The future of our disputes and democracy within our union

As we are approaching further key steps in our USS and Four Fights disputes – with the employers’ intention to reject the UCU proposals on USS, the JNC tomorrow and the next HEC meeting planned for Friday 25 February – we are making the responses to our consultation of the HEC members public.

After the 18 January Branch Delegates’ Meetings and the HEC meeting the day after, 39 branch delegates (representing 27 branches throughout the country) signed a letter to the members of the HEC to query how they voted in the HEC meeting which decided on the next steps in relation to strike action in the USS and Four Fights disputes.  

We noted, first, that the 2021 Higher Education Sector Conference reaffirmed that the Four Fights and USS disputes must be kept together; secondly, that the Branch Delegates’ Meetings on 18 January 2022 was very strongly in favour of escalating strike action and of keeping the two disputes together. According to our analysis of the google docs written by delegates: 95.1% of the branches that explicitly expressed a view at the USS BDM supported escalation and 82.9% supported the view that the two disputes must be kept together. At the meeting on the Four Fights, 81.4% of delegates explicitly expressed support for escalation; 67.1% expressed the view that 4FF and USS disputes should be kept together

Given that regrettably no vote was taken at the BDM, we asked HEC members whether the HEC considered the branches’ positions before the vote, and whether they decided to follow the branch position supported by the majority of branch delegates or not. We also asked HEC members whether they voted to separate the disputes or voted for actions (like regional rolling strikes) that were not put forward to branch delegates at the Branch Delegates Meeting. 18 members of the HEC replied; 19 members did not reply. This is in itself quite significant as we informed HEC members that we intended to publish their responses online for the sake of democracy and transparency. 

This is what we gathered for the responses we received:

  • The BDM documents were made available to HEC members but no summary or quantitative analysis was provided of the 100+ pages. It is therefore not entirely clear how the delegates’ positions were fed into HEC discussion. 
  • The Mayer and Hersh motion, which respondents believe reflected the majority position at the BDM, was narrowly defeated at the HEC. 
  • HEC members were not clear on what forms of action they were voting on e.g. type of strike actions. Some HEC members believe that the next steps of the Four Fights and USS disputes passed at HEC decouple the disputes; some others do not think HEC voted to decouple the disputes. 
  • The regional/national action was part of a set of recommendations proposed by UCU senior national official Paul Bridge but was not related to anything submitted in advance to the BDMs and appears not to reflect the view of any branch at the BDM. There was a move to vote on taking these recommendations in parts, but this did not pass, and some members of the HEC felt they had no other choice but to vote in favour in order for the strike to go ahead.

We urge UCU members to take these responses (or lack of responses) into account when thinking about the future of these disputes and democracy in our union.

 

Name Role Voted for escalation? Voted to keep two disputes together? Voted against regional strikes and proposals not submitted to BDM?  Replied?
Vicky Blake President (HE) Yes Yes No Yes
Marian Mayer Rep disabled members Yes Yes yes  Yes
Bee Hughes Rep. LGBT+ members (HE) Yes Yes – Despite being the only representative of LGBT+ members on HEC, Bee was not permitted to vote on USS because not at USS university Yes Yes
Robyn Orfitelli Rep. migrant members (HE) Yes – did not attend because of unavoidable personal reasons
Holly Smith HE – London and East Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rhiannon Lockley HE – Midlands Yes Yes Abstained Yes
Linda Moore HE – Northern Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lena Wånggren HE – Scotland Unclear Unclear No Yes
Ann Swinney HE – Scotland   Yes Yes Yes Yes
Deepa Govindarajan Driver HE – South  Yes Yes Yes Yes
Aris Katzourakis HE – South Yes Yes Unclear Yes
Mark Abel HE- South  Yes Yes but wasn’t allowed to vote on the next steps of USS dispute because in pos-92 institution Yes Yes
Vida Greaux HE – Wales Yes Yes Unclear Yes
Jo McNeill  HE – UK-elected       Yes – missed the meeting because of unavoidable personal reasons
Marion Hersh HE – UK-elected Yes Yes Unclear Yes
Lesley McGorrigan HE – UK-elected Yes Yes Abstained  Yes
Saira Weiner HE – North West   Yes Yes but wasn’t allowed to vote on the next steps of USS dispute because in pos-92 institution Yes Yes
Pura Ariza Rep. women members (HE) Yes Yes but wasn’t allowed to vote on the next steps of USS dispute because in pos-92 institution Yes Yes

 

No responses from:

Justine Mercer (chair) Vice-President (HE)     No
Steve Sangwine Honorary Treasurer     No
Victoria Showunmi (vice-chair) Rep. Black members (HE)       No
Ben Pope Rep. casually employed members (HE)       No
Joanna  de Groot Rep. women members (HE) No
Joanne Edge Rep women members (HE) No
Sarah Brown (vice-chair) HE – London and East       No
Claire Marris HE – London and East    No
Emma Battell Lowman HE – Midlands No
Chris Grocott HE – Midlands       No
Bruce Baker HE – North East       No, on sick leave
Joan Harvey HE – North East         No
Ruth Holliday HE – North East          No – on sick leave
Philippa Browning   HE – North West         No
Sally Pellow HE – South       No
Ann Gow HE – UK-elected         No
Adam  Ozanne HE – UK-elected   No
Bijan Parsia HE – UK-elected         No
Chris O’Donnell HE – UK-elected         No
     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *