Why the University of London’s outsourced workers will go on strike this term

By Sonia Chura, University of London cleaner and Vice-Chair of the University of London Branch of the IWGB.

On Thursday, 26 September, the general secretary of my union sent a letter to Balfour Beatty Workplace, the company that does the cleaning, security, and maintenance at the University of London’s central administration and halls of residence. The letter contained three demands, and notified that failing progress on these demands the union would be balloting its members for industrial action. In other words, the University of London’s outsourced workers will be going on strike. This means that for a period of time this semester, University of London halls of residence and the Senate House library will not be cleaned, chairs, desks and rooms will not be arranged, mail won’t be sorted, and the buildings might have to survive with less maintenance and security guard personnel. In addition to causing major disruptions to the University’s daily functioning, the strike will also likely attract national media attention thereby sullying the University of London’s good name. Given that strikes are often considered a last resort, you may be curious to know how we have gotten to this point. As the Vice-Chair of the University of London branch of the IWGB- the largest union among outsourced workers at the University- I will attempt to explain below.

Our first demand is that Balfour Beatty recognise our union so that we can set up proper formal negotiations. Despite the fact that we are the biggest union among outsourced workers on campus, both the Branch Chair and I are outsourced workers, we have over 120 members including direct employees of the University, and we are a legally registered union, Balfour Beatty and the University of London refuse to recognise us. They choose instead to recognise UNISON, which has very few members who are outsourced workers, many of whom are supervisors and managers. Indeed, my boss’s boss’s boss is a UNISON committee member! We have asked for a recognition agreement in the past so that we can have formal negotiations and more time to execute trade union duties and activities. Continuing to deny us an agreement is greatly hindering our human rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Our second demand is that we be entitled to the same sick pay, holidays, and pensions as our colleagues who work directly for the University. We have been making this demand for over a year now through our 3 Cosas (3 Things) campaign. As our benefits are structured now, we are financially constrained to come into work sick, have a difficult time visiting our families who are often in faraway countries, and will retire into poverty. We are not asking for anything special, just the same terms and conditions as the university workers who show up to work every day in the same buildings as us and who form part of the same community. With regard to these demands, Balfour Beatty says “talk to the University” and the University says “talk to Balfour Beatty.” Well we’ve done both, and neither has borne results. In fact, I wrote to Vice-Chancellor Adrian Smith seeking a dialogue on these issues. The response: “The University will not discuss the employment arrangements of other organisations with trade unions that we do not formally recognise.”

Finally, the University of London has plans to refurbish the Garden Halls (of residence) next summer. Dozens of cleaners are employed at these halls, almost all of whom are members of my union. In August of this year my union voted to work with Balfour Beatty in order to ensure that the workers in these halls are given priority in any job openings and that among Garden Halls workers that the more senior ones were given priority. This is a logical, common-sense, fair, and relatively cost-free approach to dealing with the upcoming redundancies. However, once again, Balfour Beatty has refused to engage.

In closing, it is perhaps worth raising two questions which members of the University of London community should be asking. The first question is why does the University of London treat us outsourced workers as second-class workers instead of as members of the community? We have inferior terms and conditions, our union isn’t recognised, and our modest requests for fairness in redundancy procedures are ignored. But sometimes the treatment appears to go beyond mere disregard and even borders on contempt and disdain. For example, as most of us cleaners are South American and we do not speak English, our union’s Education Officer has recently set up a massive English Language programme for this term. We have English lessons 3-4 days per week. However, the University of London has declined to offer any support for these lessons and even refused to let us use rooms! While Senate House rooms sit empty, we are forced to scurry around the Bloomsbury area from ULU to UCL, changing rooms every other day. It is a bit ironic to think that an institution of higher education refuses to support the educational ambitions of its lowest paid workers.

The second question to ask is why are the University of London and its subcontractor so opposed to negotiation and dialogue? Despite the University’s attempts to paint us as rabid radicals, we have tried time and time again to sit down and discuss our demands. In over a year of campaigning we haven’t once entered into dispute. That means we have continued to work sick for a year, have had twelve pay checks without decent pension contributions, and have spent another year managing the difficulties of visiting family. Furthermore, when my union’s general secretary wrote to Balfour Beatty last week he indicated we were prepared to enter dialogue either directly or through a mediator, in order to avoid the strike. We didn’t even receive a response.