Anyone in the UCU?

[Closetlibrarian]

And striking at end of Feb?

I joined UCU after the last strike, so this will be my first. Even though I voted in favour it, I'm now in an utter quandary. I have an absolute monster of a semester coming up and I'm fretting about all the lectures, tutorials, etc, I'll have to cancel as part of the strike.

If you've gone on strike before how did you present it to your students so that they didn't just get really pissed off with you for cancelling lectures (that we're then, according to UCU, not supposed to reschedule)?

Also, how did you mange with the loss of income? I'm the 'breadwinner', so 14 days of strike action is going to massively impact us (i.e. I'm not sure we'll be able to pay our bills).

You make some great points whiskyowl and unfortunately I can't answer your questions because I have many of the same ones.

I too am incredibly dissapointed by the poor performance of the UCU through this whole debacle, we would be in a considerably better negotiating position if they had reacted sooner, then this flipping June deadline would presumably be less of a problem. My main problem with this transition deal (and you are totally right that there needed to be one) is that it effectively sets a new baseline from which we will be eroded further in three years time. Given the participation in the strikes and the facts that have emerged (far too late) regarding valuations and pensions holidays I am disappointed this is still effectively a double digit reduction.

I dread to think what we will end up with in three years, I'm at a post-92 so haven't been able to strike (but have been donating to the fighting fund) so I guess I'm relatively fortunate (not often I feel like that!!) that I could switch to the TPS scheme. I'm seriously considering finding a new union too!

I am with tolerance about this 'deal' setting a dangerously low benchline.

Re. whiskeyowl's comments - to my mind because the valuation is so in doubt and because UUK didn't do due diligence on the USS valuation, the interim 'deal' should be status quo on the pension until a proper valuation is done. This interim deal is still a cut. According to the online modeller, I'll lose 16% from my pension according to this. I don't see why we should agree to any cuts at all until the valuation is carried out properly.

calculator here

Out of interest, how are these negotiations conducted? Is it an employer majority vote or do UUK negotiate on behalf of all VCs? Is there a prospect that richer institutions could use this junction to try to harm poorer ones?

I don't believe that the latter is a criterion on the table at all - institutions are looking at their own finances and plans, rather than second guessing what other institutions are doing.

UUK are negotiating on behalf of all UUK employers. Confusingly, not all USS employers are UUK employers - in Oxbridge people have been on strike for university work (UUK) but not college work (non-UUK) as the latter is not covered by the UCU ballot.

On the other hand, the extent to which UUK really has a mandate to negotiate on behalf of all universities, without getting explicit agreement for concessions from all VCs/university executive teams, is unclear to me.

closet - this is what I don't understand. Is it possible for the scheme just to continue for 3 years as it was, or are legal changes mandated by the regulator in the light of the negative valuation, even though that valuation is in dispute? It seems to me that another way of wording this is "What is the best outcome for staff that is currently possible in the situation in which we find ourselves?"

user - I would very, very much like to know the answer to your question about the UUK speaking on behalf of member institutions!

Looking at the results of branch meetings coming in on Twitter, it seems as if many are voting unanimously to reject this deal.

I really am unsure of the wisdom of this. Which is not British for "this is stupid" but an actual and genuine expression of the fact that I don't feel I have the information I need to judge this deal, but rather fear that we are turning away a decent offer.

I think sympathy will turn against striking staff if the current offer is refused.

A positive aspect of this offer is the commitment for employer contributions of over 19% for the next three years - retaining employer contributions at a high level is something that, imo, UCU have not emphasised enough during this period. And it is probably unrealistic to expect DB to be retained at a significantly higher level than offered here i.e. it is not clear how much more the universities can give and stay within the regulation requirements of dealing with the deficit.

What if the defecit is a fiction...

Whiskyowl and other’s thanks for your thoughts which I’ve been reading with interest.

I too feel very ill equipped to assess this offer.

Has anyone been reading Mike Otsuka’s tweets on this?

mobile.twitter.com/MikeOtsuka/status/973311721073987584

He’s written some helpful stuff over the last few weeks. He seems to think rejection and further strikes are ‘futile’, and that UUK will need to revert to 23rd Jan offer.

*others

(Hate rogue apostrophes)

What if the deficit is a fiction...

It is of course hard to assess this without full information, but my actuarial science colleagues through the UK (who have been on strike, so hardly on the side of UUK) have reconstructed the data they can. They do seem to believe that a plan going forwards is required i.e. the status quo is not sustainable.

No, I haven't seen that line from Mike Otsuka - but everything he says there seems to make good sense. I think this is a much longer fight, and it needs to be tackled with more delicate instruments than strike action - participation in revisiting the valuation methodology, participation in decisions on investments (part of the cause of this in the first place), and full transparency on things like the pensions holiday, and the methodology for counting 'votes' on the survey.

I highly doubt the entire deficit is a fiction - it's huge. And again, we are in the realms of a regulatory context here. There may be persuasive arguments for adopting an alternative methodology to value the pension, but if these are unacceptable to the regulator, then we can't make progress without changing the entire regulatory context, which will be a huge and lengthy battle. It does sound as though a rather better valuation could be achieved within the existing framework, but there will almost certainly be limits to this, and I don't think anyone thinks that the deficit will entirely disappear in these scenarios.

It seems to me that we are all in this, quite literally, for the long term and one decision is not going to sort it for good. While I agree with closet that we should give as little ground as possible, I do not know whether that 'as possible' is limited by legal constraints imposed by the regulator; I suspect it might be. I also take on board user's point that a very heavy increased burden on universities could lead to immediate job cuts, though I am also morally infuriated that they've take a holiday from the scheme and left us all in the shit like this, while continuing to throw up big shiny buildings all over campus.

I've only glanced at it, but the pensions aspect of the deal seems sensible to me, and along the lines of the compromise I would've expected all along. I'm happy to be in an 85ths care scheme, even with the salary cap.

If I were a union member I'd be seriously pissed off at being asked to make up teaching time without pay.

If I were a union member I'd be seriously pissed off at being asked to make up teaching time without pay.

This is a triviality compared to everything else.

The vast majority of academics work well over contract hours every week, for no pay, to keep up with the demands of the job. Delivering a few hours contact time, on material that has almost certainly already been prepared, is nothing compared to this bigger issue. And in practice logistics of timetabling mean that it just wouldn't be possible to schedule catch up classes for all missed lectures anyhow.

I understand that user (I'm an academic, just not in the union). But expecting striking employees to make up the time for free sets a dangerous precedent, not just for academics in the future but for all industries.

Yes, the making up lectures is a red herring, as insulting as it is. The wording is 'encourage', btw, so it's not a requirement.

The real issue is that this interim deal still represents significant cuts to the pension. On what basis? A faulty valuation and UUK not accurately representing the interests of those it supposedly represents. It's bullshit. As was Sally Hunt's speech to protesters outside UCU earlier today. We're being sold up the river. And I'm actually, for the first time in my academic career, wondering if there's anything else I can do for a living. Because the prospect of dealing with an increasingly marketised HE, working for employers who clearly don't give a shit about one of their most important assets (academic staff) for students who are complaining that they've 'paid for lecturers' (but can't actually be bothered to do any work and don't want to be intellectually challenged) for another 20-odd years to retire with a pension that will not be enough to support me, is all of a sudden really, really unappealing.

But technically it is not making up time for free - or asking people to work beyond contract. It is getting staff to prioritise teaching above other duties for the coming weeks, unless staff already work all contract hours on teaching - which is unlikely, given that in the coming weeks most universities would be on the Easter break.

Asking people to make up missed teaching is not a triviality. I’d strike against this alone.

I understood from the wording (perhaps erroneously) that everyone is being asked to make up teaching, and in return universities will pay those at the bottom of the payscale (GTAs) over the strike period. (Part of the problem here is that, yet again, the union hasn't been very clear in its communications). If I am right, it is really 'working for others' rather than 'working for yourself'. A conspiracy theorist might say it's been inserted to test the limits of solidarity; an idealist might say that it does seem like a nice, colleagiate thing to do.

closet I'm giving you an unmumsnetty hug. It's a horrible situation at the moment - not just the strike, but the recent pronouncements from government, and the increasing marketisation that we're all struggling under (the fucking audit culture now, it's unbelievable!!). I think many, like you, will be having second thoughts about the career as a whole. I hope, though, that when this recedes a little into the background - and it will, in time - we will look back and take some positives from this whole thing. Namely, that we can drive meaningful change and that we should perhaps try to do this in creative ways to push the whole sector towards a better future.

I just read it again, and I'm completely wrong about that GTA thing. It makes two separate statements, not two connected ones:

"The issue of lower paid Graduate Teaching Assistants who have participated in the action is acknowledged. UUK asks institutions to consider ways in which the financial impact on Graduate Teaching Assistants may be minimised. UCU undertakes to encourage
its members to prioritise the rescheduling of teaching in order to minimise the disruption to students"

I agree Closet. I have just had a run in with management too over students blatantly using agencies to write their essays and dissertations. We have CLEAR evidence that they are doing so. The School is refusing to act - says, it's always happened and there's nothing they can do. So now I am expected to spend my summer supervising, then marking and commenting on dissertations, which have been produced by an agency in China. It makes me so .

Yes, I agree closet and mytether this all has a "last straw" feel about it, the job is certainly not what it should be. My department has the most mysogynistic, old boys network culture I've had the misfortune to work in, and I can't see a way out that isn't a career change. This along with the changes in the marketing and devaluing of the degrees I teach is sickening.

Fingers crossed rejecting this deal is not overplaying our hands, I need a positive to stay!

I’ve just been reading another thread about becoming a train driver...

This is all rather disturbing. I’ve been an academic for 10 years. I never, ever thought I’d consider leaving as I have always felt so fortunate to have a career that I love and affords me the benefits of a certain amount of independence and intellectual stimulation. But the prospect of continuing in the current downward spiral toward’s HE’s ultimate destruction is actually making driving a train seem more appealing.

Deal rejected. Strike still on.

While my naturally cautious instinct was to pause and consider before joining the #nocapitulate crew (despite having very willingly picketed and marched in snow and rain on seven of the strike days, and travelled a fair way to do so), I am now feeling very concerned that, actually, we cannot accept this offer.

As others have pointed out, agreeing to this means we concede a lot of ground that we have little realistic hope of clawing back in three years’ time.

Yes I can see that if modellers have pitched this agreement somewhere in between our proposal and UUK’s, then that in itself is an ‘improvement’ on what the 23rd Jan offer represented. But it’s the start of the chipping away at the rock face that may soon become an avalanche that will see our working conditions eroded entirely.

Agree that ‘our working conditions’ are already poor by a number of measures and I am starting to feel some despair here.

This, despite me seeing that Mike Otsuka’s comments are objectively sensible. There are unfortunately many sides to this issue and it is hideously complex.

Personally as one of the ‘younger’ academics that people are worried about (younger-ish - not all that young, but I only got a lectureship in my late 30s and am therefore one of the many only able to meaningfully start paying into a pension very late), I really do stand to exist on £9-11k a year in retirement. So I suppose I am struggling to really don the objectively sensible spectacles that Mike is suggesting we do.

I am anxious, angry and scared in equal measure.

And also considering train driving!

Ah okay. That’s that then!