A “request for assistance” has recently been circulated in one of our Schools. The politely phrased message asks for volunteer teaching staff to assist with some novel clearing-related activities that have been introduced “as this year’s result week will be more competitive than ever [for student recruitment]”. These new activities comprise 1. a call centre type operation to phone all firm offer-holders on Results Day to congratulate them on their offer in the hopes that this makes them more favourable towards Reading and less likely to self-release to “trade up” through clearing. 2. A second clearing-offer-holder’s day on Sat 16th August to be added to the already planned Fri 15th August offer-holder’s day on the grounds that due to the short notice, not all recipients of a clearing offer will be able to travel to Reading for Friday and in the current hyper-competitive environment “we cannot afford” to operate support for clearing solely within the normal working week.

These new activities are justified (according to the message) by the need to “pull out all the stops” to ensure recruitment to target “given the University financial position”.

We are all so on board with the wholesome aims of “meeting targets” and “breaking even” that certain realities are in danger of being lost from sight.

I think it needs to be said that:

-It is not normal that the scope and scale of programmed activities requiring unpaid overtime weekend working are continually increasing.
-You (via JNCHES) have been offered a full and final 1.4% pay award to take effect from 1 August 2025 (against a backdrop of 3.5% year on year inflation), delivering yet another real terms pay cut. Regarding this, a consultative ballot is open until 15th August (search for “UCU higher education pay and working conditions consultative ballot” in case you missed the message!) which I would encourage you to participate in as this will inform the eventual UCU response to this offer.
-The more successful this latest recruitment drive is, the more admin, teaching, marking and tutoring you will have the privilege of carrying into the following 3 years (for less real-terms pay – see point 2), probably exacerbated by the need to cover for workloads of departing or departed colleagues who are not replaced.
-Since the UK undergraduate student pool is what it is, success of one institution in increasing its market share, necessarily hastens the demise of another institution a little closer to the financial precipice. Is this what we came into academia to achieve?

I hasten to say that I do not (nor should I) have an easy solution for the systemic challenges faced by the UK HEI sector, although I think it is fair to say that the funding crisis is in great part the result of political decisions to allow the real-terms value of fee income to decline continuously over more than a decade so the solution must in part involve a revision of this policy and it is at a political level that this crisis will ultimately be resolved.

So, personally, I think it is rational to think carefully beyond simply consulting your diary before responding positively to such a request. And before further compromising your mental health and well-being, your caring responsibilities and your work-life balance, I think it may be justifiable to ask pertinent questions, such as:

-What is the evidence of efficacy for congratulatory phone-calls (are students so easily persuaded?) or weekend clearing-offer-holders days on recruitment (balanced against the costs/harms/inequities incurred in running them) and what measures are in place to monitor the positive and negative impacts of these new measures?
-Which targets or expectations for your role are to be lowered or what existing activities have you been told not to do to make room for this new activity, which like other such innovations, is likely to become a recurring fixture?
-Does the business planning strategy (which might be loosely paraphrased as increase income i.e. student headcount while controlling costs i.e. your salaries) that has spawned this request contain any rewards for such good citizenship and if so, how could those rewards not be discriminatory against those whose family life/caring responsibilities/disabilities do not permit them to play on this particular part of the pitch?

Questions I have asked myself include:
-Is it “letting the side down” to challenge this latest call to arms?
-Should we have to carry a collective or individual sense of failure if arbitrary recruitment targets are missed, with or without our full co-operation along the lines of this latest “request for assistance”?
-Should we feel responsible for any future rounds of cuts and redundancies if we have not “pulled out all the stops” to scrape the bottom of the clearing barrel as invited?

My answers are no, no and no.

Collectively, we are passionate and dedicated academics, researchers, teachers and professional support staff that work hard to advance the Universities mission and our respective disciplines through research, training and educational activities. We can be justifiably proud of the fantastic work we do week after week, semester after semester, year after year – and the world would be a poorer, more brutish and dangerous place if institutions like UoR cannot find their place in it. If society does not attach a value to our role and cannot agree on a suitable mechanism to pay for it, it will not be because we were lazy or greedy or unproductive.

A few disclaimers before finishing: 1. This is a personal perspective and not an official UCU position. 2. I did not write this to antagonize my HoS, nor to jeopardize student recruitment, but simply to offer a critical perspective at an occasion where I think a new rubicon of what can be called dignified work conditions may just have been crossed without much consultation or debate.

My response to this polite request will be an equally polite but firm: “I have planned some much needed annual leave for August 14-16th and will therefore not be in a position to contribute to this activity, but if I were to consider joining in, I think I would like to see a much more thorough justification given.”

By a concerned RUCU activist.

Following the University’s updated policy and guidance on use of facilities on campus in response to the Supreme Court Ruling (For Women Scotland Vs The Scottish Ministers), your committee and branch are concerned about the way these changes have been implemented by the University.

This was discussed at the recent AGM of the branch. Members were clear that Reading UCU remains committed to upholding UCU policy on inclusion and preserving the rights and dignity of all members. At the last JUUC we were made aware that minor policy changes would be introduced and had reminded management of the need to consult with us due to the potential impact on staff.

As a committee, we have made clear that:

· All colleagues should be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace. The provision for gender-neutral facilities should not undermine provision for those with other protected characteristics.

We were therefore surprised by the sudden implementation without consultation.

We now note that :

· the University has acted ahead of the EHRC consultation and even the university’s own space utilisation survey, which we were told would be used to inform changes

· Reading UCU have not been consulted re: these changes to working conditions, despite an assurance at JUUC that this would be the case.

· We would have expected an Equality Impact Assessment to have been carried out for this policy change given the implications for those with various protected characteristics.

-Staff should be allowed to comment and there should be opportunities for meaningful engagement and feedback prior to implementation.

UCU’s National position is very clear and was reaffirmed at Congress on the 26th May 2025 in Congress motions on trans rights. Here also are UCU’s response to the Supreme Court ruling and UCU’s position on Trans Inclusion.

We were also made aware that a group of staff and students were to meet with management on the 18th of June to provide their feedback on the policy change. This meeting was observed by our RUCU Equalities Officer on behalf of Reading UCU.

Your Committee is now working on the following areas:

1) The updated policy statement says that it was reviewed with Reading UCU – this is not the case. We have indicated this error to University senior engagement and they have undertaken to correct it. We are awaiting confirmation that this has been rectified.

2) We expect that all staff will have access to suitable facilities that uphold and maintain their dignity in the workplace. It is not acceptable that any member of staff would in essence be forced to “out themselves” to use facilities. Additionally, we do not consider the use of accessible facilities as a suitable alternative to adequate provision of gender-neutral facilities.
The space utilisation survey will highlight which buildings have issues with providing appropriate facilities.

3) We are actively working to support members who are impacted by this change and who are experiencing discrimination or harassment as a result. As such, we remind all members who need support to contact us.

4) At the next JUUC we will be asking for the findings of the space utilisation survey & confirmation that this policy will only be enforced after consultation with us as it applies to working conditions. Outside of the JUUC, we will continue to liaise with senior management from an equalities standpoint.

5) We have made UCU Regional Office aware of the policy changes and their potential impact on staff and are awaiting further guidance from them.

6) We have received anecdotal evidence from members and will continue to engage with reps and members to formulate next steps .

University senior management remain responsible for their obligations under the Equality Act and for the dignity and wellbeing of all staff. Where changes impact working conditions Reading UCU will continue to remain closely involved as the recognised trade union representing staff. We expect that the University recognises its duties and that normal escalation channels are used in the first instance by managers to raise concerns when staff reporting to them are impacted by significant changes such as this. Where members are facing discrimination or these escalation processes fail, members who are managers are encouraged to make RUCU aware, so we can help raise concerns and ensure they are properly addressed. It is vital that senior management remain accountable for the well-being and dignity of staff and also for policy changes that they unilaterally initiate.

We want to reaffirm that Reading UCU as a branch will always behave consistently with UCU’s national policy and stands in solidarity with our trans, non-binary and gender-nonconforming colleagues and students who may have been adversely affected by the sudden changes to policy. The branch committee discourages the implementation of this policy until meaningful consultation has taken place and suitable facilities are available for all colleagues that maintain privacy and dignity of all staff.

RUCU subs increase motion

Reading UCU notes that
• RUCU local subscriptions income fluctuates with membership fluctuations
• local subscriptions currently bring in roughly £16k per year, which goes towards funding a branch administrator, small local events, subscription fees including publications and online access to information resources, as well as supporting the hardship fund
• local subscription rates have been frozen for the past eight years
• Reading UCU local subscriptions for 2024-25 are currently set at the following rates per month:
– F0 (£60K and above) £3.00
– F1 (£40K-£60K) £2.50
– F2 (£30K-£40K) £1.50
– F3 (£22K-£30K) £1.00
– Below £22K, retired and £0.00
attached members
• RUCU expenses across these categories have naturally risen over a decade and we wish to continue to be a fair employer. We want to ensure that our books remain balanced.
• we remain committed to keeping subs progressive and as low as reasonably possible. Balancing these goals we have done some modelling to justify a small increase to RUCU subs. The RUCU branch committee proposes this increase of between £0.25 to £1.50 for members paying local subs. The zero rate for members earning below £22k, attached members and retired members will continue to be observed
• all members are reminded that union subscriptions, including local subs, are 2/3 tax exempt (see https://my.ucu.org.uk/app/answers/detail/a_id/469/~/tax-relief-on-subscriptions)
Reading UCU resolves
• to increase local subscriptions in line with UCU policy by the following progressive amounts:
– F0 (£60K and above) £1.50
– F1 (£40K-£60K) £1.00
– F2 (£30K-£40K) £0.50
– F3 (£22K-£30K) £.025
– Below £22K, retired and £0.00
attached members
• to remind members to claim tax relief on their subscriptions

Defend our Professional Services Motion

This branch notes that
• Professional services staff are integral to the working of schools and services across the university.
• University senior management need to prioritise these staff, not just in word but in deed. Professional services functions that support the work of the university, students and staff should be adequately staffed and our PS colleagues should have permanent secure contracts.
• Professional Services transformation work continues at the university across the Directorates.
• reductions to Professional Services staffing not just in grades represented by UCU but also in other grades are of grave concern. This comes from the understanding that the loss of these valued, experienced and capable colleagues is in the long term, detrimental to all staff students and at our university.
• we remain vigilant to the threats to our members’ roles and to staff workloads as the senior management strategy is implemented.
• we remain acutely aware of the losses to the university and the long term consequences to all staff and students as a result of the PAS restructure not so long ago.
• that the senior management strategy of redistributing work and not backfilling vacancies has had very negative consequences to students and staff.
• The increased workload, reduced progression and curtailed roles will have a negative impact on equality.

This branch instructs the branch committee to
• Oppose all compulsory redundancies (CR) and to recognise that so called voluntary redundancies (VR) are not always voluntary and that they have a knock on impact on the workload and stress levels of all staff.
• Ensure that suitable and sufficient stress risk assessment is in place for upcoming changes, including in the case of non-replacement of staff who leave their roles.
• Encourage reps in the various functions to help carry out critical evaluation of stress risk assessments and / or to be workload reps in their respective areas so as to take forward this work.
• Reiterate Reading UCU commitment to permanent and secure employment for all staff.

USS Defined Benefit (DB) and Indexation motion

This branch notes that
• In Defined Benefit pension schemes such as USS, it is necessary to protect the value of pension entitlements given that our benefits are based on earnings over a long period and this is our future pay in retirement
• Pension indexation refers to how future increases in pension are calculated. These are needed to provide members with a degree of inflation – or ‘cost of living’ – protection to, and through, their retirement
• USS annual pension increases are currently calculated based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation. The rate is matched up to 5%CPI, then only at 50% for CPI over 5% and with a cap on total increase of 10%.
• UCU are currently exploring use of conditional indexation (CI). This is where the future increases (indexation) applied to benefits built up are conditional on the funding position of the scheme
• This would allow employers to undermine the DB scheme, by trading off conditionality in DB for the potentially unrealised possibility of higher returns or the carrot of lower contributions, and is a dangerous and slippery slope

This branch also notes
• the significant sacrifices made by our members over several years to save our USS DB pension
• the surplus in the Scheme
• how flaws in the valuation methodology have skewed our perception of the health of the Scheme by overemphasising a possible deficit in the past, and the importance of addressing these

This branch asks national negotiators to
• Negotiate for improved benefits without an increase in contributions and to prioritise restoring full CPI inflation protection followed by augmentation (compensation to cover past losses) for all members.
• Oppose the possibility of conditional indexation

Palestine Solidarity Motion

This Annual General Meeting of the Reading UCU branch is
• horrified by the systematic slaughter of civilians, including medical professionals and journalists, particularly over the past year and a half in the Gaza Strip and in the occupied West Bank.
The AGM notes that
• in contradiction with Israel’s obligations of international law – in particular, the obligation to ensure the protection of civilian populations – the people of Gaza are experiencing starvation as a result of the blockade by Israel of food and medicines into the strip.
• Children have been killed by the Israeli military at an unprecedented rate. Nearly 200 journalists and media professionals have perished in the military operations carried out by the Israeli army in Gaza resulting in a media blackout, at a time when a growing number of international NGOs and UN bodies are describing them as acts of genocide.
• Over 95% of schools and universities are damaged or destroyed – forcing children and young adults to miss out on their education for a second year which creates a dangerous legacy.
• Hospitals have been destroyed and medical professionals tortured and brutalised,
Meanwhile in the West,
• repression of Palestinian solidarity and rights activism is intensifying at universities threatening academic freedom.
• Scholars criticising the violence perpetrated by Israel or calling for Palestinian rights are harassed, intimidated and silenced.
• Careers have been destroyed, public statements and job offers withdrawn, and critical debates and events on Palestine cancelled or interrupted by the police.
• Palestinian students and scholars are particularly targeted, as are people of colour and anti-Zionist Jews accused of betraying their heritage.
• Critical theoretical frameworks used to understand Palestinian dispossession – including settler colonialism and Apartheid, even comparisons and contextualisation– are censored
This branch
• expresses solidarity with the Palestinian people and those coming to their aid, notably the aid ship Madleen that was illegally stopped in international waters.
• makes a donation of £500 towards Medical Aid for Palestinians
• continues to oppose the possible genocide in Palestine and the illegal occupation of Palestinian land