National Pay

National Pay

To: To all members Unite working in Higher Education



Dear Colleagues

Terms and condition negotiations 2009-07-28

You may have read recent Circulars sent out by me about the lack of progress in pursuing a detailed claim for improvements in the terms and conditions claim presented during March 2009 by all unions operating in higher education. UCU also joined the negotiations in April.

I am sorry to report that your five negotiators, Dave Jones Manchester University, Hugh Lewsley Queens Belfast, Tony Britton University of East London together with John Toner Unite Regional Organiser in Wales and me as National Officer for Unite have made little if any progress on the aims contained within that claim. I should add we have also been assisted by Sandra Robinson Liverpool University who has also stood in as a deputy.

The joint union claim (Unite, Unison, GMB and EIS) included changes in holidays, improvements in the pay scales, moves to a 35 hour week for all, improvements in shift/on call payments and a host of other changes in flexible working. Your negotiators were not as naïve to expect all of these items or all at once. We were ready for the normal horse trading that comes from negotiations.

However at the very first meeting we were warned by the Employers Association UCEA that any move to increase pay would be paid for in job losses.

We asked if HE workers accepted a nil increase in pay, as some sectors in manufacturing had done, could the Employers Association sign up to no compulsory job losses. Their reply was they would not agree to stop redundancies even if we agreed to freeze pay.

According to the Employers Association if we negotiated a pay rise it would result in job losses and if we didn’t negotiate a pay rise it would still end up in job losses.

The joint unions including Unite thought in that case rather than just seek a pay increase we should also be trying to get a job security agreement; an understanding with the Employer on ways to avoid job losses by agreed job changes or flexible working or by ending contractors on site or perhaps seeking volunteers for redundancy.

To do that the joint unions drafted a job security and redundancy avoidance agreement. I should point out it was not a “no compulsory redundancy agreement” but rather sought to take remedial action in advance of redundancies by following established steps such as those described earlier. It was presented to the Employers negotiating body, UCEA, at the JNCHES negotiating in May 2009 but was firmly rejected by the Employers.
The Employers position was, to paraphrase, “jobs will be lost whatever happens but we will not negotiate a national agreement on the avoidance of job losses”. Why? In my view UCEA are afraid to reach an agreement as many Universities and Colleges do not want to be forced into an agreement but prefer to reach for redundancies as a solution rather than having the trouble to negotiate on avoiding redundancies as the law requires.

Following fruitless negotiations a series of meetings have been held at ACAS to try and get round the impasse. All unions including Unite have tried to find an acceptable way through. So far nothing has succeeded.

The Employers finally offered a 0.5% increase in pay at the last JNCHES meeting in July after stretching the negotiations over 3 months and increasing the offer only by 0.1% each time. It has been a complete farce and a sham.

For those members on £13,000 a year the final offer of 0.5% would give an increase in pay of £65 per year. After tax and national insurance it would be worth less than £1.00 a week.

Your pay increase is designed to ensure you are paid a fair level for a fair days work. It is also to compensate for inflation. Inflation can be calculated in several ways. Rent, council tax, mortgage rate increases need to be taken into account as does fuel costs and food price rises. Currently fuel and food inflation is exceeding the 0.5% final offer on pay.

Because your pay increase has to last until the next negotiations in August 2010 it is important that the figure is fixed at the correct level at the start. Too low and you are losing money. The Employer naturally argues it cannot afford too high an increase.

We know from Government funding allocations that Universities will receive significant amounts in their budgets for 2009 and 2010. However the Employers argue these will not be enough to meet anticipated costs on pension funding, capital spending and staff salaries. They argue funding levels are being capped. The Government has also promised a full review on student fees in 2010. Various commentators expect increases. Even Lord Mandelson says if fees rise students from poorer backgrounds should be assisted. So there is an expectation an increase is coming sooner or later.

Most Vice Chancellors cry poverty but are paid extremely well. They will argue they are paid the rate for the job or that they don’t decide their own pay, it’s done by a Senate or Staff Council decision or that any pay increase is within the rules. Sound a familiar argument to you?