Why you should vote against all 3 of the questions in the current e-survey.

Transcription

1 Why you should vote against all 3 of the questions in the current e-survey. This document contains two separate discussions of the ongoing General Secretary Survey the first is an open letter from a number of active local branch officers, some of whom are members of UCU Left, and some who are not, it is not a UCU Left document. The second half (pages 5 8) are some responses to the Q&A section on the national UCU website, and is a document prepared by UCU Left. Monday 12th March 2012 Dear colleagues, Re.: General Secretary Survey You will have been contacted last week by the newly re-elected General Secretary. She will have informed you that she is interpreting her election as a mandate for constitutional change. She will be conducting an e-poll from today on three proposals for constitutional change in our union: shrinking the size of the National Executive, election of national negotiators in a members ballot, and a rule change to the effect that all final offers should be put to a members ballot. We are contacting you to urge a No vote on all of these proposals for the reasons given below. We urge you to take the time to consider these issues since the proposals, in whatever form they may finally appear, could have a significant impact on the ability of our union to represent members. 1. Procedure There is no specification of what precise changes are being suggested in the General Secretary s poll. No proposals have been put before the elected members of the National Executive or its Strategy and Finance Committee. There have been no specific proposals discussed at branch meetings or at the union s regional committees. In these circumstances, particularly without knowing the detail of the proposals, it is not clear what their implications might be. Whatever those implications are, members cannot be informed about them as part of this exercise. In the absence of debate, and consideration of alternatives, it is not possible to identify the advantages or the drawbacks of any proposal. We are being invited to vote in the dark. It is also the case, moreover, that the General Secretary is acting ultra vires in that the rules and constitution of the UCU require initiatives of this kind to be discussed by the National Executive and the Strategy and Finance Committee, in advance. So, irrespective of the merits of what finally appears as the proposals in the General Secretary s poll, we urge members to reject the proposals until there

2 has been extensive discussion in branches and regions. 2. Changes to the National Executive There may be a case for altering the composition and/or the size of the National Executive but that is something that should be a matter of careful discussion, and the implications of all specific proposals investigated, before a decision on the matter is taken by our annual, national Congress the policymaking body of our union. The General Secretary has declared that she wishes to shrink the National Executive and to redirect any savings to direct representation of members. In the abstract, that sounds like a laudable intention if the NEC is indeed excessively large, and if there could be significant benefits to representation from such a change. The current size and composition of the NEC was, however, carefully worked out at the time of the amalgamation of the AUT and Natfhe five years ago. It was designed to ensure that the National Executive was not dominated by any one sector of the union but would have representation from both pre and post-92 institutions in HE (where different conditions of service pertain), and from Further Education. It would ensure that all regions and devolved nations were represented. Given the UCU s commitment to equality as part of its industrial relations remit, it ensured that there was representation from black and ethnic minority members, from disabled members, from LGBT members, and women members. It ensured that academic-related staff and those on casual contracts would be represented. An e-poll, without debate on the specifics of any proposals, without the opportunity to hear counter arguments, and without the opportunity to consider alternatives, is not the way to handle matters in a democratic organization. 3. Election of National Negotiators The principle that underpins the operation of any democratic body should always be the election of representatives from as wide a constituency as possible subject to considerations of accountability. Both parts of that principle need to be operative. One of the key deficits of many democratic procedures is the election of representatives for a fixed period but who cannot then be held accountable for their actions by the members of their constituency until their period of office is exhausted. This is what produces a democratic form without democratic substance. Currently the UCU s national negotiators are partly elected and are partly ex officio. The Chairs and Vice Chairs of the HE and FE Committees, plus the National Officials from the respective sectors, are members of the national negotiating teams for HE and FE in virtue of their positions. The other members are lay members elected by the annual HE and FE Sector Conferences of lay delegates. The current arrangements provide for a minimum number of women negotiators in FE and HE, and for a minimum

3 number of pre-92 and post-92 negotiators in HE. It is the delegates at sector conferences, after debates about the annual pay claim in branches, who decide on the pay claim. The elected negotiators are thus elected by the body that has determined the claim, and are responsible and accountable to that body. If the negotiators do not follow their remit adequately, they can be called to account by a special Sector Conference, and replaced if necessary. Similarly, the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the HE and FE committees are responsible to their committees, and operate under their direction. The committees are responsible for conference policy between conferences. There may be a better way of selecting negotiators. Determining what is that better way requires careful consideration of these issues. To whom would national negotiators who were elected by a members ballot be accountable? How would they be recalled if they did not follow their remit, and by whom? What would be their relationship to the sector conferences that frame the annual claim? How would they relate to the National Executive, and to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the sector committees? There may be good answers to these questions. It is not possible to know, however, until there has been extensive debate in branches, regions and conferences and Congress. Until that happens, therefore, we urge members not to commit to a proposal that has not been adequately considered. 3. Ballots for all Final Offers This is the strangest of all of the proposals. It is not clear what it can possibly mean. Does it mean that when both negotiations and action have produced some movement close to the objective, but not everything that was being fought for has been won, there should then be a formal ballot of members on acceptance or rejection? Does it mean that when there is a judgment that members may not want to continue the struggle there should then be a ballot? If so, whose judgment? Or does it mean that any and all offers that are so described by the employers or the Government as final offers will be put out to ballot? It can only mean the last of these three, as the first two are already the case. If the NEC (or HEC or FEC) considered those circumstances to be the case then there would, of course, be a ballot of members. The third possibility, however, that would commit the union to ballot on whatever was described as final by our adversaries, would risk making the UCU a laughing stock in the trade union movement. In the current TPS dispute, for example, that would have meant that we would have had to pay tens of thousands of pounds to the Electoral Reform Society on EACH of the FOUR OCCASIONS that the Government has declared so far that it has made its final offer. Had members then voted to accept the second final offer, we would not

4 have been on strike on 30th November, and the Government would not have been forced to make its third final offer in December. Nor would we have had the current final offer. This is the one proposal that, in whatever form it finally appears, cannot have any merit at all. For all of these reasons, but most importantly because of the absence of debate and discussion, we urge members to reject the proposals of the General Secretary, and to engage in discussion and debate on all these issues at branch meetings if any detailed proposals are forthcoming. An e- survey on these issues, particularly without the circulation of all relevant information or contrary opinion, is not part of the union s democratic procedures. We write to you as branch officers and individuals, and not as members of any grouping in the union, some of us being members of no UCU group. Tom Hickey (Brighton & NEC) Liz Lawrence (Sheffield Hallam & NEC) Mick Jardine (Winchester) Chris Downs (Chichester) Malcolm Povey (Leeds & NEC) Phil Jones (Canterbury) Maeve Landman (NEC) Laura Miles (Bradford and NEC) Luke Martell (Sussex) Jim Wolfreys (Kings and NEC)

5 Commentary on Sally Hunt's referendum Q&A s Introduction Sally Hunt has posted a set of Q&A s on UCU s website regarding the three questions in her referendum. This appears to be a continually developing document as members ask more questions. The paper below summarises on behalf of UCU Left some of our concerns and objections to key elements. UCU Left has called for a no vote in the referendum on the grounds that Congress delegates should decide such matters after full debate. From an organising to a servicing model of a trade union Sally Hunt s proposals betray her wish to move from an organising model, based on membership activity, to a servicing model. This is the fundamental issue which needs to be debated. It is not the model on which UCU was founded and which has contributed to a growing, healthy union at the forefront of collective action to defend education and our members pensions, pay, conditions and jobs. What is her proposed new package of employment and legal support? (Question 3). We are given no information on how it will be different from what the union already does. Is the proposal to fight more legal cases, employ more officials etc.? The General Secretary proposes to save around 600,000 over her term of office through reducing the size of the NEC and the number of subcommittees. 600,000 over five years is 120,000 per annum. This might provide funds for a few more legal cases or to employ one or two more regional officials. While such developments would be welcome, they would not radically transform the level of services UCU can provide for its members. But the cost to our democratic procedures, and our effectiveness as a union, would be incalculable. The size of the NEC (relating to question 5) The General Secretary wants to shrink the National Executive from 72 to a maximum of 40 and to redirect any savings to direct representation of members. The current size and composition of the NEC was carefully designed in 2006 when Natfhe and AUT merged to ensure that it was not dominated by any one sector of the union but would have representation from both pre and post-92 institutions in HE (where different conditions of service pertain), and from Further Education. It ensured that academic-related staff and those on casual contracts would be represented. Where is the Equality dimension in the GS s proposals? There is nothing in her proposals about: protecting the equality seats on the NEC;

6 ensuring that a minimum number of women NEC members are elected; ensuring that a minimum number of women national negotiators are elected, as provided for by present formulae for election of negotiators Why is Sally Hunt silent on these issues? Surely before members vote they need to know how a smaller NEC would be constituted and which seats discontinued? Will an Equality Impact Assessment be carried out? 1 What about sectoral representation? Again Sally Hunt is silent on the detail. If members vote yes, what are they voting for? What proportion of FE and HE places will there be on the NEC? Will the FE part of the NEC include a representative from prison educators or not? Will the HE part of the NEC include any representation of academic-related staff? Will the HE part of the NEC include any representation of members in post-92 HE? Will there be any post-92 national negotiators elected in HE? What about geographical and national representation? At present some NEC seats are elected on the basis of representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and some on the basis of geographical areas in England. This ensures that there are NEC members who relate to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies and that there is some geographical spread. This is sensible so that the NEC is not, for example, London-centric. It also makes it more practical for NEC members to report back to branches and regional committees. To start with an arbitrary figure of 40 for the NEC rather than starting with a debate on the pattern of representation needed could mean either geographical or UK-wide seats might disappear. The IFL ballot (question 9 on UCU s website) Sally Hunt refers to the IFL ballot. It is correct to state that the offer was put to a ballot of members with a recommendation from FEC to reject. Before this, however, the General Secretary wanted to put the deal to members with a recommendation to accept. This was overturned by the FEC. The members in the ballot supported the FEC recommendation to reject and to boycott the IfL, which continues, and which has delivered a victory in that it has forced an independent review of the IfL and professional representation in FE. The final offers issue: (question 14 on the website) The General Secretary s proposal says Where a majority of our negotiators believe employers have made an offer which will not be further improved through negotiation or without escalation of action, this will trigger a ballot of members. Currently such a decision is made by the relevant industrial committee of the NEC, either the Further Education Committee (FEC) or the Higher Education

7 Committee (HEC) depending on the sector, or delegated to the Strategy and Finance Committee if the dispute is cross-sectoral, as in the case of TPS. The union s industrial committees are in fact broader and more representative than the negotiators. The General Secretary s proposal actually makes any decision about what might constitute a final offer much less accountable and less democratic than the current situation. Currently, if the HEC or FEC consider that an offer really is a final offer then there would be a ballot of members. Under the General Secretary s proposal, however, it would be enough for a simple majority of the negotiators to decide that an offer is final for a ballot to be triggered with no reference back to the industrial committees of the union. In the current TPS dispute, for example, the General Secretary insisted that the government s offer on 19th December constituted a final offer and should be put to ballot. However, the majority of TPS members on the NEC, based upon their soundings in branches and regions, disagreed. Today s outcome of the TPS consultation, in which the NEC s call to reject the offer and strike on 28th March has been supported by large majorities, vindicates that view. The turnout, incidentally, was two to two and a half times that of the GS election. Had we balloted we would have paid tens of thousands of pounds to the Electoral Reform Society. Had members then voted to accept the offer Government would not have been forced to make the recent further final offer. Members do now have the right to vote on the final settlement of a dispute, but we need robust mechanisms, ie reference back to those representing branches, regions and other constituencies in the union the NEC members - for ensuring we have reached the final and best possible offer before putting it to a membership ballot. Why voting without prior debate or discussion is a pale imitation of democracy Members will be directly consulted about a final annual pay offer before the union holds a special conference (answer to question 3). Why before and not after? What is the problem with debate at a special conference? Calling votes without any prior discussion means that whoever writes the accompanying commentary can steer the vote in a particular direction. Voting in a trade union should be done after proper debate and consideration. The GS is proposing to end genuine debate and decision-making at sector conferences. How will directly elected negotiators be accountable? (Question 11) Will members have any right of recall? Who will these directly elected negotiators report to? Will they attend HEC/FEC or Sector Conference? (Incidentally this is an additional expense if they are not already members of these bodies.) What information will members have about candidates before electing them?

8 At sector conference candidates for lay negotiator provide a statement about their negotiating experience. Will this happen with lay negotiators elected from the general membership? What is the process for making changes to the UCU constitution? (Question 12) Sally Hunt writes I will then start work with the newly elected NEC and its Officers on urgent proposals for an NEC of no greater than 40. So Congress is being asked to vote on the size of the NEC and leave the composition to the NEC to work out. Why should Congress vote without knowing the detail? It seems that no discussion is contemplated at NEC or elsewhere in the union before the General Secretary proposes rule changes to Congress. Members should perhaps ask why the elected constitutional leadership bodies of the union are being marginalised. Congress is the supreme decision-making body of UCU and deserves to have the full details of any proposed changes before voting. That is the only way to have a meaningful and informed debate. What is the process for making changes to the UCU constitution? (Question 12)