Gender Pay Gap – Joint Statement from the University of Bristol and Bristol UCU

The Gender Pay Gap

The University of Bristol and Bristol UCU are united in their commitment to eliminating the gender pay gap at the University. We acknowledge the importance of the Equal Pay Audits that have been undertaken since 2009; however, we have shared concerns about the pace with which changes are being made towards reducing the gender pay gap and agree that further action is required.

The University of Bristol and UCU recognise that, although the gender pay gap needs to be tackled across the whole of the University, there are a number of cultural, structural and policy issues which affect women academic staff in particular. For this reason, the University has agreed to engage in time-limited negotiations with UCU with a view to agreeing actions, including setting appropriate targets, to significantly reduce the gender pay gap among academic staff within three years. These negotiations will be completed by December 2018, and their agreed outcomes will form part of the University-wide Action Plan of the Gender Pay Gap Working Group.

The University of Bristol agrees to provide leadership across and within schools and to commit resources, support and guidance to achieve this objective. It will also ensure that the University’s strategic objectives include appropriate key performance indicators.

Both the University and UCU are committed to implementing a jointly agreed action plan, and to monitoring and reviewing that plan together regularly to ensure we achieve our shared objective of eliminating the gender pay gap among academic staff at the University of Bristol.


Latest Update – Gender Pay Claim Negotiations

We are hopeful that a Joint Statement of Intent agreed by UCU and the University of Bristol Management Team (UMT) will be formally signed off by UMT at their meeting on 24th September.

Assuming that statement is formally signed off, UCU obviously welcomes this. We will clearly be looking for actions that match the words.

We had very much hoped to be able to publish the Joint Statement of Intent ahead of our first negotiating meeting ‘proper’ on 11th September but, in part, due to a significant delay in receiving an initial response to UCU’s suggested wording, this has unfortunately not been possible.

UCU had made clear at preliminary meetings that we expected UMT representatives to engage with us in discussing the elements of the claim, as the University is claiming it is committed, at the very highest level, to addressing the issue of the Gender Pay Gap. We understood that this had been agreed. Deputy VC, Guy Orpen, and Director of HR, Claire Buchanan, were both scheduled to attend the negotiating meeting on 11th September, but both pulled out at a very late stage. This was disappointing.

The meeting went ahead, but without senior decision makers in the room, progress was limited. Discussion focussed mainly on the issues of Pathway 2, opportunities for progression, and support for movement between the pathways, and we pushed the point that a commitment of resources is needed to make an impact. The next negotiating meeting is on 3rd October, and we have been assured that the Director of HR will attend this time. We very much hope that the Deputy VC will also be able to attend future meetings, as he had initially indicated he would, as UCU considers that his involvement in this process is vital.

UCU notes Guy Orpen’s message to all staff on Gender Employment and Pay, and welcome the fact that it picks up on a number of the key aspects of UCU’s Gender Pay Gap Claim. We therefore look forward to agreeing targets and timescales on a range of the proposed actions he included in his message, for example:

  • Reviewing how we recognise achievements in research, teaching, leadership and citizenship for academic progression and promotion.
  • Continuing our work to update the promotions and progression process, including the movement up and between pathways and the criteria for promotion

An important date for your diaries

The 1st of November is a very significant date; it’s the date on which the University effectively stops paying women, as a result of the 16.2% gender pay gap across the institution as a whole. We will be marking the occasion with an evening event celebrating women working at the University. Watch out for further details.

JEP, Consultation and Contingent Contributions – USS Update

September, 2018

UCU and USS members await the publication of the Joint Evaluation Panel (JEP) report at the end of September.

The JEP is charged with examining the contested USS valuation and the alleged £7.5 billion deficit, the main driver for current detrimental proposals to our USS pension benefits and contributions.

UCU’s position is clear: we reject the unduly pessimistic way in which USS has chosen to measure the health of the scheme. In our view the 2017 valuation is flawed, particularly when, according to First Actuarial, ‘on best estimate assumptions, we estimate the surplus in the USS could be well in excess of £10bn’.

USS Members will have also received a letter and document notifying them of the USS Employer Consultation (‘Notice of Statutory Consultation by Employers in Relation to USS’), and inviting them to respond. ‘This is your opportunity to tell us your thoughts on the proposals’. Further information can be found here:  

The Consultation documents summarise the cost-sharing proposals made by the USS trustees because of UCU and Universities UK ‘not reaching a decision on benefit and/or contribution changes’. These cost-sharing proposals, which are intended to kick in in April 2019, will see individual scheme members’ contributions increase from 8 to 8.8% and employer contributions to raise from 18% to 19.5% of salary. Further rises would follow, with employee contributions reaching 11.7% by April 2020.

These changes are not welcomed by UCU, except to note that members’ current DB benefits package is preserved by these cost-sharing changes, a state of affairs secured by our highly effective industrial action this year.

Please note: the April 2019 proposals are subject to change. Following the publication of the JEP report, as made clear in the Consultation document, ‘the JNC may propose changes to benefits and/or contributions’. With the JEP report, a new USS deal is expected to be struck.

The Consultation encourages members to share their thoughts on these changes as well as on the removal of the ‘employer match’ of the defined contribution element of USS.

For UCU, ‘the decision of USS to press ahead with this consultation even though the report from the JEP is imminent is unfortunate, not least because it will create confusion among members and employers’. UCU suggest members may wish to make the following points in their responses to the Consultation:

  • You highly value the current benefits package, support the retention of the defined (ie. guaranteed) pension and believe that USS is an important part of the recruitment and retention package for universities
  • The 2017 valuation is contested and is currently the subject of a report from the joint expert panel (JEP). You expect USS to engage seriously with any recommendations made by the JEP
  • Because the 2017 valuation is contested, and the JEP is yet to report, you do not consider the case has yet been made for even relatively minor changes in benefits such as the withdrawal of the match payment
  • You believe that serious engagement by USS with the work of the JEP is key to improving confidence in the scheme among members

If they were ever implemented in full, the cost sharing proposals would lead to significant hardship for many scheme members such as the low paid or those without contract security.

Members may also be interested in Sheffield UCU’s advice to members if they wish to register more of a protest:

This notes, amongst other points, the case for increased contributions has not been made, that the now widely ridiculed employers’ consultation of last year should be rerun, ‘the poor judgement of the trustee and its executive has been a major factor in avoidable industrial action in #HE’ and that USS should be transparent with regard to its conduct of valuations.

Of note is that the University of Bristol has made several sensible and helpful suggestions in this latest round of discussion and consultation with UCU, JEP and other USS-related bodies. These include an appetite to revisit last year’s valuation, to review the level of support USS institutions are willing to show towards USS (the employers’ covenant) and to make meaningful contingent payments in the event of deterioration in the scheme funding position, over a longer period than had been indicated during the initial USS consultation which fed into the 2017 valuation.

The University of Bristol’s submission to the Joint Expert Panel included a willingness ‘…to extend the period [of contingent contributions] from 20 years to 30 years’; were this commitment taken up across the sector, it would make a substantial contribution to increasing the scheme’s ability to rely on the employer covenant, reducing the need for de-risking of the investment portfolio and thus reducing, or eliminating altogether, the measured deficit.

‘Power needs to move..’: University of Bristol Governance, Decision-Making and Legitimacy

The recent industrial action has highlighted and exacerbated longstanding concerns amongst staff about university governance.

This was one of strands of our Bristol UCU branch conference in early June. The central problems are a lack of democratic legitimacy in decision-making compounded by a lack of transparency about the information, especially financial information, that underpins decision-making. We need a more democratic mode of governance that better reflects our values as a university community.

Decision-making is currently too centralised. Power needs to move away from the centre, and towards staff. A more devolved approach to governance is needed., This will require both structural and cultural change. If ,however, we are to learn the lessons of the dispute, and to move on as a university, such change is essential. It will not be accomplished overnight, but we outline below some concrete steps designed to initiate the process of discussing and achieving better governance at Bristol.

Potential Ways Forward

  • Review of governance by group of staff and students, including representatives of trade unions and early career academics, to report end of 2018

The group could consider (along with submissions from staff) the following set of proposals Board of Trustees

  • Elected element needs to be restored incorporating provision for gender balance
    taff presence should include some designated representation from union officers


  • Greater diversity in lay membership: certain kinds of private sector experience, especially financial services, are currently over-represented


  • Mayoral/City nominee to Board of Trustees: despite presence of various local bodies in make up of Court, this does not necessarily create a strong link between the university and the city within the Board of Trustees


  • Staff and Student representation on the Remuneration Committee – the recent Halpin Review at Bath proposes this, and it would be best practice.


  • Improved communication from Board of Trustees to university community


  • Senate should be strengthened, and better supported to do its essential work


  • An elected chair of Senate


  • A return to Senate determining the order of business, and which items are to be prioritised for discussion


  • Greater transparency in financial data provided to Senate


Representation for professional services staff. Professional services staff have experienced a wave of restructurings in recent years yet lack any form of representation akin to Senate for academic staff. We note that the Halpin Review of Bath floats the possibility of a Senate-like body for professional services staff. There is certainly a deeply felt need to address the lack of voice and representation for professional service staff across the University.

Workload Principles for a Common Approach

This Bristol UCU paper/blog post provides 11 principles to guide academic workload modelling across the University of Bristol.

With very few exceptions, academic Schools now use an explicit, formal workload model. There are commonalities across these, but also differences. It is rare that there is one model in a Faculty. Yet important workforce planning occurs at the Faculty level, without any real sense of how workload varies between Schools. At university level, decisions are similarly made about the allocation of posts without a real sense of comparative workload between Faculties and Schools.

While Bristol UCU welcomes increased attention to Staff Student Ratios (SSRs) in recent years, these do not provide an adequate proxy, given that different subjects have differing requirements. It is hard to understand how the Establishment Review Group can proceed, other than by induction from past patterns, given the lack of robust data on workload. Attention to Russell Group median SSRs is positive in that it has brought resource to hard-pressed departments, but better modelling of workload remains essential.

From a university perspective, closing the gaps in workload model provision, and establishing common principles for workload modelling can inform good workforce planning. From a Bristol UCU perspective, a common approach is equally required. All Pathway 1 staff need time to produce research; all pathway 3 staff need time to do scholarship. Staff are assessed against a common set of university criteria for promotion and progression. Natural justice and the ambitions of the university’s Vision and Strategy likewise point to common standards (eg 40:40:20) that should apply across all six Faculties. Common principles in workload modelling will enable the university to identify areas where workloads preclude staff spending appropriate amounts of time on research and/or scholarship. If done realistically, it will also enable an informed critique of existing structures and processes based on a serious reckoning of the time spent on various managerial and administrative tasks.

These points are not new. What has hampered discussion in the past, however, is framing the issue in terms of a ‘single workload model’. This terminology is unhelpfully ambiguous, and immediately creates understandable concerns about the implementation of a ‘one size fits all’ solution. We need to distinguish between a common platform, common principles, and a common model. If common model refers to a single set of items with precisely the same weighting applied across all subjects, there are good reasons to reject this. There are real differences between PhD supervision in the Arts and PhD supervision within a research group in the hard sciences, not least in terms of the relationship between the PhD supervisor’s own research and that of the PhD student. This is why workload models in the Arts tend to weigh PhD supervising more heavily than those in the Sciences. A common platform, such as the software Simitive provide, allows considerable flexibility in modelling. Currently, our luxurious variety of workload models largely sit on a common platform, namely Microsoft Excel. A common platform has no necessary implications for how modelling works.

Objections to a common model do not, however, hold for common principles of modelling. There are, for instance, very good reasons to use hours (or hours translated into credits as a means of turning 4 digit into 3 digit numbers) rather than to use a % model, as the latter says nothing about the actual or relative volume of work. This paper sets out a set of common principles that should inform workload modelling across the University of Bristol. The paper is informed by hundreds of conversations with academics across the University about workload and workload modelling, by a review of (anonymised) data from several of the workload models currently in use, and by UCU’s national work on best practice in workload modelling.

Common Principles

1. Workload models should measure time.

Time is what a workload model measures, not money. The weighting attached to tasks should be solely derived from the time taken to accomplish them. A good model does not ‘incentivise’ behaviours by weighing some tasks more heavily than others, regardless of the relative time required to complete them, on the grounds that some tasks are more profitable than others. We should not, for instance, weigh research less heavily within a model as it is less lucrative than teaching overseas students. This principle needs to be consistently upheld in modelling.

2. The currency of the model should be hours not percentages.

As noted above, models based on percentages simply fail to deliver key requirements of a workload model.

3. The hours assigned to tasks should be realistic.

Some workload models currently in use at Bristol do not adequately reflect the realities of work. This is evident, for example, in the time allocated for marking, which often does not align with pressures to provide better feedback for students. It is, of course, the case that individual academics even in the same subject area will vary in the time needed to perform certain tasks. Hours allocated should reflect the time needed for a competent member of staff do the task properly. This is best determined through discussion with staff. This approach is both rooted in the reality of how long work takes while also providing a useful yardstick to staff: if the marking is taking much less time than the model suggests (not in practice a common experience!) you are probably not doing it properly; if it is taking far longer, you may be providing more feedback than is actually useful to a student.

4. The aim is to capture the full workload.

A model that undercounts workload is not a good workload model. As well as realistically modelling time required to perform a given duty, the model should seek to capture the full range of duties, including research and scholarship. This does not mean that a model should seek or claim to be exhaustive: some important aspects of academic life, such as a student coming to see a member of staff outside consultation hours, cannot be predicted in advance, and the costs of monitoring this activity would be both prohibitive and undesirable. The workload model should include an allowance for this unscheduled activity of at least 160 hours per annum.

5. The workload model should be developed to the highest standards of EDI.

Staff often note the tendency of WLMs to undercount the time involved in certain activities: teaching; teaching management; personal tutoring. By contrast some work is rarely undercounted – consultation with staff suggests research management roles are usually appropriately weighted. There is here a gendered pattern: roles that are under-counted are those disproportionately undertaken by women. In building a WLM, robust scrutiny of both the categories adopted and the tariffs included from an EDI perspective is essential. This is itself an argument in favour of more comprehensive approach rather than heavily trading off comprehensiveness in favour of simplicity: adopting the latter strategy is more likely to undercount women’s work, and hence to perpetuate inequality and injustice.

6. The workload model should be transparent and shared amongst those whose workload it captures.

There is already some good practice at the University of workload data being shared at School level and made available to all those whose workload is included in the model. Where this has happened, the experience has been positive: the capacity to see the workloads of others in the School has driven up the quality of information in the model, made for greater equity in workloads, and reduced (at least somewhat!) ill-informed comment upon the workloads of others.

7. The details of costings (eg how many hours does it take to supervise a PhD student in Chemistry?) should be built from ‘the bottom up’ through discussion amongst staff in the relevant unit.

8. There should be a single model at an appropriate level of unit, which will be at least that of the School, but would better be that of the Faculty.

There should be a single model in a School, rather than multiple models. It is, though, both possible and preferable to have a single model across a Faculty. This does not mean, for instance, that there is no scope for acknowledging particular unit types that require additional teaching; this already happens where there is a Faculty-wide model (eg Arts). Given the role that Faculties play in determining staffing levels, a single model per Faculty would be the ideal. The fact that at least one Faculty (Arts), and a very diverse Faculty at that (consider the differences between Spanish, Philosophy, and Film) has implemented a single model gives the lie to claims that this is impossible. It might be that the model, even within a single School, weighs the same task differently: it might, for instance, be the case that within the School of Geographical Sciences some PhD supervision conforms to an ‘Arts’ mode, some a ‘Science’ mode; the model should recognise that difference. Any such Faculty-wide model would be derived through principle 7.

9. Models should explicitly include time for research (P1 and P2) and for scholarship/pedagogy (P3) in accordance with contractual expectations.

All P1 staff regardless of Faculty are expected to conduct research. Workload models across all Faculties and Schools for P1 staff should include hours for research that reflect these contractual demands. This is likely to be of the order of 40% (ie c. 600 hours), given the ambitions of the University’s strategy for research, and should be similar regardless of School/Faculty. All P3 staff are expected to pursue scholarship/pedagogy, and hours in WLMs should reflect this. This is likely to be in the order of 30% (ie c. 450 hour), given the contractual demands on such staff, and the ambitions of the University’s strategy for educational innovation.

10. Core research time should be treated as a single block of time.

Some existing models (eg Arts) largely treat core research time for staff as a single block. Others (eg SPS) build up core research time from specific tasks (eg writing a grant proposal; writing a paper for a journal). While the latter approach is appropriate to understanding the time involved in teaching and management work, the former better reflects the autonomy, and flexibility, inherent in academic research. It also reduces the set up and maintenance costs of running a WLM.

11. Buy out for research should not be secured by reducing research time for others.

Many of the most difficult conversations around workload modelling concern buy out, usually for research, of staff time, and how this should be accounted for in the model. External grants are only one source of money for research and are not a meaningful proxy for the quality or quantity of research undertaken by either an individual or a group. There is wide variance in the significance of research grants as a funding stream across different disciplines within the university. Core research time should not be restricted to those with active grants. It may, however, be appropriate to award grant holders additional research time beyond core time, as long as this does not drive up the workload of others to levels where ‘real’ research time is reduced below the level set out by the ‘core’ research tariff.

Report on UCU Congress 2018 – Bristol UCU Delegates

It would be safe to describe Congress 2018 as eventful.

It has already been much discussed (not always accurately) on social media and has received some coverage in the press. It is not easy to describe: much happened; some things that were supposed to happen did not happen; procedural expertise was sorely tested.

Congress 2018 was unable to complete its business. Considerable time was lost on the first and third days. The nub of the controversy concerned two motions: one calling for the resignation of the General Secretary Sally Hunt; the other for her censure. Those branches bringing the motions were understandably determined that motions passed by their branch meetings be discussed by Congress.

The staff of the union, who are members of the UNITE union, deemed the motions an infringement of the employment rights of the General Secretary on the grounds that the General Secretary is employed by the National Executive Committee not Congress, and that due process for making a complaint about her conduct had not been followed. The staff exercised their rights as trade unionists and withdrew their labour leading to the suspension of Congress.

Considerable business was, nonetheless, conducted, particularly in the Higher Education Sector Conference on the second day. Many motions were concerned with the USS dispute. Congress collectively was keen to establish ‘red lines’ on what would constitute an acceptable outcome of the Joint Expert Panel, to create special machinery – the calling of Higher Education Special Conferences; the creation of a National Dispute Committee to oversee national negotiators, separate and distinct from our existing Higher Education Committee – to consider its results – and to determine next steps, and to publicise as widely as possible its workings.

It might be best to describe this as an interim report, as a motion was passed authorising a special one-day conference to undertake the unfinished business of Congress, including the two motions that proved especially controversial.

The dispute over the two motions concerning the General Secretary led to a number of votes as to whether Congress should debate those motions or not. In these instances, we – along with many though not a majority of delegates – voted not to debate those motions. Our view was that constitutionally Congress is a policy-making forum, not a body that passes judgment on the conduct and integrity of other parts of the democratic machinery of the union, whether that be the General Secretary or, for example, the National Executive Committee. We also wished to ensure there was an opportunity to discuss the many important policy motions, not least on equality issues, brought to Congress that were not in the end discussed.

This was a disappointing Congress in terms of its formal business. We, like many other delegates, wished to celebrate the great collective action in which we all participated, and to shape future policy for an enlarged and reinvigorated Union to address fundamental questions, such as eliminating the gender pay gap. There were some excellent fringe meetings on, for example, governance and precarious work, where we had discussions we hope to build on in our forthcoming branch conference. It was heartening to hear in conversations with other large branches of their successes during and after the strike, and to make valuable connections.

Regardless of the debates at Congress, we remain committed to local action on such issues as gender pay equality, mental health issues for staff and students, and casualisation of employment. We will be holding a conference next week to address these and other pressing matters. We hope you will all attend to voice your views.

James Thompson
Tracey Hooper
Suzy Cheeke

Whither Bristol UCU – Let’s Be Bold

Dear Colleagues

So we finally have the outcome of the consultative ballot. Personally, it’s felt like a very long and difficult 10 days. There has been so much debate and discussion over social media, some of it unpleasant, that it’s been difficult to remain positive, and the memories of the remarkable achievements gained during our extraordinary strike action have dimmed somewhat.

Well, now is the time to restore those memories and build on our successes … that first rally and march to Wills … the student occupation … Hugh Brady listening to Josie McLellan speak on the steps of Senate House ….the International Women’s Day event to celebrate the submission of the gender pay claim… HUGE membership increases … and we now have a group of fantastically active reps. We have a lot to be proud of. Our branch has gone from strength to strength, and will continue to do so with your help.

We now need to put our trust in our national negotiating team and let them do their work with the Joint Expert Panel. I have known Sally Hunt and Paul Bridge for many years and am confident that they, alongside our elected member negotiators, will continue to work towards obtaining the assurances desired by many of those who voted against the proposals. If the outcome of the panel is not to our liking then we know (and they now know) that UCU members will not be walked over – we will come out fighting again in defence of a decent pension. We should take ownership and be proud of what we have achieved through our collective strength nationally; we have utterly transformed the situation from that first cold morning on 22nd February, and we must remain vigilant to see these gains are not lost.

Locally, the result of the ballot means the suspension of strike action and action short of a strike. But remember, we are not the union or the staff members that we were back at the end of February: we are transformed. Now, we are powerful, we are strong, we are unified; we ARE the University and we will make change happen.

Speaking frankly, I think the university we work for now doesn’t deserve all that we have given it. I urge everyone to stick to working reasonable hours, to put a lunch hour in your calendar and a time when you’re going home, use your annual leave. If we all do it (and why don’t you agree within your School or Division that you will all do it) then the University will soon see that their workload models don’t work, that it’s impossible to meet the demands of our roles. We know that workload models have a huge impact on our casualised staff as their pay multipliers are based on miserly preparation and assessment rates drawn from the models. Saying no will help them too.

This week, the issue of Easter 2019 and term dates has demonstrated once again how staff continue to be seen as a resource to be deployed as and when required, with decisions that have a huge impact on hundreds of staff members – and their families – being taken by a single committee. This has to stop and we must be deeply involved in changing the way decisions that affect us are made. No more human capital.

I could make a very long list of the things we need to change but won’t – for now. Here are just some of the things your Branch Officers are working on that will need your support in the coming months:

  • We submitted our gender pay claim on 8 March to demand that the UMT commit to closing the gender pay gap within three years. We have now assembled our local negotiating team, and we will need your help to push for our demands to become a reality.
  • We are planning our first workload survey in a School, to provide us with the evidence to insist that over-work, and its resulting stress, are health and safety issues that cannot be ignored.
  • We are still involved in the ongoing promotion and progression discussions.
  • We continue to support the many Professional Services restructures.
  • We are planning to hold a Bristol UCU conference before the end of term where we can define our priorities and demands and agree how and who will take these forward – this must include how we are governed.
  • We also plan to hold a lunch time event on May Day to mark International Workers’ Day.
  • As well as all of this, we continue to undertake individual and group casework to support our members.

Finally, a reminder that we have our AGM on Wednesday 9 May. This is where we elect our officers and Executive – we are always keen to have new people on board to please do get in touch if you’d like to find out more. Sally Hunt will also be speaking.

As we enter a new phase – let’s be bold. Unity is our strength.

With best wishes


USS Strikes and Brexit

The current wave of industrial action, in which academics across the UK’s higher education sector are striking in order to defend their pensions, has, to use the words of our Vice Chancellor, acted as ‘a lightning rod’, exposing a range of concerns around the ‘marketization of higher education’. It has shown that academic citizenship and engagement is alive and well. Colleagues care intensely about the direction of travel in universities and are resistant to commodification, in its many guises.

The UCU, in particular the Bristol branch, has done fantastic work. Many students have made common cause with academics and members of support staff, creating new spaces for collegiality and solidarity. This feels like an important moment. Senior management must respond to the concerns which are being aired, and support the creation of appropriate democratic forums which allow universities better to reflect the views (and there is no doubt that those views will be some or all of the following: inchoate, based on partial understandings and information, mutual incompatible, and impractical) of those who work and study within them.

The dispute has also seen an outpouring of creativity. All the evidence suggests that the university staff is overworked. When we have time on their hands the results are both unexpected and impressive. Within the Law School alone, we have made banners, composed limericks, made cakes, brownies and industrial quantities of sausages, arranged teach-outs, and participation in the student-staff solidarity group. We have marched, picketed, chanted, and made lots of noise with repurposed kitchen equipment. We have explored the legal status of UUK, and sought to inform ourselves and others about the powers and responsibilities of the USS trustees and the pensions regulator. Emails threads have become long and unwieldy. We have lobbied the VC, UUK, students and alumni, engaged in new ways with the UCU, and sought to reach out to non-striking staff.

On a more personal note, I have, rather glibly, said on more than one occasion that one of the unexpected benefits of the strike is that it has allowed me to spend some time thinking about things other than Brexit. But, on reflection, and to judge by the length of this, it is more true to say that the USS strikes have allowed me to see the Brexit process through a new lens. There are, it turns out, all too many connections between the two battles (the one, to defend fair pensions; the other, to shape and prevent and/or attenuate the adverse economic and socio-political effects of Brexit). Some are significant, others no doubt less so. As I’m not working today, I thought I’d compile a few of them. I’m hoping to generate some pause for thought and, perhaps, to entertain. The register is, but only in places, somewhere close to academic. But it is a strike day, and I don’t feel the need to maintain that register throughout. Obviously these are personal reflections. I would be very interested to hear what, if anything, others think of all this.

The rightness of the cause

In both battles, I, and many others, have become convinced of the rightness of our cause. We can see the flaws in the November valuation and the assumptions on which it was based, we can see the need for employers and employees to share the risks inherent in pensions provision, we can see the fact that actions of senior management and the government are jeopardising the standing of higher education in a time of crisis, and we can see the need to democratise our universities. Similarly, we can see the economic consequences of Brexit, we can see the incompetence and abdication of responsibility on the part of the government, we can see the intolerable strain facing EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU-27, and we can see the need to strengthen, not to sever, our connections with our neighbours. We are finding it difficult to understand how there could be some (within our own institutions, and among our fellow citizens) who take the different view. We know that they are there, and that they exist in large numbers, and in powerful positions. One response is to pretend that they are not really there. Another is to mock and sneer. The result is that positions become entrenched and that much needed dialogue does not occur. We must learn to do things differently. The key is to explain the reasons underlying our convictions. The aim should be to persuade others of the rightness of our cause. To show, in detail if needed, what the consequences of particular changes might be. To make a case for the sort of university, and the sort of country, we believe in. As academics, we should be good at this sort of thing. Shouldn’t we?

Economic Data

Both battles rely on complex economic calculations. Much of the data required to analyse the effects of changes to pension schemes, and the economic effects of a major change in the relationship between the UK and its closest partners, lies in the hands of those whose decisions and policies we are fighting against. Some is withheld; so the data which does emerge is partial. Nevertheless, in both battles, we have fought, using legal and other means, to uncover information (for example, institutional responses to the UUK consultation survey, and the Brexit impact assessments). We have shared the information we have unearthed widely. That work is crucial, and it has revealed much about the way in which the other thinks and acts. We have also made our own studies of the likely effects of change, which have been shown to be robust. And, to reinforce the sense of rightness mentioned above, we have seen that the evidence all points the same way. It says that the UUK could and should have provided university staff with a significantly better pensions offer, and that Brexit will have significant, negative economic effects.

The need for clear narratives

Clear narratives are effective. The Leave campaign was critical of the status quo, and, throughout the referendum campaign, was not forced to articulate any ‘vision’ of what a post-Brexit Britain might look like, or to indicate how improvements to the status quo might come about. Supporters with mutually incompatible visions of post-Brexit Britain campaigned together. Similarly, the UCU found it easy to create support for a strike. The deal based on the November valuation was the last in a long line of negative changes to our pensions, it would have huge economic effects (especially on younger staff), and was driven by Vice Chancellors and UUK, whose commitment to universities’ ‘human capital’ is, at best, unproven.

Achieving Brexit has, of course, proved to be rather more difficult than many leavers were pretending before the referendum. In the wake of the referendum, and the triggering of Article 50, there have also been tensions among ‘remainers’. There are splits between those seeking to stop Brexit, and those seeking to attenuate its effects. Some Brexits may be better than others; and there are different views on the acceptability of a ‘soft Brexit’. There are, it seems to me, some lessons here for the UCU campaign. We all want to see a fair pensions offer, but what would we be prepared to accept? Is CDC a viable way forward, or do we insist on DB? What about accrual rates and indexation? What changes to UUK and USS governance will we settle for? And how many other ‘marketisation’ issues are now part and parcel of the dispute? I am not meaning to suggest that these questions are as intractable as, for example, those facing Theresa May in relation to Ireland (it is, unicorn technology notwithstanding, impossible to simultaneously leave the customs union and single market, avoid a border in Ireland, and avoid a border across the Irish Sea). But I do think that the juxtaposition between Brexit and the USS dispute is interesting. The UCU is facing a difficult situation; and it can perhaps learn something by doing many of the things our government has failed to do in relation to Brexit. It should acknowledge and reconcile itself to the fact that members’ views will diverge. The nature of the choices and trade-offs ahead should be clearly signposted. And decisions should be made in an inclusive way, ensuring that dissenting voices are heard. Whether either the UCU, or those opposing Brexit, can coalesce around a clear narrative in the days, week and months ahead, may be one of the key questions which ends up deciding the way in which the battles are settled.


There is a lot of nonsense written about negotiations. Rather unsurprisingly, there are similarities and differences between the two sets of negotiations. Here are some.

In both negotiations, there is an ongoing relationship at stake. We will, on Monday, be back at work. The UK, whilst leaving the EU, is determined to have a(n albeit hollow) deep and special relationship with the EU. No deal is, therefore, not an option. What matters are the default rules. In both cases, they are rather complex. Contrary to what many suppose, the UK, in the event of ‘no deal’ in March 2019, will not just emerge, blinking into the light, ‘subject to WTO rules’. Some sort of deal has to be done in order to enable even that to occur. In the case of the strikes, many have assumed that in the event of ‘no deal’, we go back to the November valuation, and that there is insufficient time (before the June deadline) to make changes. But, this point is contested; many VCs (including Hugh Brady) have disowned the November methodology, and in any case (as I understand it) enforcement of the statutory June deadline by the Pensions Regulator, is, ultimately, discretionary. We need to study the default rules closely. They have or should have, a big impact on the negotiating position of each side.

In both negotiations, institutions matter. The relationship between the EU Commission (charged, on the basis of a tightly drawn, regularly revised, mandate, with conducting the detailed negotiations with the UK) and the EU-27 is, I think, a good model to follow. It makes the ‘divide and rule’ approach, so trumpeted by the UK, almost impossible. The UK’s approach, in which the government has sought to minimise the role of Parliament and the devolved administrations, and in which discussion even within Cabinet (one Chequers away-day notwithstanding) is tightly circumscribed, is I think, better avoided. The idea that showing one’s hand is a sign of weakness has been thoroughly debunked (these negotiations are not, in turns out, just like games of poker). Turning to the USS dispute, UUK has lost of the support of many of its VCs. It is unclear that UUK has a mandate to agree to anything. ‘Divide and rule’ is, in this context, easy. One urgent concern is that UCU must find a structure which enables the national leadership to take into proper account the opinions of its members. This may be difficult to achieve within the constraints agreed at ACAS, but it should be an urgent priority. Openness and transparency are important; but it is important for members to recognise that ‘red lines’ will be blurred, or crossed, by our negotiators in pursuit of agreement.

As hinted above, leverage also matters. The UK government used to trumpet ‘they need us more than we need them’ regularly, and some (including within Government) still appear to believe this to be the case. In fact, the preservation and integrity of the single market are rather more important to the EU than the maintenance of tariff free trade with the UK. The UK is more exposed to the EU than the EU is to the UK. The Article 50 process is designed to make life difficult for withdrawing states. The clock is ticking. And the EU knows that the UK cannot, notwithstanding the views of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries, countenance the possibility of ‘no deal’. In the pensions dispute context, university staff have considerable leverage over Vice Chancellors. The strike hurts universities. Important work is left undone. Students can (and do) complain vociferously. But, of course, the strike also hurts university staff, and there is something about the employment relationship and the framework of legislation circumscribing the use of strike action, which means that VCs also have considerable leverage over university staff.1

Planning is also important. It is well documented that the EU side is rather better prepared than the UK. It has published position papers, and a full legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement. The UK has not provided a coherent response. The agenda has been set by the EU, which is in a position to dictate terms. The position is simple; you stay in, you take a Norway (or Norway-type) deal, or you accept a Canada (or Canada-type) deal. No cherry-picking. Tell us what you prefer, and we will plan accordingly. The UK’s problem is that none of these outcomes is thought to command public support. We still don’t know what the Government’s preferred arrangement is. And the clock is still ticking. I am not sure that we can be reassured by the fact that we have yet to show our hand. In the USS dispute, it is not clear to me how much detailed planning has been done by either side. We know that many universities responded to UUK’s survey in a rather cavalier way. I’m afraid that I don’t know much at all about the background to the September and November valuations, and the ways in which they were arrived at. Looking forward, we do not know much about the existence or location of the ‘red lines’ of any of the key players (these include the UCU, UUK, individual VCs, the USS trustees, and the Pensions Regulator) and so it is difficult to know how they might intersect. We know that VCs are unhappy with both the November valuation, and this week’s deal. We know that UUK and UCU might be willing to concede some ground. Likewise, UUK know that we will return to work. They know that we know that pensions are under strain, and that there are genuine questions relating to affordability in the pensions context.


Both battles are complex. Both are conducted, as indicated above, under time pressure. The Article 50 clock is ticking. The June deadline for the Pensions Regulator is approaching even more quickly. The response, in both cases, has been to accept a period of transition. There are disputes relating to the length of the transition period, and indeed, in relation to its very purpose. Brexit transition was, when first mooted, said to be necessary to enable Member States, people and businesses to make plans and adjust to the new regime. Before long, it was said to be necessary in order to allow time for discussions on the new regime to conclude. ‘Conclude’ is now becoming ‘commence’. There is even doubt as to whether the transition period will be able to last until the new relationship is agreed. If it does not, or even if there are hints that it might not, I fail to see how it can serve any useful purpose, or what reassurance it can offer to anyone. As regards the substance of the transition arrangement, nothing very different to the status quo is on offer. In relation to the USS dispute, the statutory framework sets up a three year cycle. There is growing agreement that the urgent task facing the UCU and UUK is to agree a ‘quick fix’ solution, so that the Pensions Regulator can approve the scheme in June. Complex questions can be parked until next time. There is now set to be a battle in relation to the terms of transition; in particular given the vocal opposition of so many to the ‘status quo’ November valuation. Both sides seem to recognise that positions accepted at this point, even if only for a short transitional period, may be difficult to reverse. The instinct that the transition arrangement will become the default position for the next round of negotiations seems to me to be right.

The scope of the battle

Battles about one thing (staff pensions; and whether and how to leave the EU) can easily morph into battles about other things. The pensions dispute has been a ‘lightning rod’ and has brought a whole range of issues around marketization, equality, casualization and university governance to the fore. Likewise, Brexit has heralded a renewed interest in the ‘left behind’, and the UK’s standing in the world. It strikes me that the pensions dispute cannot be solved unless the solution reaches far beyond pensions. Similarly, the UK government faces not only the mammoth task of settling the withdrawal from, and the establishment of a new relationship with, the EU, but also the [insert larger animal than a mammoth, here] task of healing the social divisions and inequality which the Brexit vote has revealed. And it is interesting (if, I’m afraid, unsurprising) that the biggest losers in both battles are the already disadvantaged. I read a suggestion today that UCU had not considered the equalities dimensions of this week’s deal. Please tell me that isn’t true…

Decisions have to be made, on each side of the argument, about whether to choose to contain the dispute, or to let it grow to encompass other related issues. I am not sure what the best approach is. I am clear that there are links, and that ‘the Brexit vote’ and ‘the pensions strike’ are, for some at least, proxies for other, bigger battles. I guess I just think that we should reflect on whether and when we want a broad or a more narrow focus. Our meetings this week have suggested that there are, unsurprisingly, a range of views.

Playing the man, the ball, or both?

Both battles have become multi-dimensional. Yes, there is a great deal of detail, and painstaking, economic argument. There are valiant attempts to place Brexit, and the USS dispute in broad theoretical landscapes. But there are also personal attacks. We have heard a lot about pornstar martinis, ‘shady Brady’, and the remuneration of VCs and USS staff. We have also heard a lot about the tax affairs of the Eton-educated David Cameron, Boris Johnson, and Jacob Rees Mogg, and seen the ‘bad boys of Brexit’ exposed. They are, it has to be said, easy targets. I find it difficult to avoid playing the man; but do wonder whether it risks being counter-productive. It is not, I think, the way to change minds, and it makes future relationships more difficult. On the other hand, it may help with regard to the next point…


Both battles require a wide support base. I concur with the view that political opinion on Brexit would have to shift dramatically in order for some of the available legal routes, which might enable Brexit to be stopped or delayed, to be used. Were opinion polls to be registering a 60/40 split in favour of remain (instead of the current figure, which is (ironically; well, for Alanis) 52/48 in favour of remain), we might see very different political constellations emerging. There are some key figures who might tip the balance. Just as Boris Johnson was significant during the referendum campaign, it may be that it will be Jeremy Corbyn whose moves become decisive in the months ahead. Similarly, there is no doubt that the dynamic of the USS dispute was changed by the fact that the UCU campaign attracted high profile support, both among the majority of students (whose support we should never devalue) and a raft of politicians, newspapers, and other opinion formers. Moreover, we obtained the support of many VCs, undermining the UUK position. But, there is now a risk that some of the UCU’s support may be beginning to wane. The news coverage of the rejection of this week’s deal was mixed, and there are reports that some striking staff have returned to work. Maintaining student support is key; we should endeavour to engage directly with students, both about the causes of the dispute, and about arrangements (which will be difficult to formulate) to ensure that they do not suffer adverse consequences in their assessments. In addition, it is important to maintain the pressure on VCs (and in particular those who look like they have the potential to make the ‘Johnson/Corbyn’ moves), and seek to convince more academic staff to participate in the action.

Any strategy relies on a range of approaches. The case against Brexit involves groups within the major political parties making common cause (for example coordinating their efforts in tabling amendments to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill), and the mobilisation of young and new voters. It involves making arguments which might appeal to those who have voted leave (though the polling rather suggests that their views have been entrenched). It involves an array of campaigns: on doorsteps, in the media, and on social media. In the USS dispute, there are again, a range of tools at our disposal, and a range of constituencies to try to convince. In my view there is space for strike action, for militant activism, for petitions, and for letters and communications to VCs and students setting out both individual and coordinated views about various aspects of the dispute. As an aside, I confess to finding it difficult to understand the way in which ‘converts’ are treated. Leavers disenchanted with the mismanagement of Brexit and signalling a willingness to change tack are treated like heroes. So too are academics who, 10 or more days into the strike, have been persuaded to join the union, and join the picket. Don’t get me wrong; a key task is to try to convert the sceptical, and it is good (and important in relation to the dynamic of the negotiation) to boost numbers. But I am not sure that ‘the converts’ deserve greater praise than those who have been involved in the dispute from the start. To go back to the initial observation, we all know that we are right, and I cannot help but wonder about those who are late/reluctant converts to the cause.

The power of social media

This has to be in here, to justify the hours I spend on twitter. Detailed information, forensic analysis, and inspiring solidarity are all easily accessible. Views are aired which do not find their way into the mainstream media. Connections and alliances are created in double-quick time. There is also a lot of humour (and how the fight against Brexit could do with a dinosaur of solidarity… I’ve had a couple of twitter exchanges with her already, and if I’m ever feeling brave enough, I might ask the question). There are, however, a lot of idiots. Some of them, it appears, have access to the UUK twitter account, and others are on the European Research Group’s WhatsApp group. We are grateful for their insights. Overall, the level of debate is uneven. People can choose to inhabit echo-chambers, and can avoid the views of those with whom they disagree. It is all too easy to get carried away. I guess social media is just one part of the tool-kit at our disposal, and that we have to learn how to use it to its full potential.


I hope that those of you who have persevered have enjoyed the long read. For my part, I feel as though the last couple of years have been something of a rollercoaster ride. The UK’s relationship with the EU, which I have spent my professional life analysing, is in the process of being transformed and dismantled. And, it looks inevitable that the transformation will be done badly, with catastrophic economic and social effects. The pensions crisis shows that the university sector too is on the edge of crisis. Livelihoods are affected, incentives for those looking to enter higher education are reducing, and, to widen the gaze, marketization and commodification are changing the nature of work (and relationships with managers, colleagues, and students) in the sector. It is heartening to see that there is resistance; but, as things stand, I think it is more likely that Brexit will go ahead and damage the UK, and that terms and conditions in the university sector will be further eroded, than that the momentum of change will be halted. One of the problems (think ‘project fear’) is that too many people are sitting back, hoping against hope that things will not turn out as badly as some (including me) are predicting (there must be obvious connections here with campaigns which focus on the effects of climate change etc). The economic effects of Brexit, and of the USS reforms, will only be felt in the medium to long term, and it is easy to be seduced into thinking that, somehow, those effects will be attenuated before that. But, clearly, it is also possible that things will turn out badly.

The stakes are incredibly high. One of the features shared by both disputes is the almost existential importance which rests on their outcome. The battle is for the future of the country, and future of higher education. Many are contemplating leaving the higher education sector, or choosing not to embark on (further) education in the HE sector, because of a sense that those activities are likely to become too costly, and insufficiently rewarding, both financially, and in more holistic ways too. Many are people and businesses are considering whether to live, work and trade in the UK, because of the increased costs and hostility they fear they might encounter. Friends and colleagues are making these choices, and our universities and countries will be much impoverished if they take the entirely understandable option of exercising their ability to ‘exit’.

In order to seek to prevent that, it is important that we grasp opportunities to shape the future as they appear, and, to borrow from somewhere, ‘take back control’ of our country, our universities, and our future (or, to borrow from somewhere else, to reclaim our ‘voice’). It is only if we remain committed and resolute (and ‘agile’, as the University of Bristol sees itself…), and work together to understand and confront unwelcome change, that we can shape the future. There is no doubt that the path ahead will be hard, and that it will make great demands on all of us, but ultimately it is a fight which, for me at least, is impossible to ignore.

Phil Syrpis

University of Bristol Law School

‘…I am not striking against my university. I am striking for my University’

As we enter the fourth week of our industrial dispute it is more important than ever for all staff to understand the issues at play and how we have arrived here – not just for achieving a resolution to this dispute but for moving forward as a strong institution afterwards.

Consequently, I wrote for my colleagues who are not members of the UCU and not been on the picket lines, for those who are trying to make sense of the chaos of #USSstrike news.

Many of them/you/us are confused! That is understandable given that key components of the UUK argument have remained undisclosed (UUK is not obliged to comply with the FOIA). That confusion is compounded by a flood of new information over the past weeks, poor reporting (except for the Financial Times) and reversals by many Universities, including Bristol. So it is confusing, especially if you have not been gorging yourself on the news.

So below are some bullet points about where the dispute stands. I try to avoid any advocacy until the very end. These are either facts on which all parties agree or at least have not been disputed. Bear in mind that I am on strike and I am angry, so take my claims of neutrality with a grain of salt. These also cover only some facts and there are many aspects to this dispute and the employers’ proposals. (And do please forgive any minor errors – because I also am confused about many things!)

1) Three years ago, our pensions were reduced from a defined benefit (DB) final salary scheme to a DB career averaged scheme; our pension income decreased. The proposed changes will end the DB scheme and decrease all of our pensions further, but especially those just starting their careers.

2) We still have a very good pension scheme compared to many others in society, in part because DB schemes have been under attack for the past two decades. We can debate why we should have such a scheme and we can debate whether we should be fighting this trend beyond the constraints of our own sector. But regardless of our position on those issues, the USS pension is very strong and currently growing. Money in is greater than money out; moreover, USS has been very good with our investment portfolio, growing it by 12% last year.

3) So why a further decrease in our pensions? As part of the Higher Education Act, the govt no longer guarantees our pension. The pension regulator insists that all pensions not backed by the govt pass a strict stress test – “will your pension assets cover your liabilities if you go bankrupt?” This is a fair assumption for a business (looking at you BHS and Carillion), and I personally experienced friends and family being plunged into poverty when the local factory shut down and their pensions were forfeited. But is this an appropriate assumption for an entire sector? All 68 Universities in USS, including all Russell Group Universities, would have to go bankrupt. USS never challenged the fit of that criterion to USS. Why not? In any case, although UCU disagrees, it has now accepted that premise as part of its negotiations.

(Post-92 Universities are govt backed and do not have to pass this test, which is why someone in their 30s starting at UWE will have a far superior pension than the one proposed for us and likely be paid more over their entire life. This dispute is creating huge inequality in the sector. It is also why UoB employers have prioritised govt backing of our pension in their recent interventions. )

[Update: The excellent Mike Otsuka at LSE has explained that this is not accurate. USS adopted a less severe version of this test, which was more predicated on the willingness of the employers to increase contributions if the shortfalls emerged. In short, it was less a test of bankruptcy but of commitment to the scheme.]

4) So do we have enough under those constraints to cover our liabilities? The uncertainty is large as we have to calculate life expectancies, salary growth and of course stock market and bond returns 40 years or so into the future. Small differences in assumptions yield big differences in outcomes. No one knows how the USS did this. But we do know that life expectancy was assumed to increase by 1.5% per year and salary would increase by about 4% per year (far exceeding salary growth of the past two decades).

5) UCU hired an independent actuary (First Actuarial) to do an independent assessment. That result? USS has a surplus! But there is a large uncertainty, such that there is about a 30% risk that it has >6B debt. (This risk is independent of the risk that all of the Unis go out of business). This is where the UUK’s statement ‘There is a £6.1B deficit’ comes from.

6) But USS did not originally propose such a large deficit. Instead, they suggested to the Universities that they could take on some of this risk, and therefore originally suggested that there was effectively a smaller deficit. That is the Sept valuation some of you will have heard about.

NOTE: This USS valuation is essentially the same that UCU has now proposed as the basis for negotiations. This is the valuation that Oxford and Cambridge have reversed decisions on and now accept. Bristol also now seems to have reversed position and accepted this valuation.

7) But at the time, 42% of respondents, including Bristol, rejected that suggestion via a survey (now re-badged as a consultation), saying they could not accept that level of risk. On the basis of those 42% of the respondents, UUK adopted a more risk averse stance yielding the £6.1B deficit (November valuation).

NOTE: The University of Bristol did comply with FOIA requests, revealing that it was greatly concerned about risks both within the scheme and more widely to the sector. In subsequent correspondence, it has linked that risk and its costs to other preferred areas of investment.

8) No one outside of UUK knows how this happened. There was and remains no transparency and many Unis and UUK have ignored FOIA requests. But what has been accidentally leaked by UUK and where Unis have made public statements has now revealed: 1) those respondents were not all Universities; in fact, many individual Oxford Colleges had independent responses; and 2) many institutions have confirmed that their consultation response was ‘not an authorised response on behalf of their institution’ due to the short turnaround time. Aside from that, I still do not understand how 42% drove the shift in stance.

9) Because of this still-hidden process and because some Unis refused to accept the proposed risk, that forced USS/UUK to assume a larger deficit. That is expensive, and the near-inevitable consequence was to shift from defined benefits to defined contributions, where individuals rather than institutions bear the risk. The consequences to your pension (aside from us bearing the risk)? Although there is dispute, depending on career stage and various other assumptions, the new proposal will result in a 30% to 60% cut to most of our pensions, mostly falling on early career researchers. A loss of £10K per year appears to be a representative number. This is in addition to the cuts imposed three years ago.

In short, our pensions are being cut to offload risk, partly prompted by the pension regulator but largely driven by UUK and some Universities. That offloading of risk is being done either to facilitate competition, to borrow more or to safeguard us against past or ongoing gambles.

I will leave it to you to decide how this has played out locally. There has been great solidarity on the picket lines, across Faculties and between staff, professional services and students (Big shout out to the Student Occupation!). I have been frustrated by our employer’s internal messaging, shocked by decisions to proceed with HoS interviews and efforts to extend the working day, and disappointed by their hesitancy to exhibit national leadership. But their communications have improved and become generous with tone, far more than many other employers; they have reversed decisions; and they have been an exemplar in how they engaged with the Student Occupation. UoB is also one of only a few institutions that has complied with the FOIA requests.

Consequently, going ahead, there are issues to be resolved, and there are positives on which we can build. New or old to the strike, here are some questions that we need to explore collectively, now and over the coming years:

Why did no one push pack against the pension regulator’s stress test? Was it opportunism? Has management become so corporatized that they never considered questioning it? Or have they lost the courage to confront a government that has a strong hand on the higher education till?

Does the UoB senior team really believe that the gamble of expansion is worth more than our pensions? If so, why did they think that? And what do they need to do to rebuild trust? And if they do make the right overtures, are we able to listen?

What responsibility does the government have here, not only for not backing the pensions but for removing the caps on student numbers that have turned us from being a collegial sector into a competition- and profit-driven one? How do we re-unite, all of us, to challenge past decisions and resist those that are looming on the horizon?

When will we do right by our youngest staff? When will we move them out of precarious situations and end casualization of teaching in some parts of the University? How do all of us – in any senior leadership position – do better to help them and to fight for them?

How will we fight the larger and wider issues of competition and marketization that now appear to have corrupted our sector? What do we want our University to be? What do we want HE in the UK to be?? Ultimately, how do we do right by our students?

And finally, is this a fight that ends at our walls? So many others have lost their pensions and so much more… and they have shown great solidarity throughout this dispute. Will we stand with them?

I’ve tried to avoid inserting my personal opinions here, although they certainly do seep through in tone and language. But this strike and the wider issues it represents are personal. And so: I am striking because the pension cut is unfair, classist, racist and sexist; it disproportionately affects our youngest staff, and by extension women and minorities. I am striking because this pensions cut is not necessary. I am striking not because Unis should not invest in buildings or new campuses but because they should not sacrifice our pensions to do so. I am striking because students are not customers to be wooed by marketing and treated as income streams but are the next generation of leaders and artists and engineers who should be mentored, educated and advised in good faith. I am striking because it is time to stop, to reflect, to think about where UoB and the sector is going, who we are and what we should be.

Like all of us, I am not striking against my university. I am striking for my University. For my students and for my colleagues. And for the future of higher education in this country.

**Big thanks to all of you for solidarity! And big thanks to colleagues across the country who have unearthed and explained the information I summarised above.

Rich Pancost

Director of the University of Bristol Cabot Institute
Professor of Biogeochemistry

The Soul of Education – Our Pensions and More

I am professional services staff and I work in digital education.

Great to see so many here today – academic staff, support staff and students – both here with us and those still up on the 5th floor of senate house.

Is also great to see prospective students and their parents today. They want to study at Bristol and learn from some of the best minds in the country – that’s you lot. I wonder how they would like the university to spend their fees? On staff OR on shiny new buildings that won’t be finished before they graduate.

I have learnt a lot about pensions in the last couple of weeks. I think the employers thought they could get the change in pensions past us for 2 reasons

First – they thought a lot of people wouldn’t understand the change. So who here now knows the deficit isn’t a real deficit?

I’ve been learning a lot on twitter, about meaningful negotiations, from an employment law lecturer and about assessing risk from the Director of Bristols Cabot institution. They thought we wouldn’t understand – we literally teach this stuff.

Speaking of twitter we are winning the argument there – with UUK being tweeted back to the negotiating table as their “logical inconsistencies” were called out. We also seem to be winning the wider argument in the media – for example one paper in Scotland is saying that us defending our pensions is an important first step in allowing others to demand better pensions too.

Second they thought our greatest weakness was that we care so much about education. We would accept the pension cuts and not move jobs because we care. That the strike would crumble because we care about our students education – even if senior management don’t seem to. That the students would not stand with us because they have become consumers.

They didn’t realise that we can see a bigger picture – and that our greatest strength is that we care so much about education. We will fight the pension cuts so that we continue to retain and recruit the best staff. The strike will stand – because we believe that students are taught best by staff that are focused on their work not worrying about rent and old age. The students stand with us as we will stand with them to make university about education not about huge debts.

This strike is about protecting a decent pension that we have paid for.

This strike is also part of a larger fight for the soul of education.