This post is intended as a useful guide for PGRs (postgraduate researchers/doctoral students) wanting to vote in the 2024 UK-wide UCU elections.
It covers:
There are other matters very important to PGRs that could/perhaps should have been covered here. Some candidates’ comments (reproduced below) mention some of these. We hope the info we do provide is helpful. Readers are encouraged to also consult candidates’ statements/manifestos/websites (we have linked to these where we know about them) and other relevant information in deciding how to vote.
UCU elections for various roles that are up for election are happening 25 January to 1 March by postal ballot.
For the first time since a recent UCU rule change, any PGR (postgraduate researcher/doctoral student) can become a full member of UCU and vote in UCU’s elections—you no longer need to have a recognised staff role.
Here’s how to become a full member:
If you are not yet a UCU member, you can join at join.ucu.org.uk and select the relevant membership. If you do not have a staff role, you will have to select Student membership when you sign up, and then complete the above-linked forms to transfer from Student to the new full PGR membership. (This is because the website system is still being updated so doesn’t yet have an option for the new PGR full membership.)
Membership subscriptions are progressive and affordable for most PGRs.
You need to be a full member by 9 February to be eligible to receive ballots and vote.
While most of this page is dedicated to PGR specific information, PGRs might be interested to look at more general information too. This is discussed first, but skip this if you are only interested in survey results.
There is a UCU elections page, where you can see candidate statements, role descriptions, details on the elections, recordings of national hustings, etc, available on the UCU website at www.ucu.org.uk/elections-2023-24
To see information about the UCU democratic structures, you may be interested in this UCU structures diagram by UCU member Chris Morris
We are not the only non-factional survey to be conducted of candidates, there are also surveys by Divest USS) (GS election) and there is a survey by Mark Taylor-Batty & Jackie Grant (USS negotiators) (GS election)
While the PGR survey was done in an non-factional manner, PGRs may be interested in looking at recommendations of factional groups for their views:
A number of hustings have taken place, these discuss general issues facing the sector but may be useful for PGRs to watch.
This pledge has been written by PGR UCU members across the UK in conversation with various PGR networks. It reflects six items that we want from our elected representatives in our union to support PGR interests.
We have invited responses from all candidates for positions that PGRs (as HE members) will vote for in the 2024 UK-wide UCU elections (General Secretary, Trustee, Vice-President, NEC HE positions, NEC Women’s and Land-based positions). We recognise that no-one in any of these positions can acomplish these goals alone, so we have asked candidates to pledge to use their elected role to push for these goals alongside the rest of UCU members, staff, and democratic structures.
We were pleased to receive responses from most candidates. Our survey remains open for other candidates to provide responses. Alternatively, candidates can use this short form to provide a general comment without responding to the pledge items.
In the below tables, we publish all candidates’ responses to the six pledge items.
In the tables, responses are marked with Y (yes), N (no), or *. The * indicates that the person clicked “Other” and provided a custom “other” response, which we reproduce verbatim at the bottom of each section. We told candidates we would consider this a “no with an explanation,” but there has been some pushback on this from candidates, and many of these “other” answers are clearly “yes with additional info.” Readers are encouraged to read these custom responses, and each reader will of course make up their own mind about whether an “other” answer is as good as a “yes” or not.
Also in the tables, we publish whether the candidates have signed or organised open letters on PGR-focused issues. We know of ten such letters with UK-wide relevance since 2020. [1]
We have organised them into four categories: Covid-19 funding extensions and other support (five letters, 2020-21), Cost of living and stipend increases (one letter, 2022), PGRs as Staff co-leads’ jobs (three letters, 2023), AHRC studentship funding cuts (one letter, 2023).
If elected to the position of [role], I pledge that I will push for UCU to do the following in support of PGRs:
Goal of PGRs as Staff and PGRs’ current ‘student’ role: Resource and support UCU PGRs as Staff campaigning until the long-term policy goal of postgraduate research as a staff role is achieved. Support campaigning for interim goals improving conditions for PGRs in our current ‘student’ role. E.g. better funding coverage (including longer stipend periods and full funding for migrant PGRs), childcare funding, better extensions and funding for disabled PGRs, eradicating continuation fees and self-funded tuition fees. Work on better integrating PGRs with the rest of HE by improving PGR relationships with their universities and reduce the unhelpful siloing of ‘student’ and ‘staff’.
PGRs’ teaching roles: Coordinated and resourced UK-wide organising support to improve pay/conditions for PGRs who teach in any capacity, including those for whom teaching is a condition of the stipend who may not be recognised as workers. Explore working towards a UK-wide PGR teacher contract to ensure minimum standards similar to those recently agreed at Newcastle or Bath universities. Fully implement motion HE25 from Congress 2023, ensuring data-collection, campaigning, and organising support to end outsourcing of PGR teacher roles.
Increased organising resource and focus: Fully implement motions 27 and HE23-HE24 from Congress 2023. This includes increased staffing levels for organising, with prioritisation of casualised staff and PGRs, and supporting UCU national organising/anti-casualisation staff to extend PGRs as Staff organising techniques to other precarious groups.
Supporting PGRs taking industrial action: Improve Fighting Fund coverage for PGRs taking industrial action and ensure Fighting Fund support is adequate for those in non-standard contractual circumstances by fully implementing motion 26 from Congress 2023. Ensure legal support is adequate and widely communicated, especially to migrant members.
PGR input into disputes: Introduce a mechanism(s) to include PGRs and casualised staff in determination of Four Fights claims and negotiations, e.g. scrutinising offers from employers, and a substantive say in determining when offers are good enough to recommend to members or to call off action.
PGR representation in UCU: Push for PGR reps on committees (with facilities time) in all branches with PGRs, as per motion HE24 at Congress 2023. Ensure PGR eligibility for full membership and legal support as per motions 42-43 is respected across the union.
In the below tables, we publish all candidates’ responses to the six pledge items*, in the columns labelled P1-P6.
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Vicky Blake | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 1 | Signed 3, co- organised 1 | Signed | |
| Jo Grady | Y | Y | * | Y | * | * | Signed 1 | Recipient of 2 | ||
| Ewan McGaughey | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Saira Weiner | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 2 |
Jo Grady: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 3, Increased organising resource and focus: “The answer is yes, but all staffing is dependent on a budget that is agreed by congress and other demands coming from congress.”
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “Answer is yes, but no GS candidate can pledge to introduce such a mechanism on their own and it is best to be honest about what the role of GS does and doesn’t entail. Such a decision would be the remit of other bodies and groups within the democratic structures, though clearly I would be supportive and do all I can to ensure this happens.”
Response to pledge 6, PGR representation in UCU: “Again, my answer is yes. But please see the comments made for answer 5.”
Vicky Blake: General comment
“I hope that I have signed all the letters that you refer to, if there are any where I didn’t I suspect I didn’t know about them or might have thought they were for postgrads only to sign. I co-organised a letter to the UCU trustees (which we shared through less public networks in the hope that this would make it more possible for trustees to take the issues up) regarding the proposals to cut hours from the PGRs as Staff campaign leads, along with other issues that indicated the perilous state of industrial relations between UCU and our staff. The link for that is here: https://tinyurl.com/LetterUCUtrustees. I also wrote about the situation here: https://vickyblakeucu.uk/2023/07/29/secure-work-for-all-staff/
I began in UCU as a casualised postgrad organiser in 2009, and had the legitimacy of my participation challenged in front of my first branch AGM. This experience stayed with me, because it was so clear we *had* to change the culture in UCU. I fought very hard for proper recognition and representation for casualised members within UCU at all levels and for secure work to become a real pillar of our industrial claims. I was a casualised postgrad when I first chaired ACC, when I first attended and spoke at Congress, and when I was first elected to the NEC. That should not seem unusual.
As GS I will do everything I can to make sure all members on casualised contracts, and all PGRs included in that, are understood to be and treated as full and proper members. I think there are many ways that PGRs’ and other hypercasualised members’ creativity in organising and campaigning can benefit the rest of our union, and I think there is enormous scope for coordinated campaigning across our sectors. I could go on but suspect this part of the form was supposed to be for short comment!”
Jo Grady: General comment
“Under my leadership UCU has directed more resources towards PGRs than ever before in the unions history. In 2021 we took a decision to launch the PGR as staff campaign, and recruit dedicated staff, rather than roll it into the work we already do on casualisation. This is because we know that whilst there are similarities, PGRs experience a unique set of challenges.
Inspired by campaigning work in Switzerland, where a 10 year long campaign resulted in PhD students classed as university employees and receiving a salary, we launched the PGR as staff campaign. We knew that 2 years wouldn’t be enough to reach our goal, but we hoped it would put rocket boosters under a process that if left to take shape organically, would take much longer. The work has since become a permanent part of the unions organising, campaigning and lobbying, and I want members to know that because of this, whoever gets elected, PGR work will continue.
The amazing activity that has occurred since the project started - including a victory during covid with the UKRI - demonstrates a clear appetite amongst our PGR community to fight this battle. There is clearly still much to do, but the union is in a much better place than it was before I was elected in 2019, and I pledge that if re-elected I will continue to work towards the goal of getting PGRs recognised as staff.
There is an aspect of the campaigning we need to do for PGRs which isn’t covered in the set of pledges I’ve been asked to sign up to, but one that is very important: protecting PGRs from sexual harassment. During my time as general secretary we conducted a member-led sexual violence task group. The task group report makes for sobering reading about the scale of the problem in education, but this passage is important here:
“workers on casualised contracts are structurally dependent on relationships with more established staff members for joint publications, future employment and career progression, which made them more vulnerable to abuses of power. In a conversation one survivor summed up this situation: ‘precarity exacerbates sexual violence’.” (p.31)
All of the above is particularly true for post graduate researchers and PhD students. In fact, the report went on to demonstrate that for PGRs there is an additional structural vulnerability (p.51 section 7.2), as many PGRs are more dependent on their institutions for opportunities and can face very limited options to secure redress. Being caught between student and staff status is additionally unhelpful. Fundamentally the report demonstrated that “sexual violence is shaped by power inequalities and wider contextual factors at work in tertiary education that make some workers systemically disposable and more vulnerable to harm. These include workers who are trans, non-binary, women, Black, queer, or disabled, those who are employed on casualised contracts and PhD students”. I think an important part of any PGR pledge should involve all GS candidates pledging to support all recommendations of section 10 of the task group report, and pledge to actively do everything possible to get outstanding ones enacted if elected. I pledge to do this, but I also need to be honest that I have struggled to get them all enacted, as it requires the support of the NEC and congress. We also need to run a union wide campaign on this matter (not limited to PGRs), and again I would request this is a pledge that is asked of all candidates.
I’ll finish by saying, all the candidates will rightly be pledging to support our PGR members - I already have a track record of doing so. And I hope you vote to re-elect me.”
Ewan McGaughey: General comment
Thanks for doing this PGR organisers! I’d be grateful if you included this short statement from me on your websites and networks:
I’m delighted to stand by all of the pledges of the PGR network, and if you vote, together we will end job insecurity, raise pay, and reverse the total failure of the last 5 years. You can see more on my commitments at www.ewanmg.uk/security and these are not cynical lines to get elected. Like many of us, I had to work on part time, fixed term contracts over my PhD and reapply for my jobs every year, as rent and bills were constantly going up. A PhD and all research is work, and must be paid with a living wage. It is training for an academic job, and should be treated as employment. I’m the only candidate who has run a branch, or indeed anything, with concrete success in collective bargaining, and that includes:
getting a written collective agreement protecting job security rights under law
ensuring everyone has minimum two year contracts, and is offered a permanent contract
ending all outsourcing, and sham agency work
raising pay through the London Weighting by 43% in two years, benefiting our early career staff the most.
I didn’t do this alone but with two brilliant GTA officers, in particular, who helped drive change at KCL. If you vote for me, every branch will get the resources and planning to advance workers’ rights everywhere, not just fight against things constantly getting worse. As a labour law expert, and as the only candidate with a record of success in collective bargaining, not failure, I will bring the full force of our union to create a new and better future for higher education, and that future begins with PGR workers. Please keep organising and share the platform with your colleagues, at www.ewanmg.uk
Saira Weiner: General Comment
PGRs and casualised members of staff are a crucial and integral part of the future and recent battles of the union. We cannot return to a two-tier union that did not fight casualisation. I wholeheartedly supported the PGRs as staff campaign and was horrified to see a short-term contract used for UCU staff leading the campaign.
In my branch we have made recruitment of casualised staff and PGRs a priority. Casualisation is about equality disproportionately affecting the marginalised and silenced. I fear that the failure to meet the threshold in the recent ballot and all talk of ‘rebranding’ the four fights and the end of the cycle of industrial action will jeopardise all the gains that have been won up and down the country. And prevent the action we need to fight job losses that hit the casualised first. With the current employers’ offensive, we are all casualised workers.
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Mike Barton | Signed 1 | |||||||||
| Steve Sangwine | * | * | * | * | * | * |
*We have heard back from Steve Sangwine and had correspondence. Steve does not believe the pledge items are applicable to a trustee’s role; we disagree.
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Peter Evans | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| David Hunter | Y | Y | * | Y | * | * |
David Hunter: Responses to Pledge Items
Response to pledge 3, Increased organising resource and focus: “The number of issues our sectors face means that there are always conflicting demands on resources, and therefore staffing. I fully support the PGRs as staff campaign and I will always prioritise work that improves the lot of those members with the poorest terms and conditions. I will take my place in the structures of the union to implement the decisions of congress and direct the resources of the union in the best interests of members.”
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “I support ensuring that PGRs and casualised staff have input into all relevant areas of union work. That may not mean introducing new mechanisms, however. It may be that current mechanisms can be reviewed to ensure that they are able to do this.”
Response to pledge 6, PGR representation in UCU: “I support PGR representation in branch and action to ensure necessary facilities time for all reps. I think that representation for PGRs may be clouded by their status as both students and staff, and I think we would need to implement these motions with due regard to this complexity.”
Peter Evans: General comment
“Please visit my website, it contains my election address, a bit about me and my policy proposals and vision for UCU:https://peterevans4vpucu.org/ Thank you for getting in touch. With best wishes, Peter”
David Hunter: General comment
“I am employed partly on a casualised contract, am committed to fighting casualisation across our sectors, and committed to the PGRs as staff campaign. I am also an organiser and am committed to organising as the basis of campaigning. Please see my website for more information on my campaign at https://davidforucuvp.wordpress.com.”
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Aisling O’Beirn | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 1 | Signed | Signed 2 |
Note: This election is uncontested so Aisling will be elected.
Aisling O’Beirn: General comment
“Thanks for conducting this survey, it is important that this work gets supported”
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Phillip Allsopp | ||||||||||
| Estelle Hart | * | Y | Y | Y | Y | * | Signed |
Estelle Hart: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 1, Goal of PGRs as Staff and PGRs’ current ‘student’ role: “there’s probably an essay to write on this and I’d be happy for a discussion on the broader campaign, but i support everything from the second sentence onwards and i think we need more nuance in terms of the pgrs as staff campaign because in many newer institutions the position of PGRs is very different, eg an institution i used to work at had a significant cohort of distance learners doing PhDs who were retirees”
Response to pledge 6, PGR representation in UCU: “Again half and half, pgr reps in branches are a good thing, and ideally they’d have proper contracts so facilities time should happen. On the representation and legal side coming from an SU background I think this needs to be looked at with NUS colleagues to ensure the correct representation is in place for different issues, I’d also only want to commit to this with more info”
Estelle Hart: General comment
“Everything comes with the caveat NEC has to prioritise activity and resource, and that one of the reasons I’m standing for NEC is a desire make it a less reactive body. I think it would be disingenous not to be upfront on that. More broadly I am currently chair of ucu cymru council and it would be good to see how we can support pgrs in wales regardless of the nec vote outcome, I also work with PGRs in my day job. So do drop me an email We successfully lobbied for the Welsh Government’s free childcare offer to be made available to PGRs which might be of interest. On a branch level we offered fighting fund payments to PGRs enabling them to take part in MAB if you’re ever looking for a case study.”
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Andrew Feeney | ||||||||||
| Josh Moos | Y | Y | Y | Y | * | Y | ||||
| Sam Morecroft | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 2 | Signed | Signed 3 | |
| Matt Perry | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 2 | |||
| Mark Taylor-Batty | Y | Y | Y | Y | * | Y | Signed |
Josh Moos: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “I agree with the first part of this statement. I was a casualised PTL for almost 5 years when I first joined H.E. My initial involvement in UCU was fighting to get a fractionalised agreement at Leeds Beckett (which we eventually won). So, I sympathize with the core underlying thrust here. For the second part though, it is not clear to me democratically speaking how casualised staff would get their ‘substantive say’. What exactly does a ‘substantive say’ mean in this context? I think I understand the intention, but without greater specificity, I can’t agree the second part of this statement. In other words, while I’m sure this isn’t your intention, I can’t agree that one group above others would have a say in when offers are good enough to recommend to members or having a say in when we would call off action. As a member of UCU Left, we have consistently campaigned to maximise the democratic involvement of all union members taking action, and have argued that rather than HEC, strike committees (comprised of delegates elected by striking branches in union meetings) should make the key decisions in disputes - including on whether to put an offer to a vote.”
Mark Taylor-Batty: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “Yes, on the basis that such mechanisms should be parallel and comparable with what all members can expect.”
Sam Morecroft: General comment
“I’m particularly interested in Point 5: PGR input into disputes. As a long serving member of UCU’s Anti-Casualisation Committee I know that this committee has the necessary expertise to provide members with reliable analysis on what employer offers mean for casualised staff. However, while formally our role is to advise the NEC and National Officers, in reality even when we try to raise issues these are ignored. I would be very interested in working to ensure ACC can communicate with members about offers employers make and how these will benefit (or not) casualised UCU members.”
Matt Perry: General comment
“I have been instrumental in campaigning for PGRs and other casualised staff at my institution, setting up campaigns and negotiated agreements that have converted PGRs to employee status if teaching over a certain threshold. PGRs and casualised staff are on our committee and integral to the work of the branch. On my initiative we were amongst the first branches to set up fighting funds to support casualised staff taking industrial action. I put motions to HEC to honour Congress decisions over fighting fund. I voted that we should have on our agenda the end of the PGR as staff organiser at NEC when ruled out of order. It is casualised staff who loose out most when we fail to take action against the employers and I strongly oppose the move away from the Four Fights. We need inter generational solidarity to defend HE.”
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Michael Abberton | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Robin Clarke | ||||||||||
| Alison Hawkings | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Rhian Elinor Keyse | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 3, co- organised 1 | Signed | ||
| Christina Jessika Marie Paine | Y | Y | Y | Y | * | Y | ||||
| Nico Rosetti | ||||||||||
| Roddy Slorach | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 1 | |||
| Sean Wallis | Y | Y | Y | Y | * | Y | Signed 1 | Signed | Signed 2 | |
| Cecilia Wee | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 2 | Signed | ||
| Richard Wild | Signed 2 |
Note: Nico Rosetti will get responses to us soon and has asked to talk this through further before they respond, so we are organising this.
Christina Jessika Marie Paine: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “I agree with the first part of this statement and as a member of UCU left we have agreed on this already. As a long-time casualised activist with a long record of fighting casualisation in many arenas, I sympathize with the core underlying thrust here. In my experience of the four fights dispute, we all felt so sidelined, angry, and let down. For the second part though, it is not clear to me democratically speaking how casualised staff would get their ‘substantive say’. I get the intention, but I can’t agree with the current suggested formula that one group above others would have a say in when offers are good enough to recommend to members or having a say in when we would call off action. Currently, HEC makes those decisions. As UCU Left, we have consistently campaigned to maximise the democratic involvement of all union members taking action, and have argued that rather than HEC, strike committees (comprised of delegates elected by striking branches in union meetings) should make the key decisions in disputes - including on whether to put an offer to a vote. I would be more than happy to discuss how strike committees might most democratically involve PGRS and all casualised staff and equalities strands in such decisions including, but not necessarily limited to, through their branches.”
I am a PGR myself in a pre-92 but also teach at a post-92. I have always thought PGRs and all casualised staff should have more of a say in our democratic decisions by, for example, having allocated reps on strike committees, branch committees, more allocated facility time agreements, and a PGR rep on NEC. Casualisation in ordinary post-92s where often we are on zero-hour contracts (I have been one for 20 years) for a long time (without summer pay of course). I always fought for PGR motions on the NEC and would be happy to explore stronger input and representation in the decision-making processes. We should definitely get more representation on NEC.
Sean Wallis: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “I agree fully with the first part of this statement. But it would be wrong for us to commit to this formula regarding “a substantive say in determining when offers are good enough to recommend to members or to call off action.” Currently HEC makes those decisions. As a member of UCU Left, I have consistently campaigned to maximise the democratic involvement of members taking action in deciding its course. For this reason we are in favour of strike committees with delegates elected by branches to make key decisions in disputes including decisions on whether to put an offer to a vote. Having said that, I am more than happy to discuss how such strike committees could involve PGRs, including but not limited to, through their branches.”
Michael Abberton: General comment
“Though I’ve answered all with Y I’m a little troubled by your interpretation of the ‘other’ as N, some candidates may have valid reservations and qualifications they want to express whilst still supporting congress motions and answering Y. I will publish this reservation. I’m also suprised to see that our local J4CS campaign and the excellent progress that is making hasn’t been mentioned here - with credit to all those involved!” - Note: we have take on board this and other comments by simply presenting “other” responses as *
Alison Hawkings: General comment
“The more voices we have from PGRs, HPLs and salaried staff the better at local and national level in my view. This makes for a more robust and representative set of views and concerns the union should campaign on. Simply, it just makes UCU healthier overall. I hope it is taken into account that the above options given and my hopes in ticking a box cannot all be achieved immediately. However, as a new NEC member hopefully, my best intentions are to profile and highlight voices from across the Union.”
Rhian Elinor Keyse: General comment
“I started out in UCU in 2018 as a postgraduate student fighting for recognition for our labour. I’m now a precariously employed postdoc and remain committed to improving pgr working conditions. I’ve been a strong supporter of the PGRs as Staff campaign, speaking for the relevant Congress motions at Congress 2023 and acting in unequivocal solidarity with the Unite UCU branch in their dispute over redundancies of the essential, skilled and talented organisers, and was pleased to see that dispute resolved although it should never have escalated to that point. I continue through my roles on ACC, NEC and HEC to strongly advocate for casualised workers, seeing PGRs as integral to that advocacy. If you have any specific questions the above please do contact me and I’ll be so happy to speak about this issue with the organisers as this is a key issue for me.”
Sean Wallis: General comment
“Happy to speak to PGRs + reps about your campaign and the challenges we face as a union!”
Cecilia Wee: General comment
“I graduated with my PhD 11 years ago but it feels as visceral to me as if it was last year. I was ‘lucky’ enough to receive research council funding but was completely neglected whilst facing personal challenges, structural discrimination, institutional disorganisation and overwork as a PG tutor.
I was appalled to learn about how a disabled colleague in their PhD writing up year was ‘invited’ to give a lecture and 3hr workshop at an Oxbridge university unpaid, as they are a PhD student at that institution. I feel that institutions want to have it both ways with PGRs. Such instances of labour exploitation (which occur all too often), reinforce elitism and classism within academia, and undermine the incredible knowledge of PGRs.
PGRs need and deserve much more. PGRs forever!”
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Michael Abberton | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Alan Barker | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 1 | |||
| Donna Brown | Y | Y | Y | * | * | * | Signed 3 | |||
| Peta Bulmer | Signed | Signed 2 | ||||||||
| Grant Buttars | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed | Signed 3 | Signed | |
| Robin Clarke | ||||||||||
| Stephen A.J. Desmond | ||||||||||
| Andrew Feeney | ||||||||||
| Ann Gow | ||||||||||
| Rhian Elinor Keyse | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 3, co- organised 1 | Signed | ||
| Marian Mayer | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 2 | Signed 1 | ||
| Sam Morecroft | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 2 | Signed | Signed 3 | |
| Chris O’Donnell | ||||||||||
| Alex Prichard | * | * | Y | Y | * | Y | ||||
| Mark Taylor-Batty | Y | Y | Y | Y | * | Y | Signed | |||
| Cecilia Wee | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 2 | Signed | ||
| Saira Weiner | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 2 | |||
| Sophia Woodman | * | * | * | * | * | * | Signed |
Donna Brown: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 4, Supporting PGRs taking industrial action: “Yes – have taken particular strides with local strike pay in this regard”
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “Probably like all/most of the UCULeft candidates, I agree with the first part of this statement. The second part is a bit more problematic for me, ie: “a substantive say in determining when offers are good enough to recommend to members or to call off action.” Currently, HEC makes those decisions and is supposed to factor in the implications for all members, with regard to all constituent parts of UCU. By default that means factoring in the needs of casualised workers and PGRs. UCU Left stands for the democratic involvement of all union members taking action. That means relying on Branch meetings and debate, during which members try to persuade each other and are moved themselves by others’ contributions; passing motions; trying to influence ballots to get good candidates on national and regional bodies and on standing committees. It does not mean relying on e-ballots with no opportunity for exchange through any of the aforementioned fora. UCU Left has campaigned for strike committees (comprised of delegates elected by striking branches in union meetings) as a more representative means of taking key decisions in disputes - including on whether to put an offer to a vote. PGRs, like all other groups within UCU, need to be engaged with and on these strike committees, just as they need to be involved in all other bodies.
I am wondering now if there needs to be a members’ standing committee for PGRs, within the Equalities structure, as there is for migrant, casualised, disabled, LGBT+, women workers. I need to think on that and maybe discuss with other UCULeft members, Sadly, I won’t be able to do so before Friday.”
Response to pledge 6, PGR representation in UCU: “Yes, have taken steps to incorporate more fully at my Branch in terms of a two PGR reps on Branch Committee, one with paid on Facility Time.”
Alex Prichard: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 1, Goal of PGRs as Staff and PGRs’ current ‘student’ role: “I support this pledge in principle, of course. PGRs should be considered staff, but it’s not that simple. With changes to HE PGR funding, and changes to visa rules, the strategy of getting PGRs recognised as staff will need rethinking, or at least the consequences of winning would need to be properly thought through. The cost of living crisis and the shrinking of UKRI and other budgets means a likely reduction of PGR numbers. This will have structural consequences for the delivery of many degree programmes. In other words, PGR concerns are all our concerns.”
Response to pledge 2, PGRs’ teaching roles: “I support this pledge. I recognise the contractual and professional pressures PGRs face as teachers. The exploitation of PGR time to cover core teaching must stop. PGRs need only minimal career-related teaching experience, so stipends must not compel PGRs to teach given research is the primary aim of a PhD and time is limited. Universities need to rethink their business models and ensure core teaching is delivered by properly contracted core staff. Researchers should be given the time and space to do just that.”
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “The future of the sector belongs to our PGR students and ECRs. Of course both groups need to be consulted, and we need much better consciousness raising here too.”
Mark Taylor-Batty: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “Yes, on the basis that such mechanisms should be parallel and comparable with what all members can expect.”
Alan Barker: General comment
“The fact that you have had to ask candidates to pledge to simply implement UCU policy is indicative of a much wider problem. I would see it as my duty as an NEC member to implement all Congress and Sector Conference policy. It’s very worrying that this is not happening at the moment.”
Rhian Elinor Keyse: General comment
“I started out in UCU in 2018 as a postgraduate student fighting for recognition for our labour. I’m now a precariously employed postdoc and remain committed to improving pgr working conditions. I’ve been a strong supporter of the PGRs as Staff campaign, speaking for the relevant Congress motions at Congress 2023 and acting in unequivocal solidarity with the Unite UCU branch in their dispute over redundancies of the essential, skilled and talented organisers, and was pleased to see that dispute resolved although it should never have escalated to that point. I continue through my roles on ACC, NEC and HEC to strongly advocate for casualised workers, seeing PGRs as integral to that advocacy. If you have any specific questions the above please do contact me and I’ll be so happy to speak about this issue with the organisers as this is a key issue for me.”
Marian Mayer: General comment
“Thank you for doing this important work. Please note that I voted in favour of the motions referred to here at congress.”
Sam Morecroft: General comment
“I’m particularly interested in Point 5: PGR input into disputes. As a long serving member of UCU’s Anti-Casualisation Committee I know that this committee has the necessary expertise to provide members with reliable analysis on what employer offers mean for casualised staff. However, while formally our role is to advise the NEC and National Officers, in reality even when we try to raise issues these are ignored. I would be very interested in working to ensure ACC can communicate with members about offers employers make and how these will benefit (or not) casualised UCU members.”
Alex Prichard: General comment
“I was a PGR departmental rep for many years, and was a college Director of Postgraduate Research at the University of Exeter. As UCU Branch President I ensured good PGR representation, and worked with the Doctoral College to think through the effects of future transformations to UKRI funding models and PGR requests for ‘staff’ status. I have a very keen sense of the pressures and priorities of our PGR members, and non-members, and the structural issues Universities face in trying to resolve them. I am also a good organiser and know that collective action gets the goods.”
Cecilia Wee: General comment
“I graduated with my PhD 11 years ago but it feels as visceral to me as if it was last year. I was ‘lucky’ enough to receive research council funding but was completely neglected whilst facing personal challenges, structural discrimination, institutional disorganisation and overwork as a PG tutor.
I was appalled to learn about how a disabled colleague in their PhD writing up year was ‘invited’ to give a lecture and 3hr workshop at an Oxbridge university unpaid, as they are a PhD student at that institution. I feel that institutions want to have it both ways with PGRs. Such instances of labour exploitation (which occur all too often), reinforce elitism and classism within academia, and undermine the incredible knowledge of PGRs.
PGRs need and deserve much more. PGRs forever!”
Saira Weiner: General Comment
PGRs and casualised members of staff are a crucial and integral part of the future and recent battles of the union. We cannot return to a two-tier union that did not fight casualisation. I wholeheartedly supported the PGRs as staff campaign and was horrified to see a short-term contract used for UCU staff leading the campaign.
In my branch we have made recruitment of casualised staff and PGRs a priority. Casualisation is about equality disproportionately affecting the marginalised and silenced. I fear that the failure to meet the threshold in the recent ballot and all talk of ‘rebranding’ the four fights and the end of the cycle of industrial action will jeopardise all the gains that have been won up and down the country. And prevent the action we need to fight job losses that hit the casualised first. With the current employers’ offensive, we are all casualised workers.
Sophia Woodman: General Comment
I am strongly in support of the UCU policy of recognizing PGRs as staff.
My experience of union work so far has been primarily local, in my branch. I’ve come into union work through standing shoulder-to-shoulder with my PGR colleagues to demand that they be paid in full for all the work they do, that they have paid training to equip them with the skills they need to do their work and that they have office space to work in. Pivotal to our campaigning has been the 2019 Collective Agreement UCU Edinburgh reached with our employer, which sets out a number of commitments to reducing casualisation, and includes provisions on all work for guaranteed hours staff (the contract type for PGRs at Edinburgh) being paid and on provision of paid training. Ensuring that these promises get implemented has been a constant, and on-going, struggle.
My view is that we need to think of such local struggles, and local agreements, as building blocks towards our objective of PGRs as staff. National policy is good in setting objectives for our work, but to make it a reality, we have to work from the ground up. That will be my approach if elected to NEC.
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Laura Chuhan Campbell | Y | Y | * | Y | * | Y | Signed | |||
| Jo Edge | Y | Y | * | Y | * | Y | Signed 1 | Signed | ||
| Ann Gow | ||||||||||
| Julie Hearn | Signed | |||||||||
| Lesley Kane | Y | Y | Y | Y | * | Y | ||||
| Rhian Elinor Keyse | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 3, co- organised 1 | Signed | ||
| Marian Mayer | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Christina Jessika Marie Paine | Y | Y | Y | Y | * | Y | ||||
| Saira Weiner | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Signed 2 |
Laura Chuhan Campbell: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 3, Increased organising resource and focus: “Staffing isn’t within the remit of NEC, so that’s not something candidates for that committee can promise to offer, but to everything else yes.”
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “This would require a rule change that I don’t think NEC has the power to make, so it’s not something that NEC candidates can claim to promise; nevertheless, I support the broad principles.”
Jo Edge: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 3, Increased organising resource and focus: “While I support the substance of the motion, NEC members have no power to increase staffing levels, so I cannot fully pledge to support this. The motions named also do not talk about increased staffing levels, and would have been ruled out of order by Congress if they had.”
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “ACC already advises NEC on such matters and again, while I fully support PGRs having input into negotiations, this would require a rule change that I cannot promise to deliver as an NEC member.”
Lesley Kane: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “I will work for the introduction of mechanism(s) to include PGRs and casualised members in determination of claims. I’m not sure what is intended by a “substantive say” in determining whether offers are good enough. I will work to make sure PGR/casualised voices are heard and views known when decisions are made over calling off action. However, decisions have to be made by UCU’s elected bodies such as the HEC. UCU Left is in favour of strike committees to take decisions over disputes, and I’m happy to discuss how PGRs and other casualised members could work within them.”
Christina Jessika Marie Paine: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “I agree with the first part of this statement and as a member of UCU left we have agreed on this already. As a long-time casualised activist with a long record of fighting casualisation in many arenas, I sympathize with the core underlying thrust here. In my experience of the four fights dispute, we all felt so sidelined, angry, and let down. For the second part though, it is not clear to me democratically speaking how casualised staff would get their ‘substantive say’. I get the intention, but I can’t agree with the current suggested formula that one group above others would have a say in when offers are good enough to recommend to members or having a say in when we would call off action. Currently, HEC makes those decisions. As UCU Left, we have consistently campaigned to maximise the democratic involvement of all union members taking action, and have argued that rather than HEC, strike committees (comprised of delegates elected by striking branches in union meetings) should make the key decisions in disputes - including on whether to put an offer to a vote. I would be more than happy to discuss how strike committees might most democratically involve PGRS and all casualised staff and equalities strands in such decisions including, but not necessarily limited to, through their branches.”
I am a PGR myself in a pre-92 but also teach at a post-92. I have always thought PGRs and all casualised staff should have more of a say in our democratic decisions by, for example, having allocated reps on strike committees, branch committees, more allocated facility time agreements, and a PGR rep on NEC. Casualisation in ordinary post-92s where often we are on zero-hour contracts (I have been one for 20 years) for a long time (without summer pay of course). I always fought for PGR motions on the NEC and would be happy to explore stronger input and representation in the decision-making processes. We should definitely get more representation on NEC.
Rhian Elinor Keyse: General comment
“I started out in UCU in 2018 as a postgraduate student fighting for recognition for our labour. I’m now a precariously employed postdoc and remain committed to improving pgr working conditions. I’ve been a strong supporter of the PGRs as Staff campaign, speaking for the relevant Congress motions at Congress 2023 and acting in unequivocal solidarity with the Unite UCU branch in their dispute over redundancies of the essential, skilled and talented organisers, and was pleased to see that dispute resolved although it should never have escalated to that point. I continue through my roles on ACC, NEC and HEC to strongly advocate for casualised workers, seeing PGRs as integral to that advocacy. If you have any specific questions the above please do contact me and I’ll be so happy to speak about this issue with the organisers as this is a key issue for me.”
Marian Mayer: General comment
“Thank you for doing this important work. Please note that I voted in favour of the motions referred to here at congress.”
Saira Weiner: General Comment
PGRs and casualised members of staff are a crucial and integral part of the future and recent battles of the union. We cannot return to a two-tier union that did not fight casualisation. I wholeheartedly supported the PGRs as staff campaign and was horrified to see a short-term contract used for UCU staff leading the campaign.
In my branch we have made recruitment of casualised staff and PGRs a priority. Casualisation is about equality disproportionately affecting the marginalised and silenced. I fear that the failure to meet the threshold in the recent ballot and all talk of ‘rebranding’ the four fights and the end of the cycle of industrial action will jeopardise all the gains that have been won up and down the country. And prevent the action we need to fight job losses that hit the casualised first. With the current employers’ offensive, we are all casualised workers.
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Safia Flissi | ||||||||||
| Regine Pilling | Y | Y | Y | Y | * | Y | ||||
| Pauline Rattery | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Suzi Toole | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Regine Pilling: Responses to pledge items
Response to pledge 5, PGR input into disputes: “I completely agree with the first part of this statement - many within our union feel side lined by how decisions have been taken as they have ignored democratic decisions. I think, and in UCU Left we have been arguing for this, we need strike committees that take the key decisions within our disputes. I’m happy to discuss and work through how we make strike committees as democratic as possible to involve PGR’s. We need to the rank-and-file, those taking actions in their branches to be in control of the disputes.”
Suzi Toole: General comment
“UCU is often reffered to as the lecturer’s union. That moniker does not reflect the diversity of roles that fall under the banner of this union. I have always strongly believed that we should be listening to the often unheard voices of those who do not have traditional roles within education establishments because they will have valuable insights and deserve equal recognition. Despite pushback from regional officers I have fought to include and represent members in non-teaching roles in my branch and pledge to do the same for PGRs. I wholeheartedly ensdorse all of the above and in particular the demand for PGR reps on committees.”
| Candidate name | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | Covid-19 (5 letters) | CoL crisis (1) | PGRs as Staff jobs (3) | AHRC funding (1) |
| Kate Ferguson (FE) |
Note: This election is uncontested so Kate will be elected.
The open letters (most with signatories publicly visible) are:
Covid-19 funding extensions and other support:
14/05/2020 Covid & Disabled PGRs
01/2021 Covid & Parent/Carer PGRs
Cost of living and stipend increases:
PGRs as Staff co-leads’ jobs:
13/07/2023 Letter to UCU Trustees
AHRC studentship funding cuts: