HEC, 24 April 2020
My first meeting, held online, of course, because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The meeting was supposed to begin at 1.30, but despite Paul Cottrell (UCU’s national head of democratic services) inviting members to join one of two ‘trial’ sessions in the preceding days and despite opening the platform 15 minutes early to allow us time to sort out technical niggles, a series of helloes-can-you-hear-me? continued until close to 2 o’clock. (I was a bit surprised by the difficulties. By this point I’d had dozens of remote meetings — with students, with colleagues, with university managers and with union comrades — using a half a dozen different platforms…) Not an enouraging start… only two hours remaining.
No general secretary at this meeting. She was unwell — fortunately not Covid-19 — and sent apologies.
There were two main parts to the meeting. In the first part we ‘received’ a report from the committee secretary Paul Bridge. This included items on the Four Fights and USS disputes and the unfolding Covid-19 situation. The report also included as appedendices a revised ‘final’ offer from UCEA, the employers’ representatives in the Four Fights disputes, which UCU negotiators had received on 1 April 2020, along with our negotiators’ response. In retrospect, I am surprised we spent almost no time considering these two important documents.
The second main part of the meeting was devoted to debating motions submitted by members of the committee. There were 15 of these, ten seeking to shape policy with respect to the pandemic. This format isn’t conducive to good decision-making in my opinion and certainly doesn’t require anyone to seek consensus.
A low point came when a motion on student number controls was proposed by Mark Pendleton. The motion called on the general secretary to commission modelling of the likely impact on UK universities of various number-control mechanisms. This research would inform a UCU campaign against higher-ranked universities using the Covid-19 crisis — and certain collapse in overall student numbers — to advance their own marketisation agendas and force the collapse of ‘weaker’ institutions and departments. In my opinion it was a useful motion. But an amendment was proposed — by Michael Carley — to remove the modelling resolution. This amendment was carried, as was the amended motion — with Mark and I both voting against. In short, HEC decided it wanted to take a position in support of controlling ‘top’ universities’ recruitment in the coming year or so and against marketisation — but it didn’t want to support research that might underpin this position!
