(Year 2 episode 10)

In today’s episode, recorded Wednesday 21 May 2025 branch president Jenny Rivas Perez and branch honorary secretary Vicky Blake give their initial thoughts on the University of Leeds management’s “white paper” on the direction of travel of the university for the next five years. With Alan Smith.

If you prefer your union branch news direct to your ears, search for LeedsUCU wherever you get your podcasts, and subscribe so you get notified about new episodes. 

See all the episodes and transcripts at https://www.leedsucu.org.uk/about-us/podcast/

To join UCU go to ⁠https://www.ucu.org.uk/join

Direct links to the LeedsUCU podcast 

Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/2Ht1Iks9WPR6qbmGXXOXfS

Amazon Podcasts https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/1f16de89-30ec-444a-83ac-54bcbe0bcac6/leedsucu-podcast

Pocket Casts https://pca.st/pacoaeqd

Also available on Apple Podcasts

Transcript

Alan

Welcome to the LeedsUCU podcast for members of the University of Leeds branch of the University and College Union. I’m Alan Smith, one of your podcast hosts and the branch administrator and organiser. We thought it would be useful for members of the branch to have an alternative channel for getting your local news because reading long emails or website posts is not everyone’s first choice. In today’s podcast, which we’re recording on Wednesday, the 21st of May 2025, this is a special edition to get the initial reactions of two of the branch officers on what the university management are calling the “One Leeds White Paper outlining our direction of travel for the next 5 years as part of the mid-term refresh of the university strategy.”

[Brief music]

Alan

So with us today, we have.

Jenny

Jenny. Jenny Rivas Perez and I am the acting branch president.

Vicky

And I’m Vicky Blake and I am the honorary secretary for Leeds UCU and I also have a role on the UCU National executive. And I’m a national negotiator.

Alan

Welcome both. So Jenny, could you give us the background, what is this White Paper in the context of the university’s processes and also in the context of the sort of wider politics that HE is in at the moment?

Jenny

Uh, yeah. So normally within the sort of 10 year strategy cycle there is there is generally a sort of revisiting of university strategy around the midpoint, the midterm review of it and essentially this this White Paper has followed some consultation processes which have been happening since about February with staff and a number of things have come out of those consultations, the university has put them together into a White paper in a number of proposals which they are now going out to do some types of consultation on how they’re actually going to implement the proposals. So it’s not actually about whether the proposals are a good idea or not, but actually about how they are going to implement these. Now, when they first consulted staff back in February for what they called the Green Paper, which is where they were first putting going out to look at the strategy and to come up with these proposals, they so they did a lot of – they did consultation with staff, but however they didn’t do any with the union. So we got a bit of a quick heads up before I think it was maybe two or three days before the Green Paper was launched that Vicky and I were invited with the other trade unions to meet with the VC and to see what was going to be asked in the Green Paper, so we had a we had a chance during that meeting to see what the questions were going to be in the consultation, and to ask quite some questions about that, but we weren’t actually consulted at any point during that Green Paper process about, you know, the actual content of those questions. And so this time around we’ve seen the White Paper; we got to see the White Paper the afternoon before it was sent out to the rest of the university. So essentially we’ve been looking at it almost in the same time scale as everybody else in the university. And you know, there are certain things that we’re thinking about at this point. But yes, it’s signalling a lot of change and that change is in the context of what’s going on in, in the wider UK, higher education scene as well.

Vicky

I was just thinking when you were talking Jenny about how we emphasised in the meetings that we had where this was, you know, raised as being on the horizon, how important it is that staff across the university felt they could trust any process that was claiming to be about engagement with staff and, you know, I think there have been exercises I’ve, you know, we’ve seen lots of different exercises where people have been invited to pass comment on different areas, but it feels to me like the structure of the paper that we’ve got in front of us is very much how it was being framed from beginning. I’m not sure that extra issues that staff had maybe wanted to talk about have made it into the paper. And I think, probably the review functions as a bit of a window or a microcosm of the pressures that are in higher education in the UK today. Like, we’re talking about the pressures facing UK universities. You sort of know from any of the media coverage we’re talking about budgets being tightened and like lots of us across the university here at Leeds are having conversations locally in our departments about tightened budgets and also talking about this push for efficiency and impact, without necessarily really interrogating what that actually means in practise, and that where you get real efficiency, it’s always got to be grounded in listening to members of staff who are doing that work on the ground and kind of going up from there. And I think that’s where some of my concerns are with this. And that wider context is also there’s a lot of political scrutiny going on around higher education at the moment as well, and I think there’s a tension in this paper, because it’s talking about aims of streamlining governance and sharpening up accountability. But there’s a real tension there, as I think we’ve seen many times before in different forms, where you’re trying to balance this perceived need for reform or bold reforms against the potential risks that are inherent in there, so the risks of alienating the very people, i.e. the staff of the university – you know, we make this university tick – who are needed to deliver it. And I think that when there’s a lot of concern and a lot of worry around and a lot of people are looking around what’s happening at other universities –  job losses, redundancy programmes and so on – it’s obvious why people would start to feel a bit nervous with a paper like this, and I think the challenge that the university faces is to avoid imposing a top down kind of culture change that actually stifles exactly what they’re after doing, which is to, you know, increase – to use words that we use a lot of – innovation, but also the words that we used in those meetings beforehand: Trust. And I’m not – like you, Jenny, I got this yesterday, we’ve read it almost in the same timing as everyone else – I’m not convinced that what we’ve got in front of us has avoided the pitfalls of the top down kind of framing on that discussion and I’m hoping that there’s a way out of that, but I think the way out of that is for members to engage with this and we’re talking with the other unions as well. We want to represent everyone’s views, concerns and ideas as best we can.

Alan

So, this phrasing of Green paper and White Paper, which is it’s obviously a metaphor for how governments propose future legislation and in those government processes, the Green Paper you set out a vague idea you ask everyone for their comment. You take all that on board. You then produce a white paper. Which again you put out for comment, so is. In a way, if you’re going to do a massive change, that would be the way to do it. But is your impression that that hasn’t really been what’s going on and that they’re just calling it a Green paper and white paper. But it isn’t really having that level of meaningful consultation, not least with the trade unions, which represent all staff in collective consultation with the university.

Jenny

Well, as I said, you know, we’ve been invited into meetings, we’ve been shown things with, you know, a few hours before they’ve been released out into the to – to staff at the university generally. We have had very little time to sort of like have, give consideration, to ask questions about things. So it’s not really meaningful consultation has taken place over these Green Paper, white paper, so far. What we can welcome is, that we’ve been invited to come and talk to meet with the VC for an hour or so. I think for an hour probably max, on the 11th of June. I although that date is still to be confirmed, I’m just waiting for other trade union colleagues to confirm those dates. But you know, but that’s weeks away and it will be quite far into the consultation process, which has been very carefully managed at the moment. And what we’ve seen so far is that the VC seems to have been signalling since, almost since arrival, in blogs using words such as “size and shape of the university”, that there is a major reorganisation already, you know, envisaged any way. That this is part of a juggernaut which will not be turned around at this point. And one of the other things that we know is, is that recently Council have been looking at the KPIs. So the KPI’s are associated with the strategy. So these are ways of measuring how successful the university strategy is and they’re published on the university intranet, if anybody wants to go and have a look at them, you can see them at faculty level or at university level, but the Council have decided that they’re going to focus on 12 of the university KPI’s going forward and these are ones which really do play into the whole organisational change narrative. The ones that such as looking at the ratio of professional services staff to academic staff, others about research and income per academic FTE. So these are things that have been lined up quite early on before we ever got to Green paper and White paper. So I think this has been on the, you know, been something that’s been cooking for a while before we before the rest of the university community necessarily has been getting involved in consultations exercises.

Alan

Vicky, do you want to come in? More on that before we move on to the content.

Vicky

It is positive that we’ve been invited to a meeting with the Vice Chancellor. I think we’re glad to see that we’re back into a way of working where we do have fairly regular meetings with the Vice Chancellor and the trade unions. That’s a good thing. But as anyone who’s ever, you know, tried to kind of engage with complicated documents, which is a lot of us, knows you need time, as Jenny was saying, to process what’s in them. You need time to think about how it connects. And for us, we need to obviously think about how that ties with themes that’s coming to us from what members tell us and in case work and so on. And as Jenny says, it’s kind of coming partway through that process, and I think what we need to be doing as a branch, is having some discussions about our thoughts and concerns and, you know, anything actually that might be it’s not necessarily the case that we only have concerns – there might be some stuff in there that we recognise as the basis of something positive, but what I’ve noticed about it –  and Alan you sort of drew attention to the Green Paper white paper format that puts stuff up for consultation – a number of problems are drawn out in the paper and then there’s positive solutions, but I think my issue there is that they are only some solutions, they are not the only possible solutions and I think there is some risks associated with some of what’s been posited about either reinforcing some of the problems that it’s seeking to solve or introducing new ones. And I think that’s why it needs very careful consideration and why I think the feedback phase of this has to be taken very seriously. And it goes back to that trust comment that we made in advance of even the. Green Paper going out.

Alan

Let’s move on to the content. At this stage, it’s difficult to unpick. Everyone’s just seen it. There are some quite general statements which could be hiding a whole bunch of other stuff. As a union, branch members from across the university will be reading this and will be identifying areas of concern that are specific to their roles that they see, that they notice, and I’d encourage you all to discuss those concerns with your department reps. And once we, once the branch as a whole has a more full understanding of the paper, the branch can form a democratic collective position. But, for now, we’ve just seen it and I’m sure lots of members will be saying, you know, what, what does the one of the union officers think about this, having seen it. So, this is why we’ve done this today. We wanted to get some initial reactions from you as branch officers and members of the negotiating team and any concerns that you have. So Vicky, I think one of the first things that people will be looking for in amongst that text is, is the stuff there which is about potential for, for restructure.

Vicky

Yeah, I think that’s very natural impulse to look for that in any document like this. And you know, there’s some obvious watchwords, as Jenny said, the VC has been talking about size and shape, which is phrasing that we’re hearing across the sector and it’s phrasing that’s been used often then swiftly followed by a programme of redundancies. So that that’s obviously going to set people worrying. There’s a few things in here I think it probably gives us some indication of potential restructures. Faculty realignment is an obvious one, because if you’re evaluating the size of faculties and how they’re structured, then that’s likely to lead to mergers and reassignments. We also know that we’ve heard lots of chatter about reducing the number of faculties as well, so that’s kind of been chatter that we’ve been hearing for a couple of weeks now. As someone who works in academic related professional services myself, my alarms went off, for want of a better description, when we’re talking about professional services transformation. So this idea that we’re going to move towards a unified model and what I find difficult about that language is that it automatically to me feels like it’s erasing the breadth and diversity of roles and professions and specialisms within the professional services. I’m not sure that a unified model is the kind of language that makes sense. I’d like to think that the people who were writing this paper understood that there was that breadth and diversity, and unfortunately, the way the paper’s written at the moment I don’t get that reassurance. And of course we’ve seen professional services hit and targeted by redundancies at other universities. So there’s an obvious cause for concern there. References to underperforming research institutes, as there’s obviously a concern there, we might be seeing mergers or closures there. And I think as, and this is a perennial issue, but whenever we’re talking about streamlining of programmes, if we talk about curriculum redefined, of course we’re going to be thinking about whether that’s likely to lead to courses closing or staff being redeployed into different places. So there are areas where there’s potential for restructuring, it doesn’t necessarily mean I know restructuring doesn’t necessarily always mean job losses, but it will mean significant change. But I do think there’s job security implications as well, kind of following on from that.

Alan

So before we move on to job security, is there anything, Jenny that you want to come in on the potential for restructure side?

Jenny

Yeah. I just wanted really to pick that up and just say that, you know, organisational change at the scale, you know, the merging of faculties, the unifying of professional services, you know, even, you know, if it comes down to it, there seems to be somewhere in there possibly moving schools where schools are positioned and aligned within the university as well seems to be something that I picked up from the paper, this will have a huge impact on people’s jobs on what they do day-to-day, and it’s risky. So the paper saying it’s being done to break down barriers and be more cost effective, but not only that, they seem to be saying that they’ve got some kind of measurement tool to map excellence and it talks about stopping activity that it’s no longer beneficial. What’s being mooted here is the kind of the kind of change that can affect lots of people’s jobs and you know, I think we need to be quite probing in asking exactly how this is going to be done and how it’s going to affect people.

Alan

OK, so let’s move on to job security. Vicky. What are the things in there that stand out for you about that?

Vicky

Yeah. So I mean there’s stuff in there that can be positive. I’m trying very hard not to just come in and say everything here is negative, like there is stuff in there about career pathway development, this is something we’ve been working on with, you know, with the university and pushing on as a branch, and professional development support and there is there is some stuff in there about recognition and reward systems for high performing staff. But I think the risks that come out of the document if you are downsizing or discontinuing academic programmes that are being classified as underperforming, think there’s an obvious worry there. I also think we should be interrogating what is meant by underperforming and who is setting criteria, because I think we’ve had conversations in the past about how we run the risk of losing smaller, more specialist programmes if we don’t sort of appreciate value in a different, you know, multitude of ways. But also, if you’re looking at this language around increased performance management – and I noticed that was really that was seeded in some of the conversations that were happening online around the green paper stage as well – I think there’s obvious risks within that if it’s not done well. If it’s not done in a supportive way. But the other one again, it kind of connects to the point I was making just now, is that structural changes in faculties and structural changes in professional services quite simply sound very likely, often do, lead to people’s job roles, changing and potential redundancies. And I think particularly where we’re talking about streamlining people hear “reducing” when they hear the word “streamlining” and again like just to go back to a comment I made earlier about the breadth and diversity of roles that people have, and respect for the professionalism of those different functions that professional services and staff fulfil, I’d want to be reassured that there is an understanding that if you make big changes and you don’t get it right and you don’t ground it in an understanding of the staff who are actually doing the work at the moment you risk making some of the problems you’re seeking to solve worse. Or if you are seeking to streamline processes but you don’t get it right, you don’t kind of commission them in the right way from the beginning, what happens is I think the situation that we’re in now really where there are lots of kind of work arounds that people have to develop that increases people’s workload and makes us less efficient in pursuit of this greater efficiency from streamlining. So to me there is an issue here where you’ve got the potential for getting it wrong, that might introduce less efficiency and more problems, but also the risk that if you have shed staff that there’s going to be fewer people to deal with the new systems that perhaps won’t bed in as easily as is envisaged because it does read as quite top down.

Alan

And Jenny do you – is there anything you want to add on job security?

Jenny

I was just going to say that, yeah, I would absolutely agree with everything that Vicky’s just said there and I think our role as a trade union and I would also encourage staff to do this over the next few months through the consultation process is to ask to see the evidence that the decisions that are being made, about how things are implemented are actually going to work. So more than just taking it on trust, but actually sort of digging down into the, you know this, there has to be trust to move forward for these large organisational changes like this and it is huge changes that are being mooted here.

Alan

Did you want to come back in Vicky here?

Vicky

I think the thing that I was trying to say is like behind this language of streamlining, alignment, et cetera there’s an anxiety that’s very real and very present and it’s not something we’re imagining. It’s that the restructuring is often a byword for downsizing. And when staff here talk about agility it often actually sounds like disruption and a threat to stability, and that’s a challenge in change management, right? I understand that. But we’re in a sector where everyone is already stretched very thin. Job security can’t be the collateral damage of strategic ambitions that the university’s kind of putting forward and we’ve heard the university in different spaces commit to improving job security. And I think our concern here is actually there are risks to job security through this process. Like I don’t want it to sound like – cause I don’t want you need to be portrayed as saying ohh we can’t have any change here –  because clearly there’s areas of the university where different things – lots of us have got ideas about how things need to change – I think we need to be convinced that the university is going – and I say the university, I mean senior managers, I suppose – but like are going to listen to what staff have to say. And I suppose the challenge for us as a branch of UCU is that we make sure that we create spaces for our members to come together and discuss whether that’s in departments, you know and reps leading those discussions, whether it’s at our meetings and, you know, the information that we take in through members contacting us on e-mail and social media and so on, but we need to get into the detail of this and be able to represent our concerns well to the universities.

Jenny

I absolutely agree with what you’re saying there. We need to be able to see the detail. We’ve been given the headlines and in order to take people with them for these changes and to make these changes work, they need to – we need to see the detail, we need to see evidence that, you know, if people say: “Ah that’s not necessarily going to work maybe a better way to do it would be to do this,” that they’re being listened to. And that’s the way to build trust and take people with them, because these changes are big that are being asked of us. And you know, we don’t want as a union to be able to say no, there should never be any change, but we want change to be managed well and to make positive differences to people’s working lives. And we need to be able to trust the management in order to do that and the way to do that is to have really good communication going on, so genuine consultation with staff and also with the trade unions and being open to answering questions even if they’re difficult questions about the detail of the plans.

Vicky

Yeah, I think there’s an issue here because at the heart of higher education reforms that are happening across the UK, and arguably wider, there’s this paradox where we’re being told that we need to be agile, but the people who make that agility possible are us. But it’s the people who are most at risk from these changes and, if we want change that’s going to be meaningful, it has to start with really, really valuing staff; people who deliver it. And in that you’re also valuing students and their experience of university as well. And I think we would recognise change is possible. I mean trade unions are all about believing that change is possible. And change is necessary. But it works best when it’s built with people. I really liked how you phrase that Jenny. It has to be built with people, bringing people along with that change, not any kind of situation where it feels imposed. And I think, just to return to this, like, staff know what’s broken because they’re the ones dealing with it every day. So staff, you know what could be better. So I think our message to the university has been, you know, cause we were talking about this before we even saw the Green Paper phase, trust us include us and we will all be able to help shape the university to be, like, fitter for the future if you want to use that kind of language, but it needs to be involving staff in that very real way.

Jenny

Yeah, absolutely agree. Yeah, I think that’s well put.

Alan

Let’s move on to the governance and accountabilities of areas of the proposals. Vicky, what have you pulled out around that?

Vicky

Have a lot of opinions about this, so I’m going to try and be reasonably succinct but there is a bit of a trend over time that you see switching between centralization and decentralisation, so we seem to be with this paper moving back into a period of centralization. So I think there’s a risk here. That of over centralization, especially of decision making, and I think it’s quite clear that there’s a risk of if you put power in too few hands it sort of automatically reduces transparency and inclusivity, and it makes it far less likely that the groups making those decisions are going to be representative and diverse. And so there’s a risk there, the impact being that stuff will become alienated, it will damage trust in the leadership and I think just on a very real basic level it limits the scope for creativity, it limits the scope for diverse perspectives in that decision making. If it’s over centralised. I think really this next one, I suppose I could class as ambiguity around the definition of roles. Like the paper is talking about needing clearer roles and responsibilities. I don’t think you’d find anyone who said they would like a less clear role or their responsibilities to be less clear, but, especially if the communication isn’t up to snuff, and especially if it’s inconsistent – and I would say these are problems that we’ve kind of highlighted through other changes in the university more recently – then that period of transition is likely to create more confusion. So that again is bad for governance, it’s bad for accountability, it’s bad for trying to trace what exactly is going on and making sure everyone is on the same page. The other things I thought about, I think there’s a risk of loss of institutional memory potentially. I know I’ve had conversations for people who talk about overlaps between committees and so on. So I think we recognise that there are areas where it might make sense to have a different way of putting things together. But if you focus on reducing committees, or you think about the focus on streamlining and unifying professional services, if that’s not done well, it could lead to experienced staff going. It could also lead to the networks that you don’t necessarily know are there that are supporting decision making or supporting process is working well at the moment. So those informal networks could be damaged or disappear, and I think that’s again a risk for continuity and that’s a problem when you’re looking at sort of sensitive areas of governance. And that comes hand in hand with – there’s just not enough detail for me in this, and these are the questions I think we need to be asking about how governance reform that – you know, stuff that’s proposed in this paper – how is it going to be monitored and how is it going to be adjusted if it needs to be adjusted in light of the feedback that’s received? So if there are the problems we’re talking about, how are we going to know quickly enough to solve the problems before they become even bigger? And so I think we need to see some really decent robust evaluation mechanisms within this work, because I think everyone needs to know that if something unintended happens that we’re not just going to continue with it until it makes a really huge mess. And with all of this, there’s a risk, isn’t there, of people getting change fatigue, and governance fatigue is kind of part of that. When there’s really wide scale changes, especially if people don’t feel like they’ve been included in the process, I think that’s going to make it harder. It goes back to what Jenny was saying about bringing people along with the change, actually change is delayed or there could be areas where it seems like it’s working, but actually the really deep cultural changes that we need aren’t bedded in in the way that we want. And there’s more I could say there’s more I could say about risks around performance management stuff, but I feel like I’m talking a lot. So let Jenny come in!

Jenny

Well, I would just like I just want to echo what you’re saying about the being inclusive and people having a voice. So there there’s much, much made about less committees and more targeted committees with fewer people involved in those committees. But you know. I can see, you know, less committees sounds great. however, it needs to be balanced by making sure that the right people are in the room and who gets to choose who are the right people in the room? And all that you’re saying about those informal networks, the things that spin off out of those connections that are made, you know, making sure that that isn’t lost. But I am really concerned about the loss of voice in the governance of the university, the diversity of voices. I think that you know the reforms that were made to Senate and Council a few years ago have contributed to the loss of staff voice there. And we run the risk of losing voices in other key strategic committees in the university as well. Where people are coming with a diversity of experience, and I’m talking about whether that’s from their background or it’s their job roles. So I’m just thinking about the work that’s being done in research culture to bring on many people in sort of early career roles and to bring them into committees, so that their voice was there. Other committees where PGR have been brought in so that their voice is there. And I’m concerned that that way of working is at risk and I think there are questions to be asked around that as well.

Alan

Right. So are there any other aspects of the content that you’ve got concerns or want to discuss?

Vicky

I’d like to come back to the performance management element if that’s all right, Alan, I think there’s a risk here with a new appraisal system. I think I do understand the logic of saying that you’re piloting a new system with senior leaders first. But I have some concerns about if it’s not scaled well it could end up actually reinforcing ideas about inequity and favouritism, rather than actually solving them. I think there’s some real risk here of undermining the intention around the cultural shift that that they’ve described and that there’s something about it that just doesn’t quite sit right with me with how it’s been framed and, I think we all want a better way to recognise good work. And we all want better ways to support people in performing to the best of their ability and the way I’m framing that is different to saying tackle poor performance. I think that if there is somebody who is struggling to perform quote unquote, an aspect of their role, the first question should be is everything in place to enable them to do that role to the best of their ability? are they being supported properly? But it’s not in dispute that we want better ways for doing all of that. But if a new system of appraisal starts at the top level senior management, and it works at that level, that’s very different to the sort of working environments that staff in other parts of the university are in. And I think if it doesn’t really kind of work for all of us, it just ends up feeling like another management exercise. So if it’s done well, great, yeah, we could be building trust. If it’s not done well – and again I think this comes to listening and trust, etcetera – it’s going to deepen the sense that fairness is optional, in some cases. You know, I think it has to be framed in a way that focuses on the support that is there for staff to function to the best of their ability. And there’s all sorts of things we could talk about there and go into lots more detail. There’s all sorts of things about the services that aren’t there for staff at the moment you need them and I guess I’m disappointed not to see emphasis on those alongside this language of performance management. Think performance management, if it’s done right, it helps everyone navigate their way with more confidence around what they’re doing. But if it feels like it’s uneven or if it’s got potential for unfair treatment within it, then it’s a bit like having a map where not all the roads are listed it doesn’t feel like a good idea. It feels like it’s going to decrease trust in how the universe is operating. I’m probably talking too much now.

Jenny

I absolutely agree with you. I think when I when I read about this in the paper, I started little alarm bells going out. I think it’s the way that it’s been framed in the paper. But it is bread and butter of union business; the terms and conditions of staff, performance management. And I think this is something that we are going to have to look at very carefully to see exactly what is being proposed here. You know if it works great, but I think we need to, you know, look at the proposals carefully.

Alan

So thanks for that. Should we move on to actions? So Jenny, what’s next? What should UCU members do? What do you expect the committee and the negotiating team will be doing? What’s next?

Jenny

OK, So what the committee and the negotiating team will be doing is, is the well, Vicky and I will be meeting with the VC in June. We’ll be putting quite a few questions to her there. The committee hopefully will be also looking at the – well I know they will be – looking at the White Paper coming up with their own questions and what we’d like staff to do is if they’ve got any questions or comments for us to get in touch, ucu@leeds.ac.uk. On a more general point, I think I made this point in the e-mail that I sent out this week, which was that there’s never been a better time to being active in the branch. So I want to ask people to do what they can. We’ve got our AGM coming up on the 3rd of June. Please come along. You can still put yourself forward for committee at this point, if you wanted to get nominations for that, and there’s details on how to do that on the website. But in a nutshell, you need to get 2 nominations from other members and to accept those nominations before the 2nd of June. But there’s other things that you can do. You can become caseworkers become reps, or just generally make sure that you turn up to meetings so that you know what’s going on and keep abreast of what’s happening via the communications that are coming out from the branch, from yourself and from, from myself and Vicky, so that you’ve got a good idea of what’s going on and let us know about questions and concerns.

Alan

Vicky, do you want to add anything on what’s next?

Vicky

What I would say is. In covering this, obviously we’re giving our initial reactions in this podcast, and we’re going to have more time to scrutinise it as officers and committee and so on as well. And we’re really looking forward to getting members’ input through all the different channels that Jenny has just said. And I think the important thing here is. Not that we’re saying to members that it’s time to panic, but also please don’t switch off of the issue. I think we need members be thinking about this and take time out of your working day, because this is part of your work, you know, it effects your work, to read the paper, think about it, think about how it’s going to affect or might affect you in your area and talk about it with colleagues, and. bring those discussions into union spaces as well that we want to be as well informed as possible when we’re going into conversations with the VC, when we’re going to conversations with management and HR and so on. And, you know, we’re just saying, don’t panic, do engage, ask questions, keep informed and stay in the loop and make sure you come to our branch meetings if you can.

Alan

OK. Thanks, Vicky. Thanks Jenny for giving us your initial thoughts on this White Paper.

Vicky

Thanks, Alan. See you later.

Jenny

OK. Bye.

Alan

Bye.

[Brief music]

Alan

That’s all for today’s LeedsUCU podcast. Thank you for listening. Please subscribe on whatever platform you’re listening to us on so you’ll know as soon as we publish our next episode. If you work at the University of Leeds in an academic or academic related, professional or managerial role, or as a postgraduate student doing paid teaching, and if you’re not yet a member of UCU, head to ucu.org.uk/join to, to join the union. Wherever you work, make sure you join the union for your workplace. This podcast is made on behalf of the Committee of the University and College Union, University of Leeds Branch. If you have any questions, please e-mail our branch office at ucu@leeds.ac.uk. See our website leedsucu.org.uk for alternative contact details and for a transcript of this and all other episodes.

This page was last updated on 22 May 2025