Just a few hours before announcing to the full university community, union committee members were called to a meeting where they were informed of the university’s plans for a Voluntary Leavers Scheme.  It was explained to us that all job losses would be on a voluntary basis, that the university would consider losing up to a range of 300-400 roles and that the motivation is the fragile financial position of the university as it is projected to be in the future (with a smaller surplus expected this year).   We recognize that for some individuals this scheme will offer positive opportunities to leave the university on an enhanced basis, but we also have a number of concerns about the scheme and how it was communicated to us.
 
The announcement was certainly a communications contrast. The week before in the “View from the VC” we were told that the “University of Birmingham is currently thriving.”  We heard the trumpets launch the 125th Anniversary Chairs and Fellows scheme, and we were told about the “importance that we place on supporting and developing the people who work at Birmingham.” Which world are we living in?  The world where people are valued and the university is thriving and expanding or the world of precarious finances where our fragile status demands we invite people to leave?
 
In our response, we made it clear that telling us a few hours before announcing publicly does not constitute a consultation and that where job losses are expected it is appropriate to consult the UCU in a meaningful way with an opportunity for discussion and feedback.   The university did not have, or was unwilling to share, any analysis of the impact of the scheme on the people leaving and, especially, on the people who remain.  They presented no information about workload or equality implications, no information about the financial context or projections that would motivate the scheme and no information about where they were looking to make cuts.  They could only provide a bare outline of how people might be selected for acceptance to the scheme and who would be responsible for those decisions.  
 
We remain very concerned about the workload and equality implications for people who remain and we are not reassured by the experience of the recent previous VLS scheme in 2020/2021.  Excessive workloads are the top concern of staff in a recent BUCU survey by a large margin (nearly 70% of respondents listed workload as a priority issue), and the University is already dealing with a referral to the HSE over these concerns.  It is unclear, and our meeting with university representatives did not provide additional clarity, how losing 300-400 staff would not exacerbate an already acute problem.
 
We are also concerned to monitor whether people will be pressured to consider the scheme in connection with performance management.  The university has said that the scheme is completely voluntary.  If UCU members feel any pressure to apply or are presented with the scheme in a context where performance management is also discussed, we would encourage them to contact us with their concerns so we can ensure that it operates respecting the spirit with which it has been described.