At the Town Hall meeting on 11 March, the Principal claimed that progress had been made on two of the three points of dispute with UCU. He expressed that he was “deeply disappointed” that UCU had chosen to proceed with industrial action, primarily because of the impact that would have on students.
He highlighted that the management team had taken steps by beginning collective consultation with trade unions on ACS and by committing to including UCU into the organisational design workstream. He also announced that promotions had been partially unpaused.
Before examining these statements, here’s a reminder of the three core issues at stake:
· The lack of meaningful consultation on ACS
· The pause on promotions for academic staff
· The refusal to rule out compulsory redundancies
pic- Klaudia Mazur
1. Meaningful consultation on ACS: still missing
Despite being the largest union on campus, representing academics and academic-related and professional services (ARPS) staff on grades 5 and above, UCU was initially excluded from all ACS workstreams. Only after considerable pressure was one UCU member permitted to join a single workstream, Governance and Leadership, about a month ago.
There have now been two occasions where management handpicked a union representative. This fundamentally misunderstands, and frankly disrespects, the democratic principles on which unions operate. Unions select their own representatives. Anything else undermines the legitimacy of the process.
And despite a stated “commitment” to include UCU in the remaining workstreams, we only received a request to collectively nominate ONE representative to the Academic and Professional Services workstreams on 13 March. Meanwhile, senior management has indicated that decisions on ACS (including how many members of staff will lose their jobs) will be taken at the next Court meeting on the 29th of April.
We have only a matter of weeks to influence workstreams that have been running for months and whose outcomes appear to be already determined. Because when management insist that final decisions will not be made until Court meet, that is simply semantics. SMT will be presenting fully developed recommendations for Court to approve, and those recommendations will not be shaped by last-minute feedback.
The Principal emphasised SMT’s desire to listen to as many “diverse voices” across the university community as they can. They say they are keen to engage with trade unions and hear our “creative ideas”. Yet, they provide us with neither the time nor the information necessary to offer them.
Instead, they have already announced major changes to student-staff ratios and programme closures – changes that will deeply affect the student learning experience. And according to analyses such as the Scottish Parliament report “The impact of tightening finances on Scotland’s universities” (published on the 24th February), such cuts may actually worsen the University’s financial position over time, as well as harm our surrounding region, driving us into a downward spiral.
This is not what meaningful consultation looks like.
2. Academic promotions: a partial and problematic ‘unpause’
Management’s proposal is to unpause previously submitted promotions only up to and including Senior Lecturer (so only for Grades 6 and 7), leaving many existing applications in limbo for even longer. The Principal argued that promotions have budget implications beyond the current financial year. Of course they do! Promotions are based on an individual’s performance and long-term contributions against a set of criteria, not short-term budget cycles. A robust budgeting model should already account for this. It is concerning that a recurrent ‘aspiration’ for both the old guard and the new guard of SMT has been to ensure promotions can run every year, and yet they have failed to develop a budgeting model that can reliably support them.
It’s also important to recognise that academic staff must demonstrate performance at the level for which they are applying before they are promoted. In practice, a lecturer ‘acts’ as a senior lecturer long before any formal recognition. Meanwhile, senior managers who ‘act up’ receive immediate remuneration for their additional responsibilities. Staff whose promotions have been ‘paused’ are, in effect, involuntarily subsidising the University through unpaid higher-level labour. It’s the worst type of regressive taxation!
Failing to have a robust budgeting model effectively turns academic promotions into something resembling the ARPS regrading system, driven by “business need” rather than professional merit. ARPS colleagues have long asked to move from regrading toward a proper promotions framework. But instead of making progress for ARPS staff, the University is dragging academics backwards. It feels less like a strategy and more like a race to the bottom.
Even more concerning, management suggested to UCU that unpausing some promotions might require additional savings elsewhere. Given their repeated emphasis on staff costs as the University’s largest expenditure, UCU members understandably see this as reinforcing our concern: compulsory redundancies remain firmly on the table.
3. Compulsory redundancies: still not ruled out
The University’s own Annual Report shows cash holding has increased, so the University has enough cash for another round of payouts. Despite repeated requests, the Principal continues to refuse to rule out compulsory redundancies. So, we need only read between the lines to understand the true intent.
So where does that leave us?
The Principal said SMT has done what it can to address the different elements of the dispute and the ball is now with UCU. But UCU members are clear that, unfortunately, the steps taken so far are insufficient to justify any de-escalation of industrial action. The point was made very clearly by the turnout at Thursday’s picket line, the largest in many years.
On one point, however, we agree wholeheartedly with the Principal: we, too, are disappointed to be on strike. Strike action is never taken lightly and it is always a last resort. We are deeply aware of the impact on students, and we care about that. This is why staff on strike are organising ‘teach-outs’ on Tuesday and Wednesday in collaboration with the Students’ Union. But the impact of the planned cuts will do lasting harm to the quality of education and research, and to the students’ experience. Strikes occur only when every attempt to engage constructively has been exhausted.
And while we lose pay during each strike day (a serious hardship for many UCU members), the alternative is far worse. For many of us, what is at stake is not a few days’ salary, but our long-term livelihoods. And those who will remain employed face the prospect of even more unsustainable workloads. The University already runs on the goodwill and sustained commitment of overworked and underpaid staff (both academics and professional services).
Continuing in this direction is simply unsustainable: the cost of inaction will be higher than the cost of striking. This is why UCU members continue to stand together. Solidarity!
