1 / 13

Defend Jobs, Defend Education Compulsory redundancies - back on the agenda

Defend Jobs, Defend Education Compulsory redundancies - back on the agenda. Analysis by Malcolm Povey for UCU EGM 27 th January 2011. We face three ballots. Employment law has forced the union to run three separate ballots We understand this is confusing for members

rafe
Télécharger la présentation

Defend Jobs, Defend Education Compulsory redundancies - back on the agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Defend Jobs, Defend EducationCompulsory redundancies - back on the agenda Analysis by Malcolm Povey for UCU EGM 27th January 2011

  2. We face three ballots • Employment law has forced the union to run three separate ballots • We understand this is confusing for members • We face one single attack by government on our pay, conditions of service and jobs. • That means that we must run separate trades disputes over pensions and jobs.

  3. Decision of the UCU General Meeting of November 9th 2010 • “The LA notes proposals carried in Senate to restructure the Centre for Joint Honours (CJH). The paper contains no proposals for how the higher level administrative functions of the Centre are to be carried out. The obvious conclusion is that the work will simply be dumped on already overstretched staff in the Schools, while our members will be displaced from their jobs. The LA has twice requested further information from University management in the ESRG about this but the proposal to restructure was taken to Senate regardless of our concerns. The LA does not believe that there is a diminishing need for these jobs, for the most part Joint Honours programmes will continue to be delivered; current and prospective students will still need to be looked after. The LA calls on university management to redeploy our members into the relevant Schools. The LA resolves should this not happen that our members will not pick up the work of our colleagues in the CJH. Should the university management move to make our members redundant in CJH or any other part of the University, the LA will ballot for industrial action.”

  4. November Section 188 Letter The Notice of Redundancy was issued before the offer of MIS/PRT terms, contrary to our agrement. We are back to where we were last year.

  5. What the local dispute is about • This dispute is about the university breaching the agreement we made with them in March 2010 and placing more jobs at risk. • The university have failed to put the School Constitutions in place which were intended to ensure collegiality and academic freedom through the review process. • The university has introduced ‘Academic Activity Profiles’ which we view as a way of pre-selecting people for redundancy without consulting the union. • The university has introduced a total of 17 reviews when we had been informed that there would be seven. The ESRG process is a sham and the consultation is meaningless without the School Constitutions. The university has not implemented the agreed redeployment procedure for displaced members in FBS. • The university has refused to go to Acas arbitration. FUNDAMENTALLY THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT DEFENDING JOBS AND EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS AT LEEDS UNIVERSITY.

  6. What does the UCU want on behalf of its members? • Placement of all staff displaced during restructuring into posts at least of the same grade • Agreement and implementation of the School Constitutions which we agreed last March with the university and which are essential for proper consultation, collegiality and academic freedom • Abandonment of ‘Academic Activity Profiles’ • Removal from the review process of Physics, Chemistry, English, Student Services, School of Modern Languages and Cultures and Humanities • Agreement regarding fixed-term contract staff.

  7. Is a negotiated solution possible? • You can be assured that UCU will be engaging seriously with the university to reach a negotiated solution. Our priority is to protect members’ jobs without having to take industrial action if possible. • We will take up the VCs offer of high level talks without pre-conditions.

  8. Forms of industrial action authorised by ballot • In the event of a vote in favour of industrial action (strike action and/or action short of a strike), options relating to the timing and type of industrial action (continuous or discontinuous) to be used will be discussed by a General Meeting to which all UCU members will be invited.

  9. Calendar • Ballot opens 2nd Feb • Ballot closes 2nd March • Rallies and Meetings • Demonstration, Manchester – This Saturday, coach leaves Parkinson Steps at 9am • TUC National Demonstration – 26th March • Stop the racist EDL in Luton – 5th Feb • A People’s Convention – 12th Feb

  10. VOTE YES to defend pensions • Material detriment to existing members through higher contributions and a later retirement age • Closing access to final salary pension benefits for new entrants and those with career breaks or breaks in service, placing in jeopardy the long-term viability of the scheme as an attractive option for higher education staff • Ending the rights of members over 55 (and in some cases over 50) to receive a full pension if dismissed on grounds of redundancy.

  11. Major detriment • A lecturer already in the scheme on point 37 could expect to lose £122,000 over their retirement. A new entrant on the same point could lose £355,000 over their retirement. • The EPF has insisted on this package despite there being no evidence from the scheme that it needs it. • The statutory consultation talked of savings of 3.8%, but this does not include the savings to the scheme from increasing the Normal Pension Age in line with state pensions or the move to CPI (3.3%), or the future savings from the introduction of CARE (at least another 4%). • Further, evidence (provided but ignored) demonstrated that the changes to the scheme proposed by UCU, backed up by respected actuarial advice, were more than adequate to ensure the scheme remained viable. There has been an overwhelming rejection of the employers’ proposals by scheme members in two online ballots. So far, the EPF has shown no willingness to come back to the table to seek a negotiated settlement. • Your employer has also refused to put in place measures to compensate members for any detriment suffered as a result of implementing their proposals, such as amending their contracts to provide

  12. National Trade Dispute re Job Protection and Pay • Together let's fight the cuts • For the second year running, the university employers’ organisation has: • refused to negotiate a nationally agreed approach to improve job security and defend provision – tearing up University Employment Statutes • failed to address equality matters • offered a real-terms pay cut.

  13. University staff face the worst job cuts for a generation • Thousands of jobs have already gone in our sector. 40,000 more staff are at risk from government plans to make further cuts. As part of the national claim, we asked for talks aimed at agreeing national proposals to improve job security. For two years now, the employers have consistently refused to engage with us on this issue. • Fair treatment • The joint union claim also asked for action to improve the conditions of the lowest paid and most vulnerable staff, tackle the abuse of casual contracts and close the gender pay gap. The employers have refused to take any real action.

More Related