In the light of the University’s declaration last week that the proposed 1.1% payrise was a ‘generous offer’, this article makes interesting reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/27/uk-joins-greece-at-bottom-of-wage-growth-league-tuc-oecd

Please come to this week’s branch meetings, which will be taking place on:

Friday at 12.30 in the IHR Lower Mezzanine Room (come to reception on 3rd Floor Senate House and we’ll meet you there – call Danny on 07783719479 if you get lost!)

AND

Saturday at 13.00 in the union office, 80 Lamb’s Conduit Street.

There are lots of big changes affecting staff going on at the moment – in Student Central, CoSector and Health Education England in particular, and we’ll be talking about these, the latest on the pay dispute, the ICE elections, the legal department and the potential move to a new office!

Please send any questions or agenda items to Catherine (catherine.morrissey@london.ac.uk) and please make sure to come along!

As seen on the intranet, and confirmed in the ASM this week, the University has ignored calls to halt or even pause the current Student Central restructure and appears to still be aiming for an implementation date at the start of August.

We’ve already received disturbing reports from members of worsening conditions on the ground as Aramark prepare to take over – see our latest email on the subject below:

Dear Kay

I am disappointed, but unsurprised, to have received no reply to my email below, and reports from the other unions suggest that despite myriad objections the University is persisting in pressing ahead with this restructure without proper consultation.

There also seems to be some confusion as to the situation re redundancies. At this week’s ASM, Chris Cobb stated that there were no redundancies planned. Can you confirm that this is the case, as that appears to contradict the restructure document?

Secondly, there already seem to have been a number of changes made in advance of implementation – 60p drinks for people who work in the building have been scrapped, while longstanding Lunchbox staff perks such as free coffees / bottles of water have also been withdrawn. Can you confirm that the University is aware of these practices, and condones them?

Thirdly – there have been further reports that the London Living Wage will no longer be paid to new staff. Can you confirm or deny this, in advance of the IWGB lodging a report with the Living Wage Foundation?

Best wishes

Danny

See below for our latest letter. Some of these questions were addressed today in the All-Staff Meeting, in which it was revealed that:

• Two members of the Senior Management Team were leaving and would not be replaced
• That the new branding would be a combination of CoSector and the University of London, depending on context

Make of that what you will!

Dear Sir Richard

I am writing again to the Board of Trustees with regard to the ongoing issue of CoSector, and to pass on continuing serious concerns regarding its direction.

The laast time I wrote, in January (see below), the CoSector CEO had just stepped down, and a new business plan was being formulated.

At the last Board of Trustees meeting (January) for which minutes are available, they state that:

‘A member of the Board commented on an email  she had received from a member of staff, relating to CoSector, which had been circulated to the Board, and sought assurance in relation to a number of  issues.’

However, more than six months later, the concerns expressed in this previous email have not been addressed – no investigation has been commissioned, no new processes have been put in place, and no guarantees that future plans will receive a full independent risk assessment have been given.

In addition:

• although a business plan has been produced, it has not been adequately explained or promoted, and so many staff continue to feel unclear as to the future direction of the department
• there is a clear disconnect between the leadership team and those managing the department’s various services
• there is a sense that the department as a whole remains extremely top-heavy, and there are too many leadership positions whose roles are extremely unclearly defined
• processes, for instance for setting up new systems, are not necessarily being properly followed
• no clear decision has been regarding branding – whether to continue to use the University of London brand, or to rebrand completely as CoSector
• the CoSector website will not be operational until August

Most alarmingly, for a development whose main justification was that it would generate profits, CoSector is predicted to make a loss of £1.6m this year, and a further loss the following year, even taking into account extremely optimistic new business generation forecasts.

In conclusion, there are still two sets of concerns – with the operation of the CoSector project, and with the lack of accountability of those responsible for it. The Board of Trustees is called upon to immediately institute a whole-scale independent investigation in order to protect jobs and safeguard the business in the long term.

Best wishes

Danny

Below is my January email

Dear Sir Richard

I am writing again to the Board of Trustees with regard to the ongoing issue of Co-Sector, which I understand is to be discussed at your January meeting, since this comes within the Board’s to exercise ‘guardianship over the University’s assets and resources, and ensure[] their effective management, control and use’.

As you know, since I last wrote to you, the CoSector CEO has departed, and a new business plan is being formulated.

However, though it appears that previous plans are being scaled back, there are still a number of extremely serious issues which need to be addressed, and upon which information has not been provided.

I hope the Board will agree with the suggestion that it should:

1. Commission an investigation into how much has been spent on the Shared Services / CoSector project since its inception in 2013 and to ascertain why, in 2016, a business plan has not yet been produced.

2. Put in place processes to ensure that future projects are undertaken with due diligence and proper oversight.

3. Avoid a repetition of the problems that have dogged CoSector by mandating that any future plan be subject to a full risk assessment, and the business case be independently assessed.

4. Provide categorical assurances to staff as to their employment status. Staff have been cavalierly treated in this regard, being told:

• In January 2014 – that they may be TUPE’d to a new organisation
• In  September 2014 – that ‘the Shared Services business unit will be a department of the university’
• In July 2015 – that they will be seconded to CoSector
• In December 2015 – that ‘any change of terms and conditions was not proposed by the University at this stage’.

This approach has greatly undermined confidence in the employer, has been extremely stressful and demotivating for staff, and needs to be properly addressed immediately.

Please could you acknowledge receipt of this email, and confirm that these issues will be raised at the January meeting?

I have sought to keep this relatively brief, but should you require more information about this lengthy process please do not hesitate to ask.

Best wishes

Danny Millum

Treasurer, Independent Workers of Great Britain (IWGB).

Following today’s All-Staff Meeting, at which, in response to a question from the IWGB, Director of Human Resources Kim Frost described the current 1.1% pay offer as generous (!) we were prompted to write with an update on the pay dispute.

As you may remember, at the May branch meeting we voted to formally ballot IWGB members over the current offer.

Depending on the outcome of the ballot, this would then give us a mandate to officially join the next national day of strike action.

As you know, UCU have already balloted and taken strike action, and are now engaged in rolling strikes across the country.

We have been liaising with local UNISON branches, and confirm that UNISON will now also be balloting members over the summer.

They would then be looking to strike in the autumn term.

The reason we have delayed our ballot until now is largely due to the UK’s absurd union legislation. Once our ballot closes (if we vote for strike action) we then HAVE to take strike action within the next 28 days to keep the ballot ‘live’. If we don’t we have to ballot again!

So in order to coincide with a national day of strike action likely to take place in October, we want to make sure our ballot doesn’t close until mid-September. As we’d normally allow 3-4 weeks for the ballot, this means it will probably be mid-August before it opens!

Confused? If you have any questions, email Danny at danny.millum@sas.ac.uk. But bear in mind that the main purpose of this is so that any strike, when it comes, involves everyone, and is as effective as possible!

Yesterday was Day 36 of of an all out strike at 100 Wood Street by cleaners from the United Voices of the World union, the first all out strike in the history of the City of London and the first all out strike by an entirely migrant workforce. UVW are demanding the living wage and the reinstatement of the unlawfully sacked cleaners.

Our branch was there to support them last night, and we plan to attend the picket line again next week, so please come along and show your support. If you want more info about the strike just drop Danny a line on danny.millum@sas.ac.uk.

If you would like to donate to UVW’s strike fund  please follow this link: http://www.uvwunion.org.uk/emergency-appeal/.

Hemos compilado una lista inicial de preguntas para la universidad (ver abajo). Sería una gran ayuda si pudieras contestar algunas de estas preguntas cuando corresponda, o si pudieras hacernos saber a quién podemos enviárselas.

1. Recursos Humanos de University of London (UoL), ¿tendrá los recursos apropiados (de empleados y financieros) para poder lidiar con el trabajo extra que implica chequear estados, lidiar con preguntas y postular a permisos de trabajo cuando sea necesario? ¿Estará preparada UoL para postular a permisos de trabajo cuando se haga necesario para servicios de empleados profesionales?
2. Dado el numero de empleados afectados, ¿podrá UoL apoyar a sus empleados que postularán a la residencia o ciudadanía? Ese apoyo podría ser financiero o en términos de negociar escalas de tiempo generosas para que ningún individual actualmente empleado se vea en desventaja. Nótese que postular a la ciudadanía es muy caro.
3. ¿Cómo va a cambiar el estado de residencia el estado de empleo de los empleados permanentes? Esto es, perderán su calidad de empleados permanentes con el que comenzaron si no tienen los documentos de residencia correctos?
4. ¿Los ciudadanos de la Unión Europea tendrán que proveer evidencia de que tienen “permiso de permanencia” [“leave to remain”] para continuar trabajando en UoL, más que y por sobre su pasaporte de la Unión Europea? De ser así, ¿qué evidencia será requerida precisamente?
5. ¿Cómo va a tratar UoL a los empleados que han estado en el Reino Unido por menos de 5 años y no califican para obtener la residencia?
6. ¿Podrá UoL entregar prueba de empleo, incluyendo los contratos para aquellos trabajadores que no los tienen, a todos los empleados de la Unión Europea –especialmente a aquellos que querrán postular a la residencia o ciudadanía?
7. ¿Podrá entregarse una guía a los managers de reclutamiento lo antes posible para instruirlos en que no debe haber discriminación contra ciudadanos de la Unión Europea postulando a un trabajo?
8. Los ciudadanos de la Unión Europea, ¿calificarán (y continuarán calificando) para la jubilación estatal? ¿Habrán requerimientos adicionales de los que se aplican para ciudadanos británicos? ¿Comenzará a discriminar de alguna forma la provisión USS entre aquellos que son o no ciudadanos de la Unión Europea? Podría entregarse una guía lo antes posible sobre SAUL/USS, así como a los derechos de jubilación estatal y las implicaciones para los ciudadanos Europeos?
9. ¿Cuáles serán las consecuencias de Brexit para los empleados de UoL que son de países europeos y que trabajan indirectamente por medio de un contratista?
10. ¿Proveerá UoL apoyo a los empleados tercerizados que trabajan con las compañías encargadas de las instalaciones o marcará alguna provisión a los acuerdos de tercerización?
11. ¿Podrá UoL hacer lobby por un periodo de aviso lo más largo posible antes de implementar cualquier cambio?
12. ¿Puede Recursos Humanos de UoL reunir información de fuentes confiables de información para sus empleados europeos?