For better representation, what if universities paid staff’s union dues?

I am in the same position as the author, both in my background and in having never joined UCU. I am the son of a union official so do not begin with an entrenched anti-union stance. However, I have never joined because of the number of usually left-wing policies espoused by the union. However, the deciding factor for me was the very existence of a national pay scale that seems ludicrous. Paying the same in Newcastle as in Guildford is crazy and leads to many unofficial extra payments to get around the problem. Would I join if the dues were paid by my employer? Now that I am a few years from retirement, probably not. I am not sure if younger staff would either but maybe they can comment here.

Pretty sure the anti-trade union laws would not allow this even if UCEA and/or university bosses agreed to it. Seems to me like what you are suggesting is a way of undermining the union from within by boosting its ranks with members who are not trade unionists and who are opposed to the principles by which trade unions operate. You are also forgetting that UCU is not the only recognised trade union in the HE sector or do you think representing the 1,000s of professional services staff without which universities cannot function is irrelevant and unworthy of the same consideration?

I just wish to point out to the author that UCU is not just an academic staff union but also represents other staff such as research fellows, librarians, technicians, research managers, etc. Subscription cost is related to your salary and is well worth it not only for having a seat at the table but also a certain degree of protection from management or HR which as we all know can be capricious at times.

Sounds like a financial 'nudge' to encourage membership, although membership does not imply that the additional members will actually participate in union activities. As pointed out in previous comments, the UCU has members across a wide variety of different responsibilities - many of whom have experienced a significant increase in workload and job insecurity. At the branch level, the UCU does provide invaluable support in individual disputes. Membership is akin to having insurance. However, I left a few years ago due to the increasing political messages put out by the UCU and involvement of the SWP. It's a real shame. With respect to the academic community, I think we would be better representated by a professional body which was not a vehicle for the far left to hijack. They are toxic.

I am not sure that the authors suggestion is viable for reasons suggested in the comments above. However, 45% of the membership who voted on the employers most recent offer voted to accept it. A small increase the the membership would actually help the union leadership to be able to reach a compromise with the employers, in my opinion.

Besides the possibility of the issue of affordability of membership dues, it doesn't actually make much sense not to be a member of UCU if one is working as an academic or in (HE) professional services since all such salaries are negotiated by the union. Not being a union member seems to imply one doesn't really care about one's salary or that there is a preference to piggybacking off the UCU negotiations, taking what comes as may. Is that a morally defensible, never mind sensible, position?

Its worth pointing out that while membership might be low at the author's instutution, that is not true across the board. Indeed, at my instutition, my estimate is that membership is somewhere around 50%, perhaps a little higher, judging from the membership lists for my department (which is what I have access to).

So your premise is for UCEA to fund the planting of stooges within the UCU so they can sway every vote. Is that really the model you want ?