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


*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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.