Plan 2020 open letter to V-C

On 18 July 2017 the KU UCU branch committee sent this open letter to the Vice-Chancellor Steven Spier:


Dear Steven Spier,

UCU members appreciate that in most cases in Phase 1 of Plan 2020 the university was able to avoid compulsory redundancies. However, we were disappointed that staff in Politics were subjected to the MOR process that forced them to apply and compete for their existing job. We also regret that, despite strong and rationale protests, senior management and HR have chosen not to slow down the ill thought through amalgation of film courses in FASS and FADA. Further we are concerned that KU is advertising for a Senior Lecturer, Year Leader Film: job ref 2942, while current staff are being retired or leaving under the VEP and VS schemes.

Going forward we reiterate our requests to make this cost cutting exercise less divisive and demoralising for staff by offering the following options to avoid the MOR process:

  • VS and VER to all academic staff
  • Planned moves from full time to part time
  • Phased retirement to all staff over 55
  • Redeployment options to all staff

We ask that such more humane approaches are adopted as we feel that this will not only be good for staff morale but for the wider reputation of Kingston University within the academic community. Despite having made this request at successive recent JNCC discussions, to date none of these more flexible strategies are being offered.

We note the disparity between staff levels; while Senior Managers have lost jobs through natural wastage or generous resignation packages, lecturers who are not responsible for damaging decisions in recent years , have been subjected to job loss through selective offers of VS/VER or MOR.


Nick Freestone   KU UCU branch chair

Valerie Coultas   KU UCU branch vice-chair

Rosie McNiece   KU UCU branch secretary

KU UCU  Branch Committee

One Response to Plan 2020 open letter to V-C

  • In Music we were threatened with 6 jobs to go out of 12 in January but the reality has been that only 4 FTEs have actually left (plus some HPLs). Thus it appears that the threatened job losses were larger than is reasonable to put extra pressure on staff to leave. After the colleagues left, it was then discovered that there was no one left with the right expertise to teach significant aspects of the PG programme…