Email sent to members on Friday 3rd July. Zoom links removed.
Dear members,
Sorry for the slight delay in this email, it has been a very busy day. We wanted to give you a clear update on the state of play of the dispute, pay deductions, and your responses to the two offers from management. This is a lengthy email but it’s important!
Update on weekend/non-working day strike pay deductions
Many of you flagged to us on your payslip that you had noticed extra deductions and that these correlated to weekend/non-working day deductions. We have been in regular contact with HR and payroll this week to explore this, and, having just come out of a meeting I can confirm that this is the new University line due to our strike day deductions being counted at 1/365. While of course fundamentally disputing the idea of weekend/non-working day deductions, we also pointed out that this was a significant, material change that was at no point communicated to staff. We are working with HR and payroll to explore a solution to these recent, non-communicated deductions and will update you as soon as we can.
Member vote on the second offer
The response to the indicative vote was fantastic. In under 24 hours 391 of you voted with your opinion, and the result was clear: 86.7% of you (339) said No, the offer isn’t sufficient to take to a member meeting, while 13.3% of you (52) said Yes.
Following the close of the vote, at 1pm our regional officer sent those results to management reiterating that the current offer falls well short of something that members would consider. She said that we were particularly disappointed that there had only been movement in one area to do with the potential of a MARS (Mutually Agreed Recognition Scheme). Reiterating member frustration that there was nothing more on pay deductions, enhancement of voluntary redundancy (VR) for those here more than 11 years, nor course closures – let alone ruling out compulsory redundancy! We had hoped to hear back from management with an improved offer, but as yet nothing.
We also wanted to thank the many of you who left comments, we have read every single one. Almost all were shocked by the offer, and of these many were so profane that we probably can’t share them here, although the wordcloud below gives you a sense of what people thought.
But there were two main themes that emerged from the comments that we wanted to quickly respond to here, but we will also make sure we set aside proper time to discuss.
Why MARS?
Quite a few comments were supportive of the idea of including a MARS, but others weren’t sure of the value. There are a couple of reasons why it could be worth considering.
First, we have received quite a few enquiries from staff who haven’t been pooled who want to leave due to Future Nottingham and the state of the institution. As it stands were they to leave they would do so without any pay, and a MARS scheme would mean that those who want to leave could do so in an enhanced way. This would also, as a consequence, reduce the likelihood of compulsory redundancy (CR) and also provide more options for staff in pools and at risk to move to different bits of the University and keep their job. One of our absolute priorities in this dispute is to prevent CR, so this seems like it could be something worth considering.
We have long argued that the way management has gone about this restructure is cruel and unnecessary and that a MARS scheme would have been fairer. We would rather the MARS was opened up more widely so that anyone who wants to go can do so with financial support, but in this offer management suggested keeping it even more tightly bound as they want to maintain their vision for Future Nottingham. How a potential MARS is run is therefore a point of negotiation.
It is clear that the addition of MARS alone is not enough, but lots of the comments suggested that MARS and more enhancement on the 11+ years of service could perhaps be something to consider as long as we had movement on the other requests as well.
What options do we have beyond the marking boycott?
A few comments were around what happens if we get beyond a point where the marking boycott is disruptive. For some, this was a reason to consider accepting the offer, but for most who raised this question they were asking: what options do we have for escalation?
This is an important topic, as a commitment to no CR was a red line that many of you said we need to keep to, and to achieve this we might need further action. In terms of things that can be done, plenty of these were suggested in the comments and included: actions at open days, actions at graduation, REF and impact boycotts, further marking boycott action in the August resit period, industrial action in the new academic year, and much more besides.
We now have a 12 month mandate for action when previously it was just 6 months. This means there is a lot more scope for new action and escalation and we can target future pinch points in the academic calendar.
What next?
Given these are important topics, we are inviting you to a member meeting at 2pm on Thursday 9th July. Department reps may also be organising local meetings to discuss these options ahead of this meeting.
But for the time being we need to hold the line, especially those in areas with accredited marks. Next week will involve many rescheduled exam boards and we strongly encourage members to attend and register their questions about marking irregularities and the contingency regulations. We also know that in many post graduate programmes the MAB continues to be disruptive and support members to continue, and expand, such impactful action.
Of course if in the meantime there are any more offers from management we will let you know, but do please keep speaking to each other and your reps, and you are always welcome to get in touch with the committee. We are led by you, and this is your dispute.
In solidarity,