RE: skepticism about rejecting ballot on the basis that goal of further #USSstrike action is unclear or unreasonable. Yes we have obtained a process. But that process could be vastly improved with just 2 small tweaks that cost UUK nothing if they are operating in good faith... 1/
1) clarify timescale. Be explicit about what happens in April 2019 if JEP fail to reach a conclusion. @MikeOtsuka has given us his best guess but UUK can confirm. Committing to process as outlined opens possibility of deadlock. We must know what happens if this is the case...2/
2) Or, if as @JeanFind suggests there is scope to influence current valuation, this should be explicit in the text, confirmed by both UUK & UCU... 3/
Absent these crucial points we have nothing explicit to hold UUK accountable in case things go south. vague wording means UUK can publicly appear to honor their commitment without any concrete way to actually enforce this... 4/
I won’t touch on the DB element of the debate here. But if the argument is that we want to vote for a process, I see little here to clarify how the process works & how we as members can be assured that things progress in a fair, timely, and transparent method... 5/
This is partly what the #ReviseAndResubmit movement was about. No detriment is a caricature. I see the value of committing to a process but not one this nebulous, at least not without further clarity. And on that note... 6/
If @ucu leadership plan to offer this clarity now, after the ballot is live and/or after the USS trustee meeting, this is profoundly wrong. It changes the meaning of the agreement after other members have voted.... 7/
It does not indicate a commitment to transparency by our own leadership. It does not inspire confidence about the future of the JEP & how it is formed. #wearetheuniversity & this is our union. These are decisions we should make together as an informed community in solidarity /fin
