Karl Egerton@jesusmargar @simon_on_energy First, I don't believe the resolutions make it impossible to say ANYTHING about one part separate from the other, and if they did, it would be crucial to make it clear that it was impossible to have any separation. That wasn't the process followed at the BDM - they recognised, as did branch meetings, that people would have different opinions about different parts.
@jesusmargar @simon_on_energy Second, the employers probably would try to take the USS offer off the table in that case, but why simply abide by their terms? "Who is acting in good faith" is a tricky game, and by showing willingness to move forward with one part whole recognising that the other part was not good enough out would challenge the employers. They'd then have to give an account that didn't suggest they were trying to use USS to divide the universities.
Simon Waldman@kegerton @jesusmargar IMBW, but I thought these were separate negotiations between different people... (with UUK re USS, with UCEA re the rest)
@simon_on_energy @jesusmargar that's right, so saying that we were happy to put USS to the vote, and even to suspend *that* IA, but that the offer on 4F was nowhere near good enough to go out to a vote, would be a consistent stance.