Stop the Cuts at Kingston University: Open Letter

We write as students, staff and stakeholders of Kingston University to express our profound concern and alarm regarding the impact, reputational damage, and questionable legality of the job cuts and course suspensions currently being hastily imposed on the institution which local MP Ed Davey has described as the jewel in his constituency’s crown.

In February, Kingston University announced plans for cuts across faculties, including proposals to close the entire Humanities department and to cut courses in

  • Criminal Justice

  • Criminology

  • Criminology & Sociology

  • English

  • Humanities Foundation

  • International Relations

  • Modern European Philosophy

  • Philosophy and Contemporary Critical Theory

  • Sociology

It is additionally planned to close the Kingston Language Scheme which provides language courses to students, staff and the wider community.

Impact

A formal 30-day consultation has been launched, with 30 staff at risk of redundancy. All recruitment to these courses has been suspended without prior warning or consultation, and current students have been informed they are earmarked for closure. This pre-emptive move means staff have been presented with fait accompli rather than an opportunity to meaningfully consult over proposals in their formative stage as required by law.

These are high quality courses, including those provided by the world-renowned Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy, and staff who are nationally and internationally recognised for research and pedagogy. As already set out in open letters written by threatened students studying Philosophy and Creative Writing, current BA, MA, MPhil and PhD students have been treated with contempt. Despite claims their courses will not be disrupted, they face losing the very teachers, supervisors and modules that made them want to come to Kingston to study. It is estimated that c. 70 PhD students are at risk of losing their supervisors, and yet provision for postgraduate researchers has not even been considered within the proposals put forward.

Reputational Damage

These cuts constitute irreparable damage to the University’s reputation. Already, prestigious professional bodies such as the International Consortium of Critical Theory Programs have denounced this move. As many have pointed out, following on from previous cuts to History, Politics, Media & Communications, Film, Linguistics, Geology, Music, this restricts student choice and access to these critical subject areas, undermining Kingston’s commitment to widening participation and making all disciplines of higher education accessible to students from diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds. Contravening these commitments, these cuts imply that Kingston University believes these subjects should only be available to those who attend Russell Group institutions.

Moreover, as the latest in a series of shortsighted attacks on the arts, humanities and social sciences across the UK higher education sector, these cuts fail to recognise the social, cultural and economic value of these subjects.  As the @stop_kingston_cuts campaign emphasises, ‘Humanities foster critical thinking, empathy, and cultural awareness – essential for informed, engaged societies, they equip people to challenge misinformation, debate constructively, and uphold democratic values’.

Questionable Legality

The position of the University & Colleges Union (UCU) is that the current consultation is unreasonable and unlawful. The University leadership claim £20 million savings need to be made by the end of the 2025-6 financial year. These savings, which are not motivated by a budget deficit but a “projected shortfall” calculated by the University, are intended to produce a budget surplus of c3% of turnover, which will “enable investment in its infrastructure” – showing a willingness to sacrifice staff livelihoods, student learning, and teaching and research quality for shiny new buildings. Even with half that amount apparently recouped, it is clear the current proposals mark only the start of a larger swathe of course closures and job cuts.

These proposals have been hastily drawn up and the University is pushing ahead without due regard for their statutory obligations, or staff and student wellbeing. The desire to accumulate funds for capital expenditure is not legitimate grounds for making redundancies. Sacrificing programmes, modules and teaching staff in the service of building works is an abdication of the University’s responsibilities to avoid redundancies and uphold a high-quality and comprehensive education offering for students.

Furthermore, the University has failed to issue the UCU with a Section 188 notice required by law. Staff have been called to 1-to-1 consultation meetings at short notice, without adequate time or information on which to respond. Senior leaders have failed to provide the financial data behind the £20 million figure, or other data requested by the union (such as the costs associated with the much-vaunted and deeply unpopular outsourced ‘Future Skills’ programme), required in order to provide counter proposals and ways to mitigate the need for redundancies. They have failed to share the calculations and criteria behind the obscure mechanism called the Resource Allocation Model that has been used to identify courses for closure, according to which at least nine further departments may be at risk in the near future. Running alongside the consultation, a Voluntary Severance (VS) scheme has been launched for affected staff, and another for all professors and associate professors in the Faculty of Business & Social Sciences. Cast as an effort to “minimise the risk of compulsory redundancy”, despite the fact that headcount reductions have been predetermined and consultation and VS application deadlines coincide, this is coercive. Staff feel pressured into applying for VS for fear of compulsory redundancy, which could constitute grounds for unfair dismissal claims.

We call upon Kingston University to halt with immediate effect these cuts and closures, reinstate all suspended courses, rescind the current consultation, meaningfully and transparently consult with the recognised trade unions over financial sustainability, abide by its statutory obligations under Trade Union and Employment law, ACAS code of practice, and its Managing Organisational Restructures policy, and commit to avoiding compulsory redundancies.

Click here to add your name

Motions passed at branch meetings February 26 and March 5

At two recent meetings branch members passed motions consolidating our intention to fight the cuts threatening the future and reputation of the university.

Wednesday 26th February 2025

In response to SLT’s failure to engage – to both consult and negotiate – with campus unions, staff and students in the development of their proposed solutions to the university’s financial position, its abandonment of the terms and spirit of employment law and our recognition agreement, and its tone-deaf, dehumanising conduct in communicating its intentions, we passed a motion of no confidence in the Senior Leadership Team.

The second motion demanded a series of resolutions the SLT could take to begin to restore that confidence, leading with a commitment to suspend the VSS and open up consultation over the scope of any VSS that they seek to launch, and a commitment to pause on enacting the outcomes of current and recent course review processes until all these conditions have been met. We resolved to issue the University with a Failure to Agree Notice (FTA) on Wednesday 5th March by 10am, the first step towards opening a dispute, if the demands were not agreed to by senior management.

Full motion here.

Wednesday 5th March 2025

After no attempt was made to meet the demands set out last week, we moved to proposing a motion titled “Launching a Dispute,” in which the branch resolved to –

  • Mandate branch officers to submit an application to ballot to UCU via our regional official, and enter into a local dispute with our employer over the changes being pursued by SLT’s proposals.
  • Continue exploring all available avenues to defend jobs and conditions, including actions that fall outside of industrial action.

Full motion here.

Email response to SLT “consultation” plans

Dear members,

As you know, Kingston’s senior leadership team announced yesterday a barrage of closures to courses and entire departments, and sent emails to numerous members inviting them to “consultations” regarding the future of their employment.

As you will also directly know if you were present at yesterday’s branch meeting, or will be completely unsurprised to hear based on their past conduct, these are “consultations” in name only. Among their many failures to meet their moral and legal responsibilities towards staff and students, management have failed to consult when proposals are at a formative stage, have not given adequate information on which to base our response or adequate time to produce a response, have made no attempt to coordinate schedules with the union so that we can support consultation meetings, or given adequate consideration to suitable alternative employment.

Please see below for a link to our email response to SLT, which sets out in detail the grounds for our disagreement and the simple steps they can take to demonstrate a minimal level of competence and compassion.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FR8SBodsl61P0xPc8GYAg-EawymtjqPz/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=113782800528817413160&rtpof=true&sd=true

Summary of SLT and HR responses to your questions

Dear members,

As you know, we have used the questions you raised at our last branch meeting to demand clarification from senior management regarding their plans to address the “projected £20M shortfall” referred to in the presentation they recently forced heads of department to disseminate on their behalf. Please see below for a summary of the responses we have received so far.

 

The University’s Response to the Current Financial Difficulties

When asked what the university planned to do to address the £20m shortfall, UCU were reminded of Caroline Harries’ 27th October 2024 update. Harries’s plans included a “review of our course portfolio”, “PEER (a purpose, efficiency and effectiveness review)”, an “analysis of spend against sector benchmarks”, and a “local financial review, looking at budgets across the University and how these align to our resource allocation methodology (RAM)”. Importantly, SLT cannot rule out the future use of voluntary or compulsory redundancies, and voluntary exits to address the projected £20M shortfall.

 

The Recent Use of Voluntary Exits and/or Severances

We asked specific questions about when voluntary exits occur, the equalities impacts associated with those that have occurred thus far and how much they have contributed to savings. 

“Voluntary exits”, we are told, “are triggered either by an approach from an employee or by the managers with advice from HR.” Potential selection criteria includes unsuccessful “informal performance management”, disputes ending in lack of “trust and confidence”, and staff who wish to “avoid a formal dismissal process” caused by “ill health”.

SLT say that they are demonstrating their “due regard” for potential equality impacts by undertaking Equalities Impact Assessments under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, before enacting any compulsory, or voluntary, redundancies, severances or exits. They also say that they will undertake such Equalities Impact Assessments if they decide to develop any future compulsory (or voluntary) redundancy schemes. Since 1st August 2022, “43 protected conversations have taken place to consider voluntary exit” and there has been a “95% uptake”. “Since 2022/23 7% of staff leaving with voluntary exits were from ethnic minority; 22% were disabled.” “7 involved in formal disciplinary or performance management procedures”. SLT argued that exits, severances or redundancies have only had a “minimal” impact on the work of other staff in the department, school or faculty. They argued that “all but five employees were replaced”.

The data shared above bear out the claim that SLT are undertaking Equalities Impact Assessments in connection with Voluntary Exits and/or Severances. But more clarity is required. It is unclear when we are told that “all but five employees were replaced” if this is 5 of the total 43 exits, severances or redundancies since 1st August 2022 or 5 of the “7 involved in formal disciplinary or performance management procedures”. It is also unclear how much of the projected £20M shortfall has been addressed, so far, by way of exits and/or redundancies.

We also need further clarity on the use of “protected conversations” and the point at which unions can represent staff in these conversations. When “a recognised dispute” occurs, SLT explain, the conversation will function under “S111a of the employment rights act 1996”.This is not an NDA but contains a similar structure (go here to find out more), so we need assurances that “protected conversations” are not used to circumvent the collective action of Unions. There is a lack of clarity about when UCU caseworkers can attend a “protected conversation”. Unions, it seems, may not be “invited” to the “initial protected conversations” as they represent “an option”. This is explained as follows:

Staff have a right to representation at all formal meetings regarding problems or concerns they may have at work. Predominantly initial protected conversations are informal and provide the employee with an option (or the employer to consider a proposal from the employee) so trade unions are not invited to these, however if subsequently formal processes begin place [sic] trade unions or solicitors (often TU solicitors) are involved.

The communication we’ve had on the recent use of voluntary exits and/or severances is welcome but – if the future use of voluntary or compulsory redundancies, and voluntary exits to address the projected £20M shortfall cannot be ruled out – we need further written assurances that the SLT will ensure that the collective bargaining of trade unions – which is undertaken to support vulnerable staff working in an uncertain sector – is not undermined. 

 

Management Strategies and Evaluation of Courses

SLT were asked a number of questions about who was consulted on a range of processes and strategies that were released in the last 5 years or so, including the Academic Domains Framework, the Town House Strategy, course reviewing and workload management.

In some of the responses, there is a lack of transparent and open sharing of information. Academic Domains Frameworks, for instance, were apparently developed in 2018-2019 “with reference to, and in alignment with, HE national agreements and guidance, existing academic job descriptions at Kingston, and the JNCHES Academic Role Profiles”. Yet, when revisions to this framework were introduced in 2023, UCU was not consulted on them, and the fact that we did not support the initial 2018-2019 introduction of the Academic Domains Framework does not appear to have been taken into consideration. Similarly, although SLT suggests that consultants and consultant firms were not used “to develop the Town House Strategy”, they acknowledge that they were used for “communication” of this strategy. The names and duties of these consultants and consultancy firms have not been provided.

SLT offer a vague description of the difference between “portfolio management” (or “course review”) and “PEER (Purpose, Efficiency and Effectiveness Review)”. The former is considered part of a “business-as-usual” “annual process”: it includes KCEP processes, analyses of “current and projected demand” and sometimes an “analysis of Departments falling below average RAM (Resource Allocation Model) contribution”. The latter (PEER) is centred on “improving our processes and practices” by looking at, for instance, “course structures”, course “design” and course “delivery”. We are not told or given examples, however, of how this Resource Allocation Model (which Caroline Harries names Resource Allocation Methodology) will function. Nor does there appear to be an acknowledgement that these processes could result in potential job cuts.

Although SLT have agreed to undertake Equalities Impact Assessments under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 before any reviews of course provision, they cannot “commit to involving academics and students, as those who will be most directly affected by their outcomes, in future uses of the P.E.E.R. system to review course provisions”. They responded by saying 1) where portfolio reviews impact staffing levels these will “be part of the formal consultation process” and 2) course design and delivery should be aligned with “the University Academic Framework [as] reviewed and approved though Education Committee in November 2024”. These processes either seem to place trade unions, staff and students into an ineffectual consultation of fait accompli decisions or to enforce changes to course design and delivery that ignore the experiences of the staff and students who are their direct providers or consumers.

There are places where the voices of staff, including Faculty Deans and UCU Representatives, are being involved in attempts to improve the way that Work Allocation Models function for academic staff. The presence of this review is laudable but the discrepancies and inconsistencies it reveals suggest a prolonged ignorance to how our contracts and duties are managed — and this will be affecting staff throughout the university, academic or otherwise. SLT were unable to explain when the Workload Allocation Model was last reviewed and, when asked to “commit to a moratorium on redundancies, exits and severances (voluntary or otherwise) until the [current] Workload Working Group has completed its tasks”, they argued that “other factors that influence our work to determine financial sustainability […] will not be paus[ed] […] as we move to a more harmonized approach”. 

All of these processes demonstrate how a prolonged ignorance to the challenges and changes occurring in the sector have, rather than being managed as they occur, been ignored. HR and SLT should have already known, for instance, that the WAM used for academic staff is often ineffective, and surely the reviewing of a process that ensures our ability to complete our duties without a given week is something that HR should be doing constantly, to ensure that our weekly duties align with our contracts and that these duties are accurately nurtured and/or appraised. At present, it feels like staff (and indeed students) are being expected to pay for management’s historic failures and careless spending. 

 

Future Skills and Academic Integrity

We asked a number of questions about how Future Skills was developed, how it represents value for money, and if it incorporates the knowledge and expertise of academic staff. 

Future Skills, we are told, was developed in consultation with SDLTs and the SDGS team. SLT gave a generic answer to the question of development cost, explaining it is “difficult to quantify the development costs of new modules across different schools and faculties”. They also state that “The university has not outsourced the teaching of level 6 Future skills”.

Yet there are a number of problems with these statements. Who is in ‘the SDGS team’ and what are their duties? Is extra work allocated to module leaders for the development of Future Skills modules given they require more collaborative activities and management than many other types of module? The development of Future Skills relied on a grant and a seconded Town House Fellow, but values attached to these activities are not provided. No clarity is provided on what Gradcore, a third-party supplier used for managing assessment centres, costs the university. There are also internal inconsistencies in the Gradcore system. If they “do not teach or formally assess”, why does their contract cover “the hiring of [“industry-trained”] assessors”? (Which “industry” has “trained” these assessors?) The fact that “a one year transitional period in courses such as Nursing, Architecture and Engineering” has been approved due to the restraints caused by PSRB schemes at Level 6 suggests a clear oversight in the overall development of Future Skills.

These oversights and failures to provide information, like those in the previous section, all represent a failure to engage with and pay attention to the voices of academic staff, many of whom have been running courses, and nurturing their modules, for 5 years or more. Importantly, they also represent a careless and disingenuous use of the University’s funds. 

 

Miscellaneous questions

Some other responses related to data requested and a clarification of relaxation and recreation spaces for staff and PGRs.

Data proving that the trailing process is of benefit to students will be provided.

SLT offered the staff-student ratios from the past two years (2022/3, 17.1; 2023/4, 18.1) but argued that previous years could not be included as the way the data are calculated has changed.

SLT have explained that no replacement for the Picton Room is planned. (They did not mention the Knights Park Staff Space.) Baby feeding and baby changing rooms will be created in the place of the Picton Room. We are told that ‘[a]lternative spaces exist such as the 5th floor Town House which are available for all to use for relaxation and recreation’.

SLT have no plans to provide subsidised food, but we are reminded of the existence of “the new benefits platform and smart spending app that enable staff to benefit from 5% off at Sainsbury’s next to Penrhyn Road and 4% off most other supermarkets and discounts up to 10% at many restaurants and food take away places”.

SLT does not have the data to explain the savings made by using a contractor rather than direct labour to supply food services at the university. The value of using contractors is that “the caterers take responsibility for catering operations and associated risks, delivering against an agreed set of 30 Key Performance Indicators” thereby “free[ing] the university to focus on core business”.

There is a lot to take in here. Many of the responses we’ve received pose further questions, all of which we have gathered and are formulating responses to. (A full version of SLT and HR’s response can be found here.) It is, however, clear that the University is failing to meaningfully consult with us. Our Recognition Agreement defines negotiation as ‘the process of discussion between the University and one or more Trades Unions with the purpose of reaching agreement and avoiding disputes’ and consultation as ‘an opportunity to influence decisions and their application’, not simply ‘the mere passage of information’. At present, we only seem to have received ‘information’.

Chair’s Year Report 2024

Review of 2024

This year has been tough for staff with the increasing cost of living and lack of movement by UCEA on negotiations for salary uplifts. This is further exacerbated by the failure of both the old and the new government to properly fund universities. Cost cutting measures are being implemented across the country and although we are facing these also at home, we are assured by our VC that we are better off than most. Take that as you will.

In our meetings with senior management this year, a number of issues have been raised. We have, of course, our ongoing campaign to look at having fair and transparent workload models that actually reflect the hours required to do various aspects of our work. This is a large project and is currently ongoing, but thus far the points being made by your UCU representatives are being heard. We will shortly be sending out our own survey to gather evidence on the number of hours you are working. Please respond to this survey when it arrives. You might also be interested in this article about the UCU at the University of Birmingham: https://birminghamucu.org/2024/10/16/university-under-investigation-by-the-health-and-safety-executive/ 

You may remember that we have presented evidence to the senior management that our London Weighting is too low and needs to be increased. We are still working on this matter, but it should be noted that the agreed UCEA increases to our salaries have also been applied to our London Weighting, which is a move in the right direction and far better than some of our neighbouring institutions that have been on the same London Weighting for over 30 years.

On your behalf we also asked about the staff degree scheme. We have had reports that staff have been turned down for this scheme, which offers staff the opportunity to study at KU for a reduced fee and part-time around their working schedule. Senior managers have made it clear to us, and hopefully to your line managers, that if a case can be made for the particular course either being relevant to your current job or to your personal professional development, then it should be approved.

We also dealt with the wording around some correspondence you may have received which left you feeling like you had become a debt collector for the University. The departments involved in this were spoken to by senior management and it was made clear that academic staff should not be chasing students for fees. The relevant persons within the University will continue to do this.

In discussions about the timing of certain academic activities and short deadlines, we raised an issue that has been raised several times before, both through UCU avenues and others. We have proposed a better alignment of the Enrichment Week in October with the local half term holidays. These have tended to be on separate, yet adjacent weeks. Harmonizing these would benefit staff and students with caring responsibilities. In the past, Registry has claimed there is pedagogical reasoning for the Enrichment Week being exactly when it falls, yet we can find none. Likewise, arguments that not all schools have the same half term has been shown by our investigations to be largely untrue, with most schools aligning on the final week of October. This is currently with senior management and we will see if any movement on this happens in the future.

Finally, in keeping with the national It’s Your Time workloads campaign (https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/9464/Its-your-time—workload-campaign-leaflet/pdf/UCU_its_your_time_campaign_flyer.pdf), we want to remind you of KU policies. According to the Overtime Procedure (available on StaffSpace under HR),  “There should not 

be a reliance on staff members working overtime and nor should staff members work over-time on a regular basis (e.g., for more than 12 weeks).”. Further, “Normally, overtime that is worked will be recompensed through the mechanism of time off in lieu (TOIL).” Please discuss your hours over your contract (i.e. over 37 hours per week full-time) with your line manager and arrange to take and use TOIL. Remember that, “Line managers are encouraged to support their staff members to self-manage their time flexibly in such a way that they do not work unreasonable or excessive hours, take the necessary breaks, and maintain a good balance between work and home activities.”

Please be on the look out for the workloads survey and our upcoming Kingston UCU branch meetings.

Sincerely,

Lori Snyder

KUCU branch chair

Threats to jobs at Kingston: cuts, severance, and course restructuring

This document, which was distributed to members last month, lays out the current practices we have been made aware of in relation to severance (so called ‘voluntary exit’), restructuring of courses in the name of ‘efficiencies’ (leading the way to potential further and severe job losses) and the lack of transparency with which these things are being done.

We’re pleased to say that members have responded actively to this summary, expressing dismay and anger at management’s underhanded strategies for diminishing provision and career progression by stealth, and support for our commitment to fighting this. At our next branch meetings we will discuss how we can take action to tackle this threat to academic staff (who are already overworked, demoralised and frustrated by the contempt with which they are treated by duplicitous and out-of-touch senior management).

Kingston UCU Newsletter November 2024

Discontent grows across the university about unmanageable workloads and micromanagement

Latest meetings with management

JNCC 5th November, 2024

Compulsory Compliance Training

HR reported at JNCC on a new Sexual Harassment policy developed in the light of recent legislative changes effective from October 2024.Also flagged the necessity of undertaking Diversity Awareness compliance training. A guidance document and toolkit has been developed for managers prompting UCU
representatives to ask about the extent of bullying of members reported to the union. What was being done about this? HR maintained that bullying “hotspots” were identified and line managers given training or otherwise disciplined.

Domains

Ongoing union dissatisfaction with the Domains project was reported and acknowledged by management and HR but no changes envisaged. To be clear, UCU at Kingston has NEVER agreed with the Domains project and continues to press for change.

University not adhering to post-92 contract?

KU contracts usually allocate 35 days plus closure days for annual leave entitlement. Your union representatives queried whether there was variation from this contract being implemented at KU? The union implemented an action point
at the meeting to require HR and management to show us any new contracts they have developed and any collective bargaining agreements reached with the union about the implementation of any new contracts.

Portfolio Review

The union asked what was happening with a Portfolio Review recently announced by the university. University management representatives stated that they were looking into the financial impact of student numbers.

Future Skills

Union representatives asked if there was evidence of any beneficial impact of the Future Skills project and what were the costs associated with it. Management had no positive metrics to report on this but stated that future funding would be found for Future Skills once the current funding runs out. Management did say that there was research that showed that use of external assessment centres did link to better employability outcomes for students but didn’t have details
of this research to present at this JNCC.

New benefits portal

The University recently launched a new benefits portal, but reports at the JNCC are that although 44% of staff have signed up to the portal, only 2.8% are using it. We have found that many of the discounts offered are high street shops and
supermarkets. Some are competitive or better than places like TopCashBack, so they are worth checking and getting the app.

Meeting with the VC 6th November, 2024

At this meeting the VC gave his usual speech about our need to “square a circle” of structural under-financing of the HE sector and the need for us to make ourselves more attractive to students, staff and external bodies. We need to gain 5% more funding per year just to maintain the status quo.

In response the union said that the main issues facing the university and its staff were workload and staff turnover. What is the university planning to do about these?

HR responded by saying that staff turnover is in line with the sector. The VC replied that addressing workloads was tough given our financial pressures and we need to be more efficient. He cited course design and student appeals as being two sources of perceived inefficiency.

Management representatives added that assessments are expensive and optionality in modules too. Your union representatives insisted that process should not drive assessment pedagogies but best assessment practice should.

University Finances

The VC stated that unlike some institutions in the news, we are not at risk of needing government rescue. Your union sought reassurance that no staff redundancies were being considered. The VC replied that as we undertook a lot of preventative actions over the last 5 years we were in a much better financial position than some other universities. He added that while we did well on recruitment this year we will have to take costs out of the university.

Student Recruitment

Union representatives asked the VC if we had reduced our tariffs to recruit more students. The VC replied that we only did that in a limited number of cases. The unions asked what the potential impact might be of lower tariff students on retention. The VC replied that we increased home undergraduate students by 5%
and this was an incredible achievement and that we were a small university that was trying to grow. This remark seems to indicate the VC has completely forgotten the policy of his immediate predecessor to make the university smaller!

Catering Supplier Aramark

We were supposed to have had 16 outlets provided by Aramark. We don’t have this number and those that we do have are not open long enough. The VC replied that KUSCO are looking into this and that we have to subsidise any losses made by Aramark? Another management representative reported
that more vending machines will be installed over Christmas.

Future Plans for the Estate

Union representatives asked about the possible redevelopment of Middle Mill. The VC said that the university was reviewing all capital expenditure but that KSA was “bursting at the seams” and 2.5 thousand students were currently provisioned only with a 100 seat canteen.

Sign the Kingston UCU letter demanding action on Gaza

Sign the open letter at this link

Dear Kingston University staff,

As much as concern has grown over the war in Gaza, growing violence in West Bank settlements, Israel and the wider region amongst our members, they are also taking inspiration from students and staff at UK universities who have spoken up to demand action and accountability from their institutions.

Kingston is not divorced from this system, and in stark contrast to its quick response to and guidance surrounding the war in Ukraine, has so far been silent on the ongoing genocide. This also stands in marked contrast to other UK institutions that have taken proactive steps in relation to Palestinian academics and students, announced a programme of commitments, and issued public statements around the genocide.

For this reason, Kingston UCU is calling on senior management to review and realign its policies with its core values, particularly as they relate to

  • its duty of care to all students with a view to inclusion
  • its investment portfolio with Barclays bank, whose own investments in the global arms trade is facilitating both genocide and ecocide in Gaza; this conflicts with our university’s commitment to sustainability and human rights.

Specifically, we demand that Kingston:

  • Commits to support the Academic boycott of Israeli higher education institutions involved in supporting Israeli occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing or genocide in Palestine.
  • Ceases its investments and loans with Barclays, noting that to do otherwise would breach the following publicly-stated intentions listed on the University’s current ethics action plan.
  • Investigates and fully determines or discloses any direct or indirect investments, contracts or partnerships with any companies funding and supplying weapons to the Israeli military, and to fully divest from these contracts.
  • Makes a public statement of an offer of support for Palestinian students and staff, modelled on its commendable actions in supporting Ukrainian students and building partnerships with Ukrainian academics, and commits to the rebuilding of the HE sector in Palestine.
  • Calls on the UK government to cease arming Israel, and to support an immediate and permanent ceasefire as a first step to ending the occupation of Gaza and other parts of Palestine.

Please consider reading, and if you agree, signing the open letter at this link, and importantly, sharing the link with your colleagues. This letter is open to all Kingston University staff to sign whether they are a UCU member or not.


For further information on Barclays, see the Palestine Solidary Campaign, Boycott Barclays pages.

 

Review of 2023

One of our big wins, together with Unison, was the harmonization of Annual Leave across all staff at the University. Previously, workers up to grade 7 started on 25 days of Annual Leave and earned one more day each year, up to a maximum of 30 days. This impacted our professional services colleagues and others. Most academic staff will have 35 days Annual Leave for full-time employment. From August 2024, all staff will have 35 days and for 2023-2024 additional days have been granted to those previously on less (pro rata).

In addition, we have ensured that any money taken from staff due to industrial action will go to the Student Hardship Fund once any processing of student fee reimbursements has been done.

Although we did not get the pay rise we fought for, it is notable that the percentage increase in our salaries was also applied to our London Weighting. This had not previously been the case.

We have been participating in working groups that are sub-groups of our normal joint negotiation meetings, which includes Unison. One working group is dedicated to our national goal of anti-casualisation, ensuring fair treatment and pay of HPLs and temporary workers. The other working group is related to this and impacts all of us, as it is dedicated to addressing the issues of our workloads. Both groups have met several times, agreed membership and guiding principles. We hope to see some outcomes from them this year.

Several policies have been updated and reviewed, to reflect the rest of the working sector (not just HE) and to hopefully provide you with a clearer picture of expectations at the University. These include agreement on Personal Relationships, Sickness Absence, and Capability (now Performance Management) policies. These should all now be available via the HR StaffSpace page. More will come this year. In particular, we have asked that all Appendices to policy documents be included in the same document, as these are often difficult to track down.

We have pushed to have broken lifts repaired and to have timetabling issues communicated more effectively. In the coming year we have also agreed to develop a working group to look at data related to job responsibility differences between the genders, i.e. whether more women are course leaders, etc. We also expect some clarity on what is happening with availability of parking, particularly at Penrhyn Road. We have raised the issues of academics in open plan offices and hope to see some resolution this year; if this affects you please let us know on Kingstonucu@gmail.com. We also hope to see more social and communal space for staff.

We ask you to make your voice heard in relation to London Weighting. London Weighting for other universities has been raised to address issues in the pay gap and cost of living, with some rising to £5,000 or more. Unfortunately, some local institutions are also still on the same London Weighting of 30 years ago, £2,134. We wish to jointly agree a motion with Unison to see our London Weighting rise to £5,000, in line with our other London colleagues. Please attend the next branch meeting on January 17 to vote on this motion.

 

Actions in support of Palestine

Tomorrow and Friday, the 9th and 10th of November, our members will be supporting the national student walk out called in support of the Palestinian people. We’ll gather outside the main entrance to our Penrhyn Road campus at 12 midday both days.

Next week, we are hosting an open online event, with speakers from BRICUP (British Committee for the Universities of Palestine) and Richmond & Kingston PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign). Following those public talks we will then go straight into our regular branch meeting, which will include discussion of the UCU National leadership elections 2024, and a KU UCU local campaign on London Weighting Allowance.

On our usual zoom room, link in our link tree and in the flyer above. See you there!