Monthly Archives: May 2023

UCU Congress 2023 Election and Motion Recommendations

Posted on by
Reply

Congress voting recommendations from Campaign for UCU Democracy

The Campaign for UCU Democracy (campaignforucudemocracy.com) is a loose alliance of UCU activists from HE and FE who believe in UCU democracy for all members and think that UCU’s democratic structures can be improved. We recognise the importance of our union’s mission to defend and extend the rights of staff in Further and Higher Education and our key goals are to improve UCU democracy, member consultation and engagement, and transparency at all levels of the union.

CUCUD does not promote a single political or strategic viewpoint, but there are some crucial decisions to be made at Congress where we would wish to give voting advice. We present here some suggestions and points here about some of the many motions on the Congress Agenda, focusing on those which are relevant to union democracy.

There are many more that we have not made any comment on, including many motions which are (probably) non-contentious. We have refrained from comment on motions which cover matters that are not concerned with post-16 education. Some think that Congress should focus on topics and issues that concern our members and the education institutions that they work in. If you don’t have strong views on a motion, just abstain when the vote is called (you can explicitly vote to abstain, or you can just not cast a vote at all). If you feel a motion isn’t relevant, vote against it, or abstain if you don’t want to be seen to oppose.

CUCUD does not believe that Congress in its current form is working effectively. There are far too many motions on the agenda, which will inevitably lead to the curtailing of debate. We risk making rash decisions that are poorly considered. Our hope is that the Congress Business Committee addresses this issue, and that future Congresses will provide a better forum for genuinely deliberative democracy. The aim of this leaflet is to help delegates make decisions despite the issues caused by an overloaded agenda this year.

Key to Vote column: ✓ = support; X = oppose A = abstain; R = Remit to NEC; Parts = take the motion in parts (someone may propose this from our group)

Congress  
MotionThemeVoteRationale
25Fighting FundXRemoving the cap on payments will mean the Fighting Fund is rapidly exhausted and members in ongoing FE and HE disputes may not receive any support
26FF & Casual StaffA or RThis has significant financial implications, and does not recognise that hardship depends on multiple factors
28Censure GSXThe legal risks of these motions (28, 29) to UCU as an employer are pointed out in the Agenda. The public impact of these motions, if passed, may also be very detrimental.
29No ConfidenceXIn addition to the concerns above, motion 29 rules against member consultations, which is very anti-democratic.
29A.1No Confidence?This amendment declares no confidence in a number of UCU’s elected structures but avoids heaping blame unfairly on one individual.
31A.2Rule 13XThis amendment would require all members of the new CMC to be elected by Congress, rather than 15 each by Congress and NEC as in the substantive motion. NEC is directly elected by members, and represents a range of constituencies, and this gives a much more balanced and accountable membership for CMC. Furthermore, the requirement for 2 external members of gender-based violence/bullying panels may be practically difficult to implement, and also delegates UCU decisions to unelected external people.
33Rule 13Parts?Bullet 3 (Maybe ok)
34NEC reportingXThis would put an incredibly heavy workload burden on NEC members and is entirely impractical.
35ARPS officersXThe overall aim to raise profile and representation of ARPS members is very positive. However, an ARPS officer is not relevant in most post 92 nor FE branches.
35A.1ARPS✓This removes the most problematic clause in the motion, allowing branches to implement according to their circumstances.
43Student access legal supportXThis motion would allow student members (with no university employment) full access to union legal support. This would have potentially huge financial implications, meaning that other UCU members could be denied legal representation in future due to lack of resource. Furthermore, this would mean using union resources for matters which do not relate to employment, and would be outside the aims of the union.
47Pausing actionXThis changes the authority for pausing action, which is impractical and heavily constrains industrial action tactics.
48Disputes CommitteeXCreating another committee would undermine the authority of NEC, which is elected by members, and would potentially create confusion in decision making, as well as being cumbersome and impractical.
67MSL BillPartsThe overall spirit of the motion is positive, but we suggest it should be taken in parts, as bullet point c is concerning.
68StrikesXThis mandates escalation to indefinite strikes in future disputes. There is little evidence that members have an appetite for such action, nor that that it would be financially sustainable either for individual members or the union as a whole.
69e Consultations✓Support this motion – it is about making the union more democratic and engaging members in the decision making. Furthermore, it would ensure that any industrial action taken has widespread member support and is thus effective.
70Strike CommitteesXBullet point ii (establishing a national strike committee) as it would undermine the authority of NEC, which is elected by members, and would lead to confusion in decision making processes.
FE Sector Conference  
MotionThemeVoteRationale
FE1Pay report✓Aggregate ballots and “continuous & sustained” strike action take away local bargaining powers and offer no way to negotiate a settlement as the AoC has no power to implement decisions. 
FE2Aggregate ballotX
FE2A.1Aggregate ballotX
FEA.2Aggregate ballotX
FE2A.3Aggregate ballotX
FE3A.1Aggregate ballotX
Other FE Motions Listen to the debate and vote as you see fit.  
HE Sector Conference  
MotionThemeVoteRationale
HE2Cash UpliftXUCU members are on the higher points of the pay spine, and this would be very disadvantageous to UCU members.
HE3Pay Campaign✓This presents a realistic and achievable way to make long term progress on pay and conditions.
HE7Strikes not MABXThe “earliest marking and assessment date” has long been passed. MAB also appears to have high impact on institutions.
HE10Members Consultation✓While events may have overtaken aspects of this (mentions current pay offer), the principle of consultation for every 2% over the pay offer is sound.
HE11Member Consultation on strike action✓Support this motion – it will make the union more democratic and engage members in decisions about strike action. It will also ensure that any industrial action taken has widespread member support and is thus effective.
HE12Strike CommitteesPartsBullet ii should be voted against – a national UK strike committee would confuse decision making and undermine the role of HEC. Yet another committee is not the answer.
HE13BDMsXThis undermines HEC and excludes the wider membership from the decision-making process since representation at BDMs is very patchy, and mandating of delegates is also inconsistent.
HE18USS legal actionXThis motion is against legal advice and carries very high risk for the union.
HE38A.1Strike daysXThis restricts HEC’s options in setting strike dates.
HE41University DemocracyR/?It is not clear whether democratisation would be legal grounds for a trade dispute.

Congress Elections

Campaign for UCU Democracy recommend that you vote for the following candidates to posts elected at Congress

  UK higher education negotiators (4 to elect)  
Joanna de Groot (University of York)  Christopher O’Donnell (University of the West of Scotland)
Victoria Showunmi (University College London) 
  USS SWG negotiators (to elect 3 negotiators and 2 reserves)  
Pieter Blue (University of Edinburgh)          Jackie Grant (University of Sussex)
Renee Prendergast (Queen’s University Belfast)Mark Taylor-Batty (University of Leeds)
  Further education negotiators England (5 to elect)  
Janet Farrar (The Manchester College)  Brian Hamilton (Novus prison education)
Helen Kelsall (The Trafford College)   
  Further education agreement ratification panel (4 to elect)  
Brian Hamilton (Novus prison education)Helen Kelsall (The Trafford College)
David Hunter (City College Norwich)
  Congress business committee (to elect 2 FE and 2 HE members)  
Dr Sylvia de Mars (Newcastle University) (HE)  Julie Milner (The Trafford College Group) (FE)  
John Paul Sullivan (Warwickshire College Group) (FE)   
  Appeal Panel (7 to elect; ballot to determine length of term of office)  
Dr Christopher O’Donnell (University of the West of Scotland)   

Respect Due – FE Professionalism, Pay, Conditions, Workloads

Posted on by
Reply

From Helen Kelsall

Further Education is overlooked, undervalued and sitting right at the back of the classroom when it comes to discussing the sad state of our education systems. Tired of the lack of acknowledgement, workload pile-on and sickeningly low pay, FE members are pushing back, organising, galvanising and, for the first time in a long time, understanding and recognising their worth. This has never been more apparent than in the achievement, increase in membership and confidence branches and reps have shown over the last year.

Local Bargaining, Coordinated Action

In 2022, the Respect FE campaign – which called for professional respect and improvements in pay and conditions, saw a significant number of FE branches take coordinated action across England. This was the most successful GTVO in UCU FE history. Many of the branches across England smashed anti- trade union laws by building membership and member engagement and running successful GTVO campaigns, notably Norwich City college amongst others. These successes have largely been down to local and regional branches, forming groups and planning collective and coordinated action together with the autonomy to negotiate on part two claims while retaining hard fought for branch autonomy. This is coordinated local bargaining and action at its very best.

How does National Bargaining work in FE?

It doesn’t. The AoC (Association of Colleges) is the ‘national voice’ for FE. However, the AoC is powerless. They can recommend a pay rise but that’s where the buck – so to speak – stops. In fact, when many of the colleges were offering/imposing insulting 2% pay ‘increases’, the AoC came back with an equally insulting recommendation of 2.5%. Colleges often ignore the recommendations. Some colleges are not even members of the AoC.

Therefore, the question is: during this national strike who would we be negotiating with? We go out on strike, the AoC concedes the brilliance of our argument and then what? UCU has no organisation/government body/pay recommendation board to negotiate with!

The AoC agrees with the joint unions on many of the issues and in their most recent statement they have said:

  • The AoC want us to have a significant pay rise
  • “College leaders are clear that they want to improve pay”
    • “The union claim for over 15% is not at all unreasonable”
  • The AoC is willing to discuss national bargaining.

2023/24 Pay Claim -To Aggregate or Not to Aggregate?

We currently have over 240 branches across England who are members of the AoC.

Many branches are building to secure acceptable pay and conditions and workload agreements. We know branches are motivated, we know branches are inspired, but how do we harness this?

We are now at the point where we are making considerable progress. We are building and we are gaining in strength. We must not lose all these hard-fought gains by jumping too soon. It took NEU ten years to build for an aggregate ballot but we’re not at that point yet. And let’s not forget, all colleges have individual budgets. Some colleges are more financially stable than others which means some colleges are in a better position to negotiate and agree pay rises. Others are not. An aggregate ballot is calling for a pay increase of RPI (13.4%) + 2% on all pay points: 15.4% (January RPI plus 2%). All eligible colleges will be calling for this increase in an aggregated ballot regardless of the individual colleges’ financial position. What are the pros and cons of an aggregated vs a disaggregated ballot?

Aggregated Ballot

Pros

  • The mood of the country is with us – if not now when?
  • This would support the other unions who are fighting,
  • Members are engaging in the best numbers we have seen we must act on this now.

Cons

  • There is no opt out option,
  • No negotiating locally with the employer,
  • Many branches are not strong enough yet,
  • No branch autonomy,
  • No individual deals,
  • If we get less than 50% on a national ballot all action would be scuppered.

Disaggregated Ballot

Pros

  • Disaggregated coordinated action would allow for colleges to react to their individual circumstances – as happened with the Respect FE Campaign – thereby, allowing branches to continue to build,
  • Where it is appropriate,  branches are ready to take this action,
  • In branches negotiating with their employers (individual colleges), branch reps have a clear vision of outcomes acceptable to their members,  
  • The key power brokers are not at the negotiating table,
  • Colleges with better pay and T&Cs drag up pay in their local area.

Cons

  • We are wasting time: the mood of the membership is with us.
  • We have waited too long to act: why wait while pay differentials dimmish even further?

Entirely my Opinion

The idea of an aggregated ballot seems very appealing – all in it together, one union fighting together – easy rhetoric. When we look at other unions i.e. NEU, UNISON, RMT, CWU, many of us would love to join in to support and fight against this iniquitous government. These strikes didn’t just happen, though. The NEU spent years working towards this action, grafting, building, securing their base. Many colleges aren’t there yet. If we jump too soon, we may lose as much as we win.

I just can’t get past the idea that if you go on strike, you must have a clear route to victory, an idea of what success would look like.  Which brings me back to who are we negotiating with? We would have a national strike against a vacuum. We’d pull in the favours, harness the emotion, stand on the picket lines and then what? We have a rousing emotional rally and then go where? We sit round the table and bang out the details with who? The AoC? The AoC is powerless – that’s what we are in this mess!

Bottom line: if I am going to encourage my members to go out on strike and sacrifice money they don’t have, I want to be clear about what victory would look like, what could they win? Who would we negotiate with to secure this victory? Who has the power to pay us more and are these power brokers around the negotiating table? No one has answered these questions… 

Who am I

Helen Kelsall, Chair Trafford College Group UCU, UCU NEC

I have worked in FE for over 25 years and have been a member of UCU all that time. I have been active in the branch for 15 years and this will be my third term on UCU NEC. I believe in grafting trade unionism, building from the bottom up with small victories, leading to bigger victories.  I do not see the UCU as vanguard to the glorious revolution. I want my members to get more pay and have better working conditions – simples!

Voting Intentions  –  Congress 2023

I’m not going to tell you how to vote. I’m not going to mention every motion at FEC. You’re grown ups: you can listen to the debate. In relation to the details of the pay dispute these are my voting intentions. Read, follow, ignore, consider, bin them – it’s up to you and the members you represent.

This being the case, my voting intentions for the FEC are as follows:

  • FE2                        AGAINST
  • FE2A.1                  AGAINST
  • FEA.2                    AGAINST
  • FE2A.3                  AGAINST
  • FE3A.1                  AGAINST