11 December, 2013
Dear University of London, Balfour Beatty Workplace, and
UNISON London Region management,
As it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish
between your three organisations, this letter is addressed to all of you. If you feel the need to respond, you might
find it more efficient to issue a joint response than to put out three separate
statements of near identical content.
Although there is plenty to say to each of you regarding
your treatment of the outsourced workers at the University of London, my
comments in this letter are restricted to the manner in which you have tried to
spin the workers’ recent victory on terms and conditions. As you know, the evening of 28 November,
2013, after BBW employees were on strike for two days, the University of London
and BBW announced improved sick pay and holidays for BBW employees. BBW and the University of London attributed
the improvement to UNISON. The
University of London even tweeted: “Yes great result for UNISON The voice of
moderation and constructive two way dialogue succeeds over aggression”. The next day, BBW managers and supervisors handed
out UNISON fliers to cleaners and porters in Spanish and English, telling them
that UNISON was “delighted” to announce the new deal. Also on the 29th, the University
of London tweeted a link to an article about the strike in the Independent, and
wrote: “#3cosas credit goes entirely to BBW and UNISON for the agreement.
Constructive dialogue vs. staff intimidation”.
Finally, UNISON topped off the spin-fest with a press release claiming
credit for the concessions (read it here: http://www.unison.org.uk/news/articles/unison-secures-ground-breaking-deal-foruniversity-cleaners). Ruth Levin, a paid UNISON “organiser” even
went as far as to say: "Our members and stewards have always been very
clear about what they need to improve their working lives… …But now they can hold their heads high, they
had faith in their union to deliver and we did.” If your tweets, fliers, and
press releases were limited to the usual selfcongratulatory propaganda we see
from you every time the London Living Wage increases, I probably wouldn’t have
taken the time to write you this letter.
However, the public manner of your extremely misleading statements, your
unapologetic attempt to re-write history, and the utter hypocrisy of your
claims and accusations, do merit a response.
Perhaps we should begin by refreshing your memory as to why
outsourced workers decided to leave UNISON.
In the spring of 2011, the UNISON Senate House branch was dead. There were a handful of University staff on
the committee which met once per month to discuss conferences, the Christmas
social, and other pressing industrial matters.
UNISON, to its credit and albeit with a fair amount of external help,
financed and organised English classes and initiated a London Living Wage
campaign. These formed the basis for a
massive recruitment drive among outsourced cleaners and porters which saw union
membership for these workers sore from under 20 to over 100 in a matter of
months. Although the English classes
continued, support for the Living Wage Campaign eventually dried up. The workers continued however, and went on to
win the Living Wage in July of 2012. Of
course you don’t need reminding that the University of London implemented the
London Living Wage, as you remind the public of it at every opportunity
possible. In fact, the three of you have
since told us that you are responsible for the Living Wage, and that it really
had nothing to do with the cleaners banging on drums at Senate House. In the summer of 2012, outsourced workers
decided that the London Living Wage was not enough for decent employment, and
that they should fight for sick pay, holidays, and pensions on par with direct
employees. From September, 2012 a group
of workers started to meet up once per week to plan and execute what has become
one of the most high profile outsourced workers’ campaign in the UK today. The workers called their campaign 3 Cosas.
Despite receiving support from a number of local UNISON
branches as well as from officials at UNISON’s national head office, the campaign
never received support from the leadership of the workers’ own branch nor from
our friends at UNISON London Region.
When it became clear that the lack of official support was having a
negative impact on the campaign, outsourced workers’ reps (who were UNISON
stewards at the time) presented motions at a November, 2012 committee meeting
to support the campaign politically and financially. With encouragement from a London Region
official, the UNISON branch leadership didn’t allow the vote, and official
support was blocked. After this the
outsourced workers seriously considered leaving UNISON. They decided, however, to participate in the
upcoming branch elections instead.
Joining forces with a number of UNISON members who worked directly for
the University of London, they put together a slate of pro-3 Cosas
candidates. The main campaign pledge was
to support the 3 Cosas Campaign. I
wouldn’t want to bore the three of you with all the details and irregularities
of the election (for more on which see this article in the London Review of
Books blog: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/04/09/harry-stopes/miembros-no-numeros/). However, there are two points worth
highlighting. First, right off the bat
half of the outsourced worker candidates were disqualified on technicalities,
by none other than Ruth Levin (the person quoted in the UNISON press release
above). Second, and despite (or because
of) the fact that we are quite confident on the election results, the ballot was
annulled, again on technicalities (I know it sounds surreal, but give that LRB
article a read for more information, or the following: http://bloomsburyfightback.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/unison-vs-theworkers/,
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/04/10/unison-officials-sabotagedemocracy,
http://roarnews.co.uk/wordpress/?p=3425). This is when the workers decided to leave
UNISON once and for all.
The three of you are always quite quick to attribute any
improvement in outsourced workers’ wages, terms, and conditions to
negotiations. Of course, negotiations
should play a role in any industrial dispute (more on which below). However, it might be worth highlighting a few
other things which happened in the past 15 months which I would guess had
something to do with the recent decision of University of London and BBW. First, outsourced workers, together with
their student supporters, staged a series of loud and disruptive protests at
Senate House (see this article in Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/university-of-london-protest-seeks-rightsfor-outsourced-workers/2001333.article;
coverage by City News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnbDhdZWvik&feature=youtu.be;
article in the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/london-students-clash-withpolice-in-defence-of-living-wage-for-university-staff-8903898.html). Second, the campaign has received an enormous
amount of publicity in the media (see the campaign web site for a list of press
links: http://3cosascampaign.wordpress.com/press-reports/). Third, the campaign has received support from
innumerable trade union branches, NGOs, student unions, and other high profile
supporters (for example read this article by Natalie Bennett, leader of the
Green Party of England and Wales:
https://camdengreenparty.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/strong-support-for-university-oflondon-cleaners-3-cosas-campaign/). Fourth, the campaign has received an enormous
amount of support from individuals from all over the country, as evidenced by
the fact that over 1,400 emails were sent to the Vice-Chancellor. Fifth, the campaign has worked closely with
the University of London Union and the students this union represents. This student support has come in a variety of
forms, the most creative of which include publicity stunts inside Senate House
(for example see this video of students raising awareness on holidays: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epK3okUxUUg). Sixth, the workers are united. This is seen in the manner in which nearly
all of them transferred over from UNISON to the IWGB, and in their 97% vote in
favour of industrial action. Seventh,
the workers have won the moral argument.
Very few people disagree with the notion that outsourced workers should
be entitled to decent terms and conditions.
Of course, it would be quite difficult politically for UNISON to
disagree with this, and even though the University of London started out by
saying that the statutory terms and conditions were good enough, they quickly
changed approaches. Eighth, and perhaps
most importantly, BBW workers went on strike for two days on 27 and 28
November, 2013. This strike for all
intents and purposes shut down the Central Administration of the University of
London. Delivery trucks and students
alike were turned away. For some of the
coverage of this strike see: http://londonstudent.net/news/11/29/outsourced-workers-senate-house-win-concessions-followingstrike/,
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/victory-cleaning-staff-strike-atuniversity-of-london-wins-major-concessions-on-pay-and-conditions-8972785.html,
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/suds-and-solidarity-down-on-the-picketlines-with-university-of-london-cleaning-staff-8970658.html,
http://www.theguardian.com/education/abby-and-libby-blog/2013/nov/27/universitycleaners-strike-royal-visit,
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-8dcb-Cleaners,-catererssecurity-and-porters-out-for-equal-rights#.UqdfDPRdXLJ,
and
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/cleaners-to-continue-outsourcingfight/2009463.article. If the concessions on terms and conditions
were due merely to negotiations with UNISON (a union that didn’t support the 3
Cosas Campaign!) rather than any or all of the reasons I have listed above,
surely this recent victory constitutes one of the biggest coincidences in the
history of the UK trade union movement.
Having established the absurdity of your claims that this
was a UNISON victory, let’s move on to your accusations. In short, the University of London is
attempting to dismiss the IWGB as being aggressive, for intimidating staff and
students, and for rejecting dialogue.
Putting aside for the moment the hypocrisy of the accusations (more on
which below), let’s just take them at their face value. Of course, the basis for these accusations is
not factual but rather political.
Knowing that it has lost the moral argument against sick pay, holidays,
and pensions, the University of London has found it more fruitful to attack the
proponents of the argument rather than the argument itself. However, facts are important. The campaign has never engaged in, and has
always deplored, the use of physical violence.
Many of the IWGB members at the University of London are security guards
who are on patrol during 3 Cosas protests.
Ironically, despite the University of London’s supposed concern for the
health and safety of these security guards, it is these very workers who will
most benefit once the 3 Cosas Campaign is entirely won. Most of these security guards are on the same
terms and conditions as cleaners and other outsourced staff currently. I’m not sure what intimidation the University
of London refers in their tweets about the strike, but perhaps this video of
the cleaners dancing on the picket line might help clear it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvlLuQbdsh0. It’s a good thing we didn’t put on the much
faster-paced samba music- the University of London might have called us
terrorists!
With regard to the suggestion that the IWGB is opposed to
dialogue and negotiation, nothing could be further from the truth. We are just opposed to the way you do
it. Shortly after setting up the
University of London branch of the IWGB, the branch Chair, Vice-Chair,
Recruitment Officer, and I met with senior management at BBW in order to ask
them for a recognition agreement. Our
arguments for the recognition agreement centred on the fact that through proper
negotiating structures we could resolve a number of workplace issues without
the need to turn to more formal procedures such as grievances, industrial
action, and employment tribunals. Our
request for recognition was denied.
Following on from the request for recognition, in the
summer of 2013, Sonia Chura, the Vice-Chair of our branch, wrote to
Vice-Chancellor Adrian Smith, asking that the VC meet with the outsourced
workers to discuss their terms and conditions.
The VC denied the request, saying: “It would not be appropriate for us
to meet as the IWGB is not a recognised Trade Union of the University of
London.” The VC also insisted on the
importance of the dialogue with UNISON.
Sonia responded by requesting a meeting which would be open to any
outsourced workers (both UNISON members and non-unionised workers in addition
to IWGB). The request was denied. Read the full correspondence here: https://docs.google.com/a/soas.ac.uk/document/d/1sdF_-bnf_pmaWL6GdQKr1w7oDzk51g5xgvkOSXrmi4/edit.
However, the IWGB did not give up on dialogue. On 23 September, 2013, the IWGB informed BBW
of our dispute over terms and conditions, union recognition, and job
losses. In the letter notifying dispute,
the union offered to meet with BBW (either directly or through ACAS) to discuss
the dispute. The offer was not accepted.
On 14 November, 2013, the IWGB once again wrote to BBW, this time to inform
them of the industrial action ballot result.
Once again, the IWGB offered to meet up to try and resolve the dispute
through dialogue. This time, and after
seeing a 97% vote in favour of industrial action, BBW agreed to meet us at
ACAS. The week before the strike, we
spent 4.5 hours at ACAS in mediated discussions with BBW. However, we found out rather late in the game
that BBW had no intention of discussing the areas of dispute, but was rather
there to discuss our “general relationship”.
In particular, BBW complained that we often use formal procedures such
as grievances and an employment tribunal, and that we often cite employment law
in our emails to BBW management.
It is also perhaps worth highlighting, once again, that one
of the areas of dispute is union recognition.
We want recognition so that we can engage in proper negotiations and
dialogue! BBW and UoL’s position appears
to be: “We won’t talk to you because we don’t recognise you. And we don’t recognise you because we don’t
talk to you.” I must say, for such a
prestigious academic institution, the University of London’s circular reasoning
is a bit concerning.
In addition to your accusations of aggression being
unfounded, they are also particularly ironic coming from you. Indeed, the word “aggressive” doesn’t do
justice in describing how UNISON attempted to silence the voice of outsourced
workers and the campaign they ran.
However, I have more to say about BBW and the University of London’s
aggressive tactics. Whilst we deplore
physical violence, BBW and the University of London appear to promote it at
every possible occasion. For example,
check out the 8th, 11th, and 12th pictures in
this article: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/students-protested-to-save-their-universityyesterday?utm_source=vicefb. In these pictures you can see Andy Combe, BBW
general manager of the University of London contract, using physical force,
gripping a student by the throat, and pulling up a young woman’s shirt as he
drags her off her own campus. Indeed,
during our two day strike, Mr. Combe told me we had to move away from in front
of the entrance to Senate House or he would have the police come in and remove
us by force. The police did come but on
this occasion had different thoughts about removing a bunch of cleaners dancing
in a conga line and waving flags.
In addition, just in
the past 6 months, the University of London has attempted to ban peaceful
protests on campus (threatening to prosecute staff and students for
trespassing), had a student arrested for chalking a slogan in support of 3
Cosas (see http://www.independent.co.uk/student/is-student-politics-alive-and-kicking-8717772.html,
as well as the video of the brutal arrest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kahUH7JaFRE), and
called police at nearly every protest that has occurred. The President of ULU has been arrested for
organising a demonstration, peaceful student occupiers of Senate House were
removed by force, and police beat student protesters (see this Guardian article
and video of a police officer punching a student in the face: http://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2013/dec/05/three-arrests-student-protest-university-of-london. The University of London has refused to
condemn the police brutality. Finally,
the University of London has obtained an injunction to ban protests for the
next 6 months (see
http://www.channel4.com/news/university-of-london-student-protest-ban-senate-houseoccupy).
In closing, it is perhaps worth asking that the three of
you reflect on the unsustainable nature of your current policies. Despite your desperate attempts to move the
outsourced workers back into UNISON, this will not happen. No amount of bribery, intimidation, or
dishonesty will be sufficient to compensate for the manner in which UNISON
treated these workers prior to their leaving.
Also, as a free piece of advice for my UNISON colleagues, when the two
main workplace reps are the Cleaning Services Manager (in charge of 140
cleaners and porters) and an openly xenophobic post room worker who says the
cleaners are lucky to have jobs, you’re unlikely to build much credibility in
the workplace. Furthermore, the IWGB is
here to stay. This is the union that
outsourced workers have overwhelmingly chosen to represent them. It is also a union that they lead. Our membership is also growing larger and
larger, with an increasing amount of direct university employees signing
up. I don’t see this trend
changing. The University of London has
lost the moral argument on terms and conditions and it will shortly lose the
moral argument on the criminalisation of protest. Likewise, BBW’s policy of ignoring the union
that workers have chosen in favour of negotiating with their own mangers and
unelected bureaucrats, simply cannot last.
Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that this dispute is far from
over. Whilst the new sick pay and
holiday entitlements are a welcome improvement, we are still a ways away from
achieving equality of terms and conditions with in-house workers. Also, BBW has offered nothing on the other
areas of dispute, i.e. union recognition and job losses at the Garden Halls. For these reasons the IWGB has served notice
to BBW that workers will be on strike again on 27, 28, and 29 January,
2014.
In sum, despite the University of London’s and BBW’s
aggressive tactics of intimidating staff and students, we are fully prepared to
engage in constructive dialogue.
Kind regards,
Jason Moyer-Lee
Branch Secretary
University of London IWGB
Acknowledgements to Linton North
