University staff ballot on strike action over job cuts
Workers at the University of the West of Scotland (UWS) are taking part in a ballot for industrial action after university senior management refused to rule out compulsory redundancies.
Members of the University and College Union (UCU) at UWS are being asked if they are prepared to take part in strike action and action short of strike.
Action short of strike could include working to contract and not covering for any absent colleagues. The ballot will run until 14 August.
The ballot follows the announcement in January this year of cuts by the university's senior management of £16.9 million.
Since then, £8 million has already been cut with the loss of over 112 staff positions.
Despite those staff having already left and savings already having been made, senior managers are pressing ahead with plans to cut another 75 jobs and are refusing unions' demands to rule out the use of compulsory redundancies.
'The principal and senior managers need to change course' - Jo Grady (Image: NQ) The union said that cuts at this scale and the loss of so many jobs in such a short space of time will be devastating both to the remaining staff and to the students at the university.
As well as the impact on staff being put out of work at a time when jobs are being lost across the higher education sector, the cuts will result in higher workload on the already hard-pressed staff who remain.
UCU UWS branch president, Jamie Hopkin , said: 'Management at UWS are pressing on with detrimental plans to make staff redundant that will do nothing other than diminish the university's standing, and harm the students that study here.
'Staff do not want to go on strike, but what is being proposed will damage UWS's crucial missions of teaching, research and widening access to higher education. I can see even in my own work that those staff that remain will be under increasing pressure with unmanageable workloads and will have less time to offer students in need of support with their studies.
'Members at UWS are genuinely angry at the actions of senior managers. Members need to return their ballots and force the principal to think again and to rule out the use of compulsory redundancies.'
READ MORE:
Staff to be balloted on strike action as university announces 75 job cuts
Edinburgh University staff to strike today as 1800 job losses threatened
'Eye-watering' university principal salaries may be distracting from bigger problems
UCU general secretary, Jo Grady, said: 'UWS is genuinely important to communities across the West of Scotland.
"Cutting staff on this scale doesn't sit with the university's responsibility and commitment to local communities in Paisley, Ayrshire, Lanarkshire and the South of Scotland.
"The principal and senior managers need to change course or else they face the prospects of industrial action and strikes.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's 90-Day Tariff Pause Is Ending. What Happens Next?
Never miss an episode. Follow The Big Take daily podcast today. In late April, shortly after President Trump's announcement of sweeping reciprocal tariffs sent markets reeling, the White House announced a 90-day pause on when those tariffs would go into effect. That pause is about to end and while the Trump administration has announced a few tentative trade agreements — including one with the UK and another with Vietnam — they're nowhere near 90. On today's Big Take podcast, Bloomberg's Brendan Murray and host David Gura discuss what the White House has accomplished, what it hasn't and where the trade war goes from here. Listen and follow The Big Take on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Terminal clients: click here to subscribe. Here is a lightly edited transcript of the conversation:
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Before the government overhauls special educational needs, lessons must be learnt
Whatever else may be said about the government's plans for the education of children with special needs, they cannot be handled in the same, calamitous way as were the reforms to personal independence payments (PIP). As has been said with enormous force during the low-key commemoration of Labour's first year in office, lessons must be learnt. The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, is the lead minister in preparing the schools white paper in October, which will include proposals for changes to the special needs framework. She has already caused some concern by refusing to rule out changing the system of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), and the rights groups and backbench MPs in her party have mobilised in response. In fairness, Ms Phillipson and her colleagues have talked about changes to EHCPs in the past. However, the recent welfare reform bill fiasco has both sharpened anxieties and bolstered the confidence of Labour backbenchers that they can defy the party leadership and block reform. The Labour general election manifesto was also oblique on this point. An element of fear, if not paranoia, has entered the debate, and Ms Phillipson's task has been much more difficult because of the mistakes made by her colleagues – Rachel Reeves as chancellor, Liz Kendall as work and pensions secretary, and the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer. Ms Phillipson is one of the brighter stars in the Labour firmament, but she will be fortunate if she emerges from this process with an improved EHCP regime or her reputation enhanced. Trust has been eroded. For any government of any party, reforming the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision for children and young people presents particular challenges, and rightly so. These are among the most vulnerable of people, and they cannot be subject to discriminatory treatment, both as a matter of law and of morality. As a society, there is a duty to provide for children and young people with physical and learning disabilities, and to offer them the best start in life, maximising their independence and life chances. Their parents need and deserve support, and any failure to do so is unconscionable. In contrast to the PIP reforms, there must be no feeling that reform is solely or even primarily driven by the Treasury and the need for savings, though there is no escaping the financial realities. As Ms Reeves and Ms Kendall discovered to their cost, there are red lines that this generation of Labour MPs will not cross solely for the sake of meeting fiscal rules. Ms Phillipson, therefore, must win the arguments – and, as far as possible, carry all those concerned with her as she reshapes the regime and improves it. Therefore, the various groups representing SEND children and parents need to be closely involved in each stage of policy development. This is something she is now well placed to do, given recent events. In any case, because of what happened with PIP entitlements, she has no alternative. The parliamentary Labour Party, emboldened as it now is, will insist on being consulted. When the time comes to publish the white paper, there should be no nasty surprises. If there are, it will be just as doomed as the welfare reform bill. Secondly, this process cannot be rushed, or perceived to be rushed. The deadline of October for the schools white paper is a reasonable one but it should not take precedence over good policy. If the sections on SEND are not ready to be published, then they should be postponed. Indeed, there is a strong case for giving SEND policy a comprehensive study and white paper of its own, given the sensitivities and complexities involved. Again, the lesson of recent events is that a late policy is preferable to a bad policy. There is also a real need for a better understanding – entirely separate from the cost – of the merits of special schools or children's inclusion in the general school system, which will, of course, vary by individual cases. It is also wrong, as seems to be the case now, that variations in provision across different local authorities can be so stark – a postcode lottery. Thirdly, there does have to be some cognisance of the financial trends: why they are happening and how they will evolve. These are not all well understood even by the experts. Many more children are being given statutory rights under their hard-won EHCPs, but the reasons for the sharp increase of some 70 per cent in less than a decade are less transparent. Next year, the projected annual cost of support for children with learning difficulties or disabilities is set to reach £12bn. The system of finance also needs to be changed. At the moment, the costs of statutory SEND obligations are met by school managements and local authorities in the first instance, and they tend to squeeze other important, albeit less vital, priorities. This will put local councils into a large cumulative deficit of £8bn by 2027, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In other words, more councils will go bust, which helps no one. It would be far more satisfactory if there were a national system of SEND funding based on consistent criteria. Finally – and, again, drawing on an important lesson – the system for SEND and EHCPs should be founded on a cross-party consensus. This, admittedly, is unlikely, but for obvious reasons it would help children and parents, as well as schools and local authorities, to plan ahead and avoid stigmatisation if those with special needs were 'weaponised' for political advantage. That may prove beyond Ms Phillipson's abilities, but she must surely know that she and her government cannot afford another such debacle. This time around, unlike Ms Kendall, she can remind Sir Keir and Ms Reeves of certain political realities.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Business chiefs warn Labour against ‘anti-growth' wealth tax
A new wealth tax under Labour risks sparking an exodus of entrepreneurs from Britain, business chiefs have warned. Sir Rocco Forte, Sir Martin Sorrell and Sir Philip Hampton are urging Downing Street to ignore calls for a new levy, which they said would scare off the rich and damage growth. The City grandees have weighed in on the debate after Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, suggested the Government was 'willing to explore' bringing in a new wealth tax. Sir Rocco, who runs his eponymous hotel chain, said any potential levy would only increase the number of entrepreneurs quitting the country after the Government's non-dom tax raid. He said: 'Labour has already seen a huge exodus of wealthy people which is ongoing, with many more due to leave before the Budget. A wealth tax will further exacerbate the problem.' This embedded content is not available in your region. Sir Martin, the chief executive of advertising firm S4 Capital, added: 'It would result in people leaving the country and not just wealthy people or people who've accumulated those assets but people who were looking to accumulate assets over time.' Sir Philip, the former Royal Bank of Scotland chairman, said it would be a 'very anti-growth policy' that would jeopardise tax-raising efforts. He said: 'What you lose most by having things like the wealth taxes is the people who can invest in the country. 'Those are exactly the sort of people you want, people who are going to work hard and contribute to society as well as becoming well off and making high tax payments. 'I can't think of a business sector that wouldn't be adversely affected by this.' Their criticism represents a firm rejection of the plans put forward by Lord Kinnock, who said the Government could raise an extra £10bn a year by imposing a 2pc tax on assets worth more than £10m. His comments came after the ministers were warned that taxes would have to be raised following the Prime Minister's welfare about-turn last week. Sir Philip said: 'I think it's a very strange idea from a party that was elected to try to secure economic growth. 'It's in contradiction to the election manifesto that the Labour Party fought the last election on.' Sir Martin said that a wealth tax threatened to drive people abroad: 'Trying to distribute a smaller cake doesn't work. What you should be trying to do is trying to create a bigger cake.' In the UK today, the top 1pc of earners pay around 28.5pc of all income tax, according to analysis of HM Revenue & Customs figures. Sir Rocco said: 'The Government has already created a declining economy with large reductions in employment. A wealth tax will make things much worse and further discourage investment.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio
