The Crisis

HEC is currently facing a major crisis – increasing numbers of universities facing threats of hundreds of compulsory redundancies and pension loss and slashing, cuts and closures, as well as the ongoing problems of casualisation and workloads. A BBC report has suggested 24 universities will go under. Insufficient finance, university mismanagement and prioritising new buildings and overseas campuses over staff have all played their role in this crisis. However, financial issues are not the only cause and even universities like Glasgow which are doing quite well financially are proposing austerity measures.

Taking Strong Action Now or …?

There is general recognition of the crisis and even of its main causes and potential solutions. However, there are two main perspectives on the action we need to take and these different perspectives dominated the discussion at HEC.

The perspective I support recognises that it is necessary to put pressure on our employers and the main way to do this is collective industrial action which involves the whole sector. Leaving individual branches to fight on their own is not the most effective approach and will leave the weaker branches to sink. This needs to be combined with putting pressure on government for fully funded HE out of taxation and returning to free education with living costs also covered. I also support the need for a long term strategy to build membership and our industrial strength and prevent future crises, but without immediate action to defend universities in crisis we will lose a lot of members, jobs and possibly also universities before we get to the point of implementing the long term strategy.

The other perspective, which unfortunately was shared by the majority of HEC members, focuses purely on the long term strategy and ignores the need for immediate action, including sector wide industrial action, to resolve the current crisis. This difference of views came out strongly in the discussion of the recommendations in the Committee Secretary’s report, the discussion of a strategy paper and discussion of a motion on industrial action.

Committee Secretary’s Report

The recommendations covered a consultative ballot on the 2% pay offer with a recommendation to reject; the negotiators to agree next steps, including any dispute negotiation meetings, with the other unions; and negotiations over the pay spine, contract types/casualisation, equality pay gaps, and workloads. An amendment to add to not delay industrial action to the recommendation on working with the other unions was ruled out of order. The reasons were unclear, though we were told this was already policy. There was some, discussion on including industrial action in the consultative ballot. While this could be positive, industrial action ballots need to be built for. The recommendations was passed, but there was no decision on when the consultative ballot would take place.

Strategy Papers

A strategy paper was presented by the chair and approved. While it recognised the major crisis facing HE, there were no suggestions for immediate action to resolve the crisis. Major wins were considered to be a new funding model for HE and regulation to support and enforce national bargaining. There was no mention of an agreement for at least a moratorium on redundancies or what the new funding model should cover, such as full funding of all costs and without the need for tuition fees.

Another longer draft strategy document was presented for information, but not as part of the same item and not discussed. While the aims include tackling the funding crisis and building collective strength, there is a lot about narratives and messaging and nothing about the need for moving to sector-wide industrial action as soon as possible to end the crisis. I would recommend members to respond to the ongoing consultation by noting that we need immediate action, including industrial action, not PR and to be given ‘narratives’ and ‘messaging’ that we know already. A paper reviewing the HE 2025 ballot campaign seemed to be aimed at discouraging further action rather than learning lessons to make subsequent action more successful.

Secretary of State Dispute

HEC has been working hard to implement the motion on a dispute with the Secretary of State and set up a working group. Two sets of legal advice were obtained and shared with the working group, whereas HEC was only told the conclusions from this advice. These stated that any action would have to be restricted to England and that a dispute with SoS over the redundancies crisis is not possible as against current law. HEC agreed recommendations to pause the dispute, including not to seek further legal advice, and to organise engagement events which would be aligned with other HEC strategy decisions.

Motion from Members

The single motion from HEC members, from Christina Paine with Marion Hersh and Suzy FitzPatrick seconding, called for a dispute about redundancies. There were also three amendments with two ruled out of order on unclear grounds. A challenge to include the amendment on calling a special sector conference and ballot on this dispute fell, as did the motion.

Call on Branches to Take Collective Action

It is problematical that HEC did not make any decisions which would lead to a ballot and industrial action or otherwise put real pressure on employers about the jobs crisis. However, it is members, not HEC, that are the union. Members can put motions to their branches to call a special sector conference to discuss action to resolve the crisis and if at least 20 are received with the same wording, then UCU is required to do this. Branches can also coordinate action and support each other, as well as continue to put pressure on HEC.

General Secretary’s Report

This covered a lot of important issues, but left unclear what, if anything, the GS is going to do to prevent cuts, closures and job losses and advance real education and the connection between research and teaching. FE Sector Conference decisions covered responses to threats on redundancies, pay cuts and structural changes. A victory was also reported. New City College agreed to reinstate a dismissed rep. Congratulations to the branch and it is important this is publicised.

On HE there was a roundup of threats and branches taking action, largely to defend jobs. On HE pay the GS considered the UCEA offer of 2% disappointing, but is not supporting action. The political overview included the parliamentary group. The media section presented a Universities UK report that four of five vice chancellors are slashing jobs. The media response stated that mergers are not a solution, but did not propose strong action.

NEC members challenged the GS on a range of issues, but did not get any commitments to a strong response.

Review of Congress standing orders and rules

A paper from the president proposed draconian changes in response to a large number of motions being timed out. After extensive discussion NEC agreed with a significant minority opposed to put a number of recommendations for changes to members for feedback. However, with one exception, they would need to be agreed by a two thirds majority at Congress and we would strongly recommend members voting against if they get that far. The exception is the one proposal we support on reviewing the voting system. This should be carried out now to allow proposals for a change to be put to Congress 2027. However, the role of voting system problems in motions being timed out was not mentioned.

While the context of the paper and recommendations was not being able to debate all the motions, one of the proposals would lead to a reduction in the time given to Congress decision making with panel discussions, fringe meetings, social events (the latter two taking place already) proposed as well as official business.

The most far ranging and worrying change was the proposal to allow the rules to be amended by ballot rather than a two thirds majority on a rule change motion at Congress. Debating rule change proposals at Congress is important to give a good understanding of the issues and to reveal pitfalls that are not immediately apparent.

Other problematical changes included removing Congress’s ability to determine the agenda by challenging the report from the Congress Business Committee (CBC) and raising the threshold for challenges to the chair to pass from a simple to two thirds majority. It was suggested this would bring us more in line with other unions, but this is not a valid argument. UCU has

always been proud of being at the forefront and taking the lead. The large number of challenges to the CBC report could be reduced by clearer instructions to branches. It should also be noted that CBC excluded some motions that would not have been excluded in the past. However, we have the highest respect for CBC.

Campaign Strategy

Although wide ranging, including, for instance, climate and weapons, it seemed rather like a PR exercise with its focus on ‘narrative’ and ‘messaging’. It was, however, weak, on strong action to overcome the funding and jobs crisis and advancing our vision for education.

Other Issues

The time spent on the Congress proposals meant that all the motions were timed out. Particularly ironically this included a motion on a recall Congress, as well as two motions on casualisation (an issue of particular concern to members) and a motion on withdrawing from X. NEC noted the allocation of Congress motions to NEC committees and was told there would be an opportunity to discuss action to implement them at the next meeting. The equality strategy was noted. The proposal for the procedures for NEC elections (which comes to NEC each year) was agreed after a question on implementing the changes the rule change motions passed. Proposals for modifying the Rule 13/disciplinary offences procedure to implement Congress motions were agreed with minimal discussion.