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
Motion	Theme	Vote	Rationale
25	Fighting Fund	X	Removing 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
26	FF & Casual Staff	A or R	This has significant financial implications, and does not recognise that hardship depends on multiple factors
28	Censure GS	X	The 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.
29	No Confidence	X	In addition to the concerns above, motion 29 rules against member consultations, which is very anti-democratic.
29A.1	No Confidence	?	This amendment declares no confidence in a number of UCU’s elected structures but avoids heaping blame unfairly on one individual.
31A.2	Rule 13	X	This 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.
33	Rule 13	Parts?	Bullet 3 (Maybe ok)
34	NEC reporting	X	This would put an incredibly heavy workload burden on NEC members and is entirely impractical.
35	ARPS officers	X	The 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.1	ARPS	✓	This removes the most problematic clause in the motion, allowing branches to implement according to their circumstances.
43	Student access legal support	X	This 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.
47	Pausing action	X	This changes the authority for pausing action, which is impractical and heavily constrains industrial action tactics.
48	Disputes Committee	X	Creating 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.
67	MSL Bill	Parts	The overall spirit of the motion is positive, but we suggest it should be taken in parts, as bullet point c is concerning.
68	Strikes	X	This 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.
69	e 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.
70	Strike Committees	X	Bullet 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
Motion	Theme	Vote	Rationale
FE1	Pay 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.
FE2	Aggregate ballot	X
FE2A.1	Aggregate ballot	X
FEA.2	Aggregate ballot	X
FE2A.3	Aggregate ballot	X
FE3A.1	Aggregate ballot	X
Other FE Motions			Listen to the debate and vote as you see fit.

HE Sector Conference
Motion	Theme	Vote	Rationale
HE2	Cash Uplift	X	UCU members are on the higher points of the pay spine, and this would be very disadvantageous to UCU members.
HE3	Pay Campaign	✓	This presents a realistic and achievable way to make long term progress on pay and conditions.
HE7	Strikes not MAB	X	The “earliest marking and assessment date” has long been passed. MAB also appears to have high impact on institutions.
HE10	Members 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.
HE11	Member 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.
HE12	Strike Committees	Parts	Bullet 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.
HE13	BDMs	X	This 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.
HE18	USS legal action	X	This motion is against legal advice and carries very high risk for the union.
HE38A.1	Strike days	X	This restricts HEC’s options in setting strike dates.
HE41	University Democracy	R/?	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)