The Higher Education ballot results are out.
Despite hard and consistent work by reps and activists in branches, and a campaign from HQ, unfortunately we failed to get over the 50% threshold.
The right in the union are already arguing that it was a mistake to ballot members. Their constant refrain is that it’s the wrong time to ballot, and that the union should concentrate on local fights over jobs rather than building a UK-wide fightback.
This is the position of members of HEC belonging to the Commons and IBL factions who stopped the union reballoting during the 2023 MAB. Having failed to lead the union when they had the mandate, they blame the members, the left – indeed anyone but themselves – for not mobilising successfully now.
How should we interpret this result?
It’s good that 40% of members did participate in the vote – but why did the campaign fail to cross the 50% threshold?
The central problem is that many UCU members, including dedicated union reps, don’t believe that our leadership is willing to lead a serious fight. This is borne out by people questioning the industrial action strategy. The gap between the 70% vote for strike and 83% vote for ASOS may also reflect this.
But this belief is also based on experience of recent disputes.
Branches fighting job losses have been left to fight alone. There has been no attempt to link up the disputes that have won – like Dundee and Newcastle – with those that are striking or balloting here and now. Nor has there been any central effort to build solidarity with branches in the middle of the fight. Restrictions on accessing the Fighting Fund mean branches taking strike action have had to issue public calls to branches for financial support alongside the usual solidarity.
Secondly, UCU central messaging failed to set out the case for the dispute except in general terms. Members reasonably asked ‘what national agreements are under threat?’, ‘what would a national agreement on jobs look like?’ and ‘is the pay claim affordable?’ Multiple branches, such as Durham, took the initiative. There were lively campaigns by branches and reps on social media. A rank and file group tried to pin down the demands. The UCU Solidarity Movement enumerated 10 reasons to vote Yes.
But compared to this, the central campaign was very weak.
The ongoing – and utterly shameful – failure to resolve the dispute with UCU Unite staff has been another big negative factor. And many activists across the UK are still angry at the betrayal of the 2023 MAB campaign over two years ago – and in some cases, are still recovering from the financial hardship they endured.
What next?
So what are the prospects for members, reps and branches in resisting a further cycle of cuts? How can we defend our sector and ourselves?
The employers are not going to sit back. Indeed they may increase the attacks on branches. Northumbria and Southampton Solent are testing the water to see how the union responds to a brazen assault on TPS pension membership. Other employers may think now is the chance to demand job losses.
There are several arguments that won’t go away.
#1: The sector could afford pay and jobs – if employers cut other expenditure
The affordability argument is pushed by the employers’ organisations UCEA and UUK. They say the cupboard is bare, and that the value of student tuition fees have fallen so low that redundancies and pay cuts are inevitable.
To add insult to injury, they say staff should take a real terms pay cut of 3% on top of job losses of 10-15,000 a year, with uncounted losses of casualised workers.
Worse still, left to their own devices, a recent report says the employers will continue this cycle of cuts annually.
What is happening to university expenditure?
Note: HESA data adjusts ‘staff costs’ by the FRS-102 accounting method. Thanks to major changes in USS pension liabilities, these ‘costs’ have fluctuated widely in the last few years. An early version of this blog post incorrectly quoted uncorrected HESA data.
These inclines appear quite steep, but become flat or even fall once inflation is taken out. Universities were still expanding over this period. Staff and student numbers in the sector have grown.
What is covered by “other operating costs”? This is a catch-all category, but the greatest proportion is capital expenditure. Employers are continuing to invest in new buildings, campuses, medical schools, etc. This expenditure has grown since 2014, when the cap on student numbers was lifted, triggering a “war of all against all.”
This is why it is right to say the money is there. We do not face a “choice” between pay and jobs – the employers are taking both. And the answer is the same – cut the capex! Whenever the employer is announcing redundancy programmes we must first insist on opening the books and stop sacking staff to pay for new campuses.
And if that won’t solve the problem, we need to put pressure on the government to demand a bailout.
#2: Governments can be made to bail out universities
This data is an average. Not all universities are in the same position.
Redundancies should be the last resort.
- Employers are not powerless victims. Despite the headlines, most universities are making surpluses, and some are engaged in substantial capital expenditure projects. Others are restructuring, hiring more staff while making others redundant. Employers have considerable flexibility about what they choose to spend their money on!
- Employers are feigning memory loss. Those that accumulated large surpluses in the past now want to forget them and focus on this year’s deficit. The average surplus across UK HE over the last decade was 3.23% of income. Wales is the exception, with an average surplus of just 0.61%.
- Universities have reserves. These past surpluses are unspent income. They are not ‘operating surpluses’ – these sums have been banked. Universities have reserves, although the scale of reserves varies massively across the sector.
Some universities, like Dundee and Hull, have a structural deficit, and need a government bailout. Others, like Goldsmiths and Sheffield Hallam, are hovering around the break-even point. But the evidence of the last few years is that redundancy programmes don’t cure deficits, because they also drive students away.
So we need a strategy to defend jobs and the sector, and expose what is going on.
What Dundee UCU did should be a model for other branches to follow.
In the first round, the branch took their fight to the Scottish Parliament, and convinced them to back a bailout to protect jobs.
When their employer’s new Interim Principal decided to renege on the agreement from last year and sought to make cuts, Dundee UCU were forced to reballot.
They struck again last week, and succeeded in getting a clear statement from the Scottish Government that the £40m bailout must be spent on keeping jobs not paying staff redundancy payments:
“It is Scottish Government’s clear instruction that until such a strategy (referred to above and in the Conditions of Funding as the Strategy To Recovery) has been developed and approved by Court there should be no new proposals for additional compulsory staff reductions.”
This is an amazing victory: a ‘Made in Dagenham’ moment.
Education is a public good, and universities in towns and cities like Dundee are key employers, they cannot be allowed to fail. The combination of strikes and a political campaign over defending jobs show that it is possible to force governments to bail out universities and hold VCs to pledges not to make redundancies.
But for every Dundee there are several other branches that have been less successful.
#3: We need to take the fight to Parliament
Local fightbacks are not enough. A union that only fights locally is bound to lose. We risk the entrenchment of unequal terms and conditions: the strongest branches may do ok, others will lose out again and again. Many members see the national union effectively silent and failing to lead. The result is an understandable demoralisation.
We need to force Higher Education up the political priorities of governments – and of the UK Parliament in particular. At the moment, Vice Chancellors and UUK are being heard in the press and Parliament. UCU and the other unions are ignored. It is barely surprising if many members don’t believe that UCU has a national strategy!
A UK-wide strike is the best way to turn up the pressure, but we don’t need to wait to organise lobbies. This November, a small group of UCU reps in Further and Adult Education organised a lobby of Parliament in London which had over 300 in attendance. Students joined to support the fight for their education. Sensing the way the wind was blowing, several employers gave the green light for staff and students to attend.
UCU could call a series of actions building up to coordinated national lobbies of all four Parliaments in the New Year, and build action towards elections in May.
#4: We need to support local strikes over jobs
At the same time, we must redouble our support for branches resisting the jobs massacre. Branches should invite speakers from branches planning to take action. Donations matter!
Solidarity should not be left to local reps to organise. UCU head office could do a lot more to support branches taking industrial action to resist job cuts.
Examples include:
- Extend strike pay so that action need not end too soon (and the employer knows they can’t starve staff back to work)
- Organise regions to build solidarity for branches fighting back, including local demos, fundraising events, etc
- Organise speaking tours for reps from branches that have run successful disputes, to share ideas
- Organise lobbies of key politicians and parties, advertising them publicly to members, and putting on transport
#5: We need to rebuild the campaign, and reballot members on a UK-wide basis
If we are going to get high turnouts in future ballots in HE, we need an honest discussion about what went right and what went wrong with the ballot we have just had.
UCU should call a HESC not just a swift BDM, so that there is an opportunity to debate motions rather than just give 90-second reports from a limited number of branches, and for delegates to decide on next steps in the dispute.
There should be no attempt to stifle criticism of the UCU leadership – we can’t do things better if we don’t know (or daren’t discuss) what went wrong.
We will need to reballot members.
Finally, there is one further factor. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, despite being watered down, is wending its way through Parliament.
If it passes, then the 50% ballot threshold will be abolished.
This won’t change the importance of winning members to taking action. We will still need to campaign to win a ballot. But it will abolish the undemocratic veto, where a group of members actively not voting can stop a strike.
Hold leaders to account in the elections
We can’t just complain about “the leadership” if we don’t seek to change or influence it. This year’s elections for half of the NEC run in February. Due to a resignation, the election for Vice President from HE and FE are being run at the same time.
This is a unique opportunity to reconfigure UCU’s national officers, to build a dynamic team directing strategy for members. UCU Left have strong and experienced candidates running for VP of HE, Sean Wallis, and VP of FE, Regi Pilling. UCU Left will be running candidates for a large number of seats, alongside a number of independents we regularly work with.
For a more coherent national strategy across post-16 education, we encourage all colleagues to join the campaign to boost turnout to ensure we get a strong left leadership elected.
