In today’s “View from BUCU”:

• University restructuring rumbles on, without consultation
• Freedom of speech on campus under threat (again)
• Improving Workload
• Pensions
• BACF review – BUCU recommendations

Dear BUCU members,

We continue to enter into sustained negotiations with the University, trying to advance the key negotiating goals we have set for 2024. We are always trying to juggle a number of different issues, so to help all members (and  managers) keep track, we have updated our Live negotiations tracker – feel free to use it to keep up to date.

We have our next Joint Negotiating meeting (JNCC) on Thursday. This is the formal round of negotiations which take place quarterly. We’ll be asking a number of questions on your behalf, and we’ll report back with the answers afterwards:

• Does UoB agree to meet our 2024 campaign goals?
• Will the missing Hybrid Working Policy be put back on the intranet whilst it is the subject of our negotiations?
• When will the “postponed” Staff-Student Listening Session on the Current Situation in Palestine be allowed to be held, and how does its longstanding postponement square with the University’s proclaimed commitment to freedom of speech?
• Why such a reluctance to consult over the University-wide hidden restructuring that is ongoing?

As usual, get in touch if you have any issues you want us to bring up.

University restructuring rumbles on, without consultation

The University appears to be undergoing a hidden process of restructuring. Last year we saw the considerable restructure of the Research Strategy and Services Division of the University – which prompted UCU to raise a number of serious concerns, including that this was done without proper consultation of UCU.

Now we are aware of an ongoing CAL 2025 review which is currently ongoing and which, from what we can ascertain, sounds worrying like another restructure. Again, there has been no proper consultation with UCU.

We have also been made aware that the Birmingham Energy Institute is currently undergoing a restructure, with several jobs at risk of redundancy. Again, no consultation – seemingly justified by the fact that the jobs at risk are ‘only’ the contentious ‘PFED’ contracts (which we’ve also been told are no longer going to be in use).

Finally, we learned at the last minute (literally days before it was announced) that the College of Medical and Dental Services (MDS) is now restructured. This saw a major reorganisation of the College – which UCU were informed of roughly 2 days before it went ahead.

If the University is doing restructures, then it is under agreement with us to consult thoroughly beforehand. If redundancies are taking place, then we BUCU members need to consider how we should respond to these.

We are bringing this up as an urgent issue in our negotiating meeting on Thursday – and we will update you shortly. This is definitely one to watch. If the University senior management is systematically doing hidden restructuring across the University then we need to make sure that we have a university-wide UCU response.

Freedom of speech on campus

You will have seen the words of reassurance from VC Adam Tickell on Friday, regarding his and the University management’s commitment to free speech, unity and empathy. But we do need to set the record straight:

The University “postponed” the Staff-Student Listening Session on the Current Situation in Palestine which was scheduled to take place in November. No clear reasons were ever given for this postponement, and the event still hasn’t been allowed to take place. This does not amount to freedom of speech.

Having an onerous application form – which can be denied for any spurious reason – in order to be able to apply for permission to speak – especially a newly revised form which we have had no consultation over – also does not amount to Freedom of Speech.

The University keeps referring to an ongoing police investigation regarding the “events of February 7” – but a journalist has spent a week investigating those events, speaking to participants who both supported and opposed the protest, and found no-one at all who heard the infamous chants that were reported in the national press. We suggest that’s because perhaps the chant didn’t happen. If it did happen, then surely the University Head of Security, the University Director of Student Affairs, or the University Director of HR – all of whom were in attendance – could have stepped in to ask the University security to put an end to such hate speech?

Rather than simply announce that the chant didn’t happen, the University are instead openly seeking to side-step the blame and place it all on UCU’s shoulders. We reject this as an outright attempt to intimidate trade union officers. We have been accused of enabling an ‘unofficial student protest’ because we didn’t prevent it from happening. But neither did the University Head of Security, the University Director of Student Affairs, or the University Director of HR who were in attendance. So why are we being blamed for allowing the event to go ahead? In fact, how could we possibly be expected to even know what events on campus have, and have not, been given permission to go ahead? The claim is so ridiculous it obviously cannot stand up to the slightest scrutiny. 

We are also being chastised for failing to apply for an external speaker at our own event – despite not having an external speaker at our event.

Finally, we are asked why we didn’t step in and stop students who supported our vigil from joining us, and then contact university security, which – it is claimed – we had promised to do in our risk assessment. Well, see for yourself whether we ever promised such a thing in our risk assessment:

All of these spurious accusations – and the constant mention of a police investigation – can only be designed to intimidate and silence. This, alongside the cancellation of the Listening Session, and the failure to agree to a proper consultation over the revised Code of Practice on applications to speak freely, do not reassure us that this University is committed to freedom of speech.

We call for an urgent independent investigation into UoB’s silencing of voices that show concern for the genocide that is happening, as we speak, in Gaza.

Improving Workload

BUCU and UoB have been engaged in ongoing discussions over workload. One point of agreement that we welcome is that it has been established as part of these discussions that 1000 WAM points is, and remains, the University’s estimation of a full working week. 

Anyone whose WAM calculations take them over 1000 points should therefore feel able to respond to any requests for additional work which takes them over 1000 points, to say that they are already at maximum capacity. All management instructions need to be reasonable if they are to be followed, and asking someone to work an amount that is over a full workload clearly risks being unreasonable.

We continue to encourage all members to challenge any attempt to have work piled on you that takes you over the full workload. If you need help raising this issue then please do contact us: casework@birminghamucu.org

We also continue to insist that any new WAM calculation method, or alteration to existing methods, needs to be negotiated with, and agreed to by, UCU as the recognised representative of the workforce at UoB.

Pensions

Pensions news for those who are eligible to join USS but opted out

It is a good time to join USS, for those who can afford it. If you have not before been able to afford to join USS (including those on a casualised contract), joining before 31st March will entitle you to the Recovery payment of £215 (inflation linked) on top of each year’s accrued pension. Pension benefits will also be Restored to March 2022 levels (accrual, threshold, inflation protection) from 1st April. 

Please see here for useful FAQs from USS on the uplift:
https://www.uss.co.uk/news-and-views/member-news/2023/11/11212023_your-questions-answered-on-the-one-off-uplift

And please see here for details of the savings per month from the January reduction:
https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/14248/USS-contributions-savings/pdf/USS_image.pdf 

Pension news for those considering early retirement

Members aware should be aware that if they are considering early retirement, proposed changes to Scheme Factors (as defined below) planned for 01 April 2024, could seriously disadvantage them. UCU believe members considering early retirement should write immediately to USS seeking the necessary financial information to inform their decision and ask for calculation for dates before and after 01 April 2024. Members will also need to urgently engage employers to get the necessary work done so as not to delay any decision with USS. And members must also seek independent financial advice to inform their decision-making (such as the services provided for members by Quilter Financial – UCU – Financial advice from Quilter).

Scheme Factors are used to calculate early retirement & late retirement pension and the Scheme Rules do allow that they can be adjusted following input from the scheme actuary. UCU recently received a paper setting out recommended changes to the scheme factors that had been agreed by the Trustee Board. UCU queried the changes as they would leave those members seeking early retirement after the change date of 01 April 2024 significantly worse off. We are now awaiting additional information requested from USS including a copy of the scheme actuary report into why the changes were needed and have also asked that any changes be set back to 1 September 2024 at the earliest to allow employees and employers the necessary time to consider early retirement options without the need to rush through a process to meet an arbitrary deadline. A response is due imminently and UCU will write again when they have further information (which BUCU will pass on in a newsletter asap).

BACF recommendations

As you may recall, we recently conducted a survey of members regarding how the new BACF (including ADP) scheme is running. This review was a commitment that the University made when the new contracts and new promotion system were introduced 3 years ago.

As a result of our consultation we are now making the following recommendations to the University for revisions to the scheme as we proceed:

• Advertisements for posts that will be subjected to the ADP [5 years, “up or out”] should make it clear what the ADP entails, including the risk to job security.
• The University should provide ADP staff directly with the reassurance it gave to BUCU when introducing the ADP scheme, that the vast majority of staff (in the region of 99%) will make the promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, meaning that the risk of dismissal after 5 years is minimal.
• More attention needs to be given to the quality and appropriateness of the ADP scheme – this includes making sure that training is tailored to the individual needs of those on the programme, that all training providers and related mentors/managers and so on are fully trained so that they understand and can implement the training, and that timetabling glitches are resolved so that clashes are avoided or replacement sessions are available for those who cannot attend.
• an increase in the number of points that can be awarded in the promotion application as a result of good citizenship
• staff be allowed to submit the promotion application form in different formats (e.g. voice notes) – so that disabled staff, for instance, are not impeded in the application process.
• it should be made clear that it is possible to complete the promotion forms during the summer ‘quieter’ period
• staff should be allowed the right of appeal to an independent panel if they disagree with the number of points awarded to them by their School/College as part of their promotion application
• explicit reassurance should be provided that no fixed amount, or calculation such as a department-wide average, of grant income is considered a necessary condition for promotion to be awarded
• explicit reassurance should be provided that no fixed amount of academic outputs, and certainly no stipulated REF score, should be considered a necessary condition for promotion to be awarded
• explicit reassurance that MEQ scores, and certainly no necessary minimum MEQ score, is considered a necessary condition for promotion to be awarded
• introduction of a procedure for calculating the requirements of part-time staff – e.g. pro rata of points achieved – for the promotion application