*A PDF version is available here for printing and distribution.

This is a new post for the 2022 Industrial Action and subject to minor amendments over the coming weeks.

We ask that, where possible, all members who can should donate to the local solidarity or national fighting fund.  Salaried staff who are not in hardship are encouraged to apply to the National fund in the first instance.

Information for the National UCU Fighting Fund 2022

Applications to the local solidarity / hardship fund

For the policies and procedures of the fund, see below. If you are on a STP, GTA or VAM contract, please read carefully what evidence to provide if claiming for strike action (we know it’s a pain, and for us assessing the claims too!).

For MAB claims, we can pay up to £350 of lost income (and will revisit this amount later in the year if our funds remain strong). For STP/GTA members, please submit as evidence of lost income your MAB declaration stating total hours you undertook MAB (either the email sent to academic.continuity@warwick.ac.uk or a screenshot of the ASOS form), and then your resulting payslip; we will cover the remainder of the marking hours up to £350.

Please see the links at the bottom of this post to make a claim (yes, we are encouraging everyone to read the content of the post first!).

Donations

Warwick UCU has a local hardship – what we refer to as our ‘solidarity’ – fund. The branch has donated funds to this, but we are also seeking donations from members. We are particularly directing this appeal for donations to our members who are either on leave or who are otherwise not expected to be part of the action.

The local solidarity fund is designed to complement the provision from the National Fighting Fund, and where possible to fill in any potential “gaps”. It will prioritise members on hourly paid and other precarious contracts, and support people who would be left financially vulnerable after deductions. The policies and procedures can be found below.

Please direct non-members to this page which asks if they can make a small donation to support their Union colleagues to protect the pension scheme that they are also part of.

Donations can be received by bank transfer or cheque.

For bank transfer the account details are:

 Please quote the reference: “Solidarity Fund”

It would be helpful to also send a remittance advice to treasurer@warwickucu.org.uk  confirming the amount and the name of the donor(s) so we can have a record

Or by Cheque

Please make cheques payable to “UCU Warwick” and send to Treasurer, UCU Office, Avon Building WA1.12, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL.

Policies and procedures of the hardship fund

Warwick UCU Strike committee has determined the following principles of policies and procedures.

The local hardship fund will prioritise those whose annual incomes will be particularly proportionally affected by taking strike action or participating in MAB, especially STP, GTA, weekly paid colleagues, and those on less than £30k per annum. Applications from those who do not have access to substantial forms of other, non-affected income (e.g. scholarships) will be prioritised.

Claiming for MAB related hardship:   When making an application to the fund, salaried colleagues should upload images of payslips with MAB deductions on them.  Deductions will be made by the University from Sept 2023 onwards.

Hourly paid colleagues (GTA’s and those on STP contracts) need to provide a copy of the declaration and the payslip which details the deductions.

Claiming for strike related hardship:

Our fund will award strike pay from the 1st day of strike action, up to a cap of £75 per strike day. This will be interpreted to mean that each day where the strike occurs, and where no work has been undertaken, will be treated as a strike day (independent of whether there was formal work scheduled on these days).

These amounts (£75 x number of days of strike participation) are the maximum amounts to which the aforementioned members can apply for; however, there is no guarantee that we will be able to pay those full amounts. That will depend on the amount of claims received and funds available.

Salaried staff earning over £30k per annum and who are not in hardship are encouraged to apply to the National fund in the first instance. If national funds are not available, local fund applications can be made, and these are capped at £50 per day for staff earning over £30k per annum.

We are continuing to raise funds and the hardship fund will concentrate its funding on the first days and weeks of strike action; and we will then support members’ applications to the national fighting fund for the remainder of the strike duration.

There will be no first come first serve handout for payments, but a deadline for claims advertised that will ensure fair treatment, while it will be possible to get urgent treatment.

Please note that hardship payments are disbursed to compensate members for losses they suffer linked to taking official strike action. We cannot make payments in excess of compensating those losses. We will assess appropriate payment amounts as part of the application process.

Make a claim for lost earning due to industrial action and MAB

New for MAB 2023

Apply to the Local Hardship fund using our updated form for MAB: UCU Warwick: Solidarity Fund Form, MAB (2023).

For Autumn Term Strike action

Please use the link below to apply to the Local Hardship fund for industrial action taken in Term 1 of 2022/23.
UCU Warwick: Solidarity Fund Form, Strike Action (2022-23).

The following Emergency Motion was passed by the Warwick UCU Branch Committee on 28th October 2021.

Emergency motion: Academic Freedom and the Sacking of Professor David Miller

Warwick University UCU branch committee expresses its deep concern about the University of Bristol’s dismissal of Professor David Miller without clarity about the reasons for their decision.

We oppose antisemitism and racism of all kinds and support the legal principle that universities should prevent discrimination, harassment and victimisation of individuals on the basis of their race, ethnicity or religion, or other protected characteristics, as they are obliged to under the 2010 Equality Act. 

We also note that universities have legal obligations to secure academic freedom within the law according to Section 2(8)(c) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which states that academic staff at English higher education providers have ‘the freedom within the law … (i) to question and test received wisdom, and (ii) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at the providers.’ This is, for good reason, a very high threshold of legal protection (see our Academic Freedom Explainer).

In this context, we note that the statement issued by the University of Bristol on 1 October reported that an independent QC found that Professor Miller’s comments were lawful and no statement has otherwise been made about the specific grounds for his dismissal.

In light of that fact, and in the absence of any indication by the University of Bristol of the ways in which Professor Miller’s behaviour has been deemed sufficiently sub-standard to merit dismissal, and even as some of our members may strongly disagree with Professor Miller’s utterances, we are concerned that Professor Miller’s dismissal appears to be a violation of the right to freedom of expression and the right to academic freedom. 

Professor Miller’s case is occurring in a context in which there are ongoing controversies in the higher education sector about the relationship between academic freedom and dignity.  The University of Bristol’s actions are a cause for concern among our members because they may establish a precedent for how other universities deal with complaints against academics, other university staff and students relating to their lawful speech, academic research and/or teaching. It is urgent that Bristol clarifies the specific grounds for this dismissal. If Professor Miller has been fired for his  research, teaching or comments in contravention of his right to academic freedom or freedom of speech, then the university  should reinstate him immediately.

This branch resolves to urgently:

  

• write to the University of Bristol, calling for clarification of why Professor Miller’s actions   merited dismissal and in the case that Professor Miller’s dismissal contravenes the right to academic freedom or freedom of expression, to call for his immediate reinstatement; 

 

• express publicly its concern about the circumstances and implications of this case; and

 

• call on the General Secretary and President of UCU to write on behalf of UCU to the Vice-Chancellor at Bristol calling for clarification of why Professor Miller’s actions merited dismissal and in the case that Professor Miller’s dismissal contravenes the right to academic freedom or freedom of expression, to call for  the immediate reinstatement of Professor Miller.

 

Since 18 March 2021, University of Warwick students led by Protect Warwick Women (PWW) have been protesting the University’s failure to adequately respond to, and prevent, sexual misconduct at the University. Starting with a sit-in on the central campus piazza they have since moved to occupy University House. 

PWW’s demands, which focus on such critical issues as training for campus security and students, signposted safe spaces, better support for those who experience sexual assault, and more appropriate penalties for those who are found guilty of sexual assault, all focus on urgent matters that would help to make the University safer for all students and staff.  

Warwick UCU stands in solidarity with student protestors and calls on the University to enter into immediate and intensive discussions with PWW and other stakeholders. These discussions should focus – not on how to end the protests – but on how to address the problem of sexual assault and the University’s support to survivors, so as to ensure a culture and environment in which all students and staff feel safe, and which all members of the University can be proud.

Warwick UCU Branch Committee calls on MPs to withdraw threats to academic freedom and to specific academics made to the Education Select Committee and apologise to those affected.

On Tuesday 27th April at a meeting of the Education Select Committee, Jonathan Gullis MP called for political interference in academic research, over-riding of employment law, and summary political sackings of university staff. While claiming to make these calls in defence of Jewish students, he belied his real motivations, as he himself recently used anti-semitic arguments to call for the suppression of academic freedom in a separate case.

Tory MPs threatening to sack academics and cut funding
In an inappropriate and unsubstantiated attack, Jonathan Gullis called for the summary dismissal of three specific members of University of Warwick staff, whom he named.

Gullis made the following statement (https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/32f86b8d-1689-4717-86b4-17bf0665c4f8?in=10:44:48&out=10:48:49) : 

“Stuart Croft, the Vice Chancellor, was the biggest embarrassment to students at his University, we need to go further than just fining, we need to start sacking people and Stuart Croft, and Dr Goldie Osuri, and Professor Virinder Karla [sic] need to go to be quite frank.”

Both the Chair of the Education Committee, Robert Halfon MP, and the Minister for Universities, Michelle Donelan MP, appeared to endorse this position. The Minister explained to Mr Gullis that it is not possible for government ministers to “sack” VCs or academics, but went on to say, “I agree with you, certain universities do need to go further on this area”, while Robert Halfon suggested that universities were “hiding behind employment law” in failing to sack academics. 

Wholly inappropriate intervention
This exchange at the Education Select Committee was a wholly inappropriate and flagrantly political attack on academic freedom and democracy. It is deeply concerning that MPs should be attempting to interfere in university employment and academic freedom in this way, and we do not think that this is an isolated attack on the work of these specific scholars, but part of a sustained attack on critical thinking which is likely to continue unless robustly opposed. 

It parallels the Education Secretary’s call for a “Freedom of Speech Champion” for universities, which would apparently only support freedom of particular kinds of speech valued by government ministers, without regard for the safety or dignity of students, staff or wider university communities.

As with reports that the Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden would deny future funding to academic research into colonial histories by a specific Professor, which were prompted by calls from the so-called “Common Sense” group of which Gullis is a member, this is a worrying sign of how little the current government and its MPs value freedom of thought and democracy. These anti-democratic instincts to stifle scholarly research must be resisted.

It is important to note that both Dr Goldie Osuri and Professor Virinder Kalra are internationally recognised scholars who are well known for their research and civic work on anti-racism and anti-colonialism.

The claims by these MPs to be defending Jewish students is all the more galling in light of the fact that Gullis was a signatory to a recent letter from the so-called “Common Sense Group” of MPs who proposed cutting funding for historical research into Britain’s national heritage because they didn’t agree with the findings, referring in their statements to “cultural Marxist dogma”, a reference to a far-right anti-semitic conspiracy theory commonly used to attack critical scholars in the humanities and social sciences. 

We call on Jonathan Gullis MP to:

1. Withdraw his anti-democratic call for political interference in university life
2. Apologise to the academics he has targeted with threats
3. Apologise for his endorsement of an anti-semitic conspiracy theory

We further call on Michelle Donelan MP and Robert Halfon MP to:

1. Apologise for apparently condoning calls by a member of the Education Select Committee for political interference in university life, including threats towards individual academics
2. Commit to upholding the principle that scholarly research should be free from political interference

 

Why are we in dispute with the university? 

Warwick UCU and The University of Warwick are in dispute because the University is failing to protect the health and safety of all staff during the Covid-19 pandemic. Warwick UCU members have repeatedly made clear that they do not feel safe carrying out face to face teaching, or working onsite, because of Covid-19 infection rates in the community and the unsafe numbers of staff and students on campus. Members have told us they are being required to work on campus rather than deliver their work online, despite:

•  Having clinically vulnerable household members who are being put at additional risk
•  Having to travel on public transport and be exposed to additional risk
• Experiencing unsafe situations on campus in corridors, classroom and other spaces, e.g. crowding, lack of adequate ventilation, lack of cleaning and cleaning supplies
• Unsuitable pedagogical conditions: extremely cold rooms due to open windows, difficulties hearing and communicating because of masks and room layout, anxiety of staff and students

Nobody should be required to choose between their work and their health, or that of their family. We are particularly concerned that casualised colleagues, with the least power to negotiate, are disproportionately bearing the burden of face to face teaching.

 We have been raising these issues with management since June. They have failed to respond to numerous requests to reconsider their approach.

 In October our All-Member Emergency Meeting had the highest attendance rate the branch has ever seen. Members voted overwhelmingly in favour of balloting for industrial action if the university management continued to refuse to move all but practical and lab-based classes online during the pandemic.

What evidence do we have that members feel unsafe and anxious?

This is clear from emails and other communications between members and departmental representatives and executive members, and from various communications between members and the central University. It is also clear from our All-Member Emergency Meeting. 

From a survey conducted by the branch, but open to all University employees, in September 2020, 85% of members stated that the Covid-19 crisis had led to increased anxiety levels and pressures in their workplace. We know this in part relates to excessive workload, exacerbated by the blended learning model’s multiplication of preparation, student support and technical work. Our demands include better representation of staff in decisions about learning models, to avoid this in future.

What is happening for casualised members of staff?

The consequences of the University’s position in terms of workload, stress, mental health, and exposure to the virus have been hard for all members of staff, but have been significantly worse for colleagues in precarious positions (GTA, STP, VAM, fixed-term contracts). 

• Many have little information and no voice in decision-making processes (e.g. not even aware of the risk assessments for their departments or the room they teach in)
• They bear the larger burden of f2f teaching, even in departments that have tried to distribute this fairly, because they predominantly teach large first year modules.
• In departments where there has been relatively more flexibility allowed, casualised colleagues are less likely to be aware or feel able to raise concerns and negotiate to teach online. In some departments, people have been forced to either teach face to face or not teach at all (and lose their contract). 
• Colleagues on STP do not even have sick pay, they will not get paid if they contract COVID-19
• Casualised colleagues have been the first to be thrown under the bus by the university in the face of the pandemics, with the slashing of the sessional teaching budget. As a result, many PhD students or recent graduates don’t have the opportunity to teach or have less hours than they would have expected (and a lower income). These cuts have effectively led to job losses for casualised staff, and unbearably increased workloads of other colleagues. 

How does the dispute help members of professional services staff? 

Fewer people on campus makes campus safer from everyone. Workloads of professional services staff increased to facilitate the frequent shifts from face to face to online. More certainty would mean a more manageable workload for everyone. 

What about teaching that can’t be done online? 

UCU’s position is that all teaching except for that which cannot be done online (e.g. labs) should be moved online. 

What support is there for Warwick UCU’s position?

In addition to the concerns we have received from members, UCU National has also called for all but essential teaching to be moved online for the duration of the pandemic. The call for universities to move online is supported by both Independent SAGE and SAGE. Notably in September, the Government ignored the advice they received from SAGE. UCU National has also initiated a legal action against the government for ignoring the advice from SAGE. We also have the support of the National Union of Students. 

What would industrial action involve? 

Industrial action would combine two types of action: strike, and ‘Action Short of Strike’ (ASOS). Specific guidance will be issued before we start any action. ASOS would primarily consist in moving your teaching online, and/or working to (notional) contracted hours. Strike action would mean not performing any work activities. We will not have physical pickets due to the pandemic, but we will organise virtual pickets.  If we call for strike, we will do so strategically. 

Why should I vote yes to strike and action short of a strike? 

Many of our members have been struggling over the past few months, particularly our casualised colleagues. A ‘yes’ vote is a vote for solidarity with them. 

The only reason the university is now discussing our concerns with us is because we entered into a formal dispute. While we will only take industrial action if it becomes necessary, we need to show the university that we are prepared to do so in order for them to take us seriously, so that we can effectively negotiate a resolution. 

Why are we balloting for industrial action now, haven’t the negotiations just started? 

We have had one Dispute Resolution meeting with the University and another is scheduled for November 26th. We took the decision to open the ballot before the second meeting for two reasons: 

1. We have a mandate to ballot from the membership that we are obliged to act on. In particular, the All Member Meeting acknowledged that while we would not be able to ballot in time to take action in Term 1, it would be essential to ensure we are prepared to take action at the start of Term 2 if need be. It is recommended by UCU that the ballot remain open for four weeks, and we are required by law to give the University two clear weeks notice of any planned industrial action. So as to be prepared for this and to not have the ballot open over the Christmas holiday, we had to open the ballot as early as possible. 
2. The University has had many months to consider and respond to UCU’s concerns, and they have not done so. Initiating the ballot demonstrates that we are serious. 

But the University says that campus is as COVID-secure as possible, and there have been no documented cases arising from teaching?

Campus cannot ever be fully COVID-secure; nowhere can be. Moreover, many of our students have contracted COVID-19 on campus, despite the measures in place. We are also aware that the Residential Life Team has been affected. These cases, and the knock on effects on our local community, are unnecessary. In addition, our members’ concerns are not just about campus but long commutes on public transport. 

We are also concerned about the increased workloads that have arisen as a consequence of the blended model.

But my department has been very understanding and ensured that colleagues with serious well-being concerns relating to working on campus have been able to work online/at home? 

The university’s stated policy is that only those that are extremely clinically vulnerable are exempt from teaching face to face. However, in practice, some departments have exercised more discretion than others and have taken a more flexible approach. It is important to recognise that even if your experience has been relatively positive, we have many colleagues who are teaching face to face when they would strongly prefer not to, and to use your vote to show your solidarity with them. 

There is no guarantee that flexibility and exceptions granted to/within departments in Term 1 would continue into Term 2. 

What about those staff members who prefer face-to-face teaching or who want to work in their offices? 

Most of us would prefer to teach face to face, and we are eager to return to the classroom when the public health situation improves. In the meantime, our main concern is that no one should have to teach face to face during a pandemic if they feel uncomfortable doing so, for any reason. 

Furthermore, we believe there should be more support for online teaching in order to make it an accessible and rewarding experience for students and staff in otherwise difficult circumstances. 

What about student wellbeing? Students, especially first years, deserve some face-to-face teaching? 

We know members are extremely concerned about the wellbeing of our students. We appreciate arguments about the need for face-to-face teaching, particularly for students who were affected by the A-level fiasco earlier this year, or by industrial action in previous years, but we believe the uncertainty of trying to provide f2f to students is only exacerbating the problem. While a fully online programme comes with many challenges, we believe that frequent periods of self-isolation and lockdowns, flipping with little notice from f2f to online, and large numbers of students in many online seminars, is not good for students’ well-being either. 

The NUS supports UCU’s demands for all but essential teaching to be online during the pandemic. Management decisions to choose a ‘blended model’ and require students to be on campus are what have put students’ mental and physical health at risk – not staff demands for safety in the workplace.

We understand and empathise with students who would prefer f2f teaching, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of the physical and mental health of staff members, vulnerable students, or the local community.

What about the vote the Students Union took? 

You may be aware that Warwick Student Union voted against a motion “Warwick SU Supports UCU’s Call for Online Teaching.” 

We are of course disappointed in this result, but we want to reiterate that UCU has called for teaching to be online in the interests of health and safety, and with the support of NUS. 

We are not surprised that students feel this way, and we sympathise. The vast majority of us would prefer to be back in the classroom, too. However, we can’t vote away the pandemic, and we do not believe that any students or staff should be required to take risks with their health by attending campus against their will in the context of a global pandemic. Lockdowns, social distancing, wearing masks – all of these measures are taken not because we want them, but because we have to take them in order to control the spread of the virus. 

Moreover, the face to face teaching we are currently able to provide not only presents significant difficulties for effective pedagogy, but it has also needlessly led to hundreds of positive cases amongst our students. 

We would fully support increased face to face teaching if the public health situation improved considerably, but that’s not where we are right now. We believe the university should have invested in, and planned earlier for, excellent online provision to see us through the pandemic. 

How is this strike action any different from last year, or the year before? 

We would stress that this is a local action, so the pressure is much more immediate and the negotiations are being conducted on a local level. Given this, our chances of success are much higher. 

The Four Fights dispute is still ongoing, but strike action did force UCEA to negotiate on issues they had never accepted to discuss before, and we put issues of precarity, pay gap, and workload front and centre. The current pandemic highlights how deep these problems are.

The offer made by UCEA was disappointing and we have learned lessons from these strikes. The current dispute has clear and achievable demands, which mean the university can promptly resolve it if they choose to. 

 

In June 2020, Warwick UCU developed its “Five Red Lines” document, outlining the conditions necessary to ensure that the move to reopen campus occurs safely. These lines are as follows: (1) safe in society; (2) safe on campus; (3) safe university buildings; (4) safe for all colleagues; and (5) safer communication.

We have been monitoring the situation carefully over the past three months, in close contact with the University – participating in risk assessments, sitting on campus reopening working groups, and meeting with senior managers weekly to discuss health and safety issues. On the basis of these experiences, it has become clear to us that the only way to open campus safely is to move the bulk of teaching (except where pedagogically unfeasible, such as certain labs) online for the autumn term.

We do not come to this conclusion lightly. Nearly all those who teach would, under normal circumstances, prefer to do so in person. But there is a growing consensus among public health officials, including government scientists, that the attempt by universities to operate as close to normal as possible is courting disaster (Dickenson 2020a; Dickenson 2020b). As many other institutions (including Harvard and Yale Universities in the US) have come to recognise, a return to teaching in person this September will create significant risks for both public health and educational outcomes. The most recent news from the US only confirms fears that in-person teaching will lead to surges in new cases.

Universities risk becoming sites of mass infection, so we must act now. We spell out why this is the case below.

First, we are calling on Warwick to act decisively as a sector leader and move the autumn term wholly online now, with adequate time for all to prepare their teaching accordingly. This is not just for the health of teachers and students, but for all workers employed by Warwick and for the broader West Midlands community, whose health and safety will be compromised by a return to business as usual. Second, we call on Warwick to work with Universities UK to lobby much more forcefully for a substantive university bailout package, one that will better enable universities across the country to prioritise the health and safety of their staff, students and surrounding communities. No one should have to choose between their livelihoods and their lives.

Our conclusions regarding a safe return to work are based on the following factors.

• The R number is not falling

In June we wrote that “New cases of Covid-19 need to be low and falling, with a sustained downward trend and confidence that all new cases can be identified and responded to promptly.” Unfortunately, there are over 1000 new cases a day, which is in breach of the government’s own targets. As of early August, the R number is not falling, but has instead remained level and in many regions is rising. This return to the higher infection rates of April and May has led to a series of localised lockdowns, including declaration of a ‘major incident’ in Manchester. The University currently has no plan in place for dealing with a localised lockdown, either in Coventry itself or in the surrounding commuter belt where staff and students live. If Covid-19 were to enter the campus community it is likely that infection rates would rise sharply, endangering the health of staff and students alike.

• Commuting patterns at Warwick have public health implications for the entire West Midlands community

Because Warwick is a commuter campus, with staff traveling from across the country and even the EU, we are concerned that those who live in regions with high infection rates will feel compelled to resume face-to-face (f2f) teaching due to university directives. The risk is that they will transmit the virus not only on campus but also to the wider Coventry community. We have yet to see any comprehensive analysis of how a mass return to campus will impact public transport, local infrastructure and healthcare in Coventry and surrounding areas. Aside from the risk to the University community itself, this negligence undermines the University’s commitment to being a “good neighbour” in Warwickshire and the West Midlands.

• Classrooms are not ‘Covid-secure’

The University’s position is that between 50% and 75% of all small group teaching should be f2f next term. Yet risk assessments reveal that campus lacks the necessary capacity for this target, once logistical complexities of transitions, queuing, waiting between contact times and cleaning regimes are considered. We do not consider the University’s current health and safety plans for classrooms to be adequate (for e.g., there are no plans to stagger session times; no extensive cleaning planned between sessions; and only 10-15 minute transition times scheduled between classes, which does not permit one set of students to leave and another to enter safely). We are particularly worried about the use of classrooms without windows or adequate ventilation, especially given growing empirical evidence that Covid-19 is primarily airborne (Setti et al 2020; Bahl 2020).  Finally, while other universities have been acquiring new equipment to improve their sanitation regimes, including state-of-the-art UV cleaning robots, Warwick has made no such investment, which suggests that more risks will have to be taken by cleaning staff. 

These factors lead us to conclude that Warwick’s classrooms are, simply put, unsafe spaces for teaching staff, cleaning staff, and students in a pandemic.

• The University’s health and safety guidance for students is inadequate

The University’s guidelines to new students for social mixing, reporting cases and self-isolating will only create unacceptable risks. It’s unclear, for instance, how the designation of “kitchen units” will work in practice, and what obligations members of these units will have toward each other. Moreover, because these “kitchen units” don’t overlap with students’ home departments, years or classes, they pose additional risks of transmission on campus. Members of the University’s cleaning team are also raising concerns. One such staff member (who asked to remain anonymous) explained, “there doesn’t seem to be a Risk Assessment for when students are in residence, or if there is we haven’t seen it.” This member also raised a number of other issues such as bathroom cleaning provision, staffing numbers, and staff feeling pressured to come back to work when it doesn’t feel safe.

Further, the University’s advice to students asks that students report only confirmed cases of Covid infection. This directive makes it more likely that new cases will lead to uncontrolled rates of transmission before test results are made public, and will make it virtually impossible to contain any outbreaks. A wider concern is that Covid-19 is often asymptomatic, and thus that infection can spread significantly before the manifestation of symptoms triggers intervention.

• Face-to-face teaching is not safe for all colleagues

Although there is an equalities impact assessment for the return to campus, there have been no such assessments regarding the differential risks relating to BAME staff, disabled staff, older staff and staff in other categories who may be more vulnerable to the virus. Nor are there plans in place for ensuring the safety of colleagues who carry such differential risks.

• The University’s communications have been neither safe nor clear

The University has failed to communicate clearly with staff on a number of urgent issues: how will an individual’s risk level will be properly assessed; what kinds of accommodations can or will be made for different risk categories; who will be compelled to teach f2f; under what conditions will the University will move to online teaching; and how the University will deal with a second wave of infection. The University has also refused to factor in the increased workload staff will face this year (beyond positing a risible “two extra hours a week” for adaptation purposes), nor has it acknowledged the risks posed by increased workloads to the mental and physical health of already overburdened staff members.

At the same time, the University’s cavalier communications to incoming students (“You may be a little concerned about how Covid-19 will impact your experience with us, but there’s no need to worry”) suggest that it has failed to absorb the baseline truth that staff working conditions are students’ learning conditions. Prioritising a near-normal ‘student experience’ over staff welfare in abnormal circumstances is a recipe for satisfying no one and endangering all. Rather than imposing coercive targets from above, the University would do better to trust the responsiveness and creativity of staff and students alike when working in conditions of crisis. The temporary provision of online teaching is far preferable as an option to unwieldy and unworkable adaptations of in-person teaching to meet the challenges of Covid-security.

As a union, we will continue to support ongoing risk assessment processes to help ensure that that any return to campus is as safe as possible, but we do so with the belief that the only way to truly ensure the safety of our colleagues and students is to make online teaching the default position for Term 1.