The UK higher education system has recently been deadlocked by lecturers engaging in industrial action in a dispute over pay. I’ve read a lot about it, as it affects me personally, and thought I’d summarise the issues. I will try and keep this article updated as things change. I’m aiming for this to be a collection of facts rather than opinion, though obviously I have one myself. Please call me out on bias. If you find this post useful please link to it and point others here. The comments section can be used to continue the debate.
Q: What is current situation?
The “action short of a strike” has been suspended pending a vote (which is likely to be accepted) by the unions members. The universities have offered 12.5% over three years, with a committee to look at the issue again at the end of the period. Any pay docked by employers during the dispute is being returned.
The two academic unions, [AUT](http://www.aut.org.uk/) and [NATFHE](http://www.natfhe.org.uk/), demanded a 23% pay rise and the universities claimed they cannot afford that unless jobs are cut. Negotiations occurred under the auspices of [Acas](http://www.acas.org.uk/) ([ref](http://www.aut.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1669)) (an organisation dedicated to employment dispute resolution). Exams were cancelled or postponed in 19% of universities ([ref](http://education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/lecturerspay/story/0,,1781619,00.html)). According to a survey of 85 institutions by the Press Association, 39% have been affected by the AUT and Natfhe unions’ marking boycott ([ref](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5004210.stm)).
The original offer from the universities was 13.1% over 3 years ([ref](http://education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/lecturerspay/story/0,,1786764,00.html)).
The AUT and NATFHE unions have merged to form a new union, the UCU.
Q: They originally wanted a third of the topup fees, doesn’t this mean they are now asking for less?
No. The universities are claiming a 23% global pay rise across the sector is equivalent to nearly all of the top up fees. The unions dispute that and say it is affordable. The universities say they have already offered to commit to more than a third of the topup fees, which is their current best offer of 12% and that the unions have since increased their demands.
Q: What do the universities say?
1. They cannot afford a higher offer than the 12% already given. Any higher would lead to potential insolvency and job cuts. (note that despite this a new offer of 13.1% was made at the end of May)
2. They never promised to spend a third of the topup fees on wages anyway. They attribute this claim to Alan Johnson (a government minister) and not them. Alan Johnson has told the London Student that he was advised of this by [Universities UK](http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/) who he believes speaks for all universities ([ref](http://www.aut.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1495)).
3. The rest of the new money is needed to hire more people (reducing class sizes was one of the justifications for the topup fees).
4. The AUTs claim of a “meltdown” is exaggurated and most finalists are unaffected by the boycott ([ref](http://www.ucea.ac.uk/index.aspx?ContentId=78&bc=Consultations&p=Consultations)).
Q: Why are they boycotting marking?
The lecturers are claiming they have suffered wage reduction equivalent to 40% in real terms over the past twenty years, and that using the threat of disruption to students as a negotiation weapon is the only way to make the universities commit to the pay rise they want.
Q: How much do they actually earn?
The average salary for lecturers is £35,000/yr. New lecturers start at about £20k-£25k. Exact figures vary, UMIST gives £23,643 ([ref](http://www2.umist.ac.uk/staff/personnel/salaryscales/academic.htm)) and SALSA gives £26,187 ([ref](http://salsa.susu.org/)). Professors can get in the region of £50-£60k/yr ([ref](http://www.acu.ac.uk/policyandresearch/chemsurveys/1062164120.pdf)). According to the Guardian pay has consistently risen above the rate of inflation for the past 20 years. Academics are given annual pay rises under the terms of the current pay agreement.
According to the AUT, academics have had a 9% pay rise sinced 2001. The universities claim that between 2001 and 2005 academics would have had a 25% pay rise ([ref](http://education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/lecturerspay/story/0,,1689437,00.html)), using statistics from the [National Statistics Office](http://www.statistics.gov.uk/). The unions dispute that claim using statistics from the [Higher Education Statistics Agency](http://www.hesa.ac.uk/). The average graduate starting salary is £20,000, though as the qualifications needed are different this is not directly comparable.
Academic pay in the UK is roughly the same as in Europe ([ref](http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/152/F0/ACF616.pdf)). The numbers of professors becoming millionaires through commercialisation of their research is rapidly increasing ([ref](http://www.thes.co.uk/story.aspx?story_id=2027316)), though obviously this is a minority of academics.
Professor Richards, an unabashed multimillionaire, said: “Academics are making money on an unprecedented scale. I can think of 20 millionaires in Oxford alone. It is catching. My young colleagues can see that I have made a lot and yet I do normal work and haven’t sold my soul. This is also now accepted by academic peers.”
Q: Where does the 30% pay decline/40% pay rise figure come from? Who are they comparing themselves against?
This statistic is oft quoted but is the source of quite some confusion. The decline being talked about is relative – they claim pay has increased, but not as fast as it has for everybody else. The unions claim that when pay rises in professions of equivalent skill are taken into account their pay has therefore “declined”. The value given is a 30% decline, therefore a 40% rise would be needed to get back up level as 30/70 = ~42% ([ref](http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/2006/05/23/lecturers-pay/#comment-1504)).
The earliest this statistic appeared was an AUT press release from 1998 ([ref](http://web.archive.org/web/19991009114730/www.aut.org.uk/news/press98/pr98055.htm)). The figure re-appeared in 1999 through “the Bett Report”, a white paper issued by a committee set up to investigate pay in higher education. It is named after Sir Michael Bett, the chairman of the committee, which was comprised of 5 union members, 5 university members and 5 independents ([ref](http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:QCPYdxLxTdIJ:www.uwic.ac.uk/sll/assignment/The%2520Independent%2520Review%2520Committee%2520on%2520HE%2520Pay%2520and%2520Conditions%2520%E2%80%A6.pdf+bett+committee&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a)).
Unfortunately this report costs £235 ([ref](http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&From=SearchResults&ProductID=011702435X)) so I can’t give more details on how they arrived at this figure. I have only been able to find one reference to how “equivalent skill” was determined, what professions were included, whether this includes professions with unusually high salaries like CEOs etc. A report by The Times indicates the comparison was made to top public sector and civil service jobs such as police chief superintendent, and not to the equivalent private sector jobs for each subject ([ref](http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2029892)). One of the authors of the Bett report is quoted as saying:
“The last figures I looked at for mainstream levels [lecturers A and B] show they are not far off the middle of the general market in both the public and private sectors. Senior jobs were a long way off the market [at the time of the Bett report] and probably still are.” He added that there was no doubt that some of the more generously funded parts of the public sector “have very good salaries by comparison”.
The [SALSA](http://salsa.susu.org/) (Students Against Lecturer Strike Action) website gives the following table:
April 2001 April 2005 % Increase
| HE Teaching Professionals | £33,758 -£40,607 20.3% |
| All Professionals | £31,309 £36,795 17.5% |
| All Employees | £23,384 £26,884 15.0% |
It is based on statistics from the “Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings” report by the Office of National Statistics. The raw data collected by the ONS can be viewed [here](http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=14203).
Q: Why can’t academics who want better pay just move to a different university?
Salaries in academia are decided by national negotiations between the unions and UCEA. Academics are not paid relative to performance, so better lecturers cannot simply move somewhere else to earn more. Attempts to introduce performance related pay have met with failure due to union opposition ([ref](http://www.aut.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=403)). Instead pay is mostly determined by length of service ([ref](http://www.haygroup.co.uk/News/Press_room/downloads/pay_in_HE_time_for_change.pdf)).
Q: What are the alternatives to marking boycotts?
A variety of alternatives exist:
1. A research boycott
2. Getting a job outside of academia (in those cases where better pay actually exists)
3. Announcing a refusal to teach a new years intake before they arrive
4. Boycotting administration work
Q: I heard something about a merger …. ?
AUT and NATFHE have agreed to merge some time ago and the merger will complete in June/July. AUT has a reputation for being much less militant than NATFHE, some have theorised the action was triggered by the internal politics of which organisation is most influential in the new conglomerate ([ref](http://education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/lecturerspay/story/0,,1724852,00.html)).
Q: What do graduate employers say?
The Association of Graduate Recruiters has advised employers to assume graduates get their degree, or delay the start of jobs. They have asked employers not to discriminate against the graduates of 2006 because their degrees may have been awarded by a different means to normal. You can read the [full letter here](http://plan99.net/~mike/agr-email.txt).
Q: So will I graduate on time?!
AUT has instructed its members to not mark exams at all until the dispute is resolved, NAFTHE has adopted a “mark and park” policy meaning results will be released as soon as the dispute is over. Unionisation differs widely between departments and universities, how affected you are is basically pot luck.
Q: More info please?
Look at [the AUT Boycott Petition](http://www.aut-boycott.co.uk/), [official AUT website](http://www.aut.org.uk), the [Guardian Coverage](http://education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/lecturerspay/), or [UCEA - employers association](http://www.ucea.ac.uk).
Got something to say? Leave your comments below!
(here is a backlink to [lecturers pay](http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/2006/05/23/lecturers-pay/) for google)
May 23, 2006 at 8:41 pm |
Disclaimer: I am an academic not in the AUT who is not on strike.
This seems to me to be a bit biased in favour of the universities’ side of the story. To put the other side on one or two points:
“A 20% global pay rise across the sector is equivalent to nearly all of the top up fees” — I’m aware that’s what UCEA says, but AUT/NAFTHE say different, and I know of nowhere that has calculated the actual figures for us to check so I don’t think it’s possible to say who’s right.
There is room for scepticism on how bad exactly academics wages are – obviously the AUT spins it to sound as bad as possible – but it’s uncontroversial that lecturers’ wages have fallen behind schoolteachers’ wages, to take just one example which is pretty directly comparable. The Universities have acknowledged for years that bigger pay rises were called for but used lack of funds to justify not doing so. The point at issue is not whether lecturers deserve more, but whether the employers can afford to pay more. They say no, but are they telling the truth?
On starting salaries: Graduate starting salary is not a good point of comparison. A graduate starting at 20K is likely to be at least 6-8 years younger than a lecturer starting on 25K. Thus, the “starting pay” for a lecturer is not really the starting pay for the profession, because most academics have been in the profession for at least a couple of years before that, working for peanuts and no pension. That’s before you take into account the years of study for a Master’s and a PhD. What is a graduate who started on 20K on by the time they are 30?
The millionaire issue is a smokescreen. Commericalisation applies only in a small number of fields (the sciences, management). 20 millionaires in Oxford sounds impressive until you realise (a) Oxford is bloody huge and 20 is a tiny minority and (b) Oxford is a world-renowned research powerhouse. Not exactly reflective of what goes on across the sector as a whole, particularly the very large number of teaching-led new universities. Not to mention that professor’s wages aren’t an issue in the current action, as they are separately negotiated.
“Alternatives to marking boycotts”: you are a bit disingenuous here as you mix up things an individual academic can do with things the union can do. Obviously the unions can’t tell their members to leave the sector en masse, and equally obviously an individual academic can’t decide to boycott anything without being in breach of contract.
The harsh fact about a strike is that it has to inconvenience a client group, or there is no pressure on the employers. Boycotting research doesn’t inconvenience anyone except on a very long timescale (2-5 years). Since university metrics for measuring research outputs also deal in very long timespans (at least a year), universities wouldn’t have any way of telling if a given employee had boycotted research until maybe a year had passed. No one wants industrial action on that timescale.
Boycotting teaching is much harder to un-do after the fact than boycotting assessment – marking backlogs can be cleared over summer, but if students miss (say) a term’s teaching that will never be caught up: there is a limit to how much you can jam into an 18-year-old’s head in any given week.
One option you don’t mention is boycotting admin. I have yet to hear any discussion of the pros and cons of this, however clearly AUT decided against it, I would be glad to hear why.
The merger is probably an important factor in the upper echelons of the AUT, but I can’t see how it would be having an effect on union members at the chalk face, among whom the mood is more militant than it has been for a long time.
May 23, 2006 at 9:05 pm |
Oh and I should add: performance-related pay is a reality for lecturers, in effect if not in name, because to reach the better-paid upper grades (Lecturer B, Senior Lecturer, etc. – let alone Professor) a strong record in teaching, in research and/or in bringing in research funding is an absolute must.
It is certainly untrue to give the impression that lecturers are under no pressure to perform, or that their career progression does not depend on their performance. On the contrary the pressures are greater than ever, just as is the case in most other industries.
May 23, 2006 at 9:30 pm |
One last comment: the 25% academic pay raise in 2001-2005 you cite from a Guardian article from January, which gives in its second paragraph a much more conservative estimate of 9% from the union.
I’m sure both figures are “correct”, given the assumptions that went into calculating the statistics. But which set of assumptions is most reasonable? I have no idea since I don’t know what those assumptions are. But you should, at least, cite both figures if you want to avoid the appearance of bias.
May 24, 2006 at 4:14 am |
You seem to compare graduate salaries with lecturers starting salary? Please be aware that graduate salaries are for people with one degree – where as a lecturer will have 3 degrees – consisting of at least 3 more years (and usually 5) of living on grants and often building up debts. You can only really compare average graduate salaries after 3/4 years with lecturer starting salary.
May 24, 2006 at 4:40 am |
Sorry, good effort but riddled with inaccuracies:
>Q: They originally wanted 30% of the topup fees, doesn’t this mean they are now asking for less?
No we asked for a third of the incoming top-up fees payment. Not 30%
>No. A 20% global pay rise across the sector is equivalent to nearly all of the top up fees. The universities have already offered to commit to a third of the topup fees, which is their current best offer of 12%. The unions have since increased their demands.
Wrong again, this is utter nonsense and comes from the UCEA propaganda machine, which is where most of you figures come from. They refuse to include the extra money put in by government ON TOP of the top-up fee monies. This extra money is a 5.8% increase in funding.
Also see Hansard for the quote from Alan Johnson on at least a third of extra monies going into lecturers pay:
“The shortfall of teaching funding has badly hit the salaries of academic staff, which have shown practically no increase in real terms over two decades.”
That is one of the reasons why we are pursuing the controversial measures in the Higher Education Bill. Not only are we putting in an extra £3 billion from the taxpayer, but an extra £2 billion will come through existing fees and through the increase. University vice-chancellors tell us that, in general, at least a third of that money will be put back into the salaries and conditions of their staff. That will make an enormous contribution in tackling a very serious and deep-seated problem.”
Full transcript available at http://www.parliament.uk
Search for University Salaries on 29 April 2004.
>Q: Where does the 40% pay decline figure come from? Who are they comparing themselves against?
Not from UCEA propaganda nor the unions from INDEPENDENT government committees (Dearing, Bett) with no axe to grind. We are not “comparing” uselves to anyone. The independent government committees are comparing our comparative pay to other professionals THAT THEY say carry out similar roles in terms of value: These are teachers on the upper pay scale and Headteachers, police inspectors, chief insepctors and police superintendents, and doctors and specialist consultants.
> The universities claim that between 2001 and 2005 academics would have had a 25% pay rise
These again are figures from UCEA which include standard increments and bonuses. Nor does it take into account the fact that most academics are stuck at the top of their salary scales and do not get incremental increases. The statistics are taken from the National statistics office
The union statistics that contradict this nonsense come from HESA – much more appropriately the Higher Education Statistics Agency!
>Q: What are the alternatives to marking boycotts?
1. A research boycott
The RAE happens in 2008, most of the substantive research has been done. A research boycott will have zero effect on UCEA. This dispute is happening, and will have to be resolved now.
2. Getting a job outside of academia (in those cases where better pay actually exists)
Great, lets entirely denude universities of staff as a protest against higher pay!
3. Announcing a refusal to teach a new years intake before they arrive
Again, this dispute is happening, and will have to be resolved now, as this is the time when pay is negotiated. Some distant threat of future action carries no weight whatsoever.
May 24, 2006 at 5:10 am |
p.s. on the millionaires theme. An absolutely tiny proportion of academics are earning this kind of money – normally in the bio industries. It’s a bit like comparing Wayne Rooney’s income with someone in division 3!
May 24, 2006 at 6:05 am |
JJust to comment on your answers:
“The unions are demanding a 20% pay rise”. This is over 3 years, though obviously still a substantial payrise.
“A 20% pay rise is equivalent to nearly all of the top up fees”. Academics get a pay rise every year from normal government funding, – the last few years it has been around 3.5%. It is the extra money on top of this that should count as coming from top-up fees, not the whole increase. This year’s offer (3% now and 1% in 6 months) is less than an addition 0.5% on top of the normal pay increase.
“average salary for lecturers is £35,000/yr”. That seems fairly accurate to me and is above the average salary for the population. What you need to bear in mind is that generally people don’t become lecturers until their late 20s or early 30s (after several years doing Post Docs or hourly paid work). I bet if you look at the average salary for people over 30 with a first class degree and a PhD it will be well over 35k.
You seem slightly unconvinced that academic salaries have declined in the last 20 years. According to this Guardian article:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/lecturerspay/story/0,,1778500,00.html
“Between 1981 and 2001, non-manual average earnings rose by 57.6% above inflation. Over the same period, lecturers’ pay increased by at most by 7.1%”. So, they have basically declined in comparison to everyone. Of course you can argue if you wish that they were overpaid in 1981!
According to the government (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=10) average pay increased by 4.2% this year, so if academics accept the current offer they will be falling even further behind.
Finally, you give some alternatives to marking boycotts. A research boycott would take several years to be effective so is not a possibility. “Getting a job outside academia” is a very popular option already (you try recruiting lecturers in computing, law, economics, etc in the south east and you will soon find this is true). In fact, this is exactly what I did a couple of years ago, but it doesn’t seem to be having much effect on salaries. A refusal to teach new first years might work, but couldn’t start until October when the next academic year starts. Hopefully things will be sorted out before then.
May 24, 2006 at 6:14 am |
Academics starting salaries are more like £19K
May 24, 2006 at 6:18 am |
Well, I think that much of what you say is mis-informed and doesn’t relate to the facts. But putting all that aside, what really bothers me is that no one is looking at the way that the lecturers job has changed in the last ten years. On average I do 15 hours a week more work than is suggested in EU guidelines. This means that I have little time for the research that I am supposed to do as well, or the scholarship that I ought to be completing to keep up-to-date with developments in my field of study. We are now not just supposed to be good teachers and researchers but also carry a large part of the increasing administrative burden that faces most HE institutions. And with increasing numbers in HE there are more students with personal difficulties and troublesome circumstances, so another portion of my time is taking up with counselling. I don’t resent this at all but it is part of the reason why lecturers want to be paid a fair wage. The point about millionaire lecturers is very misleading. That is a tiny minority and is certainly not a path open to most academics! I am 44 and earn £33,000 a year. My niece, who works as an internal communications manager for a restaurant chain is 33 and earns more than I do. Good luck to her and all others who do well and are rewarded for their work. We just want our wages to in some way reflect the job that we do – in the same way that the Vice Chancellors have seen fit to reward themselves by much more than the 15% over three years that we realistically think we might get (23% is a negotiating figure not a final demand.) I think it is great that you have started this site but I also think that you need to make sure that you have a balanced view presented here.
May 24, 2006 at 8:58 am |
Just to chime in my 2 cents from the point of a view of a final year student. I understand that the current pay situation across Universities is less than ideal. While I’m not fully versed on all sides of the argument (and will thus refrain from making any wide-ranging comments) I do feel the course of action being taken by the unions is disruptive to the point where you begin to lose favour with the people you most need the backing from…. your students.
I have always assumed people teach because they enjoy it, so what point is there in alienating your primary audience. Certainly, this is true for final year students whose futures may be severely affected by this short term, and seemingly short-sighted action. While I admit there is no easy solution to this issue, I personally, and I know many of my friends feel the same, are appalled at the idea that lecturers and professors that we have worked with and been taught by for several years would suddenly do this and potentially put our near term employment prospects at risk.
I know of several examples where people are in genuinely serious situations where they will miss placements and work experience opportunities that could well provide them with a long term, successful position, if this strike action goes ahead and affects their final results.
Just seems like a lose-lose situation for all at present.
May 24, 2006 at 8:59 am |
Thanks for your comments everybody. I’ve done some minor changes to a few sections in response to the points made here. A few things:
I don’t directly compare lecturers salaries to graduate starting salaries. The figure is provided because it turns out most graduates don’t know it (actually until I looked it up neither did I). Some finalists have never had a professional job and so find it hard to relate the figures to some point of reference. I’ve made it clear the figures aren’t directly comparable now.
The millionaire quote I think will stay. It’s just funny, and to be honest there aren’t all that many jobs where you can get paid to do research and then still become millionaires through its commercialisation.
Tina – there aren’t any statistics or hard facts about whether the job has changed in the past ten years. I’m reluctant to try and compare the “difficulty” of different jobs because I don’t see any valid way to do that. And to be brutally honest, my parents (both of whom have experience of working in HE) have often made comments implying that academics over-estimate their workload relative to other jobs.
I would rather avoid talking about VC salaries as at least one VC has said they don’t set their own wages, and it’s done by committee when they are not present. Saying they “reward themselves” would seem to be misleading. I find VC pay rises in current conditions quite tasteless as well but this is a general problem with our society and not something unique to HE (see the ExxonMobil executive pay rises in times when some Americans are pawning their jewellery to afford gas for instance).
Luc – give me a credible reference and I’ll include that.
May 24, 2006 at 10:18 am |
Mike, you’ve actually got the graduate starting salary wrong – it’s currently £17,029, as stated in last year’s Destination of Leavers of Higher Education Survey, from HESA – look for the press release on the HESA web site. It’s irrelevent anyway, as you really need to compare with the average starting salary of a PhD graduate. Which is not publically available (…yet), but which is a little over 24k.
I can help you out with Luc’s reference. It’s actually the Association of Commonwealth Universities survey you misquote in your salaries section. Where you say “New lecturers start at about £25,000″, in the survey, the figure you are quoting is actually in (converted) US dollars, and the sterling value is on page 32 of the report – £19,496. Page 38 has the AUT salary scales, the bottom of which was, at the time of the report, £21,913. That report is unequivocal that UK academics are the lowest paid in the Commonwealth, apart from Malaysia.
Sarah, what little data is available suggests that the average salary for graduates at age 30 is about 30k. Not that it’s relevant.
I am not an academic, but I have a certain professional interest.
May 24, 2006 at 10:38 am |
So far this is the best blog on the net about what’s happening.
May 24, 2006 at 11:05 am |
“Alan Hansard” is not a government minister. Check out the original link…
May 24, 2006 at 11:10 am |
You must remember that there are many university workers who are ‘academic related’. In my department over half of the workers are Contract Research Scientists with an average age of 37.
These people are NOT on an average of £35k and have the twin worries of a lack of job security and restrictions on the recognition that you get for things that you do. The latter can be an issue as it can hinder your career.
I would say that the CRS staff are on something between £20-£30k. This can be easily seen by looking at the job adverts like:
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/jobfiles/RE927.html
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/jobfiles/JI436.html
May 24, 2006 at 11:14 am |
> Tina – there aren’t any statistics or hard facts about whether the job has changed in the past ten years.
Some context which might throw the above claim into doubt:
Academics suffer more stress than A&E staff
The study, produced for the Association of University Teachers, found that 49 per cent of academics had levels of psychological distress that required treatment. This compared with 44 per cent of A&E consultants, 38 per cent of nurses and 27 per cent of the general population.
THES, Published: 17 February 2006
and evidence of absurd levels of red tape.
Deal aims to cut university red tape
Donald MacLeod
Wednesday May 24, 2006 (The Guardian)
Not to mention the huge increase in student numbers (sorry no data to hand).
May 24, 2006 at 11:23 am |
Yeh Mike “Hansard” is the daily report that documents what was said in the House of Commons.
May 24, 2006 at 11:36 am |
Dr Tom – Oops, that was a dumb thinko, thanks for catching it. I’ll change it to Alan Johnson.
I’ll be away for the next two days so I’ve disabled moderation here. I have an anti-spam system that works well but some may get through anyway.
May 24, 2006 at 11:41 am |
And another thinko (should read comments on web page not email!), my thanks should also go to Striking Lecturer for catching that mistake
May 24, 2006 at 11:45 am |
Mike thanks for the site. I hope it doesn’t get overrun with some of the offensive postings we’re seeing on other blogs.
May 24, 2006 at 12:08 pm |
I will edit (or delete) any comment that violates the following rules:
* No direct personal attacks on other posters or myself
* No excessive use of swearing, sarcasm or other unhelpful types of discussion
* No advertising viagra
I updated the article again taking into account the comments -> it now says new lecturer starting salary is between 20 and 25k as that seems to be the range agreed upon by the different sources. It’s quite a wide disparity but that’s what I get for relying on the internet for information
Good catch from Ken McKenzie, however the report is a few years old now and the figures seem to have gone upwards since then. I’ve put them all in as a compromise.
May 24, 2006 at 12:27 pm |
So what about the claim from the employers that the fees available to pay the wages stand at 1.35billion pounds while the pay increase of 12.6% would cost 1.6billion pounds? Looking at the HESA’s numbers for total staff and the “estimated” number of domestic students in higher education these figures would seem to make sense. Where’s the catch if there is one?
May 24, 2006 at 12:53 pm |
Lee… That figure does not take into account the money that was already set aside for pay rises. Unless we were not going to get a pay rise this year?
May 24, 2006 at 1:06 pm |
Lee: also UCEA have not included the xtra money from government (5.8% increase in funding) especially put aside by government to add to the top-up fees figures to increase pay.
May 24, 2006 at 1:10 pm |
The question is though, and I only have rough figures to actually compare anything so they’re no good, if the 1.35billion is *all* of the top up fees or a third of them. From the figures I can find it’s all of the top up fees. And how much does the 5.8% equate to?
May 24, 2006 at 1:20 pm |
The 5.8% is an increase on the annual teaching grant from the funding council which I think for this year is £9.5 billion (with the increase), so a pretty substantial amount. Someone needs to check these figures as I’m getting them second hand.
May 24, 2006 at 1:28 pm |
Right, so that totals up to the amount “available” being just over 1.9billion pounds. The question still is whether than 1.35billion pounds is all the top up fees or just a third of them I guess. /me shrugs
May 24, 2006 at 1:41 pm |
The statement of the former higher education Minister Alan Johnson in the House of Commons on 29 April 2004:
Not only are we putting in an extra £3 billion from the taxpayer, but
an extra £2 billion will come through existing fees and through the increase. University vicechancellors tell us that, in general, at least a third of that money will be put back into the salaries and conditions of their staff. That will make an enormous contribution in tackling a very serious and deep-seated problem.
So that suggests that 3 bn is being given by the government on top of the top-up fees.
May 24, 2006 at 1:49 pm |
Mike, UMIST no longer exists, so their payscales are not really a helpful resource.
SALSA are not objective, and I’m fascinated by their calculations from the ASHE. Why use calculated weekly earnings X 52, when the link you have so helpfully provided has annual earnings already laid out for you on table 14.7a – I’ll be nice and repeat them for you.
Mean salary for all HE teaching professionals (and according to ASHE, there are 116 thousand of them): £34,432. Range – £19,281 (20th percentile) to £44,005. I will stress this is for all staff – full and part time (part time, in this context, being less than 30 hours a week).
Now there are two issues here. The first is that the SOC breakdown in ASHE – the level of detail of the occupational classes, in other words – is not sufficient to do a really good analysis here – the profs (who are generally not unionised) are grouped in with the guys on 19k.
And the other issue is that SALSA aren’t reporting these figures, and instead have used the same source, but to calculate a different set of figures. If we could see their methodology, I might be reassured that their figures are sound, but I fail to see why they’ve chosen to recalculate figures that are already available.
I will merely observe that in 2001, the survey used was the New Earnings Survey – a different survey to the one now being used, and not directly comparable.
First rule of research – never quote figures when you can’t be sure where they came from!
May 24, 2006 at 1:58 pm |
Ken, the timescales being talked about in this dispute are huge and UMIST “ceased to exist” (merged) in October 2004, so I don’t think that makes its figures invalid.
I don’t know why SALSA chose to recalculate the figures, we’d have to ask them. However they were comparing figures across a range of years, maybe the figures for previous years were only available in average weekly earnings format.
Your rule is a fine one but if I followed it I’d be unable to give the AUTs 40% figure at all, as it comes from a report that isn’t publically available to those who don’t feel like blowing £200+ on a committee report. Given that the whole campaign is being justified to students through that statistic I feel it should be mentioned anyway.
May 24, 2006 at 2:24 pm |
Mike the 40% number is widely quoted in the recent HE debate on top-up fees and was referenced to Dearing. This knowledge is in the public domain. The SALSA figures are bizarre, I have no idea where they come from. They make good agit-prop for angry students I suppose
May 24, 2006 at 2:33 pm |
The SALSA comparison tables are completely disengenous as they don’t compare like with like. A better comparison based on Bett was given last week in the times higher. I can’t post the link as its a graphic but it does compare lecturers pay with equivalent police, teaching and medical practitoners. I could email you the table and story if it helps?
May 24, 2006 at 2:41 pm |
Mike,
‘Maybe’ is not good enough if you are going to quote figures as fact.
The figures for previous years are available for hourly, weekly and annual earnings back to 1997. So that explanation for SALSA’s figures does not wash. The onus is on them to ensure their numbers are credible.
The AUTs figure is different. The Bett Report was way back in 1999, and is an official document which has been widely read. Just because something can’t be Googled, doesn’t mean it can’t be checked – and I would like to think that if the AUT were claiming something from the Bett Report that wasn’t actually true, someone, like, say Sir Michael Bett, or the guys from UCEA who will have been involved in the steering group might have mentioned it.
As an amusing aside, this BBC story on the Bett Report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/375548.stm (warning, very old) mentions this: “The Association of University Teachers, which last month staged a one-day strike in pursuit of a 10% pay rise for this year, said the report backed their claim for a substantial increase.”
This is not a new dispute.
As to UMIST – you’re talking to a UMIST graduate who knows people who used to be on the UMIST payscale. You don’t want your blog derailed by ‘hilarious’ discussions of how Manchester have handled contracts since 2004, so let me just observe that you’d do better to find another academic payscale as UMIST is not typical, or even used any more.
May 24, 2006 at 2:47 pm |
http://www.thes.co.uk/search/story.aspx?story_id=2029892
link to the thes story for you…..
May 24, 2006 at 2:52 pm |
summary of Bett on the AUT site:
http://www.aut.org.uk/media/html/studentretention1.html
“Pay and starting salaries
Pay shortfalls for academic and related staff in recent years have clearly contributed to recruitment and retention problems among staff. Over the past two decades academic and academic-related staff in the pre-92 sector and academic staff in the post-92 sector have seen very little genuine increase in their salaries. In fact, their pay has been cut in real terms in nine of the years between 1981-82 and 2000-01. The 1999 Bett report showed that academics’ pay has fallen 30 per cent behind average earnings for non-manual employees in the UK since 1981, a finding which supports data in recent pay claims by The AUT. ”
Bett was in 99, since then pay has continuued to fall in line with other professions, so a figure of between 30 and 40 % is fair.
May 24, 2006 at 3:05 pm |
I see you’ve already referenced that thes story so apologies. It’s table should be set up against the SALSA one though.
May 24, 2006 at 3:15 pm |
Dr Tom, looking at this press release from a source I think we can all agree is unlikely to be biased, the Campaign for Science and Engineering (then Save British Science)
http://www.savebritishscience.org.uk/documents/1999/SBS9924.html
It would appear that the figure cited by Bett might actually have originated from the AUT in the first place, as, in quoting Bett, Peter Cotgreave cites an AUT press release from 1998 as the source of the figure of a 36% reduction in real salaries since 1981. The AUT web site only holds press releases back to 2000.
That does raise certain problematic questions about the provenance of the figure, even as it shows how old this dispute is and how relatively well-behaved the AUT have been about it.
I don’t mistrust it to the level that I mistrust SALSA’s data, but I don’t like the fact that it seems to arise from a source that is not impartial in the dispute.
May 24, 2006 at 4:10 pm |
Ken, I’m not sure Cotgreave does say that the source of the Bett report’s statement originates in the AUT. In the AUT round-up of Bett, they say that the conclusions that he draws about real-term pay decrease tally with recent AUT assessments. As you rightly point out elsewhere, such is the widespread use of the 40% figure, that’s it’s almost unthinkable that someone involved with Bett would have refuted it by now. Certainly UCEA would have been all over it like a rash as it would have hugely increased their case.
May 24, 2006 at 5:41 pm |
The AUT website only goes back to the year 2000 but archive.org rememebers all:
http://web.archive.org/web/19991009114730/www.aut.org.uk/news/press98/pr98055.htm
And indeed this appears to be the first mention of the 40% “real terms” figure – before the Bett report. Very interesting.
May 24, 2006 at 7:03 pm |
Just a comment on the issue of professors not being unionised. This may still be true in places, but not everywhere. The professors I know are among the most militant in the pay dispute. Notable since they’ve nothing to gain personally from the matter at all. Maybe it’s because the dispute has been going on so long, they were all Lecturer As when it started! (joke)
To summarise what I think the gist has been on the pay bill: the employers had money budgeted for the normal annual increase (presumably c. 3% of payroll??), plus as new money they’ve got 3 billion from the gov, plus they’ve got top-up fees. So the union is actually asking for the money already set aside, PLUS 1/3 of the new money. UCEA says that their current offer is equal to ALL the top-up fee money, but that’s a distraction because it won’t all come from top-up fees, some will come from the gov’s 3 billion and some from that pot of money already set aside, so the proportion of top-up fees that will go on staff according to the current offer is nowhere near 100% despite what UCEA says.
Have I understood it right? (Head aching)
May 24, 2006 at 7:21 pm |
Another comment (sorry, I just can’t leave it alone.) How many of the students, here and on other blogs, who complain about the strike action, have actually written to their VCs to complain, or to threaten legal action to recover tuition fees for unobtained degrees?
Rumour has it that the relatively few threats that have been received already are putting the wind up the VCs. Imagine if every student whose graduation is in jeopardy were to write to their VC that they were considering suing. The pay claim would be settled, and the lecturers back marking exams, in two days flat.
May 25, 2006 at 1:43 am |
These figures from SALSA of academic payrises between 2001 and 2005 are weird. I make a rise of 20.3% over four years equal to 4.7% each year. I was a research assistant in those years and I don’t remember the pay rise in any year being that good. Looking at my pay it only went up just over this amount including annual increments on the salary scale. So how come SALSA are claiming the average went up 20.3%?
Or are they including increments on the salary scale as well? I notice the first paragraph says that a pay increase of 12% would mean a lecturer’s salary went from £24K to £30K. Hmmmmm. Gosh, does this mean that if they changed the annual increments on the salary scale to around 4% per year they would never have to give lecturer’s a pay rise again?
May 25, 2006 at 3:14 am |
Mike, that press release does indeed give the figure, but does not give any indication of where it originally arises. If, as Dr. Tom suggests, the Bett Report corroborates the AUT figure rather than using it, then there is no issue (and there is not a very large issue anyway). One thing the press release does show is that the AUT have been trying to get this problem resolved for at least 8 years, and that all previous attempts have failed.
Dr. Tom, Mike – I don’t think there is any argument that lecturers are badly underpaid, have been for a considerable time, and that this has been widely and officially understood for several years. It just leaves the AUT in a stronger position if the figure they are using to demonstrate the extent of this issue is both reproducible by other people, and preferably emanates from an impartial source. Otherwise, those people who choose to disbelieve it, have grounds to do so.
As you say, though, if it were fundamentally unsound, I’m sure UCEA would have demonstrated it long ago.
May 25, 2006 at 3:17 am |
Sorry Dr. Tom – what I forgot to mention is that in Cotgreave’s statement, he explicitly references the AUT as the source of the pay gap figure cited in Bett. I’m sure you will understand when I say that the AUT press release on Bett is not sufficiently impartial on this issue for me to use it as the sole reference source!
May 25, 2006 at 3:20 am |
Ken, I think I’ve nailed it: [This is from Natfhe's memorandum submitted to the select committe on education and skills](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=bett%20report%20higher%20education%20pay&ALL=bett%20report&ANY=Higher%20education%20pay&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=muscat_highlighter_first_match&URL=/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeduski/479/479we12.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match)
If this link doesn’t work go to Hansard and search for “Select Committee Report (9 March 2006) House of Commons – Education and Skills – Written Evidence”
“The extent of that disparity in earnings was estimated to be 30% by the Bett Committee[6], which recommended that academic salaries should be increased by that amount in order to close the gap between academic pay and the pay of comparable professional groups.”
The citation is direct to the report at the bottom of the page. I would say that this is hard proof (as it was submitted as evidence to a select committe) that at the very least the 30% figure ascribed to Bett is accurate. The 40% figure obviously originates in the previous AUT brief that you’ve found.
_Edit: fix page formatting by converting link_
May 25, 2006 at 3:34 am |
In fact, if you go through Hansard, this 30% figure is ascribed to the Bett report regularily both in the commons, lords, committe minutes etc. It’s normally framed as “Bett estimates a 30% reduction”. IMHO this pretty much clarifies the fact that the figure is generated by Bett and not a re-tread from AUT figures.
May 25, 2006 at 5:21 am |
Tom, that seems fair enough to me. As I say, not disputing the essential issue, but am keen to check the provenance of the Bett figure. You’ve just saved me the job of going down the road to look it up, as well.
Is that original Parliament link actually the longest on the entire web?
May 25, 2006 at 6:22 am |
The real cause of the problem is the chronic funding of higher education in this country – what a shame that, instead of wasting energy and good will by tearing at each other, the employers are not joining with the staff and the students to turn to the government to say: Enough is enough. Fund the sector properly, and then we can provide a proper environment with well motivated staff where students can get value for money in terms of teaching and resources. That is the only way this dispute could be settled, really, and without damaging bad feeling on all sides. We are letting the REAL culprits get away with it….
May 25, 2006 at 6:22 am |
Ken, I think that there are 2 sets of figures. An AUT figure of around 36% from a report prior to Bett, and a *real* i.e. unbiased figure of 30% from Bett. Over time the provenance of these stats has become confused.
That’s a long link true, it’s gone right of the edge of my browser through the side of my computer
May 25, 2006 at 6:37 am |
One of the absurdities of academic funding is that it is an industry in which the value of the service is determined exclusively by the buyer (ie the government). My institution is independent (ie not government-owned) and chartered, it educates its students to a very high standard, and for this service the government allocates us £1400 for every English student over local authority revenues and zero for each Scottish student. At the same time we are tolkd we lack the funds to promote our staff, pay them deceebntly, or take on new staff. Funny old world.
May 25, 2006 at 6:41 am |
Tom, that was the conclusion I’d come to as well – at least it seems clearer, and the two stats are both not too far apart, and also a pretty serious indictment of the level of lecturer’s pay.
J, the big problem as I understand it, is that the Government would be quite happy to fund HE as it needs to be funded. Unfortunately, everytime they have tried to discuss it, someone pipes up with ‘What, you want to take money away from hospitals and schools and give it to students’, and it all goes wrong.
It’s not the Government you need to convince. It’s the public. And over 70% of them have not been to university. So the HE sector does lose out and always will. Ironically, the only real way, in the long term, to make sure that money spent on universities is not seen as ‘taking money from kids and the elderly to spend on scruffy layabouts’, is to make sure that half the population have used the system.
May 25, 2006 at 7:39 am |
Or for a government to actually have the balls to *govern*, stand up to the tabloid bullies and take the right long-term decisions for the benefit of the country. Knowledge economy anyone?
May 25, 2006 at 8:20 am |
Well yes, Tom. I do have a certain degree of sympathy, though, since setting up a scheme does nobody any good if it loses you an election and the other lot then proceed to dismantle it.
We need a grown-up media as much as we need a mature government, and I fear the latter is actually more likely than the former.
May 25, 2006 at 8:23 am |
…that said, the Govt have a lamentable record in selling change in HE. Look at the ‘debate’ around 50% university participation, based on very sound, independent economic projections (inasmuch as any economic projections are ’sound’), and yet the Govt have never had the stones to properly explain why on earth they’re trying to do it. Even something like ‘If we don’t we’ll all end up working in call centres outsourced from India, and I bet you won’t appreciate that irony’ would be a start.
May 25, 2006 at 8:50 am |
If “Bett estimates a 30% reduction” means that lecturers earn 70% of comparable other professions, then they would need a 40% increase in their salaries to get to the same level (ie. 30/70 = ~42%). I always thought this was where the two figures came from and the unions phrase it as a 40% increase because it sounds more impressive.
May 25, 2006 at 9:08 am |
Well spotted Sarah. Mike’s going to be busy updating when he gets back.
May 27, 2006 at 6:04 am |
The rumour is that the offer will be 11% over two years.
May 27, 2006 at 6:27 am |
To just approach this one from a qualitative angle for a moment, rather than relying on ‘damn statistics’….
It seems to me that one of the key aspects of academia is that it is a job that allows people to do what they love and enjoy for a living. I would imagine that the vast majority of people in finance – for example – are doing jobs that they really are far less interested in and are motivated by the monetary reward. If pay were lower, people wouldn’t do these jobs.
As a student who really enjoys my work, if I chose to go into academia it will be for the love of it, not for financial reward. If this is the case with a job then people have to accept that wages will be lower; its an economic reality.
There will always, thus, be academics, no matter what the pay is. Now I have personally been surprised at how highly academics get payed; I always thought that it was much lower (speaking from someone who’s parent is in Further Education, as opposed to HE) than the figures suggest.
That said, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be equivalent to teaching salaries; what percentage rise would be needed to make these approximately equivalent?
Oh, and as an aside – and I’m not for a moment suggesting that these make up for the shortfall in pay – how much do academics make from book sales/published papers? Is it significant at all or a paltry amount?
May 27, 2006 at 7:20 am |
It should be considerably more than teaching salaries; there’s no comparison between the levels of expertise required.
Academics in general make absolutely nothing from published books and papers.
May 27, 2006 at 7:38 am |
I’ll update the article in a few minutes with Sarahs and Dr Toms observations.
A few bits of my own opinion now:
1) Many people saying a thing does not make it true (obviously – otherwise the world would be flat). “Everybody knows lecturers are underpaid” is not an interesting argument to me. We students lack context – for many of us the first we heard of this dispute was when our marks didn’t come back. I’ve heard many people, including staff at this university, say lecturers are not underpaid.
2) The fact that the dispute is long running is likewise uninteresting to me. Lecturers are not oppressed or dying through lack of safety. The only thing the unions can do for their members is demand more pay. So of course there has been a “long running dispute” – no matter how much is awarded in pay rises the unions will always want more because that is what unions do. If their members were happy with every aspect of their employment the unions would become worthless and Sally Hunt would be out of a job.
3) The committee that wrote the Bett report had 5 representatives from AUT/NATFHE on it. I find it entirely plausible that the unions came up with the 30% decline figure and this somehow filtered into the report without much criticial scrutiny.
4) I have serious doubts about any figures extrapolated from the differences between lecturers and senior police chiefs; two entirely different jobs that require entirely different skills and levels of experience. In fact the two jobs don’t have anything in common at all.
It would have been more valid to compare the wages of a Professor of Archaeology to an archaeologist, or a lecturer in English to that of an authors. But I suspect those figures would not have given the unions the results they wanted so they ignored in favour of figures based on the un-argued idea that academics are naturally worth as much as [insert random senior public sector job here].
May 27, 2006 at 7:47 am |
“It would have been more valid to compare the wages of a Professor of Archaeology to an archaeologist, or a lecturer in English to that of an authors.”
Why? These strike me as two completely meaningless analogies. What possible criterion could usefully encompass a Junior Lecturer in English and J. K. Rowling?
May 27, 2006 at 8:20 am |
They both practice the profession of English?
If somebody teaches a subject it seems fair to compare the job to somebody who actually does it as that way the skills needed will overlap a fair bit. It’s definitely more fair than comparing two jobs where the skills required are totally different like lecturer in English and medical consultant.
May 27, 2006 at 8:43 am |
Mike: *The committee that wrote the Bett report had 5 representatives from AUT/NATFHE on it.*
Mike, if there is one thing you can’t accuse of bias it is an independent government report. Even UCEA don’t dispute Bett.
Of course union reps would have been involved along with a significant number of representatives from the employers and indpendent government committe members. These kinds of reports are absolutely rigorously put together as they are used to inform governmental policy. The 30% would have, have to of seen to be watertight.
*I have serious doubts about any figures extrapolated from the differences between lecturers and senior police chiefs;*
well that’s your perogative, but again this is Bett which was agreed to by both employers and unions. As such to compare public sector workers with other public sector workers is an entirely reasonable methodology.
*Many people saying a thing does not make it true (obviously – otherwise the world would be flat). *
Which is entirely why the Bett report is so important, as it shows through rigorous research and independent process that academic pay needed an upwards adjustment, i.e not opion or anecdote.
May 27, 2006 at 8:48 am |
But the analogy doesn’t make sense because you paying lecturers for their pedagogical skills: neither the archaeologist, not Ms Rowling, are assumed or required to have any.
May 27, 2006 at 8:51 am |
Rob: *It seems to me that one of the key aspects of academia is that it is a job that allows people to do what they love and enjoy for a living.*
As do many jobs: doctors, journalists, politicians countless others who get paid what they are worth. Sorry not sure what point you’re making here?
*As a student who really enjoys my work, if I chose to go into academia it will be for the love of it, not for financial reward. *
Well sorry, it’s easy to say that when you’re a student. Try having a family, buying somewhere decent to live and looking after kids before you make statements like that.
*That said, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be equivalent to teaching salaries; what percentage rise would be needed to make these approximately equivalent?*
Teachers are not experts in their field. Teachers are less qualified, teachers do not do research, teachers do not write and set-up courses, teachers do not do fund-raising. I could go on, but you get the point.
*how much do academics make from book sales/published papers? Is it significant at all or a paltry amount?* Generally nothing for papers (I’ve never received a penny), and next to nothing from book sales. Last year my first book earnt me £40. It took me nearly 3 years to write.
May 27, 2006 at 8:56 am |
*They both practice the profession of English?
If somebody teaches a subject it seems fair to compare the job to somebody who actually does it as that way the skills needed will overlap a fair bit. *
And why not journalists? You’d be amazed at how much material journalists derive directly from academic research. That’s the difference, academics create the knowledge, that journalists and other writers derive their writing from.
BTW. I’ve never met an archeologist who wasn’t an academic. Even Indiana Jones was an academic…..
May 27, 2006 at 9:03 am |
Mike: *Many people saying a thing does not make it true (obviously – otherwise the world would be flat). “Everybody knows lecturers are underpaid” is not an interesting argument to me .*
That’s why we have independent reports….
*The fact that the dispute is long running is likewise uninteresting to me*
You can’t complain in the same breath that students haven’t been given the context of the dispute, and then say that the history of the dispute isn’t important to the discussion. What is history if not context?
May 27, 2006 at 10:24 am |
Andy, I said the jobs overlapped more than they’d overlap between English lecturer and police chief, not that they overlapped exactly. So yes the comparison (it isn’t an analogy) does make sense – more sense than the Bett alternative at any rate.
Dr Tom, comparing the wages of an English lecturer and a journalist would be fine as they both exercise their skill with English to make a living. Attempting to artificially inflate one sides “worth” by claiming academics create knowledge and journalists don’t is not fine. Many journalists do original research of their own and don’t simply recycle papers.
I don’t recall complaining that students weren’t given context of the dispute, you seem to have interpreted it that way but the original statement was just an assertion of fact.
I’ve never met an archeologist who wasn’t an academic.
That was the point. They do exist but don’t get good pay (I have a friend who wants to be one ….).
May 27, 2006 at 10:31 am |
Mike: I disagree, but if you want to make the analogy, I’d say I’m about £150m short of Ms Rowling’s remuneration. Do you need a sort code to make out the cheque?
May 27, 2006 at 10:40 am |
“Dr Tom, comparing the wages of an English lecturer and a journalist would be fine as they both exercise their skill with English to make a living.”
This is an odd view of academic life. An academic is a researcher over the long-term (there is no comparable journalistic equivalent), a teacher (there is here strictly no comparison), an administrator (ditto) who is also engaged in pastoral care (ditto redux). But one can make the comparison another way. Barristers exhibit their “skill with English” all the time. I’d be happy to take their salary as a template for academic pay.
May 27, 2006 at 11:04 am |
Mike “comparing the wages of an English lecturer and a journalist would be fine as they both exercise their skill with English to make a living. Attempting to artificially inflate one sides “worth” by claiming academics create knowledge and journalists don’t is not fine. Many journalists do original research of their own and don’t simply recycle papers.”
Actutally that’s not true Mike. Very few journalists do there own research. How often do you see journalist reports on climate change, science, economics, social issues ….I could go on …that don’t quote academic research. I’m often contacted by (some very reputable) journalists, and asked my opinion on matters relating to my area of research. I often see my research reported in print (unattributed more often than not).
As I said, Academics *produce* original knowlege by research, journalists report on the fruits of their work.
As for your comparison between enlglish lecturers and people who exercise their skills through english….
Well, everytime i give a lecture I speak in public, should I be compared to an after-dinner speaker or an actor. I also give pastoral advice – should I be compared to a counsellor, I also do reams of paperwork – should I be compared to an administrator?
The Bett comparions to medical doctors, police chiefs, higher ranking civil servants hold good, because it was based on the worth or relative value to society as a whole. So rather than judge an academics value in relation to some tabloid hack (I know you didn’t, said for dramatic effect
), he/she is judged in terms of the value of what they produce which is intellectual and human capital – vitally important to the development of the UK. In fact, increasingly valuble if you believe that we are moving to a “knowledge economy”.
May 28, 2006 at 4:43 pm |
Mike,
I will not induct you into the black arts of Standard Occupational Classifications, but suffice to say that the kind and nature of the skills involved in lecturing and journalism are very different, as are the entry requirements to the professions. They are not really comparable.
The other problem with wage comparisons with journalists is that, pay-wise, it is a very odd profession indeed, with very high initial entry requirements, a medieval level of nepotism, and very extensive levels of casualisation.
May 29, 2006 at 12:43 pm |
As a student, I believe an alternative to the academic boycott would be a teaching strike.
Now, this isn’t as counter-intuitive as it sounds. The whole point about university is self-study. Contrary to popular belief, lecturers aren’t there to act as teachers. Their role is to guide and to offer help, but not to spoonfeed.
What would be ideal, would be a situation in which lecturers don’t turn up to lectures, but make lecture notes available on the web. Now not having lectures would inconvenience students greatly. However, because they have the transcripts of the lectures on the web, they won’t be fatally hurt.
Motivated and hardworking students will survive. It will be difficult, but you don’t get into university if you’re stupid, and with sufficient grit, they will survive.
Lazy students will be screwed, but they would be screwed even without any industrial action to begin with.
Reasonable minded students will realise that although lecturers are out to inconvenience them, they are not out to fatally wound them and as such, the action will garner more support from students, support which is lacking at present.
May 29, 2006 at 3:15 pm |
Firstly, removal of teaching actually does more damage to students, as those lectures are irretrievable. They cannot be rescheduled at a later date.. At least with the current approach, students can still actually attend lectures (and thus receive an education) – graduation is only deferred. Imagine the impact on 1st year students, going into their second year of study missing significant chunks of the curriculum through your approach. Imagine 3rd yr students trying to finish thesis work with no guidance.
Secondly, speaking as a lecturer it would be nonsensical to take a form of industrial action that involves removal of teaching and then allow access to my lecture notes – material that I’ve authored and which take significant amounts of my time to write.
As for your asertion that support is lacking from students. This weeks times higher published a poll, which showed opinion amongst students pretty much split. It’s actually a much more complicated situation than has been reported in the press.
May 29, 2006 at 6:33 pm |
I think the solution is simply to drop the national pay framework, lose the artificial pay caps and let universities compete amongst themselves and with the private sector for academic staff.
I know that makes me sound like some kind of ultra-conservative rightwing nut but really I’m not. I’m usually pretty left leaning, as is typical for students I suppose.
However, I’ve worked in the software industry for longer than I’ve been a student, and it’s hard for me to ignore that despite software not being unionised at all we programmers are not downtrodden or oppressed, nor badly paid.
The alternative to this is:
1) Constant industrial action. Unions have a built in incentive to constantly campaign for more pay. They are not putting the current offer to their members for voting because it’s in their interests to prolong the dispute. They remain relevant only for as long as their members are discontent. The AUTs history rather supports this view.
2) Never ending circular arguments about the relative worth of jobs. Some here assert that though it’s not fair to compare a graduates starting salary with a lecturers because the qualifications needed are not equivalent, it’s OK to compare a lecturer with a police chief.
I’m not going to argue that one further, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think it’s a valid comparison but I am a very literal person and I don’t like arguments based on things I can’t quantify – such as the intellectual value to human society – because it leads to debates that can never be resolved satisfactorily.
3) Students being used as pawns again and again. This boycott DOES have an impact – in my case it may block taking a job in California as US Immigration are rather unconcerned with the details of industrial action in England. Deadlines are deadlines.
The number of academics dying in this country from poverty is zero. To manipulate the fate of others simply to get more money is morally unacceptable. To me this is one of the rare issues that is black and white. It is NEVER acceptable to harm innocent parties for money.
May 30, 2006 at 3:31 am |
Mike says:
*I think the solution is simply to drop the national pay framework, lose the artificial pay caps and let universities compete amongst themselves and with the private sector for academic staff.*
They did this in the FE sector. It’s a shambles, pay is worse than for school teachers. The government imposed an across the board pay rise for FE teachers, which was then ignored – due to the lack of collective bargaining- by 60% of the FE sector. You can’t compare software developers to education because software development is not part of the public sector. You do not require collective bargaining because you are a sellers market.
*Constant industrial action. Unions have a built in incentive to constantly campaign for more pay [...] The AUTs history rather supports this view.*
You’re doing the unions-and by extension,us the members- a disservice here. When was the last time this kind of action happened? 1989 – nearly 20 years ago.
The fact is that people don’t strike because they enjoy exercising power. They strike because they have no other option. The reason this is happening is because of the serious fall-off in academic pay in the face of huge productivity gains, and commensurant promises of high pay by management that they’ve failed to implement.
*Never ending circular arguments about the relative worth of jobs.*
I repeat, that’s why we’ve had TWO government committees (Bett, Dearing) to look into this issue that have used metrics systems to judge relative worth and drawn up the comparisons that you have trouble digesting. There is across the board, cross-party consensus that these comparisons are valid and that academic pay is dismal.
*Students being used as pawns again and again.*
See above, the last action like this was 1989.
*The number of academics dying in this country from poverty is zero. *
Sorry that’s a terrible argument. The number of merchant bankers dying from poverty is zero, the numbers of MPs dying from poverty is zero…
*to manipulate the fate of others simply to get more money is morally unacceptable. To me this is one of the rare issues that is black and white. It is NEVER acceptable to harm innocent parties for money.*
Do you believe in no-strike agreements for public sector staff then? If not how else are we to take industrial action?
Your argument on morals. For someone who has trouble accepting relative comparisons of carefully arrived at metrics, to use an argument deploying highly relative moral judgements is somewhat strange. Be careful of invoking the moral high-ground, it’s a can of worms.
I could just as easily claim that management are unacceptably manipulating innocent lecturers to maximise HE profits by artificially keeping lecturers pay low. I could just as easily argue that lecturers are being used as pawns in a pay squeeze engineered by government and UCEA. I could just as easily argue that the hugely subsidised HE fees that students pay (less than a third of actual cost) are supported by keeping my pay low.
May 30, 2006 at 4:56 pm |
AUT reject UCEA offer.
May 30, 2006 at 7:31 pm |
“The number of academics dying in this country from poverty is zero. To manipulate the fate of others simply to get more money is morally unacceptable. To me this is one of the rare issues that is black and white. It is NEVER acceptable to harm innocent parties for money.”
I’m sorry Mike, but have you thought this through? What you have just said implies, logically, that all strike action should be outlawed, full stop. Because ALL strike actions involve harm or inconvenience to a non-responsible third party. They have to – it’s the only way to cost the employers money (via lost business/result of getting sued).
In a rail strike it’s the passengers who suffer, in a coal miners’ strike it’s the people that lose electricity, in a post office strike it’s the people waiting for their letters, in a BBC strike it’s the viewers, in a schoolteachers’ strike it’s the kids and their parents, in a lecturers’ strike it’s the students.
By your logic all these groups should be banned from striking for better pay because in all cases an “innocent” party is harmed.
Obviously unions don’t like doing this. This is why a strike is the weapon of last resort. But it’s an absolutely necessary weapon, because without the threat of strike the employers can do whatever the hell they like and the employees have no recourse. The threat of strike is as necessary in HE as it is down a mine or at the BBC.
If it was possible to have a strike and cause inconvenience to no one but the employers I think we’d see a lot more strikes, in all industries!
==============
Discussing the relative worth of jobs may be a red herring. It’s not necessary to compare lecturers to any other jobs (although I think comparing us to schoolteachers is entirely fair and we *have* fallen behind in comparison to schoolteachers). All that’s necessary is to compare lecturers today to lecturers two decades ago.
– Are we contributing less to the economy than we were two decades ago? No, not at all, in fact since manufacturing has declined the “knowledge economy” is the UK’s big new international strategy. And we’re bringing in much more overseas money than we were, contributing to the balance of payments.
– Are we less productive individually than we were two decades ago? No, there have been massive productivity increases in terms of students taught per lecturer. We do much more with less resources.
– Is the job easier than it was? No, the admin is more onerous than ever, the pressure is greater, the competition for good academic jobs and for research funding much more intense.
– Are we wallowing in gold-plated perks and benefits that we didn’t have twenty years ago? No, not at all, the opposite: tenure is gone, and we now start our careers deeply in debt.
So on what basis then, can anyone justify us getting decades of pay raises barely above inflation when workers in pretty much EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY have had raises way above this level?
==============
Re the idea of a teaching strike. It’s worth nothing that, in my uni at least, what A_3 describes is pretty much what happened on the strike day in March, which was as we all saw utterly ineffective. Aside from the criticisms of this idea Dr Tom makes, it should be pointed out that the notion that “[t]he whole point about university is self-study” is a very limited view.
On my courses, actual teaching happens in short, highly structured, intense bursts – lectures and seminars. Which is then backed up and consolidated by students’ independent work and reading – in which students engage with materials that they wouldn’t have had a hope in hell of dealing with if they’d not had that initial guidance. Both self-study and teaching are indispensible to learning at undergrad level – it’s only late on in the MA and at PhD that teaching is phased out (and even then there is still supervision).
If I just put my lecture notes online, I can guarantee that I would have to spend hours upon hours answering queries, explaining the notes to baffled students knocking on my door or on email. This is what actually happened when once I missed a lec due to bad weather. So if I went on a teaching strike of the sort A_3 describes, I would actually have to donate more hours in unpaid overtime than the uni would lose via the teaching strike. Some strike.
==============
Re the latest offer/rejection – I’m surprised the AUT rejected this, I was expecting them to settle for around 13-15%. Still, it does prove that UCEA’s 12% “best and final offer” was neither best nor final. Let the escalatory rhetoric and clumsy brinkmanship continue…
May 31, 2006 at 7:07 am |
I’m surprised, too. I can’t see them getting much more than 13.1, paltry though it is in the context of the last 30 years.
May 31, 2006 at 8:13 am |
13.1% – I’m devasted. It’s a shocking offer, less than 1% above the last “best and final offer”.
The hilarious thing is that apparantly UCEA have offered gaurantees of a maximum 35 hour week as part of the deal. Utter cynicism, they know that the job is impossible to deliver in 35 hours. They should put their money where their mouth is and offer paid overtime like the police and nurses get.
May 31, 2006 at 8:58 am |
Ahuk, 13.1% is not much of an increase so whilst “best and final” was clearly melodramatic it probably wasn’t that far from the truth.
Yes, I wouldn’t really care if it was. It’s not an option for me and probably never will be, simply because there are no unions in the software industry. Why should it be for you?
There’s a point I think you’re missing here; strikes only affect groups other than the employers when that employer has a monopoly on some essential service. If the BBC strikes we can go to ITV or Sky to get our news and entertainment. If the coal miners strike we can import from abroad. Even in borderline cases like the railways we can use a different train company or go via bus/car/plane etc.
However academics hold a monopoly on marking our work. You are abusing this monopoly to place pressure on universities and unlike in most other scenarios we cannot go elsewhere.
That hasn’t been convincingly demonstrated. The “everybody got better raises” figures the AUT trots out aren’t really “everybody got better raises” at all, they are “senior public sector workers like civil servants got better raises”, which is not the same.
May 31, 2006 at 9:10 am |
To suggest that all strike action be made illegal is a despotic position, and is frankly an unsustainable argument in a liberal democracy. Mike, I’m surprised at you.
*There’s a point I think you’re missing here; strikes only affect groups other than the employers when that employer has a monopoly on some essential service.*
I give you nurses, doctors, firemen….all of which have striked over pay in recent years.
*That hasn’t been convincingly demonstrated. *
Sorry this is nonsense. It has bee convincingly demonstrated by independent commission. You can’t ignore Bett or Dearing.
May 31, 2006 at 9:32 am |
Ok, if UCEA fail to respond to this quite reasonable suggestion we know, that UCEA statistics are “massaged” and they’ve been fibbing to people left right and centre.
It’s quite straightforward, this strike could be over tonight if UCEA give us 10% over 2 years and for the 3rd year, agree a figure with unions based on the outcome of the indpendent review. If that’s only another 3.1% so be it, at least we’ve all been subject to a fair and transparent process.
Over to UCEA, although, I suspect they won’t agree, because I should imagine that the balance of an independent review wil come down on the employees – as the previous 2 independent commissions have (Bett, Dearing).
May 31, 2006 at 11:41 am |
p.s. the 10% over 2 years suggestion followed by an independent review was actually ACAS’s idea from last week. Let’s see UCEA wriggle out of this one…..
May 31, 2006 at 12:42 pm |
I only have my own experience of first year undergraduate study and this is entirely my own opinion. However from a students’ perspective the boycott action is disrespectful and in some forms could be viewed as severe misconduct. Just because lecturers are in a union means lecturers do not have to do what it says in their job description.
Also lecturers are by no means comparable to teachers, they do not teach but merely guide adult learning for 2 hours a week
May 31, 2006 at 12:52 pm |
*a students’ perspective the boycott action is disrespectful*
From an academics perspective the way that I’m treated by management in terms of pay and conditions is “disrespectful”. Next.
*in some forms could be viewed as severe misconduct.*
Explain how? I’m not talking about personal opinions, I mean legally. If you’re using terminology like “severe misconduct” please give the legal argument.
*Also lecturers are by no means comparable to teachers, they do not teach but merely guide adult learning for 2 hours a week*
Barely worth replying to it’s so inaccurate.
June 1, 2006 at 8:27 am |
Even ‘guiding adult learning’ is a skill… If you have not taught professionally then how can you know?
Yet again, another student assumes that because they only have four hours of lectures a week, the university workers have 33 hours of tea-break. To me this says more about what students do when away from lectures than it does the lecturers…
June 2, 2006 at 2:53 pm |
For those of you who are wondering why the union (UCU = AUT + NATFHE) has not put any of UCEA’s “best and final offers” to the lecturers, it’s because doing so would involve suspension of the boycott for the three weeks it would take to conduct the ballot.
A suspension of the boycott for three weeks would see most of the outstanding assessment (coursework and exams) processed. This would be a good thing for the students whom the lecturers have no wish to see harmed by this dispute. It would, assuming the offer was rejected, prolong the dispute into the next academic year. And again, any action undertaken would not bite until the next examination season was upon us. That would compound the misery, not
UCU is in close contact with lecturers through local association representative. I imagine they have a good sense of what is acceptable to the members. I can’t speak for lecturers across the country, but if the General Meeting of the local association that I attended this week is anything to go by, the current pay offer would not be accepted if lecturers were balloted on it.
What is clear to me, however, from all the sources of information I have, is that UCU would ballot members, recommended acceptance, on the UCEA offer that was “hovering above the table” last Friday: 10% over two years, without the commitment to a miserly 2.5% in the third year – the year in which undergraduates in years one, two, and three will all be paying top-up fees.
I encourage anyone who is affected by the dispute to ask – of Vice-Chancellors, politicians, and the media – why that offer was not put on the table this week, and why it can’t be put now.
I’m sorry to hear Mike that you may suffer as a result of the boycott. But I don’t understand why that should be so. You say that it may prevent you from taking a job in California because US Immigration are unconcerned with the details of industrial action in England. How so? Surely your visa depends upon your prospective employer, not your graduation? And your employer, surely, is likely to be sympathetic to your plight. Particularly since any university can provide a partial transcript, and a personal tutor a letter, that together would give them a clear idea of your worth and likely degree classification on the basis of your work to date. Or am I missing something?
June 2, 2006 at 2:55 pm |
Edit: It should read: “That would compound the misery, not bring it to an end.”
June 3, 2006 at 5:58 am |
As a final year student I am seriously concerned, selfishly perhaps, about my own graduation and how this strike may prevent me from continuing on to my LPC i order for me to begin training as a solicitor. What is most disappointing in this situation is how little information the students at universities affecting are getting from their departments. I don’t know if my papers have been marked or not, whether those unaffected will carry on and graduate or be forced to wait for everyone else to get their results, what will happen for those of us going on to postgraduate courses or graduate schemes that require proof of graduation first etc. Why won’t anybody tell us what will happen to us? Personally I think the UCEA should give the unions whatever they want so that when the univestities have to then make redundancies and cut staffing levels to find the money, they can blame the stubborn attitude of Sally Hunt and the supporters of such unachievable demands.
June 3, 2006 at 9:52 am |
“Yes, I wouldn’t really care if it was. It’s not an option for me and probably never will be, simply because there are ”
Mike, please read up a little on labour history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In short: workers used to be paid barely above starvation. They had no protection from health and safety regulations. They could be fired at whim with no redundancy payments, or their wages cut, again at the bosses’ say-so. Strike action could result in the workers’ instant dismissal, or in some cases in their death.
That things are different today is solely a result of the efforts of the union movement. The fact that you have a pension, paid holiday, and all the other benefits that accrue to a worker in a modern western society – they were won for you by unions. Even in a non-unionised industry the protection of the unions stands, because the employers are perfectly aware that if they push the workers too far the industry won’t stay non-unionised, and they can see from other industries what the likely effect is.
And I can’t believe you’re still saying that it hasn’t been “convincingly demonstrated” that “everyone got better raises”. Fair enough, I’ll agree that it hasn’t been “convincingly demonstrated” that the difference is 40% or 30% or any other particular figure. But regardless of the particular figure the raw fact, that lecturers have had less than everyone else is agreed by everyone including the employers, who used this as a reason the sector needed more money in their appeals to the government. Incidentally, if you want a figure that is not based on senior civil servants, try this one from the Guardian: a 57.6% increase in non-manual wages between 1981 and 2001, a 7.6% increase in lecturer’s wages over the same period.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/lecturerspay/story/0,,1778500,00.html
======================================
I think people are being a bit dismissive of Katie. True, she’s misinformed, but most students are similarly misinformed. After all, why would they know what our jobs involve, if we don’t tell them? So let’s educate rather than condemn.
Katie, it’s true that I only have a couple of hours’ contact a week with each of my seminar groups. But I have ten separate seminar groups to teach. You can do the sums yourself.
Plus there is postgraduate teaching. Undergraduates typically have no idea how many PhD students there are in their departmnets, nor how much work is involved for lcturers. hint: it’s a lot.
That’s before we even start talking about management, course material design, office hours, admissions, applying for research funding, actually doing research, writing books and papers, and so on. Lecturers are worked just as hard as teachers and the teaching skills needed are just as great.
=======================================
tora: It must be unpleasant for you not to know what is going on. Have you tried asking? I can’t speak for any other lecturer, but if a student knocked on my door with the kinds of questions you’ve got, I would make sure they got answered.
June 3, 2006 at 9:57 am |
Forgot to reply to this from Katie:
“Just because lecturers are in a union means [sic; does not mean?] lecturers do not have to do what it says in their job description.”
Actually, that’s exactly what it means. Being in a union means that lecturers have the legal right to strike action as long as the action is called by the union and approved by a ballot of the members (there are other rules too but that’s the main one).
June 4, 2006 at 4:19 am |
Ahuk, this is not a strike and is not protected by trade union law in the same way. Lecturers are only doing a part of their job, and somehow expecting to get full pay whilst doing it. Seems like a bad precedent to me.
FWIW I’m aware of the role unions played in improving working conditions. But then, I think these days it’s perhaps not as necessary. When employers could literally kill employees (by firing them, by not having proper safety etc) the us-vs-them attitude was totally reasonable and expected.
But that was then and this is now. Unions did not bring in the minimum wage, in fact according to Wikipedia (no idea how true this is) they actually _opposed_ the minimum wage in the UK because it threatened to reduce the need for collective bargaining (ie, their own power).
I’ve been taught by at least one guy who shouldn’t have been teaching at all, and when enough students ended up questioning “why is this guy teaching?!” the answer was “it’s really hard to fire academics”. I didn’t understand that at the time but do now.
Seems to me unionization is a tricky thing; I don’t trust unions much even though I must admit they have done good work in the past. These modern pay-oriented unions like the AUT don’t seem that bothered about working conditions. They’re pressing for higher pay even though the universities seem convinced that’s only fundable by job losses which would increase the pressure on you guys still further.
For those who are interested a typical forum debate about tech unionisation can be found here:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/11/1829222
(obviously, I don’t agree with all those comments ….)
June 4, 2006 at 10:37 am |
“Lecturers are only doing a part of their job, and somehow expecting to get full pay whilst doing it. ”
I don’t get the sense that the striking lecturers (and defining this action as not a strike is pure sophistry) expect to get full pay. I have heard complaints from other lecturers about pay withdrawal on two grounds: (1) where the % of pay withdrawn represents significantly more than the % of the academics’ work that the boycotted marking represents; (2) where full pay is withdrawn.
The other issue here, of course, is that when the boycott ends all the work will be done. If pay is withheld now and not returned then, the marking ends up being done as (yet more) unpaid overtime.
“But that was then and this is now. ”
You miss my point, so I’ll try again: the only reason that conditions “now” don’t immediately start deteriorating back to the way things were “then” is the existence, and political strength, of the labour movement.
“These modern pay-oriented unions like the AUT don’t seem that bothered about working conditions. They’re pressing for higher pay even though the universities seem convinced that’s only fundable by job losses which would increase the pressure on you guys still further.”
The unis may *seem* convinced, but the UCU doesn’t believe them, obviously. I’m reasonably sure I don’t believe them. That’s the whole substance of the debate.
Just because you aren’t aware of the work that the unions do on working conditions unrelated to the pay dispute, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The AUT has campaigned fiercely for better treatment for staff on fixed-term contracts; and NATFHE has, for instance, worked towards national FE-sector agreements on maternity leave, sick time and similar issues.
June 5, 2006 at 3:10 am |
Posted on another blog but worthy of repeating:
It’s really quite simple. At ACAS last week it was suggested that an interim 10% pay rise be offered over 2 years. During this time an independent investigation would *look at the books* to determine who was telling the truth about how much money was available to UCEA for pay rises.
After this period, if the independent review said, that UCEA could only afford another 3.1% so be it. The process would be transparant and fair. This is very reasonable, so reasonable in fact that the AUT suggested that this is exactly what should happen.
After a week, absolute silence from UCEA. If they are so sure of their stats what have they got to be scared of? This dispute could be sorted by the weekend. Over to you UCEA.
The fact is Mike that UCEA have consistently lied to us, the House of Commons, the select report committee and by extension you/students.
First they lied about the need for top-up fees – fibbing hugely to MPs by suggesting that top-ups were needed for “catch-up and keep-up” pay for their academic staff. Many labour MPs actually voted through the bill based on this argument – have a look at Hansard.
Secondly they tried to distort the outcome of the select report committee by suggesting that it supported UCEA. They then had to issue a grovelling apology.
Thirdly they used incredibly generalised figures from the National Stats Office that relate back to average pay across the entire workplace spectrum, to back their argument that Academics have received recent significant pay rises. The unions used specific HESA figures – figures actually originating in the industry in which the dispute is occurring. Which figures do you think are more appropriate?
And finally after pretty much going for the ACAS solution – 10% over 2 years, then an independent commission to assess what else can be afforded- they withdraw and offer a pathetic 13.1% over 3 years.
As such UCEA have prolonged the action. This could have all been done and dusted last week.
June 5, 2006 at 4:21 am |
Belfast telegraph
Belfast Telegraph Home > News
Lecturers to accept university pay offer
By Sam McBride
03 June 2006
LECTURERS at the University of Ulster have agreed to call off industrial action after an improved pay deal was agreed with the university.
The UU branch of the University and Colleges Union (UCU) met yesterday and voted by a large majority to accept the university’s pay offer.
It is believed the deal is the first in the UK to break ranks with the employers’ association and agree a local pay agreement. Three other UK universities have drawn up local pay offers to lecturers but on each occasion these have been rejected by unions.
Lecturers have agreed to accept a pay increase of 15.94% over three years.
—————————————————————————–
A nearly 16% pay pay increase. Kind of gives the lie to UCEA’s statements that they can only afford 13.1.
June 5, 2006 at 2:24 pm |
http://education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/lecturerspay/story/0,,1790812,00.html
Summary: more talks tomorrow, at the TUC instead of ACAS this time. (Anyone fancy speculating what that might mean?)
Meanwhile, we have about 2 weeks until exam board season begins.
June 5, 2006 at 2:33 pm |
I would say that it is UCEAs response to the ACAS suggestion of 10% over 2 years and and independent enquiry.
ACAS will be there.
The fact that talks were happening last week (my VC confirmed this to me today) and that talks are scheduled to start late at 4.30 might mean that it’s just nailing a few details. Hopefully an announcement for the 6.00 news…..
June 5, 2006 at 7:43 pm |
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. I felt pretty optimistic the week before last, and look how that turned out.
June 6, 2006 at 12:22 pm |
feeling less optimistic now…..
June 6, 2006 at 4:15 pm |
It seems that lecturers believe that comparing a graduate position salary to an academic’s is incorrect. Just one point, many graduates may not be earning a salary of there is industrial action!
June 6, 2006 at 5:10 pm |
Well, my pessimism was misplaced: as per 7.28PM announcement on the Guardina website, the marking boycott ends midnight tonight with a deal of 13.1% over three years, plus independent review for the third year, plus all docked pay to be paid.
In theory it still has to be voted on but in practice the suspension of the boycott means the answer has to be “yes”.
In short, the unions got – if not everything they wanted – at least everything that they thought they had a reasonable chance of getting.
Students please note: the strike worked, and you will all graduate as planned.
June 7, 2006 at 3:25 am |
Yes, it’s pretty much what ACAS suggested last week – and which AUT said would be enough to settle the dispute.
Despite the employers once again saying that 30 May represented their ‘best and final’offer, The revised offer addresses the key elements the unions had sought as follows:
i) ‘At least double figures’ over first two years
The offer will increase salary points by 10.37% between August 2006 and May 2008 (22 months).
ii) . The employers have now conceded that the review on pay will be independently chaired and will draw on independent data. Very important this in respect of point iii.
iii) The 12.5% will not be a fixed sum but the starting place for negotiations dependent of the enquiry.
v) ‘Return of monies taken through pay docking’
So as far as i can make it that’s 4 substantive areas that are improved on from the previous pay offer and the *beginnings* of *catch-up and keep-up*.
I suspect that the independent report will state that yes academic pay is too low and that one way of adressing it will be to increase top-up fees above 3000.
June 11, 2006 at 5:30 am |
In my opinion we are to be seen off again. The future review will find that we are underpaid AGAIN but (as someone said above) by the time the reviews take place all of the newer extra money will have been sunk into new committments. What have we really gained?
It seems that we need to take stock of our strategic and tactical methods. We are eating straw again and saying ‘thankee Sir’ for the priviledge.
June 11, 2006 at 10:00 am |
I find it amazing that such a huge payrise for such a large number of people is being compared to “eating straw”. Especially given that the “action short of a strike” has been consequence free for you. That’s some tasty straw!
June 11, 2006 at 12:28 pm |
The consequence of ‘eating straw’ is that we still are paid poorly. I assume you refer to those that were so powerless that they were unable to have an influence on Ucea over timespans that are less than years because they do not ‘mark’ exams. Or perhaps you refer to those that are not members of a Union?
Some like me are in an awkward position as we have contract posts. This makes us very vulnerable. We almost beg to have another year’s badly paid insecure work. However, it is this situation that is keeping potential future researchers and lecturers away from the job. It also means that we are easy meat for ‘non renewal’ if we rock the boat too much. That is an awful situation. It also means that I and my research collegues will remain on the worst wages in academia.
I can only assume you do not understand what it is like for hourly and contract staff.
June 11, 2006 at 12:42 pm |
An example:
My research project will end in two years. Should I strike until then? It would only matter when the project is undelivered at that point. Should I wait until RAE 08? That is quite a way in the future too…
I can refuse to teach ‘for free in my own time’ as I have done in the past but that will not hit till next ‘year’. Or should I refuse to not supervise or mark final year projects ‘unofficially’, well, that is next year also. Indeed, for all of these issues I get no pay and no recognition as I am not allowed to be shown as formally teaching or supervising. perhaps I should stop supporting the PhD students as an ‘unofficial supervisor’ again with no recognition. Tell me how any of these actions would hurt anyone but the students and on the very long term.
Or I could stop writing bids. Well, I could if I wanted to not have a job as without external funding I will have to go ‘elsewhere’. No-one cares where this ‘elsewhere’ is. The Unions are powerless to help and when it comes to striking they say ‘just do what you can’. They understand the terrible position we are in…
October 19, 2006 at 11:03 am |
Does anyone on hear want to discuss the widening pay gap between men and women in academia. In some universities the gap is as much as 20%
April 22, 2008 at 5:45 am |
[...] Read more about this topic from the author here. [...]
July 6, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
jeu streap poker…
Hi poker gratis sin dinero free online slots game no deposit casino black jack online free online slots game…