Author: OBU admin

 

Response to HSS Restructure Proposal 2022 on behalf of UCU members in the Faculty

University and College Union (UCU) members across the Faculty welcome the opportunity to contribute as a group to the proposal to restructure the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS).

A meeting to which all UCU members in HSS were invited has facilitated this collective response. A draft of the response was then distributed to all UCU members in HSS inviting further comments and feedback from union members.

In essence, the proposal for the restructure identifies recruitment challenges, across some programmes in HSS, as the problem and identifies the solution as “…a reduction of the number of academic Schools within the Faculty from five to two (with a relocation of one programme within that new structure) and a new management structure within each of these new Schools”.

UCU members are concerned that the restructure will not deliver on the goals it sets for itself.

Our key concerns relating to the proposal are outlined in more detail below.

Decision-Making Structures

It has been suggested that the proposed restructuring will produce ‘economies of scale’ by virtue of the fact that instead of five heads of school, under the new structure there will only be two heads. There will, however, also be four deputy heads if the new structure is adopted, creating a management structure of six people instead of five.

Economies of scale would only be achieved if decision-making structures are made increasingly top-down, which is a real concern of UCU members given the way the benefits of the new structure have been presented to staff. Moreover, Heads of School in the new structure will need to be responsible for a diverse range of subject areas making it hard for them to identify the kinds of changes that might be needed to ensure the sustainability of existing degree programmes. It is also stated that the new Heads will take an external-facing role but UCU members are unclear as to how they can do this effectively for such a wide-range of subject areas.

Marketing and Student Recruitment

The proposal claims that it will “establish a strong vision, identity and value proposition for each of the Schools and the disciplines within them, which will enable more effective and efficient marketing activity”. However, by merging more programmes together into ‘super-schools’, the vision, identity, and value proposition for programmes loses clarity and will become more difficult to market. Moreover, the proposal fails to identify the underlying causal factors in marketing and admissions that are contributing to student recruitment challenges.

Collaboration and communication between Programmes

It is also suggested that the new structure will reduce the barriers to working across subjects but the evidence shows that there are already multiple cross-Programme and School initiatives at both undergraduate and postgraduate level.

Additionally, the seven university-wide Research Innovation and Knowledge Exchange Networks, three of which are currently chaired by staff in HSS, draw together postgraduate research students and staff from across Schools and Faculties and already facilitate a “culture of successful bidding for external research funding by drawing researchers into different groupings and offering new opportunities for training, sandpits, and sharing of good practice”.

The restructure proposal does not demonstrate any awareness of these existing structures of the research environment, nor does it provide any evidence or examples of the so-called barriers that it claims to remove.

Timeframe

UCU members are very concerned at the proposed speed of the envisaged changes. Jobs deemed at-risk appear to have been identified before the consultation process on whether to move forwards with the restructuring has even been concluded. Implementing such a dramatic change to the way the Faculty works in the middle of an academic year is likely to lead to significant disruption to the staff experience and indirectly impact the student experience.

Staff Recruitment and Retention

UCU members feel that it will be harder to recruit and retain new staff without a more specific disciplinary division of Schools. If we are serious about competing with the ‘old’ Universities within the UK and internationally, then it is important to note that such large multi-disciplinary Schools or Departments are the exception rather than the norm

Workload Planning

UCU members are concerned that a loss of subject expertise within management structures will lead to workload allocations which are less aware of subject or discipline specific restrictions on staff flexibility. If these dangers are to be avoided, then it is important that sufficient division of schools is made, with associated disciplinary autonomy retained.

The Size of the Deputy Head Roles

The Deputy Heads are billed as having specific roles to play within the schools, such as being the deputy head for strategy. However, in response to staff concerns during the consultation process, it has also been suggested by Faculty Management that these Deputy Heads will have subject specific and discipline related roles in addition to their overall focus. As such, UCU members are concerned that the proposed Deputy Heads will face unmanageable workloads. This, in turn, may lead to delays and breakdowns in decision making processes and an increased workload for Programme Leads.

The Impact on the Role of Programme Leads

The exact roles of Programme Leads are unclear in the proposed new structure. It is suggested in the proposal that the restructure will “support the realignment of workloads, taking some of the pressure off the role of Programme Lead which is overburdened at the moment” but at the same time it is stated the PL roles will remain the same. Given the significant changes in the management structure above them, UCU members are concerned that it would appear that in reality they will be expected to take on much greater responsibility. As noted above, given the significant expectations placed on Deputy Heads in the new structure, in particular, there are no concrete examples provided of how the role of PLs will be made less burdensome.

Other Causal Factors of Falling Student Numbers

Given these serious concerns about the effectiveness and implementation of the proposal, UCU members suggest that the Faculty consider important issues that have contributed to the fall in student numbers across some programmes over recent years. All of these relate to factors outside of the control of academic staff in HSS.

1. Marketing support has been reduced substantially and as a result the use of external agencies has become commonplace. UCU members in HSS have given negative feedback concerning their recent experiences working with ‘A Thousand Monkeys’ in updating misleading and incorrect course copy for the University website.
2. Admissions has been a cause of real concern for UCU members in the Faculty. Course leaders for our PG programmes, in particular, have reported significant problems including long delays in responding to applicants and the complete breakdown in communication between Admissions and the relevant academic staff relating to the adoption of the new CRM Recruit system.
3. UCU members agree that the implementation of the Academic Framework has had an overall negative impact on the ability of staff to offer the most attractive and intellectually engaging courses at both UG and PG levels.

UCU Members have been willing to cooperate with marketing and admissions to make improvements, but it is clear that most of the issues they face are beyond our control. That said, there is no evidence that the current School structure has affected this process in any way, nor that the restructure would improve it.

Conclusion

In sum, UCU members in HSS feel that if we are to address student recruitment issues that are identified in this proposal for restructuring the Faculty, then we need to focus on drawing on the passion and knowledge of their subjects that our academic staff have. Creating a more vertical decision-making structure and two large and incoherent Schools will not, in our opinion, address the real challenges we face as a Faculty. Such a restructure will consume substantial time and energy that could be better spent on addressing the more fundamental issues that we have outlined above.

Joint open letter to Alistair Fitt in response to the all-staff communication on the pay settlement

Dear Alistair,

On behalf of both UCU and UNISON at Brookes, we are writing to you in response to the all-staff communication sent to colleagues earlier in the month about potential industrial action.

First of all, we welcome the fact that the University has adopted the Oxford Living Wage, which will benefit the lowest paid staff, and is something both unions have been demanding for a considerable time.

However, as you will know, the 3% pay offer by the national employer fails significantly to address the real terms reduction in our salaries over a number of years. We calculate that on average all staff whose salaries are nationally negotiated are now worth at least 20% less than they would have been if pay rises had simply kept pace with inflation over the last fifteen
years. This situation is, of course, worsening – with inflation for this year alone estimated to
reach 11%.

One UNISON colleague has calculated that she is now over £9,000 a year worse off now, compared with 2009, if her salary had kept up with increases in the cost of living over this period. The imposed 3% rise will mean her annual income will rise by £915 before tax, as against £4,115 if the employer had met UNISON’s claim.

She is not alone in having her pay effectively cut, and in the significant difference in value between the employer’s offer and the unions’ claims:

• Someone in point 11 of the pay spine (the bottom) would get a rise of £1,105, as opposed to £2,753 if the claim was met.
• .Someone in point 26 of the pay spine (the middle) would get a rise of £915, as opposed to £4,175 if the claim was met.
• Someone in point 51 of the pay spine (the top) would get a rise of £1910, as opposed to £8,723 if the claim was met.

Can we remind you that many staff at Brookes do not benefit from an incremental increase in salary every year; and we do not accept, in any event, that increments represent a real terms pay rise per se.

Some of the lowest paid staff at Brookes are now routinely having to use food banks simply to survive, and this is before the massive increase in fuel costs in the Autumn. Perhaps, like Abingdon and Witney College, the University might consider setting up its own food bank if
it is not prepared to pay its staff adequately.

Unions do not ballot for strike action on a whim. We only do this when all other measures have failed. We do not do this, as your note implies, to ‘disrupt the education and university experience of students’; we do it because we have no other choice; and we do it to improve
the quality of the student experience – an underpaid workforce will not deliver the best quality of teaching and support, as we are sure you can appreciate.

You say you are disappointed that we have chosen to ask colleagues to take the legal and appropriate action to achieve a better pay settlement; but we are disappointed that as our VC you do not seem to have put the case of your staff to the national employer for an acceptable pay deal – something both unions have asked you to do over the last two years.

All five national unions who have decide to ballot members on taking industrial action, would hope that strikes will be unnecessary in the Autumn. But this will only be the case if local employers – such as yourself – are prepared to speak up for us, and demand that UCEA make a more reasonable offer.

Yours,
Alan Reeve, Chair UCU at OBU
Simon Hogg, Chair UNISON, OBU

OBU UCU carried out a survey of members’ experiences of teaching at the beginning of the 2020-2021 academic year. The survey covered teaching conditions in both online and face-to-face formats, safety measures for COVID-19, and the recording of lectures and seminars. Please the results in the link below.

OBU UCU Teaching Survey Findings 7 Oct 2020

Please see OBU UCU’s report on the Joint Staff Committee meeting of 30 September.

The branch’s statement on reopening and returning to campus can be found here.

Branch members were asked to vote on whether or not they support the statement. 230 member responded, representing about 57% of the branch membership. 195 member (85%) voted to support the statement; 35 members (15%) were not in support of the statement.

Currently, Brookes is requiring that academic staff be available for face to face teaching. It has also said that if staff refuse to undertake face to face delivery they may be put on unpaid leave. Our position is that if you have a health condition that puts you at risk by attending work – particularly if you have a chronic illness or disability, or are living with someone who does – you may legitimately object to putting yourself at risk by having to attend work in person.

In addition, if you are feeling extremely anxious (and anxiety can be a physiological condition) about coming in, but have no other health issues, you may wish to consider seeing your GP for advice, and possibly a fitness to work note that may ask the employer to make the reasonable adjustment of not requiring you to come in.

If you are experiencing difficulties about coming to a mutually acceptable agreement with your line manager about attending work, please seek advice from your union rep.

We are attaching information from UCU on the rights of vulnerable staff which should address any concerns you might have about your rights here. You can also find the branch statement on reopening of the campus here.

OBU UCU Newsletter April 2020