UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at a general meeting 8 March 2022
The branch notes that this is an exceptionally hard time for members to lose pay, especially if action is going to continue into the spring and summer
The branch resolves:
to provide members with options for reporting strike action to HR in different ways
to instruct the branch to ask the SMT (as they did at Goldsmiths) to agree to the spread of any deductions over at least 5 month period
to produce a guide for members on ways of reporting strike that involves staggering reporting to minimize financial hardship (following the example of Goldsmiths UCU)
that, in the case we participate in a marking boycott, we set up faculty-level crowdfunds to help the hourly-paid staff before the strike fund is processed
Proposed by Charles Umney and Xanthe Whittaker, moved by Xanthe Whittaker, seconded by Gabriella Alberti, motion carried
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at a general meeting 8 March 2022
This branch notes that:
members have been partaking in sustained ASOS and branch advice on ASOS has so far encompassed “working to contract; not covering for absent colleagues; removing and/or not sharing materials related to, lectures or classes cancelled due to strike action; not rescheduling lectures or classes cancelled due to strike action; not undertaking any voluntary activities” (HE Dispute FAQ updated December 2021)
there is potential to escalate ASOS and make it more publicly visible;
Equality, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI) is frequently used by the university to ‘diversity wash’ and promote itself as a fair employer, usually relying on staff voluntary and goodwill
the resignation of external examiners has been a publicly visible ASOS strategy
This branch believes that:
escalating ASOS and making it publicly visible can embolden others to participate ;
EDI policies, including those developed through Athena Swan and race equality charter, are meaningless without a commitment to improving the structural working conditions of staff in relation to pay (including pensions), gender and race inequality, casualisation and workloads
This branch resolves to:
advise members to withdraw from voluntary (non-workloaded) roles, targeting those related to the university’s EDI agenda (e.g. ‘Decolonising the curriculum’; ‘Research Cultures’; ‘EDI Delivery Groups’)
encourage members to make their withdrawal from EDI work publicly visible by posting on social media
call for a nationally coordinated boycott of institutional EDI accreditations, including Athena Swan and the Race Equality Charter
encourage external examiners to resign from their roles and publicise this on social media
Proposed by Asiya Islam and Xanthe Whittaker, moved by Asiya Islam, seconded by Kate Hardy, motion carried
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This branch notes:
That Queen Mary management intends to implement punitive deductions of 100% pay for each day staff refuse to reschedule classes cancelled due to strike action.
The UK-wide trend of HE employers threatening punitive deductions, albeit not often as aggressively as Queen Mary.
Previous retreats from such threats by HE employers in the face of public and industrial pressure.
This branch believes:
That these employer tactics are disproportionate and dangerous, and risk escalating the disputes and further disrupting students’ education.
That the threat of punitive deductions of 100% pay for ASOS at one institution threatens the right to strike at all institutions and therefore requires a collective and nationally coordinated response.
That members at Queen Mary are facing an increased financial burden for participating in industrial action.
This branch resolves:
To call on all members at this branch to resign their positions as external examiners at Queen Mary with immediate effect.
To send a message of solidarity to members at Queen Mary UCU.
To request UCU HEC to initiate grey listing process against Queen Mary and other universities with 100% deductions.
To send a solidarity donation of £500 to Queen Mary UCU’s strike/hardship fund.
Proposed by: Draško Kašćelan and Gabriella Alberti, moved by Draško Kašćelan, seconded by Tim Goodall, motion carried.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at a general meeting 8 March 2022
This branch notes:
That the University’s Fairer Future for All campaign was launched a week before our industrial action ballot opened in October 2021;
That the University regularly cites this campaign in response to student, staff and press enquiries about what they are doing to resolve our disputes;
That the recognised campus trade unions have not been involved in any aspect of the Fairer Future for all campaign and have been given no information about timescales, targets and outcomes.
This branch believes:
That what is needed to resolve our disputes is action by senior management at UK level and locally, not a campaign;
That any action to improve staff working conditions needs to be fully consulted or negotiated with the recognised trade unions in accordance with our recognition agreement with the University
This branch resolves:
To actively reject the idea that A Fairer Future For All represents movement towards the outcomes required to resolve our disputes with the University
To continue to push the University to negotiate with us an agreement to end casualisation, end unsafe workloads and fix the gender, race and disability pay gaps
To continue to pressure the University to lead resolution of our disputes at a UK wide level
To insist that our recognition agreement is respected
Proposed by Chloe Wallace, moved by Chloe Wallace, seconded by Jennifer Fletcher, motion carried.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
Post from email sent to branch members by pensions rep Mark Taylor-Batty on 25 February 2022
On 23 February, the University of Leeds posted its position on the ‘UCU proposal (sic.) to conclude the USS 2020 valuation’ on the internal ‘For Staff’ webs pages.
It offers a summary written by the Pension Committee of the University Council, which “endorsed a number of the concerns raised by UUK in relation to the UCU proposal, including:
A lack of clarity (including from a legal perspective) about the grounds on which UCU believes the 2022 valuation it proposes would deliver a more favourable outcome to the 2020 valuation, given the regulatory and economic realities under which the new valuation would take place.
A lack of clarity about the specific arrangements were the proposed 2022 valuation to require contributions which exceed a combined employer/member contribution of 35% of salary – the cap proposed by UCU, which would itself require endorsement by the JNC, USS and the Pension Regulator.
A challenging timetable – UUK has raised questions about the time it would take to conclude a 2022 valuation and the impact of this.”
Before I respond to these, I should let members know that there was no consultation at all with the UCU on this matter here at this University, unlike at other Universities. The answers to all these things were available, and indeed had already been presented at a national level to UUK. It is disappointing that our University proceeded in this matter on this position of seeming declared ignorance, or failed to challenge UUK misrepresentations communicated to the University. I shall outline the responses that were already available, and mostly already in the public domain:
A lack of clarity (including from a legal perspective) about the grounds on which UCU believes the 2022 valuation it proposes would deliver a more favourable outcome to the 2020 valuation, given the regulatory and economic realities under which the new valuation would take place.
The USS Trustee themselves published interim calculations that very clearly indicated that the deficit has reduced to a negligible amount. That is to say, calculated on almost the same basis* as the 2020 valuation, current interim valuations have indicated that a 2022 valuation would be much more favourable. On 21 February, the day before JNC, the USS published an update on the funding position:
“At the end of December 2021, assets were valued at £92.2bn (£0.9bn lower [than November]), the implied TP deficit stood at £2.6bn (£4.2bn lower [than November]) and the new benefit structure could require contributions of 27.5% of pay (1.2% less).
At the end of January 2022, assets were valued at £89.3bn (£2.9bn lower), the implied TP deficit stood at £2.9bn (£0.3bn higher) and the new benefit structure could require contributions of 25.8% of pay (1.7% less).”
Please note that although these statisticss were published on 21 February they were made available by the USS Trustees to Universities in the week on 14 February.
*I write ‘on almost the same basis’ above because in recent presentations of interim valuations, the USS have ratcheted up yet further the already high prudence employed in the 2020 valuation. UCU negotiator Sam Marsh sums this up in a thread of last week, notably 4. In brief: in their 2020 calculations of future service costs, they allowed for out-performance assumptions. They have removed these in the monitoring data for interim valuations, which increases rates. UUK could easily challenge this.
I am unsure what is meant by ‘from a legal perspective’ in the University’s response, but there is no regulatory inhibition to a March 2022 valuation, and to further consultation on the back of it, and the USS themselves have agreed this.
A lack of clarity about the specific arrangements were the proposed 2022 valuation to require contributions which exceed a combined employer/member contribution of 35% of salary – the cap proposed by UCU, which would itself require endorsement by the JNC, USS and the Pension Regulator.
It is simply untrue that there was a lack of clarity provided by UCU to UUK. UCU negotiator Mike Otsuka provided them with all the detail, and published these details for all to read here. The USS have deemed the proposals ‘viable and implementable’, and this assessment would have taken account of the Regulator’s assumed position.
A challenging timetable – UUK has raised questions about the time it would take to conclude a 2022 valuation and the impact of this.
UUK knew perfectly well that recent history indicates that the timetable is feasible. And, again, UCU negotiators gave UUK all the information they needed on this. There are two recent precedents: Firstly, the 31 March 2017 valuation was originally scheduled for release for formal consultation at the end of June 2017. A draft of the valuation was released at around that time, which was very similar to the valuation that was released for formal consultation in early September. The time interval between the end of June and 1 April 2023 is 9 months. Secondly, the 31 March 2018 valuation was released for formal consultation on 2 January 2019. The schedule of contributions for that valuation was signed on 16 September 2019–8.5 months later. If, moreover, a statutory minimum 60-day consultation is required in order to implement listed changes involving cuts to benefits by 1 April 2023, there would be time for this, so long as JNC approves these changes by the end of September 2022. It is only if the consultation period is extended to about 75 days as the most recent one was that an earlier deadline might be necessary. Such an end-of-September deadline for JNC approval is facilitated by the third of our proposals. The agreement between the two sides on 25.2% and 9.8% caps on the employer and member contribution significantly narrows the potential for disagreement between the two sides on the specification of benefits and contributions and the time that needs to be allocated for resolution of these disagreements.
What we see here in the University’s published response, regrettably, is a public declaration by the University that they have not tried to find answers that were available to very simple issues, and have not sought to seek any understanding of them from UCU locally or nationally, and have instead supported a cut of 35% of guaranteed income to the average USS member at Leeds, instead of supporting UCU proposals that would have cost Leeds no more than £3.4m in the coming year, and feasibly led to a reduction in our and the institutions contributions, at no cost to our pensions in retirement. This is a multi-million pound decision (in cost to us) taken by members of the University governing body, and seemingly done so on the basis of the above flawed assumptions.
I remain available to the University for consultation and clarification as the UCU takes its next steps on this issue.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
Full transcript
Vice Chancellor Simone Buitendijk: We’re going into 10 days of strike action and yeah I must say I’m a bit sad about it.
Leeds UCU: Of course, nobody is happy to have to participate in industrial action. Colleagues much prefer to be teaching, supporting and advising students. But when employers will not enter into meaningful negotiations with employee representatives on issues that have needed addressing for years, and when negotiating opportunity after opportunity is thrown away by employers, staff are left with industrial action as their only option.
VC: That an important minority of our committed staff have decided to take such dramatic action
UCU: The law requires that over 50% of trade union members must vote for any result to mandate industrial action. This is a greater test than required, for example, electing a police commissioner (typically, a 35% turnout). At Leeds, 75.2% of voting members supported strike action, and 85.5% supported ‘action short of a strike’.
VC: I’m sad because students have already endured so much disruption and this is going to impact on their learning their education their experience
UCU: Many students have been impacted by Covid, and UCU constituency staff were often their first port of call for support and assistance. The University has been keen to communicate that their education was not disrupted during this period. This was again down to the resilience and dedication of those colleagues, working in difficult circumstances, adapting to new modes of delivery, often putting their work ahead of their families to keep classes running.
VC: And I don’t think industrial action and strike action is the solution to the problems that clearly need fixing. The University of Leeds is part of UUK and there’s not much that I can do by myself because that is a national dispute
UCU: Our VC sits at the tables of both the UUK and the Russell Group. She represents Leeds there, an institution with one of the highest number of USS members in the UK. At those tables, it is reasonable to believe that she contributes meaningfully to decisions about negotiations, communications and decisions. This is not powerlessness, it is responsibility.
However, if we take what is said here at face value, it seems to indicate that UUK members have no power over the UUK, that it is out of control, and does not listen to its members, not even those such as Leeds with the highest density of USS members.
VC: And I try to play as strong a role as possible together with my other colleagues on the leadership team because I think we all want a pension scheme that keeps its value that’s sustainable and I think the proposal that’s on the table now the UUK proposal is the best for the moment.
UCU: The UUK proposal requires the youngest members of staff (mostly) to pay off a debt that no longer exists. They have to pay that with their future income in retirement, seeing a third or more lopped off its value. The younger a member is in the scheme, the more money they will lose. This impacts on women worse than men, due to the 18.5% gender pay gap that has been acknowledged at Leeds. With such unfairness baked in, the UUK proposal is a long way from the best available.
The UCU offered a compromise proposal on 26 January, as a means for us all to avoid the strike. The VC did not acknowledge that proposal until the afternoon of 11 February, less than a working day before the strike was to begin.
Does the VC want to negotiate, as she claims, or does she want to keep supporting the UUK intergenerational unfairness at the UUK table?
VC: So at the University of Leeds we realise that we need to change the way we deal with contracts with employment that there’s a lot that needs changing so we’ve developed a campaign that we call Fairer Future For All and one of the focal points is having far fewer short-term contracts so we’re going to be working towards more open-ended contracts and we’ve already started.
UCU: UCU put in a formal claim to challenge the University’s use of casualised contracts three years ago. The University still refuses to negotiate on it.
Productive work on contracts with the unions that was ongoing has ground to a halt since the Fairer Future for All campaign was launched. If further work is ongoing, the recognised trade unions have not been informed, let alone involved. In the meantime, staff on fixed term contracts are still losing their jobs, sometimes after many years of service, and Postgraduate Research Students who teach have no contracts and still get no paid sick leave.
VC: We will be looking at workload and workload models to make sure we can keep the workload under control.
UCU: Joint work is ongoing to produce some high level principles to govern workload management. Whether this will be complete by the end of March, as the Vice Chancellor states in her email, depends on whether it can be agreed. Whatever other work is ongoing is being done without consulting, or involving, the recognised trade unions.
In the meantime, staff are worked to breaking point and more is asked of us every year. When the University was hit by a double whammy of ongoing COVID-19 issues and massive over-recruitment in some areas, senior managers denied that there was a crisis and refused to take any meaningful steps to reduce staff workload in the immediate term.
VC: So a lot of what the unions are after is something that’s very much on my radar.
UCU: And what about the national picture? The University states that one of our values is collaboration – why can our senior management not collaborate with the management teams of other university to commit to UK-wide agreements to improve our whole sector, not just Leeds?
VC: I would like to say both to staff and maybe even more so to students who are apprehensive who are worried about the disruption that we do have quite a bit of experience, maybe I should say unfortunately, but we do, with past rounds of industrial action so we’re on top of this and we’ll do our utmost to ensure that students have the education that’s as uninterrupted as possible we’re going to work really closely with heads of school so they’re going to make sure that they monitor where teaching doesn’t take place they’re going to ensure that it gets picked up again after strike action is over.
UCU: We very much hope that this is not a threat to follow other Universities and deduct pay for action short of a strike (in addition to the pay docked for striking). For Leeds University to engage in this bullying behaviour would be divisive and confrontational, and would harm our cohesion, possibly irreparably.
VC: They’ll mitigate, they’ll work with the teachers and the staff in their schools to come up with solutions that are bespoke from different student cohorts. We have an incredibly resilient community, we’ve done an amazing job getting us through the pandemic, really keeping the show on the road. I think our community is stronger than it’s ever been, so I know we’ll pull through this and we’ll do it together.
UCU: We certainly hope so. We will pull through this when our senior management take responsibility for negotiating seriously to protect our pensions and pay and to create concrete improvements in our working conditions. They need to listen and act on the concerns raised by staff through their trade unions. Staff have done an amazing job, at considerable expense to ourselves, and we deserve better.
No mention of equalities issues in this video? The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970 and came into force in 1975. It was superseded by the Equality Act 2010.
In 2022, women are paid 18.5% less than men at the University of Leeds. That means women earn 86p for every £1 that men earn when comparing median hourly pay.
Additionally, there is a national race pay gap of 17.1% and a disability pay gap of 9%. Leeds have not published their local figures. We have been asking for years for this to be addressed, and promises of a fairer future keep deferring the issue instead of actively addressing it in the present.
Still on equalities. Last year, for the first time in its history, the University dismissed a member of staff for not having enough research outputs. This British Asian member of staff demonstrably had the same or more research outputs than some of their white colleagues at their grade and even above.
Industrial action only happens after months and years of discussions and negotiation breaking down. It is always only a last resort.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
Although normal teaching will be cancelled during the strikes, we like teaching and learning so we’re running teach outs during the strike, after the picket lines have finished for the day. The teach-outs may be interesting, fun, political or whimsical; here’s some teaching and learning that isn’t on the syllabus! (There may be changes and additions – check back here before attending.)
Please be respectful while in the Quaker Meeting House – there will be others using the building. Please do not attend teach outs if you have any symptoms which might indicate Covid-19. Please do a ‘lateral flow’ covid-19 test before coming to the teach out. The Quakers request that you wear a face covering in communal areas, if able to do so. UCU committee requests that you wear a face covering in the teach out if able to do so. Please don’t exceed the room capacity.
Monday 21 March
1pm – 2pm, Stefan Kesting, “Governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey and his critics – A Guardian article and the economic theory behind the reported statements”
Based on relevant simple economic theory, this presentation will try to explain the rationale behind Andrew Bailey’s recent statement on “wage moderation” and the critical responses by union officials and our PM.
Tuesday 22 March
1pm – 3pm, Natalie Kopytko, “Climate Inaction, Corruption and Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine”
Related to my PhD research on climate change in Ukraine from 2010-2013, looking at synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. Since not much research had been completed in Ukraine, I tried to use participatory processes and grounded theory. I knew that corruption was a problem, but I thought it would be too sensitive of a topic to discuss. To my surprise almost every interviewee spoke openly about corruption citing how it impacted efforts to address climate change. This corruption was largely due to the former president Yanukovych (now exiled to Russia after the Revolution of Dignity). I will make connections from my research to the current war in Ukraine and include a longer historical context related to the war.
Wednesday 23 March
1pm – 2pm, Laura Loyola-Hernández and The Racial Justice Network, “StopTheSCANdal: community organising around policing”
In this session we will explore ways in which we can use our roles in the university (as staff and students) to organise, support & mobilise grassroot initiatives against police use of technology
2.30pm – 3.30pm, Gill Crawshaw, “What DAN, the Disabled People’s Direct Action Network, did in Yorkshire in 1990s”
‘Then Barbara Met Alan’ is a tv drama based on the story of 2 of DAN’s founder members. It will be broadcast of BBC2 on 21 March, but is, of course, only part of the story. Gill was the DAN contact for West Yorkshire in the 1990s and will talk about local disability activism. And we’ll discuss representation of disabled people in the media.
Thursday 24 March
1pm – 2pm, Catherine Bates, “Sing for Justice”
In this session, we will do some easy, accessible harmony singing together – singing easy to learn protest songs. We can collaborate on making them as appropriate to our cause as possible. This session is designed to be accessible to everyone – you don’t have to have any experience singing.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
Advice for members in IT on the ‘Weekly 10’ performance management tool being implemented in IT from Monday 31 January. This post is from an email sent to UCU members working in IT on 27 January 2022 by branch president Chloe Wallace.
Dear members in IT
I am writing to you in relation to the adoption within IT of the Weekly 10 system, which I understand is to be rolled out from Monday. The headline of this email is simple: that we have been told that Weekly 10 is optional for staff and we advise you not to use it. To be clear, this advice applies to your engagement with your line manager – if you are a line manager and are required to use Weekly 10 with your reports, then you will need to do so, but we advise that you not use Weekly 10 for yourself.
There are a number of areas of concern for us. To start with, I want to be clear that IT management are not consulting meaningfully with UCU on this. UCU has raised objections which have not been responded to, let alone addressed, and any implication that we support this is very very wrong.
Weekly 10 seems to involve weekly meetings and I gather that monthly meetings are to be rolled out. These have not been negotiated with UCU as part of your terms and conditions, and imposing them in general terms is inappropriate for academic-related and professional services staff. They, alongside the other reporting mechanisms you are required to use, involve a level of micromanagement which is excessive and inappropriate.
There are significant concerns about the confidentiality of information entered into Weekly 10. The kind of information you are asked to provide should, at best, be confidential between you and your line manager and the onus should not be on you to make it private. If Weekly 10 is used to support SRDS, that also causes problems as SRDS discussions are supposed to be confidential under University policy.
We have been given no information about how long the data you input will be kept and who can see it. There is as substantial risk that data will be kept for a long time and may be used out context in ways which are detrimental. If you do have to use the system as a line manager please be careful about what you write in comments.
Weekly 10 seems to be used to record HR data that is also recorded via SAP, which poses confidentiality/privacy issues – there should be no need to record it in two separate places.
Weekly 10 is being used to set goals and targets. This should be done via SRDS which has a much clearer confidentiality rule than Weekly 10 has.
We are seeking further discussion from IT management and HR about this and will also be seeking national advice.
Please contact us via ucu@leeds.ac.uk if you have any questions or if you meet any resistance with opting out.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This emergency motion was agreed by the branch at a general meeting 25 January 2022
We note that the University has complied with Government guidelines during the COVID-19 epidemic, including, for instance, encouraging staff and students to wear masks.
There is compelling evidence that wearing medical-grade respirators such as N95 / FFP2s in crowded and indoor settings, ensuring adequate ventilation of indoor spaces and social distancing reduce the spread of COVID-19 and other airborne infection.
We note the UK Government has lifted all COVID-19 restrictions. Yet, COVID-19 remains a significant public health concern, particularly but not exclusively for shielding groups.
This branch believes that:
The University must continue to adopt best public health practice.
This branch therefore demands of the employers:
The provision of FFP2 respirators for all staff and students.
An expectation that all staff and students will wear respirators in crowded places unless exempt.
The continued monitoring of workspaces to ensure they are ventilated.
Appropriate management of teaching and other spaces to facilitate social distancing.
Continued opportunities for staff and students to work at home, particularly for staff and students who need to shield.
Proposed by Nick Emmel. Moved by Nick Emmel, seconded by Ipek Demir. The motion was carried.
UCU University of Leeds BranchPosted on by Alan Smith
This motion was agreed by the branch at a general meeting 25 January 2022
We face a growing racist offensive by Boris Johnson’s government with the Nationality & Borders bill attacking the right to asylum and the government’s CRED report denying the existence of the institutional racism hi-lighted by the Black Lives Matter movement.
The government continues to deploy the politics of divide and rule scapegoating refugees, migrants and the Muslim community.
The government’s new police bill targets BLM activists and the GRT community and strengthens police powers despite the ongoing reality of black communities facing disproportionate use of stop and search and deaths in police contact.
On an international scale government’s are attempting to deflect criticism of their handling of the COVID-19 and economic crisis by using racism.
Islamophobia and antisemitism are on the rise and the Far Right are a growing threat.
We resolve to
support the international day of action to mark UN antiracism day on Saturday 19 March 2022.
support for Stand Up To Racism and the TUC’s events across England, Scotland and Wales to maximise the turn out from this Leeds University UCU
support the TUC/SUTR ‘Fighting for Anti Racist workplaces’ event on Saturday 5 February 2022, send delegates and affiliate to Stand Up To Racism.
Proposed by Megan Povey. Moved by Megan Povey, seconded by Steven Muir. The motion was carried.
