Monday, 27 June 2011 12:20

Members of my union, the University and College Union (UCU), last week voted overwhelmingly to reject plans that would have left them with a £38 annual bill for membership of the Institute for Learning (IfL), and now face a vote on whether to boycott the organisation altogether.

While £38 may not sound like much money it comes at a time when lecturers' income is under severe pressure. A real terms pay cut last year, coupled with the prospect of increased pension contributions being imposed upon them, means this latest punitive measure has been viewed by many as a step too far.

Even at this busy time of the year for teaching staff, the turnout for last Friday's vote was substantial and exceeded the recent national ballots on pensions and pay.

While members appreciated the efforts of UCU's negotiators to win concessions (the original fee was to be £68), it is impossible to get away from the fact that the IfL has a massive credibility problem across the sector.

A common complaint, from those who got in touch during the ballot process, was that the IfL did little, if anything, to support members' professional development and that any charge for its services would be too much.

The message is clear - the IfL, in its current form, is simply not fit for purpose, and it says much for the popularity of the organisation, that when UCU members were surveyed on its effectiveness back in February, just one in five (19.7%) thought it was fulfilling its role of a professional body.

It seems quite strange, following the axing of the General Teaching Council, that college staff will be forced to join a professional body, and pay for a privilege that few of them want.

Before joining the IfL was compulsory, membership peaked at around 1,000. It now enjoys a membership of 200,000 and says it prides itself on being member-led. The IfL must recognise the danger of misjudging or ignoring its members and, if it really is member-led as its literature so proudly states, then it needs to listen to its members and immediately axe plans to charge members.

Following the decision by UCU members to reject the plans for a £38 fee and their clear undermining of the IfL, UCU will now make preparations to ballot our members on industrial action in the form of a collective boycott of the IfL.

While I am grateful to John Hayes, the further education minister, for his genuine attempts to resolve the dispute and to UCU's negotiators for their tireless efforts to win concessions, this is the only way ahead.

There is little doubt that college employers' failure to offer any contribution towards covering fees was a factor in the ballot result. However, this does not
change the underlying problems that exist with the IfL.

As my postbag makes clear, the IfL is clearly not valued by staff working in our colleges, adult education centres and prisons. To be an effective a professional body you must enjoy the confidence of the majority of practitioners; something IFL clearly does not do.

Sally Hunt is general secretary of UCU, the largest UK union for academic-related staff working in FE