UCU ballot

[NameChangedAgain18]

Can I ask what people’s thoughts are on the strike ballot? As someone who’s in the USS pension scheme, I am really not inclined to vote for a new round of strikes, this time on pay. The pay offer isn’t great, but the pension issue is much more pressing to me, and I am unhappy at how UCU and Sally Hunt behaved (undemocratically, IMO) over that. I don’t wish to lose more pay only for the Union to throw us under the bus again. I’m seriously thinking of not voting, as I think they ‘ll struggle to get the 50% turnout. But I’m prepared to change my mind if anyone can convince me otherwise (obviously UCU hasn’t yet managed to do so).

While I agree that pay has fallen in real terms, universities are also facing increased pension costs, Brexit uncertainty, frozen tuition fees and (for many universities) fewer students due to the demographic dip.

I get why UCU might feel they should build on the pension strike momentum to fight other issues (not just pay, but casualisation, the gender pay gap and so on) but for many universities a significant pay rise is probably not realistic given the finances. A much larger pay rise will probably lead to more rounds of job cuts in more universities.

Most of us would like to see university cut back on building fancy new facilities to recruit students, reduce marketing and other non-academic staff, and use the money saved to pay academic and professional staff more. But again I don't think this is realistic in an environment where universities are forced to compete with each other for students and league table positions.

Happy to hear arguments from others that another round of strikes could lead to changes in the way UK universities are run. I would like to believe this but I just don't think it's going to work out that way, given the government's intransigence on marketising HE.

Yes, redundancies were my first thought too. My husband works somewhere that’s going through yet another round of them, so I doubt anyone there is going to vote to strike. As for building on the momentum of the pension strike, there are plenty of people that feel the union squandered that momentum!

Anyone else got any thoughts on this?

I couldn't afford the last strike really and definitely can't afford another one. It's a lot of missing pay if you continually strike to increase pay! Especially as any deal will be still pretty low. This is obviously a pragmatic answer and not a morally driven one.

I totally agree with you OP. I can’t understand why/how the union are opening up a battle on another front when the pensions issue isn’t resolved yet.

The strikes over pay that I’ve been on have been pathetic - poorly observed, and the pitiful “victories” won instantly written off by the days’ pay you’ve already lost.

I also think branch execs are out of step with wider union opinion.

The online consultative ballot didn’t reach 50% turnout, so I would be doubtful that it will reach the threshold for the proper ballot. I’m also considering not voting to depress the turnout. I just don’t think people feel strongly enough about pay as compared to the pension issue, which felt more like robbery.

I won't be striking this time around. The salary deductions really hurt me after striking over pensions, while working a temporary contact. I'm now moving to another temp. contract, but a shorter one in another city (with plenty of attendant moving costs), and I just can't afford to spend that money again. Plus, during the last strikes there was all this talk about turning this momentum against casualisation and temp. hiring of staff - but I don't see that materialising. Instead, I see myself being asked to give up yet more pay over a pay rise on a salary which I may not even have shortly. Until the union starts really putting its action where its mouth is on seriously supporting temp. staff, not just issues which have more impact on permanent staff, I'm not impressed enough to keep striking for them.

And yes, I agree - we haven't even finished the pensions issue yet, so to open another fight is not the smartest idea.

I also won't be voting for strike action: i voted no in the consultative online ballot and I'll either vote no or not vote at all in the official ballot. However if the result is yes then I will strike (but not picket) as i don't want to leave the union whilst the pension negotiations (which I also see as the bigger issue) are still going on and I believe that union members shouldn't cross picket lines.

With regard to the "affordability" issue that always seems to get mentioned wherever strike action is mentioned: it's worth bearing in mind that the union has a hardship fund for strike pay (this is what some of your subs go towards). I was in the fortunate position that I was able to claim from both my local fund and the national fund and this meant that I was actually able to claim back every penny of my total strike deduction pay. You don't need to write an essay justifying financial hardship - just simply submitting pay slips showing the deductions qualifies you to be able to claim.

I just am simply not in a position to strike as an hourly paid temp lecturer... there's no way I can forfeit the pay. I don't understand how it is possible to vote yes to strike action then, but I suppose the argument is that the longer term gains are worth it?

Common - as an HPL, you would be prioritised for strike pay from the union. Whether it's worth losing pay for those who may miss out on strike pay is debatable. In the past UCU has come to an agreement with the employers which delivered an increase in the pay offer that was less that the pay we lost through striking.

I have decided not to return the ballot papers, and my husband is doing the same. The more I've thought about it, the more annoyed I am that they are calling for another strike when the pensions situation is ongoing.

This is just the latest slap in the face for university staff. We have not had a pay rise that matched inflation for a decade and are now paid about 15% less in real terms than we were then. At the same time, universities have seen an increase in income. The plead poverty only because they would rather invest in buildings than staff. They will not change their strategy of pay erosion unless they are forced to. At what point will you decide that they are no longer paying you enough? They always seem to find the funds to increase managerial salaries regardless of their institutional performance.

At the same time, universities have seen an increase in income. The plead poverty only because they would rather invest in buildings than staff.

Universities have also seen considerable increases in costs: increased marketing, investment in facilities to attract students (sports, leisure, new housing complexes), increased pension costs, reductions in funding for building maintenance and research facilities, research income that is reducing in real terms.

Fees are now frozen again and many universities have seen a dip in student numbers this year due to the demographic drop and higher tariff universities expanding student numbers.

Several relatively high tariff universities are already reducing academic staff numbers by a significant fraction to reduce pressure on budgets.

I do believe that staff should be given decent pay rises but in many places this would also have to go hand in hand with a plan to gradually reduce staff numbers, for affordability. And it would be academic staff numbers that would be hit, given the pressure to recruit students and provide a good "student experience".

They always seem to find the funds to increase managerial salaries regardless of their institutional performance.

True, but a red herring. If you cut the salary of a VC by 100k, that money redistributed amongst all staff would make very little difference. I would argue that the issue is to reduce the number of senior managers, and put reasonable caps on VC salaries. The package for the new Bath VC looks much more reasonable, though out of line with the international market.

Universities have also seen considerable increases in costs
Of course all the things you say are true. But the biggest increase in their spending is on buildings. There is little evidence that this actual affects recruitment, especially since the size of the market is fairly constant. Rather, VCs and CFOs see it as a way to make their mark. If fact, student surveys suggest they want money to be spent on staff, not buildings.
The primary purpose of universities is to teach, so I find it odd that you, or uni managers would think that improving student experience could be achieved by reducing academic staff numbers.

True, but a red herring. If you cut the salary of a VC by 100k, that money redistributed amongst all staff would make very little difference.
I said managers, not VCs. There has been a big increase in highly paid managerial positions in unis which has no apparent link to performance.