Read on Twitter
THREAD: We obviously have our employers worried because at 9.30pm last night they sent an email trying to explain their position on some of the issues raised by us. Yet there are massive inconsistencies & they do not appropriately address our concerns. More smoke and mirrors:
1/ The college say they are committed to dealing w/ systemic racism but time & time again they have failed to do this. We are extremely worried by the college's own statistics that say white candidates are twice as likely to receive a job as what they term "BME" candidates.
2/ This situation is summed up by the college recently hiring a white male as head of inclusion without following procedure asked of them by their own equalities and diversities panel. This is not addressed in their communications nor did they communicate this openly as we asked
3/ They say they deeply value VLs (hourly paid staff) & yet if this is the case why in 2018 did they strip them of employment rights by putting them on terms of engagement? For the last two years we have been asking them to put our members back onto contacts of employment.
4/ Doing this initially would cost them nothing. So why haven't they? Well, many of our VL members have been at the college for over 2 or 4 years and would have accrued legal rights had they been on appropriate contracts of employment.
5/ That would mean to get rid of employed VL the college would most likely have to go through redundancy procedures. Yet as VLs are being classed by the college as 'workers' rather than 'employees' all the college has to do is announce a 'hiring freeze' rather than redundancies.
6/ It is not the effect of a pandemic that has caused the insecurity of our members but the logical conclusion of the VCOs management strategy. That is to make huge sections of staff as disposable as possible to act as a buffer at occasions such as this.
7/ They've said that they are operating on a stretch and release budget and that they are waiting to know student numbers before engaging VLs. Yet each year most of our VLs are told they will only have a position the following year if numbers hold. So why the freeze?
8/ Furthermore the cuts which are being implemented in each department of up to 20% are regardless of intake. Many areas say they cannot implement these without making significant cuts to VLs and putting the remaining workload onto permanent members.
9/ The college say they recognise the student/staff ratio is growing in the wrong direction & that they want this to change. Yet this is the perfect time to address this. If student numbers might be cut then keeping present staffing consistent will help to regulate this problem.
10/ For example in one area VLs teaching less than one day a week are responsible for up to 32 dissertation students. These VLs are in essential roles as if the students do not pass their dissertation they fail their whole degree.
11/ If student numbers were cut here by 20% these tutors would see 25-26 students instead. If it was cut by 30% they would see 22-23 students. This is still too many but would make workloads just about manageable and improve student conditions.
12/ Furthermore the college say they didn't use furlough because they needed the academic staff. But there is at least one member whose fixed term contract was not renewed.
13/ Yet this fixed term member was in an essential role and will be needed by students next year. This individual could have easily been furloughed. And we showed the RCA this was possible. Why did the college not do this?
14/ They say they want to work with UCU and yet they do not recognise the branch. For the last year our VL reps have sat unpaid in meetings with management. These meetings have resulted in no discernible change. The VCO recognise problems but do nothing
15/ The college is still not answering communications from UCU head office or giving the branch financial data in writing which we need to effectively negotiate. More lip service to hugely important issues. Too little too late. Our report card to @RCA - try harder
