Well, team… we’ve had another fun week behind us … and another fun week ahead of us. I’m writing this in a rush on a lunch break, so forgive any errors or oversights, please.
At the bottom of this post are some materials that people not me have put out in the last few days. I am not trying to be comprehensive, as that’s impossible, but I’m including what I’ve come across and found helpful on the questions that UCU now faces. On the understanding that you’re reading this because you don’t have the time to read everything else, I’ll first write a bit about 1) what’s (been) happening, and 2) what my thoughts are.
What’s (been) happening?
Last Thursday: Branch Reps Meeting
Last Thursday, branch representatives who signed up for it got a 1.5 hour long briefing from Jon Hegerty (UCU’s Head of Bargaining and Other Stuff) and Justine Mercer (President-Elect, HE) on what negotiations about USS have achieved so far, and what negotiations in ACAS have achieved on pay & working conditions so far.
The short summary:
On USS - we have an agreement that this next valuation will be more moderately prudent, we have an agreement that any positive change in the USS funds will go towards restoration of benefits first, and lowering of contributions second, and talks are ongoing.
On pay - the employers haven’t budged on pay since the February offer (which for most UCU spine points would mean the existing 3% pay increase for 22/23, and then a 5% pay increase for 23/24 that is spread between now (2% increase) and August (the other 3% increase). [This is the offer that in an eballot, the UCU membership overwhelmingly said ‘no’ to.] There is also some work happening on the pay spine that I don’t have a full grasp on, and I’ve mostly seen very mixed views on whether that will help UCU members at all, given where most of us are on the pay spine.
On working conditions - ACAS negotiations have produced three sets of terms of reference for continued talks on issues of casualisation, pay gaps, and workload. What the employers are asking is that we stand down action (eg, do not actively go out on strike) so that these terms of reference can be implemented, and talks continue until spring 2024, with the aim of getting sectoral frameworks agreed between UCU and UCEA on casualisation, pay gaps, and workload.
Since Last Thursday:
Since that meeting, we’ve gotten two new things sent to us by the Head Office (HO) that need dealing with this week.
The first is an individual member survey basically asking members if they want to be consulted on the above offers relevant to them. If you’re in USS, you got two questions; if you’re not in USS, you got a question about UCEA and ACAS only.
The second is five questions (which include the two sent to all members) in anticipation of a Branch Delegate Meeting (BDM), where branches nominate and send people to represent the ‘branch view’, on Wednesday. These five questions (which were slightly amended following feedback on Thursday) are:
Do you support moving forward in negotiations with UCEA based on the terms of reference agreed at Acas?
Do you support UCU members being formally consulted over the commitments that have been agreed with UUK to restore benefits and lower pension contributions?
Do you support UCU members being formally consulted on the proposals that have been agreed with UCEA on pay, ending zero-hour contracts, workloads, casualisation and closing equality pay gaps?
If members vote for industrial action in the re-ballot, do you support beginning a Marking and Assessment Boycott over the pay and conditions dispute from w/b 17 April?
If members vote for industrial action in the re-ballot, do you support beginning a Marking & Assessment Boycott over the USS cuts imposed in April 2022 from w/b 17 April?
These questions will be discussed in (emergency*) branch meetings before Wednesday. The survey responses and the BDM outcomes will both inform the Higher Education Committee, which meets on the 30th to make a decision on what to do with the two ‘offers’ on the table. As that’s the next steps, every member probably should come to some sort of preliminary view on them, and I’ll spend the rest of this short update setting out my own views on this, in light of what I’ve read.
* Why is all of this happening so quickly, again!? My instincts are that I suspect UCEA and UUK are asking for quick responses, and that is joined up by internal UCU pressure to feed into the HEC that’s already been scheduled, as they are very difficult to schedule at short notice without all sorts of democratic deficit issues arising (given that HEC members are all lay and have other obligations). UCU also needs to know what’s happening to these ‘offers’ before 17 April, when we are due to begin a marking and assessment boycott (MAB), so there’s just not a lot of room for flex.
What are my thoughts?
Tackling the BDM questions one by one doesn’t make much sense because the answers to some predetermine the answers to others. This is the case because UCEA have put out a statement saying that they will not continue talks if we do not ‘stand down’ industrial action. [Note: the involved trade unions have put out a statement in response that makes clear that they will not agree to a ‘cessation of industrial action’ for 12 months while talks with UCEA will continue. No, I also don’t know what that actually means - eg, if UCEA is already saying, “fine, we’re done here, then”, or if we called their bluff. We’ll have to wait and see.]
I don’t think 1 is controversial: do we in principle want to continue talks? Yeah, of course! Why not? Nothing’s ever going to change without employer buy-in, so why would we reject talking more about working conditions?
But that obviously has implications for questions 3 - eg, members would have to be formally consulted, because this would mean accepting the UCEA ‘offer’ for more talks - and question 4 - in that if we want the talks to continue, we are being told that we cannot go out on industrial action. In other words, a ‘yes’ to the first question will only be meaningful if the answers to questions 3 and 4 are also ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Otherwise, we’re saying we want the talks to continue but not on the condition of standing down action - which, as far as I understand it, is not what’s on offer.
The USS picture is more straight-forward. The negotiators don’t all agree on how things are going, and whether UUK has committed to enough, but I don’t see that there’s any way to get greater commitments without continuing conversations. I personally also don’t rate the idea of being on strike just in case shenanigans arise during those conversations - so for me this is a straight-forward choice. Happy for the members to be balloted (2 is a yes), and no, we do not need to go on a MAB about USS right now (4 is a no). What we need is to win the reballot, so that if shenanigans arise, we can take industrial action again.
OK - so that brings us back to UCEA. Would I like these talks to continue? Sure! (Yes to 1). But do I think that what’s currently out there on the combination of pay & working conditions is good enough? Not really! (No to 3 - which makes question 1 kind of irrelevant!) And do I think that we should go out on a MAB to see if we can get something more on pay & working conditions? Yeah. I’m at a point where I’d like to see what we can get if we get another aggregate ballot mandate and threaten a MAB across the UK. (Yes on 4).
Was this an easy decision to make? No. I have lots of friends who disagree with me on the UCEA package on a number of fronts. Some think that even if we succeed in the reballot (so get a return rate of over 50% across HE, in support of more action), it’s not clear that the members have the appetite to go out on a MAB after having already been out on about 20 days this semester. And a half-hearted MAB is not going to move employers. Others think that even though it might be harder to win another aggregate ballot down the line, there is no reason to not let the talks with UCEA continue, and only take hard action if the talks do not produce the concrete commitments that we are asking for - not least of all because if these talks do not continue, and a MAB does not move the employer, we’ll end up with nothing to show out of 20 days of strike action + a MAB when it comes to UCEA.
So - yeah, there’s risks in saying no. And this can ultimately only be a personal decision - but on balance, I am looking for more concrete commitments in the Terms of Reference so that we can look at progress now, rather than hope for progress in 12 months, and I am also not convinced that UCEA’s ‘we can’t move on pay more’ is indeed the ‘red line’ that they make it out to be. I’m willing to take that gamble. But you all need to look at your own circumstances, and try to talk to those around you to get a gauge of how they feel, and decide where you sit on that basis.
-SdM
(Incomplete) Further Reading/Context
From Mark Taylor-Batty and Jackie Grant, who negotiate on USS, about the USS offer: https://medium.com/@marktaylorbatty_59000/uss-update-a-briefing-for-members-of-the-uss-pension-scheme-from-elected-ucu-negotiators-5ef254172f62
From 6 of the UCU elected negotiators on pay & working conditions (without input from Justine Mercer and Robyn Orfitelli), on the UCEA offer: https://medium.com/@ucunegotiatorshe/ucu-national-negotiators-analysis-of-the-acas-offer-on-pay-gaps-contract-type-and-workload-269ff3bb5ed8
Notes from Jon Hegerty (I think?) on what the consequences of different answers to the BDM questions might be: https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/13667/UCU-BDM-29-March-2023-notes/pdf/UCU_BDM_29_March_2023_notes.pdf