Sussex Registrar John Duffy spoke to students on the 11/02/2013 about the University's outsourcing plans. He argued the introduction of private companies to run campus services will provide new expertise and improve efficiency. He hasn't explained how that would be achieved, requesting staff and students to join him in his leap of faith.
He described a string of 'successes'
where private companies have started running University services across the country, including Sheffield
Hallam, where housing has been taken over by a private company called
Unite. Prices have increased, service is poor, the electric
keeps going off with no compensation and students have been threatened with £300 fines for having a poster on the wall...
It isn't hard to look for the woeful
results of privatisation. British railways have the most expensive
ticket prices in the world according to UBS, and have been mired in
controversy since safety failures in Hatfield and Potters Bar. Over
Christmas a private company called Sodexo, took over cleaning at Royal
Sussex Hospital in Kemptown, failed to pay staff and threatened almost 100
redundancies. Attempts to imitate 'the market' in Health has led to
the disasters of PFI and Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust.
A private company's definition of
success is profit – this is not a definition shared by staff and
students.
Protecting Staff Pay, Terms and Conditions?
When asked whether the University would
guarantee the existing terms, pay and conditions of staff and prevent
any redundancies Duffy said they could make no assurances but in the
bidding process the University would place the interests of staff at
the top of the agenda. He argued that TUPE legislation would protect
staff in the transfer. If vague sweet-talking was a contract the
staff would be fine! But it isn't. TUPE allows an employer to
restructure the business after the transfer. This means that terms
and conditions may be protected and then immediately slashed or
undermined in a restructuring.
Privatisation is a long-established
method, it is not a new experiment the outcome of which remains to be
seen. Often much of the profit from privatisation has come from
government subsidies (Tory and New Labour) who are ideologically
driven to prove the success of privatisation. However studies have
demonstrated that the increases in productivity which generate huge profits are the result of attacks on the workforce. Lower wages
and attacks on other benefits, longer hours, a smaller workforce, less secure
employment; this is how profits are made by private companies running public services.
Catering, cleaning portering and so on are all
labour-intensive; where else will any private company squeeze their
profits from if not from worsening staff terms, conditions and pay?
There are only a handful of options to achieve these gains, and
private companies time and again opt for reducing the workforce,
increasing work intensity, slashing wages or other benefits, or
raising prices. (Andrew Glyn, Capitalism Unleashed, Finance,
Globalisation and Welfare, 2006 Oxford University Press, pg43 quoting OECD
studies and drawing on ONS statistics.)
Duffy claims staff will be fully
represented and consulted in this process. Why have they refused to
negotiate keeping services in-house with the trade unions? His
assurances given are vague; what are they worth? Will staff be able
to vet the companies under consideration, and judge them on their
past practices elsewhere? Or will their new employer simply be
announced? What kind of consultation excludes the preferred option of
keeping services in-house? If the contract fails (what will the
conditions of this be? Can staff set those conditions?) will the
company receive a golden handshake?
Who knows...? John Duffy does! But the
cat's got his tongue, all he can do is shrug; it's out of his hands;
he is controlled by a higher power...
Duffy claims the overriding motivation
in these plans is to account for the growth of Sussex University. The government has
established a 'sink or swim' regime across Higher Education, where
institutions compete even more fiercely than before for students and
tuition fee revenue. He claims the drive towards privatisation is
not aimed at cutting costs but once a privatised arrangement is in
place it will be a far more effective tool in driving down labour
costs in the future, if not today, even if immediate spending remains
stable. If services are expanded but the private contractor keeps
costs stable, that will be a real term cut.
How Can They Be Stopped?
London Metropolitan University staff organised in the
trade union UNISON faced down a similar threat to privatise services
through a mass sustained campaign which drew in the wider branch
membership and included protests, statements of support and so on.
This campaign culminated in industrial action which finally caused
the management to back down. Strike action can have the effect of a
hundred occupations, especially with a strategy to escalate if
management does not back down (if one day doesn't work, two days. If
two days don't work, three days etc).
London Met shows how strike
action can force an employer to back down. So-called 'concession
bargaining' is not a better strategy because 'weakness invites
aggression', once management feels there is no resistance to their
plans the attacks will only increase and the union's subservience
will be repaid with scorn - only a struggle can stay management's
hand, and strike action is the strongest form of struggle.
Strike action like this cannot be called by magic; it requires a campaign to build across the campus, to recruit an active membership who will fight within the branch for an all-members' meeting, to demand a vote on a fighting strategy, to demand a ballot and to refuse to take no for an answer! A handful of UNISON members have been working hard for the branch to adopt a fighting strategy, but they need more support and active members taking part in that struggle alongside them. The student movement can help develop that campaign, through patiently explaining all these points to staff across the campus, and to the 235 in particular.
Strike action like this cannot be called by magic; it requires a campaign to build across the campus, to recruit an active membership who will fight within the branch for an all-members' meeting, to demand a vote on a fighting strategy, to demand a ballot and to refuse to take no for an answer! A handful of UNISON members have been working hard for the branch to adopt a fighting strategy, but they need more support and active members taking part in that struggle alongside them. The student movement can help develop that campaign, through patiently explaining all these points to staff across the campus, and to the 235 in particular.
If the university says there is nothing to fear from privatisation because of the so-called
protection of TUPE, why don't they guarantee to write into the contracts of employment the following?:
- A guarantee of no compulsory redundancies for the life time of the contract.
- A guarantee of no changes in terms and conditions for the life time of the contract.
- Provision of a pension scheme or schemes at least equivalent to current schemes available to affected staff.
- A comprehensive response to these demands within 14 days.
We urge staff to join UNISON and
demand:
1. The creation of a democratic strike
committee of affected staff and branch officers of all three unions –
NO to a tiny group of branch secretaries calling all the shots!
2. For a joint union, time-bound demand that management halt the privatisation proposals or agree to match University terms and conditions and have no compulsory redundancies for the life time of the new contract – to organise strike ballots a.s.a.p. if no response is received or these demands (which can form the basis of a legal industrial dispute) are not met.
3. To organise for every member of affected staff to pledge to vote for strike action if the identity of their employer is changed (as done at London Met. The precedent for this as another dispute – Barnet Unison Local Government branch)
4. NO to concessionary bargaining – for the representation of the interests ALL workers, young and old, directly affected and next-on-the-list. This is the thin end of the wedge and we must stop it completely.
