Members agree new policies at general meeting

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Members meeting on 10 December passed 8 motions deciding branch strategy, policy and decisions:

Motion 3: USS pensions

Motion 4: Motion of no confidence in University of Leeds Council USS decisions

Motion 5: Supporting Vicky Blake’s Candidacy for UCU Vice President

Motion 6: Continuing consequences of the IT reorganisation

Motion 7: Responding to the Proposed Centralisation of Timetabling

Motion 8: Anti-casualisation claim

Motion 1: Re-affiliation and resubscription to Labour Research Department

Motion 2: Re-affiliation to Leeds Trades Unions Council

Motion 3: USS pensions

  1. Leeds University UCU notes that individual employer responses to USS consultations are now in the public domain.
  2. We are disappointed that the University of Leeds management has consistently positioned itself amongst the ‘hawks’ in this respect.
  3. We are embarrassed that our employer continues to maintain this untenable approach, notably on the critical issue of ‘risk’, in the face of contrary findings published by the Joint Expert Panel (JEP).

Motion of no confidence in University of Leeds Council USS decisions

University of Leeds UCU branch notes

That as the governing body of the University, the Council has a responsibility to act openly, transparently and in the best interests of staff and students and other stakeholders.

The University of Leeds Council applied reckless prudence incoming to the conclusion that the level of risk in the USS scheme required a total shift from a Defined Benefit scheme to Defined Contribution scheme.

That this behaviour precipitated in the onset of the longest strike in recent history.

That, at the risk to the institution’s good reputation, the Council then approved extreme measures of suppressing protest and legal strike action and action short of a strike.

That in stating in their 2016 response to UUK that an increase in employer contributions above 18% was not affordable is demonstrably untrue.

That all UCU communications addressed to the Council on matters of the USS pension scheme in the last two years have received no response.

University of Leeds UCU branch believes

That the Council ignored or failed to collect appropriate evidence that was available to them in coming to their conclusions on matters of the USS scheme.

That members of Council voting on issues related to the pension scheme had not all informed themselves appropriately of the details of issues of risk, the process of the calculation of the valuation, or on the reliance upon covenant and the reach to any self-sufficiency target.

That the Council failed to consider the unique nature of the scheme as immature, cashflow-positive, and the unique nature of the HE sector in relation to the USS fully into account.

That members of council were not conversant in the function of ‘Test 1’ and its impact upon the construction of ‘deficit’, and could not therefore consider associated matters of risk.

That consequently, not all members of Council were confident or competent in coming independently to their conclusions.

University of Leeds UCU branch resolves

To pass this motion of no confidence in the approach of Council to the USS scheme.

To pass a petition amongst members of the University community to lend further support to this act of no confidence.

Motion 5: Supporting Vicky Blake’s Candidacy for UCU Vice President

This meeting notes:

  1. That our branch president Vicky Blake is standing for Vice President of the UCU;
  2. That during her time as branch president Vicky has shown herself to be a committed, indefatigable and effective trade unionist;
  3. That in her time in the UCU Vicky has shown herself to be an powerful advocate of Union democracy and a prominent anti-casualisation activist.

This meeting moves to endorse and support Vicky’s candidacy for UCU Vice President.

Motion 6: Continuing consequences of the IT reorganisation

This meeting notes:

  • The hard work being done by our colleagues in IT, despite very difficult circumstances
  • The huge number of valued, experienced IT staff who have left the university through VSS or otherwise
  • The movement of IT staff away from Faculties and Services and the consequent loss of local support
  • The long wait for help with IT issues because of the lack of IT staff
  • The pressure on IT staff to complete timesheets in a way that doesn’t reflect their true work
  • The low morale of IT staff
  • Some departments have employed, or are considering employing, IT staff direct, to avoid the new management structure

This meeting resolves:

  • To re-declare the dispute with university senior management over the situation in IT.
  • To campaign for the reversal of the move out of departments to keep IT staff in Faculties and Services.
  • To campaign for the use of timesheets for members in our constituency to be removed.
  • To urge senior management to develop a policy for the retention of staff
  • Organise a three-union meeting to discuss the dispute
  • To request University senior management to reflect on the difference between an academic university environment and a corporate setting, and take different decisions about the level of responsibility offered to staff.

Motion 7: Responding to the Proposed Centralisation of Timetabling

This meeting notes:

That there are changes to the timetabling system that are currently being developed for the next academic year

  1. That the provenance of this policy on changing the timetabling system is unclear and seems to have evaded formal oversight
  2. That these changes have not been negotiated with local branch of the UCU
  3. That teaching staff have not been consulted on these proposals
  4. That the rationale for the changes appears to be to give primacy to student module choice over the pedagogic judgement and/or personal requirements of teaching staff
  5. That an overarching purpose of the changes is to centralise timetabling, another is to save costs
  6. That the content of the policies appear to place too much power in the hands of heads of schools/departments/divisions
  7. That the content of the policies appear to limit the flexibility of working hours for teaching staff and technicians who support teaching

This meeting demands:

  1. That the university management open meaningful negotiations with us on the content and implementation of the policy
  2. That teaching staff are properly consulted about the proposed policies
  3. That the implementation of any proposed changes to timetabling are halted until such a time as these negotiations and consultations have been completed
  4. To campaign to retain autonomy for lecturers indecisions around timetabling, taking into account the needs of the university
  5. To urge senior management to halt the expansion of collaborative lecture theatre spaces, at least until additional lecture space is available in 2021

Motion 8: anti-casualisation claim

This meeting notes

  • Widespread casualisation that is rotting any notion of the higher education sector as one where a secure career may be forged without elements of luck and privilege alongside hard work
  • That both insecurely and permanently employed staff groups in higher education are overworked, and often work many unpaid hours
  • That casualised contracts intensify the pressure to undertake unpaid work often couched as “going the extra mile” or a rite of passage
  • That such a toxic culture of work and exploitation is unacceptable in any sector
  • Significant numbers of staff are employed on insecure contracts or worker agreements across the university

This meeting agrees:

  • To campaign for secure work free from exploitation for all
  • To pursue a strong local campaign of anti Casualisation beginning with the draft Leeds UCU Anti-Casualisation claim
  • To come together as a collective to fight for proper contracts and fair pay for all at the University of Leeds
  • To support and demonstrate vertical and lateral solidarity with all who are affected
  • That Leeds UCU should host a summit on challenging precarity in post 16 education as part of our campaign, which builds in workshops on practical ways all staff can demonstrate this solidarity to tangibly support staff affected and to agitate for real, long lasting change towards a sector we can be proud of

Motion 1: Re-affiliation and resubscription to Labour Research Department

This branch notes that the Labour Research Department is an independent research organisation which has provided information and resources for trades unions reps and negotiators for over 100 years.

This branch believes that Labour Research Department (LRD) booklets including Law At Work are a valuable resource on employment law and best practices for trade union reps.

This branch agrees to re-affiliate to Labour Research Department and to re-subscribe to LRD booklets online at a cost of £245.75.

Motion 2: re-affiliation to Leeds Trades Unions Council

This branch notes

  • that Leeds Trades Unions Council (Leeds TUC) is,and has been for a century and a half, a valued way for members of local trade union branches from different workplaces across the city to work together on common issues at a grass roots level, to support each other, and to celebrate and promote the work of trades unions in the city.
  • that Trades Council delegate meetings take place on the last Wednesday of the month (except December), starting at 7pm at the Swarthmore Education Centre, Woodhouse Square, Leeds, and that this branch is entitled to send up to ten delegates to the meetings.

This branch agrees

  • To re-affiliate to Leeds TUC at a cost of £252.48.
  • To elect at this meeting or for the committee to subsequently appoint up to ten delegates to represent the branch at Leeds TUC for the coming year.

This page was last updated on 17 December 2018

Report from UCU higher education sector conferences 7 November

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Last Wednesday our elected Leeds delegates had a double dose of special Higher Education Sector Conferences (HESCs) which had been called to decide the next steps for UCU in two higher education disputes:

Quick summary

1. The Pay and Equality dispute (Wednesday morning) It was decided to have a UK-wide re-ballot in the new year, highlighting the casualisation, equality, and workload aspects of the dispute alongside pay.  See more detailed Pay & Equality report below.

2. The Pensions dispute (specifically what next after the JEP report on USS) (Wednesday afternoon) After the Joint Expert Panel Report and recent revelations about USS valuation methods, the conference advised UCU to negotiate for no increase in our USS contributions and and end to so-called “de-risking”. See more detailed Pensions dispute report below.

The Higher Education Committee of UCU and our union negotiators will take forward these decisions and advice.

1. Pay and Equality dispute

The first HESC, on the Pay and Equality dispute, was quorate, which means that its decisions complement, confirm, or supersede those taken by the Higher Education Committee (HEC) the previous week. 

Decisions taken at the meeting (including amendments) can be downloaded via this link: https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/9939/HESC-1118-pay-decisions/doc/UCU9057Nov18_-_Decisions.doc

All the original motion texts can be seen here: https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/9754/Higher-education-special-sector-conference-pay—motions

The meeting opened with the Chair’s introduction and comments. A report was also given by Paul Bridge, UCU Head of Higher Education, about the context of the recent ballot result. The report noted that UCU HE members voted with a clear majority in favour of action and action short of strike (ASOS) over the pay and equality claim for 2018-19, but that we did not clear the 50% turnout threshold set by the (anti-) Trade Union Act 2016. Across the UK, our turnout was approximately 42%. The disaggregated (branch by branch) ballot left us with 8 of 147 branches who would have been legally able to strike over the current pay and equality claim. It was noted that this turnout for a dispute over pay and conditions would historically have been seen as high, and prior to the establishment of the 50% threshold, is one we would have celebrated. The report noted multiple factors that may have affected turnout, and this theme continued in the motion debates.

Motion 1 kicked off a significant debate about whether UCU HE members should re-ballot over the current dispute. The motion was comprised of 4 branch motions (as they were concerned with the same/related themes). It contained a number of clauses and sub-points, some of which were voted on separately (“in parts”). An amendment from London City UCU was also passed, changing the re-balloting time-frame from “before December” to the new year (early in Spring term). With an emphasis upon improved resources and communications over the current claim, and the removal of the clause regarding only re-balloting branches who achieved 35-50% turnout, the motion was passed.

This means we will be re-balloting in late January / early February over the current claim. The claim will be reframed to emphasise the important equality aspects to the claim, to the “Casualisation, Equality, Pay and Workload” dispute. Materials produced will reflect this. Motion 1 also called for improvements and specific changes to UCU’s Get The Vote Out (GTVO) strategy.

Immediately following Motion 1, the meeting agreed to debate Motion 5 which called for a return to aggregated balloting, where all members are balloted as one unit UK-wide. The threshold of an aggregated ballot is reached if 50% of the whole eligible membership vote. The recent Pay and Equality ballot, like the USS ballot, was disaggregated, meaning that each branch which met the 50% threshold was legally able to strike, but those which did not could not. In a disaggregated ballot over a UK-wide issue, UCU would need to decide how many branches would be needed to meet the 50% threshold to call an effective set of strike actions which could be considered as a UK-wide action. Leeds UCU successfully moved an amendment to this motion, which directs UCU to invest more in resources and support for this, and any other ballot campaigns.

The debate over aggregated / disaggregated ballots was raised in speeches for and against Motion 1 and Motion 5. As Motion 5 was passed (as amended) this means UCU will proceed with an aggregated re-ballot of all members: ti.e. our turnout will be taken together, rather than branch by branch. There was considerable discussion of how to weigh up the threat disaggregated balloting poses to UK-wide bargaining if only a subset of branches were balloted, versus the risk that an aggregated ballot might miss the 50% turnout threshold. Motion 5 was passed after a very close vote; it was notable that everyone speaking in this debate was in favour of protecting UK-wide bargaining over pay.

A later motion (“Late Motion L1”) reinforced UCU’s existing policy on UK-wide bargaining on pay. (Note: an amendment is missing on the webpage, which was agreed, and stipulates that branches will be assisted in educating members about how the bargaining “machinery” of “New JNCHES” works, such that they are better able to follow and be involved in conversations about the formulation of all future UCU and joint-union claims)

Many of the remaining motions noted the need for resourcing and coordination for any successful ballot. Leeds UCU successfully moved an amendment to Motion 7 (“Study best timing and duration of ballots”, Oxford UCU) which directs the HEC to investigate whether “consultative e-ballots” prior to postal ballots confuses members / may reduce turnout in any actual postal ballot (feedback we have received from Leeds UCU members suggests this was a factor in the recent ballot).

Other specific decisions included:

  • That UCU should campaign against the 50% ballot threshold.
  • That we should aim to negotiate pay on a multi-year basis.

What next?

The union’s Higher Education Committee will be meeting on 23 November, and will plan the next steps on the basis of the decisions made at HESC. With a ballot due in the new year, we anticipate that the union nationally will provide useful resources and advice, but branches will need to run strong campaigns to persuade everyone to vote.  It is crucial that members participate in the union’s democracy so that a strong and definite decision can made in the new ballot. So, Leeds members, your branch needs you to get involved with this, both in talking with colleagues and wider publicity! Please talk to your school or departmental rep about how you can help.  

2. USS and the Joint Expert Panel (JEP)

The second meeting, on USS, was specifically called for by over 20 branches passing motions at quorate general meetings (including our branch) in order to discuss the report of the JEP. This meeting was sadly a little short of reaching quorum owing to a strange artefact in our rules. This holds that the quorum must be the same as for any “whole sector” HESC, despite USS affecting only a proportion of the branches in Higher Education. There were 91 voting delegates on the day, with 108 needed for a quorum, and therefore this HESC’s decisions could only be in an advisory capacity. (We in Leeds UCU are already working on a proposed rule change to help avoid this happening again!) This means that the debates and votes taken on motions about USS are to be understood as “advisory” and they will be referred to the Higher Education Committee (HEC) again for final decision. However, our UCU pensions negotiators will be in negotiations this week, before the next HEC meeting on 23 November. Therefore, our negotiators will need to balance current policy on USS with the guidance provided by the November HESC’s advisory voting positions on the motions.

Advisory decisions taken at the meeting (including amendments) can be downloaded via this link: https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/9940/HESC-decisions-JEP-nov18/doc/UCU9067Nov18_-_Decisions.doc

All the original motion texts can be seen here:https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/9755/Higher-education-special-sector-conference-JEPUSS—motions

The meeting began with some controversy owing to procedural issues with motions that had not been ruled onto the agenda by the Congress Business Committee (CBC) whose job it is to ensure rules governing conference business are followed correctly. The issue stemmed from the fact that the National Disputes Committee (NDC), which was set up by Congress specifically to steer the USS dispute, is technically not able to submit its own motions to decision-making meetings. However, eleven branches (including Leeds) signed up to move the NDC motions as emergency motions to the meeting, which was accepted by the conference. A late motion from Leeds UCU was also passed saying that NDC motions should be discussed, and that in future the HEC should be instructed to ensure all NDC motions could be submitted properly to relevant conferences. Our late motion also called for a supportive rule change to be put to Congress to allow them, or any similar/subsequent incarnation of the NDC to submit their own motions in future.

National Dispute Committee (NDC) report and Superannuation Working Group (SWG) statement

The report of the National Dispute Committee, and details of its composition, can be read here: https://www.ucu.org.uk/uss-ndc

The report commends the sacrifices of UCU members who took strike action over USS, confirms that the ‘Test 1’ used in the valuation is fatally flawed, and calls for it to be abandoned. It also rejects any move to transfer USS investments to low return assets (known as “de-risking”, or as we said on the picket lines, “reckless prudence”).

Two key motions from the NDC were agreed, which included:

  • that there is no justification for any reduction in benefits or increase in contributions in the current valuation round,
  • that we should ballot for industrial action if Universities UK (UUK) attempts to impose either of these,
  • that UUK and employers should apologise to staff and students for their role in triggering the dispute, and provide compensation.

Other advisory decisions reached

Further motions under discussion (including two submitted by Leeds) agreed:

  • That there should be no detriment to USS members.
  • To call on USS to abandon the 2017 valuation. There was debate about whether the unions should press for using an interim valuation at March 2018, which HEC will take forward.
  • To call on USS to stop “de-risking”.
  • To call on the JEP to progress phase 2 of their task (working on a new valuation.procedure) as quickly as possible.
  • That the ‘cost-sharing’ approach currently being taken by USS, which would mean staggered (and staggering!) contribution increases should also be abandoned.
  • That the employers should pick up the full cost of any increased contributions that USS impose until a new valuation is agreed.
  • To call on USS to provide full information – data and methodology – to enable UCU and scheme members to assess their calculations.
  • That casualised staff should have equal access to USS. Many casualised staff supported the USS industrial action without themselves being beneficiaries of the pension scheme
  • Instructed the SWG and the HEC to pursue a policy of pressuring USS to adopt an ethical investment policy and, in particular, to withdraw from high carbon investments.

What next?

Latest developments: Following the HESC, on 9th November, Universities UK has said that, based on their recent survey of employers, ‘it is clear that there is support from most employers for the JEP’s recommendations’, see  https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/9761/Clear-employer-support-for-JEP-recommendations-says-UUK  (An analysis of the employers’ responses have been released by Universities UK on 15 November, downloadable here and the University of Leeds response here).  This is a major concession from the employers, who in early 2018 were trying to impose massive cuts to our pensions.  And on 14 November, USS stated that they have received the UUK update and will be discussing it over the next few weeks.  The Pensions Regulator issued a statement on 14 November (to the Financial Times) which essentially said they expect UUK, UCU and the USS trustees to come up with a joint proposal.

The USS board next meet on 21 November. UCU’s pension negotiators met informally with UUK last week, with upcoming formal Joint Negotiating Committee meetings scheduled for November and December. We expect the negotiators to operate from policy set by previous conferences (including the large annual HESC at Congress in the summer) and with guidance from the advisory decisions explained above.

We look forward to some good news on the pensions front, hopefully before Christmas!

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

What are HESCs?

While the annual “UCU Congress” includes a Higher Education Sector Conference (HESC) as part of our annual policy-making proceedings, there are decisions that need to be made more frequently. This is where the Higher Education Committee (formed of all National Executive Committee members from higher education) comes in. HEC meets regularly between Congresses to enact UCU policy, in line with decisions taken at annual Congress. It also makes steering decisions in line with policy, for example in the case of “next steps” in disputes. However, special “HESC” meetings can also be called to form policy in between conferences. All eligible branches can send a delegation to participate and vote at a special HESC. Leeds UCU is currently entitled to send 5 branch delegates, based on our membership size.

The motions at a special HESC are sent in by branches, and by HEC. If a quorate HESC passes them, these motions can direct and even change the direction of a dispute (or other policy area). Special HESCs can be called for by 20 branches voting to do so at properly called, quorate branch General Meetings (GMs), or by a decision of Congress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

What is the  Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff (JNCHES)?

We have had a single pay negotiating body for higher education in the UK since 2001: “JNCHES” refers to the Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff. In 2004, negotiations also produced the Framework Agreement and a single (common) pay spine in Higher Education. When we negotiate with UCEA (Universities and Colleges Employers Association) over pay awards, it is this pay spine which is updated, UK-wide. UCU itself came into being as a result of the merger between AUT (Association of University Teachers) and NATFHE (National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education) in 2006.
In 2008 “New JNCHES” brought single, common bargaining. UCU is not the only union which negotiates in this forum. Usually, the relevant higher education unions (this year: UCU, Unison, Unite, GMB, EIS) work together on a Joint Union Claim, which is lodged with the employers’ representative body for pay negotiations, UCEA.

 

  

Three letter acronyms!

SWG = Superannuation Working Group
Our USS negotiators are elected annually at the HESC which forms part of the business at annual Congress. The electorate is comprised of delegates from USS branches to this annual HESC. The USS negotiating team is comprised of the following:
– Chair of HEC or nominee
– National Official
– Three delegates elected by and from delegates from USS branches to annual HESC
– Two reserves elected by and from delegates from USS branches to annual HESC

NDC = National Disputes Committee
The National USS Dispute Committee (NDC) was established and given its remit by motion H13 at the May 2018 Higher Education Sector Conference (HESC) and motion 11 at the June 2018 special HESC. It has 12 members, elected from regions and with representation from the BAME, women’s, anti-casualisation and disabled standing committees The NDC is mandated to “give a representative steer” to the USS dispute for the current valuation round, including on any suspension of the dispute or re-ballot. The NDC is asked to approve any proposed ballot text on a future employer offer concerning USS before it is put to members.

JEP = Joint Expert Panel
The Joint Expert Panel was set up after the USS strikes in February/March 2018, with three members appointed by Universities UK and three appointed by UCU, together with an independent chair, to consider the scheme’s highly disputed valuation. Their first report, published in September, largely validates the arguments that UCU has been making for many years about the USS valuation, and criticises both Universities UK and USS.

This page was last updated on 27 November 2018

New branch anti-casualisation officer

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Arumina Bhattacharya has been elected (unopposed) as the branch anti-casualisation officer.

stamp out casual contracts

The full list of members elected to the committee this year is at leedsucu.org.uk/about-us/committee-members-2018-2019

The list of department reps, including department anti casualisation, workload, postgraduate and health and safety reps is at leedsucu.org.uk/about-us/departmental-representatives

If your department doesn’t yet have a UCU anti-casualisation rep, and you’d like to volunteer or nominate a colleague, contact ucu@leeds.ac.uk

This page was last updated on 12 November 2018

UCU committee postgraduate and anti-casualisation vacancies

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

We’re seeking another member on a non-permanent contract and another postgraduate member to join the UCU University of Leeds branch committee, to fill two vacancies.

Anticasualisation officer

This is a branch officer position, so the university will usually allocate funds up to 10% of your time to your department to allow them to back-fill 10% of your time.

Postgraduate rep

This is a vacancy for an ordinary committee member (i.e. not an branch officer) who will lead on postgraduate issues, working closely with the anticasualisation officer. (There is no back-fill time for ordinary committee members.)

If you would like to volunteer for either of these roles please ask two colleagues who are union members to email ucu@leeds.ac.uk by 11am Friday 9 November to nominate you.

Nominations for women and black members particularly welcome as white men are currently over-represented on the committee

This page was last updated on 6 November 2018

Pay + Equality: what next locally + nationally

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Text of email from Branch President Vicky Blake

Dear Members,

Thank you to everyone who voted in the Pay and Equality Ballot, and all who helped us to get the vote out. As you will see from Matt Waddup’s email that has just gone out to members nationally, our historically high turnout in this postal ballot on pay and equality was not quite enough to break the 50% threshold set by the (anti-)Trade Union Act 2016.

In this email:

• Our result
• What next in the pay and equality dispute
• Local campaigning and action on gender pay and casualisation

Our result

Prior to 2016, we would be celebrating this turnout, and this result. At Leeds, members voted strongly for strike action (69.8%) and action short of a strike (77.7%). This government’s anti-trade union legislation has denied us our right to withdraw our labour despite our turnout of 49.2%. We only needed 15 more votes to break the threshold.

(You may wish to note that, while advocating the 50% threshold’s introduction, Boris Johnson was in post as London Mayor having achieved… 31.8% turnout in his election.)

What next?

We remain in dispute over the joint unions’ pay and equality claim. Two important meetings are coming soon which will inform the union’s next steps:

1 November Higher Education Committee (HEC)

7 November Special Higher Education Sector Conference (HESC) on Pay and Equality

I am an elected member of HEC, and I would very much value your comments and thoughts. I will write with further updates following that meeting on 1 November. As a branch, we are also sending 5 delegates to the HESC (+ me in HEC capacity), and similarly all of us would value feedback from the branch before we go.

Local campaigning on gender pay and casualisation

Locally, we continue our work to push senior management to implement effective policies for closing the 22.5% gender pay gap at the University of Leeds. On 15 August, we submitted our Gender Pay Claim asking for further data on the extent of the gap and how it affects different groups of staff, and arguing for a clear timeline for redressing the problem by 2025 (the Claim can be found here: https://www.leedsucu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Gender_Pay_Claim.pdf). Meetings are now being set up in which we will be negotiating for meaningful change.

On Friday (26 October) members are invited to “UCU Anticas Roadshow: IGNITION!“ events in Leeds University Union – to kick off planning for the Anti-Casualisation Roadshow and to turbo-boost our Anti-Casualisation claim. We’re also holding a “Contract Casualty: a drop in for the confused” from 12-2pm. Please see attached flyer and please circulate! Our workshops on Friday will lay the foundation of a strategy day we’re holding with our branch anticas activists in mid-November, with national UCU bargaining office support.

Onwards!

In solidarity,

Vicky and Committee

This page was last updated on 29 October 2018

Anti-casualisation: IGNITION!

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Friday 26th October, 11am – 3pm
Leeds University Union building

We’re kick-starting our anti-casualisation claim at this university!

10.30 – 11am, room 4, Tea/snacks

11am – 12pm, room 5, Precarious postgrads: contracts, pay, conditions + respect?

11am – 1pm, room 4, IGNITION: creative space. Making placards, posters, zines and games

12pm – 1pm, room 5, Workshop: what should the University do about casualisation?

12pm – 2pm, room 1, Contract Drop In

Poster to download

This page was last updated on 22 October 2018

Why you really do need to vote – from a reluctant striker

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by
Chloe and colleagues outside the School of Law during the USS pension strike

A personal post from new UCU committee member Chloe Wallace

When I look back over our strike action in February and March, I have a lot of good memories: standing with friends old and new; the support of my colleagues and students; the feeling of empowerment and hope for the future. But all in all, it wasn’t much fun. Quite apart from the snow, the rain, and the pay deduction, there was disruption to the job I love and the students I’m committed to, anxiety in such an uncertain situation, and an ever-present feeling of guilt. When it was over, I breathed a sigh of relief; back to normal at least for a while. 

So my heart sank when it became clear that we would have to ballot on striking yet again for a fairer deal on equality, casualization and pay. We, individually and collectively, have too much to do, and university staff and students don’t deserve more disruption after what we dealt with this year. We talked about fairness, equality and casualisation on the pickets and on #striketwitter throughout and beyond the action. We know they matter and that we have to fight for them, but the memory of the difficulties of that fight make being pushed to disruptive strike action (by employers who, it turns out, still aren’t listening) difficult to contemplate. 

The problem is, we have to do this. Above all, we all have to vote in the ballot. The Trade Union Act 2016 requires, for a ballot on industrial action to be valid, that at least 50% of eligible members vote in the ballot, as well as that a majority of those voting vote for the proposed action. This is quite clearly, and explicitly, intended to make it harder for unions to strike. In January this year, UCU branches defied the legislation, with a 58% turnout across affected branches. We need to do it again, to prove that that was not a fluke and that we remain a force to be reckoned with. Abstaining the ballot is not sitting on the fence. It undermines the strength of the union across the board, not only on pay, equality and casualization, but in the many local issues, disputes and negotiations on which UCU works for its members, and all university staff, around the country. It also undermines us on pensions. The JEP report was a massive vindication and felt like a moral victory, but it isn’t a victory. We need UUK to stand with us to push its recommendations through to the trustees and regulator, and I don’t believe they will do that if we show weakness at this point. We need to beat the turnout threshold to show that we are still engaged and we still care; if we don’t, we risk undoing all the good we did earlier this year. 

Voting “no” in the ballot is better than abstaining. But voting yes/yes is even better, and I think it’s the strongest way to maintain pressure and show we mean business. Universities are now expecting to be able to get away with below inflation pay-rises for ever more, and that has to stop. Most university staff, particularly support staff and academics who can’t, or won’t, work long hours to fast track to promotion, can’t rely on incremental pay-rises – and increments are supposed to recognise professional advancement, not increased cost of living. The gender pay gap in the sector is simply unacceptable, and recent reports confirming that over half of all academic staff are on insecure contracts ought to be pushing university management into action – but they aren’t. And, given that the size of the pension fund is dependent on contributions, which are dependent on salary, the further our salaries fall behind inflation, the less money goes into the fund to pay out later on. I am privileged in academic terms: full time, permanent contract, senior and well paid. It’s easy for me to say that a percentage point or two on the pay scale isn’t worth the challenge of another strike. But the stakes are much higher than that, for my colleagues (present and future) and for the health and success of the sector I’ve spent my whole life in. 

So please dig out your ballot paper and vote in the ballot, to show that we are a united and active union. And please make that vote Yes/Yes, to show that there’s fight in us yet, and we’re not giving in. 


This page was last updated on 9 October 2018

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

 

 

This page was last updated on 8 June 2018

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

 

This page was last updated on 10 May 2018

Anti-casualisation update

UCU University of Leeds Branch 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.

This page was last updated on 5 April 2018