What would a summer of strikes achieve?

Here we go again.

A magnificently written letter from Jo Grady announces the inevitable – the University and College Union (UCU) higher education committee (HEC) is recommending that members vote to reject the pay offer and take industrial action.

To be frank, it isn’t a great offer. The headline pay rise of 1.4 per cent is below inflation – making it a real-terms cut – and there’s no guarantees on job security (something which employers have offered to progress, but outside of New JNCHES as it is neither pay rates or pay-related). The deletion of the two lowest spine points (5 and 6) will result in a small but welcome rise for small numbers of lower paid staff, however these currently sit under the government’s national living wage so would probably have needed to go anyway.

The pay-related measures (on pay spine reform, casualisation, workload, and pay gaps) are largely as proposed and agreed last year and the year before that. Pay-related work never gets enough attention but these have gone beyond nice to have and are now urgent: Grady hopes these talks will “begin imminently”.

If HEC gets its way it will not – this work (slated to begin this month) will pause during any ballot for industrial action: the HEC recommendation presupposes a ballot, and as above recommends another summer on picket lines rather than progressing the pay related work.

So, in launching a member consultation (on the offer itself, and on industrial action) UCU’s HEC has set its cards on the table, perhaps in the belief that industrial action will mean that universities somehow get more money with which to pay staff. Some parts of HEC may not be aware of the financial problems that universities are currently facing – the impact of TPS pension contribution rises and the increased employer contribution to National Insurance happening against a background of fees worth nearly a third less than in 2012 (in real terms), sputtering international recruitment, and a rise in the cost of doing business caused by geopolitical tensions and logistics issues.

The money is not there in university accounts (beyond the usual frequently-debunked strawmen about shiny buildings, VC pay, “reserves”, and too many non-academics – seriously, your union includes professional services staff, get it together!) for even an inflationary pay rise. Which is a sad and sorry state of affairs which harms the ability of universities to recruit and retain the best staff, but it is where we are.

Grady emphasises the need to hear “every single member’s voice” in shaping what comes next, and while noting both the “disappointing” nature of the offer and the “serious challenge” the sector faces to me she appears to be hoping that the pay-related work can continue (and thus that there will not be a vote for action).

The pay-related work could do significant good, and she’s right to flag this. And she stops short of publicly agreeing with HEC on the need for industrial action.

Quite how this masterclass in positioning washes with members remains to be seen – are there more that support Grady’s pragmatism than certain parts of the HEC’s determination to take industrial action with no clear path to resolution whatever the cost. Hence the need to bring the less “activist” members into the conversation, I suppose.

There’s a UCEA response which pretty much run as you would expect, though it adds that “recent dispute meetings demonstrated a commitment from both sides to work towards a resolution, despite sector finances deteriorating further since the pay round began”. The organisation is offering to “note” that unions have not accepted the pay uplift before beginning the planned joint pay-related work – but only if there is no ballot.