At the special HEC on Friday 17 March, I voted “against”, in response to the only two questions put to us [HEC results in brackets]: 

Question 1: Should the proposals agreed with UCEA and UUK relating to the USS and Four Fights disputes be put to UCU HE members in a formal consultation? 
[For: 19; Against: 22; Abstentions: 0]

Question 2: Should the strike action called for 20th – 22nd March be suspended?
[For: 7; Against: 20; Abstentions: 10]

I wanted to vote differently. Given the choice, I would have voted as follows: yes to triggering formal consultation on the USS dispute now, no to formal consultation (yet) on the Four Fights dispute, and yes to keeping the 20-22 March strikes on. However, the way HEC works is that committee members can only vote on the options put before us. The agenda is usually set by the Chair, in consultation with the GS (following the principle of NEC standing order 3.1). Last Friday, we were only given limited options to vote on / choose between (the questions set out above). We were refused the opportunity to debate separate approaches to the disputes.

On the USS dispute, the information provided in the UCU/UUK joint statement [here] seems to clearly indicate important progress has been made. As the UCU elected pension negotiators have all made clear, the deal is not yet final: the pensions dispute cannot be fully and formally settled until full restoration and retrospective recovery of benefits is an irreversible certainty. However, the process by which we are very likely to achieve winning back our pensions is underway – see Mark Taylor-Batty’s Twitter thread which begins [here], for an explanation. Analyses of the level of risk in this process by some negotiators and members differ, and we will need to ensure time and space for discussion of what underpins these differences in any consultation. The bottom line is that there has been real movement on the part of the employers, and it is right to seek members’ views at this time.

By contrast, the latest “proposals” from the employers (represented by UCEA) on the Four Fights dispute fall far short of our claims and represent no substantive movement at all on the main issues. There are important points of difference between declarations of victory in official UCU communications and the actual details captured in the proposed interim statements. Michael Carley’s summary [here] provides an instructive close-reading and comparison of the details. Claims including “every single university worker” on zero hours will be moved off them are overblown, and while the proposals represent some movement, it falls far short of actually ending zero hours for meaningfully better contractual conditions. It is also deeply concerning that the proposal paper on contracts refers to employees, rather than workers. We already know this distinction is how many employers try to hide the full extent of casualisation in their institutions (for more on this see [here], [here], and [here]). 

The proposed pay spine review terms of reference [here] state one outcome of negotiations will be a “revised Appendix A to the New JNCHES Framework Agreement laying out the principles to be applied by HEIs during implementation” of a reformed pay spine. Since AUT (one of two predecessor unions to UCU) never agreed to Appendix A, we can’t even be sure to whom this review applies. Does it apply to pre-92 members? Does it therefore apply to Academic Related and Professional Services (ARPS) staff whose grading arrangements are only protected by the 2004 AUT and UCEA Memorandum of Understanding [here], and on which the proposed pay spine review terms of reference are silent? These details matter, and the proposals should be sent back to fix them. 

I argued in the HEC meeting that voting yes to consulting on USS, no to consulting on Four Fights, and no to suspending strikes in either dispute would have better represented the written and verbal feedback submitted to HEC by many branches (including my own), which tended to differentiate between the two disputes in a way that the problematic informal e-poll did not allow for. Many voices noted serious concerns – both online and at the BDM – about the deeply flawed methodology and framing of the pre-HEC consultation processes (the original e-poll and the BDM questions which were updated in-meeting, reflected in the separation of the e-poll into the same two updated questions at HEC).

As a result, there was no option for HEC members to vote by dispute. Limiting the HEC to a decision between sending both disputes to formal consultations at the same time, or not at all, meant we were unable to begin the much-needed serious discussion about whether we have reached a point where we need to consider treating the two disputes differently. Among HEC members, opinions seem to vary on this (and perhaps regarding the dispute coupling policy itself). Providing all four options (i.e. applying Q1 and Q2 to each dispute) would allow for more nuanced debate and decision making. Doing this from the beginning of the consultation period would have facilitated a more neutral framing for HQ to seek members’ opinions to feed into the democratic decision-making structures. Beginning with a poor question, and dividing it into two questions which still miss the reality that many members hold different opinions about each dispute, or are not participants in both disputes, merely compounded concerns about the validity of the consultation methodology.

Aligning the disputes was a tactical campaigning and organising decision, set in policy by HE Sector Conferences (HESCs). The disputes are legally distinct, negotiated with different representative bodies, and notices of ballots and industrial action connected to them must necessarily be produced and served separately. Our policy [see motion HE6, 2022] explicitly sets out that we can choose different courses of action for each dispute where appropriate, as does our UCU FAQ [here].

Submitting to the employers’ schedule for agreeing these proposals on legally distinct disputes, together, while the Four Fights proposals falls so far short would be a major error. A likely outcome of doing so would be to help employers cement a massive real terms pay cut across the sector, alongside insufficient progress on workloads, (in)equality pay gaps, and casualisation. It is important that we fully represent and defend the conditions of members across the whole HE sector, including branches and many groups of workers who are not members of the USS pension scheme. 

For any consultation vote to be truly democratic, members need access to all relevant information and accurate detail. This should include the analysis and scrutiny of the elected negotiating team, who report to HEC in order that HEC can make a meaningful recommendation. Elected JNCHES negotiators were not party to the decision to go to ACAS or allowed into the initial talks on pay and terms of reference. They have also not been afforded the usual channels of communication with members or the right to produce reports and recommendations in consultations with members.

Triggering formal consultation on USS now, but waiting to do so until a substantially improved offer from UCEA would better reflect the different rates of progress in the two disputes. Had we been able to vote by dispute and chosen to do this at Friday’s HEC, we would have had an opportunity to use the two week window between receipt of proposals and the HEC meeting already scheduled for 30 March to boost the leverage of our strikes by consulting formally on USS, while sending UCEA a “revise and resubmit” response to increase internal pressure upon UCEA from employers. 

In the past, best practice in UCU has been not to consult unless real progress has been made. Employers need to understand that we will not open consultation procedures if they have not offered anything that moves towards resolving the issues in the dispute. We need real progress not rhetoric, vague promises, window dressing or time wasting. If the current proposals are to be put to members, it must only be with realistic, clear analysis of the detail they contain, which highlights any shortcomings and the risks associated. 

I understand that not everyone will agree with my position, but I wanted to set out my reasoning. In my view, voting in this way would have registered real progress in one dispute alongside painfully little progress in the other. Placing HEC in an “all or nothing” situation has led to an avoidable collision which has damaged us and resulted in significant confusion and anxiety about how decisions have been made and communicated. Much of the debate has become heated and difficult to engage in. What we need and what members deserve are the kinds of deliberative, democratic spaces that facilitate rather than actively obstruct people with differing views, concerns, and assessments of a situation to find a way forward, together.