Category: Reports

Posted on

UCU Left report: HEC pay & equality ballot debate, 1 November

HEC members were presented with a report from a national official that accepted that we had received the best ballot result in a pay dispute – in turnout or strike/ASOS vote – but then argued that national pay bargaining had not delivered pay increases for members and therefore ‘alternatives should be explored’.

This report floats the idea that UCU should explore the scope for local bargaining over pay. UCU’s national policy, confirmed at a Sector Conference as recently as 2017, is that we defend National Pay Bargaining in principle.

It is true that the machinery for national pay bargaining at New JNCHES has reached an impasse.

But this is not an argument for local bargaining. Continue reading “UCU Left report: HEC pay & equality ballot debate, 1 November”

Posted on

Submission to Joint Expert Panel on USS by Carlo Morelli

European Pension Regulation: The ending of retirement and the political economy of USS

Dr. Carlo Morelli

Senior Lecturer Economics and UCU JNC negotiator, University of Dundee, Dundee,
Email: c.j.morelli@dundee.ac.uk

European Union and the end of Defined Benefit pension provision

The European Union, through the European Commission (COM), has created a framework to ensure the harmonising of retirement across the EU involving a levelling down of pension provision to deal with the low replacement rates of the working population. Rather than facilitate immigration into the EU the worsening of pension provision is explicitly identified as the means to address stagnating labour supplies in European economies. This has led to support for the raising the retirement age across the single market, restricting access to early retirement, supporting longer working lives and forcing women to work longer as a means to close the pension gap between men and women (COM, 2012, pp. 8-13). As the 2012 White Paper on pension reform An Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensionsconcluded:

‘We need a more European approach to tackling challenges to pension systems, in line with successive conclusions of the European Council which have called for closer economic policy co- ordination. It is now time to act and to implement in a decisive manner the actions put forwardin this White Paper.’ (COM, 2012, p. 15).

As part of these changes to retirement a single market for Private Pension Plans (PPP) has been a stated goal in which pension provision can be made portable as labour moves across national boundaries. The development of a European market for non-guaranteed Defined Contribution (DC) pensions has therefore been progressed through the regulatory body the European Insurance and Occupation Pension Authority (EIOPA). The ending of guaranteed Defined Benefit (DB) pensions is an explicit requirement for this approach. Rather than encouraging guaranteed pensions as a means to secure a retirement free from poverty DB, guaranteed pensions, are in this view seen as an impediment to this new market for pensions. As made evident in the EIOPA 2013 report Towards an EU single market for personal pensions An EIOPA Preliminary Report to COM, on potential changes the ‘main rationale’ for launching the initiative on personal pensions included the need to ‘adapt the regulatory framework to the general shift towards individual responsibility for securing retirement income (DB to DC)’. (para 3,p.4). However, one of the main limitations was the continuation of guaranteed pensions. Thus: ‘Moststakeholders do not think that it is feasible to create a cross border framework for PPPs with guarantees (2013, para 205, p. 42 original emphasis). Differences in tax legislation and contract law across EU states involve higher costs, and hence lower profits, for pension companies engaging in insurance type guaranteed pension transfers and therefore make capital transfers a less desirable activity. As EIOPA note it is ‘costly for insurance companies and might in consequence hinder them from offering their products on a cross border basis’ (2013, para 16, p.33). In contrast however, for non- guaranteed DC pension provision EIOPA concluded that ‘EIOPA believes a strong case is made for afuture Directive that would establish a single market for PPPs inter alia through the alignment across theEU of PPP holder protection measures.’ (2013, para 221, p.45). For pension companies non-guaranteed, individual pension savings allow for capital transfers, across national boundaries between organisations, due to the lack of future risk to those institutions receiving the capital transfer. It also facilitates increases in profits for transfers through additional commissions and charges. In the single market for pensions under construction non-guaranteed pensions result in investment risk, higher charges and longevity risk all being borne by the individual not the pension company.

This evolving European framework for pension provision has therefore been a significant factor in the reinforcing of the drive towards the replacement of DB pensions with DC pensions. The DC pension market is a market where high commissions and profits can be created, at the expense of the individual seeking a secure future pension. In the UK this process has been underway for more than two decades and has been developed through the creation of artificial deficits. A key component in this process of constructing deficits has been through the choice of discount rates. In the UK particularly, conservative discount rates have been chosen to value long term pension sustainability as a means to motivate the change from DB to DC.

Discount rates

European Union regulations require pension schemes to undertake valuations with a long term horizon to assess their funding position. This includes ensuring remedial action is in place to resolve any funding shortfalls. However, the exact form which this valuation takes and specifically the choice of discount rate is nationally determined. As a result a range of methodologies for setting the discount rate is evident. The UK can be identified as an outlier in approach taken to discount rate determination for its pension scheme valuations, across the European Union, whose effect is to exaggerate the extent to which a notional deficit of liabilities over assets may exist. The UK has a strong bias towards valuations based upon risk free forms of asset (see figure 3.4 below).

page3image535361440

Source: European Insurance and Occupation Pension Authority (2017). Stress Test Report 2017, EIOPA- Bos-17/370, 13 December 2017 Frankfurt, Germany: EIOPA. Figure 3.4.

Decision on the discount rate is then the main driver of any surplus/deficits of assets over liabilities. Note again the UK with one of the highest deficits of assets to liabilities has amongst the most conservative discount rate in the EU (see figure 3.15 below). As EIOPA, note ‘this is mainly caused’(2017, p. 27) by changes in the discount rate and resulted in the UK having the third lowest number of open DB schemes in the EU, behind Italy and Ireland (2017, Figure 3.19, para 99, p. 29).

page3image535426448page3image535426720

page4image533901152

Source: European Insurance and Occupation Authority (2017). Stress Test Report 2017, EIOPA-Bos-17/370, 13 December 2017 Frankfurt, Germany: EIOPA. Figure 3.15. 

Summary

European Union regulation is a driving force for the closure of the DB schemes, not for financial reasons of sustainability or affordability but, for reasons of market accessibility by pension and insurance companies. European citizens’ security in retirement is being sacrificed for the interests of a Europeanwide insurance and pensions industry seeking to create an oligopolistic market structure and profit streams for the dominant firms that emerge. The UK, with a large private pensions plan industry, has been ahead of these developments leading the moves towards conservative discount rates, artificial deficits and closures of DB schemes.

USS choice of discount rates

Submissions to the JEP by UCU, Dennis Leech and others have all indicated the means by which the USS scheme has chosen specific discount rates which are legitimately suggested to be overly prudent. Again they have repeatedly demonstrated the durability of the DB scheme when using cash flow in an open scheme as a measure of its sustainability. As a result it is not necessary for this submission to the JEP to repeat those assessments. Except to say USS’s choice of assessment of Tests 1, 2 and 3, choice of negative real returns on investment and choice of valuing salary increases for liabilities at a higher level than salary increases for income (hence assets) into the scheme are all designed to present a picture of the long-term viability of the scheme in the worst possible light. These choices are, as described above, being determined not by issues of sustainability but of the institutional interests of insurance and pension companies in maximising potential opportunities for profits in new market environments as they emerge in the future. USS itself is not a small pension provider and instead is a one of the largest pension providers in the European Union. In acting to undermine its own DB scheme and replace it with a solely DC-based pension scheme it has an instrumental role in undermining guaranteed pension provision in the UK. As part of a wider European wide move to undermine retirement USS itself is well aware of the regulatory framework for European wide pension regulation. It is acting to facilitate the regulatory failure that will lead to impoverishment in retirement for pensioners generally and USS members specifically.

JEP

The Joint Expert Panel is being asked to consider the 2017 USS valuation. However, its deliberations have much wider political consequences than simply that of one pension scheme. UCU member’sindustrial action was aimed not simply at the defence of their own pensions but also a wider political defence of the higher education sector against the process of marketisation. Now JEP has an opportunity to similarly defend not simply the existence of one DB pension scheme but also influence the political debate over the future of DB schemes for many millions of workers across the European Union. This requires JEP to be bold in its defence of the future of DB schemes but starts with a small step – challenging the valuation approach taken by USS. I would urge JEP to ensure it takes this step and clearly places itself in defence of European workers not of European bankers, insurance and pension scheme managers.

Bibliography:

COM, (2012). An Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions, February Brussels, European Commission, 55 final. Available at European Insurance and Occupation Pension Authority, (2013). Towards an EU single market for personal pensions An EIOPA Preliminary Report to COM, Frankfurt, Germany. 

European Insurance and Occupation Pension Authority, (2017). Stress Test Report 2017, EIOPA-Bos- 17/370, 13 December 2017 Frankfurt, Germany: EIOPA. Figure 3.4.

Submission to JEP Carlo Morelli

Posted on

Higher Education Committee (HEC) report of meeting 29th June 2018

 

UCU Congress 2018 Voting

Pay

The successful consultative pay ballot of members demonstrated 82% rejection on a 48% turnout and 65% for extended strike action. HEC voted to initiate an industrial action ballot from August through September ending in early October. A pay campaign over pay casualisation, pay inequality and workloads has the potential to galvanise the membership across both pre- and post-92 universities. This is a record turnout for an e-consultation on pay for the union. The strength of feeling over these issues can be gauged by the report that only one branch in the whole of the UK (a very small branch in a university where UCU does not have recognition agreement) voted to accept the offer.

While real ballots result in higher turnouts, and despite such a high vote in the e-consultation, there is a need to avoid complacency and instead work to ensure branches mobilise around the Get the Vote Out Campaign. Debate at HEC ensured that the ballot will not start until the end of August and continue into October with escalating and sustained strike action in November unless there is a major improvement in the pay offer being made. Pay briefing meetings in the devolved nations and regions with a Special HE Sector Conference in September are also being planned.

Pensions

UCU has agreed to timetable a Special HESC when the JEP reports, which will be empowered to take the dispute forwards. It is possible that not a lot will happen over the summer. And in practice the Special HESC can vote to reinstate a proper dispute committee (see section on democracy below), composed proportionate to branch size and with voting and decision-making capacities, at that time. The latest statement from the JEP can be found here.

Casualisation

A motion on casualised pension rights was discussed by HEC. The discussion reflected the increasing profile of casualised issues within UCU.  The success of the USS dispute particularly helped to raise the wider issues of marketisation, equalities, and casualisation and to galvanise members on picket lines and in teach outs. An obvious disparity highlighted by the USS fight is that many casualised members and lower paid permanent members cannot access pension rights or cannot afford to pay for pensions.  Added to this their contributions are often recorded inaccurately or there are gaps. They often work in two or more institutions across the sectors and can rarely afford to retire. Yet they stood in solidarity with their permanent colleagues fighting for a different kind of higher education system.

Now casualised members are calling for union wide solidarity and a resolve from their UCU brothers and sisters to fight for pension rights for workers on all types of contracts in both sectors. This motion sought to get this issue on the table and for a union wide conversation to be had on pension rights for casualised workers. Though it was agreed that welfare benefits are also an important issue we resolved to focus on pension rights. HEC agreed to ask the Education committee to table a speaker on casualisation and pensions at the Cradle to Grave conference; that there would be a meeting held  ACC would discuss pension provision across HE and that we would do some work, with resources, to enable UCU to provide specialist guidance to branches. This was supported by the whole HEC and passed unanimously.

Now for the less good parts of the HEC

Motions not discussed

A number of important motions were not discussed due to running out of time:

  1. Business School workloads, partly motivated by a tragic death due to overwork
  2. Practical proposals for implementing a sector conference motion on military and industrial research: there is increasing pressure to get research funding and concerns by many members about ethical issues.
  3. Victimisation of striking members in the USS dispute; one of the remitted motions from the recent sector conference and there is great concern by the branch. UCU has transformed.  We cannot allow victimisation.
  4. Resisting the far right and supporting Black and ethnic minority students, motivated by a Black member pointing out the serious discrimination experienced by Black PhD students.
  5. UUK visit to Egypt, motivated by discussion on the activists’ list and concern that links with other countries need to be ethical and UUK did nothing when Guilio Regeni was tortured and murdered.
  6. Funding UCU casualised workers to attend a joint union training and funding a banner and placards for a joint union anti-casualisation march. This is motivated by the experiences of casualised workers and would be important in supporting our pay campaign and making other unions aware of the particular experiences of casualised workers in HE and FE.

Papers

Important papers on precarious work and workload were presented, but there was no time for discussion.  Equally important papers on the rate for the job and how sector conference motions will be implemented were not even presented.

Improved organisation of meetings

Both HEC and NEC are experiencing serious problems in getting through the agenda.  Members’ motions regularly fall of the agenda.  As indicated above, these are often vitally important issues which are brought by NEC members, often in response to concerns from branches.  They are therefore part of how elected members are accountable and respond to grassroots concerns.  There are views that this is deliberate.  Whether or not this is the case, it is of the utmost importance to ensure this does not happen in the future.  Positive changes could include moving members’ motions much earlier in the agenda, limiting the number of speakers on an issue (on a for and against basis, as at Congress, and possibly also neither) and providing a written list of the items motions are assigned to rather than spend half an hour discussing this.

UCU Democracy

Another frustrating day saw the dead weight of the majority HEC members around the so-called ‘Independent Broad Left’ (IBL) and bureaucracy trying to overturn Higher Education Sector Conference (HESC) decisions on transparency and democracy. The right wing of the HEC (IBL) decided that the HESC motion which called for the setting up of a national strike/dispute committee with representatives elected on the same basis as the HESC formula (so retaining proportionality to branch size) really meant that HESC delegates should elect a subset of their number as the dispute committee.

The entire motion was written because of defects of Branch Consultation Meetings which had no standing in the union rules, and no voting powers. These defects were made explicit for the entire union to see on March 23rd 2018, when infamously no vote was taken on putting the UUK offer to members. As a result members are still arguing about what different branches’ positions were on that day.

The solution, enshrined in motion HE13 (copied in the Appendix below), was a voting assembly of members proportionate to branch size. This is the same method for electing delegates to the Higher Education Sector Conference, which is enshrined in rules. The idea was to duplicate that structure, but eliminate some of the bureaucractic encumberances.

The IBL voted against this and argued that “composed of” did not mean “composed of all”. The IBL did this because the last two HESCs have voted overwhelmingly for motions that the IBL do not approve of. Members voted for transparency and accountability of the JEP, but also of the union’s structures. They argued for more democracy not less.

Appendix

HE13  Composite: USS dispute: national dispute committee – University College London, Goldsmiths University of London. 

HESC notes:

  1. the reaction of USS branches to the March 12 ‘agreement’ demonstrated that members want a resolution which protects Defined Benefit pensions now and in the future
  2. concerns from many branches and members about the processes concerning the consultative ballot on the USS offer of 23rd March
  3. the lack of transparency about the role of UCU negotiators in the USS negotiations and the lack of opportunities to hold union representatives to account
  4. members feel disempowered nationally, compared to the high level of ownership they feel in relation to the dispute locally
  5. while some aspects of negotiations are confidential, to maintain a sense of ownership of the dispute among the membership and to maintain members’ resolve to take industrial action, members must know how negotiations are progressing.

HESC resolves to establish a national USS dispute committee composed of HESC delegates (or substitutes) from USS branches, to which national negotiators and UCU Independent Expert Panel members will report. This committee will meet at regular intervals until the dispute is officially terminated and will give a representative steer to the dispute for the current valuation round, including during any suspension or re-ballot.

Posted on

Brief report from the UCU Higher Education Sector Conference on USS, Manchester 21 June

This sector conference was called after at least 28 branches passed motions requisitioning a special meeting (20 branches’ motions were officially accepted). This is nearly half the branches involved in the USS dispute.

The original aim of the conference call was to pin down the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) and ensure that it was, in a real sense, transparent and accountable to members.

However due to the delay in accepting that the 20-branch threshold had been passed at UCU head office, the meeting eventually took place on 21 June, three weeks after UCU’s “ordinary” sector conference at Congress. Nonetheless the meeting was packed out by delegates from across the country. The same spirit that took the union through 14 days of strike action was evident in the room.

Disturbingly, a set of motions on JEP transparency (and in particular demanding UCU panel members do not sign non-disclosure agreements, or “NDAs”) were ruled out of order because “the decision had been made by members in the ballot”. Yet confidentiality was not even mentioned in Sally Hunt’s lengthy UCU ballot letters asking members to vote Yes. Sector Conference voted to overturn CBC and hear those motions, most of which were passed.

In addition to demanding JEP transparency, the conference also demanded answers from the JEP. The conference passed motions to demand that the JEP model alternative valuations relaxing the various constraints that USS had imposed (the infamous ‘Test 1’ and ‘de-risking’ among them) to publish the results, and to publish any additional assumptions. Similarly a motion from Warwick listed questions that the JEP needed to answer.

Sector Conference voted against any consideration of ‘Collective Defined Contribution’ schemes either by negotiators or by the JEP. These are Defined Contribution schemes available in other countries but where the investment risk is shared by all scheme members. Like individual DC schemes they still involve the transfer of risk to pensioners. Currently in the UK there is no legal framework for these schemes. For both these reasons UCU should not pursue them.

Other motions passed included planning bi-annual delegate meetings to review JEP progress at sector conferences during the dispute (with a consultative ballot of members to relaunch a dispute triggered if progress was deemed inadequate or problematic), and further refining the terms of reference of the USS Dispute Committee (essentially, the same principle).

Notably, UCU agreed a carefully-worded motion from Brighton that allowed branches in post-92 universities with USS members to have a say and involvement in campaigning over USS. The current voting policy (‘convention’) of pre-92 university delegates voting in a USS dispute with Universities UK is maintained, but the motion encouraged ways for UCU to consult with members through other means. Following intervention from the floor, and in an important moment of unity, both pre- and post-92 delegates were allowed to vote on this motion.

There was some considerable discontent that only 2.5 hours had been allocated for the event, to which 27 motions had been submitted. Inevitably, five motions fell off the agenda due to time constraints. These were all remitted to the HEC.*

This meeting built on the successful Sector Conference at Congress and further strengthened union members’ ability to hold the JEP and our negotiators to account while they make crucial decisions which will determine the future of our pensions. The stakes could not be higher and delegates recognised the seriousness of the task ahead.

The situation could not be clearer. If the JEP is unable to present a solution to the USS JNC that reduces the projected deficit, and thereby eliminates the cuts in benefits or increases in contributions planned, UCU now has all necessary mechanisms to restart the dispute.

*Motions 1-12, 14 and 15 were passed, and motions 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 were remitted to the Higher Education Committee. The delegates from Strathclyde representing motion 19 sought its withdrawal but was prevented from doing so, and this will need to be addressed at HEC. Motions A, C, D, and E were voted back onto the agenda and passed with some amendment.

Posted on

NEC REPORT 16 MARCH 2018

Screen Shot 2016-10-18 at 10.00.18Summary of report:
         General Secretary’s report
         Subscription rates
         Prioritisation of motions for Congress
         Changes to standing orders for how Congress/sector conferences were run.

General Secretary’s report
The NEC met for the first time since the momentous strike action taken by our HE colleagues, which culminated in a week that will be remembered for a long time to come.

The General Secretary (GS) started her report by congratulating the 15 FE colleges that had taken two days strike action. She explained how she thought that what members in FE had achieved was in some ways as impressive as what had taken place in HE. Without any of the national media coverage the strike action was very solid with all branches reporting bigger turnouts on picket lines as usual.

Next strike action taking place in FE for 13 colleges will be 27, 28, 29 March. The GS was asked to formally send a letter requesting all college Principals to meet with the UCU to discuss our claims.
The report was written before the attempt to sell ACAS brokered deal. Therefore there was no mention of it. NEC UCU left members raised members concerns not just about the way that the deal was communicated but why such an abysmal deal was put in the first place.

The General Secretary explained that it was very unfortunate that the offer went out to members the way it did and acknowledge that it was not at all helpful. She gave a guarantee the proper procedures would be followed next time an offer was made.

The General Secretary gave no explanation as to why the offer was put forward in the first place. An offer that was so clearly out of step with what HE members believed would be a satisfactory offer.

It was only UCU left members who attempted to speak in this section.  None of the IBL NEC members offered an explanation on this. Not one member of the IBL spoke in this session.

She went on to explain that the TUC thought that defending DB was ‘astonishing’ and they were ‘flabbergasted’ that UCU members rejected the offer.

She was questioned on the impact of the strike on casualised members of staff taking action and how they could be assisted. The General Secretary confirmed that there was a hardship fund in operation that members could apply for.

UCU left NEC members made the point that it is only the continuing amplification of pickets and their strategic organisation together with the growing support of the students that has made the success and the move forward of  UUKs position.

The General Secretary reinforced points made by NEC members that the HE strikes have transformed UCU with around 5,000 new members.  This union is no longer the union it was a month ago.

 

Subscription rates

Steve Sanguine, the National Treasurer, presented the financial report requesting that the NEC agree to a budget. Whilst the committee agreed to the budget it was only on the basis that national officers relook at and change the suggested subscription rate rises that were proposed within the budget.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding subscription rates particularly concerning the rates being proposed for those on lower incomes. NEC members were concerned that those on lower incomes were being treated unfairly and argued for a progressive subscription rate system.

 

Prioritisation of motions for Congress

A paper was discussed arguing for a system that allowed branches to prioritise motions going to congress. After a lengthy debate this proposal was rejected on the grounds that minority voices within the union would not be heard within Congress due to the larger sectors within the union dominating the prioritisation ballot.

Changes to standing orders for how Congress/sector conferences are run.
Several amendments to standing orders were debated that attempted to alter the way that debates and amendments were discussed and put to congress/ sector conference.

Amendments to standing orders included:
         Cutting proposers of motions from 5min to 4mins’ speaking time and seconding from 3 to 2 (Passed)
         If there are no speakers against a motion go straight to the vote (Fell)

          No speakers allowed if motion is on existing policy
         Observers to congress/sector conference not to be allowed to speak in debates (Passed)
         Amendments to motions must not commit the union to ‘significant’ costs (passed)
         Amendments to motions must not add anything new to the motions.

UCU left members raised concerns that the prioritisation of motions paper and the amendments to standing orders would lead to a curtailing of democracy in the union. In the context of so many new members joining the union the question of democracy and a sense that their voices will be heard and not marginalised, these proposals could be seen to reinforce a lot of what, especially younger members, think a union is like.

Note: these amendments are to go to Congress before they can be implemented and need a two thirds majority to go forward to become policy.

 

Posted on

HEC report: USS dispute, 8 March 2018 

UCU’s Higher Education Committee (HEC) met in the midst of the most significant battle the union has ever fought.

The employers have been dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiating table only as a result of our significant strike action. They clearly hoped that, having imposed changes in the scheme through the USS Joint Negotiating Committee, UCU would be unable to stop the changes being implemented.

Our strike action has proved them wrong. But it still took several days of strikes by unprecedented numbers of staff, in public on picket lines and in private at home, to force the employers to the recognition that they would have to negotiate.

Our strike action has brought the employers to the negotiating table, and only further strike action can compel the employers to settle the dispute. Negotiations are ongoing, and the situation is changing from day to day.

UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt paid tribute to the ordinary members of UCU who had stepped up and taken strike action and in the process had transformed the union. The picture was of a stronger, more confident trade union that was growing day by day.

Further action

HEC agreed to keep action on until the negotiations obtained a result to the satisfaction of members, and to authorise further hard-hitting strike action, including during the exam marking period should the need arise.

Dates for this new potential action have not been announced. The detail of when action should be called will be discussed with branches in order to be the most effective. The aim is to use the strike strategy that has proven so effective at uniting members thus far, during the exam period in such a way as to stop or limit marking without requiring a new ballot. There will be an attempt to coordinate dates UK-wide as far as possible, but the emphasis would be in having a serious impact on any remaining teaching and examination marking.

Decision-making

A delegate meeting of union reps, one per branch, has been called in the UCU HQ office in London next Tuesday to consider the outcome of the negotiations. If sufficient progress is made an HEC following this meeting could suspend the action for a ballot of members. If that offer is not acceptable, the action, and negotiations, would continue.

Sally Hunt repeated the point she had made at a meeting of reps last week, that she wanted a broader group of members than HEC alone to make that decision. Our action has been successful because very many ordinary members ‘own’ the dispute and therefore UCU’s decision making processes should be more inclusive than has been the case in the past. It goes without saying that UCU Left supports this position – our principal aim is to build a broader, member-led, democratic union.

Unity and debate

Motions and papers on the above were passed unanimously. There was a collective understanding across the HEC of the importance of keeping the action on.

However not every motion was passed unanimously. On some issues there was debate, although UCU Left members carried the day.

HEC passed a motion to lobby relevant ministers on steps that would make a ‘status quo’ (no change) deal more likely, including seeking a commitment from government to guarantee the pension scheme until the next valuation. Two UCU Left members had submitted a paper to HEC detailing steps that could be taken to reach such a deal.

HEC also voted to

  • advise negotiators on parameters of an acceptable deal (these were stricter than those previously circulated by UCU)
  • address pay docking made for non-rescheduling of lectures by immediately beginning new ballots for strike action (so further strikes could ensue even if the pension dispute were settled)

The action is working. Negotiations are complicated and often confidential. But members should be clear that the employers know they need to make a deal to resolve this dispute quickly.

As we have explained, the cheapest solution for the employers is to accept there is no deficit, and the fastest way to get a settlement is by getting government to accept the negligible risk of scheme default. The USS Trustee Board would be indemnified, the Pension Regulator would have no job to do, and the scheme would not be changed. If the guarantee were then made permanent it would secure USS for the future.

Posted on

University of Manchester Strike Report

UoM strike October 2017University of Manchester UCU held a thoroughly successful strike over compulsory redundancies on the 23rd and 24th of October. The strike saw the biggest picket lines at UoM in recent history, and great support from the students’ union – including a roving march of students which visited every picket line. The rally was packed out with strikers and supporters. The mood was defiant and determined.

 

University management are trying to force through over 140 redundancies, in areas including Business, Languages and Biology. The reasons given include gaining financial headroom (despite £1.5 billion reserves), and becoming a ‘more elite university’ (presumably through making the university look a shambolic unappealing place to work). In reality it’s just the tired old business agenda in HE, putting the possibility of short-term gains above the interests of students and education. Certainly there is little interest in the outcomes for staff, who are treated with contempt.

 

Management are still refusing to back down over the threat of compulsory redundancies and there have been numerous stories of staff facing extreme pressure to sign up for ‘voluntary’ redundancy. This has led to a huge growth in UCU organisation on the ground, with over 140 local reps, and a 58% turnout, 87% vote for strike action in the recent ballot. Members are fast becoming frustrated with the endless process of meetings intended to wear down opposition.

 

Hopefully the strength of feeling shown on the pickets will be enough to make management see sense and back down. If not, the branch are confident of delivering further action in the near future.

 

The recent successes of the UCU branch at Manchester Met against the compulsory redundancies at Crewe Campus have renewed members’ confidence in our ability to fight back. MMU UCU scored significant gains and fought off the mass attacks last summer, but the dispute is ongoing. Not only are further redundancies expected this year at Crewe, but the MMU management is now openly talking of a new round of redundancies in the MMU Business School based in Manchester. What this has opened up is the possibility of combined campaigns and strikes. When the two Manchester VCs were interviewed together before the summer, what they did not bargain on was the two UCU branches taking up the struggle together.

 

As UCU moves closer to action on USS, branches such as University of Manchester and University of Leeds are showing that our strength lies in standing together and fighting together. This is a strong foundation for the struggles we are still to face in the defence of education.

 

Posted on

Pay and Pensions: the fight of our lives

Defending Pay and Pensions – Report from HEC, 13 October

UCU Higher Education Committee met on 13th October. Two key issues occupied the main discussion: pay and the future of the USS pension scheme.

HEC voted formally to call a conference on the 9th November for all HE branches to discuss the future HE industrial strategy and to form the pay claim. The conference will include a meeting for pre-92 university branches to make decisions on the union’s campaign to defend the pension scheme in pre-92 universities, USS. Both meetings will accept motions.

Branches need to meet urgently to submit motions prior to the 25th October deadline.

In this report:

Pay

We need to ensure an industrial action strategy is developed which the union is prepared to properly back. Too often members see a union which does not campaign seriously for its demands, and offers a tokenistic reaction to employers offering below-inflation pay rises.

Following a series of on-off disputes, and last year’s below-inflation increase of 1.7%, our pay is continuing to decline in real terms. But we face new challenges. Intensified competition for undergraduate students following the HE Bill is creating upheaval in the English HE sector. Wales and Northern Ireland are suffering swingeing cuts, and the Scottish Parliament is expected to follow suit in December.

The Trade Union Act also makes winning national ballots more difficult. We have a choice: make the fight for pay part of a national political fight in defence of Higher Education or fight institution by institution against local managements limited by ‘affordability’, i.e. what they have left after spending on buildings, borrowing and Brexit contingency plans.

The “choice” between local and national disputes is a choice between accepting the parameters of austerity and breaking through. Across the public sector several unions are now rightly challenging the government’s 1% pay cap. We need to place our fight for pay in that context.

Gender and equality pay

The gender pay gap stands at an average of 12 percent across HE. It is particularly acute at senior levels. If we include casualised staff among female lecturers it can rise up to 50 percent. UCU has participated in the JNCHES working groups around gender pay and casualisation. While on gender this has have resulted in some recommendations, guidance and analysis overall there has been far too little action. 30 branches are now involved in gender pay audits. There was support for recognising the black and disabled pay gaps the latter being up to 30 percent. In the future, as a union we must plan to tackle pay gaps for all equality groups.

On casualisation (affecting 50 percent of teaching staff and at least 70 percent of research staff), again UCU has participated in JNCHES working groups but these have resulted in so little progress that UCU has withdrawn. This also leaves us in need of a clear strategy (including industrial action) to force employers to tackle these inequalities.

Bargaining guidance for branches campaigning and negotiating for casualised staff have been produced, although they are to be ratified by the hourly paid ratification panel before being published. Due to its importance in mobilising members the Anti Casualisation Committee voted to keep casualisation as a main theme of the UCU pay claim. This was ratified by the HEC.

A motion encouraging engagement, activism and participation in bargaining and negotiation for casualised lecturers was passed, making the most of alliances with the NUS and student unions, new free membership fees for students performing teaching, and the publicity of the anti casualisation roadshow. The slogan “break the pay cap, end the pay gap” can be our mobilising message.

Another important element of the pay claim discussed was workload. Pay is declining as a result of increased unpaid hours for full time and especially for fractional lecturers. In some post-92 universities the national contract provisions are at risk because hours are not provided for research and other ‘non FST’ activities.

This is a health and safety issue as well as a pay issue. Motions on these issues can be submitted for the special sector conference on 9th November (deadline is 26th May at 5pm).

Suggested motions for the HE Industrial Action Strategy Pay Conference

Break the cap: Close the gap

UCU notes

  1. the support our pay equality campaign had in mobilising members
  2. pay continues to decline in real terms and pay inequalities ensure those facing discrimination at work suffer more.

UCU resolves to

  1. demand a pay claim with a substantial level of both pay rise and catch up.
  2. launch a pay campaign with extensive public campaigning, stalls and meetings leading to an industrial action ballot for the beginning of 2018.
  3. centre our campaign material around slogans linking breaking the pay cap with closing the equality pay gap, including Break the cap: Close the gap.

(82 words)

National response to punitive deductions

UCU notes

  1. employers have resorted to punitive deductions for partial performance
  2. such punitive deductions undermine members support if the union does not escalate its national action to deter individual employers from taking such action.

UCU resolves

  1. in any industrial action ballot that explains the potential for punitive deductions to also explain the national action UCU will take if such actions occur.
  2. use escalating national strike action where individual employers threaten punitive deductions

(81 words)

USS Pensions

USS pensions formed the second major discussion for the meeting. The threat to our pension scheme was universally recognised by HEC delegates.

We are in the fight of our lives for the future of our pension scheme.

This is not just an issue for older members – indeed the biggest attack will fall on younger colleagues. This fight is about stopping the USS trustee unwinding the entire scheme and replace it with an individual stocks-and-shares saving scheme called “Defined Contribution”. Defined Contribution is a long-term gamble on the stock market, whose performance will tend to have inferior benefits when compared like-for-like with a collective-based Defined Benefit. Any stock market crash will hit employees’ future pensions, and potentially, pensioners.

The 9th November meeting will form a central focal point for elected branch delegates to decide what form the industrial action should take, and to take stock and build a massive campaign. It is crucially important that branches put forward motions and send delegates to the conference.

We think UCU needs to escalate the publicity and get the message out. We need to launch a high-profile campaign in defence of our pensions. Pensions are not separate from pay: they are deferred wages.

The ‘deficit’

UCU needs to take a clear stand on the ‘deficit’. Members are being barraged with propaganda from the USS itself, the supposedly-neutral government body the Pension Regulator and ‘independent pension analysts’. We need to counter that narrative.

The fact is that USS is not in deficit in any real sense, and additional contributions or cuts in benefits are unnecessary. The so-called ‘deficit’ is a projected deficit that only arises as a by-product of projecting forward on the premise that the scheme is wound up! Since this ‘winding-up investment model’ (called ‘de-risking’ under USS’s Test 1 methodology) involves selling higher-performing stocks and shares and buying expensive and low-performing bonds and gilts, it actually means moving the assets into the class of investments hit hardest by Quantitative Easing and Brexit and likely to increase very slowly in value, if at all. Far from reducing risk, it would be self-defeating.

UCU has challenged this valuation method but we need to explain the critique to members.

Working for UCU, First Actuarial have showed that USS is balancing its books. Income and expenditure is projected to match very closely for the foreseeable future. The entire scheme would pay for itself without a need to touch the assets. This means that there is no need to ‘de-risk’ now. Keeping the scheme as it is not only benefits members but is key to maintaining stability in the scheme. USS has gone from being a better scheme than TPS to being worse.

The pressure from the Pension Regulator to value the scheme in a ‘recklessly prudent’ manner arises from rules introduced by the then Blair Labour Government which, ironically, were supposed to protect private sector pensions. But a greedy private sector pension industry has used them to attack the terms of pension schemes, first closing Final Salary and then moving employees from Defined Benefit to Defined Contribution schemes. Many private sector workers have seen their pensions cut drastically.

We should not underestimate the role of past governments in introducing rules which have – far from protecting private pensions – undermined the basic employer pension. We should be demanding that the Corbyn-led Labour Party both critically examine whether these regulations have led to a perverse outcome and argue that the pension industry, like housing, should be regulated in the interests of the members of the scheme.

Building the campaign

UCU Left put forward a motion which was passed in an amended form, calling for a national high-profile campaign in defence of pensions. This needs to begin now. Simply dropping an industrial action ballot on members without a publicity campaign, as was done in the e-consultation, is a risky gamble. Moreover, members are reading stories in the FT and THE referring to the deficit as real or inevitable. Most of all, being bounced into a vote does not lead members to have confidence in UCU’s willingness to lead a campaign. Branches need to organise members meetings to debate the future of the USS now. In branches where this has taken place members are convinced of the need to take action to defend our pensions.

As with the e-consultation, which continues until Wednesday, the dispute will be declared formally against our employers, who are refusing to pay more into the scheme, meaning that either employees pay more or receive less. Some, like Southampton have come out publicly in favour of a fully individual DC scheme.

Our industrial action should be inspired by the methods of the successful strike currently underway at Leeds University, where three days of strike are combined with campaigning and debating with students. Members are involved at every level. Their ‘Striking Insights’ teach-outs have proved hugely popular in building the campaign for reclaiming the university.

If our pension campaign links with the campaign to abolish student fees and debt, alongside cutting VC’s pay and ending the marketization of HE, we can effectively resist the cuts to our pensions.

Pensions are our deferred wages. We need to campaign for pensions and campaign for a publicly funded and accountable higher education system.

Below are draft motions available for branches to put forward from their branches to the two conferences on pay and pensions on 9th November.

Suggested Motions to Special HE conference on USS 9th November

Campaigning alongside other disputes and campaigns

This conference believes

  1. Working with other unions in disputes and combining our campaigning alongside other unions in defence of pay, pensions and jobs strengthens our own USS campaign.
  2. Creating solidarity networks with students and community campaigns provides a further avenue for building solidarity.

This conference resolves

  1. Organise public pay and pensions rallies across the UK, stalls and public campaigns across the UK to campaign for pensions.
  2. Seek to involve UCU members in FE and PCS and CWU workers in our campaign and rallies. Similarly invite student unions and community campaigns to support our public events defence of pensions.
  3. Seek to organise, where possible, joint strike action alongside Further Education, PCS and CWU strikes.

(124 words)

Challenging the terms of debate

This conference believes that

  1. USS reports on the basis of its real assets: a surplus of £5bn.
  2. The reporting of a deficit is a recklessly prudent artificial construct ideologically driven by changes in accounting reporting regulation.
  3. Constructing deficits has provided an ideological justification for the privatisation of collective Defined Benefit pension schemes and movement into individual Defined Contribution pension schemes.

This conference resolves

  1. To reaffirm that UCU does not accept the methodology that creates the ‘gilts plus’ deficit.
  2. To state publicly in our literature we do not believe there to be a deficit and not to seek additional contributions from employers to pay for the constructed deficit.
  3. To refuse to accept detrimental changes to the USS pension scheme.

(129 words)

Posted on

Further Education Committee (FEC) report: 75% vote for action in e-consultation – FEC agree to launch ballot over national pay claim.

all banners 2 -1010526-2The FEC met on Friday and overwhelmingly (only one vote against) agreed to launch an industrial ballot over this year’s national pay claim. The meeting was upbeat. The results from the e-consultation were the most positive results for many years. With the need to comply with the new trade union laws, which stipulate that a 50% threshold must be reached in any industrial ballot before any action is implemented, these results provide an excellent platform to build a significant campaign around pay.

FEC members reported on the positive response they got from members about the pay campaign. Many branches that attempted to implement a systematic GTVO campaign got very good results.

The FEC agreed that the context of this year’s pay campaign provides favourable circumstances. With the Conservative government in disarray, and the cabinet split over lifting the public sector pay cap, the impact of a successful campaign involving strikes, demonstrations and lobbies could have a decisive impact on the governments’ and employers’ position on pay.

UCU and other unions met the AoC on 19th September where they made a recommendation to the principals to award 1% – another pay cut. The AoC added:

‘We note your comments on ethical leadership and where colleges are able to afford a higher award, they may wish to do so.”

Usually the recommendation would be regarded as a maximum award which they would not exceed. This suggests 1% should be regarded as a minimum award and those colleges that could afford more should do so. The AoC have kept the door open and have agreed to a further meeting in January.

 

Next steps in pay campaign: Prepare for action

The FEC agreed to automatically put all those branches that gained a 30% or above turnout into the national ballot. The FEC also agreed that those branches that achieved below a 30% turnout but request to be in the ballot should be allowed to do so. If you are one of those branches. contact the regional office or an NEC member to discuss. The ballot will be a dis-aggregated one*.

Another motion was passed, again overwhelmingly (one vote against), which outlined how we can now take another leap forward in ensuring that we get an even greater turnout and number of YES votes for action in the up-and-coming industrial action ballot.

Borrowing from the incredible Postal Workers campaign, where they smashed through the Tories’ new ballot thresholds, the following action points were agreed:

1) UCU to organise for the forthcoming ballot:

i) An electronic mass meeting and invite GS and Jeremey Corbyn/John McDonnell to speak.
ii) To encourage members to bring their forms into work to pose for a collective ‘posting your ballot paper’ photo.
iii) Regional officials with NEC and reps to help less organised branches.
iv) Materials to be sent out a week before the ballot is launched.
v) An email a week throughout the ballot from the GS to members.
vi) Social media to be used to GTVO.
vii) Encourage Regional committees to organise local pay rallies where possible with other unions.

The timetable for the ballot will be out soon. What to do now:

  • Organise a branch meeting to inform members of what is happening with pay campaign.
  • Map out an effective GTVO plan.
  • Check membership lists.

At a well-attended London Region on Saturday the committee agreed :

  • To fully support the Scrap the pay cap demo on Tuesday 17th October starting in Downing St at 5.30pm. Bring branch banners.
  • Leaflet your college on Tuesday 12 October to help build the demo.
  • To call a GTVO training day before the national pay ballot is launched.

 

Free UCU membership for those in non-lecturing roles

As some of you might be aware UCU has launched a free membership offer to those members of staff in non-lecturing roles. Both at the FEC and London Region delegates raised a number of concerns regarding who the offer actually applies to. If you have any queries about this, contact the regional office. If you have a particular group of workers in mind that you think could apply but aren’t too sure send their JD to the regional office and they will advise.

* An aggregated ballot is one that all members are involved in and where the outcome is binding on all.
Dis-aggregated is where all members vote on national action on a branch by branch basis but the branch that votes against action does not impact on the total vote.

The FEC’s options were limited by the NEC’s previous decision to impose the 50% turnout figure introduced by government on all internal union consultations.

Posted on

Report from the UCU Women’s Standing Committee – 22 September 2017

Screen Shot 2016-10-18 at 10.00.18

The UCU Women’s standing committee met on Friday 22 September. Sue Abbott from Newcastle University was re elected as Chair.

Gender Pay gap.

The committee had strong concerns about the slow progress of tackling gender pay gaps. It was agreed that this be a focus for International women’s day in March 2018 for branches and regions. The national Equality conference on 23 November in Birmingham would have member workshops to plan for this. The committee were also told that UCU HQ was looking to increase resources to tackle the gender pay gap. This was welcomed as very few women reps had facility time to undertake the large amount of work involved.

Sexual Harassment

Emma Chapman from the 1752 group addressed the committee. Many of us still did not feel that enough was being done to address this matter particularly following the UCU survey some years ago. It was felt that this needed to be tackled urgently and working with 1752 might well assist with this matter.

Casual workers

Many women casual staff were still on poor contracts and working conditions. We were told that the UCU anti casualisation group would be keen to visit regions to help take forward a stronger strategy to address this.

Women as the Resistance

This would be the theme for the Birmingham conference in November.
It was hoped to have McDonalds workers, women who have stools up to the EDL and other inspirational women speaking.

 

by Sue Abbott – Chair WMSC