Read on Twitter
We've had a lot of contact from concerned casualised and low paid members about the announced #uculevy. We would like to say first of all that it is inappropriate to impose a flat rate levy on UCU members at a time when many are losing hours, losing pay and even losing their jobs
Regardless of what decision was made-and we are still searching for clarity on the exact wording of what was proposed-circumstances have clearly changed. It is not appropriate to charge members a flat rate levy when they are losing their jobs. The decision must be reversed asap.
It appears NEC received incorrect advice when on the proposal. We are told they were advised UCU rules state that any levy would need to be flat rate regardless of income. In fact, Rule 11.3 states that "The NEC shall determine methods of paying any levy" https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/10676/UCU-rules-2019-20-December-2019/pdf/UCU_Rules_2019-20_from_07.12.19.pdf
As far as we understand, this means that it is perfectly within the union rules to propose a progressive levy based on income for example. Were NEC to revisit its decision armed with a better understanding of the rules, we believe NEC would choose a different course of action.
We also understand it is the case that NEC decided to impose the #uculevy as a 'last resort' after other ways of topping up the fighting fund had been exhausted. Understandably given the pandemic, alternative ways of topping up the fighting fund have clearly not been exhausted.
It is disappointing in any case that the levy should be taken in summer. We had hoped by now that the union would understand that even in a normal year, summer is when fixed term contracts end, when hourly paid staff have no hours, and when income for many is reduced or zero.
As a committee we have been told many times that membership subs for our better paid members cannot be increased because this would cause better paid members to leave. We need to say clearly that this flat rate levy will cause low paid members to leave. This needs to be reversed.
We understand the Fighting Fund needs to be financed. But we believe there are better ways to do this that have not been explored. We could have campaigned for voluntary contributions among members and the wider movement. We understand £300k was raised this way without a campaign
We want to reassure low paid+casualised members that we are looking at how we can help to reverse this decision. We think it should be possible for the union officers (GS, Presidents, Treasurer) to reverse but if this is not the case we are considering a call for a special NEC.
We'd like to finish by saying @ucu urgently needs to do more to retain members who lose their jobs. Casualised workers frequently have gaps in employment. We need to be saying loudly to members that they are entitled to free membership with full democratic rights for up to 1 year
Our thinking on this is evolving and we are keen to hear from low paid and casualised members what you think about this. We are an advisory committee to the NEC-so essentially all we can do is give advice-but we are here to listen to casualised members and feedback your concerns.
