UCU recommends yes on pay-related, no on pay

So we’ve had a response from the UCU higher education committee (HEC) on the latest pay offer. It’s short, so it’s worth reading in full:

UCU’s higher education committee (HEC) met on 27 September to consider UCEA’s final offer and voted to reject the pay element of the offer and to accept the terms of reference relating to the pay spine review, workload, casualisation, and equality pay gaps. HEC also voted to launch a consultative ballot on the offer and further details about this will be made available in due course.

And there’s a response from UCEA – here’s the second paragraph of that:

This is a positive response to UCEA’s new proposal to progress these important matters jointly with the unions. The proposal is clear; if the unions do not pursue a ballot for industrial action at this stage, the employers will note that the unions have not accepted the pay uplift and will work with the unions to progress these elements of the full and final 2024-25 pay offer. These union and employer priorities include a joint review of the pay spine and joint work on contract types, workload and pay gaps.

Recall that there are two elements to the New JNCHES process: the pay element (which is the one most people talk about) and the pay-related element (that covers the pay spine, workload, casualisation, contracts, pay gaps and equalities issues). In the past, the whole package has been presented by employers on a “take it or leave it” basis – if unions wanted the joint work on pay-related issues, they had to accept the pay offer.

For 2024-25, this has changed. UCEA is now happy to progress the pay-related work even if the pay offer is rejected, provided there is no ballot for industrial action (that the union “do not pursue” a ballot, to be clear). Given that absolutely no one believes the sector as a whole has a secret stash of money they could spend on a further uplift, this unlocks some of the other valuable work without forcing the union to vote in favour of a pay offer it is unhappy with.

If you are wondering what it means that “employers will note that the unions have not accepted the pay uplift” it in practice means very little. The pay uplift as set out in the final offer is already being implemented at various providers across the sector, in others it is being deferred (as is provided for in the offer) until next year. Noting that unions have not accepted the pay uplift doesn’t stop this, and it doesn’t mean that there is scope to improve the pay offer with further negotiation.

And as things stand, it looks as if UCU is moving towards a consultative ballot rather than a ballot for industrial action. With HEC recommending that the pay-related terms are accepted but the pay offer is rejected it looks like we could finally see movement on those aspects of the offer (you’ll note that the terms of reference are similar to those offered in 2023-24).

Among UCU members (as represented at the Branch Delegate Meeting on 24 September) it looks like this position may be acceptable. Some 66 per cent of branch delegates voted to reject the pay offer, while 58 per cent voted to accept the pay related offer. Delegates were split (45 to 46 per cent) on whether their branch would be willing to take industrial action – but supported the consultative ballot (83 per cent) to a greater degree than a ballot on industrial action (76 per cent). A consultative ballot would ask whether or not members overall would be willing to take industrial action – but it would not itself grant the union the ability to take industrial action (this would require an industrial action ballot, which is a different and more complicated endeavour).

If you think there’s things that can usefully be done on workload, equality, and the pay spine – and if you reluctantly accept that this will not be the year for a huge pay award – this might all be feeling a little like hope. However, there are five unions involved in New JNCHES. Unison is moving to an industrial action ballot in 2024-25, Unite ran a consultative ballot that concluded at the start of October, there’s been no news from GMB, and EIS-ULA recommended a vote for industrial action in a consultative ballot that closed on 2 September. In other words – even if UCU accepts the impact of the financial constraints many providers are working under, the chance to do the valuable and overdue joint work on things like workload may be lost.

So, where does this leave us? We’ve a pay-related offer from UCEA that UCU HEC and UCU BDM supports – UCEA has even said that work can start without agreement on pay. But this overdue and likely valuable work possibly can’t happen, because at least one of the five campus unions will shortly be running an industrial action ballot.

I asked Raj Jethwa at UCEA, who told me:

We are aware of UNISON’s plan to ballot, however all five trade unions have until 8 October to state their positions and we look forward to hearing from them.