Strikes remain on at the University of Aberdeen after management rejected a proposal from our UCU branch that could have led to action being suspended. The offer would have guaranteed that no staff would be placed at risk of redundancy for six months, with savings instead sought through voluntary means such as voluntary severance and non-staff budget reductions.

In return, we were prepared to call off the eight planned strike days and commit to no further industrial action for six months. Management rejected this proposal.
This decision puts staff livelihoods and the student experience at risk, and is a major disappointment for both staff and students. Despite delays in receiving a response, we have consistently demonstrated our willingness to engage constructively and resolve this dispute. The rejection of this proposal raises serious questions about why a resolution could not be reached, and we remain committed to opposing these plans and defending jobs.

🙏 Thank you to everyone who has engaged so far in this dispute.

We know how difficult it is to take industrial action, and we are committed to keeping members fully informed about why we are continuing.

🔍 What are our key concerns?
Following recent exchanges with SMT, here is a clear summary of the issues we have raised on your behalf:

1️⃣ Lack of meaningful consultation
We have repeatedly requested essential information, including programme-level data and modelling behind proposals. This has not been shared.
Without this, consultation cannot meet ACAS standards or allow us to properly represent members and develop alternatives.

2️⃣ Decisions being rushed without transparency
Key decisions are moving forward quickly, with inconsistent timelines.
There is also a lack of clarity about discussions with other institutions that may be shaping proposals affecting Aberdeen.

3️⃣ Risk of pre-determined redundancies
We are deeply concerned that proposed SSRs could effectively pre-select individuals or groups for redundancy.
The agreed bottom-up consultation process has not been followed, removing a key opportunity to ensure that proposals are fully informed and considered, and to avoid job losses.

4️⃣ Lack of financial justification
We have not been provided with cost-benefit analyses for the ACS proposals.
Without this, it is impossible to assess whether such major changes are necessary or proportionate.

5️⃣ Staff wellbeing concerns
Our offer to support meaningful stress risk assessments was rejected.
The assessments provided lack detail and robust action planning, raising serious concerns about staff wellbeing.

6️⃣ Threat to the character of the University
These proposals risk fundamentally changing the nature of the University as a research-intensive institution, with consequences for both staff and students.

💡 Our constructive alternatives

We have put forward serious, workable proposals to avoid compulsory redundancies:
Voluntary severance and early retirement before any compulsory measures
Partial voluntary severance options (fractional contracts)
Temporary, repayable pay deferrals
Exploring non-academic income streams and estate use
Freezing recruitment of new managers
Fairer pay structures, including salary ceilings
Supporting alternative proposals developed through Senate

These options prioritise jobs, protect the institution, and reflect sector best practice.

⚖️ Why we are continuing action?

We are now facing a situation that mirrors previous disputes:
rapid change, insufficient consultation, and staff and students expected to carry the consequences.
Industrial action is a last resort.
But without meaningful engagement from SMT, it is a necessary one.