UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at an emergency general meeting 17 March 2022
This branch notes that:
traditional picketing strategies given the nature of our work (stretched and dispersed, in person and online) do not always work as effectively as in other industries
there is a need to build on and expand our powerful pickets lines to diversify the in-person impact of striking and strike protests
we have been picketing only the external borders of campus because of customs rather than based on a branch policy
the whole of campus is our workplace also when we strike
other union branches such as Glasgow and Leicester have staged powerful protests on campus without consequences for individual members nor their branches (e.g. over alleged “trespassing”) and which send strong messages that “we are the university”
the Leeds Student Staff Solidarity group has shown willingness to organise joint action on campus with UCU and considers it an effective and visible strategy
solidarity with students, currently affected by extended debts and significant fees, is critical to increase our bargaining power and win the disputes and to support their actions
We resolve
to diversify our pickets strategies including protests on campus (with students where relevant) to make our action more visible to our university community
to make our actions more creative including flash mobs, dance and theatre around and inside campus
to draw from the cultural diversity of our diverse membership in developing these tactics
Proposed by Gabriella Alberti and Kate Hardy, moved by Gabriella Alberti, seconded by Draško Kašćelan, motion carried.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at an emergency general meeting 17 March 2022
This branch notes that
currently we have no clear way of knowing how many members strike each day in each faculty or service
this information would allow us to assess our strengths and weaknesses and better strategise around our bargaining power
this information will help focus our efforts to bring more colleagues into the union and out on strike
our sister union, Unison, have asked their members to email the branch to say they’re striking even if they don’t turn up to the picket
The branch resolves
to create a weekly survey of members during strike weeks to report their faculty or service and number of days of strike
that this information will be kept anonymous and used only for the purpose of internal assessment of strategies and future action by the branch
Proposed by Xanthe Whittaker and Gabriella Alberti, moved by Gabriella Alberti, seconded by Jane Holgate, amendment proposed by Dan Pullinger, seconded by Sandy James, amendment carried, motion as amended carried.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at an emergency general meeting 15 March 2022
This Branch:
notes our solidarity with Ukrainian academics and students including those forced to flee due to war.
We also note that the University recently honoured Esther Simpson, founder of Cara, with a lavish ceremony and building named in her honour.
We therefore call on the University of Leeds to continue this tradition of solidarity with refugee academics, but also to expand the existing Sanctuary Scholarship scheme to provide funded opportunities for students of any nationality who are currently being made refugees in light of the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War.
The University of Leeds should immediately offer 6-12 month emergency research fellowships for Ukrainian scholars across all faculties, in line with similar actions taking place at institutions of similar sizes across Europe , such as the University of Aarhus, the Humbldt University in Berlin, the Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich, and many others.
We also express our solidarity with Russian academics and students at risk for speaking out against the war.
Proposed by Eva Frojmovic, moved by Eva Frojmovic, amendment carried, motion as amended carried.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at an emergency general meeting 15 March 2022
The branch notes:
That Russia has commenced a war of aggression including a full invasion of Ukraine
The stated rationales by Putin range from false to farcical
The people of Ukraine have democratically elected their government as is their sovereign right
that UCU has already donated £1,000 to the UNICEF Emergency Appeal: https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/12139/Dispatches-from-the-picket-lines-Monday-28-February
The branch therefore resolves to:
Unreservedly condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine and call for Russia to cease hostilities and withdraw from Ukraine
Make a further donation to UNICEF emergency fund
Send solidarity to the Trade Union of Education and Science Workers of Ukraine (TUESWU) and the Free Trade Union of Education and Science of Ukraine (VPONU).
Call on the UK government to impose sanctions on Russia’s elites, engage in diplomacy to quickly and peacefully restore Ukraine’s sovereignty, and to open the UK’s borders to refugees from Ukraine, of every ethnicity.
Proposed by Ruth Holliday and Gabriella Alberti, moved by Ruth Holliday, motion carried
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at a general meeting 8 March 2022
The branch notes that this is an exceptionally hard time for members to lose pay, especially if action is going to continue into the spring and summer
The branch resolves:
to provide members with options for reporting strike action to HR in different ways
to instruct the branch to ask the SMT (as they did at Goldsmiths) to agree to the spread of any deductions over at least 5 month period
to produce a guide for members on ways of reporting strike that involves staggering reporting to minimize financial hardship (following the example of Goldsmiths UCU)
that, in the case we participate in a marking boycott, we set up faculty-level crowdfunds to help the hourly-paid staff before the strike fund is processed
Proposed by Charles Umney and Xanthe Whittaker, moved by Xanthe Whittaker, seconded by Gabriella Alberti, motion carried
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at a general meeting 8 March 2022
This branch notes that:
members have been partaking in sustained ASOS and branch advice on ASOS has so far encompassed “working to contract; not covering for absent colleagues; removing and/or not sharing materials related to, lectures or classes cancelled due to strike action; not rescheduling lectures or classes cancelled due to strike action; not undertaking any voluntary activities” (HE Dispute FAQ updated December 2021)
there is potential to escalate ASOS and make it more publicly visible;
Equality, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI) is frequently used by the university to ‘diversity wash’ and promote itself as a fair employer, usually relying on staff voluntary and goodwill
the resignation of external examiners has been a publicly visible ASOS strategy
This branch believes that:
escalating ASOS and making it publicly visible can embolden others to participate ;
EDI policies, including those developed through Athena Swan and race equality charter, are meaningless without a commitment to improving the structural working conditions of staff in relation to pay (including pensions), gender and race inequality, casualisation and workloads
This branch resolves to:
advise members to withdraw from voluntary (non-workloaded) roles, targeting those related to the university’s EDI agenda (e.g. ‘Decolonising the curriculum’; ‘Research Cultures’; ‘EDI Delivery Groups’)
encourage members to make their withdrawal from EDI work publicly visible by posting on social media
call for a nationally coordinated boycott of institutional EDI accreditations, including Athena Swan and the Race Equality Charter
encourage external examiners to resign from their roles and publicise this on social media
Proposed by Asiya Islam and Xanthe Whittaker, moved by Asiya Islam, seconded by Kate Hardy, motion carried
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This branch notes:
That Queen Mary management intends to implement punitive deductions of 100% pay for each day staff refuse to reschedule classes cancelled due to strike action.
The UK-wide trend of HE employers threatening punitive deductions, albeit not often as aggressively as Queen Mary.
Previous retreats from such threats by HE employers in the face of public and industrial pressure.
This branch believes:
That these employer tactics are disproportionate and dangerous, and risk escalating the disputes and further disrupting students’ education.
That the threat of punitive deductions of 100% pay for ASOS at one institution threatens the right to strike at all institutions and therefore requires a collective and nationally coordinated response.
That members at Queen Mary are facing an increased financial burden for participating in industrial action.
This branch resolves:
To call on all members at this branch to resign their positions as external examiners at Queen Mary with immediate effect.
To send a message of solidarity to members at Queen Mary UCU.
To request UCU HEC to initiate grey listing process against Queen Mary and other universities with 100% deductions.
To send a solidarity donation of £500 to Queen Mary UCU’s strike/hardship fund.
Proposed by: Draško Kašćelan and Gabriella Alberti, moved by Draško Kašćelan, seconded by Tim Goodall, motion carried.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at a general meeting 8 March 2022
This branch notes:
That the University’s Fairer Future for All campaign was launched a week before our industrial action ballot opened in October 2021;
That the University regularly cites this campaign in response to student, staff and press enquiries about what they are doing to resolve our disputes;
That the recognised campus trade unions have not been involved in any aspect of the Fairer Future for all campaign and have been given no information about timescales, targets and outcomes.
This branch believes:
That what is needed to resolve our disputes is action by senior management at UK level and locally, not a campaign;
That any action to improve staff working conditions needs to be fully consulted or negotiated with the recognised trade unions in accordance with our recognition agreement with the University
This branch resolves:
To actively reject the idea that A Fairer Future For All represents movement towards the outcomes required to resolve our disputes with the University
To continue to push the University to negotiate with us an agreement to end casualisation, end unsafe workloads and fix the gender, race and disability pay gaps
To continue to pressure the University to lead resolution of our disputes at a UK wide level
To insist that our recognition agreement is respected
Proposed by Chloe Wallace, moved by Chloe Wallace, seconded by Jennifer Fletcher, motion carried.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
Post from email sent to branch members by pensions rep Mark Taylor-Batty on 25 February 2022
On 23 February, the University of Leeds posted its position on the ‘UCU proposal (sic.) to conclude the USS 2020 valuation’ on the internal ‘For Staff’ webs pages.
It offers a summary written by the Pension Committee of the University Council, which “endorsed a number of the concerns raised by UUK in relation to the UCU proposal, including:
A lack of clarity (including from a legal perspective) about the grounds on which UCU believes the 2022 valuation it proposes would deliver a more favourable outcome to the 2020 valuation, given the regulatory and economic realities under which the new valuation would take place.
A lack of clarity about the specific arrangements were the proposed 2022 valuation to require contributions which exceed a combined employer/member contribution of 35% of salary – the cap proposed by UCU, which would itself require endorsement by the JNC, USS and the Pension Regulator.
A challenging timetable – UUK has raised questions about the time it would take to conclude a 2022 valuation and the impact of this.”
Before I respond to these, I should let members know that there was no consultation at all with the UCU on this matter here at this University, unlike at other Universities. The answers to all these things were available, and indeed had already been presented at a national level to UUK. It is disappointing that our University proceeded in this matter on this position of seeming declared ignorance, or failed to challenge UUK misrepresentations communicated to the University. I shall outline the responses that were already available, and mostly already in the public domain:
A lack of clarity (including from a legal perspective) about the grounds on which UCU believes the 2022 valuation it proposes would deliver a more favourable outcome to the 2020 valuation, given the regulatory and economic realities under which the new valuation would take place.
The USS Trustee themselves published interim calculations that very clearly indicated that the deficit has reduced to a negligible amount. That is to say, calculated on almost the same basis* as the 2020 valuation, current interim valuations have indicated that a 2022 valuation would be much more favourable. On 21 February, the day before JNC, the USS published an update on the funding position:
“At the end of December 2021, assets were valued at £92.2bn (£0.9bn lower [than November]), the implied TP deficit stood at £2.6bn (£4.2bn lower [than November]) and the new benefit structure could require contributions of 27.5% of pay (1.2% less).
At the end of January 2022, assets were valued at £89.3bn (£2.9bn lower), the implied TP deficit stood at £2.9bn (£0.3bn higher) and the new benefit structure could require contributions of 25.8% of pay (1.7% less).”
Please note that although these statisticss were published on 21 February they were made available by the USS Trustees to Universities in the week on 14 February.
*I write ‘on almost the same basis’ above because in recent presentations of interim valuations, the USS have ratcheted up yet further the already high prudence employed in the 2020 valuation. UCU negotiator Sam Marsh sums this up in a thread of last week, notably 4. In brief: in their 2020 calculations of future service costs, they allowed for out-performance assumptions. They have removed these in the monitoring data for interim valuations, which increases rates. UUK could easily challenge this.
I am unsure what is meant by ‘from a legal perspective’ in the University’s response, but there is no regulatory inhibition to a March 2022 valuation, and to further consultation on the back of it, and the USS themselves have agreed this.
A lack of clarity about the specific arrangements were the proposed 2022 valuation to require contributions which exceed a combined employer/member contribution of 35% of salary – the cap proposed by UCU, which would itself require endorsement by the JNC, USS and the Pension Regulator.
It is simply untrue that there was a lack of clarity provided by UCU to UUK. UCU negotiator Mike Otsuka provided them with all the detail, and published these details for all to read here. The USS have deemed the proposals ‘viable and implementable’, and this assessment would have taken account of the Regulator’s assumed position.
A challenging timetable – UUK has raised questions about the time it would take to conclude a 2022 valuation and the impact of this.
UUK knew perfectly well that recent history indicates that the timetable is feasible. And, again, UCU negotiators gave UUK all the information they needed on this. There are two recent precedents: Firstly, the 31 March 2017 valuation was originally scheduled for release for formal consultation at the end of June 2017. A draft of the valuation was released at around that time, which was very similar to the valuation that was released for formal consultation in early September. The time interval between the end of June and 1 April 2023 is 9 months. Secondly, the 31 March 2018 valuation was released for formal consultation on 2 January 2019. The schedule of contributions for that valuation was signed on 16 September 2019–8.5 months later. If, moreover, a statutory minimum 60-day consultation is required in order to implement listed changes involving cuts to benefits by 1 April 2023, there would be time for this, so long as JNC approves these changes by the end of September 2022. It is only if the consultation period is extended to about 75 days as the most recent one was that an earlier deadline might be necessary. Such an end-of-September deadline for JNC approval is facilitated by the third of our proposals. The agreement between the two sides on 25.2% and 9.8% caps on the employer and member contribution significantly narrows the potential for disagreement between the two sides on the specification of benefits and contributions and the time that needs to be allocated for resolution of these disagreements.
What we see here in the University’s published response, regrettably, is a public declaration by the University that they have not tried to find answers that were available to very simple issues, and have not sought to seek any understanding of them from UCU locally or nationally, and have instead supported a cut of 35% of guaranteed income to the average USS member at Leeds, instead of supporting UCU proposals that would have cost Leeds no more than £3.4m in the coming year, and feasibly led to a reduction in our and the institutions contributions, at no cost to our pensions in retirement. This is a multi-million pound decision (in cost to us) taken by members of the University governing body, and seemingly done so on the basis of the above flawed assumptions.
I remain available to the University for consultation and clarification as the UCU takes its next steps on this issue.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
Full transcript
Vice Chancellor Simone Buitendijk: We’re going into 10 days of strike action and yeah I must say I’m a bit sad about it.
Leeds UCU: Of course, nobody is happy to have to participate in industrial action. Colleagues much prefer to be teaching, supporting and advising students. But when employers will not enter into meaningful negotiations with employee representatives on issues that have needed addressing for years, and when negotiating opportunity after opportunity is thrown away by employers, staff are left with industrial action as their only option.
VC: That an important minority of our committed staff have decided to take such dramatic action
UCU: The law requires that over 50% of trade union members must vote for any result to mandate industrial action. This is a greater test than required, for example, electing a police commissioner (typically, a 35% turnout). At Leeds, 75.2% of voting members supported strike action, and 85.5% supported ‘action short of a strike’.
VC: I’m sad because students have already endured so much disruption and this is going to impact on their learning their education their experience
UCU: Many students have been impacted by Covid, and UCU constituency staff were often their first port of call for support and assistance. The University has been keen to communicate that their education was not disrupted during this period. This was again down to the resilience and dedication of those colleagues, working in difficult circumstances, adapting to new modes of delivery, often putting their work ahead of their families to keep classes running.
VC: And I don’t think industrial action and strike action is the solution to the problems that clearly need fixing. The University of Leeds is part of UUK and there’s not much that I can do by myself because that is a national dispute
UCU: Our VC sits at the tables of both the UUK and the Russell Group. She represents Leeds there, an institution with one of the highest number of USS members in the UK. At those tables, it is reasonable to believe that she contributes meaningfully to decisions about negotiations, communications and decisions. This is not powerlessness, it is responsibility.
However, if we take what is said here at face value, it seems to indicate that UUK members have no power over the UUK, that it is out of control, and does not listen to its members, not even those such as Leeds with the highest density of USS members.
VC: And I try to play as strong a role as possible together with my other colleagues on the leadership team because I think we all want a pension scheme that keeps its value that’s sustainable and I think the proposal that’s on the table now the UUK proposal is the best for the moment.
UCU: The UUK proposal requires the youngest members of staff (mostly) to pay off a debt that no longer exists. They have to pay that with their future income in retirement, seeing a third or more lopped off its value. The younger a member is in the scheme, the more money they will lose. This impacts on women worse than men, due to the 18.5% gender pay gap that has been acknowledged at Leeds. With such unfairness baked in, the UUK proposal is a long way from the best available.
The UCU offered a compromise proposal on 26 January, as a means for us all to avoid the strike. The VC did not acknowledge that proposal until the afternoon of 11 February, less than a working day before the strike was to begin.
Does the VC want to negotiate, as she claims, or does she want to keep supporting the UUK intergenerational unfairness at the UUK table?
VC: So at the University of Leeds we realise that we need to change the way we deal with contracts with employment that there’s a lot that needs changing so we’ve developed a campaign that we call Fairer Future For All and one of the focal points is having far fewer short-term contracts so we’re going to be working towards more open-ended contracts and we’ve already started.
UCU: UCU put in a formal claim to challenge the University’s use of casualised contracts three years ago. The University still refuses to negotiate on it.
Productive work on contracts with the unions that was ongoing has ground to a halt since the Fairer Future for All campaign was launched. If further work is ongoing, the recognised trade unions have not been informed, let alone involved. In the meantime, staff on fixed term contracts are still losing their jobs, sometimes after many years of service, and Postgraduate Research Students who teach have no contracts and still get no paid sick leave.
VC: We will be looking at workload and workload models to make sure we can keep the workload under control.
UCU: Joint work is ongoing to produce some high level principles to govern workload management. Whether this will be complete by the end of March, as the Vice Chancellor states in her email, depends on whether it can be agreed. Whatever other work is ongoing is being done without consulting, or involving, the recognised trade unions.
In the meantime, staff are worked to breaking point and more is asked of us every year. When the University was hit by a double whammy of ongoing COVID-19 issues and massive over-recruitment in some areas, senior managers denied that there was a crisis and refused to take any meaningful steps to reduce staff workload in the immediate term.
VC: So a lot of what the unions are after is something that’s very much on my radar.
UCU: And what about the national picture? The University states that one of our values is collaboration – why can our senior management not collaborate with the management teams of other university to commit to UK-wide agreements to improve our whole sector, not just Leeds?
VC: I would like to say both to staff and maybe even more so to students who are apprehensive who are worried about the disruption that we do have quite a bit of experience, maybe I should say unfortunately, but we do, with past rounds of industrial action so we’re on top of this and we’ll do our utmost to ensure that students have the education that’s as uninterrupted as possible we’re going to work really closely with heads of school so they’re going to make sure that they monitor where teaching doesn’t take place they’re going to ensure that it gets picked up again after strike action is over.
UCU: We very much hope that this is not a threat to follow other Universities and deduct pay for action short of a strike (in addition to the pay docked for striking). For Leeds University to engage in this bullying behaviour would be divisive and confrontational, and would harm our cohesion, possibly irreparably.
VC: They’ll mitigate, they’ll work with the teachers and the staff in their schools to come up with solutions that are bespoke from different student cohorts. We have an incredibly resilient community, we’ve done an amazing job getting us through the pandemic, really keeping the show on the road. I think our community is stronger than it’s ever been, so I know we’ll pull through this and we’ll do it together.
UCU: We certainly hope so. We will pull through this when our senior management take responsibility for negotiating seriously to protect our pensions and pay and to create concrete improvements in our working conditions. They need to listen and act on the concerns raised by staff through their trade unions. Staff have done an amazing job, at considerable expense to ourselves, and we deserve better.
No mention of equalities issues in this video? The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970 and came into force in 1975. It was superseded by the Equality Act 2010.
In 2022, women are paid 18.5% less than men at the University of Leeds. That means women earn 86p for every £1 that men earn when comparing median hourly pay.
Additionally, there is a national race pay gap of 17.1% and a disability pay gap of 9%. Leeds have not published their local figures. We have been asking for years for this to be addressed, and promises of a fairer future keep deferring the issue instead of actively addressing it in the present.
Still on equalities. Last year, for the first time in its history, the University dismissed a member of staff for not having enough research outputs. This British Asian member of staff demonstrably had the same or more research outputs than some of their white colleagues at their grade and even above.
Industrial action only happens after months and years of discussions and negotiation breaking down. It is always only a last resort.
Some of the website tools used on this website set cookies on your browser. The website should work fine if you DISABLE all except the necessary cookies. If you click “Accept” you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
