Employers make full and final offer in 2026–27 pay negotiations
David Kernohan is Deputy Editor of Wonkhe
Tags
The “full and final” offer from employers is an across-the-board uplift of 2 per cent. As is usual this can exceptionally be deferred (without back pay) for up to a year under specific conditions and with the agreement of a local union branch. This is an improvement on the initial offer of a 1.5 per cent uplift made at the start of the 2026-27 New JNCHES round at the start of March, and a revised offer of 1.8 per cent made in April.
This comes alongside a pay spine review, and work on a joint statement on sector funding which could lead to co-ordinated lobbying involving unions and employers. And there will be updates to statements on job security (setting out good practice in managing redundancy and restructuring) and career pathways for professional services staff.
What’s not there from previous years is the joint work on contract types, pay gaps, and workload: after several years in which a pay dispute with unions has made it impossible to work together on this the work has been completed within member institutions and was shared with the sector in March 2026. Notably, UCU is relaunching its longitudinal workplace survey, last run in 2021. There will be a further discussion on HESA data and interpretation between unions and employers outside of the New Jnches process.
The union full claim, made back in March was for RPI plus three percent (or £3,000 whichever is the greater) without deferment. Despite the yawning gap between the original ask and the offer, few will be surprised at the below-inflation nature of what employers (as a whole) feel able to sign up to.
Given the large number of restructuring, redeployment, and redundancy exercises ongoing – every day seems to bring news of another – campus unions are much more concerned with direct and ongoing risk to the jobs (and terms and conditions of employment) of members. For this reason the running commentary on New Jnches from the union side on social media and in member communications, has not been as much of a feature this year as in previous years.
This, plus the issues faced by UCU last time it attempted to ballot members for industrial action, suggest that strikes or action short of a strike will not be a part of this year’s pay negotiations. There are many local disputes, and union activity there is more likely to blunt the impact of the sectors’ financial precarity on staff – there have already been examples of jobs saved and decisions altered – than a national campaign demanding universities commit to spending money they don’t have and are unlikely to have in the foreseeable future.
It’s not a question of whether a two per cent rise is a fair reflection of the hard work higher education employees do in increasingly difficult circumstances – UCEA even points out that:
A 2 per cent pay uplift clearly does not reflect the true value employers place on staff, but unfortunately it is the best we can offer given the severity of the financial pressures facing the sector.
It’s more that campaigning energy and focus is rightly focused on support for members on redundancy and restructuring on an institution by institution basis. On this, the commitment to updating best practice on these processes is very welcome, as where there are and need to be changes to employment staff should at least expect to receive appropriate support and consultation.
The work on a joint statement on finances – which on the face of it might not feel like much – is an immensely valuable contribution to wider campaigning about sector finances: in making the case to ministers about sector finances, having unions and employers speaking with the same voice is a powerful message.
The next steps with all of this at UCU will be the presentation of the negotiating team’s conclusions to Congress on 27 May. Other unions involved have similar reporting and decision-making mechanisms.
Well, that’s depressing, and we won’t even get it until a year after it’s meant to come in.
This is a standard clause nailed on to these statements (they did it last year for instance). That way when it’s announced that 2% will be applied from August this year, your employer can remind you how benevolent they are.
“It’s not a question of whether a two per cent rise is a fair reflection of the hard work higher education employees do in increasingly difficult circumstances – UCEA even points out that:A 2 per cent pay uplift clearly does not reflect the true value employers place on staff, but unfortunately it is the best we can offer given the severity of the financial pressures facing the sector.”
That statement would mean something if UCEA had shown any inclination for anything but real-terms pay cuts over the last 15 years or so – even when times were better. Any analysis of UCEA’s ‘offer’ on pay which doesn’t mention this long-term devaluing of the HE workforce is missing crucial context, especially when the context of the current financial situation is always heavily laid out.
It’s insane that everyone is stuck with a below-inflation increase as if there isn’t 3 groups of HEIs: 1) a group that can’t really afford even 2%; 2) another group that can and 3) yet another group that could afford at inflation or slightly above (i.e an actual fair offer). Is there any possibility of reform to New JNCHES so that the whole sector isn’t stuck with this terrible negotiations doom loop year after year?
You mean abandon national pay bargaining and allow more successful providers to offer academics more money for the same work, thus making it harder for financially struggling institutions to recruit staff? Yes, it is possible, but historically trade unions have been keen on driving up pay across the whole sector rather advantaging some staff and disadvantaging others.
Thanks for replying, David. I concede that you’ve got me on principle there. On detail, it looks a lot more like pay being driven down not up for everyone for the past several years. So it sure looks to me that national bargaining is making the whole sector weaker. I don’t know what fair or workable solutions could be, but year after year of every single university having a below-inflation pay settlement cannot possibly be good for UK HEI as a whole.
The effect is, however, increases based on what the weakest institutions can afford. And in reality, successful providers already pay much more – look eg at LSE, where entry salaries are 68k and local across the board pay rises have been offered for the past 3 years.
It’s a testament to how ground down I am that I look at that and think: ‘Hmm, 2%, that’s about 1.5% more than I was expecting’
Will UCU be balloting on this?
Like others, I’m disheartened mainly by the fact that I’m surprised there’s even a rise of any kind this year. But such is the sector – I am probably not alone in thinking that I’m unlikely to be the recipient of these pay rises for more than a few years and that I’d rather be paid for another year in 2030 than get 10% more now…
In reality after the result of the last ballot and how well that didnt go – will be interesting to see. Couple that with some eroding confidence in priorities of the union and one has to question how much solidarity remains in abundance.
With the continued loop of VSS, VR or other workforce slashing mechanisms in use pretty much everywhere across the sector more than ever over the last 12 months how for many members it will come down to a consideration of “would i rather keep my job than push for a higher pay raise”.
Does not change the historic long term issues facing these pay negotiations of course.
What UCEA are really saying is “A 2 percent uplift clearly reflects the true value employers place on staff, relying on staff, yet again, to finance the UK HE sector through ever-decreasing real-terms salaries.” My house insurance bill just came in – a 10% increase, added to my broadband bill with a 7.7% increase.
Explain to me again, how this works?