Category Archives: National Campaign

USS – SUCU clarifies VC’s claim relating to UCU’s alternative proposals

Posted on by
Reply

SUCU believes that this claim made by Mark E. Smith in his response to us is misleading.

The letter states: ‘In addition, the University notes its disappointment that UCU has not been able to advance a formal, costed solution during the extensive valuation process to date, that it comes at the eleventh hour and is still not yet a formally tabled proposal at the JNC.’

The facts are that USS-costed proposals have been formally tabled for the JNC meeting this Friday the 11th of February (tomorrow), which was the date on the USS grid for the tabling of such proposals.

These proposals were not tabled earlier because UUK had declared that they would not negotiate with UCU over proposals until after the close of the USS consultation on the 17th of January. Moreover, UCU sought confirmation of strength of member consultation support for its approach, involving the paying of higher contributions to preserve current benefits. UCU received reports on the consultation responses on the 21st and 24th of January. These responses revealed strong support for our proposals. Having received this confirmation, UCU swiftly publicised the proposals on the 26th of January.

Since then, employers have simply stalled in unprincipled fashion. Although they were aware of the indicative USS costings on which our proposals were based, they demanded formalisation (which is a very complicated procedure) of these costings from USS as a condition of sending UCU’s proposals out for consultation. This in spite of the fact that they sent their own revised proposals out for employer consultation before they received formal confirmation from USS of the 0.2% costing.

They could and should have sent UCU’s proposals out for consultation when they received them on the 26th of January, just as they sent their own proposals out for employer consultation before they had received formal confirmation of costings.

UUK has today acknowledged that UCU’s proposals meet the higher standard they set for them than for their own proposals, and that they will be launching a consultation on them from early next week. It is not clear why consultation cannot start today.

The response from VCs on this matter, including the letter from Mark E Smith is deeply disingenuous, and appears to categorise proposals from the employer side in a very different way. We therefore ask that USS members inform themselves fully of the facts rather than relying on communications from the employer.

Follow: Mike Ostsuka @MikeOtsuka, Sam Marsh @Sam_Marsh101 and Jackie Grant via @sussexucu

(With grateful thanks to Mike Otsuka for his input)

 

 

Reasons to vote YES in the USS ballot

Posted on by
Reply

Vote now (and if you don’t have your ballot, request a replacement TODAY) for industrial action over USS.

If necessary, order your replacement ballot here: https://yoursay.ucu.org.uk/s3/USS-HE-replacement-form

Vote for strike action and for action short of a strike.

1. Our dispute is with the University as our employer, represented by Universities UK in national negotiations. It can only be resolved through industrial action against the employer.

2. Over the last few years, USS investments have performed badly compared to other schemes such as the University of London’s internal SAUL pension. USS and UUK have maintained a culture of secrecy and complacency; when a UCU-appointed trustee started asking difficult questions, they worked together to have her removed. The current difficulties are their fault.

3. Our employers have not delivered on their past promises to commit support to USS over the long term. Their refusal of “covenant support” has sabotaged our chance of retaining current benefits at modest cost for a further fifteen months while we work out a long-term solution.

4. The blue line on the graph below shows that, without this UUK sabotage, an academic on £40,000 would have been able to retain current benefits at modest cost. In contrast, UUK is trying to force us to follow the yellow line; we would lose a third of the value of our pension by retirement age. Because of the poor inflation protection, it only gets worse as we get older.

Graph by Prof Mike Otsuka from UCL, a member of the UCU national negotiating team.For details see: https://mikeotsuka.medium.com/the-overwhelming-case-for-retaining-current-uss-pension-benefits-until-april-2023-4d0f935fba48

5. The graph makes a modest assumption of 3.5% CPI inflation. This is substantially lower than it is now. If inflation continues at the current rate, our pension would be much worse.

Higher Education ballots – Four Fights – say no to spiralling workloads! 

Posted on by
Reply

Spiralling workloads have been an endemic problem in higher education for several years, made only worse by the pandemic. The average working week in higher education is now above 50 hours, with 29% of academics averaging more than 55 hours. In December 2020, 78% of UCU respondents reported an increased workload due to the pandemic.  

At the University of Southampton the situation is particularly alarming. While some other universities were hiring more staff (although often on insecure contracts), the rule last year at UoS was to not replace staff who had left through the voluntary severance scheme. Members reported dealing with exceptionally high workloads, having to pick up the work left by those who left often in the middle of the year, without notice. Staff also bore the brunt of the overnight pivot to online working and the increased pressures and demands of virtual learning.  

The workload survey conducted by your branch in June 2021 shows that only 3.3% found their workload fine, 24% manageable while 72.3% found it very high or unmanageable with many respondents noting that they had to work evenings and weekends, and some reporting up to 70-80 working hours a week. The feeling of being overwhelmed and anxious about workload was widely shared. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This unsustainable workload has consequences on the health and wellbeing of staff: many reported anxiety, depression, or panic attacks from working overtime. Some had to be signed off for several weeks for depression and anxiety. In our survey, 75% of respondents said overwork had impacted on their mental health, while around half developed neck and back pain and sight problems and a third repetitive strain injuries and weight gain.  


 

 

 

 

 

 

Loss of sleep, migraines, overall fatigue were frequently cited as symptoms of this overwork. One respondent said they cried every day for at least a week. 

Workloads affect our private lives and the quality of the work we deliver. Respondents noted that the work pressure made it difficult to ‘switch off’ and was detrimental to relations with friends, partner or children (68%). 84% of our respondents said they could not have weekends or evening completely off while 61% said they were not able to take all their annual leave. One colleague noted that they refrained from taking sick leave because they knew there was no process to cover their work and that the burden would fall on already overworked colleagues. The situation is even worse for staff on insecure contracts who don’t get paid annual leave or sick time. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Overwork also makes us less efficient and creative in our work. Over four fifths of our respondents said that overwork did not give them ‘thinking time’ to reflect on their practice, be creative, read or get proper training. Many note that they can’t keep up with the changes of procedures within the institution. For colleagues on balanced contracts, research is often the first thing that is sacrificed when workloads are too high, while for others it is professional development and long-term career planning that get dropped. They note that things are often rushed, that they feel disorganised and that it lowers their mood. Basically, staff feel that they are mostly fire-fighting and have no time to ‘reflect, discuss and share their experiences’. ‘Collegiality’, understood as mentoring colleagues or taking on additional activities to be a ‘good citizen’, is also not factored in workload models. It is still important for many colleagues as shown in our survey, but done as a voluntary activity on top of their other tasks. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your branch will take the survey results to senior management at the next Joint Negotiation Committee in November. We want them to confront the reality of high workloads at Southampton and to commit to an open discussion of the different ideas brought up by survey respondents to tackle the issue: hire more people, in particular professional services staff who play a vital role in our academic community; have a more realistic assessment of our workloads and in particular of our administrative duties; create a staff-led forum to decrease the bureaucracy; a more transparent and fair distribution of teaching load which reflects the realities of staff-student ratio; have proper working contracts for PGRs; create the conditions for staff to take leave by provisioning for parental/sick leave replacements and having enough slack in the system to allow for annual leave. 

What are we fighting for? 

We are at a breaking point and we can’t go on like this any longer. Abstaining or voting no in the Four Fights Dispute is accepting the situation. So vote yes for strike action and action short of a strike in the Four Fights dispute. By using your vote, you also give your branch the power to fight for better conditions here at Southampton. 

We want: 

  • A plan agreed with senior managers for a reduction of workloads across the board 
  • 35 hours to be the standard weekly employment contract of all HEIs 
  • Clear and transparent workload models 
  • End to austerity in terms of hiring policy 

 

Higher Education ballots – Four Fights – staff deserve a pay RISE not another pay CUT

Posted on by
Reply

Last year our employers used the opportunity of the pandemic to impose a 0% pay award, despite a 4% increase in student numbers. This year, the final offer made is for a 1.5% pay increase. A 1.5% pay increase over two years is a steep real term pay cut.  

This year, we know that inflation has been rising rapidly. The Office for National Statistics reported CPIH in June at 2.4%, CPI at 2.5% and RPI at 3.9%.  Whatever tool is used, this year’s offer is in real terms a pay cut. New members starting careers in 2021 will earn around 20% less than they would have done if our pay had been maintained in line with inflation over the last decade.  

Not only will take-home pay be spread much thinner, but it will be minimally increased when considering the increase of National Insurance next year by 1.25 percentage points (to 12% of pay).  

As a sector, HE total income has risen by 15% over the last years after adjusting for inflation. At our university, tuition fee income from international students has increased by 36.6% over the last five years. Last year the University of Southampton had a surplus of 6.6% of income.  

Over the same period, staff salaries have fallen in real terms. In 2018/19, the University of Southampton even “outperformed” its target of capping staff costs. 

In spite of the impression given by our employer, who has been preaching austerity for several years while recruiting more senior managers on high salaries, the money is there to award a real term pay increase.   

What we are fighting for on pay:  

  • A pay uplift of £2,500 on all pay points 
  • A minimum of £10 per hour wage for all contract types 
  • For all universities to become Living Wage Foundation accredited employers, ensuring outsourced workers receive, at least, the live wage foundation rate of pay.  
  • A maximum sector wide pay ratio of 10:1 
  • Additional uplift at the lower end of the pay spine to address pay compression. 

Look out for your ballot papers, vote early and vote YES on the Four Fights! 

 

Higher Education ballots – Four fights – Experiences of a casualised teacher 

Posted on by
Reply

In this second of our four-part blog series, we hear from our branch President about the challenges faced by them as a casualised staff member working in Higher Education

 

When I was a PhD student, I supported myself by teaching at various FE and HE institutions. I spent countless late nights cobbling together lectures and seminars to deliver the next day, often outside my immediate area of expertise. With no official workspace I had to cart my laptop, books and notes around everywhere, often meeting students in cafes and other people’s offices. Working in a variety of locations I frequently had to navigate unfamiliar public transport, or search for semi-legal parking spaces, and I would spend fraught moments hopelessly lost in corridors, locked out of classrooms, or denied access to IT systems because of a malfunctioning ID card. It was important to me that my students trusted me, that they thought I was an established member of the teaching team, that they thought I belonged there. So, on the surface I tried to look professional, but I was permanently frantic, under-prepared and anxious. The teaching I delivered on core modules was the culmination of hours of work and I was only paid for a fraction of the time I had put in. But I was good at it. My students liked me, and I got consistently positive feedback. I did it for the love of the subject and in the vain hope that my experience would count for something. But it got me nowhere.  

After 5 years, while on maternity leave on a fixed term contract, I was made redundant. The job market in HE had become more and more competitive, and by then you needed extensive teaching experience, a monograph and a successful grant application even to get an interview. The lack of diversity that this ruthless job market encourages cannot be overstated. Once I had children, my ‘dream’ of becoming an academic was over; I was too far behind. I am now a permanent member of staff on an Education Pathway and I like my job, but I have never forgotten the feelings of insecurity, inadequacy and resentment which built up over those years on temporary contracts. My personal experience is common amongst PhD students but casualisation is now endemic. According to a UCU report carried out just before the 2019 strike over the ‘Four Fights’, 70% of the 49,000 researchers in UKHE remain on fixed-term contracts. Many more are employed on precarious contracts with short term funding, so the threat of redundancy is ever-present. 37,000 teaching staff are on fixed-term contracts, most of them hourly paid. 71,000 teachers are employed as ‘atypical academics’ but not counted in the main staff record. These are overwhelmingly hourly paid teachers, employed on the lowest contract levels, and many of them are employed as ‘casual workers’, with fewer employment rights. 50% of these ‘atypical academics’ are employed by the richest ‘Russell Group’ universities. UCU estimates that this ‘reserve army’ of academic labour is doing between 25 and 30% of the teaching in many universities (UCU report, June 2019). More recently, we have seen articles in the news highlighting the extent of casualisation at our ‘top universities’ such as Cambridge.  

During the 2019 strike, I ran a teach-out on the epidemic of casualisation in UKHE; a key issue in the ‘Four Fights’ dispute. Before this , I asked colleagues on hourly paid and fixed term contracts to share their experiences of working under these conditions. They highlighted the detrimental impact casual work has on their family lives, their ability to plan financially and their mental and physical wellbeing. They reported high levels of anxiety due to lack of certainty and said that they were unsure about their maternity, holiday and sick pay entitlements. Many colleagues had been working on short term contracts for more than 5 years and felt they had to accept unreasonable or unsuitable workloads because they were scared of being ‘passed over’ for work next time. Since becoming branch president in 2020, I have seen first-hand the levels of exploitation and have been astounded by the lack of awareness of the issues surrounding casualisation exhibited by managers and HR at the university.  

Students who attended the teach out were horrified to discover the levels of precarity at the university. Participants were asked to consider the impact of casualised work on key areas including family life, financial planning, mental and physical health and career development. They were given post-it notes for their ideas, and together we created posters highlighting the multiple effects insecure employment has on university staff. At the end of the session, we began an important discussion about concrete action the university could take to address SUCU’s concerns about casualisation. During the strike in 2019, members of SUCU executive met with Mark Smith and received assurances that steps will be taken to improve contracts and terms and working conditions for casualised staff. There seemed to be some hope that the message was getting through that casualisation in universities is bad for staff, students and the universities themselves. However, the experiences of casualised colleagues during the pandemic have shown that nothing has changed and in many ways things have got worse. The pressure, anxiety and insecurity we have all experienced over the last 18 months are exacerbated enormously when you have no guaranteed work, no sick pay and are struggling to work from home with inadequate equipment. Now that we are being pushed back on to campus, casualised colleagues are finding they are missing key information from managers, have limited access to office spaces and are facing increased pressure to accept in-person teaching when they do not feel safe because they have no choice. The final insult for our valued colleagues came when a covid bonus for staff was not extended to staff on hourly paid contracts. Despite repeated attempts from UCU to reverse that decision, management refused and, in their responses, showed once again how little they understand the extent and negative impact of casualisation at the University.  

This week, we are being called on once again to stand up for our precariously employed colleagues without whom permanent teaching staff would simply not be able to manage. We need to push back hard against exploitation in our universities. We must ensure that all workers enjoy fair and equal pay, decent working conditions and equal rights. Look out for your ballot papers, vote early, and vote YES on the ‘Four Fights’.  

If you would like to get involved in the fight against casualisation contact Amanda at ucu@soton.ac.uk 

 

Higher Education ballots – Four fights – why you should vote YES!

Posted on by
Reply

In this four-part blog series, we talk about the issues at the heart of the ‘four fights’ ballot and how they affect colleagues at the University of Southampton. In this first part, we will discuss the issue of insecure and precarious work.  

Insecure work is a prevalent yet often concealed problem at our university. Insecure and precarious work contributes to immense stress and also damages the quality of academic work. Those of us on insecure contracts suffer from uncertainty in our private lives and cannot make plans for our future. We find it harder, if not impossible, to buy a house, sustain long term relationships and support a family. Neither can we make long term plans with colleagues or students and are often treated as second-rank colleagues, excluded from department decisions and meetings.   

Despite these harms, our employer consistently turns to casualised forms of work as a cheaper and “just in time” form of labour instead of providing long term, sustainable and planned staffing. The contemptuous attitude of our management toward insecure workers was confirmed in the decision to consciously exclude hourly-paid workers from the COVID-19 staff bonus, despite the significant contribution that hourly-paid workers made during the pandemic. If you haven’t already, read their dismissive response to our request to reconsider their decision here. Additionally, management continue to deny hourly-paid workers automatic sick pay entitlement, maintaining they will only do so when legally required and they do not automatically inform hourly-paid workers when this is. Consequently, financial insecurity is forcing hourly-paid workers to come on to campus when sick.  

Counting casualisation at Southampton  

In the 2019-20 academic year, 955 academic staff were employed on fixed-term contracts at Southampton—35.2% of all academic staff.  

When considering all those on hourly-paid or insecure contracts, the percentage of academic staff on insecure contracts could be closer to 50%. Unfortunately, the challenges of finding accurate data on the number of workers on insecure contracts is telling of the lack of transparency from our employer on this issue.  

Nationally we know that 30,335 academic staff were employed on hourly-paid contracts in the 2019-20 academic year, around 13.6% of all academic staff. So, if a similar figure were applied at Southampton, it would mean around 48.61% of our academic staff are on insecure contracts. But, of course, the figure could be much higher, and we intend to submit a Freedom of Information request to try and find out.  

What are we balloting for?  

The union is seeking institutional-level action and implementation plans that commit to tackling casualisation. We are asking that the University and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) agrees to a process for creating, implementing, and reviewing these plans across each of the institutions it represents. We ask that these plans be based on the principles of: 

  • Ending the use of zero-hours contracts. 
  • Introducing a Graduate Teaching Assistant contract. 
  • Agreeing a process of moving hourly-paid staff to fractional contracts. 
  • Moving staff with 4 years’ service on to open ended contracts. 
  • Introducing minimum contract lengths of 24 months, apart from incidences of genuine cover. 
  • Ending the outsourcing of support services.  

The final offer made by the employers insultingly ignored nearly all of our pay claim demands under the heading of casualisation. Indeed, the final offer does not even mention the word ‘casual’ throughout.  

Our proposals are for a better future for universities, a future which is fairer, more secure and more equal for staff and students. 

The ballot will close on 4 November. To make sure your vote is counted, return your ballot by Tuesday 2 November.  

Worried about not being able to afford a strike? 

Don’t forget that we will have a local strike fund to support members taking industrial action (if we get there!). There will also be a national fighting fund for members to apply to.  So, if financial concerns are a worry, you can rely on the solidarity of your branch and colleagues!  

Southampton UCU – motion on returning to campus and our comms with UEB

Posted on by
Reply

We have today (30/9) sent the below email to UEB, following overwhelming support of our motion discussed at the recent EGM.  You can read the full motion at the bottom of the thread.

——————–

Dear UEB

On Friday 24th September, UCU organised an EGM to discuss the back to campus teaching plans. This was in response to a large number of concerns raised by our members about the COVID mitigations being proposed by the University. UCU drafted a motion in the meeting, which outlined the main areas of concern and set out some clear expectations from the University. This motion was then voted on via survey monkey. There was overwhelming support from members to accept the motion (77% for, 13% against, 10% abstain). The motion is attached.

We hope it is clear from this motion that large numbers of teaching staff are very uncomfortable with the University’s position on masks, physical distancing and ventilation. Induction events which have taken place this week have shown that there is not the level of compliance on mask wearing we would hope to see, and staff taking part in those events are reporting overcrowding in rooms which are ‘stuffy’. We are deeply concerned that the survey of all rooms to be used this semester has not yet been completed. Timetabling has been under enormous pressure and many staff have not yet received their correct timetable so they are unable to check their rooms for suitability. In the final days of preparation before teaching staff are coming to campus, all of this feels very chaotic and does not reflect the ‘careful planning’ which university communications state has been taking place over the summer.

As things stand, without the University addressing the concerns outlined in this motion, UCU cannot endorse the University’s plans. We request a response from UEB which can be shared with members at your earliest convenience.

——————-

SOUTHAMPTON UCU EGM – 24 SEPTEMBER 2021 

MOTION – RETURNING TO CAMPUS

Southampton UCU notes:

  1. The high rate of Covid-19 infections across the country
  2. The low vaccination rates of people between 18-24
  3. The increased risk of transmission as a result of the highly contagious Delta variant
  4. That, although covid-19 rarely kills young adults, ‘about 10% of infected people at any age can develop long covid’ (BMJ, 2021).
  5. The lack of robust covid mitigation measures recommended by the government in educational settings

Southampton UCU also notes:

  1. The University of Southampton’s commitment to continuing with its saliva testing programme
  2. Its guidance for Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) staff, which has been publicised
  3. The willingness of many line managers to conduct individual risk assessments for vulnerable staff that request them
  4. Its commitment to support students who test positive and need to self-isolate.

However, this branch believes that the measures the University has put in place are not sufficient to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of all staff and students and the wider community.

This branch calls on the University to immediately agree to implement the following safeguards for the 2021-22 academic year, which have been formulated with reference to the Independent SAGE report and research published in the BMJ, and following numerous expressions of concern from members and reps:

  1. Clinically extremely vulnerable staff, or staff living with or caring for clinically extremely vulnerable people, must be allowed to work/teach from home, without detriment, for the 2021-22 academic year.
  1. No staff member with concerns about the safety of their working environment should be compelled to work on-site until the University has satisfactorily addressed their concerns.
  1. Southampton UCU have not seen detailed data about ventilation in classrooms, despite numerous requests. Our H&S representatives need to urgently be supplied with quantitative data on each room cleared for teaching and shared occupancy.
  1. If anyone feels that a room is not well-ventilated, they should be able to ask for it to be checked by Estates. UCU asks the university to provide portable CO2 monitors so colleagues can check rooms which may be unsafe and to regularly monitor ventilation in rooms.
  1. Mask wearing should be mandatory in teaching spaces and other indoor shared spaces, and crowded outdoor areas, except for those with medical exemptions. Sufficient spare masks should be readily available. The University must ensure its communications around mask wearing are clear and consistent.
  1. Clear guidance must be issued immediately to staff about what happens if a student or staff member in a class tests positive. If a staff member has to isolate, or care for isolating people, or they have numerous students in their class isolating, they must be allowed to switch to online.
  2. The University must commit to an active public campaign to encourage vaccinations and weekly testing for staff and students, and share anonymised data gathered through vaccination surveys with unions.
  1. Maintain social distancing by lowering room capacity where necessary to allow 1m+ to remain in place.
  1. Ensure all managers are aware that a blended model of teaching is permissible in order to reduce the number of students and staff on campus at any given time.
  1. If a member of staff feels a classroom situation is unsafe; e.g. students are refusing to wear masks, the number of students exceeds the listed room capacity, or the ventilation is poor (windows will not open, for example), they should cancel the class and reschedule it online.

This branch resolves to:

  1. Continue to engage with the University in improving the working conditions for all staff during the pandemic
  2. To inform SUSU of UCU’s branch position and seek support for the recommendations outlined above
  3. Support members if they use their rights under Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  4. Provide caseworker support for members who challenge the safety of their teaching environment
  5. Refuse to endorse the return to campus plans until these issues are addressed

Proposer: Lucy Watson

Seconder: Claire Le Foll

For:                        77%

Against:                13%

Abstain:               10%

 

Feedback from Special Higher Education Sector Conference (SHESC) on 9th September 

Posted on by
Reply

SHESC on the 9th September was organised to decide the next steps in UCU’s campaigns on USS and the Four Fights. The SHESC was contentious from the outset given the strong views represented in the union about the best strategy for industrial action. Additionally, the decision of HEC to delay acting on motions at June’s HESC, including motion HE12 which had proposed a summer ballot over USS was perceived by some as having lost us time. Since the last HESC, UUK has submitted their proposals to the USS JNC, which have been accepted and will cut the retirement benefits of members in USS. UCU had not been able to submit counter proposals because UUK refused to offer the same covenant support as they would for their own.  

Southampton UCU shared the motions with members prior to voting at conference and asked for feedback, and we also canvassed members through our survey conducted in May prior to HESC. We gathered important feedback on USS and the Four Fights, primarily focusing on whether members would support industrial action on pay, USS and/or Four Fights, the timing of any industrial action, whether IA should be aggregated or disaggregated, and whether Four Fights and USS should be fought for together or separately. The feedback we received from branch members was mixed but there was a steer for delegates to vote: 

  • Yes, to industrial action on USS 
  • To allow branches time to gain momentum for strike action – not to strike in the autumn 
  • To continue to campaign on the Four Fights and pay, but not to ballot on these for now
  • There was no clear steer on aggregation or disaggregation. 

In the lead up to SHESC on September 9th, there was a lot of information being shared by pensions negotiators and experts, including Sam Marsh and Michael Otsuka. The following blogs were also made available and clearly illustrate the differences between the views of UCU’s members: 

Our advice for HE Special Sector Conference 9th September | ucuagenda 

If we don’t fight, we lose – UCU Left 

At the conference itself, the discussion was detailed and informative despite the usual restrictions of the webinar format which has become the norm for large UCU meetings during the pandemic. Here are the motions which were debated: 

UCU2001 

Overall, delegates were convinced of the need to take action on USS sooner rather than later, although it was acknowledged that HEC would make the final decision. We believe that we need to ballot on USS now, notwithstanding all the difficulties that presents to branches in terms of launching a successful get the vote out campaign. We also voted against disaggregated strike action because we believe that may weaken our action. Branch delegates acknowledged that there were strong reasons to ballot for Four Fights, not least because another below inflation pay award has been imposed, but also to show solidarity with post-92s and to stand with precarious and junior colleagues. The arguments presented that Four Fights and USS are linked, that pensions are deferred pay, and that inequalities in pay continue through to retirement were compelling.  

Nevertheless, the two disputes will be resolved via different negotiating groups and it would be difficult to communicate what would constitute a win on both. Additionally, while we were convinced that there are strategic reasons to ballot for industrial action over USS now, coordinating the two disputes forces Four Fights onto the same timescales as USS which could be counterproductive to building a sector wide strike mandate timed to have the most disruptive impact. In the end, our steer from branch members was that we should separate Four Fights and USS so delegates voted in line with this. However, on motion 10 ‘what a win looks like’ there were clear instructions for branches to continue to campaign in the issues of the Four Fights ‘with vigour, determination and all means possible, bar strike action for now’. Your delegates voted in favour of this motion. Equalities, anti-casualisation and workload are issues that we will (continue) to fight hard for locally and we need members to help shape specific, measurable aims for making improvements for all staff at Southampton.  

One of the more controversial motions of the conference was B4, which committed UCU to ‘initiate exploration of the feasibility and promise of Conditional Benefits (or Conditional Indexation)’. While it was understood that investigating was never off the table, delegates voted in favour to show our willingness to explore all avenues available to protect pension benefits. 

You can read the results of votes online here: 

HESC_09.09.21_voting_results.pdf (ucu.org.uk)