Shaping the USS pension negotiations

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Members of UCU University of Leeds branch proposed six motions to go to the UCU special conference about the USS pensions dispute, on 21 June. Members of the branch submitted and approved six motions and these have been amalgamated by the committee into two motions (because there is a limit of two per branch):

Campaigning for DB pensions as the best social pension provision

Conference notes:

  • our successful industrial action defended the principle of Defined Benefit (DB) pensions, challenging political orthodoxy to accept DB pensions were “unaffordable”.
  • the current government is weak
  • widespread criticism of university leaders for their enrichment.
  • pensions are deferred wages, thus increased employee pension contributions are a de facto pay cut.
  • Labour Party policy has shifted from solely promoting Defined Contribution (DC) Pensions towards support for Defined Benefit pensions.

Conference believes:

  • the best social pension provision is DB

Conference resolves:

  • to campaign for DB pensions within and without the labour movement, launching via a national trade union conference on the future of pension provision in Britain, together with advocates of DB pension schemes.
  • to work with all relevant political parties, calling them to advocate for collective provision of DB pensions, the public university and academic freedom.
  • any increase in employee pension payments should be compensated for in future pay settlements.

 

USS JEP

Conference notes the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) could recommend a Collective Defined Contribution (CDC) scheme to replace the current USS Defined Benefit (DB) scheme.

Conference believes CDC schemes are considerably inferior to established DB schemes, even superior to individual DC plans.

Conference agrees UCU contact with the JEP and its chair should involve all our elected lay negotiators.

Conference instructs our negotiators to:

  • Publicise any refusal, delays or conditionality by USS upon releasing information to JEP.
  • Encourage members to make submissions to JEP.
  • Arrange a dedicated UCU website section for JEP information and reports.
  • oppose replacing the USS DB scheme with a CDC scheme, although a CDC scheme might form part of a top-up scheme for those earning over the cap in the current capped DB scheme
  • pursue measures for improving pension arrangements for members on lower incomes, in the early career stage, on casualised contracts, and in equality strands.

Vote! Pay + Equality Claim (UCU consultative ballot)

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

(Text of email sent to all Leeds UCU members on 8 June 2018)

You will have had (or should shortly receive) a very important email from UCU entitled “UCU Pay and equality consultation”. (If you have not received it, please click [here] for a replacement). This is a vital UCU internal consultative ballot (the stage before an ‘official’ ballot which, by law, would need to be conducted by post). As ever, we ask all members to vote by the 27 June deadline. Turnout matters and is a way of showing and building strength in itself. We are also asking members to observe the recommendations on which the national negotiators, the Higher Education Committee, and the annual Higher Education Sector Conference last week are united…

Key Information (in brief): 

Even conservative assessments (including [Michael Otsuka’s]) show declining real-terms pay, and that’s before you factor in casualisation, discrimination, the effect of workload inflation, etc. Therefore:

  • Please vote to REJECT the pay offer in question 1
  • Please vote YES to taking sustained industrial action if that is needed in question 2

(See attached picture)

The proportion of university expenditure spent on staff has fallen to just 54.7%, while reserves held by institutions have increased by 259% and capital expenditure by 34.9%. It’s about time money was invested in staff – which will also benefit our students.

Further Details (longer explanatory content!): 

What is the pay claim?

Every year, the trade unions recognised to represent various categories of staff in Higher Education come together to work out if a “joint claim” is possible for negotiating with employers, who are represented in pay negotiations by the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA). That’s a different body to pension negotiations where we deal with Universities UK (though astute members may notice the membership of both UCEA and UUK can overlap!). UCEA and the trade unions meet at “JNCHES” – the Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff.

This year all five trade unions have agreed a joint pay and equality claim which you can read in full [here] – scroll down to page 3 for the details and background to the joint claim. The headlines are as follows:

New JNCHES claim 2018/19

The Higher Education trade unions national claim for 2018/19 is:

    • An increase to all spine points on the 50 point national pay scale of 7.5% or £1,500 whichever is greater
    • £10 per hour minimum wage with all HEIs to become foundation living wage employers ensuring all campus staff are paid at least the foundation living wage rate.
    • Nationally agreed framework for action to close the gender pay gap by 2020.
    • Nationally-agreed framework for action on precarious contracts
    • Nationally-agreed payment to recognise excessive workloads
    • To establish the Scottish Sub-Committee of New JNCHES as set out under the New JNCHES


Why does this matter?

It’s really important to note how united the five unions are about this claim. We believe that meeting these criteria would mean universities begin to meaningfully address a range of issues that to date, they have failed to adequately recognise or to tackle. This is in a context of reduced spending on staff, higher spending on things like new building projects, and concern over the eye watering salaries and pension pots of Vice Chancellors and other senior managers in the sector.

What’s this about frameworks for action on precarious contracts and gender pay?

For years, UCU has been at the forefront of pushing for meaningful action from our employers on casualisation. The UCU Anti-Casualisation committee (representing grass-roots members on precarious, casualised contracts) has pressed hard to firmly entrench anti-casualisation objectives into all pay negotiations, recognising also how the effects of casualisation intersect with oppression and pay gaps related to gender, race, disability, and sexual orientation. There is a significant problem here: the employers’ body (UCEA) has repeatedly stated that it has no mandate from its members (employers) to negotiate anything firm to tackle casualisation. Instead, we have been offered “JNCHES working groups” which have been incredibly frustrating exercises for all involved, as the most they have left to are sets of non-enforceable and fairly lukewarm recommendations. We, and the other trade unions alongside us, are fed up with this. We have therefore insisted on the inclusion of a tangible, nationally agreed frameworks in the pay and equality claim, to tackle the scourge of casualisation and gender pay gaps in our sector.

Once again, UCEA has only made an offer of limited work on fixed term contracts and variable hours contracts, focusing on data and with no commitment to the action urgently needed to address the growing problems of precarity. The “offer” on gender pay is similarly nondescript with little to no tangible action agreed to address pay gaps. We want to be able to hold our employers to account, so it is essential that we fight for national frameworks in addition to our important local anti-casualisation and gender pay claims at branch level. The lukewarm responses from our employers on these important issues are further reasons to REJECT this pay offer and fight for equality as part of this claim.

Should we turn down 2%? What is “catch up and keep up”?

We need to think about how much our pay has been eroded over time, and how much it will continue to erode the longer we continue with sub-inflationary pay “offers”. Thus we need to “catch up” on the cumulative loss in our real-terms pay, and make sure that universities “keep up” too.

The initial Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) pay offer was 1.7% (or £350, whichever was greater). This was obviously somewhat below the unions’ pay claim of 7.5% (or £1500, whichever is the greater). Following the last negotiation meeting at the 10 May, UCEA’s final offer is now 2% for staff on spIne point 16 and above, and £425 for staff on spine point 15 and below. This does not match inflation by any measure. In the context of large surpluses in university bank accounts, and huge spending on building projects, any pay offer that falls short of inflation feels rather insulting.

We have already seen employers attempt to characterise their offer as “generous”. We have seen employers (such as the University of Leeds) conflate the incremental rises that staff who have not yet become “stuck” at the top of a grade receive each year with the idea of a pay rise applied to the scale as a whole. Our pay scale increments are in place to reflect the additional expertise and experience accrued each year by staff on a particular grade: we need to defend our incremental pay spine *and* make sure we are not duped by the notion that their figure should be included in any calculations of pay awards made to the overall scale.

We (UCU and the other trade unions) argue that existing salaries should at least be increased in line with inflation. In March, the RPI measure of inflation (traditionally used to examine salary costs) stood at 3.3%. However, in view of the erosion to our pay over the last decade, we also argue that our inflation-adjusted salaries have fallen cumulatively since 2009. Looking at the picture since 2010, UCU has calculated that our salaries have also fallen by an estimated 21% in that period. Therefore the pay and equality claim includes an additional increase to at least begin to recoup this cumulative loss of inflation-adjusted pay. UCEA’s “final” offer of 2% is outrageously low.

What about UCEA’s criticism of the unions’ calculations?

In 2016, UCEA criticised UCU for using the RPI (Retail Prices Index) measure of inflation, though they were perfectly happy to use it when trying to justify hikes in tuition fees (see [Mike Otsuka’s piece in the Times Higher] for an analysis of this). There are different ways to measure inflation, and when new measures are introduced it is important to track how we make comparisons over time – it’s easiest to understand when we make ‘like for like’ comparisons.

The traditional measure when looking at wages is the Retail Prices Index (RPI), which dates back longer, and thus allows us to track changes over longer periods of time. RPI has been traditionally used when comparing wage costs, because it accounts for changes in council tax, rents and mortgages (integral parts of most people’s living costs), which the newer CPI (Consumer Prices Index) doesn’t. CPI is also calculated differently to RPI: the former [is worked out using an arithmetical mean between the old and new prices, but CPI uses a geometric, or ‘weighted’, mean]. A geometric mean is better at taking account of the disproportionate influence that a few outliers might have on the total average – see [here] for further explanation of the difference.

CPI does not account for any proportional difference incurred in housing costs such as council tax, mortgage rates, or insurance – it uses rent prices as a proxy measure. However RPI does include housing costs including mortgage payments, rent, and council tax.

The Office for National Statistics also publishes two other measures of inflation:

  • [CPIH] (CPI-with-H-for-Housing) which adjusts to reflect changes in average residential rents and council tax, though not changes in house prices.
  • [RPIJ] (RPI-Jevons formula, using a geometric, or weighted mean) and is adjusted to take account of changes in housing costs, but using a geometric mean based formula. It is not in widespread use.


So, is the pay offer still bad when using other measures of inflation?

Yes! This is why UCU recommends members rejects the current pay offer from UCEA.

Even if we were to use alternative measures of inflation, the current offer from UCEA falls well short of matching inflation, and further short of addressing the erosion of pay over the last ten years. Whichever inflation measure we use, we still see a cumulative loss in income continue if we accept the current offer.

UCU’s calculations show that our inflation-adjusted salaries have fallen dramatically when using RPI as a measure of inflation and 2010 as a benchmark. Even if we calculate the loss in value of our pay using more conservative measures of inflation, and taking 2008 as a benchmark, we see this sustained and serious loss. For example, Michael Otsuka has tracked the real terms (loss in) value of pay at spine point 38 on the pay scale, which is roughly at the level of the (mean) average pay in the sector according to the latest Times Higher [survey]. His workings are [here]. Spine point 38 currently stands at £40, 212 per annum. Looking at the three measures of inflation routinely reported by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), we find:

Rates of inflation-adjusted salary at spine point 38, by measure of inflation

RPI RPIJ CPI CPIH
Jan 08 £46,413 £43,526 £44,531 £43,672
Present  £41,212 £41,212 £41,212 £41,212
% drop 11.2% 5.3% 7.5% 5.6%

 

Therefore, even taking CPIH as a measure of inflation, and even using a baseline of 2008, to match  inflation and to recoup the cumulative loss of inflation-adjusted pay over the last 10 years, note:

  • We would need a 5.6% rise to account for losses in real-terms pay since January 2008
  • The rate of CPIH reported [by the ONS] for April 2018 is 2.2%
  • To take home pay in 2018-19 with the same real-terms value as in 2008, our pay would need to increase by 7.8%.

Anyone looking at the numbers ought also to bear in mind the risk of elevated pension contributions in the future which will also see a loss in take-home pay for many.

What about workload?

Workload is part of the pay claim because we are working harder and longer hours, which means our average hourly pay is effectively falling even faster than our annual pay rate. We know workload is a huge problem across the sector; UCU campaigns about this at a local and national level. We are not always taken seriously by our employers, and we all-too-often hear attempts to “explain away” or even justify workloads which make people ill, as if they are merely a “character trait” of the person affected by the stress they cause. A UCU survey conducted in 2016, [Workload is an Education Issue], found that the average academic is working unpaid for the equivalent of two days every week. Women academics have also been held back by typically greater administrative loads than their male colleagues as reported [here], which is likely to factor further into the gender pay gap. Think of the amount of unpaid hours we know staff typically undertake in higher education – time which is more likely to go unpaid for those on casualised, especially hourly paid contracts (especially those with “rolled up” rates for administration and marking, or even rolled up holiday pay). This situation is not ok, it is not safe, and it is therefore this is part of the national pay and equality claim. However, the offer received from our employers does not involve any action to deal with excessive workloads, to compensate members for excessive hours worked or to address the contribution of ridiculous workloads to further declines in rates for the job. It certainly does not take account of the countless unpaid hours contributed to universities by hourly paid and many part-time staff.

Turn out matters! Please VOTE! The internal consultative e-ballot closes on 27 June.

A strong turnout is needed in both any internal consultative ballot and any official ballot – strong results for both of these do strengthen the hand of negotiators.

  • Please vote to REJECT the pay offer in question 1
  • Please vote YES to taking sustained industrial action if that is needed in question 2

(See attached picture)

In Solidarity, 

Vicky and the Committee

 

 

Minutes of AGM 24 May 2018

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Proposed minutes of the annual general meeting, to be confirmed by subsequent AGM.

Thursday 24 May, 3.45pm – 5pm, Workshop Theatre

  1. Minutes of AGM 24 May 2017

Agreed

  • Minutes of recent general meetings

Minutes of general meetings held 15 February and 16 April, and emergency general meetings held 27 March, 4 April and 24 April were agreed.

  • Matters arising

Voted to take the motion “Lost confidence in the democratic conduct of UCU national leadership”, which was remitted to the committee by the emergency general meeting on 5 April, at the AGM.

Lost confidence in the democratic conduct of UCU national leadership

This branch has lost confidence in the democratic conduct of the UCU national leadership.

The following actions are demonstrative of our concerns:

  • On 28th March 2018, in the meeting of UCU branch representatives, the chair refused repeatedly to allow delegates to vote on whether to support an e-ballot; thereby preventing a quantitative determination of the collective preference of the attending branches.
  • On 28th March 2018, in the meeting of the UCU Higher Education Committee (HEC), the General Secretary providing a ‘confidential’ letter from the Chief Executive of UCU (Alastair Jarvis) without providing adequate time for members to review and consult on the implications.
  • On 28th March 2018, in the same meeting of the UCU HEC, the chair (UCU Vice President) then called members to a vote on a motion to conduct an e-ballot on this new ‘proposal’, and judged that all other motions fell when this motion passed. This prevented HEC delegates from presenting or discussing the nuanced ‘revise and resubmit’ preferences of their constituents.
  • On 28th March 2018, in the subsequent UCU press release, the General Secretary  misrepresented the views of UCU branch delegates by stating that the ‘majority of branches… indicated that they wished the proposal to go to a members’ consultation’. This conflicts with individual accounts of the meeting and is quantitatively impossible to declare, since no vote was permitted in the prior branch meeting.
  • On 4th April 2018, the General Secretary included partial and misrepresentative material directly in the e-ballot sent to members to vote on the 23rd March UUK proposal. In this material, a ‘no’ vote was inappropriately conflated with demands for a ‘no detriment’ clause and no-voters were forcefully warned to ‘commit to taking much more strike action in May and June and then again in the autumn’.

The motion was carried unanimously

Agreed unanimously that delegates should support the University of Sheffield branch in their challenge to the UCU congress business committee (CBC) that their motion on union democracy is out of order.

Discussion about mandating or steering delegates on motions around the issues of loss of confidence, of no confidence and of censure. Consensus was not to mandate delegates but to trust them and that their conscience should be guided by what the branch as voted on but that delegates should report back.

  • President’s report

An unprecedented year with two major disputes in one academic year, both were well supported and built membership and activism. Our teach outs model taken up across the country. We’ve had major political support and improved engagement with students. Big increase in membership and a refresh in our reps structure. I’m proud to be part of the Leeds UCU community.

On USS pensions, we’ll see what comes out of the joint evaluation panel – if we need to take more action. UCU has a special higher education conference on this on 21 June.

We’ve seen a renewed focus on university governance, and intersecting issues of casualisation, equality, gender pay. We’ve seen increasing postgraduate involvement in the union. We’re arranging an anticasualisation roadshow for October. We have a migration legal briefing tomorrow.

Issues around IT and Health and Safety restructures. On IT, the people on grade 8 will stay on grade 8. Some issues around management trying to use performance management to drive them down. We could have done more to push the university – learned lessons. We’ve been meeting with IT managers weekly to try to address issues. HR are recommending we look again at how we do reorganisations.

We’re still in dispute with the university over the university statutes. We expect the status quo ante to apply. We are corresponding with national UCU. University senior management plan to write to everyone tomorrow to say they will implement the new statutes in January.

  • Appointment of auditors for 2018-2019

Stefan Kesting appointed

  • Appointment of tellers

Tellers were Michelle Schneider and Dan Hope.

  • Election of committee for 2018-2019 academic year
    • President

Vicky Blake elected unopposed

  • Vice-president

Tim Goodall elected unopposed

  • Treasurer

Nigel Bubb elected unopposed

  • Honorary secretary

Jonathan Saha elected unopposed

  • Membership officer

Ben Plumpton elected unopposed

  • Equality officer

Dima Barakat Chami elected unopposed

  • Campaigns officer

Lesley McGorrigan elected unopposed

  • Health and safety officer

Neil Maughan elected unopposed

  • Anti-casualisation officer

Cat Oakley elected unopposed

  • Ordinary committee members

The following members were elected unopposed

Gabriella Alberti

George Ellison

Alaric Hall

Hugh Hubbard

Laura Loyola-Hernandez

Lata Narayanaswamy

Brendan Nicholls

Malcolm Povey

Alan Roe

Andi Rylands

Paul Steenson

Mark Taylor-Batty

Peter Tennant

Mark Walkley

Chloe Wallace

Rachel Walls

Andy West

Kelli Zezulka

The meeting then became inquorate. Below are notes of the subsequent informal discussions

  • Treasurer’s report

An indicative vote was taken on the treasurer’s proposed local subscription options.

Band Salary Range     Current Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
  start mid top   No change 0.0067% 0.0060%
F0 £60,000 £65,000 above £2.40 £2.40 £4.08 £3.90
F1 £40,000 £50,000 £59,999 £2.40 £2.40 £2.72 £3.00
F2 £30,000 £35,000 £39,999 £2.40 £2.40 £2.04 £2.10
F3 £20,000 £25,000 £29,999 £2.40 £2.40 £1.36 £1.50
F4 £10,000 £15,000 £19,999 £2.40 £2.40 £0.68 £0.90
F5 £5,000 £7,500 £9,999 £0.60 £0.60 £0.34 £0.45
F6 £0 £2,500 £5,000 £0.60 £0.60 £0.00 £0.15

The three proposed options were:

1.   Maintain current rates

2.   0.0067% of ‘start’ of salary range

3.   0.0060% of ‘mid’ of salary range, noting the estimate of £65,000 for the £60,000-above range.

The indicative vote was for option 2. There was also some discussion about exploring a more tapered system for the next year where lower paid members would pay a lower percentage of salary.

  • Health and safety officer’s report

Written report was circulated.

  1. Membership officer’s report

Increase of 365 members. Thanks to everyone who has helped by encouraging colleagues to join. Thanks to the vice chancellor, HR and the deputy vice-chancellor for student education for their considerable help in increasing union membership. (There was a proposal to send them a letter of thanks.) Big increase in postgraduate members – now over 200. We all need to talk to colleagues about joining the union.

  1. Motions (see appendix)
    1. Motion 1. Gaza protest and Israeli response. Proposed by James Dickins.
    1. Motion 2. Rule change – department reps. Proposed by Alaric Hall

Motions will be moved to a later meeting. Gaza motion similar to this one has been put on the congress agenda by the NEC.

  1. Any other business

None taken.

UCU legal briefing for international members

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

We are international. Let's keep it that way.

Legal briefing for international members

Friday 25 May, 12pm – 1pm
Baines Wing seminar room 2.37

This briefing will be particularly focused on members’ concerns around visa requirements in relation to industrial action (“unauthorised absence” and reductions in pay), but can also cover any other questions regarding our legal working rights (not surpassing the 180 days in a 12 month period, research leave, pensions, etc.).

This briefing is also open to international staff who aren’t UCU members.

This is a general briefing legal briefing rather than casework representation. If you need individual support through the union please contact ucu@leeds.ac.uk or for individual legal advice on immigration issues see ucu.org.uk/legal

Let’s get the law changed

The legal briefing will look primarily at the Home Office current rules, but UCU is challenging the Home Office to change it’s rules to ensure staff working on visas don’t have a reduced right to strike. UCU general secretary Sally Hunt and Labour’ shadow chancellor John McDonnell MP have written an article calling for clarity from the Home Office.

UCU is calling on members, especially staff working on international visas, to write to their MP and ask them to back UCU’s call.

UCU international staff email list

There’s an email discussion list for international members, which is also open to international staff who are non-members. To sign up go to groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/leedsucuinternationalmembers

(If you can’t sign up using that link you can email ucu@leeds.ac.uk)

 

Leeds UCU awards! (Social)

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

After the AGM, the social.

Update – sorry, social postponed owing to the train strike on Thursday.  We know many members travel by train and will need to leave on time because the trains will finish early that day.

Loads of UCU members have worked really hard this year and done fantastic things. Let’s get together and celebrate. 5.30pm (straight after the branch AGM), at the Victoria Hotel, 28 Great George Street, Leeds, LS1 3DL.

If you want to nominate someone for some made up category or other for the Leeds UCU awards, get your nominations in to ucu@leeds.ac.uk by lunchtime on the 23rd so that Alan can make some underwhelming certificates to present them with.

Categories might include best dressed picket, most enthusiastic singer at rallies, or whatever you like. (Doesn’t have to relate to the strikes – we’ve done a lot this academic year!)

AGM agenda

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Annual General Meeting

Thursday 24 May 2018

3.45pm – 5pm

(Tea and cake from 3.30pm)

Workshop Theatre

Agenda

  1. Minutes of AGM 24 May 2017
  2. Minutes of recent general meetings
  3. Matters arising
  4. President’s report
  5. Appointment of auditors for 2018-2019
  6. Appointment of tellers
  7. Election of committee for 2018-2019 academic year
    • President
    • Vice-president
    • Treasurer
    • Honorary secretary
    • Membership officer
    • Equality officer
    • Campaigns officer
    • Health and safety officer
    • Anti-casualisation officer
    • Ordinary committee members (14 to elect)
  8. Treasurer’s report
    Including proposal to change local subscription rates, see note below
  9. Health and safety officer’s report
  10. Membership officer’s report
  11. Motions (see appendix)
    • Motion 1. Gaza protest and Israeli response. Proposed by James Dickins.
    • Motion 2. Rule change – department reps. Proposed by Alaric Hall
  12. Any other business

Motions received

Motion 1. Gaza Protest and the Israeli Response. Emergency motion for UCU congress, proposed by James Dickins

Congress registers

  • the Gaza civilians recently murdered by IDF snipers, and use of dum-dum bullets to maximise trauma;
  • renewed Israeli bombing, damaging infrastructure and killing more civilians.
  • Congress believes:
  • Israeli policy is to render life unliveable in Gaza and the West Bank, enabling further colonisation by Israeli settlers;
  • the barbarous use of military might, forced expulsion, systematic constitutional discrimination inside Israel, fully attested use of torture against prisoners, abrogation of Palestinian human rights, and illegal settlement of Palestinian land, render Israel an inappropriate partner for any British Government or British educational institution.

Congress affirms that this criticism of Israel is motivated neither by hatred of Jews, nor of Jewish Israelis.

Congress instructs the General Secretary to:

  • write urging the British Government to cease arms sales and military/intelligence cooperation with Israel, review of all trading arrangements and exchanges, and to withdraw the UK Ambassador;
  • issue a press release on this question immediately; and
  • notify members of this policy.

 

Motion 2. Rule change motion – department reps, requires a two-thirds majority vote; proposed by Alaric Hall

The meeting notes:

  • 29 of our proposed rules (‘Departmental Reps’) says that ‘Each School/Unit/Service is requested to elect a departmental representative.’
  • Leeds UCU has since found that it would be valuable for departments also to have representatives for casualised, postgraduate, and international staff.

The meeting moves:

  • To amend ‘Each School/Unit/Service is requested to elect a departmental representative’ to ‘Each School/Unit/Service is requested to elect a departmental representative, and other representatives as needed by the Committee for the satisfactory representation of the membership (such as representatives for casualised, postgraduate, and international staff)’.

 

Proposal to amend local subscription rates

The Treasurer has drawn up proposals to change the subscription rates and three options will be put to the AGM next Thursday.

This follows a request made at the last AGM for the Treasurer to bring back proposals for a more gradual local subscription rate with the aim of reducing the cost of UCU subscriptions to lower paid members without causing a deficit by reducing the overall income.

Nigel’s proposal is in the Treasurer’s report to the annual general meeting which has been emailed to all members. Please read the full report – this is just a quick unofficial summary.

Salary Range option 1 option 2 option 3
start top No change (0.0067% of ‘start’ of salary range) (0.0060% of ‘mid’ of salary range)
£60,000 above £2.40 £4.08 £3.90
£40,000 £59,999 £2.40 £2.72 £3.00
£30,000 £39,999 £2.40 £2.04 £2.10
£20,000 £29,999 £2.40 £1.36 £1.50
£10,000 £19,999 £2.40 £0.68 £0.90
£5,000 £9,999 £0.60 £0.34 £0.45
£0 £5,000 £0.60 £0.00 £0.15

(These are proposals for the local subscription rate, which is in addition to the national subscription.)

Nominations now open for next year’s UCU committee

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

UCU members elect a branch committee every year to shape, lead and facilitate the branch member-led campaigns and activities.

It really matters that the committee is representative, both in the diversity of people and contract types. If you’re interested and would like to know more, please get in touch with me or one of the current committee members. You don’t have to have experience of being a union rep to be on the committee.

Nominations are now open for all the elected committee roles for the 2018-2019 academic year*:

  • Ordinary committee member (14 spaces)
  • President
  • Vice‑president
  • Treasurer
  • Honorary secretary
  • Membership officer
  • Equality officer
  • Campaigns officer
  • Health and safety officer
  • Anti-casualisation officer

 

Some ordinary committee members are likely to be asked to take a lead on particular issues. These roles are not elected separately.

If you want to take the lead on one of the following issues it might be helpful if that was written on your nomination

  • Ordinary committee member (Postgraduate rep)
  • Ordinary committee member (International staff rep)
  • Ordinary committee member (International postgraduate rep)
  • Ordinary committee member (Environment rep)

 

Nominations for all committee positions must be sent to the branch administrator by 3.45 on Wednesday 23 May (24 hours before the AGM).

You can use the branch committee nomination form, but you don’t need to. Please scan and email nominations to a.j.u.smith@leeds.ac.uk or post them to UCU office, 7.51 EC Stoner Building.

(Nominations must be accompanied by the written consent of the nominee and supported by the identifiable signatures of two members of the local association. If there have been insufficient nominations to fill all committee places before the meeting further nominations to fill remaining vacancies may be proposed from the floor of the Annual General Meeting. Nominations for officers and committee for the ensuing year may be made by any member of the branch.)

(*the committee can appoint up to 4 additional members to the committee)

The Precarious Postdoc: Interdisciplinary Research and Casualised Labour in the Humanities and Social Sciences

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

This important piece of work by Catherine Oakley, UCU University of Leeds member, and Sophie A Jones shows the mess of precarity facing postdocs, specifically in Humanities and Social Sciences but notes many of these bad practices started in Stem subjects, and proposes how faculty research leads, funding bodies and university senior management teams can fix these problems.

The local UCU committee and UCU anticasualisation reps will work hard to try to get these recommendations implemented at the University of Leeds.

We all deserve job security.

http://www.workingknowledgeps.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WKPS_PrecariousPostdoc_PDF_Interactive.pdf

 

Vote in University Council Elections!

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Your chance to vote for two elected positions on University Council is here, and it closes at 12 noon on Friday 18 May! There are also elections for several University committees – please use your votes! You will have received, or will soon receive an email entitled “Online Voting” from Electoral Reform Services.

Vicky Blake, current UCU Branch President and Mark Taylor-Batty, former UCU Branch President and current member of University Council, are both standing for election for University Council.  Both Vicky and Mark have worked very hard to represent UCU members over several years.  Please do consider voting for them in the University Council election. Their statements are available via the voting link, and below:

Vicky Blake – Election statement for Council

Healthy university communities hold democratic representation and accountable decision-making at their heart. I will represent ordinary university staff members’ concerns in matters of governance, with deep commitment to transparency and rigour. As an elected University Senator for two years, and through elected UCU positions at the University of Leeds, I know many staff feel disenfranchised from university governance structures. I seek change: increased openness will facilitate engagement with how these structures work.

I work in Educational Engagement and am attached to the Faculty of Arts. I previously worked in fixed term research and tutoring roles in Philosophy. As UCU President, I am experienced in negotiation and scrutiny of complex issues including proposed changes to terms and conditions, policies and procedures. As a nationally elected UCU Higher Education Committee representative I understand local issues within the wider UK Higher Education context.

Educational opportunities should be accessible to people of all backgrounds. We must cement our commitment to diversity and equality by ensuring we make meaningful progress in promoting secure work over a reliance on precarious, casualised contracts that damage the health of individuals and our academic mission. Council must pursue a positive, enriching working and learning environment for all at Leeds.

Mark Taylor-Batty – Election statement for Council

I have been an elected member of Council for the last three years. As a participant in council, as a member of Senate, and as a recent officer of the local UCU branch, I have had regular insight into University governance structures and have participated in or witnessed and responded to processes and decisions that affect all of our academic and service communities; changes to statutes, proposed adjustments to pensions and salary, restructures, the improvement of working conditions and of policy and procedure. I strongly believe that the power to define and broadcast what is best for the university remains in the hands of too few, and I remain concerned to try to ensure the best interests of fellow employees are fully represented and heard in the council chamber. I’d be happy and honoured to serve and represent colleagues in Council for a further term.

‘Disappointing’ opening pay offer from employers

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

The employers have made their opening offer on HE pay. The UCU national negotiators’ view is that this is “a disappointing offer that falls short of even keeping the value of pay in line with the increases to the cost of living and does not address the serious and wide spread issues of pay inequality, workload and precarious employment in the sector.”

The final scheduled meeting between the employers and UCU negotiators will be on 10 May.

More details on the national UCU website at ucu.org.uk/article/9435/HE-national-negotiations-2018-19

 

Posted in Pay