Read on Twitter
This morning we are meeting with UCEA for the second of two dispute resolution meetings over the 2020-2021 HE pay & working conditions. So what is the state of play on negotiations?
To start, you can see UCEA’s description of their final offer here:
https://www.ucea.ac.uk/our-work/collective-pay-negotiations-landing/2020-21-nj-round/
1/
To start, you can see UCEA’s description of their final offer here:
https://www.ucea.ac.uk/our-work/collective-pay-negotiations-landing/2020-21-nj-round/
1/
At the beginning of this negotiation round (Spring 2020), UCEA indicated there would be a 0% cost of living adjustment on pay.
There was no substantive* committment to work on pay-related issues, including job security, workload, or pay equality.
*I'll come back to this
2/
There was no substantive* committment to work on pay-related issues, including job security, workload, or pay equality.
*I'll come back to this
2/
You can ask a lot of questions about this 'offer'.
- What is the financial situation of the HE sector?
- What is the financial situation of individual HE employers?
These are relevant questions when considering any sector, but I'd suggest that there is a better question:
3/
- What is the financial situation of the HE sector?
- What is the financial situation of individual HE employers?
These are relevant questions when considering any sector, but I'd suggest that there is a better question:
3/
- What financial resources employers are willing to devote to staff & students, as opposed to other categories of expenditure?
At its core, this question of priorities is the fundamental issue. What do university 'leaders' value?
It doesn't seem to be staff & students.
4/
At its core, this question of priorities is the fundamental issue. What do university 'leaders' value?
It doesn't seem to be staff & students.
4/
A 0% pay offer is a clear barometer for how much HE leaders value staff, & it's not just about pay, because:
- meaningfully addressing job security, workload, or pay inequalities cannot be accomplished w/o financial resource.
5/
- meaningfully addressing job security, workload, or pay inequalities cannot be accomplished w/o financial resource.
5/
Furthermore, & as I have said elsewhere, pay is an equalities issue. A real terms decline in pay over 15 years means a fundamental detriment to financial security for younger staff entering the sector. Combine this w/ increasing precarity, & age becomes a new equalities category.
The message we must internalise is that if an employer will not maintain even a cost of living adjustment, they *will not* devote financial resources to improving working conditions.
7/
7/
In their offer, UCEA proposes working groups around intersectional equality.
But, unless they are going to devote money to eradicating poverty pay, & tackling promotions equalities, then these proposals amount to rearranging desk chairs in order to fix a hull breach.
8/
But, unless they are going to devote money to eradicating poverty pay, & tackling promotions equalities, then these proposals amount to rearranging desk chairs in order to fix a hull breach.
8/
UCEA (& individual employers) have expressed great 'appreciation' for the hard work that staff are doing; however, we are seeing huge variation in how employers are dealing w/ issues of workload, & a complete rejection of sector wide approaches to this health & safety issue.
9/
9/
Let's return to the questions of "can the sector (or individual employers) afford more?"
UCEA has long played a game of hiding behind its weakest members. If a single member is in financial trouble, then they offer nothing across the sector. However (list incoming):
10/
UCEA has long played a game of hiding behind its weakest members. If a single member is in financial trouble, then they offer nothing across the sector. However (list incoming):
10/
- If you refuse to be transparent about member financial positions, then it's impossible to meaningfully discuss actual financial difficulties
- Given evidence that individual HEIs are misrepresenting their level of financial difficulty...sector wide claims do not engender trust
- Given evidence that individual HEIs are misrepresenting their level of financial difficulty...sector wide claims do not engender trust
- If you justify cuts to staff funding because of a referendum, a general election, Brexit negotiations, another general election, a pandemic.... then the statement "We hope that this will only be a one year pay freeze" is not believable.
-Crying wolf over world events is unacceptable. I recall my 1st year in UKHE, & believing the messages about financial difficulties. 7 years of such messaging later, I am no longer naive. External events are being used to justify and excuse poor behavior towards staff & students.
-Lastly, so called cost cutting measures (including VSS, S188) by individual employers have in some cases been revealed by the hard work of individual branches to either not save money, or to *cost more*. This also does not engender trust in the "we have to do this" messaging.
I would actually be eager to discuss details of the sector's financial position w/UCEA, if this discussion covered individual instutions as well. There has not been space allocated for such a discussion, & therefore, the "very difficult financial forecasting" is merely rhetoric.
To conclude: the question that the 5 UKHE staffside TUs have of UCEA today is "How are you able to improve your offer in real financial terms?"
If the answer is "We are not" then it is, in my opinion, a clear signal that they are not committed to meaningful negotiations.
If the answer is "We are not" then it is, in my opinion, a clear signal that they are not committed to meaningful negotiations.
