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).

TPR accepted the September valuation, to which it seems UUK are refusing to return.

I think we can all agree that colleagues who talk the talk and then refuse to walk the walk are objectionable. I’ve just spoken to one I met on the street who told me that of course the pension proposals were ludicrous and had to be resisted, but that he was ‘too busy’ to get involved in the strike. Oh and, that he objected to unions!!

Soupy - that seems to be a bone of contention. As I'm sure you've already seen (being very much more in touch than I am with what is happening on Twitter!) some people are maintaining that UCU's chief negotiator, Paul Bridge, stated unequivocally to branch representatives that tPR was insisting on use of the November valuation.

I feel like we need a clear statement about what is/is not up for negotiation here. tPR's release on the subject is as clear as mud. It merely says ""In the meantime we remain in discussions with the trustee and other stakeholders in relation to the scheme’s valuation and recovery plan. We will review any joint plan put to us which is supported by evidence to demonstrate that it is sustainable.”' I'm assuming that this assessment of sustainability must be run according to some methodology that is laid out somewhere? I would very much like to hear what the principles that will be employed actually are, because it seems to me that this materially affects wat can be achieved by industrial action in this context!

*what not wat!

Furthermore, tPR has said "Interestingly the Regulator has said it will review any "joint plan" put to it which is "supported by evidence to demonstrate that it is sustainable.”"

This is so opaque that it is being interpreted in diametrically opposed ways on social media. Some are saying that it is an opening to compromise and a revisitation of the valuation question. Others are saying that tPR is being hardline and refusing to budge on its methodology.

Once again, I feel frustrated that we haven't been given any communication from the union about the assumptions that are being made in the negotiations about what tPR will tolerate. Maybe they have no idea either. If so, why not though?

I’ve just seen the Paul Bridge stuff now - although some branches have responded to Otsuka to say that’s NOT what he said. All rather confusing. And yes I agree - TPR’s statement was the opposite of clear.

Sally Hunt’s email today stated that it’s UUK who are refusing to return to the Sept valuation. No mention of tPR.

It is very confusing. There are clearly diametrically opposed accounts of what was said in this meeting - how the hell can that be?! Is this a case of people hearing what they want to hear versus hearing what is said? Is it a confusion over the specific meeting that was attended?

If true, it would explain why the UCU deal had the shape that it did.

Anyhow, whatever the case with regard to Paul Bridge, what I am getting more and more frustrated about is the lack of transparency over the role and expectations of tPR. It REALLY matters in terms of members' decisions about whether to continue to strike or not - in one scenario, striking can achieve something; in another, it is completely the wrong instrument to use. I frankly cannot believe that the union are not providing us with far more information on their understanding of what tPR will/will not tolerate. Because there is no point getting to a brilliant deal with VCs if tPR just throws it all out of the window as unsustainable. It would be an exercise in futility.

@SoupyNorman I was just writing an email asking "What email from Sally Hunt" and it arrived in my inbox that second!

This is the email that should have been sent BEFORE a decision was taken. Why is it so late?!

I am so confused now. Someone help me!

1. It is extremely useful to know that UUK aren't budging on risk. I would like a clear statement from someone who has some expertise in this area as to whether tPR would be likely to accept the September valuation or not. If the answer is 'yes', then driving the employers back to September might work. If the answer is 'no' then strikes are futile. It seems like the whole move towards a negative valuation in the first place was partly driven by fear of the regulator, supported by pressure from Oxbridge in the form of that hideously bogus "survey" they conducted.

1. I found out some inside info from someone very high up in my institution. Apparently UUK negotiates without consulting the universities. According to this person, the additional costs of the deal that was on the table were already unaffordable for some of the universities in the scheme. Can member organisations of UUK reject the deal if it will put them out of business? Or do they not have any power? And does that mean there is this scenario where a 'good' deal actually bankrupts some institutions, which means other institutions carry the burden of their pension schemes, which then has a negative knock-on effect on the next valuation in 3 years?

Can member organisations of UUK reject the deal if it will put them out of business?

No. But none of the USS HEIs will be made bankrupt as a result of this.

Thanks for your good wishes whiskyowl

Interesting email from the Cambridge VC today where he described his university as 'frustrated by a bargaining process over which we have little control, but to which we are bound to adhere.' What on earth is going on with UUK? Who do they actually represent?

Soupy - this is what my Very High Up contact was saying yesterday: the way the negotiations work, UUK are appearing on behalf of all their members, and are not consulting them on any particular deal - with so many players, you can see how this would be very difficult. After a further conversation, it would appear to be the case that whatever they agree is binding on all institutions, regardless of their financial circumstances. I suspect this is at the root of Cambridge's frustration. Apparently, as I was saying, most institutions could have afforded the deal that was on the table, but some were facing very straitened circumstances to meet it.

Has this been posted? Not recently, anyway.

www.crowdjustice.com/case/fightforpensions/

I've donated! And I've been watching the ticker all day - so heartening each time I refresh. It's quite addictive!

It's made it!

They've £8k short of £50k now!

Only £5.5 k short now.

I just got an email from a student with a query (I know I shouldn't be reading email) and he included this:

"I appreciate that striking is still currently active, so I do apologise if this is inflicting on any personal participation you may be undertaking. I assure you that the whole 4th year class stands united with any academics in the department currently striking, and we wish both yourselves and the UCU the best in seeking due, deserved and fair negotiations."

I have to say it raised my spirits.

That's great Chem. Most of the emails I've got from students have been panicking that they're going to fail modules 'if this strike goes on forever' and expressing their 'irritation' that I won't put up lecture materials for the weeks I was on strike.
sigh

I gave a very small amount (what I can) to the CrowdFund to get a legal appraisal of the valuation process. I can't see how we can move forward if it's just 'the valuation is wrong/right/yes it is/no it isn't'.

I've been really heartened by comments from students, too - some of them are worried, but they keep wishing me luck and hoping that we get better results. Their support makes this significantly less difficult than it could have been!

Students have been terrific where I am. Any complaints have been addressed to the VC, not to us. They've also launched multiple occupations of buildings - one of DH's is centrally involved and he's like a proud Dad about it in private!

I think the longer it goes on the less accommodating students will be. This may be the thing that ultimately makes the powers at be take action... especially if it threatens to get in the way of exams etc.

Our students have been amazing. I’ve been involved in every UCU action over the last 15 years and I’ve never seen anything like this. Huge turnout at pickets today. As this is about money, I think more people are invested, even people not in the union. But agree that support might well fade if this drags on. Am hearing that hopes are high for an acceptable settlement before too long so fingers crossed.

Apparently UUK negotiates without consulting the universities.

From high up in my institution - this is true, but there is some back door consultation.

Apparently, as I was saying, most institutions could have afforded the deal that was on the table, but some were facing very straitened circumstances to meet it.

The projections I have seen of various outcomes imply staff reductions over the next few years, even for my (wealthy) institution.

It seems like the whole move towards a negative valuation in the first place was partly driven by fear of the regulator, supported by pressure from Oxbridge in the form of that hideously bogus "survey" they conducted.

I'm sure you've seen this on social media, but the "Oxbridge pressure" didn't come from the centre; it didn't come from all colleges and even the colleges it came from did not necessarily represent the views of their Fellows.

There are also clearly some direct lies being told at this point. At least one Cambridge college has this week put out a statement saying that they are happy to pay more, blah blah blah, when it is known that they were one of the ones in the infamous Oxford/Cambridge meetings pressuring for a "lower risk".

Very happy to see the Cambridge VC's extended statement today, though, as it makes a lot of important points about UK universities.