We are unionist but we won’t be striking this time

Speaking in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the Press: I agree wholeheartedly that strike action over the pension situation this time is misplaced -- indeed I thought so in 2019 too. Having struck in 2018, we got what we were asked for (the Joint Expert Panel), which did what we hoped (showed the USS valuation to be a con, and suggesting an appropriate alternative). But when USS failed to accept the results, the logical next step is not another strike, which only inconveniences students and our employers alike, both of whom have been largely supportive. USS management, by contrast, is not remotely inconvenienced by our striking. What UCU should do next therefore is not strike again but launch a targeted legal action against specific members of USS management for dereliction of their responsibilities to us -- and if necessary against members of the governing board for failing to force management to accept the JEP's recommendations. We aren't customers to whom USS are providing a service. They are trustees of *our* money, and if we've made it clear by ballot that we want that money to be managed in a certain way, and management refuse to do so, it's time for them to resign or be relieved of their posts. Jonathan Dore

The view that anything has been won via negotiation is both myopic - in focusing on pensions - and betrays a lack of knowledge regarding the history of HE employment relations. Let's broaden our interests, away from pensions to examine the generous offers made for reformation of overwhelming reliance of UK HE on Fixed Term appointments – a situation that leaves most students taught by staff understandably spending half their year look for another job (suffering increasing mental health concerns, and finding their personal relations and family breaking apart as a result – UCU case worker experience). In Jan 2020, UCEA offered that “Indefinite contracts will be the general form of employment relationship between employers and employees” (1). It’s hard to see this as radical or generous, when you know the exact same thing was offered 18 years previously, in 2002, when the “Fixed-Term and Casual Employment Guidance for Higher Education Institutions”(2) stated on page 6 that “Indefinite contracts will be the general form of employment relationship between employers and employees”. In Jan 2020, UCEA offered that staff employed on fixed term or casual contracts be given access to staff development, training, and other opportunities etc. Also not so generous given that this is a legal requirement as per the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 - Regulation 9 (3). If you think this is worth having, it’s basically the same as accepting minimum wages, because you aren’t sufficiently conscious to know this is a legal right. I am open to the possibility that some particular university teachers are so effective they the value of what they can teach in three weeks, far outweighs the value of structural reform of UK HE. In these no doubt numerous cases, the balance of my feeling falls firmly with the specific student cohort impacted. In all situations however, I think this view is rather arrogant. Remaining at work teaches your students naive conformity, and that fear of relinquishment and sacrifice, narrow concerns with impacting particular individuals, should trump engagement in wider and intergenerational reform that will require an adjustment to the status quo. Where academics claiming to be unionists take this role in education, I doubt we have much meaningful chance against poverty, inequality and Climate Change – as there will decreasing appetite to accept limitations on short term “freedom to (go to class)” in active preservation of “freedoms from”: in this case, worsening staff conditions, lower educational standards, marketization and extraction of capital from individuals through HE (as the financial sector sucks greater contributions and offloads more and more risk, as supported by inadequate USS governance and the rank power play of elite decision makers at the cost of everyone in society). (1) https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/10691/10-point-briefing-on-UCEAs-offer-Jan-20/pdf/ucu_tenpointbriefing-uceaoffer_jan20.pdf (2) https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/1920/JNCHES-fixed-term-and-casual-employment-guidance-Jun-02/pdf/jnches_fixedtermguidance_1.pdf (3) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2034/contents/made

To a large extent I agree with the sentiment that a strike right now is the wrong move. Personally I couldn't give to s**ts about pay. Nor do I care at all about a small number of % on the cost of the pension. I DO care about the casualisation, workload and equalities claim. And here I think that what has been offered is a joke. Warm words with no teeth and no mechanism for enforcement. But none of that really matters, because in the end the decision is not mine to make. The author claims to be a unionist, but the point of the union is collectivism. You don't get to make your own decisions. Yes, there may be flaws in the union's decision making process; but at the end of the day, you get to have your say, equal to everyone else, and then you have to abide by the decision of the collective. One day in the future, you a decsision your way, and then those that are in favour of this decision, but against that one will stand with you, as we will stand with them now. So while I disagree with this right now, and while I probably won't be as vocal this time as in the past, I will not now, or ever, cross a picket line for any reason.

The article and first two comments have really saddened me. There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of what the strike is actually about. As well as the pension concern ,the action is also based upon the four fights of pay inequality, job insecurity, rising workloads and pay devaluation. I hope the author's aren't at the sharp end of any of these issues , but they have colleagues who are and they deserve your support. Isn't that what being in a union is all about ? If UCU members actually engaged more with the union, attending branch meetings , not just paying subscriptions, they would have a better understanding of the conditions people are facing and could also better influence the direction of the union, if they don't think it is representing their views. As a member of Professional Services staff , I am fighting to protect a meagre pension and to try and address, in a very small way, the damage done to my salary by sub inflationary pay increases for many years. Nobody wants to harm the student experience, but having given more than two decades of a career supporting them , when do I get to matter ? Employers know how much we care for our students and our reluctance to impact their studies is a weakness they will use against us. That is why the strike needs to be now , not later when it is of no consequence. Negotiations have been promising, but we are still paying more pension contributions having gone on strike on the premise of 'no detriment' and UCEA saying they are firmly sticking to the derisory 1.8% pay offer. Given that 14 more Universities having been reballoted have decided to join the fight, I do not think the article (or the other one published today) represents the sentiments of members at all and obviously influenced the HEC into deciding upon this action. Independent thinking is a thing to be applauded and variation in views and opinions will make the union a better place for all of its members, but I believe being a unionist brings with it a collective responsibility and the thought of crossing a picket line as a union member woud fill me with shame, knowing what my colleagues are going through and the sacrifices they are making from which we all will benefit. Given that UCU left (of which I'm neither a member or supporter) was mentioned negatively in both articles , for balanced reporting I would hope the views of all sides are represented ahead of the coming election.

ON the USS dispute, it is far from over. We have potentially made progress by getting the Joint Expert Panel Reports. But they were only won as the outcome of strike action. Now the task is to get the new more sensible valuation - one that does not assume the scheme to only invest in gilts that yield a negative real rate of return as assumed at the moment - to be accepted. That means we have to get the USS trustees and managers to accept change. So far they have not done so, but there are ongoing tripartite talks with UCU/UUK/USS about change. But the only way we can get anything near what we want is by putting pressure on the employers UUK who are in the driving seat. That means strike action is needed. It is not just a matter of a few percent on the contributions, but the survival of the defined benefit scheme long term. The USS (and UUK) would like to replace it with a cheaper defined contribution scheme that transfers risk to members. By overstating the risk - and shifting investments into gilts to mitigate it - they can argue that the scheme is becoming more expensive - that makes it unaffordable to many members who leave or don't join - leading to a cycle decline and eventual closure. That is the agenda and it will become reality unless we act. There is no reason the USS pension scheme needs to be so expensive. If it stays open and invests prudently and sensibly it can remain affordable and sustainable. That is what the strike is about.

The idea that members were suddenly informed from on high that we would be going out on strike is disingenuous. Members voted to go on strike, and the legal mandate lasts six months. The union is a democratic organisation and this wave of strike action was proposed and voted on at a meeting of branch representatives. It was confirmed by the union's Higher Education Committee. There was regular communication about all of this. Saying 'I am not a scab' is a rhetorical device operating according to the same logic as claiming 'I am not a racist.' If you are going to work when your union has democratically made a collective decision to strike, you are a strikebreaker.