Monthly Archives: November 2020

Results of Southampton UCU survey of PGR and Hourly Paid staff

Posted on by
Reply

Southampton UCU surveyed PGR and hourly paid members from 26th October to 12 November 2020. In total, 38 postgraduate researchers (PGR) or hourly paid members responded to the survey. The purpose was to gather information on how our most precariously employed members have been affected by the pandemic and return to campus activities. We will use these responses in our negotiating meetings with management and to inform local UCU strategy moving forward.  The following document comprises a summary of the main findings and includes strong statements of dissatisfaction by casualised workers at the University of Southampton about their treatment during this time, summarised in the statement below.

“The University attitude towards PGRs has been cynical and reckless in this situation. We are taking much of the risk, and we’re even getting lower pay in real terms (before, 45-minute time slots, now 60-minute time slots for the same nominal hourly pay)”
Southampton PGR.

Effect of COVID-19 on work offered

We wanted to know how casualised members’ work allocation has been affected this year. In total, 74.36% of survey respondents have been offered work this semester. Of those offered work, all of the survey respondents accepted the work offered. When asked to explain the reasons behind this decision, the vast majority noted the need for money, to pay bills or secure their income during a period of uncertainty. Members also reported:

  • Needing the experience of teaching
  • Wanting to help out staff and students in their department
  • Feeling able to accept the work as it was mostly remote or virtual but wouldn’t have done so if it was in-person.

Two reported having to do teaching as part of studentship conditions. Of these, they were both undertaking in-person teaching, which raises further questions about the exploitative nature of these studentship contracts.

Question six focused on how the offer of work has been affected by the COVID-19 response. As the bar chart below shows, our members report a mixed impact.

 

In total, 38.24% have had less work offered than expected this year but 20.59% have had more work offered, meanwhile 41.18% have the same amount of work. Of those who had less work offered, the majority came from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, but at least one respondent from each of the five faculties reported having less work. Meanwhile, of those offered more work these were almost entirely in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical sciences.

Of those who have had the same work offered, members reported being offered work very late. For example, one member wrote “I had originally been told that there was no teaching budget this year. It was only with a week’s notice that I was asked if I could teach on the module.”

Nature of work

We wanted to know whether PGRs and hourly paid staff are doing a disproportionate amount of in person teaching relative to their permanent counterparts. We also wanted to know how safe members felt doing in person teaching and whether their status as hourly paid workers affected this.

Overall, 81.4% reported their teaching was mostly online and only 3 respondents (11.11% of survey sample) had mostly in-person teaching.  On the whole, respondents reported they did feel safe to do in person teaching, though there were only 12 responses for this question as it was intended for those undertaking in-person work and not all respondents are.  Those who didn’t feel safe reported:

“There was no H&S Consultation with staff, we were not asked if we or our families belong to vulnerable groups, both hand sanitizers in the main corridor on Avenue campus are empty (the were there before Covid and they were also empty then),”

“The workshop doesn’t need to be delivered in person, and is supposed to be delivered in groups. But I will have to keep the students apart realistically. Would be easier to facilitate this on Teams given the current situation.”

One member who voted they did feel safe, commented “Perhaps safe is too much, but I cannot say I feel unsafe. I acknowledge the university has made an effort”. This captured the written responses, with members who reported feeling safe listing some of the measures taken by the university in connection with the specifics of the members teaching obligations. Reasons included:

  • The small number of students in the class
  • That the member was only teaching a limited number of seminars (2 in total)
  • The screen arrangements and wearing of facemasks
  • Good supply of PPE in a clinical environment

In response to question 12, 63.16% felt that in-person teaching has not been equally distributed across staff profiles at the university.

When asked to explain their answer, there was a mixed response. Members reported no consistency within the health and safety strategy of the university. Several members expressed frustration that PGRs are being asked to do the majority of in person teaching. One member stated pressure of PGRs to do the work and another stated:

“Absolutely not, at least in my faculty. A big part of the in-person teaching has been left to PGRs. Most academics have been comfortably teaching from home or even releasing pre-recorded stuff.”

However, a significant number of respondents said this didn’t know and an error of this question was not to include a “not sure” option. Additionally, some members interpreted this question as asking whether work as a whole had been allocated equally and expanded on question 6, discussing how casual workers have lost work during the pandemic and the disproportionate impact the pandemic has had on them.

Health and safety

In total, 66.67% of respondents have registered for the Southampton COVID-19 testing program. Two members (9.52% respondents) were not aware of the scheme and five have not enrolled for another reason that was not specified. The majority report being registered under their student not staff status and 61.54% answered they did not feel the inclusion criteria adequately includes colleagues needing to be on campus.

When asked about the level of health and safety guidance hourly paid workers had received 57.14% reported they do not feel that have been offered the same level of health and safety guidance as permanent colleagues.

 

The reasons members gave for answering no to this question ranged from having no guidance at all sent on in-person teaching, to only receiving guidance via the graduate school after in-person teaching had already started. One member reports having to ask for information about in person teaching and when it was sent there was no training or guidance, just a generic risk assessment sent. Furthermore, unlike permanent colleagues who have had individual risk assessments, hourly paid members report not being asked if they have any health concerns or if they care for a vulnerable person. Consequently, hourly paid staff describe taking on a higher share of the risk than permanent colleagues. This is exacerbated by the lack of sick pay for casual workers, something we expand on below.

Concerns regarding health and safety guidance was not limited to in-person activities but also arrangements for working from home. Members report inadequate information on home working and no eligibility for equipment to support home working.

An error in the wording of this question was omitting an unsure or N/A option. Those who skipped this question report not being sure or not having enough information on what permanent staff have been told to make a judgement.

Finally, we asked members if they can self-isolate if required and asked members to explain their answer. 96.88% of respondents said they were able to and only one respondent said they weren’t. In their explanations members focused on the practical aspects of self-isolation such as whether they had friends who could deliver food. While it is positive the majority said they can self-isolate, we are still unsure whether the lack of sick pay means hourly paid workers will self-isolated if required to.

As one member said “If I become sick, I face financial hardship – there is no support scheme that I am aware of and I cannot claim sick pay”.

The issue of sick pay was discussed in our final question on what our members want UCU to fight for on their behalf. The majority of respondents want SUCU to fight for guaranteed sick pay for hourly paid workers.

Pay and workload concerns

We asked if members had anything else to add regarding COVID-19 and the University of Southampton. Members raised a number of significant issues regarding pay and workload as a result of the University of Southampton covid-19 response, which we discuss below.

On pay, respondents expressed multiple issues with pay which have been exacerbated by covid-19. The change in allocated teaching from 45 minutes to 1 hour has increased the amount of teaching time worked and preparation time needed with no increase in pay or hours of work claimable to reflect this change. Additionally, members report that online teaching takes longer to prepare, which has not been considered in the calculation for claimable preparation time. Some departments continue not to allocate preparation time for PGR demonstrators at all.

Members are also incurring additional costs as part of the move to online teaching, which they report being unable to claim back. For example, one member stated “I got myself an ethernet cable to help with connectivity, that cost an hour of my pay”. Finally, members reported having increasing pastoral and welfare roles with undergraduate students this year and they do not feel supported in this or paid for this additional workload. All this is compounded by the continued lack of paid training for PGRs and limited training opportunities for hourly paid staff. Those seeking to provide quality education in an online environment are spending a significant amount of unpaid labour hours learning and preparing for classes. Combined, this leaves PGR and hourly paid staff unsupported and undervalued as summarised by the comments below:

“We are all are highly educated and highly skilled workers, what we get is a third world hourly rate. It shows how little the Uni value us, although without us the whole system would collapse in a blink of a eye…”

“casual staff are the lowest of the low. So, I don’t expect the university, as an organisation, to do anything for me. The university only respects its permanent staff”.

“Overall it feels like the university management doesn’t care about us but neither does it care about the undergrads- surely everyone can see that being taught by a PGR with very little training, less than a weeks notice and who isn’t getting paid sufficient to cover all the prep time is not a good educational experience?”

 

Hourly paid members and PGRs also report feeling generally uninformed about critical departmental policies and decisions. This is hard when students ask questions and tutors have no idea on what to say. As one member commented:

“We feel really out of the loop. I have no real idea what is going on in the wider course or department decisions, the students come to us with questions and I have absolutely no idea because we are as much in the dark as them”.

All of the issues discussed in this report exacerbate feelings of anxiety and stress and poor communication from the university was discussed by respondents as a contributing factor to this.

Members expressed “I feel communication has been poor and we are expected to just “carry on as normal”.

“While the financial caution of the university is understandable, the response of freezing new hiring and the uncertainty around the number of students for deferred international programs makes it very difficult to feel secure about the fact that there will be work available at all. It does not feel that the university takes into account the stress that these circumstances cause for casual staff especially, or how difficult it is to plan your life around such circumstances”.

What hourly paid & PGRs want from their UCU branch

We asked members to tick which actions they want the Southampton UCU branch to prioritise out of five options. Of these:

  • 88% of respondents want SUCU to campaign for guaranteed sick pay for any isolating member of staff, casual or otherwise
  • 82% want all information on health and safety to go to casual workers, including PGRs (whether they teach or not).
  • 64% want SUCU to campaign for paid training for casual workers
  • 42% want SUCU to campaign for a review of workload for hourly paid staff considering the new timetable.
  • 33% want SUCU to set up regular meetings between PGRs and management

Other priorities identified by members include:

  • SUCU should campaign for more marking to be given to PGRS to make up for lost teaching time and pay which will also benefit permanent colleagues by alleviating workload.
  • In line with the decision of our Higher Education Sector conference, one member commented that “UCU must fight for PGRs to be classified as workers. This is the first and only priority. Once this is obtained, the rest comes almost automatically”.
  • Members also want us to review the workload for online teaching and marking, alongside the review of an extra 15 minutes of teaching time per class.  As one member wrote “this takes significantly more time to prepare and conduct than face-to-face teaching, however this is not at all acknowledged in the hours that are offered”.

What SUCU will ask from managers

  • UCU would like assurances that vulnerable staff, including PGRS and those on hourly paid contracts, are able to have individual risk assessments put in place, regardless of contract type.
  • UCU would like management to ensure that PGRs and hourly paid staff have the appropriate and necessary equipment to carry out their teaching. These essential staff members are some of the lowest paid on our campuses and should not be expected to finance this themselves.
  • UCU would like assurances that studentships are not being used to require some students to undertake in-person activity disproportionately, and that they are not being pressured into taking on teaching they would not do otherwise.
  • UCU asks that management commits to ensuring any hourly paid workers unable to teach in person or online due to sickness is guaranteed sick pay, for the protection of all and the financial security of our members.
  • UCU asks that management implement a workload review based on the substantial extra preparation time required for online teaching and the decision to increase teaching slots from 45 minutes to 1 hour.
  • UCU asks for recognition by senior management of the contribution hourly paid staff and PGRs make to the delivery of teaching and learning in the institution and a commitment to improving their terms and conditions of work.

 

Correspondence with management regarding in-person teaching, and return home of students

Posted on by
Reply

Email received from Richard Middleton, Chief Operating Officer, Mon 16/11/2020 12:32

Dear Southampton UCU Executive Committee,

Thank you for your email of 12th November, which was discussed at UEB this morning.

As I explained in my email of 3rd November and at our subsequent meeting on 6th November, the decisions we are making, and are regularly reviewing, are governed by a range of factors. These include the clear guidelines and instructions we are given by Government and in particular by the Department for Education, and also the context of our own local situation, informed by our near daily contact with the Director of Public Health for Southampton City Council and with Public Health England. We are also in very regular contact with the local Health Protection Board, the Director of Public Health for Hampshire County Council, and Hampshire Police. Our decisions are not made unilaterally, or in isolation.

The Government has now set out very clearly the criteria for ensuring the safe return home of students for the winter break: In order to ensure that students can be home at the end of the winter term and also reduce any transmission risk, the Government is asking that students return home once the national restrictions have been lifted, in a “student travel window” lasting from 3-9 December. It is obviously critical that universities follow these requirements consistently.

As a result, and following discussions with our local public health bodies, we are making clear to students today that teaching will move online from 9th December. Students will be advised that they should return home from the University after their last timetabled on-campus and in-person teaching within the period 3rd-9th December. This will enable us to stagger the leave dates of students as required by Government.

In addition, students are being encouraged to take part in our well-established Southampton COVID-19 saliva testing programme, if they aren’t doing so already. We will be advising students to take two tests: one 10 to 11 days before they plan to travel, and another 2 to 3 days before they intend to travel.  Those who test positive will of course be required to isolate following NHS guidance, and the University will provide support for them, as it has been doing in such cases.

We will continue to work closely with our local public health colleagues and with the wider City to ensure that we meet our obligations relating to the end of term. This includes liaising with other local universities and with travel providers.

In addition, we will obviously need to assess, in discussion with local public health bodies, the implications – if any – of any continuing local restrictions put in place following the end of the England-wide lockdown on 2 December.

Taken together, this package of actions means that we do not see a case for ending face-to-face teaching earlier than has been identified by the Department for Education.

We already have in place a mechanism for individual members of staff to raise with line managers any concerns they may have about their personal circumstances.

At present there has been no formal communication from Government about expectations of universities or students in the New Year. Our teaching will resume on 4 January, and we are currently expecting this will include some campus delivery. The precise blend of this will be determined by the prevailing Government guidelines and the advice of our local public health bodies. We will continue to provide a COVID-secure campus environment for all of our staff and students, and we will continue to offer, as we have this term, asymptomatic testing to students and eligible staff.

Kind regards,

Richard Middleton

—————-

Email sent by UCU on 12/11/2020 to Richard Middleton Chief Operating Officer, Alex Neill Vice President Education, and Kieron Broadhead Exec Director Student Experience

Dear Richard 

In a well-attended branch General Meeting held on the 11th November, we consulted our members regarding the continuation of in-person teaching during lockdown and the recent government guidance on getting students home for Christmas.  During the meeting, the branch consulted with members on the following points:  

1: While fully accepting that some students may choose or need to stay in their University accommodation up to and even including the Christmas period, UCU believes that the University has a responsibility to ensure that those students who wish to leave can do so safely and as soon as possible. In order to facilitate this and reduce the risk of infections, which are climbing steadily in Southampton, a significant majority of members indicated they supported ceasing in-person teaching by November 16th. This date would allow students 2 weeks to self-isolate before returning home at the beginning of December. A later end to in-person teaching risks students who have tested positive being stranded in halls or private accommodation without essential familial and social support networks well into the Christmas vacation period. 

2: The Christmas vacation period is likely to involve students visiting areas of the country with high levels of transmission during a period traditionally characterised by social mixing. Members shared concerns that asking students to return to Southampton en masse in January would risk increased spread of the virus across the country and our community. January and February are also amongst the most pressured months for the NHS. Responding to these facts, a significant majority of members voted to request the University reduce the amount of in-person teaching between January and March. This will help keep the infection rate in Southampton and surrounding communities low. We note that Independent Sage has recommended that Universities offer students the choice of where to study in January and February for the same reasons and ask the University to seriously consider their recommendations.  

3: In the course of the meeting it also became clear that a great many of our members are concerned about the levels of autonomy they have in deciding what is essential, or most appropriate, for their teaching. Many members wish to determine for themselves how much in-person teaching is pedagogically essential, and to make decisions based on their individual circumstances rather than solely on the risk factors outlined by University policy, or blanket requirements for specified amounts of in-person teaching per module. We recall asking for this to be considered in the COO meeting on the 6th November and note that this was refused.  

In light of clear member concerns on this issue, we would like you to reconsider. Anxiety around in-person teaching is having a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of staff. We note that you have pointed out that universities should not be driven by a ‘one size fits all’ policy and that decisions need to be made by individual institutions based on the local environment. We ask that the same flexibility is offered to staff, many of whom have genuine concerns about in-person teaching, and the risks associated with commuting on public transport in order to deliver such teaching. It is very clear from our consultations with our members that adopting a more individual approach would not lead to an end to in-person teaching; many staff wish to continue to come to Campus and have the means to do so safely during this pandemic. For staff who must travel long distances on public transport, or have vulnerable family members, and for those whose mental health is suffering as a result of pressure to commute or work in environments they consider unsafe, the freedom to decide how to best fulfil their responsibilities and duties would do much to repair trust and boost morale.    

We remind you that our branch position, reached at the General Meeting on 15th September, has not changed and again draw your attention to the motion which was passed in that same meeting. We continue to oppose unnecessary in-person teaching, putting the safety and wellbeing of our members first. We understand that the University does not wish to move from its position of offering blended delivery. Nevertheless, we ask you to share our members’ views with UEB and request 1) a more flexible approach in determining when in-person teaching is needed; 2) for UEB to end in-person teaching wherever possible by 16 November to enable students to go home on 2nd December without compromising the safety of their families and communities; 3) for UEB to help reduce pressure on the NHS and protect our Southampton community by reducing in-person teaching where possible during the Jan-March period. 

In the interests of transparency, we will share this correspondence with members. We look forward to receiving your response. 

Southampton UCU executive committee  

Report from the Higher Education Special Sector Conference (30/09/20) 

Posted on by
Reply

Three delegates from Southampton UCU Executive committee attended the online Higher Education Special Sector Conference which took place on 30th September 2020. In this short blog we will report back to SUCU members on some of the main themes in the debates which took place and what we think the decisions made means for our members. 

The remit of the conference was to debate and direct the union’s response to the attack on jobs, pay and conditions resulting from the response of employers to the COVID-19 pandemic and included a draft sector-wide claim. We were able to get through all the business of conference, debating 16 motions and 7 amendments. You can see a breakdown of the motions and results here. 

The conference was broken into three sections: 

Section 1: Covid-19: health, safety, jobs, quality and funding of HE 

A total of eight motions (including the one late motion from the HEC) and a single amendment. All were carried, including the amendment to motion 2. Amendments emphasized the importance of safe workplaces, the lack of confidence in employers’ provision of the same, and pushed for campaigning in relation to these. Motion 4 was directed against the use of the ALAMA ‘COVID-age calculator’ because it individualized risk and could be used to justify passing the risks of COVID onto junior colleagues and those on precarious contracts. Your delegates abstained on this motion on the basis it recognised a genuine problem but wasn’t really aiming at the right issue. 

Motion 5 committed UCU to campaign for disabled members’ working conditions, including the protection of reasonable adjustments and disability equality training of managers. Motion 6 covered the workload implications of the shift to virtual learning environments, calling for updated guidance based on the recent The Automatic University report. Your delegates voted for both of these motions. 

Motion 7 noted the reliance of higher education providers on international student fees due to the sector’s funding model. Whilst the call to undo the latter is welcome, the motion was focused more on the international student side, including the claim that the courses on which they are enrolled tend “not [to] provide a quality learning experience for students”. This was again not the right target. On this basis, your delegates either abstained or voted against the motion. 

Section 2: Fight for jobs 

There were 5 motions in this section focussing on different areas of campaigning including detailed plans on how to fight job losses, reduce inequality and push against casualisation. All motions in this section carried, 2 with amendments.  

Motion 8 (carried) outlined demands for UK-wide redundancy policies in the sector. Part 2 of the motion called for a sector-wide agreement for redeployment between universities and colleges. Your delegates voted against the motion because of part 2 as they felt that this encouraged a perception of the sector as a fluid job market favouring mobile, young academics with few domestic commitments, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities. Conference committed UCU to campaign to end gross pay inequality by introducing a 1:6 pay ratio between the lowest paid and the highest paid, including VCs (Motion 9, as amended by University of Sheffield).  UCU will now call for paid GTA work to be included in national bargaining and campaign for better working conditions and employment rights for GTAs in line with permanent members of staff (motion 10, as amended by University of Sheffield). PGRs will be recognised as staff (Motion 11. See new UCU campaign on this). It is UCU policy to support FTC staff and establish a nationwide campaign to secure fair and equal treatment for FTC staff, leading to permanency where legally entitled. UCU will explore the possibilities for legal action against employers who refuse to abide by the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 (Motion 12). 

Your delegates voted for all motions except motion 8.  

Section 3: Industrial action strategy 

There were four motions debated in this section of the conference, all directing the future of Industrial Action (IA) within HE disputes. Of the Four, two were carried and one carried with amendments.  

As a result of the conference decisions, it is now UCU policy to include national employment standards a part of any new UCEA claims (motion 13). It has also been decided to continue using disaggregated ballots (motion 16) and to build a campaign of escalating industrial action this academic year (motion 13). However, Motion 15, which carried, makes it UCU policy to conduct a qualitative survey of members to determine support for different types of Industrial Action (IA) as well as the potential impacts of different actions on employers. It is policy to run this survey prior to balloting for further action and to use results of this survey to inform the strategy moving forward.   

Your delegates either abstained or voted against the motions except for motion 15. 

The Higher Education Special Sector Committee, responsible for the general conduct of union business specific to the HE sector between HE conferences, is next due to meet on 26th February 2020. We will update members if this meeting is moved forward or we are invited to any further consultation on matters discussed at the HE conference. 

 

UCU concerns regarding blended teaching and Tier 1 status – correspondence with senior management 

Posted on by
Reply

Following the announcement from the UK Government over the weekend regarding the new lockdown guidance, UCU wrote to the University Executive Board requesting that they reconsider their plans for blended online and face to face teaching, and review the current Tier 1 status.  Please find below the original email and the response from Richard Middleton, the University’s Chief Operating Officer.

 

From: Chief-Operating-Officer
Sent: Tue 03/11/2020 08:07
Subject: UCU concerns regarding blended teaching and Tier 1 status

Dear colleagues in UCU

Thank you for the email you sent to UEB Members on Monday.  As you know, we are due to meet on Friday (with Unite and Unison representative also) and – as always – I am of course happy for us to discuss these issues in detail when we meet.

In advance of that conversation, I did want to make a number of points:

  • Last night Universities Minister Michelle Donelan wrote to Vice-Chancellors to say that the guidance the Government is finalising for Higher Education will make clear to universities, and to students: “We do not, however, want or expect to see a transition to full online learning during the new national restrictions – this could jeopardise the learning that students receive, as well as risk their mental health and wellbeing. We want you to make informed local decisions whilst ensuring all students have some form of face to face learning, where possible and safe to do so.” I attach a copy of the letter for your information, and her letter to all students.
  • The Minister also comments:  “I know just how hard HEPS have worked to put in place measures to ensure teaching and learning is provided in COVID-secure environments, and we have not seen evidence of increased transmission within these environments”.
  • I am aware of course that there is a national UCU campaign; I trust our discussion on Friday can focus on the local context of Southampton. One size, and one approach, does not suit all. In assessing the balance of online and in person teaching, we need to take account of our own local context and circumstances– this includes the current relatively low comparative rates of COVID cases at the University; the major programme of asymptomatic saliva testing we are offering to students and eligible staff, which is growing; the extensive investment we have made in creating COVID-secure campuses (praised by staff and students alike); and – in discussion with public health authorities – an overall assessment of the public health risks, including to the mental health of students, and staff, and the state of local outbreaks.
  • Of course some staff, and indeed some students, may share your viewpoint and I am fully aware that view is not shared by other staff, and other students. These are complex issues, with many viewpoints, and it is important we hear those voices so we can balance the needs and concerns of all our staff and students. The UEB takes its responsibilities extremely seriously, and we are currently reviewing the situation and the prevailing Tier level very regularly.
  • We are of course also acutely aware of the wider city context in which we operate, which you referred to. As the Vice-Chancellor has explained previously, that is why we are in near daily contact with the Director of Public Health for Southampton City Council and with Public Health England, and why we are in very regular contact with the local Health Protection Board, the Director of Public Health for Hampshire County Council, and Hampshire police. They will not hesitate to intervene if they are concerned about increased community risk, and we would not hesitate to take action. We also know from talking to local businesses that the return of students is seen as a welcome boost to the city’s economy, and we have ensured we are keeping in close contact with local residents’ groups, councillors and MPs.

I look forward to our discussion on Friday.

Best wishes

Richard

Richard Middleton

Chief Operating Officer

From: ucu <ucu@soton.ac.uk>
Sent: 02 November 2020 18:02
Subject: UCU concerns regarding blended teaching and Tier 1 status

Dear UEB members

After the UK Government’s new lockdown guidance of 1 November 2020 and the Vice-Chancellor’s email of today (02/11) setting out UEB’s response, we note that UEB has agreed to continue with the same ‘comprehensive blend of face-to-face and online teaching’ that the University has been offering since the start of term, and that the University plans to remain at ‘Tier 1’ in DfE terms.

Though these decision have been made pending further clarification from Government, we believe that there is enough information in the government guidance to make further changes for the health and safety of staff, students, and the local community.  In particular, we want to emphasize the following points:

  • It was made clear in the Governmental briefings that cases were also rising fastest in the South; cases are comparatively low in the region now, but this is no cause for complacency. Minimising transmission must be a central goal, particularly when we consider the wellbeing of our students both in lockdown and during the lead-up to Christmas.
  • It looks very damaging—in terms of reputation if nothing else—for the University to continue to compel staff and students to travel through communities to deliver or receive teaching that could be provided online (in cases where in-person teaching is non-essential). In the event that community outbreaks worsen around the University whilst other businesses and families are making great enormous sacrifices to limit transmission, we risk a backlash that could cause damage to our reputation and local relationships.
  • The Government advice, as we understand it, is that universities are to remain open, but that workers are strongly advised to work at home if at all possible and that “Universities… should consider moving to increased levels of online learning where possible.” Prima facia, these guidelines are best implemented by staff delivering teaching online wherever possible. In any event, it appears to be the responsible step both in terms of safety and pedagogy, given the fast-changing nature of events.
  • It is clear that it is the university’s and all of our civic duty to contribute to the effort to bring the R rate and growth rate down so that students and staff might be able to join friends and family during the holidays. We are in a position to do this by moving all teaching online unless in person is required for lab or practice-based teaching. We are also conscious of students’ term-time mental health and wellbeing, but we remain concerned about the wider situation that might mean any continuation of the f2f status quo will cause greater difficulty for students’ and staffs’ mental and physical health in the long run.

As ever, we appreciate that UEB have stated its intention to work closely with campus trade unions. We are very keen to discuss these steps mutually, so that we can offer a staff perspective on how we can jointly navigate this difficult challenge in a way that safeguards students, staff and the goals of the University.

We look forward to hearing back from you.

Southampton UCU

UCU, UNITE and Unison survey – how safe do you feel on campus?

Posted on by

This is a summary of the findings from the UCU, UNITE and Unison survey we conducted at the beginning of October. We received 253 responses, mostly from Education, Research and Enterprise staff (87.7%) with permanent contracts (90%). We received responses from 29 Management Specialist, Administration staff, but very few from Technical and Experimental (1 member) and Community and Operational (2 members). 83.2% of respondents were full-time and 16.8% were part-time. Although we received 19 responses from FTC staff, we did not get a good response from hourly paid and zero hours staff (4 in total). This is one of the reasons why we have designed another survey specifically for PGRs and hourly paid staff. We need to find ways of capturing their views as well as those in more secure employment because the challenges precarious workers face are quite different and often slip under the radar, especially when the landscape is changing so much and so quickly.

Due to the poor response rate we cannot take these results as representative of union members’ experiences on campus. There were also limitations in the design of the survey. A lot of respondents did not have to teach in-person and some had not yet returned to campus, so their views weren’t based on direct experience. If a question had been added to separate those who were actually on campus from those who were able to remain at home, we might have got more precise and targeted answers. The survey was possibly sent too early as teaching had only just started. It might have been better to wait until later in the semester in order to gain a more comprehensive picture.

Below is a summary of the responses to the survey along with some brief analysis. Where applicable, percentages have been rounded up or down. The precise numbers can be seen in the corresponding tables:

Q5 The risk mitigation measures relevant to your job are clear

68% responded positively to this question, although a significant minority (16%) did not feel that the risk mitigation measures were clear. Importantly, a further 16% were undecided which suggests that they were might not have been clear what the risk mitigations were or how they related to their job. Given that most respondents were ERE and permanent, it is possible that they were not required on campus a lot, if at all. This could affect their ability to answer this question decisively.

Q6 Management have provided clear communication about COVID precautions

Overall, staff seem satisfied with the communication from management (63%). However, 18% disagree that management have provided clear communication and a further 18% were undecided.

Q7 You have been informed in good time of the impact of COVID-related precautions on your work

The split between positive and negative responses is a bit more even here. 55% of respondents felt that they have been informed in good time of the impact of Covid-related precautions on their work. However, a significant minority (25%) did not agree and a further 20% were undecided. Again, this could be due to the lack of understanding by staff about what the impact of these measures might be rather than a positive comment on communication. It may be because many of the staff who responded had only just come back to campus or they were not required to be there in the near future.

Q8 The COVID arrangements related to my job role are adequate to reduce risk of transmission to students to an acceptable level

53% felt that the arrangements put in place were adequate to reduce transmission to students. However, 25% of respondents disagreed. This might be related to the job families of the respondents whose jobs only require them to meet students in teaching spaces. Staff may feel that the risk to students in the classroom is minimal but might feel differently about the risk to themselves in that space.

Q9 The COVID arrangements related to my job role are adequate to reduce risk of transmission from students to me

Indeed, the higher proportion of negative responses to this question (33%) suggests that staff are more concerned about the risk of transmission to them from students than they are between students. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of respondents (47%) believe that the covid arrangements are adequate to reduce the risk of transmission between students and staff. The percentage of respondents who neither agree nor disagree is quite high again and it is possible that this is due to the lack of campus activity being carried out by respondents meaning that they cannot comment on the level of risk.

Q10 The COVID arrangements for students across the University adequately reduce risk to other students

It is clear that staff are less certain that the arrangements for students are adequate to reduce the risk of transmission between students. Only 23% believe that these arrangements are adequate, while 47% feel that they are not.

Q11 The COVID arrangements for students across the University adequately reduce risk to neighbouring communities

Only 18.5% of respondents are confident that the covid arrangements for students implemented at the University reduce the risk to neighbouring communities. This is quite significant because it suggests that staff are concerned about the impact students returning to campus might have on the local community. 35% were unsure, however, which suggests that they do not feel they have enough information about this to make a judgement. At the time of this survey, numbers in Southampton were very low so the high level of uncertainty might be because staff are taking a ‘wait and see’ approach. Significantly, 45% of respondents are clearly concerned about the impact of students returning to campus might have on the local infection levels.

Q12 I expect the COVID arrangements related to my job role to be fully adhered to by staff

Staff were very confident that colleagues would adhere to the covid arrangements on campus; 73% agreed with this statement. Again, a significant proportion (16%) were not sure, which suggests that they had not yet seen enough evidence to make an informed judgement.

Q13 I expect the COVID arrangements related to my job role to be fully adhered to by students

46% of respondents were confident that students would adhere to the arrangements, while 27% were not. Again, a significant proportion (27%) did not feel able to make a judgement about this, maybe because of lack of evidence.

Q14 I feel safe to carry out my job on campus

38% of staff feel safe on campus but it is deeply concerning that 40% do not. A further 21% of respondents did not feel able to say conclusively. These responses suggest that even if staff are quite happy with the measures put in place and the communication around them, they still do not feel safe carrying out their jobs on campus. There is clearly more to be done to make staff feel confident on campus during the pandemic.

Q15 Please provide any additional concerns or other information which it would be useful to include

There were 98 answers received to this the open-ended question. The responses are summarised below and some quotations are used to highlight pertinent points.

Some respondents were positive about the University’s management of the pandemic and the risk mitigation measures they have put in place. There were positive comments highlighting the ‘flexibility’ of line managers, praise for the testing scheme and communication from management. Some staff said that the University was doing well, ‘better than some’. There was acknowledgement that the pandemic is an ‘unprecedented situation’ and it is a ‘tough time to lead’ and on that basis, the University is ‘doing what it can’, has ‘made all reasonable efforts’ and ‘the measures that the University have taken are noticeable’.

As noted in the introduction, there were plenty of responses from staff who have not returned to campus and this is a limitation in the design of the survey. Of those who were undecided or more nuanced in their responses this was mainly due to lack of direct experience. Many respondents were delivering online teaching only or were exempt from returning to campus for health reasons. Two people pointed out that coming to campus was important for their mental health. A few respondents pointed out that students ‘deserved’ a face to face experience and one commented that it was ‘defeatist’ to simply not try. One respondent said ‘I personally recognise the considerable physical/mental health risks posed by students not having any meaningful in person activities to engage in. On that basis I am willing to engage in in-person teaching’. Again, this respondent had not yet begun teaching in-person and they stressed that their comments were ‘in theory’. There was also some misunderstanding presented in the comments. One respondent said ‘I particularly commend the university for moving all possible lecturing online and to limit face to face teaching to courses that cannot be taught solely online’. This is not, in fact, the University line, although it is what SUCU has been pushing for. The University wants to provide some in-person teaching to all students and whether that teaching is pedagogically the best option is of less importance than the ‘social’ benefits.

Some of the comments were quite mixed. One member likened the University response to a ‘car cash in slow motion’ but then went on to say that they taught clinical skills and the measures that had been put in place for that (after concerns had been raised) were adequate. The staff member has access to PPE and is using it, although they are responsible for stocking up the teaching rooms, which is ‘frustrating and time consuming’.

Some staff expressed their anger at the workload: ‘the workloads are punishing. They increased this year by at least 20-30% and in addition, everything takes longer to set up because of online recordings, marking, delivery’. Some highlighted the stress they were under caused by the pressure to teach on campus despite their reservations. One respondent said that ‘the approach the University has taken in relation to staff teaching in-person is a disgrace’ and that they felt ‘forced’ to teach across the week even though they feel ‘unsafe’. Some staff feel that ‘reducing face-to-face teaching to where it is *required* — e.g. laboratory or clinical work — would be a safer and more sustainable approach’ than insisting on some face to face for all students. Another staff member said they ‘feel very stressed, let down, and frankly do not understand what UoS is waiting for to move everything online’. One respondent was angry that most face to face teaching was being done by PGRs while permanent staff stay at home. This clearly raises equality issues which need addressing and will be part of the next survey we carry out. Some people felt that the University was prioritising money over safety, ‘The University puts us in the front line simply to justify asking students to return to campus, and therefore charging full fees. This is unacceptable’. There was some doubt expressed that students actually wanted to come back to campus because the process of canvassing students’ views had been opaque.

Other criticisms centred on poor ventilation in the teaching rooms, lack of adherence from staff and students to risk mitigation measures such as hand washing and wearing masks, lack of access to anti-bacterial products and hand sanitiser, and some staff were concerned about the added risk of travelling to work by public transport: ‘staff and students may be required to use public transport to come to campus. Public transport is NOT covid safe’, ‘The uni may feel the campus is covid secure but it’s too late by the time I’ve got there via train and bus’. Some staff felt strongly that this element of risk was not being considered fully enough.

One zero-hour contract worker said that they had not been given enough information to make an informed decision about returning to work. This is obviously very concerning for this colleague, who is being asked about shifts but does not know if they will be safe on campus.

Conclusion:

This is a small sample and cannot be taken to be representative of staff across the University. There is by no means universal satisfaction in the way the University has handled the situation, nor are staff feeling safe on campus on the whole. Nevertheless, many staff feel that management have done their best in difficult circumstances and have put in place reasonable measures to mitigate the risks of Covid-19.  There are numerous criticisms of the University’s decision to insist on in-person teaching and concerns about the increased risk posed to staff who deliver that teaching. It is clear from the findings that staff who are given flexibility to make their own decisions about whether to teach online or in-person are happier than those who feel ‘forced’ back to campus.

SUCU believe strongly that senior management should stop insisting on in-person teaching for all students regardless of pedagogical value and instead allow module leaders, HODs and DOPs to decide what is best for their students. This is happening in some Schools across the University and not in others. Where staff feel fully consulted and supported by local managers, their responses are more positive towards the Covid-19 risk mitigation measures put in place by the University. As we have done since March, SUCU will continue to work constructively with management to address these issues and represent the views of staff during this pandemic.

03/11/20