We now have a perspective on the UCEA “full and final offer” (post dispute process version) from UCU negotiators, and the general secretary.

Recall here that this is fundamentally the same offer (identical in terms of pay, and with some small improvements on non-pay) that was rejected by 51 per cent of branch delegates in early July (for clarity, 24 per cent voted to accept while 25 per cent abstained) and Jo Grady’s perspective is very interesting.

She is clear that:

The pay element isn’t what you deserve, nor where we need it to be – around 2.5% for most members, only offering more at the bottom of the scale. […] In a context where most public sector workers have been given 5.5%, 2.5% looks increasingly untenable.

While emphasising that the proposals on pay spine review, casualisation, equality pay gaps, and workload represent a win on union asks. As Grady notes:

This leaves us in a complicated spot with how to move forward.

The usual position from employers is “all or nothing” – unions get the work on these important priorities if they accept the less attractive pay offer. Despite this, next week’s UCU Higher Education Committee (HEC) meeting will include a vote on whether to accept the whole offer, parts of the offer, or reject the offer – with the prospect of preparation for an industrial action ballot also up for debate. UCU members will currently be meeting within branches to discuss the offer – this will be fed back via branch delegates at a meeting on 24 September before HEC on 27 September.

It’s worth digging into the negotiator’s report, for the union perspective on what happened at the two dispute resolution meetings on 19 and 22 August, which also summarises the small but important wins on the pay-related asks. The negotiators also remind us that members of two of the other four unions have a majority voting in consultative ballots to reject this offer: both Unison and EIS ULA recommended members voted against.

The UCU negotiators don’t get to make recommendations, but they feel employers could pay more (they suggest that some employers had budgeted for a 3 per cent rise, and are particularly unhappy about the staged increase in pay) but that negotiations are clearly over. A shift, therefore would need industrial action. although any industrial action would need to be a demand for a “fully funded pay rise”, lobbying government rather than the usual approach to institutional managers. There is, it seems, scope for progress to be made on the non-pay aspects of the offer (though note that there is not currently money attached to these negotiations), and on other non-JNCHES issues.

At the Higher Education Special Sector Conference in May, UCU members resolved to develop a strategy that includes UK wide industrial action in 2024-25. This was a surprise given the participation and membership problems the union faced during the 2023 action – and leaders had recommended a period of time to rebuild the union before any further substantive national action. While membership and participation is low, it is likely that remaining members and activists would be particularly inclined towards industrial action – the question would have to be whether such action had any real chance of making material improvements to the 2024-25 offer. Otherwise, strikes might weaken the union further and make it less able to threaten industrial action if the higher education sector does suddenly get a better financial settlement from the government.