member standing as a candidate will count as one of their allocated emails.

Motion passed unanimously