Why the Provost should read the UCL website

“Living wage tied to better mental health in London”, the UCL website proclaimed on 10 October. This conclusion, drawn from a recent study of the  effect of the London Living Wage (LLW), should come as no surprise to supporters of the £8.55 hourly wage, but recent comments by new UCL Provost Michael Arthur – whose welcome speech took place the day before – suggest that the senior management should listen more to what the experts at their own university are saying.

The findings of the study, that employees have better mental health “when employers set a higher minimum wage based on realistic living expenses,” were followed by supporting comments from top UCL academics. Mel Bartly, a professor of public health at UCL, told Reuters that "children of economically stressed parents often struggle at school and suffer long into their adulthood," and that "there is no net benefit to society as a whole of having groups who are in poverty." These unequivocal conclusions in favour of the living wage were, however, not sentiments echoed by Provost Arthur when he spoke of the LLW a day earlier.

On 9 October, UCL's new Provost Michael Arthur opened the Lunch Hour Lecture series with an introductory address, followed by a question and answer session. The UCL Living Wage Campaign tweeted to ask the Provost about the LLW and outsourcing; our question (which you can view in our previous article) wasn't asked, but the substance of it was covered by a similar question from a UCL staff member (beginning at 45:20, here):

Will Professor Arthur show a genuine commitment to the London Living Wage, and why does an organisation the size of UCL need to outsource?

Arthur's response was not without ambiguity. He said, with some uncertainty, that UCL has “committed” to the LLW, a decision that was “worth it” because UCL is an “ethical organisation.” But he said that the LLW had “probably cost us £2 million,” and that he wouldn't “sign on the dotted line” to maintain the LLW “in perpetuity,” speculating that there may be situations in which UCL management “would like some flexibility”. In a similar way, he said that while he hadn't outsourced a single sector at Leeds, and while he agreed with the questioner, he nonetheless argued that outsourcing provides “flexibility” and to undo it at UCL would be “difficult.”

Despite saying that the university would only move away from the LLW under “very, very extreme circumstances”, he attempted to flippantly dismiss the notion that management should adhere to the minimum pay required to stay out of poverty with the words: “I am not completely comfortable with a group of academics in Warwick setting the finances of UCL.” As well as suggesting ignorance about the LLW, which is set by the Greater London Authority, this (perhaps unintentionally) opened up another line of questioning: who does determine the finances of UCL, and why is poverty pay even seen as a option?

Rather than cheering on the campaign, which would show genuine dedication to decent standards of living for all Londoners, Arthur effectively offered no promise to continue to pay the LLW on campus. Nor did he mention the fact that it was only after considerable pressure from the UCL Living Wage Campaign that management offered its present “commitment”.

This failure to embrace the LLW should raise some very serious concerns about the future of the Living Wage among both UCL staff and LLW campaigners. It also exposes worrying flaws in Arthur’s rhetoric on workers’ rights. 

What kind of “ethical organisation” wants the flexibility to be able to stop paying its staff the Living Wage anyway? Why try to discredit the LLW as the set minimum requirement needed to stay above the poverty line in London? What is £2 million to a university which ran a surplus of £26 million in 2011-2012, and holds reserves of over £290 million? Is it not a price worth paying for decent standards of living for all of its workers? Or does flexibility, which means profit, trump ethics and the mental health of UCL’s staff? 

Despite UCL academics providing yet more evidence of the benefits of the LLW, Arthur seems to be unconvinced that a permanent management commitment to paying it is ethically valuable. The pressure is still on to fight for good pay and conditions on the UCL campus.

#askprovost

Tonight, the UCL Living Wage Campaign tweeted the UCL Provost, who will be taking questions from Twitter at his Lunch Hour Lecture tomorrow. The question we've asked him is a simple one:

Will UCL treat its ancillary staff with dignity & respect during the new Provost's tenure, rather than low pay & outsourcing? #askprovost RT
— UCL Living Wage (@UCLLivingWage) October 1, 2013

The previous administration's record was a shameful one of low wages, outsourcing, a 34-month delay in implementation the LLW, and abuse of the right to organise. To take just one example: in 2009, UCL's cleaning contractor Office & General fired a cleaner after he was seen at a cleaners' protest at SOAS. He was reinstated after tribunal, but with reduced hours and at a different site... which O&G promptly lost the contract for!

Will we see anything different under the new regime? Only time will tell; a good start would be to address our question, and take a keen interest in the material conditions of UCL's workers.

You can help by retweeting us!

This may well be the closest the Campaign has come to asking a direct question of a UCL Provost. In September 2010, Malcolm Grant cancelled a meeting with the UCL Living Wage Campaign, immediately after declaring (overnight) that the LLW would be implemented. For the next three years we were ignored, while management failed to implement the LLW. In 2011,  two activists who challenged Malcolm Grant on this failure at his Lunch Hour Lecture were disciplined by the university.

Victory for the Campaign!

Three years to the day after UCL's ethical malpractice first reached the mainstream media, the UCL Living Wage Campaign issues a statement on the current state of affairs.

All UCL staff, including cleaners, are now paid the London Living Wage. But outsourcing, the root cause of the problem, remains on campus.

On 1 August 2013, UCL finally implemented the London Living Wage (LLW) for all staff. Cleaners, porters and catering staff are now all paid £8.55 or over. But, while poverty pay has been technically eradicated from UCL, the underlying causes (managerialism and privatisation), remain, as well as specific concerns like the underpayment of postgraduate teachers, or overworking of staff.

It has taken almost three years for UCL management to implement the LLW, a pledge made in September 2010 in the face of widespread criticism from the university community and in the media. That commitment was forced from management through a vibrant campaign that brought together students and staff, culminating in extremely negative, but justified, publicity for UCL in the Evening Standard (see also here).

London’s cleaners are some of the most abused workers in the city. Paid poverty wages, they are often unable to live near their workplace. Consequently, many make night bus commutes to work before doing 10-hour days (or more) in 2 or 3 insecure, poorly-paid jobs. It is therefore wonderful news that cleaners at UCL have seen a pay rise of almost 50% over three years. However, this statistic disguises the fact that it is only now that their wages are above the poverty mark. If, in September 2010, UCL accepted that the LLW was the minimum subsistence wage in London, and therefore a minimum moral standard, why did it take three years to implement? We can only assume that the commitment was cynically made.

Money is not a problem. Financially, UCL is one of the wealthiest universities in the country. It: 

• made £85million in budget surpluses between 2009 and 2012
• held £290,000,000 in reserves in 2012
• tripled the number of senior staff paid over £100,000 between 2003 and 2012 
• increased the Provost’s pay by 75% during Malcolm Grant’s tenure  

Meanwhile, UCL’s cleaners spent most of that period on the minimum wage. When they first received small pay rises in 2010, cuts were made to working hours to mitigate the cost. And in 2011, UCL Estates forced through the outsourcing of 100 cleaners and security staff who remained in-house, continuing the very process that had led to the cleaners’ poverty wages. 

The twin reasons for this, managerialism and privatisation, remain. The outsourcing (to profit-making private companies) of key service contracts like cleaning drives down wages and conditions, because it introduces another profit margin and a duplicate layer of well-paid managers. These companies remain on campus: Office & General, Chartwells, ISS and CIS, to name just the biggest players. The fight continues.

Still, there is great cause for celebration. The UCL campaign has finally achieved its aim, and outsourced workers across Bloomsbury are fighting back against low pay and abuse. The 3Cosas Campaign at the University of London, for example, has won the LLW and is now campaigning for fair terms and conditions for outsourced staff. 

Come and celebrate with the UCL Living Wage Campaign at the joint Bloomsbury campaigns’ ‘Latin Fiesta’ on Friday 4 October from 6pm in the SOAS JCR!

The Campaign will have a stall in the Jeremy Bentham Room at the UCLU Welcome Fair on 26 and 27 September, to distribute this message and talk to new students. If you’d like to volunteer on the stall, our contact details here.

We will be organising a meeting later in Term 1 to determine the direction of the campaign from now on.

Check out this brilliant song: Spare Us A Thought - Support Living Wage

The UCL Living Wage Campaign is back for another year of fighting against low pay and oppression in the workplace. We've got a statement coming in the next few days, but meanwhile check out this brilliant song and video from Casual Films. You'll be humming it all weekend!

\

A small victory: a return to the LLW at Chartwells

The Campaign is pleased to announce a small victory: from 1st October, employees of Chartwells, the catering company contracted by UCL to provide catering services, have been paid the current London Living Wage (£8.30/hour). After UCL buckled under pressure and agreed to pay the LLW in September 2010, Chartwell’s employees had their wages raised to the then-LLW of £7.85. However, in May 2011, when the LLW was raised by the Greater London Authority to £8.30 (the largest rise in its history due to rocketing living costs), the wages of Chartwells employees remained at the previous rate. The Campaign heard from some workers that they were told that they wouldn’t get another raise ‘for years’. At the same time, nine staff had their contracts cut from 52 to 40 weeks, a shameful 25% pay cut over the year.

The agreement to finally pay the current LLW rate comes after negotiations between Chartwells and UCLU, the students’ union. The Campaign understands that UCLU took the position that, as Chartwells were not a LLW employer, they could not have their usual space at the UCLU Welcome Fair on 27th and 28th September, which is one of the largest freshers’ fairs in London, attended by perhaps 15,000 students. In response, Chartwells gave UCLU this signed agreement:

‘Further to your e-mail dated 13th September 2012, I can confirm that the current London Living Wage of £8.30 will be implemented from 1st October and that a back dated payment will be calculated and awarded to affected employees. In addition, future pay increases to staff will be aligned to future London Living Wage increases.’

The pledge to back-date the payment is particularly welcome, considering that by October it will have been 16 months since the new rate was introduced. Edwin Clifford-Coupe, Education & Campaigns Officer at UCLU, who ran on a platform of supporting the LLW, and who negotiated with Chartwells, had this to say.

‘UCLU raised this in a meeting with the Provost and other senior managers in July. As nothing appeared to have been done about it, we took the opinion that Chartwells were not welcome at the Welcome Fair. This agreement, including the promise to back-date and to raise wages in future, is very welcome, and must be followed by real action. We have passed it on to UCL UNISON, the trade union which represents the workers. We hope that Chartwells will keep their word, so that we can engage with them in future.’

The UCL Living Wage Campaign believes this a perfect example of why UCL must keep the Campaign involved in the process of implementation, which it has not been doing. If, as it seems, UCL and the contractors are not going to make it a priority to regularly check that workers at UCL are paid enough to stay out of poverty, it falls to the Campaign. We will be especially vigilant this November, when the LLW is set to rise again, perhaps to as much as £9/hour; the pay of Chartwells workers must rise with it, with no reduction in hours like last time.

End injustice at UCL: a new year, but the campaign continues

Despite committing to the London Living Wage two years ago in September 2010, UCL still pays its contract cleaning and catering staff poverty wages. We demand the London Living Wage (LLW) now. When SOAS and Birkbeck implemented the LLW, the workers were receiving it within a year; UCL intends to wait a further academic year, until August 2013, before it implements the wage, and has made little movement on the associated ‘package’. We demand that UCL stop stalling, and pay their workers a decent wage now.

The root cause of this injustice is outsourcing: the sub-contracting of university services, like cleaning, catering and security, to private companies. Staff members directly employed by UCL all receive at least LLW, but those employed by the private companies do not; indeed, before the Living Wage Campaign at UCL, the wages of outsourced cleaners were kept depressed at the minimum wage, a poverty wage in London. The privatisation has therefore created a two-tier workforce: UCL staff who get half-decent conditions and pay, and subcontracted staff on poverty wages. Furthermore, outsourcing introduces extra layers of management and profit-making, meaning that it may not even save money for UCL: in other words, public money, including fees, goes to private profit and greedy shareholders rather than the staff who earned it and keep the university running. We therefore demand an end to privatisation, as recognition of the essential work cleaners, catering and security staff perform at UCL.

Sign the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ucllivingwage/

To find out more about the campaign, email: ucllivingwage@gmail.com

Like the Campaign on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/ucllivingwagefb

Follow the Campaign on Twitter: @UCLLivingWage

---

The London Living Wage (LLW) is calculated every year by the Mayor of London’s office as the wage needed to stay out of poverty in London.  The 2011-2012 LLW is £8.30/hour, well above the national minimum wage. The full ‘LLW package’ includes other work 'conditions’ which make for a minimum quality of life: ten days sick pay, overtime opportunities, maternity leave, 28 days holiday, a decent pension, and union representation.

The LLW is not a legal requirement; however, it is an ethical requirement as well as a sound investment in staff. Even David Cameron has endorsed it. Poverty pay is morally wrong, and people living in poverty are cannot work effectively. All the Universities in Bloomsbury (including SOAS and Birkbeck) pay their workers the LLW, and for several years we have been campaigning at UCL to get cleaners, porters, security and catering staff (people without whom the university could not function) paid the LLW.

UCL Union Living Wage Campaign Week!

To put pressure on management, who have no excuse to delay or avoid paying the London Living Wage we are having a UCLUnion sponsored campaign week AND WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!

Please attend and share the Facebook event!

There are many activities to get involved with throughout the week:

Monday 21st November - London Living Wage Information Session & Social
7pm - 10:30 pm in the Print Room Cafe
Come along if you want to find out more about the Living Wage, the campaign at UCL, and to get involved. All welcome especially spanish speakers! Drink and nibbles provided.

Tuesday 22nd - Workers' Rights Forum
1pm - 4pm in Room 204 in the Bloomsbury Building
6pm - 8pm in Room 218 in Foster Court
Are you working while you're a student? Are you a Postgrad working for UCL? Planning to get a job in the future? Then come along and find out your rights at work, ask any questions, and meet other workers. With representatives from the successful Living Wage campaigns at SOAS, Senate House and Guildhall.

Thursday 24th - Film screening of "Nightcleaners" with a discussion afterwards with the director, Humphry Trevelyan
8pm - 11pm in Gustave Tuck LT
‘Nightcleaners’ is a documentary made by members of the Berwick Street Collective, about the campaign to unionize the women who cleaned office blocks at night and who were being victimized and underpaid. It is increasingly recognised as a key work of the 1970s and as an important precursor, in both subject matter and form, to current political art practice.

Friday 25th - Demonstration in the Quad
1pm
UCL, follow the example of other colleges in Bloomsbury, and pay the living wage now! The workers shouldn't have to wait any longer!


We look forward to seeing you next week and don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions!