The UCU Annual Congress held in June in Manchester took
place against the backdrop of three important factors: the return of a
double-dip recession heralding even more cutbacks in public spending, the
continuing battle over public sector pensions and the attempts of the UCU
General Secretary, Sally Hunt, to bypass established democratic procedures
within the union by conducting an e-ballot amongst members on policy
development.
The UCU Annual Congress held in June in Manchester took
place against the backdrop of three important factors: the return of a
double-dip recession heralding even more cutbacks in public spending, the
continuing battle over public sector pensions and the attempts of the UCU
General Secretary, Sally Hunt, to bypass established democratic procedures
within the union by conducting an e-ballot amongst members on policy
development.
The Congress, as is traditional, was divided into three
sections: the Further Education (FE) and Higher Education (HE) separate sector
congresses and the general congress which united all sections of the union. The
sector congresses dealt with issues particular to the different sectors of
post-16 education. The highlight to note is that in the HE sector congress
delegates voted to reinstate action over the University Superannuation Scheme
(USS) which had been suspended in January after talks with University
employers. The HE decision means that once again UCU members in HE are back in
the fold with all other UCU members in the battle over pensions. This will
unify and potentially strengthen the campaign.
At Congress itself a special section was devoted to the
Teachers Pension Scheme (TPS) where Congress called upon “the incoming NEC, to
develop and propose to other unions a co-ordinated programme of escalating
strike action in defence of public sector pensions from autumn 2012”. The same
Motion 1 on the order paper also recognised that “the widest possible united
action from public sector unions is necessary to stop the government’s attempts
to make us pay for the bankers’ crisis and to raid our pensions to ameliorate
the public sector deficit.” It further recognised that “a failure to stop the
Con-Dem government’s attacks on public sector pensions will encourage them in
their austerity programme of introducing regional pay rates, cutting benefits,
and privatising education and health.”
So UCU is now committed by Congress decisions to
continue and escalate strike action in the autumn over the issue of pensions.
However, such action is conditional on support from other unions on pensions.
The debate itself highlighted the lack of coordinated action amongst public
sector unions over the past period which had seriously affected the impact of
such action. A planned national strike on March 28th ended up with
strike action in London alone from UCU and NUT members. Strike action on May 10th
was only well supported by PCS, and in many parts of the country where UCU
members came out to obey the union call, it was done with little enthusiasm and
very few picket lines.
This time the battle is to be re-energised on the basis of maximum
unity. Congress therefore instructed the NEC to “propose to unions involved in
the TPS dispute or fighting parallel campaigns that an urgent joint meeting be
called of union executives, or subcommittees of those executives delegated to
act on their behalf: such a joint meeting to formulate a programme of industrial
action. We further call on the NEC to propose to those unions to form campaign
committees in all localities to bring about the maximum unity and solidarity.”
In a separate motion Congress resolved that “UCU
will seek agreement with other unions for escalating national industrial
action, including strikes and a national demonstration in defence of pensions,
education, public services, pay and conditions, with action scheduled to
maximise impact.”
What was interesting and
to a large extent alarming was that the composite motion on the TPS dispute was
one of only three motions out of 178 motions plus amendments on the order paper
that mentioned the role of the banks being involved in the development of the
present economic crisis. Motion1 recognised the necessity of stopping “the
government’s attempts to make us pay for the bankers’ crisis and to raid our
pensions to ameliorate the public sector deficit.” Motion 34 from Liverpool
Hope University, also passed, noted that, “We are
witnessing the transfer of vast quantities of public resources from working
people to capital. The government takes resources from education, social
services, health care etc while enabling corporations to gain through corporate
tax subsidies, direct subsidies, bank bailouts, and/or investment
opportunities.”
>The third
motion on the role of the banks did not make it initially on to the agenda as
it had been ruled out of order by the Conference Business Committee (CBC). This
Motion B14, from the West Midlands Retired Members section of UCU, was on the economic crisis and
the public ownership of the banks. It reads:
“UCU Congress notes that:
1.
We are living through the worst crisis
of capitalism since the 1930s.
2.
The government is trying to resolve the
crisis by cutting public spending.
3.
These cuts are having a drastic effect
on the living standards and jobs of working class people, especially women and
youth.
4.
The capitalist system itself caused the
crisis and those responsible for the system continue to draw huge salaries and
bonuses.
5.
The rich are getting richer and the
poor poorer.
6.
Working class people are being forced
to pay for a crisis that they did not cause.
7.
The policies of the banking and finance
sector are laying the foundation for an even greater crisis in the future.
Congress believes that the banks and finance houses are not fit for
purpose and should be taken into public ownership under democratic control.”
The delegate from the West Midlands appealed to Congress for it to
overturn the CBC decision explaining why the issue of the banks and control of
finance was central to any other demands that we have in relation to education
and public services. Congress duly obliged, the motion was reinstated and later
in Congress approved. UCU policy is now for the public ownership of the banks and
finance houses under democratic control.
For me this motion was crucial. From the Congress rostrum delegate after
delegate brought horrendous stories of the effects that public spending cuts
are having on educational provision, student enrolment and attacks on the terms
and conditions of UCU members. Courses are being cut, working hours increased,
salary freezes and even cuts are commonplace, teaching staff are being sacked
and offered re-employment on worst contracts, UCU officers are being targeted
for redundancy, attempts at UCU de-recognition are underway, cuts to student
support such as EMA are reducing student numbers and all of this as the
government tries to make education, along with other public services, pay for a
crisis they did not cause.
Yet, to a large extent, many of these discussions were surreal as they
took place in isolation from the nature of the economic and political crisis we
are experiencing. And this was not to be expected as the Left in UCU is very
strong. Many members support the UCU Left where the SWP is very powerful. This
year too saw the emergence of another Left grouping, the Independent Left. Yet
despite this Left strength very little mention was made of the context within
which all the cuts and attacks are taking place, despite all the very good
motions passed on equal rights, equality of opportunity, defending jobs and
wages, and fighting to retain public education against increasing
privatisation.
Very few explanations were forthcoming as to why these attacks were taking
place except for the odd mention of the “ideology” of the Condem government.
And those delegates who did mention ideology presented the issue as if the
attacks were the result of the reactionary nature of the government. This
boiled the argument down to the political nature and outlook of individuals
rather than policies that are driven by the parlous state of British
capitalism. By treating the issue as “ideological” it raises the premise that
all we have to do is change the ideology by changing the people and all will be
well. It omits to mention that whatever government is in power with whatever
political ideology, if they try to resolve the crisis on the basis of
capitalism, the end result will be the same. Working class people and public
service cuts, including in education, will be on the order of the day. That is
why the motion on public ownership of the banks was important.
The final major issue that overshadowed Congress was the behaviour of
the General Secretary (GS) in the period leading up to Congress. Sally Hunt has
some definite ideas on what UCU should be doing and how it should be doing it.
She believes that money could be saved by reducing the size of the NEC, by
reducing some of the functions of the union and expanding other areas of provision
such as services to members. Any elected post holder, especially a GS, has the
right and duty to raise issues that they believe are important to the union and
to oversee the effective running of the union.
The major question is, however, how do you go about these issues?
Earlier in the year Sally was re-elected as GS with 74% of the vote on a 12.8%
turnout. Sally then took this vote as an endorsement of her proposals to change
the union and proceeded to develop policy on the basis of an e-ballot amongst
the members. All unions have established processes and procedures for
developing policy. Sally bypassed all of these and went directly to the
members. In doing so she earned the opposition of large parts of Congress
which, after a long debate, voted to set aside any results that emerged from
the e-ballot. However, the matter is not at an end as Sally said in her address
to Congress, “And win or lose tomorrow, I will never stop campaigning for the
reforms I believe are necessary and which our members voted for.” In the same
address she tried to tie down delegates to obeying the views of members that
emerged from the e-ballot rather than from the views expressed in democratic
discussions and votes at branch and district committee meetings up and down the
country.
So a lot of
UCU Congress time was devoted to the
issue of the GS’s actions rather than elaborating a comprehensive programme of
aims, strategy and tactics, to defeat the government, reverse the cuts and
defend education and the standards of living of working people. Many in the
union, especially many of the Left, believe that an escalating programme of
strike action will bring the government to its knees and make it change its
mind. Despite the evidence from Greece, Spain, Ireland and elsewhere of not
only the importance of strike action, but also its limitations, for many UCU
comrades strikes have been elevated to the status of a strategy rather than a
tactic. And this is because despite the dedication and commitment of many
comrades to defending members, the union, students and education, they do not
have a political perspective on the need to change society. Or if they do, any
mention of it in their contributions was sorely lacking. And it is only with
such a perspective that the attacks that stem from the crisis in capitalism can
be stopped.
Darrall Cozens.
UCU delegate, West
Midlands.