16 Jan 2024

UCU Elections 2024: Candidates Answer Our Questions

UCU Commons asked candidates standing in the forthcoming national elections a short series of questions about their plans and positions. We contacted all candidates standing for General Secretary, all candidates standing for Vice-President, and the three independent NEC candidates. Below are the responses we received, verbatim, ordered by surname. Ballots will take place between 25 January and 1 March.

General Secretary candidate responses
Vicky Blake
Jo Grady
Ewan McGaughey
Saira Weiner
Vice President candidate responses
Peter Evans
David Hunter
NEC candidate responses
Alison Hawkings
Nico Rosetti
Mark Taylor-Batty

General Secretary candidate responses

Vicky Blake (Leeds)

Question: What is your plan to build the union, in terms of both density and member engagement? What practical measures would you adopt to work across differences within the union towards our common goals?

Recruitment of members is vital, but won’t be achieved in a single month, or via a social media campaign. Our recruitment plans need to reflect that branches vary in size, history, confidence and experience. As General Secretary, I will work with branches, NEC, standing committees, and to develop a set of practical recruitment campaign materials for branches that identifies different strategies for approaching recruitment.

One of the key elements of this campaign will be supporting branches in expanding branch reps/shop stewards networks, which play a crucial role in increasing member-led organising capacity. Alongside this, I want to support the development of specialised networks within branches for minoritised members, or members on different job types. Members need to feel engaged with UCU, and that it is relevant to their everyday working lives.

The role of General Secretary requires bringing people together to find solutions rather than sowing further division. From 2012–17 I chaired the Anti-Casualisation Committee. During that time, we secured formal representation of casualised members across UCU and the inclusion of job security in local and sectoral bargaining claims. We deliberately worked across UCU’s factions to develop networks of casualised members and permanently employed allies, building common goals.

We must forge productive paths through disagreement rather than continuing to allow division to characterise UCU politics. Handled well, disagreements are a source of problem solving, theory testing, and creativity. As General Secretary, I will not isolate myself from the membership or surround myself only with people who agree with me.

Question: What are your priorities for FE policy and campaigns? Please address in particular the importance of national bargaining in the sector.

A key overall priority is to secure, extend and defend collective sectoral bargaining in FE, in which funding and governance varies geographically between England, Northern Ireland, and Wales. In England, national negotiation outcomes are limited to non-binding recommendations so branches are forced to negotiate locally over pay and conditions. Even in Wales where bargaining has secured a common pay spine and pay parity with school teachers, joint negotiations have not engaged closely with working conditions across the sector in recent years.

Across FE, we need to coordinate campaigns to secure binding sectoral bargaining agreements on working conditions alongside pay. Our members report bullying, exhaustion, unsafe workloads and increasing targets and requirements outside term-time which incur further childcare costs. The managerial turn in many FE institutions is eroding autonomy, and access to CPD is greatly reduced. UCU also needs to be proactive about working with other education unions to challenge the Ofsted, which is actively placing staff at risk across schools, FE provision, and Prison Education.

Typically FE branches get comparatively little facilities time which makes organising and campaigning harder. By investing resources in a newly expanded UCU Research Unit and a network of UCU Organising Hubs I aim to both improve organising support for branches and the continuity, coordination, and cumulative development of campaigns at local and sectoral levels. This will particularly benefit smaller branches without significant access to local funds for paid organisers and lower facility time in place, which is often the case in FE. This flatter and more accessible approach will support mutual learning and support across post-16 education. Working more efficiently in sharing resources and networking will reduce some of the pressure on regional offices. The improved coordination facilitated by the hubs means we can focus on building pressure across branches to drive collective sectoral bargaining.

Question: What are your priorities for HE policy and campaigns? Please address in particular the growing divides between different parts of the sector, for example in relation to distribution of student numbers.

Problems with over recruitment are tied to the broken funding model destroying our sector. As a union we cannot allow problems arising from government underfunding to be used as an excuse for employers’ mismanagement. Senior leadership in UK HE has become increasingly distanced from the daily lived reality of staff and students who suffer their poor decision-making. Internal governance processes have been eroded significantly and we have seen repeated evasion of responsibility and accountability by management for poor financial decisions – including those which place HEIs in jeopardy (eg Sheffield Hallam).

These issues will remain unless we push for better, fairer HE funding, but I would like to see an end to the unequal distribution of students and would support appropriately formulated caps on how many students individual institutions can take.

I will expand our in-house research capacity via a UCU Research Unit that will collect and analyse financial, industrial, legal, and political data. Some will be shared publicly and some industrially sensitive data and analyses will need to be shared more securely. Investing in this provision and a network of UCU Organising Hubs will benefit the coordination and continuity of our organising and underpin the development of robust campaigns and lobbying strategies.

Better data and deeper analysis of employers’ use of external consultancies, in combination with more horizontal coordination of organising across the sector will help branch reps to more quickly understand, map, and challenge these processes. It will also help us to map the financial and political relationships at stake between consultancies and employers across the sector.

Question: How do you think UCU’s decision-making structures could be improved (at all levels), and how would you contribute to their smooth functioning and transparency?

For members to feel able to participate fully in union decision-making, clear information is needed about what is at stake, in good time. Under pressure in fast moving industrial disputes, earlier and more regular engagement between head office and branches is needed to better support branch committees and officers in leading nuanced local discussions that consider the benefits and drawbacks of multiple possible approaches. I think that we have to return to a decision making and governance structure that is member-led. We need to listen to members, via branches and use our established Branch Delegate Meetings and Branch Briefings, alongside Sector Conferences, to make clear, transparent decisions that are based on evidenced consideration of member views. By seeking and listening to branch views I would support branch committees. By actively listening to and ensuring open debate with our UK level and sector level forums, I would ensure that all views are aired, investigated and accounted for.

Question: What lessons do you draw from 2023 industrial action in FE and HE respectively?

For HE, listen to members, support the democratic structures and devise bargaining strategies that are based on member views, legal advice and a clear view of what is possible. We have lacked this in recent times and this has led to clearly articulated member and branch leadership disillusionment, which has been damaging to winning our disputes. We need to ask members, via branches, then hold transparent and properly constituted decision making discussion and votes in our sector conferences and branch delegate meetings. The UCU leadership must then ensure that decisions are respected and implemented. By doing this, we can restore the faith of our members and win our disputes.

For FE, we need to be very clear what we are aiming for and why. To do this, we need to invest in an expanded UCU Research unit and UCU organising hubs, to support branches as they bargain locally and to support building towards national bargaining in England. While we celebrate successes locally which have been hard won by our members, it is clear that effective national bargaining is going to be essential in this sector, to reduce the burden on each local branch, enabling them to bargain locally on broader working conditions.

Question: All the GS candidates have many years’ inside experience of UCU’s democratic structures. Do you have any regrets about any decisions you made or actions you have taken, and what have you learned from this?

I have worked in many roles in UCU from branch rep through to UCU president from 2020-22, and have contributed to countless collective decisions. Not every decision went the way I would have chosen, and not every action the union has taken has turned out the way I hoped. However, it wouldn’t be correct for me to say that I regret these decisions, because I am confident in the part I took in the decision making process, and that I endeavoured to vote, represent, or chair (as relevant) with integrity. I have been transparent and accountable for the positions I’ve taken and will continue to be as General Secretary.

One of my motivations for standing for GS is that UCU structures have become centralised in a way that I don’t believe is healthy. There have been multiple occasions where I have felt that decisions being taken by the GS office were not in keeping with the spirit – and sometimes rule – of UCU’s democratic decision-making structures. I raised these concerns privately, and in some cases publicly, but I was not as vocal as I might have been due to a desire to avoid airing UCU disagreement in view of our employers, during major industrial disputes in HE and FE. I have been criticised for this, but again, I think it would be disingenuous for me to say I regret it. I have done the best I can to act in good faith in UCU, and I will continue to do so.

Jo Grady (General Secretary and Sheffield)

UCU has done a tremendous job over the past 4 years to maintain membership levels at a time when other unions’ membership has declined. We’ve also achieved important victories with our current density - a UK-wide pension dispute, local pay deals, fire and rehire battles, redundancy fights and health and safety disputes. But improved density gives us a larger base to build campaigns on. In branches with over 50% density, the employer is confronted with a majority of staff potentially united against them. Whilst some branches have 50%, we’re a long way from that on a UK-wide/sectoral level. Addressing this is a priority. Low density, particularly among casualised and lower-paid staff, means that those who have most to gain from our progressive agenda are least likely to be union members taking part in action. More on density here 14-16.

Research by UCU in 2021 showed the top two factors impacting whether members were likely to take industrial action were seeing senior and departmental colleagues going on strike. So, most members agree we need a strategy and style of campaigning that builds density alongside a commitment to action branch by branch, department by department. I’ve received criticism for saying this, but winning big needs a strategy based on:

More reps, stronger structures
More democratic negotiations
Better coordination with campus unions and students
Actions to commit members, test structures, build participation
Proactive local bargaining to reinforce UK-level disputes
Time to prepare and build
Take indefinite strike action – when we have the numbers

Question: What are your priorities for FE policy and campaigns? Please address in particular the importance of national bargaining in the sector.

In the UK further education is devolved. This means every jurisdiction (except Scotland where we don’t represent FE) needs a slightly different plan. In Wales, we’ve won pay parity with school teachers, but in Northern Ireland and England we’re yet to achieve this key priority. In Northern Ireland, the political challenges we face there need different tactics for pay parity. However, some problems unify all jurisdictions, and we must prioritise the following:

Investment in pay. For FE to deliver specific and highly skilled qualifications, we need more lecturers, but current pay rates are creating a recruitment crisis.
We need investment to tackle the retention crisis caused by outrageous and unsustainable workloads and the epidemic of stress-related illnesses for those who stay.
We need investment in a well-trained, secure workforce, not casualised contracts and reliance on agency workers.
Develop new skill pathways, colleges need to recognise that our members are professionals and invest in staff development. Politicians need to stop meddling with our sector – we see the human cost when they undermine the qualifications that our students undertake.
This is why we must continue to protect student choice, whilst ensuring that our members are fully prepared and resourced for curriculum changes and new qualifications.

Our FE strategy has already led to membership and density growth, and more branches winning pay deals every year. We are building towards an aggregated pay ballot in England, but will not call it until we are ready.

A comprehensive plan for FE can be read here.

While FE remains underfunded, its value has been embraced by all political parties. Things are different in HE, which is often under ideological attack – most frequently from politicians and the media. There are several broad areas that need prioritisation and a clear strategy. These are:

Pay: we need a new strategy in order to win on pay. Our claims are rightly ambitious, but we will not reach them by simply pressing the repeat button. I have written a comprehensive plan for HE (read here). The plan is based on the following principles. We need:

higher membership density
higher participation
more democratic negotiations
stronger rep and volunteer structures
to use our time and resources better
UK-wide coordination with other HE unions, where possible
strong member support for a cohesive set of strike actions
to invest heavily in local bargaining.

We must focus on the threat of redundancies and course closures. The marketisation of HE, alongside the lack of student number controls means that already-wealthy institutions adopt perverse practices to hoover up more wealth (via student fees). This creates financial volatility and insecurity for others. None of this is good for staff, students, education, or research.

Finally, the Teachers' Pension Scheme is facing a huge rise in costs. UCU needs to be ready to respond to this threat. Every branch that faces cost-cutting measures from their employer will be supported, backed up by a UK-wide campaign. We saved USS – now it’s time to make sure we save TPS.

Question: How do you think UCU’s decision-making structures could be improved (at all levels), and how would you contribute to their smooth functioning and transparency?

The structures and rules of UCU come from two unions that merged in 2006 with over 100 years of history. Consequently, they are complex, antiquated, and reflect the kind of organisations that trade unions have always traditionally been; full-time, white, abled, with limited caring responsibilities, etc. Our structures and rules also take a limited view of participatory democracy. Delegates (sometimes elected, sometimes not) take decisions for hundreds, sometimes thousands of members, at meetings they give up days to attend, where debates are governed by inaccessible rules.

We’ve done our best in UCU over the last few decades to take a more nuanced and inclusive view of representation and participation. But, if we designed the union today, we wouldn’t design it this way.

I want us to create a much more democratic, pluralistic culture, widening participation at all levels and creating a sense of ownership of UCU by all members. Only a small percentage of members participate in our democratic processes. Not enough are active in branches, and the representatives that vote at democratic events are often unaccountable. Many members find our internal culture off-putting and needlessly antagonistic. The scale of this problem has become very apparent to me in the last four years, as I have fielded questions from members asking who makes decisions and how. To be effective, we need to engage mass numbers of members. We also have rules that allow our decision-making bodies to declare contradictory or unimplementable decisions, which is deeply frustrating to many, including me.

Question: What lessons do you draw from 2023 industrial action in FE and HE respectively?

Where we have a clear industrial goal, a coherent strategy, and strong density we can and do win. In FE we have won dozens of pay deals through following a carefully planned and pre-agreed strategy based on building our capacity, strength and density so that we can rebuild meaningful national bargaining in England. National action is being supported by proactive local bargaining to reinforce what we demand collectively. In our prison membership we are likewise following a pre-agreed strategy, we are calling disputes where we have the capacity to win, and building membership and density to be in a position to do this more if necessary.

In HE we have finally won USS. We have greater density in the pre-92 section of HE, this undoubtedly played a role. We also had a clear goal – pension justice (which encompassed restoring the USS cuts, reducing contributions, and ensuring future stability). Our demands in the pay dispute are rightly ambitious – a proper pay increase, an end to casualisation, reduction of workloads, and pay equality. To achieve them we need to recruit more members, we need to grow our reps structure, we need time to prepare and build to disputes. This will mean doing things differently in HE next time we take action over pay. While winning a ballot and getting a strike mandate is complex (made deliberately difficult by the government), even a 10 year-long mandate without a different strategy would be unlikely to win what members need.

I regret we weren’t in a position in February to ask members about pausing action. We called that wrong. Myself, the president, and president elect took an executive decision. Most members supported the pause in a retrospectively conducted survey, but its management damaged trust and gave the wrong impression that I (or the union) didn’t support the dispute. This didn’t impact on winning the reballot, but I wish we had either communicated the pause differently, or not enacted it before a survey. The latter option seemed impossible at the time as we were up against an employer who otherwise wouldn’t commit to restoring pensions or entering intensive negotiations to find a resolution. Nevertheless, a great deal was learnt about the need for better communication, and I hope members have seen this reflected since. We could also have done more in that moment to engage reps and activists. I have learnt how to better conduct myself during times of high pressure, and if given the opportunity again, I’d do things differently.

The GS is in a bind. They must promote the decisions of democratic structures (even if flawed, illegal, or extremely complex). But I believe I should be honest about what I think is best. I haven’t always got that balance right, but I will take what I’ve learned with me if re-elected. This election is an opportunity for me to be honest about the last 5 years, so that we can enter the next 5 on a stronger footing.

Ewan McGaughey (KCL)

First, practical measures to achieve common goals are the heart my pitch to our colleagues. As you can see at www.ewanmg.uk, our common goals must be crystal clear, and if you vote, they will be:

(1) reversing the over 21% real pay cuts since 2009, 13% since 2019 alone (even on the lower CPI measure),

(2) majority staff-elected governing bodies at every institution,

(3) ending the gender, race and disability pay gaps with structural change, including 26 weeks paid parental leave regardless of gender,

(4) job security in collective agreements and zero tolerance for discrimination,

(5) USS and pension reform for two-thirds elected governing bodies and pro-climate, pro-labour shareholder voting,

(6) rebuilding UCU, particularly boosting its legal department to actually fight for members’ rights,

(7) 100% clean energy at UCU, all universities and colleges, and USS, and

(8) restoring public education funding, with fair tax, not forced-fees.

United on clear metrics of success, clear in strategy, we will negotiate from a position of strength, and we’ll win.

Second, UCU’s membership decline since 2019 is catastrophic. We’ve lost over 6000 members, and because our education sector is growing, density decline is even worse. When I was elected KCL UCU branch president, our membership grew by over 20%, because we had a clear, positive message, not empty outrage. We did two local ballots, and won deals (without needing to strike) for the highest London Weighting, the highest paid parental leave at a UK university, a written collective agreement protecting job security, more staff-elected members on our governing body, and we reversed at least 3 discriminatory dismissals and transformed the HR in the process.

Clear demands, and success, even in small steps, builds confidence. That’s how we get members. We don’t spend a year doing “mapping exercises”, or failing ballot thresholds, or blaming the Tories, or moaning about “intransigent” employers. When I became branch president, we went from a branch that had failed the ballot thresholds to having among the highest turnouts in the country. If you vote, we will do the same for the whole of UCU with serious and simple changes, especially for our voter turnout and IT systems.

Question: What are your priorities for FE policy and campaigns? Please address in particular the importance of national bargaining in the sector.

Further education is vital to me – just as it is to over 9000 of our members, even if membership has fallen far too low. Every single FE staff member deserves not just respect, but higher pay, and equal pay with all other teachers – and by the way teachers must be paid more too. We need a total reversal of the appalling pay decline since 2019, and 2009. Two close members of my family, and many friends, have worked in FE, and so I am completely committed to restoring dignity to our union, restoring our coherence, having a strategy, and using our collective strength to get results.

If you vote, we will restore real pay in FE, just as we will do across universities. We will ensure the governing bodies of colleges are democratically accountable to staff, by protecting our members’ rights to vote for a majority of the governing body. We will end the gender, race and disability pay gaps with structural reform – including 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, regardless of gender. And by the way, we know the pay gaps are higher when overall income inequality is higher, so everything we do will be directed at raising and equalising pay. We will protect job security by making sure every college puts a signature on a written collective agreement, acknowledging their duties in law. And we will enforce the law against law-breaking employers. We will boost our legal department, so that every worker’s right is actually defended in court, because since 2019, there has been nothing.

Finally, my pledge to you and the goal for us, is to restore public education funding. This is vital for FE, and I’m the only candidate promising it. We need to boost public money in public education, and reshape our priorities as a society for where our resources go. Our country needs to create the skills of the future, for a clean energy and technological revolution, to benefit us, not a few private corporations. Further Education is at the heart of Future Education.

My priorities for higher education – and I’ll happily repeat them till the cows come home – are to:

(1) reverse the over 13% real pay cuts since 2019 alone, and over 21% real pay cuts since 2009,
(2) win majority-elected governing bodies, and defend your right to vote at work,
(3) end the gender, race and disability pay gaps with structural reform – including 26 weeks equal paid parental leave for everyone, regardless of gender, and
(4) job security for everyone in written collective agreements, and zero tolerance for discrimination.

How are we going to do this, when the failure since 2019 has been so bad? First, we will be clear and relentless in repeating precisely our goals. Second, we will use every tool in the box: that means collective action, legal action, and targeted publicity. Third, we will never, ever call a ballot that we do not win – and if you vote, we will revolutionise our systems and create the highest turnouts UCU has ever seen. Fourth, we will negotiate in good faith, and we will win because we bargain from a position of strength, not disarray.

How will we address the sector’s growing divides? First, we will restore public education funding, so that cash doesn’t concentrate at rich universities like mine at KCL, and then squander that money on vanity building projects of management cronies. Second, we’ll advocate for an overhaul of the REF, and distribute money according to social priorities, not randomly in a cash-grab for student fees. Third, we’ll shift from a system based on competition to cooperation, and – yes – based on the principles the Enlightenment, as education is meant to be.

Question: How do you think UCU’s decision-making structures could be improved (at all levels), and how would you contribute to their smooth functioning and transparency?

First, let’s be honest: the divisions between the General Secretary, the National Executive Committee and the NEC amidst itself have not been useful. The General Secretary needs to have a clear plan that can command consensus around goals we all believe in. Instead of proposing to do nothing – nothing on collective action except “mapping exericises”, not a single court case, despite promising “precedent-setting legal challenges” in 2019 - the General Secretary must work to bridge differences with a principled approach, not a do-nothing approach. If you voted for the incumbent in 2019, I know it’s tough to hear. I did too. But the failure is clear, and we must change.

Second, we must put UCU branches at the heart of collective bargaining. Sectoral collective bargaining must be defended, because it’s how the richest and most equal countries have advanced social welfare, and the lack of it is why Britain is progressively poorer. On top of a coherent sectoral strategy, local workplaces must build up. We must empower branches to reach better local collective agreements in democratic rights at work, for structural reform to end the pay gaps, for eliminating pointless management bureaucracy that increases workloads, and for protecting job security. This is on top of, never below, the national deals we will win.

Third, our union is based on the principle of one person, one vote, and the principle that united we achieve more than we do alone. If you vote, as General Secretary, I will never ignore our members and our democratic voting structures, and we will never, ever, call a strike ballot that we lose.

Question: What lessons do you draw from 2023 industrial action in FE and HE respectively?

The core lesson is that we must use every tool in the box to fight for our members’ rights. In 2023, in USS affiliated universities, we won the pension back that was lost through the failures from 2019 to 2022. Let’s be absolutely clear, after the strike action in 2018, UCU managed to halt total destruction of the USS defined benefit pension. This crisis was manufactured by USS directors predicting near 0% growth above inflation in USS assets for 30 years. In 2020, they tried the same thing again. UCU’s leadership utterly failed to oppose this narrative, and USS’s directors almost won. The only way it was stopped was:

(1) through strike action being called through 2022 and 2023 – and in 2023 the leadership opposed action, preferring “mapping exercises” until it dawned that we were also in a cost of living crisis,
(2) the biggest crowd-funded court case in UK legal history, organised by myself, Prof Neil Davies, and funded by over 6000 colleagues with an average donation of £39, to sue the USS directors personally for the cuts. When we got leave to go to the Court of Appeal, USS announced they would halt the cuts (what a coincidence!),
(3) Truss blowing up the economy, causing the Bank of England to raise interest rates, and paradoxically raising the predictions by USS for asset growth, given its over-investment in bonds, rather than equities. This gave USS the pretext to reverse the cuts they had fought tooth-and-nail for, and save face.

As many of us are social scientists, we know that correlation does not always equal causation, but my absolute conviction is that our union must use every tool in the box to defend our members’ rights.

In Further Education, let’s also be clear: the appalling decline in wages must be reversed, and below-inflation settlements are not good enough. The lesson I draw is that we ballot to actually win.

The first point is that there is a difference between good and bad, successful and failed, “inside experience”. My role between December 2020 and September 2023 was running the KCL UCU branch where we won:

two strike ballots,
the highest London Weighting at a capital university,
the highest paid parental leave in the UK,
the first written collective agreement in over a decade, protecting job security,
the reversal of at least 3 discriminatory dismissals, and the overhaul of the HR that let it happen.

Second, like many, I have attended Congresses, HESC, Branch Delegate Meetings, as well as chairing many, many meetings of my own branch. The chief regret I have in running my branch is that I did not – and was not able – to act more quickly to secure ballots and negotiate deals. We were delayed by six months – August 2022 to March 2023 – by the incumbent leadership in getting local ballot authority. Internal delay created far more delay than the Tory anti-union ballots laws. If you vote, branches will never, ever, wait unduly for authority for a good faith trade dispute. When we got authority, we negotiated deals that created historic benefits for every member.

Third, I learned the hard and slow way that management will often negotiate only when collective action, legal action, and targeted publicity make doing nothing unpalatable. Reasoned argument – the thing we deal in in education – is not always enough. So, across UCU we need to be crystal clear that we must take action, decisively, and swiftly where necessary. That is how we win, and if you vote for change, you will see it.

Saira Weiner (Liverpool John Moores University)

Hi,

If you require any information it can be found in my election statement and manifesto on my website sair4GS.wordpress.com

Saira

––––––

VP candidate responses

Candidate Peter Evans did not respond.

––––––

David Hunter (City College Norwich)

Question: How do you see the role of VP in building the union, in terms of both density and member engagement? What practical measures would you adopt to work across differences within the union towards our common goals?

I see the role of VP in building the union as a very practical one - working with local branches, assisting them in efforts to build membership, talking directly to members and listening to their issues and needs, working with those who share my goal of building the power of our members to win the changes they want in their workplaces. I want to be speaking with non-members, getting them involved, bringing them into engagement and action. I think that engaging members and their colleagues across the union is the key to achieving our common goals. Whether we do that through surveys, working groups or conferences, knowing what the wider membership want, and knowing what action they will take to get it will be key in our future work. If we can bring the voice of the mass membership to our governing committees and structures, we will be much better able to focus on the issues that matter to members.

Question: What are your priorities for FE policy and campaigns? Please address in particular the importance of national bargaining in the sector.

I have asked FE members many times what their top priorities are, and workload, pay and casualisation invariably come up. What UCU Cymru has achieved in Wales is an example of what national bargaining can achieve with a willing partner in government. They have achieved agreements on pay parity, workload and contracts through a social partnership with government. If this model could be achieved in the rest of the UK, that would be a great way to win on members priorities. National bargaining is not a panacea, however. There is no guarantee that we will find a willing partner in government, whatever its hue. Even if we do, what we can achieve will depend on the power we have. That power comes from our members and their willingness to take action. That is why my priority is to build local power. Powerful, active branches can deliver local wins and through their wins bring power to national negotiations.

Question: What lessons do you draw from 2023 industrial action in FE and HE respectively? How do you see the role of VP in negotiation processes and in engagement with employer representatives?

I believe in the power of industrial action - I have always told members that our power comes from our numbers and our willingness to take action. I am also wary of making conclusions without access to good data - and I think our union needs to collect better data. However, I suspect that the hard lesson we should learn from our recent IA is that in our setting there is a limit to what industrial action can achieve alone. In FE, industrial pressure from UCU and the employers' body led to a timely injection of cash and employers being directed to use that on staff pay; in this set of circumstances industrial action and threat of IA brought improvements for staff. In HE, with a more complicated set of circumstances, there has been a big win on pensions, but members have not won all they wanted in the four fights despite sustained IA over a number of years. So, as with national bargaining, IA is not a panacea. We need a wider strategy to win, one that includes IA, but that embraces all the levers of power we can bring to bear.

It is my experience that power in the negotiating room comes not from the cunning of the negotiator, but from the power of the membership. A negotiator represents the views and demands of the membership to the employer, and then must act as the mediator between them. It is a negotiators responsibility to work with employers to achieve the best offer that circumstances allow, but it is the membership who determine the parameters of any negotiation and who decide on the acceptability of any offers made. Representing members is my priority.

Question: How do you think UCU’s decision-making structures could be improved, and how would you contribute to their smooth functioning and transparency?

UCU needs to better represent the views of the majority of its members - again it comes down to good data - officers need to know the views of the wider membership when making decisions. I think that UCU should be seeking that wider view before making important decisions, so that we can be sure that any actions we take are supported by the majority. We should be engaging members on the ground better in our decision making, so that decisions taken are truly representative. We should also be reporting back to members with transparency. I will work to increase this transparency, including supporting efforts to make voting records available to members.

Question: Given that your experience is primarily local and regional, what will you bring to a national role such as VP?

My local experience is exactly what I would bring to a national role. It is the day to day contact with members that leads and inspires me. My branch more than doubled membership by listening to colleagues and by campaigning on their issues. By taking action members supported we then won our dispute. If we are to build our branches and build our power, those are the skills we will need to promote all over the union - listening to members, responding to their issues and taking action they support. I will bring that focus on the membership to a national level - working to ensure all members voices are heard.

––––––––––––

NEC candidate responses

Alison Hawkings (University of West London)

Question: If elected to NEC, how would you seek to work across differences within the union towards our common goals?

A democracy doesn’t mean we all have to agree. What discourse and debate does mean is respect. We respect and protect all our rights. This is key to current UCU and citizen issues concerning the erosion of Human Rights to protest, assemble and freedom of expression nationally. This, to me, is a fundamental uniting goal, which all UCU members active and less active should be called to action on.

Concrete and workable steps on points all parties agree on. This may mean breaking big issues down on pay, casualisation , health and safety, and working conditions. For example, on casualisation, have a step to success plan. One idea is outlined below.

Health and Safety is another area where the many agree. It is also an area where employers are legally required to participate in more conversation and consultation with recognised trade unions. Let’s leverage this with new workable campaigns around work related stress and supporting the welfare of workers. This is one of largest single issues affecting UCU members in branches up and down the country large and small alike, HE or FE.

Renewed vigour around a code of conduct on socials and at meetings.

To value that every members counts.

Question: As an NEC member, how would you increase participation in UCU?

Topline: enhance support, improve communication and make personal connections.

For the sake of brevity I have covered three examples below.

1. I feel NEC and other elected members of UCU need to hear what members are saying more often. Many UCU members feel disconnected from the decision makers. BDMs and HE and FE Regional meetings can be useful aggregators for surveys etc… but do not really give an “ordinary” member of “branch exec” an opportunity to converse on issues which are important to them. BDMs et al can also be quite intimidating. To increase participation of UCU members more widely, more members need to feel and see that their point of view is important and someone is strategically listening, this then provides better and more informed decision making nationally and demonstrates accountability and transparency. For example, NEC and other elected officials could attend a minimum set of scheduled in person and virtual meetups with clutches of branches, regions etc. and not just those they already have relationships with.

2. A refreshed recruitment focus on new and early career teaching and professional service staff to join the union is important. Each year UCU members are leaving the workplace, either for better pay, less stress, retirement etc…UCU needs to maintain and increase its membership. Early career staff are also more likely to be casualised. One campaign here could be to support local branches with HPL members who meet the four year “continuous contract” threshold to instigate regulation 9 letters to HR departments simultaneously working with/or campaigning for employers to agree to fast track those workers into salaried positions. UCU could also support this nationally by asking members of their status (salaried/HPL and length of service) and passing this information on to local branches. This then very quickly could allow local branches to invite local members to Regulation 9 Q&As and/or offer support- all data passed on with member permission. Workable wins for members = increases in participation from members.

3. A stronger presentation and communication strategy for UCU members who are EEA and Non EEA workers needs to be enhanced. We need to push this information out rather than expect members to click through UCU website for details. Many current UCU members and potential UCU members are afraid to participate in Union activity for fear of jepopardising their working status. Advice from UCU has improved and some groups within UCU are putting on Q and As concerning rights and protections of EEA and NON-EEA workers, however, this is a strategic weakness which could be helped centrally. EEA and Non-EEA Clinics could be increased/offered and staffed with branch officers, legal officers and partner solicitors etc….A telephone number as well as an email for a member or branch exec to speak to a person could also help make UCU members feel more supported and connected.

4. To recognise where local campaign successes could be implemented nationally - see point one, two and three.

Question: What lessons do you draw from 2023 industrial action in FE and HE respectively?

More active listening to all communities and not just those who talk the loudest

Pushing forward workload negoitations as a priority

That trust and value in UCU needs to be re-prioritised moving forward

Re-establish our national common goals

Produce workable campaigns with entry and exit strategies

Clear and decisive communications

Value that industrial action is still considered the leading tactic to protest against employers

As with HE, workload in FE is of huge concern with over 40% of UCU FE members saying their workload is unmanageable UCU should be focused on delivering strong uniting campaigns for change

FE Pay and national binding agreements must be front and centre.

To recognise and value local campaign successes which could be implemented nationally

To maintain strong support to use industrial action as the leading tactic to protest against employers

Question: How do you think UCU’s decision-making structures could be improved (at all levels), and how would you contribute to their smooth functioning and transparency? What role could NEC play in such processes?

I have outlined some ways NEC and UCU can be more transparent and accountable above.

Question: We’d like to invite you to comment with specific examples on how your approach and plans reflect or diverge from our values.

I am a Senior Lecturer in Journalism at the University of West London (Post 92) and am part of the UCU UWL Executive Team with responsibility for Health & Safety and Wellbeing. UWL is a small branch, but has grown and is building greater activism. I have worked in the Higher Education sector for more than a decade, half as an hourly paid lecturer and half now salaried. I have experienced precarity and the lack of equitable employment rights routinely adopted across the education sector. On the other side I have experienced and have witnessed the effects of punishing workloads on myself and members; organised and participated in strike action; and negotiated and consulted for better working conditions locally through building alliances with sister unions to meet joint goals.

This is the time when we need to move together as a single voice focused on common ground campaigns which impact and benefit large and small branches alike. The union is for everyone. This is a good time to reboot and elect new voices with different branch experiences to NEC.

NEC and HEC for many are mysterious entities. What is HEC; who are they; what does NEC do again? These are all FAQs I hear at branch level. Sound familiar?

I am standing as a NEC London and East HE candidate to raise the profile and representation of smaller branches. I feel I can come to the NEC as a clean sheet with new ideas and a can do future forward attitude.

My take on the role, if elected, is to highlight the concerns and experiences of branches under 400 members and to find actionable ways we as a Union can mentor and raise support. If current strategies have not had an impact then it is time for new ones.

This brings us on to Post 92 institutions. Post 92s often work in a different way to Pre 92s in terms of semester length; the existence of reading weeks; and using exams as final assessment. Post 92s are also not one size fits all - there is nuance here which many members feel needs to be voiced in a stronger way at a national NEC and HEC level.

As a union we must demonstrate to our members that every member counts and that we are committed to improving conditions at a local and national level.

Nico Rosetti (LSE)

Question: If elected to NEC, how would you seek to work across differences within the union towards our common goals?

My approach within the NEC would reflect my current one as chair of my branch, focusing on building consensus around shared objectives. While strategies and narratives may vary, our underlying goals often align. Fostering open dialogue helps unite and motivate members. I prioritise transparency, fairness, and procedural integrity, ensuring members' engagement is both valued and impactful.

I am committed to holding firm, radical views on intersectional solidarity while treating all members' concerns fairly. Believing that either a centrist or radical approach can eliminate conflict is simplistic and often involves silencing the other. My goal is never to impose my views top-down, instead facilitating engagement, ensuring each contribution is allowed fair consideration. This approach respects our union's diversity of views and empowers marginalised voices to engage and be heard.

As an advocate for trans-inclusive, anti-racist, and anti-colonial values, I am actively involved in struggles that align with these core ideals. The union's stance, especially in defensive battles against governmental attacks on our values, must be firm.

I feel strongly about our shared fights and wider role of unions in bettering society, but I believe that proactively adopting new causes requires building consensus, obtaining mandates, and ensuring sustained, incremental progress. Union activism is a marathon, not a sprint. It requires ambition paired with a pragmatic and inclusive approach. As an independent candidate, my focus will be on fostering unity and gradual progress, building trust to find common ground across factional disputes, and ensuring that each advancement strengthens our collective resolve and unity.

Question: As an NEC member, how would you increase participation in UCU?

I have seen how increased participation from casualised and early career staff in our branch has energised our committee and community. We focused on building visibility at social events, sharing successes, reminding people of the need and usefulness of union membership, and setting realistic short-term targets within ambitious long-term goals. I will advocate for reducing the time cost for these groups to engage with us and creating career-enhancing opportunities through research.

Two of my NEC action plans address this: first, to streamline the horizontal exchange of best practices and processes across the union, making participation less resource intensive. Second, to facilitate research opportunities through union data for early research academics, whose output can be used by branches as evidence to put pressure on management.

Boosting participation also involves existing members being engaged and offering experienced members renewed purpose and inspiration. As well as the procedural points mentioned previously, we should not underestimate morale as a resource. Celebrating small victories, promoting the benefits of collective bargaining, building allyship with sibling unions and SUs, hosting cross-branch events like symposiums can be enormously impactful. These efforts not only provide learning and networking opportunities but also reinforce the collective strength and purpose of our union. My commitment as an NEC member would be to foster this spirit of unity and progress, promoting cross-union events and informative material to quantify and celebrate our victories. This will show our members that our union is robust, responsive, and reflective of a diverse collective united by shared solidarity.

Question: What lessons do you draw from 2023 industrial action in FE and HE respectively?

The Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) in the HE sector has laid bare the adversarial nature of management, revealing their readiness to exploit legal grey areas to retaliate against staff. This underscores our need to fortify our strategy, ensuring it shields our members from aggressive institutional tactics. We must evolve our approach to industrial action, emphasizing robust support, precise communication, and comprehensive training.

Future actions must be member-focused, respecting the sacrifices asked of our members. We need to utilize our collective efforts to achieve positive, tangible outcomes without leading to burnout or demoralization. The MAB's aftermath, particularly the majority vote against a mandate for further action, signals the need for well-defined goals, clear exit strategies, and collective bargaining power that doesn't leave branches isolated.

As we prepare for future actions, it's clear that management is ready to counter strongly. We mustn't shy away from action but focus on building our resources, morale, resilience, and strategy. By enhancing member trust and participation, we can secure the mandates needed in our challenging legal environment and present a united, credible threat of focused, disruptive action. This approach will ensure that management recognizes the true power held by the workforce, reinforcing the union's position in industrial relations. Our union must be ready to fight effectively, ensuring every action we take strengthens our collective position and leads to meaningful change.

As a prospective NEC member with no prior experience on the committee, my initial endeavour will be to understand its procedures, decision-making, and practical aspects. I intend to approach this role with a sense of humility and openness to learn. I believe my fresh perspective will be beneficial, allowing me to critically assess any disparities between the perceived function of the NEC and its actual workings. This approach will be invaluable in committing to fair and transparent processes, ensuring any disconnect between branch officers' understanding and the reality of national committees is addressed.

I am keen to involve members actively and welcome insights from UCU Commons comrades on necessary transformations within our national structures. Your perspectives will be instrumental in shaping a responsive and effective NEC. A particular focus will be the relationship between the NEC and Equality Committees, ensuring there's robust accountability to address issues raised by various Equality groups.

A key initiative I intend to champion is establishing a national solidarity network for the defence of Trans rights, responding to the coordinated, centralised national efforts undermining these rights. This goes beyond raising concerns; it demands active coordination and support at national and regional levels. I am ready to collaborate with colleagues and comrades to ensure our union is a strong, united advocate for the rights and welfare of all members. My commitment is to ensure the NEC is a proactive, inclusive force, championing diversity, equity, and solidarity within our union and the broader academic community.

Mark Taylor-Batty (Leeds)

Question: If elected to NEC, how would you seek to work across differences within the union towards our common goals?

My experience as an elected negotiator has involved working across differences of attitudes or expression within the union to achieve common objectives. The nature of negotiation is to manage and achieve positive outcomes through nuanced discussion and mobilised evidence-based debate. The key is in listening, and in seeking to empathically appreciate the point of origin of heartfelt positions that you yourself do not immediately adopt. This allows common ground to be found and built upon. Being objective-oriented rather than strategy-oriented is important in considering operative routes to achieving goals.

Question: As an NEC member, how would you increase participation in UCU?

The question is not straightforward to answer because ‘participation’ means different things in different contexts. Simply joining a union is an act of participation in, and of trust in that union. Assumptions that members should always respond or behave in specific ways to specific contexts can be problematic. Participation in industrial action is augmented and consolidated when members feel they have greater agency in the decisions made around strategies, timing and defining success. Participation in defending employment, conditions and standards outside of industrial action is augmented when communication is effective between union, branch and members. In all cases, transparency and clear, effective communication is crucial to increasing participation in local and national contexts.

Question: What lessons do you draw from 2023 industrial action in FE and HE respectively?

I can’t with great assuredness speak to industrial action in FE. The HE action was successful in terms of leveraging a win on USS, and brutally disappointing in terms of the pay and condition campaign, but drawing lessons from these is no straightforward matter, and to claim that one strategy or other was to blame for weaknesses is dangerously simplistic. What is plain to me is that we need a range of communication strategies and a range of participatory models (including voting models and means of surveying members) to be meaningfully member-led.

Many members perceive a tension between member-centred decision-making and the execution or filtering of decisions. That perception can be exploited by those who might seek to gain greater control of decisions and execution to bend to partisan objectives. Transparency of democracy is a means to undercut that risk. Transparency is underpinned by good communication, often, in both summary mode and with detailed plain English explanations, and we need to make better use of a range of discursive approaches to communicating with members. I would support the public release of individual NEC voting records. Terms of reference of groups, committees, working groups should be ratified by NEC where appropriate and published.

Table of Contents

General Secretary candidate responses

Vicky Blake (Leeds)

Jo Grady (General Secretary and Sheffield)

Ewan McGaughey (KCL)

Saira Weiner (Liverpool John Moores University)

VP candidate responses

Candidate Peter Evans did not respond.

David Hunter (City College Norwich)

NEC candidate responses

Alison Hawkings (University of West London)

Nico Rosetti (LSE)

Mark Taylor-Batty (Leeds)

Subscribe to UCU Commons