Author: L Scott Blankenship

Email sent to members on Tuesday 28th April 2026.

As part of our campaign to defend jobs and working conditions at the University of Nottingham, we will be sending regular emails, authored by different UCU members, examining key elements of management’s restructuring plans. Today we share the email and report we sent to members of university council – the main governing body of the university – who will decide on the futures of over 600 academics on May 5th and 6th. We urged them to rethink the university’s reckless plans and to consider a much more careful approach to university savings, presented in the 50-page report attached. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

Dear Council Members,

I’m writing to share the attached UCU report on Future Nottingham Phase 2.

I would strongly urge you, particularly our external members, to read this in full before endorsing the University Executive Board’s plans.

UEB’s current strategy is being presented as risk reduction. In reality, it is a high-risk approach that relies on cutting deeply into the University’s core academic capacity while assuming that student demand, research income, and reputation will somehow hold up. The evidence in this report suggests that is not a safe assumption.

What is being proposed is very fast, very large-scale change. The likely consequences are not abstract:

• student–staff ratios pushed well beyond Russell Group norms, with clear implications for rankings and recruitment (and no evidence to support UEB’s claim that such extreme SSRs will be replicated across the sector, despite a union request)
• reduced research capacity, with direct consequences for grant income and long-term reputation (the strategy speaks of “academic growth” but sets out no credible plan for achieving it, while actively cutting the capacity required to deliver it)
• loss of staff that is unlikely to be “controlled”, particularly among those most able to leave
• a real risk of a self-reinforcing cycle, where cuts reduce income, leading to further cuts and ongoing institutional decline

Put bluntly, there is a credible scenario here where the strategy meant to stabilise the University instead pushes it into decline. Our report sets out an alternative that still delivers substantial savings but does so in a much more controlled way. In particular, it shows how savings can be made through natural attrition and workforce rebalancing, delivering on the order of:

• ~£6–7m per year
• ~£20m over three years
• ~£34m over five years

These figures are grounded in observed staff turnover and avoid the costs and disruption associated with large-scale redundancies. Crucially, in contrast to UEB’s proposal, they do not depend on weakening the University’s core teaching and research capacity.

There are also serious concerns about governance which, frankly, should give Council pause.

The report documents repeated instances where:

• key decisions have been pushed through without proper process
• the information provided to Council has lacked the detail needed to test the proposals properly
• Heads of School have not endorsed plans that are being presented as if they have
• Equality Impact Assessments are incomplete or absent

More broadly, there is a growing disconnect between what is being reported upwards and what is being experienced across the University. Many school leaders are deeply concerned about the direction of travel. That is not being reflected clearly in the narrative reaching Council.

You should also be aware of the wider context. All three campus unions have passed votes of no confidence in the University’s leadership. UCU has now balloted for industrial action and secured strong support, with over 86% in favour of action. We also secured the highest turnout across the sector this year, reflecting widespread and escalating concern across the institution.

Council’s role here is critical. These are not routine decisions, and the consequences are not easily reversible. Endorsing a plan of this scale without properly stress-testing its assumptions, and without seriously considering alternatives, carries its own risks. Our ask is straightforward:

• please read the report in full
• ask for clear evidence, at school level, that the proposed cuts are deliverable without damaging core functions
• question whether the financial projections properly account for the risks set out above
• and give proper consideration to the alternative approach

There is still time to take a more measured path. There may not be a second chance to undo the damage if we get this wrong.

Yours sincerely,

UoN UCU Branch Committee

Email sent to members on Monday 27th April. Links updated.

You may have seen an article in Nottingham post that was published late on Friday. Please find link below. This was about proposed job losses indicated in a draft FN2 business case that had been shown to Senate and was going to Council for approval to consult with staff and Trade Unions. We were told that this document would come to us, UCU,  after the Council meeting. Unfortunately, however, as reported by the Post it confirms our worst fears and makes clear that our moving towards industrial action is absolutely necessary.

Council will take a decision on 6 May on the draft Business Case. We sent Council our counterproposal of how to confront the current financial situation, see attached.  Hopefully, Council will see sense and reject that management draft Business Case. 

Link to article

Full solidarity,

Email sent to members on Monday 20th April 2026. Zoom link from original email removed.

Dear members,

We have now been informed about the outcome in our ballot on industrial action. See the full details below underneath this message. As you can see, this is a resounding endorsement of industrial strike action and action short of strike, should management continue with its disastrous plans involving widespread programme suspensions/closures, high staff-student ratios and the related several hundred of job cuts across the institution. It is also an improvement on our last ballot, so thanks to all of you who voted and our amazing reps for all their hard work!

You are not alone. This is the highest participation rate in any formal ballot in HE during 2026. Almost 1000 staff members stand ready to take action collectively. For a discussion of potential types of action, please come to tomorrow’s members meeting from 12 noon to 1 p.m.

In solidarity,

— 

Ballot result:

Turnout: 64.49% (848 votes)

Are you prepared to take industrial action consisting of strike action?: 75.77% yes, 24.23% no

Are you prepared to take industrial action consisting of action short of a strike action?: 86.64% yes, 13.36% no

Email sent to members on 13th April 2026.

As part of our campaign to defend jobs and working conditions at the University of Nottingham, we will be sending regular emails, authored by different UCU members, examining key elements of management’s restructuring plans. Today we look at the implications of what redundancy means for academic staff. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

The Academic Dream

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a footballer. Then, around age twelve, I realised I was crap at football. So instead, I decided I wanted to be an academic. Sad and nerdy, I know — but that was my dream.

It wasn’t easy. Academic jobs are bloody hard to come by. I had to finish top of my degree, survive a PhD that was one of the toughest things I ever did, then spend years bouncing around postdoc positions, moving countries every couple of years, unable to settle down. And my partner had to do the same. I was pushing thirty with no security, while my friends were buying houses and starting families.

All of it for the dream of one day getting a permanent academic post. When I finally did, my partner just cried.

Because she knew what it meant. We could finally settle down, just like everyone else.

I love my job. I love teaching, doing research, and being part of a community that creates knowledge. But if I lose this job — I’m screwed. Academic jobs are rare. You don’t just walk into another one. For most of us, redundancy means the end of the dream. The end of a career we’ve spent decades building.

A lucky few might find another post, but not in Nottingham. Probably not even in the UK. Those who do will see their families once a month, if that.

This is what redundancy means for academics. It’s not just losing a job — it’s losing your identity, your community, your way of life.

That’s why I’m asking everyone to fight for my job, my life — and I promise to fight for yours.

Why We Take Action

To strike or take part in a MAB is one of the most generous things you can do.

I love teaching my subject because it’s a brilliant subject. At least that’s how I see it. And I hate telling my students I won’t be in class or that I won’t be marking their exams. I don’t want to lose salary. But I’m putting that aside because I’m fighting for something bigger — for the soul of this university.

I’m striking so that no one’s academic dream is crushed by managerial ideology. I’m striking for our students — not just those here now, but those who’ll come here in five or ten years’ time. They deserve to be taught by staff who feel safe, secure, and valued — not by ghosts in shiny new buildings.

Because that’s the vision of our senior management: more buildings, fewer people.

“The University is Skint” — Really?

I’ve heard some colleagues say, “Why are you bothering? There’s a national funding crisis. The university’s skint. There’s nothing we can do.”

Bollocks.

Even though we threw tens of millions down the toilet with the failed castle meadow campus vanity project we remain one of the richest universities in the country. Yes, there are problems with how higher education is funded — of course there are — but make no mistake: redundancies are a choice.

The Vice-Chancellor admitted this. Our leaders are chasing after a crazy 9% surplus. The VC herself said that the sector operates between 3% and 6%.

So when UCU calls for reducing the surplus target to 3% or 4%, that’s not radical. That’s common sense. It’s about £16 million a year that could be used to keep staff in work and give students the support they need.

But she won’t do it.

Why? Because like so many Vice-Chancellors, she dreams of shiny new buildings — paid for with lost livelihoods. Buildings in which students will be taught by ghosts — ghosts of the staff whose passion and dedication were thrown away on a bonfire of redundancies.

And for what? For a neoliberal fantasy? For a gong and a place in the House of Lords?

People Before Buildings

At a number of town halls, the VC has spoken about “excellence.” Someone asked her how she defined it. Her answer, and I paraphrase: “I know it when I see it.”

I mean, wow.

Is this the kind of critical thinking steering our university into the abyss?

Shame.

I want an employer who puts people before buildings. An employer who will negotiate meaningfully with trade unions instead of just paying lip service. An employer who puts the education of students before managerial ideology. An employer who protects the livelihoods of the people who make this university what it is.

We need to stand together — for our colleagues, for our students, and for the future of the University of Nottingham.

Save our jobs. Save our university!

                                                 On behalf of the UCU Branch Committee