UCU Congress, 2023, part 1

There has been more than the usual interest in UCU’s annual Congress, after it passed motions on how to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The motions are Congress motions 5 and 6, which appear on the agenda, with amendment 5A.1, which would have modified motion 5, had it passed.

There are a few things worth noting about motion 5, in particular, which is the one that has caused all the trouble.

First, it doesn’t matter a damn: the British government is not going to stop arming Ukraine because UCU has said it should; Vladimir Putin is not thinking “we have them now, boys, the UCU is with us”; Ukrainian squaddies are not going to lose heart because 130 UCU delegates voted to support protests called by Stop The War and CND.

Second, the motion is little more than an expression of opinion: it commits no union resources, whether money or time, and does no more than “call for” a peaceful resolution to the war, an end to British arms to Ukraine, and Russian withdrawal. Motion 6, which was passed overwhelmingly, commits the union, through its International Working Group (part of the National Executive Committee), to “practical solidarity work … including online meetings inviting Ukrainian trade unionists and feminists”, and to “foster links to support international labour movement activists, educators, and students”, and to  ”support Russian workers, educators, students and activists who oppose war”. It also resolves to campaign for the lifting of visa restrictions and for the establishment of “full college / university scholarships for all refugees and asylum seekers”.

In practical terms, the position of UCU is supportive of Ukraine and of Ukrainians. The response to the irrelevant expression of opinion, however, has ignored the practical decision: the General Secretary has publicly opposed the motion, using UCU’s communication channels to do so. Paul Mason has denounced the vote as an expression of “campism”, implying that UCU did not have a banner on the “April 2022 trade union solidarity march”. The march was chaired by Vicky Blake, at the time the president (senior elected lay member of the union). Earlier, on 2 March 2022, UCU had issued a statement on Ukraine, including a request for donations.

The motion is being used to support claims that the union, and its decision-making structures, have been hijacked by one faction, UCU Left (who are well able to defend themselves). The fact is that the motion in question passed by 130 votes to 121, with 37 abstentions (so if nine people had voted against the motion rather than raising their hands to abstain, the motion would have fallen). The amendment which would have removed the more objectionable elements of the motion fell by 113 votes to 146, with 28 abstentions. It appears that a relatively large number of delegates were unsure how to vote and chose to actively abstain. There is nothing improper in all of this, and certainly no indication of a “hijack”.

There are a number of avenues open to UCU members who object to the Congress decision. Despite what some people are implying, the National Executive Committee cannot overturn a resolution at Congress, which is the supreme policy-making body in UCU’s rules. There is a mechanism for passing a motion which would reverse Motion 5, however, and I would expect to see moves along those lines quite soon. In the medium term, branches and members can respond to the call in Motion 6 and implement practical actions in solidarity with Ukraine and Ukrainians.

In the longer term, if you don’t like the positions the union has taken, try turning up when branches are discussing motions, or when delegates to Congress are being selected.