Tag: USS

Posted on

Victory to the RMT: We marched together now let’s STRIKE together

The RMT strike, the biggest for over 30 years, points to the direction of travel for the whole of the trade union movement. 40,000 rail workers struck across Britain and several thousand Tube workers did the same in London.

The TUC demonstration, which saw tens of thousands march through central London, was not only bigger than most people had expected, but reflected a real appetite to fight. It also looked different to past TUC marches. It was younger, more diverse and the dots were being joined together, connecting the cost-of-living crisis with the need to prevent war, austerity and climate change.

But the most significant reason that made this TUC march feel different, compared to many others, is that it had a focus – the RMT national strike.

Following the march, the NEU announced that they will be holding an indicative ballot of all their members. In FE UCU are balloting members in forty colleges across England after another insulting pay offer from the AoC.

Back to the 70s … I hope so.

There is now lots of talk in the media about how Britain is slipping back to the ‘bad old days’ of the 1970s. When I hear this point being made by journalists my initial response is, ‘bad old days – for whom?’. In 1970 ten million working days were lost due to strike action (in 2018 273,000 working days were lost due to labour disputes, the sixth-lowest annual total since records began in 1891). There were eleven million union members (today there are 6.5 million).

These two facts meant that the distribution of wealth was far more equal compared to today where the huge inequalities, between those with fabulous wealth and those relying on food banks, has grown to historical highs.

It was not just the earning power of workers that was significantly better but also the social wage too. With the rise of a militant trade unionism came more money spent on health and education.

So, when a lazy BBC journalist attempts to scare their viewers by warning of Britain slipping back to the ‘bad old days of 1970s’ my reaction is always, ‘I hope so’. This is not because I have a longing to get back into my high-wasters, flares, platforms, cheese cloth shirts and tank tops but because when our side fought back it dramatically altered the living conditions of all working people and put the fear of God into those who rule over us.

‘Wage rises will lead to Inflation getting out of control  – ‘ yawn yawn…

Listening to BBC Radio 4 the other day Nick Robinson was in Wakefield talking to ‘poor people’. He casually offered the opinion, after announcing a pay rise had been won locally by Bus drivers that matched inflation, that, ‘I hope this doesn’t catch on or we will have a real problem controlling inflation’.

We shouldn’t be too surprised that such a Tory lickspittle like Nick Robinson should make such an unqualified subjective point. Robinson spent much of his youth in the early-to-mid-1980s holding various offices for Conservative Party youth organisations (this was the time when Tory students were proudly wearing, ‘Hang Nelson Mandela’ badges around university campuses). But I was surprised to hear Dr Mary Boustead, the joint GS of the NEU concede, ‘It will have some impact’, in response to this same line of questioning on the Today programme, before moving on to defend her unions decision to ballot members over pay.

This is not a helpful starting point for a trade union leader to hold as they prepare to battle over pay with inflation at its highest level in over 30 years. We should not be conceding an inch to this so called ‘common sense’ argument. Instead, we should say loud and clear that wage rises do not cause inflation – adhering to profit margins does.

The old and false orthodox trope of mainstream economics which states that demands for higher wages leads to the rise in the cost of living is a familiar one.

The employers and government argue workers’ receiving higher wages for their labour inevitably means that the employer will have to put up the prices of commodities to pay for the wage increase.  This is only true if you accept the parameters of the argument that has been set by the employer. When striking for a pay rise workers are fighting for a fairer redistribution of wealth in society. As we have seen profit margins have increased throughout the pandemic and with it the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has increased. 

A strike over pay is an attempt to reverse this trend.

The employer’s attempt to blame those fighting for an increase in earnings for the rise in the cost of living is an ideological attack designed to protect their wealth and privilege. Our wage rises can come out of a redistribution of wealth.

Proud to be a Luddite

One of the ways the Tories hope to undermine public support for the rail workers is to dismiss them as Luddites. One of the issues the RMT are fighting over is the introduction of new technology, which the employers and the Tories say makes checking the rail network safer and more cost effective.

It is another ‘common sense’ argument that we are all meant to accept without challenging, that when workers try to take control of technological change, they hold back progress and are therefore ‘Luddites’.

But those denouncing workers attempts to stop employers making people redundant with new technology, fail to understand historically what the Luddites fought for.

The Luddites were a radical movement that arose at the beginning of industrialisation. From 1811 to around 1818 hand-loom weavers secretly organised to stop the closure of their smaller workshops and replace them with bigger and more mechanised machines and factories. A part of their campaign was to smash up the machines that were replacing them.

The Luddites were not against new technology. They were against the use of this technology to make them redundant.

Over 200 years on and capitalism is still developing new technology which is used to make working people’s lives poorer. The potential to liberate working people from dull, alienating and dangerous work exists. But because the ‘bottom line’ rules these liberating inventions are used to make working people poorer and to deskill human labour.

So, of course Rail workers must resist attempts to replace them with a machine. A victory for the rail workers would mean that we are a step closer to worker’s having control over their working lives and technology. This is why we should be proud to be called a Luddite.

We all can play a role in ensuring that the strikes on the rail end in a victory for rail workers. Find out where your local picket line is, take your UCU branch banner, take a picture and tweet it.

Solidarity – in unity lies strength.

Sean Vernell UCU – national negotiator.

Posted on

Defending post 16 education: taking the fight to the next level

From the pandemic to the cost-of-living crisis, war and the failure to tackle the climate crisis, the employers and government are determined to make us pay with a sustained attack on our wages, pensions and jobs.

The magnificent strikes in HE over the Four Fights and USS pensions have shown (and continue to show) the real grit and determination of UCU members to put up resistance and protect their pay and conditions.

In Further Education, 40 colleges are about to be balloted over pay and workloads as part of UCU’s Professional Respect Campaign. This follows the successful strikes by 15 colleges in the autumn term of 2021, where the vast majority succeeded in winning gains on pay and conditions, and at seven colleges in the North West, two of which have already succeeded in getting good pay deals for 2021/22.

Whilst we have not picked the terrain on which we fight, nevertheless, the terrain is favourable for further victories in both sectors if we are able to continue to mount the same resistance shown by UCU members recently.

Divisions at the top

The Tory government is wracked with acrimony and division. 41% of Tory MPs voted to support a motion of no confidence in Johnson, reflecting the loathing of him in their constituencies. After the lies of ‘Party-gate’, the booing at the Jubilee celebrations shows that his traditional support has turned against him.

Even his attempt to defend his behaviour by arguing that he got it right on the ‘big issues’ is not working. The 150,000 deaths from Covid – the highest per capita rate in Europe – and the greatest cost of living crisis in over 50 years both demonstrate that on the ‘big issues’ he got it significantly wrong.

The war inside the Tory party will continue to rage and will reveal that the ‘nasty party’ is destroying itself.

Our employers have shown that they aren’t all-powerful either. In both FE and HE they are trying to use the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis, not only to cut costs but to deepen the marketisation of post-16 education. Every time our members have taken the fight to them, they have been rattled and divisions have opened up.

In this context a well organised and determined strike movement can not only stop the attacks, but also start to put forward its own progressive educational agenda – one based on the needs of our communities instead of competition and the whims of the market.

A strike movement that seeks to level up the playing field and has at its centre the fight for equal access to post-16 education for all would quickly gain huge support amongst our students and our communities.

The first step to achieving this is to do all we can to ensure that we win the industrial action ballots in HE over Four Fights and USS and in 40 FE branches, so that we are ready to strike in the new academic year.

Solidarity at the bottom

One of the important developments within UCU over the past 18 month has been the birth and growth of the Solidarity Movement (SM). Initially set up by four HE branches facing job losses, the Solidarity Movement brings activists together to share experiences and maximise support for those in struggle. Holding regular meetings, launching twitter storms and organising twinning campaigns, the SM has made an important difference to members in dispute. It has also, at crucial times, helped to pressure the national leadership of UCU to stick to the action that members had voted for.

We need to extend and widen the networks of the Solidarity Movement in HE and in FE. With 40 colleges moving into battle, this would be an ideal opportunity for FE branches to set up their own solidarity network.

Equality at the centre

The backdrop to our strikes in the past year is one in which has seen a relentless attempt by government to divide members through launching bigoted ‘culture wars’ with relentless attacks on Trans rights, dressed up as a defence of freedom of speech, and to the attempts to reverse the gains made by the Black Lives Matter uprising in the wake of George Floyd’s murder.

But they failed to divide us. The strikes in FE and HE have revealed that more than ever Black,  LGBTQ+, women and disabled UCU members have taken up central roles at all levels within the unions. This development has been a central factor to ensuring that the demands of the strikes are ones that reflect the central concerns amongst the lowest paid in both sectors.

We need to continue to deepen this by building the widest possible movement against state racism.  We should for example encourage members to take part in the campaigns around Child Q and against Priti Patel’s racist Nationality and Borders Act. Congress this year made a firm commitment to support the rights of Trans people by passing Motion 38 – a significant moment in the fight against transphobia in our union. We need to ensure that every branch takes up a similar position.

This means at college/university level, branches must equip themselves with the facts about the reality of institutionalised discrimination at their institution. This could include facts about the proportion of casualised staff that are Black and/or women. We need to map how discrimination is applied in our workplaces so that we can use this information as part of our campaigns.

Leadership from the front

To do all the above we need leadership at every level of the union that is prepared to fight. There are many inspiring examples of our members providing this kind of leadership at a local level – from the colleagues fighting ‘fire and rehire’ tactics at Richmond Upon Thames College to the magnificent victorious strike at Liverpool University against redundancies and many more.

Unfortunately, this tenacity and sacrifice has not always been matched by the national leadership. The motion (L1) passed at Congress strongly criticising the GS’s handling of disputes should be seen as a warning.

We need an NEC/HEC/FEC that carries out the wishes of its members and a GS that champions those decisions, not one that attempts to stifle them because they don’t fit a preconceived idea of the ‘right strategy’ drawn up at the top of the union.  Their role is not to question the wisdom or otherwise of these decisions but to implement them.

This is what being a ‘member led’ union actually means.

UCU needs leadership at a national level as well as a local level which is prepared to lead from the front rather than hiding behind radical slogans which cover up caution and pessimism.

A new generation of ‘organic’ leaders exists in every branch and college. It is they who need to become the next branch/regional/national officers.

Regions

We need to pay more attention to the Regional Committees (RC).  In every region there are branches that are well-organised while others find it difficult to sustain themselves. One of the RC’s roles is to identify the well-organised branches and use their strengths to level up the whole of the region.

Regional Committees are not simply an extension of the Regional Offices. RCs are elected bodies where lay members come to together to discuss what is happening at their institutions, to share experiences of how branches are dealing with issues that arise and to decide the priorities for the region.

The RC role is to take initiatives based on Congress and Conference policies such as organising a solidarity rally for those on strike, putting on a webinar about how to combat transphobia in the workplace or organising a meeting around the Campaign Against Climate Change’s new pamphlet on climate jobs.

Well-organised Regional Committees are not a luxury but a central part of our ability to build a union that can deliver action across the country.

Conclusion

We are not alone in our battles. The announcement that 40,000 rail workers across 13 different networks will be taking their first national strike for 40 years is one sign that organised labour is beginning to resist. Like us, rail workers are fighting over pay, jobs and conditions. But at the heart of their dispute is the anarchy of the market thanks to privatisation of the rail network.

40 years of neoliberal economics has created the conditions where the sectional barriers that once might have prohibited workers uniting to defend their common interests have been significantly broken down. Workers across all sectors have common cause to unite and fight government and employer-led attacks. Solidarity must be at the core of everything we do for those in our own sectors who are fighting back and for those in other unions.

Our members have been through a lot over the last two years. But they have come out of this period better organised and more determined to protect the profession they passionately care about. Our task in the coming period is to take the platform that has been created to the next level – to develop a member-led, industrial strategy that uses every collective form of protest to build a national strike movement that unites both sectors that can defend post-16 education.

.

Posted on

Now not Never! HEC report (12/5/22)

HEC met at a crucial time in the HE disputes with a marking and assessment boycott due to start in just over a week. To avoid undermining the dispute by revealing sensitive information to the employers, we cannot divulge details of the motions discussed and the results of the voting. However, members should not expect any outcomes from HEC which decisively alter the present situation.

What is still required is that the full range of decisions passed at the SHESCs is implemented without further delay. We need strike dates to be notified to the employers for branches that intend to use their mandate for a marking and assessment boycott. Without these in place we have no defence against punitive deductions. We urgently need the circulation of detailed instructions and guidance on how to carry out a marking and assessment boycott. And we need a campaign of fundraising in branches without a mandate to support members whose pay will be docked. 

If this doesn’t happen, it will be clear that the General Secretary and the full-time officials are trying to undermine the possibility of action taking place this term, against SHESC policy. We know that the General Secretary believes that we cannot win our disputes at the present time. Having lost the argument for a lengthy pause in the action, she is now trying to achieve the same result through delay, confusion and demoralisation.

Branches that believe they can successfully implement a boycott should renew their demands on the HE officers and the officials at HQ for strike action to be notified, indicating their chosen start date. They should demand the guidance on marking and assessment boycotts that we are told is being prepared. And they should seek assistance on twinning with branches not taking action so that the raising of funds can begin.

The Left on the HEC argued that it would be disastrous for action to be called off. Taking no action this term would demoralise members and embolden the employers. We need to avoid this happening.

We also note that the incoming HEC and NEC will have a different make-up, which may mean different decisions are taken at these committees in future.

But we also need to ensure that reballots take place over the summer to enable us to hit the induction periods at the start of the autumn term. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past when the ballot timetable allowed us to take our first action only a few weeks before Christmas.

Annual Congress and Sector Conference is coming up on 1-3 June. We would encourage branches to submit late motions to HESC on implementing the results of SHESCs, further strike action, re-balloting fundraising and the fighting fund.  Motions which refer to events and decisions which took place after the deadline should be accepted as late motions. 

UCU Left will host a meeting to discuss the Congress agenda on Monday 23 May, 6-7.30pm. All delegates and non-delegates welcome. Register here: bit.ly/UCUL-CongressPreMeet.

Posted on

Our disputes are in danger

This is a hazardous moment in the Four Fights and USS disputes. There is a danger of our planned action for this term unravelling, leaving us with no plan for defending members from our employers’ attacks.

Very late on Friday we received confirmation that the marking and assessment boycott will start on 23rd May. But since delegates to the two special sector conferences voted for marking boycotts backed by strikes, the General Secretary has done everything possible to undermine the disputes.

Damaging

The delay in issuing notifications has been very damaging. Every day until the boycott begins means more and more marking is completed, reducing the leverage we can exert over our employers. The excuses for the delay continue to pile up. They told us they had to wait for the results of the USS conference before implementing the results on Four Fights, even though they separated the decisions by holding two separate conferences, against the policy of keeping the disputes coupled. Then they told us that the workload involved is too high for UCU staff. If the union is understaffed, we should employ more staff and pay them properly. 

The General Secretary now argues that the votes at the conferences were too close to mount an effective campaign, suggesting that the reasons for delay are not solely practical. But the votes were clear and decisive, especially given that the argument for action had to overcome the GS’s call for a pause in the run-up to the conferences. 

What is she suggesting? That votes on industrial strategy need a two-thirds majority? Aren’t the hurdles imposed by the anti-union laws enough?

Worries

All of this demoralises members and increases the worries in branches about whether action can be successful. No advice has been issued from HQ on how to implement a marking and assessment boycott. No steps have been taken to implement the conference decision to raise funds from members in branches without a mandate to support the branches taking action. Worse, the GS’s supporters and their allies on NEC voted not to remove the cap on payments from the Fighting Fund.

Branches with a mandate are being forced to organise these things themselves by sharing experience on marking boycotts and initiating twinning arrangements. We want member control of our disputes, but we don’t want the leadership to wash its hands of us.

We are now told that Tuesday’s meeting is not a Branch Delegate Meeting but a ‘branch briefing’. Who is briefing whom? This should be an opportunity for branches to discuss how to implement the action and what we need from the General Secretary and HQ to support it. What we don’t need is to be told that the decisions we took at the sector conferences are wrong, invalid or can’t be implemented.

Terrify

There is now an urgent need to change the narrative and the mood around these disputes. A properly supported marking and assessment boycott in 40 institutions can terrify bosses across the sector and relieve the pressure on Goldsmiths and Queen Mary, who are currently fighting isolated local battles. The threat of strikes can blunt the employers’ willingness to make punitive deductions. Wage-sharing and twinning of branches can reduce the effectiveness of main weapon against us. 

It is no coincidence that UCEA raised their offer for 2022-23 to 3% on Thursday. It is still nowhere near enough, but it indicates that they want to sweeten the deal just enough to deter further disruption in the sector. And the rise in interest rates means, even on the corrupt valuation, that the USS scheme has moved back into surplus. This is not time to pull back from the fight.

Demonstrations

UCU should call regional and national demonstrations to unite branches with and without mandates. The TUC demonstration against the cost of living crisis on 18 June will be an important moment. Our ability to beat the anti-union thresholds and fight back can give a lead to others in the movement, desperate to take on their own bosses and Johnson’s corrupt government. 

Jo Grady was elected after the #NoCapitulation moment as an expression of members’ willingness to fight and their desire for democratic control of disputes. Members will not forgive a General Secretary who ignores their decisions and abandons the fight.

BDM Pre-meet 6 pm 9 May
https://bit.ly/BDMPre-Meet

Posted on

USS HESC results: Start the action now!

The results of the votes at last week’s USS Special HE Sector Conference are now out. They are largely in line with the results of the Four Fights HESC from the week before.

Delegates again rejected the strategy of delay put forward by the General Secretary by voting for motions calling for an immediate marking boycott backed up by strike action. They also overwhelmingly reaffirmed the commitment that the USS dispute should continue to be fought in conjunction with the Four Fights.

The majority of delegates clearly felt that suspending the disputes for 12 months was not a viable option given the scale of the attacks to the pension scheme. Those attacks, along with those on the pay and working conditions of HE staff in general, would be intensified if the union decided to take a time-out.

Urgent

It is now urgent that the notifications for action are sent to employers. They have been delayed too long already. The latest pretext was that it was necessary to wait for the results of the USS HESC votes before issuing the Four Fights notifications. This has pushed back the marking and assessment boycott by over a week, presumably in the hope of the leadership that some of the USS votes would contradict the Four Fights votes and create enough confusion to justify calling off the action. In fact, the only significant divergence between the two conferences was on the question of whether future ballots should be aggregated.

These delays are unforgivable. The ballot mandates achieved by branches in November ran out today. Every day that goes by without our being able to take action emboldens our employers and weakens our ability to disrupt marking and the awarding of degrees. 

Coherent plan

We now need a coherent plan to implement the strongest possible marking and assessment boycott and defend it with strike action as necessary. This will require serious planning at branch level and coordination between branches with a mandate and those without. We need to learn the lessons of the Liverpool dispute and replicate them in the 40 branches with a mandate. 

We cannot rely on the national leadership at Carlow Street to do what is necessary. They have already excluded branches without a mandate from Tuesday’s delegate meeting despite both HESCs emphasising the importance of concrete support from members not involved in action. Much of this coordination will need be initiated by branches themselves.

Tonight’s UCU Solidarity Meeting will be a crucial forum for doing this. Every HE branch should try to ensure that it is represented there by as many members as possible. The Solidarity Movement has a track record of providing exactly what we need at this moment in the disputes: a platform for the sharing of ideas and delivering solidarity between branches.

Members should also attend the pre-BDM meeting organised by UCU Left on Monday at 6pm. Some preparation by delegates can help us resist Tuesday’s meeting being manipulated from the top in the ways that previous BDMs have been.

Building the Marking Boycott 
6pm Thursday 5th May 
Link to register: https://bit.ly/3rYl1ig
Facebook page: https://fb.me/e/2Elx1obWT

BDM Pre-meet 6 pm 9 May
https://bit.ly/BDMPre-Meet

Posted on

How do we build the Marking Boycott?

UCU members urgently need to discuss how to implement the marking and assessment boycott called by the union. The General Secretary wrote to reps in Four Fights branches with a mandate saying that the action would be called, and press releases have gone out from UCU. In this article we summarise the lessons of previous marking boycotts and set out a strategy for this phase of the action.

This is the first time that members have been called to boycott marking in a UK-wide dispute since 2006. There is huge political support for the action, with branches recording over 80% votes in favour, and only slightly lower figures for strike action. This is despite employers threatening 100% pay deductions for participants.

But we need to urgently work out, and coalesce behind, a clear action plan.

The first step must be for UCU to formally notify employers of the boycott. Under the anti-union laws, calls for strike action and ASOS must be pre-notified 14 days’ ahead of the start of the action. With marking already begun in many institutions there is no justification for any delay.

The second step is to call meetings in every branch with a live mandate to talk through what this means in practice.

The lessons of previous boycotts

One of the lessons of the 2006 dispute is that a small minority of members can completely disrupt marking, provided that they are supported. But since 2006 the employers have sought to construct ways to ‘mitigate the impact’. These range from draconian threats of disproportionate pay deductions to attempting to force marking processes quickly, dropping second marking requirements, and paying postgraduates to mark work set by other staff. However, these measures come up against the reality of the market system in Higher Education that they themselves have encouraged. Prompt organising can pay dividends.

Successful marking boycotts have now been held at a number of universities since 2006, including SOAS, Liverpool, the Royal College of Art (RCA) and Goldsmiths. Liverpool is probably the most directly comparable to the situation most branches are in. But the other disputes show that casually-employed staff can fight back effectively with the marking boycott.

Last year, Liverpool University tried to play hard-ball with 100% pay deductions. A high level of branch organising held the line. And then Liverpool students rebelled after the employer issued made-up marks, prevented students graduating, etc.

Liverpool members keep repeating one point however: their marking boycott did not succeed by the use of ASOS alone. It worked because the branch backed it up with, and eventually switched to, strike action. A similar strategy was used at the RCA.

Addressing pay deduction threats

This is probably the issue on most members’ minds right now, and quite rightly.

Firstly, we need to organise to ensure that members taking the action are supported financially by the entire union, and know they are being supported. UCU needs to launch twinning arrangements between university branches with a mandate and those without, invite speakers to general meetings and launch local fundraising drives. We all have a stake in winning this fight.

Secondly, UCU has called strike action. The principal purpose of these strikes (see below) should be to back up the marking boycott, by offering to stand down the action if the employer does not threaten high pay deductions. (NB. Legally, notice must be issued in advance due to the 14-day rule, but strikes can be stood down without notice.) In recent disputes, employers have made pay threats ranging from 40% in Leicester to 100% in Liverpool. What is considered ‘disproportionate’ is in the hands of the branch.

Thirdly, employers must be put on notice that if they escalate high pay docking threats it will have a big political effect in terms of the reputation of the university, and to when students can expect to receive their marks.

We should call staff-student assemblies in every university to talk through the action, why we are taking it and why we call on the university to mitigate the impact. The employers want to scrap pensions, undermine pay levels and increase workload and inequality. They want to create teaching factories, while at the same time reaping the benefits of high fees and lifetime student loans. This is an attack on current and future students.

Finally, the branch needs to organise! Nothing in the above can be done without regular members’ meetings. Liverpool UCU called daily online strike meetings at 9am where members could meet online to discuss the action.

Importantly, it is essential that meetings involve members taking part in the action and members who are not. Boycotting members must not be left to fend for themselves! This is a fight for everyone.

What about other mitigations employers might make?

The employers will be looking to other types of mitigation, from demanding marks are submitted early, reducing oversight and removing second marking requirements, and offering marking work to postgrads and other staff.

  • Preventing the speeding up of marking. Employers are not free to change marking timetables to rush marking through. A combination of the student-market ‘customer’ regime, and Covid and strike mitigation measures mean that students themselves are entitled to request extensions to delay submission. Last year saw record requests for ‘extenuating circumstances’ extensions. Any attempt to speed up submission or marking should be denounced publicly. Course leaders and heads of department should object in defence of their students! And of course we must insist that workload agreements are upheld where they exist, and that individuals’ workloads are not altered to undermine the boycott.
  • Defending second marking and other processes. Marking is rarely done once by staff working alone. Second marking, marking consolidation meetings, etc. are all points of pressure covered by the marking and assessment boycott. Specific instruction on ASOS and the processing of marks is likely to come from UCU, but in the past the ASOS has been interpreted to include not just the marking itself but all aspects of the assessment process. Again, this is a clear issue of quality assurance and control.
  • Recruiting postgraduate students and other staff. Anyone who is approached to mark must be encouraged to join UCU – and asked not to mark! Anyone performing work for the university is eligible to join UCU, and the low paid can join for free. Both existing marking and any ‘additional marking’ are covered by the marking boycott, whether this is paid by the hour or as part of contract. Casually-employed staff in SOAS and Goldsmiths have both won disputes by boycotting marking, and branches can be approached for speakers.

The basic legal position for external examiners is that they are not covered by the ballot (because they were not balloted in this employer), but are free to choose to resign out of solidarity.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the Liverpool dispute showed the power that members have over marking.

The quality of a degree is dependent on ensuring that staff expert in the subject teach and mark. The more specialised the question, the more difficult it is to find an alternative marker. Questions and answers are neither routine nor generic. Mark too low, and the university gets student complaints. Too high, and you discredit the degree and the university.

How can strikes back the boycott?

The UCU GS email announcing the action also said that a Branch Delegate Meeting would be called on May 10, with action called from May 12. It then asked branches to meet to decide what strike action they would like to call.  However, this risks sowing confusion, and does not reflect the motions passed at the Four Fights Sector Conference.

There are, in broad terms, three possible types of strike action that might be called alongside a marking boycott. These are:

  1. Strike action called to provide an alternative course of action from ASOS should the ASOS attract disproportionate pay deductions. This is what Motion 6, which was passed, explicitly called for. In Liverpool the employer threatened 100% pay deductions (a ‘lock out’) so the branch called strikes for the whole branch, replacing ASOS with strikes. That way the members taking the action were not left on their own, and the marking boycott continued to be effective. The employer was punished politically and industrially by its hardline approach bringing the whole union out on strike in solidarity.
  2. Strike action to be called on targeted days to be determined locally. Targeted strikes can be useful, but require some discussion. Targeting exam boards for example, might be possible, although of course the employer may circumvent this by delay. Where branches have had most of their marking already done, this type of action may be necessary. The earliest date offered of 6 June may well be far too late for some branches: they need to push hard for earlier dates.
  3. Strike action on UK-wide- or nationally/regionally-coordinated days. Motion 7 calls for occasional coordinated dates to boost the campaign over casualisation and workload, and the same principle would apply for the pay equality fight.

Note there are significant practical and policy limitations over the types of local settlement that UCU is in a position to reach (see below), and the motions that have been passed allowing for action to be stood down based on employer conduct should be understood as backing up ASOS, rather than opening the door to a local settlement of the dispute.

How can the whole union support branches with a mandate?

Employers settle disputes when the cost of continuing is greater than the cost of settlement. The fact that up until now the employers have set their public faces against reaching agreement over the Four Fights – or indeed over the USS pension – is because it suits them to do so. This does not mean that they will hold this position forever.

The action that is being taken forward now will be hard-hitting if we can implement and hold it. The employers fear ‘forty Liverpools’: branches that have learned their power.

But it also means that the whole union must urgently rally round, by fundraising and solidarity.

Not everyone in a branch with a mandate will be able to take part in the marking boycott. Some will have late deadlines or marks will have been submitted. Academic-related and professional services staff may be only tangentially involved and research staff do not (should not) have marking duties in their contract.

All members not taking part in the boycott should be called on to donate to members taking the action. In particular, members in branches without a mandate must be asked to donate a credible amount. If a substantial number pledge, say, one day’s pay a week for the duration of the boycott, then that would amount to two weeks’ pay over the course of ten weeks. A few members can contribute more; many will afford less. But this is a reasonable benchmark.

Alongside fundraising, members can take part in demonstrative action short of industrial action, including demonstrations and protests.

Finally, precisely because we are engaged in UK-wide disputes, all branches will need to ballot again in order to take action together at the start of the next academic year.

Reballoting over the summer

After giving money, the greatest solidarity members can give those in the front line is to pledge to join them as soon as possible. So alongside fundraising and participating in demonstrations and protests alongside members taking action, branches should start planning to reballot over the summer if the employers have not settled.

Motion 15 from the HE Sector Conference called for strikes in induction week in the 2022-23 academic year. Induction weeks vary from institution to institution (from 12 to 26 September at least, and possibly later). Newly-successful branches have mandates that run until early October. To ensure that as many branches as possible are successful, the best bet is to have a long ballot. Disaggregated ballots (ballots counted on a per-employer basis) can have different end dates, to make the most of when staff are expected to return from leave.

What about an aggregated ballot? Recently some reps and branches have been calling for a return to aggregated ballots, arguing that we need to bring the whole union out on strike. Perhaps the longer period over the summer justifies a return to aggregation?

There has been some debate in the union over aggregated ballots, with the General Secretary pitching in with her opinion. Aggregated ballots are simpler to run, for one thing. And if successful they mean that members in weaker branches can strike.

The method of balloting is not a question of principle for the left, but tactics.

Aggregated ballots have disadvantages. The first concerns legal challenges. Although UCU has been careful not to draw attention to this publicly, in an aggregated ballot one employer can file an injunction and stop the whole union’s action.

The second disadvantage is that the ballots are all-or-nothing. If UCU were winning an average turnout of 55% or higher in disaggregated ballots, we could likely afford to take the risk of calling a UK-aggregated ballot. But this is not where we are.

Finally, there is the question of organising. The irony of the Tory anti-union threshold is that unions like UCU that have switched to disaggregated ballots have shown that you can organise to get the vote out and recruit reps in the process. This then makes switching from ‘get the vote out’ to ‘get the members out’ more straightforward.

The Tory anti-union law has galvanised unions and branches who got this right. Between 2018 and 2019 A lot of branches, including the biggest, boosted turnout from around 40% to above 50%. In 2020, both the Royal College of Art and University of the Arts London UCU branches smashed through the threshold by organising. Cardiff UCU shows you should never give up, successfully getting through the threshold this time by a renewed organising focus.

The issue at the present time also concerns the message that we send to the employers. If we say we are going for an aggregate ballot, in effect we are saying we are prepared to risk not getting over the threshold, and stopping our action. With colleagues preparing for a marking boycott we think this is the wrong message to send!

The current phase of action requires us all to up our game. We need an even higher intensity of organising, not just to get the members out, but to hold the action. We must ensure that the employers blink first.

Local settlements

As the pressure starts to bite, employers may start seeking local settlements. We need to be clear that all branches are in UK-wide disputes, and so a local settlement is not a way out for an employer. If in doubt, talk to union officials and the national negotiators!

But there are goodwill actions that an employer might make. In 2019-20 some branches were effective at using the UK-wide action to put political pressure on their university managements to negotiate over casualisation and workload (UCL and many others) and equality (notably Bristol). Of course, the first act of goodwill we ask employers to make is to not make threats of high pay deductions for ASOS.

UCU is committed to UK-wide pay bargaining, and it is not possible for the union to reach local deals over pay in return for standing down action. Where there is an offer to stand down strikes, it would not be to end the action or dispute, and ASOS would continue.

The same applies to USS negotiations. There are practical useful demands around seeking that employers break ranks within UUK to force a vote on paying in Deficit Recovery Contributions into pensions and partially reversing the 1 April pension cuts that would be helpful. But even the most supportive local statement would not enable branches to reach an agreement – the changes have to go through the USS JNC!

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 Left – pre USS HESC meeting

6pm Monday 25 April
Registration link: https://tinyurl.com/ucul-usshesc

Ahead of UCU’s Special Higher Education Sector Conference on the USS dispute, UCU Left is organising an open meeting for reps and delegates to discuss the prospects for the dispute.

What can be won in the next six months?

We now know the projected deficit has disappeared. USS has admitted that “Deficit Recovery Contributions” (DRCs) – 20% of all the money paid in to USS – is unnecessary. But the employers are refusing to agree to put it into pensions.

A quick win on DRCs should be possible. Paying that money into our pensions could more than halve the impact of the 1 April cuts. This would not end the dispute, but it is clearly winnable. Their resistance also exposes the hypocrisy of our employers.

What kind of action do we need?

Liverpool UCU beat their employer with a combination of marking boycott and strike action. How do we use our mandate effectively? What kind of organisation will we need to sustain the action?

Can we recouple the disputes and increase the pressure on the employers?

Come to this meeting and discuss the way forward.

Posted on

Seize the Time, Don’t Abandon the Fight

We all know we are in the fight of our lives.

But the General Secretary’s ‘new plan of action for the four fights dispute’ is a radical-sounding document that abandons the Four Fights dispute until a year’s time, and pulls back from defending the USS pension scheme at the very moment the employers are cutting it back.

It is unsurprising that union reps are speaking out spontaneously against this plan.

We are told that continuing action at this point would be ‘conservative’, whereas the ‘radical and militant’ response to the greatest attack on our standard of living for 30 years is to… halt the fight for a year! Inflation is hitting 9 percent, but our union’s leadership is telling its members – with a live dispute and mandate – to put up with it, and fight another time!

Reading this document, you wouldn’t have thought that the union had just recorded overwhelming majorities for strike action and ASOS. Reps are lectured on ‘democracy’ after winning votes!

We are told that this is the way we can increase union density, but this flies in the face of our own union’s history. In 2018, pre-92 HE branches grew by 50% in a couple of months as they readied for strikes. That happened because members want to know the union will defend them, individually and collectively. On the other hand, shutting down the national fight against casualisation sends precisely the wrong signal to members on casual contracts.

The General Secretary is counterposing union recruitment to industrial action. Her theory of the ‘supermajority‘ says that the reason why strikes win is because union density is high. But this is not correct. UCU was a third smaller in the pre-92 USS ballot in 2018 than in 2021. And some branches with high membership density – like Goldsmiths – are under remorseless attack.

In fact, industrial action is won by workers when employers recognise that refusing to concede to union demands will be more costly than any perceived benefits. That cost can be economic (e.g. damaging reputations and recruitment, etc), but it can also be political (causing a political crisis for the employers, as in 2018). 

For everyone who has stood on the picket lines in the wind and rain, and spent weeks fighting to get the vote out, the General Secretary’s pre-prepared ruminations will be a massive disappointment.  On the other hand, members who voted for action but failed to take it themselves will read it as a signal that the union is not serious. 

Democracy

Jo Grady was elected after her predecessor, Sally Hunt, sought to abandon the USS fight. She was elected as an expression of UCU members’ will to resist. However her response to the present attacks on UCU members looks little different to Sally Hunt’s.

The latest round of ballots saw members once again vote overwhelmingly for action. Had this ballot taken place before the Tory Anti-Union Law of 2016 was introduced, we would be all able to take strike action. Branches have asked their members whether they support strikes and ASOS. And they have voted Yes!

Even if you are in a union branch that failed to get over the Tory threshold and cannot take action, with very rare exceptions, in branch after branch members have overwhelmingly voted for action. That’s democracy. 

It is wrong to interpret non-votes as no votes. Firstly, it is anti-democractic in principle. This is why quorums for general meetings are low, to ensure that members turn up and participate in debates and vote for and against motions.

Secondly, it is not consistent with the evidence. Members do not vote for a variety of reasons, as anyone who has engaged with a Get the Vote Out (GTVO) campaign can report, from lost papers to house moves and pre-arranged leave. This explains why branches with well-organised GTVO campaigns chasing and nudging members to vote have been repeatedly able to get high turnouts. It is also why Yes vote percentages tend to be remarkably stable even when turnout fluctuates. 

The three-week ballot insisted upon by UCU HQ, at the end of the second term and into the Easter break, left many branches close below the 50 percent threshold. Another week would have brought more branches over the line, and two more weeks, as voted for by HEC, could have changed the picture enormously. 

Some members complained that replacement ballot papers arrived at home on the final Friday, and rep reports show members saying they were voting right up until the end. The ballot deadline combined with the postal voting process cut voters short.

A plan to win

The General Secretary is now trying to lobby union reps and activists over their heads, to persuade branches to stand down the action that members have just voted for. Yet a calibrated plan and a mobilisation of the whole union could win these disputes. 

At the current time, some 40 branches can still take action on exams in Term 3. Everyone knows this action will need the whole union to rally around.

  • A marking boycott organised on a ‘Liverpool basis’ requires a positive outward campaign across the membership to sponsor strikers, fundraise on a massive scale, and ensure that every participant knows the whole union is behind them, practically and financially.
  • Members in non-striking branches would be more than willing to contribute to sponsor colleagues. These branches need to organise too. The USS rank-and-file legal challenge shows the scale of fundraising we need.
  • And a ballot over the summer in the context of a hard-hitting fightback makes sense. It could see us all ready to take on the employers right at the start of the autumn term.

The General Secretary says this is a war. But you don’t win wars by telling the enemy you are too weak to fight, and would they mind if we came back in a year?! The attacks on Goldsmiths colleagues, and the employers’ general intransigence show that they are likely to see such a declaration as a sign of weakness.

We are now told that despite previous attempts to de-couple the USS dispute from Four Fights that it’s OK to keep them coordinated – as long as we fight in a year’s time! But this makes no sense. Why would giving the employers free rein for a year make them more likely to reverse the changes? With the next valuation in 2023, backing off now looks like an invitation to the employers to push for 100% Defined Contribution!

Even USS Limited admit there is no need for ‘Deficit Recovery Contributions’, and that these could be spent on members’ pensions. This represents an open goal – if we fight.

Debating the way forward 

Members deserve a serious strategy. Instead we are told is to ‘keep our powder dry’ while the university employers drive through attacks on staff and students alike. Demobilisation is a recipe for defeat and demoralisation, not union-building.

We cannot allow the work by UCU reps and members to be wasted. We need to stand up for union democracy and stand by the ballot.

Two meetings have been called to debate the way forward:

In our strikes and ballots, members learned to trust each other, not the official union machine.

We are the union, and we need to fight for the future of our sector.

Posted on

USS results update: Keep up the fight

University of Liverpool UCU demonstration 1 April

The USS results followed the pattern of the Four Fights votes. Twenty-four branches secured a mandate for action. This is obviously considerably fewer than in the last round, but that’s not the whole story.

The votes for action were strong. Not a single branch voted against action, and the overall percentages for action actually increased. Like the Four Fights, where the overall majority for strike action rose from 70% in November to 74%, the USS vote for strike action was nearly 80%, up from 77%. 

We need to be clear that it is the obstacles put in place by the Trade Union Act 2016 – the 50% threshold plus the requirement to renew mandates after six months – that have caused this situation, not any weakening of the willingness of UCU members to fight these disputes. Even with fewer branches over the line, 45% of the union’s USS membership has a mandate for action next term.

Given the challenges of the anti-union laws, the decision by Head Office not to implement HEC’s decision for a five-week ballot window was a huge mistake. An extra week would have made a big difference, especially as the revelation that the alleged deficit in the scheme had magically shrunk from £14bn to £2bn emerged well into the ballot period.

We can still win these disputes. The branches with a mandate need to take hard-hitting industrial action next term while being backed by a serious strategy of financial support from the remaining branches. Hitting a minority of institutions can work to our advantage by causing splits among the employers as some complain they are being targeted while their competitors are let off the hook.

A reballot over a long ballot window during the summer can replenish our forces in time for action in induction weeks in the majority of institutions. 

The forthcoming SHESCs will be crucial for asserting member control over the disputes, organising the twinning of branches, planning the reballot and setting a strategy that can win.

Come to the pre-SHESC meeting called by UCU Left.

What next for the USS and Four Fights disputes?
Pre-SHESC organising meeting
Tuesday 19th April, 6pm
Zoom registration: https://bit.ly/PreSHESC
All those who want to continue the fights welcome