Two ballots open 9 September 2019 for Pensions and Pay & Equality

As you may have seen in recent emails from the UCU, our newly elected General Secretary Jo Grady and our UCU branch President Keith Simpson, TWO BALLOTS ON INDUSTRIAL ACTION STARTED ON MONDAY 9 SEPTEMBER.

Click the pictures for more information on the UCU website.

It is vital that members express their opinion on these disputes. Your elected branch committee and national executive voted to urge you to vote yes to strike action, and yes to action short of a strike for both the Pay and Equality Ballot, and the USS Ballot.

As there are two simultaneous ballots, I want to describe each dispute in turn, with some reference to what they mean here for us at City, University of London.

USS Pensions

The Joint Expert Panel (set up following the last UCU industrial action protected defined benefit pensions) made seven recommendations, and remodelled the costs of them based on the new 2018 valuation USS Trustees made, confirmed contributions could return to 26% of salary, split between employers (18%) and employees (8%).

Employers, including City, are refusing to push for a full implementation of the JEP recommendations. Our management are facilitating higher employee (9.6%) and employer (21.1%) contributions unnecessarily.Schools and Professional services at City have already been asked to generate 2% more income and we know that for most departments this has meant cuts to budgets. However, City management have not challenged these added pension costs in a way that other University management representatives have done at the UUK. We need to raise the pressure on them with a credible threat of action.

In the previous industrial action on the USS pension, the union members across the country revealed faulty calculations and bad governance fed into an unwarranted proposal to undermine the basic set up of our pension. Bad governance in USS and UUK is still a problem, frustrating a solution that the employer’s own representatives on the JEP recommended in consensus with staff representatives.

We need to stand up against these choices with the credible threat of strike action.

Pay and Equality

Part of the USS pension valuation methodology assumed we were getting 4% pay rises every year, and would continue to get 4% pay rises in the future but we know that is not the reality. Last year was 2%,  2017- 18 negotiations were 1.7%, and the 2016-17 negotiations saw an offer of 1.1% revised from 0.9% after strike action. In each of these recent pay and equality negotiations, UUK have given empty promises on closing the gender pay gap, reducing precarious contract use, and alleviating at workloads.

City’s pay gap data is extensive, according City’s own Equal Pay Audit 2017/18:

  • women on average paid 18.5% less than men,
  • disabled workers paid 7.7% less than non-disabled workers,
  • and black workers paid 24.6% less than white workers

As with many institutions around the UK, initiatives and programmes are in place at City but it has not been enough. Improvements have been slow at City and inequality is persisting or even rising in particular categories or job roles.

At Professorial grades, the Gender Pay Gap at City rose from a staggering 36.3% in 2016/17 to 38.0% in 2017/18. Meanwhile City increasingly relies on casualised workers such as VLs or colleagues on fixed term contracts with many at City concerned about their precarious position and second tier employment. Our colleagues on lower grades at City are in particularly difficult situations, with real term cuts over many years on already low salaries.

City does have money, however it is committed to maintaining a surplus each year as this makes us look healthy to creditors so they we can continue to borrow money for investment projects. For example, in last July’s financial report to council showed a £7.7 million budget surplus for City.

Holding back our pay is a choice made by management at City that affects the livelihood of staff disproportionately; especially those of us already in vulnerable and unequal positions such as women, BAME, disabled and casualised colleagues.

UCU has been negotiating with employers nationally with modest demands. We have offered a compromise but by offering 1.8% rise, well below inflation, they have failed meet us halfway. They have also not made any credible commitment for action on inequality or casualization.

We need to stand up against these choices with the credible threat of strike action.

Sean Rowlands

CITY UCU Vice President and representative

Report from HEC meeting 27 April 2018

This report represents the personal views of Rachel Cohen, NEC member for HE, London and the East and member of CityUCU.

At the Higher Education Committee (HEC) on 27th April, members voted in favour of a report from officials which set out a series of recommendations. These will determine how the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) to investigate the USS valuation is constituted and reports. At the Joint Negotiating Committee (between UCU and UUK) later that day the January Defined Contribution proposal was taken off the table. This was a major victory, and the result of our collective action. But the preceding HEC meeting highlighted the need to democratise our union’s spaces or this is not going to be a sustainable victory.

HEC Meeting:

We received the official’s report and recommendations at the start of the meeting (11.05) and were given twenty minutes to read it. When the discussion on this began we were initially allocated 45 minutes. This was later extended to about 1.5 hours, which included a short break for lunch. It also included multiple disputes about how the discussion was structured. The Chair, Douglas Chalmers, ruled that:

  •  we could not amend *anything* in the official’s report, including recommendations, terms of reference, proposed timings, or proposed method of selecting UCU JEP members;
  • that most other motions would fall if we voted through the report even though there was no obvious reason why most were contrary to the report’s recommendations – or why there should be these ‘consequentials’;
  • that we would vote on the official’s report first. This needlessly put people in a bind. For instance, I thought most of the report and recommendations were good, but wanted to amend some parts and did not want to lose the other motions on the table. Therefore I ended up voting against it. This should not have happened.

I and other members of the HEC made formal ‘challenges to the chair’ to overturn these decisions. In all cases these challenges were lost, with a majority voting in favour of the Chair’s organisation of the meeting.

Because time was short the report was introduced by the official, everyone who had submitted a motion was given up to two minutes to propose their motion. We then went straight to vote on the report, with no opportunity to discuss or debate either the report or motions, which contained critical decisions about the JEP and UCU’s involvement in it.

Key points of contention/decision included:

1) The JEP Chair will be approved by the SWG (Superannuation Working Group) and UUK – there are already suggested names that our officials know about, but we were provided with no additional information about who they were or how these people might be selected.

2) The UCU JEP members will be selected by SWG on the basis of a person specification that was distributed. An amendment that would require that SWG shortlist candidates to ensure suitability but that UCU members (either at Congress or via e-ballot) are then given the opportunity to elect our representatives was not permitted as an amendment (based on the logic that we cannot amend reports). It was then submitted as a motion and was judged to have fallen when the report was passed. This means members will have no direct say in our JEP representatives.

3) JEP is expected to issue its first report on the 2017 valuation in Sept 2018. It will then work on more general issues around the valuation. It was not entirely clear how the first report will or will not be constrained in lieu of more general agreements on valuation.

4) A motion that I submitted that would have ensured UCU JEP members are accountable to members (see below) was ruled to have fallen. This would have required regular reports to members, provided a means by which members could contact UCU JEP members and engage with the process and would have scheduled a voting delegate meeting to review the report in September. I argued that transparency and accountability were critical and that there was nothing in this motion that was in conflict with the report, but the Chair insisted that it fell when the report passed. Other motions that called for a special meeting to discuss the ongoing dispute also fell.

5) The terms of reference for the JEP emphasise ‘Confidentiality’ – for ‘all panel meetings’ and ‘all material provided to the panel …whether from the evidence pack, expert witnesses or submitted evidence.’ This was challenged. I asked why transparency wasn’t the default with confidentiality only if and as when absolutely essential. We were told that this ‘would not work’.

6) Several motions that required negotiators or the JEP to take particular positions also fell, including one that required the HEC mandated UCU negotiators to vote in favour of the removal of DC (now achieved via the JNC), removing the proposal for cost sharing and extending the implementation deadline.

7) On equalities (an update because some people have asked about this). There was no mention of equality in the initial specification for JEP members. I submitted an amendment to correct this, but was not permitted to amend this in the meeting for the reasons discussed above. In this case, however, we were assured by the official that it would be included in the final version of the specifications. This is obviously a good thing. But the fact that this can informally be changed highlights that there was no need to prevent amendments to other aspects of the report and recommendations.

The second part of the meeting was spent discussing the pay claim and various other reports. These were less controversial. But time remained short and discussion abbreviated.

This was a thoroughly frustrating meeting. We had a rushed discussion of a critical issue in which key decisions were made without any discussion.

It is likely that the issues relating to UCU internal democracy will be central to discussions at the upcoming UCU Congress. City has submitted a motion on this (see end of previous blog post), as have other branches.

Additional Note:

My motion to HEC: ‘Holding the JEP Accountable’

HEC notes concerns about USS and UUK accountability and transparency and that similar concerns have been raised about the working processes of the JEP.

HEC resolves:
• To name and provide contact information for UCU members of the JEP;
• To provide regular (typically monthly) opportunities for branches and members to receive reports from and ask questions of UCU JEP members;
• To facilitate open calls to a wider group of interested parties, including members, inviting contributions to JEP deliberations around specific topics;
• To call on the JEP to provide an interim report by the start of September 2018, in which any agreed understandings and terms of reference are reported, key points of difference clarified and future reporting and meeting dates of JEP, JNC and USS are detailed;
• To hold a branch delegates meeting, with voting rights and HEC (or ‘National Strike Committee’) to discuss the interim report.

This motion fell because the Chair said it was incompatible with the official’s report and the latter was voted on first and agreed.

Emergency Branch Meeting – 5 April 2018

On Thursday 5 April about 60 members attended an Emergency General Meeting of City UCU. Most of the meeting was spent discussing the pensions dispute. There were a lot of questions and members raised concerns about the clarity – or lack of clarity – of the latest offer.

Members present were very clear that the unity that our branch has achieved should not be undermined. Our branch has grown in number, with about 190 new members since January. We have also grown in strength and confidence. Whatever the outcome of this vote, we will need to continue to work together to fight on pensions now and in the future, but also to fight on the issues that are impacting our everyday working lives at City: workload, casualisation, bullying, inequality and more.

A motion (copied in full below) in support of a ‘No’ vote was moved and was passed by a majority of those at the meeting. As such City UCU Branch Policy, as democratically decided is to RECOMMEND A NO VOTE in the current USS ballot for the reasons outlined in the motion. The vote on the motion was not, however, unanimous and a significant minority of members at the meeting either voted against or abstained. We recognise that this difference of opinion will persist and we strongly support ongoing comradely dialogue and discussion.

The branch vote to support a reject vote rested on the belief that UCU negotiators should return to UUK and seek improvements to the 23 March proposal taking into account the many concerns that branches have raised about its implementation and contents. And that industrial action must not be suspended while these negotiations are ongoing

For those looking for more detailed rationales on why our branch voted to recommend a No vote we recommend the collection of USSBriefs, to which our member, Claire Marris, has contributed. These include three briefs (ussbriefs6, ussbriefs11 and ussbriefs14) that detail the arguments in favour of a No vote as well as other material on the background to the dispute and that provide other perspectives.

In line with the motion we will also be calling on the national union to hold a special conference on USS before or after the May Congress. This is to enable the broader discussion and concerns of members to be voiced and to create the time and space to develop national pension policy in a democratic way.

We also very briefly discussed, and passed unanimously, a motion that we will submit to UCU Congress. This motion is an attempt to address the concerns of members about transparency in the way that our union operates nationally during a dispute.

Members have until 14:00 on Friday 13 April to vote in the ballot, and we would encourage all members to vote whatever their inclination is.

City UCU Committee

Motion in support of a NO vote – passed by a majority.

This UCU branch notes:

  1. the support and energy of our membership during the course of the fourteen days of strike action in defence of our pensions the branch delegates meeting (held on the 28th March at UCU HQ, London) on the USS dispute where last-minute evidence was tabled, on which delegates had no opportunity to consult their members;
  2. that at the conclusion of the branch delegates meeting no vote was taken on what was clearly the crucial issue the Higher Education Committee (HEC) were going to decide on afterwards – whether to send the UUK offer as it stands to a ballot or not;
  3. that according to branch delegates present at the meeting a majority of branches favoured a ‘revise and resubmit’ position rather than putting the current offer to ballot;
  4. the HEC meeting decided by a narrow majority of 10-8 to ballot members on a proposal from UUK whose wording was not the outcome of a formal negotiating process between the properly constituted UCU negotiating group on USS and UUK;
  5. that the UUK offer contains many areas of uncertainty that need to be clarified before an offer can be accepted, including:
  6. There have been no details provided by UUK about how it envisages any revised contributions and benefits will be shared between the employer and USS members.
  7. There have been no details provided by UUK about the valuation that will be used to inform the future pension scheme.  Our principle worry is shared by leading pensions experts who warn that unless this uncertainly is cleared up, the offer on the table will simply revert to the notorious ‘November valuation’ provided by USS.  If this happens, our pension would revert to being a defined contribution scheme by default and the UUK offer would be effectively nullified.
  8. We have no concrete assurances about the intent of USS and the Pensions Regulator that any mutually agreed settlement will be acceptable to them.  This is important, since any deal requires the final agreement of both.   However, since the offer was made public, USS has signaled its intention to revert to the November valuation.

This UCU branch believes:

  1. That UCU negotiators should return to UUK and seek improvements to the 23 March proposal taking into account the many concerns that branches have raised about its implementation and contents
  2. That industrial action must not be suspended while these negotiations are ongoing

This UCU branch resolves:

  1. To recommend to members to vote against the UUK proposal in the consultation
  2. To circulate this petition to members along with other materials urging a vote against the UUK proposal:
  3. To call for a Special Meeting of UCU Higher Education Sector Conference to discuss the USS dispute under Rule11.* If possible this Special Meeting would be held immediately prior to or following Congress.

Late Congress Motion: Union transparency and accountability during disputes – passed unanimously.

The USS dispute, branch delegate and HEC meetings and ballot have produced member anger around issues of transparency and accountability within UCU.

Congress resolves that:

  1. The role and purpose of Branch Delegate Meetings during a dispute should be clarified, including voting rights (per branch or weighted by membership and when and how votes can be called).
  2. During a dispute, any five HEC/FEC members may call for a reconvened meeting of HEC/FEC, within two weeks, to progress the dispute.
  3. HEC/FEC must agree contextual information accompanying national ballots of members. Ballot text will be circulated to branch officers at least 1 working day in advance of the ballot going live.
  4. A means for members/branches to contact HEC/FEC members is publicised.
  5. Information about upcoming HEC/FEC/NEC meetings and agenda items is publicised.
  6. Mechanisms for HEC/FEC to consider relevant branch motions is determined.

A reflection on today’s UCU meetings [28 March 2018].

The following is a personal reflection on the meetings that took place on 28 March at UCU HQ from Rachel Cohen.

There were two meetings at UCU HQ today. At 11am was a Branch Delegates Meeting, with delegates from most of the striking universities. This was followed by a Higher Education Committee (HEC) meeting. I, and other members of the HEC, attended the Delegates meeting, to listen to what was said, but we did not participate.

The Branch Delegates Meeting

At the start of the Branch Delegates Meeting Sally outlined the process by which UUK had arrived at the current proposal. She also distributed a printed copy of a letter from Alistair Jarvis, UUK Chief Executive, in which he said that UUK ‘are committed to maintaining a meaningful Defined Benefit pension offer at this valuation.’ And that UUK would like to ‘rebuild the trust that has been damaged’.

Some members’ concerns were covered by this letter and by oral assurances from Sally about USS trustees and the Pension Regulator’s willingness to work with UUK and UCU. But many other questions remained. These included, but were not limited to questions about how the Joint Expert Panel would be constituted; about formal equality assurances; about timing and deadlines; about decision making within the new body; about responding to local reprisals, and much more. Several delegates asked why, since we were in a position of strength, we were simply accepting what UUK offered us.

While most welcomed Sally’s clarifications, several branch delegates expressed frustration that new assurances were being given at the meeting, so that it was impossible to discuss these within branches, nor could they feed into member responses. Consequently, Branch Reports were punctuated with delegates guessing whether the concessions were sufficient to assuage their members’ concerns.

Branch reports followed the Q&A and were brief but much more varied than at the meeting two weeks ago when members almost unanimously rejected the 12 March ‘deal’. A couple of trends stood out, however:

  • Where branches had members’ meetings (many had been very large meetings) large majorities tended to vote in favour of some version of “Revise and Resubmit” – mandating our negotiators to go back to UUK with a counter-offer that built on UUK’s proposal, while adding clarification/specification. Some of these branches had voted in favour of ‘no detriment’ motions. Others had not, but were nonetheless clear that the current offer was essentially a first draft on which the employers should be pushed for further concessions.
  • Where branches had conducted e-ballots they typically got majorities ‘in favour’. But these were a little difficult to interpret because different questions were asked: some branches asked members whether they were in favour of the offer and others asked whether they were in favour of going to ballot. Several delegates pointed out that members frequently added qualitative provisos to their votes (in either direction). Only some branches included a ‘middle ground’ in e-ballots. Typically, ‘revise and resubmit’ or ‘continue negotiations and then ballot’. Where a middle option was included it seemed popular.
  • Where branches had held both e-ballots and meetings both the above trends were sometimes visible. Moreover, delegates reported that members who had voted one way in an e-ballot sometimes changed their mind after coming to a meeting and discussing the issues in more detail, suggesting the dynamic nature of the debate.

Taking all of this into account, my sense was that overall there was a small, but clear, majority of branches whose members were in favour of ongoing negotiations (at least 60%), but with considerable variation around what the primary target/minimum outcome of negotiation might be.

On several occasions a delegate suggested a vote to get a non-binding sense of this (yellow voting cards had been supplied). The chair, UCU President Joanna de Groot, rejected this suggestion, and no votes occurred. In consequence, any tallies about branch opinion – whether those made by officials or by observers like me – are speculative.


When the Delegates Meeting ended the HEC went downstairs. The meeting started late and only at 2.50pm did we receive a paper from officials that contained a recommended course of action (including going to ballot). We were given ten minutes to read this paper, alongside six motions submitted by HEC members. The meeting finally started at 3pm with a ten minute presentation of the official paper and ended an hour later. Given that there were 19 voting USS-HEC members present, alongside paid officials and other (non-voting non-USS) HEC members, the time for discussion was very limited, and debate was minimal.

The most critical decision of the meeting was taken by the Chair, UCU Vice-President Douglas Chalmers (see below for more on who chairs these meetings), when he ordered the business for discussion as follows: a) that if HEC voted to accept the official recommendations all other motions would fall (except one, which would be remitted), and b) that HEC would vote on the officials’ paper first. Some of us challenged, but were were unable to change, this decision. The Chair’s ordering of business meant that any HEC member broadly sympathetic to the officials’ paper, which included balloting members (no timeframe given), who *also* wanted to see some changes negotiated first, was unable to vote for this combination. Instead it became a binary debate: for a ballot or not. As has been communicated elsewhere, the vote on this paper was 10 for, 8 against (including me), and one HEC member abstained out of (understandable) frustration at this process.

Among the motions that were consequently ruled to have fallen were ones that I and others had submitted and that covered a range of changes to the timing, scope, language and process of what was being proposed, including one on ‘no detriment’. I was frustrated – and confused – that a motion I’d put about transparency and accountability in decision making during industrial disputes fell. A consequence of going to ballot should not be that we also fail to agree a more transparent process for future decision making. Most frustrating, however, was that we were unable to vote on a motion that, written in response to the Delegate Meeting discussion, proposed a three-week revise and resubmit process (week one to develop a counter-proposal; week two to negotiate; week three to discuss outcome with branches and reconvene HEC), after which we could potentially go to ballot. This relatively short timeline would have allowed us to retake ownership of the agenda, without delaying decision-making in an irreversible way. This was designed as a consensus motion. I believe that most members – including those who want to be balloted – would happily wait three weeks to see what else is possible.

Finally, some of us asked about, but were not able to discuss, what would be on the consultative ballot. My understanding is that it will *not* have a recommendation to accept or reject (the HEC would have to vote on this and we did not). Nonetheless meaning may be conveyed by the contextual information sent out with the ballot.

As this has emerged as an issue since, I want to state categorically that at NO point did anyone in any position suggest we suspend the action before the ballot results were known.

This HEC left me with various thoughts.

  • Pensions: We are going to have to remain vigilant and ready to take further serious action. This may be in May/June if the consultative ballot is ‘Reject’. If not it’s likely to be next year after we know more about the valuation. The assurances so far in place, whether from UUK, tPR or USS, are not strong enough and we have learnt that the only thing that makes UUK accountable is us posing a credible threat. We have done that brilliantly in this dispute, showing strength of purpose and unity.
  • The ballot: we don’t yet know exactly what will be on it, and my impression is that neither do Sally or our officials, who continue to seek ‘clarifications’ from UUK. I believe that it is unlikely that these clarifications will cover the diverse concerns raised by branch delegates.
  • Splits and disagreements: I am both hugely frustrated at the outcome and process of HEC, but also recognise that victory here, and in future disputes requires that we work together. Our USS action has been successful because we have been on the same page. Currently we are not. But, whether members accept or reject the offer, we need to continue to be able to mobilise collectively – around both national and local fights to come. In most local branches we achieve this unity-despite-disagreement, because we know – and even like – one another. It’s harder, but just as necessary, to do nationally.
  • Internal democracy: it matters who participates in our national democratic bodies (HEC, FEC, NEC, Branch Delegate Meetings, Congress), but also who chairs these. Chairs come from the Presidential Team. Therefore, it matters who we elect [we elect an FE and HE Vice-President in alternate years. Once elected this person serves a FOUR-year term: as, in order, VP; President-Elect; President; Immediate Past President, playing a key role across that period].
  • Transparency/accountability: Our new surge in members, and in members’ level of engagement, makes urgent that we develop processes that are as transparent and accountable as possible. At the last two meetings (NEC and HEC) I’ve brought motions on increasing transparency and clarity around industrial action decision making. These have now been timed out (NEC) and ruled to have fallen (HEC). Nonetheless member pressure is forcing us (UCU nationally) to act in an increasingly open way. All of us (HEC or not) should be pushing for this.
  • The collective action that I have experienced locally at City has been amazing – creative, collegial, transformative, critical and fun. I am aware that this experience is widespread and it gives me confidence that we are now readier to take on fights around marketisation, casualisation, jobs and inequality in HE. If the fight for decent Defined Benefit pensions is part of a bigger struggle it’s up to us to extend the fight, not end it.

Rachel Cohen, City UCU and HEC member for London and the East.

The above are personal reflections. Other HEC members and Branch Delegates will, of course, have left these meetings with different impressions.


USS Strike – Days Six to Nine

This week our branch continued with a really strong showing on the pickets, and had some a major success that made national news. It has been quite an inspiring week (and previous 3 months) to be part of City UCU, particularly since we are in the 3rd week of action, and there has been a bit of strike fatigue.

We’ve seen our membership numbers have a rapid growth, with nearly 100 new members in the past 5 weeks. Each day there have been new faces on the picket lines, with members making friends across departments and schools, something that the university seems to really struggle to do. The atmosphere has been warm and friendly (dispute the cold, snow, rain, and savage winds) something that can be seen on our branch twitter, on the USS hashtags, and across the country on UCU’s twitter

Fresh from a weekend of rest (hopefully because members were keeping to ASOS and keeping the weekends for themselves rather than for work) we kicked off on Monday with a strong united set of pickets, including a few pooches on the picket, followed by a fully vegan lunch in the Blacksmith & Toffemaker ( provided by the branch. We had a quick branch meeting where we discussed ideas for the escalating of action, which the committee then reported by to HQ. In the evening Rebecca and I then went to Finsbury Park Mosque to speak at the Stand up to Racism event (, where they very kindly did a collection and gave us donation to the hardship fund. For those interested there is a national demo on Saturday 17 March (details

Tuesday saw Vince Cable refuse to cross the picket to attend an event at Cass Business School after some quick mobilisation from members who tweeted him directly, while a small group were poised at Bunhill Row ready to hand him strike materials if he did still cross. This was all kept hush hush to ensure management didn’t get wind of our plans and change venues last minute, and it was thanks our members quick fingers that he cancelled, and it even got a mention in The Guardian That afternoon we returned to the Sekforde Arms for our Second Teach-Out, organised by Dr Claire Marris (Senior Lecturer, Centre for Food Policy), where we sheltered from the cold, learnt about festival Welfare and drug policy, Brexit and the impact on food, resistance and global justice, surveillance of education, food sovereignty in the Czech Republic and art to encourage social change, and had our Regional Officer give a rousing speech about UUK being on the back foot.

Wednesday afternoon there was poster making in preparation for the Women’s Strike event on Thursday, and the Three Corners community centre near Spa Fields kindly let a few members use the venue for free.

Thursday saw Dr Grietje Baars (Lecturer, City Law School) organise a Teach Out themed around International Women’s Day with topics on intersectionality, Mothers behaving badly, Social Media as a tool for feminist action, and on the Yarl’s Wood hunger strike. The group then walked to Myddelton Street Building to picket an IWD event that was still taking place before marching on to Russel Square to join the Women Strike demo

It has been really refreshing and inspiring seeing the branch not only become more active, but also more political in its action. There is definitely a change in the air, and other Trade Unions are really inspired by UCU’s action, particularly after the aggressive Trade Union Bill. We can, and we will win. ONWARD TO VICTORY COMRADES.

Martin Chivers, Branch Secretary

What you can do to help

  • Find out more
  • Come join us on the picket lines March 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Student support is welcome.
  • Come talk and learn at our free Teach-Outs (Monday 12 at 12:00 in the Toffeemaker, or @cityucu)
  • Contact City President, Professor Sir Paul Curran, and tell him that you support the UCU action and want to him to call on UUK to reach a compromise:
  • Tweet your support: #USSstrike #UCUstrike @cityUCU @CityUniLondon @CityUniSU
  • Contact your MP and ask them to campaign for the government to protect and support our USS pensions.
  • If you can afford it please donate to: UCU City LA14 Hardship Fund, 60-83-01, 20324559