Annual Planning Round 2023-24

Update for members: Why you should vote YES in the industrial ballot (10 July 2024)

Last week, the YSJUCU Exec joined UCU Regional Officials in a meeting with the Vice Chancellor to discuss the possibility of resolving the Branch’s trade dispute that has been lodged in response to the University’s Annual Planning Round and the continued threat of redundancies.

YSJUCU reinstated our three demands, which are both reasonable and firmly in the interests of York St John staff and students. Those demands were as follows:

• No compulsory redundancies
• A Redundancy Avoidance Agreement
• A Workload Protection Agreement

Regrettably, the Vice Chancellor rejected all three. Compulsory redundancies will not be withdrawn, and the University will not commit to working with both campus unions on a Redundancy Avoidance Agreement nor a Workload Protection Agreement.

• Each member of Executive Board to take a pay cut amounting to 20% of their current gross pay.
• Each member of the Senior Leadership Team is returned to Grade 10, spine point 53 of the pay scale. 
• No bonuses are apportioned to senior leaders in the five years following any redundancy. 
• Agreement that the above will be a permanent change to the pay structure.

YSJUCU Exec

Update for members on the end of collective consultation (25 June 2024)

Final submission of the collective consultation period (20 June 2024)

YSJUCU Friday Update (7 June 2024)

Summary of Collective Consultation meeting (31 May 2024)

1. We asked to see workload planning for affected staff teams after the proposed redundancies, given none of this was detailed in the ‘business cases’ that YSJUCU were issued last week. We were informed that EB had ‘assumed’ that Heads of Schools/Directorates had carried out workload planning, but had not actually requested any in the proposals that were submitted to them back in March. They therefore issued the Section 188 without seeing any workload modelling at all. We have asked for this to be done now.
2. We asked about programme delivery and whether Heads of Schools/Directorates had mapped out how programmes/services would be delivered after redundancies, or what parts of programmes/services might have to be changed or dropped as result of redundancies. Again, they told us they had not asked for this or seen any mapping. We have asked for this to be done now.
3. We queried how the sector-average SSR numbers had been calculated given that they are using higher numbers than the Guardian league tables, and then using these higher numbers as the primary basis for reducing staffing. They did not know how the higher numbers had been calculated, but insisted that they must be right. We pointed out that the HoS of YBS, who is responsible for three quarters of proposed redundancies of academic staff, was recently quoted admitting that in the past he has had “no confidence in the strategic use of data” at YSJ. We have asked for an explanation as to how they are arriving at the SSRs used to justify redundancies. We are also doing our own calculations of SSRs at YSJ, and modelling the HESA data on sector average SSRs. 
4. Further details were shared about the Voluntary Redundancy period. The application window for VR is 10th June. Applications will be approved by 17th June, and staff will have to sign to accept VR by 21st June. This is concerning for two reasons. Firstly, the narrow window for signing leaves colleagues little time to consult with their trade union or to seek legal advice. Secondly, applicants will be asked to accept VR, before any decisions from the collective consultation period have been actioned, which could impact the initial redundancy proposals. We raised these concerns yesterday.
5. We asked for greater clarity on the pooling process, particularly where there are pools with multiple grades and jobs that are not interchangeable. The response was that the intention was to make some pools as open as possible to understand who (if anyone) might apply for VR. The expectation is that proposals would be further reviewed in light of any cases of VR and, at that point, the pool would also be re-considered and split according to grades. Yet, we pointed out that there are some areas where there are pools of only one staff member, which undermines the aforementioned logic (and is also something that employers are advised against doing). The response to this was that those areas do not have interchangeable roles and so widening the pool would not be appropriate. We have raised further questions about this.
6. We repeated the concerns from members regarding the impossible situation many have been put in where they are being asked to consider applying for VR without having any selection criteria for them as individuals to be able to determine how ‘at risk’ their role is or what their area will look like after staff cuts have been made. We were told that selection criteria are being developed. These criteria will be scrutinised by both unions before they are shared with members next week. The Branch Committee will be able to offer support and application advice for affected members when the criteria are finalised.

UCU’s Response to Rationale for £7.88m cuts (May 2024)

Over the last few months, the university has announced it is embarking on a range of cuts. The university has set out its own rationale here. This blog post draws upon publicly available data to delve into these numbers further and question the rationale behind the current savings target.

Background to the savings target

In November 2023, the financial reports for 2022/23 were signed off by the governors. These included the headline £3.4m deficit that the VC alluded to in her email of January, but also the admission that:

Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the University’s ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue. (p.30)

Things were so good last year that the VC was awarded a £5,000 bonus, on top of her £207,000 salary and £34,000 payment in lieu of pensions (2022/23 financial report, p.44). There was nothing to suggest that large scale cuts were incoming.

However, the need for cuts started to emerge in January. We were told that, due to financial pressures, such as fixed tuition fees, the university needed to cut between £4 and £5m. Over the last three months this figure has been revised from £4-5m to firstly £4.5m and then £4.8m. Last week, this figure was revised upwards to £7.88m.

So what’s happened?

One reason for the poor performance we were told was that tuition fees have not kept pace with inflation. Whilst this is true, inflationary effects have been more than offset by increases in student numbers. When the £9,250 annual undergraduate home fee was set for the 2017/18 academic year, York St John had 6,700 students (p.13). Today it boasts 10,063 (2022/23 financial report, p.10), an increase of 50.19%. In contrast, Bank of England data shows that inflation between 2017 and 2023 was 27.9%.

The disparities over the period from 2012, when £9,000 fees were first introduced, is starker. In 2012/13, monies received from tuition fees and education contracts stood at £28.7m (2012/13 financial report, p.47). Last year tuition fees and education contracts were worth £72.7m (p.39) – an increase of £44m or 153%. For comparison, Bank of England data shows that inflation during this period was 34.2%.

Staff costs, meanwhile, were £25.7m in 2012/13, 54.9% of total expenditure (p.47). Last year staff costs were £52.3m – an increase of £26.6m (or 103.5%).

The difference between the monetary increase in monies received due to teaching activities and monies paid to staff over the period equates to £17.4m. This figure is more than enough to cover inflationary increases of all costs from 2012/13 (total expenditure was £46.8m). Had total expenditure increased in line with inflation it would now be £16m higher, and stand at £62.8m. Total expenditure last year was £91.9m (p.28)

So where has the money gone?

One answer is in reserves – these have increased from £12.7m in 2012/3 (p.23) to £36m in 2022/23 (p.27) – a whopping 183.5% increase. Had reserves increased in line with inflation they would now stand at £17.04m.

Another is large capital projects. Although these are often covered by loans, we have seen a number of capital projects embarked on in recent years. One of these projects, Peppermill Court – purchased for over £3m – is currently unused by the university. When asked about this, we ae told that information relating to this site is commercially sensitive and we cannot be updated on the university’s plans for it.

In addition to this, the university has heavily invested in London campuses. It is currently paying £2.2million per annum for the lease for the London campus.

Over the last few years, YSJ has also actively sought to increase the number of international students. Last year’s financial statement demonstrates that the university received £20m in international tuition fees income. Of this £6.7m was paid to international agents. In addition to the £2.2m figure, this means that 44.5% of international student tuition fees are exhausted before any staffing or course costs are included.

Conclusion

While it is true that tuition fees have not kept pace with inflation, York St John has effectively mitigated this by increasing student numbers. As the above data demonstrates, the income received from teaching has exceeded inflation.  

This closer inspection of university finances reveals significant holes in the discourse surrounding the university’s rationale for implementing cuts. In light of this the union has, throughout this process, repeatedly called for a pause in the implementation of cuts to allow for a more systematic exploration of university finances – something that management has continuously rejected.

UPDATE: Results from the Consultative Ballot (23 May 2024)

• There is a pause in the formal consultation process until Monday 3rd June. 
• They open a much wider voluntary redundancy scheme with improved terms (9 months salary).
• The threat of compulsory redundancies is taken off the table.

Update for members on the collective consultation process (20 May 2024)

Update for members on the YSJ consultative ballot (2 May 2024)

Our consultative ballot for potential industrial action is now live, and will remain open until Wednesday 22 May. 

Update for members following joint-union APR meeting with the COO and Director of HR (April 2024)

Proposed Non-Staff Savings

At the most recent APR meeting we were informed of the ‘Phase Two’ proposals for non-staff savings, as follows:

1.   Pausing the academic promotions round for 2024-25

2.   Pausing re-grading for professional services 2024-25

3.   Strictly applying the policy for departing staff to take annual leave

4.   Removing the YSJ-funded BHSF Cash Plan from February 2025

5.   Removing internal catering for staff-only activity

6.   Reviewing insurance arrangements to reduce unnecessary cost

All six of these proposals are under review with Union feedback due before May 20^th. The estimated savings for implementing these proposals is c.£565k. This is in addition to the other non-staff savings already in progress: budget centralisation,  reviewing procurement contracts, ‘scrutiny’ on staff recruitment and future vacancies. There will be an impact assessment for each proposal (some are likely to halt any progress on reducing the Gender Pay Gap), and there was at least some recognition of likely negative impact on staff health (although only when we pointed this out), as well as well-being, morale, and student experience. We can discuss these proposals at next week’s branch meeting: Wednesday 24^th on Teams at 1pm – an invitation will be sent out shortly. We made it clear that pushing forward with any of these proposals is only acceptable if EB provides concrete reassurances that they are doing everything in their power to avoid compulsory redundancies (we are not reassured of this at present). 

Redundancies

Senior management still refuse to rule out compulsory redundancies, although they have agreed to reflect on the demand from both unions that enhanced terms for a voluntary severance scheme are offered (otherwise, there is no incentive for voluntary redundancy and compulsory redundancy is more likely). We were clear that our UCU branch sees a failure to take CR off the table as a signal to begin organising a ballot for strike action (see below under ‘Action’). We urge all members to ensure they participate in this, and further, that they talk to their unionised colleagues to ensure they participate, and to suggest to their non-unionised colleagues that now is the time to join us. We do not have to accept the continued cycle of redundancies and consequent excessive workloads. In addition, the employer’s current position on VS is unjustified and out of step with other universities in the region, such as Sheffield Hallam, Bradford, and Leeds Beckett who are offering much better voluntary severance terms. YSJ is even out of step with previous policy; for example, we know that the University saved £1m through a VS scheme back in 2020, where 14 members of staff took the enhanced package on offer.

Last Friday, Directors and Heads of School submitted to EB ideas informing ‘Phase Three’ of the APR, where non-staff and staff-savings are being earmarked. Unfortunately, we were given no further information about the contents of these submissions, even though some members are already having meetings as subject teams to discuss how cost saving measures requested by HoS are to be achieved. We continue to press management for details on this and we expect to learn more about precisely what staff-savings are being considered in the coming weeks. We must admit to growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of transparency surrounding ‘Phase Three’, including when the identification of areas for redundancy have been identified. We pointed out that at no stage in the formative proceedings senior management sought to consult with all staff, not just unions, about the criteria for identifying staff-savings. In other branches, the lack of all staff consultation is part of a tribunal claim brought by staff made redundant.

After questioning the COO and HR on their silence regarding scrutiny of middle and senior management roles in redundancy scoping, they confirmed for the first time that staff/roles from all levels of the University will be looked at for staff-savings. However, we remain sceptical as to whether conversations informing the APR 24/25 include Executive Board and Senior Leadership Team positions, not least their excessive pay. In particular, they have recently announced their intention to appoint an additional person to SLT in a role focusing on knowledge exchange. The average SLT member salary is £85k, and they are making this appointment when those providing essential teaching and support are fearing for their jobs. We will, therefore, be submitting a paper to the Remuneration Committee – where EB and SLT salaries are decided – demanding that we see reduced pay for the university’s highest earners and a consolidation of roles at EB and SLT level. Despite it being an obvious proposition from a moral and a mathematical point of view – to start reductions with the highest paid managers before cutting lower paid staff – we are told the Union must draw up the business case! Not only that, the Remuneration Committee meets after the end of the APR process; hence, senior management need to look at our proposals as a matter of urgency or risk growing the perception that they are protecting their own interests at the expense of frontline staff.

When pushed on the above timing of the Remuneration Committee, we were told that, although savings will be identified during the APR, which runs from February to late May, the savings themselves will take effect over a longer period (up to April 2025), potentially through multiple rounds of redundancies. We are yet to know for certain how many ‘waves’ of redundancies they are seeking to run and which staff might fall within each one.

We do not know exactly when senior management will issue a Section 188 to both UCU and UNISON branches. What we do know is that anti-trade union legislation prevents union branches from responding quickly to sudden developments, so we need to mobilise now in anticipation of redundancy notices. It was only through an active and mobilised branch that Northumbria and Aberdeen managed successfully to take compulsory redundancies off the table all together. Therefore, the UCU branch exec is proposing to begin an electronic consultative ballot soon to ascertain levels of support for taking action should our employer behave rashly and without conscience. In last week’s branch meeting we took an indicative vote for such action in principle, which received unanimous support.

Action

Pressure from the branch is forcing management to rethink. We need to continue to show our collective strength. We urge members to vote yes to strike action on key dates in the academic calendar and yes to action short of a strike in the form of working to contract. A six month mandate period will take us beyond what may be a first round of redundancies, so we have an opportunity to say no to any additional workload that arises from reductions in staffing. There will not be excessive pay loss resulting from our action, and we have established a hardship fund for members. But we need our action to be disruptive and high profile enough for the public to realise what is happening to us and the sector. For too long now, decision makers at York St John – many of whom have taken senior management positions at the university after previously working in sectors with proven records of a smash and grab approach, where staff inevitably bear the brunt of perpetual restructures, asset stripping and weakening of terms and conditions – have acted with impunity. Senior managers in HE today use the destruction of frameworks for improved pay and conditions as a badge of honour to parade in job interviews. You all know that Post-92 universities have provided life-changing, and life affirming experiences for generations of working class students – this is what motivates us. Our universities are being destroyed by a serious lack of imagination. They are not vehicles to produce economic units; they are vehicles for expanding minds and opportunities. Those who manage universities need to realise the difference between efficiencies and education. How long are we willing to endure the cyclical pattern of redundancies, each one squeezing the remaining staff even more and weakening the student experience, thereby underwriting further staff cuts later down the line. Where is long term, joined-up thinking? Where is the meaningful staff-wide communication? It has disappeared as Senior Managers have turned inward, talking only to each other and finding encouragement for their regressive neoliberal vision for the sector.  There has been no indication of any foresight from senior management about the current challenges enveloping the sector despite inflation reaching its peak in October 2022, the tuition fee crisis being a ticking time bomb for years, and the fact the Tory government have been on a death drive to make immigration politically untenable.

None of this is inevitable; in fact, there might be an element of opportunism at play. A recent article published by YSJ’s COO in the Oxford Review of Education presents an ideological vision of small post-92 institutions that is more dystopian than utopian: universities with the ‘institutional autonomy’ to set staff pay and tuition fees, withdraw from national pension schemes, expand fixed-term and zero-hours contracts, cheapen the value of a degree, hire staff through agencies, skirt regulations, phase out the arts and social sciences, reduce reliance on home undergraduates, do away with the post-92 contract by introducing a two-tier system for teaching and research, and pursue mergers with FE institutions and for-profit firms. These measures are proposed in the name of making the university more ‘financially sustainable’ and ‘competitive’ in a market setting, effectively promoting further privatisation and marketisation of higher education. Let’s fight back together and say to the employer: NO more cuts, no to slash and burn; YES to nurturing, growing and developing our students and our universities.

In solidarity,

YSJUCU Exec