Tag: HESC

Posted on

UCU Left recommendations on USS SHESC voting

Motion Recommendation
1 SWG report and recommendations HEC Remit, because the last bullet point is potentially unconstitutional and could be used to silence negotiators
Oppose if not remitted*
2 Call for indefinite strike action Sheffield Against, in favour of later motions
3 Indefinite action USS HEC For
4 Escalate to indefinite action with local consultation Manchester For
5 ASOS and strike action (composite) Dundee / Ulster / Liverpool For
6 Industrial Action Plan University College London For
7 Action to win Glasgow For
8 USS – Escalating industrial action Nottingham Against, only ‘moving towards’ boycott
9 Assessment boycott as a core part of our UK-wide strategy Newcastle For, although no specific resolves
10 Escalation of USS Dispute ACC Against, no resolves and could be used by GS to undermine action
11 UCU HEC invitation to UUK to ACAS collective conciliation Bristol Against, because it would likely create a delay and the demand is unrealistic**
12 Next steps in the disputes Newcastle For
13 Planning now for action next academic year Cambridge Against, due to the mistaken call for an aggregated ballot
14 Co-ordinating effective UK-wide action Liverpool For
15 Striking out of teaching term Leeds Against
16 Maximum effective action Edinburgh For
17 Compiling regional calendars to assist timing of industrial action Heriot-Watt For, if amended
Otherwise oppose (risk of delay)
17A.1 Dundee For
18 Call for a return to aggregated strike ballots Southampton Against (aggregated ballot)
19 No decoupling of Four Fights and USS Dundee For
20 UCU HE members to decide future HE strike action Bristol Against
21 Branch Delegates Meetings Edinburgh For
22 Pay deductions for striking members with external funding ACC For
23 Negotiations before valuation Glasgow Against, because it weakens the negotiator’s position and there are better prospects in campaigning over DRCs
Consequentials: rules out 26 resolves “a” (no detriment) which has been remitted

Notes

*Motion 1. The Remit and Standing Orders for the SWG are intended to go via the NEC processes. Any changes in normal expectations must be made via standard Congress rule change process (2/3 majority etc), and corresponding implementation. While “Terms of Reference” may sound innocuous and indeed are proposed in good faith, they cannot be put in place for one committee in a manner that is distinct from that for all other. This poses risks in interpretation, implementation and consistency of process. As there is no option to take the motion in parts, were remission to fall, the SWG report should be voted down.

Existing policy would still continue to apply should the report be not passed.

**Motion 11. “Notes 4” is incorrect. The ACAS resolution of reduction in benefits similar to the current one was rejected by members; the JEP proposal came out of discussion between the previous GS and employers, and there was no second JEP proposal.

Posted on

UCU must call the marking boycott now – there is no time to waste!

In the ballot for industrial action, union members in their tens of thousands voted overwhelmingly for strike action and ASOS (including a marking boycott). When members were asked, “should we fight on?”, they voted YES.

Now, in an historic vote, elected branch delegates at the first Special Higher Education Sector Conference (on the Four Fights dispute) have voted for an immediate marking boycott backed up by strike action.

No more delays

These decisions must be acted on immediately. With marking begun in some universities, and 14 days notification to the employers required under the anti-union laws, there is no time to waste.

Every day lost risks weakening the marking boycott.

But the General Secretary’s email to members says that there will be a meeting on 10 May and an HEC on 12 May to decide “next steps”.

This is not what delegates voted for.

  • Motion 5 calls on HEC to “initiate a marking and assessment boycott at the earliest opportunity in all branches with a mandate.”
  • Motion 6 demands that UCU “call a boycott of all summative marking from the start of summer term.”
  • Motion 23, the only motion that resolved to consult branches, asked UCU to consult branches about dates to avoid for strike action.

Motions expressing the General Secretary’s proposals to postpone action were defeated. But her latest email seems to be yet another intervention to delay action to a point where it could be ineffective.

She has to stop blocking the democratic decisions of members.

We just voted. We don’t need to be consulted again!

UCU needs to call the marking boycott now – not after 12 May.

What needs to happen urgently is for HEC officers to meet and decide to send out notification to employers. There is no need for a full HEC meeting.

It was expected that this would happen after Friday’s HEC meeting. But that has been called off. HEC members have already written to the General Secretary asking why this has happened.

Consult over strikes, not the boycott

It is a good plan to hold a Branch Delegate Meeting on 10 May. But that is not a reason to delay calling the marking boycott. Indeed Motion 6 specifically called for weekly BDMs with voting powers to be held to monitor progress, after the marking boycott was called.

Branches did not vote for more consultation and delay over the marking boycott.

What you can do

Members and branches should write to  the General Secretary and HEC officers calling for the marking boycott to be formally notified immediately, and to reinstate Friday’s HEC meeting.  

The USS Special HESC

On Wednesday, delegates meet at the second Special Higher Education Sector Conference, on the USS pension dispute, to discuss the next steps in that campaign. All delegates have the right to expect that when they vote for motions, decisions will be enacted as soon as possible – especially when time is critical.

Several motions tabled at the Four Fights HESC re-appear on the order paper. We would encourage colleagues to be disciplined and ensure that at least the same action is called on the USS dispute heading as over Four Fights! It is also important that we work together to get through all of the business and debate the USS-specific motions at the end of the agenda.

Build the Solidarity!

We are now entering a new phase in the fight over Four Fights and USS.

Forty branches have a mandate for action. Others do not, but have recorded resounding YES votes.

We need to put the question of solidarity for all branches and members taking action at the forefront of everything we do. We need to build UCU Region networks and meetings, twinning branches and raising money. And the super-regional UCU Solidarity Movement, which is backed by UCU, can be a place where members can meet and discuss the next steps in the dispute.

The next Solidarity Movement meeting is on Wednesday evening at 6pm. We would encourage all members and supporters to attend!

Details below.

UCU Solidarity Movement open organising meeting

⏰Wednesday 27 April 6pm

👉🏽 Direct link to Zoom: https://bit.ly/6pmWed

Posted on

Democracy Now! How can members control our disputes?

The issue of union democracy has again become important in the context of UCU’s higher education disputes.

Many members are wondering how the Higher Education Committee (HEC) could blatantly ignore the views expressed at the previous Branch Delegate Meeting (BDM) when they took decisions about our forthcoming industrial action.

No delegate argued for decoupling the two disputes, and no delegate made the case for rolling regional one-day strikes. And yet that is what HEC voted for.

Fury at this democratic deficit has led to branches passing motions for an emergency Special HE Sector Conference and to a demand for a further Branch Delegate Meeting, with voting powers, before the next HEC meeting.

Democracy is the life-blood

Democracy is central to fighting industrial disputes effectively. This is because unlike an army, those making sacrifices to fight cannot simply be ordered around. Union members need to feel that we have a stake in the battle and a say in how it is conducted. If members believe that the strategy will be ineffective, or that their leaders will settle for less than they should, support for the dispute will quickly erode.

Democratic involvement is not an optional extra. It is essential to being able to win.

The last time a row about democracy exploded in UCU was in the USS dispute in 2018. The famous #NoCapitulation revolt by members stopped the the then General Secretary signing a shoddy deal. To avoid motions critical of the GS being debated at Congress later that year, the leadership unplugged the microphones and turned out the lights. Congress ended early, but not before it had set up a Democracy Commission comprising elected union members to propose ways to enhance democracy in the union.

Dispute committees

One of the proposals drawn up by the Democracy Commission was for dispute committees to be set up in every dispute, composed of delegates from each of the branches involved. The dispute committee would debate the strategy and tactics of the dispute and no decision about the conduct of the dispute could be taken without its approval. Dispute committees would ensure that control of disputes was in the hands of the members fighting them and prevent settlements that the majority of branches opposed.

Unfortunately, at the Democracy Congress in December 2019, this proposal narrowly failed to gain the two-thirds majority required to bring it in. Opponents argued that it undermined the authority of the HEC and the Further Education Committee (FEC) — which was precisely the point — and that holding such meetings would be impractical and expensive. The pandemic has taught us otherwise.

Nevertheless, it is already constitutionally the case that the National Executive Committee’s (NEC) role is to enact the policy set by members, not to determine it. What mechanisms do we have to ensure that it, and its two subcommittees, HEC and FEC, behave democratically? Continue reading “Democracy Now! How can members control our disputes?”

Posted on

Unity is strength – combine the fight over pensions and pay

Friday’s 1000-strong mass online meeting was an important moment in our union’s USS and Four Fights campaigns. At last, Jo Grady has realised that the technique pioneered by the NEU of using the technology to bring together large numbers of activists can galvanise industrial campaigns.

But it was clear from the meeting that the preference of the General Secretary and the new Head of Bargaining and Organisation, Jon Hegarty, is for the dispute over USS to take precedence while the campaign over pay, casualisation, equality and workload (Four Fights) takes a subordinate position or is deferred.

Jo Grady is right to argue that industrial action is again necessary to defend pensions and that if we can generate the equivalent level of impact to the 14 days of strike in 2018, the fight can be won.

Difference

But though concerted industrial action is also necessary to tackle falling pay and to get meaningful agreements on casualisation, equality and workloads, Grady and Hegarty claimed there was a crucial difference between the two disputes.

They said that while the USS dispute is urgent and is being forced on the union by the acute threat to the pension scheme, the fight for better pay is a longer-term struggle, one whose timing and shape is determined by the union, rather than by the employers. There should be no ‘knee-jerk’ move to an early ballot, they argued.

Instead, we were told to build up the strength of our side by aiming to recruit ‘hundreds of thousands’ of new members, build ‘supermajorities’ and ‘structure-test’ our organisation. The clear implication was that only afterthis process should we consider moving towards industrial action in the Four Fights. 

Bogus

But this distinction between the two disputes is bogus. The attacks on USS have been a long time coming and are part of a general desire by the employers to drive down staffing costs – both pay and pensions – as a result of the marketisation of higher education. And as staff on lower grades, casualised contracts, especially our women and black members will testify, the issue of pay is just as urgent as the attack on pensions. Deferring the Four Fights into the future will simply encourage the employers to freeze pay again as they did last year.

The truth is that pay and pensions are two sides of the same coin and it makes no sense to separate them.

Unity

Just as important is the tactical question of how we achieve maximum unity on our side. A decision to fight only over USS sends a clear message to members in post-92 institutions that the UCU is primarily a union for the old universities. But even within the pre-92 branches, it is our younger members on insecure contracts and low grades that staff the picket lines and provide the dynamism that a successful industrial battle needs. Why would these members be inspired to make sacrifices for a fight in which they have little stake, while the issues that matter to them are deferred to another day?

This is a recipe losing members rather than recruiting them.

At Friday’s meeting, the Chester university and Novus prison educators branches were cited as examples of rapid recruitment and increased density which we should follow. Of course it is important to build our membership and organisation before we enter a fight. But Chester and Novus have recruited as a result ofwaging a determined struggle which demonstrated the point of being in a trade union. If they had waited until they had certain density or a ‘supermajority’ before they took action, the jobs would have been lost and membership would have stagnated.

Special HESC

Thursday’s Special Sector Conference needs to pass those motions which clearly mandate the union to organise an immediate and coordinated battle over pensions, pay, casualisation, equality, and workloads. Head office must implement those motions whether the General Secretary agrees with them or not. There is now some urgency. If we are going to get the action we need this term, the circulation of campaign materials to every branch along with help from regional offices in drawing up GTVO plans for the ballots must start now.

Come to the UCU Left pre-HESC meeting to discuss the motions and prepare for Thursday.

Register here for the meeting.

Mark Abel, University of Brighton and NEC

Posted on

HESC Calling Motion

Motion to call a Higher Education Sector Conference to debate UCU’s HE industrial strategy

Under Rule 16.11, branches from 20 Higher Education institutions must pass this motion to require UCU to convene a HESC. Please use the wording below, especially the wording highlighted. Send all motions passed to UCU HQ c/o Paul Bridge, Head of HE, pbridge@ucu.org.uk.

Motion

This UCU Branch notes

  • the end of the HE pay round 2016 with a 1.1% pay offer and proposals that branches negotiate locally to reduce casualisation and the gender pay gap;
  • the passing into law of the Trade Union Act 2016, imposing a 50% turnout on trades disputes, making national industrial action much more difficult unless we can mobilize members to vote;
  • the developing context of an HE and Research Bill and tuition fee market intended to set universities against each other, that is likely to lead to employers holding down wages to expand, and imposing job losses and casualisation;
  • the fact that in addition to pay scales, pensions are nationally determined and cannot be defended branch-by-branch.

This UCU Branch believes that UCU urgently needs a new industrial action strategy, one which combines the building of local organization and nationally coordinated local disputes with a revised and renewed commitment to the preservation of national bargaining.

This UCU Branch therefore resolves to call a Special Higher Education Sector Conference under Rule 16.11 to debate UCU’s industrial strategy in Higher Education.

It encourages other branches to adopt a similar resolution with this call for a Special HE Sector Conference.