UCEA “full and final offer” in 2024-25 pay round
David Kernohan is Deputy Editor of Wonkhe
Tags
All the way through the spring, and through the many travails experienced by the University and College Union (an inconclusive election on a low turnout, staff going on strike over claims of discrimination and inequality: really only Rishi Sunak has had a worse 2024 so far), the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) has been negotiating with the five campus trade unions (the aforementioned UCU, Unison, Unite, GMB and EIS/ULA) as a part of the New JNCHES process that exists to settle the 2024-25 pay round.
In recent years we’ve had fractious accounts of every twist and turn of this process, with accusations flying between the unions (UCU in particular) and employers. Nearly every one has ended in mediation at ACAS.
But 2024-25 has been different – an initial three meetings in April and May were followed by anodyne joint statements about further discussions. Further discussions continued through May and June, concluding on 26 June. Unions have until the end of the week beginning 8 July to respond to a “final offer” from employers, published today.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the unions’ claim:
- RPI plus two per cent on pay (or a flat rate of £2,500 if greater)
- All pay points to be above the Foundation Living Wage (currently £12.00 outside of London)
- Joint work on workload, contracts, inequalities in pay
- A review of the pay spine
The employers have offered a staged uplift of between 2.5 per cent and 5.7 per cent, with an extra £900 for everyone on 1 August, and the remainder added (based on your spine point, with the lowest paid getting topped up to the full 5.7 per cent, and the 2.5 per cent applying to those on pay point 38, around £44,000 and above) in March 2025.
The preamble notes the poor prevailing financial conditions for the sector, including TPS contribution rises, declines in income from international recruitment, and home fee freezes – though it does note a projected return to (CPI) inflation rates of around 2 per cent and below over the rest of 2024 and 2025.
Inflation sits (May 2024) at 2.8 per cent (this is CPIH – which will replace RPI entirely in 2030), while the union’s favoured measure of RPI is at 3 per cent. This is not anything like a blanket inflation plus 2 per cent offer – it is more generous (but not as generous as the alternative £2,500 requested) at lower spine points, but less generous (though still likely to be at or near inflation by the time it is implemented) higher up.
Importantly, this increase is on top of ensuring all pay points are above the national living wage, a long overdue development for the many ancillary staff that work at our universities and colleges. We don’t get an increase to the Foundation Living Wage, with the excuse that this will be covered within the review of the pay spine.
That latter would be implemented before the 2025-26 pay year, and there are terms of reference (alongside the terms for joint work on contract types, equality gaps, and workload) attached to the offer. On contract types, UCEA has already agreed to consult members about action on zero hours contracts. On equalities and workload, terms are identical to the work agreed during 2023-24 which – because of ongoing disputes – never happened.
Other union asks (a 35 hour work week, the Green New Deal, inequalities in pensions, local changes to the post-92 national contract) are outside of the terms of New JNCHES.
Usually, we’d also cover the immediate union response at this point – however UCU have been on strike today so there is nothing to report. UCEA notes that the HEC meets on Friday, so it is possible a response will emerge then.
It is doubtful that we can read much into the comparatively long gestation period or frequent protestations of goodwill from both sides. It is to be welcomed that we have not spent the spring in dispute, and that we’ve not seen widespread industrial action in the sector this year – but by no means have either of these outcomes been avoided yet.
This is a pretty rubbish deal for most people. Once again, staff on mid grades see their pay far below the previous year of inflation. It’s got to the point that the only way of even maintaining the purchasing power of my wage from 5 years ago is getting a promotion to the next band. So same pay for more responsibility and stress.
The gravitas of roles has been reduced now and are no longer a match of wages vrs expectation.
Staff should leave the sector for better pay, conditions and opportunities.
Absolute crap and will result in a brain drain. Meanwhile management have bled the institutions dry for years and will be taking their bonuses as usual I imagine.
Things like the pay spine review, workload measures, pay gaps have been held in abeyance for years now yet have potential to materially impact working conditions. It very much feels like a holding offer (on pay) while we wait and see how the ‘sector’ performs this year (further declines in international students, competition to fill gaps with domestic students, deficit budgets aplenty, and a new government).
This is disappointing, staff on points 38 and above have been badly considered over the past few years like they don’t deserve a cost of living rise because they are on a certain grade. Staff work hard and have difficult stressful roles often requiring additional
Hours to be worked free of charge.
Every time pay is minimised the gravitas of the roles reduce but expectation is still high from senior management.
I hope that mid management leave the sector for better conditions and pay else where. The civil service pay better
Than universities
Now. It’s already extremely difficult to recruit into the sector now and has been for around 6 years but it’s getting worse and worse.
https://www.ucea.ac.uk/our-work/collective-pay-negotiations-landing/Previous-Pay-Settlements/
It’s a poor deal (although circumstances are difficult this year – as the employers always say!) with the usual element of pay spine compression. This has irked me throughout my career.
I will be retired soon but the new pay spine really needs to be sorted out. Talks about discussions about talks doesn’t really cut it.
Reading the UCEA statement, I don’t think the 900 is an extra uplift. It sounds like the £900 will be replaced by the 2.5% uplift in March, not in addition to it.
Yes indeed £900 now and then wait 7 months for the remainder of what is left of 2.5% less the £900
£900 is £3.46 per day before tax and NI is paid from it
As Jane says – it’s 2.5 per cent in total for those earning north of £44k: £900 in August and the remainder in March.
Unless I am misunderstanding the pay offer, it is not 2.5% in total for those about point 38. This mischaracterizes the increase.
Yes, there is a sense in which it is a 2.5% increase, it that by March, base salary will be 2.5% higher.
But one’s gross pay for the August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025 period will not be 2.5% higher than it currently is, which is what most people mean by a salary increase.
For example, suppose I’m on 100k now. For 7 months, I’ll receive £75 more per month gross (£900/12). Then for 5 months I’ll receive £208.33 more per month gross (£2500/12). That makes my gross pay for the year £1566.67 higher than it was between August ’23 and August ’24. That is a 1.57 % increase, not a 2.5% increase. I have 1.57% more money to spend than I did over the past year (which, again, is what people mean when they talk about a salary increase).
The best description of the offer for someone on 100k is that it’s a 1.57 percent increase for the coming 12 months, with the August 1 2025 salary that any future increase will be based off being 2.5% higher.
The point holds for other pay bands, albeit the percentage will be different. E.g if you’re on £65k, it’s still well under 2% for the year.
Would be happy to be corrected.
Great breakdown and indeed correct because it’s 7 months delayed on a portion it does reduce the settlement significantly. It is not 2.5% this should be stated explicitly in the statement from ucea as it’s misleading
Also, institutions that have a good case can defer the March 2025 portion to 1st July 2025, meaning those employees will only have the increase for 1 month as it will not be back-paid
UCU comms throughout the negotiations have been dire, ignoring members’ requests for any information.
Indeed. It strikes me as crazy that I’ve had to visit the UCEA website to find out what is happening because the UCU is so slow to update their website with any news. Moreover, I seem to receive dozens of emails each week from the UCU, about all manner of things, but not a single one about what is going on with the pay negotiations.
I agree wholeheartedly it’s impossible to understand or engage as a member
There are two things missing from this WONKHE article.
First, it describes the pay offer as a 2.5% (or higher) uplift. It’s not. For me, it’s a 1.3% pay increase until March, then another increase then for a total increase of 2.5%. You can call that a 2.5% pay increase if you like, but between August 1 2024 and July 31 2025 I will *not* receive an additional 2.5% of my current salary. I’ll receive 1.3% x 7 plus 2.5% x 5. That’s a 1.8% increase. For those higher on the salary scale the increase will be significantly less than that, since the £900 uplight in August 2024 will be a smaller percentage of their current salary.
Second, there is no discussion of the UCEA strategy of dividing the union. That is, UCEA has recently been making better offers to those on the lower pay bands. Why? This warrants some sort of analysis. Does the UCU have more members at the lower pay bands? Or are such members more likely to strike? I don’t know the answer to these questions. I just think it’s striking that an emerging strategy by UCEA of making a better offer to some UCU members and a worse offer to others is worth understanding, especially if you are a wonk.
Whilst as someone on around point 35 I would obviously like to see a similar pay increase to those on the lower level, it seems pretty obvious, and has been widely observed in other sectors, that with the cost of living crisis lower paid workers have needed to be prioritised. As someone on my wage, it may be a struggle to book a holiday each year and has required putting off moving house. For colleagues on the lower end of the pay spine, they have been literally unable to feed themselves, their families, and heat their homes. It is with this in mind that the unions, and employers, have prioritised those workers – and I find that difficult to begrudge.
CPIH is 2.8%. Anyone on a pay spine over 38 – for which they are taking extra responsibility than those on lower pay spines – is being offered a less-than-inflation increase for yet another year. At this rate there will be no difference in pay between the lower and upper pay spines. Yet the demands continue to be greater.
And I understand that CPIH may be 2.8%, but my house insurance just increased by 44% and my broadband by 3.9% above RPI. Pay rises like this are unsustainable to be able to maintain a willing workforce.
Does anyone know how to find out who from each of the unions are the lay reps are for the New JNCHES?
I’m a unison member, but I’m classed as a professional services (non academic) role.
What’s interesting about the university group I’m employed in, is that they have different pay structures across their subsidiaries. The single pay spine applies only to the central corporation.
Core teaching staff, central finance, the vice chancellor’s office, and HR are the only departments left on the single pay spine. That means everything else (Research, recruitment, registry, IT and estates) have all have been shifted out into private subsidiaries. Even the senior leadership teams contracts have been split by %, so they are only part employed by the single pay spine.
Is anyone else in this position? I’m feeling like the unions have failed to spot this, it’s a corporate tactic being used to evade accountability and pay transparency. At my institution there are about 10 different trading subsidiaries, all with different pay scales, management structures and CEOs, yet they are all reliant on the university’s central finance and HR systems. It’s very risky and a total mess.
Hi Ben,
Yes, me. Or I will be. I have been offered a post doc on an externally funded research project, but my contract is with a private professional services company which is owned by the university. I estimate it’s saving the university about £14k per annum in reduced pension contributions. I’m not happy and don’t anticipate staying there.
Hi Beth, good to hear someone else is out there in similar position. I’m doing some research on the issue, would you be interested in contacting me at justice.ac.uk@protonmail.com?