Tag: 2026 redundancy campaign blog

Email sent to members on Monday 13th July 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 discuss management’s mantra that ‘doing nothing is not an option’. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

Doing Nothing Is Not An Option

It’s remarkable how a power structure will remain wedded to its way of doing things even when all evidence points to it not working. At present the University Executive Board is – from an observer’s perspective at least – doing just that. They (or maybe their parasites consultants?) have invested so much psychic energy into the plans for Future Nottingham 2 that over time it has become increasingly difficult for them to admit that there are fundamental problems or listen to reasoned advice about its various flaws. UEB spent months and months pushing back the release of FN2 plans because they were not ready. The delay heightened the commitment to the plan, so when they did unveil it, including a new academic structure and swinging FTE reductions, they had already sunk costs into this specific pathway, the One and Only route to surplus (the end goal). The One Plan also has a specific timeline to give it (seemingly) exogenous pressure. Budging on any fundamentals is thus hard to do when one is emotionally invested in the correctness of one’s approach, and when there is a limited amount of time to execute it. The welter of negative media attention, the response from dumbfounded staff members – all of this just demonstrates the ultimate correctness of the One Plan and its Vision. Those who display such “resistance to change” (as staff have been repeatedly characterized) are simply unwilling to accept the “difficult decisions” and brute necessity of 1991-style shock therapy. Because of this commitment, alternatives cannot be evaluated on their own merits, but instead for compatibility against the One Plan. Requests for more data will be heard as retreading old ground or attempts to slow the process since the One Plan – by virtue of being the One Plan – is intrinsically well-evidenced and time-sensitive. And so on.

This is set against a backdrop of increasing authoritarianism in the university’s governance structure. It was always there, because it has been set up this way for a long time. Greenaway’s dictatorial format gave way to West, who seemingly attempted to respond to staff desires for greater democracy in governance, but turned out more a matter of change in style than actual substance. Norman and her team are simply using the tools that were already baked into the organisational structure, exploiting the withered mechanisms of oversight and scrutiny, and constructing circular self-dealing architectures of governance (aka ‘marking your own homework’). But the key legitimacy problem for this style of authoritarian and unaccountable university governance is the bare facts of the track record. And the track record is horrible. It gave us the Castle Meadow Campus debacle. It channeled surplus into top-down pet projects (“Beacons of Excellence”) rather than building up reserves. It gave us bad IT procurement processes like Unicore and Campus Solutions that never bothered starting with actual staff needs. It gave us the deleterious restructures of Project Transform. It gave us many millions of pounds in Estates backlogs and attendant failings for the Biomedical Services Unit, various roof collapses, emergency repairs to University Park’s Precambrian district heating system, etc. And it gave us interminable negotiations over the Malaysia Campus. The fruits of UoN’s existing governance structure are rotten.

UEB is a fan of the phrase “doing nothing is not an option”. Staff have now heard or read it countless times. What this device does is to position any criticisms of the One Plan as advocating “doing nothing” (e.g., “the data doesn’t justify this plan”, to which one responds “well, we can’t do nothing!”). But there isa matter at UoN for which “doing nothing is not an option”. And that is doing nothing to change the governance of the university. We’ve extensively stress-tested centralized and authoritarian style management structures, and they have led us to spiral out of control. Doing nothing really isn’t an option here. Instead, we need some radical shifts in governance principles: we need more decentralization and devolution of power, and we need more participatory democracy. This option has not been tried. And the risk assessment for such a change: things can hardly go much worse, now can they?

       On behalf of the Branch Committee

Email sent to members on Monday 6th July 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 elaborate on the tunnel vision driving current restructuring plans. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

Tunnel vision all the way!

Management had a golden opportunity to bring the current industrial dispute to a close providing space for completing all the necessary marking in time for graduation. Our financial counterproposal has demonstrated how the necessary savings can be obtained without redundancies. And even if management was not convinced by every detail of the proposal, the more than 300 applications for voluntary redundancy could, even should have given management the confidence to rule out compulsory redundancies and guarantee some degree level provision in those areas currently earmarked for full closure. And yet, management chose not to do this. Instead, they made two paltry offers, which were both soundly rejected by UCU members. And not only this, management even inflamed the situation further by deducting pay for weekends.

It is very clear that management is neither concerned about students’ interests nor is it worried about the impact on UoN’s reputation. It is driven by a tunnel vision, focusing on the implementation of its ill-conceived Future Nottingham plans. There is no support for management’s plans, not from staff, nor from students, nor from local councillors and MPs. Senate overwhelmingly voted twice against them, reports in the media are scathing. And yet, management proceeds regardless.

This is not the first time that such a tunnel vision has underpinned management decision-making. In Senate meeting after Senate meeting, elected members of Senate had pointed out the folly of acquiring Castle Meadow Campus (CMC). And again and again, management, of which many are still in key positions in UoN, brushed aside concerns arguing that CMC would be an investment into the future of the university. I still remember well the moment when David Park, the Dean of the Business School, boldly stepped to the microphone in Senate, declaring that the Business School was delighted about the opportunities CMC offered for its expansion. If the rooms were not suitable for teaching, then the Business School would simply need to adjust its way of teaching.

UCU too warned management against the acquisition and redevelopment of CMC. As late as the Autumn of 2024, we were still told that we would be given a special tour of the premisses so that we could understand its potential. Over the course of 2025, CMC was suddenly less and less mentioned, our guided tour never took place. Eventually, it became clear that CMC was being prepared for sale in parts or whole. Management’s tunnel vision had resulted in the loss of £65 million.

Future Nottingham, driven by the same tunnel vision, will also result in disaster. The damage this time, however, is likely to be much bigger, undermining the future of UoN as a whole. This is why our struggle against Future Nottingham is not only about defending jobs of our members or securing the interests of students. It is after all also about ensuring a future for our university. We must hold the line!

                                      On behalf of the Branch Committee

Email sent to members on Wednesday 1st July 2026. Zoom details redacted for security.

Dear UCU members,

First, please remember today’s members’ meeting at 11.30 a.m. If there is a new, improved offer by management resulting from this morning’s dispute resolution meeting, we will hold another vote. The Zoom details are as follows:

REDACTED

Second 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 have another, more light-hearted intervention. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

A Bold New Era for Nothingham United FC

By Nigel Stratton-Worthington, Senior chief football strategist. 

At Nothingham United FC, we have always believed that football clubs must look beyond the narrow, outdated objective of winning football matches. While some organisations remain trapped in twentieth-century thinking, obsessing over league position, trophies, player recruitment and other legacy metrics, we have embraced a modern vision focused on sustainability, transformation and property acquisition.

This journey began with our landmark purchase of the Central Plaza Retail Complex. Critics questioned why a football club with an existing club shop, a successful online store, and merchandise sales across multiple channels would require a large city-centre retail development. The answer is simple: Vision.

Unfortunately, after purchasing the complex and investing heavily in renovations, club-branded décor, executive suites, strategic consultation exercises and a state-of-the-art stakeholder engagement atrium, we discovered that we had rather less money than anticipated. Some observers have described the resulting £65 million loss as “catastrophic.” We prefer the term “transformational.”

Indeed, the true measure of leadership is not avoiding expensive mistakes but responding boldly once they have occurred. Consequently, the Board commissioned a comprehensive review of club operations. This revealed a troubling statistic: our Spectator-to-Staff Ratio (SSR) was below target.

Naturally, this finding demanded immediate action. Some traditionalists suggested increasing spectator numbers. Others proposed improving team performance. A few extremists even advocated investing in players. However, careful analysis demonstrated that reducing staff numbers would be significantly easier.

Accordingly, we have launched Project Lean Pitch. The principle is straightforward. Every employee contributes equally to football operations. Whether an individual is a first-team striker, goalkeeper, groundskeeper, academy coach, bus driver or tea-room assistant, each count as precisely one member of staff. This robust methodology allows us to identify efficiencies wherever they exist. Importantly, senior management have been excluded from consideration. As the review concluded, strategic leadership is critical to the future success of the club and therefore cannot be reduced. The same regrettably cannot be said for centre-backs.

Following extensive modelling, we have determined that the optimal football squad consists of eight players. This represents a significant efficiency gain over the previous, wasteful eleven-player model. While some have raised concerns regarding FIFA regulations, positional coverage and basic geometry, we believe these objections reflect an outdated attachment to conventional football thinking. Indeed, our modelling shows that fewer players will create exciting opportunities for innovation, agility and personal resilience. Each remaining player will gain valuable experience covering multiple positions simultaneously. This aligns perfectly with our commitment to professional development.

The financial savings generated through these measures will enable investment in several strategic priorities. Most notably, we are delighted to announce plans for a new Executive Wellness and Leadership Medical Centre. The facility will feature private treatment rooms, a strategic recovery suite, leadership resilience pods and an inspirational glass atrium celebrating our transformation journey. Healthy leadership is vital during periods of change.

As for supporters concerned about the future of the first team, I would encourage them to focus on the bigger picture. Football matches come and go. League tables fluctuate. Relegation is temporary. But retail property acquisitions, strategic transformation programmes and executive wellness infrastructure create lasting value. That is why Nothingham United FC remains committed to delivering sustainable excellence for generations to come. Results on the pitch are, of course, only one measure of success. And fortunately, not one we plan to monitor.

             On behalf of the Branch Committee

Email sent to members on Monday 22nd June 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 discuss the enormous toll that management’s restructuring plans and simple incompetence have taken on staff. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

I’ve been employed in my role here for less than a year. So far Nottingham have accidently sacked me, put me at risk of redundancy, and potentially lost my personal data to cybercriminals. 

Just over a year ago I was about to graduate with my PhD and start what I thought was my dream job. I felt so lucky to have quickly secured a permanent academic post at a Russell Group University and was excited for the year ahead. 

Since then, the University of Nottingham have accidently sacked me, put me at risk of redundancy, and potentially lost my personal data to cybercriminals.

Back in September 2025, during the first week of teaching, I received an email telling me that my account was going to be closed that evening, as I was leaving the University. This email arrived shortly before 3pm in the afternoon, just I was heading into a medical appointment. I had no idea what this was about, and as a new member of staff, was somewhat panicked that there may have been an issue with my contract. 

It was not until the next day, when I managed to get hold of HR on the phone, that I learned there had been a mistake in the system, and I had incorrectly been processed as a leaver. I was told that they ‘thought’ they could reverse this, and without it affecting my tax, as ‘fortunately’ we had just entered a new pay cycle. To be fair, at this point the University did confirm with me almost immediately that the leavers process had been reversed, and I was back on my account later that day. However, it was not until several months later that it was confirmed that my tax had not been impacted, and as a new member of staff, the whole ordeal had quite an impact on me. 

Then, on the 12^th May of this year, I received an email placing my role at risk of redundancy. I’m still not sure what the pool I have been placed in actually looks like, as the numbers on my letter and the University documents do not match. As with many others placed at risk, this has had a significant impact on my self-worth, sense of security and stability, and my initial sense of pride at working for the University of Nottingham has rapidly waned. It has been incredibly difficult to continue to function, turn up to work, and provide the kind of experience, support and presence of mind that I want to give my students. 

Most recently, on the 10^th June, I received an email from the University letting me know that my data had potentially been accessed by cybercriminals the previous day. I am currently enrolled at the University as a student, as well as a staff member, which is why my data was included in the breach. The email informed us that cybercriminals had potentially accessed our contact information, University details, financial information, and personal information. For me, this includes private medical information. The advice provided was to change our passwords and monitor our accounts for suspicious activity. When I attempted to call IT Services to change my passwords (which students cannot do independently) it was not possible to get through. 

This data breach has been even more worrying for me due to security risks in my personal life, with my address needing to be kept confidential. 

Last year I thought I’d secured my dream job, but so far it has felt like one crisis after another. Looking forward to the coming year, I feel more dread than optimism.  

An indebted thank you to, and solidarity with, colleagues from across the University who are currently participating in industrial action at great personal cost. And to those who are not currently out on strike, a reminder to say no to and to continue to resist requests that undermine the action of colleagues who have withdrawn their labour to save our University! 

      On behalf of the Branch Committee

Email sent to members on Monday 8th June 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 discuss the reasons for, and the importance of, participating in the Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB). Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

‘I wasn’t going to do the MAB. Then this happened’

Full disclosure: I wasn’t going to do the marking and assessment boycott.

My reasons were many, and they included the following:

• I don’t teach many Finalists, mainly first years. My participation in the Mab achieves not a great deal.
• I don’t want the University to take my money; I want my money for me.
• Also re money: I am probably being made redundant. A couple months’ pay takes on a greater significance in this context.
• My students this year have been through enough. From finding out in the middle of the semester that their department is closing and their lecturers being made redundant, to being invited to a meeting in which their bags were searched and they were told that the university would rather welcome ‘higher tariff’ students, they have been through enough nonsense. Do I want to risk contributing to any more disruption to their year?
• And also, I really quite fancy actually marking their work.

I genuinely want to reward those students who turned up and did well. The thought of them getting some derived mark, based on their performance in, what, January? – when every good teacher knows that the rate of learning and accomplishment on a project is not the same at the end as it is near the beginning or the middle – is unappealing.

So I wasn’t going to do the MAB. And then I changed my mind.

It wasn’t just the redundancy letter, and it wasn’t seeing the shock on the faces of colleagues who were seeing the pool numbers and understanding the implications for the first time. No, it was that Wednesday 13^th May, the day full of meetings. The FN2 presentation that was riddled with errors (‘Oh, that’s actually wrong on there’, muttered the presenter when reading off the slide, as if encountering it for the first time).

It was also things like seeing that not only are Modern Languages degrees going, the Language Centre is apparently now going too. We had always been assured that, yes, we are still a global university, and no, we are not destroying language provision in the East Midlands. We are keeping the Language Centre. We are keeping the Language Centre. This was always the response from above to concerns voiced by supporters. Now it seems that this is no longer the case. It was seeing how management had, apparently, changed their mind on that one. (See? See how easy it is to change one’s mind?)

And it was the suggestion, from the presenter, that we all ‘Take the time’ to digest all this and take it all in. (‘Take the time’?)

Coming out of the day of meetings, I overheard two colleagues talking about the MAB. ‘I just hope everyone does it this time’, I heard a friend say.

And by that stage, I knew I was going to do the MAB:

• No, I don’t teach Final year students but I can still participate in the MAB.
• If colleagues are losing money on my behalf, then I don’t want the money either. I can earn more money later. I will gladly accept an unpaid sabbatical.
• Actually, my students understand. I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of students who have reached out to say thank you for the work we did this year, and who took the opportunity to say how sorry they are about what’s happening. (Many students have gone above and beyond. To the students who curated the Endangered Species exhibition to draw attention to programme closures: thank you! To the students who have asked their lecturers not to mark their work – thank you.) The students, who are aware of what’s going on, do get it.
• And our branch has a track record of getting things done, and doing them well. The summer when there was that big push against casualisation was the summer the university created a number of permanent jobs to ward off the bad press. The summer when we got our pensions back and everyone got a £500 bonus. Branch action contributed to nudging those things along.

What the last few weeks really have shown me is that what’s happening now is bigger than my job, bigger even than the jobs of everyone doing the MAB. We don’t need to take action for our own sakes. But we want to act with integrity, and this is a chance for that. And it’s a reminder that it’s never too late to change your mind.