ARQM: Astonishingly Reckless Quality Monitoring

Our research ‘quality’ is being assessed by the ARQM in a way that is astonishingly reckless. The ARQM requires every ‘research active’ member of staff to submit their ‘best’ four publications from the last four years. These are now being rated and assigned a score (supposedly equivalent to the REF star ratings) and each member of staff will receive an ‘average’ between 0 and 4.

There are many problems with the ARQM, including:

  • Even the REF panels do not provide marks for individuals because they acknowledge that at the individual level scores are not reliable. It is only the aggregate score in which they even claim to have confidence. The ARQM therefore claims a level of accuracy that the (much criticised [1, 2, 3], but nonetheless much more rigorous) REF process didn’t claim.
  • During REF two experts, usually from a relevant disciplinary sub-field, review your publications. For ARQM one person (a ‘senior member of staff’) often entirely outside of your field or unversed in your research design or methods, assesses your work. They are being asked to make multiple assessments very quickly and not being granted additional support to do this. The validity of any assessments must therefore be extremely doubtful, something that we know has been raised by many senior staff involved in the rating process.
  • A rolling four year average is used. This means that if you published three great things in 2012 you only need one additional piece since then to have a 4* ARQM rating for the next two years. If you haven’t published sufficient new 4* pieces by 2015, you may then plummet to 1* or 2*. This variability makes no sense; we don’t suddenly become, or stop being, internationally excellent. Research is a process with publication peaks and troughs because research is cyclical. Moreover, so long as we publish four strong things within a REF cycle we will contribute to the University’s research excellence. Because we know this, many of us who already have four good publications, use the later years of a REF cycle to publish things we think are socially useful, even ‘impactful’, but not perhaps very REF-able (reports, chapters, reviews of the field, textbooks). The imposition of ARQM, with its endlessly rolling cycle, does not match the REF cycle, does not allow for lulls and punishes us for being good academic citizens.

ARQM not only produces a score without validity. It is also increasingly being employed in astonishingly reckless ways across the university. To put it bluntly, your ARQM is affecting your job. Already, it is being used, without consultation with the UCU or (as far as we can tell) ratification through Senate, as a means of determining:

  • Promotions and progression;
  • The hours of teaching staff do – workload distribution;
  • The ability of staff to apply for sabbatical leave;
  • The eligibility of staff to supervise PhD students.

Even if the ARQM accurately measures research outputs over the last four years (which as we note above is extremely doubtful), there is no reason to think that staff research will improve if those who performed at a lower level over the last few years now do more teaching and have less research time. Nor will people who score highly continue to prosper if they are required to supervise all our research students (and of course there is no reason to believe that a higher ARQM score makes you a better supervisor). Surely it is in the University’s and our interests if all staff experience the conditions to produce better research?

In short, the ARQM is a worthless process that is being used to remove discretion from departments and schools under a false guise of transparency. It has no place in academic decision making.

An alternative vision for City: The next 10 years

Members of staff from across the university met on 18 March to discuss forming the basis for an alternative vision for City University London in a meeting convened by the City UCU branch. The senior management of the university had invited staff to attend workshops on what the university has achieved and to input into City’s journey over the coming decade. In preparation for these workshops staff members met to start putting together our views on what direction the university should take in the future, and the core principles it should espouse.

Do these ideas match what you would suggest for City’s alternative vision? What principles or values would you like to see the university follow? We look forward to discussing a new way forward with the senior management of the university.

As a place to work, City should

  • Make staff feel valued in an inclusive and collaborative environment
  • Have a sense of community, encouraging staff to meet and socialise
  • Be more collegiate, with a flatter structure, open and transparent communication, and more collaborative, less top-down management
  • Develop its staff with mentoring opportunities, staff events, and fora for discussion
  • Pursue a mission with substantive objectives, not aiming for a number or a percentage

As a place to study, City should

  • Reflect the community it serves
  • Restate its mission as the university for the professions, preparing students for the careers they will embark on in the future
  • Provide opportunities for students to excel
  • Invest in staff and services to add value to the education of its students, whatever their background and previous educational attainment

As an academic institution, City should

  • Recognise the value in all levels and types of research, including research for practitioners as well as four-star research in high-impact journals
  • Give equal value to teaching and research

UCU’s response to the 2014 REF results

We wish to congratulate all staff who contributed to the REF and enabled us to maintain our relative UK position.

Analysis by THES (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/ref-2014-results-table-of-excellence/2017590.article) indicates that the university has fallen from 45th to 49th.

After considerable investment in new research staff this must be viewed with concern and throws doubts on both the REF process and the University’s strategy.

Undoubtedly, excellent new staff have been recruited but compliance with the REF ‘revolving door’ led to many excellent staff leaving. This must also be seen against a challenging background at City University, with the impact of PSR 1 and 2 on staff, increased workloads and resulting stress levels, and failures to consult and communicate with staff – all borne out by the appalling staff survey results taken at the same time as the REF submission was drawing to its conclusion.

What did it cost nationally?
University staff spent months preparing REF submissions. Then the 1,100 members of the 36 panels spent the last year grading 191,232 research outputs. It has been estimated that this cost universities £47m plus HEFCE’s £12m administrative costs.

Was it peer reviewed?
The outputs submitted to the REF will all have been peer reviewed anyway. The panels covered a wide range of disciplines, so the panel members will not have had the specialist knowledge to cover the full range.

What was the impact on staff?
Whether or not staff were selected for inclusion in the REF submission had a drastic impact on some people’s careers, with senior staff who were not included being pressured to leave. Across UK universities, investment in ‘REF superstars’ has reduced the funds available to employ adequate numbers of teaching staff.

Does it encourage innovation in research?
The REF created pressure to do research which led to ‘outputs’ which it was thought panels would like, at the expense of more fundamental long term research whose results could be less readily packaged in this way.

Do we need the REF?
The REF rankings are highly correlated with other university rankings which are compiled in less labour intensive ways. The time effort and money spent on the REF would be better spent directly on research and teaching.

Over the holidays the UCU will be preparing detailed analysis which we circulate throughout the University and to members of University Council. Serious questions need to be raised and must be answered by the Vice Chancellor. The potential impact on staff will be clear to all and we wish to place on record that the UCU will not see our staff as the victim of a failed strategy and vision. Now is not the time for blind panic but to build on where we are now and engage with staff to ensure a secure and collegiate environment for both work and study.

Support Hourly-Paid Staff: Anti-casualisation day of action

In an incredibly busy time for the university and for the UCU, the union has called a day of action for anti-casualisation today to highlight the issues facing hourly-paid staff, fixed-term and casually-employed staff. Issues of job security and casualization are pertinent to all of us but affect hourly-paid and fixed-term staff particularly.

How are we marking the day of action?
At City we will be marking the day of action by holding a recruitment and information stall today, 12-30-1.30pm on the University walkway.

We are also holding a staff meeting for hourly-paid visiting lecturers on Tuesday 18th November 3-4pm in C322.

What can you do to help?
If you hourly-paid yourself, or want to support hourly-paid colleagues, you can help:

  • Send this blog post to interested colleagues such as hourly-paid VLs
  • Come and support the union committee at the recruitment and information stall today
  • Encourage hourly-paid colleagues to come and visit the stall and join UCU if they are not already members
  • Publicise the staff meeting on the 18th November to colleagues
  • Display one of the attached posters:
    Hourly-Paid Visiting Lecturers
    Part-time Staff
    Researchers Terms and Conditions

A number of regulations, policies and procedures protect hourly-paid, part-time and fixed term staff. These are linked to at the end of this post.

At this busy time for UCU, please show your support for colleagues. We will shortly be organising more events to highlight the issues facing other groups such as fixed-term researchers.

City University Policies and Procedures

Visiting Lecturer Policy
https://intranet.city.ac.uk/staff/hr/visiting-staff/visiting-lecturers.html

Equitable Treatment of Fixed Term Staff
https://intranet.city.ac.uk/staff/hr/policies/equality-diversity/fixed-term-staff.html

Research Staff Terms and Conditions (2012)
https://intranet.city.ac.uk/staff/hr/terms-conditions/research.html

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy
https://intranet.city.ac.uk/staff/hr/policies/equality-diversity/equality-and-diversity.

Capability, Discipline, Dismissal Grievance, Probation, Redundancy (for all staff)
https://intranet.city.ac.uk/staff/hr/policies/Procedures%20July%202011.html

Employment Regulations

Fixed-term employment contracts
The Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2034/contents/made

ACAS recommendations
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4587

Government website
https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contracts/what-counts-as-a-fixedterm-contract

Part time Contracts
The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1551/contents/made

ACAS recommendations
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1576

Government website
https://www.gov.uk/part-time-worker-rights

USS Marking Boycott Actions at City

Following the ballot result, UCU has called a marking boycott starting on Thursday.

Some guidance has been published on the UCU website at http://defenduss.web.ucu.org.uk/ – particularly under the “Resources” and “Assessment boycott FAQs” sections.

The boycott has been called because talks between the representatives of the UCU and of the employers have failed to result in a guarantee to protect the USS adequately. This email is to inform you of some of what we are doing at City to help you effectively participate in the boycott, support colleagues who are participating, or just to understand the boycott and the issues causing it.

What are we doing at City?

Branch meeting
We invite you to a branch meeting on Monday 10th November at 1pm in A130. We are seeking a member of UCU National Executive Committee to speak about the boycott at this meeting and to give you a chance to ask questions about how it will work in practice. Please attend if you can; if not, we will circulate FAQs after the meeting.

Drop-in sessions
In addition to the normal Monday afternoon drop-in sessions, we will be holding extra drop-in sessions for you to come and ask questions about the boycott. Committee members will be available to discuss with you questions about the boycott. We may not be able to answer your question straightaway but if so we will seek clarification and get back to you. The drop-ins will take place in the union office C140 at 1-2pm on the following dates:

Tuesday 11th November
Wednesday 12th November
Thursday 13th November
Monday 17th November
Tuesday 18th November
Wednesday 19th November
Thursday 20th November
Friday 21st November

If you have questions about the boycott please come to the branch meeting, or to one of the drop-in sessions.

Open letter to all trade union members at City University London

With a new academic year well under way, is there a new start for employment relations at City? Well, there were signs of promise in February 2014 when a new joint recognition agreement was signed-off between City University and the three trade unions. That agreement laid out the basis for communication between management and unions, and the mechanisms for addressing problems and negotiating and consulting on resolutions. Regrettably that promise has not yet materialised. With hindsight, things were already deteriorating back in February when the agreement was concluded, but there is no doubt that since then things have got worse.

Some of you may ask why this should matter. Well, the unions are the only collective voice for staff at the University that does not depend upon the patronage of management – we anticipate that University managers might respond to this with the argument that they communicate perfectly well directly with their staff, yet a cursory reference to the results of the last staff survey would fundamentally challenge that argument. The TUs work through established procedures to raise staff concerns and to negotiate good employment policies and practices, to ensure that the University is a reasonable place to work; that terms and conditions are fair, reasonable and consistent with other HEIs; that policies are clear and that they are implemented in an even-handed and impartial manner for all staff and by all managers, regardless of where they are in the organisation.

In short the TUs exist to hold university management to account on behalf of the staff; to ensure fairness in the workplace and to champion the concerns and conditions of university staff. In good times all of the above can be achieved through reasonable communication between TU and management; sadly, because of management refusal to engage with your representative unions on a reasonable basis, times are currently not good at City. Since February management and HR have been less and less willing to engage with the unions at any level. There has been no meeting of the JCNB (Joint Consultation and Negotiation Board – the main formal forum for discussion between management and unions) since July, and several meetings prior to that failed to progress any matters of substance.

Members of academic staff will recall the refusal of management to negotiate over academic role profiles, academic promotion, and performance metrics; professional support staff will recall the unsatisfactory outcomes of PSR1, the absence of any meaningful consultation over PSR2, and the refusal of management to consult with the unions over the outsourcing of cleaning staff.

Despite the context of such a breakdown of discussion at a collective level, your trade union reps have been busier than ever providing support and advice to individual members faced with increasingly difficult working environments with greater numbers of work related stress and grievance complaints, and performance/disciplinary cases. This marked increase in individual casework, together with a worryingly uneven application of University procedures, including in some instances conscious disregard of procedural requirements, is, we believe, further evidence of an urgent need for a real improvement in employment relations at the University.

We believe that the breakdown in employment relations has gone so far and become so bad that we have been trying for several months now to involve ACAS in order to seek improvements. Management had been refusing to convene a JCNB meeting until after a meeting with ACAS and it was beginning to feel as though the unions’ attempts to engage meaningfully with University management were being deliberately rebuffed. A meeting with City management and ACAS has now been agreed for 7th November, and union representatives will be meeting with the vice chancellor three days earlier.

We sincerely hope that these meeting will signal a halt in the decline in employment relations at the University and the beginning of an improvement; because the longer things continue as they are, the longer staff concerns will be ignored, the longer policies will be implemented inconsistently, and the harder it will be to return City University to a place where staff and their views are taken seriously and treated with professional respect by University senior management.

Your trade union reps believe that a debate is needed now on the future of employment relations at the University.

Report from UCU Congress, 29th – 30th May

Mo Pamplin and Rachel Cohen attended the UCU National Congress in Manchester at the end of May as City’s branch representatives. The annual congress is the union’s primary decision making body and sets the direction for the National Executive Committee for the coming year. The event also includes the Higher Education Sector Conference which gives higher education branches the chance to debate sector-specific issues. Congress covers a dizzying number of motions, amendments to motions and proposed rule changes which delegates have a chance to debate and then vote on. This ensures that rule changes and proposals are democratically and transparently decided. A full run-down of the agendas and voting results is available at http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6887. Here is our summary of some of the most important results.

HE Pay

It was agreed that we would not have got a 2% offer had there not been industrial action. As such the importance of the threatened marking boycott, in particular, was highlighted. Nonetheless there was a lot of frustration about the ways in which the pay campaign had been run. Motions were passed censuring the HEC (Higher Education Committee) for the ways in which the negotiators’ agreed plan of action was overturned and a relatively incoherent set of actions (including the two hour strikes) put in its place. Specifically several motions focused on the need for national and coordinated actions to defend those branches where punitive pay docking was implemented (and people docked a day’s pay for taking 2 hours of action). Interestingly, after the ballot in which the final pay offer (1% 2013/14; 2% 2014/15) was accepted overwhelmingly the University of Liverpool UCU branch conducted a survey of their members (who had been docked a full day). Their members, as elsewhere, had voted overwhelmingly in favour of acceptance but also almost universally were not happy about the offer. Rather their acceptance was because they did not believe that UCU would coordinate successful action and they were scared about further repercussions. Another notable contribution highlighted the fact that within the NUS support for the pay campaign had largely emphasised the equality demands being made (and inequalities in pay within the sector). As such the fact that the agreement had not dealt with these issues may make the securing of future NUS support more difficult.

An additional motion was passed agreeing that future HE pay campaigns should be fought on the basis of social justice, countering the perception that such campaigns focus solely on increasing lecturers’ already high salaries. It was argued that campaigns for fair pay in HE should focus on low-paid junior academics and academic-related staff, as well as more senior academics, particularly in comparison to the pay of senior management and VCs. Several motions emphasised the importance of the union’s more systematic collation and publicity of information on VCs pay and especially perks!

REF

Several motions were passed that highlighted the discriminatory and distorting effects of REF. One of the consequences was the appointment of ‘star’ academics in the pre-REF period, many of these appointments occurred without advertisement and without attention to equal opportunities. Other consequences include the moving of some staff to teaching-only contracts and the potentially distorting effect of REF on research. UCU will be monitoring the consequences of REF within departments and institutions and developing a pre-emptive response to future REF-exercises. More pointedly, Congress passed a motion to ‘abolish REF’ – meaning that UCU is committed to campaigning against the next research audit and for an alternative mechanism for distributing funds.

Casualisation

There were several motions passed that highlighted the growth of casualised contracts (e.g. fixed term teaching only) and especially zero-hours contracts (for hourly paid staff) and UCU’s opposition to these forms of destabilising employment. For instance the importance of ensuring that staff are paid on spine and that staff are not employed on zero-hours contracts. The need to involve casualised staff in campaigning and on all the union’s local and national structures was reiterated in several motions. An example was given of a very successful campaign led by Fractionals for Fair Pay at SOAS, in which hundreds of mostly postgraduate teaching staff refused to do marking where they weren’t specifically paid for it, has resulted in compensation of about £150,000 for these workers as well as new structures of agreeing terms. Key to this campaign is that it was led by the postgraduate workers themselves and they decided and set their priorities.

Collective Pay Bargaining

A motion to modify the UCU’s rules on national collective pay bargaining was rejected. The motion’s proposers put forward the view that with many institutions at different levels of financial health, it would be sensible to adopt a national minimum level for pay and benefits, and allow institutions in stronger financial positions to pay more; i.e. not to allow financially weaker institutions to hold back pay offers elsewhere. Congress voted to reject this motion on the basis that to do so would mean an end to collective pay bargaining and allow institutions to make local pay agreements that would undermine the collective strength of the union and its negotiators. This might also lead the way to deals in which some branches were offered higher pay deals in return for the end to increments.

USS

Congress voted to approve the report of the Superannuation Working Group which included recommendations for the ongoing negotiation strategy on pensions. These include proposals to continue with the objective of closing the gap between the new Career Revalued Benefits (CRB) section of USS and and the existing Final Salary section, by seeking comparability with the Teachers’ Pension Scheme. The recommendations also approved the objectives of negotiating for a lump sum for CRB, and tiered contribution rates dependent on salary.

Membership

A new one year ‘starter’ membership was agreed. This would allow anyone to sign up (for the first time only) for £1 per month. After 12 months this would roll-over to the normal fees. The object was to remove the barrier to joining, especially in the run-up to action. It was expected that most people would, however, simply continue as members after the initial period.

Outsourcing of Email

A motion was passed to encourage branches to review their contracts with Microsoft in light of recent NSA revelations and to seek alternative viable provision where possible, as well as to look to provide open source solutions.

Immigration and Tier 4 Monitoring

Congress reaffirmed existing UCU policy to oppose the monitoring measures of Tier 4 students and to coordinate with NUS how to campaign against discrimination against these students. The HE Department will provide guidance to branches about responding to management processes with regard to these issues.

UKIP

A late motion was tabled to censure UKIP and other anti-immigration racist parties. This motion, which was passed by a large majority, urged branches to campaign against UKIP, the scapegoating of immigrants, and UKIP members’ right-wing positions on gender, sexual equality and workers’ rights. It was noted that the TUC have already produced some excellent myth-busting materials on UKIP and anti-immigration policies.

Abolish OFSTED

As in 2013, Congress voted to support campaigns to abolish the education inspection agency OFSTED.

Length of Congress

Although we got through all the congress business, and there was sometimes disagreement and debate, this tended to be very circumscribed. For instance any motion would be proposed, (occasionally) opposed and (very rarely) there would be one additional speech for/against. This meant that we rarely got below the surface and most obvious arguments. It also meant that those speaking tended to come from the most active branches from where the motions had been submitted. In previous congresses debate had tended to involve more people and was more likely to involve people responding to what others hand said in the hall. As such it felt more like we were collectively arriving at, or changing, opinions within the congress. Additionally there were some motions that, because of time constraints, were simply moved formally and passed with no motivation/discussion. Many people noted the absence of debate and discussion and as such a late motion was submitted and passed to re-establish a three (rather than two) day annual meeting. This may or may not be possible next year (in Glasgow).

Fringe meetings

A number of fringe meetings were held on both days and City’s reps were only able to attend a small number. At the academic-related meeting, reps from Liverpool, Strathclyde and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine related their experiences of recent campaigns and the roles played by academic-related staff. At Liverpool, UCU conducted a wide-ranging campaign emphasising the impact on all staff of a move by management to impose contracts with inferior working conditions on around 3000 staff. Academic-related staff were instrumental in the success of the campaign. Reps from Strathclyde and the London School emphasised the impact that academic-related staff can have on actions short of a strike, because of (relatively!) well-defined duties and working hours. At the fringe meeting on the media, there were long discussions about the (increasing) difficulty of getting trade union messages on the media. But people in the audience also highlighted the stories that they had managed to get covered locally. At the anti-casualisation fringe meeting there were speakers from SOAS and lots of stories about what was happening around the country. People were encouraged to join the anti-casualisation network, seek legal advice/experience from the anti-casualisation email list and from UCU nationally, and to encourage postgraduate students to work with one another to develop local campaigns that are suited to their specific circumstances (for instance at SOAS the academic focus on development studies enabled organisers to politically motivate pg tutors).

Reflections on Congress from a First-timer

It needs careful preparation and concentration to participate fully in Congress. All paperwork is distributed ahead of time, so that delegates can read and digest all the motions and rule change proposals before voting. Attempting to read and understand the ramifications of a motion while listening to the debate and anticipating how any amendments will affect the motion’s meaning and effect simply results in exhaustion. However, sitting with regional comrades helps a first-timer to understand voting tactics and gives an opportunity to ask questions. Participating in Congress was, for me, immensely satisfying as I felt that I was contributing to the future direction of the union nationally and it gave me a wider perspective on the debates which, here, we experience locally. Moreover, it emphasises the fact that there is a sustained attack on workers’ pay and conditions not just here but nationally across the sector, and that trends such as casualisation, job insecurity, low pay and private-sector management styles are widespread. Of course, it also mobilises the union into a concerted response.

Countdown to strike action: 6 February 2014

We will be on strike for one day on 6 February. On the day there will be pickets on entrances until 11am and then we will be organising Ed Talks, a City University UCU Teach-Out. More details on both to follow.

1 week prior to strike

  • If you are scheduled to teach on Thursday 6February we recommend that you tell your students that you won’t be teaching. We have prepared a PowerPoint slide with which to end your classes this week. If you’re not teaching on Thursday you may still want to show this slide in a class next week.
  • Email Keith Simpson to let him know if you are available to join the picket lines.
  • Talk to your colleagues about why you are taking strike action and discuss joining the picket lines together. Any staff members who want to take part in strike action can still join UCU at http://www.ucu.org.uk/join and joining forms will be available on the picket line.
  • If you have any concerns about taking strike action you can find the UCU’s strike FAQs here: http://www.ucu.org.uk/strikefaqs

Evening prior to strike: Wednesday 5 February

  • Set an out of office message from your University email – suggested text below:

UCU, Unite and Unison members are striking on Thursday 6th February in a dispute over the pay squeeze on University staff salaries. I will not be responding to any emails or phone messages received on 6th February. Please email or call again on Friday 7th February.

Why are we striking?

The joint unions are taking industrial action in protest against falling pay. Salaries in HE have fallen by around 13% in 5 years, when inflation is taken into account. This year we have been offered a 1% (below inflation) pay increase, while Vice Chancellors have awarded themselves an average of 8.1%.

What do we hope to achieve?

By taking industrial action, trade union members are sending a message to university management that they deserve proper support and remuneration for their work. For more information on the strike visit the UCU webpage at: http://www.ucu.org.uk/hepay13

What do we want students to do?

We are committed to students’ education. For this reason we are holding Ed Talks, a Teach Out to which all students of City University are invited. Whether or not you can attend Ed Talks, if you want to encourage the employers to return to the bargaining table and settle this dispute, please email the Vice Chancellor to tell him so.

Strike Day: Thursday 6 February 2014

  • If you are available for the picket line do turn up at your allocated entrance by 7:30am for set up. Pickets start from 8am and will continue until 10.45.
  • Come to Ed Talks – in Northampton Square from 11am (more details to follow).
  • Remember to tweet what you are up to (#fairpayinhe and let us and City University know @cityucu @cityunilondon @ucu)
  • We will keep all members updated on what is happening on the day

After the strike

  • When asked by management members should feel proud to inform City University London that they took part in the strike.
  • UCU members will continue working to contract on 7 February.

Countdown to Strike Action

There is still time to take action ahead of tomorrow’s strike and show your support for the Fair Pay in HE campaign. If you’re worried about striking, or you have not been on strike before, you are not alone. Read about one member’s experience of the 31st October strike at https://cityucu.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/reflections-on-the-first-fairpayinhe-strike/

 Today 2nd December:

 Tomorrow 3rd December:

  • Arrive at your allocated picket line. The plan for the 3rd is to have presence at all buildings from 07.30 onwards. If you’ve not had a chance to sign up for a picket line prior to the day you can still come along to Northampton Square entrance before 3pm to show your support.
  • Wrap up warm tomorrow.

 

After the strike:

  • When asked by management, members should feel proud to inform City University London that they took part in the strike.

Support your colleagues. Stand up for fair pay in HE. Join the picket line tomorrow.