Dear Colleagues
2010 Pay Claim
This is to advise you the Unite Education Industry Committee met yesterday to hear the result on the recent ballot on 2010 Pay and other negotiations.
The Committee heard that 36.8% of members participating voted to accept the offer. 63.1% rejected the offer. It was agreed to formally write to UCEA, the employers association, to reject the 0.4% offer and to enter the dispute resolution procedure. It was further agreed that any resolution of the dispute should include a firm commitment by the Employers to address the question of low paid staff working in higher education.
Four other unions have now rejected the 0.4% offer, EIS, GMB, UCU and Unite. It is understood Unison have voted to accept. The national Unite committee was unhappy that the issue of low paid staff was not addressed in the poor offer. You will also recall that the Employers have left open the possibility of withdrawing the offer if it was not accepted by the end of October.
Next steps are Unite will formally write rejecting the offer. The national procedures require a dispute resolution meeting be held between Unite and UCEA within days.
Please continue to work normally during this time.
I will report back further once those processes have been engaged.
Yours sincerely
Mike Robinson
National Officer
Education
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, October 08, 2010
Hutton Review
Hutton Review
As you may know the Con Dem coalition commissioned Lord Hutton to look into public sector pensions including possible changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme that some workers in Universities are affected by, particularly those who were moved over as part of the post 1992 changes.
Lord Hutton has now issued an interim report, conveniently just before the Comprehensive Spending Review due later this month. So any savings Lord Hutton suggests could be incorporated in Government savings projections.
Bryan Freake from Unite has done a short analysis on the interim proposals. These are attached. I thought those who understand these issues would like to see what Unite is saying but also to keep you informed on a debate that is likely to end in a push to reduce LGPS and other public sector pensions.
Be ready for the fight back and come to the TUC Rally at Westminster on the 19th October to lobby your MP against cuts in Education budgets and public sector pensions. Details of the travel arrangements can be obtained from your local Unite office.
When the cuts come and your pension scheme or state entitlements are affected don't be someone who did nothing to stop them!
Hutton Interim Report
Unite analysis of the short–term implications
On the options for short term reform the report says :-
* the CPI change (if implemented) has reduced the value of the package by 15%
* any other change in accrued benefits is rejected (as outside terms of reference)
* 'there is a rationale for increasing member contributions to ensure a fairer distribution of costs between taxpayers and members'
* 'it is a matter for the Government to decide the manner and level of any increases in contributions necessary' (and makes no suggestion)
* notes 1% across the board could raise £1 billion (less tax relief)
* recommends against anything which might lead to lower-paid workers opting out
* suggests there may be a case for targeting increases more on the higher-paid and extending the application of tiered contributions
* suggests phasing of increases might be appropriate to discourage opting out especially given the current pay freeze
* since 'effective benefit levels vary considerably between different schemes, particularly pre- and post reform schemes, then changes in employee contributions could be made to reflect this'
Other points in the report relevant to this
* recent reforms have reduced benefits for active members by around 10% (additional to CPI savings)
* cap and share arrangements are recognised as containing further cost increases
* the cost of public sector pensions is projected as around 1.9% of GDP for the next ten years but subsequently falling (before any new reforms) to only 1.4% in 2060
* ' It is mistaken to talk about gold-plated pensions as being the norm across the public sector. In the most part the pensions that are paid out to public service employees when they retire are fairly modest by any standard'
* 'I have rejected a race to the bottom ………and hope reformed public service pensions can once again be seen as …..a benchmark for the private sector to aim towards'
* 'public service pensions should provide an adequate level of retirement income for public service workers with a reasonable degree of certainty'
* the likely direction of longer term reform will be a move away from final salary on fairness grounds with CARE top of the agenda for consideration
* the Government is invited to review the appropriateness of the (key ) long term discount rate (notional investment return) which is 'at the high end of what is appropriate' and notes that a reduction from 3.5% over inflation to 3% over inflation might raise contribution costs by 3%
Summary comment
While calling for increased employee contributions and reformed benefits the Report takes a more balanced look at the costs of public sector pensions than the Government and may be helpful to an extent in disarming some critics .
A key point not dealt with is how proposed contributions can be reconciled with cap and share valuations as would have been suggesting that members would have to suffer some significant increase in contributions/reduction in benefits taking effect in 2012 onwards.
Extending tiered contributions in the short term might be questioned if the longer term reform involves a move to CARE, as both seek to achieve a fairer balance between contributions paid and benefits received.
The suggestion that contribution increases might be differentiated to reflect differences within and between schemes could lead to proposals, for example, that employees retaining retirement at age 60 could be invited to pay more than those who have 65, or that civil service schemes members could be asked for larger increases, as their current contribution levels are lower.
The Report gives no explicit support to changes being negotiated though Hutton is on record as supporting this
Clearly, we now await the Government to pronounce on contributions, possibly in the pre-Budget report
As you may know the Con Dem coalition commissioned Lord Hutton to look into public sector pensions including possible changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme that some workers in Universities are affected by, particularly those who were moved over as part of the post 1992 changes.
Lord Hutton has now issued an interim report, conveniently just before the Comprehensive Spending Review due later this month. So any savings Lord Hutton suggests could be incorporated in Government savings projections.
Bryan Freake from Unite has done a short analysis on the interim proposals. These are attached. I thought those who understand these issues would like to see what Unite is saying but also to keep you informed on a debate that is likely to end in a push to reduce LGPS and other public sector pensions.
Be ready for the fight back and come to the TUC Rally at Westminster on the 19th October to lobby your MP against cuts in Education budgets and public sector pensions. Details of the travel arrangements can be obtained from your local Unite office.
When the cuts come and your pension scheme or state entitlements are affected don't be someone who did nothing to stop them!
Hutton Interim Report
Unite analysis of the short–term implications
On the options for short term reform the report says :-
* the CPI change (if implemented) has reduced the value of the package by 15%
* any other change in accrued benefits is rejected (as outside terms of reference)
* 'there is a rationale for increasing member contributions to ensure a fairer distribution of costs between taxpayers and members'
* 'it is a matter for the Government to decide the manner and level of any increases in contributions necessary' (and makes no suggestion)
* notes 1% across the board could raise £1 billion (less tax relief)
* recommends against anything which might lead to lower-paid workers opting out
* suggests there may be a case for targeting increases more on the higher-paid and extending the application of tiered contributions
* suggests phasing of increases might be appropriate to discourage opting out especially given the current pay freeze
* since 'effective benefit levels vary considerably between different schemes, particularly pre- and post reform schemes, then changes in employee contributions could be made to reflect this'
Other points in the report relevant to this
* recent reforms have reduced benefits for active members by around 10% (additional to CPI savings)
* cap and share arrangements are recognised as containing further cost increases
* the cost of public sector pensions is projected as around 1.9% of GDP for the next ten years but subsequently falling (before any new reforms) to only 1.4% in 2060
* ' It is mistaken to talk about gold-plated pensions as being the norm across the public sector. In the most part the pensions that are paid out to public service employees when they retire are fairly modest by any standard'
* 'I have rejected a race to the bottom ………and hope reformed public service pensions can once again be seen as …..a benchmark for the private sector to aim towards'
* 'public service pensions should provide an adequate level of retirement income for public service workers with a reasonable degree of certainty'
* the likely direction of longer term reform will be a move away from final salary on fairness grounds with CARE top of the agenda for consideration
* the Government is invited to review the appropriateness of the (key ) long term discount rate (notional investment return) which is 'at the high end of what is appropriate' and notes that a reduction from 3.5% over inflation to 3% over inflation might raise contribution costs by 3%
Summary comment
While calling for increased employee contributions and reformed benefits the Report takes a more balanced look at the costs of public sector pensions than the Government and may be helpful to an extent in disarming some critics .
A key point not dealt with is how proposed contributions can be reconciled with cap and share valuations as would have been suggesting that members would have to suffer some significant increase in contributions/reduction in benefits taking effect in 2012 onwards.
Extending tiered contributions in the short term might be questioned if the longer term reform involves a move to CARE, as both seek to achieve a fairer balance between contributions paid and benefits received.
The suggestion that contribution increases might be differentiated to reflect differences within and between schemes could lead to proposals, for example, that employees retaining retirement at age 60 could be invited to pay more than those who have 65, or that civil service schemes members could be asked for larger increases, as their current contribution levels are lower.
The Report gives no explicit support to changes being negotiated though Hutton is on record as supporting this
Clearly, we now await the Government to pronounce on contributions, possibly in the pre-Budget report
Friday, August 20, 2010
Freedom of Information requests
Freedom of Information requests
Earlier this year many of you assisted the union by passing on the Freedom of Information requests to your HEI on pay for those staff above the 51 point pay spine.
I would like to record my thanks for everyone who took part.
Rick Graham has been working on the data returns and has compiled a dataset and graphs of the information that you might find useful. I would also like to place on record my thanks to Rick for his work.
Rick's work flows on from earlier material published by both the Times Higher Education Supplement and the Guardian Newspaper. You may be interested in that material which can be found here
/university-vice-chancellor-payFrom above Guardian article: VC Pay increases
1 London Business School 78%
2 University College 137%
3 Liverpool University 188%
4 Imperial College 162%
5 Nottingham University 103%
6 Oxford University 220%
7 King's College 100%
8 Bristol University 125%
In short the data shows that at a time when many of you were being asked to limit your pay by accepting the 0.5% offer as part of the 2009 pay round many Vice Chancellors and senior professorial staff were achieving pay increases of 150% even 200%. Many staff above the 51 point pay spine was also receiving substantial increases as the FOI requests show. In fact the increases have continued into 2010 despite the incredibly low offer from UCEA of 0.4% for staff on the 51 point spine and the insistence by UCEA to show restraint.
I am sure as many VC's wallow in luxury in their Tuscan villas you will remember them when it comes to vote on the 2010 pay offer.
Ballot material and letters to members on this years pay offer is currently awaiting checking by Unite lawyers before being issued to members for a full consultative vote. I will forward that material on to you as soon as it has been cleared by our lawyers.
Yours sincerely
Mike Robinson
National Officer
Education
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Workplace representatives guide to the web
Unite understands that many workplace representatives are now able to access the internet either in the workplace or at home. Whether it is preparing a pay claim, checking out health and safety issues, understanding new issues in the workplace or checking basic employment rights, the internet can provide a useful first stop for information.
Unite Research department has produced a guide which contains links to a wide range of sites which have been found to be useful in meeting the needs of workplace representatives.
Please click on the link below to access the guide:
Reps_guide_to_web2009.pdf
Unite Research department has produced a guide which contains links to a wide range of sites which have been found to be useful in meeting the needs of workplace representatives.
Please click on the link below to access the guide:
Reps_guide_to_web2009.pdf
Health and safety 'undermined'
Shifts in health and safety policy over the past decade have compromised workplace safety, according to a report by University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University. The authors claim their findings cast doubt on public perceptions that health and safety has 'gone mad'.
The report, 'Regulatory Surrender: death, injury and the non-enforcement of law', pointed to policy changes which have affected the ability of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) to enforce health and safety law. Researchers found business premises inspections had fallen by 69% over the period, while investigations of health and safety incidents had declined by 68%. The report also found a 48% reduction in prosecutions of companies who had breached HSE regulations.
The Government recently announced a wide-ranging review of health and safety laws in response to claims that UK industry had been 'saturated' by legislation under the Labour government. Researchers at Liverpool, however, found that the HSE's power to inspect and enforce health and safety regulations has been reduced, resulting in increased numbers of employees at risk from accident or injury at work.
Dr David Whyte, Reader in Sociology at the University of Liverpool, said: "The idea that health and safety has 'gone mad' does not seem to hold true. The collapse in inspection, investigation and enforcement has dramatically reduced the chances of businesses being detected and prosecuted for committing safety offences. Most serious injuries now are not even investigated."
The report, 'Regulatory Surrender: death, injury and the non-enforcement of law', pointed to policy changes which have affected the ability of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) to enforce health and safety law. Researchers found business premises inspections had fallen by 69% over the period, while investigations of health and safety incidents had declined by 68%. The report also found a 48% reduction in prosecutions of companies who had breached HSE regulations.
The Government recently announced a wide-ranging review of health and safety laws in response to claims that UK industry had been 'saturated' by legislation under the Labour government. Researchers at Liverpool, however, found that the HSE's power to inspect and enforce health and safety regulations has been reduced, resulting in increased numbers of employees at risk from accident or injury at work.
Dr David Whyte, Reader in Sociology at the University of Liverpool, said: "The idea that health and safety has 'gone mad' does not seem to hold true. The collapse in inspection, investigation and enforcement has dramatically reduced the chances of businesses being detected and prosecuted for committing safety offences. Most serious injuries now are not even investigated."
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Day of Dissent part 1
Unite AGM 21st June 2010
Room CCG.04 3pm
The chair welcomed members to the meeting and said how delighted he was that nearly everyone were wearing their T shirts
1) Apologies
Apologies were received from Andy Talbot, Peter Donovan and Tracy Boakes
2) New Members
As we had a few new members members were asked to introduce themselves
3) Minutes and matters arising
Minutes of the previous meeting were unavailable
4) Reports from Chair
Nick Seeley gave a report on the extent of the Framework negotiations indicating that UCU although balloting on the framework agreement were in dispute over hourly pay, Field leaders and professorial staff. He indicated that our long running dispute over the holiday differential for staff would not be resolved until agreement had been reached. Tactics to use would be an equality claim
Nick also gave a report on the continuing success of Hera – currently we are down to 7 red circled posts with hopefully some of them being resolved in the forthcoming regarding round.
5) Reports from Secretary
Tony Britton gave a report on the current state of the National pay negotiations. Once again an extremely tight remit from the Employers gave them little room for manoeuvre and the offer had improved from an initial 0.3% unconsolidated to 0.4% consolidated . All the unions had rejected the offer. The two academic unions UCU and EIS had already gone into the dispute resolution procedure even though the employers had not yet made their final offer. A further meeting was to be held but currently no date was set.
It was reported that the offer would be put to the members for consultation with a recommendation that it be rejected from the National committee. The secretary argued that as a consultation ballot it was extremely important to get the maximum turn out. He reassured members that no industrial action could take place without a full ballot and in preparation for this we would be e-mailing members requesting that they update their details as it was shown in the current BA dispute how the courts would overturn a ballot result under challenge from an employer.
6) Elections
The chair stood down for the next item called for nominations and the following people were elected
Chair Nick Seeley
Vice Chair John Tucker
Secretary Tony Britton
Health & Safety Kevin Head
Stratford Rep #1 Kevin Clough
Stratford Rep #2 Julia Freeman
Docklands Rep #1 Sylvia Easy-Hemmings
Docklands Rep #2 John Callaghan
Ray Stoker was re-elected as Auditor and it was agreed that we would seek to increase our number of reps on SSIG and JSCNC to enable some training of reps
7) Any Other Business
It was reported from one of our members of security that they were unhappy with the messages they received from their line management regarding grievances that they had taken out. They requested that we write to senior management to ensure that they knew the problems our members were facing. It was agreed that following the cancellation of the JSCNC we would write a letter outlining our concerns.
It was also agreed to write thanking the catering service for the buffet.
8) Date of next meeting
It was agreed to hold a meeting next year but the request was made that it was earlier in the academic year .
Sunday, May 23, 2010
2010 Pay latest
The third New JNCHES negotiating meeting took place on the 5th May.
UCEA opened by advising there was increasing pessimism on their side about finances and budgets within HE. The trade unions countered that with inflation at 4.3% their members were also pessimistic about the way their pay has been eroded by inflation and the absence of a decent offer from UCEA.
UCEA did advise it was interested in one aspect of the joint trade union side claim and that was in relation to training, career development and apprentice proposals. A document had previously been tabled for the TU side that showed with the new statutory right for staff to request training coming into force on the 6th March some workplaces had introduced agreements on how to promote and handle this important aspect. In particular Unite and Unison had been instrumental in achieving an agreement at University of Birmingham. In FE the Employers Association, AoC, had also signed up to a joint agreement with the trade unions and this was presented to UCEA as a good example of true co-operative working.
Another Unite initiative was less well received and that was the proposal for fee remission for children of staff working at universities. Unite provided examples outside of the UK to show what other countries were doing. UCEA felt this was unhelpful towards equal access for all. I look forward to working families being given equal access to Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, Cardiff, Trinity Dublin and Queens Belfast.
The joint unions again reiterated the aim of getting a workable job security agreement. UCEA still seem to be unable to grasp why this issue will not go away.
After the inevitable adjournment UCEA returned to advise that they had no mandate to move on job security. They were still interested in the trade union ideas on training, career development and apprentices and would come back on this perhaps through one of the new sub committees set up after the 2009 pay discussions.
In an earth shattering move UCEA increased their 0.25% offer on pay to 0.4%. This was still less than the then prevailing 4.3% inflation rate and is worth only £52 per year to anyone on the lowest grade. The offer is unconsolidated which means salary scales would not alter. UCEA urged trade union negotiators to accept the offer quickly because with an impending election things could only get worse. How right they were.
The joint trade unions noted the offer was still a pay cut and advised it was not enough to protect inflationary pressures especially for low paid staff. UCEA advised they were prepared to weight the 0.4% to lower paid grades if staff at the top of the grades would take less. Needless to say our academic colleagues are not in favour of this idea.
In the end negotiations concluded with agreement to meet again on the 28th May. I expect this to be the final meeting and with UCEA and the trade unions so far apart I cannot see a solution resulting in acceptance by the joint unions.
Last year I warned everyone to get their membership records up to date. This still applies. One of the reasons is to avoid any complications that could appear if we go to a full national ballot. As my colleagues covering British Airways have discovered the High Court is not renowned for its pro trade union sympathies!
A further report will be sent out after the next meeting on the 28th May.
Yours sincerely
Mike Robinson
National Officer
Education Sector
UCEA opened by advising there was increasing pessimism on their side about finances and budgets within HE. The trade unions countered that with inflation at 4.3% their members were also pessimistic about the way their pay has been eroded by inflation and the absence of a decent offer from UCEA.
UCEA did advise it was interested in one aspect of the joint trade union side claim and that was in relation to training, career development and apprentice proposals. A document had previously been tabled for the TU side that showed with the new statutory right for staff to request training coming into force on the 6th March some workplaces had introduced agreements on how to promote and handle this important aspect. In particular Unite and Unison had been instrumental in achieving an agreement at University of Birmingham. In FE the Employers Association, AoC, had also signed up to a joint agreement with the trade unions and this was presented to UCEA as a good example of true co-operative working.
Another Unite initiative was less well received and that was the proposal for fee remission for children of staff working at universities. Unite provided examples outside of the UK to show what other countries were doing. UCEA felt this was unhelpful towards equal access for all. I look forward to working families being given equal access to Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, Cardiff, Trinity Dublin and Queens Belfast.
The joint unions again reiterated the aim of getting a workable job security agreement. UCEA still seem to be unable to grasp why this issue will not go away.
After the inevitable adjournment UCEA returned to advise that they had no mandate to move on job security. They were still interested in the trade union ideas on training, career development and apprentices and would come back on this perhaps through one of the new sub committees set up after the 2009 pay discussions.
In an earth shattering move UCEA increased their 0.25% offer on pay to 0.4%. This was still less than the then prevailing 4.3% inflation rate and is worth only £52 per year to anyone on the lowest grade. The offer is unconsolidated which means salary scales would not alter. UCEA urged trade union negotiators to accept the offer quickly because with an impending election things could only get worse. How right they were.
The joint trade unions noted the offer was still a pay cut and advised it was not enough to protect inflationary pressures especially for low paid staff. UCEA advised they were prepared to weight the 0.4% to lower paid grades if staff at the top of the grades would take less. Needless to say our academic colleagues are not in favour of this idea.
In the end negotiations concluded with agreement to meet again on the 28th May. I expect this to be the final meeting and with UCEA and the trade unions so far apart I cannot see a solution resulting in acceptance by the joint unions.
Last year I warned everyone to get their membership records up to date. This still applies. One of the reasons is to avoid any complications that could appear if we go to a full national ballot. As my colleagues covering British Airways have discovered the High Court is not renowned for its pro trade union sympathies!
A further report will be sent out after the next meeting on the 28th May.
Yours sincerely
Mike Robinson
National Officer
Education Sector
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Education Sector Day of Dissent
Joint unions in Education sector Unite, Unison, GMB, UCU, EIS, AMC and ATL are planning a Day of Dissent on Monday 21st June, the longest day and also the day before what will probably turn out to be the most infamous day for working people, Budget Day 2010!
I don't think anybody could mistake the plans by the current Government to take not just an axe but a chainsaw to public sector finances including major parts of the education sector. We await the Government budget plans which have already been well trailed including the intention to destroy so called "Gold Plated Pensions" in the public sector.
On top of that workers are already seeing the attempt to limit pay increases in both HE & FE with currently 0.4% and 0.2% unconsolidated amounts on offer worth £52 and £26 per year respectively to our lowest paid members in higher and further education. This is at a time when inflation has just hit 5.3%.
The joint unions in the sector Unite, Unison, GMB, UCU, EIS, AMC and ATL are asking all reps, stewards and members to organise meetings during a lunchtime or your own time to show dissent at what is being proposed to you and your standard of living.
Let me make it clear this is not industrial action which requires a formal ballot. Rather its campaigning activity to be undertaken outside of working time.
All union members in the education sector are asked to co-ordinate activities with other unions in their locality. It is suggested this could be a workplace gathering during a lunchtime or other convenient period. "Town" meetings are another alternative perhaps at or outside local town halls. Cities such as Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Sheffield, Newcastle, Bristol, Southampton or any other large conurbation may wish to organise city wide meetings or at a particular focal point.
The joint unions in the sector are producing leaflets or posters and these will be available shortly, as will further details on a dedicated website at Defend Higher Education Link
A special event is planned for London, again details nearer the time.
The Day of Dissent should be carried out on the same day to maximise the effect. Please do all you can to inform members about the planned event of Monday 21st June. Copy this email on to staff in your workplace as example.
Please do all you can to show your dissatisfaction on the Day of Dissent. If you need further details or want to contact other unions to plan your action contact your sector Regional Officer or the Unite Regional Office who will put you in touch with local officials from other unions.
Let’s show our dissent!
I don't think anybody could mistake the plans by the current Government to take not just an axe but a chainsaw to public sector finances including major parts of the education sector. We await the Government budget plans which have already been well trailed including the intention to destroy so called "Gold Plated Pensions" in the public sector.
On top of that workers are already seeing the attempt to limit pay increases in both HE & FE with currently 0.4% and 0.2% unconsolidated amounts on offer worth £52 and £26 per year respectively to our lowest paid members in higher and further education. This is at a time when inflation has just hit 5.3%.
The joint unions in the sector Unite, Unison, GMB, UCU, EIS, AMC and ATL are asking all reps, stewards and members to organise meetings during a lunchtime or your own time to show dissent at what is being proposed to you and your standard of living.
Let me make it clear this is not industrial action which requires a formal ballot. Rather its campaigning activity to be undertaken outside of working time.
All union members in the education sector are asked to co-ordinate activities with other unions in their locality. It is suggested this could be a workplace gathering during a lunchtime or other convenient period. "Town" meetings are another alternative perhaps at or outside local town halls. Cities such as Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Sheffield, Newcastle, Bristol, Southampton or any other large conurbation may wish to organise city wide meetings or at a particular focal point.
The joint unions in the sector are producing leaflets or posters and these will be available shortly, as will further details on a dedicated website at Defend Higher Education Link
A special event is planned for London, again details nearer the time.
The Day of Dissent should be carried out on the same day to maximise the effect. Please do all you can to inform members about the planned event of Monday 21st June. Copy this email on to staff in your workplace as example.
Please do all you can to show your dissatisfaction on the Day of Dissent. If you need further details or want to contact other unions to plan your action contact your sector Regional Officer or the Unite Regional Office who will put you in touch with local officials from other unions.
Let’s show our dissent!
Latest Pay News
Pay latest
After the first three meetings with JNCHES the TU side have managed to shift the UCEA position by a mammoth 0.15 %.
Although statistically this represents a whopping 60 % increase in the original offer this is somewhat akin to Manchester United claiming to win the premiership on the grounds that they have more seats than Chelsea . (Fill in your own election coalition here)
It is disappointing that the TU side whilst collectively agreeing that any unconsolidated increase is not worth accepting have not made any progress on this issue so far. There is, however, a further meeting arranged on May 28th and given that we have yet to hear the words full and final offer we may yet be surprised.
There are a couple of issues going on in the background not the least being the continual efforts of Unite to put forward the case for low paid staff. This whilst we have yet to agree on the size of the biscuit let alone the proportion of the crumbs we get.
For info the original offer worked out as roughly £35 pa for our low paid staff but this could be pushed to a flat £65 if everyone accepted. UCU and EIS have both indicated that they are not willing to look at that kind of breakdown.
On the separate issue of the seats at JNCHES we have made no further progress on resolving the reduction from 18 to 16 but UCU have raised the stakes by indicating that they want it resolved by going to the TUC. Alienating the TU side when we are working towards some kind of joint action seems to me to be perverse but UCU sometimes don’t seem to operate on the same wavelength as other staff. The current JNCHES delegates are Mike Robinson, Dave Jones , Sandra Robinson, Diane Massie, Jo Westerman, Dave Crowe and Tony Britton. Following a ruling of a previous NEICC it is accepted that one of the delegates will be from the old T&G section and as Dave Crowe has been ill then Mike Baxter has been drafted in as a replacement.
There will be another NEICC meeting in June and I suspect that the official Unite line will be circulated in time for that meeting
After the first three meetings with JNCHES the TU side have managed to shift the UCEA position by a mammoth 0.15 %.
Although statistically this represents a whopping 60 % increase in the original offer this is somewhat akin to Manchester United claiming to win the premiership on the grounds that they have more seats than Chelsea . (Fill in your own election coalition here)
It is disappointing that the TU side whilst collectively agreeing that any unconsolidated increase is not worth accepting have not made any progress on this issue so far. There is, however, a further meeting arranged on May 28th and given that we have yet to hear the words full and final offer we may yet be surprised.
There are a couple of issues going on in the background not the least being the continual efforts of Unite to put forward the case for low paid staff. This whilst we have yet to agree on the size of the biscuit let alone the proportion of the crumbs we get.
For info the original offer worked out as roughly £35 pa for our low paid staff but this could be pushed to a flat £65 if everyone accepted. UCU and EIS have both indicated that they are not willing to look at that kind of breakdown.
On the separate issue of the seats at JNCHES we have made no further progress on resolving the reduction from 18 to 16 but UCU have raised the stakes by indicating that they want it resolved by going to the TUC. Alienating the TU side when we are working towards some kind of joint action seems to me to be perverse but UCU sometimes don’t seem to operate on the same wavelength as other staff. The current JNCHES delegates are Mike Robinson, Dave Jones , Sandra Robinson, Diane Massie, Jo Westerman, Dave Crowe and Tony Britton. Following a ruling of a previous NEICC it is accepted that one of the delegates will be from the old T&G section and as Dave Crowe has been ill then Mike Baxter has been drafted in as a replacement.
There will be another NEICC meeting in June and I suspect that the official Unite line will be circulated in time for that meeting
Intelligent People in Union Shock
Times Higher Link
Out today: Times Higher Ed Supp, 20-26 May, p.10 - Professor Steve Chapman, Vice-Chancellor of Heriot-Watt is quoted as noticing that higher education had (surely means has) "many intelligent people working in it - many of those are in the unions..."
Well, there’s a surprise.
Out today: Times Higher Ed Supp, 20-26 May, p.10 - Professor Steve Chapman, Vice-Chancellor of Heriot-Watt is quoted as noticing that higher education had (surely means has) "many intelligent people working in it - many of those are in the unions..."
Well, there’s a surprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)