An important note from Committee (reproduced from email 6/4/18)

University of Leeds UCU Posted on by

An important note from Committee

(Text reproduced from email 6/4/18)

At yesterday’s EGM, a number of members raised concerns about the email from UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt (sent on Wednesday 4 April) that accompanies the link to the ballot (text is [here]), because it contains a significant conflation between the “revise and resubmit” position (which is about process) and the “no detriment” position (which is about the possible content of revisions). The two are not synonymous, and many branches who preferred the “revise and re-submit” approach (as ours did) had varying positions on whether they also preferred the “no detriment” position, preferred “no pre-conditions”, or somewhere in between. There were also questions at yesterday’s meeting about why a recommendation has been issued from the General Secretary in the absence of any vote by the Higher Education Committee to include a recommendation (the latter is usual practice). The recommendation in the ballot email has been sent by the General Secretary as an individual.

On receipt of today’s latest email from the General Secretary we (committee) agreed to write to everyone again. As we noted at yesterday’s EGM, our committee is a signatory to a joint letter from UCU branches, which raises concerns and questions over the balloting process. I have pasted the text below this email and you can read it online [here] – please note that more branches continue to sign this letter, as the questions contained therein are crucial. It asks for corrections to be sent out to all members who are being balloted, and for reassurances and clarification regarding oversight of the ballot – for example, we currently do not know if there is independent third party oversight of it. When we receive a response to this letter, we will share it with you as soon as possible.

Once again, we’d really like to stress how incredibly proud we are to be part of Leeds UCU and that our branch prioritises open, cordial, and constructive discussion. We urge everyone to remember that this is a great source of strength and that we continue to build our branch on the principles of democracy, honesty, and facilitating participation as much as possible. Yesterday’s EGM was a brilliant example of this, and we have received quite a few tweets and emails from members expressing joy that we have together demonstrated that it needn’t feel difficult to have a collegial and detailed, reasoned debate. If you couldn’t make the EGM, do make sure you’ve caught up with Alaric’s update sent yesterday afternoon (sent at 17.25) and the website post with the motions that passed [here]. Please note that the EGM confirmed that this branch recommends rejection of the current UUK proposal, albeit with a heavy heart and regret that the “revise and resubmit” option was closed off at the 28 March HEC.

#USSvote Survey
Please share your opinions on the #USSvote in this survey, put together by independent members of UCU. It asks: Which issues matter to you? How have the different sides performed? Who do you trust? The survey has been edited to include space for qualitative comments – you can click the link and choose ‘edit’ if you’ve already responded, but it won’t let you ‘enter’ the survey more than once. (Please note this is not the ballot itself, but instead a useful tool to gauge nuances in opinion).

 

USS Briefs

If you haven’t already delved into the excellent USS Briefs, which are a product of the hard work of several UCU members, please do dig in. They are an excellent resource. There are articles written from perspectives favouring reject and accept, and articles which really get to grips with the issues at stake in this whole dispute. New articles are still forthcoming, but here is a list so far:

******>>>>GREAT + PROPERLY RESEARCHED ARTICLES! <<<<******

#USSbriefs1
The Drive to Convert to DC: A Short History
Felicity Callard, Birkbeck, University of London

#USSbriefs2
The USS Dispute and the Dynamics of Industrial Action
Jo Grady, University of Sheffield

#USSbriefs3
The Pensions Dispute and the Marketisation of Higher Education
John Holmwood, University of Nottingham
Gurminder K Bhambra, University of Sussex

#USSbriefs4
Why USS Pension Cuts Will Not Be Spread Equally
Claire Marris, City, University of London

#USSbriefs5
The Role of Consultancies in the USS Dispute
Gail Davies, University of Exeter

#USSbriefs6
Why Which Way to Vote on the Latest UUK Proposal Should be an Easy Decision
Sam Marsh, University of Sheffield

#USSbriefs7
Is There Really a USS Deficit?
Dennis Leech, University of Warwick

#USSbriefs8
Misleading Communication: Case Studies from Universities UK and the Employers Pension Forum
Felicity Callard, Birkbeck, University of London

#USSbriefs9
Academic Collective Action and the Future of Our Movement
Andy Balmer, University of Manchester

#USSbriefs10
Why I Have Voted Yes to Accept UUK Proposal
Amanda Williams, University of East Anglia

#USSbriefs11
Debunking Sally Hunt’s Email
Jo Grady, University of Sheffield
Claire Marris, City, University of London
Jess Meacham, University of Sheffield

#USSbriefs12
Employers vs. UUK? Evolving Positions in the USS Pensions Dispute
Susanne Hakenbeck, University of Cambridge

#USSbriefs13
Cambridge and Oxford in the USS Pensions Dispute
Sam Dolan, University of Sheffield

******>>>>More great articles on USS appearing at USSBriefs.com<<<<******

Anti-casualisation update

University of Leeds UCU Posted on by

PGR open meeting

Monday 9 April, 9–11am, 28 University Rd, LT G.23

This meeting is for all postgraduates (members and non-members) and is an important step in building the campaign for fair pay, terms and conditions for all postgraduates who teach or who work in paid research and related roles at the university. It will cover three main areas:
  • Focus on postgrad elements of the Uni of Leeds UCU branch anticasualisation claim: what do postgrads want and need?
  • Building on the energy of the recent strikes (and what the strikes tell us about casualisation!)
  • Recruitment and the free postgrad membership (reminder: www.ucu.org.uk/free)

There will be vegan cake too! Members are asked to let all postgrads know about this meeting and the free postgraduate membership offer. Please email with suggestions for agenda items/questions about the meeting (k.l.zezulka@leeds.ac.uk) and please share with PGRs in your school.

Anticasualisation campaign and roadshow planning

As part of the open meeting on 9 April, we will be discussing organising a UCU anticasualisation roadshow. We will be organising a local event to discuss, debate and explore issues related to casualisation and precarity in HE and FE. There is lots of information on the UCU Stamp Out webpages here. If you are interested in helping to organise this event or in running a workshop or giving a seminar, please let us know.

Being a PGR/anticas rep

You can be part of a network of UCU reps across the university to help us supercharge our campaigns for secure jobs, for lower workloads, and for equality.

In addition to department reps, we’d like to have an anticasualisation rep (a member not on a permanent contract) and a postgraduate rep in each school/area across the university. To join our new massive network of reps, ask two colleagues in your workplace (UCU members) to email ucu@leeds.ac.uk by 10 April to nominate you for one of these roles.

See the current list of reps. If you are interested in either role, feel free to email k.l.zezulka@leeds.ac.uk or speak to Kelli at the open meeting on 9 April.

Vote ‘No’ – this branch recommends members vote to reject the offer

University of Leeds UCU Posted on by

In a well attended emergency general meeting, members of UCU University of Leeds branch voted today to recommend that members vote ‘no’ in the new UCU ballot on the latest offer from Universities UK in the persions dispute.

The branch also noted the valuable new USS Briefs, short articles by a range of academics on different aspects of the strike, and that an independent group of UCU members has devised a survey of members’ voting preferences, motivations, and other views surrounding the ballot. The branch resolved to encourage all USS members to complete the survey.

After a thorough and collegial debate, considering a range of perspectives on the ballot and recognising the branch’s enthusiasm for a decisive conclusion to the current industrial action, members voted for the following motion:

Leeds University UCU branch notes:

  1. the support and energy of our members during the course of the fourteen days of strike action in defence of our pensions.
  2. the branch delegates meeting (held on the 28th March at UCU HQ, London) on the USS dispute where last-minute evidence was tabled, on which delegates had no opportunity to consult their members.
  3. that, at the conclusion of the branch delegates meeting, no vote was taken on what was clearly the crucial issue the Higher Education Committee (HEC) were going to decide on afterwards – whether to send the UUK offer as it stands to a ballot or not (Leeds had passed the following motions on this: http://www.leedsucu.org.uk/university-of-leeds-ucu-egm-minutes-27-march-2018/)
  4. the HEC meeting decided by a narrow majority of 10-8 to ballot members on a proposal from UUK whose wording was not the outcome of a formal negotiating process between the properly constituted UCU negotiating group on USS and UUK.

 

This UCU branch believes that:

UCU negotiators should return to UUK and seek improvements to the 23 March proposal taking into account the many concerns that branches have raised about its implementation and contents.

This UCU branch resolves to:

  1. recommend to members to vote against the UUK proposal in the consultation.
  2. circulate this petition to members along with other materials urging a vote against the UUK proposal: https://goo.gl/forms/jpuLLPtkgLOigF2O2.
  3. to call for a Special Meeting of UCU Higher Education Sector Conference to discuss the USS dispute under Rule 16.11.* If possible this Special Meeting would be held immediately prior to or following Congress.

2 Reports from HEC + Branch Delegates Meeting 28 March 2018 (Vicky + Lesley)

University of Leeds UCU Posted on by

Report from Vicky Blake:

Adapted (to make it readable as prose) from a Twitter-thread – please note that original thread is subject to further updates and that Vicky is responding to questions sent in response to it, which you can follow [here]. You can also follow the thread on [Thread Reader]: Thread by @zenscara #ReviseandResubmit #ASOSforUSS #unityisstrength #USSstrike

The official update from on the HEC decision to take the UUK proposal on to a ballot is [here] and I’ve been threading my take on today as an HEC member [here]: I’m still tweeting on this thread + began before the official UCU post came out. 

HEC: 10 mins to read paper containing recommendations given to us after Branch Delegates Meeting + 1 hour discussion. 6 Motions submitted by members of HEC, including mine on #ReviseandResubmit. Paper passed + Chair judged 5 motions to fall+1 (setting valuation end date) remitted. I do not think the paper that was put forward (which recommended a consultation with members) needed to be incompatible with all 5 motions that fell, especially the one I argued for on #ReviseandResubmit because I believe there was time to include Revise + Resubmit in the process. The Chair disagreed.

Here’s the #ReviseandResubmit motion I proposed to HEC. I moved it arguing it seemed clear from observing the Branch Delegates Meeting, that a *huge* number of members were asking for some form of Revise + Resubmit, and that not to discuss it would have been a dereliction of our duty to represent members.

In HEC we were given recap of extra info that had been presented to the Branch Delegates Meeting (which was about 3.5 hrs long I think, as it extended slightly) this morning, including a letter from UUK’s Alistair Jarvis received by the union this morning

View image on Twitter

Text: ‘Dear Sally, I understand that you have received questions from your members about the employer’s positions on future benefits reforms that may be necessary to complete this valuation following the report of the proposed joint expert panel. I can confirm that Universities UK does not intend to return to the January joint negotiating committee (JNC) proposal to consult on moving to a defined contributions (DC) scheme. Instead we are committed to maintaining a meaningful defined benefit pension offer at this valuation. Longer term we would like to work jointly with UCU to consider other risk sharing alternatives. We believe that working together to establish a joint expert panel on the valuation provides an opportunity to move forward from this difficult dispute. Universities UK and employers believe that the sector needs to be given time to pause, to reflect and to rebuild the trust that has been damaged over the past few months and to rebuild relationships with your members and those students who have supported industrial action. All the best, Alistair Alistair Jarvis Chief Executive Universities UK

There was also an update on *indications* from the pensions regulator seeing an “opportunity to bring all stakeholders together to avoid recurring disagreements” – the letter was confidential + not in the General Secretary’s “gift” to share but it was referred to as broadly supportive. The Branch Delegates Meeting was also told (via Jarvis’ letter) that we should consider the idea of UUK bringing the 23 Jan JNC decision back (ie to introduce fully DC scheme) “dead” – this was considered a major concession from employers. There were LOTS of questions from branch delegates about how far UUK et al could be trusted + discussion of how “vigilance” & momentum could be ensured. Lots of praise for members’ strike + ASOS action + how far it has brought us. Branch delegates had a lot of questions, especially on process.
(I have been SO uplifted & heartened by the member-led, grassroots democracy at work in growing & mobilising our union throughout this dispute + have become increasingly concerned that we have struggled to make usual processes clear + therefore harder to explain “unusual” ones!)
It’s very significant that the industrial action remains ON during the balloting process on the proposal. So don’t stop your #ASOSforUSS + note strike dates. Many feared action might be suspended during ballot – I’m glad that we’re keeping up pressure on employers during ballot.
Things I don’t know:
*Wording of ballot question
*Whether there will be recommendation on how to vote inserted (HEC did not discuss or vote on this) *How differently (or not) any members might’ve voted at @leedsucu EGM / fed back by email had they had today’s info (or more time)
*Whether I should’ve voted differently today (abstained but felt utterly hideous, under pressure+note it wouldn’t have swayed vote-will explain in another tweet shortly)
*If I’ll ever get out of UCU HQ (am still tweeting b/c can’t face doing on train)
Things I do know:
*This, and the previous Branch Delegate Meeting and HEC Combo (13 March) tell us members *need* more information on processes in plain English so everyone can understand (& can orientate understanding when the union is responding to weird situations) See also [this earlier thread] which explains what happened on 13 March.
 *We need to keep doing amazing branch democracy + supporting all members to engage + be heard + ask question  and then some. Everyone will have even more questions about the proposal + context + (what happened) today.
*We need to focus on ways to build consensus alongside space for collegial debate
“How will I vote in the ballot consultation?”
Currently, don’t know. I want to scrutinise every scrap of information (noting the General Secretary has promised more after Easter) + urgently organise meeting for all @leedsucu members to discuss *in depth*. (Mis)Trust in UUK et al is a *huge issue*. That we’ll (probably) be asked a variant of a Yes/No question, where many branches saw not 2 but 3 possible broad routes worries me, and is why I proposed a #ReviseandResubmit (with timely timescale) motion to HEC. I sought to avoid division and to build consensus where possible as #unityisstrength
This is also why I found voting so difficult. I could *not* vote for the 1st paper with recommendations as framed at HEC because it had been judged that it would cause all motions to fall (including #ReviseandResubmit also specific amendment ideas, motions on process, timing + transparency)
My personal perspective: We ended up at vote in a rush, because time was *so* tight. We started late and ironically HEC time was squeezed because we needed more room for debate at the Branch Delegate Meeting, which was fair, but we lost time for HEC to debate/discuss as thoroughly as I think we should’ve.
But I also felt enormously conflicted about voting *against* the paper because it summarised a great deal of progress in this dispute that – above all else, we must not forget to *celebrate* because our incredible #USSstrike + #ASOSforUSS has moved the allegedly immovable a LOT,  and I knew among #ReviseandResubmit folks we have a spectrum of what people would find acceptable and how they’d like it framed.
As several Branch Delegates pointed out earlier, we didn’t know what members thought about new info that came today ( and they didn’t know when voting in EGMs/polls). I absolutely *hate* abstaining; I’m not 100% sure it was the right decision, but didn’t feel I could objectively justify voting for/against paper *as presented* in any good conscience in moment (which came upon us *very* fast). The paper was not a simple Yes/No. I will find out if we can share it because I think it will help members to understand this timeline + today’s outcomes better if we can. And I think that’s really important.

[Added 29 March:]
After sleep + some discussion with @leedsucu committee we decided the absence of the word “confidential” + fact no one said it was confidential means the paper we (HEC) were asked to vote on 1st + motions that it was decided fell as result would be useful to share with members who want to see framing. (So if I get in trouble for this please be aware I gave it thought + consulted amazing @leedsucu committee who agree this is a useful thing to see) – several pages (excuse my awful handwritten scribbles + sorry some are sideways):
[Link to tweet with images]
6 Motions also tabled at HEC – all ‘fell’ except 5 (remitted). Genuinely do not understand why was felt that all these motions necessarily fell as a result of voting on paper moved first. I believed there was room for #ReviseandResubmit if done swiftly+organised way.
Report from Lesley McGorrigan (originally sent to UCU Action Group)

Here’s my rough and ready report after attending today’s UCU delegate meeting (as observer) and Higher Education Committee (HEC) meeting in London. The day was extremely frustrating, to say the very least,  given the context of such an important issue, the historically successful strike action, engagement and growth of our union.

Sally Hunt presented the letter from Alistair Jarvis, Chief Exec of UUK and she spoke of the confidential letter she had seen from the pension regulator to David Eastwood, Chair of the USS Board (which she has subsequently emailed you about).  After these updates from Sally,  many delegates said the consultation they had undertaken in their branches may have been different if it had taken place today. Voting cards had been prepared and issued to the delegates but no vote was taken. There is now some contesting of the official report of the delegates/branches’ collective views.  I can confirm that delegates reports were often  muddled and sometimes contradictory due to their methods of consultation – many had conducted email polls (with no debate) offering a binary choice resulting in members voting one way but qualifying their vote with written comments which made their vote ambiguous.  Many branches had not conducted the democratic type of discussion-fuelled voting that we had yesterday at our EGM.  It was very difficult to detect how each branch in the room would have voted had they been asked to.

At the HEC meeting following the delegate meeting, one of the paid union officials presented a paper containing a recommendation that HEC votes to put the UUK proposal (with some clarifications) to a member vote.  The chair of HEC, Douglas Chalmers, ruled that five of the six motions submitted by HEC members would fall if the paper from the paid official was adopted and that his paper would be voted on first.  The paper was passed by 10 votes to 8. I, along with all UCU Left supporters, voted against the paper as we had heard many views from members calling for UCU to revise and resubmit the proposal, accounting for members’ concerns over some of the detail.

Our fantastic members’ action achieved  the latest proposal from UUK, and consigned the 100 percent Defined Contribution scheme to the bin. This is a substantial climbdown from the employers but many members quite rightly don’t trust the USS Board/ UUK to act honourably, without some essential details written into a proposal.

I think we should vote to reject the UUK proposal in its current form and that UCU can then continue its good work and secure the assurances members have asked for.

UCU members are powerful – we have demonstrated this so well.

A UCU Left report that I contributed to is here: http://uculeft.org/2018/03/now-vote-no-and-continue-the-fight/

Brief Delegate’s Report: Branch Delegates Meeting (USS pension dispute)

University of Leeds UCU Posted on by

Short report on pensions briefing meeting 11:00-14:00 extended to 14:20 on the 28/3/18 at UCU HQ Carlton Street.

The meeting started with Sally Hunt (General Secretary) presenting new information in the for of a letter from UUK and a quote from a confidential letter sent from the Pensions Regulator (tPR).  She set out what she thought this new information did to the ‘place’ we now found ourselves.  Paul Bridge (UCU Head of Higher Education; negotiator) then spoke further to this. He also talked about how the ‘valuation panel’ might work.

Floor opened to a lively questions session including:

Q Why was this new information only put to us now.
A this UUK letter only arrived this morning (28/3/18) and tPR and USS letter was confidential (note latter information has been now been circulated to all by Sally, and we had no indication as to when Sally first became aware of the information).

Q how can we represent our members now that this new information is available?
A taken as rhetorical

After this Matt Waddop reported on the further action.  There were letters announcing the next round of strike action going out to employers during the day.  Action was to proceed.

Delegates were then allowed to report back…  during this it became apparent that a lot was to be said and delicates time was gradually curtailed and the meeting lengthened.

My take on UCU branch activity was that feedback had been sort in very widely varying ways and a widely differing points in time.  There was also a trend that polling via electronic means produced one results where as meetings with debate produced a differing result.  It was evident that there was much uncertainty.  Not all delegates spoke.

There was no vote despite voting cards having been issued.

Whilst I did not tally responses it was my understanding that opinions ‘go to ballot’ and ‘revise and resubmit’ were close, however it is my opinion (and I’m not alone) that revise and resubmit option had the majority.

Dr Nigel Bubb