UCL cuts - 2009-10

Q.

Who decides what action is called?

Our ballot empowers union members to decide on precise forms of action.

Decisions on the timing and type of industrial action to be used will be made by a General Meeting to which all UCU members will be invited.

Industrial action represents a breach of contract and the University may choose not to pay you on days when you have taken that action.

Q.

What is this dispute about?

In July 2009 UCL told trade unions that it wanted to make 6% cuts - £20M - in its operating budget in 2009-10. In UCL’s response to HEFCE, management projected cuts of 3% annually thereafter. (BUT see HEFCE announcement below.)

The headline figure of 6% conceals a great deal of variation. Some departments were asked to make cuts of a ‘mere’ 2% this year, whereas the Faculty of Life Sciences faces 10.4% cuts, leading to the present “about 20” academic redundancies and 10 support staff redundancies. Central services departments and Biomedical Sciences have been asked to reduce their budgets by 6%.

UCL’s response to these financial targets, which are themselves controversial at best (see below), is to reduce academic and centrally funded support staff posts. The post reductions UCL is aiming at are fewer than would be expected by annual staff turnover. An important question therefore is why is UCL risking a damaging dispute to make savings that could be achieved by natural wastage?

The University is not consulting meaningfully to avoid redundancies and, indeed, is using redundancies as the “method of first resort.” This sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for all UCL academic staff, and for freedom of research inquiry within the academy more generally.

Q.

What cuts are UCL making?

UCL is making cuts in academic staff, defined by Statute 18 as Professors, Readers, Senior Lecturers and Lecturers, and academic-related support staff. Research staff are not being targeted but may be indirectly affected (e.g. if their academic Principal Investigator leaves UCL).

1. Academic redundancies

On 14 January, on a meeting convened just prior to an Away Day, UCL Council met and approved the establishment of a Redundancy Committee to consider the redundancies of academic staff in the Faculty of Life Sciences. Without notification, behind closed doors and without reference to Academic Board, UCL ended nearly two centuries of redundancy protection of academic staff under Tenure and Statute arrangements.

The Dean of Life Sciences, Mary Collins served notice on all 214 academic staff in her Faculty, that, unless enough staff volunteer for redundancy by Easter, her Senior Management Team will proceed to identify staff for compulsory redundancies. The figure of “around 20” redundancies is high because although only 29% of 2009-10 savings (£870K) are to be made at the cost of academic posts, she intends to make 100% of the 2010-11 savings target (the 3% target, or £900K - now see below) at academics’ expense.

To this end Life Sciences management have drawn up “criteria” for identifying staff who may be “safe” while others are selected for redundancy. These criteria have been criticised by staff for being extremely opaque. Before Christmas, management explicitly referred to a ‘hit list’ in discussions with union negotiators. The expectation is that management have a clear idea as to who they consider do not fit these criteria and they would give these names to UCL Council for compulsory redundancy if insufficient volunteers come forward.

No other UCL Faculty currently faces academic redundancies. However your union does not believe that this will remain true for long. We believe that if UCL succeeds in their current proposals of dismissing academic staff in Life Sciences using this procedure then they will repeat the exercise in Faculty after Faculty. The Dean of Life Sciences told staff on 21 January that this was exactly what she expected would happen.

2. Administrative and support staff redundancies, and restructuring

Since September 2009 UCL has been hit by wave after wave of local consultations over restructuring proposals. These redundancies have fallen on academic-related administrative and support staff.

At the time of writing UCL is consulting the trade unions over three large multi-faceted restructuring proposals. As well as leading to redundancies, these proposals are likely to lead to an increase in workload and cuts in service to students and staff. These are

	Registry: where 16 posts are at risk of redundancy in student-facing services and outreach,
	Modern Languages Review: where 6 posts are at risk of redundancy in administration in Arts and Humanities language departments, and
	Life Sciences: where, in addition to academics, 10 posts are at risk of redundancy in technical services, research support and administration.

Further cuts are being made in Museums and Collections, and a proposal for cuts in the History of Medicine is awaited. Library proposals have not been brought forward but recruitment is frozen.

In the Information Services Division UCU fought a strong campaign to fight a proposed cut in 10 posts. Although compulsory redundancies have been avoided for now, there has been a net reduction of 5 FTE worth of staff, with two more staff due to leave within the next six months. The effects of this reduction are being seen in a increased workload on existing staff, a reduction in service quality (the ADS Team is frequently announcing that they are providing reduced cover). Management are simultaneously suggesting a 3% cut in core staff next year while proposing to recruit private contractors to ensure outstanding work is carried out.

Q.

Is there a valid financial justification for the cuts?

UCU’s analysis of UCL’s financial position is that it is on a sound financial footing, and the budget does not entail the extent and speed of cuts the Senior Management Team proposes to make.

	UCL earned an income of over £731M in 2009 and recently raised more than £100M from alumni and others in its “Campaign for UCL”. UCL’s income increased by 12.25% from 2008 to 2009.
	There is no outstanding deficit, as persisted for many years.
	Research funding is providing record levels of overhead income (£248M in 2009) from Full Economic Costing, despite employing fewer research staff.
	UCL budgeted for a pay rise of 2.5% in 2009-10 and only had to pay out 0.5%.
	UCL is gaining significantly from a “demographic windfall” over the next ten years as staff retire and are replaced with lower-earning, younger staff.
	UCL is second in the Guardian’s league table of high-paying universities, with the Provost earning over £400,000 (15% up from last year) and more than 300 staff earn above £100,000 a year. If senior management really believe there is a financial crisis then why are they not proposing to cut their salaries or work part time?
	New expenditure continues, for instance on the new Kazakhstan campus.

The financial savings to be obtained from cutting posts are simply a much lower order of magnitude. For example, the Life Sciences academic redundancies aim to save £1.7M. UCL budgeted an additional £6M to make redundancies in 2009-10. In short, the financial evidence does not support making these redundancies.

The inescapable conclusion is that these are cuts of choice, not necessity.

Q.

What are the implications of HEFCE’s funding announcement?

On 18 March HEFCE publicly announced its budget allocation for 2010-11 for UK Universities. The national picture is grim. Our colleagues in other UK Universities are facing major cuts. The University of Reading faces a massive 8% cut. » HEFCE data

This is not the case for UCL.

Last year UCL was awarded £176.6M (up 1.2% on the previous year). For 2010-11 UCL was awarded £178.8M. This represents a rise of 1.7%.

Management’s “business case” for making UCL’s cuts is premised on the assumption that UCL’s operating budget would be reduced by 3% next year. This was used to justify the urgency in adjusting the budget. Before Christmas UCL told HEFCE that they could manage on 3% less in 2010-11.

This announcement further undermines UCL’s financial justification for cuts.

	Life Sciences will gain around £510K for 2010-11 rather than lose £900K as projected. Half of the Life Sciences academic redundancy targets are based on this prospective saving of 3% for 2010-11. Next year’s target is now accounted for. The overall target figure must immediately reduce to “around 10” academic redundancies rather than “around 20”.
	The 1.7% (£510K) increase in Life Sciences budget next year also means that current cuts targets for 2009-10 should be immediately reduced. Life Sciences staff cuts for 2009-10 aim to cut the budget by £1.5M (split as £870K academic £630K support). On current planning, staff would leave by the end of UCL’s financial year 2009-10. UCL has already budgeted for their pay for 2009-10. Therefore the current Life Sciences staff cuts should also immediately fall to £1M, benefiting support staff and academic staff alike.
	In exactly the same way the business cases for the “6% savings” in currently open consultations must be urgently revised. Departments asked to make 2% cuts will now gain 1.7% - almost wiping out the reduction. Departments with 6% cuts targets (principally, Central Services departments and Biomedicine) must review their budgets to see if any reductions in staff are necessary.
	The final piece of good news is this. There can be no financial case for staff cuts next year.

The projections above are a “worst case” scenario, assume zero cost to UCL and no call on other budgets or short-term cross-subsidy.

UCL budgeted £6M to make staff cuts. The obvious question is how much of this has been spent? The remainder should be immediately used to further offset redundancies.

UCU representatives will be meeting with the Provost alongside our colleagues from our sister unions, UNITE and UNISON, on Wednesday 23 March to discuss the HEFCE funding announcement.

We will be demanding an immediate cease-fire in the current redundancy programme and a committment by UCL to focus the 1.7% increase on re-hiring staff in services, including student-facing support, that have been hit hard this year.

Q.

What about cuts next year?

This dispute is primarily over this year’s cuts programme. However we are all conscious that the HE sector is being targeted for much greater cuts. Politicians continue to vie with each other to cut public sector funding and Universities are seen as a soft target. If we do not speak out, no-one else will.

On 1 February HEFCE announced a cut of £449M of which £214M (1.6% in real terms) is allocated to teaching. On 18 March, Universities were told by HEFCE of their budget allocations for 2010-11. Against its own projections, UCL increased its take by 1.7%. Other universities have fared less well. » HEFCE data

UCU firmly believes that Vice Chancellors have effectively invited these cuts. UCL Management submitted financial plans for 3% compound cuts per annum to HEFCE. UPDATE: UCL told UCU after Easter that they intend to make 3% cuts next year.

In public VCs are mostly silent in defence of their sector. Government ministers David Lammy and Lord Mandelson say the cuts can be absorbed without undermining the fabric of research and education. These cuts are, in their words, mere “efficiency savings” [sic]. Malcolm Grant, UCL Provost, ex-chair of the Russell Group and close confidant of Gordon Brown, has not contradicted the Ministers. This is despite the fact that he sanctioned the redundancy of around 20 academic staff in Life Sciences (half of which UCL justify by the 3% target figure for 2010-11 - but now see above).

The Provost and his counterparts across the sector have bowed down to government and invited cuts. They see their role as implementing them.

Q.

Is there an alternative to cutting UK Universities?

Other countries, notably the US, France and Germany, are investing in HE in the recession. Barack Obama, Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel recognise the economic benefits of investment in HE. The UK government is choosing to make cuts. Overall, the UK performs poorly in OECD league tables of investment in HE, as a 2007 OECD report makes clear:

Investment in knowledge is driven by higher education

Investment in knowledge (R&D, software and higher education) is the basis of innovation and technological progress. In 2003, investment in knowledge in the United Kingdom (3.5% of GDP) was below the EU13 (3.6%) and the OECD average (4.9%).

Low investments in knowledge are mostly due to low R&D expenditure (1.8% of GDP, against 2% in the EU13 and 2.4% in the OECD) and low investment in higher education (0.7% of GDP, as compared to 0.8% in the EU13 and 1.4% in the OECD). Investments in software were in line with the OECD and over the EU13 average.

A related trend in the recession is a government prioritisation of investment into areas promising short-term returns on investment. This explains the present policy of funding ‘knowledge transfer’ and measuring research by short-term ‘impact’, rather than more ‘traditional’ longer-term and wider-benefit areas of activity (e.g. teaching undergraduates, carrying out fundamental research). This trend runs counter to the observation that when other areas of economic activity are depressed it makes sense to invest in the longer term.

Q.

What has UCU been doing about the cuts?

Management have not had it all their own way. In Information Services Division (ISD), members got organised, representatives were elected and staff resisted the cuts. Staff challenged the ‘business case’. They discovered that much of the ‘savings’ required could have been made had UCL simply frozen the budget for the Director’s Office over the period 2008-2010 instead of increasing it by over 200%.

They also asked members of the UCU branch to back them should ISD Management impose compulsory redundancies. By maintaining this dual pressure from staff and the union branch, our reps were able to reduce the number of compulsory redundancies from 10 to 0.

Our colleagues in Life Sciences, Registry, Arts and Humanities and elsewhere are asking for your support. We need to present UCL with a credible threat of industrial action to compel Management to engage in serious negotiations.

Q.

What impact will the cuts have?

In their submission to HEFCE, UCL projected cuts in numbers of undergraduates by 1,272 from 2009-10 to 2012-13, and postgraduate taught students by 1,057 over the same period. They have told HEFCE that they expect to reduce the UCL budget by 3% each year for the next three years. The national political message is that “we can manage” on an ever-decreasing budget. The obvious political danger is to invite further cuts from government.

We believe that these are highly political, structural cuts, which have clear objectives -

	to put UCL academic staff on notice that their post is dependent, on pain of redundancy, on research income generation targets or identified contribution to teaching and management,
	to centralise power within UCL around Vice Provosts, Deans and other senior managers, and to take power away from departments and academics, and
	to reduce the support offered to students, particularly undergraduates.

Colleagues who leave face unemployment at a time when the job market is stagnating. Those who remain face a variety of different impacts depending on their department. These include

	higher teaching and administrative workloads,
	a narrower curriculum, larger classes and less contact time for students,
	greater target-driven micro-management and reduced academic freedom and collegiality, and
	less opportunity for research innovation and collaboration, and the undermining of the idea of UCL as a world class university where novel research can flourish.

Research staff are used to having to justify their continued funding by applying for research grants. If UCL succeed in making compulsory academic redundancies this will place academic staff in a similar position of regularly having to justify their posts. This is no way to run a University.

The test of this hypothesis is what happens now that UCL knows that its projected cut of 3% next year has become a 1.7% increase. If this is only about money then UCL would immediately stop the cuts. If on the other hand it is motivated by a Management political agenda then UCL will try to continue with its cuts plans.

Q.

What does UCU want?

UCU’s demands on behalf of our members are simple and reasonable. These are

Q.

What practical steps could UCL take to avoid redundancies?

The post reductions UCL is aiming at are fewer than those expected through annual staff turnover. UCL could avoid redundancy in the majority of cases by a number of steps, including

	offering voluntary redundancy packages on an open basis,
	actively placing at-risk staff in new or vacated posts, and consult with the union to safeguard the appointment process,
	extending notice periods to staff for a much longer period, increasing their opportunities, and
	agreeing to protect pay of staff who accept downgraded posts (as in the Pay Framework - this is standard practice across the sector).

UCL should then withdraw redundancy notices to support staff in order to allow them to take advantage of these improved arrangements.

Q.

What about fixed term or ‘fixed funded’ staff?

The current restructuring process is aimed at cutting core funded staff. However UCL has a much higher redundancy rate of ‘fixed funded’ staff - over 400 a year - than those funded out of core budgets.

Engaging in college-wide consultation to avoid redundancy would also be an opportunity to review other bad practices UCL engages in with respect to redundancy. UCU is extremely concerned that consultation over ending ‘fixed funded’ posts, in some cases offered as an alternative to deleted posts, is often much less favourable than that of ‘core funded’ posts. We have campaigned over this question for years.

The law is very clear: fixed funding is not a factor that should affect redundancy consultation processes or otherwise cause less favourable treatment. However UCL managers often fail to pool fixed funded posts with those of colleagues carrying out the same or similar duties, meaning that the funding end date is the sole reason used to dismiss a particular staff member.

This practice varies - there have been cases of pooling fixed funded and core funded staff together in the past, and some redundancy appeals have been upheld due to this failure. However the prevailing assumption of UCL managers seems to be that if a particular post is funded for a fixed term then it is sufficient to select the staff member in post for redundancy without wider consultation. Although some progress has been made and UCL has changed the Termination Procedure to take account of this (section 1.2 now refers managers back to the pooled consultation procedure) HR does not monitor adherence to this rule and often managers do not appear to understand it. Latest information on this issue is here.

Q.

Is a negotiated solution possible?

UCU has tried on several occasions to get UCL to discuss a negotiated solution to their ‘crisis’. Unfortunately UCL’s stated position is that they “see no reason” to change their timetable, that Council is aware of UCU’s position on academic redundancies and that redundancies are, in the Provost’s words, “not the main story.”

We remain willing to enter into negotiations to avoid a dispute and we wrote to Malcolm Grant most recently on 5 March to ask him to do so. He refused to do so. We wrote again in response to an email to all staff which claimed our industrial action ballot was premature.

It is now up to you. The stronger the vote for action we receive in this ballot, the stronger our negotiating position will be.

Q.

Won’t industrial action hurt students?

This is a worrying time for students so we are pleased that the Student Union (UCLU) has voted to support UCU members and our campaign against the cuts without condition. They will also support and fund a student-led campaign against the cuts. We will continue to explain the issues to students and work together to protect the interests of those who learn and work here. The students are worried about an increase in tuition fees and a deterioration in the quality of their education. We share their concerns.

Therefore while the union is balloting you for both strike action and action short of a strike because of the seriousness of the situation, we have given a commitment to students that as far as possible any industrial action by UCU will seek to minimise the impact upon them.

Q.

I support the union’s position, is it important I vote?

Q.

What can I do to help?

You can help defend UCL from cuts in jobs, research and education!

1.

Join the union. If you are a member of academic, research or academic-related staff and not yet in the union, please don't wait until it is too late, join online now. UCU works closely with the other campus unions. Note: Technical and scientific support staff should join UNITE and manual, craft and junior administrative staff should join UNISON.

2.

Join the campaign. There are many small and manageable things that you could do which could make a real difference - email us on ucu@ucl.ac.uk to get involved. For example: Build support for the strike action and join the picket lines. Our negotiators have been making every effort to avert the need for a damaging dispute. The more people who participate in the action, and do so visibly, by protesting and picketing, the better the result for everyone. Organise a meeting in your department to discuss the cuts and why we are taking action. Contact us for help. Talk to students – these cuts will affect everyone. The Students Union, UCLU, has voted to support UCU. We realise many students will be apprehensive about staff taking action, but UCLU has agreed to support staff because the alternative - allowing cuts to go through - is worse.