At a time when academics and union members face a?witch-hunt when speaking?up for Palestinian rights, it is?regrettable that the same tactics are being used to?denounce those of?us who campaign for the University and College Union to?be a?more active trade union.

A recent article in Times ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø by?John Kelly and Adam Ozanne plays on?the tired old charge that while most workers join trade unions simply because they work in?the relevant employment sector, assorted ¡°militants¡±, Trotskyists, anarchists, syndicalists and other leftists ¡°infiltrate¡± those unions for their own political purposes. This ¡°reds under the beds¡± argument was used against members of?various Communist parties in the 1970s, but it?is as?baseless now as?it was then.

UCU Left members, like other UCU members, are members because we work in post-16 education. UCU?Left members who hold elected office on the union¡¯s national executive committee (NEC) and as national negotiators are in qualifying employment, as defined by the rules of the union. Moreover ¨C and this cannot be said by other groupings in the union ¨C UCU?Left candidates are leading members in their own branches.

UCU?Left is open about where we stand, publishing that does not shy away from difficult arguments in the union. What unites us ¨C members of the Green Party, the Labour Party, independent left-wingers and members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) alike, all of whom have equal voting rights in UCU?Left ¨C is a commitment to fighting for the collective interests of members, upholding and strengthening the UCU¡¯s democratic processes, and using industrial action when necessary to achieve our bargaining objectives. We?are united against those who believe that resistance is futile, that members will never be willing to take action, and that we must accept any offer, however poor, rather than take industrial action for a better settlement.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

The main argument of Kelly and Ozanne¡¯s article appears to be that UCU?Left members do?not understand collective bargaining. Actually, we?do. We know from long experience that reasoned argument, supporting statistics and imaginative publicity stunts are rarely sufficient to extract an acceptable offer from employers.

The members we stand for election to the NEC and as national negotiators are longstanding union reps and activists, with track records in local negotiating and organising. That¡¯s why we support them as candidates and why members elect them.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

The UCU has won a restoration of our pension conditions that no?other union has achieved. This ¡°no?detriment¡± settlement was won after five years of industrial action, combined with negotiation, in the face of resistance by those in the UCU who sought to abandon the fight. The case for no?detriment was made repeatedly by UCU?Left members and gained widespread support within the UCU. We won through persistent argument, firmness at the bargaining table and by taking the necessary industrial action.

We dispute the claim that we are ¡°strike-happy¡±. Of course, we celebrate the fact that members learn their collective strength on the picket line. We will need that strength and self-confidence for future battles. But when we can win a decent deal for members without balloting for or using industrial action, we do so. The problem is that strike action is increasingly necessary: employers are often intransigent, and quick deals are few and far between.

Experienced trade unionists know there is a huge difference between negotiating with and without a live ballot mandate. With one, the employers engage in meaningful negotiations; without one, they often ignore unions. This is a truth the world over. Just last week, won just five hours into a strike, after 11?months of what their union described as ¡°futile¡± bargaining.

When negotiators report back to members that a better deal can be achieved only by industrial action, this is not adventurism or ¡°elitism¡±: it¡¯s just telling members what the situation?is.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

The UK sector is facing the potential of a serious financial ¡°crunch¡±, with vice-chancellors openly discussing projections of a?sharp fall in?international student recruitment. The market system of tuition fees and loans, increasingly subsidised by international student income, is turning from boom to bust.

What will Ozanne and Kelly advise our union to do about this? Do they advocate negotiating away members¡¯ jobs, contracts, conditions and disciplines without attempting to build the best possible ¨C and most militant ¨C defence of them?

We are committed to building a democratic, fighting union because we know that purposeful democracy is the best way to build a strong union that can win the pay and employment conditions that UCU members deserve. I¡¯m standing for general secretary because I?want to see the UCU become a much more democratic union, as do the UCU?Left candidates standing for the NEC.

Collective decision-making is the very basis of collective action and collective bargaining. We make decisions together, and we carry them out together. As union officers, UCU?Left members don¡¯t just represent members individually but continually argue for member involvement in meetings, where debates can be had, disagreements aired and a conclusion reached and carried out.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

High levels of membership control of our strikes and marking boycotts is not a case of reds under the beds. It is a case of members calling the shots.

Saira Weiner is senior lecturer in education early childhood studies at Liverpool John Moores University and a . This is an edited version of an article that first appeared on .

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø