Dear Dr Aylett and Mr Topley,
I am writing in response to your letter to the staff of JCAMD, LGIR and CCTM about management's desire to impose yet more redundancies on the university. You refer to the University's business plan which, I understand, is supposed to run from 2005 to 2010. It would appear, then, that there is no hurry to achieve the last few job losses since it is quite likely that the remaining 60 posts could be lost over three years through voluntary redundancies and 'natural wastage'. We would be grateful if you could explain who decided that this would be unlikely and what criteria they used to make such a judgment. Why is it necessary to achieve five years' worth of cuts in three years? Do you foresee, as the report to governors (approved by them) suggested, the need for further losses over the 170 already programmed? Can you explain why the business plan is being revised so drastically?
Both your letter and the report to governors imply that the main goal is the loss of jobs and the two reasons given - financial crisis and short-term decline in student numbers - are attempts to justify a decision already reached. The number of redundancies 'needed' fits the abstract number of permanent job losses in the business plan exactly, thus they do not arise from individual reviews of the departments concerned or of student numbers. Can you explain how you reached these numbers short of subtracting the 110 jobs lost already from the total of 170 announced arbitratrily in the business plan? This seems to be a dangerous route to take as it could very easily lead to a spiral of decline: reductions in staffing impede the ability of the University to recover from temporary problems in recruitment.
If the University is indeed in financial crisis, then cutting the number of staff and therefore making the University less attractive to students does not seem to be a sensible long-term solution to the problem. What other cost-cutting measures have been taken to avoid the inevitable decline caused by redundancies? Why are these not implemented first? Why not use money received recently from the sale of property to promote a recovery plan? This could include improving - rather than worsening - staff/student ratios in order to improve retention and attract more students. It might also involve allowing staff who are burdened with heavy teaching loads time for research or to explore the development of new areas of teaching to position the university for the future.
You claim that two Heads of Department believe that they can achieve large scale savings without compulsory redundancies at this stage. Therefore the threat remains real and is being used to force staff to increase their workload. What is more, you appear to be ignoring the fact that depriving part-time members of staff of work constitutes redundancies. If this is part of the strategy, then it is not 'without the need ... for compulsory redundancies' at all. Moreover, non-replacement of staff (impossible to follow exactly where core modules are concerned anyway) and redundancies of part-timers will require a massive increase in teaching loads for the remaining staff. Quite apart from the stress this will occasion, it will harm staff/student ratios, damage retention rates and limit research or income generation. It is also unclear how the two Heads of Department concerned reached this conclusion. Was there a full consultation process within their departments? Have budgets been agreed for the next financial year and, if so, why have they not been released? Can you give assurances that other departments will not be subjected to similar cuts in the near future?
In CCTM you mention that there will be compulsory redundancies. Yet there appears to be no academic reason for them. Many members of staff in that department are teaching up to - or even beyond - their contractual limit. This does not suggest that there is any lack of work. So how can such large numbers of posts be lost without putting courses at risk? Who will teach core modules? What will happen to students already enrolled on those courses? These are fundamental questions that must be answered.
Overall, it looks as if the decision to lose staff posts was taken some time ago, certainly before the deficit was announced or any downturn in student numbers and without any academic vision for the university's future. The so-called reasons cited, then, are merely post facto excuses dreamt up to cover a longer-term aim. What is more, informal references to compulsory redundancies were made to individuals at least six months ago. Yet despite planning them for such a long period management have chosen to announce them suddenly, without any form of consultation or warning. This appears designed to cause maximum consternation and could be read as an attempt to force staff to agree to unacceptable changes under threat of redundancy. It also looks as if the refusal to recognise UCU as the successor to NATFHE was at least partly designed to avoid the need to justify the indefensible.
Staff cannot possibly be expected to 'understand' the reasons for such devastating proposals when no information is provided, no attempts to avoid redundancies have been made and no proper rationale can be put forward. For the sake of the university, it is vital that staff are allowed to see the figures on which plans are based and are given full and accurate answers to their questions. To this end, we call on you to consult staff fully through their chosen representatives: UCU.
Yours sincerely,
Amanda Sackur
Chair, Co-ordinating Committee,
London Metropolitan UCU