Universities Degraded: Staff Experiences & Employer Practices of Redundancies in UK Higher Education

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Conducted between August and October 2024 and publicised mainly by members of the University and College Union (UCU), the ‘Survey for UCU Members on HE Redundancies’ invited responses from UCU members at universities where managers were implementing redundancy processes (broadly conceived) or had done in the past five years.

The findings in this report are based on 349 survey responses, spanning 97 higher education institutions.

We estimate that approximately 8,900 people are being, or recently have been, affected by compulsory redundancies across the sector’s 165 institutions.

We estimate that around 11,500 people in the higher education sector are affected by ‘backdoor’ redundancies, such as hiring freezes, non-renewal of fixed-term contracts, voluntary severance and redundancy, protected conversations, and fire and rehire.

Unethical practice

Numerous respondents report unethical and even potentially unlawful behaviour by their employers. They allege that of the 97 institutions represented in survey responses:

• 73% of HEIs are failing to adequately consult with those individuals at risk of redundancy.
• 73% of senior management teams are failing to implement/accept suggested alternatives to redundancies.
• 69% of HEIs are failing to adequately consult with trade unions.
• 54% of senior management teams are bullying staff into applying for voluntary severance and/or voluntary redundancy.
• 52% of HEIs are failing to adhere to institutional policies governing redundancy processes.
• 45% of HEIs are failing to follow legislation governing redundancy processes.
• 29% of HEIs are misusing ‘protected conversations’ to make staff redundant.

The human cost

The impacts on staff—whether they remain in post or lose their jobs—are striking:

• 91% noticed a deterioration in working conditions, including less collegiality and lower morale.
• 90% cited emerging anxiety, stress, depression or other health problems as a result of redundancy processes.
• 87% said workloads for remaining staff increased when colleagues were made redundant.
• 76% noted worsening of existing mental health or other health problems.
• 36% described the undermining of academic freedom.
• 36% cited the targeting of people openly critical of management.
• 23% noticed the targeting of people with protected characteristics for redundancy.
• 21% alleged trade union victimisation in the selection of people targeted for redundancy.

What respondents said about their experiences:

• ‘It felt, as a colleague said, “like watching the birth of fascism”, as colleagues singled out for redundancy were isolated.’
• ‘Sickening to see university advertising for social justice. Corruption within HE is rampant. Look at who is being protected and why.’
• ‘Our university has given a pompous name to the process of reshaping the work and workload of who is left which — de facto — amounts to covering holes, more workload, less freedom on how to do the work (less academic freedom) and, in the end, less services for staff and students.’
• ‘An atmosphere of fear and intimidation for any who do not toe the line. I love this university but despise its hateful, greedy and mostly incompetent leadership. If I had an option to leave, I would take it now.’
• ‘Where is the debate and discussion and students who come for love of the subject and passion for learning? All of this has been reduced to ‘customers’ paying ~£9k a year to be spoon-fed job training. What is the point??? Honestly, if I could get out and switch career, I would.’

The survey questions, and respondents’ open-box answers to one pertinent question, are reproduced as appendices to this report.