Oct 19

EMERGENCY MEETING

Dear University of Kent UCU members,

URGENT MATTER – REASON FOR EMERGENCY MEETING

UCU, nationally and locally, has been trying to move staff from casual/precarious contracts onto decent, ongoing, secure contracts for many years.

University management, however, seems to plan to address anti-casualisation by making very large numbers of such staff redundant.

We attach this worrying paper (JSNCC 2018-15 Workforce Profile – Programme of Projects) which will be discussed at the Joint Staff Negotiating and Consultation Committee (JSNCC) on Weds 24th October.

It contains the following chilling clause

3.3.2. To determine how many other salaried academic positions should be created in order to reduce reliance on HPLs for ongoing teaching by at least 50%.

When you observe that, according to section 5.1 “The University currently employs over 800 HPLs”, this states a clear intention to put over 400 jobs at risk, and our experience in the HPL pilot in the spring was the majority of those at risk did NOT get one of the new posts. It is also clear from the stated timeline in the document that these redundancies would happen this academic year. If this allowed to go ahead in the way described, we would have hundreds less colleagues in September 2019.

We also attach Academic Workforce Profiling – Key messages narrative 18 October 2018 which has been circulated in some schools, in case you have not seen that either.

Please attend our emergency meeting, Monday 22nd October, 1-2pm, Moot Chamber, Wigoder Building, to discuss how we resist this project.

In solidarity,
Owen, Mark and Sian

Oct 18

Emergency Branch Meeting

Dear University of Kent UCU members,

At our last branch meeting we did not have enough members present to pass the hardship and boycott motions on the agenda.

We also now have the JSNCC papers to discuss (see our emails earlier this week), so we will hold an emergency branch meeting at

1pm on Monday 22nd October (week 5) in the Moot Chamber in the Wigoder Building

.

Please attend if you can,
Thanks,
Owen, Mark and Sian

Oct 09

USS Update

Dear University of Kent UCU members,

We updated you last month on why we had a Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) consultation going on while awaiting the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) report.

That report is now available and contains lots of positive information.

http://www.ussjep.org.uk/report-of-the-joint-expert-panel/
http://www.ussjep.org.uk/files/2018/09/report-of-the-joint-expert-panel.pdf

A copy of the executive summary and the full report are also available on the local Human Resources (HR) webpages.

https://www.kent.ac.uk/human-resources/pensions/documents/Executive-summary-of-the-Report-of-the-Joint-Expert-Panel-sep18.pdf
https://www.kent.ac.uk/human-resources/pensions/documents/report-of-the-joint-expert-panel-sep18.pdf

UCU nationally has a superannuation working group (SWG) that has endorsed the recommendations of the JEP on the USS, and called upon Universities UK (UUK) and USS to do similar.

https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/9650/UCU-superannuation-working-group-endorses-JEP-report-on-USS-pension-scheme

UUK is currently consulting with employers:

https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/news/Pages/Response-to-Joint-Expert-Panel-report-on-USS-valuation.aspx

UUK has published its consultation document:

https://www.ussemployers.org.uk/news/universities-uk-consultation-uss-employers-jep-recommendations
https://www.ussemployers.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/UUK_consultation_2018_final.pdf

Branch officers consider the report a considerable vindication of our industrial action in the spring and, if adopted by the pension scheme, a considerable victory compared to the proposals we were fighting. We are urging university senior management to support the JEP report in the consultation.

In particular, the JEP report alters the method of calculating the deficit and in the process removes 75% of it, and thus 75% of the huge attack upon our pensions.

This would not have been achieved without our action. We can fight and we can win.

We suggest you bear this in mind in relation to the pay dispute too!

Best wishes,
Owen, Mark and Sian

Sep 12

USS consultation

Dear University of Kent UCU members,

You may be wondering why we now have a consultation over USS which proposes very large increases in contributions, both for employees and employers? What is going on? We hope this email helps explain.

We are currently fighting on two fronts: pay claim (see earlier email) and the USS consultation. In both situations, we are being offered less (pay/pension) while asked to do more (work/contribution). We must be loud and clear on both issues by voting (pay) or answering the consultation (USS).

The joint expert panel (JEP) was set up by UCU and UUK to examine the 2017 USS valuation, as a result of our strong industrial action earlier this year.

The JEP contains experts nominated by both the union and the employer. The JEP is due to release its first report later this month.

Meanwhile, USS last week began a consultation on a staged series of contribution increases for employers and employees that USS say are required to maintain existing benefits. In simple terms, one can view this consultation as primarily in case the JEP fails to reach any agreement.

In that scenario, the pension regulator will want to know what USS would do, and this is the fall-back position (based on current USS rules – that benefits mostly stay the same, but contributions increase to close that contested deficit).

These proposals are based, of course, on the contested 2017 valuation which is now being examined by the JEP. In UCU’s view it would have been better if USS had waited for the JEP to report, since its recommendations are likely to have a considerable influence upon what happens next.

Please find a briefing on the USS consultation which also contains suggestions for how to respond to the questions the consultation poses.
https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/9504/Briefing-on-USS-consultation/pdf/Briefing_for_members_on_the_USS_consultation.pdf

As soon as the JEP does report, we will update you further.

Best wishes,
Owen, Mark and Sian

Sep 12

Please vote for action in the Pay and Equality ballot

We urge you to use your vote, and to vote for industrial action in relation to our pay claim.

Here are the reasons why (all national figures taken from UCU’s main website; local figures are taken from Kent’s Financial Statements for 2017 at page 51):
https://www.kent.ac.uk/finance/about/accounts/accounts20162017.pdf• Since 2009, our salaries have failed to keep up with inflation.
• Since 2009, we have experienced, in effect, a cut of 21%
• Meanwhile, in 2017, the pay going to senior management here at Kent, increased from £1,086,000 to 1,166,000
• Note that the former VC was awarded a £25,000 performance related pay bonus, on top of her salary of £299,000 (up from £279,000 i.e. by £20,000 from the previous year)
Over the last 5 years across the sector:
• capital expenditure in the sector rose by 34.9%,
• income has increased by 33.1%,
• operating surpluses have increased by 176.83%
• and reserves are up by 259.04%.
• At the same time, staff costs as a percentage of expenditure have fallen by 1.9%.

The dispute it not just about pay – it is also about gender inequality in higher education. See this webpage for more details.
https://www.ucu.org.uk/he2018

When we take strike action we are saying loudly and clearly, Universities need to value their staff. We are saying loudly and clearly, we will not accept being told to do more and more work, for less and less money, while those at the top keep seeing their pay rise at a much faster and greater rate.

When you make up your mind, remember, it is not just about this year’s pay. It is about the threshold from which we begin during the next pay round. So if we secure a (for example) 4% pay rise this year, we would enter the next pay round, better off, and would hope to achieve at least an increase in line with inflation from that point.

Also remember that pay feeds into pensions, ie. any pay rise will increase a members’ pension pot.

We have shown our strength over pensions. Let us be resolved to show our strength over pay. WE ARE WORTH IT.

Best

Sian, Mark and Owen
University of Kent UCU branch officers

Jun 12

Statement by the University of Kent Branch of UCU, on the ‘hostile environment’

Kent UCU has issued a statement about the current “hostile environment” created by the Home Office and its adverse impact on all migrants.

UoK UCU Branch statement to UUK on immigration

Kent UCU has also issued a joint statement with The University of Kent and the Kent Union.
Kent Union have issued a statement to reflect the particular concerns of their constituency.

Jun 06

UCU pay and equality consultation

Kent UCU Members are asked to vote in the consultation on pay. Members are asked to reject the employers pay offer of 2% and sanction industrial action.
Mark

Full text form UCU HQ below:

Dear colleague

I am writing to ask you to vote in this consultation on the pay offer of 2% from the higher education (HE) employers.

UCU recommends that you vote to reject the offer for the following reasons:
• 2% is well below the current rate of inflation which, as measured by the Retail Price Index (RPI), is currently 3.4%
• 2% does nothing to restore ground lost against inflation since 2010 which UCU estimates to be 21% when pay settlements are cumulatively compared to rises in RPI
• 2% reflects a continuing de-prioritisation of staff pay; while the proportion of university expenditure spent on staff has fallen to just 54.7%, reserves held by institutions have increased by 259% and capital expenditure by 34.9%.
In addition to their below inflation pay offer the employers have also made no meaningful proposals to address either the continuing casualisation of the HE workforce or gender pay inequality.

You can read the union’s full claim here and the employers’ latest response here.

UCU’s position is that for too long HE has based its success on an exploitative employment model which embeds inequality, insecurity and seeks to prioritise buildings over people.

In the ballot you will be asked two questions. The first is whether you wish to accept or reject the offer. UCU recommends that you vote to reject.

You will also be asked whether if the offer is rejected you will be prepared to take sustained industrial action.

Since the passing of the 2016 Trade Union Act, UCU has to achieve a turnout of at least 50% in a statutory ballot before members are allowed to take lawful industrial action.

That means it is more vital than ever that we know your views.

Please help UCU by participating in this consultation.

Click here to vote Members receive a unique link
This is your unique link. Please do not share or forward this link.

The ballot closes at 12 noon on 27 June 2018.

Paul Bridge
UCU head of higher education

May 31

Free 24/7 Helpline available

Dear colleagues,

Some of you may be unaware of the charity the Education Support Partnership:
https://www.educationsupportpartnership.org.uk/

Others will know that UCU works with them and that some colleagues make a regular donation to the charity along with their UCU membership subscriptions (as part of the same direct debit).

In particular I would like to highlight the free 24/7 helpline:
https://www.educationsupportpartnership.org.uk/helping-you/telephone-support-counsellingI also include a link to a useful blog article explaining what happens when you make that call:
https://www.educationsupportpartnership.org.uk/blogs/what-happens-when-you-ring-our-helplineBest wishes,
Owen

Apr 06

KENT UCU ANALYSIS OF SALLY HUNT’S BALLOT MESSAGE (3.04.18)

WHY WE SUGGEST YOU VOTE NO

The ballot was released and was accompanied by a lengthy email from Sally Hunt (SH), in which she advocated for a ‘yes’ vote to accept the UUK’s offer. There are many problems with the message, but we feel that the misleading information she relayed surrounding the position we are in now, as well as her misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the Revise and Resubmit vs. No Detriment positions, must be addressed. Please read the points below for our response to her message. We are not including the full text of Sally Hunt’s message but you can find that here. With apologies for the length!

We (KENT UCU) address each of Sally Hunt’s eight points using the headings from her message below:

1. What gains have we made?
SH says: “The employers have taken their ‘defined contribution’ proposal off the table. This would have cost the average UCU member around £200,000 in their retirement. Now the employers say they ‘do not intend to return to the proposal’.”

KENT says: It is certainly a positive sign that UUK has now stated they “do not intend to return to the proposal” but offers no assurances; members need to ACTUALLY know that this proposal is definitely off the table. An intention not to return is not good enough. If the proposal is dead, then UUK needs to say that it is dead.

2. A guaranteed pension
SH: The employers previously said the only affordable defined benefit scheme would have such a small guaranteed element it was not worth pursuing. Now they say that future work will “reflect the clear wish of staff to have a guaranteed pension comparable with current provision.”

KENT: The offer we were given on 12 March, which was almost unanimously rejected by UCU membership across the country, was also described as ‘comparable’ and ‘broadly comparable’ with current provision. It was a defined benefits offer, but it would have drastically cut our pensions. We know that UUK’s understanding of comparable is very different to ours.

3. A joint expert panel
SH: “The employers have ignored UCU’s criticisms of the valuation methodology used by USS for years. Now they have agreed to a joint expert panel, nominated in equal numbers from both sides, to agree key principles to underpin the joint approach of UUK and UCU to the valuation of the USS fund.”

KENT: There is a lot that we do not know about this panel. This was the point that raised the most requests for clarification not only in our branch, but in branches around the country. To date, no clarifications have been given. We understand that not all clarification can be provided at this point but:

We do not know its composition, its scope, whether it will be accepted by USS trustees or the Pensions Regulator, its time frame, whether its recommendations will be accepted, when its recommendations will be made in the academic year, etc. We also do not know for certain that the findings of this panel will be retroactive – is this panel working to replace the problematic November valuation and the preceding dodgy employer survey, or is it going to impact the next valuation (see below pt. 4)? What happens to our pensions post-April 2019 if this panel’s focus is the next valuation? There are simply too many crucial unknowns.

Further, in the last pensions dispute in 2015, part of the resolution was “an agreement to continue a review of the contested funding methodology adopted by USS.” We have been made this promise before – it is thus fair to suggest at this point that we need more specifics before we can trust that this review will be (even potentially) meaningful.

4. Reassessed valuation
SH: “The employers said that the debate about the USS valuation was concluded. Now they accept that the joint expert panel “will make an assessment of the valuation” and make joint recommendations to the JNC aimed at providing a guaranteed [e.g. defined benefit] pension.”

KENT: From the information we have been provided, together with expert analysis and commentary, we know that the panel is likely to inform the next valuation cycle, not this one. Thus, the debate about the USS valuation is not concluded.

It appears that, despite the setting up of the joint expert panel, the 2017 valuation will still go ahead, on the November 2017 assumptions, and this is likely to trigger large automatic increases in contributions or reversion to previous proposals to cut benefits.

We do not have a guarantee of the status quo beyond April 2019. The joint expert panel may or may not lead to rational reform of the valuation process for future valuations. If changes are forced prior to a new valuation going into effect in the next valuation cycle, it will be almost impossible to win back the losses. We must have guarantees and clarity about what the process is, and what we are walking into.

5. Comparability with TPS
SH: “The employers said that the unfavourable comparisons made by UCU between USS benefits and those provided by the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) were inappropriate. Now they have agreed to joint discussions on ‘comparability between USS and TPS’.”

KENT: While we would like discussions about making USS more comparable with TPS, all we are being promised right now are discussions.

Further, what is left out of this statement is that in the same sentence in UUK’s latest offer, they also want to continue exploring new forms of pension schemes. For UUK, this has long been a desire to move towards a DC scheme, with a Collective Defined Contribution (CDC) scheme being their current preference. UUK has been offering it throughout this dispute as an alternative to straight DC. The risks for employees are the same as the DC scheme that we went on strike over. They are not acceptable.

6. The Pensions Regulator engagement
SH: “The Pensions Regulator has already indicated in a letter to USS that they will engage with the joint expert panel. Similarly, if there is agreement from UCU members, UUK and UCU will jointly approach the USS Board to seek its endorsement.”

KENT: The Pensions Regulator is a bit of an unknown in this dispute, and we welcome signs of flexibility from tPR. However, there is still time to work out further details and clarity in the terms of this panel before tPR’s 30 June deadline.

7. Can we get more?
SH: “Some members have argued that the union should press the employers for a further step – to ‘review and resubmit’ their proposal so it includes a ‘no detriment’ clause. ‘No detriment’ in this context means that the employers would fund, on their own, any changes required to retain existing benefits and contribution levels which arise from the independent joint expert panel’s report.
I respect the intent but ‘review and resubmit’ contains a significant flaw as a strategy.
Under pressure from UCU, the employers have conceded an independent joint expert panel. They have now even agreed that whatever comes out of the panel, they will work with UCU to retain a comparable, guaranteed pension.
However, while many vice-chancellors are now sympathetic to UCU’s views on the USS valuation and risk, none that I have met have been prepared to discuss a ‘no detriment’ agreement.”

KENT: The revise and resubmit/R+R (not “review and resubmit”) option was proposed by many branches because the offer lacked the clarity and guarantees necessary for it to be accepted. To be clear: the R+R position was asking the UCU Higher Education Committee (HEC) to NOT send the offer to ballot prior to clarifications and guarantees being secured. In essence, it was asking for the UCU negotiators to be able to secure more certainty from what is currently a unilateral UUK offer. Ours was not a straightforward reject, but rather saying progress had been made, but we didn’t have enough certainty or, even more modestly, clarity yet and NOW would be the time to get it.

Incidentally, the no detriment argument is premised on the rejection of the flawed November valuation. The fact that UUK maintains that the November valuation is robust is what is causing the no detriment option to be an “impossibility”.

8. [Sally Hunt’s] proposed approach
SH: “I do not think we should risk what we have achieved to chase a ‘no detriment’ clause.
I believe instead that we should bank the substantial concessions we have achieved from the employers – the dumping of the defined contributions proposal, the creation of the joint expert panel, the agreement to discuss USS versus TPS, inter-generational and equality issues and, of course, the employers’ new found commitment to defined benefit.
Then we should work hard to ensure the joint expert panel comes up with sensible proposals which have the confidence of UCU members.
If the employers behave properly, we should work with them to protect your pension benefits.
If they misbehave, we should use the union’s new-found strength to challenge them again.
I am cautiously optimistic.”

KENT: It is disappointing that the General Secretary of UCU is not keeping all options on the table.
The only concession listed in Sally Hunt’s message is the potential ‘dumping’ of the DC proposal. But again, it is the Employers’ current intention not to return to it, but there is no guarantee that it is dead. If it was ‘dumped’, UUK should say so unequivocally. That would make this process much easier and fair moving forward.

We agree that if the employers behave “properly”, we should work with them to protect our pensions. Statements by the employers suggest that they do not take seriously the prospect of making any serious reform of the valuation. Unfortunately, throughout this dispute there has been significant reason to be wary of placing our futures in the hands of UUK, hoping that it behaves “properly”.

KUCU’s Position
We remain highly skeptical of UUK’s offer and the leap of faith that we are being asked to take. Sally Hunt is not certain either, she is “cautiously optimistic”. That does not dispel our skepticism or assuage our modest concerns.

We want a REASONABLE short period of time to attain greater clarity and certainty about the various elements of UUK’s proposal.

We strongly recommend that you vote ‘No’ to reject this proposal.

Some Helpful Sources

USS Briefs: Papers by a number of academics in response to this most recent proposal and the issues underpinning the current dispute.

Transcript of the Branch Reps meeting at UCU HQ on Wednesday, 28 March
Simple breakdown of branch positions expressed at the Branch Reps meeting at UCU HQ on Wednesday, 28 March

Follow us @UoK_UCU on Twitter. You don’t have to be twitter-savvy to set up an account and follow us, you don’t need to do anything else with your twitter account, and you need not ever send a tweet (!) but it is the speediest way to keep each other informed.

KENT BRANCH COMMITTEE

Apr 06

Local Hardship Fund – Update

Dear University of Kent UCU members,

I would like to update you all on the local hardship fund, which covers losses sustained from the strike days on 22nd Feb, 23rd Feb and 26th Feb (the national fund covers later days).

The local hardship committee has met twice this week and considered 26 applications.

We have been able to accept 24 of those and electronic payments have now been made to all of those members.

In the other 2 cases we require some extra information, but hope to be able to pay claims on receipt of that information.

We would encourage all members suffering hardship from pay deductions for those to claim as soon as possible, so that we can make payments as soon as possible.

Details of how to do so, both locally, and nationally, are contained in the chain of emails below.

If, for whatever reason, pay deductions have not yet been made from you, but are made in a future month, rest assured that you will then be able to claim (within 3 months of the deduction being made, but the sooner you apply, the sooner you can receive).

If you would like to donate to the local hardship fund, and we warmly thanks all those who have already done so (approximately five thousand pounds has been raised, on top of the branch’s initial contribution of thirty thousand), details are here, as well as details of local school top-up funds.
https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/ucuuok/2018/03/03/membership-and-hardship-fund-donations/
Best wishes,
Owen

Older posts «