UCU

Life’s nice for the Vice

Life’s nice for the Vice

Feb 26, 2019 – by Edd Church

EXETER’S Vice-Chancellor, Sir Steve Smith, is to be paid a massive £830,000 total as part of a special end of career remuneration package. This has been determined by a remuneration committee who have decided that this amount is justified. The package is around double his regular £424,000 salary, which is still around quadruple the annual pay of any other academic staff. However, whilst university staff are increasingly discontented with their own pay and quality of life, the time just isn’t right for a huge pay package for one individual whose salary is already a point of contention.

Sir Steve, who you might also know by his more affectionate name, Sir Stevey Boi, is the effectively the head of the University of Exeter. As such, he is responsible for leading the University and determining its direction more broadly, alongside his responsibilities in the Senate, our main disciplinary body. Sir Steve is also a professor of International Studies and has worked in the higher education sector for years. It is undeniable that the VC does a lot of work, and he is probably a very intelligent bloke. Denying this would be factually inaccurate.

Here’s the first problem: plenty of hard-working, experienced, intelligent people at the University of Exeter, and the world at large, aren’t rewarded over £800,000. For some comparison: according to the University of Exeter’s website, the salary range of a Professor is £67,000-£111,000, the maximum for a Senior Lecturer is £58,089, for Lecturers it is £43,267, and for PhD Research Associates, £34,189.

If Sir Steve were to step down from his role as VC and take on a regular professorial role, then his regular salary would be reduced by around 75% at the very least, and much more for 2019.

If we lived in a meritocratic world (and, to be fair, plenty of respected scholars have pointed out that we don’t), this would mean that in a regular year the VC would be doing roughly quadruple the amount of work that senior professors do, and eight times their work for this year. In addition, he would be doing almost ten times the work of a senior lecturer.

While it is near impossible to quantify the amount of work various academics do, arguably the extremely long hours, hard work, and plethora of unpaid overtime which lecturers and clerical staff alike go through means that the VC’s £800k package comes as a bit of a slap in the face.

Secondly, at a time where the University College Union is balloting its members on pay, the gender pay gap, and casualisation in general — and when its November ballot revealed nearly half of its members were prepared to strike over the same things — the news of Sir Steve’s pay package comes at a poor time. The University claims that the package is a reflection of the VC’s “commitment and outstanding performance”, but where is the same treatment for the rest of workers on Exeter’s payroll? I would echo the statement of a member of the UCU, who said that this is evidence of there being one rule for executives, and another for regular staff.

Thirdly and, perhaps, most worryingly: such a dramatic financial gift, and Sir Steve’s wage in general, comes at a time when the commodification of higher education is worsening almost on a yearly basis. From the recent TEF-triggered tuition fee increases to recent government-proposed plans to introduce two-year courses, the value of teaching is understood more and more through numbers in a bank account.

The VC’s salary furthers the feeling that we are in a corporate structure, not an educational one.

Instead of fuelling an excessive pay discrepancy between top and bottom at Exeter, why not use the extra £400,000 (which is, evidently, just laying there ready to be spent) on something else? How about something more vital and pressing, which enhances the University, or the world at large?

Why not the Provost Commission? Why not decolonising the syllabus? Why not widening participation? Why not AU joining fee subsidies? Why not the Guild? Why not 1,600 students’ TEF tuition increases? Or, basically, anything except executive pay increases?

USS engaging in new pensions consultation

Discussion began on 2 January about a new valuation of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), a pension scheme for university staff.

USS are indicating that they are not seeking to implement the recommendations of the Joint Expert Panel (JEP), which was set up by Universities’ UK (UUK) and the University and College Union (UCU) and published its first report in September, in full. The report in September suggested increasing the contribution rate from 8% to 9.1% for employees and from 18% to 20.1% for employers.

The methodology of the new valuation does not appear to have changed from that of the 2017 valuation, which was at the centre of last year’s UCU strike. This is despite the fact that the JEP report criticised the methodology of the 2017 valuation.

The methodology of the new valuation does not appear to have changed from that of the 2017 valuation, which was at the centre of last year’s UCU strike

The USS have said on their website that they will consider the JEP’s recommendations in isolation but not in full. They have stated that the JEP’s report did not give enough consideration to market data and the extra financial risks that would be incurred if it was implemented, which UUK have since asked the USS to assess and address.

The trustee is also consulting with UUK on ways in which contributions may automatically increase if investment returns in the short term prove lower than expected.

A spokesperson for Exeter UCU told Exeposé: ‘‘JEP was set up to provide an easy resolution. It said its proposals were a short-term compromise designed to be accepted by USS and other parties as quickly as possible. The rest of the JEP report contained a much wider-ranging critique of the Scheme’s valuation methods and assumptions. USS not only ignored this critique, and they are now admitting that even the short-term compromise would be unacceptable.’’

A University of Exeter spokesperson said: ‘‘The valuation process is at an early stage, but it is encouraging to see this information. We are currently considering the consultation document’.’

This article originally appeared in print 14/01/2019.

UCU strike action suspended as membership votes to accept UUK deal

Members of the University College Union have voted in favour of accepting a set of proposals aimed at ending the ongoing academic pension dispute. Further industrial action (including action short of a strike), planned for the summer turn, has been suspended as 64% of votes expressed favour towards accepting the deal on 13 April. In the meantime, meetings will go ahead between UCU, UUK, the USS Board and the Pensions Regulator aimed at finding a solution to the issue.

“Further industrial action… has been suspended”

The conflict started over changes to the University Superannuation Scheme (USS) only shortly into a seventeen-year cycle, a change UUK claims are due to a multi-million-pound deficit in the scheme. A first UUK proposal was rejected by UCU members, however, and the full-fourteen days of strike action in the Spring term went ahead.

A further deal was then given to the UCU earlier this month, and was put to a membership ballot. Not everyone was happy with this decision, with Exeter UCU calling for Sally Hunt’s resignation in an Extraordinary General Meeting on 4 April. The Exeter branch was dissatisfied with the proposal being put to a ballot– placing the blame not on UUK but on the UCU leadership.

Hunt has also been criticised by UCU members, both in and out of Exeter, for several emails to the membership which included her own personal view in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. Exeter PHD candidate and lecturer Rhian Keyse expressed her disappointment at the leadership for this decision, on twitter and suggested that the deal was ‘surely not what we have struggled so hard for’. Hunt said of the ballot result: ‘We hope this important agreement will hearten workers across the UK fighting to defend their pension rights and was won through the amazing strike action of UCU members’.

Exeter UCU demand Sally Hunt’s resignation

_{Exeter UCU have called for the resignation of Sally Hunt, the General Secretary of the UCU. This follows the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) which was called on Friday 6}^th_{April, where members debated and voted on the offer by the USS and UUK to ballot UCU members on the proposal negotiated by the leadership of the UCU with UUK. Exeter UCU’s branch policy is to reject the deal.}

_{A decision was reached at Friday’s EGM to put forward a vote of no confidence in UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt and her team that negotiated with the UUK. This follows mounting dissatisfaction towards the leadership for offering a ballot on the negotiations. The action taken by Exeter UCU follows the motion taken by University of Kent UCU who agreed to issue a vote of no confidence in Hunt on the 4}^th_{April. Dr Lybeck, Exeter UCU member, expressed that “If it’s not Allister Jarvis at the UUK it’s our own union.” This calls into question the unity of the union with the leadership and the branches at odds.}

_{The leadership are in direct opposition to the overwhelming view of the branch delegates who urge members to reject the deal, with #Justsayno trending with academics on twitter. The Exeter UCU committee in their statement to depose Hunt said that “there is a democratic deficit within our union, reflected by the unilateral actions of the UCU leadership at national level.”}

_{Lybeck: “[i]t’s a new era for the UCU and the leadership need to either get on board or get out of the way.”}

_{In a response to Exeter UCU calling for Hunt’s resignation Lybeck said, “I am pleased to see the branch standing up to the national leadership which has ossified around internal faction-fighting rather than recognising the tremendous momentum we have stemming from our new membership.”}

_{Dr Eric Lybeck called the decision to call Friday’s EGM in the first place “unfortunate,” further going on to state that academics are “dealing with lack of accountability, transparency and fair communication on all sides.”}

_{Academics and union members have been quick to point out the flaws in the proposal put forward by Hunt. Lybeck argued that the proposal put to UCU members, which was not yet even fully negotiated by their union, was “so vague you could drive a truck through it”, whilst in a statement on the 5}^th_{April UCU Left put forward their position to reject the proposal claiming that “even the timing is vague.” They further went on to urge members that accepting the proposal was not the reason why they stood on the picket line.}

_{There is a desire to change the ways in which the UCU are run, with Lybeck claiming “[i]t’s a new era for the UCU and the leadership need to either get on board or get out of the way.” It remains to be seen if other regional branches will follow Exeter and Kent, but the overall mood of the academics within the Union appears to be that they feel let down by Hunt and her leadership team.}

Live Review: Occupy LIVE @ Northcote House

On the morning of February 22nd, the first of the fourteen non-consecutive days of striking that have dominated the last four weeks at Exeter, I spoke on the picket line with English lecturer Dr Joe Crawford. Our assembly, guitar-accompanied, had just finished singing the famous and verbose union song ‘Solidarity Forever’, which would become the movement’s unofficial anthem. Joe told me about the many protests his parents brought him to as a child. He doesn’t remember much of it now, but the songs they sang have always stuck with him. Song, he said – sound, language, rhythm – these are the things we keep. Three weeks later, on the March 16th, a crowd of students gathered outside the famously occupied Northcote House to prove that.

The show started small and uncertain. The Facebook event page had promised more than one hundred people, yet, so far, a crowd of maybe fifteen had gathered in the car park outside the window of the occupied meeting room, under the eyes of security guards, cameras, a couple of police officers. Unperturbed by the small numbers, one half of student band The Allergens kicked off the show, opening with my favourite track of theirs, the student-fee-protesting ‘9125???’. By turns thrilling, heartfelt, and always witty, they ripped through several of their more political songs, dragging energy out of a crowd that was, though slowly growing in numbers and enthusiasm, still a little nervous.

the great power of music: to bring huge groups of people together in one place

The Allergens were followed by newborn group I Say Flower, who made their live debut. Husky, roaring singing, three guitars and a harmonica rang across the ever-expanding crowd, into which adrenaline was injected by unsung MVP Gabriel, the frankly epic cajón drummer from Exeter’s most popular student band, Psychopomp. The rest of that 2017 Battle of the Bands-winning group soon joined him: skilled guitar-playing and awesome drums accompanied angelic, Jeff Buckleyish vocals. Not so immediately political, these songs, but made moreso by frontman Matt Ward’s humorous ‘Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon’ – like reaching to relate them to the struggle at hand – even if it meant ad-libbing extra lyrics. At last, the crowd now swelling and swelling, I Say Flower frontman Alex Rafael Rose returned briefly to the stage for a roaring solo encore, just in time to welcome our headliner.

At 11:30am, amid soaring anticipation and raucous applause, with a crowd from the picket-line at his back, folk-punk hero and picket-line legend Billy Bragg stepped onto the car park. A vision in a flat cap and red-buttoned coat, guitar hanging off his shoulder like a machine to slay fascists, he took the stage (slightly raised pavement) to speak and sing to us. He performed songs from picket lines: the same songs miners sang, the same songs Joe Crawford’s parents would have sung, the same songs we had been singing for weeks. When he spoke, he reminded us of our place in a long tradition of strike action, of workers fighting for their rights to “be exploited on your terms”. He spoke too of his own position in this history, paying tribute to his great 1930s predecessor:

“I’m a disciple of a guy named Woody Guthrie. Woody Guthrie never did a gig like I do a gig, he never did any kinda gig that you’ve ever went to. The kind of gigs he did were like this: picket lines, lock-ins in factories, playing in school strikes . . . It’s not enough to sing Woody’s songs: you’ve got to walk it like the little guy walked it as well.”

This, then, is the great power of music: to bring huge groups of people together in one place, in one time, across one history, and draw their heartbeats into one rhythm. When Bragg performed ‘Solidarity Forever’ (a special request), he didn’t know the lyrics to the traditionally American song’s verses – but Oliver Gromski, just one crowd member, did: he joined Bragg up there and they performed it together. I didn’t remember those verses either, only that rousing chorus, but they are seared now into my memory and the voices I hear singing them are those of my fellows from the picket lines. Five days later and the tune still runs in my mind. Solidarity, forever.

UCU Strike: The Exeposé Verdict

IT is rare for Exeposé to stand up and openly take a stance on controversial topics. We have not done so for some time, and do not intend on making a habit of this. Instead, we have always focused on bringing the facts to students, and leaving them to make up their own minds.

However, in the face of the upcoming industrial action, we do not feel that we can continue to do this. We do not feel that we can sit on the fence as academics find it necessary to withdraw their labour, leading to the cancellation of teaching hours. We believe that, as we have a voice with which to do so, we must make a stand.

This industrial action has come about following proposed changes to the pension scheme for academics. The Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), which currently houses academics’ pensions, has been described as unsustainable by its trustees, despite being only a short time in to a 17-year recovery plan. The USS is a shared scheme, participated in by pre-1992 universities across the UK, which guarantees a specific level of pension based upon an academic’s average salary. Universities UK plans to replace this with a scheme which subjects pensions to market forces, which UCL’s Students’ Union, in lending its support to the strike, called “stock market gambling by hedge fund managers.” A study by First Actuarial, commissioned by the UCU on behalf of academics, showed that this change could end up with staff losing up to 40 per cent of their pensions annually, with those beginning their contributions now hardest hit. In our view, and in the view of the UCU, this offer, which could slash the pensions of academics, is unacceptable. However, Universities UK is refusing to budge, and as a result academics feel compelled to strike.

It is worth noting that there is more context to this strike than just purely pensions. There is concern about the way in which teaching relies upon the use of casual staff, many of whom are PhD students. Not only this, but such staff are often concerned for their job security. It is against this background that we begin to see how such an emotive debate can begin.

We are extremely concerned by the stance that the Students’ Guild has taken. To be “sympathetic with the views of both sides of the dispute” is not a strong enough statement to protect the interests of students. Where the Vice-Chancellor of Warwick has gone on the record in telling staff that he was “mystified” with the proposed change, the fact that our Guild stands by, providing little information to students and choosing such a stance of neutrality, is disappointing. Even one of its trustees – Malaka Shwaikh, the current VP Postgraduate Research – took to her personal Twitter to call out the Guild for its stance, quoting Desmond Tutu’s words: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

The Guild took this stance without consulting the views of its members and stakeholders – instead, it was a formulation of its management and sabbatical officer team. It is not clear that this stance, in the slightest, paid attention to the fact that some postgraduate students, who are members of the Students’ Guild, are directly embroiled in this conflict. With concern that the Guild only seems to pay attention to its undergraduate members, it is even more concerning to see such a sweeping aside of worries, and the direct imposition of a neutral stance. This is made even worse by the fact that, when the stance was released, a Large Idea was live on the Guild website, calling on it to support the UCU strike. To put aside these legitimate concerns of some of the Guild’s most overlooked members, as well as the democratic processes of a supposedly student-led organisation, is deplorable. Indeed, it brings into question the Guild’s role as a representative organisation.

We do not question that this strike will be disruptive to teaching. We do not question that this will bring stress to students – not least those who, like ourselves, are in third year, with dissertation deadlines and final exams just around the corner. However, we also do not question the fact that our lecturers and tutors are equally worried about the ramifications of this strike. This is a rare step – and we do not believe that they would walk out without good reason. As Rhian Keyse, a PhD candidate who teaches undergraduates, said at an open meeting: “this is an existential threat”.

With this in mind, it is impossible for us to stand by. We must call on Universities UK to put a real offer on the table, to negotiate in good faith and to do their part to prevent this strike by recognising the legitimate concerns of academic staff. In doing so, we must call on the University of Exeter to put pressure on Universities UK as other universities have done, especially given that the Vice-Chancellor Sir Steve Smith currently sits on its board. To hide behind a defence of this being a national negotiation simply isn’t enough. We must call on the Students’ Guild to extend its support to its postgraduate students as necessary, and ask it to pay closer attentions to the interests of its members.

And to our fellow students? We call on you to support your lecturers and tutors. Any threat to their working conditions is a threat to our learning conditions. Write to the University and tell them how you feel. Stand with the academics on the picket lines on strike days. Lobby the Guild to make your voice heard. Much like how we felt it impossible to remain silent, we believe that all students in Exeter ought to find it impossible to remain silent, regardless of their viewpoint.

This strike is a defining part of our time at University. We must play our part. We must stand up. It is only by working together that we can make positive change in the world.

Read the University’s response here, and the Guild’s response here.

UCU Strike: Can we really be neutral? The Guild’s response

With the industrial action that is proposed can the Guild really be neutral? Should the Guild be neutral? When we sent out our position last week we sided with the students at Exeter.

Unlike the NUS and a small number of other student unions we put the ideology of trade union solidarity aside, instead focusing on how we can best represent the interests of our own students who are stuck in the middle and will be impacted by the industrial action. Both sides will try and put forward ways in which the dispute will impact students; some may be accurate, others not, depending on how the dispute is resolved, but one thing is certain, industrial action means a loss of contact time, a loss of face to face interaction and a lost opportunity to ask questions. All of which students expect when studying at University.

This situation is more complicated for those PGR students who are both students and teachers. We primarily represent students as students, the UCU represents these individuals as teachers. We are involved in local PGR teaching issues such as using e-claims for payments, but this issue and the others we are involved with don’t conflict with the interests of a large proportion of our members and teaching income is used to fund study and living; both of which we are committed to supporting all students on.

In reaching this decision we looked at the student feedback from previous strikes (2013 & 14), current concerns around value for money, teaching hours and met with both sides of the dispute. The elected sabbatical officers, using their democratic mandate, agreed by majority that the Guild would remain neutral – we decided not to tie ourselves to one side of the argument or the other so our hands weren’t tied when representing the interests of students. A neutral position also allows us to best represent the different viewpoints of all students

It is great to see students engaging with the situation, being pro-active in expressing their concerns and feelings about the industrial action. We know it isn’t the stance that some people wanted us to take, a Student Idea closes this week that, if successful, will align us to support the UCU side of the dispute and the Guild would encourage you to consider the issues that are at the foundation of this dispute, balance the competing needs, and to vote accordingly. This strike and our role in it affects every student, so it is vital that every student plays a role in shaping our position through Student Ideas.

But before you do vote, let’s first consider how an affiliation to one side might impact what the Students’ Guild can do to represent your best interests. We are neutral but not sitting on fences, we can currently act freely to apply pressure where needed to minimise the impact, but this will change if our position changes.
The University has committed to asking those lecturers who strike to provide the teaching materials in alternative format such as notes or slides on ELE, this will help to reduce the amount of learning missed and reduce the impact of the strike for you; as it something that we currently can support and can lobby the lecturers to provide. If we are mandated to support the UCU side of the debate, we can’t apply that pressure.

Equally if we side with the UUK, and in turn the University on the dispute and they are unwilling to make reasonable adjustments to make sure that assessments suitably reflect the materials taught and not taught over this term we would not be able to lobby them to make these changes.

We firmly believe that not siding with one side or the other is in the best interests of the students at Exeter now; the ones that are our members; and the ones that we have a legal duty to represent.

Read the original Exeposé piece here, and the University’s response here.

UCU Strike: The University’s Response

We fully recognise the importance of pensions savings to our colleagues and their families. The USS includes in its membership virtually all academic staff at Exeter, and more than 1000 professional services staff. We understand the concerns that staff will have about the sustainability of this national scheme and the impact of any proposed changes. We want to be sure that staff and students are clear about the reasons for the proposed changes, which are the background to this national dispute.

The key points are these:

• Since this is a national pension scheme, the University cannot act unilaterally. Universities UK, representing universities, have proposed changes necessary to address the scheme’s significant funding challenges and to put it onto a sustainable footing for the long-term.

• The proposed pension reforms still represent a very competitive pension for staff, with universities continuing to make contributions of 18 per cent of salary and staff contributing 8 per cent. Defined Contributions (DC) schemes are widely used by employers across many professions. Universities will be contributing more than three times the national average employer contribution to DC schemes (according to a 2016 government survey).

• Any proposals for reform must be agreed by both the independent USS Trustee Board and the Government’s Pension Regulator. The Regulator must be satisfied that the scheme is sustainable and able to meet its existing commitments to current and retired staff. Conversations between the USS Trustee Board and the Government’s Pensions Regulator have been continuing during the valuation process. The Pensions Regulator has expressed its concerns over the future of the scheme and has advised USS that the level of risk should not be increased. In view of this, it is unlikely the Regulator would accept UCU’s proposal.

• The gap between the pension scheme’s assets and the amount it needs in order to pay pensions built up to date (the “deficit”) has increased from £5.3 billion (at the 2014 valuation) to £7.5 billion in 2017. It is clear that previous changes to USS have not stabilised its funding and that further reform is required.

• The alternative proposals put forward by the University and College Union (UCU) would represent a significant increase in contributions for both employees and universities. Even if this were affordable for individual staff (for example, a lecturer working at Grade F would have to pay £1000 in additional contributions each year), universities would not be able to increase employer contributions without making significant reductions in investment in education and research, resulting in reductions in staffing.

• All pension entitlements built up to date are protected in law – any changes will only apply to pension savings that commence after any changes have been made, the proposed date for which is April 2019.

Discussions between Universities UK and UCU have continued at national level for over a year but it has not been possible to reach an outcome acceptable to all parties and a decision was made at the USS Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) on 23 January 2018 on the casting vote of the independent chair.

We are satisfied that UUK has explored all options and that the changes are necessary to put the scheme on a sustainable footing for the long-term, while continuing to offer attractive pensions to staff, now and in the future, and ensuring that contributions remain affordable to both staff and employers.

We regret that the current situation has escalated to the point of national industrial action and we hope that a resolution can be found before this takes effect. However, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that academic outcomes for students will be unaffected. Whatever your views on the pension situation, we urge you to continue your focus on your studies, to turn up to your timetabled sessions as normal and to submit your assessments on time.

Read the original Exeposé piece here, and the Guild’s response here.