On the 24th of January UCU’s Four Fights negotiators met with the employers’ representatives, the University and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA). We made a number of proposals to the UCEA representatives, which we hoped would bring an end to the current industrial action.
We had been negotiating since November, and these negotiations would not have happened without the industrial action nine of us wanted to take. It’s important to remember that last July UCEA told us (the UCU negotiators) that pay negotiations for 2019 – 2020 were concluded, and that a 1.8% sub-inflationary pay ‘increase’ would be imposed. Now I’ve been a negotiator for more than 10 years, albeit locally, rather than nationally. I was shocked at the disregard UCEA’s negotiators showed for the three elements of our claim, which our members tell me are most important to them, workload, casualised and precarious contracts, the gender and race pay gap.
Of course we care that our pay has eroded by 20% since our last real terms pay rise, however the injustices that we feel most deeply centre on the working conditions that make life so very difficult and challenging for so many of us working at Bournemouth University.
Let’s look at the local issues…
On workload planning.
The relentless discussions and negotiations and reiterations of workload planning, since 2013, demonstrate that we are not being taken seriously.
On equal pay
In the six years plus we have been working hard with our employer to address the 16% gender pay gap at Bournemouth University, no progress has been made. Indeed, BU UCU are so aggrieved about the lack of pay progression and promotion for women, LGBT+ and BAME colleagues that we submitted a collective grievance.
On precarity and casualisation
In 2016 BU UCU negotiated, what was, at the time, considered to one of the best agreements for converting part-time hourly paid staff onto permanent fractional contracts. Last year (2018/19) we encountered a chaotic situation where advice from HR conflicted with advice within faculties about be eligible to have their contracts converted. In effect, it transpired, the employer had reneged on that agreement.
On pay.
Bournemouth University could elect to unilaterally increase our pay above the 1.8% imposed so-called increase. As somebody pointed out to me yesterday on the picket line:
“they can afford shiny Poole Gateway buildings, but they won’t reward us for the work that we do”.
As Rutherford pointed out in today’s post-picket catch up, ever since UCU declared industrial action our employer has been more amenable in negotiations, in particular, they shifted considerably in the Lecture Capture and Intellectual Property policies. Which we very much appreciate. However, note that this shift occurred after we took industrial action in November and December.
Returning to the national Four Fights campaign
In the meeting on the 24th we proposed the following:
“… a sector-wide, UK level agreement, modelled after the 2004 National Framework Agreement. It incorporates a series of principles on ‘pay related’ issues to be locally implemented via negotiated agreements at the institutional level:
- A sector-wide set of clearly defined expectations for HEIs on workload, secure work, and equality, to be agreed in these negotiations. These expectations would be revisited on an iterative basis, and would form a component of future negotiations rounds.
- The details of local implementation of said expectations, to be agreed by sector institutions and trade union representatives at each institution.
- A mechanism by which this locally-negotiated implementation can be clearly and transparently assessed on a yearly basis, via the provision of agreed upon data to the local trade union representatives.
- A mechanism by which sector-wide implementation can be clearly and transparently assessed, via the analysis of aggregated sector wide data.
In effect, we were asking the employers’ negotiators to commit to agreements similar to those which have been negotiated locally, but that often fail to be properly implemented. The fours proposals that we made, were in our view readily achievable. We asked only that zero hours and casual contracts were phased out, over a period of time to be agreed by “trade union representatives at each institution”. Similarly, we asked that the gender and race pay gap should be addressed over a ‘to be agreed’ period of time. So far, so not very controversial. We thought.
We also thought that our fourth proposal was entirely reasonable. If, as UCEA claimed the employers were intent on addressing workload, casualisation and the gender and race pay gaps, our proposals were entirely reasonable and in line with their offer.
So here in lies the rub, the employer’s negotiators have represented to us, on behalf of our employers, nothing more than warm words. We have asked for firm commitments, (see 1 to 4 above).
What we are asking for is entirely possible.
See the ““Landmark deal at University of Bristol to tackle gender pay gap”. See also yesterday’s announcement, no coincidence – on the first day of our 14 days of action – the agreement between Cambridge University UCU, and Cambridge University on casualised contracts.
Last July, we were told in no uncertain terms, that UCEA could only negotiate with UCU over pay. Since we declared industrial action, we have negotiated on all four elements of our claim, and while we have yet to reach an agreement, we are getting closer. We are getting closer because we are taking industrial action.
Yesterday, UCEA confirmed to UCU’s Head of HE, Paul Bridge, our senior negotiator that they would be willing to meet with us on Monday. I am to be at that meeting as one of the elected to negotiators, either way I will report back to you as soon as there is any news.
In the meantime, I’m immensely proud to represent UCU’s members in this claim, and I’m even I am even more proud to have the support of you, the fantastic BU UCU members. Without your determination, your commitment to this action, the ASOS you are taking, and your presence on the picket line, we would be nowhere near the goals are trying to achieve.
On a final note, Paul Bridge is on record as saying that the four fights negotiators team have shifted the employers’ representatives further than any negotiators have managed to in previous years. This is because UCEA have always claimed that they do not have a mandate to negotiate anything other than pay. As a result of our strike action they are negotiating with us on all four strands of our claim. So you know, we have moved on the pay claim, and in the last negotiation meeting said that we would reduce that element of the claim to 5%, and that we were open (very open) to negotiation.
There is every reason for UCEA to settle this claim, my good friend Robyn Orfitelli and fellow negotiator said in a BBC interview yesterday, on the first of our 14 days of strike action the employers claim:
“they don’t have enough money, to hire enough staff, and pay us fairly… But the truth when you look at their finances… If they actually
cared about staff, they have the money to fix this dispute, they could have done it last week, they could have done it 6 months ago. They could have ended this dispute whenever they wanted to. We’re not the ones causing this problem, it’s them”.
From Paul Bridges’ email to the 4 fights negotiators. 09:09 today.
“Dear all
UCEA have offered a meeting on Monday 24 February at their offices 1130-1300. Following a discussion with Vicky [President-elect] I’ve replied and confirmed UCU will participate”.
The team are:
Vicky Blake, ARPS Pre 92, UCU President-elect.
Jo McNeill, ARPS Pre 92
Robyn Orfitelli, Academic Pre 92
Mark Abel, Academic Post 92
Marian Mayer, Academic Post 92
Joanna de Groot, Academic Pre 92
Sean Wallis, Academic Pre 92
StrikeBU 