The sector may be set for industrial action next term
David Kernohan is Deputy Editor of Wonkhe
Tags
The sector is facing the possibility of strike action next term, after the UCU higher education committee voted (based on the results of a consultative ballot) to begin a strike ballot over pay as soon as possible.
It’s a demonstration of the distance between HEC and membership – members were almost evenly split about industrial action (53 per cent in favour, 47 per cent against), and we should note that this question covered industrial action in broad terms (covering approaches like work to rule) rather than asking specifically about a strike.
A UCU spokesperson told us:
UCU’s higher education committee (HEC) met yesterday to agree the union’s next steps following the result of the consultative ballot and has agreed to launch a statutory industrial action ballot in the new year over pay.
This decision to ballot, if carried out, would halt the start of agreed joint work between the unions and UCEA on contract types, the pay spine, workload, and equality gaps. Some 87 per cent of respondents accepted the terms of reference for this work, while 68 per cent voted to reject the pay offer.
UCEA had previously offered to continue the work on pay-related issues even if the unions rejected the pay element – a huge shift from the sector employers’ representative body – who had previously insisted on an “all or nothing” approach to pay deals. The quid pro quo for this was that there were no ballots for industrial action.
UCEA chief executive Raj Jethwa said:
Given the overwhelming support among UCU members for joint work with employers, together with the ambivalent response to industrial action and the stretched financial position of the sector, we urge UCU’s HEC to reconsider its decision or consult with its branches before a ballot is launched. UCU must grasp the opportunity to work with UCEA and the other trade unions on our important joint priorities.
Unusually, it was union faction UCU Left that announced the decision of HEC, rather than UCU centrally. Note the comment from former leadership hopeful Vicky Blake. The motion in question committed HEC to:
Immediately organise an IA ballot for a ‘fully-funded pay rise’ of 5.5 per cent (2023-24 claim) linked to a political campaign for a fully-funded sector calling for emergency measures to save jobs, courses and the sector.
This is a higher rise than was requested at the start of the New JNCHES process – the five unions then asked for inflation plus 2 per cent. The ballot will be carried out quickly to enable strike action before Easter.
UPDATE: more factional maneuvering as UCU Commons (the faction most closely associated with Jo Grady) issued an interim statement making it clear that they did not support a ballot:
This decision to call an IA ballot amounts, in our view, to a fundamental misuse of member energy, time, commitment and goodwill at a moment when the sector is in an unprecedented crisis. None of the Commons HEC members voted for this decision, and we all voted against the motion calling for the ballot.
There is practically zero chance that we will hit the 50% turnout requirement. Well done to HEC for wasting £150k and precious time and energy of reps like me on a futile ballot.
My god, that UCU Left statement. “Branches facing redundancies and cuts were in the forefront of HEC’s minds”. I mean, only in the sense that UCU Left think that going on strike is good for everyone because it will bring about revolution and because they just straightforwardly adore being on strike. Otherwise how will IA over a 5.5% pay rise, in the midst of half the sector being in redundancy processes, possibly stop cuts to budgets? It will never be effective, of course, cos it’s just another badly-conceived strike that will have terrible participation rates (cos about 1/8 of members think it’s a good idea) but hey, UCU Left are going to UCU Left. Oh sorry I forgot, this will make the current anti-union Labour govt fund higher Ed by er scrapping tuition fees, is that right? Seems like another achievable aim for UCU IA.
Also if it’s IA from April then it’s going to be another marking and assessment boycott, only starting a month earlier than the last one. I mean, that went so well last time didn’t it! People are going to be ultra willing to lose full pay indefinitely, right?
Have to say that the Marking and Assessment boycott was hilarious, it’s almost like Professional Services members of UCU are completely forgotten…
I mean I pay my money every month, because I feel like Trade Unions are important, and I’d like my back covering if things go wrong, do I feel even remotely represented, not a chance.
It took me ages to work out what that Vicky Blake post is saying, but it seems that she and at least one other HE officer who both supported this ridiculous decision are outraged that the union has told members when the ballot, which Blake obviously always wanted to happen and voted for a motion asking for it “immediately”, will happen.
Apparently it’s terrible that this should be announced prior to her and fellow failed Gen sec candidate but IA strategy genius Sean Wallis deciding how exactly to implement the immediate ballot they voted for, because… well maybe they will not rush into ballots and action, despite rushing to vote for something only 1/7 of the union members wanted. I guess this means that in fact they have a really brilliant plan for the IA that the evil UCU comms team just don’t understand and have now nixed forever?
I can only assume their brilliant plan was not to ballot ASAP? And so delay their beloved IA for Reasons? Normally after all, UCU left and its best mate “independent” Vicky Blake (whose gensec campaign UCU left announced, meaning she was in discussion with them about it in advance too, so much for distance eh) are always for restraint and patience in ia aren’t they. They especially love pauses for negotiation and a strategy of non continuous action, if memory serves correct. Clearly they’re the voice of restraint and careful planning.
Or maybe these morons who love being on strike more than life itself are scrambling away from the irresponsible and ultra expensive idiocy they have just enacted and as usual are blaming anyone else but themselves when their awful ideas inevitably are exposed as infantile. There’s absolutely no pattern of that with UCU Left and its deniable hangers on, is there? (If the ballot costs 150k that’s the annual subs of close to 20% of the membership right?!)
Lovely to see UCU left being very upset that the union announced this prior to it going to some committee or other – despite as the above says breaking union rules by announcing it before the union did, in an as usual anonymous post thus deniable, where they as usual ostentatiously misrepresent the motion and action.
Labour are presiding over economic stagnation, resulting in no extra resource to fund public sector pay claims. At the same time, Labour plan to remove the 50% ballot threshold for industrial action. The consequences will be strikes and inflation, wrecking public services and lowering living standards further.
Strikes improve living standards. They are more effective than doing nothing and hoping for the best
UCU strikes have a woeful record of obtaining pay settlements that even match inflation.
Exactly, we got a better offer through taking action. We would have got less if we did nothing.
Doing nothing doesn’t produce results, it does nothing.
Exactly, we got a better offer by taking action.
Much better than if we did nothing and just accepted what we were given.
Industrial action gets results.
Doing nothing achieves nothing.
Didn’t UCU reject the pay offer they were made in 2023 and loudly complain that it was imposed without negotiation, or did I miss their acceptance of it? I mean I guess it might have been lower without the months of reduced or no pay, but I’m not sure it’s worked out as worth it in the end.
There’s no need to “guess it might have been lower”. This is a matter of historical record. It *was lower* then we took action and *it improved the offer*.
The situation you’re describing is UCU taking action because of a bad pay offer and ending up with an improved one as a direct result of industrial action.
Which is exactly my point. Industrial action delivered that improvement, not sitting back doing nothing.
It might take a few years to recover the lost pay, but the increase persists for all workers for every year going forward.
If we did nothing, we’d be materially worse off for every year going forward.
So many falsehoods and misinformation in the article and comments here it may as well be the Daily Mail
Please do tell us where we’re wrong. Maybe it’s some sort of bullshit technicality about the motions actually being about IA on loads of extra issues that will obviously get solved by a strike that 1/7 of the membership want to go ahead with. Or is it that the UCU comms team apparently misrepresented the action which is meant to be – er – at some point late in the second term, as opposed to what they said which was that it would be around early April, ie the same thing. Maybe it is the idea that somehow this will allow UCU to stand alongside teachers and doctors on strike or some such bollocks even though this never sees any good result for UCU because their membership density is piss poor.
Own this decision, those who voted it through (I assume the person posting here is from the “ucu rank and file” or in other words “I cant quite bring myself to join the swp but I agree with them about everything to do with UCU” faction). You have just wasted 200,000 quid of the Union’s money and countless hours of volunteers’ time and energy. Why? So far the best answer I’ve seen is that not voting for this ballot would also have (unspecified) consequences, and some people thought for a bit about abstaining which is somehow meant to make their decisions look Thoughtful. That’s genuinely the best your faction have done at explaining it.
Always happy to correct falsehoods! Please drop me a line and I’d be glad to address any errors of fact.
Might be worth an update here or a new post, since it’s now confirmed that UCEA have abandoned the progress on the other 3 fights, thus negating all progress made on them, progress which the membership clearly supported. I hope the people who voted for the strike ballot over an unaffordable pay rise, in full knowledge this would happen, still think it was worth it. (I mean they probably do, since they love going on strike more than anything, but still).
Are you Raj Jethwa by any chance?
Er, no. I totally disapprove of UCEA saying that ballot = killing off the other terms, but UCEA were and are in a position of strength in these negotiations and have been since 2022 (basically since UCU decided on such a bad 4 fights strategy with totally pointless weeks of termtime strikes sapping the ability of members to do a MAB). However UCEA were right in 2023 and indeed now to say that the pay rises UCU want are unaffordable – the mooted IA would actually have to be about securing a different funding model for HE, and I mean this is just delusional isn’t it with a union which represents so few employees in HE, in contrast to the other public service unions. UCU have, since Grady took charge, gone for action over expansion, and clearly this has not worked.
What I am is a former ucu member who is a realist when thinking about industrial relations, and who sees IA as a last resort and, when called, it has to be winnable, run by people who are focused on serious negotiation and achievable wins.
I quit UCU quite recently when it became clear that the people in charge of the union (and until recently I think this included Jo Grady, but the damage has already been done there – what I am talking about here is the near permanent narrow majority of elected HEC members who are either in UCU Left or basically always vote with them while pretending to be independent of them) don’t actually want to secure wins in IA, they want to disrupt employers, and go on IA, whenever possible in the service of a wider commitment to revolution.
There is basically no other way to interpret this recent decision to spend 200k on a ballot supported by 1/8 of members. Nobody who voted for it has been able to defend it directly, either – the best they’ve managed is to say it has a stronger mandate than the Gen Sec, but that is not a justification for the decision, it’s just snark (also, their candidates polled less – it’s such an odd way to frame this).
Well done to the UCU HEC for their decision, as UCEA have now walked away from the proposed work on non-pay issues, something which has been a key ask for years. There was a chance to make some progress on key employment issues. And that’s, entirely predictably, now gone. Thrown away for a ballot which i) I’ll be surprised if a mandate for action was even won and ii) even if it was, I’d be absolutely staggered if any industrial action results in an increased pay offer at this time. Bravo.