Tag: HEC

Posted on

HEC snubs the membership and delays the fights

Report of Higher Education Committee of Friday 2nd July


Meeting for the first time since annual Congress and Sector Conferences, UCU’s Higher Education Committee decided on Friday to delay a Special HE Sector Conference (SHESC) until after the summer. 

This is despite an instruction from Sector Conference (Motion HE3) to hold a Special Higher Education Sector Conference (SHESC) in the first two weeks of August in order to progress the Four Fights and USS campaigns. This delay is unfortunate. It sets back the timing of ballots and threatens our ability to take industrial action over pay, casualisation, equalities and pensions during the autumn term.

UCU Left HEC members voted for the earliest possible date for a SHESC, but HEC voted by one vote for the latest date on offer – September 9th. Branches will now have the difficult task of meeting to submit motions before a deadline of August 23rd. 

The only minor advantage to this delay is that it should give time for the 2021-22 JNCHES dispute (UCEA’s 1.5% ‘final offer’) to come to a head so that the dispute over the 0% award of 2020-21 to be rolled over into it. But this is not a good enough reason to delay getting the campaign under way. Unison is already balloting 48 of its HE branches for action in the autumn over the 20-21 dispute. 

UCU Left motions and amendments attempting to commit USS negotiators to abide by conference positions and to initiate a ballot on USS over the summer were, unfortunately, defeated. Not only are some in the leadership intent on delay, they also want to water down the demands of members and lower the sights of what can be achieved.

This refusal by the majority on the HEC to implement the clear decisions of the policy-making body of the union is not only undemocratic, but sends a signal to our employers and the pension company that we are not serious about the fights that are necessary. The situation can be rectified but only by branches organising seriously for the September Special Conference and insisting that the campaigns are organised and the ballots are initiated.

On the positive side, a motion calling on all UCU members to make a donation of £4 or more to the Liverpool strike fund was carried, as was a motion to set up a UCU campaign group to coordinate opposition to the cuts to funding for arts courses.

A motion on Rhodes Must Fall, which had already fallen off a recent NEC agenda, was again not heard through lack of time, as was a motion on making HE safe for trans and nonbinary students.

Posted on

HEC REPORT 30TH April 2021

HEC discussion focused on negotiations on pay campaigns and pensions. Whilst confidentiality prevents much discussion, it is possible to say the following.

Pay

On pay the 0% non-offer in 2020-21 has been repeatedly rejected by UCU members in electronic ballots and in branch delegates meetings. On the 2021-22 pay negotiations employers continue to put forward plans for further pay cuts. A wide-ranging debate took place on how to address this crisis. A late motion to HE Sector Conference from an independent member was supported by UCU Left and was carried. This called for an immediate campaign and further delegate meetings to be held. The forthcoming HESC will be the crucial democratic body to determine UCU strategy and policy in relation to any forthcoming dispute.

USS Pensions

Members will be aware that the USS negotiations have not led to a settlement on benefits. Instead a dispute over the 2020 valuation is fast approaching. There is agreement at HEC that the valuation is incapable of producing an outcome which protects the Defined Benefit scheme. This leaves members with a Hobson’s choice between remaining the high cost scheme and baring most of the risk or opting out of the scheme and having no pension to retire on. A wide ranging debate on how to address this. The forthcoming HESC will again be the crucial democratic body that determines UCU strategy in relation to, an almost certain, forthcoming dispute.

Motions

An important motion to instigate greylisting and increase solidarity with the 165 members threatened with redundancy at Leicester University was carried nem con.

A motion, subsequently discussed on Twitter, about student number controls was lost on a tied vote: 13:13 with 7 abstentions. The motion on student number controls had been tabled for a previous HEC but was withdrawn by the proposer so was not moved, debated or voted on.  On this occasion the convention with tied votes is that the status quo remains, so there is no change to existing policy. The motion is pasted below.  The debate centred on the role of caps on student numbers in pre- and post 92 universities. The lifting of the cap on student numbers has led to larger universities, particularly within the Russell Group, to boost their fee income by increasing their student intake. At the same time many post-92 universities have faced increased competition for students.

Opposition to this motion did not centre on the impact of the lifting of these caps, but on campaigning for ending marketisation and the fees regime. The role that fees has played in the increase in student recruitment was emphasised.

Numbers entering higher education have been rising and will continue to do so in the face of rapidly rising unemployment. Youth unemployment rate is now over 14%, a 10% rise during the pandemic, and there are still five million workers on furlough. Higher Education is an important option for current students and those returning to education in the face of the crisis Covid-19 has created. As a union we should not support a view which holds that there is too much higher education in the UK.  There is a definite need for further discussion on this but the motion as it stood was not fit for purpose. It conceded too much ground to the notion that the problem is too many students, rather than the marketised fees regime.

UCU policy is for the abolition of fees and access to university for all those wishing to seek a university education. This unites us with students in a demand to challenge the market in higher education. To suggest students’ choices themselves are somehow responsible for the funding crisis in some institutions is to break the link of solidarity we should be building with student groups and student unions.

A further argument was made by supporters of the motion that these increases in student numbers are the driver of casualisation, especially in Russell Group institutions. Again, there was opposition to the notion that we can solve casualisation by cutting student numbers. In the summer of 2020, as the pandemic accelerated, Universities were only too willing to dismiss casualised staff on mass when fearing a drop in student numbers.

As a trade union it is our member’s strength and mobilisation through campaigning and industrial action that protects jobs and improves conditions. Granting employers and government uncritical control over the future of the sector by managing decline is not a solution for members. UCU must campaign for post-92 universities but it must be one which is independent of the employers’ narrative of a shrinking pool of students. As the mover of the motion’s own research recognised “the return of caps … may not necessarily be the silver bullet that we are hoping for” (https://medium.com/ussbriefs/stockpiling-students-covid-19-caps-and-growth-inequalities-in-uk-he-from-2014-5-to-2018-9-f9ab2991cc2e\0.

  1. Student Number Controls (redux)

    HEC notes that:
  2. the combination of Covid-19 and marketisation of HE has created a ‘perfect storm’ of adverse conditions
  3. some UK universities over-recruited in 2020, and expect to do the same in 2021, in effect ‘poaching’ from other universities, particularly post-92 institutions

HEC believes that:

  1. The current uncapped, ‘free-for-all’ system of student places provides undue advantages to highly ranked institutions, and rewards gaming the system
  2. Fair competition is neither possible nor desirable, and that attempts to induce an education ‘marketplace’ have done enormous harm to the sector, workers and students

HEC resolves to:

  1. request modelling of student number control mechanisms for UK HE to be reported to the next HEC for further action
  2. support a robust form of student number controls aligned with UCU’s general opposition to the marketisation of HE
  3. campaign for caps aimed at the prevention of institutional failure and departmental closure
Posted on

Report of Meeting of Higher Education Committee, 27 May 2020

Members of the UCU’s Higher Education Committee (HEC) met online for a half-day meeting to discuss the union’s position towards the two disputes, including the Four Fights offer.

HEC voted:

  1. To support the Day of Action on 1 June called by the National Education Union (NEU) focusing upon casualisation in HE.
  2. To call a Special Higher Education Sector Conference in early July (Motion 3, passed nem con) to discuss formulating campaigns and a draft sector-wide claim to address the threat of redundancies and pay cuts currently facing the sector. This could be a real opportunity to rebuild the fightback over casualisation begun in the Four Fights dispute.

The main part of the meeting attempted to deal with the Four Fights offer from UCEA. This is marginally improved over the offer before the last 14 days of strike action was called, but real questions about its implementation have been raised. There is no increase on pay. However, the wider problem is that instead of addressing casualisation, equality and workload problems, universities are actively looking to sack casualised staff, take no action on pay gaps and to intensify workloads!

The questions HEC had to address were:

  • should we accept or reject the offer,
  • should HEC put the question to members, and
  • what are the key strategic priorities for the union?

The HEC meeting took place after some short but quite extensive consultation with branches that was reported to the two Branch Delegate Meetings the day before. These branches voted with weighted votes.

In the Four Fights dispute, the meeting recorded 96 votes to Reject the UCEA offer and 55 to Accept. But a second question caused considerable debate.

This asked whether HEC, a Higher Education Sector Conference (HESC) or ‘the members’ should decide about the offer, with a clear majority voting for the latter.

This might lead one to conclude that the democratic thing to do would be to put out an offer that branches had called on HEC to Reject out to members — but with a recommendation to Reject! This certainly was the line taken by Jo Grady and the ‘IBL’ faction.

However, there were several clear problems with this interpretation.

  • Delegates complained about Q2 simply because it was not a question that they had been asked to put to branches. If they voted to Reject, they believed that was sufficient.
  • Until the morning of the Branch Delegate Meeting, officials had told reps that an HESC was out of the question.
  • The question had no option “do not accept, do not reballot now, but rebuild the dispute” — the position that a majority of branch delegates reported their branches had arrived at.
  • In the meeting, few branch delegates reported that the option of “ballot members with a recommendation to Reject” was the position arrived at by their branch meetings.

It is worth noting that Sally Hunt was heavily criticised for interpreting questions of a branch delegate meeting in order to end the USS dispute in 2018.

HEC representatives all agree that whatever mechanism was involved, members would be consulted as part of building a new fightback. But the differences between Left and Right turned on the questions of when and how.

After a debate, HEC voted on an emergency motion to call an online Higher Education Sector Conference to debate this issue. This was lost on a tied vote 20:20. However HEC had already voted to organise a Sector Conference to debate a new sector-wide claim to UCEA (Motion 3). Given that there is no agreement to rush to reballot, the sensible position would be to address these issues at that conference.

HEC then moved to vote on a recommendation from the national officials to put the offer to members. This fell 18 votes with 21 votes against. Due to lack of time remaining motions were remitted to the next HEC meeting.

Where does this leave the union?

There may be another call to have an HEC meeting. Alternatively it might be felt that the best way forward is via the Special Sector Conference supported already (see above).

We would advise branches to call online General Meetings in the next two weeks. Many are fighting their local employers in any case.

  1. We need to renew the debate in the branches about how to take the Four Fights dispute forward. This can feed into the Special Sector Conference in July, and pass motions which may be submitted to HEC in the interim.
  2. Branches can submit motions (of 150 words or less) to the HEC via an existing HEC member (UCU Left members of the HEC can be contacted to do so). Branches can also submit motions directly to the national Head of Higher Education, but these would be recorded only for information.)

Other motions were passed, including supporting a campaign over fair rents and a ban on tenant evictions, an issue that particularly affects low-paid staff and students, and to launch an organising campaign in support of casualised staff.

In the immediate, branches should start planning to organise protests on the Day of Action on June 1st, and/or support NEU protests.

 

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

Now vote No and continue the fight – #RejectUUKDeal

Branches wanted ‘Revise and Resubmit’, but HEC votes to put the UUK deal to members.

Now vote No and continue the fight. #RejectUUKDeal

Download leaflet here

HEC has voted to move to immediately ballot members on the UUK proposals. All UCU Left members voted against the proposal.

Overwhelmingly branches believe the current offer is insufficient to put out to ballot of members. More than half of branches held meetings, consulted through ballots and email consultations and mandated delegates to vote for further clarification over the employers proposals before a ballot on the proposals went to members.

Additional information and movement by UUK and the Pension Regulator reported to the meeting verbally, while welcome, as is more positive words from the employers, demonstrates that the current proposal is not the final version.

Branch after branch reported similar experiences: initial support and indication that the employers were finally listening to members, increasing scepticism as the detail was examined, and an increasing desire to engage in further talks, #ReviseAndResubmit being the common hashtag. Some branch delegates suggested the additional verbal report and a letter from UUK provided on the day suggested these clarifications were sufficient for now moving to ballot members – but very many others argued for further clarifications.

A good number of branches recorded majority votes for insisting that the union should go back to the UUK and demand a ‘no detriment’ clause in the agreement. This would mean that the employers would accept they could not make detrimental changes to USS from the point of view of members in the current valuation round.

The lack of trust in the employers is a uniform theme throughout the union. Members also identified a belief that job cuts are now becoming a focus of employers such as Liverpool and Open University, as they lose ground in the fight over pensions.

UCU Left members submitted motions to the HEC calling for negotiators to return to UUK with further demands. These included proposals for changing the valuation framework, addressing employers’ historic contribution reductions, protecting casualised staff, demanding a ‘no detriment’ clause after April 2019, and insisting that any ballot would need to be timed to come after a decision of the USS Board and the Pension Regulator. They also submitted motions on creating a clear process and on transparency in industrial decision making. The chair asserted (illogically) that all of these motions would fall if the HEC passed the report from officials.

HEC voted by a small majority to pass the HEC report to move to a ballot immediately. All UCU Left members voted against the HEC report. The chair then ruled that motions submitted by other HEC members therefore fell and were not voted on.

Carlo Morelli and Sean Wallis

Acceptance of HEC proposal – For 10: Against 8 (UCU Left): Abstentions 1

 

Posted on

Kill off DC – and fight for more

Dear colleague

It is Monday evening after Day 10 of our strike. UCU Left HEC members are quite rightly being bombarded with texts, emails and tweets calling for #NoCapitulation.

UCU has two tasks: to kill off 100% Defined Contribution (DC) and fight for more.

We have come to a crunch point in the USS dispute.

What is on the table

This offer is an improvement on 100% Defined Contribution. Therefore if the USS JNC votes to take DC off the table and replace it with a shoddy compromise, that is an important step forward.

By all means, let’s get rid of DC. UCU reps should vote with UUK in the JNC machinery to kill off the existing 100% DC imposed proposal.

So that’s step 1.

But scrapping 100% DC is not enough

First of all, just taking into account the accrual rate and contribution increase, this offer is a swingeing cut. It is at least a 19% cut in pension value. That is before you think about the effect of CPI capping and lowering the threshold.

  • It is a three-year deal at most. The employers will come back for more in three years’ time.
  • Don’t trust an “expert’s group” to solve the problem. Whoever picks the experts picks the outcome.

Our negotiators had a gun pointed at their heads. A gun of “accept this or get DC”. A compromise was born. It doesn’t necessarily mean negotiators are selling out. This compromise is what happens when you work within the projected deficit and face the threat of 100% DC.

But ordinary members are not prisoners of the negotiation process.

We have to keep up the fight

That’s step 2.

Therefore, at Tuesday’s meeting, it is essential HEC and delegates vote against suspending the action on the basis of the offer. We have to show to the entire sector and the public that the fight is not over. Our own members expect this as an absolute minimum.

We should therefore take the action we have already called and keep our strikes on this week.

We should also argue for a NO vote.

HEC can’t vote to end the dispute, but it could agree to send it out to members in an e-ballot.

At the delegate meeting, we should vote no to putting it out to members by e-ballot. But if it is put out to members by e-ballot, we have to argue for voting no in our branches.

This means challenging the deficit that generates the cut.

What is our alternative?

The most straightforward position is to demand no change from the current scheme (status quo) and call for a government guarantee to underwrite the pension scheme. This is straightforward, logical, and easy to understand.

This is also a realistic prospect, provided that we unite around this demand.

Members have been out in the snow and rain. A new union has been born. We are in a stronger position than ever before.

We have to use the last few days of strikes to assemble around the demand for #NoCapitulation #NoDeficit.

For everyone in London – come on Wednesday’s demonstration from Malet Street to Parliament Square. Assembles at 12 Noon. Rally in Westminster Central Hall.

Let’s debate where we are and what we do next!

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)