Petition: Halt Outsourcing Plans at UoN

Please see and share our petition to halt plans for foundational IT services at the University of Nottingham:

On 8 October, the University of Nottingham council supported UEB’s recommendation to outsource foundational IT services to an external company. ‘Foundational IT services’ are likely to include service desk, campus IT support (in person desk side support, AV support, student support), Windows and Linux administrators, data centre operations, HPC and network teams. The definition of what is ‘in scope’ might change over the next 12 months, but we estimate that about 125, or 50%, of information service (IS) staff will be confronted with redundancy or transfer to external contractors. The remaining IS staff will be restructured to fit the new model.

In light of the recent experience with Project Transform and the outsourcing of Campus Solutions to Infosys, we have no reason to believe that this new wave of outsourcing will be managed any better or is even necessary. The ongoing problems with Campus Solutions should be resolved first before even considering any further changes to the systems that feed into it. IS staff are still heavily involved in patching up the failures of Infosys, further outsourcing might well bring the institution to a halt.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bridge Funding Proposal

On Friday, 28 June, the UCU Nottingham branch is making the case for ‘bridge funding’ for research staff coming to the end of their fixed-term contracts. This an important effort to alleviate insecurity faced by researchers. The outline for the proposal can be found here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UoN UCU Anti-Casualisation Petition

The linked petition has been written by UoN UCU’s Anti-Casualisation Committee. We encourage all members to sign and share.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

China Solidarity Motion

The following is the text of a motion that was unanimously carried at UoN UCU’s Branch Meeting on 13 February 2019.

Solidarity with Chinese workers and students!

This meeting notes that 12 students were arrested in different Chinese universities on November 10 and 11, 2018 because they support the campaign for the freedom and union rights of the workers at Jasic International factory in Huizhou (close to Shenzhen). Workers at Jasic have been sacked and detained in late July 2018 because they attempted to set up a trade union. The workers had collected signatures from about ten percent of the workforce for an application to set up a factory union and had submitted an application for this to the Pingshan district trade union in early June 2018.

Subsequently, on 27 July 2018, 29 workers of Jasic and other companies and some of their supporters were arrested. As a response to this, more than 1000 students from 11 different universities in the PRC signed petitions and statements in support of the Jasic workers. In August 2018, 50 students, many of them from the prestigious Renmin University in Beijing, were arrested for their support of the Jasic workers. Five students of those arrested in August remain in custody. Several university administrations threatened students with expulsion, and demanded that they distance themselves from the solidarity actions. The party committee of Renmin University in Beijing created a list of students ‘under observation’.

This meeting further notes that in response to the events, Cornell University suspended two exchange programs with Renmin University in October 2018. Subsequently, students at various universities were blocked from registering Marxist student societies in the new semester. Students who protested against this at Nanjing University were attacked by campus security and plainclothes policemen on November 1, 2018. In addition, on November 9, 2018 two officials of the state-recognized All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), which had assisted the workers at Jasic, were detained. Four workers of Jasic, one NGO worker and ten students remain in police custody or are under domestic arrest.

The University of Nottingham was the first British university to set up a campus in the PRC. We welcome the increase of contacts with Chinese colleagues that was facilitated by this move, but we see the latest developments with distress and deep concern.

We think that we as academics have a particular responsibility to speak out when academic freedom is in question, all the more so if our colleagues, or students, are detained for exercising basic rights. We do not in any way pretend that workers’ and students’ rights are violated only in the PRC. That said, we find the broad repression against workers and academics currently unfolding in the PRC egregious, and believe that it calls for a public response.

Therefore, this meeting resolves to write a public letter to the VC Prof. Shearer West and demand the issue of a public statement affirming the right to form unions, academic freedom and freedom of speech in the PRC, and expressing particular concern about the detention of Jasic workers and their supporters in various universities in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Wuhan.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Conference Report

Report from Special Higher Education Sector Conferences

by Alan Barker

On 7th November two special sector conferences took place in Manchester. The first was to discuss strategy on the Pay campaign and the second was to discuss the USS dispute. Below are short reports on both.


It will be remembered that there was a recent ballot of members on the issue of pay. Specifically, members were asked if they were willing to take part in Industrial Action to help the union negotiate a better pay award. This took place in the context of a draconian policy introduced by the government requiring all institutions to achieve at least a 50% turnout. Naturally, the union is campaigning for this law to be overturned since it one of the most restrictive anywhere in Europe and is democratically unfair since a failure to vote counts in effect the same as a vote of ‘no’.

As was publicised at the time, only a minority of institutions achieved this artificially introduced 50% figure. I’m please to say that we were one of them. However, it is clear that we cannot proceed with national action when most of our branches are not legally able to take it. So, a new strategy is called for. There were 8 motions discussed at this conference which called for different approaches. After a very complex debate a position has emerged.

We will continue the arguments with the employer’s side and attempt to resolve the pay dispute through collective national bargaining. In other words, we will not attempt to bargain as individual branches with our own employer.

The union will complete a nationally aggregated ballot of all members by the end of March with a view to entering the 2019/20 negotiations with a legal mandate for industrial action.


This has been an astonishing success for the union. After a very long period of strike action, both sides agreed to the setting up of a panel of experts who would consider the re-valuation of the USS pension scheme. This panel has concluded that there was no valid reason for USS to value the pension fund as it did and has completely vindicated the position that UCU held throughout the dispute. Our next steps are to be determined by the Higher Education Committee (HEC) as advised by this conference.

It should be noted that, due in large part to a peculiarity in UCU’s rules, this conference was not considered quorate. However, the chair did indicate that decisions taken would be carried through by the HEC.

It was the very clear feeling of the meeting that UCU should not accept any detriment in the next valuation of the pension scheme and there should be no increases in employee contributions above those recommended by the panel. In addition, we will be campaigning for universities to reimburse staff who lost wages during the strike. The University of Nottingham motion was combined with similar motions from UCL and Royal Holloway, and this joint motion was proposed by the UoN Branch President. The motion was taken in parts and the substantive portion of the motion, included below, passed overwhelmingly.

While, as indicated above, this has been one of the most successful campaigns in the union’s history, we have definitely not won yet and work still needs to be done to make sure that the conclusions reached by the expert panel and listened to by all sides.

In conclusion, the day was complicated but useful and UCU has good and hopefully effective policy on both of these matters in the short to medium term.

Composite Motion: Strike action, the JEP report and negotiations

University of Nottingham, University College London, Royal Holloway University of London

Conference notes

1. the historic 14 days of strike action and the threat of further action that forced the employers and USS managers to abandon their plans to replace a Defined Benefit scheme with Defined Contribution pensions and led to the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) report

2. since 2011 UUK has sought to degrade the USS pension and was halted only after this prolonged strike action

3. the contents of the first JEP report, that revealed the scheme was not at imminent risk of default and it was UUK’s attempt to reduce the Employers’ Covenant that triggered de-risking, and which vindicates, as realistic and desirable, the retention of a DB pension with no detriment to benefits

4. analysis by both JEP and Sam Marsh of Sheffield UCU which suggests errors led to both the apparent USS deficit and universities’ willingness to withdraw defined benefit pensions

5. six weeks have passed since the first JEP report and further delays could impede the effectiveness of future strike action.

Conference further notes:

a. the triggering of rule 76.4 imposing cost-sharing of 40%+ increased contributions

b. as an interim measure the JEP proposed that total contributions should rise from 26 to 29.2% of salary, an increase of more than 12% in contributions.

c. current plans for phased increases in contributions place too high a burden on employees and fail to take account of the historic underpayment by employers

d. the dispute is not yet resolved.

Conference calls on the HEC

i. to seek an immediate return to negotiations with UUK.

ii. to call on the employers to pick up the full cost of increased contributions page 2

iii. to generate confidence again amongst our members, by ensuring the National Disputes Committee guides future campaigns to save our DB pensions based on policy determined at Special Higher Education Conference (SHEC)

Iv. to undertake a ballot seeking a mandate for further strike action or ASOS if:

  1. the employers fail to accept the JEP report in full, or
  2. UUK seeks to postpone a return to negotiations, or
  3. an agreement between UCU and UUK retaining the current benefit package is not reached in a timely fashion, or
  4. the employers attempt to pass on costs they have generated onto employees.

Further, conference specifies that the agreement must not include a contribution increase exceeding the JEP recommendation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Anti-Outsourcing Action Group Report and Survey

The University of Nottingham UCU, Unison and Unite branches have been working together to oppose the work of University management to outsource the Information Services department in any form.

In October 2017 the first report on the state and capability of Information Services was created by KPMG. This had several factual issues that the Union, when informed of the report, were concerned about. This was presented to staff in June 2018. It contained 5 potential levels of outsourcing from retaining in-house fully, to a complete outsourcing of over 250 IS staff.

There is currently (November 2018) an ongoing “ITO SOC” (IT Outsourcing Strategic Outline Case) being worked on by an external company. This is expected to be used to present options in January 2019 for a decision to be made by UEB and University Council.

The suggestion of outsourcing part or all of the IS department is unprecedented in the UK Higher Education sector, with the closest example being University of Manchester and their cancelled attempt in 2015. Examples of outsourcing from worldwide Universities have not been easy to find. So called “joint-venture” companies have also been suggested which the Union also oppose since staff are removed from the University workforce and the unit still privatised.

The current outsourcing of the “Campus Solutions” or “Project Transform” (which itself involving 12 TUPEd members of staff) is a cause of concern if this is done to Information Services, as the outsourcing has become a massive issue for the University with frequent complications, delays and cost overruns (unknown and unreported), and a wholesale restructuring of all UoN services in a very opaque process.

The Anti-Outsourcing Joint Action Group has produced a report which has been sent to several UEB members and the Chief Digital Officer of IS which is firmly against any possible outsourcing of IS. You can read this report for further background and outline of the situation here. We however cannot release the KPMG reports to Union members.

We have agreed with our sister unions that the current state of IS is no reason to privatise the department. There are many areas IS excels at and with proper staffing, management, training and strategically run budgets with forward planning the department would be vastly improved. The current work on outsourcing is making staff morale drop and causing a lot of uncertainty and stress, especially over hiring practices cutting back staff numbers and some fixed term contracts being used.

We are interested in hearing your thoughts about the potential IS outsourcing; we have created an online survey which is available here, and request all members of staff send their feedback. Please note that the poll will close on 31 January 2019. IT is used by everyone and therefore the outsourcing is bound to affect everyone.

Any queries or concerns, please email our branch at

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

National ballot on pay and equality is now live!

The value of your pay has declined. The last pay award above inflation was in 2014. 2018 is the year we need to unite and fight for a fair rate for the job.

But if we want to do anything about this we have to do more than win the ballot. Since the government changed the law in 2016 the union now has to get at least a 50% turnout or we cannot take action to defend your position.

Therefore please use your vote. If you have not received a ballot, please contact the branch now to request a replacement ballot paper:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment