Monthly Archives: May 2018

Warped appraisal process – what went wrong?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s just not getting better, is it?

We were informed – by a written response, distributed at the close of our last JNC meeting – that there are no problems with the current appraisal process, if there are then they are not within the gift of HR or management to solve. It’s not their problem if managers are distorting the process because they haven’t been trained and are not being held to account – because they didn’t intend for the process to be problematic.

Members of Southampton UCU are increasingly seeking UCU support over problems encountered with the way appraisals are being done at this University. UCU executive members are despairing at what appraisal has become, not least because so many of us were involved in over two years’ effort in the so-called Reward project designed to create a new appraisal system we thought would benefit colleagues. Increasingly it seems that appraisal has warped into a device to attack and punish staff, rather than support them. In some areas of the University there appears to be an “appraisal is about performance only” agenda and the annual appraisal meetings are simply being used as part of a disciplinary and capability process. We are asking members to contact us with their concerns about recent appraisals, but below we highlight three of the reoccurring problems we have already identified.

Setting objectives for the coming year

The process of setting objectives for the coming year is meant to happen AFTER the submission of the retrospective appraisal and ownership of this should always be in the hands to the appraisee. The setting of objectives should be focussed on personal and career development and growth and should not be a list of “all the things your manager needs you to do next year.” Objectives need to be realistic and within the control of the appraisee (which is why “winning the Nobel Peace Prize” cannot be an objective but “making a submission to a panel by the deadline” might be). Objectives may be adapted over the year – subject to changes in workplans and circumstances, and they can be “stretching” with the caveat noted above that they must be within the control of the individual – for example, I can write a research bid for a prestigious funder, but I do not control whether it is funded. I can institute administrative processes or create new systems that aim to improve some part of the students’ experience of learning, but I cannot make all students get a first class degree or tick the excellent box in the NSS.

Ratings and moderation

We have written about this before, but we are really very concerned about the ways in which numerical scoring of performance is being used.  All the way through the negotiations about appraisal UCU were clear that telling people they had done a great job (when they had done so) absolutely has a place in appraisal.  We were also very happy that the appraiser could confirm that a staff member has “met expectations,” being clear that this was an acceptable outcome because no-one should be expected to exceed expectations on everything all the time.

The place for discussions of underperformance was not appraisal. This clearly falls into the capability and disciplinary processes designed to offer staff development and support opportunities to improve. Clearly appraisal can be a place where the barriers to achieving an objective can be discussed: for example, the module did not run so I could not deliver the new curriculum we planned; the IT system could not be configured to support the new process we envisaged. Under such circumstances, objectives can legitimately be ignored or adapted.  But appraisal is not the forum in which to inform someone that they will be disciplined, or to begin formal disciplinary documentation. Sadly it is clear that some managers a misusing the process in exactly this way.

Readers of the blog will know that Southampton UCU objects vehemently to the use of numerical appraisal scores and bell-curve moderation of these.  We now suspect that the use of these scores is being encouraged as a silent redundancy policy. We suggest that every score of 1 or 2 given this year will be used to push capability/severance processes, further “protected conversations” and removal of frontline staff. We are asking you to tell us if you see appraisal being used in these ways. And if members are asked to discuss “under-performance” or have protected conversations please don’t attend these without seeking advice from your branch.

Training for appraisal (or the lack of it)

Since the demise of ILIaD Southampton UCU has been concerned about the lack of development and training for all staff.  We understand that the new CHEP (Centre for Higher Education Practice) finally has a director and will be developing resources and training opportunities over the coming year. Training for appraisal falls under the remit of HR and much of this has been reduced to online training. Training for managers in “difficult conversations” (redundancy?) continues to be offered but we are sad that the innovative Appraisal Skills Workshop using Forum Theatre techniques to focus on the skills and behaviours in appraisal discussions has been dropped.  We know that members had mixed responses to this training – not least because it was initially poorly advertised as training for using the new system rather than developing skills in mentoring and developmental conversations. Nonetheless many appraisers and appraises said they welcomed this learning which explored techniques in listening, questioning, coaching and objective setting to ensure a positive outcome for both the appraiser and appraisee. We are aware that many forward thinking employers have woken up to the importance of positive conversations and the ways that these can be used to support staff and organisational goals. It seems a real shame that University of Southampton management and HR do not seem to be using these resources and evidence to get the best from our staff.

For us here in UCU a positive appraisal process – as part of a regular interaction between managers and teams is vital. This is an area in which the University senior management could improve, by listening to staff concerns about where appraisals are not working well, and by re-focussing on a genuinely developmental process. A good appraisal is an opportunity to celebrate success, to reaffirm values and wellbeing, and to plan for the coming year. Let’s make it work as intended.

 

#WeAreTheUniversity – Part 2, The One With You in It

Posted on by
Reply

We are now officially into National Recruitment Week, and we are also officially in the run up to the elections for the local branch for the coming academic year. We are holding some informal come-and-chat sessions later this week on Highfield Campus, for those interested in joining, for new members that want to know more, and for anyone thinking that they’d like to get more involved.

  • Thursday 17 May              1 – 2.30 pm, room 58/1045 Highfield
  • Friday 18 May                    4.30 – 6 pm, Arlott Bar

We thought we’d give you a brief rundown of the roles and responsibilities of branch executive officers – these are just sketches, so do get in touch if you’d like to know more. If you’d like to stand, you can download the nomination form here.  We can find you someone to second a nomination if you need, but the forms should be completed and received by the Southampton UCU Office by close of nominations: 5.00pm Friday 25 May 2018.

Many of the roles below will be vacant from 15 June – so don’t think just because there is a name currently next to a role that it won’t be up for grabs in the election. Please consider supporting your branch by putting your hat in the ring!

Elections will be held at our AGM on 15 June. Don’t forget to let us know if you are coming, so we can organise catering: 12:15pm for lunch, meeting begins at 12.30 Building 44, Room 1041.

Executive Committee -Roles & responsibilities

President – (currently Laurie Stras)

This is a visible leadership role, but very much supported by the wider executive team, officers and reps. I provide strategic direction and help prioritise what we do.  I chair branch meetings – such as the termly AGMs – reporting back to members, and I attend meetings with University management: regular commitments here are the Joint Negotiating Committees (JNCs) – which are 2 hours face to face with HR and senior managers, and there are at least 6 of these year. Some of the role involves co-ordinating the work of others, so I work closely with Amanda our branch manager (but I don’t line manage her) and our reps. In my time as president I have paid particular attention to communications with members – maintaining our regular blog and emails to members – these can take a few hours to compose but I enjoy this bit of the job. Currently this has a 40% (2 days a week) time allocation.

Laurie’s highlight of 2018: Watching our membership grow by over 30% in a single year – it’s been such a privilege (and maybe a bit scary) leading the branch during these interesting times, but absolutely I have loved all the support I and the branch have received from our members, old and new. It’s great to think that we are so much stronger now.

Vice president/president elect – (currently Catherine Pope)

Catherine says: This role is an apprenticeship for being president, so you spend time learning what the president does and deputise for them when needed. In the recent strike action this was necessary as the president was on sick leave so I ended up leading our strike activity. Currently we try to divide the work up so that Laurie as president leads on the local issues and I focus on the pension dispute and some of the more national work – but this is obviously up to the people doing these roles to decide. I often attend JNCs and have chaired branch meetings. I contribute the occasional blog piece and member email. I have tended to do University induction talks to recruit new members but this doesn’t have to be a VP role. This job can fill as much time as you have.

Catherine’s highlight of 2018: Chairing the emergency general meeting during the strike with over 170 members in the lecture theatre at Avenue. I really felt how strong we are as a union, how angry you were about the threat to our pension, and how passionate our members are about Higher Education.

Honorary Secretary – (currently John Langley)

John says: The secretary role is another key role for the branch.  While Amanda is the first point of contact I try to be the face of the branch for the other campus unions, senior managers and external organisations.  I attend negotiations and meetings with University management as required.  I am one of the signatories for the branch bank account and this year was one of three people designated to manage the hardship fund. In the event that the president and VP were unavailable I might have to make a decision (but I haven’t had to do this). I need to have a copy of the branch rules handy in case there is a query – but none expects me to remember them off by heart.

John’s highlight of 2018: This year I have encouraged branch members to take a bit of time for wellbeing and our trips to Portswood’s Bookshop Alehouse have established this as our top spot for Friday nights.

Honorary Treasurer – (currently Tim Sluckin)

This is a job for someone who is organised and ideally numerate (but we have a calculator).  Maybe it is for you if you don’t like the limelight or too much public speaking.  Amanda keeps an eye on the branch funds and helps prepare the annual accounts- these need to be audited and presented at the AGM once a year. You need to be a signatory for the branch bank account.

Health and Safety Officer – (currently David Kinnison)

The Health and Safety Officer is one of the most important roles on the committee, and while there are general protections for time spent on union duties, there is special legislation that protects health and safety duties. With luck and lots of volunteers, the executive officer will be in a position to coordinate multiple health and safety reps in the faculty. The H&S Officer is the point of contact for reps, caseworkers, and the committee, liaising with the national committee on policy and campaigns, and raising issues at branch executive and university Joint Negotiating Committee meetings.  There are national meetings each year – usually a full day (accommodation and travel expenses fully paid for this).

Equality Officer – (currently Mary Morrison)

There is a lot of public communication about equality, particularly gender equality, that comes from the University – we know that they both want and need to engage with this, and UCU is in a great position to help them do this. The Equality Officer is responsible for developing local strategies for equalities campaigns, and advising other caseworkers on legislation and institutional frameworks. There are national meetings each year – usually a full day (accommodation and travel expenses fully paid for this).

Mary’s best bit about the job:  “Campaigning for equality in the University of Southampton remains critical and this is most obvious when looking at gender. The Gender Pay gap data for 2017 shows women earning over 20% less than men in the institution as a whole.”

Insecure Contracts Staff Officer (Fixed term and Hourly Paid zero hours and temporary contracts – currently vacant)

This is our point of contact for all our casualised and precariously employed staff and this is a priority area of campaigning and support, nationally and locally. Ideally we’d like a small sub-group to take this work forward.  There are national meetings each year – usually a full day (accommodation and travel expenses fully paid for this).

Post-grad and SUSU Liaison Officer (currently Cori Ruktanonchai)

This officer post is key to building and maintaining relationships with our students. Usually held by a PGR student, this job requires energy , advocacy, and communication skills, and it is an excellent introduction to union work for someone who wants to understand the workings of higher education from a new perspective.

Academic-related Staff Officer (currently Sarah Fielding)

Sarah says: “I have been the UCU rep for at least one large restructure, which affected staff moving from the ERE to MSA pathway. Generally, the ARPS role means making sure the voices of those members on MSA/TAE pathways are heard, highlighting gaps/disparity in provision for those pathways (such as equal access to family facilities, or CPD opportunities), and also raising awareness of challenges such as career progression etc. There are national meetings each year – usually a full day (accommodation and travel expenses fully paid for this).

The best bit of the job for me is knowing that your input can make a difference to someone going through a hard time.”

Membership and Campaigns Officer (currently VACANT)

 This is a role that is currently covered by Amanda, liaising with HQ on membership and recruitment campaigns. If you are organised, enthusiastic, and enjoy coming up with new ideas to help us recruit members, we’d really like to hear from you. It has never been more important for employees to have the protection and advice of their union, and we know that the union is stronger for every member we recruit.  Perks include cakes and treats on recruitment stalls…

Communications Officer (currently VACANT – new role subject to ratification at AGM)

This is a new role – a lot of this has been covered by the President, VP and Amanda this year.  We would like to keep the regular blog and develop other communications newsletters, bulletins and posters, etc. This work can be delegated to reps but we need a plan and some oversight of this.

Environmental Officer (currently VACANT)

 This is a union role suitable for UCU members who wish to develop their understanding of climate change and ways to protect the environment through change at work. The role of the Environmental Officer rep is to work  with management to ensure wherever possible that the University is working towards green objectives. You will be responsible for bringing environmental issues to the attention of the branch executive, for raising with management at JNCs.

Ordinary Members – four posts (currently Mark Dover, Maureen Harrison, Roger Ingham, Marianne O’Doherty )

Attend monthly committee meetings – 90 mins a month in term time – and offer assistance/support where possible to other ongoing issues.  Current ordinary members help on redundancy consultations, casework, JNC meetings, and campaigning (more or less everything that the committee is required to do).

Our OMs say the best bit about the job is meeting great colleagues from departments across the university; and making a positive difference to the treatment of colleagues across the university through your advocacy.

#WeAreTheUniversity – Part I

Posted on by
Reply

Last Friday, just as I was about to leave Union House, Amanda reminded me it’s our third and final National Recruitment Week next week (week beginning 14 May). This regular event can be met in the office with a range of responses, from “OK, where’s the banner and the stand materials? Who’s on the rota?” to “Really? Again? But we have [insert urgent and depressing problem here] to deal with next week!”

I have to admit, my feelings were closer to the latter this time, as first thing Tuesday I will be attending yet another meeting regarding yet another consultation which could result in colleagues losing their jobs.  We simply haven’t got the time to think about something else…

And then, as I took a moment on Sunday to enjoy the Bank Holiday sunshine, I thought, actually, how can we not afford to do this?

We have six more weeks of term time, and six more weeks before our Annual General Meeting. There has never been a more important time for recruitment – if you think this year has been bruising, then next year will be even worse.

It is time to gather together as a community and to show that “We Are the University.”

During the strike weeks, the hashtag #WeAreTheUniversity became familiar to Twitter users: but even if you are not a keen social media user, you will understand the sentiment. We long since decided to stop calling the Senior Management Team “the University” in our communications (as in, “the University has decided…” this or that), because we are the University, not senior management. So few of the important decisions now are taken without any demonstrable benefit to education or research.  We need to take a stand, and we need to do it via every means available to us.

Support your union, and help us to support you. Please, do whatever you can to help us recruit more members: talk to your colleagues, have honest discussions about how you are going to manage the pressures of a consultation in your department. Tell them to visit ucu.org.uk/join – it’s so easy to join the union.

And please don’t think it won’t happen to you: the two departments in the University that came top in the country in REF2014 are now looking to the next academic year with many fewer staff and with severely challenging recruitment due to by arbitrary decisions by the Senior Management Team. Those that remain wonder what the future will bring. As far as we are concerned, we want the future to be in the hands of the university community, and we hope, so do you.

Recruit a friend, put “LUNCH AT THE UCU AGM” in your diary for 15 June, and join the effort to save jobs, education, research, and community – for everyone here: 12:15pm for lunch, Building 44, Room 1041.

 

 

 

More on Clarity Travel and AirBnB

Posted on by
Reply

When we sent an email to members last week about the less-than-loved policy forcing us to use Clarity Travel, we mentioned we had seen a Faculty email informing staff that they could no longer use AirBnB for university-related business, and they would not be reimbursed if they submitted receipts from AirBnB. Since this appeared to be policy that was (typically) partially and ineptly communicated, and – worse – to be retrospectively enacted, we promised we would come back to you.  We touched a nerve, because we have been deluged by comments and questions.

We have done a little digging, and we have some information to share. But before we get to the root of this non-policy that has not been negotiated or consulted on, we’d like to share with you some of the most important aspects that have been highlighted to us since last Friday:

  • Equal opportunities / discrimination: many staff have good reasons for looking for self-catering or apartment accommodation when travelling. Those with specific dietary needs or accommodation specification (potentially associated with disability or a medical condition) or travelling with carers have welcomed the flexibility of AirBnB.
  • While hotel-style self-catering accommodation can be found, it is often very expensive, or only available for week-long bookings. Shorter bookings can be made through AirBnB.
  • AirBnB have a facility for businesses called AirBnB for Work, which is not covered in the report below.
  • Edinburgh University (a fellow Russell Group institution) has a very sensible and grown-up policy in place that permits the use of AirBnB, with conditions, and also seems reasonable in terms of the use of its nominated travel company for trips under £300, or trips funded by external agencies.
  • AirBnB makes it possible for the increasing number of academics forced to self-fund research activities to attend conferences, work in the field, and present their work in the UK and abroad. Removing access to AirBnB will result in these activities being drastically curtailed, to the detriment of departments and individuals.

We invite further comments below: if you emailed in to the branch, we would love it if you would reproduce your comments here, so that management can see them.

And now, the digging:

Agenda Item 9, UoS Consultative Health and Safety Committee meeting, Monday 11 December 2017

In December 2017, the Consultative Health and Safety Committee received a paper from Cathy Day, the university’s Director of Health, Safety, and Risk, which purports to be a report on the use of AirBnB for university-related travel. It makes some interesting claims and reveals some of management’s reasonings for the recently communicated ban on any further use of AirBnB or other “unregulated providers.”

Item 3.1 of this paper reads:

In July 2017 the University appointed Clarity as their travel management company and then mandated that all air travel should be booked through them. There was no such mandate for accommodation but professional services personnel within Faculties such as Heads of Faculty Finance and Health & Safety Advisers have promoted the use of Clarity wherever possible and endeavoured to manage the issues raised by users over available options. One of those options is Air BnB which cannot currently be booked via the travel management system because Clarity do not have an arrangement to do so and nor do they have any means of checking the suitability, security or safety of accommodation on offer. Those preferring to use Air BnB therefore have to book their accommodation independently.

This appears to suggest that one of the reasons for not permitting the business use of AirBnB is that Clarity do not have a way of recouping “rent” (see here for a definition of “rent-seeking”) from them.

Item 3.2 of the paper reads:

All travellers at the University are required to complete a travel risk assessment and to implement measures to control the risk to as low as reasonably practicable. If undertaken as per the guidance provided this should be sufficient to enable the employee to fulfil their duty of care and to inform them whether the journey, accommodation, location is suitable or not. Checking and signing off this assessment enables the University to also fulfil its duty of care. There are good examples of travel risk assessments across the University. However, there is currently no central database and thus limited knowledge about how well travel risk assessments are completed and whether these are sufficiently checked and signed off.

This item suggests that the University’s risk assessments are sufficiently detailed to allow for the University’s and the employee’s duty of care to be fulfilled.

Item 3.3 of the paper reads:

Travel insurance provided by the University does not cover personal liability for damage caused to Air BnB properties because they are unregulated and in the eyes of the insurer are open to fraudulent claims. Home owners (hosts) may have suitable insurance to cover this but it is not a requirement of Air BnB so needs to be checked for each booking by the guest.

Again, this seems like there are mechanisms to ensure that a stay in AirBnB would present no financial risk to the university.

Item 3.4 caused us a little bit of pre-weekend amusement:

Two simple benchmarking exercises have taken place. The first carried out in September 2017 is attached at appendix A which included 20 large and complex companies within the within the UK of which the University of Southampton was one. The response was mixed…

The second benchmarking was undertaken in November 2017 with the Universities Safety & Health Association network. Very few said they had any policy on the use of it but those that did, either banned it or used Business Air BnB. The lack of responses indicated no definitive conclusion.

Appendix A is reproduced here.  It reveals that this “benchmarking exercise” was conducted by expat-academy.com. We note that this service organisation will conduct a benchmarking exercise for you if you email them with a question. Their website states:

Benchmarking Service: For any question you want to ask other GM [global mobility] professionals but can’t due to anti-trust, you can send them our way. We send your question, consolidate responses and distribute answers anonymously. Click HERE to email us and ask your question!

Slightly hilariously (at least to this blogger), expat-academy chose to benchmark us with Diageo, Pearsons, and Imperial Tobacco: those well-known academic research institutions which require their staff members to self-fund their business activities.

The “second benchmarking” conducted among universities is a bit more nebulous: a lack of responses, and “very few” saying they had any policy. No evidence of any exercise actually being carried out is produced.

Item 4 is where it gets maddening:

4.1 Strategic: This report endorses the University’s strategic goals of;

    • Collegiality – by improving the management of travel to ensure risks are identified and addressed.
    • Quality – by improving the experience, safety and security of those who travel on behalf of the University.
    • Reputation – by helping to ensure travel arrangements are well managed to avoid any reputation damage.
    • Sustainability – by reducing risks associated with travel, thus enabling the university to continue its research, promotional activities and attendance at important events.

4.2  Financial:The cost to the University in respect of lost reputation should anything occur at an event could be extremely damaging.

4.3 Equality and Legal: Equality legislation is often complimentary [sic] to that of Health and Safety with several aspects forming an integral part of good health and safety management such as the risks and environment affecting the disabled, expectant mothers, young and older people, cultural needs etc

4.4  Risk and Health & Safety This report reflects the health and safety management system in place at the time. Failure to identify and assess risks can often mean that inappropriate or insufficient measures have been implemented to control them.

4.5  Reputation Poor health and safety can seriously impact upon the reputation of the University. A serious incident resulting in a large fine, enforcement action or imprisonment could be extremely damaging to the University.

 

This item shows that the overriding consideration here is finance – not the financial cost to external funders or to self-funding staff of Clarity-bookable hotels and Clarity’s rent on top – but the potential cost to the University of some sort of reputational damage caused by its academics trashing an AirBnB property (see Item 3.3 above). The report makes no other reference to equality, or an equality impact assessment of such a policy, but our members have identified that this is a primary concern for them. It also states (Item 3.2 above) that the current risk assessment procedure is sufficient to both employer and employee, if properly carried out.

We will be taking this matter to the Joint Negotiating Committee on 4 June, so we would welcome further comments from members. We are particularly exercised that the policy is being enacted retrospectively, so causing more financial distress to employees. Let us know what you think in the comments box below.