AGM 2022

Dear Members,

I writing to confirm that the AGM will take place via online (Zoom) on Tuesday 14th June from 17:00 – 18:30 (invitation to follow). We will hold drinks directly after the meeting in the Dame Alice Owen

One of the main tasks of the meeting is to elect the committee for the coming year (1 September 2021 – 31 August 2022). The committee consists of a number of officer posts:

  • President leads on all union- and employment-related activities the branch undertakes, chairs all general meetings and all committee meetings, and takes any other action on behalf of the committee.
  • Vice President takes on duties in the absence of the President and deputise for them (2 positions)
  • Secretary calls general and committee meetings of the branch, circulates minutes of meetings, organises membership communications, and arranges notifications of local elections and ballot results to members.
  • Assistant Secretary takes on duties in the absence of the Secretary and deputises for him/her.
  • Treasurer has custody of the funds of the branch and makes payments as needed in accordance with the branch rules. The Treasurer keeps the books of the branch and presents the accounts of the branch for auditing as necessary, and presents the audited accounts to the AGM.
  • Membership Secretary is responsible for recruitment, for keeping membership records, and sending membership information to UCU head office or regional office.
  • Equalities Officer is responsible for staying up to date with relevant issues and monitoring development of equality policies within the institution, where appropriate encouraging and supporting local negotiations on equality matters. He or she monitors the casework relating to equality issues, supports members experiencing issues, and attends national and regional UCU meetings.
  • Health and Safety Officer represents UCU members on health and safety issues including participating in health and safety inspections and risk assessments, being the branch’s point of contact over health and safety issues, attending safety committee meetings, and investigating notifiable incidents. (3 positions)
  • Postgraduate Student Representative leads the branch committee’s work relating to postgraduate students. He or she is the primary point of contact for student members, the Student Union and UCU head office in relation to postgraduate student matters.

plus up to six ordinary members elected, or co-opted by, the annual general meeting. There is facility time available for some positions, and if you want to know more please speak Keith or me. Attached are the job descriptions for the roles.

To nominate yourself for a position, please email the Returning Officer, Euan Griffith Euan.Griffith@city.ac.uk, from your University email, and copying in the members that are proposing and seconding you. They should also reply to Euan to confirm they are proposing / seconding you. The deadline for nominations is 12:00 on Tuesday 31st May

If there is more than one person standing for a position, we will run an e-ballot. Descriptions of the various roles are in the rules, or you can contact one of the current committee to find out more.

If you’d like to be involved with the Branch, on a more informal basis, you might want to think about becoming a School/Department/Professional Service Rep. These are a point of contact to:

  • help the Committee to get feedback on proposals that affect a department or school (e.g. Splitting of Schools)
  • help canvass for volunteers for working groups (e.g. Career Break)
  • organise on local issues (e.g. Centralisation, WAMs, etc.)
  • keep us informed on stuff that is happening in departments; both positive and negative. It is good to hear where work is working well (e.g. SHS’s positive promotion of flexible working).

Please get in touch with me if you are interested.

If you have motions for the meeting please submit them to me by 12:00 on Tuesday 7th June.

Motion In Support of NUS President Shaima Dallali

The following motion was passed at a Branch Meeting on Monday 16th May 2022:

As the Union representing academic and professional staff at City, University of London, we would like to express our strong support of Shaima Dallali.

Shaima was a student at City, University of London and, for the last two years, has been a full-time sabbatical officer in our Students Union. Over that time Shaima’s maturity and integrity have shone through. She has ensured that she is equipped with the information necessary to maximise the voice of students in the institution. She is a critical and independent thinker, is empathetic and has repeatedly spoken out against oppression and supported students and staff from all backgrounds.

Since her election to NUS President Shaima has been criticised for a tweet she sent as a teenager, ten years ago and has apologised for the wording. This should be the end of it. Instead she has been subjected to racist online abuse. We condemn those perpetrating this.

Having worked closely with Shaima we are enthusiastic about what she will do in her tenure at NUS President and offer her our full support as she takes up that role.

189 Words

 

City UCU Strike Schedule March 2022

Date Picket Virtual Coffee Morning Virtual Event In-Person Event
Monday 28th March Picket
08:00 – 12:00
Virtual Coffee
10:30 – 11:00
Tuesday 29th March Picket
08:00 – 12:00
Virtual Coffee
10:30 – 11:00
Wednesday 30th March Picket
08:00 – 12:00
Virtual Coffee
10:30 – 11:00
Thursday 1st April Picket
08:00 – 12:00
Virtual Coffee
10:30 – 11:00
Islington Trades Council Rally at 12:00

Unison also on strike

Friday 2nd April Picket
08:00 – 12:00
Virtual Coffee
10:30 – 11:00
Unison also on strike

 

Committee Response to City President’s ‘Letter to the City Community’ dated 7th March

I am sure that most members have read the President’s ‘Letter to the City Community’. There is some change in tone there. He did not repeat the slurs of ‘unreasonable and intransigent minority’, or the threat to deduct 100% of our pay if we do not undermine our own strike, but instead ‘appealed’ to us. This change, although minimal, is a testament to the effectiveness of our strike action and action short of strike. The University thought that illegal threats of deductions will deter people, but their threatening and condescending language strengthened our resolve. It demonstrates that their positions are entrenched, almost ideological, and that decisive action on our part is the only way to move them.

But refraining from using threatening and aggressive language is just a change in style, not substance. On substance the President is still fully entrenched in his positions. While the language is not as harsh, the message is as offensive, because it assumes either that we do not know how inflation works, or that we are too stupid for complex matters such as actuarial assessments and pensions.

On pay he says that last year ‘settlement’ which was imposed on us reflected inflation, which is not accurate, and also glosses over the fact that the HE sector did not have any pay increase in 2020. For some reason the inflation for 2019/2020 vanished from his calculations. On pension, he makes the claim that there is a lot of misleading information. But who is misleading whom? Is it the union or the spin masters at UUK? Is it those who call a 35% cut in pension resulting in old age poverty ‘a diminution of benefits’ or those who warning about significant reductions that anyone with simple math skills can see?

On pension it seems that City’s position is ideological, and it hasn’t moved one inch. In other institutions such as King’s College London, Birkbeck and Imperial, management made joint statements with their UCU branches supporting UCU compromise proposal (which was made last month) and criticising UUK proposals and the irrational adherence to the March 2020 valuation when the capital markets were at an all-time low. Even the USS Trustee said that the proposals would work. How did City react to these proposals? Threatened us with 100% deductions!

Equally troubling is the position and characterisation of casualisation and gender/race/disability gaps. When we go on strike because of these serious problems that affect us and our students, we are told that we are using them as a distraction! Sounding the alarm about the University’s failures is not a distraction, it is one of the few things we can do to force the University to face its immoral practices. Saying that these gaps are real and that the University is committed to addressing them rings hollow when the most recent statistics on the matter indicate that the situation is getting worse. If management were serious about it, they would have done the same thing they do for things they are serious about: publish a multiyear plan with measurable key performance indicators (KPI) that they can publish every year. We have a KPI for almost everything in the University, but not on these issues! Calling it a distraction is an attempt to cover up the failures.

We agree that the strike was painful for City. It was most painful for those who went on strike, who will lose pay, and had to endure the threats of further deductions. But we persevere despite this pain, because tomorrow’s pain will be greater, for we will have to work beyond the pension age, and when we retire will retire with poverty-level pension. We cannot simply move on as if nothing happened. A pay or pension cut is not a natural phenomenon. It is a conscious decision that someone made, usually for their own benefit, and to our detriment. And we have to fight it for the sake our families, students, and the future of higher education in this country.

Hiding behind our students is a little bit rich. Characterising them as ‘less resilient’ is a sign of a University that does not know its student. The people who were on strike are the ones who see and work with the students on a daily basis. We know our students and how wonderful they are. We know that many have jobs and care duties in addition to their studies, and we go the extra mile to help and accommodate them. We continue to support them, and they know that, and that is why they support us. Their resilience is something to admire, and it we wish that the University would stop using them as an excuse to attack us, and indeed  would stop making disparaging and condescending comments against their support.

Given all of this, we are justified to be very cautious about the President’s promise of better pay and conditions sometime in the future if ‘we work together’. Haven’t we been working together in the last 10 years? Were not similar promises of ‘pain today and jam tomorrow’ made in the past? But here we are, with a university bursting at the seams with students, with student and staff satisfaction decreasing, and margins not improving. But what do we have? Higher salaries for senior managers and more spending on external consultants.

All of this shows that the way forward for us it to continue with our strike and ASOS which are both effective, and are the only tools available for us to counter casualisation, race/gender/disability pay gap, and the attack on our pay and pension. That is why we need to have a show of force in the next round of strike days (28/3-1/4).

And for the President, we note the minor improvement, but that’s not good enough.

City UCU Branch Committee

 

 

Letter to President of City, University of London on IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism

This letter was drawn up in line with UCU National Policy which has been agreed at Congress.

Racism has no place in a university and must be fought vigorously. The fight against antisemitism is at a critical moment and needs to be taken on as a part of the fight against other forms of racism, especially as white supremacy is on the rise and targets Jews, Muslims, people of colour, LGBTQ+ people, and more. The trade unions and the Students’ Union have been at the forefront of the fight against racism at City, and have always been ardent campaigners for equality and human rights for all; as such, we commend efforts to confront antisemitism at City. However, we are strongly opposed to City’s proposal to ‘acknowledge’ the IHRA definition of antisemitism – and, presumably its ‘illustrative examples’.

We are alarmed by the Secretary of State for Education’s attempts to bully universities into adopting it by threatening to cut funding if they don’t. This threat is coming from the same Government that counts amongst its members a Minister who asserts that schools that teach ‘white privilege’ as a fact are ‘breaking the law’, and that the Government does not want schools to teach critical race theory. It is the same Government that has issued at the end of September 2020 a guidance ‘for school leaders and teachers involved in setting the relationship, sex and health curriculum [that] categorised anti-capitalism as an “extreme political stance” and equated it with opposition to freedom of speech, antisemitism and endorsement of illegal activity.’ It is safe to say that they are no champions of anti-racism or equality.

In adopting this position, we heed the advice of a number of world renowned experts, including Kenneth Stern, the author of the definition, on antisemitism who warned against adopting the IHRA working definition. We are also attentive to the concerns raised by dozens of BAME organisations and communities, Palestinian civil society organisations, and Palestinian and Arab academics, not to mention legal experts and Jewish community groups.

We believe that the IHRA working definition, especially several of its ‘illustrative examples’ are deeply flawed and not fit for purpose. They do not lend additional tools in the fight against antisemitism and they do not promote a culture of safety. On the contrary ‘acknowledging’ the definition and its examples is detrimental to academic autonomy, academic freedom, and freedom of expression. While we acknowledge that these freedoms do not stretch to permit hate speech, some of these examples seek to prohibit the expressions of views, facts and opinions that fall within legitimate academic enquiry and speech. For instance, adopting the illustrative examples would require City staff to deny or suppress matters of historical record and contemporary reality, with the effect of distorting history and silencing Palestinian history and voices. As such, prohibiting these expressions and activities could put City at serious risk of breaching the anti-discrimination principles of the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act.

The statutory body charged with investigating inequality in the UK (the EHRC), in its investigation of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party explicitly stated that ‘The IHRA definition is not legally binding.’ And reaffirmed that the 2010 Equality Act was sufficient ‘to identify any unlawful acts’ of anti-Semitism (Annex 3: Legal Annex page 116). If the EHRC found the IHRA definition unnecessary in conducting the largest UK investigation of anti-Semitism in decades, there can be no pressing need for City to recognise this definition.

Conversely, the adoption of IHRA definition could be used to intimidate and supress speech, teaching and research on a range of issues such as critical race theory, capitalism, and the history and politics of Palestine and Israel. Evidence has shown that it has already been used in that way across the UK, causing even the leading author of the definition to actively campaign against its adoption in academic settings. We are also gravely concerned that this definition will be used to stifle student and staff political activism, which would have devastating consequences for the health and vibrancy of an academic institution in a democratic society.

Given the record of how this definition has been used so far by universities and other public bodies, if City acknowledges the definition, even using the formulation “to recognise… and take into account” it will send an alienating message to students and staff, many of whom are people of colour. City is effectively saying that the only way to fight antisemitism is by prohibiting discussion of the racism faced by some of the most disadvantaged and silenced groups.

Our opposition to IHRA definition is rooted in our commitment to combatting antisemitism and upholding equality, anti-racism and human rights for all. We are committed to fostering an inclusive environment where students and staff are able to pursue their study and work without fear of silencing or punishment. While we welcome initiatives that strengthen City’s policies on anti-racism, equality, harassment and bullying, we believe that the proposed approach based on the IHRA is misguided and its shortcomings and its harm will supersede any of its potential benefits.

Keith Simpson City, University of London UCU Branch President

TU Recommendations from Homeworking Survey

The results of the TU Joint Survey show that staff are facing problems when working from home for City. There is also uncertainty about what might happen in the coming months but I think we cannot abandon efforts we have been making to make City a better place to work and study. It is the most important time for us to all stay in touch as best we each can to organise, support each other and be strong together even if that means doing so virtually.

That is why we are using the staff survey to drive the work of our branch in pushing City management and we hope you can join us at today’s meeting to catch up with each other. I certainly miss seeing many of you.

TU RECOMMENDATIONS TO MANAGEMENT BASED ON YOUR SURVEY RESPONSES

Almost 600 staff engaged with the survey and the trade unions have already been using these in our meetings with management. The needs that members have expressed have now been formed into a set of recommendations to management about homeworking in collaboration with our sister unions Unison and Unite. These are guiding the immediate efforts of the branch to counteract the presumption that we can be expected to deliver ‘business as usual’.

The Joint Union Recommendations were sent to City management yesterday, and we will also be presenting them for discussion at the branch meeting later today.

BRANCH MEETING

  • Today’s Branch Meeting is on Wednesday 22 April from 12:00 – 14:00 and will be held on Zoom.
  • To join the meeting, please using the joining information we went directly to you, or email info@cityucu.org.uk to be re-sent these details.
  • Please join with your video disabled, leave your microphone muted (this is the default setting), and use the chat function if you would like to speak. This will make the meeting simpler to chair.  It is the first time we will have run a large virtual meeting, so please bear with us whilst we get to grips with the technology!
  • If there are specific concerns and issues you would like to raise, please email us beforehand at info@cityucu.org.uk

Sean Rowlands
Vice-President City UCU

Joint Union Homeworking Survey – Coronavirus

Three weeks ago the recognised Trade Unions at City (UNISON, UCU and Unite) opened a joint-survey of staff on the University shutdown and home working. We are now pleased to share with you the survey report.

We launched the survey because we believed that it was urgent to find out more about how City staff were coping with changed working conditions. We asked City Senior Management if we could use internal email lists to distribute a survey to all members of staff. This request was refused. Instead we emailed a link to an online survey to our respective members and asked members to circulate the link among departmental colleagues in order to reach non-Union members. 

The executive summary of the report can be found below and the entire report is Joint Union Homeworking Survey – Report 17 April 2020

The three unions want to thank every respondent. Almost 600 staff engaged with the survey. Your response to this survey was magnificent, providing us with a detailed evidence base on which to better represent staff at City and hold management to account during this stressful period.

We will also be sending this report to University management and will request they address the many concerns raised by your responses.

Many non-union members also completed the survey. Please share this email with your colleagues so they can see the report and invite them to join one of the three trade unions too.

In solidarity,

Keith Simpson, City University UCU President

Dan Cowley, Unite Branch Secretary

Daniel Shannon-Hughes, UNISON Branch Secretary

—————————————–

Executive Summary

The following summarises the findings elaborated in this report. 

 Homework conditions: While 30% of staff have access to an office or study, almost half of all staff have no office equipment of any kind (neither chair nor desk). A small minority do not even have a table at which to work. These staff are sitting on the floor, bean-bags or on a bed. Much of the furniture used for homeworking is uncomfortable, especially over the long run and there are major concerns about health, especially musculoskeletal health. This is most severe for staff with pre-existing conditions. For many homeworking spaces are shared, which also produces problems for privacy.

 IT: Staff are reliant on often old and slow computer hardware. This is delaying work and increasing worries about completing work on time. Working on small laptop screens is also a major obstacle for colleagues used to a large, or multiple, screens. Intermittent or slow wifi also reduces productivity. Some staff are frustrated at having to use personal computer equipment for work demands where this is increasing the load and wear on less than robust technology and at the additional costs they are accruing in working at home. 

 Childcare: Approximately 30% of staff have childcare responsibilities, most for young (Primary or pre-Primary age) children. Most of these staff have joint childcare responsibility, but a large minority of female carers (and a much smaller minority of other carers) have sole childcare responsibility. Joint care tends to involve partners sharing variably, rather than allowing carers specified days or times to work, which increases unpredictability about availability or deadlines. Most staff with child-care responsibility can currently manage a reduced workload (e.g. half days), some can only do ‘light’ or ‘essential’ tasks, while for others even this much is ‘challenging’. Many of these staff are fitting work around childcare, working during naps or into the evening. These circumstances require changing managerial expectations and increased flexibility.

 Elder/Adult-Care: About a quarter of staff are involved in elder care either for someone they live with or someone living elsewhere. This may involve doing additional day-to-day tasks like shopping that need to be fit within the working day, but also involves significant worry. For this group a major concern is the anticipation that circumstances may suddenly worsen. 

 Communication: Quantitative scores on communication are largely positive, although academics are less positive than professional service staff. Staff are unhappy about the tone of some communication, however. 

 Work Performance and Expectations:  Staff judged their manager’s expectations on different aspects of their work as largely reasonable, although academic staff were more critical than professional service staff. In qualitative comments the positive overview was nuanced significantly. While lots of staff said their line-manager was ‘supportive’, this was not universal, with some criticising the lack of ‘checking in’. For many there were big concerns about timelines and deadlines. Even though the survey question asked about line managers, lots of respondents reframed this to focus on the expectations of Senior Managers who were seen as ultimately setting, and too often changing, priorities and deadlines. Where academic staff had been required to move to online teaching rapidly this was identified as creating a lot of stress. While the requirement to attend multiple ‘online meetings’ was an emerging problem. Staff also highlighted the problems of isolation for mental health and for maintaining productivity. 

 Looking Ahead: There was little expectation that staff constraints or capacity to work would change much over the next three months if the lockdown continued. But many staff commented on the ways that the experience of working from home would become more difficult as the goodwill required to transition wore thin and they started to ‘burn out’. Mental health was widely seen as at risk. The longer-term implications of bad workstations for back-pain in particular was raised by many. A number of staff with childcare responsibility believed that the ability to continue juggling was not sustainable. Where staff were in insecure contracts the future was especially bleak. 

 Worries: There was widespread worry about a range of Covid-19 related issues (own health; the health of a family member; financial worries; the state of the world; and generalised anxiety). Moreover, these worries are impacting work, with about sixty percent of staff stating that their concentration, and productivity, has been affected by their current emotional state. 

 Priorities: Key staff priorities for the short and medium term future included: ensuring job security; pushing for managers to recognise that this is not ‘business as usual’ and developing and communicating expectations on this basis; developing support for homeworking; prioritising staff health and safety; the development of transparent, inclusive and effective future planning; and cancelling strike deductions. 

 City’s Trade Unions: Although not asked about directly, respondents expressed considerable support for the role that the trade unions play at City, including the support and information they provide to members.