On 1 September, Varsity published an article quoting from a letter from a group of students who are concerned about the impact of the Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) on finalists in particular. The letter urged Cambridge UCU to pause the MAB and enter direction negotiations with the University. In the interests of transparency we’ve published below the exact response our executive sent to Varsity in response to the request for comment, which details some of the actions we have taken in collaboration with the SU to communicate with students and address their concerns over the MAB. The students’ open letter was circulated to our membership on Thursday along with the key points of our letter to the organisers. A copy of our response to them is also published below.
Response to Varsity’s request for comment
The letter states that finalists feel “neglected and ignored” by the UCU, and that their futures “have been used as bargaining chips, with no serious attempt to […] mitigate the impact” on them.
We are crucially aware of the impact that the MAB has had on finalists. No member has taken the decision to engage in the MAB lightly. We regret that the dispute has not been settled already, and this has happened because the employers’ association, UCEA, has proven extremely intransigent. In July, UCU tried to negotiate a national suspension of the MAB, but UCEA has refused to meet even the most basic condition that would have allowed the union to consider one – the return of deductions. It is regrettable that the employer body UCEA has chosen to inflict this disruption on students, rather than address grievances that many of its employer members accept are legitimate. We have been engaging with the Cambridge SU since before the beginning of the action. We have organised drop-in sessions for students and jointly-written FAQs, and we have invited SU officers to our organising meetings. Departmental reps have also done the same in their Faculties and Colleges. At multiple steps, we have prompted the University to lobby relevant bodies – including the Home Office – to get visa extensions for affected students.
The letter states that renewing the MAB for a further 6 months would harm vulnerable, international, and disadvantaged students in particular.
The dates of the new UCU ballot have not been announced yet, but it is extremely likely at this stage that there will be a break in between IA periods. The best way to avoid IA to continue into the next academic year would be for UCEA to table a reasonable offer.
The letter demands that the Cambridge UCU allows a pause in the boycotting of finalists’ work from last year, considers negotiating directly with Cambridge University, and holds an open meeting to discuss the MAB.
UCU is currently consulting members nationally on whether to end the MAB early or continue it until 30 September. The consultation will close on 1 September and the results will be published shortly afterwards. As we explain in detail below, this is a national dispute and the branch cannot negotiate directly with the University. Regarding an open meeting to discuss the MAB, the exec is currently discussing the possibility of holding such a meeting, and we will liaise with students as soon as we can to determine a date.
We also have the following questions/ queries which we would appreciate your responding to:
Will Cambridge UCU consider entering into direct negotiations with Cambridge University?
This is a national dispute based on an aggregated ballot, and branches cannot negotiate directly with individual employers to settle the dispute or to change the nature of the action in any way. It is important to note that the agreement between QUB and QUB UCU resulted in the expulsion of QUB from UCEA and national bargaining for three years – which is likely to be detrimental to the working conditions of QUB staff in the medium term.
Is Cambridge UCU likely to amend the boycott in any way from its current form, such as by making exceptions for finalists’ work?
As mentioned above, UCU is currently consulting members nationally on whether to end the MAB early or continue it until 30 September. The consultation will close on 1 September and the results will be published shortly afterwards. The duration and nature of the action are also set by the national union, and local branches are not currently permitted to change these in any respect.
Does Cambridge UCU accept the letter’s assertion that “the solidarity amongst students for striking staff is drastically waning?”
We regret the impact that the MAB has had on students, and we remain committed to continuing and expanding engagement with students in the future. The reason why this dispute has gone this far is because employers have become entrenched and decided not to meet the bare minimum requests of an absolutely overworked and underpaid staff body to try and minimise impact on students.
Response to the organisers of the open letter from students about the MAB
Dear all,
We want to thank you for your letter, which has been shared with the Cambridge UCU executive committee.
We are crucially aware of the impact that the MAB has had on finalists, and no member has taken the decision to engage in the MAB lightly. We regret that the dispute has not been settled already, and this has happened because the employers’ association, UCEA, has proven extremely intransigent. In July, UCU tried to negotiate a national suspension of the MAB, but UCEA has refused to meet even the most basic condition that would have allowed the union to consider one – the return of deductions. Some members in branches around the country have been locked out of their salary for months for participation in lawful industrial action. Some of them have been pushed into precarious working conditions by employers who applied extremely punitive sanctions – as recently documented in the media. The return of deductions was a reasonable concession to request in exchange for a suspension of the MAB.
We have been trying to engage with students as much as we could throughout the dispute, and in particular we have been engaging with the Cambridge SU since before the beginning of the action. We have organised drop-in sessions for students and jointly-written FAQs, and we have invited SU officers to our organising meetings. Departmental reps have also done the same in their Faculties. At multiple steps, we have prompted the University to lobby relevant bodies – including the Home Office – to get visa extensions for affected students.
The exec has carefully considered your requests, and you will find our responses below:
Allow a pause in the boycotting of finalists’ work from the last year before the boycott is renewed
The dates of the new UCU ballot have not been announced yet, but it is extremely likely at this stage that there will be a break in between IA periods. UCU is also currently consulting members nationally on whether to end the MAB early or continuing it until 30 September. The consultation will close on 1 September and the results will be published shortly afterwards. If members vote to end the boycott early, marking and assessment duties will resume over the month of September.
Seriously consider entering in local negotiations with Cambridge directly rather than the national UCEA.
This is a national dispute based on an aggregated ballot, and branches cannot negotiate directly with individual employers to settle the dispute. It is important to note that the agreement between QUB and QUB UCU has resulted in the expulsion of QUB from UCEA and national bargaining for three years – which is likely to be detrimental to the working conditions of QUB staff in the medium term.
Hold an open meeting with finalists to discuss our concerns, the strikers’ positions and the prospect of extending the MAB.
The exec is currently discussing the possibility of holding such a meeting – we are currently in the middle of a handover, with a new exec taking over tomorrow. We will liaise with students as soon as we can to determine a date.
We want to reiterate that it is regrettable that the dispute has reached this point. It would have been completely reasonable and doable to settle it before the MAB was even called. Employers’ intransigence has brought us here. We wish it had not been so.