Policy decision: motion for sustained and sustainable industrial action

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

This motion was agreed by the branch at an extra-ordinary general meeting 14 January 2022

This branch notes that:

  • Our branch has a strong mandate for industrial action relating to the USS dispute and the ‘Four Fights’
  • we had an excellent response from members to the strike action prior to the Christmas holiday.
  • other UCU branches who have been in local dispute have been taking sustained strike action
  • we have, as yet, little information from HQ as to the next stage of the industrial dispute

This branch believes that:

  • it is only through sustained strike action that the employers will be forced to concede to UCU’s demands.
  • we need to ensure maximum involvement of our members in visible activity during the strike period, both in person and online
  • this involves making the sustained action sustainable, and be realistic about members’ in-person participation at a time of online working and the pandemic , hence diversifying our forms of action during a long strike
  • escalation including marking boycott should be considered if the employer does not come back to the negotiating table

This branch resolves that:

  • we prepare for the possibility of sustained strike action (2-4 weeks) followed by action short of strike
  • we hold regular organising meetings to review tactics around timing and mixing of picketing, rallies and teach outs.
  • we share educational material from the UCU Strike Schools including how to engage with the public and co-workers during pickets

Proposed by G. Alberti, J. Holgate, D. Kascelan, moved by Gabriella Alberti, seconded by Alan Roe, the motion was amended during the debate to the text above, the motion was carried as amended.

Omicron variant and health and safety

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

We are continuing to engage with management in relation to the current fast moving public health situation. At the moment, we expect that most staff are working from home and the University position is that staff should only be working from campus when it is necessary. If you are being asked to work on campus when it is not necessary please let us know. The University has also tightened up the rules in relation to the wearing of face coverings – we have emphasised the importance of clear and firm communication of these new rules to both students and staff, whilst recognising, of course, that some people are exempt from wearing face coverings. We have asked management to look into providing masks of FFP2 quality to staff. We can confirm that at the moment all ventilated rooms are ventilated to a standard that exceed UCU requirements but please continue to report to us any concerns you have about spaces being used over capacity.  

We are also continuing to emphasise the importance of protecting staff with medical conditions who are vulnerable to COVID-19, or those who live with those people – whilst the public discourse is that Omicron is less serious, the fact remains that this virus can seriously harm and kill people and some are at more risk than others. Please let us know if you need our support on this.  

Finally, we have been listening to concerns from PGR members who teach about the lack of entitlement to paid sick leave. This forms part of our anticasualisation claim to the University, which has now been ignored by management for 3 years. In the current context, we emphasise that paid sick leave for all is a vital measure to enable people to take the necessary steps to stop the virus spreading. We will be discussing this with senior management very shortly and will keep you posted.

This post is from an email to members from branch president Chloe Wallace sent on 11 January 2021

Request for motions/items for general meeting 25 January

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

The next ordinary general meeting for members of UCU University of Leeds branch is 1pm – 2pm Tuesday 25 January 2022.

Please submit any motions or agenda items for this meeting to ucu@leeds.ac.uk by 12pm Tuesday 18 January.

(This is not to be confused with the extraordinary general meeting at 1pm on Friday 14 January to feed into national decisions about the ongoing industrial action, for which motions should be submitted by 12pm tomorrow (6 January) if possible, or by 12pm on Wednesday 12 January for late motions arising from of something after the initial deadline.)

There’s some advice on turning ideas into motions on the page Making UCU branch general meetings work better, or you can ask your UCU department rep, or a branch committee member, or me.

There’s a list of the scheduled general meetings for this academic year at leedsucu.org.uk/about-us/general-meetings-2021-2022 (this page doesn’t usually include extraordinary/emergency meetings).

UCU equality officer vacancy

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Ben has retired so we need a new equality officer – could it be you? Or one of your colleagues?

At the last annual general meeting we agreed Ben Plumpton and Megan Povey would jointly cover the UCU University of Leeds branch equality officer role from September to December, and that we would seek new nominations after Christmas. Ben has now retired (after years of amazing work for UCU members) so the committee is seeking nominations for a new equality officer.

You can find out more about the role of branch equality officer on the page standing for election to the branch committee and by contacting me or branch president Chloe Wallace.

The deadline for nominations is the close of Friday 21 January.

When making a nomination, or thinking of standing yourself, it’s useful to consider the importance that the committee represents the whole membership and no group is over-represented to the accidental exclusion of others, as happens some years (but not every year) with the over-representation of male and/or white union members.

This post is from an email to members from the branch administrator on 5 January 2022

Please fill in the USS pension consultation

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

You can submit your responses via: www.ussconsultation2021.co.uk. You will need your USS member number and your National Insurance number to log in.

Once you have logged in, you can play with the USS modeller to calculate your own personal loss in retirement from the proposed changes. We have discovered that the USS modeller has predicted even greater losses for you than the UCU’s own modeller, and certainly much higher than the UUK  (and our own University) have disingenuously tried to indicate might occur. The key data here is the value of your pension. Look at how much less this will be after these cuts, and multiply that amount by the number of years you expect to enjoy retirement. Then go to the bottom of the modeller page and adjust the CPI inflation figure. You might want to use today’s inflation rate of 5.1%. Then go back up the page and see what this does to your proposed pension changes compared to current benefits.

We know that in the last USS consultation with members, the USS disregarded responses that were repeated and clearly cut and pasted from templates. For that reason, we are not suggesting a fixed set of replies. However, what follows is a summary of the questions, some clarifications in square brackets, and some italicised thoughts for you to reflect upon in formulating your responses. We have been informed by Sam Marsh’s thoughts for this. 

Question 1: “It is proposed that the salary threshold will reduce from £59,883.65 to £40,000 from 1 April 2022, meaning your Retirement Income Builder (that is, the defined benefit section of the Scheme) benefits will be based on your salary up to that level for the 2022/23 year. The Salary Threshold would continue to be increased annually in line with inflation but capped at 2.5% CPI in any year.”

[Two impacts here: a. the guaranteed part of your pension is being reduced if you earn above £40k and b. If inflation goes above 2.5% this has an effect here of restricting the increase of the Salary Threshold, meaning more people could be caught by it, depending on future salary growth. CPI inflation is currently 5.1% and RPI is 7.1%]

Thoughts for your response: You might note something about how this change removes parts of the guaranteed pension of many more people than the current threshold effects. There might be something about intergenerational unfairness here.  In relation to the 2.5% cap, you might note that CPI stands at 5.1%, and that predictions are for no less than 4% in 2022. 

Question 2. “It is proposed that the rate at which benefits are built up in the USS Retirement Income Builder (that is, the defined benefit section of the Scheme) will reduce – currently members get 1/75th of salary (up to the Salary Threshold) in DB pension each year (and 3/75ths as a lump sum) but it is proposed to change to 1/85th (and 3/85ths) respectively.”

[This is about the amount of pension that your contributions ‘buy’ each year. Multiply your gross salary by 1/75 and then by 1/85: this is the amount of annual pension that your salary buys in one year of active service, and the difference in your two calculations is how much that is reduced by. That amount then is added to all other such amounts from each year of service, and these increase in the background in relation to inflation (see question 3), until you retire and draw upon them added together as an income. The 3/75ths and 3/85ths calculation relate to the lump sum you can get at the point of retirement in addition to that ongoing income.]

Thoughts for your response: As Sam marsh says, if you consider the cuts to be based on a distorted valuation, conducted at the worst point in the recent pandemic, then do say so. If you believe the valuation suffers from extreme levels of prudence, then say so. If you believe that the cuts are unjustified by this unwarranted valuation process, say so. 

Question 3. “JNC recommended changes – inflation cap. It is proposed that the increases (before and after retirement) to your benefits built up after 1 April 2022 to protect them against inflation will be capped at 2.5% in any year.”

[The pension that you earn with each year of salary increases in the background in relation to inflation, like interest in the bank. The proposal here would stop that pension growing in line with inflation if inflation goes above 2.5% (It is currently 5.1%). This would have a very significant impact on the value of your pension in retirement as it would not have grown to match the growth in the cost of living.]

Thoughts for your response: These changes fortunately do not impact on pension that has been put aside from salary up to the point of the changes, which will continue to grow with inflation. This however means that an intergenerational unfairness is hard-baked into these changes, and the younger you are the more your pension will be negatively impacted by inflation over 2.5%. Again, if you consider the cuts to be based on a distorted valuation, conducted at the worst point in the recent pandemic, then do say so. If you believe the valuation suffers from extreme levels of prudence, then say so. If you believe that the cuts are unjustified by this unwarranted valuation process, say so. You might wish to point out that the JNC ‘recommendations’ were not the result of an agreement at JNC, but rather by the casting vote of the chair after UCU’s costed proposals were ruled off the table by UUK’s behaviour. 

Question 4. “JNC recommended changes – [You] will continue to contribute 9.8% of your total salary to USS (the rate which applies from 1 October 2021); your employer will continue to pay 21.4% of your total salary.  Note, if your salary is higher than the Salary Threshold (which is proposed to be £40,000 from 1 April 2022) then, as now, 8% from your contributions on your salary above the Salary Threshold (and 12% from your employer’s contributions on your Salary above the Salary Threshold) will be paid into your fund in the USS Investment Builder (that is, the defined contribution section of the Scheme) section. What are your views on this?”

Thoughts for your response: This implies a reduction in the value of defined benefits and no increase in the value of defined contribution – your pension shrinks. This allows the employers to sit on a profit as they hold on to the amounts already set aside to pay any expected increase in contributions this year, but staff continue to pay the same for reduced benefit. You might wish to point out that no valuation prepared at a sensible date would necessitate these changes. Again, you might wish to point out that the JNC ‘recommendations’ were not the result of an agreement at JNC, but rather by the casting vote of the chair after UCU’s costed proposals were ruled off the table by UUK’s behaviour.

Question 5. “Of the following changes, please state the order of your preferred approach to addressing the increased cost of benefits? A. Reduction in the Salary Threshold used to calculate defined benefits (from £59,883.65) B. Reduction in the future accrual rate used to calculate defined benefits (from 1/75ths) C. Introduction of a 2.5% cap on increases to pensions built up from 1 April 2022 D. Contribution increases (from a total of 31.2% of salary; 9.8% of salary paid by members and 21.4% of salary paid by employers) E. Any other benefit adjustment (please specify).

Thoughts for your response: You might wish to indicate that you would propose E, which might involve a new valuation at a sensible date, for example 31 March 2021, and necessitating no change to benefit structures. You might indicate that all other options are undesirable equally.

Question 6. “Fallback position – If the JNC finds it cannot make a final recommendation on benefit and contribution rate changes before 28 February 2022 (in the form of consent to an executed deed of amendment) the current benefit structure would remain in place and member and employer contribution rates would instead increase. Under this fall-back proposal the rates would increase in steps every six months starting at 11% in April 2022 and rising until October 2025 where they would reach 18.8% for members and 38.2% for employers. This would remain the case unless and until an alternative benefit specification is proposed and agreed, or a subsequent valuation is undertaken and concluded which would reflect the economic, funding and covenant positions at the time of that valuation.”

Thoughts for your response: You might simply point out that this could be avoided if the UUK consent to the current terms being suggested by the UCU. Or, as Sam Marsh points out, if you think that maintaining current benefits is the top priority (even if that means paying 11% from April-October while a new valuation is undertaken), then do say so. 

Question 7. “Your opportunity to provide further insight. This question is not a formal consultation question – it doesn’t relate directly to the proposed changes to benefits or contributions from 1 April 2022. However, it’s a chance for you to provide your views in some related areas and maybe help contribute to the development of specific options in the scheme in the future. USS provides valuable pension benefits to members in return for a specific contribution rate. These benefits are valuable but around 15% of employees who are eligible choose not to be a member of USS – many citing concerns around affordability or portability of their benefits. Employers, following the recommendation of the Joint Expert Panel, are considering whether there should be more choice and flexibility for USS members. This could be, for example, the ability for the member to choose to pay lower contributions and build up a reduced amount of pension.  What are your views on the introduction of choice and would any particular flexibility be attractive to you?”

Thoughts for your response: You might wish to welcome choice and flexibility, but note that these should not cause intergenerational unfairness. 

Question 8. “Any final comments or views?”

Thoughts for your response: You may wish to note that the USS are implementing these changes before receiving the responses from you and other members via this consultation. You may wish to query therefore what the impact of the consultation might be on those changes. You might wish to query whether USS are in breach of the scheme rules in how they have conducted the valuation process (see this thread). As Sam Marsh says: If you consider the directors of the scheme to have acted contrary to your best interests, whether of the valuation date, the lack of control of scheme costs, the lack of divestment, or the equalities considerations of the proposed cuts, then say so. And if you are prepared to strike to ensure that the cuts are revoked, and a new valuation is demanded by employers, then do say so. 

For more on the pensions issue,You can read our USS FAQs here and our local pages on this issue here. Please do feel free to share this email with colleagues who are not in the UCU.

N.B. These changes will only affect future pension accrual. What you have already accrued will continue to grow in relation to the terms that it was earned under. This is another example of intergenerational unfairness as they impact on younger members more than older members.

This post is from an email to members from Mark Taylor-Batty, the branch committee’s lead rep on pensions, sent 16 December 2021

Working to contract

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

You will have received emails from UCU general secretary Jo Grady in relation to working to contract – please do follow the advice and instruction in them, bearing in mind that our strategy is to build pressure and escalate action. Circumstances are changing compared with previous periods of working to contract: the increased use of online asynchronous materials for teaching, the increased demands of the Office for Students in terms of recovery of learning, and the developing public health situation, and other things. This changes the ways in which we have leverage and therefore the threats we can make to drive this dispute to a successful end. For now, the priority is to refuse to overwork without specific instruction from your line manager- and that applies also, and perhaps particularly, to those of us who lead areas of work and line manage others.

In that regard, I draw attention again to the university’s closure days, to which you are contractually entitled – you should not agree to work on a closure day unless doing so is part of your contract. In relation to the public health situation, please note in particular that it is not reasonable to expect anyone to overwork as a result of that, given the amount of overwork we have routinely been required to do over the past couple of years. If you are asked to engage on short deadlines with the scenario planning process, please speak to your line manager about what work you should deprioritise in order to do that.

This post is from an email to members from branch secretary Chloe Wallace on 10 December 2021

Working from home and health and safety

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Following the announcement of a new recommendation to work from home due to the rise of the Omicron variant, you will have received an email this afternoon outlining the University approach, which is informed by government guidance. Before the Christmas closure we expect that managers will work on the basis of necessity: i.e. that you should only be required to come in to work if it is necessary to perform particular activities. There is also an understanding that a return to home working may not be appropriate for some people at this point. This is a fast moving situation and any decisions taken now about after Christmas may need to be reviewed- but there is scenario planning in terms of all activities, including student education activity. For the moment, the government guidance appears to require planned in person teaching to continue, but that may change as the situation develops. We will, naturally, be continuing to engage with management in the interests of staff. For now, if you are asked to work in a way which you are not happy with (e.g. required to come in when it doesn’t seem necessary, or required to work from home where to do so would harm your mental health), please speak to your line manager and if you don’t get anywhere email ucu@leeds.ac.uk.

This post is from an email to members from branch president Chloe Wallace on 10 December 2021

Extraordinary general meeting 14 January 1pm

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

You will have seen in an email from UCU general secretary Jo Grady this week that further decisions as to the progression and escalation of our industrial action will be taken in a meeting of UCU’s higher education committee (HEC) in the week beginning 17 January, and that there will be a branch delegate meeting on 18 January for branches to feed in views and positions. As a result, I am calling an extraordinary general meeting for 1pm on Friday 14 January, for the purpose of discussing our feedback and views on the progression of our industrial action. 

If you wish to propose a motion to that meeting please send it to ucu@leeds.ac.uk by 12 noon on Thursday 6 January – that will ensure that we can circulate any motions to members in good time to allow for people to propose amendments. As before, I will only accept late motions if they relate to developments subsequent to the motion deadline (for example, proposals made by HQ after that date for consideration by branches). Link to follow.

This post is based on an email to members from branch president Chloe Wallace on 10 December 2021

Meeting for PGRs

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Next week UCU anti-casualisation officers are holding a meeting for postgraduate researchers (PGRs) who teach and any other hourly-paid teaching staff. We are aware of issues relating to:  

  • teaching face-to-face, 
  • access to sick pay and 
  • flu jabs  

that our HPL/PGR colleagues are facing and would like to address these before we resume teaching in term two. It will also be an opportunity for PGRs/HPLs to raise any other issues, concerns or ideas with the union.

Wednesday 15 December 1-2PM

ALL WELCOME (UCU members and non-members)

For meeting link see email.

Please forward details of the meeting to any hourly-paid staff in your departments who may not receive it through this list and please do get in touch or put colleagues in touch with any questions. 

This post is from an email sent to all members by branch president Chloe Wallace on 10 December 2021

Solidarity with Goldsmiths UCU

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Leeds University UCU stand in full solidarity with Goldsmiths UCU as they continue to take strike action to stop 52 redundancies. The ‘restructure’ which is being threatened is part of a pattern of financialisation across the sector, where decisions are being taken not for academic reasons but rather as a result of pressure from banks. The dispute is therefore of national significance. We have made donations of £500 from our branch account to Goldsmiths strike fund and call on our members and supporters who are able to do so to donate and to send their solidarity to the branch as well.

Donate to the Goldsmiths UCU strike fund here: https://goldsmithsucu.org/donations/strikefund/

Details of the Goldsmiths strike here: https://goldsmithsucu.org/2021/11/15/goldsmiths-local-ucu-strike-nov-23rd-dec-13th-2021/

Follow @GoldsmithsUCU on Twitter for latest updates and tweet your support with hashtag #goldstrike and tagging @goldsmithsUCU