Read on Twitter
Communication from @ucu to members regarding branch consultations on Four Fights & #USS is utterly shambolic. Email to members from GS @DrJoGrady to announce this arrives in our inboxes on a Saturday evening. 1/
The message contained links to briefing papers which one could naturally interpret as expressing the views of the negotiators. 2/
I later discover these briefing papers couldn't reflect the views of the negotiators, since majority of 4 Fights negotiators post statement on UCU Left website recommending rejection of offer, but briefing does not recommend rejection & places offer in positive light. 3/
I send an email to an internal UCU list asking whose view are reflected in the briefings. Are they the views of the General Secretary? No response. 4/
Just now, I learn from a thread
posted by one of the USS negotiators that these briefings were "from head office" (from which we can infer that they are the views of the General Secretary). 5/ https://twitter.com/Sam_Marsh101/status/1263756788555538434
posted by one of the USS negotiators that these briefings were "from head office" (from which we can infer that they are the views of the General Secretary). 5/ https://twitter.com/Sam_Marsh101/status/1263756788555538434
That same thread from @Sam_Marsh101 also links to distinct briefings from the negotiators. I now see that one can find them on the UCU website if you're eagle-eyed, but why weren't they linked to in the General Secretary's email to members? 6/
Oh. And there's also a further briefing paper by the USS Disputes Committee. 7/
These various briefings offer varying different takes. 8/
Consultation also offers tight deadlines. 9/ https://twitter.com/mark_pendleton/status/1263757634307489792
Whatever your views about the union, I think you should agree that this is piss-poor communication with members. 10/10
The shambolic communication with members apparently carried over into yesterday's Branch Delegate Member meeting. Read thread: https://twitter.com/JomcneillUCU/status/1265665933340741633
And the HEC meeting itself today was an utter mess: https://twitter.com/DavidHarvieUCU/status/1265619259532677124
The paralysis & indecision at the HEC was such that they failed to override their previous decision to launch two postal strike re-ballots by the end of June, even though apparently neither HEC members nor Branch Delegate Members want this. https://twitter.com/MikeOtsuka/status/1265650879136509954
How are they going to acount to members for the launching of new postal re-ballots to a timetable that nobody any longer supports?
More "zombie action", as @crookedfootball has put it: https://twitter.com/crookedfootball/status/1262009664138547201
Tweets from HEC members (e.g., see this& wider thread) imply that the members didn't realise, till after the meeting had convened, that the upshot of their indecision was reballots by the end of June that nobody wants. https://twitter.com/mark_pendleton/status/1265672672501010433
& wider thread) imply that the members didn't realise, till after the meeting had convened, that the upshot of their indecision was reballots by the end of June that nobody wants. https://twitter.com/mark_pendleton/status/1265672672501010433
tweet should have said "till after the meeting had adjourned". Frantic efforts now afoot to call an emergency HEC meeting to deactivate the zombie launch of postal strike re-ballots in June. https://twitter.com/mark_pendleton/status/1265669579231113216
Various @UCULeft members volunteering their signatures. Since they're the only HEC members who might be inclined to support the current status quo of June re-ballot, we can be assured that the reballot will be cancelled.
See also this thread from outgoing HEC chair, indicating high probability of cancellation of June re-ballot. https://twitter.com/zenscara/status/1265674684344999936
But an HEC member asks why didn't they simply schedule sufficient time at yesterday's HEC to sort all this out. https://twitter.com/Flibitygibity/status/1265715300093366272
