.@ucu HESCs on Pay+Equality (am)&USS JEP(pm) were intense! Lots decided after v intense complicated discussions but only morning decisions “count”- USS conference advisory as (sadly) inquorate. Those motions get referred 2 HEC as advisory but also advise negotiatiors this week /1
@ucu *🚿Shower and re-humanify interlude after a LONG day indoors at the (sadly) today unexplored @sim_manchester museum + trains. #unionstrong reps function better after 🚿☕️...*
RESUMING! TL;DR on pay+equality dispute = we're reballoting, but *not* right away: early new year to allow time to regroup+build (understanding+momentum) with commitment to improved resourcing+coordination. Returning to aggregated balloting after long, important discussion /2a
Motion 1 = long composite (from 4 branch motions). Some taken in parts: "resolves ii" fell = we *aren't* only targeting those who made it over 35%. Helpful amendment from @CityUCU moved ballot to early new yr not 'before Dec'. These changes+discussion made it easier to vote for/3 
Point 1 of motion 2 on post-92s also fell, but the rest passed, and reaffirmed commitments in motion 1 to learning + building on strategy. At this point we had confirmed a rejection of the HESC for dividing branches who achieved more/less than 35% turnout in our latest ballot /4
Just to confuse you, we actually voted to take motion 5 after motion 1, before 2 :) Meeting agreed made sense to clarify what kind of ballot we were going for after motion 1 passed as amended without 35% cut-off + likely interpretation we'd therefore ballot together in new yr /5
Y'day's motion 5 debate was important, engaging+more space to reflect than HEC last wk. @leedsucu pleased to add friendly amendment. @sheffielducu + @rorfitelli rocked multiple clarifications and questions. It was close, but the count was called + won. /6
Something y'day's HESC *CLEARLY AGREES* = importance of collective, UK-wide bargaining. We do not want to lose it. This reinforces existing policy in this area. There were differing opinions about how best to defend it at the heart of the debates but we agree upon the principle/7
There's been significant debate over whether anti-union 50% turnout threshold (Trade Union Act 2016) is best fought using disaggregated ballots (as used in #USS dispute) or aggregated aka "in it together". @UNISONinHE recently debated this issue too. Pros + cons to consider... /9
In the past few days I have asked quite a lot of times "what about the risk of division" with respect to the idea of going for a partial reballot of branches that achieved over a certain % turnout. With our recent result, we'd risk leaving a lot of branches out. /10
As I've tweeted (+emailed) elsewhere, prospect of taking a disaggregated ballot result+applying a "threshold of thresholds" to selectively reballot represents a threat to UK-wide collective bargaining precisely because it divides us. UKwide bargaining on pay is VERY important /11
(We've had a single pay negotiating body (JNCHES = Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Ed Staff) since 2001-> Framework Agreement + single pay spine 2004-> New JNCHES brought single, common bargaining in 2008. UCU came into being 2006 from 2 predecessor unions AUT+NATFHE) /12
*If* we'd already lost UKwide bargaining, then eking back momentum with series of connected localised ballots on same terms might help pull us it back. But we have *not* lost UKwide collective bargaining on pay in UK #HigherEd. Dividing our response cd weaken UKwide bargaining/13
Divided reballot, where some branches perceived to be 'carrying' load over pay + equality dispute while others don't ballot/strike risks damaging morale+solidarity + may delight employers who'd ask what's national about this action. We'd need a real plan to mitigate that risk /14
I asked about plans to mitigate that with partial reballots because a split in how we act now seems more likely fodder to destabilise UKwide bargaining in this present moment. Eg how would non-balloting branches be active, what would we do to ensure collectivity+solidarity? /15
Eg How would it feel to be precarious at reballoting/striking branch A, if at sub-35% turnout branch B nobody (even high paid+secure) was? Strike fund donations frm non-strike branches were suggested but that's unenforceable+donating is *not* accessible to precarious members /16
Y'day, marches+solidarity demos were also suggested for branches that would not have been balloting under partial ballot model (which we didn't go for). What interested me in this bit of debate = a sort of "Schroedinger's Activists" issue... (apols to philosophers of science!)/17
"Schroedinger's Activists" represent my confusion over folks positing the lower turnout branches as simultaneously "reliable" enough to mount solidarity demos, actions + marches, and yet not active/confident enough to deliver their share of a future, *disaggregated* ballot. /18
Advocates of partial (disaggregated) reballots tended to emphasise difficulty of getting 1 large collective group of branches over 50% line + concomitant potential to "lose" action in a given year if so. However we are in that position now, with a disaggregated ballot result /19
I'd hope folks pushing for partial reballot believe folks in sub-35% branches could pull off major solidarity actions to mitigate division of ballot/striking on morale -but why not believe in that *as GTVO potential?* Our recent result intensifies *risks of a divided reballot*/20
Some folks arguing for partial reballot w 35% cut-off+"opt-in" argued for disaggregated ballots as a tool against TUA2016 50% threshold, b/c it might make it easier for some branches to take action even where others couldn't - some rather than no action, on UK claim /21
But with ~5% of branches over the line, we're in a different place to where we were for #USS (where most got over 50% + we'd have made the aggregate turnout threshold anyway - ucu.org.uk/media/9091/USS…). Re-balloting "nearlies" made sense to further strengthen nearly full group /22
Partial reballots in situations with too few over the threshold would intensify dangers to UKwide bargaining + morale. /23
Sheffield's motion 5 clearly emphasised the benefit + collectivity of aggregated dispute ballots: /24
Also need to make sure we all understand how current claim in Pay + Equality claim hangs together + what we mean when talking about "national" (UKwide remembering devolved nations) bargaining "on pay" + the issues alongside pay in dispute. This has tended to become confused! /25
Lots of members have talked about confusion over what was in claim + there have been Qs about why the anticas+gender pay gap+workload elements were in it rather than separate. Added to this, UCEA (employers' group) like to claim 'no mandate' for those equality components /26
.@UCU has a burgeoning "2 track" strategy to push equality elements locally *as well* in separate claims that map onto UKwide picture: more branches around UK doing this with local anticas, gender pay gap, workload claims...eg see here ucu.org.uk/article/9532/H… [thread tbc] /27
